Spitfire List Web site and blog of anti-fascist researcher and radio personality Dave Emory.

For The Record  

FTR #793 Miscellaneous Articles and Updates

Dave Emory’s entire life­time of work is avail­able on a flash dri­ve that can be obtained here. (The flash dri­ve includes the anti-fas­cist books avail­able on this site.)

Lis­ten: MP3

Side 1  Side 2

Intro­duc­tion: As the title indi­cates, this pro­gram updates pre­vi­ous top­ics of dis­cus­sion and presents infor­ma­tion not pre­vi­ous­ly intro­duced. Updat­ing FTR #791, the pro­gram notes the death of Cor­nelius Gurlitt, the son of promi­nent Nazi art deal­er Hilde­brand Gurlitt. The younger Gurlitt was found to be in pos­ses­sion of a vast trove of art­works, val­ued at at $1.35 bil­lion by some accounts.

A Wall Street Jour­nal arti­cle main­tains that the elder Gurlitt was to be the direc­tor of Hitler’s Fuehrermu­se­um. Nev­er built, the art for that intend­ed insti­tu­tion com­prised much of the art alleged by authors Simon Dun­stan and Ger­rard Williams to be at the cen­ter of the deal between Allen Dulles and Mar­tin Bor­mann.

Cor­nelius Gurlitt left his art trove–valued at around one $1.35 billion–to a Bern, Switzer­land art muse­um. Switzer­land was and is, of course, a major repos­i­to­ry for much of the Bor­mann flight cap­i­tal. One can but won­der if this muse­um has con­nec­tions with the Bor­mann group.

Notice, also, that Gurlitt had a sec­ond res­i­dence in Salzburg, Aus­tria. As dis­cussed in FTR #791, the Ger­man author­i­ties had no record of Cor­nelius Gurlitt. In a coun­try where every cit­i­zen must reg­is­ter with the police of his or her res­i­den­tial area, this is unthink­able and indica­tive of some high-lev­el chi­canery.

Recent news has offered up a grim­ly instruc­tive jux­ta­po­si­tion. As Glenn Green­wald and his asso­ciates in the Snow­den “op” gar­nered jour­nal­is­tic prizes, Fra­zier Glenn Miller, a vet­er­an neo-Nazi and asso­ciate of The Order [alleged­ly] killed three at a Jew­ish com­mu­ni­ty cen­ter in Kansas.

As we have seen in FTR #754 and sev­er­al posts, Green­wald was a fel­low-trav­el­er of some of mur­der­ous Nazi and white suprema­cist groups. In addi­tion to defend­ing Matthew Hale against solic­i­ta­tion  of murder charges, Green­wald ran inter­fer­ence for the “lead­er­less resis­tance strat­e­gy.”

Lead­er­less resis­tance is an oper­a­tional doc­trine through which indi­vid­ual Nazis and white suprema­cists per­form acts of vio­lence against their per­ceived ene­mies, indi­vid­u­al­ly, or in very small groups. Act­ing in accor­dance with doc­trine espoused by lumi­nar­ies and lead­erls in their move­ment, they avoid infil­tra­tion by law enforce­ment by virtue of their “lone wolf” oper­a­tional strat­e­gy. What Miller [alleged­ly] did is pre­cisely the sort of thing advo­cated by the “Lead­er­less Resis­tance” strat­e­gy.

The Turn­er Diaries and Hunter, pub­lished by Green­wald’s client, the Nation­al Alliance

Ser­pen­t’s Walk: Fore­casts a Nazi takeover of U.S. in mid-twen­ty-first cen­tu­ry, after WMD ter­ror­ist attacks.

The advo­cates of this sort of thing, such as Cit­i­zen Greenwald’s client The Nation­al Alliance (pub­lisher of  The Turn­er Diaries,” which pro­vided the oper­a­tional tem­plate for Miller’s bene­fac­tors The Order) have been shield­ed (to an extent) from civ­il suits hold­ing them to account for their mur­der­ous advo­cacy.

