I am now involved in yet another Twitter war with @nathancofnas. He wrote another diatribe against me in an academic journal that won’t let me reply. One of the threads started with Cofnas claiming I was an ethnic activist (see Twitter feed here). I responded as follows, somewhat edited:
As I said many times, I became an activist AFTER reading the literature on Jewish history, particularly Jewish involvement in promoting non-White immigration to Western countries—facts on the ground—as a defensive strategy. I realized that Jews really are not our friends; they are not on our side, the side of White people of European descent. Before that I was a Reagan-type Republican, mainstream conservative.
By “friends” I mean I came to realize that the the organized Jewish community—the power, the media, and the money—has been directed at promoting an end to the Western European demographic and cultural dominance of the U.S. I have relied on very well documented research by others, including Jewish scholars.
I decided to elaborate on this in what is now my pinned Tweet. It’s an important issue.
I should recount how all this came about. In 1988 I published Social and Personality Development: An Evolutionary Synthesis (NY: Plenum). The last chapter was on the Spartans as a group strategy—highly militarized, high level of top-down discipline, boys socialized to be soldiers, etc. I had the idea that humans, because of our cognitive abilities, could create groups that could be vehicles of selection because cheaters could be punished—think of a military platoon. This was the start of the cultural group selection model—altruistic genes not required. This was very controversial at the time, because of the total dominance of individual selection models. I recall many reacting with scorn and rolling of the eyeballs if there was any mention of group selection. But cultural group selection is now standard thinking for many in the field—including Joseph Henrich in his The WEIRDest People in the World: How the West Became Psychologically Peculiar and Particularly Prosperous (2020), although he doesn’t label it as such.
At the time I was in close contact with David S. Wilson, the premier group selection theorist, and he encouraged me in this direction. So as a follow-up to the Spartans, I settled on Judaism because Jewish history is so well documented, beginning with Paul Johnson’s A History of the Jews and deciding that such an approach could work, then the Old Testament, etc., resulting in A People That Shall Dwell Alone: Judaism as a Group Evolutionary Strategy (Praeger, 1994), which was well-reviewed. But in doing this reading I was exposed to the history of anti-Semitism and decided to use the group approach on anti-Semitism, resulting in Separation and Its Discontents: Toward an Evolutionary Theory of Anti-Semitism (Praeger, 1998). The theoretical basis of this book was social identity theory, argued (in Chapter 1) to be an evolved adaptation for group conflict (see also here). Humans easily identify with groups and have positive evaluations of their ingroups, negative evaluations of outgroups. This naturally includes anti-Jewish attitudes and anti-gentile attitudes on the part of Jews, but also exaggerations and distortions of group-relevant phenomena (e.g., Jewish interpretations of anti-Semitism).
The manuscript for SAID was originally submitted in 1994, but Praeger sat on it for four years (!!). By the time they approved it, it had expanded into two books, with the last chapter of the original manuscript now expanded to the 8 chapters of The Culture of Critique. Both were published in 1998.
In reading the history of anti-Semitism I became aware of the long history of apologia by Jewish writers—Jewish intellectuals as activists for their people (reviewed in Ch. 7 of SAID). This is essentially the approach used in The Culture of Critique.
And along the way, I became much more aware that I had group interests as a White person of European descent—at first a very strange idea for me as a child of the 1960s and former leftist who became gradually more conservative over the years but remaining a mainstream Reagan-type conservative until I began delving into Jewish issues. CofC was ignored by almost all academics for 20 years until Cofnas took several stabs at it from 2018–2023. However, White advocates started contacting me about my ideas after 1998, and I developed links to these activists. So I became something of an activist, long after the project began.
So what started out as a theoretical project aimed at showing the reality of cultural group selection ended up where I am now. All innocent enough to begin with. I have written 4 extensive replies to Cofnas. Apparently he thinks the 5th time is the charm. I rather doubt it. My replies are here: http://kevinmacdonald.net.
https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/TOO-Full-Logo-660x156-1.png00Kevin MacDonaldhttps://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/TOO-Full-Logo-660x156-1.pngKevin MacDonald2023-03-28 13:36:492023-03-30 06:00:09How I got to be an ethnic activist
Every so often someone recites a litany of the wrongs supposedly done by Whites to Blacks in Britain over the years. These litanies draw more on myth than fact.
Consider the one written in 2000 by Stuart Hall, the Jamaican Marxist who had been professor of sociology at the Open University.[1] As though with a weary sigh, he began by calling it an “ancient story, banal in its repetitive persistence”. He went on:
From the early race riots of Nottingham and Notting Hill in 1958, through the 1970s campaigns against the “sus” laws, the death of Blair Peach in 1979, the uproar following the death of Colin Roach in Stoke Newington police station in 1983, the Deptford Fire, the 1980s “disorders” in Brixton and Broadwater Farm, to the murders of Stephen Lawrence in 1993 and Michael Menson in 1997, black and Asian people have been subjected to racialised attacks, had their grievances largely ignored by the police, and been subjected to racially-inflicted policing practices.
He therefore made three accusations for each of his ten examples, namely that Black people had been racially attacked, that the police had largely ignored their grievances and that the police had acted in a racist fashion. If we look into these thirty accusations, we find that only three of them are true.
1. Nottingham race riot (1958)
The Nottingham race riot of August 23rd 1958 began when a White man’s challenge to a Black man sitting with a White woman spiralled into a street fight involving hundreds. Although the episode was described as a “white-on-black terror”, most of those stabbed were White.[2] According to a Black man, people were shocked by the speed and ferocity of the West Indian response.[3] There were no reports of the police ignoring Black grievances or acting unfairly. But Black people were indeed racially attacked so we can give Stuart Hall one justified accusation out of three.
2. Notting Hill race riots (1958)
The Notting Hill riots, which started the following weekend, are said to have begun when a group of Whites and a group of Blacks intervened on different sides in an argument going on outside a tube station between a Swedish woman and her Jamaican husband. Accounts of the disorder that occurred over the next few days vary, but again, although Whites attacked Blacks, Blacks fought back with a vengeance. According to a policeman, a group of Whites was confronted by “what can only be described as a mob shouting threats and abuse and openly displaying various offensive weapons, ranging from iron bars to choppers and open razors”.[4] His shock at seeing these weapons wielded by Blacks suggests that he had seen no such offensive weapons being used by Whites. Nine Whites received exemplary sentences of five years each whereas no one reports any Black people being sent to prison. Nor does there seem to have been any racist policing or any sign of Black grievances being ignored. But since Blacks were indeed attacked, having incidentally been found officially to be sixteen times as racially aggressive as Whites by the time Stuart Hall wrote,[5] we can credit him with another justified accusation, giving him two out of six.
3. Campaign against the “sus” law (1970s)
The Vagrancy Act of 1824, known as the “sus” law, allowed the police to arrest people they found to be acting suspiciously, such as those who appeared to be loitering with intent. According to the campaign against the law, it was “racist” because it netted Black people at a higher rate than others. But if this claim of “racism” was anything like those typically made by anti-racists, it netted Black people at a higher rate because Black people acted suspiciously at a higher rate, not because the police applied the law unfairly to Black people. In this case Black people would have had no legitimate grievance.[6] So Stuart Hall still has only two justified accusations out of what are now nine.
4. Death of Blair Peach (1979)
Blair Peach was killed when he was hit on the head by a policeman during an anti-racist riot in 1979, but he was White, from New Zealand. Still only two out of twelve, now, for Hall.
6. Deptford fire (1981)
When thirteen young Black people died in a fire in Deptford, south London, also known as the New Cross fire, a Black activist launched a campaign blaming the blaze on Whites. It had nothing to do with Whites. It started in a house where a Black party was going on, apparently when someone set the curtains alight with the aid of a flammable liquid such as nail varnish[7] or paint stripper.[8] Nor did the police neglect the case. To show how seriously they were taking it, the investigation was led by the head of the Crime Investigation Department. Still only two out of fifteen for Hall.
7. Brixton riots (1981)
The Brixton riots of April 10th to 12th 1981 were the Black response to a crackdown on mugging launched by the police a few days earlier. No Black people were attacked by Whites, nor did the police act unfairly. They were too busy trying to quell the riots as bricks, fence posts and petrol bombs were hurled at them by young Black men amid the burning vehicles and buildings.[9] Presumably the Black “grievance” here was that the police had launched the crackdown. Still only two out of eighteen for Hall, then.
5. Death of Colin Roach (1983)
The “uproar” that followed the fatal shooting of Colin Roach at the entrance of Stoke Newington police station was created by Black activists, who claimed that he was shot by the police. In fact he took his own life.[10] Still only two for Hall out of 21.
8. Broadwater Farm riot (1985)
No Black people were racially attacked before or during the riot at Broadwater Farm in Tottenham, London. The riot started after a Black woman, Cynthia Jarrett, died from a heart attack when she panicked as the police came to see her about her son, who had given a false name when found in a car with a fake tax disc. As in Brixton, it was the police who were the victims. One officer had a flagstone thrown onto his back as he lay on the ground. Another was hacked to death by young Black men with machetes. Still only two justified accusations out of 24 for Hall.
9. Stephen Lawrence murder (1993)
A young Black man named Stephen Lawrence was murdered by a group of White youths, said the police almost before they had begun their investigation, and the idea was eagerly accepted by the media. Nineteen years later, two White men were convicted, so we can give Stuart Hall one for this. But it was hard to take seriously the official report on the police’s handling of the case, which found them to be “institutionally racist” according to a specially constructed definition. Even the media usually put the term in inverted commas. Although the crime and the police’s long failure to solve it were held up as epitomising the White-Black relationship, the idea that a single murder case can do this does not stand up, especially in view of the many killings of Whites by Blacks, not all of which were perhaps solved promptly. But Hall now has three justified accusations out of 27.
