The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information

 TeasersGregory Hood Blogview

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
🔊 Listen RSS

Joe Biden will not go to Milwaukee, Wisconsin, to accept the Democratic presidential nomination because of the coronavirus. He’s probably making the right decision. Most media are backing his campaign and the less he exposes himself, the better. At the same time, Mr. Biden’s chances of becoming president are better if as few people as possible see what’s happened in Milwaukee.

Until 1950, Milwaukee was almost entirely white, with a few blacks in an area called “Bronzeville.” During the New Deal, the Home Owners’ Loan Corporation, which helped people keep up with mortgages, “redlined” a black neighborhood, classifying it “hazardous” for investment. “This is the Negro and slum area of Milwaukee,” it said. “It is old and very ragged.” The black population increased by 600 percent from 1940 to 1960, mostly because blacks migrated from the South for manufacturing jobs.

Schools were mostly segregated because neighborhoods were segregated, and students attended local schools. In 1965, a black lawyer named Lloyd Barbee filed a school integration lawsuit in Amos et al. v the Board of School Directors of the City of Milwaukee. The case wasn’t decided until 1976, when Federal Judge John Reynolds ruled that segregation in Milwaukee public schools had been “intentionally created and maintained by the defendants.” In 1979, the Supreme Court upheld this decision and ordered integration through redistricting and busing.

A 1976 survey found more than 70 percent of white parents in Milwaukee wanted their children to attend integrated schools — in theory — but more than 60 percent opposed busing.[1] Of those who opposed busing, half said they would rather put their children in private schools, and others said they would homeschool or leave the city. “[E]ven though many white Milwaukeeans publicly said they favored integration as long as their children were not bused, they privately did not want any integration at all,” wrote author James Nelson in Education Milwaukee.

Blacks began organizing against housing segregation as well. On July 30, 1967, blacks rioted and several people were killed over the next few days, including one police officer. In the weeks afterward, blacks marched more than 200 times to support an ordinance banning housing discrimination. Their efforts succeeded when President Lyndon Johnson signed the Fair Housing Act and the city passed a local ordinance that banned housing discrimination except in owner-occupied buildings with no more than two units.

The exodus began. “White flight bloated the counties surrounding Milwaukee County,” said ThinkProgress in 2016, “where the white population almost tripled between 1960 and 2010.” A 2019 Brookings Institute report said Milwaukee is the most segregated metro area in the country. “Today, the Milwaukee public schools are once again largely segregated,” says the Wisconsin Historical Society.

In 1960, Milwaukee was 91 percent white. In just 20 years — after desegregation, busing, and “fair housing” — the city was just 71 percent white. While the black population increased, the manufacturing jobs that had attracted them were leaving. The Encyclopedia of Wisconsin says that in 1970, almost 75 percent of black men were employed. By 2009, fewer than half were employed. Perhaps not coincidentally, by 2000, the city was less than half white.

Milwaukee is one of the worst cities in America for blacks, based on the educational, wealth, incarceration, and other racial gaps.

The city is highly segregated, and most of the crime is in black areas. One study blamed the crime on “segregation,” but it’s what comes with blacks. If Milwaukee’s dramatic decline in the white population shows anything, it’s that “integration” is just a phase between a white majority and a black majority.

Fox News reported in April 2019 that Milwaukee was the sixth-most dangerous city in America. Still, until recently, there was improvement. In January 2020, Mayor Tom Barrett proudly announced that violent crime was down 33 percent over the previous five years. That was before George Floyd. In May, the city reported a 96 percent increase in homicides compared to this time the previous year. By July, it was a 100 percent increase. Twenty-five federal agents are coming to the city as part of Operation Legend.

• Category: Race/Ethnicity • Tags: Black Crime, Blacks, Milwaukee, White flight 
🔊 Listen RSS

“Whites exist objectively,” said Sam Francis, “but do not exist subjectively.” Our political adversaries know we are white. Government policies track and sometimes penalize whites. Major corporations and government institutions promote an ideology of “white privilege.” However, many whites themselves don’t think of themselves as white or want to be seen as white. Unfortunately for them, they don’t have a choice.

The Washington Post recently announced it would capitalize “black.” However, in contrast to the Associated Press and Columbia Journalism Review, the Post said it would also capitalize “white.” “Stories involving race show that White also represents a distinct cultural identity in the United States,” the Post said. It added that many white immigrants to the United States had separate ethnic identities, but “these diverse ethnicities were eventually assimilated into the collective group that has had its own cultural and historical impact on the nation.” Well, yes it has. Not to put too fine a point on it, we built the nation.

But both leftists and “conservatives” were angry.


Karen Attiah, last seen vaguely threatening white women on Twitter, explained that the Post would still use a lowercase W in “white power” or “white supremacy.” Of course, logically, you could argue that that is when it is most deserving of capitalization, if upper case recognizes a self-conscious, collective identity. However, the general objection to the Post’s new rule was that it treated white people as a distinct group. Miss Attiah seemed genuinely baffled:

Some “conservatives” also don’t want whites to have an identity.

