Is The “Hate Group” Concept A Legitimate Intellectual Concept Or Nothing More Than A Weapon Of Cultural Marxist Hegemony?


I attempted to criticize the “hate group” concept on Wikipedia, by adding a section doing just that to its “hate group” article. The top editors over there would have none of it. Wikipedia’s editors are so left-wing, they think the SPLC is a neutral, apolitical organization, if you can believe it. Wikipedia, a supposedly unbiased and independent online encyclopedia and information source, has unfortunately become a mouthpiece for the Cultural Marxist US power class.

Here is what I wrote, and what they subsequently scrubbed from the internet:

==Criticism of the hate group concept==

            The “hate group” concept has come under fire in recent years from academics and intellectuals on both sides of the political spectrum, but especially the political right. Like “hate speech”, “hate group” is a concept not traditionally recognized by American courts and the American legal system.[i] Nevertheless, outside of the American legal context, the concept is widely accepted and employed.

Many critics of the term argue that the demographic divisions (racial groups, whole religions) the term attempts to insulate from group criticism are arbitrarily or ideologically selected. For example, why aren’t lesser political groups (atheist organizations, for example) or smaller religious denominations (scientologists, for example) equally protected by the label and the stigma surrounding it? Thus, instead of protecting the powerless, the term seems to insulate from criticism those populations with sufficient numbers, power and prominence to command protection. After all, any number of randomly selected demographic categories could be deemed above group criticism or political opposition, yet few are. Why do certain groups seem to be so much more worthy of the term’s protections? In sum, the term appears to place arbitrary or ideology-laden restrictions on speech and activism, in defiance of the liberal democratic tradition, which asserts that all ideologies, movements, groups, and religions are fair game for philosophical critique and peaceful opposition.[ii] [iii] [iv]

Other critics of the term argue that the label is not only arbitrary, but selectively applied.[v] Some well-known champions of the term are even on record admitting as such. Mark Potok, former senior fellow at the SPLC, the organization that basically invented the term “hate group”, conceded this years ago. In a 2009 interview, he stated that the “hate group” label is not uniformly applied, because the SPLC is by no means apolitical, but is instead a fundamentally leftist organization that does battle with radical groups on the political right in an effort to “destroy them” (his words), and that it is sometimes very much guilty of focusing on the political right, while roundly ignoring bad actors on the political left which engage in the self-same tactics and employ the self-same incendiary language as supposed “hate groups”.[vi] Some believe this political bias is driven partly by perverse economic incentives, that the SPLC chooses to focus its ire and its activism on right-wing groups and activities because that is how it appeals to its donor base and funds its massive war chest, which totaled upwards of half a billion dollars in 2018.[vii] Nevertheless, many believe that an anti-right bias is not something unique to the SPLC’s hate monitoring and classification system, but instead something that inheres in the term itself, which is to say the very concept of “hate group” is rooted in, steeped in, and defined by the ideals of the political left, and is thus partisan by nature and design.

Some have argued that virtually any political organization could potentially meet the standard definition of the term, given its breadth.[viii] For example, a cadre of left-leaning academics that regularly publishes papers criticizing “White privilege” or “White fragility”, could easily be understood to be expressing hatred toward, exhibiting animus toward, or even dehumanizing Whites, as a race. Likewise, a feminist activist organization that regularly criticizes the putative prevailing culture of the patriarchy or the toxicity of masculinity, might also be said to be a “hate group”, according to the accepted definition of the term, given its willingness to insult an entire sex. Occupy Wall Street might also have been labeled a “hate group” on account of its open disdain for financial executives and oligarchs, who its members so endearingly labeled “banksters”. Unsurprisingly, however, Occupy Wall Street was never labeled a “hate group” by the pundit class or society at large, and none of the hypothetical groups would be labeled as such, because groups like these—that is those with the “right” values, residing on the “correct” side of the political spectrum—are rarely, if ever, described this way by the press or the powers that be.

There is therefore concern in many circles that the label is being surreptitiously employed as an illiberal and antidemocratic backdoor contrivance by various powerful entities in the West to sideline political viewpoints and democratic movements that powerful oligarchs and interest groups dislike. A wide array of commentators on the right have pointed out that organizations that share the leftist views and values of the United States Federal Government and its corporate accessories, especially on hot button issues like race, sex, and sexual orientation, are essentially completely insulated from the pejorative appellation, “hate group.”

