SPLC

Twenty-two Republican Congressmen sign letter denouncing SPLC

/26 Comments/in /by

You know the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) veered too far off the reservation when they became so ridiculous that even today’s limpwristed neo-conservative Republican leadership feels comfortable condemning them!

A statement, signed by twenty-two elected members of Congress (among many others), was issued to the press this week. It reads in part:

The surest sign one is losing a debate is to resort to character assassination. The Southern Poverty Law Center, a liberal fundraising machine whose tactics have been condemned by observers across the political spectrum, is doing just that.

The group, which was once known for combating racial bigotry, is now attacking several groups that uphold Judeo-Christian moral views, including marriage as the union of a man and a woman.

How does the SPLC attack? By labeling its opponents “hate groups.” No discussion. No consideration of the issues. No engagement. No debate! Read more

The American Legal System is a Fraud

/24 Comments/in , , /by

The governing philosophies that rule the legal system are: (a) “legal realism” by which is meant that the judge decides whom he wants to prevail (or who “should” prevail as the legal theorists would claim, not wanting to let the cat out of the bag that the judge is not a philosopher king and is likely to rule for his former law partner or for the utility companies); and (b) “critical legal studies” which is an basically a Marxist theory that mirrors “legal realism” but is even nastier because the criteria by which the judge is supposed to decide who should prevail is based on which litigant belongs to the “victim class” and which one belongs to the “oppressor class.”

These two philosophies work very well upon a foundation of the “common law system” which we in Anglo-Saxon countries “enjoy” as opposed to the code system most European countries use.

When I was in law school, the professors would tout the benefits of the common law system especially its “flexibility.”

What has happened is that on most issues there are contradictory so-called “precedents” from which the judge can choose much like an artist chooses which color to use from his palette.

I followed the cases of several White dissidents who were prosecuted in trumped up claims that they incited someone else to commit a crime.  (The SPLC’s Morris Dees specializes in such cases and such claims.)

Some decades ago a White businessman won a lawsuit against the NAACP arising out of a boycott of White-owned stores in a small town in Mississippi.  The local Blacks had ignored the NAACP’s calls for the boycott.  Enraged by the failure of the brothers and sisters to obey instructions, the NAACP sent the brother of Medger Evans to speak in the local Black churches.

In his sermons Evans warned the local Blacks that the NAACP was going to be taking down the names of Blacks who shopped with White merchants and that they were “going to break your necks.”

Sure enough the houses of Blacks who didn’t obey were burned down.

This was the case of Claiburn Hardware vs. NAACP.

The U.S. Supreme Court indignantly overturned the judgment against the NAACP and said that the 1st Amendment protected such speech.  In order for speech to constitute an incitement and to give rise to liability the speech had to be a direct and immediate incitement.

This “precedent” has been cited by attorneys defending White activists over and over again.  Never has any Judge cited it or relied on it.  Instead, the Judges have chosen other precedents and have allowed Dees to get judgments against White activists whose statements really did not threaten any violence at all.  Dees and his witnesses were allowed to deconstruct the text of the statements and to explain to the jury that when a White racist tells an audience “we are non-violent” and things like this, that such statements are “code” for “go out and commit crimes.”

The fact that not one court has ever cited Claiborne Hardware vs. NAACP in cases brought against White activists even if only to distinguish it shows just how fixed the system is.

The icing on the cake is a little known “rule of court” in the federal courts which allows the Judges to make a ruling and include in the ruling a holding that the decision will not be precedent on any other case and to order that the decision never be published!

This was done in the Georgia case of Carver vs. State so the federal courts could uphold a kangaroo court conviction of a Klansman in which — among numerous other outrages in the conduct of the trial — the trial judge denied the defendant the right to subpoena evidence in violation of Mapp vs. Ohio and the Fourth Amendment.

Almost no lay Americans are aware of this unspeakable star chamber rule and the vast majority of lawyers don’t know about it either.

