I am not, nor have I ever been, a member of the Anarchist Party. I sometimes find it amusing to see its members engaging in self-destructive behavior. On the other hand, some of them sometimes do useful things, like fighting for the poor, the environment and so on. So it’s sad to see how they never learn.
Political correctness has always been useful to the state. During the Vietnam War, the government paid provocateurs to accuse anti-war activists of “racism”. This worked, because activists are worried by this unfounded allegation.
It’s the same with “sexism”, and so on. Despite inhabiting the most egalitarian section of the least sexist, racist and homophobic society in history, anarchists are easy prey for provocateurs.
Several anarchists and environmentalists are doing decades in prison because of police informants. At an anarchist conference in Portland, Oregon, May 9-11 2014, some presenters tried to address this. But the presentation was disrupted by radical feminists shouting “we will not be silenced by your violence”.
Reading through the discussions about what happened, it’s easy to see the mistake the anarchist milieu has made. There have been numerous cases of false allegations of violence, particularly from black women iiiiii. The mainstream media tend to take their side (for example the Wall Street Journal, the Economist, FT Magazine, the New York Times, New York Magazine, the Daily News, Newsday, the Post-Gazette, Salon, the Daily Beast, NBC and Cosmopolitan). This is evidence that this society isn’t as “racist” and “patriarchal” as anarchists believe. But the p.c. left don’t do evidence – they do blackmail:
Please come and support the survivors who Kristian Williams has targeted, support the feminists and survivor-supporters who Kristian Williams has deemed as “divisive”, support a rad community that supports survivors and values women.
The article is also unbalanced in its emphasis on doubting survivors.
It should read “doubting alleged survivors”, but it doesn’t occur to the writer to doubt allegations by feminists. Though he is a seasoned campaigner for victims of the legal system, in this case, he rejects the presumption of innocence, a presumption which the “capitalist courts” extend to defendants.
Notice also the vagueness of the allegations. It’s impossible to defend oneself against them:
(My friend was one: she was accused of violating the venue’s “Safer Space” policy, “triggering” audience members, and employing “patriarchal mechanisms” in her statement.) Others were called out for unspecified abusive or sexist behavior.
The feminists were so loud and obnoxious, there was a danger that the police would be called to restore order. So the speakers abandoned the meeting. This is their explanation:
When we were notified that the police were preparing to intervene, we decided it was best to end the event and leave. To be clear — no one on the panel called the cops. And we also didn’t tell anyone else to call the cops. This should be obvious to anyone who was present at our panel, as none of us used our phones or in any way communicated with anyone else who used a phone during this time. We did everything within our control to prevent this from happening and were assured prior to the event that no one would call the cops and that no one would be arrested. We would not have agreed to speak if not for these assurances. As speakers, we have had two security priorities throughout this entire experience: 1) ensuring that the cops did not get involved, and 2) ensuring our ability to speak about an issue we believe is critically important to our struggles. In the end, we resigned ourselves to sacrificing our second priority (our ability to speak) to ensure that the first was achieved. Our exit from the room was the only way we knew of to ensure the safety of others who were present — including those who were being disruptive.
So, in effect, the feminists, chanting “we will not be silenced by your violence”, used the threat of state violence to silence the speakers.
The solution is simple. When someone claims to be a “victim”, ask for evidence. When so-called “survivors” try to shout down a speaker, they should be thrown out of the meeting.
But there’s no chance of this. The fact that an attempt to talk about how to resist infiltration is so easily sabotaged shows something about this movement. It has no chance of succeeding.
But the p.c. left isn’t an isolated bubble. It can be used by the authorities to undermine resistance to war and economic hardship. It has also been used to undermine the boycott of the products of Israel.
The anti-fascists and Zionists of AFA and Hope not Hate have made a big mistake in attacking the United Kingdom Independence Party. So long as they harassed obnoxious outfits like the British National Party, they were on safe ground. But UKIP has the support of millions.
The self-styled progressive sections of the politically switched-on classes, whose visceral contempt for the white working class makes every other prejudice in 21st century Britain pale into insignificance in comparison.
If the Duke University false-allegation-of-rape case of 2006 were nothing more than the persecution of three students by a university, solely because they are white, male, and allegedly wealthy, and that their accuser is black and female, it would show nothing more than the corruption of one university by political correctness – the reverse of discrimination against minorities, women, etc..
But the fact that the district attorney, the local police department, and most of the media, joined eighty-eight academics at the university, in stating or implying their guilt, long after it was clear that no crime had taken place, shows that it’s not just academia. Political correctness is more deeprooted and widespread.
Though they were proven innocent – rather than merely “not guilty”, the DA who prosecuted them was imprisoned for misconduct in the case, and their accuser convicted of murder, much of the mainstream media, for example, the New York Times, Salon, the Wall Street Journal, the Economist, the Daily News, Newsday, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, FT Magazine, and the Daily Beast, continues to try to convince the public that they were in fact guilty of something: How the Media Again Failed on the Duke Lacrosse Story.