10. Michael Menson murder (1997)
Michael Menson was a young Ghanaian who was killed in London in 1997. As in the case of Stephen Lawrence, his murder was attributed to White youths. But Menson turned out to have been killed by a Mauritian and two Cypriots with the aid of an Arab.[11] Nothing for Hall here, who has still therefore made just three justified accusations out of thirty.
Conclusion
Stuart Hall’s litany was almost entirely bogus, relying mainly on presenting anti-racist myths as true. Rather than Black people having suffered decade after decade at the hands of Whites only for their grievances to be largely ignored by a racist police force, they seem to have had remarkably little to complain about, especially considering that to find even two examples of White wrongdoing Hall had to go back as far as 1958. His litany was just another case of false accusation being used as a weapon against Whites in an attempt to soil their name and make them feel guilty.
[1] Stuart Hall, 2000, “From Scarman to Lawrence”, Connections, Spring 2000. pp. 15-16.
[2] A report in History Today, Jan. 3rd 1999, described the event as anti-black rioting where black people were pursued by mobs screaming “Lynch him, lynch him!”
[5] In 1999 the Commission for Racial Equality stated that eighteen per cent of racial aggression in Britain was due to black people, who made up 1.7 per cent of the population. Whites, at 94 per cent of the population, were responsible for under two-thirds of racially motivated offences. See Commission for Racial Equality, 1999, Racial Attacks and Harassment, CRE Factsheet, http://www.cre.gov.uk/pdfs/attac_fs.pdf, p. 4.
[6] The basis of long-standing demands by anti-racists for stop and search to be discontinued or even for street robbery to be no longer treated as a crime was that black people fell foul of the law at a higher rate than others. The demands were largely met using the concept of “indirect discrimination”, which by definition can only occur where there is no discrimination, in the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000. See (1) Telegraph, Nov. 7th 1999, “Race Bill to end stop and search” and (2) Commission for Racial Equality, Feb. 2000, “Race Relations (Amendment) Bill (briefing note)”, http://www.cre.gov.uk/publs/dl_rrab3.html.
[9] Lord Scarman, 1982 (first published 1981), The Scarman Report: The Brixton Disorders, 10-12 April 1981, Harmondsworth: Pelican-Penguin. See especially Paragraph 3.109.
https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/TOO-Full-Logo-660x156-1.png00Richard Knighthttps://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/TOO-Full-Logo-660x156-1.pngRichard Knight2023-03-28 07:53:572023-03-28 07:53:57The litany of White wrongdoing
Politics is the art of comparing. Experts in foreign policy, let alone self-proclaimed savants, when projecting the end results of the ongoing conflict between Russia and Ukraine are inclined to draw historical parallels, deluding themselves often into self-serving conclusions. For that matter, it’s easier for a historian to deliver his judgments on a past political conflict by using a “causal nexus” approach than for a political scientist, or a legal scholar whose deductive reasonings lead them often to wishful thinking and bizarre conjectures. Very few Western specialists, i.e., Sovietologists, Kremlinologists, etc., could predict in the late 1980s the sudden demise of communism in Eastern Europe, or the abrupt self-dismantlement of the Soviet Union, or the violent breakup of the Western multicultural darling, communist Yugoslavia.
Some parallels with Eastern European states, still scarred and scared by the recent legacy of the communist rule are in order, although this time around, ideological or religious fervor is no longer their driving force. The main motor in today’s nation building, be it in Ukraine, Russia, or elsewhere in the Western hemisphere, is the notion of identity. For many the main priority, although uttered in discretion and in an implicit manner, is the preservation of their ethnic, racial and cultural identity.
Proxy wars, proxy meat
The root causes of the Russian military engagement in the eastern part of the mostly Russophone Ukraine, which runs the risk of degenerating into a worldwide conflagration, has already been well scrutinized by a number of independent observers. Many of them correctly state that the groundwork for the war in eastern Ukraine was laid by the US involvement in the rigged Ukrainian elections in 2014, which was met by the Russian military response in February 2022. Instead of endless speculations as to who is the prime suspect in the outbreak of hostilities in eastern Ukraine, or whose name is to be singled out for blowing up the Nord Stream pipelines in the Baltic Sea, one could resort to a simple rhetorical question instead: Cui bono? Who benefits mostly from the Russo-Ukrainian conflict? The answer then becomes far less difficult to divine. The prime beneficiary seems to be the US hegemon with Biden’s neocon advisers assuming the role of the best and the brightest world-improvers. By no means, however, are they the only instigators or profiteers from the ongoing conflict in Ukraine.
US neocon warmongering notwithstanding, it would be naive to exonerate smaller actors in Russia’s vicinity from all responsibility in fomenting and prolonging the Russo-Ukrainian conflict. With or without communism in Russia, with or without America’s neocons and influential Jewish lobbies, one must keep in mind that there are age-old simmering grudges held by each European state against a first-door European neighbor, especially if the neighbor once upon a time exhibited imperial ambitions. Non-European great powers, the US, Russia, or China can always bankroll smaller European states if those states perceive themselves under threat by their too ambitious European neighbors. Although White nationalists world-wide like to eulogize their ingroup culture and extol their common European racial heritage, there is ample historical evidence that wars between Whites in Europe and America have historically been crueler than wars waged by Whites against alien Others, be they called Jews, Muslims, or Black Africans. This is a powerful argument used by leftists or antifa activists when they rave about the necessity of establishing a stateless, multiracial, and transgender global system instead.
The historical record of each people in Europe during its process of nation-state building often gets clouded by quasi mythical historiographic accounts in which each state depicts itself as a perpetual victim of its villainous neighbor. Finland’s recent bid for entry into NATO is largely spurred by its bad memories of tsarist Russia’s attempt at Russification of the Finish people throughout the nineteenth century — far ahead of the better-known Russian/Soviet invasion of Finland in the winter of 1939–1940. The Poles had laid centuries-old claims to large parts of Russian territory — but tsarist Russia had similar claims on Polish territory, which resulted in several subsequent partitions of Poland. In addition, the Polish historical memory of the Soviet/Russian communist killing fields at Katyn in 1940, where thousands of prominent Poles were executed, can’t go away in Polish national consciousness. Miniature Baltic states whose gene pool was twice severely depleted by Russian/Soviet communist troops in 1940 and 1945 also have bad memories of the former Russian tsarist regime. A neocon apparatchik sitting in a State Department office knows full well that it won’t take a great deal of effort to tap into the pool of historical anti-Russian sentiments among Eastern Europeans, and, if needed, weaponize them for the American imperial project. A significant number of US-Jewish decision makers also have their own beef with Russia, given that their own family tree can be traced to Russian shtetels from which their grandparents were evicted by Tsar Alexander III, and where fierce fighting between the Ukrainian and Russian troops is now taking place. In times of crisis, as witnessed by the case of the Russia’s western neighbor Poland today, the US hegemon can easily whip up the Polish government into anti-Russian frenzy, similar to the Poland’s British- and Jewish-sponsored anti-German hysteria on the eve of World War II.
The Delusion of a common European homeland
Simmering interethnic hatred won’t go away in Europe anytime soon despite all the EU talk about a “common European homeland.” Serb historians in the Balkans have their version of truth concerning the breakup of Yugoslavia in 1991. Croat court historians must stick today to a different narrative fully in line with their new global role in NATO and after assuming the assigned task of policing the southern flank of the EU Schengen regime. The list of nationalist grievances, coupled with exorbitant victimhood stories knows no end among Eastern Europeans. Even a semi-literate peasant in Hungary reminisces often about large chunks of his land lost to anticommunist Romania in 1919 and then lost again to communist Romania in 1945. A modern Polish nationalist is in full agreement with his German nationalist counterpart about having non-European migrants kicked out or banning transgender NGOs from Europe. However, when the German nationalist begins commiserating about the fate of the ancient German city of Danzig — now renamed into Polish Gdansk — let alone dares to propose to his Polish colleague Germany’s tentative recuperation of large swaths of western Poland where millions of Germans once lived, all hell breaks loose. The idea of a “common White European homeland” championed by White nationalists in the US and Europe, sounds then like an exercise in self-delusion. The list of real or unreal grievances and perceived wrongs goes on in every single nation in Europe, stretching from Catalonia to Transnistria, from Brittany to Belarus. Even if Biden’s neocons were miraculously to leave office, even if all migrants, all Jews, all Muslims, all colored resident aliens all of a sudden were to depart from Europe and America, White Europeans and Americans will continue fighting their interethnic wars under the flowery guise of “preserving their cultural and historical memory.” Consider Scotland: still fighting the English while eagerly importing the Third World. From mythical Troy to the very real Thirty Years War, all the way to the lurking Third World War — the entire history of Europe is essentially a history of civil wars.
There’s is a distinct possibility that in case of further escalation of the Russo-Ukrainian conflict, US policy makers at Langley and the Pentagon may consider harnessing client east European states and use them as proxy meat in an effort to downgrade Russia for good. Croatia with its four million citizens, being now a devout member of NATO and the EU — and in stark contrast to Russia-friendly, non-aligned Serbia — could be used by NATO as an important chain of command. Given the lasting animosity between Croatia and Serbia, the scenario of these two countries serving the two equally rival belligerent superpowers cannot be ruled out. Albanian-ruled Kosovo, carved out of Serbia in 2008, could also come into play as a big asset in future US war planning. The large US military base Camp Bondsteel, located in this tiny artificial state, does not serve sightseeing purposes, but rather as main US location for gathering military intelligence.