The leftists have to square a logical circle. First, they tell us “whiteness” is a social construct that was used to justify oppression. The late Noel Ignatiev, who infamously called for abolishing “whiteness” and wrote How The Irish Became White, popularized the silly idea that “whiteness” initially didn’t include the Irish and other European groups. Thus, there is no whiteness. There are white ethnicities such as German-American or Irish-American, but no “whites,” because whiteness is an artificial but vicious system of oppression.

However, “white fragility” also tells us that all white people, without exception, are “racist,” and government policies that discriminate against whites require a biological standard of who is white and who is not; otherwise people with just a trace of black ancestry could sue for affirmative action. If “whiteness” is just a social construct, it follows that people of any race should be able to claim they are black, as Rachel Dolezal did. And if race is a social construct, how can Derek Chauvin be accused of “racism” in the death of George Floyd? How could he tell that Floyd was black?

Thus, critical race theory has contradictions built into it. On the one hand, “whites” don’t exist because they are a creation of nefarious elites who want to oppress blacks. (Who are these elites? Presumably they don’t include the overwhelming majority of the American institutions that are patronizing Black Lives Matter.) On the other hand, there has to be a way to identify whites. If groups can simply say they are not white, as MENA (Americans of Middle Eastern and African Descent) groups are trying to do, they can claim they are part of the oppressed class even when they are privileged.

Conservatives have different problems. They are trying to uphold a non-racial “American” identity and dismiss white identity as tribalism. At the same time, they also think that ethnic identities, particularly Jewish, are valid. However, why is Jewish, gay, or even “American” identity not mere “tribalism?” Why is race alone illegitimate? Furthermore, can we seriously argue that most people think Mark Krikorian is “Armenian” rather than “white?” Partly because of government-sponsored campaigns for assimilation during the late 19th century and during World War I, the ethnic boundaries between Irish, Italian, Polish, and other white ethnicities have melded into a larger “white” cultural identity.

More importantly, contra Ignatiev, the Founders clearly understood “whiteness.” They reserved American citizenship for “free white persons” in the United States Naturalization Law of March 26, 1790. The very first United States Congress passed this bill a year and a half before the Bill of Rights.

“Historically white Americans have sharply distinguished themselves from Indians, blacks, Asians, Asians, and Mexicans, and excluded them from the American community,” wrote Samuel Huntington in Who Are We? He further says that though blacks were 20 percent of the American population at the founding, they were not viewed by Americans as members of their community — not “constituent members of our society” in Attorney General Edmund Randolph’s words. Jefferson thought whites and blacks couldn’t live under the same government. “Jefferson, James Madison, Henry Clay, John Randolph, Abraham Lincoln, and other leading political figures supported the efforts of the American Colonization Society to promote emigration of free blacks to Africa.” In the 1857 Dred Scott case, Chief Justice Roger Taney bluntly said that blacks were not part of the “people of the United States.”

🔊 Listen RSS

Until very recently, most Northern cities enjoyed overwhelming white majorities. Southern cities haven’t been so lucky because most blacks stayed in the region until the Great Migration. However, Richmond was a white-majority city until desegregation. Today, blacks and deracinated whites in the city are destroying monuments to Southern resistance, finally consolidating their cultural as well as political conquest of the former Confederate capital.

Retreating Confederates and advancing Yankees destroyed much of Richmond during the Civil War, but residents rebuilt quickly. The Robert E. Lee statue on Monument Avenue was unveiled in 1890, and Stonewall Jackson’s in 1919. Douglas Southall Freeman, whose biographies of George Washington and Robert E. Lee and whose study of the Confederate high command in Lee’s Lieutenants made him perhaps the best known historian in America, took over the Richmond News Leader in 1915 and was editor for decades.

The Gen. Robert E. Lee Monument in Richmond, Virginia. (Credit Image: © Chuck Myers / MCT /
The Gen. Robert E. Lee Monument in Richmond, Virginia. (Credit Image: © Chuck Myers / MCT /

In 1922, Richmond was also the birthplace of the Anglo-Saxon Clubs of America, which successfully lobbied for Virginia’s Racial Integrity Act of 1924, banning interracial marriage. However, Richmond was also a Mecca for black political organizations, hosting the 30th anniversary convention of the NAACP. During World Wars I and II, the Civil War era Camp Lee was used to mobilize American soldiers. In 2015, the Army said it had kept the name in a spirit of “reconciliation, not division.”

Richmond was more than two-thirds white before the Supreme Court ordered school desegregation in 1954. Virginia responded with a “massive resistance” campaign, closing local schools rather than desegregate them. Virginia’s Harry Byrd promoted “massive resistance” because he thought the Commonwealth could rally the rest of the South: “If we can organize the Southern states for massive resistance to this order [of the Supreme Court], I think that in time the rest of the country will realize that racial integration is not going to be accepted in the South.” Conservative columnist James Kilpatrick developed the doctrine of “interposition” to justify white resistance, arguing that state sovereignty meant the Commonwealth could ignore the Supreme Court ruling. In his review of George Lewis’s Massive Resistance: The White Response to the Civil Rights Movement, Morris V. de Camp writes that efforts to stop desegregation ultimately failed, so “whites pretended to support the package of The Reverend Doctor Martin Luther King Jr. . . . while they fled its effects.” This is especially true of Richmond’s public schools.