The continuing saga of the Duke lacrosse three contradicts the hypothesis of professional anti-racists that the USA’s dominant culture is white supremacist, etc..
The Southern Poverty Law Center, known to its admirers by the initials $PLC, has exceeded its normal bounds of logic and reason. Reacting to the murder of three attendees at a Jewish Center in Kansas City on April 13th, the $PLC argues
The fact of the matter is that more people have been killed domestically by radical right extremists than Islamic extremists since 9/11
Since September 11th, 2001, more people have been murdered in the USA by white extremists than by Muslims. But if you choose September 10, 2001, as your starting date, the opposite is true.
Notice also that the $PLC distinguishes between ‘radical right extremists’ and ‘Islamic extremists’. Despite their medieval views, the latter can’t be classified as ‘radical right extremists’, because most of them aren’t white!
P.S. Good news – the $PLC and the “Anti” Defamation League have been dropped by the FBI.
Taking advantage of the fact that, in anti-racism legislation, the burden of proof has shifted toward the defendant, a gang of gypsies falsely accused a British schoolteacher of racial harassment.
Mrs Hampson found herself involved in a clash with a family of travellers who had illegally established themselves on green-belt land and had blocked her way home one day, you might have expected the grandmother to receive a decent hearing from the authorities.
France’s most popular comedian is a black guy called Dieudonné M’Bala. One of his supporters is a footballer named Nicholas Anelka. Dieudonné has been prosecuted under France’s “anti-racist” (anti-freedom) laws, fined and had shows canceled for making a gesture called the quenelle (see picture). Roughly translated, this gesture means “up yours to the establishment”.
Anelka made the gesture, in support of Dieudonné, during a game for his (ex) club in the English Premier League, West Bromwich Albion, in December last year.
Part of the “anti-racist” left, and some of its Zionist allies, claimed that the gesture is “abusive and/or indecent and/or insulting and/or improper,” and “included a reference to ethnic origin and/or race and/or religion or belief“, and an “independent” commission agreed. Among the allegations is that the “quenelle” gesture is an “inverted Nazi salute”. The idea that black Frenchmen would give Nazi salutes is too ridiculous to waste time with.
But the cowards of the Football Association, Anelka’s club, and its sponsor, fell over each other to grovel to the “anti-racists”. Anelka was suspended for five games, and fined. He was also ordered to undergo “education” – reminiscent of Stalinist “re-education camps”. The final straw was when he was told to apologize.
Anelka delivered an inspiring “up yours” to his employers, and to the p.c. establishment in general, by tearing up his contract. He tweeted:
Following talks between the club and me, propositions were made to me in order to reintegrate me into the squad under certain conditions that I cannot accept. Wishing to retain my integrity, I have therefore taken the decision to free myself and put an end to the contract linking me with West Bromwich Albion to 2014, with immediate effect. i
West Brom are right to say that this is an “unprofessional” way to resign. By resigning on Twitter, rather than through the official channels, Anelka showed his contempt for them.
The “anti-racist” establishment isn’t really about fighting “racism”. Persecuting a footballer for an obscure gesture in support of a French comedian is not going to have much effect on attitudes in England. It’s about power – trying to make people accept being told what to think, taking advantage of our eagerness to please, our fear of being accused of wicked thoughts.
Normally, this guilt is turned against white people, in the guise of defending black people. But the attacks on Anelka and Dieudonné indicate that it’s more about Jewish power than black advancement.
There’s a lot of faux “anti-racism” in football. Players are obliged to hold up signs saying “No to racism” before games. English fans can be arrested for using the traditional word ‘yid’ for Tottenham supporters, even if they are Tottenham supporters. Nicholas Anelka of West Bromwich Albion is being called “anti-semitic” for making the “quenelle” gesture.
Recently, I wrote “Probing Max Blumenthal’s Goliath” i for Dissident Voice and Kim Petersen, one of the site’s editors, responded with “Is the West Comparatively Racism-Free?” ii.
This is my reply – Dissident Voice wouldn’t publish it because they say my thesis is ‘weak’.
I’m grateful for Kim’s response, as it forces me to clarify my – tentative – hypothesis. He asks me
In what universe can a person – seriously and meaningfully – argue that the West is critical of its racist history when it still carries out the racist policies?
My answer is, that the racist policies have declined, while the criticism of them grows louder and shriller. I think one can defend the hypothesis that
Western societies, with the exception of Israel, are currently among the least racially prejudiced on earth.
Still, there is no way in an essay I can fully justify this claim, for it would require studying hundreds of different societies. All I have time to do here is offer some examples of my reasoning.
I don’t think Kim understands the concept of falsification, for I’ve tried out my “look at how differently the West treats Israel in contrast to South Africa” argument on him (private communication), and he didn’t agree. I spell it out below.
You can’t show the West is especially “racist” by listing examples of it. You can’t prove anything by accumulating evidence for it. What you have to do, is ask the following:
1. If this hypothesis were correct, X would be the case.
2. Is X the case?
For example:
1. If white racial supremacy were more dominant in the Western countries than Jewish racial supremacy, the Western countries would have boycotted Israel before they boycotted apartheid South Africa.