Historically speaking the Russians understand the ethnic and geopolitical profile of the Balkans very well. Should they start losing ground in Ukraine they might decide to spread the conflict to the Balkans and start destabilizing the entire US security arrangement in Europe. Russia could also use Serbia’s next of kin in the entity known as Republic of Srpska, an important and quasi-sovereign Serb enclave located in the neighboring EU/US sponsored state of Bosnia-Hercegovina. Wedged between Serbia and Croatia, multiethnic and multireligious Bosnia-Hercegovina is yet another EU/US attempt at creating fake political constructs whose expected lifespan hardly exceeds 20 to 40 years on the average. Sooner or later, the state of Bosnia-Hercegovina will fall apart, as was the case earlier with its larger although also artificial predecessor known as the Yugoslav state.
Following the US-sponsored Dayton agreement in 1995 Bosnia-Hercegovina was designated as a Western laboratory for various multicultural experiments. Financially it solely thrives on EU expenditures, along with significant Saudi and Turkish investments, while closely being watched by US proconsuls in the region. Thirty years after it emerged on the map, it is just another showcase example of how multicultural or multiracial countries created by foreign decrees are a blueprint for political instability. A parallel could be drawn with South Africa which 30 years after the all-Black rule can no longer be called a functional state. Yesterday it was the Balkans experiencing disintegration; tomorrow it will be America with similar patterns of ungovernability, with a likely outcome of armed conflicts of its citizens professing different racial identities. Bosnia’s ethnic components consisting of Bosnian Muslims, Christian Orthodox Serbs and a small Catholic Croat community hardly communicate with each other in good faith, each of them looking up to their own traditions. Bosnia’s Muslims look up to Turkey with no hidden historical nostalgia; Serbs from the Republic of Srpska look forward to the fusion with their next-door brethren in Serbia proper in the common hope of having Moscow stand by their side. Croats in Bosnia relish the thought that Croatia proper will always dish out cash subsidies, both convinced that no matter what the odds may be in the Balkans, the US marines will always come to rescue. A single spark from a missile gone astray from the Donbass region could easily ruin their self-delusion and set the fire to all of Europe.
The EU/US Sovietspeek vs. UkroNazis
It is no secret that the most effective fighters against the Russian forces in eastern Ukraine are local rightwing nationalists, as well hundreds if not thousands of foreign White nationalists from Poland, Baltic countries, Scandinavia and Croatia, including an unknown number of volunteers from Canada and the US. They bear the brunt of the war. Also, it remains no mystery that these derisively labeled “UkroNazis” serve as cannon fodder for EU and US policy makers whose own judiciary back home uses repressive legal measures and kangaroo courts against hundreds of the very same White nationalists. What motivates these Ukrainian pseudo-nazis to lay their lives on the line for the interests of US and EU elites? One may suspect that many naively think that in case of a Ukrainian victory, Ukraine will become a safe haven for white nationalists worldwide — sort of an enlarged recap of the first Fascist state in the Croatian port city of Fiume-Rijeka, established in 1919 by the Italian poet D’Annunzio and his squadristi coming from all parts of Europe. Even if such a rehashed commedia dell’arte scenario were to become successful in Ukraine, Ukrainian nationalists will face a very sober and a very different reality.
A case in point: during the breakup of communist Yugoslavia, Croat nationalists, Croat moneyed expats from Sydney to San Francisco, from Stuttgart to Santiago de Chile, along with several hundred US and European foreign volunteers played a significant role in prying Croatia from the Yugoslav-communist fold. Once the war was over, they were quickly silenced and disengaged by the very same people whom they attempted to neutralize in the first place, but whose lives they ironically resurrected instead. Former communist hacks in Croatia and their classier progeny are back in town, albeit rebranded as latter-day liberals blaring EU and US global ukases.
In the near impossible scenario that Ukrainian nationalists score some points of international credibility, once the hostilities are over, they will be removed by the same authorities who are now praising them to the heavens. At this stage EU politicians love decorating EU embassies with Ukrainian flags with the slogan running underneath: “Slava Ukraijini.” The same “slava” adjective, however, if translated into proper German “heil” and if used by a German man sporting those same words in his native language, i.e., “Heil Deutschland” — will land him in prison. Both EU and US officials fake concern about the “inviolability and integrity” of Ukraine’s borders but couldn’t care less about their own make-believe borders stretching along the Aegean Sea and the Rio Grande respectively, which have by now turned into highways for non-European uninvited newcomers.
The Russian authorities are trying to provide some legal cover for their military engagement by invoking the old communist slogan “denazification.” However self-serving this war cry may sound, it does provide Russia’s military engagement with some semblance of legality. All the more so as the mainstream media in Ukraine keep throwing at the Russian military the same criminalizing “nazi” appellation. Resorting, however, to aggressive nationalist sloganeering would signify for Russia a kiss of death, further alienating it from sympathetic antifa elements in the West, as well as friendly countries in Africa and Asia. There is no way for Russia, at least for now, to officially resurrect its past anticommunist and fascist Russian-American figurehead Anastasy Vonsyatsky, or sing the praise of general Andrey Vlasov and hundreds of thousands of his Russian anticommunist ROA fighters battling communist insurgents in Europe alongside their Wehrmacht comrades.
But Washington must also be careful. The present international order, with its post-WWII Nuremberg-inspired International Criminal Court, would have never been established without the communist strongman Stalin. Without massive communist military contribution during WWII, the US and Great Britain would have never been able to win the war on their own against the Axis states. The proposed warrant for Putin’s arrest will definitely backfire as many African and Asian states will increasingly demand similar accountability from the US and Israel for their own military wrongdoings.
The good point about the hyperinflated anti-fascist rhetoric is that it has by now turned into such a grotesque name-calling practice, having fewer and fewer observers believing in its derogatory significance. This word, revamped by the Allies at the 1947 Nuremberg Tribunal into the symbol of the Absolute Cosmic Evil, is still used profusely by Hollywood, ADL, SPLC, and CRIF image makers. Their methods resemble the study of demonology which can easily put to shame ancient Greek mythmakers Homer and Hesiod. But fascist labeling may soon yield opposite results. Constant smearing of rival political actors or dissident academics with shut-up words ‘fascist’, ‘neo-Nazi’ and ‘antisemite’, as is the case with most US and EU media outlets, is becoming for many a badge of honor. One of the reasons Putin’s Russia enjoys significant popularity among nationalist and traditionalist circles in Europe and America is that despite its communist past it has managed to retain many traditional values that had vanished long ago in the West. As has been suggested by some authors, the communist egalitarian utopia fell apart in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union, simply because it had better succeeded in practice in the US and EU. Fancy, albeit meaningless US locutions, hardly translatable into other European languages, such as “diversity”, “affirmative action”, “hate speech”, “ethnic sensitivity training”, etc., used by the US/EU media and judiciary, were long ago tested in communist Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union. The catastrophic abuse of the language by former communist apparatchiks resulted inevitably in the implosion of their countries. Today, the balkanized America and its EU vassal are far less European and far more communist than Russia and Eastern Europe combined.
https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/TOO-Full-Logo-660x156-1.png00Tom Sunic, Ph.D.https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/TOO-Full-Logo-660x156-1.pngTom Sunic, Ph.D.2023-03-26 00:20:292023-03-26 07:59:11The Balkanized US/EU — Brinkmanship in Ukraine and the Balkans
I recently watched a YouTube video that featured a Boise Idaho police officer interacting with two young Black males who were suspected of peeking into cars after midnight which violated a curfew law for minors. They also allegedly matched the description of suspects involved in several vehicle burglaries. This incident occurred in November of 2019.
In the body-worn camera footage, both males were seated on the curb while the officer was trying to get information from them. None of them were handcuffed at this point. The two suspects were verbally chipping away at the officer, although it was comparably mild to what I’ve seen and heard on many other police body-worn camera videos.
The officer, seemingly annoyed, engaged in a verbal dispute with one of the males who was swiftly kicked to the ground when he tried to stand up. The officer ordered this same male to cross his legs as a means of gaining greater control of him. When the male suspect refused the order, the officer handcuffed him and walked him to the rear of his patrol car. It was at this point that the handcuffed suspect kicked the patrol car causing the officer to throw him to the ground. After striking a sign when he fell, the handcuffed suspect began to scream and screech in order to create as much chaos as possible at the scene.
This is a very common overreaction among Blacks when detained or arrested by the police. They do it to gain sympathy from any gullible observers and to make themselves appear as victims of “racist white police officers.”
White Officers Must Adjust to the Racial Climate of the Times
My point in highlighting this incident is not to critically dissect everything that went wrong at the scene, but to illustrate how seemingly large numbers of cops throughout the nation still do not understand the times we are living in. They have not yet adjusted to the political and racial climate of much of the nation in their policing styles. They are caught up in a mindset that is at least twenty years outdated.
What was once generally permissible or at least moderately tolerable in terms of use of force among cops two decades earlier is completely unacceptable today. The times have indeed changed — and yet, many street cops still don’t seem to understand this. They have failed to shift with the tone and mood of how the public expects officers to conduct themselves. Whether we like it or not, officers will get little support from the community they serve if they are seen as disrespectful, officious, or heavy-handed.
This seems like such an obvious and even unnecessary thing to point out, yet I wonder at times whether the average police officer really understands it and the implications. Simply watch the various incidents involving cops on YouTube which records the demeaning attitude and conduct of officers who know full well that they are being recorded on video! How could they be so brazen and seemingly unaware of the public backlash that will occur? I attribute it to arrogance, probably because they’ve gotten away with it throughout much of their career.
Have Officers Forgotten the Law Enforcement Code of Ethics?
