Editor’s Note: The following entry, Who Governs?, was posted at American Renaissance on 13 August 2019. It’s a thoughtful piece with a number of very relevant points. This editor’s note addresses one issue perhaps more vital than any covered in Gregory Hood’s analysis: ACTION.
A week ago a communication was sent to American Renaissance via the site’s ‘Contact Us’ page. It was a sincere inquiry that requested a reply in order to more understand the position of the site’s editors’ regarding that issue – ACTION. There was no reply.
The purpose of adding part of that inquiry here is to emphasize the point. Hood presents the argument – but, as usual, that is all it is. Those who are implementing the very policies Hood rails against are more than likely laughing in their boots. In fact, the entire u.s. is going into ‘crash and burn’ while those who claim to ‘care’…who appear to sense an outrage…sit and WRITE about it.
These kinds of complainers like to place the blame of the current calamity upon anyone and everyone – except themselves and their fellow predecessors. But in the end, shouldn’t the greater ‘blame’ be placed upon ‘men’ who simply sat by and allowed every outrage against those things they claimed to ‘hold dear’…?
The ‘lone gunmen’ who, in their madness, so desperately attempt to make their case do so because they feel there is no other way. Remember that point when reading the following.
Here is a part of the inquiry:
It’s very clear that the times of theorizing, debating, discussing, and mere talk are – or should be – over. That ACTION is now seriously needed if white interests are to survive into the future.
Where I find myself today is in a rather head-shaking astonishment that even now, with the clear call for war against white, no white man is stepping to the front to lead the people in the cause of their very existence as a people. No one is stepping forward to organize a group that fights for white interests – in the same manner as those of every other race. White americans are the only racial group that does not organize with the goal of pursuing their particular concerns and place in ‘society’.
I’ve come to the point of thinking that – by the very laws of nature – the white man is no longer worthy of the once great heritage that was his task to defend.
All I see is ‘intellectual’ discussion. But shouldn’t all the things being discussed already be clear as day to anyone with open eyes?
I’m writing this bit because I would like to make a suggestion:
There are a number of white men with sound intellect and potential who write on websites, speak at gatherings of various sorts, etc. – why is it that none have sought to join forces and unite in the creation of a single white interest organization? Why is it that none step forward with a reasoned appeal to the dismayed white people of the u.s., to show that they care and are willing to face the mob with a dignified demand for white rights?
I am under no illusion that this would be an easy task. It involves obvious great risks. But where is the courage to face those risks? The average white american is cowed into submission because they have no choice – they perceive, and rightly so, that they are alone in their struggles. Give them a ‘champion’ and I believe that they would find the courage themselves to challenge their enemies. Because, let’s face it, that is what they truly face.
I’m suggesting that perhaps those affiliated with American Renaissance step up. Approach other men of like mind, pool resources, develop an organization that is separate from every political party. Discontinue the discussion in the false ‘left/right’ paradigm. Take control of the discussion in their own terms. And build a white interest group in the same way the blacks have their NAACP and the juden have their AIPAC.
I am completely aware of the reasons why this appears ‘impossible’ – and it’s precisely because of that that it should be fought for and established.
Are there no men who are willing to challenge that? To argue that all others have their own, but whites are denied the same? Nothing would open white american eyes more than this open demand – with nothing in secret, where all demands are made in full disclosure. Such a demand would visibly show those who attempt to label all racially conscious white americans as radical violent extremists that there is a reasonable group of white men who are serious in their demands for their own interests.
I would like to read a response to my observations, and conclusions, in order to more understand your position on these things. I’ll wait a week to see if one is forthcoming. If I do not, I can only assume you have nothing to say. But I should state up front – this contact is being made in good faith. It’s not my current intent to publish it in a public format, if I come to a better understanding of your position. But if I do not, I can only publish it as an illustration of my point.
Gregory Hood, American Renaissance, August 13, 2019
“Sovereign is he who decides the exception,” wrote political theorist Carl Schmitt. These days, there are many “exceptions” to the law. Sam Francis argued that “anarcho-tyranny” was the necessary result of multiculturalism: “We refuse to control real criminals (that’s the anarchy),” he wrote, “so we control the innocent (that’s the tyranny).”
There is more “anarchy” and “tyranny” every day.
Twenty to 30 million illegal immigrants are in the country. They aren’t “in the shadows;” they protest in public and go on television, even on taxpayer-subsidized networks. To them, the law is irrelevant.
Several cities have declared themselves “sanctuaries” for illegals. Local police ignore “detainer” orders by Immigration and Customs Enforcement and release criminal illegals who go on to commit more crimes. California passed a law making the entire state a “sanctuary” and forbidding local cooperation with immigration authorities. “Sanctuaries” flout federal law.
In contrast, state and local efforts to limit immigration have mostly been thrown out by the courts. Local governments can ignore immigration law when it helps illegals; they can’t pass regulations to control them. The Orwellian reasoning is that if the federal government won’t enforce immigration laws, states and localities can’t either. Proposition 187, which would have denied many public services to illegals, passed when California was majority white. The courts gutted it, with predictable demographic and political consequences.
The Supreme Court threw out much of Arizona’s illegal-immigration control SB 1070 because it supposedly interfered with federal responsibilities. Later legal challenges weakened what was left.