2. Did this happen? No, the exact opposite happened. Western countries persuaded South Africa to give up apartheid, but Israel is supported to the hilt – for example, the USA gives it over eight million dollars a day iii.
It follows that the implicit claim of the anti-racist left, that white supremacy is more powerful than Jewish supremacy, is false. It’s a lie of omission – they don’t mention Jewish supremacy at all.They simply assert that Israel is an asset of American imperialism, without trying to test this claim. And they try to make it impossible to doubt that Israel is an ally, and that support for it is a product of the power of the Jewish lobby, by calling that argument “anti-semitic”.
The white boycott of apartheid was started by Australia in 1971: “this was the first time a predominantly white nation had taken the side of multiracial sport, producing an unsettling resonance that more “White” boycotts were coming.” iv, and grew from there.
Another example:
1. If Britain is a fundamentally racist society, the government would not have produced a report falsely accusing the police of “institutional racism” as a result of its failure to prosecute the murderers of a black teenager. The failure was in fact the result of, duh, lack of evidence against the suspects. The government would not have implemented an inquiry whose proceedings “bore some resemblance to the Stalinist show trials of the 1930s” v, making use of the circular argument that doubt about racism is evidence of racism. In short, it would not have implemented the politics of the p.c. anti-racist left.
2. In fact, as this report, “Racist Murder and Pressure Group Politics” (PDF) demonstrates, that is exactly what happened.The police are now obliged to investigate any allegation of racism, with the definition of “racism” being left entirely to the imagination of the plaintiff.
Another:
1. If the USA were fundamentally white racist, George Zimmerman, accused of the murder of black teenager Trayvon Martin in February 2012, would never have been prosecuted, since there was not enough evidence for a prosecutor to argue in court that he was guilty. Furthermore, the media would not have bombarded us with the implication that Martin’s death had anything to do with race, since there was never a shred of evidence that Zimmerman was racially motivated – the only racially hostile comment was made by Martinvi.
2. Zimmerman was in fact charged with murder, after a Facebook campaign (!) influenced the legal system. Fortunately, despite the efforts of the media, that system still follows the principle that you cannot be convicted of a crime unless your guilt is proven beyond reasonable doubt, and he was acquitted.
My final counter-example is the Duke university lacrosse case of 2006, in which three white students were falsely accused of rape by a black woman, the D.A. and eighty-eight academics at their university, and most of the national media leaned toward hinting strongly that the suspects were guilty. If any institution embodies “white privilege”, you might think it would be an elite southern university. But again, the facts falsify the hypothesis – see, for example, the book “Until Proven Innocent: Political Correctness and the Shameful Injustices of the Duke Lacrosse Rape Case” vii.
Stephen Miller, in the Duke university student newspaper, has done my work for me: “Imagine that Collin, Reade and David had been black students, accused of raping a white girl and that they faced a witchhunt led by a prosecutor re-elected thanks to the overwhelming support of the white community. Then imagine this witchhunt was supported by hordes of student protesters, prominent white activists and a large portion of an elite campus faculty, many of them affiliated with the European Studies Department. Imagine also that the University president suspends the almost all-black sports team of which these students are members and fires their black coach. Further imagine that the accuser in the case has continually changed her story from the first night, that there is no evidence against the players, that they’ve cooperated with the police and passed polygraphs and that extensive evidence exists to prove their innocence. You think that scenario would have lasted for a year? Try a week.” viii
In each of the above cases, I have proposed two alternative sets of events. One of these alternatives, had it occurred, would have been correctly seen as falsification of my hypothesis that Western societies are comparatively racism-free. In each case, the converse happened.
I have not the space or time to aggregate the evidence of other societies and compare them with North America, Australasia and Western Europe. But, briefly, as far as I know, the only societies which champion a negative view of themselves are Western ones. Chinese universities don’t teach their students about “Han Chinese privilege”, nor to feel guilty about the treatment of Muslims in Western China. But in Western societies, fraudulent “anti-racist” academic work, such as the output of Theodor Adorno, Stephen Jay Gould ix, Richard Lewontin x, et. al., has been influential since World War II. And this influence extends beyond academia, into the media and politics. What has happened in Britain, where you are investigated if someone claims you said something “racist”, should be seen as a warning, and we should try to prevent it happening anywhere else.
We – in Canada, Britain, the USA, etc. – live in among the least racially prejudiced societies known. We are anti-racist to a fault. We tend to believe even the most ridiculous stories of white racism told by professional minority campaigners. The judicial system still mostly adheres to concepts like presumption of innocence and color-blindness, but there are attempts to undermine this. The only substantial kind of racial oppression in the West is the state of Israel. Exposing the falsehoods – especially those from the left – which make this oppression possible should be a priority.
