Archive for the ‘Heidi Beirich’ Category

Bloomberg: Milo Is the Pretty, Monstrous Face of the Alt …

Joel Stein has written a profile of Milo Yiannopoulos in Bloomberg Businessweek naming him a new force in electoral politics.

Milo is the person who propelled the alt-right movement into the mainstream, says Heidi Beirich, who directs the Intelligence Project at the Southern Poverty Law Center, which tracks hate groups and describes the term alt-right as a conscious rebranding by white nationalists that doesnt automatically repel the mainstream. Beirich says shes not even sure if Yiannopoulos believes in the alt-rights tenets or just found a juvenile way to mix internet culture and extreme ideology to get attention. Its like hes joking: Ha ha, let me popularize the worst ideas that ever existed, she says. Thats new, and thats scary.

In this Kafkaesque troll war for Americas soul, Yiannopoulos believes that all offense is performed rather than truly felt. I have never been offended. I dont know what it means. Its not that I disagree with it. I dont understand it. Ive never had that feeling, he says. I dont let feelings control my life. Im more disciplined than other people. I have a dark, ADD, Asp-y [Aspergers syndrome] brain. Im totally autistic or sociopathic. I guess Im both.

I think my legacy might be longer than Trumps, he says. Im attacking the disease, not the symptoms. Also, he doesnt read. But I still love him. And hes still my daddy. Nobodys perfect.

For his shopping trip to Gieves & Hawkes, Yiannopoulos calls for an Uber. The driver is a man, possibly because Ubers algorithm has learned that Yiannopoulos rejects female drivers. Women, he says, have been scientifically proven to be worse at spatial relations, as have Asians. Its the only thing Saudia Arabia gets right, he says about the countrys ban on female drivers.

Yiannopoulos puts on a whole show to provoke students. He says his tour will cost $1million, only some of which is going to his wardrobe. While on the road, hes giving a women-in-tech talk at Stanford about female biological inferiority in science. Hes going to Yale shortly before Halloween, where, dressed in traditional Native American garb, hell address last years campus protests about mocking other cultures via culturally insensitive costumes. Im a perpetual 14-year-old, he says. Maybe not 14. Im 7. Its my USP [unique selling point].

Halfway through her speech about the conspiracy-pandering and racism of Trump and the alt-right, Clinton reads four Breitbart headlines. Two of them are from Yiannopoulos articles.

Birth Control Makes Women Unattractive and Crazy

Would You Rather Your Child Had Feminism or Cancer?

He stands up, claps, and spins around. Yiannopoulos has hit the troll jackpot: He wrote outrageous headlines trying to provoke liberals, and the worlds top liberal read them with head-shaking seriousness, falling for the prank. He directs Bokhari, sitting 5 feet away, to quickly write an article for Breitbart about this. They give it the headline Milo to Hillary: You Did This. As crazy as that sounds, once you understand troll logic, its pretty much true.

Although he works for a news network, Yiannopoulos considers himself to be a pop star. Milo is much closer to Jon Stewart, says Alexander Marlow, the 30-year-old editor-in-chief of Breitbart. He uses entertainment to put out the news. Only hes much more fabulous and better-looking.

Read more:

Bloomberg: Milo Is the Pretty, Monstrous Face of the Alt …

Fair Usage Law

November 24, 2016   Posted in: Heidi Beirich  Comments Closed

Heidi Beirich (Ly), 49 – Montgomery, AL | MyLife.com …

Heidi Beirich was born in 1967. Heidi currently lives in Montgomery . Before that, she lived in Montgomery , AL from 2000 to 2003. After high school, she went to M.A. from University of California, Riverside (1989-1991) in , . she attended college from 89 to 91. Ph.D. from Purdue University (1993-1998) in , . she attended college from 93 to 98. A.B. from University of California, Berkeley (1985-1989) in , . she attended college from 85 to 89. M.A. from University of California, Riverside (1989-1991) in , . she attended college from 89 to 91. Ph.D. from Purdue University (1993-1998) in , . she attended college from 93 to 98. A.B. from University of California, Berkeley (1985-1989) in , . she attended college from 85 to 89.

Director, Intelligence Project at Southern poverty law center

Director of Research at Southern poverty law center

M.A. from University of California, Riverside (1989-1991)

Ph.D. from Purdue University (1993-1998)

A.B. from University of California, Berkeley (1985-1989)

M.A. from University of California, Riverside (1989-1991)

Ph.D. from Purdue University (1993-1998)

A.B. from University of California, Berkeley (1985-1989)

Unaffiliated Party

Continue reading here:

Heidi Beirich (Ly), 49 – Montgomery, AL | MyLife.com …

Fair Usage Law

October 8, 2016   Posted in: Heidi Beirich  Comments Closed

Heidi Does Long Beach: The SPLC vs. Academic Freedom …

As you read this, Heidi Beirich of the Southern Poverty Law Center is interviewing some 40 students, faculty, and administrators at California State UniversityLong Beach, where I am a tenured Professor of Psychology, for an upcoming hit job on me and my research.

Readers of VDARE.COM need little introduction to the SPLC or Ms. Beirich. Since 1971, the SPLC has built up an unsavory reputation, attracting criticism even from the Left for dubious fund-raising tactics, reckless allegations (anyone who opposes open borders is a racist) massive exaggerations (the Ku Klux Klan is on the verge of taking over the entire U.S.) and, by those who actually read its materials, for wholesale misrepresentation. Essentially a gang of political terrorists, well described by Peter Brimelow as a shakedown scam that preys on the elderly, Holocaust-haunted rich, the SPLC is nevertheless accorded almost religious reverence by many in the media, academia, and government. Case in point: the (otherwise quite fair) student newspaper article on my case was headlined Civil rights group investigates professor [by MaryJane O`Brien, Daily 49er, November 13 2006]. [For the Capitol Research Center`s new expose of the SPLC, click here]

The SPLC is paying me attention because it wants to suppress my academic work. I am interested in sociobiology, evolutionary psychology and group behavior. Some years ago I began to study the Jews. This resulted in three scholarly books and a monograph considering Judaism from a modern evolutionary perspective:

A People that Shall Dwell Alone:Judaism as a Group Evolutionary Strategy (1994)

Separation and Its Discontents:Toward an Evolutionary Theory of Anti-Semitism (1998)

The Culture of Critique: An Evolutionary Analysis of Jewish Involvement in Twentieth-Century Intellectual and Political Movements (1998)

Understanding Jewish Influence: Study in Ethnic Activism (2004)

I have also published a number of related articles (scroll down).

In this body of work I have developed the argument that Jewish activity collectively, throughout history, is best understood as an elaborate and highly successful group competitive strategy directed against neighboring peoples and host societies. The objective has been control of economic resources and political power. One example: overwhelming Jewish support for non-traditional immigration, which has the effect of weakening America`s historic white majority. Such behavior would be viewed as perfectly normal from a sociobiological standpoint.

Of course, I could be wrong. Demonstrating this would require logical argument and reinterpretation of the extensive factual evidence I have assembled. I have yet to see any critic of my work able to show that I was wrong about the theory or in my handling of the evidence. But in principle it might be possible.

However, my critics, exemplified by the SPLC, have generally been unwilling to attempt this. Instead, their line has been that the subject is taboo and discussing it should be forbidden. Needless to say, this is not the intellectual tradition out of which the Enlightenment and the Scientific Revolution came.

My experience provides a case study of these tactics. Beirich, along with another SPLC operative Mark Potok, recently wrote an article listing me as one of the 13 worst people in Americaand The scariest academic. In a country with around 300,000,000 people and 45,000 academics, the SPLC places me in some pretty rarified company.

The Beirich & Potok article is a compendium of ethical lapses. It refers to me as having a Master`s degree, although I have held a Ph.D since 1981 and have been a fully tenured faculty member at Cal State Long Beach for 15 years. The implication: I am not a fully qualified and recognized scholar. An academic who acknowledges not having read my work is quoted, while positive comments by academics who have reviewed my research in scholarly publications are ignored. It presents gross oversimplifications of my worksummarizing an entire book in one sentence and leaving out important qualifications (e.g., although the organized Jewish community was the major force in pushing through the 1965 immigration law and in the establishmentof multicultural America, I stipulate that many Jews were not involved in these efforts).

Further, Beirich & Potok lift quotations out of context. Most outrageously, they claim that I “suggest[s] that colleges restrict Jewish admission and Jews be heavily taxed `to counter the Jewish advantage in the possession of wealth.`” In fact, the passage in question discusses the possible consequences of a hypothetical ethnic spoils system in which individuals are assigned access to resources based on their percentage in the population. Obviously, if such a system were in place, it would discriminate against Jews. Merely explaining the real-world consequences of such a system is not the equivalent of advocating it.

Personally, I am appalled that there are major organizations and movements in this country that advocate ethnicity-based access to resources such as university admissions. Behavioral science research clearly documents that different ethnic groups have different average talents, abilities, wealth, etc. These differences can only lead to increasing levels of ethnic tension and competition in multicultural America. An ethnicity-based spoils system would be the end of the country as originally founded. It would lead to a hyper-Orwellian future in which each ethnic group jealously monitors the others to make sure it is getting its fair share.

I`m reminded of an earlier hatchet job by Beirich. She made a phone call to Human Events Editor-in-Chief Tom Winter complaining that Kevin Lamb, Human Events managing editor, was also the editor of The Occidental Quarterlya publication that the SPLC calls racist and white supremacist. (The fact that I have published articles in The Occidental Quarterly is a major part of the SPLC`s problem with me.) Lamb was gone within the hour.

More recently, Beirich succeeded with another phone call in frightening the supposedly-conservative Leadership Institute into a last-minute refusal of its premises to the Robert A. Taft Club, which planned to hold a debatea debatebetween American Renaissance`s Jared Taylor, National Review`s John Derbyshire and black conservative Kevin Martin.

The Taft Club is basically just a group of Washington-area kids. But no band of heretics is too small for the SPLC Inquisition.

Ms. Beirich asked to interview me during her stay in Long Beach. Given her record, I was confident she would be acting in bad faith. But I offered to be interviewed by herif she would answer my concerns regarding her previous writing about me and make them public to the CSULB community. She has not responded to this offer.

Kevin Lamb was an at will employee and really had no defense against the assault of Beirich and the SPLC. But the fact is that even academics with tenure are terrified of being called racists, anti-Semites or any other pejorative concocted by the left.

This is ironic. Unlike politicians, who must curry favor with the public in order to be reelected, and unlike media figures, who have no job protection, tenured academics should be free from any such fears. Part of the joband a large part of the rationale for tenure in the first placeis that they are supposed to be willing to take unpopular positions.

That image of academia, however, simply and sadly has no basis in reality. Consider, for example, an article appearing almost two months after the publication of John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt`s famous essay on the Israel Lobby and appropriately titled A hot paper muzzles Harvard. [by Eve Fairbanks, The Los Angeles Times, May 14 2006]:

Instead of a roiling debate, most professors not only agreed to disagree but agreed to pretend publicly that there was no disagreement at all. At Harvard and other schools, the Mearsheimer-Walt paper proved simply too hot to handle and it revealed an academia deeply split yet lamentably afraid to engage itself on one of the hottest political issues of our time. Call it the academic Cold War: distrustful factions rendered timid by the prospect of mutually assured career destruction.

It`s not that professors don`t want to sound off on public policy issues. When there is an opportunity to spout righteous leftism, professors leap to the front of the line. A good example: the Duke University rape allegation case. Despite considerable evidence that the charges are spurious, three academic departments, 13 programs, and 88 professors at Duke paid for an ad in the campus newspaper in which they assumed the guilt of the men, and stated that “what happened to this young woman” resulted from “racism and sexism”.

In that case, of course, the professors who went public with their indignation knew they were part of a like-minded community and that there would be much to gain by being on the politically-correct side.

Seen in this context, the reaction to Mearsheimer and Walt makes a lot of sense. As one professor explained: “People might debate it if you gave everyone a get-out-of-jail-free card and promised that afterward everyone would be friends.”

This latest experience with the SPLC has improved my understanding of the dynamics of group control of individuals.

There have been times when I have had to endure vicious charges of anti-Semitism, for instance by Jacob Laksin (Cal State`s Professor of Anti-Semitism. Frontpagemag.com May 5 2006). But when discussion was confined to the impersonal world of the internet, it did not bother me. I would write a detailed reply and circulate it among the people who read me. I knew that people who support my writing would rally to my defense and say nice things about me and my reply to Laksin.

Naturally, I also knew that I would a get hate mail and maybe a couple of death threats. But that`s to be expected. And it`s all rather abstract, since I basically sit in solitude at my computer and read it all. It pretty much ends there. A part of me even sees some benefit in it because visits to my website are up and more people are buying my book.

But then came the SPLC and Heidi Beirich. Someone not connected to CSULB sent an email to the entire Psychology Departmentexcept measking why they allowed an anti-Semite to teach there. The result was an uproar, with heated exchanges on the faculty email list, a departmental meeting on what to do about me and my work, and intense meetings of the departmental governing committee.