Created in 1957, the Law Enforcement Code of Ethics expresses beautifully how officers are to conduct themselves, the level of professionalism they are expected to exhibit regardless of whatever personal biases they may carry. They are to treat the public they serve with respect, civility, and fairness in all they do. Such expressions found within it as: “I will keep my private life unsullied as an example to all and will behave in a manner that does not bring discredit to me or to my agency. I will maintain courageous calm in the face of danger, scorn or ridicule; develop self-restraint; and be constantly mindful of the welfare of others.” And “I will never act officiously or permit personal feelings, prejudices, political beliefs, aspirations, animosities or friendships to influence my decisions. With no compromise for crime and with relentless prosecution of criminals, I will enforce the law courteously and appropriately without fear or favor, malice or ill will, never employing unnecessary force or violence and never accepting gratuities.” This conduct was codified so that each officer knew what was expected of him or her.
Yet does any of that seem to mark the caliber of today’s officers? Granted, many officers throughout the nation conform well to the standards outlined in the Law Enforcement Code of Ethics. But I suspect that a good many do not as is evident in the many police body-worn camera videos available on social media. Far too many officers, it seems to me, have little knowledge of what can and what cannot be done within the limits of the law. They act as if their authority is limitless. They have forgotten everything they were taught about constitutional law during their academy days.
What is it about cops in the age of George Floyd who haven’t yet learned to tone down their rhetoric and conduct when dealing with Blacks — or anyone for that matter? This is especially so for the White officer wearing a body camera so that every word and deed is going to be scrutinized by their own department, the DA’s Office, as well as by the defendant’s civil rights attorneys?
These two young Black males featured in the video above were proverbially yanking the officer’s chain, but he was too caught up in the moment to realize what was being done to him. He allowed them to dictate how things would turn out. He reacted quite predictably as they wanted. How did engaging in a pissing match with two juvenile minority suspects benefit this White officer? It clearly didn’t, and he was lucky things didn’t turn out worse for him.
Boise’s Interim Police Chief, Ron Winegar, called the video “troubling” in an internal department staff email. Winegar later told the Idaho Statesman newspaper in an interview that “the police department’s internal affairs office reviewed and investigated the incident, after being notified by a supervisor and watch commander. The investigation found that “the sum of the conduct depicted in the video was clearly unacceptable,” Winegar said. . . . Winegar added that corrective action — which could be anything from counseling to termination — was taken. He declined to specify what kind. The investigation was closed in April 2020, mayoral spokesperson Maria Weeg told the Statesman in an email” (Alex Brizee, 3/2/2023).
The lesson here is that as a White cop, you’ve got to be smarter, more discerning, and wiser than the criminals and the defense attorneys they employ.
You’ve got to expect that whatever you say and do on a department-issued body-worn camera is going to be used against you if you find yourself in a use-of-force incident, or in an officer-involved shooting. Anything said that even has the slightest hint of “racism,” or suggestive of a “racist motive,” is going to be used to discredit a White officer. They will scour the entirety of his social media comments, his Facebook page, and they will interview other officers and associates in hopes of finding a ‘white supremacist’ they can parade and shame before the public. There is no forgiveness or rehabilitation for such White officers in today’s racially obsessed society bent on destroying any vestiges of White America.
Never forget that soft-minded jurors are going to watch that body-worn camera footage. These folks are in large part sheep — simpletons who believe all they’re told in the mainstream media and on social media. They know little about the realities of police work. If they are White jurors, chances are they have been badly propagandized by current “diversity” dogma. Why, then, would any officer — especially a White officer — potentially raise the ire of a jury by getting into a pissing match with two Black male juveniles? Why make matters worse by throwing one of them onto the pavement which caused his head to strike a nearby sign? The suspect, after all, didn’t kick the officer, he kicked the patrol car. Big deal.
When I was a cop, I had suspects kick my patrol car on several occasions. They would also intentionally bang their heads against the protective metal grill that separates the front seat from the rear seat of the police car. So what? If they were stupid enough to harm themselves in this way, more power to them. The point is that kicking a patrol car upon being arrested doesn’t justify throwing a handcuffed suspect to the ground. The officer should have restrained him better and made sure to secure him inside the car while causing no physical injuries to the arrestee.
The primary officer involved in this altercation, Tyson Cooper, a nearly seven-year veteran of the Boise Police Department, appears to have gotten off easily in this case. His chief was unwilling to provide to the Idaho Statesman details about corrective disciplinary measures given to the officer, and he remains employed by his department. I doubt this would have been the same outcome if Cooper were employed as an officer in any big city, blue-state police department. He’s lucky that Idaho is a staunchly red state, and even though Boise has a growing politically liberal enclave, there is still a large population that supports its police officers.
You Get What You Give to Others
Prior to my retirement, I was a police officer for many years. For fifteen years of my professional career, I was a Field Training Officer. My specialty was to train new officers fresh from the academy how to do police work the right way. I taught them in practical ways how to handle emergency calls, principles of officer safety, how to conduct a thorough criminal investigation, how to interview suspects, how to get information from witnesses, including the policies of our agency, relevant case law, and how to have a long and productive career in law enforcement.
I taught each of the new officers assigned to me that they were expected to treat everyone with respect and dignity and that, contrary to what some sour or cranky veteran officer might say, it would never benefit them in the long run to talk down to people. Even the criminals in the city I worked for were treated fairly and respectfully because that was the culture of our department, one that I wish more agencies followed as strictly as we did. We all knew that our investigations would be hampered, and we would not get as far if we were demeaning and officious toward those whom we contacted. Arrestees were more inclined to give us confidential information if we treated them with common courtesy and civility.
None of this negated the truth that there are times when an officer must talk directly to people in terms they can understand. There is a time for everything, and police work is not always pretty. But these should be rare occasions, and never the routine way an officer should speak to people. I taught new officers that their approach with people should always be on a calm, low-key level unless circumstances dictate otherwise. I essentially taught them the “Columbo method” of contacting and interviewing people which at its core is unassuming and nonauthoritative. You talk to people as you would have them to talk to you. You still aim to have your questions answered. You’re still doing your investigative job as an officer. You’re just doing it in a subtle and inquisitive manner as opposed to one where you’re acting officious, threatening, or dictatorial. Time after time, this approach proved fruitful in my investigations.
More than that, I taught these same officers the principle that if there are going to be any mistakes, let it be the suspect who makes them. The perceptive officer realizes that he or she has the greater price to pay if they are caught doing something stupid or illegal to a suspect. That price is being sued and losing one’s home, one’s livelihood, or even a prison sentence. In an age where there is a greedy attorney on every street corner, and where Americans are ready to sue others at the drop of a hat, why would any officer negate or downplay such practical realities?
The sensible officer, then, knows he is always being watched. Even when he thinks no one is watching him, there’s always some citizen observing and possibly even recording him—likely a big reason why there is a huge upsurge of crime in big cities, as police are reluctant to do their job. There’s no real or guaranteed privacy when you’re attired in a blue uniform. More reason, then, to conduct oneself in a professional and courteous manner when interacting with anyone, no matter who he or she may be or what you may think of them.
Here’s another thing to consider. Just as a criminal defendant might try to portray himself as innocent to a potentially sympathetic jury, so also the smart officer plays to the jury in portraying himself as innocent too. The difference is that while the criminal defendant does his best to convince the jury after he’s been arrested and while standing trial, the officer does his convincing before and during any arrest.
In other words, his words, respectful demeanor, and professional and policy-abiding conduct at the scene of any arrest or use of force serves as his defense before the jury. What real need is there to persuade a jury that the officer’s actions were justified and without malice when they can watch the body-worn camera footage for themselves and see how the officer conducted himself throughout the entire ordeal?
Granted, there are no guarantees because any body-camera footage must still be filtered through someone’s interpretation of the events. I’m also not denying that the most well-behaved officers may still need to testify before a jury or a judge to explain what they have done and why. My point is simply that the officer is more than likely going to be vindicated in his actions if he behaved in good faith and sought fully to conform to the law and departmental policy.
The smart officer, then, anticipates how a later jury or judge will rule dependent on how he communicates and behaves at the scene.
This must always be in the forethought of an officer when dealing with anyone. This means he doesn’t verbally belittle any suspects he contacts (commonly referred to as “jacking up” someone). He doesn’t intentionally provoke them so that a use-of-force incident ensues. All of this will later be carefully investigated, and if it’s shown that the officer was guilty of goading the suspect to react the way he or she did, the officer will be held accountable (or, at least, should be) which may result in a suspension or even termination.
The same principle applies to an experienced officer during a DUI investigation. He knows that a defense attorney will later try to pick apart everything he did at the scene of his arrest. So, he makes sure to perform a careful and full DUI investigation, followed by a meticulous arrest report in which he anticipates and addresses the kinds of objections that the defendant’s attorney will later raise during trial.
Everything a prudent officer does, then, is a form of risk management in which he forecasts and prepares for any damages or accusations that his conduct might later bring.
The Value of Body-Worn Cameras
What an officer says and does on his body-worn camera can either destroy or justify an officer’s continuing career in police work. I recall being asked by another officer years ago about the value of body-worn cameras when they first came out. He felt they were an intrusion of the officer’s privacy and would skew the opinions of anyone watching the resulting footage of any incident. I disagreed and told him that body-worn cameras would do no such thing. If an officer routinely spoke down to others or in any way mistreated them, body-worn cameras would surely ruin the careers of such officers and rightly so!
On the other hand, body-worn cameras would also serve to justify an officer’s use of force if he did what was right within the law and departmental policy. Body-worn cameras would also vindicate officers who were wrongly accused by citizens of misconduct or any other inappropriate behavior. I can personally attest that the body-worn cameras I wore saved my bacon on more than a few occasions when I was falsely blamed for things I never said or did. In the absence of video evidence, many juries, propagandized by the Defund-the-Police movement, are likely to assume the worst about the officer and side with the arrestee. Body-worn cameras to my way of thinking, then, became an important and protective tool that was just as integral to my job as my firearm, portable radio, and handcuffs.