P.S. (January 2015) My assertion, above, that ‘the definition of “racism” is left entirely to the imagination of the plaintiff’ in UK law was an understatement – the organization in charge of major criminal prosecutions in England and Wales defines “Racist Incident” as “any incident which is perceived to be racist by the victim or any other person”: http://www.cps.gov.uk/publications/prosecution/rrpbcrleaf.html
Leonard Zeskind’s 2009 Blood and Politics – the History of the White Nationalist Movement from the Margins to the Mainstream (1)
In Boise, the defense successfully turned the deaths of Vicki and Sam Weaver into a prima facie case of government wrongdoing
– Leonard Zeskind, chapter 33, “Inferno at Waco and Randy Weaver Wins at Trial”
One of the most revealing characteristics of this, and other anti-fascist works, is their contempt for the lives of people with whom they disagree. Randy Weaver of Idaho attended meetings of the Aryan Nations. He never translated whatever he heard at those meetings into violence, but for Zeskind and his colleagues in the “hate industry”, his apparent openness to “Aryan” views is enough to make it debatable whether the murder of his wife, his friend, and his 14-year-old son, were examples of “government wrongdoing”.
The jury in the Randy Weaver trial disagreed:
But the image of mother Vicki’s head blown off while she was holding her ten-month-old baby could not be erased by any mountain of testimony about her belief in a final battle between good Aryans and evil race mixers.
You, dear reader, may think it’s reasonable to ignore a woman’s beliefs when judging whether or not it was justified for the police to blow her head off. So does the US legal system, but Leonard Zeskind demurs. His book is another contribution to anti-fascism, another attempt to
exaggerate the danger of white nationalism
downplay the danger from government acceptance of this hype, and
make Jewish nationalism look better
Zeskind’s first error is in his subtitle. White nationalism has not traveled from the margins to the mainstream. It has been traveling in the opposite direction for over a century. The ‘white’, Western countries are among the least ethnically-oriented ever recorded. Explicit racial discrimination is barred, ‘racism’ is one of the most damaging charges one can make, and president Obama was re-elected.
His second mistake is in the first sentence of the Preface – he begins “As the last century ended and the year 2000 began”. In fact, the last century ended when the year 2001 began. Zeskind’s poor mathematics leads him to his third miscalculation; he claims that, in 2000, “thirty thousand men and women form the hard-core populace” of the white nationalist movement, and “another two hundred thousand” support it by giving money and attending meetings.
“Blood and Politics” is another example of the shoddy scholarship and fearmongering which characterizes what cynics call “the hate industry” – a well-funded collection of organizations and academic departments which, as I showed in my article “The One-Sided View of Hate in Hate Studies” (2), stirs up fear of white extremism and downplays the importance of Zionism.
I also showed, from evidence presented by Steven Pinker in his recent “The Better Angels of our Nature – why Violence has Declined”, and other sources, that racialist violence has declined even more steadily than the other kinds. So much so, that a continuous stream of hate crime hoaxes is needed to prop up the myth that white supremacy is traveling “from the margins to the mainstream”.
Another prop anti-fascists depend on is the “amalgam technique”. Zeskind shamelessly uses this technique to “link” the views of hatemongers like William Pierce with prescient patriots like Willis Carto who warned of the danger of the Jewish Lobby. After all, Zeskind points out, Carto’s “wife was a German”. On the grounds that some people who oppose Jewish supremacy support white supremacy, Zeskind wants to make us think the correlation is logical and inevitable. In fact, it is possible to oppose Jewish supremacy on the grounds that all forms of racial one-upmanship are obstacles to peace and prosperity. That is the position of the current writer.
But his approach could lead a reader to the opposite conclusion to the one he intends. Instead of “white nationalist politics is wrong, white nationalists condemn Jewish power, therefore the condemnation of Jewish power is wrong”, the reader might think “the condemnation of Jewish power is right, white nationalists condemn Jewish power, therefore…”. After publication of Mearsheimer and Walts’s meticulously researched The Israel Lobby, ex-Nazi Mark Weber gave talks saying ‘told you so’, using the public interest to distribute Holocaust revisionist and similar material.
Sometimes Zeskind gives us an insight into what politics was like before people like him told us what we can say. During World War II, Congressman John Rankin addressed Congress thus:
Mr. Speaker, I hesitate to use the word Jew in any speech in this House for whenever I do a little group of Communistic Jews howl to high heaven. They seem to think it is all right for them to abuse gentiles and to stir up race trouble but when you refer to one of them they cry ‘anti-Semitism’ or accuse you of being pro-Nazi.
It is true that Rankin was in favor of segregation for African Americans. It is true that this is evil. But still, he makes a fair point about the hypocrisy of Jewish political correctness. It’s the same today, except you won’t find anyone in politics with the balls to say it.
At one point, Zeskind contrasts what he says is the Jewish view of Satan with what he says is the view of him in the “Christian Identity” movement. Satan is “a second-rate, subordinate character” in Hebrew scriptures, but a first-rate one for white Christian extremists. He says the Christian Identity movement regards Jews as Satanic. This belief is offensive as well as completely irrational, but how is it less rational than any other religious viewpoint? I don’t understand how one can defend one religious view of the world against another on the grounds that the former gives you a warm fuzzy feeling. A church in Portland was picketed by anti-fascists because, in addition to all the other nonsense in the Bible, it taught homophobia. Why pick on that one particular error?