Robert Pratt writes in A Promise Unfilled: School Desegregation in Richmond, Virginia 1956-1986 that aggressive federal courts were able to reduce “massive resistance” to “shambles” by 1959. Richmond’s white parents changed tactics; they put their children in private schools. “Richmond’s schools, 57 percent white in 1954, were more than 86 percent black by 1986,” wrote Professor Pratt. He added that some “black pioneers” at white schools didn’t perform well because, as he claims, white teachers were sometimes “condescending,” and blacks had “lowered self-esteem.” This raises the question of why desegregation was a good idea.

There was white flight both from the schools and the city. Richmond went from 68 percent white in 1950 to a white minority by 1980. In 1970, still-white Richmond annexed part of mostly white Chesterfield county to stave off a black majority, but this backfired. First, whites in Chesterfield didn’t want to be lumped in with Richmond and its black population. Second, the federal courts ruled that Richmond’s “at-large” election system was now illegitimate because the annexation was for racial reasons. In City of Richmond v. United States (1975), the Supreme Court said Richmond had to adopt a “ward” voting system to give blacks political power.

Whites began moving out of the expanded city and blacks moved in. In 1977, Mayor Henry L. Marsh III became Richmond’s first black mayor, chosen by the city council after blacks won a majority on the council. White leaders worried that blacks would do something to Monument Avenue; they have now been vindicated.

Once Richmond became majority-black, many blacks wanted a mayor directly elected by voters, but they feared rich whites might out-organize them in an “at-large” system. Thus, Richmond developed a compromise that requires a mayor to win most of the votes in a majority of city council districts. “The compromise was meant to prevent the election of a Mayor who did not have explicit support by those in districts where Black voters resided,” explained an article from William & Mary Law School. Once again, the system deliberately protected black power at whites’ expense.

Whites continued to move away, and blacks began to exercise power. In 1996, the city council approved putting up a statue of black tennis player Arthur Ashe on Monument Avenue, an idea proposed by City Councilman Henry “Chuck” Richardson, who was reportedly inspired by scenes of people tearing down Communist monuments in Eastern Europe. Not long after, a jury convicted Mr. Richardson of distributing heroin, but the idea did not die.

🔊 Listen RSS

Feelings don’t care about facts. The mass hysteria that’s gripped the Western world after the death of George Floyd can’t be explained in rational terms. Police are shooting fewer unarmed black men each year, and most of the shootings are justified. Police are more likely to shoot a non-threatening white than a non-threatening black. In the Floyd case specifically, there’s nothing that shows racial bias by police officers, and Floyd was on drugs and resisting arrest. Minneapolis police procedure allowed neck pressure in some circumstances. Former police officer Derek Chauvin’s conduct wasn’t extraordinary. But the facts are almost irrelevant. We’re dealing with faith, religious ecstasy. We’re in the midst of BLMania.

Collective frenzies aren’t new. Almost every American knows about the Salem witch trials, during which Christians claimed they saw demons and devils. Evil had to be rooted out, whatever the cost. Arthur Miller’s fictional re-telling in The Crucible, originally meant to criticize McCarthyism, now reads like a satire of SJWs.

In 1536, Anabaptists took over Münster, Germany, and tried to establish a divine kingdom. Would-be prophet Jan Matthys cannot have been a charlatan; he must have believed he was chosen by God, because he rode out almost by himself to attack a besieging army. He was instantly killed, but that didn’t shake the faith of his followers. In 1917, hundreds of people in Fátima, Portugal, claimed they saw the sun dance in the sky. The Catholic Church, which often debunks alleged visions and miracles, declared this “worthy of belief.”

Still, because of the doctrine of Original Sin and man’s fallen nature, Christians are reminded not to “immanentize the eschaton” and seek heaven on earth. If Christians are delusional, can go only so far. “Secular” movements have no such restraints. During the last century, tens of millions were butchered in Russia, China, Cambodia, and other places in the name of the Brotherhood of Man, with the revolutionaries often creating cults of personality to replace older faiths and heroes. The Revolutionary Communist Party, which can be found burning American flags around the country, has its own cult of personality around leader Bob Avakian.

During the French Revolution, a “Cult of Reason” was established, with Robespierre as high priest. Busts of the assassinated revolutionary Jean-Paul Marat replaced crucifixes in some churches. During the Spanish Civil War, anarchists burned churches, shot at statues of Jesus, murdered clergy, and desecrated the dead to pave the way for a new order. The Communards executed Archbishop Georges Darboy during the Paris Commune and destroyed the original Vendôme Column because it glorified empire. The famous French protests of May 1968, which strongly influenced the current intellectual climate, had a utopian, religious flavor. Would-be revolutionaries destroyed property as they spray-painted the following slogans:

  • It is forbidden to forbid
  • Enjoy without hindrance
  • Be realistic, ask the impossible.

Ann Coulter analyzed mobs in her 2011 book Demonic. She heavily cited Gustave Le Bon’s famous 1895 book The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind. Miss Coulter said a mob is “an irrational, childlike, often violent organism that derives its energy from the group” and is “intoxicated by messianic goals.” One chapter is called “Imaginary Violence From the Right Vs. Actual Violence From The Left.” This is especially prescient. CHAZ/CHOP “security” in Seattle murdered a black teenager and wounded another because they thought right-wing paramilitaries would attack any second (no one has been arrested for these shootings). As cities burn, NBC reports that “an expert” thinks the real threat is “far right” violence.

