Archive for the ‘Heidi Beirich’ Category

Where Is the Real ‘Homegrown Terrorism’ Coming From? – CityLab

A New Jersey domestic terrorism threat level assessment now places black separatists in the same category as ISIS.

David J. Phillip/AP Photo

As government agencies increasingly turn their attention to homegrown terrorism, its important to note whos being targeted and who isnt. Reuters reported this week that President Trump might be refocusing the federal Countering Violent Extremism program, which deploys resources for monitoring groups such as white supremacists and militias, into a program that focuses solely on acts of terror committed by Muslims. The Southern Poverty Law Center says this would be a bad idea.

In recent years, weve seen a series of deadly terrorist attacks from homegrown extremists inspired by white supremacist or antigovernment ideologies, such as the massacre at the Charleston church in 2015, writes Heidi Beirich, director of SPLCs Intelligence Project. But now it appears that President Trump wants the government to stop its efforts to prevent terrorism by far-right extremists. This is dangerous and unacceptable.

The campaign for rooting out homegrown terrorists doesnt just rest within the federal government: There is a patchwork of states and cities that have their own versions of homeland security offices, many of which are tracking local extremist groups. New Jerseys Office of Homeland Security and Preparedness is one worth taking a look at. Its yearly terrorism threat assessments employ a color-coded system similar to the kind that the U.S. Department of Homeland Security phased out in 2011, and places threats in three categories: low, moderate, and high.

The 2017 Terrorism Threat Assessment reserves its highest threat level for homegrown violent extremists (HVEs) who are influenced by terrorist networks like ISIS. This is not uniquemost homeland security agencies are on high alert for such individuals given the recent shooting and bombing attacks in Orlando, Boston, and New Jersey. But this year, black separatist extremists and anarchist extremists were elevated from a previously low threat level to the moderate category. This enhancement places them in the same ranking assigned to Al-Qaida, ISIS, white supremacist extremists, sovereign citizen extremists, and militia extremists.

The reason listed for elevating anarchists among this company: Last year, this group organized and directed counterprotests during white supremacist rallies and incited violence during anti-law enforcement and post-U.S. presidential election protests.

The elevation of black separatistsdefined in the report as individuals or groups that seek to establish an independent nation for people of African descentis also tied to police protests. The report notes: Last year, [black] extremists killed eight and injured 17 in response to perceived police brutalitycompared to zero such incidents in 2015.

These numbers sound dramatic until you take a closer look at the math. Those deaths and injuries were the result of three incidents, all of which have a flimsy association with black separatist extremism.

Those three incidents:

The two African Americans responsible for the Baton Rouge and Dallas events, Gavin Long and Micah Johnson, have been linked to black separatist groups, though the connections are tenuous. Johnson was briefly a member of the New Black Panther Party, but got kicked out years before he launched his attack. Long expressly stated in a video before his attack that he was not affiliated with any groups like the Nation of Islam or ISIS. He was later identified as a member of the Washitaw Nation, which is chiefly a sovereign citizen group, though it has separatist-ish leanings. The Phoenix incident is the most curious inclusion, for reasons Ill get to later.

CityLab asked the New Jersey homeland security office for their files on these incidents that show the role of black separatist ideology in these attacks. Rosemary Martorana, the offices director of intelligence, said she doesnt share her methodology with the public, but shared news clippings where reporters attempted to make these connections, though unconvincingly.

One thing the attackers do hold in common, though, is that they all expressed anger about the increasing tide of publicized videos of police killing African Americans. All of the attackers were also falsely identified at some point with Black Lives Matter. Anger against law enforcement, of course, doesnt justify taking police lives in retribution. But SPLCs Mark Potok says its a bit of a stretch to paint the police ambushes as black separatist extremism.

The reality is that [Long and Johnson] acted entirely on their own, says Potok. These attacks did not come out of black nationalist groups, they were individuals who were mentally unstable. Dylann Roof read the website of the Council of Conservative Citizens and then decided that black people were raping women and had to die. But we wouldnt raise the threat level of the CCC because they didnt send him to go murder people. In the same way, the New Black Panther Party didnt send these guys out to go murder police officers.

The organization that Long and Johnson had strongest ties to was the U.S. military. Long reportedly suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder, possibly developed from his tour in Iraq. So why has there been a rush to associate these police attackers with black groups?

Whats telling in the NJ report is that it also lists an increase in white supremacist attacks in 2016these, in fact, constituted the majority of race-based attacks last year, both in incidents and the number of people killed and injured. Many of those attackers profiled in the report are directly linked to white supremacist groups and ideology. Meanwhile, hate crimes in general against people of color have been ascendant, especially after Trump was elected, and far outnumber race-biased incidents against white people. This was true for 2015 as well, as the FBI reports. And yet the threat assessment level for white supremacists went unchangedlisted as a moderate threat in both years.

In New Jerseys threat assessment, the white supremacist category doesnt include militia groups, though those are mostlyif not exclusivelywhite. Perhaps militias dont subscribe to white supremacist ideology, but the activities attributed to militias in the report sound pretty close to it:

Publicly, militia extremist groups are beginning to identify professed non-government threats. In October 2016, a Kansas militia plotted to bomb an apartment complex housing a mosque used by Somali immigrants. Additionally, in November 2016, the founder of a national militia group hosted a webinar providing instructions on how to set up neighborhood Kill Zones after the US presidential electiona response to his anticipation of intruders suspending the democratic process or legitimizing the implementation of emergency powers and martial law. Examples of intruders included political, civil-rights, terrorist, and race-based groups.

What the New Jersey threat level assessment suggests, then, is that a handful of incidents loosely ascribed to black separatist extremists constitute a growing threat, even though white supremacist attacks far outnumber them.

Such designations are not without consequencesthey inform law enforcement policy. As the NJOHSP director Christopher Rodriguez writes in the report:

These circumstances dictate that the New Jersey Office of Homeland Security and Preparedness (NJOHSP) redouble its efforts to produce finished intelligence that informs local action, invests more personnel and resources in strategic partnerships at the federal, state, and local levels, and directly engages the public in awareness campaigns that push the See Something, Say Something message.

So what happens when a person sees something like an African-American group expressing outrage over police violence, and then says something like, These people are terrorists?

These threat assessments wouldnt be so harmful if they didnt come during a time when ire against police violence is increasingly being described in terrorist terms. Some call for Black Lives Matter to be labeled as terrorists or a hate group. Law enforcement organizations have appropriated the Black Lives Matter slogan for a spate of laws that enhance sentencing for actions that are considered antagonistic toward policeeven nonviolent actions.