Chapter 24 begins with a discussion of the far right’s response to the first U.S. attack on Iraq in 1990. Some of it opposed the war. In West Palm Beach, Florida, anti-war protestors wore “David Duke for Governor” buttons. Zeskind honestly reports politician Pat Buchanan’s claim that the only people who would benefit from the war in the Middle East would be the Israeli government and its “amen corner” in the USA, but this makes Zeskind, and the rest of his Lobby, determined to undermine him.
So he denounces Buchanan as “an unabashed bigot”, condemning his anti-war stance as fervently as he denounces “racism”. On page 430, he criticizes Buchanan for attacking “brown-skinned” immigrants, but it just happens that the most significant source of illegal immigrants undermining the income of poor Americans happens to be Mexico. This is not, even slightly, evidence of racial prejudice. Zeskind sneakily implies that it is, but his reason for opposing Buchanan is not sympathy for poor immigrants.
An egregious example of the amalgam technique is when Zeskind compares William Carto to violent supremacist Louis Bean; “Carto would never openly advocate the bloodbath Beam was seeking to encourage, but both obviously went to the same reservoir for ideas”. The implication is, Carto would secretly advocate a bloodbath. And that you can’t fish in that ‘reservoir’ selectively – he wants us to believe, if you blame the Jewish neo-con cult for the bloodbath in Iraq, you’ll inevitably end up supporting a bloodbath in America.
Another example:
“Whether or not militiamen and common court activists believed the Holocaust happened, whether or not they used slur words to describe black people, whether or not they wanted to send nonwhite people and race traitors into the proverbial desert, the militia in the 1990s marched to the same drumbeat that other bands of white paramilitarists had heard before them”.
This amalgamates unorthodox interpreters of the U.S. constitution, those who disbelieve the details of a particular historical event, people who use unpleasant words, and those who conspire to commit murder. As well as fishing in the same reservoir, they march to the same drumbeat. You could just as well say Leonard Zeskind marches to the same beat as the Israeli government.
He explicitly argues, taking his cue from a court decision against a white power outfit called “The Order”, that there is no distinction between white supremacy and white separatism. Any other ethnic group which wishes to be separate, can do so, without being supremacist, but white gentile European separatism he regards as inevitably supremacist, and uniquely dangerous.
Like most American anti-fascists, Zeskind fails to understand the “skinhead” phenomenon, which began in Britain in the sixties. He believes “the skinhead uniform represented an idealized industrial worker”. In fact, it parodied it. Like most American anti-fascists, Zeskind doesn’t understand irony.
Zeskind uses various underhand devices to amalgamate the Reagan presidency (1981-89) with white supremacy, and, conceding that president Reagan made Martin Luther King day a national holiday, he says it was under “great pressure”. He does, however, point out that Reagan spoke out against David Duke’s 1989 candidacy as a Republican for the Louisiana house of representatives. But Pat Buchanan, who is no racialist, but is a critic of Israel, is amalgamated with swastika-tatooed skinheads (page 416).
He complains that opposition to U.S. intervention is considered de rigeur among supporters of Pat Buchanan and David Duke alike – ‘white nationalism’ had ‘morphed’ into ‘isolationism’ – the idea that the USA has no business invading other countries. Again, a careless reader could derive from this a positive view of white nationalism. Zeskind frequently reveals his anti-fascism is covert support for American aggression, as opposed to ‘isolationism’.
Zeskind claims that, among the irrational prejudices which motivate white supremacists, are the idea that black men are more likely to be criminals than white men, and, in particular, they are far more likely to commit interracial rape. He produces no statistics to disprove these prejudices.
I don’t know the truth about the above hot-button issue, but I do know that Zeskind gets the lynching of Leo Frank by a Georgia mob in 1915 wrong. Frank wasn’t killed because he was Jewish, and it was not because he had been convicted of “the rape and murder of a white woman” as Zeskind claims. It was because he had been convicted of the murder of a 13-year-old girl, and had had his death sentence commuted to life imprisonment.
Another incident Zeskind hypes up is the “murder” of five communists in North Carolina in 1979: what actually happened was some anti-fascists physically attacked a convoy of cars which they thought contained Ku Klux Klan members, shouting “death to the Klan!”. The men fought back, and five of the anti-fascists died. The local authorities, following the constitution, determined that the men were acting in self-defense. This conclusion is correct, whatever one thinks of the victims’, or of the assailants’, politics. A video of this event can be found on Youtube (3).
“Busing” was a policy put into place by well-meaning federal do-gooders during the seventies and eighties – children were taken by bus from predominantly white schools to black ones to break down “de facto segregation”. Its only effect was to encourage interracial violence, and it was abandoned, but Zeskind tries to paint reasonable opposition to this policy as racist.
There is also over-reporting of hate crimes, which, if uncritically accepted, exaggerates the amount of hate in our society.