The “messianic goal” Miss Coulter wrote of is human equality. The premise is that if existing social institutions are removed, a natural and authentic human equality will emerge. Even the past must be destroyed to make this possible. The French Revolution remade the calendar, with 1792 as Year Zero. All culture and history from the past was irrelevant because everything was to be built anew. Rousseau famously wrote that “man is born free and everywhere is in chains.” This comes from assuming that man is a blank slate and that people are born equal. If there is inequality, it can only be because of unjust institutions or exploitative social forces.

Who is the boogeyman? Many once believed it was the Church: Voltaire’s “infâme.” Some blamed kings; Jefferson’s post-revolutionary writings show paranoia about “monarchial” tendencies. Many believe capitalism is the enemy, but I’d argue that most progressives today believe the fundamental problem is “whiteness.”

What is whiteness? Psychology Today says it’s “an unfairly privileged exclusionary category, based on physical features, most notably a lack of melanin.” Many others who study “whiteness” say something similar. Whiteness is a social construct used to justify domination, slavery, and economic exploitation today.

There are three obvious objections to this.

  • First, it assumes that race is a social construct, not a biological reality.
  • Second, it assumes that all whites benefit from being part of a dominant political, cultural, and economic force. This is clearly not true.
🔊 Listen RSS

W.E.B. Du Bois was one of America’s most important leftist intellectuals. The Souls of Black Folk and Dusk of Dawn: An Essay Toward an Autobiography of a Race Concept were the precursors to today’s racial politics. Black Reconstruction in America anticipated the contemporary doctrine that Reconstruction didn’t go far enough. (Eric Foner’s Reconstruction: America’s Unfinished Revolution, 1863-1877 is the key text.) Du Bois helped start the NAACP. A pro-Japanese polemicist early in World War II, a Communist Party member, and a Pan-Africanist who returned to the Mother Continent and died in Ghana, there’s no way he could be considered a conservative or an American patriot. But National Review’s editor trots him out as the moral authority so he can insult Robert E. Lee. “Conservatives” love to find blacks onto whom they can hang their ideas — any ideas, conservative or liberal — so they can bask in the moral glow of melanin.

Du Bois said that the South “cared only for State Rights as a weapon to defend slavery.” However, Abraham Lincoln thought preserving the Union was more important than ending slavery. The pro-Union slaveholders in the Border States felt the same. Southern secessionism first emerged with the 1828 “Tariff of Abominations,” not from slavery. I agree with Du Bois’s charge that people “do not go to war for abstract theories of government,” but “property and privilege” is by no means their only motive. People make war for monarch, nation, family, and tribe as much as for plunder. In making this argument, Du Bois sounds much like James Burnham and the Machiavellian political school. But he’s wrong that defending slavery was the South’s only political concern.

Southern states could have stayed in the Union and kept their slaves. They could have accepted Abraham Lincoln’s February 3, 1865 peace offer, which kept slavery as an option provided there was peace and reunification. During the last months of the war, General Lee favored arming blacks to fight for Southern independence. Independence and sovereignty became more important than the “peculiar institution.” Du Bois is right that the South was nationalist in 1812 but embraced “particularism” in 1861. He fails to recognize that the South’s interests changed. John Calhoun himself favored a high tariff in 1816 but shifted his position because he came to believe the South benefitted from free trade. The South didn’t want to be reduced to a permanent, powerless minority in the American political system, subservient in a Northern-dominated economic system.

It’s striking that Du Bois recognizes that politics is about interests, not ideology, but he reverts to hokum about “human progress and Christian democracy” and General Lee’s failure to champion it. He even calls Lee a traitor to “humanity’s God,” but Du Bois was no Christian. His faith was communism, which is why we get lazy talk about “progress.” Du Bois praised the Soviet Union for the “dethronement of the clergy and the refusal to let religion be taught in the public schools.” Much like Martin Luther King’s faux-Christianity, Du Bois’ invocation of “Christian democracy” and “humanity’s God” is bait for rubes like National Review editors .

W.E.B. Du Bois (Credit Image: © Circa Images/Glasshouse via ZUMA Wire)
W.E.B. Du Bois (Credit Image: © Circa Images/Glasshouse via ZUMA Wire)

Du Bois faults Lee for not having the courage to “stand against his family and his clan.” Standing against one’s family and clan has traditionally been one of the worst things you can do. Standing for your family and clan is the essence of real conservatism. Of course, while Du Bois insults Lee for not being an ethnomasochist, Du Bois himself was a thoroughgoing black nationalist. He spent his life fighting for his race. He had the moral courage to leave this country and go back to Africa. He’s better than those “black nationalists” who survive on liberal white patronage.

We can’t expect Rich Lowry to understand fighting for one’s “family” and “clan.” It’s not surprising that today’s National Review takes the side of a Communist who called Stalin a “great man” and not that of Dwight Eisenhower, who said Lee was a “great American” whom “present-day American youth [should] strive to emulate.” National Review’s egalitarianism can’t help but lead to these positions.

