SPLC

Presentation at Dr. James Fetzer’s Academic Freedom Conference

Dr. James Fetzer, emeritus professor at the University of Minnesota-Duluth, has put together a fascinating series of videos on academic freedom. My presentation can be seen in the above video.

As I note in the video, I will always have positive memories of James Fetzer at the Human Behavior and Evolution Conference at Amherst College in 2000. As things degenerated during attacks by the likes of Richard Wrangham (now at Harvard), Fetzer got up and gave a ringing defense of academic freedom with a voice than can only be called stentorian. Unforgettable.

I have a lot of material on all of this on my kevinmacdonald.net website (here and here) which unfortunately is quarantined by Google because of a malware infestation. (This page has an eyewitness account of the Amherst meeting.) We have taken care of the malware issues, but it takes a while to get out of their doghouse. (NOTE: QUARANTINE IS OVER;  WE ARE CLEARED, AT LEAST FOR CHROME.)

Below I repost an account of my experiences soon after the CSULB campus was graced by a visit from the lovely Heidi Beirich of the $outhern Poverty Law Center, written for VDARE and posted on November 14, 2006. It gives some added details.


As you read this, Heidi Beirich of the Southern Poverty Law Center is interviewing some 40 students, faculty, and administrators at California State University–Long Beach, where I am a tenured Professor of Psychology, for an upcoming hit job on me and my research.

Readers of VDARE.COM need little introduction to the SPLC or Ms. Beirich. Since 1971, the SPLC has built up an unsavory reputation, attracting criticism even from the Left for dubious fund-raising tactics, reckless allegations (anyone who opposes open borders is a racist) massive exaggerations (the Ku Klux Klan is on the verge of taking over the entire U.S.) and, by those who actually read its materials, for wholesale misrepresentation. Essentially a gang of political terrorists, well described by Peter Brimelow as a “shakedown scam that preys on the elderly, Holocaust-haunted rich”, the SPLC is nevertheless accorded almost religious reverence by many in the media, academia, and government. Case in point: the (otherwise quite fair) student newspaper article on my case was headlined Civil rights group investigates professor  [by Mary Jane O`Brien, Daily 49er, November 13 2006]. [For theCapitol Research Center`s new expose of the SPLC, click here]

The SPLC is paying me attention because it wants to suppress my academic work. I am interested in sociobiology, evolutionary psychology and group behavior. Some years ago I began to study the Jews. This resulted in three scholarly books and a monograph considering Judaism from a modern evolutionary perspective:

I have also published a number of related articles (scroll down).

In this body of work I have developed the argument that Jewish activity collectively, throughout history, is best understood as an elaborate and highly successful group competitive strategy directed against neighboring peoples and host societies. The objective has been control of economic resources and political power.  One example: overwhelming Jewish support for non-traditional immigration, which has the effect of weakeningAmerica`s historic white majority. Such behavior would be viewed as perfectly normal from a sociobiological standpoint.

Of course, I could be wrong. Demonstrating this would require logical argument and reinterpretation of the extensive factual evidence I have assembled. I have yet to see any critic of my work able to show that I was wrong about the theory or in my handling of the evidence. But in principle it might be possible.

However, my critics, exemplified by the SPLC, have generally been unwilling to attempt this. Instead, their line has been that the subject is taboo and discussing it should be forbidden. Needless to say, this is not the intellectual tradition out of which the Enlightenment and the Scientific Revolution came.

My experience provides a case study of these tactics. Beirich, along with another SPLC operative Mark Potok, recently wrote an article  listing me as one of the “13 worst people in America” and “The scariest academic”. In a country with around 300,000,000 people and 45,000 academics, the SPLC places me in some pretty rarified company.

The Beirich & Potok article is a compendium of ethical lapses. It refers to me as having a Master`s degree, although I have held a Ph.D since 1981 and have been a fully tenured faculty member at Cal State Long Beach for 15 years. The implication: I am not a fully qualified and recognized scholar. An academic who acknowledges not having read my work is quoted, while positive comments by academics who have reviewed my research in scholarly publications are ignored. It presents gross oversimplifications of my work—summarizing an entire book in one sentence and leaving out important qualifications (e.g., although the organized Jewish community was the major force in pushing through the 1965 immigration law and in theestablishment of multicultural America, I stipulate that many Jews were not involved in these efforts).