There was a proposal a few years ago to change this rule and the federal judges vehemently opposed taking their “discretion” away from them.

The American justice system is held in awe by its victims who haven’t got a clue about how it works.  Its filth and corruption are made all the worse by its hypocrisy.

Obviously, there are many judges who are fine men and women and do follow the law.

But they are very much in the minority.

As Montesquieu said there is no crueler tyranny than one in which the forms of the law and justice are maintained without the reality.

Thorborne Richardson is an attorney.

Christopher Donovan: The Absurdity That is Morris Dees

/9 Comments/in /by

From the Too-Good-Not-To-Splash-Across-the-Web Dept. comes Steve Sailer’s take on Morris Dees’ extravagant digs. Here is the entire 60-item photo shoot, including the following:

Hypocrisy.  Absurdity.  Mockery.  Words fail.  How about a deliciously funny screenplay lampooning a Dees-like character?  It’s got gargantuan comedic potential.  Tom Wolfe, are you paying attention?

Bookmark and Share

Christopher Donovan: Those Dreaded All-White Juries, Again

/22 Comments/in , , , /by

Christopher Donovan: To follow the path of the White advocate is to encounter, every so often, situations of unremarked absurdity that make you want to scream.  First, for the absurdity itself.  And second, for the fact that nobody seems to notice the absurdity.

The media drumbeat against the “all-white jury” is one such situation.  The New York Times is now weighing in again, accusing prosecutors in the South of wrongfully excluding Blacks from juries.  Of course, reporter Shaila Dewan never bothers to mention that defense lawyers want Blacks ON the jury for reasons that mirror why prosecutors want them OFF.

The story itself is a farce.  Dewan mocks a prosecutor for calling one potential Black juror unsophisticated for spelling “Wal-Mart” as “Wal-marts.”  Really?  A New York Times reporter doesn’t consider that a sign of unsophistication?  It’s pretty easy to imagine Ms. Dewan attributing unsophistication to a White person for doing the same thing.

On this thin reed, Dewan then opines that “Arguments like these were used for years to keep Blacks off juries in the segregationist South, systematically denying justice to Black defendants and victims.”  Were they, really?  This particular line is both sweepingly unsupported and oddly rhetorical.  But precision is never the order of the day when the press deals with race.

Dewan lines up her SPLC-type sources one after the other, never bothering to reach out to anyone but the prosecutor himself for a different take — and knowing full well he can’t talk.  I guess this is what Spiro Agnew meant when he called the press “a gang of cruel faggots.”

Sigh.  Allow me to reiterate my point.  It’s total hypocrisy for Blacks to complain about the exclusion of Blacks from juries because their motivations for doing so are based on the same generalizations as those made by prosecutors.  They know — as well as prosecutors — that Blacks don’t convict Blacks.  Therefore, Black defendants want them on juries, and prosecutors don’t.  It’s that simple.  Same analysis, different conclusion.  Is this really a quest for “justice”, or a quest for a legal victory, no matter the facts?

Why won’t the press ever look into THAT?  If it’s a big racist lie that Blacks are predictable in their behavior as jurors, wouldn’t the press be rushing to tell us so?

And does the press ever wonder why Blacks are such frequent defendants that this is even an issue?

And does the press ever wonder whether the Black defendant did, in fact, commit the crime charged?

And does the press ever stop to wonder whether it’s being racist against whites by casually assuming that no “all-White jury” could ever render a fair verdict?

I’d love to ask Shaila Dewan these questions, but I’m pretty sure she won’t be taking my call.

Christopher Donovan is the pen name of an attorney and former journalist. Email him.