In 2006, Hazleton, Pennsylvania passed a law imposing fines on landlords who rented to illegals. A federal judge threw out the law on the grounds that the federal government has sole authority to regulate immigration. He fined the city instead.
Political violence is common, but only one side pays the price. The Trump Justice Department has cracked down on “white nationalist” groups such as the Rise Above Movement at the behest of liberal journalists. Federal prosecutor Thomas Cullen is charging “white nationalists” under “anti-riot” statutes, to the cheers of the Washington Post. He ignores antifa groups that openly planned violence in Charlottesville. Elsewhere, leftists caught committing violent crimes—even on video—get minor penalties.
There were two mass shootings last weekend. One perp was probably a white nationalist; the other was an antifa activist. Both liberals and conservatives agree that the problem is “white supremacism.” Both have called for crackdowns on “white nationalists.” Congress could well pass “red flag” laws, which by their nature depend on subjective judgments about whether someone is “dangerous.” Earlier, the House of Representatives held a hearing with speakers calling for a “counter-insurgency” against white nationalism. Congressmen identified specific people, such as Faith Goldy, whom they wanted kicked off social media.
Clearly, there is no objective “rule of law.” So who rules? Journalists.
They are increasingly conscious of their power and argue openly for state repression of those with whom they disagree. An extraordinary article in the Washington Post argues that federal prosecutors should use RICO statues against white nationalists.
Why free speech makes it difficult to prosecute white supremacy in America https://t.co/BuOP7pejK4
— The Washington Post (@washingtonpost) August 8, 2019
“The First Amendment is a major block in investigation and prosecution of a white supremacy group,” complained G. Robert Blakey, author of the RICO statute. Mr. Blakey notes ominously that RICO is “not a written law” but a “culture.” Mr. Blakey means a legal culture, but really it’s a media culture.
National Review’s Andrew McCarthy also wants to use our “very elastic federal laws targeting violent gang activity and other conspiracies” to destroy “white supremacism.”
The corporate media determine what is politically possible and what views are considered beyond the pale. The law is secondary to ideology.
For example, on July 20, Vice wrote that Ted Cruz’s proposal for antifa to be considered a domestic terror organization won’t work for two reasons. First, “antifa hasn’t killed people.” Second, “there’s no domestic terror designation system that would make this possible.” The article notes that “legal experts have warned that adjusting the law to allow for domestic terror organizations could open up the potential for the system to be abused to target protest groups—like antifa, or even Black Lives Matter.” Vice does not want its favored groups to be called “terror organizations.”
On August 6, the same author at Vice changed her tune. This time, there was a different message. “The gap in federal law [the lack of a domestic terrorism law] means that when self-radicalized Americans target undocumented immigrants shopping at Walmart, Jews gathered at their local synagogue for Saturday prayers, or black worshippers at a Bible study session,” said Tess Owen, “their actions are prosecuted as hate crimes, not terrorism.”
“If Congress were to make domestic terrorism a federal crime,” she writes, “prosecutors could go after would-be terrorists with the ‘material support statute,’ which currently criminalizes the act of plotting a terror attack in the name of, for example, white supremacy.”
She barely mentions “First Amendment issues.” The one criminal already convicted in the above cases, Dylann Roof, has been sentenced to death. What difference would a “terrorism” charge make?
A “domestic terrorism” law could potentially make it illegal to donate to groups such as American Renaissance if the government declared them “terrorist” organizations. In 2011, after Jared Loughner’s murders, an Arizona Counter Terrorism Center leaked a memo mistakenly linking American Renaissance to the killer. The center disavowed the memo, but today, the consequences would probably be far worse. If we were labeled “terrorists,” donations would be “material support.” This would not end violence; it would silence and intimidate peaceful white advocates.
During the George W. Bush administration, liberals worried that the “War on Terrorism” would restrict civil liberties. Congresswoman Ilhan Omar recently complained that Muslims were treated like “second-class citizens” without “our civil liberties” because “some people did something” (the September 11 attacks.) She was widely praised.
Now, however, many journalists want a “War on Terrorism.”
- “Now is the time for a global war on white nationalist terrorism,” said Christopher Dickey at The Daily Beast. A “global” war? Which regimes would Mr. Dickey like us to change?
- Time identified “glimmers of hope,” including proposed legislation “that would require DHS, the FBI and the Justice Department to address white supremacism and right-wing extremism, including training and information sharing.” Another “glimmer” was the “new push for domestic terrorism to be codified as a federal crime.”
- An article in Big Think is entitled “Finally, white nationalists are being called terrorists. We Need This To Continue.” Author Derek Beres says the terrorist designation is necessary because it “pushes back at the chronic problem of American exceptionalism” and the “related idea” of “manifest destiny.” He explains that there is nothing unique about America or Americans, and “the reality is ‘we’ are no different from ‘them’.”
Unlike Muslims, who have the Council on American-Islamic Relations—and hundreds of allied leftist groups—whites have no one to protect their group interests or civil liberties. So what if people who have committed no crimes are caught up in a RICO investigation? If they are “racists,” who cares? They are just as guilty as any actual criminal.
Many journalists claim there is no such thing as white supremacist “self-radicalization.” A killer may act on his own, but he got his ideas from the internet. That’s why they want certain websites shut down. 8chan is the target now, but it won’t be the last one.