Further, Beirich & Potok lift quotations out of context. Most outrageously, they claim that I “suggest[s] that colleges restrict Jewish admission and Jews be heavily taxed `to counter the Jewish advantage in the possession of wealth.`” In fact, the passage in question discusses the possible consequences of a hypothetical ethnic spoils system in which individuals are assigned access to resources based ontheir percentage in the population. Obviously, if such a system were in place, it would discriminate against Jews. Merely explaining the real-world consequences of such a system is not the equivalent of advocating it.

Personally, I am appalled that there are major organizations and movements in this country that advocate ethnicity-based access to resources such as university admissions. Behavioral science research clearly documents that different ethnic groups have different average talents, abilities, wealth, etc.  These differences can only lead to increasing levels of ethnic tension and competition in multicultural America. An ethnicity-based spoils system would be the end of the country as originally founded. It would lead to a hyper-Orwellian future in which each ethnic group jealously monitors the others to make sure it is getting its “fair” share.

I`m reminded of an earlier hatchet job by Beirich. She made a phone call to Human Events Editor-in-Chief Tom Winter complaining that Kevin Lamb, Human Events managing editor, was also the editor of The Occidental Quarterly—a publication that the SPLC calls “racist” and “white supremacist.”  (The fact that I have published articles in The Occidental Quarterly is a major part of the SPLC`s problem with me.) Lamb was gone within the hour.

More recently, Beirich succeeded with another phone call in frightening the supposedly conservative Leadership Institute into a last-minute refusal of its premises to the Robert A. Taft Club, which planned to hold a debate—a debate—betweenAmerican Renaissance`s Jared Taylor, National Review`s John Derbyshire and black conservative Kevin Martin.

 The Taft Club is basically just a group of Washington-area kids. But no band of heretics is too small for the SPLC Inquisition.

Ms. Beirich asked to interview me during her stay in Long Beach. Given her record, I was confident she would be acting in bad faith. But I offered to be interviewed by her—if she would answer my concerns regarding her previous writing about me and make them public to the CSULB community. She has not responded to this offer.

Kevin Lamb was an “at will” employee and really had no defense against the assault of Beirich and the SPLC. But the fact is that even academics with tenure are terrified of being called racists, anti-Semites or any other pejorative concocted by the left.

This is ironic. Unlike politicians, who must curry favor with the public in order to be reelected, and unlike media figures, who have no job protection, tenured academics should be free from any such fears. Part of the job—and a large part of the rationale for tenure in the first place—is that they are supposed to be willing to take unpopular positions.

That image of academia, however, simply and sadly has no basis in reality. Consider, for example, an article appearing almost two months after the publication of John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt`s famous essay on the Israel Lobby and appropriately titled A hot paper muzzles Harvard.”  [by Eve Fairbanks, The Los Angeles Times, May 14 2006]:

“Instead of a roiling debate, most professors not only agreed to disagree but agreed to pretend publicly that there was no disagreement at all. At Harvard and other schools, the Mearsheimer-Walt paper proved simply too hot to handle — and it revealed an academia deeply split yet lamentably afraid to engage itself on one of the hottest political issues of our time. Call it the academic Cold War:distrustful factions rendered timid by the prospect of mutually assured career destruction.”

It`s not that professors don`t want to sound off on public policy issues. When there is an opportunity to spout righteous leftism, professors leap to the front of the line. A good example: the Duke University rape allegation case. Despite considerable evidence that the charges are spurious, three academic departments, 13 programs, and 88 professors at Duke paid for an ad in the campus newspaper in which they assumed the guilt of the men, and stated that “what happened to this young woman” resulted from “racism and sexism”.

In that case, of course, the professors who went public with their indignation knew they were part of a like-minded community and that there would be much to gain by being on the politically-correct side.

Seen in this context, the reaction to Mearsheimer and Walt makes a lot of sense. As one professor explained: “People might debate it if you gave everyone a get-out-of-jail-free card and promised that afterward everyone would be friends.”

This latest experience with the SPLC has improved my understanding of the dynamics of group control of individuals.