We find a curious analogue to this structural bias for “hate group” designations in the “terror” designation process by the U.S. State Department. For example, “state sponsors of terrorism” are almost invariably nations which stand in the way of United States geopolitical dominance, or which have poor diplomatic or economic relations with the U.S. After all, a vast amount of terrorism is committed by the U.S. government and her allies. Moreover, a vast amount of resources and weapons which find their way into the hands of terrorist groups worldwide originate in the U.S. and nations allied with the U.S.,[ix] and are built by weapons manufacturers intimately connected to the U.S. government and the governments of its closest allies.[x] Alas, however, those allies (Israel, UK, Saudi Arabia, Qatar) are basically never deemed state sponsors of terror, and the press never accuses entities deep in our own government of sponsoring terror either. Thus, being an actual state sponsor of terror seems to be an insufficient condition to land a nation on the State Department’s list. It seems that a nation must also have the wrong politics, values, leaders, or foreign policy to earn such a designation.

Similarly, only those domestic political groups which possess the “wrong” values, worldviews, or politics seem to be worthy of the “hate group” label, despite the fact that many other political groups, if not most political groups, could be fairly or accurately described as such. In some cases, as with Syria and Iran today, and Iraq prior to the 2003 invasion, a strong argument could be made that being an actual sponsor of terror is not even necessary to land one on the “state sponsor of terror” list, and that the process is wholly political/geopolitical in character, having nothing whatsoever to do with the actual policies of such governments regarding terrorism. Ergo, the process of designating nations state sponsors of terror, is, in fact, subordinated entirely to the political aims and interests of U.S. elites and is thus perfectly divorced from anything resembling reality. Likewise, a cynic might argue that the very purpose of the “hate group” label is to delegitimize perfectly legitimate dissident political organizations in the eyes of ordinary people, thus rendering “hate groups” not so much a major source of state-sponsored repression, as many in the U.S. power structure are fond of alleging, but instead a major target of state-sponsored and quasi-state-sponsored (read: corporate and NGO) repression.

Other problems exist with the standard definition as well. How much organization is required for a a group of people to constitute a “group” in the first place? Are largely disorganized, right-wing dissident networks on the internet (men’s rights activists, for example) “hate groups”, or even “groups” at all, in any meaningful sense? Moreover, at what point does a comedy troupe that mocks and degrades conservatives, Christians, or “podunk” middle Americans constitute a “hate group”? What if its members don’t really even consider themselves a political organization? Furthermore, at what point do persistent attacks on a nation or an ethnic group constitute “hate”? At what point does a baseless or overblown conspiracy theory about Russian meddling in a United States presidential election constitute bigoted, anti-Russian hysteria or anti-Russian “hate speech”? Indeed, in the run-up to armed conflict, governments the world over almost always spearhead massive propaganda campaigns against the enemy (jihadists in the current War on Terror, Germans in World Wars I and II). Is it proper to understand all war propaganda efforts then as state-orchestrated “campaigns of hate”?

Additionally, how does one measure the amount of “hate” within a group or within the hearts of its members? How much vitriol must be spewed by a person for his/her speech to be “hate speech”? How much coarse or degrading language must a group employ for it to be a “hate group”? Is not what constitutes offensive or hateful language a fundamentally subjective determination? Furthermore, how much extralegal violence must a group engage in to earn the title? What if a group has never engaged in or so much as advocated for extralegal violence of any sort, like Jared Taylor’s American Renaissance? Taylor’s principled unwillingness to endorse extralegal violence, no matter the circumstances, did not spare American Renaissance from being placed on the SPLC’s 2015 list of “active hate groups”.[xi]

A lack of any clear or quantifiable criteria for classifying groups as “hate groups” makes the concept particularly problematic. When a concept is sufficiently amorphous it can be slapped on almost anyone with little effort or objection. Moreover, once such a label has been attached to you or your organization by someone with apparent expertise or authority, such a designation can be very difficult to shed, as claims of vague, highly subjective content are virtually impossible to prove or refute. Indeed, this is one of the hallmarks of political concepts, as distinguished from intellectual ones. Such concepts are fuzzy by design, because if they weren’t, they would have very little use to the powerful. They can only exist as concepts insofar as they avoid all intellectual rigor and scrutiny. The “flexibility” in their definitions is precisely what makes them so useful as instruments of power. Though everybody is actually guilty, the only people charged are whoever those with authority choose to charge, and since nobody is innocent, nobody can prove themselves innocent, and since nobody can prove themselves innocent, every charge is equivalent to a conviction. Political concepts cannot survive real scrutiny because they are generally ill-defined and logically inconsistent. Nevertheless, they do not need to be consistent, nor do they need to be well-defined, to survive as political concepts. The natural soil of political concepts is power, not truth.