Robert E. Lee (Credit Image: © JT Vintage/Glasshouse via ZUMA Wire)
Robert E. Lee (Credit Image: © JT Vintage/Glasshouse via ZUMA Wire)

Still, the case for why Robert E. Lee was a coward — written by W.E.B. Du Bois — is just too much for any conservative to stomach. It’s especially absurd when it’s promoted by a guy claiming to make The Case for Nationalism. We’ve had our fun, Mr. Lowry, but we can all see through this farce now. Take the chance to rebrand as an edgy centrist before you discredit conservatism altogether.

🔊 Listen RSS

Nick Cannon, an actor and singer, recently unbosomed some interesting anthropological theories.

Melanin comes with compassion. Melanin comes with soul. We call it soul, we soul brothers and sisters. That’s the melanin that connects us. So the people that don’t have it are, and I’m going to say this carefully [laughs], are a little less, and where the term comes from, and bringing it all the way back around to Minister Farrakhan, to where they may not have the compassion . . . . So therefore, the only way they can act is evil. [emphasis added] They have to rob, steal, rape, kill and fight in order to survive. So these people who didn’t have what we had, and when I say we I speak of the melanated people, they had to be savages. They had to be barbaric. . . . so they’re acting as animals. So they’re the ones that are closer to animals.

Mr. Cannon also claimed blacks are “descendants from God himself,” and discussed “the idea of having to define myself as a god.” He bragged about the power of melanin. I must lack soul, or, since I’m closer to an animal, I don’t have the intelligence to understand melanated wisdom. Still, Mr. Cannon’s claims are implicit in the way media talk about race. The very phrase “people of color” implies that whites lack something.

Media sometimes call white advocates or race realists “white supremacists,” “Nazis,” or something close to terrorists. Still, I’ve never met a white advocate who believes his skin color gives him magic powers. I’ve never even heard of any anyone who believes white people are “gods” or who thinks blacks only do evil.

When it comes to who robs, rapes, kills, and fights, the evidence shows blacks do these things more often than whites. They are doing it especially enthusiastically right now because Black Lives Matter undermines police. Though whites are often victims, the melanin “soul” connection is certainly not strong enough to prevent black viciousness towards other blacks.

Mr. Cannon said that whites are “closer to animals” because of our race. If a white person said this about blacks, his podcast would be banned and he would be deplatformed.

This hasn’t happened. You can still find Mr. Cannon’s podcast on Spotify. Mr. Cannon did pay a price — CBS dropped him and his talk show was put on hold — though not because he said bad things about whites. It’s because of what he said about Jews.

“The Semitic people are black people,” he said, arguing that blacks could therefore not be anti-Semitic without being self-hating. He said this while discussing the music industry with Richard “Professor Griff” Griffin, who left the rap group Public Enemy after he criticized Jews. The two discussed whether Jews control the music industry and whether some are “scared of the truth.” There was nothing about their being closer to animals or always doing evil. And yet, almost all the media coverage about Mr. Cannon’s interview was about his “anti-Semitic” comments.

“Professor Griff” (Credit Image: kowarski via Wikimedia)
“Professor Griff” (Credit Image: kowarski via Wikimedia)

Few major outlets noted Mr. Cannon’s anti-white remarks. Why would they? What he said was just a cruder version of something you might read in The Washington Post, The New York Times, or Newsweek. There is no white equivalent to the Anti-Defamation League.

And so, Mr. Cannon met with a rabbi from the Simon Wiesenthal center, and did what was required.

This must have helped, but Mr. Cannon hasn’t been “canceled.” He didn’t apologize to whites, nor was there pressure for him to do so. Fox is keeping him on the television program “Masked Singer.” His upcoming daytime program hasn’t been canceled, just delayed. Sean “Diddy” Combs offered him a job. “Charlamagne Tha Goddefended him and spoke frankly about collective racial interests.

No one should be surprised by this. Fifty percent of black voters have a favorable opinion of Louis Farrakhan. Mr. Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam are a black racial vanguard for their people. Blacks appreciate this. The mainstream media doesn’t, but mostly because Mr. Farrakhan keeps insulting Jews.

🔊 Listen RSS

Around the country, violent crime and vandalism are on the rise, and the Black Lives Matter movement incites violence. However, Twitter and YouTube are not censoring BLM; they promote it. Instead, Twitter recently banned more than 50 accounts associated with Generation Identity (GI) in Europe, both of organizations and of individuals, especially in Germany and Austria. One of the primary targets was the Austrian Identitarian activist Martin Sellner, whose YouTube channel was also deleted soon after the Twitter purge. This probably happened at the bidding of two former SPLC employees.

Heidi Beirich, formerly of the Southern Poverty Law Center, recently started the “Global Project Against Hate and Extremism” (GPAHE). She and GPAHE co-founder Wendy Via recently wrote a report called “Generation Identity: International Nationalist Movement Spreading On Twitter And YouTube.” It is weak, even for agitprop. It directly — and ridiculously — compares Generation Identity to ISIS. It wants the identitarian movement to be recognized “as a driver of terrorism at the same level as Islamic terrorism.” This means tech companies must take “immediate steps to deplatform all Identitarian material.” That is exactly what happened.

The notion that white advocacy is terrorism is widely circulated nonsense. The Anti-Defamation League’s “Extremist Terrorism” report, for example, is laughable. GPAHE’s report says there have been “six mass attacks since October 2018” worldwide that it blames in the identitarian movement. This is absurd.

