The SPLC’s crusade against white rights: no State Fair there
Aug 6th, 2011 by Unamused
Previously on “The SPLC’s crusade against white rights”: theory, examples.
As most of you know by now, feral blacks went on a racist rampage at the Wisconsin State Fair Thursday night (August 4). Unfortunately for the white victims of racially motivated black violence, the SPLC has better things to do. They couldn’t be bothered to report it, just like they couldn’t be bothered to report how, one year ago, 30 to 40 black youths roamed the Iowa State Fair attacking white visitors at random, an event they openly called “Beat Whitey Night.”
The SPLC maintains a blog, Hatewatch — “Keeping an Eye on the Radical Right.” Their “News Roundup” for Thursday, when black mobs attacked white people, covers six stories, three with a “race angle,” none of them involving black mobs attacking white people:
- a black woman pleading guilty to assault and committing a hate crime for beating up a white transgender woman in a McDonald’s. The SPLC will not mention the race of anyone involved.
- a “white supremacist” sentenced to further prison time for writing threatening letters directed at the president and prosecutors. The SPLC makes sure to identify him as a white supremacist.
- a mistrial in the case against a suspected “white supremacist” — as if merely believing the wrong things about race were a crime one might be suspected of. Again, race is worth mentioning when it makes white people look bad — well, supposedly. I’m not so sure. Who would you rather live next door to: Nazis or blacks?
The SPLC’s “News Roundup” for Friday, by which time local newspapers and the Internet were all over the racially motivated black-on-white mob violence, covers three stories, two with a “race angle,” none of them involving racially motivated black-on-white mob violence either:
- a man arrested for assault with a deadly weapon and an absurd “hate crime” after “calling people derogatory names based on their race and color of their skin” and starting a fight. The original article doesn’t mention white perpetrators or black victims, so the SPLC doesn’t either.
- a white man sentenced to a ludicrous three years in prison for threatening a black man with his dog, chasing him, and yelling racial slurs. Of course, the SPLC makes sure to identify the race of the victim.
Anyone who attributes this to the blog’s policy of “Keeping an Eye on the Radical Right [only]” should bear in mind that only three of the nine stories (from Thursday and Friday) fit that description (assuming “white supremacists” and “militia supporters” are on the “radical right”).
Take the scare quotes off of woman in “transgender ‘woman’.” She’s free to be as she likes — she is not, and none like her is, rampaging in anyone’s street or assaulting anyone, or trying to impose any kind of “ism” on anyone else.
Point is: no one ought to verbally attack someone who is not a threat to anyone or to Western Civilization.
Here is a nice example of unbiased (snicker) MSM reporting about the “radical right”:
http://centuryofblood.blogspot.com/2011/08/msm-fear-of-far-right-rise.html
Well, the SPLC has always been a joke. There’s not even a pretense of unbiased reporting. It’s their watch really. I think their time has passed. A lot of people sold the farm when they called the Tea Party and various Christian groups racist.
She (“she”) is free to be as she likes, and is herself no threat to Western civilization. However, I’m not sure how exactly (or even if) she qualifies as a woman. No, it’s not obvious or straightforward (that’s why she’s “transgender”), and no, her self-identification doesn’t count. I don’t know the details of her “transgender” condition, nor do I particularly want to, nor is her condition relevant here. Therefore I quoted the SPLC, which considers her a woman. I don’t consider that a verbal attack.
THAT SAID, it’s all very confusing and irrelevant and I don’t care and they look like scare quotes, so I got rid of them.
A chick with a dick is not a woman. Quotes were appropriate. Judging by your handle, I gather that you’re an old, frail woman, so I [won't] attack you for acting like one.
The information war is already beginning to show results. One glance at the comments column of any of the mainstream media stories of recent black attacks is proof: white people are becoming less and less afraid of identifying the Enemy in public.
We’re not there yet, though. Until white people in America develop a genuine white consciousness, the counterattack cannot begin.
What do I mean by “white consciousness”? Here is an example:
Imagine a flyer like this being posted in a big city:
Today, such a flyer would be torn down by white people themselves wherever posted, the police (and FBI) would be informed, and the organizers would be tracked down and very likely jailed. No such thing as “white consciousness” exists among white people in America today.
But tomorrow?
White consciousness means the awareness by white people that they exist. This consciousness was once taken for granted, but fifty years of relentless propaganda and re-education have largely destroyed it. We must make restoring it our first task. To do so, we have to keep up the information campaign. We must use FACTS and HUMOR to make the average white person willing to identify as a white person and to admit that:
- White people exist
- White people have the right to exist
- White People have the right to exist as white people
We must also separate our cause from that of the Klan, the Nazis, skinheads, anti-Semites, and other hate groups. Ethical white people will (understandably) have nothing to do with such people.