We can give thanks to Green­wald.

Nation­al Alliance’s books are specif­i­cal­ly intend­ed as instruc­tion­al vehi­cles. Hunter is ded­i­cat­ed to Joseph Paul Franklin, who was close to Miller. The shoot­ings of which Miller is accused were on Franklin’s birth­day. Although not legal­ly liable for such killings, Green­wald does bear polit­i­cal, moral, philo­soph­i­cal and “karmic” respon­si­bil­i­ty. The syco­phants and fools who cel­e­brate him enjoy sim­i­lar sta­tus.

Miller is also an admir­er of Ron Paul, the Pres­i­den­tial can­di­date of choice for Green­wald’s bene­fac­tor Eddie “the Friend­ly Spook” Snow­den. The “Paulis­tin­ian Lib­er­tar­i­an Orga­ni­za­tion” is at the foun­da­tion of the Greenwald/Snowden milieu.

Much of the bal­ance of the pro­gram high­lights the grow­ing con­trol of Amer­i­can media out­lets by doc­tri­naire fas­cist orga­ni­za­tions with a her­itage evolv­ing from World War II.

With our media already demon­strat­ing a com­pul­sion to fun­da­men­tal­ly mis­rep­re­sent events in an overt­ly ide­ol­o­gized fash­ion (as we are see­ing with regard to the Ukraine sit­u­a­tion), the inroads of Mus­lim Broth­er­hood, SS-linked Ber­tels­mann and ele­ments linked with the Uni­fi­ca­tion Church is some­thing to be feared.

Pro­gram High­lights Include:

  • The cre­ation of a giant pub­lish­ing out­fit, merg­ing Ber­tels­mann and Pen­guin into a cor­po­rate enti­ty that will be con­trolled by Ber­tels­mann.
  • Ber­tels­mann has also acquired full con­trol of BMG, expand­ing their par­tic­i­pa­tion in the music busi­ness.
  • Review of the Nazi and SS her­itage of Ber­tels­mann.
  • The Uni­fi­ca­tion Church back­ground of the pub­lish­er of the revived Newsweek. Note that the Uni­fi­ca­tion Church con­trols UPI and The Wash­ing­ton Times.
  • A num­ber of arti­cles about Al-Jazeer­a’s effec­tive con­trol by the Mus­lim Broth­er­hood.
  • The res­ig­na­tion of Egypt­ian Al-Jazeera staff after being ordered to give favor­able cov­er­age to the Broth­er­hood dur­ing the over­throw of Mor­si.
  • Qatar, the gov­ern­ment of which runs Al-Jazeera, active­ly sub­si­dized the Mor­si regime.
  • Egypt­ian jour­nal­ists expelled Al-Jazeera reporters from a pro­fes­sion­al gath­er­ing, because of the net­work’s overt Broth­er­hood bias.
  • Al-Jazeer­a’s bil­let­ing of exiled Egypt­ian Mus­lim Broth­er­hood mem­bers in hotels in Qatar.
  • Dis­cus­sion of BMW with­hold­ing ads from The Atlantic when­ev­er the mag­a­zine would review a book about the Holo­caust or World War II.
  • Con­trol over the Bavar­i­an Motor Works firm by the heirs of Joseph Goebbels.

1. Updat­ing FTR #791, the pro­gram notes the death of Cor­nelius Gurlitt, the son of promi­nent Nazi art deal­er Hilde­brand Gurlitt. The younger Gurlitt was found to be in pos­ses­sion of a vast trove of art­works, val­ued at at $1.35 bil­lion by some accounts.

A Wall Street Jour­nal arti­cle main­tains that the elder Gurlitt was to be the direc­tor of Hitler’s Fuehrermu­se­um. Nev­er built, the art for that intend­ed insti­tu­tion com­prised much of the art alleged by authors Simon Dun­stan and Ger­rard Williams to be at the cen­ter of the deal between Allen Dulles and Mar­tin Bor­mann.