One was an October 2019 attack in Halle, Germany, by a man who tried to shoot up a synagogue. When he could not get through the door, he shot two Germans passing by. He had no links of any kind to GI or the German New Right, nor did he refer to them anywhere in his brief manifesto. In February 2020, a man in Hanau attacked two hookah bars and killed nine people; then he killed his mother and himself. He wrote a non-political manifesto that was clearly the work of a madman. In Germany, both shootings were used to blame the populist party Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) for spreading “hate.” GI was only a secondary target.

Even one right-wing attack is too many, but it’s silly to compare a few shootings around the world over a two-year period to ISIS, which established de facto sovereignty over a vast territory — but that’s what the report does: “It would be inconceivable for social media platforms to allow ISIS propaganda to spread and grow unchecked, but that is exactly what is happening with Identitarianism.” So, where’s the terrorism? GPAHE relies heavily on Christchurch shooter Brenton Tarrant’s opposition to “The Great Replacement” — the dispossession of whites in their homelands. The report calls it a “racist conspiracy theory,” even though countless articles and books have noted the rapid and unprecedented demographic change in the Western world. Leftists, including Joy Reid, Zerlina Maxwell, and Stacey Abrams openly celebrate it. Even if we never mentioned it again, the GPAHE’s progressive allies would continue to crow about our steady dispossession.

The authors seem to think the Christchuch shooter would never have learned about The Great Replacement and would never have killed anyone but for the wicked machinations of Martin Sellner and other identitarians. GPAHE even claims Brenton Tarrant learned about the United Nations’ Migration Compact — which promotes Third-World immigration into white countries — from Generation Identity. The Compact, just like population change in the West, was no secret and was widely debated. Why not blame the New York Times? But somehow, GI inspires “white supremacist killers” and is building “a movement whose ideas are linked directly to terrorism and the building of an international white supremacist network.”

The report cannot find a single act of terrorism or even violence committed or encouraged by any leader or member of an identitarian group. The closest GPAHE gets is a donation the Christchurch shooter made to Martin Sellner a year before his attack. Is Mr. Sellner expected to read the mind of everyone who supports him and predict his future actions? We might as well hold Bernie Sanders responsible for a supporter who shot at Republican congressmen. Let’s ban the Democratic Socialists of America as a terrorist group. It is absurd to hold Mr. Sellner responsible for the actions of people in other countries.

Astonishingly, GPAHE uses examples of state repression against Martin Sellner and Generation Identity as an argument for further repression. It cites the American, British, and German governments’ actions against Mr. Sellner and Generation Identity. The authors note approvingly that the Trump Administration even denied Mr. Sellner a visa to come marry his now-wife, Brittany Pettibone, on American soil.

There is plenty of name-dropping in the report. David Duke, Richard Spencer, Alain de Benoist, Jared Taylor, and Patrick Casey all make appearances. They and others are lumped together as Identitarians and thus linked to terrorism. The report concludes by praising tech company repression of ISIS propaganda, and frets about the “double standard” of failing to muzzle Generation Identity.

Double standard? Antifa and blacks attack whites, shoot police, flout pandemic safety measures, riot and loot — often explicitly under the banner of Black Lives Matter. BLM doesn’t just enjoy a platform; it gets corporate sponsorship.

Martin Sellner has written a brilliant response to this “report.” He points out that he has never inspired or advocated violence. Instead, he writes, “Our ‘crime’ is that we name and criticize current population policies.” He also warns that Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, and other big tech companies “have achieved a monopoly,” and bans make it impossible to reach large audiences. He notes that once a dissident figure has built up a channel with a considerable following, he will invariably be shut down on preposterous pretexts. Taking legal action against this is almost completely fruitless. Mr. Sellner reminds us of the power wielded by these companies:

🔊 Listen RSS

The Left is egalitarian. The Right understands hierarchy. While the Left has cults of personality, for the Right, the need for a personal leader seems built in. There must be a king, a man on horseback, or a tribune of the nation whom we can follow. This leads to mistakes. In retrospect, the tributes to “God-Emperor” Donald Trump in 2015-2016 are embarrassing, even if you think he should be re-elected. We may soon feel the same way about Tucker Carlson, whom many believe is the real voice of American nationalism — though it’s questionable whether “American nationalism” is even possible anymore.

However, I’m not disavowing Mr. Carlson just yet. Last night, he talked about a hit piece against one of his writers that got him fired. Mr. Carlson spoke against the vulgar comments the young man — Blake Neff — posted on a forum. Tasteless comments in private don’t show any of us at our best. But Mr. Carlson also denounced the self-righteousness of those who destroyed a young man’s career. This took courage.

Mr. Carlson reminded us that all are fallen. He didn’t grovel or attack his former employee. Nor did he fire him; Mr. Neff appears to have resigned, and there’s no evidence to suggest he was forced out. The Left obviously doesn’t think Mr. Carlson toadied enough. The Left never thinks anyone toadies enough. Mr. Carlson’s remarks were not a ringing endorsement of free speech, but were about the best that could be expected from someone who wants to stay at a network that has clearly shifted left.