There is a deadass-serious civil complaint that was filed in September by the email server/voter fraud-truther group Judicial Watch and a Dallas police officer against: George Soros, Hillary Clinton, Louis Farrakhan, Al Sharpton, Barack Obama, Eric Holder, DeRay McKesson, the New Black Panther Party and Black Lives Matter. Reads the complaint:

Defendants have repeatedly incited their supporters and others to engage in threats of and attacks to cause serious bodily injury or death upon police officers and other law enforcement persons of all races and ethnicities including but not limited to Jews, Christians, and Caucasians. Thus, Defendants, each and every one of them, jointly and severally, conspiring and/or acting in concert either expressly or otherwise, are inciting and causing serious bodily injury or death to police officers and other law enforcement persons of all races and ethnicities, Jews, and Caucasians.

This kind of grouping would be laughable, if not for the real implications. Consider the veiled message sent to Black Lives Matter on Trumps first day in office, when staffers wrote on the White House website: The dangerous anti-police atmosphere in America is wrong. The Trump Administration will end it.

Meanwhile, the White House has mentioned nothing about the quantifiably more dangerous anti-black, anti-Latino, anti-Muslim, or anti-LGBTQ atmosphere in America. Donald Trump has spoken only a few sentences on that kind of terrorizing activity in a 60 Minutes interview last November.

Trumps pick for Attorney General, Senator Jeff Sessions, speaks much louder. As recently as October 2015, Sessions praised a 1924 immigration law that had the express mission of banning non-white people from entering the U.S. Sessions was also awarded the Keeper of the Flame award in 2015 from the Center for Security Policy, an anti-immigration organization that the Southern Poverty Law Center lists as a hate group.

Immigrants arent the Center for Security Policys only target. Last September, the organization attempted to marry Black Lives Matter to Hamas in a blog post on its website. The argument ends on this anecdote:

The same day this article broke, three Phoenix, Arizona police officers were run over by a black driver who intentionally targeted them. Israel has been having these hit and run attacks by automobiles driven by Arabs as part of the Intifada for a long time. The Phoenix attack is a major news story in the USA, but the plethora of car attacks by Arabs against Israeli civilians and police get almost no mention in the mainstream Media. It is this writers opinion that the Phoenix attack is a harbinger for the same tactics being shared by Black Lives Matter and Hamas as mentioned in this article. Hatem Bazians call for an Intifada in America is just starting. The driver who struck the police officers, Marc Laquon Payne, is an acolyte of the Black Panther Party which is part of the BLM/Black Liberation movement/Hamas connection

The Marc Laquon Payne attack in Phoenix is one of the three police ambush incidents included in the New Jersey threat assessment report, attributed as a black separatist extremist act of terrorism. However, there is little evidence that Payne was an acolyte ofor affiliated withany group at all.

Payne posted some angry posts about police brutality on his social media accounts, but as the Anti-Defamation League wrote in a blog about him: These profiles and postings do not reveal membership or affiliation with any specific groups, but do illustrate a liking or admiration for a variety of black nationalist extremist groups and causes.

Meanwhile, court documents suggest that Paynes attack on the police officers was driven not by ideology, but by drugs and alcohol.

These attempts to drag groups into responsibility for individual lone-wolf shooters are really misguided, says Potok. What if Payne liked the Trump for President Facebook pagewould we be saying that Trump is then responsible for the attack?

More here:

Where Is the Real ‘Homegrown Terrorism’ Coming From? – CityLab

Fair Usage Law

February 7, 2017   Posted in: Heidi Beirich  Comments Closed

"We’ve Never Been Weaker and Never More Hated" – American …

Recently I attended an event in Washington, D.C., to discuss Growing Far-Right Sentiments in Europe and the U.S. The participants were Charles Lane of the Washington Post, two German professors billed as experts in right-wing radicalism in the US and Europe, and Heidi Beirich of the Southern Poverty Law Center.

All the speakers bemoaned the rise of Donald Trump and of populist groups in Europe. All said the refugees were fueling the Right in Europe, and that the dwindling white majority in the United States backs Mr. Trump. They also voiced a growing fear of the internet that gives dissenters a voice. The meeting had an atmosphere of pessimism and gloom that was an almost perfect mirror-image of the optimism and energy of the recent American Renaissance conference.

The two professors showed slides with facts and figures and photos of PEGIDA marches and the like, while Miss Beirich spoke without rising from her stool. Charles Lane, who writes editorials such as The Dangerous Nihilism of Trump Voters, was the moderator, feeding softball questions to the other three.

Of the 60 or so people in the audience, 45 seemed to be retired white people, with a handful of non-whites and young folks. Perhaps that was to be expected; the four speakers were old white people, too. They seem to have forgotten their obligation to promote role models.

ProfessorMichael Minkenberg, who teaches at a university in Frankfurt, spoke first. He noted that the success of populist parties in Europe varies widely, and that they can gain or lose as much as 20 percent of the electorate in a single election. He noted that this is especially pronounced in Eastern Europe, where political parties are less stable, and may appear and disappear from one election to the next. These oscillations make it very hard to predict what might happen next, he said, but stated the obvious in saying that Eastern Europe is friendlier to these parties than the West. He expressed deep disgust for the current regimes in Poland and Hungary, but said nothing about Russia. Of all the presentations, Professor Minkenbergs was the least vituperative and the most factual.

Heidi Beirich spoke exclusively about Donald Trump, repeatedly expressing bewilderment at how he gets away with it. She said no other candidate in modern times has been able to say such offensive things, associate with such hateful people, and hold such hateful views, yet still be a viable national candidate. She said one had to go all the way back to George Wallace in the 60s to find anything similar. She seems to have missed the 80s and 90s, when Pat Buchanans and David Dukes candidacies were derailed by hostile media. She ended on a pessimistic note, saying that nothing seems to stop the Donald.

Professor Thomas Grumke, who teaches at a university in North Rhine-Westphalia, focused specifically on Germany. His main point was that although far right political parties are not doing very well, far right social movements such as PEGIDA are. He noted that young people were getting involved, but suggested that this might be only youthful rebellion, and that they may grow out of it. He spoke with great condescension towards anyone who could be attracted to the far right.

Professor Thomas Grumke criticizeshis fellow Germans for worrying about refugee crime.