Once we develop an authentic, non-hate-based white consciousness in a significant number of white people, then we can begin building a national movement based upon European ethnic and cultural solidarity. Our near-term goal: to develop white consciousness to the point where a flyer similar to the one above can be safely posted. Our next goal: to actually have such a rally in a major metropolitan area (preferably Chicago or New York). Our ultimate goal for this stage of the war: a national White Coming-Out Day, in which large rallies of this type are held across the nation. Once Joe and Jane Suburb see people like themselves in the streets being peacefully and proudly white, and that such people are not Nazis or Klansmen, they will begin to join the cause.
We must avoid making easy targets of ourselves. Any open display of white consciousness will only give the Enemy media what they want. Once you become a “well-known race activist,” you will be frozen, personalized, polarized, and demonized by the Alinskyites of the media/entertainment complex. You will also very likely end up in jail. Don’t make yourself easy pickings for the white-haters. This means no tee-shirts, no bumper stickers, no leafleting, no picket lines, no uniforms, no tattoos, no fortified compounds, no tax evasion. When racial issues come up in conversation, feign ignorance — or, better yet, remain silent. Every member of our movement must be an undercover agent. Speak out, yes, post flyers, comment on news stories on the Internet, do whatever you can to raise white consciousness — but always anonymously. Once they’re perp-walking you to the squad car in cuffs, your usefulness to the cause is zero. We must save our speech-making, our leafleting, our bumper-stickering for later stages of the war, when they will help rather than hurt us.
We should also carefully avoid offering any political solutions to the problem of race in America. Our goal is to “awaken” white people, that is, to create and raise white consciousness among the mass of whites in America. Once we achieve this goal, the political solution will emerge organically. Victory comes when the problems caused by racial and cultural integration in this country are ameliorated on a long-term, structural basis.
And it goes without saying that everything we do should be strictly legal and peaceful.
Above all, in everything we do for the cause, we must position ourselves as (and be in truth) a love-based, positive movement. Our purpose must be to promote our own people, our own culture, our own interests. The Judeo-Christian ethic lies at the core of European culture, and, consequently, at the core of any authentic Euro-American consciousness. The minute we go from loving our own to hating the other, we have betrayed that ethic, and we’re boned. Not only will the media and the general public lump us in with the cross-burners and brown-shirts, but Heaven itself will abandon us. Our motto must always be “Love for Our People, Not Hatred of Others.”
Sorry, I meant to say won’t attack you, but now my sarcasm has been ruined and my true intentions have been revealed. So shut it with your whining, tranny lover.
Allegedly, the belief that this violence was not an organized campaign by a specific group of people makes you a Stormfront-style “white supremacist*”. Apparently there are only five, but they use 80 aliases to scare everybody. The belief that blacks at the state fair could have gotten caught up in the situation is just that waycist! You have to believe a unprovable conspiracy theory to pwoov you not waycist.
Where did I get this smelly left-wing rumor? Why, none other than Gun Rights Media, of course.
For all I know, this may mob may have been organized by the New Black Panthers or Americans for Democratic Action or the Socialist Workers Party. Can’t rule it out. I just think it’s funny that, along with the BIG conspiracy theory (“white racism is endemic”), SLAWBs have added another that you just HAVE to believe in (“black racism is organized by some cell phone supervillain”).
*I love the way SLAWBs always think someone who want to live separately from blacks is a “supremacist”. Like, my boss is someone who wants to never come to my office…?
The SPLC is only interested in ideological dangers to their own position. Hence, the only black group they identify as a hate group is the Nation of Islam. The NOI is built upon the foundation of calling out They Who Must Not Be Named.
@ Anonymous (re-posted by Unamused):
Love your flyer and your comment. I would love to see that type of gathering or as I would call it, “1950s small-town America.”
Blacks riot in London. See the poor old London Red Double Decker Bus in flames!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2023254/Tottenham-riots-Double-decker-bus-set-ablaze-mob-violence-hits-London.html
It is not for you, for anyone, to say whom anyone may be – or even whom she or he decides she or he may choose to be. As are each one of you, each transwoman or transman, and even Lydia The Tattooed Lady, is “endowed by their Creator [or, if you might insist, by Nature] with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.” It is not for you, for anyone, to try to delegitimize an individual – an individual, not a movement, not an ideology, not a mob, not a threat to anyone else – whose free pursuit of her own Happiness does not meet with your approval. In short: Who died and elected you Sheik Ali Baba and the Forty Enforcers of the Taliban Religious Police?