“Ger­man Art Col­lec­tor in Nazi Loot Uproar Dies at 81 — Update” by Mary M. Lane; The Wall Street Jour­nal; 5/6/2014.

Cor­nelius Gurlitt, the octo­ge­nar­i­an son of one of Adolf Hitler’s major art deal­ers, died in his Munich home on Tues­day morn­ing, leav­ing the fate of his rough­ly 1,400 art­works unclear.

Legal ques­tions now swarm sur­round­ing how–and even if–looted works in the col­lec­tion can now be resti­tut­ed to Holo­caust vic­tims and their heirs.

Mr. Gurlitt, 81 years old, stepped from com­plete obscu­ri­ty into world-wide promi­nence last fall after Ger­man media reports sur­faced that Bavar­i­an tax author­i­ties had con­fis­cat­ed in ear­ly 2012 what is regard­ed as the largest-ever trove of Nazi-loot­ed art in pri­vate hands.

The fact that the find remained unre­port­ed for near­ly two years and the gov­ern­men­t’s refusal to put pres­sure on Mr. Gurlitt to return any loot­ed art­work to heirs of their orig­i­nal own­ers drew inter­na­tion­al crit­i­cism of Ger­many from the U.S., France and Israel.

Mr. Gurlitt died in the pres­ence of his doc­tor and care­tak­ers, a few weeks after request­ing that he return home from a Bavar­i­an hos­pi­tal where he had under­gone inten­sive heart surgery, his spokesman said on Tues­day after­noon. The col­lec­tor, who was nev­er mar­ried and had no chil­dren, leaves no direct heir or known next of kin.

The trove includ­ed many unre­mark­able works on paper but also sev­er­al valu­able paint­ings. One of those, an Hen­ri Matisse por­trait that Matisse deal­ers say could fetch up to $20 mil­lion at auc­tion, is being chased by the heirs of the late French art deal­er Paul Rosen­berg, includ­ing Anne Sin­clair, a promi­nent jour­nal­ist and ex-wife of for­mer Inter­na­tion­al Mon­e­tary Fund head Dominique Strauss-Kahn.

That paint­ing and sev­er­al oth­er art­works were loot­ed from Holo­caust vic­tims dur­ing World War II. It is unclear how the works end­ed up in the col­lec­tion of Mr. Gurlit­t’s father, Hilde­brand, a suc­cess­ful Nazi-era deal­er whom Hitler had tapped to lead his unre­al­ized Führermu­se­um in Linz, Aus­tria after the war.

Ger­man author­i­ties came under fire from major Jew­ish lead­ers, includ­ing Ronald Laud­er and Israeli and Amer­i­can offi­cials because the trove, though con­fis­cat­ed in ear­ly 2012, the was kept secret for two years–even from the Bavar­i­an jus­tice minister–in vio­la­tion of inter­na­tion­al norms on art resti­tu­tion.

At the time, Bavar­i­an tax author­i­ties jus­ti­fied the deci­sion to keep the works’ exis­tence a secret because of their con­tin­u­ing inves­ti­ga­tion into Mr. Gurlit­t’s finances. The Augus­burg pros­e­cu­tor’s office in charge of the inves­ti­ga­tion did­n’t answer calls seek­ing com­ment.

Although that inves­ti­ga­tion will lapse now that Mr. Gurlitt is dead, fresh hur­dles abound, main­ly sur­round­ing a sim­ple ques­tion: who has inher­it­ed Mr. Gurlit­t’s estate?

Christo­pher Marinel­lo, a lawyer for the Rosen­berg heirs, says the fam­i­ly will con­tin­ue pur­su­ing the case, but that “we’ll have to wait for the estate process to run its course.”

It is unclear, though, whom Mr. Marinel­lo should even con­tact or who will be han­dling the estate process.