Dealing with “Constitutional Audits”
Another thing to address is the popularity of “constitutional audits” seen on social media in which individuals record the activities of officers while in public. Whether the officers are arresting or questioning someone, or just engaged in writing a minor traffic violation, they are routinely video-recorded by “auditors” who claim to be holding them to constitutional accountability for anything they say or do in their official capacity. Some officers are annoyed by it, but most take it in stride. The truly disturbing thing about it is how many officers are easily provoked by the auditors and completely “nut up” while being recorded. How embarrassing to have been filmed getting easily triggered while violating the U.S. Constitution at the same time, and then having it plastered all over social media!
Many of these same auditors, of course, are intentionally trying to antagonize the officers, to get a rise out of them, and possibly a lucrative settlement for false arrest. Some of them have been quite successful at it too! The officers who succumb to having their chains yanked by these folks seem often to have little awareness that American citizens are permitted to film them when they are in public. So long as they do not prevent an officer from performing his or her duties, such public recordings are perfectly legal. What’s worse is how many officers will seemingly create out of thin air a reason to arrest an auditor. I have repeatedly watched on YouTube obscure legal justifications on the part of officers for detaining and arresting an auditor simply because he’s recording them in a public place. Many of these same officers are soon corrected by a supervisor who arrives on scene, and they’re forced to walk away in shame.
What these officers don’t seem to understand is that times have changed. The days when officers were respected by the general public are largely over. The era when people would just do as an officer told them by virtue of his authority has passed. The country has changed, and that for the worse. Their word is no longer trusted. Our judges don’t even trust them. An anti-authority mentality has gripped much of the country. Cops aren’t seen as good guys trying to protect us, but as “racist bullies with a badge” who can’t wait to gun down any Black person they see. A blatantly distorted picture, no doubt, but that’s how many easily manipulated Americans see it.
This negative opinion of police officers is more widely held than people think, though admittedly it’s not as prevalent in majority-White regions of the U.S. Our own federal government and its complicit media have so badly poisoned the mood of the country and its view of cops, that it’s not surprising to find that almost every police department throughout the nation is having great difficulty recruiting candidates and retaining them.
The anti-police mentality that prevails throughout much of the country, then, is really a symptom of the greater breakdown of our society. When traditional norms are constantly under attack, including that of the family, historic American institutions, and all forms of authority, it should surprise no one why there would not also be virulent attacks on cops.
This is not meant to deny that some officers have abused their authority and rightly earned the hate they’ve received. But all things considered, they comprise a small number compared to the overwhelming number of officers who comply with their sworn oath and conduct themselves honorably. For an in-depth and critical look at the widespread lies and outright distortions about police officers, I highly recommend two books authored by Heather Mac Donald: Are Cops Racist? (2010) and The War on Cops (2017). Both works serve as a corrective to the falsehoods promoted by such groups as BLM and other radical anti-police organizations. Mac Donald, unlike the great majority of mainstream conservatives, is not naïve about racial realities and she understands well the anti-White climate that has taken root in our society (see her The Diversity Delusion, 2019). This is from a recent article:
The perpetrators in this wave of predation are overwhelmingly gang members and overwhelmingly black. (At street takeovers, by contrast, it is not unusual to see Mexican flags.) Since Floyd’s death in May 2020, the mainstream media and Democratic elites have relentlessly sent the message that blacks are the victims of endemic racism. President Joe Biden claims that the criminal-justice system treats blacks unfairly. That message inevitably spreads into such underclass enclaves as South Central Los Angeles, where it produces more alienation and contempt for the law.
Yet, who would want to be a cop in an era when they are despised by so many and viewed as “white supremacists” ready and eager to gun down all minorities? White people seeking a career in police work, then, better prepare themselves for how they will be perceived by much of the public, especially so if they choose to work in a community with a large minority demographic.
These same easily triggered officers have forgotten that they are sworn “peace officers.” If that term means anything, it surely implies that those given authority to protect the public ought to have the qualities of a peacemaker, a person who instead of bullying or instigating conflicts is known rather as calming things down as well as respecting the rights of all.
Finally, White officers working in the law enforcement profession in the era of George Floyd need to be especially on guard when dealing with Blacks or any minority group. Your words and actions are going to always be carefully sifted through the lens of race, more so than any Black, Asian or Hispanic officer. You might not think it’s fair to be specifically targeted in this manner, and it isn’t. But that’s the kind of society we have deteriorated into, and it should surprise no one why we and the civilization we built are in decline as a result.
Conclusion
Strange as it may sound, the White officer must intentionally put on his kid gloves when dealing with Blacks. If you expect to have a long police career, not get successfully sued and lose everything you own, or not find yourself serving a prison sentence in protective custody, you need to be strategically smarter and wiser than the hostile Blacks you encounter on the streets. This doesn’t mean you debase yourself or jettison your dignity, but only that you watch your words, watch your attitude, and conduct yourself in a way that doesn’t provide ammunition to those who would be happy to destroy you and your way of life.
If you’re unable to do this, then I’d recommend you get out of police work altogether. This once-respected profession has fast become one geared for compliant government types who will do nothing to oppose tyranny so long as they are paid handsomely. The assumption that most officers will uphold the Constitution they’ve sworn to protect is naïve at best. If the federal government or their own agency were to require them to confiscate the firearms of law-abiding citizens, I fear most of them would put up little resistance to such an order.
Racially conscious Whites who have eyes to see what is being done to them and their once great nation, might want to think twice before endeavoring in a law enforcement career that assents to all the basic ideas and ‘values’ of a tyrannical system that stands against the racial and cultural interests of Heritage Americans.
The future of American law enforcement
https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/TOO-Full-Logo-660x156-1.png00RockaBoatushttps://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/TOO-Full-Logo-660x156-1.pngRockaBoatus2023-03-24 00:06:452023-03-24 07:25:50Policing in the Era of George Floyd: Advice for White Officers
Regicide — the killing of a king — is at the heart of chess. But most people don’t know that. When a victorious player announces “Checkmate,” he’s really saying “Shah mat,” which traditionally means “The king is dead” in Persian.
Slater self-slaughters
The Trotskyist libertarian Tom Slater has recently got it the other way around. He knew he was saying “Shah is dead,” but he didn’t realize that he was also announcing “Checkmate” for himself and his comrades. What am I talking about? Well, seven years after it happened, Furedi’s fanatical freedom fighters have finally given the horrible murder of Asad Shah a little of the attention that it has always deserved. Tom Slater is the editor of the web-magazine Spiked Online, where cognitive clones of the Jewish sociologist Frank Furedi gather to demand the greatest possible freedom for the greatest possible number. Inspired by the mass-murdering Jewish megalomaniac Leon Trotsky, they are particularly vocal about free speech. They want lots more of it, but they can’t be honest about why there’s lots less of it in the modern West.
Frank Furedi’s ferocious freedom-fighter Tom Slater
Some of the Muslims whom Tom Slater wants to enter Britain in unlimited numbers (Photograph: EPA)
Slater’s recent article at Spiked was a good example of that dishonesty and of the bullshit peddled by libertarians who warmly welcome mass migration from the Third World, but don’t welcome its inevitable consequences. The article is called “The shameful story of Britain’s backdoor blasphemy laws.” It should be called “The entirely predictable story of Britain’s backdoor blasphemy laws.” Slater wrote well and reasoned woefully as he finally broke Spiked ’s “shameful” seven-year silence on the horrible murder of a gentle and tolerant Ahmadi Muslim called Asad Shah. He described how Shah was stabbed and stamped to death by the mainstream Muslim Tanveer Ahmed in 2016, but he wasn’t honest about why the murder happened. Slater said that the Ahmadis are “a small Muslim sect deemed to be heretical by many Muslims.” In fact, they’re deemed heretical by all orthodox Muslims, and in Pakistan Ahmadis are forbidden by law from referring to themselves as Muslim and practising the standard Muslim faith. Slater didn’t mention any of that, for obvious reasons. I give him credit for finally discussing Shah’s murder, but he is still being dishonest and evading the truth. The subtitle of his article ran like this: “Liberal cowardice has fuelled Islamic intolerance — and cost lives.” In fact, the only role played by “liberals” in the murder of Asad Shah was that of allowing Tanveer Ahmed to enter Britain. He came here with his “Islamic intolerance” fully formed and was ready to accept any judicial consequences for putting it into practice.
Islam + free speech = Islam
In other words, no amount of “liberal courage” would have stopped him stabbing and stamping Asad Shah to death. After doing that, he waited calmly at a bus-stop to be arrested, put on trial and sentenced to life in prison. In the eyes of other orthodox Muslims, he was now a ghazi, a “hero” who had defended the honor of the Prophet against a blasphemous Ahmadi. If Britain still had the death-penalty, he would have accepted execution just as readily. That would have made him not just a ghazi but also a shahid, a “martyr” for Muhammad. After all, Pakistan still honors the sacred memory of Ghazi-Shahid Ilm-Deen, a Muslim saint who stabbed a Hindu blasphemer to death in 1929 and was executed under the British Raj. A few years later, in 1938, Muslims living in Britain “ceremoniously committed to the flames” a copy of H.G. Wells’s A Short History of the World (1922), because it contained what they considered to be offensive references to the Prophet Muhammad. Muslims attack free speech because they are Muslims, not because they are emboldened by “liberal cowardice.”