The stakes are that much higher and the risks that much greater when highly political organizations such as the SPLC and the ADL are coaching and working alongside powerful law enforcement entities, as is definitely the case. Law enforcement is not supposed to be politically or ideologically driven. Membership in a “hate group” could form the basis for “hate crime” prosecutions by local authorities, or for the targeting of “hate” organizations for state surveillance. This problematic label, combined with a lack of any sympathy for such groups among the general public, create the risk that members of such groups could be targeted by local police, prosecuted selectively and unfairly by district attorneys, punished excessively by judges or magistrates, or otherwise crushed by the state on account of their political beliefs, with no repercussions for those doing the oppressing, bringing to mind totalitarian states of yore, where “enemies of the state” (also usually political dissidents) were targeted by state and quasi-state actors for persecution, imprisonment, or worse.[xii] Some believe a number of Western nations are already very much there,[xiii] [xiv] but many who don’t are still understandably concerned that terms like “hate speech” and “hate group” are stepping stones to such a place. Given the European Union’s willingness to use state power to crush political dissent of a supposedly hateful nature (an incredibly vague concept),[xv][xvi] and Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel’s recent call to create a stasi-esque “hate and bias” database to carefully catalog instances of supposed “hate” within Michigan, even if those instances don’t constitute actual crimes,[xvii] there is ample reason to be gravely concerned.

Moreover, these are but the threats emanating from the state itself. As Big Tech censorship, well-funded left-wing boycott campaigns, and willfully discriminatory corporate policies have shown, the “hate group” and “hate speech” labels are used on a fairly large scale in the private sphere as well, as a pretext to marginalize, silence, disemploy, Blacklist, and even deny essential services to those with the “wrong” ideas or associations.[xviii] [xix] What’s more, violent left-wing paramilitary organizations like Antifa and By Any Means Necessary have shown themselves quite willing to use these labels as justifications to engage in mob violence against innocent civilians, in many cases specifically to deny those civilians the free exercise of their essential rights and liberties.[xx] [xxi] As such, the threats to ordinary Westerners in large measure arising from these labels are by no means confined to state action.

Various social critics have also criticized the usefulness of the label. Some contend it amounts to little more than a slur or an ad hominem attack, and as such constitutes an informal logical fallacy. In a similar vein, many insist that if one disagrees with another’s speech or another’s politics, there is no reason whatsoever to use a demeaning, tendentious label such as “hate speech” or “hate group” to describe such speech or such a group. The liberal tradition prescribes civilly stating one’s reasoned disagreement with such speech or such politics, not slapping some silly propaganda label on ideas or parties, so that one doesn’t have to actually grapple with what is being claimed or represented. Katie Herzog, over at The Stranger, contends that the “hate speech” label in particular, is used not to encourage debate or understanding, but as an underhanded attempt to arrest all dialogue, debate, and inquiry.[xxii] As such, both terms are both implicitly authoritarian, not to mention fundamentally illiberal and anti-intellectual, in that they are meant to advance a political agenda rather than describe the world as it really is.[xxiii] Given that these concepts are often used to delegitimize dissident groups, and lay the foundation for persecuting, prosecuting, and materially harming people on account of mere speech and association, both essential human rights, some also therefore view the concepts as fundamentally totalitarian in nature or effect.[xxiv]

Others view the ideological foundations of these concepts, and especially the way such concepts manifest themselves in real-world sociopolitical contexts, as fundamentally Marxist or Cultural Marxist in character. One’s license to use crass and harsh language against out-group members seems to reflect the prevailing views on the modern left regarding “oppressor” and “oppressed” classes/groups almost perfectly. The more allegedly powerful and oppressive is the group you speak for, the more worthy are you of censorship, contempt, and maltreatment by those with power. What’s more, the dynamics of the situation seem inherently paradoxical. Why are all of these supposedly powerful groups unable to defend themselves or advance their interests through peaceful advocacy? They are so powerful, they are voiceless, it would seem! Indeed, this seems to be a broader problem with Marxist and crypto-Marxist justifications for censorship. Groups that are truly powerful are not easy to silence. Thus, by the time you are able to silence the supposedly powerful, it is sort of self-evident that they are not really so powerful any longer, and if the supposedly oppressed are so weak and so marginalized, why are their interests so well-guarded by the censors and the powers that be?