Cold shoulders, forced smiles and hostile stares became a reality. Going into my office to teach my classes and attend committee meetings became an ordeal.

I keep saying to myself: why is this so hard? At the conscious level I was perfectly confident that I could sit down with any of my colleagues and defend my ideas. I know rationally that a lot of the people giving me negative vibes are themselves members of ethnic minority groupswho like the present ethnic spoils system, such as affirmative action and ethnically-influenced foreign policy, just fine.

My theory: Ostracism and hostility from others in one`s face-to-face world trigger guilt feelings. These are automatic responses resulting ultimately from the importance of fitting into a group over evolutionary time. We Westerners are relatively prone to individualism. But we certainly don`t lack a sense of wanting to belong and to be accepted. Violating certain taboos carries huge emotional consequences.

This little bit of personal experience is doubtless typical of the forces of self-censorship that maintain the political order of the post-World-War-II West. It`s the concern about the face-to-face consequences of being a non-conformist in the deeply sensitive areas related to race or to Jewish influence.

My research on Jewish issues is well within the academic mainstream in terms of use of sources and evidence, and it has been well reviewed in a variety of mainstream sources. It would raise no controversy except that it deals with very sensitive issues: Anti-Semitism and Jewish influence on culture and politics.

I am willing to defend the idea that my ethnic identity and ethnic interests are as legitimate as those of the numerous ethnic activists that make a living in academia. Would Mexicans or Chinese be considered moral reprobates if they didn`t like the idea of their people losing political, demographic, and cultural control within their homeland? Should academics like Cornel West or Alan Dershowitz be fired or ostracized because of their obvious and deeply expressed ethnic commitments? What of the many Latino professors who marched in the recent spate of pro-immigration rallies supporting more immigration to the U.S. for the people with whom they identify?

All of these are accepted and indeed approved. However, my relatively low-key expression of ethnic identity as a white European-American concerned about the prospects of his people and culture so easily becomes whipped up into mass hysteria on campus.

This guilt trauma is the result of our evolved psychology and a long history of socialization in post-World-War-II America. It`s a big part of the problem, and people like me have simply got to become better at dealing with it.

So in the end, I`ve come to greet Heidi`s arrival in Long Beach as therapeutica painful but necessary challenge that must be overcome first at the psychological level if any progress is to be made on unabashed and unfettered discussion of critical issues like the Third World Invasion of America and the impending death of the West.

Hell, if Republican candidates had been ready, willing, and able to campaign on these issues, they might not have been so thoroughly thumped in the recent elections.

Kevin MacDonald [email him] is Professor of Psychology at California State University-Long Beach. For his website, click here.

Read the original:

Heidi Does Long Beach: The SPLC vs. Academic Freedom …

Fair Usage Law

September 23, 2016   Posted in: Heidi Beirich  Comments Closed

Jared Taylor – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Samuel Jared Taylor (born September 15, 1951) is an American white nationalist who is the founder and editor of American Renaissance, a magazine often described as a white supremacist publication. Taylor is also an author and the president of American Renaissance’s parent organization, New Century Foundation, through which many of his books have been published. He is a former member of the advisory board of The Occidental Quarterly, and a former director of the National Policy Institute, a Virginia-based white nationalist think tank.[1] He is also a board member and spokesperson of the Council of Conservative Citizens.[2][3]

Taylor, and many of the organizations he is associated with, are often described as promoting racist ideologies by, among others, civil rights groups, news media and academics studying racism in the US.[4][5][6][7]

Taylor was born on September 15, 1951 to Christian missionary parents in Kobe, Japan. He lived in Japan until he was 16 years old and attended Japanese public school up to the age of 12, becoming fluent in Japanese in the process.[8] He graduated from Yale University in 1973 with a BA in philosophy.[9]

Taylor worked as a news editor at the Washington Post from 1974 to 1975. Following that, he spent three years on a MA in international economics at the Paris Institute of Political Studies (Sciences Po), graduating in 1978. He worked as an international lending officer for the Manufacturers Hanover Corporation from 1978 to 1981, and as West Coast editor of PC Magazine from 1983 to 1988.[10] He also worked in West Africa, and has traveled the area extensively.[8] Taylor is fluent in French, Japanese and English and has taught Japanese at Harvard University.[11][12] He also worked as a courtroom translator.[9]

He authored Shadows of the Rising Sun: A Critical View of the Japanese Miracle (1983), in which he wrote that Japan was not an appropriate economic or social model for the United States, and criticized the Japanese for excessive preoccupation with their own uniqueness.[13]

In 1990 he published the first issue of the American Renaissance periodical, and later founded the New Century Foundation to help with the running of American Renaissance.[14]

Taylor first turned to race in Paved With Good Intentions: The Failure of Race Relations in Contemporary America (1992),[15] in which he argued that racism is no longer a convincing excuse for high black rates of crime, poverty, and academic failure. He also edited The Real American Dilemma: Race, Immigration, and the Future of America, (1998).[16] On May 3, 2011, The New Century Foundation released Jared Taylor’s sequel to Paved With Good Intentions: The Failure of Race Relations in Contemporary America entitled White Identity: Racial Consciousness in the 21st Century.

Taylor supervised preparation of the New Century Foundation monograph, The Color of Crime (1998, 2005), which observes that blacks and Hispanics commit violent crimes at considerably higher rates than whites, and that whites commit violent crimes at higher rates than Asians.[17] He is the main contributor to a collection of articles from American Renaissance magazine called A Race Against Time: Racial Heresies for the 21st Century, (2003)[18] and editor of a collection of essays by the late Samuel Francis entitled Essential Writings on Race, (2007).[19]

Taylor authored Face to Face with Race (2014), in which he stated that racial differences are real and innate.[20]

Taylor has been described as a white nationalist, white supremacist and racist by civil rights groups, news media, academics studying racism in the US, and others.[6][4][5][21][22] Taylor has “strenuously rejected”[8] being called a racist, arguing that he is instead a “racialist who believes in race-realism.”[23][24] He has also said he is not a white supremacist, describing himself as a “white advocate,”[25] and contends that his views on nationality and race are “moderate, commonsensical, and fully consistent with the views of most of the great statesmen and presidents of America’s past.”[8]

Taylor believes that white people have their own racial interests, and that it is intellectually valid for them to protect these interests; he sees it as anomalous that non-Hispanic whites have allowed people of other races to organize themselves politically while not doing so themselves.[26] His journal American Renaissance was founded to provide such a voice for white interests.[27]

Taylor has summarized the basis for his views in the following terms:

Race is an important aspect of individual and group identity. Of all the fault lines that divide societylanguage, religion, class, ideologyit is the most prominent and divisive. Race and racial conflict are at the heart of the most serious challenges the Western World faces in the 21st century… Attempts to gloss over the significance of race or even to deny its reality only make problems worse.[28]

He has questioned the capacity of blacks to live successfully in a civilized society. In an article on the chaos in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina, Taylor wrote “when blacks are left entirely to their own devices, Western Civilizationany kind of civilizationdisappears. And in a crisis, civilization disappears overnight.”[29] Taylor believes in a general correlation between race and intelligence, where blacks are generally less intelligent than whites, and whites are generally less intelligent than East Asians, as expressed in the controversial book The Bell Curve. Taylor has said in an interview:

I think Asians are objectively superior to Whites by just about any measure that you can come up with in terms of what are the ingredients for a successful society. This doesn’t mean that I want America to become Asian. I think every people has a right to be itself, and this becomes clear whether we’re talking about Irian Jaya or Tibet, for that matter.[30]

In a speech delivered on May 28, 2005, to the British self-determination group, Sovereignty, Taylor said of his personal feelings to interracial marriages, “I want my grandchildren to look like my grandparents. I don’t want them to look like Anwar Sadat or Fu Manchu or Whoopi Goldberg.”[31]

Taylor has gone on to say that “people in general if left to themselves will generally sort themselves out by race,” and has said that churches, schools, and neighborhoods are examples of this.

Taylor has also given support to Hans-Hermann Hoppe’s attempts to persuade libertarians to oppose immigration; he generally approves of Hoppe’s work, although he sees the pursuit of a society with no government at all to be “the sort of experiment one might prefer to watch in a foreign country before attempting it oneself.”[32]

The Southern Poverty Law Center notes that Taylor is unusual among the radical right in “his lack of anti-Semitism”,[33] although at times American Renaissance has had neo-Nazis and Holocaust deniers as contributors and participants.[33] Describing his followers’ views, Taylor has said:

Racially conscious whites tend to be suspicious of Jews for two reasons. First, Jews have been prominent in the effort to demonize any sense of white identity. Second, Zionist Jews support an ethnostate for Jews — Israel — while they generally promote diversity for America and Europe. This is annoying, but understandable for historical reasons.[34]

Taylor is a supporter of Donald Trump’s presidential campaign, and has recorded robocalls to support Trump before the Iowa caucus and New Hampshire primary.[35][36]

The Southern Poverty Law Center describes Taylor as “a courtly presenter of ideas that most would describe as crudely white supremacist a kind of modern-day version of the refined but racist colonialist of old.”[33]

Mark Potok and Heidi Beirich, writers in the Intelligence Report (a publication of the Southern Poverty Law Center), have written that “Jared Taylor is the cultivated, cosmopolitan face of white supremacy. He is the guy who is providing the intellectual heft, in effect, to modern-day Klansmen.” They have also stated that “American Renaissance has become increasingly important over the years, bringing a measure of intellectualism and seriousness to the typically thug-dominated world of white supremacy.”[37]

A 2005 feature in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette described Taylor as “a racist in the guise of expert.”[4]

His online magazine, American Renaissance, has been described as a white supremacist publication and a “forum for writers disparaging the abilities of minorities.”[38]

Conservative author and former National Review contributor John Derbyshire, while not condoning all of Taylor’s work, has said that Taylor is a “polite and good-natured man;” a “dissident” whose opinions “violate tribal taboos.”[39]

David Horowitz, the editor of FrontPage Magazine, has said of Taylor that he is “a very intelligent and principled man”, and “a very smart and gutsy individualist, but he is also a man who has surrendered to the multicultural miasma that has overtaken this nation and is busily building a movement devoted to white identity and community. We do not share these agendas. What I mean by ‘surrendering’ is that Taylor has accepted the idea that the multiculturalists have won.”[40]

Notes

See original here:

Jared Taylor – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Fair Usage Law

September 12, 2016   Posted in: Heidi Beirich  Comments Closed

FBI Monitoring Situation In Oregon National … – ABC News

The FBI has taken the lead in monitoring an armed standoff in Oregon where a group of militia members, along with some members of the family of Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy, are occupying a building on federal land at a national wildlife refuge.

The FBI is “working with the Harney County Sheriff’s Office, Oregon State Police and other local and state law enforcement agencies to bring a peaceful resolution to the situation, the agency said in a statement.

The militia members who occupied the wildlife refuge buildings set up a roadblock, and two armed members had manned a guard tower that is usually used to spot wildfires. But there was no sign of law enforcement in the area, and local police said they had no intention of going to the scene, not even to keep watch on the militia.

The Rally and Occupation

The protest began Saturday as a rally in support of Harney County ranchers Dwight Hammond Jr. and Steven Hammond, who are to report to prison today for committing arson. The Hammond brothers left eastern Oregon early Sunday to report to Terminal Island in San Pedro, California, to serve their prison sentences.

The two men were convicted of setting fires on lands managed by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM), “on which the Hammonds had grazing rights leased to them for their cattle operation,” according to the U.S. Attorneys Office.

“We all know the devastating effects that are caused by wildfires,” Acting U.S. Attorney Billy Williams said. “Fires intentionally and illegally set on public lands, even those in a remote area, threaten property and residents and endanger firefighters called to battle the blaze.”

After the rally for the Hammonds on Saturday, militia, along with sons of Cliven Bundy — who was involved in a standoff with the government over grazing rights in Nevada in 2014 — initiated the occupation of the headquarters of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge.

Bundy’s son Ammon claims the federally owned wildlife refuge in rural, eastern Oregon belongs to the people, and that they are “making a hard stand against … overreach.”

He said the government’s “taking of people’s land and resources” is leaving people in poverty, adding that the wildlife refuge “has been a tool in doing that.”

Ryan Bundy and another of Ammon Bundy’s brothers are also among the occupiers, according to The Associated Press.

Who Is Cliven Bundy and Why Is He So Controversial?

Ammon Bundy called the earlier rally successful, but said of the Wildlife Refuge standoff, “If we do not make a hard stand, we will be in a position where we won’t be able to as a people.”

He also asked for militia members to come help him.

Ammon Bundy says the group’s actions are not aggressive and there is no damage or criminal activity.

He said the group’s goal is to help local workers, including ranchers, miners and hunters, benefit from the land. The group wants to assert that the federal government does not have right to own or control land inside the state, Ammon Bundy said.