Slater did not mention any of that highly relevant history in his article about Asad Shah. Nor did he explain why leftists have imported Muslims into Britain in such large numbers. If he’d done that, he couldn’t have pretended that “liberal cowardice” was to blame for Islamic intolerance. And why have leftists imported Muslims? Because they want to use Muslims as footsoldiers in the leftist war on the Christian West, of course. That’s why leftists don’t want to challenge Muslims in any way. The rape-gangs of Rotherham operated with impunity under a Labour council and a Labour MP called Denis MacShane. When MacShane was jailed for fraud in 2013, he was saluted at the Jewish Chronicle as “one of the [Jewish] community’s greatest champions.” In other words, he’d done what he became a Labour MP to do: serve rich Jews and spit on working-class Whites. As its very name proclaims, the Labour party was founded to champion the White working class, but it was long ago subverted and taken over by Jewish money and Jewish ideology. Now it hates the White working-class and works to harm their interests, even as it works to import and privilege non-Whites from the violent, corrupt and diseased Third World.
Cognitive controller Frank Furedi
Tom Slater and his comrades at Spiked haven’t merely celebrated Third-World immigration: for decades they’ve demanded open borders for Third-Worlders to flood in without limit. That’s why they have to pretend that “liberal cowardice has fuelled Islamic intolerance.” It hasn’t. Leftists hate free speech and have imported Muslim enemies of free speech as allies in their battle to censor and silence their right-wing and race-realist enemies. Libertarians have played the role of useful idiots in all that. And when Slater complains about “state multiculturalism” encouraging Muslims “to see themselves as separate and distinct,” he fails to mention that leftism in general, just like Trotskyism in particular, feeds off division and separatism. Migration and multiculturalism go together as naturally as Marxism and mendacity, because the same anti-White elite that imposed non-White migration on the unwilling White majority was, naturally enough, eager to begin privileging non-Whites over Whites. When Slater’s cognitive controller Frank Furedi celebrated the resistance of his birthplace Hungary to “all the crap” of wokeness, he didn’t mention that Hungary resists wokeness because Hungary is still overwhelmingly White.
And Hungary intends to remain that way, because it isn’t ruled by lovers of open borders like Frank Furedi. The Hungarian prime minister Viktor Orbán believes in “procreation, not immigration.” That’s why he’s denounced as a racist and anti-Semite by minority-worshipping leftists in the ethnically enriched West. The Whiteness of Hungary explains why subversive, anti-White organizations like Black Lives Matter (BLM) aren’t able to take root and metastasize there. There aren’t enough Blacks and other non-Whites in Hungary to provide fertile soil for pernicious Jewish ideologies like Critical Race Theory (CRT). But there are more than enough non-Whites in Britain for CRT to take root. And more than enough Muslims for “Islamic intolerance” to flourish here. Indeed, Slater inadvertently explained another big reason for Muslims to be “intolerant” in defense of their faith:
Freedom of speech would not exist without blasphemy, without radicals and troublemakers who dared to say heretical, rude and offensive things about Gods and prophets. This is what freedom of speech is built on. To throw all of that out in an attempt to shield a religious group from offence is not caring or anti-racist. Quite the opposite. It smears all Muslim Brits as hardline and intolerant, incapable of having their views challenged, incapable of being full and equal citizens in a modern liberal democracy, relegated to the status of overgrown infants or volatile brutes who must be tiptoed around forever. (The shameful story of Britain’s backdoor blasphemy laws, Spiked Online, 12th March 2023)
Muslims and the leftists who import them don’t want Muslims to be “full and equal citizens.” They want Muslims to be superior to Whites and Christians. And Muslims don’t believe in “modern liberal democracy.” They can see very clearly what has happened to Christianity thanks to free speech and secularism. Christianity has degenerated and now grovels before secularism and before other religions. Here, for example, is the degenerate Justin Welby, the current archbishop of Canterbury, literally groveling before non-Whites in Hindu India:
Justin Welby, “the definition of all that is wrong in modern Man”
As Andrew Joyce has said of Welby at the Occidental Observer: “At the heart of this disease [of GloboHomo in Christianity] is the Archbishop of Canterbury and leader of the Church of England, Justin Welby, a man who looks [as if] ten minutes of manual labor would actually kill him. He is the definition of all that is wrong in modern Man.” Compare Welby with the imam who sat beside a white policeman performing the kaffir krawl in the latest case of “liberal cowardice”:
Would that imam grovel before non-Muslims? Of course not. Would he apologize for any of Islam’s numerous crimes? Of course not. Unlike the vast majority of modern Christians, he would happily die for his faith. It’s also obvious that he would happily kill for it, like these energetic and enthusiastic Muslims in his Pakistani homeland:
A mob in eastern Pakistan stormed a police station on Saturday [11th February 2023], snatched a Muslim man accused of blasphemy from custody and lynched him, in the country’s latest religion-linked killing. Muhammad Waris, in his mid-30s, was in police custody in Nankana Sahib, in Punjab province, for desecrating pages of the Qur’an.
“The angry mob stormed the police station using a wooden ladder, dragged him out and beat him to death,” Waqas Khalid, a police spokesperson, told the Guardian. “After lynching, they were still not satisfied and tried to burn his body,” he added.
There have been a number of cases in Muslim-majority Pakistan of angry mob killings of people accused of blasphemy, the most high-profile among them the lynching of a Sri Lankan citizen in 2021. Blasphemy is a highly sensitive issue in Pakistan, where even false allegations can stir violence. Under Pakistani law, charges of blasphemy carry the death penalty. Video of the incident posted on social media showed hundreds of young people surrounding a police station. There was footage of people dragging a man by his legs in the street, stripping him naked and beating him with metal rods and sticks. (Mob storms Pakistan police station and lynches man accused of blasphemy, The Guardian, 12th February 2023)
That kind of thing happens regularly in Pakistan: see Wikipedia’s “List of blasphemy cases in Pakistan.” But you won’t see any mention of such things in Spiked, because Tom Slater and his comrades prefer to ignore how Pakistanis and other Muslims behave on their home-ground. After all, it’s embarrassingly clear that “liberal cowardice” in Britain does nothing to “fuel” “Islamic intolerance” in Pakistan. The same kind of Pakistani Muslims are now destroying free speech in Britain because of mass migration, not because of “liberal cowardice.” The only way to avoid conflict with or capitulation to fanatics like that is not to let them enter your country. Leftists, of course, want to collaborate with fanatics like that in the leftist war on the White West and its Christian heritage. And how have the libertarian Tom Slater and his comrades responded as, decade after decade, leftist enemies of free speech have imported Muslim enemies of free speech? They’ve warmly supported it. Now Slater is lamenting the entirely predictable consequences. He’s also asking: “Did we learn nothing from Asad Shah?”
Well, Tom, it’s difficult to learn lessons from a murder if for seven years you never acknowledge that it took place, let alone discuss it and stress its horrible significance. In all that time, Slater and other senior writers at Spiked never did acknowledge the murder of Asad Shah. By contrast, I’ve been discussing it at the Occidental Observer and stressing its horrible significance ever since it happened: see here, here, here, here, here, here and here. To his credit, Tom Slater has now broken the “shameful” silence at Spiked. To his discredit, he is still refusing to be honest about Asad Shah’s death. It was not the product of “liberal cowardice,” but of Muslim migration and leftist malice. You cannot protect blasphemers with bullshit. The self-proclaimed libertarians at Spiked support both free speech and open borders. That’s not merely stupid: it’s suicidal.
https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/TOO-Full-Logo-660x156-1.png00Tobias Langdonhttps://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/TOO-Full-Logo-660x156-1.pngTobias Langdon2023-03-22 00:01:442023-03-22 02:47:40Blasphemy and Bullshit: Muslim Migration and Leftist Malice Fuel Islamic Intolerance, Not “Liberal Cowardice”
Writing for the traditionally neocon-friendly Claremont Institute, Christopher Caldwell (Summer, 2022) describes the unintended consequences of the Ukraine war—consequences that are indeed playing out now.
Caldwell starts out with Prof. John Mearsheimer’s view on the causes of the war:
[2014] was a hinge year. Ukrainian diplomats had been negotiating an “association agreement” with the European Union that would have created closer trade relations. Russia outbid the E.U. with its own deal, which included $15 billion in incentives for Ukraine. President Viktor Yanukovych signed it. Protests, backed by the United States, broke out in Kiev’s main square, the Maidan, and in cities across the country. By then the U.S. had spent $5 billion to influence Ukraine’s politics, according to a 2013 speech by State Department official Victoria Nuland. Russia now viewed this activity as having funded subversion and revolt. Like every Ukrainian government since the end of the Cold War, Yanukovych’s government was corrupt. Unlike many of them it was legitimately elected. When shootings near the Maidan in Kiev left dozens of protesters dead, Yanukovych fled the country, and the United States played a central role in setting up a successor government.
Meddling with vital Russian interests at Russia’s doorstep turned out to be more dangerous than orating about democracy. Rather than see the Russophone and pro-Russian region of Crimea transformed from a Russian naval stronghold into an American one, Russia invaded it. “Took over” might be a better verb, because there was no loss of life due to the military operation. Whether the Russian takeover was a reaction to American crowding or an unprovoked invasion, one thing was clear: In Russia’s view, Ukraine’s potential delivery of Crimea to NATO was a more serious threat to its survival in 2014 than—to take an example—Islamic terrorism had been to America’s in 2001 or 2003. Understanding that Russia would respond accordingly to any attempt to wrest it back, Russia’s European and Black Sea neighbors tended thenceforth to treat Crimea as a de facto part of Russia. So, for the most part, did the United States. The Minsk accords, signed by Russia and Ukraine, were meant to guarantee a measure of linguistic and political autonomy in the culturally Russian Donbass. (Russia claims the violation of these accords as a casus belli.)
