Update on Atty. Glen Allen’s Lawsuit against the SPLC

/5 Comments/in , /by

Editor’s note: Atty. Glen Allen sent the below email to update what is happening in his lawsuit against the SPLC. As I noted in a previous article, this is a very worthy cause. A victory against the SPLC would be a huge win for our cause. 

*   *   *

March 7, 2019

Friends, Supporters, and Interested Persons:

This is my second email update on my litigation against the SPLC, Heidi Beirich, and Mark Potok.  Since I have new friends and supporters (and thank you!), I have copied below my first email update, dated January 31, 2019, along with its attachments.

The SPLC defendants, as expected, filed two motions to dismiss on Monday evening.  The first seeks dismissal of all nine of my claims;  the second seeks dismissal of Potok on grounds that the Maryland court lacks personal jurisdiction over him because — so he asserts — he has no contacts with Maryland.  I anticipated all of the defendants’ arguments and am hard at work, together with my co-counsel, in preparing an opposition, which is due March 18.  If you would like to see pdfs of these motions to dismiss, please send an email to editors@theoccidentalobserver.net  If any of you have comments regarding them, please get in touch with me.  I would be particularly interested to know if anyone has any information about Potok’s activities — what exactly he did at the SPLC, what he does now, and whether he ever visited or had other contacts with Maryland or any surrounding states.

As far as I know, no plaintiff has ever survived a motion to dismiss in litigation against the SPLC.   Trust me, I’m putting my heart into becoming the first.  If I do, the next phase will be discovery — document requests, depositions, etc.  I believe the SPLC has never been subjected to discovery in any prior litigation.

I am deeply grateful for your past support, and will respectfully ask that this support, moral and financial, continue into this new phase, if you are in a position help.  Donations can be made directly to me at P.O. Box 10441, Baltimore, MD 21209, or through my Breathing Space for Dissent website.

Best to you all,

Glen Allen

Read more

Shock & horror: Anti-Semitism spreads to China

/19 Comments/in /by

Reposted with Permission from IrishSavant.com

All right-minded people will be saddened to learn that the growing scourge of anti-Semitism has now spread to China. One Jewish writer says ‘I live in China, and in the last few weeks I’ve been alarmed at the amount of antisemitic propaganda being published by Baidu News. Baidu is China’s equivalent of Google, so it reaches a truly enormous readership, and is state owned.‘ He goes on to cite two reports, one of which essentially denies that the Holocaust  happened, and claims that the number of Jews really killed numbered only in the “tens of thousands.” Another article claims, wait for it, that ‘the Jews themselves have responsibility for the Holocaust for being too greedy and self-interested. The truth is that Hitler never slaughtered the Jews. Hitler broke the financial dragon egg in order to establish the values ​​of labor. He did indeed shoot a few financial oligarchs, but did not massacre the Jews. 
 And a new best-seller called Currency Wars has really set the cat among the pigeons. The book’s author, Song Hongbing, claims that behind world-changing events like the battle of Waterloo, Adolf Hitler’s rise to power, President Kennedy’s assassination, and the deep recession in Asia during the 1990s stood an intricate conspiracy aimed at increasing Jews’ wealth and influence. In fact he claims that almost every defining historical moment has been instigated by Jewish bankers, and mainly the Rothschild family, which Song says dominates the global banking system, including the US Federal Reserve System.

And the Chinese are supposed to be clever. How the hell did they get those crazy ideas? Incidentally the articles and the associated comments provide an insight into the sperg-like amorality of the Chinese mind which assesses profound moral issues like genocide and treason in strictly utilitarian terms. I’d hate to be at the mercy of these guys.

Like the Africans soon will be.