“We’re prepared to be out here for as long as we need to be,” he said in an eight-minute long Facebook video posted early Sunday morning.

The group does not have plans to occupy any other federal buildings, Ammon Bundy said Sunday.

The refuge is federal property managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and was closed for the holiday weekend.

A U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service spokesperson told ABC News: “The Fish and Wildlife Service and The Bureau of Land Management have received reports that an unknown number of individuals have broken into the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge facility near Burns, Oregon. While the situation is ongoing, the main concern is employee safety and we can confirm that no federal staff were in the building at the time of the initial incident. We will continue to monitor the situation for additional developments.”

The refuge headquarters was empty at the time of the seizure, Harney County, Oregon, Sheriff Dave Ward said in a statement.

“These men came to Harney County claiming to be part of militia groups supporting local ranchers, when in reality these men had alternative motives to attempt to over throw the county and federal government in hopes to spark a movement across the United States,” Ward said.

“We are currently working jointly with several organizations to make sure the citizens of Harney County are safe and this issue is resolved as quickly and peaceful as possible,” he said, adding that no other areas in Harney County are in “immediate danger.”

“We ask that people stay away from the refuge for their safety,” Ward said. “We also ask that if anyone sees any of these individuals in the area to please contact law enforcement and do not confront the individuals themselves.”

Harney County School District No. 3 schools will be closed this week, Superintendent Dr. Marilyn L. McBride told ABC News.

“Ensuring staff and student safety is our greatest concern,” McBride said.

Beth Anne Steele, a spokeswoman for the FBI in Portland, told ABC News the FBI is aware of the situation but is not making any further comments.

The Cliven Bundy Incident

Cliven Bundy, the patriarch of a large Mormon family with more than 50 grandchildren, came into the spotlight in April 2014, when the federal government started impounding his 900 head of cattle, following a 20-year battle over cattle-grazing on federal land.

The government said Bundy owed $1.1 million in unpaid grazing fees and penalties for continuing to let his cattle roam free on land near Bunkerville, Nevada, 80 miles northeast of Las Vegas, even after the government established the area as a protected habitat for the endangered desert tortoise in 1993 and slashed Bundy’s cattle allotment.

The situation escalated the week of April 5, 2014, as hundreds of supporters from around the country rallied on Bundy’s property to protest the federal cattle round-up. The dispute reignited debate over Bureau of Land Management practices, especially in Nevada where federal agencies control 85 percent of the land.

The confrontation turned ominous as armed militia gathered on his cattle and melon farm, aiming semi-automatic weapons at armed BLM officials from a bridge overpass. Some protesters were tasered by authorities and others arrested and later released, including one of Bundys 14 adult children.

On April 12, 2014, the BLM ended the stand-off, returned Bundys confiscated cattle and left the land citing safety concerns.

What to Know About the Militia Movement

The occupation is essentially “the spill over from the Bundy stand-off” in Nevada, according to Heidi Beirich, Director of the Intelligence Project at the Southern Poverty Law Center.

“What we’re really seeing is a continuation of what started in April 2014, of militia folks and anti-government folks deciding that they’re not going to accept federal authorities over federal lands,” Beirich told ABC News Sunday.

“At the Bundy ranch, the federal government stood down. They had absolute cause to take Bundy’s cattle. The Bundys were able — at the point of a gun — to drive the federal government and its representatives … off the land,” she said.

“Bundy is still a free man. He hasn’t paid his money, and it’s emboldened the entire movement to basically think, ‘We don’t have to follow the rules,'” Beirich said, explaining that that is what’s happening now in Oregon.

The Bundy incident in 2014, as well as another incident in Oregon last year, “enlivened” the militias, she said, because they made them feel successful.

“They made the federal government back down from enforcing the law,” she said. “And that has emboldened all these people, giving life to the movement.”

Get real-time updates as this story unfolds. To start, just “star” this story in ABC News’ phone app. Download ABC News for iPhone here or ABC News for Android here.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

More here:

FBI Monitoring Situation In Oregon National … – ABC News

Fair Usage Law

July 29, 2016   Posted in: Heidi Beirich  Comments Closed

Hideous Heidi Beirich`s Bullying Laid Bare | VDARE …

$PLC`s Hideous Heidi

Who says there are no conspiracies? We`ve noted before the extraordinary network of enforcers that apparently stands ready 24/7 to keep crimethink out of public discourse. But this is exceptional.

Late on February 2, VDARE.com posted a note about my upcoming participation in a debate to be held by the Federalist Society`s Dallas Lawyers` Chapter on birthright citizenship, with Professor Lino Graglia and former Texas Solicitor Generaland Taiwanese immigrantJim Ho (who has conservative credentials but is apparently on the wrong side here).

The next day, when I was already in the air, the Dallas Chapter received this threatening email:

From: Heidi.Beirich@splcenter.org [mailto:Heidi.Beirich@splcenter.org]

Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2011 3:49 PM

To:

Subject: Peter Brimelow

Hi there,

I am writing for comment about why your chapter of the Federalist Society would invite a white nationalist, Peter Brimelow, to speak on the panel you are holding tomorrow. Brimelow has a very long track record of racism, particularly against immigrants, that the Southern Poverty Law Center has documented here:

http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-files/profiles/peter-brimelow

A prompt response would be greatly appreciated.

Best,

Heidi Beirich

Heidi Beirich, Ph.D.

Director of Research

Southern Poverty Law Center

334-956-8309

Beirich is of course the notorious (if oddly underpaid) enforcer for the $PLC, whom VDARE.com has reported bullying the cowardly employers of Kevin Lamb and Kevin MacDonald, among much other thuggery. Of course, what the $PLC has documented on me is just the usual silly left-wing paranoid scholarship.

The Dallas Chapter, however, is made of stern stuffand perhaps takes the rights of Englishmen seriously. Its response:

On 2/3/11 5:21 PM, wrote:

Heidi,

The Federalist Society does not take a position on the issues presented at our panel discussions / debates, nor does the Federalist Society endorse the views (perceived or otherwise) of any particular speaker or participant at such events. The Federalist Society`s goal is to provide a forum where divergent views and ideas can be debated, compared, and critiqued. That is what tomorrow`s forum hopes to accomplish.

thank you,

This tacit defiance apparently really infuriated Beirich. Next morning, she wrote:

From: Heidi.Beirich@splcenter.org [mailto:Heidi.Beirich@splcenter.org]

Sent: Friday, February 04, 2011 8:11 AM

To: –

Subject: Re: Peter Brimelow

Would you like me to add this comment to my blog post? I`d be happy to do so.

A few minutes later, not having received a response, she could not restrain herself from adding:

From: Heidi.Beirich@splcenter.org [mailto:Heidi.Beirich@splcenter.org]

Sent: Friday, February 04, 2011 8:24 AM

To: –

Subject: Re: Peter Brimelow

I do have to ask, though, do you really think white supremacy is a divergent view? Would you invite a Klansman to speak? There must be a line somewhere?

Heidi Beirich, Ph.D.

Director of Research

Southern Poverty Law Center

334-956-8309

Note, here, that Beirich effortlessly elides white nationalism and white supremacy. As I have repeatedly said, VDARE.com is a forum site and we will publish anyone, of any political tendency (or race), who has anything sensible to say about America`s immigration disaster. And that certainly includes writers, for example Jared Taylor, whom I would regard as white nationalist, in the sense that they aim to defend the interests of American whites. They are not white supremacists. They do not advocate violence. They are rational and civil. They brush their teeth. But they unashamedly work for their peopleexactly as La Raza works for Latinos and the Anti-Defamation League works for Jews.

VDARE.com`s position: Get used to it. As immigration policy drives whites into a minority, this type of interest-group white nationalism will inexorably increase.

This is not white supremacy. Is Zionism Jewish supremacy? But of course, it unquestionably is politically lethal for the American left, whose only hope of sustaining its current Minority Occupation Government is to keep whites divided until its immigration policy succeeds in electing a new people. And it`s emotionally unbearable, because what now drives the American left is its intense alienation from white America.

But what is Beirich`s point about a Klansman? It is true, of course, that the Second Klan, founded in 1915, was very largely a typical American middle-class fraternal organization, like the Freemasons or the Shriners. But that is not how Americans have been brought to remember the Klan. Beirich here is insinuating that I go around lynching and castrating Negroes. But in fact I have never lynched, let alone castrated, even one. Who does she think I am, Benjamin Netahyahu?

Am I a white nationalist? A few years ago, VDARE.com published a sophisticated debate between Steve Sailer and Jared Taylor on Citizenismthe idea that Americacan be in essence a cultural entityvs. White Nationalismthe idea that America must ultimately be (as it has been historically) the political expression of a specific racial group.

My emotional, cheerful side sympathized with Steve. My rational, pessimistic side suspects that Jared`s analysis will ultimately prevail.

If it does, Beirich will be in some significant measure to blame.

Endnote: as it happened, at the last minute the Federalist Society debate was cancelled because Dallas was hit with five inches of snow. It was all white. Obviously a hate crime.

Peter Brimelow (emailhim) is editor of VDARE.COM and author of the much-denouncedAlien Nation: Common Sense About America`s Immigration Disaster, (Random House 1995) and The Worm in the Apple (HarperCollins 2003)

Link:

Hideous Heidi Beirich`s Bullying Laid Bare | VDARE …

Fair Usage Law

July 5, 2016   Posted in: Heidi Beirich  Comments Closed

SPLCs Heidi Beirich Admits Diversity Causes Social …

Andrew Anglin Daily Stormer May 28, 2016

American Renaissance has a great article up by Linda Preston, detailing the events of an anti-racist meeting she attended in Washington, D.C.

The whole thing is well worth your time, but the best part is a quote from the SPLCs Heidi Beirich:

What we know from sociological research is that when a neighborhood diversifies people retreat to their homes, they hunker down. You have to really take serious positive work in rapidly changing demographic areas, to not result in either social breakdown or other problems. Its a big issue for the United States. On its own, its not gonna happen.

As Preston notes, she is apparently referring to the work of Harvard political scientist Robert Putnam. Putnam used the term hunkering down in reference to the deleterious social consequences of ethnic diversity.

Wikipedia:

In recent years, Putnam has been engaged in a comprehensive study of the relationship between trust within communities and their ethnic diversity. His conclusion based on over 40 cases and 30,000 people within the United States is that, other things being equal, more diversity in a community is associated with less trust both between and within ethnic groups. Although limited to American data, it puts into question both the contact hypothesis and conflict theory in inter-ethnic relations. According to conflict theory, distrust between the ethnic groups will rise with diversity, but not within a group. In contrast, contact theory proposes that distrust will decline as members of different ethnic groups get to know and interact with each other. Putnam describes people of all races, sex, socioeconomic statuses, and ages as hunkering down, avoiding engagement with their local communityboth among different ethnic groups and within their own ethnic group. Even when controlling for income inequality and crime rates, two factors which conflict theory states should be the prime causal factors in declining inter-ethnic group trust, more diversity is still associated with less communal trust.

Lowered trust in areas with high diversity is also associated with:

The fact that a key figure in the aggressive movement for forcing diversity down the throats of Americans would admit that all of the known consequences of diversity are negative is incredibly funny. And scary.

Theres only one possible final outcome of diversity. It doesnt matter how anyone feels about it. Its a matter of science.

One would have almost hoped that a pro-diversity change agent would be unaware of Putnams research into the disastrous consequences of this trend. Or at least claim that the research is invalid for whatever reason.

But no. She is saying we know this causes society to collapse, so we really have to force it if we want to make it happen.

If we know something is negative, why would we want to force it on the people?

Why is this never explained or even discussed?

What is the purpose of diversity?

Diversity in Action: The Islamic Colony of Calais, France

Ostensibly, the goal of diversity is to alleviate third world poverty, something which White people are collectively blamed for. However, even if we accept that Whites are responsible for third world poverty and are thus morally obligated to pay for the lives of all the worlds brown people, there are several glaring problems with the idea that mass immigration is the way to deal with this moral responsibility.

There are 3 billion non-Whites living in poverty in the third world. You couldnt possibly bring all of these people into White countries.

At the rate we are importing these people now a rate which is higher than any other point in history we arent even making a dent in their population growth. That is, even with the massive numbers of people we are allowing into our countries, these people are breeding so quickly that the numbers of those living in poverty in the third world are expanding rapidly. It is not physically possible for us to end third world poverty through mass immigration.

Roy Beck of the anti-immigration group Numbers USA explained this situation with gumballs better than I ever could with words.

Clearly, the well-being of poor brown people would be better served through financial aid programs to their countries.

However, then it becomes an issue of managing the distribution of the wealth we are transferring to them, as well as ensuring that it is allocated to infrastructure, education and so on.

Right now, most of the aid money sent to third world is stolen and squandered by the political ruling class in these countries. So you would have to send in White people to oversee these projects.