There have been times when I have had to endure vicious charges of anti-Semitism, for instance by Jacob Laksin (CalState`s Professor of Anti-Semitism. Frontpagemag.com May 5 2006). But when discussion was confined to the impersonal world of the internet, it did not bother me. I would write a detailed reply and circulate it among the people who read me. I knew that people who support my writing would rally to my defense and say nice things about me and my reply to Laksin.

Naturally, I also knew that I would a get hate mail and maybe a couple of death threats. But that`s to be expected. And it`s all rather abstract, since I basically sit in solitude at my computer and read it all. It pretty much ends there. A part of me even sees some benefit in it because visits to my website are up and more people are buying my book.

But then came the SPLC and Heidi Beirich. Someone not connected to CSULB sent an email to the entire Psychology Department—except me—asking why they allowed an “anti-Semite” to teach there. The result was an uproar, with heated exchanges on the faculty email list, a departmental meeting on what to do about me and my work, and intense meetings of the departmental governing committee.

Cold shoulders, forced smiles and hostile stares became a reality. Going into my office to teach my classes and attend committee meetings became an ordeal.

I keep saying to myself: why is this so hard?  At the conscious level I was perfectly confident that I could sit down with any of my colleagues and defend my ideas. I know rationally that a lot of the people giving me negative vibes are themselves members of ethnic minority groups—who like the present ethnic spoils system, such as affirmative action and ethnically-influenced foreign policy, just fine.

My theory: Ostracism and hostility from others in one`s face-to-face world trigger guilt feelings. These are automatic responses resulting ultimately from the importance of fitting into a group over evolutionary time. We Westerners are relatively prone to individualism. But we certainly don`t lack a sense of wanting to belong and to be accepted. Violating certain taboos carries huge emotional consequences.

This little bit of personal experience is doubtless typical of the forces of self-censorship that maintain the political order of the post-World-War-II West. It`s the concern about the face-to-face consequences of being a non-conformist in the deeply sensitive areas related to race or to Jewish influence.

My research on Jewish issues is well within the academic mainstream in terms of use of sources and evidence, and it has been well reviewed in a variety of mainstream sources. It would raise no controversy except that it deals with very sensitive issues: Anti-Semitism and Jewish influence on culture and politics.

I am willing to defend the idea that my ethnic identity and ethnic interests are as legitimate as those of the numerous ethnic activists that make a living in academia. Would Mexicans or Chinese be considered moral reprobates if they didn`t like the idea of their people losing political, demographic, and cultural control within their homeland? Should academics like Cornel West or Alan Dershowitz be fired or ostracized because of their obvious and deeply expressed ethnic commitments?What of the many Latino professors who marched in the recent spate of pro-immigration rallies supporting more immigration to the U.S. for the people with whom they identify?

All of these are accepted and indeed approved. However, my relatively low-key expression of ethnic identity as a white European-American concerned about the prospects of his people and culture so easily becomes whipped up into mass hysteria on campus.

This guilt trauma is the result of our evolved psychology and a long history of socialization in post-World-War-II America. It`s a big part of the problem, and people like me have simply got to become better at dealing with it.

So in the end, I’ve come to greet Heidi`s arrival in Long Beach as therapeutic—a painful but necessary challenge that must be overcome first at the psychological level if any progress is to be made on unabashed and unfettered discussion of critical issues like the  Third World Invasion of America and the impending death of the West.

Hell, if Republican candidates had been ready, willing, and able to campaign on these issues, they might not have been so thoroughly “thumped” in the recent elections.

Kevin MacDonald [email him] is Professor of Psychology at California State University-Long Beach. For his website, clickhere.

On Jewish-Inspired “Patriots”

On 11 February 2015, Craig Stephen Hicks, age 46, of Chapel Hill, North Carolina — to all appearances, a White man — killed three Muslims living in his apartment-complex, execution style, one bullet in each head.

The father of two of the victims, a psychiatrist, was quick to declare that it was a “hate crime.”

While Hicks appears to be a White man, contrary to what some might expect, he is in no way a racist.

Yahoo News reports:

The Southern Poverty Law Center, a national civil rights organization, told Yahoo News that Hicks is not in its database of known extremists. According to his Facebook page, Hicks is a fan of the Alabama-based hate watchdog group. [Jason Sickles, Yahoo News, 11 February 2015]

Hicks’ wife Karen confirmed this, telling CBS News that Hicks “believed everybody was equal.” What then could have been Hicks’ motive for shooting the three Muslims, if he was not a “racist”? This does not fit the usual news-media template for such incidents. Perhaps the police have arrested the wrong man?