Power to the Perverts!: Cultural Marxism, Jonathan Yaniv and the Lunacies of Transgenderism

/13 Comments/in /by

In the cult of minority worship, the British feminist Linda Bellos (born 1950) is the highest of high priestesses, an intersectional ipsissima who stands at the top of the victimhood hierarchy. She’s a Black-Jewish lesbian who has spent many years celebrating diversity, immigration and multiculturalism, opposing racism, sexism and homophobia, battling to overthrow patriarchy, capitalism and Eurocentrism. Surely she leaves all White men on the planet choking in her dust as her intersectional chariot sweeps past them towards the golden progressive future.

Bounding above Bellos

But in fact, no: she isn’t superior to all stale pale males. Some of them are armed with a superpower that allows them to bound above Bellos in the victimhood hierarchy. Astonishingly, they’ve managed to brand Bellos as a hater from whom they need protection. Just let that sink in: some stale pale males have successfully claimed to be the victims of an elderly Black-Jewish lesbian. In 2017 they got Bellos banned from making a speech to a feminist society at Cambridge University, one of England’s biggest cult-centres of minority worship. Even more impressively, they set the police on her the following year: she was “interviewed under caution” after being accused of committing a hate-crime against them.

High Priestess of Hate: Linda Bellos, OBE, TERF

What on earth is going on? Well, I can explain it in a single short acronym: TERF. That stands for “Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminist” and for many modern progressives it’s a very bad thing to be. Linda Bellos is a TERF (or terf, now a word in its own right). Like many other old-school feminists, she doesn’t accept the lunatic claims and megalomaniac demands of the highly aggressive and self-righteous “transgender community.” Quite rightly, she denies that men can become real women and that lesbians can have penises. But she doesn’t accept something else: her own role in the lunacy and megalomania of the trannies. Bellos has been a cultural Marxist since the 1970s. She has fed the beast for decades and now the beast has turned on her.

Lunacies of her own

After all, as a radical feminist and anti-racist, Bellos believes in lunacies of her own. For example, she denies the existence of race and blames the failure of non-Whites on White racism, not on non-White genetics. Similarly, she thinks that men’s and women’s brains are effectively the same. It is sexism, not biology, that explains why women don’t match men’s achievements in science, technology, engineering and mathematics.

For a cultural Marxist like Bellos, inequality arises from corrupt ideology, not from any differences of biology and evolution. And corrupt ideology, of course, arises from corrupt will. Therefore the White male malevolence that causes inequality can be countered by the non-White and female benevolence of anti-racist feminists like Linda Bellos. Nietzsche proclaimed the will to power; Marx proclaimed the will to progress.

Forcing one’s will upon the majority

But once an ideology accepts “progress” as a goal and “will” as the means to that goal, one very big question immediately arises. As Lenin put it: Кто кого? Kto kogo? ― “Who whom?” Whose will is to prevail? Who is to crush whom? Lenin had no time for democratic consensus or objective standards, as you can see in this passage quoted by the Polish philosopher Leszek Kołakowski from Lenin’s Collected Works: “in time of revolution it is not enough to ascertain the ‘will of the majority’ — you must prove to be stronger at the decisive moment and at the decisive place; you must win. … We have seen innumerable examples of the better-organized, more politically conscious and better-armed minority forcing its will upon the majority and defeating it.” Which is exactly what made the Bolshevik Revolution successful, thereby paving the way for many millions of murders.

Minority worship requires minority warriors, that is, minorities that have the will, aggression and self-belief to fight for progress, which means, of course, power over the majority. Lenin achieved that power: his small Bolshevik party, staffed with disproportionate numbers of racial minorities like Jews, Latvians and Georgians, eventually won control of the vast Russian empire. Lenin himself had German, Mongol and Jewish ancestry, and his most important lieutenant was the Jew Leon Trotsky (né Lev Bronshtein). Together Lenin and Trotsky seized power, fought and won a vicious civil war, and created a giant communist state. It was a triumph of the totalitarian will that has blazed as a beacon for megalomaniacs right to the present day. Read more