The perhaps difficult but nonetheless glaring conclusion is that if our goal is to help third world non-Whites, the most logical thing would be to reinstate colonialism.

The neo-liberal United Nations system is really just a broken form of colonialism anyway. We are dictating policy to these countries through these various organizations, but the policy simply isnt carried out or is carried out inefficiently.

They never had it better.

So: if the goal is to allocate White resources into ensuring that brown people are not poor, you can work it all through logically, based on the data. And everyone would come to the same conclusion, which is that colonialism is the best solution.

And yet, this is not discussed. None of it is ever discussed. It is just yes, diversity is destroying you, and it isnt doing anything to alleviate third world poverty, but you have to have it or we will call you mean names.

As such, one can only come to the conclusion that the goal of diversity has nothing to do with helping brown people. The goal is to destroy White societies, and ultimately to exterminate the White race.

If we are honest with ourselves, and honest with the data, there is no other conclusion we can come to.

More here:

SPLCs Heidi Beirich Admits Diversity Causes Social …

Fair Usage Law

June 30, 2016   Posted in: Heidi Beirich  Comments Closed

More evil from Heidi Beirich | The Occidental Observer …

Our friend Heidi Beirich of the SPLC has another outrageous gem about me (Long Adored by Anti-Semites, California Prof Now Glorifies Violence). A couple of factual issues: I am not a co-host of David Dukes program and have never used the phrase Zionist gun-grabbers, although I have noted that Jewish publications have pointed tothe central role of Jewish activists and organizations in the gun control movement.

Worse, she sent an email to university colleagues stating I was a Holocaust denier. As everyone knows, Ihave I never endorsed Holocaust denial or permitted Holocaust denial ideas to be published in outlets that I control. She is perfectly well aware of this (perhaps accounting for avoiding that charge in her article). As usual, its guilt by association.

In the email she also called me a White supremacistleftspeak for Whites who think that Whites, like all other human groups, have interests. I am waiting for a statement by the ADL and the Jewish Studies Department that Jews have no moral or practical reason to attempt to remain a demographic majority in Israel. And a statement from the SPLC condemning American Jewish groups that support apartheid in Israel.

My blurb for Kyle Bristows book was confined to the main point of the book which is a fictional account of the Salutrean hypothesis (which has its scientific defenders) and the suppression of this idea by the forces of political correctness. Being a busy person, I did not read the passage she complains about and certainly dont endorse violence against Mark Potok despite his evil behavior.

And if you look at Michael Colhazes article Heidi goes to heaven, Heidis death is simply a setup for the satire, nothing more. There is no plot in which she is assassinated because of her (loathsome) activities. Her death is the result of a defective bomb built by a greasy wannabe terrorist who asked the$PLCto lay out one hundred grand for a so far undisclosed false flagploy, but knew as much about building bombs as pigs about flying.

In order for the satire to work, she had to die somehow; the accidental detonation of a bomb certainly didnt raise any red flags with me.

However, we at TOO certainly dont want to tread on the sensibilities of sensitive souls like Beirich. I am advised that Colhaze may bow to this pressure and revise the article to have her die of a surfeit of donutswhich somehow seems more plausible anyway and has the virtue of being self-induced.

It seems that the SPLC is going into overdrive these days attempting to produce negative consequences for people who have ideas they dont like. Most egregiously, they do their best to make people lose their jobs, and have many successes in that area. Stop and think about what it would mean to have your life turned upside down simply for expressing ideas, no matter how factual and well-grounded.

The SPLC continues these campaigns while the vast majority of Americansand, in particular, my academic colleaguessimply watch it happening when they arent actively complicit.Horrifying and disgraceful.

And the SPLC continues to rake in millions for doing so. They are not labeled the$PLC for nothing.

The SPLC has been trying to get me fired since 2006, including an attempt by Mark Potok last year. In her recent article, Beirich makes it clear that thats exactly what she wants for me:

Its a little hard to believe that this man regularly stands in front of a classroom filled with students of a wide variety of faiths, races and social backgrounds and instructs them on evolutionary psychology, the psychology of child and adolescent development, and social and personality development. Perhaps he should be the one taking the class on personality development.Clearly, in that department, Kevin MacDonald has some serious work to do.

Tell you what, Heidi. Ill work on my personality if you work on your eating disorder.

Actually, if loving your own people and defending its culture is a sign of a personality disorder, Beirich and Potok have serious psychiatric issues.

In any case, its pretty obvious that Heidis personality needs some work. As a personality psychologist, it seems to me that not being able to see the harmless humor in Colhazes piece is the sign of a very serious personality disorder. A diagnosis of paranoia comes to mind.

A diagnosis of psychopathy also might seem like a no brainer, given that she is completely at ease with destroying lives if they engage in thought crimesthe polar opposite of a personality based on empathic concern for others. But the biology of empathic concern works within groups. Heidi is doubtless brimming with empathic concern for her co-ethnics and is therefore not properly classified as a sociopath.

But when it comes to Whites who identify with their people and their culture, its nothing but hatred and the desire to destroy. Nothing less than seeing her perceived enemies begging on street corners after losing their job and experiencing the breakup of their families will do. Again, the theme of Jews as a hostile elite. (For an extreme version, see the current TOO video; quite frankly, he reminds me of Stalins willing executioners, motivated by hatred toward the traditional people and culture of Russia [Ibid., p. 92ff]).

And dont worry. I am not out to proselytize vulnerable college student mindsunlike pretty much the entire rest of the faculty in the humanities and social sciences. I guess if you were principled, you would worry about that too, but I wont hold my breath.

Nor are you worried about the fact that typical faculty are a sure bet to discriminate against conservativeswhen recruiting faculty or making decisions on tenure and promotion. When do I get a chance to do that?

In the 1950s, the left was at the forefront of free speech for professors and others, producing a well-developed high culture where dissent was prized (e.g., plays like The Crucible [by Arthur Miller] and Inherit the Wind [by Jerome Lawrence Schwartz and Robert Edwin]; see discussion here in the context of Jason Richwine losing his position at The Heritage Foundation).

But that was when the left was under pressure from McCarthy and the general anti-communist climate of the era. Now that they are in power, the leftand certainly the organized Jewish communitystrongly favors controls on speech. The SPLC, which depends on Jewish donors, is certainly no exception. For the SPLC and their ilk, the First Amendment is nothing but a hurdle to be overcome, as indeed it will be if the Democrats manage to replace one of the conservative-leaning justices on the Supreme Court. The intellectual work is already in place.

Go here to read the rest:

More evil from Heidi Beirich | The Occidental Observer …

Fair Usage Law

June 16, 2016   Posted in: Heidi Beirich  Comments Closed

Heidi Beirich of SPLC Southern Poverty Law Center – Posted on Vanguard News Network Forum

Heidi Beirich Does Long Beach California: The SPLC vs. Academic Freedom

By Kevin MacDonald

As you read this, Heidi Beirich of the Southern Poverty Law Center is interviewing some 40 students, faculty, and administrators at California State University–Long Beach, where I am a tenured Professor of Psychology, for an upcoming hit job on me and my research.

Readers of VDARE.COM need little introduction to the SPLC or Ms. Beirich. Since 1971, the SPLC has built up an unsavory reputation, attracting criticism even from the Left for dubious fund-raising tactics, reckless allegations (anyone who opposes open borders is a racist) massive exaggerations (the Ku Klux Klan is on the verge of taking over the entire U.S.) and, by those who actually read its materials, for wholesale misrepresentation. Essentially a gang of political terrorists, well described by Peter Brimelow as a “shakedown scam that preys on the elderly, Holocaust-haunted rich”, the SPLC is nevertheless accorded almost religious reverence by many in the media, academia, and government. Case in point: the (otherwise quite fair) student newspaper article on my case was headlined Civil rights group investigates professor [by MaryJane O’Brien, Daily 49er, November 13 2006]. [For the Capitol Research Center’s new expose of the SPLC, click here]

The SPLC is paying me attention because it wants to suppress my academic work. I am interested in sociobiology, evolutionary psychology and group behavior. Some years ago I began to study the Jews. This resulted in three scholarly books and a monograph considering Judaism from a modern evolutionary perspective:

A People that Shall Dwell Alone:Judaism as a Group Evolutionary Strategy (1994)

Separation and Its Discontents:Toward an Evolutionary Theory of Anti-Semitism (1998)

The Culture of Critique: An Evolutionary Analysis of Jewish Involvement in Twentieth-Century Intellectual and Political Movements (1998)

Understanding Jewish Influence: Study in Ethnic Activism (2004)

I have also published a number of related articles (scroll down).

In this body of work I have developed the argument that Jewish activity collectively, throughout history, is best understood as an elaborate and highly successful group competitive strategy directed against neighboring peoples and host societies. The objective has been control of economic resources and political power. One example: overwhelming Jewish support for non-traditional immigration, which has the effect of weakening America’s historic white majority. Such behavior would be viewed as perfectly normal from a sociobiological standpoint.

Of course, I could be wrong. Demonstrating this would require logical argument and reinterpretation of the extensive factual evidence I have assembled. I have yet to see any critic of my work able to show that I was wrong about the theory or in my handling of the evidence. But in principle it might be possible.

However, my critics, exemplified by the SPLC, have generally been unwilling to attempt this. Instead, their line has been that the subject is taboo and discussing it should be forbidden. Needless to say, this is not the intellectual tradition out of which the Enlightenment and the Scientific Revolution came.

My experience provides a case study of these tactics. Beirich, along with another SPLC operative Mark Potok, recently wrote an article listing me as one of the “13 worst people in America” and “The scariest academic”. In a country with around 300,000,000 people and 45,000 academics, the SPLC places me in some pretty rarified company.

The Beirich & Potok article is a compendium of ethical lapses. It refers to me as having a Master’s degree, although I have held a Ph.D since 1981 and have been a fully tenured faculty member at Cal State Long Beach for 15 years. The implication: I am not a fully qualified and recognized scholar. An academic who acknowledges not having read my work is quoted, while positive comments by academics who have reviewed my research in scholarly publications are ignored. It presents gross oversimplifications of my work—summarizing an entire book in one sentence and leaving out important qualifications (e.g., although the organized Jewish community was the major force in pushing through the 1965 immigration law and in the establishment of multicultural America, I stipulate that many Jews were not involved in these efforts).

Further, Beirich & Potok lift quotations out of context. Most outrageously, they claim that I “suggest[s] that colleges restrict Jewish admission and Jews be heavily taxed ‘to counter the Jewish advantage in the possession of wealth.'” In fact, the passage in question discusses the possible consequences of a hypothetical ethnic spoils system in which individuals are assigned access to resources based on their percentage in the population. Obviously, if such a system were in place, it would discriminate against Jews. Merely explaining the real-world consequences of such a system is not the equivalent of advocating it.

Personally, I am appalled that there are major organizations and movements in this country that advocate ethnicity-based access to resources such as university admissions. Behavioral science research clearly documents that different ethnic groups have different average talents, abilities, wealth, etc. These differences can only lead to increasing levels of ethnic tension and competition in multicultural America. An ethnicity-based spoils system would be the end of the country as originally founded. It would lead to a hyper-Orwellian future in which each ethnic group jealously monitors the others to make sure it is getting its “fair” share.

I’m reminded of an earlier hatchet job by Beirich. She made a phone call to Human Events Editor-in-Chief Tom Winter complaining that Kevin Lamb, Human Events managing editor, was also the editor of The Occidental Quarterly—a publication that the SPLC calls “racist” and “white supremacist.” (The fact that I have published articles in The Occidental Quarterly is a major part of the SPLC’s problem with me.) Lamb was gone within the hour.

More recently, Beirich succeeded with another phone call in frightening the supposedly-conservative Leadership Institute into a last-minute refusal of its premises to the Robert A. Taft Club, which planned to hold a debate—a debate—between American Renaissance’s Jared Taylor, National Review’s John Derbyshire and black conservative Kevin Martin.

The Taft Club is basically just a group of Washington-area kids. But no band of heretics is too small for the SPLC Inquisition.

Ms. Beirich asked to interview me during her stay in Long Beach. Given her record, I was confident she would be acting in bad faith. But I offered to be interviewed by her—if she would answer my concerns regarding her previous writing about me and make them public to the CSULB community. She has not responded to this offer.

Kevin Lamb was an “at will” employee and really had no defense against the assault of Beirich and the SPLC. But the fact is that even academics with tenure are terrified of being called racists, anti-Semites or any other pejorative concocted by the left.

This is ironic. Unlike politicians, who must curry favor with the public in order to be reelected, and unlike media figures, who have no job protection, tenured academics should be free from any such fears. Part of the job—and a large part of the rationale for tenure in the first place—is that they are supposed to be willing to take unpopular positions.