Many proponents of “hate speech” restrictions and the forceful disbanding of supposed “hate groups” have also been known to contend that “hate speech” causes intergroup violence, genocide, and other like atrocities. Nevertheless, there is simply no evidence for this in the scientific literature. Not only is a society’s toleration of radical political speech and expression, including but not limited to “hate speech”, essential for the proper functioning of democracy, the liberty to express oneself openly in a society is also strongly negatively correlated with the adverse outcomes aforementioned (genocide, interethnic and interreligious strife, etc.). The most oppressive regimes on Earth (Saudi Arabia, North Korea) are certainly not known for their enthusiastic support for freedom of expression after all.

Research by Jacob Mchangama and Rasmus Andersen finds that only in the most closed and repressed societies, does loosening up speech restrictions lead to a slight uptick in intergroup violence, civil discord and unrest. In the vast majority of cases, reducing speech restrictions and minimizing censorship reduces interethnic and interreligious violence, social unrest, and like adverse outcomes.[xxv] What’s more, there is absolutely no reason to believe that restricting freedom of expression fosters tolerance or social cohesion. A 2017 study out of the European Journal of Political Research finds that countermeasures like “hate speech” restrictions, which are intended to constrain radical right politics, paradoxically appear to actually fuel right-wing extremist violence.[xxvi] Not only do such laws not achieve their stated goals, they actually exacerbate existing intergroup tensions, deepen perceived grievances, and further polarize societies. Israeli scholar Amichai Magen has argued that one of the reasons for this is that political freedom, especially freedom of speech, allows grievances to be voiced before they boil over and turn violent.[xxvii] Gordan Danning, author at Quillette, argues that although “hate speech” by powerful officials or elites, may, in rare cases, facilitate the carrying out of major atrocities, in that it can incite violence and aid coordination efforts by brutally repressive regimes, this threat does not extend downward. When speech reaches the coordination phase amongst lesser, non-state entities, it is not mere “hate speech” at that point, but a criminal or terrorist conspiracy, and as such, is better addressed by counter-terror operations, rather than content-based speech restrictions. Danning contends that there is no evidence to suggest that permitting “hate speech” by ordinary persons in everyday contexts, has any effect whatsoever on violence of this nature. For that reason, placing hate speech restrictions on internet users, artists, or prominent social critics, for example, is horribly misguided. What such labels really do is help create excuses for governments and other powerful entities to use allegations of “hate speech” to silence any ideas they dislike, or which might pose a threat to their rule.[xxviii] As such, there are not only strong moral and philosophical reasons for rejecting these concepts, but strong practical reasons as well.

Those who cite the National Socialist era as proof that freedom of speech is a particularly dangerous right for a society to protect, especially on account of Adolf Hitler’s uncanny ability to rile the masses via passionate oratory, are ignoring the fact that the Weimar Republic had hate speech laws of its own, and that those laws were enforced regularly and aggressively against NS members and officials.[xxix] Not only did those laws not stop them, they arguably aided them, by enabling them to successfully portray themselves as victims of hostile, left-wing, anti-ethnic-German elites. Thus, those laws and the public prosecutions arising from them, arguably deepened the divisions in German society, enraged a sizable number of ordinary Germans, provided free publicity to Nazi leaders, and made a severe right-wing backlash all the more likely.































26 replies
  1. Brabantian
    Brabantian says:

    EU Police Agency and Prosecutor Report on Wikipedia Fraud, with the ‘Twenty Major Techniques of Wikipedia Deception’

    Wikimedia run by an ex-pornographer who attends birthday parties of Presidents of Israel … a site permitting child-rapists to present fake biographies of themselves, promoted by Google with malicious intent toward the world

    • Richard B
      Richard B says:

      Read the document.

      It has content that sounds familiar and wouldn’t suprise anyone here. But it also has their typical flair for melodrama, self-pity and, of course, deflection and projection.

      Some parts are very believable, some aren’t and some are a hard sell.

      But it reminds me again of what I often tell myself in these crazy times we live in. And that is,

      Who needs a Conspiracy Theory when you have the facts of Cultural History, the patterns of Human Behavior, and the reality of current events, aligned like a Perfect Storm and staring us all right in the face?