Roche’s Revenge: How Jews See Muslims as “Natural Allies” in their War on Whites

/30 Comments/in /by

“Two Jews, three opinions.” It’s a very common saying, but it’s also a very dishonest one. Jews and their gentile allies use it to suggest that Jews are on all sides of every political argument, so they don’t have a decisive influence one way or another. But on some matters there’s an overwhelming consensus among Jews and it’s decisive in shaping important policies. For example, back in 2004 the Jewish intellectual David Aaronovitch, a fixture of the British commentariat, was musing in the Guardian on “The Joy of Diversity.” He first ludicrously claimed that a vapid “respect for diversity” can “bind” completely different groups “together,” then went on to bash those Whites who don’t accept nonsense like that:

Respecting diversity can almost be a value in itself, one which binds together the girl from Hunan who served me with coffee in Starbucks yesterday and the assortment of quiet, paper-reading ethnicities who shared my tube carriage on Friday. It is the BNP [British National Party] supporter in Burnley who seems like an exotic, incomprehensible stranger to me. (The Joy of Diversity, The Guardian, 29th February 2004)

Burnley is a town in Lancashire where large numbers of Pakistani Muslims have settled against the wishes of the native White inhabitants. Those Whites turned to the British National Party, the only party prepared to stand up for them rather than demonize them and dismiss their concerns as racist and Islamophobic. David Aaronovitch is supposedly British, but he claims that British Whites who stand up for their own interests are “exotic, incomprehensible strangers.”

The “ex-communist” David Aaronovitch

He’s lying even as he says that. He doesn’t find White BNP-supporters “incomprehensible.” He understands their behaviour perfectly and finds it threatening, which is why he inverts the truth and labels those Whites “exotic.” He’s trying to pathologize entirely normal people who are behaving in an entirely natural way. In other words, he’s promoting a culture of critique identified by Kevin MacDonald as central to Jewish politics.

And part of that culture of critique has been to promote immigration and ethnic diversity from all the countries of the world into the West, typically clothed in high-flown moralisms (that they don’t apply to Israel). There is no Jewish organization of any stature that opposes this process. All of the financial, political, and media power of the Jewish community is pushing in one direction only: the replacement of Western populations. Millions of Jews and, in effect, one opinion.
Read more

Lying about Judeo-Bolshevism

/64 Comments/in , /by

A Specter Haunting Europe: The Myth of Judeo-Bolshevism
Paul Hanebrink
Harvard University Press, 2018.

The writing and discussion of Jewish historiography in contemporary mainstream academia requires a sublime choreography. It’s basically a series of evasions resembling dances, in which facts are presented and parried, and flamboyant narratives are advanced which everyone knows to be false but which emerge repetitively and shamelessly. My attention was first drawn to Paul Hanebrink’s A Specter Haunting Europe: The Myth of Judeo-Bolshevism by Christopher Browning’s recent glowing review, titled “The Fake Threat of Jewish Communism,” in the New York Review of Books. Browning is an establishment historian with a record of legally assisting Jews — for the right price. As well as receiving over $30,000 from Deborah Lipstadt to testify against David Irving, Browning has testified against a significant number of European ex-soldiers at war crimes trials. Although his most notable work, Ordinary Men: Reserve Police Battalion 101 and the Final Solution in Poland (1992), contains the less than remarkable thesis that war turns ordinary men into killers, Browning’s dedication to the Jewish narrative has led to his becoming a true guru of Jewish victimology. Having received awards and funds from organizations including Yad Vashem and the USC Shoah Foundation Center and copious promotion in mainstream media and academia, Browning’s certificate of praise in the field is potentially career-making. Evidently, he has chosen to bestow his magic touch on Paul Hanebrink. In this essay I want to explore the approach of both Browning’s review and Hanebrink’s text as exercises in the manufacture of duplicitous histories.