That image of academia, however, simply and sadly has no basis in reality. Consider, for example, an article appearing almost two months after the publication of John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt’s famous essay on the Israel Lobby and appropriately titled “ A hot paper muzzles Harvard.” [by Eve Fairbanks, The Los Angeles Times, May 14 2006]:

“Instead of a roiling debate, most professors not only agreed to disagree but agreed to pretend publicly that there was no disagreement at all. At Harvard and other schools, the Mearsheimer-Walt paper proved simply too hot to handle — and it revealed an academia deeply split yet lamentably afraid to engage itself on one of the hottest political issues of our time. Call it the academic Cold War: distrustful factions rendered timid by the prospect of mutually assured career destruction.”

It’s not that professors don’t want to sound off on public policy issues. When there is an opportunity to spout righteous leftism, professors leap to the front of the line. A good example: the Duke University rape allegation case. Despite considerable evidence that the charges are spurious, three academic departments, 13 programs, and 88 professors at Duke paid for an ad in the campus newspaper in which they assumed the guilt of the men, and stated that “what happened to this young woman” resulted from “racism and sexism”.

In that case, of course, the professors who went public with their indignation knew they were part of a like-minded community and that there would be much to gain by being on the politically-correct side.

Seen in this context, the reaction to Mearsheimer and Walt makes a lot of sense. As one professor explained: “People might debate it if you gave everyone a get-out-of-jail-free card and promised that afterward everyone would be friends.”

This latest experience with the SPLC has improved my understanding of the dynamics of group control of individuals.

There have been times when I have had to endure vicious charges of anti-Semitism, for instance by Jacob Laksin (Cal State’s Professor of Anti-Semitism. Frontpagemag.com May 5 2006). But when discussion was confined to the impersonal world of the internet, it did not bother me. I would write a detailed reply and circulate it among the people who read me. I knew that people who support my writing would rally to my defense and say nice things about me and my reply to Laksin.

Naturally, I also knew that I would a get hate mail and maybe a couple of death threats. But that’s to be expected. And it’s all rather abstract, since I basically sit in solitude at my computer and read it all. It pretty much ends there. A part of me even sees some benefit in it because visits to my website are up and more people are buying my book.

But then came the SPLC and Heidi Beirich. Someone not connected to CSULB sent an email to the entire Psychology Department—except me—asking why they allowed an “anti-Semite” to teach there. The result was an uproar, with heated exchanges on the faculty email list, a departmental meeting on what to do about me and my work, and intense meetings of the departmental governing committee.

Cold shoulders, forced smiles and hostile stares became a reality. Going into my office to teach my classes and attend committee meetings became an ordeal.

I keep saying to myself: why is this so hard? At the conscious level I was perfectly confident that I could sit down with any of my colleagues and defend my ideas. I know rationally that a lot of the people giving me negative vibes are themselves members of ethnic minority groups—who like the present ethnic spoils system, such as affirmative action and ethnically-influenced foreign policy, just fine.

My theory: Ostracism and hostility from others in one’s face-to-face world trigger guilt feelings. These are automatic responses resulting ultimately from the importance of fitting into a group over evolutionary time. We Westerners are relatively prone to individualism. But we certainly don’t lack a sense of wanting to belong and to be accepted. Violating certain taboos carries huge emotional consequences.

This little bit of personal experience is doubtless typical of the forces of self-censorship that maintain the political order of the post-World-War-II West. It’s the concern about the face-to-face consequences of being a non-conformist in the deeply sensitive areas related to race or to Jewish influence.

My research on Jewish issues is well within the academic mainstream in terms of use of sources and evidence, and it has been well reviewed in a variety of mainstream sources. It would raise no controversy except that it deals with very sensitive issues: Anti-Semitism and Jewish influence on culture and politics.

I am willing to defend the idea that my ethnic identity and ethnic interests are as legitimate as those of the numerous ethnic activists that make a living in academia. Would Mexicans or Chinese be considered moral reprobates if they didn’t like the idea of their people losing political, demographic, and cultural control within their homeland? Should academics like Cornel West or Alan Dershowitz be fired or ostracized because of their obvious and deeply expressed ethnic commitments? What of the many Latino professors who marched in the recent spate of pro-immigration rallies supporting more immigration to the U.S. for the people with whom they identify?

All of these are accepted and indeed approved. However, my relatively low-key expression of ethnic identity as a white European-American concerned about the prospects of his people and culture so easily becomes whipped up into mass hysteria on campus.

This guilt trauma is the result of our evolved psychology and a long history of socialization in post-World-War-II America. It’s a big part of the problem, and people like me have simply got to become better at dealing with it.

So in the end, I’ve come to greet Heidi’s arrival in Long Beach as therapeutic—a painful but necessary challenge that must be overcome first at the psychological level if any progress is to be made on unabashed and unfettered discussion of critical issues like the Third World Invasion of America and the impending death of the West.

Hell, if Republican candidates had been ready, willing, and able to campaign on these issues, they might not have been so thoroughly “thumped” in the recent elections.

Kevin MacDonald [email him] is Professor of Psychology at California State University-Long Beach. For his website, click here.

http://www.vdare.com/macdonald/061114_splc.htm

Read more from the original source:

Heidi Beirich – Vanguard News Network Forum

Fair Usage Law

May 24, 2015   Posted in: Heidi Beirich, Southern Poverty Law Center, SPLC  Comments Closed

Bloomberg: Milo Is the Pretty, Monstrous Face of the Alt …

Joel Stein has written a profile of Milo Yiannopoulos in Bloomberg Businessweek naming him a new force in electoral politics. Milo is the person who propelled the alt-right movement into the mainstream, says Heidi Beirich, who directs the Intelligence Project at the Southern Poverty Law Center, which tracks hate groups and describes the term alt-right as a conscious rebranding by white nationalists that doesnt automatically repel the mainstream. Beirich says shes not even sure if Yiannopoulos believes in the alt-rights tenets or just found a juvenile way to mix internet culture and extreme ideology to get attention. Its like hes joking: Ha ha, let me popularize the worst ideas that ever existed, she says. Thats new, and thats scary. In this Kafkaesque troll war for Americas soul, Yiannopoulos believes that all offense is performed rather than truly felt. I have never been offended. I dont know what it means. Its not that I disagree with it. I dont understand it. Ive never had that feeling, he says. I dont let feelings control my life. Im more disciplined than other people. I have a dark, ADD, Asp-y [Aspergers syndrome] brain. Im totally autistic or sociopathic. I guess Im both. I think my legacy might be longer than Trumps, he says. Im attacking the disease, not the symptoms. Also, he doesnt read. But I still love him. And hes still my daddy. Nobodys perfect. For his shopping trip to Gieves & Hawkes, Yiannopoulos calls for an Uber. The driver is a man, possibly because Ubers algorithm has learned that Yiannopoulos rejects female drivers. Women, he says, have been scientifically proven to be worse at spatial relations, as have Asians. Its the only thing Saudia Arabia gets right, he says about the countrys ban on female drivers. Yiannopoulos puts on a whole show to provoke students. He says his tour will cost $1million, only some of which is going to his wardrobe. While on the road, hes giving a women-in-tech talk at Stanford about female biological inferiority in science. Hes going to Yale shortly before Halloween, where, dressed in traditional Native American garb, hell address last years campus protests about mocking other cultures via culturally insensitive costumes. Im a perpetual 14-year-old, he says. Maybe not 14. Im 7. Its my USP [unique selling point]. Halfway through her speech about the conspiracy-pandering and racism of Trump and the alt-right, Clinton reads four Breitbart headlines. Two of them are from Yiannopoulos articles. Birth Control Makes Women Unattractive and Crazy Would You Rather Your Child Had Feminism or Cancer? He stands up, claps, and spins around. Yiannopoulos has hit the troll jackpot: He wrote outrageous headlines trying to provoke liberals, and the worlds top liberal read them with head-shaking seriousness, falling for the prank. He directs Bokhari, sitting 5 feet away, to quickly write an article for Breitbart about this. They give it the headline Milo to Hillary: You Did This. As crazy as that sounds, once you understand troll logic, its pretty much true. Although he works for a news network, Yiannopoulos considers himself to be a pop star. Milo is much closer to Jon Stewart, says Alexander Marlow, the 30-year-old editor-in-chief of Breitbart. He uses entertainment to put out the news. Only hes much more fabulous and better-looking.

Fair Usage Law

November 24, 2016   Posted in: Heidi Beirich  Comments Closed

Heidi Beirich (Ly), 49 – Montgomery, AL | MyLife.com …

Heidi Beirich was born in 1967. Heidi currently lives in Montgomery . Before that, she lived in Montgomery , AL from 2000 to 2003. After high school, she went to M.A. from University of California, Riverside (1989-1991) in , . she attended college from 89 to 91. Ph.D. from Purdue University (1993-1998) in , . she attended college from 93 to 98. A.B. from University of California, Berkeley (1985-1989) in , . she attended college from 85 to 89. M.A. from University of California, Riverside (1989-1991) in , . she attended college from 89 to 91. Ph.D. from Purdue University (1993-1998) in , . she attended college from 93 to 98. A.B. from University of California, Berkeley (1985-1989) in , . she attended college from 85 to 89. Director, Intelligence Project at Southern poverty law center Director of Research at Southern poverty law center M.A. from University of California, Riverside (1989-1991) Ph.D. from Purdue University (1993-1998) A.B. from University of California, Berkeley (1985-1989) M.A. from University of California, Riverside (1989-1991) Ph.D. from Purdue University (1993-1998) A.B. from University of California, Berkeley (1985-1989) Unaffiliated Party