Giv­en Mr. Gurlit­t’s per­pet­u­al­ly frail state of health, a Ger­man court appoint­ed Munich-based lawyer Christoph Edel as his legal guardian late last year. But Mr. Edel’s posi­tion was “void­ed as soon as Mr. Gurlitt died,” his spokesman, Stephan Holzinger, told The Wall Street Jour­nal.

Mr. Holzinger says he does­n’t even know if Mr. Gurlitt has a will and that his own con­tract will only con­tin­ue for “the next few days.”

“The only guy who could give orders in [resti­tut­ing art] was Mr. Edel, but now his job has end­ed,” said Mr. Holzinger. “The job right now is to find out what’s in the will–if there is a will.”

The lack of cer­tain­ty about a fin­ished will may in part be due to the ten­sions that have plagued Mr. Gurlit­t’s own legal team since it came togeth­er ear­li­er this year.

In Jan­u­ary, The Jour­nal report­ed that Mr. Gurlitt was will­ing to nego­ti­ate the return of works of art with­in the col­lec­tion, but Mr. Gurlit­t’s lawyer, Hannes Har­tung, was fired soon after­ward

Sev­er­al fam­i­lies, includ­ing the Rosen­berg heirs, com­plained that Mr. Har­tung was unwill­ing to rule out a demand for mon­e­tary com­pen­sa­tion for return­ing Nazi-loot­ed art.

Last month tax author­i­ties announced they would return Mr. Gurlit­t’s art­work. Through his legal guardian, Mr. Gurlitt respond­ed to inter­na­tion­al com­plaints by giv­ing the gov­ern­ment-appoint­ed task force that had already been exam­in­ing the prove­nance author­i­ty to spend a year research­ing it and help­ing arrange resti­tu­tion for works that it deter­mined were loot­ed.

But even that task force is uncer­tain now with whom it should coor­di­nate since Mr. Gurlitt is dead.

“We want to ful­fill our duty to research this work as seri­ous­ly as before,” said task force spokesman Matthias Henkel. “We are still work­ing on deter­min­ing with whom to speak now.”

2. Cor­nelius Gurlitt left his art trove–valued at around one $1.35 billion–to a Bern, Switzer­land art muse­um. Switzer­land was and is, of course, a major repos­i­to­ry for much of the Bor­mann flight cap­i­tal. One can but won­der if this muse­um has con­nec­tions with the Bor­mann group.

Notice, also, that Gurlitt had a sec­ond res­i­dence in Salzburg, Aus­tria. As dis­cussed in FTR #791, the Ger­man author­i­ties had no record of Cor­nelius Gurlitt. In a coun­try where every cit­i­zen must reg­is­ter with the police of his or her res­i­den­tial area, this is unthink­able and indica­tive of some high-lev­el chi­canery.

“ ‘Nazi Art’ Hoard­er Gurlitt Makes Swiss Muse­um Sole Heir”; BBC News; 5/7/2014.

Ger­man Nazi-era art hoard­er Cor­nelius Gurlitt, who died on Tues­day, has made the Bern Art Muse­um in Switzer­land his “sole heir”.

The reclu­sive son of Adolf Hitler’s art deal­er is esti­mat­ed to have amassed a col­lec­tion worth up to a bil­lion euros.

The muse­um said the news struck “like a bolt from the blue”, giv­en that it had had no rela­tion­ship with Mr Gurlitt.

The col­lec­tion was the sub­ject of a long legal dis­pute over works that may have been tak­en ille­gal­ly by the Nazis.

The Bern Art Muse­um said that it was delight­ed at the news that it had been made Mr Gurlit­t’s “unre­strict­ed and unfet­tered sole heir”, but added that the bequest also posed some ques­tions.