Bookmark and Share

Elena Kagan Gets the Nomination

/82 Comments/in , , , , , /by

It’s great to be Jewish in the year 2010. The latest evidence is the appointment of Elena Kagan as the third Jew on the Supreme Court. Philip Weiss puts it this way:

The Kagan appointment means that we have entered a period in which Jews are equal members, if not actually predominant members, of the American Establishment. Obama’s two closest political advisers are Jewish, Rahm Emanuel and David Axelrod, and are said to be his foreign-policy braintrust. The economy is supervised to a large degree by Jewish appointees, Larry Summers and Fed Reserve Board chair Paul Bernanke (Time‘s man of the year last year, a selection overseen by Rick Stengel, the Time magazine editor, who is also Jewish).

Of course, that’s just scratching the surface on Jewish representation among the elites in politics, law, the financial world, the media, and personal wealth. Weiss goes on to take the standard line that Jews have achieved so much because of their bookish culture. But if there’s anything that stands out about Kagan, it’s how utterly ordinary she is in terms of scholarly accomplishment or anything else that would qualify her for the court–very few publications, no experience as a judge, little courtroom experience — the Harriet Miers of the Obama administration. (I stole that one from someone on the Rachel Maddow show, maybe Maddow herself. But it shows the depth of her inaptitude that even liberals are sensitive to it. For example, Paul Campos writes on the Daily Beast, “if Kagan is a brilliant legal scholar, the evidence must be lurking somewhere other than in her publications. Kagan’s scholarly writings are lifeless, dull, and eminently forgettable. They are, on the whole, cautious academic exercises in the sort of banal on-the-other-handing whose prime virtue is that it’s unlikely to offend anyone in a position of power.”  Here’s my version: “When she received tenure at the University of Chicago in 1995, she had exactly two scholarly articles published in law journals — a record that would ordinarily not get her tenure even at quite a few third tier universities much less an elite institution like the University of Chicago.”)

Her only talent seems to be getting really prestigious jobs without any obvious qualifications apart from her ethnic background. And her appointment is a sure thing for the left: Whereas Republicans have been disappointed several times by nominees who converted into liberals (like John Paul Stevens), Kagan’s ethnic identity ensures that she is on the side of all things multicultural.

My take (see also here) is that this is an affirmative action appointment of someone who has benefited greatly from Jewish ethnic networking and has dangerous views on the First Amendment that are in line with the views of the ADL, the SPLC, and the rest of the organized Jewish community. (See also Patrick Cleburne’s post at VDARE.com.)

It’s amazing to see liberals expressing doubts about Kagan. (In fact, one wonders where these people were before her nomination was a done deal. Kagan’s name has been floated since the Sotomayor nomination, but suddenly we see all these doubts about her — mainly from liberals feigning concern.) She is clearly on the left, perhaps with some neocon tendencies regarding executive power. But that is hardly reassuring. Put these tendencies together and you have someone who could be very dangerous to an incipient racialist movement: Anti-“hate speech” and comfortable with using government power to suppress political action that conflicts with the aims of the regime.

Another thought that crossed my mind was that Obama and his advisers may have wanted to court Jews [bad pun] because of the fallout from the tensions with Israel. Despite the fact that, as John Mearsheimer recently noted, the confrontation with Israel was won hands down by Israel, a recent poll shows that American Jews are defecting from Obama in droves, with only 42% saying they would now vote for Obama (down from 83% who voted for him in 2008). A recent visit to the White House (“Obama Tries to Mend Fences with Jews“, NYTimes, May 4, 2010)  by Elie Wiesel indicated shows that Obama sees a need to placate the Jewish community:

The lunch meeting between Mr. Wiesel and Mr. Obama came three weeks after Mr. Wiesel took out a full-page advertisement in a number of United States newspapers criticizing the Obama administration for pressuring Mr. Netanyahu to stop Jewish settlement construction in East Jerusalem, where Palestinians would like to put the capital of an eventual Palestinian state.

The advertisement, in which Mr. Wiesel wrote that “Jerusalem is the heart of our heart, the soul of our soul,” alarmed White House officials, in part because it came on the heels of similar advertisements from the World Jewish Congress and grumbling from members of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, a powerful pro-Israel lobbying group, that Mr. Obama was pushing Mr. Netanyahu too hard.