Fair Usage Law

October 8, 2016   Posted in: Heidi Beirich  Comments Closed

Heidi Does Long Beach: The SPLC vs. Academic Freedom …

As you read this, Heidi Beirich of the Southern Poverty Law Center is interviewing some 40 students, faculty, and administrators at California State UniversityLong Beach, where I am a tenured Professor of Psychology, for an upcoming hit job on me and my research. Readers of VDARE.COM need little introduction to the SPLC or Ms. Beirich. Since 1971, the SPLC has built up an unsavory reputation, attracting criticism even from the Left for dubious fund-raising tactics, reckless allegations (anyone who opposes open borders is a racist) massive exaggerations (the Ku Klux Klan is on the verge of taking over the entire U.S.) and, by those who actually read its materials, for wholesale misrepresentation. Essentially a gang of political terrorists, well described by Peter Brimelow as a shakedown scam that preys on the elderly, Holocaust-haunted rich, the SPLC is nevertheless accorded almost religious reverence by many in the media, academia, and government. Case in point: the (otherwise quite fair) student newspaper article on my case was headlined Civil rights group investigates professor [by MaryJane O`Brien, Daily 49er, November 13 2006]. [For the Capitol Research Center`s new expose of the SPLC, click here] The SPLC is paying me attention because it wants to suppress my academic work. I am interested in sociobiology, evolutionary psychology and group behavior. Some years ago I began to study the Jews. This resulted in three scholarly books and a monograph considering Judaism from a modern evolutionary perspective: A People that Shall Dwell Alone:Judaism as a Group Evolutionary Strategy (1994) Separation and Its Discontents:Toward an Evolutionary Theory of Anti-Semitism (1998) The Culture of Critique: An Evolutionary Analysis of Jewish Involvement in Twentieth-Century Intellectual and Political Movements (1998) Understanding Jewish Influence: Study in Ethnic Activism (2004) I have also published a number of related articles (scroll down). In this body of work I have developed the argument that Jewish activity collectively, throughout history, is best understood as an elaborate and highly successful group competitive strategy directed against neighboring peoples and host societies. The objective has been control of economic resources and political power. One example: overwhelming Jewish support for non-traditional immigration, which has the effect of weakening America`s historic white majority. Such behavior would be viewed as perfectly normal from a sociobiological standpoint. Of course, I could be wrong. Demonstrating this would require logical argument and reinterpretation of the extensive factual evidence I have assembled. I have yet to see any critic of my work able to show that I was wrong about the theory or in my handling of the evidence. But in principle it might be possible. However, my critics, exemplified by the SPLC, have generally been unwilling to attempt this. Instead, their line has been that the subject is taboo and discussing it should be forbidden. Needless to say, this is not the intellectual tradition out of which the Enlightenment and the Scientific Revolution came. My experience provides a case study of these tactics. Beirich, along with another SPLC operative Mark Potok, recently wrote an article listing me as one of the 13 worst people in Americaand The scariest academic. In a country with around 300,000,000 people and 45,000 academics, the SPLC places me in some pretty rarified company. The Beirich & Potok article is a compendium of ethical lapses. It refers to me as having a Master`s degree, although I have held a Ph.D since 1981 and have been a fully tenured faculty member at Cal State Long Beach for 15 years. The implication: I am not a fully qualified and recognized scholar. An academic who acknowledges not having read my work is quoted, while positive comments by academics who have reviewed my research in scholarly publications are ignored. It presents gross oversimplifications of my worksummarizing an entire book in one sentence and leaving out important qualifications (e.g., although the organized Jewish community was the major force in pushing through the 1965 immigration law and in the establishmentof multicultural America, I stipulate that many Jews were not involved in these efforts). Further, Beirich & Potok lift quotations out of context. Most outrageously, they claim that I “suggest[s] that colleges restrict Jewish admission and Jews be heavily taxed `to counter the Jewish advantage in the possession of wealth.`” In fact, the passage in question discusses the possible consequences of a hypothetical ethnic spoils system in which individuals are assigned access to resources based on their percentage in the population. Obviously, if such a system were in place, it would discriminate against Jews. Merely explaining the real-world consequences of such a system is not the equivalent of advocating it. Personally, I am appalled that there are major organizations and movements in this country that advocate ethnicity-based access to resources such as university admissions. Behavioral science research clearly documents that different ethnic groups have different average talents, abilities, wealth, etc. These differences can only lead to increasing levels of ethnic tension and competition in multicultural America. An ethnicity-based spoils system would be the end of the country as originally founded. It would lead to a hyper-Orwellian future in which each ethnic group jealously monitors the others to make sure it is getting its fair share. I`m reminded of an earlier hatchet job by Beirich. She made a phone call to Human Events Editor-in-Chief Tom Winter complaining that Kevin Lamb, Human Events managing editor, was also the editor of The Occidental Quarterlya publication that the SPLC calls racist and white supremacist. (The fact that I have published articles in The Occidental Quarterly is a major part of the SPLC`s problem with me.) Lamb was gone within the hour. More recently, Beirich succeeded with another phone call in frightening the supposedly-conservative Leadership Institute into a last-minute refusal of its premises to the Robert A. Taft Club, which planned to hold a debatea debatebetween American Renaissance`s Jared Taylor, National Review`s John Derbyshire and black conservative Kevin Martin. The Taft Club is basically just a group of Washington-area kids. But no band of heretics is too small for the SPLC Inquisition. Ms. Beirich asked to interview me during her stay in Long Beach. Given her record, I was confident she would be acting in bad faith. But I offered to be interviewed by herif she would answer my concerns regarding her previous writing about me and make them public to the CSULB community. She has not responded to this offer. Kevin Lamb was an at will employee and really had no defense against the assault of Beirich and the SPLC. But the fact is that even academics with tenure are terrified of being called racists, anti-Semites or any other pejorative concocted by the left. This is ironic. Unlike politicians, who must curry favor with the public in order to be reelected, and unlike media figures, who have no job protection, tenured academics should be free from any such fears. Part of the joband a large part of the rationale for tenure in the first placeis that they are supposed to be willing to take unpopular positions. That image of academia, however, simply and sadly has no basis in reality. Consider, for example, an article appearing almost two months after the publication of John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt`s famous essay on the Israel Lobby and appropriately titled A hot paper muzzles Harvard. [by Eve Fairbanks, The Los Angeles Times, May 14 2006]: Instead of a roiling debate, most professors not only agreed to disagree but agreed to pretend publicly that there was no disagreement at all. At Harvard and other schools, the Mearsheimer-Walt paper proved simply too hot to handle and it revealed an academia deeply split yet lamentably afraid to engage itself on one of the hottest political issues of our time. Call it the academic Cold War: distrustful factions rendered timid by the prospect of mutually assured career destruction. It`s not that professors don`t want to sound off on public policy issues. When there is an opportunity to spout righteous leftism, professors leap to the front of the line. A good example: the Duke University rape allegation case. Despite considerable evidence that the charges are spurious, three academic departments, 13 programs, and 88 professors at Duke paid for an ad in the campus newspaper in which they assumed the guilt of the men, and stated that “what happened to this young woman” resulted from “racism and sexism”. In that case, of course, the professors who went public with their indignation knew they were part of a like-minded community and that there would be much to gain by being on the politically-correct side. Seen in this context, the reaction to Mearsheimer and Walt makes a lot of sense. As one professor explained: “People might debate it if you gave everyone a get-out-of-jail-free card and promised that afterward everyone would be friends.” This latest experience with the SPLC has improved my understanding of the dynamics of group control of individuals. There have been times when I have had to endure vicious charges of anti-Semitism, for instance by Jacob Laksin (Cal State`s Professor of Anti-Semitism. Frontpagemag.com May 5 2006). But when discussion was confined to the impersonal world of the internet, it did not bother me. I would write a detailed reply and circulate it among the people who read me. I knew that people who support my writing would rally to my defense and say nice things about me and my reply to Laksin. Naturally, I also knew that I would a get hate mail and maybe a couple of death threats. But that`s to be expected. And it`s all rather abstract, since I basically sit in solitude at my computer and read it all. It pretty much ends there. A part of me even sees some benefit in it because visits to my website are up and more people are buying my book. But then came the SPLC and Heidi Beirich. Someone not connected to CSULB sent an email to the entire Psychology Departmentexcept measking why they allowed an anti-Semite to teach there. The result was an uproar, with heated exchanges on the faculty email list, a departmental meeting on what to do about me and my work, and intense meetings of the departmental governing committee. Cold shoulders, forced smiles and hostile stares became a reality. Going into my office to teach my classes and attend committee meetings became an ordeal. I keep saying to myself: why is this so hard? At the conscious level I was perfectly confident that I could sit down with any of my colleagues and defend my ideas. I know rationally that a lot of the people giving me negative vibes are themselves members of ethnic minority groupswho like the present ethnic spoils system, such as affirmative action and ethnically-influenced foreign policy, just fine. My theory: Ostracism and hostility from others in one`s face-to-face world trigger guilt feelings. These are automatic responses resulting ultimately from the importance of fitting into a group over evolutionary time. We Westerners are relatively prone to individualism. But we certainly don`t lack a sense of wanting to belong and to be accepted. Violating certain taboos carries huge emotional consequences. This little bit of personal experience is doubtless typical of the forces of self-censorship that maintain the political order of the post-World-War-II West. It`s the concern about the face-to-face consequences of being a non-conformist in the deeply sensitive areas related to race or to Jewish influence. My research on Jewish issues is well within the academic mainstream in terms of use of sources and evidence, and it has been well reviewed in a variety of mainstream sources. It would raise no controversy except that it deals with very sensitive issues: Anti-Semitism and Jewish influence on culture and politics. I am willing to defend the idea that my ethnic identity and ethnic interests are as legitimate as those of the numerous ethnic activists that make a living in academia. Would Mexicans or Chinese be considered moral reprobates if they didn`t like the idea of their people losing political, demographic, and cultural control within their homeland? Should academics like Cornel West or Alan Dershowitz be fired or ostracized because of their obvious and deeply expressed ethnic commitments? What of the many Latino professors who marched in the recent spate of pro-immigration rallies supporting more immigration to the U.S. for the people with whom they identify? All of these are accepted and indeed approved. However, my relatively low-key expression of ethnic identity as a white European-American concerned about the prospects of his people and culture so easily becomes whipped up into mass hysteria on campus. This guilt trauma is the result of our evolved psychology and a long history of socialization in post-World-War-II America. It`s a big part of the problem, and people like me have simply got to become better at dealing with it. So in the end, I`ve come to greet Heidi`s arrival in Long Beach as therapeutica painful but necessary challenge that must be overcome first at the psychological level if any progress is to be made on unabashed and unfettered discussion of critical issues like the Third World Invasion of America and the impending death of the West. Hell, if Republican candidates had been ready, willing, and able to campaign on these issues, they might not have been so thoroughly thumped in the recent elections. Kevin MacDonald [email him] is Professor of Psychology at California State University-Long Beach. For his website, click here.

Fair Usage Law

September 23, 2016   Posted in: Heidi Beirich  Comments Closed

Jared Taylor – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Samuel Jared Taylor (born September 15, 1951) is an American white nationalist who is the founder and editor of American Renaissance, a magazine often described as a white supremacist publication. Taylor is also an author and the president of American Renaissance’s parent organization, New Century Foundation, through which many of his books have been published. He is a former member of the advisory board of The Occidental Quarterly, and a former director of the National Policy Institute, a Virginia-based white nationalist think tank.[1] He is also a board member and spokesperson of the Council of Conservative Citizens.[2][3] Taylor, and many of the organizations he is associated with, are often described as promoting racist ideologies by, among others, civil rights groups, news media and academics studying racism in the US.[4][5][6][7] Taylor was born on September 15, 1951 to Christian missionary parents in Kobe, Japan. He lived in Japan until he was 16 years old and attended Japanese public school up to the age of 12, becoming fluent in Japanese in the process.[8] He graduated from Yale University in 1973 with a BA in philosophy.[9] Taylor worked as a news editor at the Washington Post from 1974 to 1975. Following that, he spent three years on a MA in international economics at the Paris Institute of Political Studies (Sciences Po), graduating in 1978. He worked as an international lending officer for the Manufacturers Hanover Corporation from 1978 to 1981, and as West Coast editor of PC Magazine from 1983 to 1988.[10] He also worked in West Africa, and has traveled the area extensively.[8] Taylor is fluent in French, Japanese and English and has taught Japanese at Harvard University.[11][12] He also worked as a courtroom translator.[9] He authored Shadows of the Rising Sun: A Critical View of the Japanese Miracle (1983), in which he wrote that Japan was not an appropriate economic or social model for the United States, and criticized the Japanese for excessive preoccupation with their own uniqueness.[13] In 1990 he published the first issue of the American Renaissance periodical, and later founded the New Century Foundation to help with the running of American Renaissance.[14] Taylor first turned to race in Paved With Good Intentions: The Failure of Race Relations in Contemporary America (1992),[15] in which he argued that racism is no longer a convincing excuse for high black rates of crime, poverty, and academic failure. He also edited The Real American Dilemma: Race, Immigration, and the Future of America, (1998).[16] On May 3, 2011, The New Century Foundation released Jared Taylor’s sequel to Paved With Good Intentions: The Failure of Race Relations in Contemporary America entitled White Identity: Racial Consciousness in the 21st Century. Taylor supervised preparation of the New Century Foundation monograph, The Color of Crime (1998, 2005), which observes that blacks and Hispanics commit violent crimes at considerably higher rates than whites, and that whites commit violent crimes at higher rates than Asians.[17] He is the main contributor to a collection of articles from American Renaissance magazine called A Race Against Time: Racial Heresies for the 21st Century, (2003)[18] and editor of a collection of essays by the late Samuel Francis entitled Essential Writings on Race, (2007).[19] Taylor authored Face to Face with Race (2014), in which he stated that racial differences are real and innate.[20] Taylor has been described as a white nationalist, white supremacist and racist by civil rights groups, news media, academics studying racism in the US, and others.[6][4][5][21][22] Taylor has “strenuously rejected”[8] being called a racist, arguing that he is instead a “racialist who believes in race-realism.”[23][24] He has also said he is not a white supremacist, describing himself as a “white advocate,”[25] and contends that his views on nationality and race are “moderate, commonsensical, and fully consistent with the views of most of the great statesmen and presidents of America’s past.”[8] Taylor believes that white people have their own racial interests, and that it is intellectually valid for them to protect these interests; he sees it as anomalous that non-Hispanic whites have allowed people of other races to organize themselves politically while not doing so themselves.[26] His journal American Renaissance was founded to provide such a voice for white interests.[27] Taylor has summarized the basis for his views in the following terms: Race is an important aspect of individual and group identity. Of all the fault lines that divide societylanguage, religion, class, ideologyit is the most prominent and divisive. Race and racial conflict are at the heart of the most serious challenges the Western World faces in the 21st century… Attempts to gloss over the significance of race or even to deny its reality only make problems worse.[28] He has questioned the capacity of blacks to live successfully in a civilized society. In an article on the chaos in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina, Taylor wrote “when blacks are left entirely to their own devices, Western Civilizationany kind of civilizationdisappears. And in a crisis, civilization disappears overnight.”[29] Taylor believes in a general correlation between race and intelligence, where blacks are generally less intelligent than whites, and whites are generally less intelligent than East Asians, as expressed in the controversial book The Bell Curve. Taylor has said in an interview: I think Asians are objectively superior to Whites by just about any measure that you can come up with in terms of what are the ingredients for a successful society. This doesn’t mean that I want America to become Asian. I think every people has a right to be itself, and this becomes clear whether we’re talking about Irian Jaya or Tibet, for that matter.[30] In a speech delivered on May 28, 2005, to the British self-determination group, Sovereignty, Taylor said of his personal feelings to interracial marriages, “I want my grandchildren to look like my grandparents. I don’t want them to look like Anwar Sadat or Fu Manchu or Whoopi Goldberg.”[31] Taylor has gone on to say that “people in general if left to themselves will generally sort themselves out by race,” and has said that churches, schools, and neighborhoods are examples of this. Taylor has also given support to Hans-Hermann Hoppe’s attempts to persuade libertarians to oppose immigration; he generally approves of Hoppe’s work, although he sees the pursuit of a society with no government at all to be “the sort of experiment one might prefer to watch in a foreign country before attempting it oneself.”[32] The Southern Poverty Law Center notes that Taylor is unusual among the radical right in “his lack of anti-Semitism”,[33] although at times American Renaissance has had neo-Nazis and Holocaust deniers as contributors and participants.[33] Describing his followers’ views, Taylor has said: Racially conscious whites tend to be suspicious of Jews for two reasons. First, Jews have been prominent in the effort to demonize any sense of white identity. Second, Zionist Jews support an ethnostate for Jews — Israel — while they generally promote diversity for America and Europe. This is annoying, but understandable for historical reasons.[34] Taylor is a supporter of Donald Trump’s presidential campaign, and has recorded robocalls to support Trump before the Iowa caucus and New Hampshire primary.[35][36] The Southern Poverty Law Center describes Taylor as “a courtly presenter of ideas that most would describe as crudely white supremacist a kind of modern-day version of the refined but racist colonialist of old.”[33] Mark Potok and Heidi Beirich, writers in the Intelligence Report (a publication of the Southern Poverty Law Center), have written that “Jared Taylor is the cultivated, cosmopolitan face of white supremacy. He is the guy who is providing the intellectual heft, in effect, to modern-day Klansmen.” They have also stated that “American Renaissance has become increasingly important over the years, bringing a measure of intellectualism and seriousness to the typically thug-dominated world of white supremacy.”[37] A 2005 feature in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette described Taylor as “a racist in the guise of expert.”[4] His online magazine, American Renaissance, has been described as a white supremacist publication and a “forum for writers disparaging the abilities of minorities.”[38] Conservative author and former National Review contributor John Derbyshire, while not condoning all of Taylor’s work, has said that Taylor is a “polite and good-natured man;” a “dissident” whose opinions “violate tribal taboos.”[39] David Horowitz, the editor of FrontPage Magazine, has said of Taylor that he is “a very intelligent and principled man”, and “a very smart and gutsy individualist, but he is also a man who has surrendered to the multicultural miasma that has overtaken this nation and is busily building a movement devoted to white identity and community. We do not share these agendas. What I mean by ‘surrendering’ is that Taylor has accepted the idea that the multiculturalists have won.”[40] Notes