“The Board of Trustees and direc­tors of Kun­st­mu­se­um Bern are sur­prised and delight­ed, but at the same time do not wish to con­ceal the fact that this mag­nif­i­cent bequest brings with it a con­sid­er­able bur­den of respon­si­bil­i­ty and a wealth of ques­tions of the most dif­fi­cult and sen­si­tive kind, and ques­tions in par­tic­u­lar of a legal and eth­i­cal nature”, it said in a state­ment.

Mr Gurlit­t’s father, Hilde­brand Gurlitt, was ordered to deal in works that had been seized from Jews, or which the Nazis con­sid­ered “degen­er­ate” and had removed from Ger­man muse­ums.

The price­less col­lec­tion was con­fis­cat­ed in 2012 by Bavar­i­an author­i­ties from the apart­ment of his son.

After ini­tial­ly refus­ing to give up the paint­ings, Mr Gurlitt changed his posi­tion, agree­ing to co-oper­ate with the Ger­man author­i­ties on estab­lish­ing the paint­ings’ prove­nance, and return­ing them if they were shown to be stolen.

‘Wild spec­u­la­tion’
Mr Gurlitt, who had no close rel­a­tives, wrote the will with­in the last few weeks short­ly before under­go­ing heart surgery, accord­ing to his spokesman, Stephan Holzinger.

“It now falls to the pro­bate court to deter­mine if the will is valid and whether a con­tract of inher­i­tance exists,” he told the BBC ear­li­er on Wednes­day.

“I can under­stand that there is now wild spec­u­la­tion, but I don’t want to com­ment on that at this stage.”

The Ger­man gov­ern­ment said ear­li­er that the col­lec­tor’s death would not affect the inves­ti­ga­tion into own­er­ships claims on the paint­ings.

Mr Gurlit­t’s col­lec­tion only came to light after a rou­tine check found he was car­ry­ing wads of cash on a train from Switzer­land, trig­ger­ing a tax inquiry.

Inves­ti­ga­tors found more than 1,400 works in his flat in Munich in Feb­ru­ary 2012 — though they only revealed the dis­cov­ery in late 2013 — and a fur­ther 60 in his house near Salzburg, Aus­tria, ear­li­er this year.

Among them were works by Pierre-Auguste Renoir, Pablo Picas­so, Marc Cha­gall, Emil Nolde and Max Lieber­mann.

The col­lec­tion is esti­mat­ed to be worth up to a bil­lion euros (£850m; $1.35bn).

Under Ger­man law, Cor­nelius Gurlitt was not com­pelled to return any paint­ings because the inci­dents hap­pened more than 30 years ago.

3a. Recent news has offered up a grim­ly instruc­tive jux­ta­po­si­tion. As Glenn Green­wald and his asso­ciates in the Snow­den “op” gar­nered jour­nal­is­tic prizes, Fra­zier Glenn Miller, a vet­er­an neo-Nazi and asso­ciate of The Order [alleged­ly] killed three at a Jew­ish com­mu­ni­ty cen­ter in Kansas.

As we have seen in FTR #754 and sev­er­al posts, Green­wald was a fel­low-trav­el­er of some of mur­der­ous Nazi and white suprema­cist groups. In addi­tion to defend­ing Matthew Hale against solic­i­ta­tion  of murder charges, Green­wald ran inter­fer­ence for the “lead­er­less resis­tance strat­e­gy.”

Lead­er­less resis­tance is an oper­a­tional doc­trine through which indi­vid­ual Nazis and white suprema­cists per­form acts of vio­lence against their per­ceived ene­mies, indi­vid­u­al­ly, or in very small groups. Act­ing in accor­dance with doc­trine espoused by lumi­nar­ies and lead­erls in their move­ment, they avoid infil­tra­tion by law enforce­ment by virtue of their “lone wolf” oper­a­tional strat­e­gy.

What Miller [alleged­ly] did is pre­cisely the sort of thing advo­cated by the “Lead­er­less Resis­tance” strat­e­gy.