Giving them yet another appointment to the Supreme Court certainly can’t hurt.

Bookmark and Share

The White Advocacy Movement Goes Begging

/62 Comments/in , , , /by

If there’s one central truth about Jewish activism, it’s that no stone is left unturned. Since Jews are a small minority, they must make alliances with sympathetic non-Jews. For example, quite a bit of their money is spent convincing non-Jews of the nobility of the Israeli cause. This video of the recent AIPAC conference focuses on the 1321 student political leaders from 370 colleges in all 50 states who were given all-expenses-paid trips to attend the conference. The vast majority of these students are non-Jews, picked because some among them may well end up having political power and influence in the future. It’s their first lesson in where the money is, and it’s doubtless money well spent.

AIPAC also pays for week-long trips to Israel for Congressmen and journalists at around $5000 per.

JINSA (the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs) has similar programs for politicians who are more advanced in their careers than the students feted by AIPAC. However, the bulk of JINSA’s budget is spent on taking a host of retired U.S. generals and admirals to Israel, where JINSA facilitates meetings between Israeli officials and retired but still-influential U.S. flag officers.

All of this largess has predictable psychological effects. Particularly striking in the AIPAC video is the rock star greeting that the students gave to pro-Israel fanatic Alan Dershowitz, shown passionately asking for any evidence that America’s tilt toward Israel endangers American lives. I guess the Iraq war doesn’t count. I am sure he won’t count the looming war with Iran that is so ardently championed by the Israel Lobby.

But the point here is that all this costs money, and Jewish organizations are lavishly funded. Here are some numbers for public donations to Jewish and de facto Jewish organizations gleaned fromGuidestar.org for 2008:

AIPAC: $52 million; much of AIPAC’s impact is from money that is directly contributed to political candidates by Jews associated with AIPAC rather than from AIPAC’s budget, so the actual amount of money controlled by AIPAC is much larger.

JINSA: $3.5 million. Much of JINSA’s money comes from defense contractors wanting to suck up to the Israel Lobby.

ADL: $59 million in 2008 ($68 million in 2007).

ACLU: $76 million (each state also has a branch; for example  the Southern California branch reported $3.5 million in donations).

$PLC: $32 million.

That’s a brief and  very incomplete glimpse into the  world of (mainly Jewish) philanthropy directed at supporting causes that fit with Jewish political interests — Israel and the anti-White left in America. These organizations get this kind of money every year — at a time when the left is so powerful as to be virtually on auto-pilot. Imagine if there was a real threat from a pro-White movement or if Israel was in danger of losing its iron grip on the US political system. The amounts given to these organizations would skyrocket.

Now let’s look at pro-White advocacy, keeping in mind that we are in far more dire straits in terms of what we can reasonably expect the future to hold than the groups contributing to the organizations listed above.

Right now VDARE.COM is in a financial crisis, and after several weeks is still well short of getting $50,000 in contributions to bridge around half of the gap created when a major foundation donor stopped its funding.

AlternativeRight, a project of the VDARE Foundation,  is also doing a fundraiser with a goal of $50,000, of which they have gotten around $33,000 as of this writing.

The goal for both these sites is $50 thousand, not the well over $50 million that the ADL rakes in every year. I won’t even mention the contributions to this website — small in comparison even to these pro-White sites.

The point is that the funding picture for race realist, immigration patriot, pro-White organizations is ridiculously minuscule compared to the funding of our adversaries.

There are very real consequences to this. The one I want to emphasize here is that vanishingly few people are able to actually make a living by writing for these sites or by being an on-the-ground activist promoting our ideas on college campuses and elsewhere. I recently had a phone conversation with a young 20-something writer and activist on college campuses who told me about his $5000 credit card debt and living in a large house with like-minded others to save money on rent.  Most importantly, he said he was anticipating giving up his position in order to get a real job, get married and have a family — none of which are remotely possible in his current situation. The guys he is living with are doubtless in a similar situation. Pro-White activism is something you can do when you are young and want to live like a college student. But it’s not a viable career option.