Even some of the most notorious “hate crimes” turn out to be something else. “Hate incidents”, which include protected speech, are amalgamated with actual crimes. Ordinary crimes, like random arson of churches by bored youth, are made into “hate crimes” by falsely claiming the churches are disproportionately African-American. Fake hate incidents, such as minority students writing hateful graffiti, are added to the mix, even after the hoax is admitted. “Perceived expression of insensitivity”, etc., are included as “hate”. Finally, crime statistics, compiled by genuine academics like Steven Pinker, which show a century-long trend of decline in hate crimes, are ignored (4).
Like all anti-fascist writers, Zeskind amalgamates support for less immigration with “hate”. But, given the existence of nation states, and the status of citizens of those nation states, it is rational for some of those citizens to campaign for restrictions on immigration, since immigrants compete with them for housing and jobs, particularly the latter, by asking for lower wages. Anti-immigration isn’t hate.
So what’s behind the exaggeration of white supremacy? Cui bono? Minority rabble-rousers like Al Sharpton benefit, and their supporters benefit temporarily until hoaxers like Azalea Cooley, Crystal Magnum, Tawana Brawley, etc., etc. are found out (5).
Another beneficiary of the hype is Jewish power, an important aspect of which is the taboo against discussing it. Zeskind follows this taboo, for example, the idea that the media is in Jewish hands is dismissed without considering the evidence.
On pp 492-3, Zeskind states that white identity is inherently oppressive. But isn’t it possible that it is simply an expression of genetic interests (Salter, 6)? And that the attempt to make it sound uniquely pathological is an expression of different genetic interests (MacDonald, 7)? In the section entitled “Are Jews Whites?”, Zeskind defends the boilerplate leftist definition of race: it’s “socially constructed”. He says “whiteness” is more akin to the divine right of kings than it is to the difference between blue jays and cardinals.
In fact, as Salter (6) explains, racial consciousness is an expression of genetic interests. Being altruistic to people in whom your genes detect copies of themselves, and perhaps hostile to those who have less copies of themselves, helps those genes reproduce. Under some circumstances, its in the genetic interests of, say, Swedish people, to distinguish themselves from Norwegians. Under other circumstances, such as the invasion of Europe by Genghiz Khan, its in Swedes’ genetic interests to consider themselves in the same race as Norwegians. That’s what “whiteness” is. It’s not a mental illness. It’s not socially constructed. It’s a simple expression of plain old genetic interests.
There’s much in Zeskind’s book about how people like the Christian Identity movement drew “anti-Semitic sap from the Christian tree”, but nothing about Jewish attitudes to Christians and others.
At one point, Zeskind describes an economic crisis in farming in the nineteen-eighties which drove many famers into the “newly resurgent” far right. Apparently, many of these farmers could recite the names of Jewish bankers – the Rothschilds, Goldman, Sachs, etc. – before they could tell you who their congressman was. I have the same problem. Couldn’t it be that those bankers are more important than whomever the Lobby has appointed to claim to represent us?
The concept “Zionist Occupied Government and its lackies” is frequently mentioned in a dismissive tone, without debate, and on page 484, he sneers at talk of “those conspiratorial string pullers” at the Anti-Defamation League, as if these ideas are ridiculous. Without missing a beat, and without evidence, Zeskind refers to the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty in 1967 as “mistaken”. This is a major clue as to Zeskind’s real politics. His opposition to white nationalism is an expression of his Jewish identity.
Anti-fascism is the hyping up of white extremism, the lie that this, perhaps the least racially-oriented society in history, is in constant danger of reverting to the bad old days of lynching and segregation. The main effect of this effort is to hide the elephant in the room.
Zeskind, L. (2009). Blood and Politics. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
This is another contribution to my argument (1) that, if one rejects the attempts of Jewish groups like the Anti-Defamation League to close down debate on the Israel/Palestine question by shouting “anti-semitism”, one cannot simultaneously try to help resolve issues by throwing the phrase “ Islamophobia ” around. You’re either politically correct, or you’re not.
A New York synagogue invited a notorious anti-Muslim campaigner, Pam Geller. Jews Against Islamophobia (2) told the synagogue it should disinvite her, because “hate” is not really free speech.
Actually, it is. You invite someone to defend what you call “hate”, then you explain why you disagree with it. This is freedom of speech, a sub-category of freedom of expression, an important achievement of Western societies, enshrined in the first amendment to the U.S. constitution.
Jews Against Islamophobia accepts that “the respected Southern Poverty Law Center” can “list” organizations such as “Stop Islamization of America”, as “hate groups”. This gives the SPLC the right to tell us what we can listen to.
“Objecting to the invitation to Geller is not a First Amendment or censorship issue. Only the government can violate someone’s free speech rights.”
According to this, if any body other than a government one bars someone from speaking, it’s not a violation of their rights. This would mean that if Brooklyn College had barred speakers from the Boycott Israel campaign, it would not be censorship.
Jews Against Islamophobia’s constituent organizations are among the ones who try to stop Gilad Atzmon from speaking – for example, some of them recently told a Portland venue that Atzmon is a “holocaust denier”, and it decided not to host him. The weasel words of the SPLC – “hate group”, “bigotry”, “racism” – are as easily used against Israel’s critics as against its fanatics.