No one is asking or forcing you to date a transwoman. No one is forcing you to pay for other individuals’ personal surgery. No one is menacing your family jewels or poking fun at them – or making jokes or hurling slurs at what you, in private, choose to do with them in pursuit of your individual Happiness. If you are, or even if you aspire to be, the civilized – and superior – Western Man you seem to boast of already being, then you would appreciate that other individuals’ private parts, and that other individuals’ private medical conditions, are none of your beeswax.
Your admission of ignorance of transgender matters ought to be enough for a prudent, civilized Western Man to have grasped that he should refrain from approving or disapproving, and from praising or attempting to belittle, an individual of whose medical case – and the neurological and medical science behind it – he knows little or nothing. A civilized Western Man may not then call someone else despicable – or even call someone else praiseworthy – unless he has first the facts upon which to base his approval or disapproval, or his praise or sophomoric japery.
You did, I like think, come to realize and appreciate all of this common sense, and so I thank you for your having removed the scare quotes, which gives a significant clue that in you there is an admirable spark of decent, good citizenship, perhaps even of gallantry.
To “Sagat’s” ad feminam attack upon me – which “Sagat” based ever so soberly, maturely, and sagaciously on his “[j]udging by your age” – I shan’t stoop to reply. I will say only that should “Sagat” ever be impanelled into a jury tasked with judging a case to which I was party, that I should advise my counsel to use voir dire challenge to unseat “Sagat,” because I – and everyone else who reads this – should dread to have the whole body of evidence in my case judged by one who presumes to base his preconviction on nothing more than his “Judging by your handle.” If it is Western Civilization that you seek to uphold, then you can, you should, you must do better than that, my dear “Sagat,” or you shall unavoidably suffer disappointment to find, time and again, that by your own behavior the civilization you seek to uphold shall ever evade your grasp.
@ Auntie Analogue: Hah. I disagree.
It is for me to decide (or “judge”), for myself, what everyone else is. You can declare yourself to be a man, a woman, a boiled potato, a Saguaro cactus, an African swallow, or any number of other things, but I am under no moral or legal obligation to buy what you’re selling.
If there is still some confusion over what rights each of us has (e.g., your right to say you’re X, my right to not believe you’re really X, etc.), then I will again refer you to my first post on compassionate reactionism.
Most of what you wrote is not relevant, so please re-read what I’ve written. It is not, in any reasonable sense of the word, intolerant of her choice of lifestyle, if only because it does not actually remark on her choice of lifestyle.
You seem to think I’m opposed to her (“her”) “free pursuit of her own Happiness” because it “does not meet with [my] approval.” There is no font size big enough for the words “STRAW MAN ARGUMENT” here. What I am is unprepared — given the available evidence, and there’s not much of it — to accept her declaration that she is a woman. Are you prepared to accept it, if I declare that I am a Saguaro cactus? No? WHY DO YOU KEEP OPPRESSING MEEEEEEE TALIBAN TALIBAN TALIBAN
Thank you for affirming that no one is forcing me to date a trans”woman.” That’s good to know: that I still have the right to refuse romantic relationships with, for example, people who declare themselves to be a different sex than their anatomy would suggest. Unfortunately, you insist that the trans”woman” has the right to force me to believe what “she” wants me to believe. (At this point, the scare quotes are just for my own amusement.) Is my freedom of conscience somehow less important than my freedom of choosing whom to screw?
That’s what we’re really talking about. It’s not what she does in the privacy of her own bedroom; it’s what I’m allowed to see with my own eyes, and say with my own mouth, and think with my own mind.
Kiwiguy,
Thanks for the link, I heard about the riots an hour ago or so. The yahoo report didn’t mention the name of the person the cops shot but someone in the threads did, and the British reports are mentioning him – Mark Duggan. No pictures of the person, who was caught shooting at police. Those photos are the only ones showing blacks rioting, most shots are of the cops or burning bus, people in shadows – no mention of race.
However, Mark was stopped by Trident, which the Skyone report I saw on youtube says is a polce unit dealing with ‘gun crime in the black community’. So the British blacks are learning from their American cousins.
As far as the transgender, yeah I don’t have a problem with it. I don’t understand it and all, but she is an adult and not hurting anyone, far as I know isn’t trying to teach gender switching to kindergardners so fine. I’m liberal with many things, fine with gay marriage, although don’t think that should be taught to kids. Think it’s weird some people think we should teach kids to ‘respect gays’ but not respect ALL people, but whatever.