The question and answer period was more interesting than the presentations. A South Asian man stood up and berated the panelists. He noted that no one on the panel represented the Right, or had even tried to understand its perspective. He further noted that experts like them had been wrong about everything so far this election, so why should anyone listen to them? At the end, he said he had voted for Le Pen and was a Donald Trump volunteer.

Halfway through the question, Professor Grumke interrupted him, snidely asking, How can you say I was wrong? We dont know each other. As an answer, he sneeringly asked, Are you an immigrant to this country? Yes? Okay, good luck to you. The panelists addressed none of his points and immediately took another question.

Professor Grumke went on to mock the pro-Trump questioner a few minutes later, saying:

As you have witnessed, this is a phenomenon [the rising populist Right] thats not here [pointing to his head], its emotional [pointing to his heart]. I call it the politics of high blood pressure. And you can see how this gentleman talked [pointing to the pro-Trump questioner] and this gentleman talked [pointing to different questioner], and you can see the difference. They feel under attack, its here [pointing to his heart again], its Aargh all the time, you know . . . I have to defend myself against those elites and those immigrants and so they want to do something! And its always like that. Its emotional. And thats why these groups, these radical groups, are so successful, because its emotional, and democracy doesnt offer anything for your emotions.

Without a hint of irony, Miss Beirich, whose job is to suppress dissent, lamented that no one talks to people with different viewpoints these days, and that this leads to a loss of civility. She added the usual jab at the racialist right: We joke in my office that if we could get these people jobs and girlfriends we might be able to neutralize the movement.

Professor Grumke complained about the Internet:

It has changed everything. It means you can today sit in a remote village in the Alps, and be on your computer and feel part of the great movement. Thirty years ago, you would just sit in your little village in the Alps and be completely isolated. Today, you communicate on Stormfront.org which is really the mother of all racist websites, and you feel fantastic. In your village you are nobody, but here, with the tip of your finger you are part of this great movement. And that energizes so many people. I mean here in the US you have these people who live in the basement of their moms house, and run this great, you know, Aryan revolution. A couple years ago you would just be some sad kid in the basement of his moms house.

The audience laughed happily at this caricature.

A member of the audience asked:

Touching on one of the things you said about the internet, and that person sitting in his mothers basement: The nature of the discussion changes, because theyre able to talk in slogans, and it can mobilize the populist element, which is different from a manifesto that the organized parties may choose to use. You have this undercurrent thats now able to organize and that may explain these populist movements like PEGIDA, and politicians tap into that. Donald Trump tweets regularly, engaging at that level, the level of slogans, rather than manifestos. Is it perhaps the internet, over the last 20 years, that has taken the discussion out of the organized, hierarchical parties, and put it more at that populist level?

Charles Lane of the Washington Post replied:

One of the things that has happened in the United States and Europe is the total dethroning of the establishment media. The authority of established media across the United States, and I believe Europe as well, has been destroyed. To some extent by our own sins, to some extent by the fact that people have alternatives now, they communicate unmediated, through the Internet. And one of the common elements I have noticed is the hostility directed at the media, at physical representatives of the media.

He talked about a reporter who apparently needs bodyguards when she covers populist rallies in Germany, and that reporters at Trump events have felt unsafe. He then returned to his real gripe:

I think its the leveling of access to mass communication. Twenty years ago you had to own a $250 million printing press to have access to the whole world; today, you need a $400 phone and you can communicate directly to the entire world. This has been a tremendous source of energy to populist movements. We, the mainstream media, are weaker than weve ever been before, yet we are vilified for controlling the discourse. Weve never been weaker and never been more hated.

How tragic it must be to feel that you are being beaten by overly emotional, unemployed, basement-dwelling losers with a knack for Twitter. Needless to say, this is what fuels the censorship of the Right on Facebook and Twitter. The panelists blasted Twitter, in particular, and for good reason. Dissidents have long known that Twitter is a more useful platform than Facebook, and Donald Trumps Twitter feed has become something of a legend, with entire essays about it in Politico.

Besides confirming my suspicion of just how much liberals hate us, and how much they hate the marketplace of ideas that comes with the internet, there was one other highlight. To my surprise, Miss Beirich apparently knows about Robert Putnams research on the damaging effects of diversity. She never mentioned him directly, but she must have been thinking of him:

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.

On its own, its not gonna happen? What is it? A multi-culti America? A miscegenated planet? No matter how high the costs of diversitywhich Miss Beirich concedes are realit must be had anyway. Since diversity has bad consequences, government must forcibly make it work so America can get to it. Thats why we need the Southern Poverty Law Center, hate crimes laws, sensitivity training, race preferences, forced integration, role models, and the endless lies Americans tell each other about race. Diversity has to be made to work, so we can all get to it. And apparently the only thing stopping it is losers like us on the internet.

Topics: Europe, Rape, Signs of Hope

Excerpt from:

"We’ve Never Been Weaker and Never More Hated" – American …

Fair Usage Law

January 11, 2017   Posted in: Heidi Beirich  Comments Closed

Heidi Beirich – en-Rightpedia

Heidi Ly Beirich (born 23 July 1967 in Riverside, California) also known as “Fat Heidi” is Deputy Director of the Southern Poverty Law Center Intelligence Project.

August 2016, she with her group the Southern Poverty Law Center and Mark Pitcavage with the Anti-Defamation League, declared “White Lives Matter” to be a “hate group”. This is despite the fact that Black Lives Matter is a black supremacist terrorist group and a hate group whose members have murdered hundreds of innocent people. This is also despite the fact that the Southern Poverty Law Center and Anti-Defamation League are both hate groups and a terrorist groups, part of the Jewish mafia.[1]

Heidi Beirich is the daughter of Russell Jerome Beirich (1933-2013) and Evelyn Paschmann (from Germany), and grand-daughter of Joseph and Anna Mae Burns Beirich. Russell Jerome was mayor of Palm Springs from 1976 to 1979.[2] She has a brother, Derek J. Beirich (born 15 June 1971) who’s a controller for Biopharma Scientific, and a sister, Dsire, who died in 1966.[3]

Heidi Beirich is single, has never been engaged (presumably due to homosexuality), and the overwhelming majority of her targets are male. Using psychological projection, she has employed the term “wound collector” to describe herself, in the story White Homicide Worldwide.

Heidi Beirich resides a ten minute drive, away, from a regional, SPLC office, and, about, a block from a Burger King restaurant, among others.

Heidi Beirich’s most used 4-syllable word is “vitriolic”, a habit she’s caught from Mark Potok.