Why shouldn’t a synagogue invite Pam Geller to speak? It agrees with her view that the USA and Israel have a common cause against Islam. What’s the problem? It makes Jewish supremacists look bad?
I commented on Mondoweiss criticizing Jews Against Islamophobia. To my amazement, my comment was not approved.
[Correction – January 25, 2014 – my comment was approved]
Christopher Dorner showed the Los Angeles Police Department to be an incompetent gang of cowardly murderers.
Brutality
After reporting police brutality and being dismissed from the force for doing so, he decided the only way to press his case was to write a manifesto on Facebook, and take out some scum. As always, the mainstream media described the manifesto as ‘rambling’. In fact, it’s completely coherent.
After their initial casualties, the LAPD started shooting at random, nearly killing two women. Dorner appeared in various places, wasting more pigs. The chief of police claimed to belong to a persecuted minority – “To be targeted because of what you are… that is absolutely terrifying”. Eventually, they tracked Dorner down to a cabin in the mountains, and deliberately burned him to death.
One of the many lessons to be learned from Dorner’s fight is a re-examination of the Waco massacre of 1993. The FBI claimed to have fired tear-gas into the buildings in a ‘compound’ occupied by a religious cult, the Branch Davidians. (‘Compound’ is a media term for buildings inhabited by people whom the police intend to murder). So how come the buildings burned down, killing seventy-six people, including twenty-two children? The authorities claimed the Davidians set the fire themselves. Following the murder of Dorner, we know the answer is that the tear gas canisters used by the US authorities cause fires. If they can cause a ski cabin in the snow to burn down, they can definitely incinerate buildings on a hot, windy, April day in Texas. The police know this – they refer to these canisters as ‘burners’, and they used them, on February 13, 2013, in their words, to “burn this motherfucker”.
Protest supporting Dorner outside LAPD HQ: “As the protesters stood Saturday, drivers passing by honked, waved and gave thumbs up”
Racism
A hero can be mistaken. I said above Dorner’s manifesto is coherent, but that doesn’t mean it’s all true. His descriptions of brutality toward the poor, mentally disturbed and homeless, and the police lying about it, are correct. But ‘racism’ is a more difficult charge to prove.
He claims LAPD officers sang Nazi songs. Did they target Jews? No. So their use of slurs toward other minorities, though obviously unacceptable in public servants, does not demonstrate that their violence was driven by racial prejudice. A video of white cops beating up a black man does not prove racism. The evidence is just as compatible with the hypothesis that the role of the police is to keep the poor in its place, and the indubitable fact that minorities are over-represented in that sector of the population.
Another problem with the ‘racism’ charge is more practical. Suppose the police took notice of complaints of racism. They could do one of three things:
1. Kill fewer black people
2. Kill more white people
3. Both
This is more than a hypothesis. In Portland, Oregon, in 2003, the filth shot dead a young black woman, Kendra James. Another African-American, James Perez, was murdered in 2004. There were large protests following both these killings. In 2006, cops jumped up and down on James Chasse, a homeless schizophrenic, in a police van, until he was dead. Chasse was white, and so are the Portland porkers, so it couldn’t have been a racist murder. Public reaction was more muted.
My point is not to deny that many of the police are racially prejudiced, in addition to their other undesirable attitudes. I am simply discussing what one can achieve by highlighting one of these traits rather than others. Only one thing is beyond debate: A.C.A.B.
The unanswerable allegations “Racism” and “Anti-semitism” have long been the coin of the realm among wannabe thought police; the term Islamophobia is a fairly recent addition to their vocabulary.
Is this Islamlophobic?
A Muslim commented on one of my articles for deliberation.info (1), complaining of Islamophobia in the British left. Perhaps she hopes this word will become as powerful as the word “racism”, and stop criticism within the left of opportunist alliances with conservative Muslims (2).
To be accused of racism is like being sprayed by a skunk”
– David Wilson, cited in False Charges of Racism and Anti-Semitism, in Crying Wolf – Hate Crime Hoaxes in America (3)
“Anti-Semitism is even worse. It conjures up images of concentration camps…”
– Laird Wilcox, in (3)
The Council for the National Interest is an American think tank. It posted my piece admonishing “hate studies”, and implicitly, the multi-million-dollar “hate industry”, for their failure to criticize Zionism (4). However, the CNI also publishes attempts to use hate industry techniques against Zionists, by accusing them of Islamophobia (5). But, if these techniques – selecting evidence, exaggerating conservative prejudice, and implicitly opposing freedom of opinion – are unacceptable when used to provide cover for Zionism, they are equally unacceptable when used to criticize it.
How much Islamophobia is there in America?
After the Oklahoma City bombing of 1995, some pundits claimed it was probably an Islamic attack. When a white man – with right-wing views and an army haircut – was arrested, the anti-fascist left hi-fived, saying that this shows that only bigots believe Islamic terrorism is the main threat in America.