The advo­cates of this sort of thing, such as Cit­i­zen Greenwald’s client The Nation­al Alliance (pub­lisher of  The Turn­er Diaries,” which pro­vided the oper­a­tional tem­plate for Miller’s bene­fac­tors The Order) have been shield­ed (to an extent) from civ­il suits hold­ing them to account for their mur­der­ous advo­cacy.

We can give thanks to Green­wald.

Nation­al Alliance’s books are specif­i­cal­ly intend­ed as instruc­tion­al vehi­cles. Hunter is ded­i­cat­ed to Joseph Paul Franklin, who was close to Miller. The shoot­ings of which Miller is accused were on Franklin’s birth­day.

Although not legal­ly liable for such killings, Green­wald does bear polit­i­cal, moral, philo­soph­i­cal and “karmic” respon­si­bil­i­ty. The syco­phants and fools who cel­e­brate him enjoy sim­i­lar sta­tus.

Miller is also an admir­er of Ron Paul, the Pres­i­den­tial can­di­date of choice for Green­wald’s bene­fac­tor Eddie “the Friend­ly Spook” Snow­den. The “Paulis­tin­ian Lib­er­tar­i­an Orga­ni­za­tion” is at the foun­da­tion of the Greenwald/Snowden milieu.

Idle thought num­ber 219–“old Ger­man fam­i­lies” in Latin Amer­i­ca helped finance The Order, which gave mon­ey to Miller (among oth­ers).  Matthews’ group cer­tain­ly robbed armored cars and gained finan­cial sup­port in so doing.

In that regard, we won­der to what extent The Order may actu­al­ly have been a vehi­cle for laun­der­ing funds from those “old Ger­man fam­i­lies in Latin Amer­i­ca?”

3b. 1988: Neo-Nazi Group Founds Pub­lish­ing House, Pub­lishes Book to Inspire White Assas­sins; His­tory Com­mons

. . . .William Pierce, the founder of the neo-Nazi Nation­al Alliance (see 1970–1974) and the author of the inflam­ma­tory and high­ly influ­en­tial white suprema­cist nov­el The Turn­er Diaries (see 1978), over­sees the cre­ation of a pub­lish­ing firm for the Alliance, Nation­al Van­guard Books. It will pub­lish a num­ber of works, most promi­nently a reprint of The Turn­er Diaries and Pierce’s sec­ond nov­el, Hunter, which tells the sto­ry of a white assas­sin who kills minori­ties, par­tic­u­larly inter­ra­cial cou­ples. He ded­i­cates Hunter to Joseph Paul Franklin, con­victed of the sniper mur­ders of two African-Amer­i­can men (see 1980). Pierce will lat­er tell his biog­ra­pher that he wrote Hunter as a delib­er­ate moti­va­tional tool for assas­sins, say­ing, “From the begin­ning with Hunter, I had this idea of how fic­tion can work as a teach­ing tool in mind.” In 2002, the Cen­ter for New Com­mu­nity will write, “Like The Turn­er Diaries, the book has inspired sev­eral real-life acts of racist ter­ror” (see Jan­u­ary 4, 2002 and After). In 1991, Nation­al Van­guard will expand into releas­ing audio­tapes, which by Decem­ber 1992 will spawn a radio show, Amer­i­can Dis­si­dent Voic­es. In 1993, it will begin pub­lish­ing com­ic books tar­geted at chil­dren and teenagers. . . .

3c. Broth­er­hood and Mur­der by Thomas Mar­tinez; Google Books; p. 234.

. . . .The per­former also said ” . . . Some very old Ger­man fam­i­lies [in South Amer­ica] were giv­ing Bob [Matthews, leader of The Order] some mon­ey.” . . .

. . . For exam­ple, as long ago as 1978, Man­fred Roed­er, who head­ed the rem­nants of the Ger­man Nazi Par­tytrav­eled to Brazil, where he met with Josef Men­gele and oth­er Nazi lead­ers. Imme­di­ately after­ward, Roed­er trav­eled to the Unit­ed States, where–according to the ADL–he met with Dr. William Pierce, among oth­ers. . . .”