SPLC stories signed “Hatewatch Staff” are written by her. The story Barbara Coe, Racist Nativist Leader, Dies in California, signed “Hatewatch Staff”, uses the unique phrase “racist nativist leader” which she also uses in the Camp of the Saints story.

Heidi Beirich linked the White Nationalist website Stormfront.org to more than hundred murders without providing any proof of it. According to Heidi Beirich, the mere fact of posting on a website makes it (the website) entirely responsible for all the future actions of this individual.[4]

Continue reading here:

Heidi Beirich – en-Rightpedia

Fair Usage Law

January 11, 2017   Posted in: Heidi Beirich  Comments Closed

Daniel Pipes

Fair Usage Law

December 9, 2016   Posted in: Heidi Beirich  Comments Closed

The State of Hate: White Supremacist Groups Growing …

The number of hate groups operating in the United States continued to rise in 2008 and has grown by 54 percent since 2000 an increase fueled last year by immigration fears, a failing economy, and the successful campaign of Barack Obama, according to the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC). The SPLC identified 926 hate groups active in 2008, up more than four percent from the 888 groups in 2007 and far above the 602 groups documented in 2000.15

“Barack Obama’s election has inflamed racist extremists who see it as another sign that their country is under siege by nonwhites,” said Mark Potok, editor of the Intelligence Report, a SPLC quarterly investigative journal that monitors the radical right. “The idea of a black man in the White House, combined with the deepening economic crisis and continuing high levels of Latino immigration, has given white supremacists a real platform on which to recruit.”16

The DHS assessment on right-wing extremism, which was provided to federal, state, and local law enforcement, warned that right-wing extremists “may be gaining new recruits by playing on their fears about several emergent issues. The economic downturn and the election of the first African American president present unique drivers for rightwing radicalization and recruitment.”

In the days prior to the presidential election, Daniel Cowart, 20, of Bells, Tennessee and Paul Schlesselman, 18, of West Helena, Arkansas were arrested by federal agents for allegedly plotting to assassinate Obama followed by a plan to engage in a multi-state “killing spree.” The men met through the Internet and planned to shoot 88 African Americans and behead another 14. Targets included a predominantly African-American school. At the end of the alleged spree, the men intended to try to kill Obama. “88,” an important number in skinhead numerology, means “Heil Hitler” as “H” is the eighth letter of the alphabet. “14” likely refers to the “14 Words,” a white supremacist slogan that originated with the late David Lane. Lane died last year in prison while serving a sentence for his role in an assassination plot carried out by The Order, a white supremacist terrorist group that was destroyed in 1984. One of the suspects, Cowart, is a known member of a new skinhead hate group, the Supreme White Alliance (SWA), formed at the beginning of 2008, according to the Southern Poverty Law Center. He attended a birthday party for Adolf Hitler held last April by the group. SWA is headed by Steven Edwards, son of Ron Edwards, who leads the Imperial Klans of America.17

After Obama’s election victory in November, white supremacist online activity spiked, with people posting hundreds of messages to online forums. White supremacist groups and individuals claimed that the Obama presidency, the immigration issue, and tough economic times would serve as powerful catalysts for recruiting more people to the white supremacist movement. Jeff Schoep, head of the National Socialist Movement, the largest Neo-Nazi group in America, said interest in the NSM “has really spiked up,” but would not reveal by how much.18 Don Black, a 55 year-old former Ku Klux Klan Grand Wizard, claimed more than 2,000 people joined his website on the day after Obama’s election, up from 80 on an ordinary day. Started in 1995, Black’s website is one of the oldest and largest hate group sites, now claiming 110,000 members. As David Duke, a former Klan leader who was once a member of the Louisiana legislature, has said, Obama is a “visual aid” that galvanizes the white supremacist movement.19

According to Schoep, extremists are also exploiting the economic crisis, spreading propaganda that blames minorities and immigrants for the subprime mortgage meltdown. “Historically, when times get tough in our nation, that’s how movements like ours gain a foothold,” he said. “When the economy suffers, people are looking for answers. We are the answer for white people.”20 Membership in the National Socialist Movement has grown by 40 percent in recent months, according to Schoep, the “most dramatic growth” since the mid-1990s, mostly because of the nation’s dire economic circumstances. “You have an American work force facing massive unemployment. And you have presidents and politicians flinging open the borders telling them to take the few jobs left while our men are in soup kitchens.”21

In Pennsylvania, where the Hispanic population has increased 41 percent from 2000 through 2007, “Keystone United,” a hate group that recently changed its name from “Keystone State Skinheads,” has used the immigration issue to recruit new members. “A lot of these small working-class towns are being invaded by different types of people,” said Douglas Myers, one of Keystone United’s founders. USA Today described Keystone United as a group that “speaks out for the rights of whites being pushed aside by newcomers.” The group plans family-friendly outings, meets in public libraries, and avoids the violence traditionally associated with skinheads. “It’s not the footage from the 80s with people burning crosses. It’s a very healthy environment,” said Myers.22

Ann Van Dyke of the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission said of Keystone United: “It appears they are tapping into and fanning the flames of mainstream America’s fear of immigrants. They are increasingly using the language of Main Street, things like, We want safe communities to raise our children.'”23

“Many white supremacist groups are going more mainstream,” said Jack Levin, a Northeastern University criminologist who studies hate crime. “They are eliminating the sheets and armbands. The groups realize if they want to be attractive to middle-class types, they need to look middle-class.” Levin estimated fewer than 50,000 people are members of white supremacist groups, but he says their influence is growing with a more sophisticated approach.24

DHS assesses that since the 2008 election, right-wing extremists “have capitalized on related racial and political prejudices in expanded propaganda campaigns, thereby reaching out to a wider audience of potential sympathizers.”

Next Section: The State of Hate: Exploiting the Internet to Promote Hatred

15. David Holthouse, Southern Poverty Law Center, “The Year in Hate,” Intelligence Report, Spring 2009.

16. “Hate Group Numbers Up By 54% Since 2000,” Southern Poverty Law Center, February 26, 2009.

17. Heidi Beirich, Hatewatch Blog, Southern Poverty Law Center, “Skinheads Arrested in Plot to Kill Obama,” October 27, 2008.

18. Marisol Bello, “White Supremacists Target Middle America,” USA Today, October 21, 2008.

19. Stephanie Chen, “Growing Hate Groups Blame Obama, Economy,” CNN.com, February 26, 2009.

20. Bello, “White Supremacists Target Middle America.”

21. Chen, “Growing Hate Groups Blame Obama, Economy.”

22. Bello, “White Supremacists Target Middle America.”

23. Id.

24. Id.

More here:

The State of Hate: White Supremacist Groups Growing …

Fair Usage Law

December 8, 2016   Posted in: Heidi Beirich  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.