Fair Usage Law

September 12, 2016   Posted in: Heidi Beirich  Comments Closed

FBI Monitoring Situation In Oregon National … – ABC News

The FBI has taken the lead in monitoring an armed standoff in Oregon where a group of militia members, along with some members of the family of Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy, are occupying a building on federal land at a national wildlife refuge. The FBI is “working with the Harney County Sheriff’s Office, Oregon State Police and other local and state law enforcement agencies to bring a peaceful resolution to the situation, the agency said in a statement. The militia members who occupied the wildlife refuge buildings set up a roadblock, and two armed members had manned a guard tower that is usually used to spot wildfires. But there was no sign of law enforcement in the area, and local police said they had no intention of going to the scene, not even to keep watch on the militia. The Rally and Occupation The protest began Saturday as a rally in support of Harney County ranchers Dwight Hammond Jr. and Steven Hammond, who are to report to prison today for committing arson. The Hammond brothers left eastern Oregon early Sunday to report to Terminal Island in San Pedro, California, to serve their prison sentences. The two men were convicted of setting fires on lands managed by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM), “on which the Hammonds had grazing rights leased to them for their cattle operation,” according to the U.S. Attorneys Office. “We all know the devastating effects that are caused by wildfires,” Acting U.S. Attorney Billy Williams said. “Fires intentionally and illegally set on public lands, even those in a remote area, threaten property and residents and endanger firefighters called to battle the blaze.” After the rally for the Hammonds on Saturday, militia, along with sons of Cliven Bundy — who was involved in a standoff with the government over grazing rights in Nevada in 2014 — initiated the occupation of the headquarters of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. Bundy’s son Ammon claims the federally owned wildlife refuge in rural, eastern Oregon belongs to the people, and that they are “making a hard stand against … overreach.” He said the government’s “taking of people’s land and resources” is leaving people in poverty, adding that the wildlife refuge “has been a tool in doing that.” Ryan Bundy and another of Ammon Bundy’s brothers are also among the occupiers, according to The Associated Press. Who Is Cliven Bundy and Why Is He So Controversial? Ammon Bundy called the earlier rally successful, but said of the Wildlife Refuge standoff, “If we do not make a hard stand, we will be in a position where we won’t be able to as a people.” He also asked for militia members to come help him. Ammon Bundy says the group’s actions are not aggressive and there is no damage or criminal activity. He said the group’s goal is to help local workers, including ranchers, miners and hunters, benefit from the land. The group wants to assert that the federal government does not have right to own or control land inside the state, Ammon Bundy said. “We’re prepared to be out here for as long as we need to be,” he said in an eight-minute long Facebook video posted early Sunday morning. The group does not have plans to occupy any other federal buildings, Ammon Bundy said Sunday. The refuge is federal property managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and was closed for the holiday weekend. A U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service spokesperson told ABC News: “The Fish and Wildlife Service and The Bureau of Land Management have received reports that an unknown number of individuals have broken into the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge facility near Burns, Oregon. While the situation is ongoing, the main concern is employee safety and we can confirm that no federal staff were in the building at the time of the initial incident. We will continue to monitor the situation for additional developments.” The refuge headquarters was empty at the time of the seizure, Harney County, Oregon, Sheriff Dave Ward said in a statement. “These men came to Harney County claiming to be part of militia groups supporting local ranchers, when in reality these men had alternative motives to attempt to over throw the county and federal government in hopes to spark a movement across the United States,” Ward said. “We are currently working jointly with several organizations to make sure the citizens of Harney County are safe and this issue is resolved as quickly and peaceful as possible,” he said, adding that no other areas in Harney County are in “immediate danger.” “We ask that people stay away from the refuge for their safety,” Ward said. “We also ask that if anyone sees any of these individuals in the area to please contact law enforcement and do not confront the individuals themselves.” Harney County School District No. 3 schools will be closed this week, Superintendent Dr. Marilyn L. McBride told ABC News. “Ensuring staff and student safety is our greatest concern,” McBride said. Beth Anne Steele, a spokeswoman for the FBI in Portland, told ABC News the FBI is aware of the situation but is not making any further comments. The Cliven Bundy Incident Cliven Bundy, the patriarch of a large Mormon family with more than 50 grandchildren, came into the spotlight in April 2014, when the federal government started impounding his 900 head of cattle, following a 20-year battle over cattle-grazing on federal land. The government said Bundy owed $1.1 million in unpaid grazing fees and penalties for continuing to let his cattle roam free on land near Bunkerville, Nevada, 80 miles northeast of Las Vegas, even after the government established the area as a protected habitat for the endangered desert tortoise in 1993 and slashed Bundy’s cattle allotment. The situation escalated the week of April 5, 2014, as hundreds of supporters from around the country rallied on Bundy’s property to protest the federal cattle round-up. The dispute reignited debate over Bureau of Land Management practices, especially in Nevada where federal agencies control 85 percent of the land. The confrontation turned ominous as armed militia gathered on his cattle and melon farm, aiming semi-automatic weapons at armed BLM officials from a bridge overpass. Some protesters were tasered by authorities and others arrested and later released, including one of Bundys 14 adult children. On April 12, 2014, the BLM ended the stand-off, returned Bundys confiscated cattle and left the land citing safety concerns. What to Know About the Militia Movement The occupation is essentially “the spill over from the Bundy stand-off” in Nevada, according to Heidi Beirich, Director of the Intelligence Project at the Southern Poverty Law Center. “What we’re really seeing is a continuation of what started in April 2014, of militia folks and anti-government folks deciding that they’re not going to accept federal authorities over federal lands,” Beirich told ABC News Sunday. “At the Bundy ranch, the federal government stood down. They had absolute cause to take Bundy’s cattle. The Bundys were able — at the point of a gun — to drive the federal government and its representatives … off the land,” she said. “Bundy is still a free man. He hasn’t paid his money, and it’s emboldened the entire movement to basically think, ‘We don’t have to follow the rules,'” Beirich said, explaining that that is what’s happening now in Oregon. The Bundy incident in 2014, as well as another incident in Oregon last year, “enlivened” the militias, she said, because they made them feel successful. “They made the federal government back down from enforcing the law,” she said. “And that has emboldened all these people, giving life to the movement.” Get real-time updates as this story unfolds. To start, just “star” this story in ABC News’ phone app. Download ABC News for iPhone here or ABC News for Android here. The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Fair Usage Law

July 29, 2016   Posted in: Heidi Beirich  Comments Closed

Hideous Heidi Beirich`s Bullying Laid Bare | VDARE …

$PLC`s Hideous Heidi Who says there are no conspiracies? We`ve noted before the extraordinary network of enforcers that apparently stands ready 24/7 to keep crimethink out of public discourse. But this is exceptional. Late on February 2, VDARE.com posted a note about my upcoming participation in a debate to be held by the Federalist Society`s Dallas Lawyers` Chapter on birthright citizenship, with Professor Lino Graglia and former Texas Solicitor Generaland Taiwanese immigrantJim Ho (who has conservative credentials but is apparently on the wrong side here). The next day, when I was already in the air, the Dallas Chapter received this threatening email: From: Heidi.Beirich@splcenter.org [mailto:Heidi.Beirich@splcenter.org] Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2011 3:49 PM To: Subject: Peter Brimelow Hi there, I am writing for comment about why your chapter of the Federalist Society would invite a white nationalist, Peter Brimelow, to speak on the panel you are holding tomorrow. Brimelow has a very long track record of racism, particularly against immigrants, that the Southern Poverty Law Center has documented here: http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-files/profiles/peter-brimelow A prompt response would be greatly appreciated. Best, Heidi Beirich Heidi Beirich, Ph.D. Director of Research Southern Poverty Law Center 334-956-8309 Beirich is of course the notorious (if oddly underpaid) enforcer for the $PLC, whom VDARE.com has reported bullying the cowardly employers of Kevin Lamb and Kevin MacDonald, among much other thuggery. Of course, what the $PLC has documented on me is just the usual silly left-wing paranoid scholarship. The Dallas Chapter, however, is made of stern stuffand perhaps takes the rights of Englishmen seriously. Its response: On 2/3/11 5:21 PM, wrote: Heidi, The Federalist Society does not take a position on the issues presented at our panel discussions / debates, nor does the Federalist Society endorse the views (perceived or otherwise) of any particular speaker or participant at such events. The Federalist Society`s goal is to provide a forum where divergent views and ideas can be debated, compared, and critiqued. That is what tomorrow`s forum hopes to accomplish. thank you, – This tacit defiance apparently really infuriated Beirich. Next morning, she wrote: From: Heidi.Beirich@splcenter.org [mailto:Heidi.Beirich@splcenter.org] Sent: Friday, February 04, 2011 8:11 AM To: – Subject: Re: Peter Brimelow Would you like me to add this comment to my blog post? I`d be happy to do so. A few minutes later, not having received a response, she could not restrain herself from adding: From: Heidi.Beirich@splcenter.org [mailto:Heidi.Beirich@splcenter.org] Sent: Friday, February 04, 2011 8:24 AM To: – Subject: Re: Peter Brimelow I do have to ask, though, do you really think white supremacy is a divergent view? Would you invite a Klansman to speak? There must be a line somewhere? Heidi Beirich, Ph.D. Director of Research Southern Poverty Law Center 334-956-8309 Note, here, that Beirich effortlessly elides white nationalism and white supremacy. As I have repeatedly said, VDARE.com is a forum site and we will publish anyone, of any political tendency (or race), who has anything sensible to say about America`s immigration disaster. And that certainly includes writers, for example Jared Taylor, whom I would regard as white nationalist, in the sense that they aim to defend the interests of American whites. They are not white supremacists. They do not advocate violence. They are rational and civil. They brush their teeth. But they unashamedly work for their peopleexactly as La Raza works for Latinos and the Anti-Defamation League works for Jews. VDARE.com`s position: Get used to it. As immigration policy drives whites into a minority, this type of interest-group white nationalism will inexorably increase. This is not white supremacy. Is Zionism Jewish supremacy? But of course, it unquestionably is politically lethal for the American left, whose only hope of sustaining its current Minority Occupation Government is to keep whites divided until its immigration policy succeeds in electing a new people. And it`s emotionally unbearable, because what now drives the American left is its intense alienation from white America. But what is Beirich`s point about a Klansman? It is true, of course, that the Second Klan, founded in 1915, was very largely a typical American middle-class fraternal organization, like the Freemasons or the Shriners. But that is not how Americans have been brought to remember the Klan. Beirich here is insinuating that I go around lynching and castrating Negroes. But in fact I have never lynched, let alone castrated, even one. Who does she think I am, Benjamin Netahyahu? Am I a white nationalist? A few years ago, VDARE.com published a sophisticated debate between Steve Sailer and Jared Taylor on Citizenismthe idea that Americacan be in essence a cultural entityvs. White Nationalismthe idea that America must ultimately be (as it has been historically) the political expression of a specific racial group. My emotional, cheerful side sympathized with Steve. My rational, pessimistic side suspects that Jared`s analysis will ultimately prevail. If it does, Beirich will be in some significant measure to blame. Endnote: as it happened, at the last minute the Federalist Society debate was cancelled because Dallas was hit with five inches of snow. It was all white. Obviously a hate crime. Peter Brimelow (emailhim) is editor of VDARE.COM and author of the much-denouncedAlien Nation: Common Sense About America`s Immigration Disaster, (Random House 1995) and The Worm in the Apple (HarperCollins 2003)