Contrast that with the neo-liberal position which is basically a moral crusade:
There is, of course, a different explanation, the moral/psychological explanation put forward by the Biden administration and its defenders. It differs from Mearsheimer’s account not so much in facts as in its apportionment of moral blame. In this account, the spur to war was not American encroachment but the erratic behavior of Russian president Vladimir Putin. …
Putin certainly had reasons to wish Ukraine kept in Russia’s sphere of influence. But in most Western accounts of what led to the invasion of Ukraine last February, these reasons are presented as psychopathological, not geostrategic. Putin comes off as Hitler. He wants to reconstitute the Soviet Union. Or the tsarist empire. …
Those who back a bigger role for the West in supporting Ukraine often put their position in the form of a question: once he gets control of Ukraine, why should Putin stop there? The question has a simple answer: because he knows something about history and he can count. He doesn’t have the guns. He doesn’t have the soldiers. Putin invaded Ukraine with 190,000 men. That is just slightly more than the 170,000 Soviet soldiers who died trying—and failing—to retake the city of Kharkov in 1942. There were four battles of Kharkov in World War II, and Kharkov was only one of the cities fought over.
What we’ve been saying all along. This is really about exporting globalism and leftist political orthodoxy to the rest of the world and it’s corollary of maintaining a unipolar world dominated by the United States. They even said so: “In March 24 [2022], a month after Russian tanks rolled across Ukraine’s borders, the Biden White House summoned America’s partners (as its allies are now called) to a civilizational crusade. The administration proclaimed its commitment to those affected by Russia’s recent invasion—“especially vulnerable populations such as women, children, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex (LGBTQI+) persons, and persons with disabilities.” Because of Western intervention since 2014, Ukraine has been completely transformed:
Few people have paid attention to how rapidly Ukrainian society has been evolving since the Maidan protests. In a recent interview in the New Left Review, the sociologist Volodymyr Ishchenko described a power bloc that has lately come into being, uniting Ukraine’s globalizing oligarchs, Western-funded progressive foundations, and Ukrainian nationalists. The latter argued for ripping up the Minsk accords and ripping out the Russian roots of Ukrainian public life and high culture, leaving Ukraine with a hard-line form of political correctness. After 2014, according to Ishchenko, “a wide range of political positions supported by a large minority, sometimes even by the majority, of Ukrainians—sovereigntist, state-developmentalist, illiberal, left-wing—were blended together and labeled ‘pro-Russian narratives’ because they challenged the dominant pro-Western, neoliberal and nationalist discourses in Ukraine’s civil society.” Those who hold such views have often felt driven out of public life.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, today the symbol of resolute anti-Russian resistance, has himself undergone a transformation. An influential Ukrainian actor and TV producer, he won a landslide in 2019 on the promise he would render life tolerable for the Russia-friendly east. His popularity quickly eroded, according to Ishchenko, and shortly after the Biden inauguration, Zelensky began censoring Russophile channels, websites, and blogs.
Ukrainian democracy! This really comes down to the threat of World War III. Russia clearly sees the war as existential (see Putin’s February speech: “This means they plan to finish us once and for all. In other words, they plan to grow a local conflict into a global confrontation. This is how we understand it and we will respond accordingly, because this represents an existential threat to our country”). And the West sees a loss as a mortal threat to their hegemony, their globalization project, and their exporting hardline political correctness to the rest of the world, as has already happened in Ukraine.
American immunity from danger may be illusory. The progress of technology has imperceptibly eroded a longstanding distinction between supporting a combatant and entering the fray as a combatant oneself. In June, the U.S. began providing Ukraine with M142 HIMARS computer-targeted rocket artillery systems, and these present the problem in an acute form: the role of technology in the lethality of a weapon has grown to the point where the role of the human warrior is, relatively speaking, rendered negligible. An encounter with a sword is an encounter with a swordsman. An encounter with an arrow is an encounter with an only slightly more distant bowman. But an encounter with an M31 rocket fired from a HIMARS launcher is an encounter with General Dynamics. And it is the human warrior who is the repository of all the longings-to-be-vindicated and the sacrifices-freely-undertaken that consecrate war as a cause. With advanced weaponry, the soldier operating it almost doesn’t need to be there. Which is to say that, in this proxy war between Russia and the United States, Ukraine doesn’t need to be there. In these HIMARS artillery strikes, in the assassinations by drone of Russian officers, in the sinking of naval ships with advanced missiles, it is the United States, not Ukraine, that has become the battlefield adversary of Russia.
The substitution of high-tech for competent soldiers is likely what the trans-friendly, diverse and inclusive, politically correct military military brass is counting on to retain fighting capability.
The U.S.’s extensive financial sanctions on Russia have had little, if any, cost to Russia (see Putin’s speech) while it has motivated Russia to abandon the U.S. dollar as a mechanism of international trade, which is also something that China doubtless views positively. Moreover, because of the sanctions, Russia is insulated from any repercussions of the current bank implosion occurring in the U.S.—a crisis that has happened in large part because of the rapid rise in interest rates (rendering older bonds with lower yield held by institutions like Silicon Valley Bank relatively worthless) because the Fed felt it necessary to use higher interest rates to combat inflation which was in turn caused at least in part by increases in energy prices caused by the Ukraine war and by sanctions on Russian energy in conjunction with the Biden administration’s opposition to the domestic drilling industry and its obsession with clean energy, and because Biden goosed the financial system with trillions of dollars in federal spending. As I write, it’s not possible to predict the effects of the banking crisis on markets.
Rather than beg its way back into the U.S.-led global financial order, the Russians are trying to build a new one with new partners [like China]. They have a chance of pulling it off. In a speech at a June [2022] economic forum in St. Petersburg, Putin complained that the roughly $10 trillion that any trading country must hold in dollar and Euro currency reserves is being devalued at 8% a year by U.S. inflation. “Moreover,” he said, “they can be confiscated or stolen any time if the United States dislikes something in the policy of the states involved” [which has already been done to $284 billion of Russian money in Western banks at the behest of the U.S.]. Putin called for a replacement for the SWIFT system. “The development of a convenient and independent payment infrastructure in national currencies is a solid and predictable basis for deepening international cooperation,” he said. Until recently such an appeal would have fallen on deaf ears. This time it did not.
The times are definitely changing, and the war against Russia has made countries like China aware that the U.S. can always do the same to them—like embark on another moral crusade against China’s oppression of the Uyghurs or the Indian caste system.
In part, the great story we see playing out is the fulfillment of a prediction that people have been making for a generation: power and influence are shifting away from the United States and Europe, and toward Asia. In the 1990s, when the United States was imposing its will on Iraq and Kosovo, the G7 made up 70% of the world economy. Today it makes up 43%. India and China are both giant export markets for Russian oil and gas. It is clear why Russia would want to sell to India and China. The more complicated question is why India (tacitly) and China (explicitly) would back Russia against what American progressives call the “rules-based international order.” …
Yes, the West “swiftly moved” against Russia, but six months in, these moves seemed surprisingly ineffective. The reason is that, no matter where you place the fulcrum and the lever, Russia, China, and India collectively are now too much for the United States to lift. Inducements can be offered to get one country to break solidarity with the other two. But cooperating would be foolish, on any terms. At the end of the day, a country that permits itself to be isolated by the United States this way is increasing the risk that it will itself be subjected to a media-and-boycott campaign of destruction like the one we are now witnessing with Russia. A few words about the condition of the Uyghurs, a few talking points on Hindu nationalism, and the U.S. can crank this whole machinery of economic destruction into operation against China or India. They know it, too. The Italian writer Marco D’Eramo reported that, after a March 18 phone call between Biden and Xi Jinping, one Chinese anchorman joked that Biden’s message had been: “Can you help me fight your friend so that I can concentrate on fighting you later?”
The attempt to isolate Russia from the American world system has had a striking unintended consequence—the possible founding of an alternative world system that would draw power away from the existing one. Twenty years ago, under George W. Bush, the United States removed the Iraqi deterrent from Iran’s neighborhood, transforming Iran overnight into a regional power. This year, under Joe Biden, the United States has made China a gift of Russia’s exportable food and mineral resources. We are displaying an outright genius for identifying our most dangerous military adversary and solving its most pressing strategic challenge. The attention of China is now engaged. Joe Biden argues that any wavering in the cause of obliterating Russia will be understood by China as a green light on Taiwan. He may have a point, but the U.S. management of the Ukraine situation over the past decade has constituted encouragement enough.
The multipolar world is coming into being and is being speeded up by the war in Ukraine. For the neocons in charge of U.S. foreign policy, it’s an existential moment because their much yearned for unipolar world run by the U.S. in close alliance with Israel may be unraveling, in large part because of their own ambitions to destroy Russia—a hatred borne of old grievances specific to the long sojourn of Jews in Russia, where anti-Jewish attitudes have a long history (even under Bolshevism), Putin’s banishing of politically involved Jewish oligarchs, Russia’s alliances with Israel’s enemies Iran and Syria, their rejection of globalism in favor of nationalism (the ADL considers calling out any Jew for supporting globalism to be “anti-Semitic“), and their support for traditional Russian Christian culture rather than, e.g., LGBTQ+ which is championed by powerful Jewish organizations throughout the West.