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

Where Is the Real ‘Homegrown Terrorism’ Coming From? – CityLab

A New Jersey domestic terrorism threat level assessment now places black separatists in the same category as ISIS. David J. Phillip/AP Photo As government agencies increasingly turn their attention to homegrown terrorism, its important to note whos being targeted and who isnt. Reuters reported this week that President Trump might be refocusing the federal Countering Violent Extremism program, which deploys resources for monitoring groups such as white supremacists and militias, into a program that focuses solely on acts of terror committed by Muslims. The Southern Poverty Law Center says this would be a bad idea. In recent years, weve seen a series of deadly terrorist attacks from homegrown extremists inspired by white supremacist or antigovernment ideologies, such as the massacre at the Charleston church in 2015, writes Heidi Beirich, director of SPLCs Intelligence Project. But now it appears that President Trump wants the government to stop its efforts to prevent terrorism by far-right extremists. This is dangerous and unacceptable. The campaign for rooting out homegrown terrorists doesnt just rest within the federal government: There is a patchwork of states and cities that have their own versions of homeland security offices, many of which are tracking local extremist groups. New Jerseys Office of Homeland Security and Preparedness is one worth taking a look at. Its yearly terrorism threat assessments employ a color-coded system similar to the kind that the U.S. Department of Homeland Security phased out in 2011, and places threats in three categories: low, moderate, and high. The 2017 Terrorism Threat Assessment reserves its highest threat level for homegrown violent extremists (HVEs) who are influenced by terrorist networks like ISIS. This is not uniquemost homeland security agencies are on high alert for such individuals given the recent shooting and bombing attacks in Orlando, Boston, and New Jersey. But this year, black separatist extremists and anarchist extremists were elevated from a previously low threat level to the moderate category. This enhancement places them in the same ranking assigned to Al-Qaida, ISIS, white supremacist extremists, sovereign citizen extremists, and militia extremists. The reason listed for elevating anarchists among this company: Last year, this group organized and directed counterprotests during white supremacist rallies and incited violence during anti-law enforcement and post-U.S. presidential election protests. The elevation of black separatistsdefined in the report as individuals or groups that seek to establish an independent nation for people of African descentis also tied to police protests. The report notes: Last year, [black] extremists killed eight and injured 17 in response to perceived police brutalitycompared to zero such incidents in 2015. These numbers sound dramatic until you take a closer look at the math. Those deaths and injuries were the result of three incidents, all of which have a flimsy association with black separatist extremism. Those three incidents: The two African Americans responsible for the Baton Rouge and Dallas events, Gavin Long and Micah Johnson, have been linked to black separatist groups, though the connections are tenuous. Johnson was briefly a member of the New Black Panther Party, but got kicked out years before he launched his attack. Long expressly stated in a video before his attack that he was not affiliated with any groups like the Nation of Islam or ISIS. He was later identified as a member of the Washitaw Nation, which is chiefly a sovereign citizen group, though it has separatist-ish leanings. The Phoenix incident is the most curious inclusion, for reasons Ill get to later. CityLab asked the New Jersey homeland security office for their files on these incidents that show the role of black separatist ideology in these attacks. Rosemary Martorana, the offices director of intelligence, said she doesnt share her methodology with the public, but shared news clippings where reporters attempted to make these connections, though unconvincingly. One thing the attackers do hold in common, though, is that they all expressed anger about the increasing tide of publicized videos of police killing African Americans. All of the attackers were also falsely identified at some point with Black Lives Matter. Anger against law enforcement, of course, doesnt justify taking police lives in retribution. But SPLCs Mark Potok says its a bit of a stretch to paint the police ambushes as black separatist extremism. The reality is that [Long and Johnson] acted entirely on their own, says Potok. These attacks did not come out of black nationalist groups, they were individuals who were mentally unstable. Dylann Roof read the website of the Council of Conservative Citizens and then decided that black people were raping women and had to die. But we wouldnt raise the threat level of the CCC because they didnt send him to go murder people. In the same way, the New Black Panther Party didnt send these guys out to go murder police officers. The organization that Long and Johnson had strongest ties to was the U.S. military. Long reportedly suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder, possibly developed from his tour in Iraq. So why has there been a rush to associate these police attackers with black groups? Whats telling in the NJ report is that it also lists an increase in white supremacist attacks in 2016these, in fact, constituted the majority of race-based attacks last year, both in incidents and the number of people killed and injured. Many of those attackers profiled in the report are directly linked to white supremacist groups and ideology. Meanwhile, hate crimes in general against people of color have been ascendant, especially after Trump was elected, and far outnumber race-biased incidents against white people. This was true for 2015 as well, as the FBI reports. And yet the threat assessment level for white supremacists went unchangedlisted as a moderate threat in both years. In New Jerseys threat assessment, the white supremacist category