And there is the writer of the current TOO article, who goes by the pen name of Simon Krejsa. (He has also written for VDARE). He just emailed me saying that he has entered a homeless shelter in Oshkosh.

And there are the young men associated with A3P, none of whom is receiving a dime for his work despite all the time and energy they are putting into it. Perhaps they too will come to think that their activism will have to take second place to a job that can pay a mortgage and support a family.

There are also quite a few people with advanced degrees who are good writers and on-page intellectually, but who are forced to work in other jobs, typically low paying, just to get by.

It’s pretty pathetic when one contrasts that with the vast resources of the organizations arrayed against us. (One of the things that angers me most is what rich White people do with their money. See “A Tale of Two Rich Guys, Haim Saban and Charles T. Munger.”)Young people who support these anti-White organizations can rest assured that they can have a good middle-class or even upper-middle class income by working for them — and quite a few do. Politicians see nothing but financial and political upside by taking their points of view.

On our side, it’s all self-sacrifice and altruism, especially for the young people who are so essential to any really effective movement. But we will never be effective if that’s the way it’s going to be. A young person active in pro-White advocacy must think not only that there is no future in it, but that pro-White activism when they are young is likely to be a major problem when they apply for a job in the mainstream economy. So they will have to use pen names and hope for the best.

We have to do all we can to make pro-White advocacy a viable career. And that most likely means that we have to find some really big sources of money able to make a credible showing against the seemingly inexhaustible fount of money that can be harnessed by anti-White activists.

Bookmark and Share

Christopher Donovan: Military To Sniff Out 'White Supremacists', Potok Crows

/20 Comments/in , , /by

Christopher Donovan: It’s one thing to realize that universities, the media and the government are largely controlled by those hostile to Whites.  But it’s quite another to realize that even whites’ traditionally core institutions — like the military — have been infiltrated by the same people.  Now comes word that the military is ready to sniff out “white supremacists” — not by tattoo, group affiliation or vocal pronunciations around the barracks, but by nothing more than Internet advocacy.

As the angry comments note, it’s pretty obvious that the military isn’t interested in non-White “supremacist” activity, like the Five Percenters, Black gang members who put up their graffiti in Iraq or Afghanistan, or Islamic radicals who actually do cause big problems within the military.  “Supremacist”, you see, is a nasty-sounding word that only applies to Whites.

(What’s funny to me, as a side note, is how unavoidably “Aryan” the business of being a soldier is to begin with:  young, mostly White men standing ramrod straight, saluting, obeying authority and trained to kill brown people.  Right there, of course, you’ve got a big problem, and if these men weren’t advancing Israel’s cause, they’d be held in far lower esteem by the Jewish power structure — and during the Vietnam war, they were.  You’d think that if there were a clean-cut, hate-filled White man looking to kill non-Whites, the military would be the perfect place for him.  Seems a military made up of wishy-washy liberals wouldn’t be very effective — they’d throw down their weapons and surrender.)

What’s scary about this effort by the military is to read the comment of Mark Potok, the Southern Poverty Law Center’s white-hater in chief, who seems to take credit for the new policy.

He’s quoted:  “The hope is that this clarifies that even advocacy of these kinds of ideas is not consistent with being in the military.”

Wow.  Full-fledged thought control, right in front of us.  Who is this man, who exercises such incredible power — over the entire armed forces, no less?  What, exactly, qualifies him to police the thoughts of White servicemen and women?  He wasn’t elected.  He wasn’t appointed.  He didn’t even enlist.  And yet there he is.

Christopher Donovan is the pen name of an attorney and former journalist. Email him

Bookmark and Share