I had to look twice at Browning’s headline. My first thought was: “Really? You really want to take this subject matter on? You really think you can ‘debunk’ the facticity of Jewish Communism?” Such an endeavor would unquestionably require abundant chutzpah, but it is clear from the very beginning of the review that this will be an effort of evasion rather than outright debate. As Browning states in the opening paragraph, “Hanebrink’s approach is not to repeat what he considers an error of the interwar era—the futile attempt to refute a myth on the basis of historical facts and statistical data.” Although this evasion is predictable, it’s quite remarkable to see a more or less open admission from two allegedly masterful historians that they don’t possess facts sufficient to dispel the very “myth” they set out to challenge. To describe any such presentation of facts as a “futile attempt” seems intellectually flaccid; a concession of the weakness of one’s case.

But what is really presented here, of course, is the standard structure of Jewish historiography: avoid the facts, downplay them if concession is absolutely necessary, and move the discussion into abstractions and sophistry. Taking a page from the ADL playbook, Browning mewls coyly that “a small kernel of truth underpinned the stereotype of the Jewish Bolshevik,” but insists, regarding Communism, that “the Jew as “the face of the revolution” was a “culturally constructed” perception.” We therefore arrive at the familiar position where facts don’t matter and everything Jews don’t like is triumphantly declared a mere construct. Read more

AntiFa Terrorists Immune from Prosecution

/11 Comments/in /by

AntiFa torch a police car at at Georgia Tech

The extent of the immunity enjoyed by these leftist “anti-racist” thugs is astonishing.

In Atlanta, the “AntiFa” have engaged in repeated criminal acts and not one of them  has ever been prosecuted.

These acts include (skip to the last if you want to get a quick grasp of how bad this situation is):

  1. Repeated violent attacks on Trump rallies including beating up an 80-year-old woman trying to enter the rally venue.

Numerous arrests — after a long period of significant benign police inaction — but no prosecutions.

  1. Parading through the streets without permits while wearing masks in violation of the Anti-Mask law and brandishing AK-47s while the police beamed approvingly. Only action by authorities? Making statements congratulating the AntiFa for being so peaceful and affirming their right to free speech.
  2. Beating a homosexual couple bloody when the AntiFa engaged in a demonstration in the heavily gay Midtown neighborhood demanding that all prisoners be released from the jails as “victims of capitalism.” The AntiFa invaded a coffee shop and took it over. They screamed and chanted and waved their placards.  The two guys drinking their coffee were naive enough to believe you could actually speak with these fanatics.  They expressed their skepticism at the idea that everyone in jail should be released.  The AntiFa response?  Not debate or civic dialogue.  The mob jumped the guys and beat the shit out of them.  At that point the police, who had made no effort to protect the business owner’s rights and had allowed the AntiFa to seize control of the premises and threaten and bully the patrons who were there drinking their coffee and reading their newspapers, did in fact move.  They rescued the two guys and arrested three of the assailants.

Prosecutions? Ha, ha, ha!  Don’t be silly!  All let go under what appears to be a “catch and release” policy.

  1. Placing a death threat up on me saying “Sam Dickson needs to die and we are dedicated to bringing this about.” When I went to the police authorities about this, I was essentially told to get lost and not let the door hit me on the ass as I left. The death threat was kept up for months.
  2. Here’s the Ultimate:

The AntiFa held a demonstration at Georgia Tech against police brutality. (They are under a delusion that law enforcement is against them despite all evidence to the contrary; the cops and FBI are totally on the side of the AntiFa.)

In the course of this demonstration the AntiFa attacked a police car.  They threw a Molotov cocktail into a police car.  The car exploded.  The flames shot over 100 feet into the air.  Fortunately, no cop was in the car.  Three AnfiFa were arrested in the act of torching the car with the Molotov cocktail.

This was 15 months ago.

No prosecutions.

Even as cynical and jaded as I am, I entertained the deluded notion that if you threw a bomb into a police car and destroyed it, something bad would happen to you.

Not if you are AntiFa!

I really wonder:

Just how is it that these terrorists get a pass?

Does someone call up district attorneys and tell them not to touch the AntiFa?

Does Soros do this?

Other powerful members of Jewish communities?

I’d really like to know how this works. We all know what would happen if the people engaged in violence and were what the media presumes to call “White Supremacists.”