  2. TimothySZ
    TimothySZ says: would publish criticism of the concept of “Hate Group”.
    Fire over your Bio :
    Its readership will smaller. However, it may become necessary to secure a non-converged wiki reference. This infrastructure must be prepared in advance, because these issues will become more fraught in time – as you know.

    Infogalactic looks like a side project of Vox Day. His publishing company Castilia House produced work by Lindt and Von Crevald.
    I venture you’ll find him quite receptive. vox-day-at-gmail-dot-com

  3. Tom
    Tom says:

    Leftism, and all its intellectual components, is an infantile disorder and should be treated as such. While it’s great to establish an incontrovertible defense against its ideological stances, one should also realize that even the most cogent arguments will not sway its adherents because the latter are basically stupid people incapable of reason. When dealing with children, it’s fruitless offer them reasoned explanations as to why certain behaviors are good and why some are harmful or even evil. The best medicine for wayward children is simply to give them a taste of their own stupidity and irrationality. When dealing with hatespeech charges from the Left, it’s imperative to not acknowledge the charges or defend oneself against the charges. Doing this will simply lend credence to relativistic nonsense and place one on the defensive immediately. What works best in my opinion is simply to charge Leftism with all the thoroughgoing hatreds that comprise its core motivations. I understand that many people on the intellectual Right do not wish to lower themselves to this silly level of “I know you are, but what am I?”, yet, if the Left is not soon put on the defensive it’s inevitable that “hatespeech” will be codified into law by wacko American activist judges. This situation, after all, has already occurred in Europe.

    • Bobzilla
      Bobzilla says:

      100% correct. We are way beyond debate time and academic papers / rhetoric. Time to start thinking radically outside the traditional box.

      The writing / articles here are fantastic, and are useful to educate ourselves with. However they will not win the day, let alone the war for all the reasons you stated.

  4. Richard B
    Richard B says:

    Excellent article. Like many TOO articles it’s one worth saving.

    I’ve come to the conclusion that certainly one definition of evil could be: the power to effectuate the insane demand to be placed above criticism.

    And it’s insane exactly because we have more precise knowledge about ourselves than ever before.

    So trying to deny one’s part in human imperfection by promoting an impossible to believe in myth of innocence that says, in effect, “We never do anything wrong. Things are done to us.”, doesn’t just make one want to question their judgment, but to question their sanity.

    Should people whose sanity is in serious question be in positions of power where they can moralize, demonize, pathologize, criminalize and punish others with impunity?

    That’s a rhetorical question. Obviously. Well, it’s obvious to us. It isn’t to them, because they’re insane.

    • Richard B
      Richard B says:

      Dear TOO:

      Just wanted to let you know that I tried to comment earlier today and received a notice that your comment section had been blocked. It didn’t say I had been blocked by you, but that TOO’s comment section itself had been blocked.

      Not sure if TOO or fellow commenters had a similar experience. Just thought I’d mention it. Seemed ironic, given the article, but timely, given the purges of late.


      (Mod. Note: This moderator was informed there were some security issues in play, and this interfered with comments during that period of time.)

      • Charles Frey
        Charles Frey says:

        Ditto for me: except it was twice in quick succession two days ago.

        My cancelled caution, herewith repeated, for the female M.D. commenter from Milan, with child: keep an extra watchful eye on your child and your prescription pad. Keep commenting here, but under a pseudonym, bereft of your ascertainable phone number and address. Change the locks on your medicine supplies cabinets in your practice and hospital to help prevent framing for peddling drugs.

        A mere [[[ PUBLIC hint or charges of impropriety ]]], given your position in your community and profession, would have you washing dishes. You know their MO !
        None of which must discourage you from continuing to comment here under a pseudonym !!!!!

        Leave the open names to those of us who are positioned, prepared and itching, to give back more than they receive !

  5. Panadechi
    Panadechi says:

    It is necessary to identify the parasite that is behind all this, the Zionism based on the Jewish Talmud (Marxism). The parasite only acts as such and will never change, remove the parasite and solve the problem.

  6. Steffen Sølling
    Steffen Sølling says:

    Great article.

    People who want more truth and freedom, and find that Wikipedia is not always unbiased and independent, may want to learn about a very promising technology, Metanet, presented in this video: Wikipedia is mentioned from 12 minutes and 20 seconds into the video.