3d. “Bul­lets, Blood and Then Cry of ‘Heil Hitler’ ” by Steve Yac­ci­no and Dan Bar­ry; The New York Times; 4/14/2014.

. . . . In recent years, Mr. Miller has also been a devot­ed pen pal to incar­cer­at­ed white suprema­cists, among them Joseph Paul Franklin, a con­vict­ed mur­der­er who was exe­cut­ed in Mis­souri in Novem­ber. Ms. Beirich, of the law cen­ter, said that Mr. Miller was very close to Mr. Franklin, whose birth­day was Sun­day, the day of the shoot­ing. . . .

3e. “Fra­zier Glenn Miller”; South­ern Pover­ty Law Cen­ter

Date of Birth:
Spring­field, Mo.
Ku Klux Klan

Fra­zier Glenn Miller, also known as Fra­zier Glenn Cross, is the for­mer “grand drag­on” of the Car­olina Knights of the Ku Klux Klan, which he found­ed and ran in the 1980s before being sued by the South­ern Pover­ty Law Cen­ter for oper­at­ing an ille­gal para­mil­i­tary orga­ni­za­tion and using intim­i­da­tion tac­tics against African Amer­i­cans. After sub­se­quently form­ing anoth­er Klan group, the White Patri­ot Par­ty, he was found in crim­i­nal con­tempt and sen­tenced to six months in prison for vio­lat­ing the court set­tle­ment. He went under­ground while his con­vic­tion was under appeal but was caught by the FBI with a weapons cache in Mis­souri. He served three years in fed­eral prison after being indict­ed on weapons charges and for plot­ting rob­beries and the assas­si­na­tion of SPLC founder Mor­ris Dees. As part of a plea bar­gain, tes­ti­fied against oth­er Klan lead­ers in a 1988 sedi­tion tri­al. On April 13, 2014, Miller was arrest­ed in the shoot­ing deaths of three peo­ple at a Jew­ish com­mu­nity cen­ter and near­by retire­ment com­mu­nity in Over­land Park, Kansas.

Crim­i­nal His­tory:
In 1986, Miller was con­victed on a fed­eral con­tempt of court charge after vio­lat­ing the terms of a con­sent order that set­tled a law­suit filed against him and his Klan group by the South­ern Pover­ty Law Cen­ter. He was sen­tenced to a year in prison, with six months sus­pended. How­ever, he dis­ap­peared while out on bond await­ing an appeal and was lat­er caught in Mis­souri along with four oth­er Klans­men and a cache of weapons.

In 1987, he plead­ed guilty to a weapons charge and to mail­ing a threat through the mail. He had been indict­ed along with four oth­er white suprema­cists for con­spir­ing to acquire stolen mil­i­tary weapons, and for plan­ning rob­beries and the assas­si­na­tion of SPLC founder Mor­ris Dees. In an agree­ment with fed­eral pros­e­cu­tors, he received a five-year prison sen­tence in exchange for his tes­ti­mony against 14 white suprema­cist lead­ers in a sedi­tion tri­al. He served three years of that sen­tence.


Fra­zier Glenn Miller is the founder and for­mer leader of both the Car­olina Knights of the Ku Klux Klan and the White Patri­ot Par­ty, both of which were oper­ated as para­mil­i­tary orga­ni­za­tions in the 1980s.

Miller quit high school as a senior to join the U.S. Army. In 1979, he retired from the Army as a mas­ter sergeant after 20 years of active duty, includ­ing two tours in Viet­nam and 13 years as a mem­ber of the elite Green Berets.