doesnt include militia groups, though those are mostlyif not exclusivelywhite. Perhaps militias dont subscribe to white supremacist ideology, but the activities attributed to militias in the report sound pretty close to it: Publicly, militia extremist groups are beginning to identify professed non-government threats. In October 2016, a Kansas militia plotted to bomb an apartment complex housing a mosque used by Somali immigrants. Additionally, in November 2016, the founder of a national militia group hosted a webinar providing instructions on how to set up neighborhood Kill Zones after the US presidential electiona response to his anticipation of intruders suspending the democratic process or legitimizing the implementation of emergency powers and martial law. Examples of intruders included political, civil-rights, terrorist, and race-based groups. What the New Jersey threat level assessment suggests, then, is that a handful of incidents loosely ascribed to black separatist extremists constitute a growing threat, even though white supremacist attacks far outnumber them. Such designations are not without consequencesthey inform law enforcement policy. As the NJOHSP director Christopher Rodriguez writes in the report: These circumstances dictate that the New Jersey Office of Homeland Security and Preparedness (NJOHSP) redouble its efforts to produce finished intelligence that informs local action, invests more personnel and resources in strategic partnerships at the federal, state, and local levels, and directly engages the public in awareness campaigns that push the See Something, Say Something message. So what happens when a person sees something like an African-American group expressing outrage over police violence, and then says something like, These people are terrorists? These threat assessments wouldnt be so harmful if they didnt come during a time when ire against police violence is increasingly being described in terrorist terms. Some call for Black Lives Matter to be labeled as terrorists or a hate group. Law enforcement organizations have appropriated the Black Lives Matter slogan for a spate of laws that enhance sentencing for actions that are considered antagonistic toward policeeven nonviolent actions. There is a deadass-serious civil complaint that was filed in September by the email server/voter fraud-truther group Judicial Watch and a Dallas police officer against: George Soros, Hillary Clinton, Louis Farrakhan, Al Sharpton, Barack Obama, Eric Holder, DeRay McKesson, the New Black Panther Party and Black Lives Matter. Reads the complaint: Defendants have repeatedly incited their supporters and others to engage in threats of and attacks to cause serious bodily injury or death upon police officers and other law enforcement persons of all races and ethnicities including but not limited to Jews, Christians, and Caucasians. Thus, Defendants, each and every one of them, jointly and severally, conspiring and/or acting in concert either expressly or otherwise, are inciting and causing serious bodily injury or death to police officers and other law enforcement persons of all races and ethnicities, Jews, and Caucasians. This kind of grouping would be laughable, if not for the real implications. Consider the veiled message sent to Black Lives Matter on Trumps first day in office, when staffers wrote on the White House website: The dangerous anti-police atmosphere in America is wrong. The Trump Administration will end it. Meanwhile, the White House has mentioned nothing about the quantifiably more dangerous anti-black, anti-Latino, anti-Muslim, or anti-LGBTQ atmosphere in America. Donald Trump has spoken only a few sentences on that kind of terrorizing activity in a 60 Minutes interview last November. Trumps pick for Attorney General, Senator Jeff Sessions, speaks much louder. As recently as October 2015, Sessions praised a 1924 immigration law that had the express mission of banning non-white people from entering the U.S. Sessions was also awarded the Keeper of the Flame award in 2015 from the Center for Security Policy, an anti-immigration organization that the Southern Poverty Law Center lists as a hate group. Immigrants arent the Center for Security Policys only target. Last September, the organization attempted to marry Black Lives Matter to Hamas in a blog post on its website. The argument ends on this anecdote: The same day this article broke, three Phoenix, Arizona police officers were run over by a black driver who intentionally targeted them. Israel has been having these hit and run attacks by automobiles driven by Arabs as part of the Intifada for a long time. The Phoenix attack is a major news story in the USA, but the plethora of car attacks by Arabs against Israeli civilians and police get almost no mention in the mainstream Media. It is this writers opinion that the Phoenix attack is a harbinger for the same tactics being shared by Black Lives Matter and Hamas as mentioned in this article. Hatem Bazians call for an Intifada in America is just starting. The driver who struck the police officers, Marc Laquon Payne, is an acolyte of the Black Panther Party which is part of the BLM/Black Liberation movement/Hamas connection The Marc Laquon Payne attack in Phoenix is one of the three police ambush incidents included in the New Jersey threat assessment report, attributed as a black separatist extremist act of terrorism. However, there is little evidence that Payne was an acolyte ofor affiliated withany group at all. Payne posted some angry posts about police brutality on his social media accounts, but as the Anti-Defamation League wrote in a blog about him: These profiles and postings do not reveal membership or affiliation with any specific groups, but do illustrate a liking or admiration for a variety of black nationalist extremist groups and causes. Meanwhile, court documents suggest that Paynes attack on the police officers was driven not by ideology, but by drugs and alcohol. These attempts to drag groups into responsibility for individual lone-wolf shooters are really misguided, says Potok. What if Payne liked the Trump for President Facebook pagewould we be saying that Trump is then responsible for the attack?