I don’t know Mr. Carlson’s former writer, and until two days ago I had never heard of the forum where he posted. However, I used to know Oliver Darcy, who wrote the original CNN article that exposed Mr. Neff. Mr. Darcy and I used to work together at the Leadership Institute. He was something of a firebrand at that time, pioneering some of the street interviews/activism now typical of conservative provocateurs such as Steven Crowder or Kaitlin Bennett. He was certainly more conservative than most people at LI.

Oliver Darcy during his time in the “conservative” Beltway. (Credit Image: The Leadership Institute)
Oliver Darcy during his time in the “conservative” Beltway. (Credit Image: The Leadership Institute)

It would be absurd for me to try to smear Mr. Darcy because he associated with me or anybody else. However, my views weren’t a secret. Everyone was well aware that I opposed multiculturalism and mass immigration. If anything, I was more “radical” than I am now in middle age. Oliver had no problems working with me or with my organization, Youth for Western Civilization, and I considered him a friend. Perhaps he has changed his views; perhaps he never had any.

“Miles’s Law,” which states, “Where you stand depends on where you sit,” is probably explains him best. Liberal journalism today revolves around deplatforming and silencing the competition. Oliver was just doing his job at CNN, just as he did at LI or at The Blaze, years ago. Like a gangland hit, I suspect this was just business, nothing personal. Mr. Carlson’s writer was someone who had to go.

Still, there’s something obscene about media conglomerates writing breathless stories about a young man’s comments in an anonymous forum. It’s one thing if it’s some antifa group calling you names; that’s to be expected. It’s quite another when this is what CNN spends time on during an economic recession, mass pandemic, tensions in the Middle East and Asia, rising crime, and widespread rioting. It’s even worse when the Associated Press thinks it’s headline news.

This isn’t the “free press” holding power accountable; it’s bullies trying to shut people up. It’s even more disgusting when the censorship is coming from someone who would have deplatformed his own persona of just a few years earlier. This isn’t journalism. It’s petty cruelty. It’s why so many Americans don’t believe the “fake news” anymore. They think, correctly, that cable news is just a way for journalists to scold, snitch, and speechify, instead of informing us about what’s happening in the world.

I think Mr. Carlson did the best that could have been expected. I pray that Mr. Neff can rebuild his career and his life. Finally, I hope those who successfully doxed him reflect that “cancel culture” can go both ways. We all have said things we may not want made public. And this kind of petty vindictiveness destroys an institution’s credibility.

When I was younger, I associated CNN with cutting-edge reporting from the battlegrounds of the First Gulf War. Today, CNN’s no more than a liberal blog that got someone “canceled.” Of course, eventually that tactic will lose its sting. People stop caring. When everyone is “canceled,” no one is.

🔊 Listen RSS

Tonight will determine whether Tucker Carlson could be the new leader of the American Right or just another talking head. Mr. Carlson is perhaps the last nationalist left at Fox News. Other hosts such as Neil Cavuto, Chris Wallace, and Julie Banderas have all taken stands against President Trump. Former Speaker of the House Paul Ryan, now a board member at Fox News, is reportedly using his position to “do something” about Donald Trump, even though the President tried very hard to pass Speaker Ryan’s House agenda in 2017. Sean Hannity is fawningly pro-Trump, but doesn’t go much beyond repeating campaign slogans. He rarely expresses thoughts of his own, if he has any. He’s not an independent force.

President Trump has noticed that Fox News has largely turned against him. He thinks it is because Roger Ailes is gone. The Drudge Report has been attacking the President for a while, and there are rumors that Matt Drudge sold the site to new management. Steve Bannon, the former Trump campaign CEO, is no longer at Breitbart and is on a quixotic anti-China crusade. Many of President Trump’s online allies on Twitter have been deplatformed.

However, there’s still Tucker Carlson, and Mr. Carlson has been showing the President some tough love. He ripped into Jared Kushner and the President’s “weakness” in response to Black Lives Matter protests. He challenged President Trump to show he’s worthy of Americans’ support by ending the violence. He defended American citizens who are being replaced by cheap foreign labor and left behind by others who are getting “special treatment.”

Mr. Carlson also praises Donald Trump when he acts like a nationalist, most recently when the President gave a magnificent address at Mount Rushmore on July 4. Mr. Carlson called the protests a “challenge [to] Western civilization itself.” Mr. Carlson also said that if “they [leftists] can force you to watch as they topple your heroes, they have won.”

Mr. Carlson’s show has the highest ratings ever for a cable news program. He has defied media criticism and advertiser boycotts. President Trump watches Mr. Carlson’s program, even though Mr. Carlson is no sycophant.

Mr. Carlson’s media competitors have been publishing stories about his advertisers that are veiled threats. Apparently, they want to destroy a pillow company.

Now, Mr. Carlson’s critics have a new weapon. CNN recently doxxed one of his writers, Blake Neff, who had written “insensitive” posts pseudo-anonymously on an online forum. For some reason, this was a huge news story. It makes me sick to repeat these headlines, but it must be done to show the extent of the coverage.

The author of CNN’s doxxing story, Oliver Darcy, used to work at The Blaze and The Leadership Institute. No doubt the Oliver Darcy of 2020 would “cancel” the Oliver Darcy of 2012.

Mr. Carlson’s writer resigned, probably falling on his sword to spare Mr. Carlson more negative coverage. Nevertheless, Fox News itself piled on. It said Mr. Neff’s posts were “horrendous and deeply offensive,” and repudiated his “horrific racist, misogynistic and homophobic behavior.”