  7. Peter
    Peter says:

    I realized about twelve years ago already that Wikipedia was biased. I think it has very valuable articles on things that don’t involve politics or history but I realized its stance on WW II was biased in favor of the standard narrative, which if I think about it, I guess most encyclopedias would be. The problem is there is such a wide gap between the standard narrative and what some of the most highly praised WW II historians say. Beyond that, I also realized some of their editors are completely ignorant of some of the facts regarding WW II and in their articles on individual Germans they portray most as monsters, even to their own families. They had an entry on a German that they claimed murdered his own family and I pointed out they lived in the east where horrible war crimes were committed by the Red Army (and others) when it entered the territory and they deny some of the generally recognized war crimes of the Soviets. They would rather accuse a German of killing his own family than recognize the millions of Germans killed by an allied army. That their editors are not experts in their fields they comment on may also be a problem.

    But, I also realized their coverage of the Israel-Palestine issue is biased in favor of Israel. I realized that while they like to project the image of being objective, they can write a long article highly praising someone and mention in one line that he was accused of rape by a noteworthy woman. That would be the Jewish writer and communist Arthur Koestler. Furthermore, I noticed they note that some people are Jews, and may even suggest some people are more Jewish than they are generally thought to be (saying both parents were Jews) if this person is considered highly intelligent (chess player Bobby Fischer – his father is said to be German and not Jewish) and they will downplay or not say someone is Jewish if it would be in the interest of Jews that this not be known. Some of these things are subtle, but overall the bias in favor of Israel, Jews and Jews views on politics and history is overwhelmingly in their favor and I don’t just think it’s because that is the way things are in the USA. I came to the conclusion Wikipedia is an excellent source of information if the subject has nothing to do with Jews.

    So, naturally I wondered if the founder of Wikipedia (actually co-founder) Jimmy Wales is Jewish. There is no mention in Wikipedia’s entry of its founder Wales of his religion or ethnicity. He was born in the deep south (Alabama).

    But here is a Times of Israel article on Jimmy Wales. It says “Wales was in Israel — he’s been here more than 10 times, he says — to accept the Dan David Prize, an international award of $1 million given yearly at Tel Aviv University. Wales was chosen for spearheading what the prize committee called the “information revolution.”” It also says “While Wikipedia strives for objectivity on Israel, Wales is unabashedly pro” and “Wales defended Israel in a Facebook exchange with a pro-Palestinian activist, Joey Ayoub, that Ayoub subsequently published. Responding to Ayoub’s accusations of Israeli apartheid, Wales wrote, “How about those rockets? Complaining any about those?” Presumably he was referring to Hamas shooting rockets into Israel from Gaza””. Alison Weir explained a study that noted that about 10 Israelis died from Palestinian “rockets” (they’re home made) in a 15 – 20 year period while the thousands of news reports on those rockets would lead you to believe Israeli cities lay in ruins. You would think someone that wants to be seen as objective might avoid such discussions. So, I’m suspicious that Wikipedia’s founder Jimmy Wales is Jewish and that this is reflected in Wikipedia’s articles. The situation is similar with media mogul Rupert Murdoch. Circumstantial evidence strongly suggests he’s Jewish but he denies it (or doesn’t say it). He is also 100% pro Israel and a well known columnist of his wrote an article on this and that it caused him to resign from one of Rupert Murdoch’s newspapers. Without being an “expert”, but being aware of a few things, I’m suspicious Ted Turner (not a pro Jewish neo-con) was kept down by a collection of Jews while Rupert Murdoch was welcomed in and aided in buying Fox News, The Wall Street Journal and other American media outlets.

    • Charles Frey
      Charles Frey says:

      Murdoch [ media] , Rothschild [ money ] and Cheney [ DC Influence ] founded Genie Oil of New Jersey; parent of their Israeli subsidiary, busily pillaging oil from the Golan Heights; in abrogation of international law.

      At least an abrogation until Trump agreed to make their 1981 [?] annexation lawful; enthusiastically seconded by his shyster bankruptcy lawyer and U.S. Ambassador Friedman.

      Pity, that ‘ Billy Bunter ‘ was not litigating for us Germans at Nuremberg: the Allies would still be paying us reparations, [ which we would not be obliged to ‘ pass on ‘ to NYC. ]

      Peter, I agree with your every word, observation and conclusion !

  8. Elsewhere
    Elsewhere says:

    Good piece, but I’m not surprised that WIkipedia rejected it, because it is too long, and it reads as coming from a right-wing perspective. I think it would have been better to just add the first paragraph of your piece (which I think says most of what needs to be said), and carefully add more detail over a long period of time.