Fair Usage Law

February 7, 2017   Posted in: Heidi Beirich  Comments Closed

"We’ve Never Been Weaker and Never More Hated" – American …

Recently I attended an event in Washington, D.C., to discuss Growing Far-Right Sentiments in Europe and the U.S. The participants were Charles Lane of the Washington Post, two German professors billed as experts in right-wing radicalism in the US and Europe, and Heidi Beirich of the Southern Poverty Law Center. All the speakers bemoaned the rise of Donald Trump and of populist groups in Europe. All said the refugees were fueling the Right in Europe, and that the dwindling white majority in the United States backs Mr. Trump. They also voiced a growing fear of the internet that gives dissenters a voice. The meeting had an atmosphere of pessimism and gloom that was an almost perfect mirror-image of the optimism and energy of the recent American Renaissance conference. The two professors showed slides with facts and figures and photos of PEGIDA marches and the like, while Miss Beirich spoke without rising from her stool. Charles Lane, who writes editorials such as The Dangerous Nihilism of Trump Voters, was the moderator, feeding softball questions to the other three. Of the 60 or so people in the audience, 45 seemed to be retired white people, with a handful of non-whites and young folks. Perhaps that was to be expected; the four speakers were old white people, too. They seem to have forgotten their obligation to promote role models. ProfessorMichael Minkenberg, who teaches at a university in Frankfurt, spoke first. He noted that the success of populist parties in Europe varies widely, and that they can gain or lose as much as 20 percent of the electorate in a single election. He noted that this is especially pronounced in Eastern Europe, where political parties are less stable, and may appear and disappear from one election to the next. These oscillations make it very hard to predict what might happen next, he said, but stated the obvious in saying that Eastern Europe is friendlier to these parties than the West. He expressed deep disgust for the current regimes in Poland and Hungary, but said nothing about Russia. Of all the presentations, Professor Minkenbergs was the least vituperative and the most factual. Heidi Beirich spoke exclusively about Donald Trump, repeatedly expressing bewilderment at how he gets away with it. She said no other candidate in modern times has been able to say such offensive things, associate with such hateful people, and hold such hateful views, yet still be a viable national candidate. She said one had to go all the way back to George Wallace in the 60s to find anything similar. She seems to have missed the 80s and 90s, when Pat Buchanans and David Dukes candidacies were derailed by hostile media. She ended on a pessimistic note, saying that nothing seems to stop the Donald. Professor Thomas Grumke, who teaches at a university in North Rhine-Westphalia, focused specifically on Germany. His main point was that although far right political parties are not doing very well, far right social movements such as PEGIDA are. He noted that young people were getting involved, but suggested that this might be only youthful rebellion, and that they may grow out of it. He spoke with great condescension towards anyone who could be attracted to the far right. Professor Thomas Grumke criticizeshis fellow Germans for worrying about refugee crime. The question and answer period was more interesting than the presentations. A South Asian man stood up and berated the panelists. He noted that no one on the panel represented the Right, or had even tried to understand its perspective. He further noted that experts like them had been wrong about everything so far this election, so why should anyone listen to them? At the end, he said he had voted for Le Pen and was a Donald Trump volunteer. Halfway through the question, Professor Grumke interrupted him, snidely asking, How can you say I was wrong? We dont know each other. As an answer, he sneeringly asked, Are you an immigrant to this country? Yes? Okay, good luck to you. The panelists addressed none of his points and immediately took another question. Professor Grumke went on to mock the pro-Trump questioner a few minutes later, saying: As you have witnessed, this is a phenomenon [the rising populist Right] thats not here [pointing to his head], its emotional [pointing to his heart]. I call it the politics of high blood pressure. And you can see how this gentleman talked [pointing to the pro-Trump questioner] and this gentleman talked [pointing to different questioner], and you can see the difference. They feel under attack, its here [pointing to his heart again], its Aargh all the time, you know . . . I have to defend myself against those elites and those immigrants and so they want to do something! And its always like that. Its emotional. And thats why these groups, these radical groups, are so successful, because its emotional, and democracy doesnt offer anything for your emotions. Without a hint of irony, Miss Beirich, whose job is to suppress dissent, lamented that no one talks to people with different viewpoints these days, and that this leads to a loss of civility. She added the usual jab at the racialist right: We joke in my office that if we could get these people jobs and girlfriends we might be able to neutralize the movement. Professor Grumke complained about the Internet: It has changed everything. It means you can today sit in a remote village in the Alps, and be on your computer and feel part of the great movement. Thirty years ago, you would just sit in your little village in the Alps and be completely isolated. Today, you communicate on Stormfront.org which is really the mother of all racist websites, and you feel fantastic. In your village you are nobody, but here, with the tip of your finger you are part of this great movement. And that energizes so many people. I mean here in the US you have these people who live in the basement of their moms house, and run this great, you know, Aryan revolution. A couple years ago you would just be some sad kid in the basement of his moms house. The audience laughed happily at this caricature. A member of the audience asked: Touching on one of the things you said about the internet, and that person sitting in his mothers basement: The nature of the discussion changes, because theyre able to talk in slogans, and it can mobilize the populist element, which is different from a manifesto that the organized parties may choose to use. You have this undercurrent thats now able to organize and that may explain these populist movements like PEGIDA, and politicians tap into that. Donald Trump tweets regularly, engaging at that level, the level of slogans, rather than manifestos. Is it perhaps the internet, over the last 20 years, that has taken the discussion out of the organized, hierarchical parties, and put it more at that populist level? Charles Lane of the Washington Post replied: One of the things that has happened in the United States and Europe is the total dethroning of the establishment media. The authority of established media across the United States, and I believe Europe as well, has been destroyed. To some extent by our own sins, to some extent by the fact that people have alternatives now, they communicate unmediated, through the Internet. And one of the common elements I have noticed is the hostility directed at the media, at physical representatives of the media. He talked about a reporter who apparently needs bodyguards when she covers populist rallies in Germany, and that reporters at Trump events have felt unsafe. He then returned to his real gripe: I think its the leveling of access to mass communication. Twenty years ago you had to own a $250 million printing press to have access to the whole world; today, you need a $400 phone and you can communicate directly to the entire world. This has been a tremendous source of energy to populist movements. We, the mainstream media, are weaker than weve ever been before, yet we are vilified for controlling the discourse. Weve never been weaker and never been more hated. How tragic it must be to feel that you are being beaten by overly emotional, unemployed, basement-dwelling losers with a knack for Twitter. Needless to say, this is what fuels the censorship of the Right on Facebook and Twitter. The panelists blasted Twitter, in particular, and for good reason. Dissidents have long known that Twitter is a more useful platform than Facebook, and Donald Trumps Twitter feed has become something of a legend, with entire essays about it in Politico. Besides confirming my suspicion of just how much liberals hate us, and how much they hate the marketplace of ideas that comes with the internet, there was one other highlight. To my surprise, Miss Beirich apparently knows about Robert Putnams research on the damaging effects of diversity. She never mentioned him directly, but she must have been thinking of him: 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. On its own, its not gonna happen? What is it? A multi-culti America? A miscegenated planet? No matter how high the costs of diversitywhich Miss Beirich concedes are realit must be had anyway. Since diversity has bad consequences, government must forcibly make it work so America can get to it. Thats why we need the Southern Poverty Law Center, hate crimes laws, sensitivity training, race preferences, forced integration, role models, and the endless lies Americans tell each other about race. Diversity has to be made to work, so we can all get to it. And apparently the only thing stopping it is losers like us on the internet. Topics: Europe, Rape, Signs of Hope

Fair Usage Law

January 11, 2017   Posted in: Heidi Beirich  Comments Closed

Heidi Beirich – en-Rightpedia

Heidi Ly Beirich (born 23 July 1967 in Riverside, California) also known as “Fat Heidi” is Deputy Director of the Southern Poverty Law Center Intelligence Project. August 2016, she with her group the Southern Poverty Law Center and Mark Pitcavage with the Anti-Defamation League, declared “White Lives Matter” to be a “hate group”. This is despite the fact that Black Lives Matter is a black supremacist terrorist group and a hate group whose members have murdered hundreds of innocent people. This is also despite the fact that the Southern Poverty Law Center and Anti-Defamation League are both hate groups and a terrorist groups, part of the Jewish mafia.[1] Heidi Beirich is the daughter of Russell Jerome Beirich (1933-2013) and Evelyn Paschmann (from Germany), and grand-daughter of Joseph and Anna Mae Burns Beirich. Russell Jerome was mayor of Palm Springs from 1976 to 1979.[2] She has a brother, Derek J. Beirich (born 15 June 1971) who’s a controller for Biopharma Scientific, and a sister, Dsire, who died in 1966.[3] Heidi Beirich is single, has never been engaged (presumably due to homosexuality), and the overwhelming majority of her targets are male. Using psychological projection, she has employed the term “wound collector” to describe herself, in the story White Homicide Worldwide. Heidi Beirich resides a ten minute drive, away, from a regional, SPLC office, and, about, a block from a Burger King restaurant, among others. Heidi Beirich’s most used 4-syllable word is “vitriolic”, a habit she’s caught from Mark Potok. SPLC stories signed “Hatewatch Staff” are written by her. The story Barbara Coe, Racist Nativist Leader, Dies in California, signed “Hatewatch Staff”, uses the unique phrase “racist nativist leader” which she also uses in the Camp of the Saints story. Heidi Beirich linked the White Nationalist website Stormfront.org to more than hundred murders without providing any proof of it. According to Heidi Beirich, the mere fact of posting on a website makes it (the website) entirely responsible for all the future actions of this individual.[4]