Horrific? Go read for yourselves what Mr. Neff wrote. Edgy postings on an Internet forum are not “horrific.” Fox News seems to have lost any sense of what words mean. I’ll tell you what is horrific.

🔊 Listen RSS

National Review is “defending America” in its latest issue. Unfortunately, its cowardice about race makes its defense a laughable failure.

Editor Rich Lowry’s introduction tries to negotiate the terms of surrender. He is appalled to find that “we’ve gone from a debate about the status of Confederate statues to the toppling defacing, and removal of statues of Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, and Teddy Roosevelt.” It’s way too late to have noticed that. The “slippery slope” may be a fallacy in logic, but it’s the rule in politics. Mr. Lowry also says there were some “potentially worthwhile police reforms” we could be discussing because of the George Floyd case. Why should conservatives discuss reforms at all before the trial of Officer Derek Chauvin?

Contributor Richard Brookhiser says we must understand “America’s Founding.” He argues that egalitarianism is central to both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. The ban on kings and aristocracy and the tributes to equality limit power, he argues, because they remove the argument that a “different, superior order of being” can “annihilate another’s” power. He admits that the Founders accepted slavery, though many questioned it and wanted it abolished. However, he is relieved that the Constitution didn’t specifically recognize and sanction slavery.

Mr. Brookhiser concedes that when the Founders said “all men are created equal,” they might have meant “men like themselves — white men.” “This was the argument advanced by racists, south and north in the 19th century,” he writes, “and oddly by BLM protesters today.” He argues that the question was answered “in every generation” by men like Frederick Douglass, Abraham Lincoln, and Martin Luther King Jr. “who asserted that the founding documents were freedom documents, setting a standard against the day when it might be met.”

This is historically illiterate. First, the Declaration had a specific purpose: to justify revolt against the crown. No one, especially not Jefferson, thought it laid out principles of government. Once the Declaration had served its purpose and the United States was independent, the document had no particularly revered place in American mythology. It became a holy relic only later — and only in the minds of strident egalitarians — because of those five fateful words: “all men are created equal.” There is nothing else in it that people care about today.

Second, the Founders clearly didn’t think all groups were equal, which is why they restricted the vote to white, male property owners. They took America’s white identity for granted. Frederick Douglass said in 1852 that the Declaration and the Fourth of July were “yours” (whites) not “mine” (blacks.) Black protesters tearing down Lincoln statues are right when they claim Lincoln was a white nationalist who pushed to expatriate blacks. Opposing slavery for white nationalist reasons made sense to Lincoln and virtually all abolitionists; they didn’t like slavery, but they didn’t want to share the country with blacks. Why anyone evokes Martin Luther King as an authority on anything escapes me, but he was not a Christian in conduct or belief — which matters a lot, since he cloaked himself in spiritual authority. In any case, he didn’t believe in colorblind law and would clearly be on the side of Black Lives Matter today.

Mr. Brookhiser’s argument is not conservative. What kind of conservative claims his nation is based on a dream of equality? There has never been equality and never will be. Since this “standard” can never be met, the nation is forever illegitimate. So long as we don’t have this impossible state of equality, why not dismiss corrupt institutions, flawed heroes, or outdated symbols that don’t meet that standard and don’t appeal to the new, non-white America that clamors so insistently for the impossible? What grounds are there to oppose Black Lives Matter?

Another contributor, David French, says America “has a long history of brutal and shameful mistreatment of racial minorities,” but is still a great nation. Mr. French is on firm conservative ground when he says man is fallen and imperfect. However, he then also praises “universal principles” and a “trajectory” of expanding freedom from beyond “white male property owners” to everyone else. We are told “we have far to go” to cash the “promissory note of freedom” and says “the best part of the American story is yet to be told.” Can he really believe that? This is a magazine that once claimed to be “standing athwart History crying ‘Stop!’”

When will we have finally paid off this “promissory note?” If simple legal equality is the goal, we’ve had that for decades. The regime even discriminates against the whites. If the goal is absolute socioeconomic “equality,” then we’ll have to become communists. Even with the most procrustean egalitarian measures, the country will always need ever more elaborate, preposterous explanations for racial inequalities in a country that already offers non-whites race-based privileges.

Mr. Lowry, Mr. French, and Mr. Brookhiser all implicitly exclude Southerners from the “American story.” Mr. French celebrates the Union Army at Gettysburg and the 54th Massachusetts’s charge at Fort Wagner for their “defense” of the Founding. Blacks were “rising up to seize their inheritance.” Do they believe George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry, George Mason, or any of the other Founders from the Old Dominion would have sided with Union General George Meade rather than Robert E. Lee? If not, why celebrate one group of slaveholders and condemn another?

“Washington as a Farmer at Mount Vernon,” Junius Brutus Stearns, 1851.
“Washington as a Farmer at Mount Vernon,” Junius Brutus Stearns, 1851.

The sources of America’s immigration problems—and a possible solution
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.
Our Reigning Political Puppets, Dancing to Invisible Strings
Becker update V1.3.2
Talk TV sensationalists and axe-grinding ideologues have fallen for a myth of immigrant lawlessness.