But that was before September 11th, 2001, which appeared to be the work of Islamic extremists.
These atrocities produced some hostility to Muslims in general – but not as much as the hate industry predicted. On September 17th, president Bush spoke outside a mosque, calling Islam “a peaceful religion”. There was a vicious immigration crackdown after 9/11, and there have been some hate crimes, but Muslims have not been rounded up like the Japanese Americans were during world war II. The claim that “hysteria about Muslims in American life has gripped the country” (5) should be taken no more seriously than the hate industry’s invention of a continuous increase in racial violence (4).
Shouting the word Islamophobia in the context of foreign policy provides cover for the war crimes of the current administration; the “Islamophobes” singled out by anti-fascists are invariably Republicans (5). The Democrats drop bombs with less hate in them.
Back home, the FBI claims that “anti-Muslim crimes were a distant second to crimes against Jews” (6). This laughable claim is obviously the result of pressure from the Jewish Lobby, which the FBI once explicitly resisted (3). After J. Edgar Hoover’s death, that broke down, and the FBI now treats the Anti-Defamation League almost as another government department, taking its inventions seriously (7).
In contrast, the Muslim Council on American Islamic Relations honestly reports that complaints of anti-Muslim hate crimes declined in 2008 to 116 (8). This is less than one hundredth of one percent of violent crimes (9). In an article on what she calls “TV’s most Islamophobic show”, Laila al-Arian admits, “some may say these are hypersensitive complaints in a politically correct obsessed era…” (10). I couldn’t have put it better myself.
“Islamophobes” claim Islam is opposed to the “Western values” which Israel and the USA share (5). People who listen to this don’t listen to p.c. blackmail. They might listen to their interests. Though all Islamists oppose Israel, most harbor no animus toward the inhabitants of Western countries. It is in Israeli interests to amalgamate them all, but it is in the interests of the rest of us to divide those who target civilian aircraft from those who are not our enemies. The idea that terrorist attacks are “false flag” incidents, designed to stir up Islamophobia, makes this harder to do.
I gave up the phrase ‘anti-semitic’ years ago. My new year’s resolution is to drop ‘racist’ and ‘Islamophobic’ too. It’s impossible to work out whether a statement is meaningful, true or false, at the same time as worrying if it’s politically incorrect.
What do Gilad Atzmon and Lady Michèle Renouf have in common?
Both are featured in Rewriting History (1), a new free online PDF book by Britain’s Hope not Hate organization.
The book defends the double standard of support for Jewish supremacy, combined with hostility to any suggestion of white gentile identity, under the guise of liberal humanism. In short, anti-fascism.
“Rewriting History” adds to the evidence for the argument I put forward in my pamphlet that anti-fascism and Zionism are logically linked (2).
Hope not Hate is a “respectable” anti-fascist organization. That means it doesn’t openly advocate violence against people whose opinions it disagrees with. It prefers to use the technique of discrediting them by classifying them into ominous-sounding categories:
Categories of Holocaust denial
Holocaust denial
Holocaust revisionism
Right-wing revisionism, which seeks to rehabilitate the Third Reich
Left-wing revisionism, which is part of an anti-Israel discourse
Holocaust relativism
Ordinary, everyday relativism
A “more sinister form” of relativism – the “yes, but syndrome”
“Double genocide” relativism – popular in Eastern Europe
Holocaust negationism
Softcore negationism
Hardcore negationism
Holocaust minimising
Holocaust banalisation
Holocaust trivialising
The book does not cite the arguments put forward by members of the above categories, and there are no references. Instead, it attacks their alleged motives. This should always arouse suspicion, since we cannot read other people’s minds. It uses its own conclusions to explain why some people reject them. Thus, in principle, these conclusions are not subject to falsification. This is the sign of a politically-motivated cult, not a group of serious researchers.
Another logical fallacy it employs is argument from authority. For example, “David Irving has no academic qualification“. History isn’t something you accept because of someone’s qualifications – it’s too politically charged to trust anyone on. You have to understand the methodology and do your homework.
These logical errors do not prove that the book is wrong, and the people it denounces are right, but it certainly raises a reasonable suspicion. If the authors of this book could refute the claims of the revisionists, why didn’t they do so?
Mark Weber was America’s leading revisionist.
Unlike Irving, Weber really did used to be a National Socialist. As “Rewriting History” explains, he gave that up, and became a mere Holocaust Revisionist.
Finally, after reading a scholarly analysis of why America supports Israel – The Israel Lobby by Steve Walt and John Mearsheimer – he abandoned revisionism and became primarily a critic of the Lobby and its influence.
Weber has climbed a mountain, all the way from supporting racial oppression, to opposing it. A consistent anti-racist would welcome this pilgrim’s progress.
But Hope not Hate isn’t anti-racist. It’s part of anti-fascism, which is not the same thing at all. I described it as a “hypocritical, self-righteous, discriminatory, racist perspective” (2) which provides cover for the only racial oppression left in the Western world – Zionism – by smearing and persecuting its critics.
the jay report 