Fair Usage Law

January 11, 2017   Posted in: Heidi Beirich  Comments Closed

Daniel Pipes

Fair Usage Law

December 9, 2016   Posted in: Heidi Beirich  Comments Closed

The State of Hate: White Supremacist Groups Growing …

The number of hate groups operating in the United States continued to rise in 2008 and has grown by 54 percent since 2000 an increase fueled last year by immigration fears, a failing economy, and the successful campaign of Barack Obama, according to the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC). The SPLC identified 926 hate groups active in 2008, up more than four percent from the 888 groups in 2007 and far above the 602 groups documented in 2000.15 “Barack Obama’s election has inflamed racist extremists who see it as another sign that their country is under siege by nonwhites,” said Mark Potok, editor of the Intelligence Report, a SPLC quarterly investigative journal that monitors the radical right. “The idea of a black man in the White House, combined with the deepening economic crisis and continuing high levels of Latino immigration, has given white supremacists a real platform on which to recruit.”16 The DHS assessment on right-wing extremism, which was provided to federal, state, and local law enforcement, warned that right-wing extremists “may be gaining new recruits by playing on their fears about several emergent issues. The economic downturn and the election of the first African American president present unique drivers for rightwing radicalization and recruitment.” In the days prior to the presidential election, Daniel Cowart, 20, of Bells, Tennessee and Paul Schlesselman, 18, of West Helena, Arkansas were arrested by federal agents for allegedly plotting to assassinate Obama followed by a plan to engage in a multi-state “killing spree.” The men met through the Internet and planned to shoot 88 African Americans and behead another 14. Targets included a predominantly African-American school. At the end of the alleged spree, the men intended to try to kill Obama. “88,” an important number in skinhead numerology, means “Heil Hitler” as “H” is the eighth letter of the alphabet. “14” likely refers to the “14 Words,” a white supremacist slogan that originated with the late David Lane. Lane died last year in prison while serving a sentence for his role in an assassination plot carried out by The Order, a white supremacist terrorist group that was destroyed in 1984. One of the suspects, Cowart, is a known member of a new skinhead hate group, the Supreme White Alliance (SWA), formed at the beginning of 2008, according to the Southern Poverty Law Center. He attended a birthday party for Adolf Hitler held last April by the group. SWA is headed by Steven Edwards, son of Ron Edwards, who leads the Imperial Klans of America.17 After Obama’s election victory in November, white supremacist online activity spiked, with people posting hundreds of messages to online forums. White supremacist groups and individuals claimed that the Obama presidency, the immigration issue, and tough economic times would serve as powerful catalysts for recruiting more people to the white supremacist movement. Jeff Schoep, head of the National Socialist Movement, the largest Neo-Nazi group in America, said interest in the NSM “has really spiked up,” but would not reveal by how much.18 Don Black, a 55 year-old former Ku Klux Klan Grand Wizard, claimed more than 2,000 people joined his website on the day after Obama’s election, up from 80 on an ordinary day. Started in 1995, Black’s website is one of the oldest and largest hate group sites, now claiming 110,000 members. As David Duke, a former Klan leader who was once a member of the Louisiana legislature, has said, Obama is a “visual aid” that galvanizes the white supremacist movement.19 According to Schoep, extremists are also exploiting the economic crisis, spreading propaganda that blames minorities and immigrants for the subprime mortgage meltdown. “Historically, when times get tough in our nation, that’s how movements like ours gain a foothold,” he said. “When the economy suffers, people are looking for answers. We are the answer for white people.”20 Membership in the National Socialist Movement has grown by 40 percent in recent months, according to Schoep, the “most dramatic growth” since the mid-1990s, mostly because of the nation’s dire economic circumstances. “You have an American work force facing massive unemployment. And you have presidents and politicians flinging open the borders telling them to take the few jobs left while our men are in soup kitchens.”21 In Pennsylvania, where the Hispanic population has increased 41 percent from 2000 through 2007, “Keystone United,” a hate group that recently changed its name from “Keystone State Skinheads,” has used the immigration issue to recruit new members. “A lot of these small working-class towns are being invaded by different types of people,” said Douglas Myers, one of Keystone United’s founders. USA Today described Keystone United as a group that “speaks out for the rights of whites being pushed aside by newcomers.” The group plans family-friendly outings, meets in public libraries, and avoids the violence traditionally associated with skinheads. “It’s not the footage from the 80s with people burning crosses. It’s a very healthy environment,” said Myers.22 Ann Van Dyke of the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission said of Keystone United: “It appears they are tapping into and fanning the flames of mainstream America’s fear of immigrants. They are increasingly using the language of Main Street, things like, We want safe communities to raise our children.'”23 “Many white supremacist groups are going more mainstream,” said Jack Levin, a Northeastern University criminologist who studies hate crime. “They are eliminating the sheets and armbands. The groups realize if they want to be attractive to middle-class types, they need to look middle-class.” Levin estimated fewer than 50,000 people are members of white supremacist groups, but he says their influence is growing with a more sophisticated approach.24 DHS assesses that since the 2008 election, right-wing extremists “have capitalized on related racial and political prejudices in expanded propaganda campaigns, thereby reaching out to a wider audience of potential sympathizers.” Next Section: The State of Hate: Exploiting the Internet to Promote Hatred 15. David Holthouse, Southern Poverty Law Center, “The Year in Hate,” Intelligence Report, Spring 2009. 16. “Hate Group Numbers Up By 54% Since 2000,” Southern Poverty Law Center, February 26, 2009. 17. Heidi Beirich, Hatewatch Blog, Southern Poverty Law Center, “Skinheads Arrested in Plot to Kill Obama,” October 27, 2008. 18. Marisol Bello, “White Supremacists Target Middle America,” USA Today, October 21, 2008. 19. Stephanie Chen, “Growing Hate Groups Blame Obama, Economy,” CNN.com, February 26, 2009. 20. Bello, “White Supremacists Target Middle America.” 21. Chen, “Growing Hate Groups Blame Obama, Economy.” 22. Bello, “White Supremacists Target Middle America.” 23. Id. 24. Id.

Fair Usage Law

December 8, 2016   Posted in: Heidi Beirich  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


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."