  9. Regular Wiki editor
    Regular Wiki editor says:

    As an article, this is fine. As Wikipedia edits, these are sloppy. I regularly edit Wikipedia and you have to learn their game. Here are some pointers:

    1. Do not cite websites like Zero Hedge. Choose MSM and left-wing sites with large audiences. Also academic papers and books.
    2. Do not pose questions.
    3. You generally can’t get away with saying things like “Many believe…” Instead, try “One of the leading experts in criticizing the concept, Professor so-and-so from the University of blah blah blah…” Basically, add legitimacy. Wikipedia is not a place to lay out your arguments transparently. Everything must be painted as if coming from someone else. Remember that you’re working in a Jewish system and must defer to experts, not logic.

    I’ll go over the first two paras in your edits to point out some red flags andy Wiki editor would take issue with:

    >The “hate group” concept has come under fire in recent years from academics and intellectuals on both sides of the political spectrum, but especially the political right.
    This is fine. Good, even because you put a slight dig in at the right.

    >Like “hate speech”, “hate group” is a concept not traditionally recognized by American courts and the American legal system.[i] Nevertheless, outside of the American legal context, the concept is widely accepted and employed.
    Mostly good. But that “nevertheless” should have been a “However.”

    >Many critics of the term argue that the demographic divisions (racial groups, whole religions) the term attempts to insulate from group criticism are arbitrarily or ideologically selected. For example, why aren’t lesser political groups (atheist organizations, for example) or smaller religious denominations (scientologists, for example) equally protected by the label and the stigma surrounding it? Thus, instead of protecting the powerless, the term seems to insulate from criticism those populations with sufficient numbers, power and prominence to command protection. After all, any number of randomly selected demographic categories could be deemed above group criticism or political opposition, yet few are. Why do certain groups seem to be so much more worthy of the term’s protections? In sum, the term appears to place arbitrary or ideology-laden restrictions on speech and activism, in defiance of the liberal democratic tradition, which asserts that all ideologies, movements, groups, and religions are fair game for philosophical critique and peaceful opposition.[ii] [iii] [iv]

    This is where you really go off the rails and show your hand. You’re obviously bringing in your own voice and perspective. Again, that’s fine for an op-ed, but not for Wikipedia edits. You’re asking questions, bringing in your own examples, not a single authority figure or MSM source is mentioned. How on earth did you expect this to pass the sniff test?

    By all means, don’t give up. But, please, if you want to get the message out on Wikipedia, be more subtle.

  10. pterodactyl
    pterodactyl says:

    The left tell you they are going to replace you in your own lands and send in the 3rd world to achieve this, and if you hate this to happen, you are guilty of hate. So every white person who does not support their own demise can quite accurately be accused of being haters.

    Meanwhile, the type of hate the left have – for ‘islamophobes and Nazis’ is ‘the virtuous type’ of hate, which means that those who assault right wing campaigners (Tommy Robinson, Richard Spencer) are never arrested, as attacking those we are told to hate is not an arrestable offence.

    So those who threaten and plot to kill Tommy Robinson (realistic threats) are not even arrested or cautioned even, whereas a right wing person who plotted to kill a Labour MP got 23 years in prison (just for comparison, the black girl gang who killed the Egyptian student by beating her up on a London bus did not even go to prison at all), even though it could have been argued that it was just a fantasy (his defence council did not argue this – perhaps the state provided his defence council) .

    Thus the authorities give the people the green light to attack those they deem are valid objects of hatred (the right wing)

    The level of logical or consistent thought in the whole process is close to zero. This is why the left want to dumb down education in the West to reduce the level of critical thinking even further.

  11. pterodactyl
    pterodactyl says:

    More selective reporting by Wikepedia, this time to block any notion that whites had a presence in N America that predates the ‘Native Americans’. (This would confer more rights to white people to own land there and reduce the ‘reparations’ claims).
    From Wikepedia:
    “This contributed to the myth of the Mound Builders as a people distinct from Native Americans, which was rigorously debunked by Cyrus Thomas in 1894.”

    So Wikepedia allows someone to write authoritatively that the idea of a separate (maybe white) race in N America has to be ‘a myth’ and one that was “was rigorously debunked” by Thomas, and yet they do not give any details of what was debunked. This could be because Wikepedia editors do not like the ideas and do not want us to read about them. Surely they are relevant in this debate, as it forms the basis for massive reparations currently being awarded to ‘Native Americans’ in terms of gambling concessions and tax concessions on the basis of belonging to a certain race.