Fair Usage Law

July 5, 2016   Posted in: Heidi Beirich  Comments Closed

SPLCs Heidi Beirich Admits Diversity Causes Social …

Andrew Anglin Daily Stormer May 28, 2016 American Renaissance has a great article up by Linda Preston, detailing the events of an anti-racist meeting she attended in Washington, D.C. The whole thing is well worth your time, but the best part is a quote from the SPLCs Heidi Beirich: What we know from sociological research is that when a neighborhood diversifies people retreat to their homes, they hunker down. You have to really take serious positive work in rapidly changing demographic areas, to not result in either social breakdown or other problems. Its a big issue for the United States. On its own, its not gonna happen. As Preston notes, she is apparently referring to the work of Harvard political scientist Robert Putnam. Putnam used the term hunkering down in reference to the deleterious social consequences of ethnic diversity. Wikipedia: In recent years, Putnam has been engaged in a comprehensive study of the relationship between trust within communities and their ethnic diversity. His conclusion based on over 40 cases and 30,000 people within the United States is that, other things being equal, more diversity in a community is associated with less trust both between and within ethnic groups. Although limited to American data, it puts into question both the contact hypothesis and conflict theory in inter-ethnic relations. According to conflict theory, distrust between the ethnic groups will rise with diversity, but not within a group. In contrast, contact theory proposes that distrust will decline as members of different ethnic groups get to know and interact with each other. Putnam describes people of all races, sex, socioeconomic statuses, and ages as hunkering down, avoiding engagement with their local communityboth among different ethnic groups and within their own ethnic group. Even when controlling for income inequality and crime rates, two factors which conflict theory states should be the prime causal factors in declining inter-ethnic group trust, more diversity is still associated with less communal trust. Lowered trust in areas with high diversity is also associated with: The fact that a key figure in the aggressive movement for forcing diversity down the throats of Americans would admit that all of the known consequences of diversity are negative is incredibly funny. And scary. Theres only one possible final outcome of diversity. It doesnt matter how anyone feels about it. Its a matter of science. One would have almost hoped that a pro-diversity change agent would be unaware of Putnams research into the disastrous consequences of this trend. Or at least claim that the research is invalid for whatever reason. But no. She is saying we know this causes society to collapse, so we really have to force it if we want to make it happen. If we know something is negative, why would we want to force it on the people? Why is this never explained or even discussed? What is the purpose of diversity? Diversity in Action: The Islamic Colony of Calais, France Ostensibly, the goal of diversity is to alleviate third world poverty, something which White people are collectively blamed for. However, even if we accept that Whites are responsible for third world poverty and are thus morally obligated to pay for the lives of all the worlds brown people, there are several glaring problems with the idea that mass immigration is the way to deal with this moral responsibility. There are 3 billion non-Whites living in poverty in the third world. You couldnt possibly bring all of these people into White countries. At the rate we are importing these people now a rate which is higher than any other point in history we arent even making a dent in their population growth. That is, even with the massive numbers of people we are allowing into our countries, these people are breeding so quickly that the numbers of those living in poverty in the third world are expanding rapidly. It is not physically possible for us to end third world poverty through mass immigration. Roy Beck of the anti-immigration group Numbers USA explained this situation with gumballs better than I ever could with words. Clearly, the well-being of poor brown people would be better served through financial aid programs to their countries. However, then it becomes an issue of managing the distribution of the wealth we are transferring to them, as well as ensuring that it is allocated to infrastructure, education and so on. Right now, most of the aid money sent to third world is stolen and squandered by the political ruling class in these countries. So you would have to send in White people to oversee these projects. The perhaps difficult but nonetheless glaring conclusion is that if our goal is to help third world non-Whites, the most logical thing would be to reinstate colonialism. The neo-liberal United Nations system is really just a broken form of colonialism anyway. We are dictating policy to these countries through these various organizations, but the policy simply isnt carried out or is carried out inefficiently. They never had it better. So: if the goal is to allocate White resources into ensuring that brown people are not poor, you can work it all through logically, based on the data. And everyone would come to the same conclusion, which is that colonialism is the best solution. And yet, this is not discussed. None of it is ever discussed. It is just yes, diversity is destroying you, and it isnt doing anything to alleviate third world poverty, but you have to have it or we will call you mean names. As such, one can only come to the conclusion that the goal of diversity has nothing to do with helping brown people. The goal is to destroy White societies, and ultimately to exterminate the White race. If we are honest with ourselves, and honest with the data, there is no other conclusion we can come to.

Fair Usage Law

June 30, 2016   Posted in: Heidi Beirich  Comments Closed

More evil from Heidi Beirich | The Occidental Observer …

Our friend Heidi Beirich of the SPLC has another outrageous gem about me (Long Adored by Anti-Semites, California Prof Now Glorifies Violence). A couple of factual issues: I am not a co-host of David Dukes program and have never used the phrase Zionist gun-grabbers, although I have noted that Jewish publications have pointed tothe central role of Jewish activists and organizations in the gun control movement. Worse, she sent an email to university colleagues stating I was a Holocaust denier. As everyone knows, Ihave I never endorsed Holocaust denial or permitted Holocaust denial ideas to be published in outlets that I control. She is perfectly well aware of this (perhaps accounting for avoiding that charge in her article). As usual, its guilt by association. In the email she also called me a White supremacistleftspeak for Whites who think that Whites, like all other human groups, have interests. I am waiting for a statement by the ADL and the Jewish Studies Department that Jews have no moral or practical reason to attempt to remain a demographic majority in Israel. And a statement from the SPLC condemning American Jewish groups that support apartheid in Israel. My blurb for Kyle Bristows book was confined to the main point of the book which is a fictional account of the Salutrean hypothesis (which has its scientific defenders) and the suppression of this idea by the forces of political correctness. Being a busy person, I did not read the passage she complains about and certainly dont endorse violence against Mark Potok despite his evil behavior. And if you look at Michael Colhazes article Heidi goes to heaven, Heidis death is simply a setup for the satire, nothing more. There is no plot in which she is assassinated because of her (loathsome) activities. Her death is the result of a defective bomb built by a greasy wannabe terrorist who asked the$PLCto lay out one hundred grand for a so far undisclosed false flagploy, but knew as much about building bombs as pigs about flying. In order for the satire to work, she had to die somehow; the accidental detonation of a bomb certainly didnt raise any red flags with me. However, we at TOO certainly dont want to tread on the sensibilities of sensitive souls like Beirich. I am advised that Colhaze may bow to this pressure and revise the article to have her die of a surfeit of donutswhich somehow seems more plausible anyway and has the virtue of being self-induced. It seems that the SPLC is going into overdrive these days attempting to produce negative consequences for people who have ideas they dont like. Most egregiously, they do their best to make people lose their jobs, and have many successes in that area. Stop and think about what it would mean to have your life turned upside down simply for expressing ideas, no matter how factual and well-grounded. The SPLC continues these campaigns while the vast majority of Americansand, in particular, my academic colleaguessimply watch it happening when they arent actively complicit.Horrifying and disgraceful. And the SPLC continues to rake in millions for doing so. They are not labeled the$PLC for nothing. The SPLC has been trying to get me fired since 2006, including an attempt by Mark Potok last year. In her recent article, Beirich makes it clear that thats exactly what she wants for me: Its a little hard to believe that this man regularly stands in front of a classroom filled with students of a wide variety of faiths, races and social backgrounds and instructs them on evolutionary psychology, the psychology of child and adolescent development, and social and personality development. Perhaps he should be the one taking the class on personality development.Clearly, in that department, Kevin MacDonald has some serious work to do. Tell you what, Heidi. Ill work on my personality if you work on your eating disorder. Actually, if loving your own people and defending its culture is a sign of a personality disorder, Beirich and Potok have serious psychiatric issues. In any case, its pretty obvious that Heidis personality needs some work. As a personality psychologist, it seems to me that not being able to see the harmless humor in Colhazes piece is the sign of a very serious personality disorder. A diagnosis of paranoia comes to mind. A diagnosis of psychopathy also might seem like a no brainer, given that she is completely at ease with destroying lives if they engage in thought crimesthe polar opposite of a personality based on empathic concern for others. But the biology of empathic concern works within groups. Heidi is doubtless brimming with empathic concern for her co-ethnics and is therefore not properly classified as a sociopath. But when it comes to Whites who identify with their people and their culture, its nothing but hatred and the desire to destroy. Nothing less than seeing her perceived enemies begging on street corners after losing their job and experiencing the breakup of their families will do. Again, the theme of Jews as a hostile elite. (For an extreme version, see the current TOO video; quite frankly, he reminds me of Stalins willing executioners, motivated by hatred toward the traditional people and culture of Russia [Ibid., p. 92ff]). And dont worry. I am not out to proselytize vulnerable college student mindsunlike pretty much the entire rest of the faculty in the humanities and social sciences. I guess if you were principled, you would worry about that too, but I wont hold my breath. Nor are you worried about the fact that typical faculty are a sure bet to discriminate against conservativeswhen recruiting faculty or making decisions on tenure and promotion. When do I get a chance to do that? In the 1950s, the left was at the forefront of free speech for professors and others, producing a well-developed high culture where dissent was prized (e.g., plays like The Crucible [by Arthur Miller] and Inherit the Wind [by Jerome Lawrence Schwartz and Robert Edwin]; see discussion here in the context of Jason Richwine losing his position at The Heritage Foundation). But that was when the left was under pressure from McCarthy and the general anti-communist climate of the era. Now that they are in power, the leftand certainly the organized Jewish communitystrongly favors controls on speech. The SPLC, which depends on Jewish donors, is certainly no exception. For the SPLC and their ilk, the First Amendment is nothing but a hurdle to be overcome, as indeed it will be if the Democrats manage to replace one of the conservative-leaning justices on the Supreme Court. The intellectual work is already in place.

Fair Usage Law

June 16, 2016   Posted in: Heidi Beirich  Comments Closed

Heidi Beirich of SPLC Southern Poverty Law Center – Posted on Vanguard News Network Forum

Heidi Does Long Beach: The SPLC vs. Academic Freedom By Kevin MacDonald As you read this, Heidi Beirich of the Southern Poverty Law Center is interviewing some 40 students, faculty, and administrators at California State UniversityLong Beach, where I am a tenured Professor of Psychology, for an upcoming hit job on me and my research. Readers of VDARE.COM need little introduction to the SPLC or Ms. Beirich. Since 1971, the SPLC has built up an unsavory reputation, attracting criticism even from the Left for dubious fund-raising tactics, reckless allegations (anyone who opposes open borders is a racist) massive exaggerations (the Ku Klux Klan is on the verge of taking over the entire U.S.) and, by those who actually read its materials, for wholesale misrepresentation. Essentially a gang of political terrorists, well described by Peter Brimelow as a shakedown scam that preys on the elderly, Holocaust-haunted rich, the SPLC is nevertheless accorded almost religious reverence by many in the media, academia, and government. Case in point: the (otherwise quite fair) student newspaper article on my case was headlined Civil rights group investigates professor [by MaryJane OBrien, Daily 49er, November 13 2006]. [For the Capitol Research Center’s new expose of the SPLC, click here] The SPLC is paying me attention because it wants to suppress my academic work. I am interested in sociobiology, evolutionary psychology and group behavior. Some years ago I began to study the Jews. This resulted in three scholarly books and a monograph considering Judaism from a modern evolutionary perspective: A People that Shall Dwell Alone:Judaism as a Group Evolutionary Strategy (1994) Separation and Its Discontents:Toward an Evolutionary Theory of Anti-Semitism (1998) The Culture of Critique: An Evolutionary Analysis of Jewish Involvement in Twentieth-Century Intellectual and Political Movements (1998) Understanding Jewish Influence: Study in Ethnic Activism (2004) I have also published a number of related articles (scroll down).

Fair Usage Law

May 24, 2015   Posted in: Heidi Beirich, Southern Poverty Law Center, SPLC  Comments Closed


Fair Use Disclaimer

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Under the 'fair use' rule of copyright law, an author may make limited use of another author's work without asking permission. Fair use is based on the belief that the public is entitled to freely use portions of copyrighted materials for purposes of commentary and criticism. The fair use privilege is perhaps the most significant limitation on a copyright owner's exclusive rights.

Fair use as described at 17 U.S.C. Section 107:

"Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phono-records or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.

In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include:

  • (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for or nonprofit educational purposes,
  • (2) the nature of the copyrighted work,
  • (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole, and
  • (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work."