What we are told about Hicks is the following. In addition to being an anti-racist, he was a self-proclaimed atheist. He was a Constitutionalist. He was studying to become a paralegal. He would post rants on Facebook about what he felt were transgressions against his individual rights. All of this suggests something about Hicks’ way of dealing with the world around him. Read more

SPLC and the ADL dropped from FBI Hate Crimes Webpage

It was always a bit horrifying that  the ADL and the  SPLC are deeply intertwined with government, particularly at the federal level. So the world is a little better place now that these organizations have been been dropped as “resources” on the FBI‘s Hate Crime Web pageThis occurred

after 15 family groups pressed Attorney General Eric Holder and FBI Director James Comey to stop endorsing a group — SPLC — that inspired a recent case of domestic terrorism at the Family Research Council.

“We commend the FBI for removing website links to the Southern Poverty Law Center, an organization that not only dispenses erroneous data but has been linked to domestic terrorism in federal court. We hope this means the FBI leadership will avoid any kind of partnership with the SPLC,” Tony Perkins, FRC President, told Secrets.

“The Southern Poverty Law Center’s mission to push anti-Christian propaganda is inconsistent with the mission of both the military and the FBI, which is to defend and uphold the Constitution of the United States,” he added. (Washington Examiner)

The Daily Caller has a nice summary of the SPLC’s role:

Back in 2012, 28-year-old Floyd Corkins II used the SPLC’s Hate Map, which lists groups ranging from the Klu Klux Klan to pro-traditional marriage nonprofits as “active hate groups,” to locate the Family Research Council based in Washington, D.C. Armed with one hundred rounds of ammunition and 15 Chik-Fil-A sandwiches, he planned to “smother in [the] faces” of his victims. Corkins ended shooting up FRC’s lobby and wounding a security guard.

He was subdued by the wounded security guard and arrested before he could claim any lives — and charged with three felonies, committing an act of terrorism while armed, assault with intent to kill and transporting a firearm over state lines.

Let’s hope the victim sues the SPLC. Such a lawsuit would be quite on a par with SPLC lawsuits against organizations where someone associated with the organization commits a crime. Poetic justice.

The ADL was not pleased:

Abraham H. Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League, told Secrets, “We are shocked, surprised and disappointed that this would be done without any consultation with groups such as ours who have been working closely with the Federal Bureau of Investigation on issues of hate crime. We look forward to having further conversations with them on this issue.”

Which shows that the ADL will exert pressure to be put back on the list of resources. However, the link between the crime and the SPLC likely gives the FBI cover for getting rid of all non-governmental groups as resources for “hate crimes.”

A search for the story turned up nothing in the major media. So we will continue to see the SPLC  quoted on immigration and other issues as a “respected civil rights organization.”

For Heidi Beirich and the SPLC, hatred of White America trumps environmentalism and everything else

We’ve known for a long time who the real haters are—organizations like the SPLC and their operatives, Heidi Beirich and Mark Potok. A glimpse of the depth of their hatred toward White America can be seen in a blog by Jerry Kammer of the Center for Immigration Studies (“More on the Environment, Population, Immigration, and the SPLC“).  Kammer has done excellent work on the SPLC, in particular showing that it depends on Jewish donors—that essentially it is a Jewish organization in all but name.

Kammer’s recent blog is based on the work of journalist Tom Horton who is worried about the effects of immigration on the environment (“Is immigration killing Chesapeake Bay?“). But efforts to save the environment by restricting immigration come up against charges of racism by organizations like the $PLC.

To put it candidly, the typical immigrant these days is brown and poor; the typical environmentalist is white and doing relatively well. It’s easy to come off as racist—in fact it’s almost guaranteed. A recent blast from the liberal Southern Poverty Law Center equated those who talk about the human carrying capacity of ecosystems, or the need to reduce growth in the name of the environment, to racists in disguise.