It’s interesting therefore that in a recent UN General Assembly vote, earlier this month calling for an end to the fighting and Moscow’s immediate withdrawal from Ukraine, Russia voted against, while China, India and South Africa abstained. Add to that the recent Saudi-Iran rapprochement along with Syria and the U.S. may well be looking at an alliance among Russia, China, India, and much of the Islamic world that rejects what the West has become—promoting globalism at the expense of nationalism (which comes down to a small cadre of Western oligarchs and multinationals as represented by the World Economic Forum running the world) and moral crusades at the expense of traditional cultures which are inevitably seen as retrograde and change-worthy by the woke elites that run the West. Ukraine’s transformation under Zelensky is paradigmatic. Ukraine’s transformation is clearly a top-down transformation like those that have occurred in all Western countries. I suppose that this transformation has a long way to go to capture the hearts and minds of Ukrainians, but, as with the West, control of the media and academic culture along with Zelensky’s heavy-handed methods of handling dissent (banning political parties and religions that dissent from the war despite constantly be advertised in the West as a democracy) may prevail in the long run in whatever is left of Ukraine.
https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/TOO-Full-Logo-660x156-1.png00Kevin MacDonaldhttps://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/TOO-Full-Logo-660x156-1.pngKevin MacDonald2023-03-20 06:58:342023-03-21 07:07:20Christopher Caldwell’s “Why Are We in Ukraine? A steep bill comes due for decades of democracy promotion.”
“Glen, do you know an organization called the Southern Poverty Law Center and a woman named Heidi Beirich? She called to tell me she’s about to publish an article about you, accusing you of neo-Nazi ties. I assume she has the wrong Glen Allen.”
Those words came through my phone on an August afternoon in 2016, spoken by the City Solicitor for Baltimore City. He was a friend who had hired me to work for the Baltimore City law department after I retired from a large law firm. I’d been working quietly and competently for the Baltimore City law department for about six months following my retirement.
“Yes,” I responded, “I know about the Southern Poverty Law Center and Heidi Beirich. And I am that Glen Allen.”
The next two days were among the most difficult of my life. Beirich published her article in the SPLC’s Intelligence Report and, using her vast network of media contacts, caused the article to become headline news in dozens of major newspapers from Britain to Los Angeles, including our local Baltimore Sun. Baltimore City promptly fired me. My law firm, for which I had worked diligently for 27 years before retiring and from which I had received numerous accolades that I published on my law practice website, called to demand I remove the accolades. Dozens of calls came into my home phone from reporters wanting to talk to me. Television reporters with television cameras from Fox News came to my house. I got profane and threatening calls from antifa types. My quiet family life was severely disrupted (but my wife, God bless her, stayed loyal to me throughout the ordeal). When I returned to my office at the law department to retrieve my personal belongings, one of the young lawyers I’d been mentoring closed his door on me as I walked by. And the Mayor of Baltimore, amid much righteous fanfare and virtue signalling, fired the City Solicitor on the ground that he had hired me.
I felt under attack, defenseless, and almost totally isolated, and Heidi Beirich, who boasted to the media about her success in getting me fired, obviously knew what I was going through and loved it. (That awful experience was my motivation for later creating the Free Expression Foundation, Inc., a 501c3 nonprofit, www.FreeExpressionFoundation.org, to help others who have such ordeals).
What was objectionable about Beirich’s and the SPLC’s actions? I could make a lengthy list, but I’ll mention just three things.
First, the documents Beirich used to link me to William Pierce’s National Alliance decades prior were stolen confidential documents she had obtained, as I alleged in the complaint I later filed, by bribing or otherwise corrupting a disgruntled National Alliance employee. Such actions violated applicable criminal statutes. In short, the SPLC committed crimes to obtain the documents. (I hasten to add I have never condoned or participated in unlawful conduct and the stolen documents did not indicate otherwise).
Second, Beirich’s actions were not isolated instances of the SPLC’s scofflaw behavior. To the contrary, as I detailed in my complaint, for decades the SPLC has essentially committed mail fraud with its bogus “Hate Group” tallies and “Hate Map” mailings. Moreover, the SPLC manifestly violated applicable laws by its highly partisan attacks on Donald Trump in 2016. Such conduct violates IRS requirements for tax-exempt organizations and constitutes grounds for revocation of that favored tax status.
Third, Beirich’s ostensible rationale for doxing me was blatantly pretextual. She claimed she was doing it in the best interests of Baltimore because it is a predominantly Black city. But I was an experienced and competent attorney quietly helping Baltimore defend against lawsuits seeking millions of dollars. In one case I was working on before I was fired, the plaintiffs subsequently obtained a $20 million verdict against the city. I could have helped prevent that. Does anyone really think Beirich or the SPLC cared? The reality is Beirich orchestrated my termination because of what she thought was going on inside my head – plus the fact that I’m an attorney willing to represent the Dissident Right.
So I sued Beirich and the SPLC, seeking both redress for my personal losses and revocation of the SPLC’s 501c3 status. In investigating the factual and legal grounds for my complaint, I learned the sordid history of this corrupt organization – how, for example, in 1986 the SPLC’s entire legal staff (except for Morris Dees) resigned as the organization morphed from traditional civil rights work into a fraudulent, hard left fundraising machine; and how the SPLC’s aim became not merely to monitor but to destroy “hate groups” as the SPLC unfairly defined them. I learned also of its hypocrisy, double standards, and anti-Christian bias. I detailed all these facts in my complaint.
The trial court judge, remarkably, dismissed my complaint before I could begin factual discovery (depositions, document production, etc.) to establish my claims. She asserted that my complaint did not meet even minimal standards of plausibility – in other words, it was entirely irrational for me to allege that an SPLC employee such as Beirich would engage in unlawful conduct. The appellate court, in an unpublished opinion, affirmed.
The painful memory of the court’s “implausible allegations” rationale popped up in my mind recently when I read about the SPLC staff attorney, Thomas Jurgens. On March 5, 2023, Jurgens was among nearly two dozen criminals arrested on charges relating to domestic terrorism by the Georgia Bureau of Investigation following a coordinated attack on construction equipment and law enforcement officers at the future site of the Atlanta Public Safety Training Center. According to the Atlanta Police Department, these “activists” “changed into black clothing and entered the construction area and began to throw large rocks, Molotov cocktails, and fireworks at police officers . . the agitators destroyed multiple pieces of construction equipment by fire and vandalism.” So it was “implausible” that SPLC employees would engage in criminal activities, was it? To the contrary, any fair-minded person would see the arrest of the SPLC attorney as confirmation that the courts in my case (and others in which the SPLC had been sued) were willfully blind to the SPLC’s corruption and criminal actions.
And what a lost opportunity to clean up some of the stench in the SPLC swamp! Had I been allowed the discovery to which I was entitled, I could have uncovered the SPLC’s ties with radical leftist groups, its bribery, its exploitation of vulnerable people, its misuse of donations, and many other misdeeds. My confidence in this regard is bolstered by the fact that while my appeal was pending the sewage at the “Poverty Palace” got so rank the entire top echelon of the SPLC — Morris Dees, Richard Cohen, Heidi Beirich, and others — resigned or were terminated and an internal SPLC report was prepared addressing the SPLC officers’ misconduct. That report would have been a key target of my discovery efforts. To this day the report has never been published, even though the public has a right to know how the SPLC, as a 501c3 tax favored nonprofit, has misused its many hundred millions of dollars of donations.
What is the future for the SPLC, in light of the revelation that one of its staff has been arrested for domestic terrorism? The SPLC, for sure, has been damaged. I’d like to believe it is on the path to losing its 501c3 status. But I have my doubts. This latest incident is dramatic, but the SPLC has been thumbing its nose at tax exempt requirements with impunity for decades and continues, I’m sure, to rake in enormous sums of money from naïve and uninformed people. I nonetheless look forward to someone, armed with this latest damning evidence, challenging the SPLC’s 501c3 status — as I did and, if no one else does, I may do again.
Reprinted with permission from the American Free Press. Glen Allen is an attorney and founder of the FREE EXPRESSION FOUNDATION, a 501(c)(3) charitable foundation dedicated to the defense of citizens denied their Constitutional right to free expression See more at Free Expression Foundation,org, or write FEF, PO Box 65242, Baltimore, MD 21209-9998
https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/TOO-Full-Logo-660x156-1.png00Glen Allen, Esq.https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/TOO-Full-Logo-660x156-1.pngGlen Allen, Esq.2023-03-19 07:57:422023-03-19 10:14:48The SPLC: A Threat to Civil Liberties and the Rule of Law
We may request cookies to be set on your device. We use cookies to let us know when you visit our websites, how you interact with us, to enrich your user experience, and to customize your relationship with our website.
Click on the different category headings to find out more. You can also change some of your preferences. Note that blocking some types of cookies may impact your experience on our websites and the services we are able to offer.
Essential Website Cookies
These cookies are strictly necessary to provide you with services available through our website and to use some of its features.
Because these cookies are strictly necessary to deliver the website, refusing them will have impact how our site functions. You always can block or delete cookies by changing your browser settings and force blocking all cookies on this website. But this will always prompt you to accept/refuse cookies when revisiting our site.
We fully respect if you want to refuse cookies but to avoid asking you again and again kindly allow us to store a cookie for that. You are free to opt out any time or opt in for other cookies to get a better experience. If you refuse cookies we will remove all set cookies in our domain.
We provide you with a list of stored cookies on your computer in our domain so you can check what we stored. Due to security reasons we are not able to show or modify cookies from other domains. You can check these in your browser security settings.
Other external services
We also use different external services like Google Webfonts, Google Maps, and external Video providers. Since these providers may collect personal data like your IP address we allow you to block them here. Please be aware that this might heavily reduce the functionality and appearance of our site. Changes will take effect once you reload the page.
Google Webfont Settings:
Google Map Settings:
Google reCaptcha Settings:
Vimeo and Youtube video embeds:
Privacy Policy
You can read about our cookies and privacy settings in detail on our Privacy Policy Page.