I do think it’s weird that the gay community turns a blind eye to black homophobia. It seems pretty rampant in the black community, such as Tracy Morgan feeling comfortable about if he had agay kid he’d stab him in the head. Bernie Mac has a bit where he calls his son “The faggot”. I listened to Howard Stern long ago and he played back the part of his comedy album and asked Bernie what he thought, and he said hearing it doens’t make him feel to good. Yet, he was willing to do a bit where he calls his son ‘the faggot’, all to the laughter of his audience.
I’ll accept that you’re a Saguaro cactus if you want me to, because I *heart* you. Also, Saguaro cactus always look so friendly, don’t they? Thank you for defending reality.
If you want to debate Transgenderism and the like, a good place to go would be the reactionary Catholic blog, Throne and Altar:
http://bonald.wordpress.com/2010/09/09/so-are-we-sexually-fluid-or-is-it-genetic/
Typical case of a hijacked discussion!
HTF do you get from the SPLC and White Rights to blurbs about transgenders?
What’s happening is the recent black attacks have led a lot of different people to wake up to the threat. Just because they don’t want to see whites attacked by blacks or see the crimes hidden by the liberal media means that everyone is going to be marching to the same tune on every subject. We’re not all going to dress the same, eat the same dinners, like the same movies, and think the same just because of black thuggery.
As I think I personally stated I’m fine with gays. I haven’t known many gay men but the ones I did were good. I only knew one openly lesbian and one openly bisexual woman, they were dating and they both had issues. They both caused drama but chalk it up to them both being drama queens more then lesbians. The few lesbians I’ve worked with but didn’t hang out with were fine, though. It’s the gay pride parades and junk that gives many gays a bad name, IMO. Don’t love all gays, but don’t hate all gays either.
Really don’t get the transgender things or the pronoun things, but, fine whatever, I don’t care to much about that. People like Auntie can be liberal on certain views and still see the problems with BRA. Gays seem to get attacked by blacks as well. The black community, not being as ‘progressive’ as liberals think, really hates gays. As I mentioned the Bernie Mac and Tracy Morgan routines that got a lot of laugh by blacks. Also that black actor who got fired from Grey’s Anatomy for calling a coworker a faggot seemed shocked. A white would know he’s going to get in trouble for shouting faggot, a black guy has no problem. Different standards put on blacks hating gays.
Hate to use the word diverse, but people worried about BRA and black racial riots against whites will have differing views on other subjects.
Victim of one of the attacks was “trangendered” and there is discussion regarding whether said victim deserves the pronoun “she.”
Anyone with a dick who insists on being called “she” probably deserves a butt-kicking on general principles. There is no need to invoke race when it happens.
Ad Feminam? Lolzlzlzlzolzlzz
I love this. The whole comment, actually. *Thought police alert, code orange*
We are now living in “The Turner Diaries”. I am looking forward to the chapter in which our national leaders repeal the criminal code in every state because the laws are apparently racist due to the fact that only Blacks are guilty of breaking them.
Unamused,
Please take a look at this link. The Wall Street Journal is now discussing the inability for Black women to find mates instead of real economic issues.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111903454504576486492588283556.html
[Roger Wilco.]
Someone really should do a google bomb on the SPLC the way Dan Savage did to Rick Santorum. Hell, there are enough pro-white sites out there to pull it off.
[...] – “The SPLC’s Crusade Against White Rights: No State Fair There“, “Who Am I Arguing with Now? Assorted Edition“, “Race and Crime in [...]
First of all I don’t see today’s KKK as racist maybe separatist meaning they don’t want to be around blacks for number of reasons
and that isn’t against the law or constitution. Many groups want to be left alone Amish, for one. too many to list. leads to next brainwave
what politicians decided for America its citizens to lose their identity and suddenly class our country as a melting pot? merging our school systems that the whites blacks Indians Chinese didn’t want to start with. Each group or race simply wanted their own system school. It was cheaper for our government to mix it all up which naturally created hate cause everyone lost except those who could afford private schools you know the 1-percenters that rule us. Government plays master everyone else plays slave 1965 started gotten worse ever since schools are gradually failing tensions are high NAACP is nothing more than racism against whites
[...] http://unamusementpark.com/2011/08/the-splcs-crusade-against-white-rights-no-state-fair-there/ Rate this: Like this:LikeBe the first to like this post. [...]
[...] Unamusement Park: “Race and crime in Wisconsin“, “The SPLC’s crusade against white rights: no State Fair there“ [...]