    “Inside: America’s most luxurious reservation: Huge homes of country’s richest Native American tribe where members make $1m EACH”

    The 1970s paper states that Thomas was under the influence of Boas more than he admitted.

    The 1970s report
    “… some of the ancient nations who may have found their way hither, we perceive a strong possibility, that not only Asiatic nations, very soon after the flood, but that also, all along the different eras of time, different races of men, as Polynesians, Malays, Australasians, Phoenicians, Egyptians, Greeks, Romans, lsraelities, Tartars, Scandinavians, Danes, Norwegians, Welch, and Scotch, have colonized different parts of the continent (Priest 1833: iv). ”

    Below are the points that the Thomas report supposedly debunked (‘rigorously’)

    “The preceeding paragraphs have attempted to show the development of the theory which explained the presence of thousands of earthworks in the Eastern United States by referring them to a vanished civilization much superior to the Indians who occupied the land during the period of white settlement. The proponents of this theory offered abundant, but often conflicting evidence to support this theory. The claims presented below were taken from a number of sources. The list does not reflect the position of any single writer but rather, reflects the range of evidence used by partisans of the vanished race theory to support their theory.

    l. The mounds were of great antiquity and therefore could not be the work of Indians.
    2. The works show engineering and uniformity beyond the competence of Indians.
    3. The mounds served religious purposes as did the “high places” of the Old Testament.
    4. The inscriptions on the Grave Creek, Gass, and other stone tablets proved that the Mound-Builders had writing, a skill not possessed by Indians.
    5. No mounds were known to have been built by historic tribes.
    6. The presence of the “elephant effigy mound” in Wisconsin, the Davenport elephant pipes, and Gass tablets found in Iowa indicated great antiquity and perhaps use of elephants in construction of the mounds.
    7. The presence of copper, bronze, brass and iron implements indicated that the mounds belonged to a vanished race because Indians had no knowledge of metallurgy. KEEL] CYRUS THOMAS
    8. The technical level and aesthetic refinement of the Mound Builder artefacts far surpassed the competence and sensitivity of Indians.
    9. The uniformity of mound forms over such a wide distribution was evidence of a central government; a phenomenon unknown among the Indians.
    I 0. Such works must have been based on a highly developed agricultural base. Such economy was not known for Indians in the Mid-west during historic times. Consequently, Indians could not have been responsible for such grand developments.

    There are large burial mounds and other artifacts in America that in the 1800s were considered to be the work of other races that emigrated to America who were not the current ‘Native Americans’. Then the consensus of the experts changed around the start of the 1900s and the Smithsonian Institute took over and declared the official narrative to be that there were no other races, including no white races, to predate the ‘Native Americans’. The extent to which this is enforced today is demonstrated by the law that says ANY artifacts of humans found MUST be handed over to the ‘Native Americans’ for disposal in accordance with their religion. This is revealed in Richard Dewhurst’s book on the subject reviewed on Red Ice. ( about white ‘giants’ in N America). In the book it describes a court case to get access to bones for testing by academics, which the ‘Native Americans’ wanted to deny. In the end the DNA was not ‘Native American’ after all, but still the law is maintained whereby they have exclusive access to all ancient human remains found.

    I watched a TV programme about excavation of Monks Mound, Illinois, and when they mentioned that ‘we are not allowed to show photos of the bones’ (nor test the DNA presumably), this confirms that the authorities want to block any research that might lead to the discovery that other races lived in N America, as this destroy’s the left’s argument that only ‘Native Americans’ have land rights there. (In fact Dewhurst’s book suggests the current ‘Native Americans’ race committed genocide on orange haired people)

    A researcher called Thomas was commissioned to establish whether ancient mounds were from ancient civilisations that were more advanced than the ‘Native Americans’, or were they the work of the ‘Native Americans’. In the report from the 1970s the author suggests that Thomas was more influenced by Boas than he admitted, and Thomas’s report concluded that the mounds were made by the Indians who are now called ‘Native Americans’.

  12. Greg
    Greg says:

    I found this from a link the author (I suspect) left on a wikipedia talk page (not my own). Wikipedia is in my view one of humanity’s greatest achievements, although it’s far from perfect. These cultural marxist areas are the most glaringly bad and I try to avoid them as much as possible. Keep up the good work.

Comments are closed.