This recalls the notorious donations north of $100 million by David Gelbaum to the Sierra Club on condition that they not oppose immigration. Read more

More evil from Heidi Beirich

Our friend  Heidi  Beirich of the  SPLC has another  outrageous gem about me (“Long Adored by Anti-Semites, California Prof Now Glorifies Violence“). A couple of factual issues: I am not a “co-host” of David Duke’s program and have never used the phrase “Zionist gun-grabbers,” although I have noted that Jewish publications have pointed to the central role of Jewish activists and  organizations in the gun control movement.

Worse, she sent an email to university colleagues stating I was a  Holocaust denier. As everyone knows, I have I never endorsed Holocaust denial or permitted Holocaust denial ideas to be published in outlets that I control. She is perfectly well aware of this (perhaps accounting for avoiding that charge in her article). As usual, it’s guilt by association.

In the email she also called me a “White supremacist”—leftspeak for Whites who think that Whites, like all other human groups, have interests. I am waiting for a statement by the ADL and the Jewish Studies Department that Jews have no moral or practical reason to attempt to remain a demographic majority in Israel. And a statement from the SPLC condemning American Jewish groups that support apartheid in Israel.

My blurb for Kyle Bristow’s book was confined to the main point of the book which is a fictional account of the Salutrean hypothesis (which has its scientific defenders) and the suppression of this idea by the forces of political correctness. Being a busy person, I did not read the passage she complains about and certainly don’t endorse violence against Mark Potok despite his evil behavior.

And if you look at the offending article “Heidi goes to heaven,” Heidi’s death is simply a setup for the satire, nothing more. There is no plot in which she is assassinated because of her (loathsome) activities. Her death is the result of a defective bomb  built by a “greasy wannabe terrorist … who asked the $PLC to lay out one hundred grand for a so far undisclosed false flag ploy, but knew as much about building bombs as pigs about flying.”

In order for the satire to work, she had to die somehow; the accidental detonation of a bomb certainly didn’t raise any red flags with me.

However, we at TOO certainly don’t want to tread on the sensibilities of sensitive souls like Beirich. I am advised that  Colhaze may bow to this pressure and revise the article to have her die of a  surfeit of donuts—which somehow seems more plausible anyway and has the virtue of being self-induced.  Read more

Learning from the SPLC

It may enrage most all readers to hear it — but I like the$PLC. Let me revise that statement — I like the website of the $PLC. I have never, and will never give them a dime. I have never, and will never buy any of the junk they sell on their stupid corner of Cafe Press. Though I would certainly buy a t-shirt with the $PLC logo on it should I ever bump into one at a second-hand shop or some such — the irony of it would be too rich to pass up.

I must also admit that I loathe the $PLC itself a great deal. Trust me, I write under a fake name and they would love to reveal my real identity to the whole world in attempt to make me as destitute as possible. Jared Taylor, Wayne Lutton, and many others have commented on how vile the group is, and how they seem much more interested in financially destroying those who disagree with them as opposed to convincing in any way. Even staunch leftists have written about how the group is a shamelessly self-promoting money racket. Read more

Dr. Virginia Abernethy’s Response to USA Today article

Editor’s note: Dr. Virginia Abernethy is running for Vice-President for the American Third Position. (Merlin Miller is A3P’s presidential candidate.) The following is her response to an article on her, also reprinted below, that appeared in USA Today and The Tennessean (Nashville). Dr. Abernethy has also given two video interviews on these issues, link below

Dr. Virginia Abernethy

The Tennessean and USAToday ran the same article about me. I write in hopes that one or both papers will print my comment.

The article is accurate in several respects, but inaccurate in others, and thus disturbing. The SPLC’s negative and hateful characterizations of people like me who oppose mass immigration are factually untrue.

The SPLC has upped the ante by adding the false charge of neo-Nazi to the tired old [and incorrect in my case and in most cases] label of racist.

Organizations like the ADL are complicitous in these hateful smears and, at the least, do themselves a disservice by repeating charges designed to tar people who disagree with them.

Apparently, their ideal for the United States is to be part of a borderless world, while Israel, they think, is entitled to secure borders.

The SPLC clearly hates patriots like me. This demonstrates that their “anti-hate” stance is merely a cover for their globalist Marxist agenda. They want Europeans-Americans to “tolerate” their own dispossession. This suicide of a whole people is the goal of their ‘Teaching Tolerance’. Read more