Miller claims he read a racist news­pa­per for the first time in the ear­ly 1970s when his father gave him a copy of The Thun­der­bolt, pub­lished by Ed Fields of the racist, anti-Semit­ic Nation­al States’ Rights Par­ty. Accord­ing to Miller, with­in two min­utes of brows­ing through the tabloid, he knew he “had found a home with­in the Amer­i­can White Move­ment. I was ecsta­tic.” He joined the Nation­al States’ Rights Par­ty in 1973, but soon left because, he lat­er tes­ti­fied, it was “made up most­ly of elder­ly peo­ple who were not that active.”

He then joined the Nation­al Social­ist Par­ty of Amer­ica, a Nazi group whose mem­bers attacked and killed marchers asso­ci­ated with the Com­mu­nist Work­ers Par­ty in Greens­boro, N.C., in 1979. The fol­low­ing year, due to his involve­ment with the Nazi group, the Greens­boro shootout, and death threats against him and his fam­ily, his wife left him and moved with their chil­dren to Chica­go.

Miller was forced to retire from the Army due to his Klan-relat­ed activ­i­ties. He enrolled in John­ston Tech­ni­cal Col­lege in Smith­field, N.C., and also bought a 25-acre farm in Ang­ier, N.C., near Raleigh. It was there, in late 1980, that he formed the Car­olina Knights of the Ku Klux Klan and began to amass ille­gal weapons and con­duct mil­i­tary train­ing with the help of active-duty sol­diers. Miller want­ed to mod­el the Car­olina Knights on Hitler’s Nazi Par­ty. “I would try to emu­late Hitler’s meth­ods of attract­ing mem­bers and sup­port­ers,” he wrote in his auto­bi­og­ra­phy. “In the years to come, for exam­ple, I placed great empha­sis on stag­ing march­es and ral­lies. It had been suc­cess­ful with Hitler.”

Miller rep­re­sented a new, mil­i­tant breed of Klan lead­ers in the 1980s, pre­fer­ring fatigues over the tra­di­tional Klan robe and train­ing his troops in mil­i­tary tac­tics. He was not averse to pub­lic­ity and began hold­ing ral­lies and march­es on a near-week­ly basis up and down the Atlantic Seaboard. He announced his goal was to cre­ate a Car­olina Free State, which would be an “all-white nation with­in the bounds of North and South Car­olina.” He said his ene­mies were “nig­gers” and Jews. He boast­ed of hav­ing sup­port­ers at Fort Bragg, the near­by Army base that was home to a large con­tin­gent of U.S. spe­cial forces.

In 1983, after a black prison guard, Bob­by Per­son, filed a dis­crim­i­na­tion suit against the North Car­olina prison sys­tem, mem­bers of the Car­olina Knights began to intim­i­date the plain­tiff. They also harassed, threat­ened and intim­i­dated oth­er African Amer­i­cans in the area. The SPLC, led by Mor­ris Dees, sued Miller and his group in June 1984 – demand­ing they stop their cam­paign of intim­i­da­tion and cease all para­mil­i­tary activ­i­ty.

The SPLC lawyers did not know it at the time, but Miller had ties to The Order, a white nation­al­ist ter­ror­ist orga­ni­za­tion whose mem­bers assas­si­nated Den­ver talk show host Alan Berg just 13 days after the SPLC filed suit. The leader of the group, Robert Math­ews, had giv­en Miller $200,000 in cash that was part of the $3.8 mil­lion stolen dur­ing an armored car rob­bery. It was lat­er revealed that Dees was at the top of The Order’s hit list. Miller tes­ti­fied in the 1988 tri­al of oth­er white suprema­cists that Math­ews told him “they were think­ing about killing” Dees.

In Jan­u­ary 1985, the SPLC reached a con­sent agree­ment with Miller that pre­vented the Knights from oper­at­ing as a para­mil­i­tary group and from harass­ing, intim­i­dat­ing, threat­en­ing or harm­ing any black per­son or white per­son who asso­ci­ated with black per­sons. A month lat­er, how­ever, Miller announced the for­ma­tion of a new Klan group, the White Patri­ot Par­ty. His goal was the same: the “uni­fi­ca­tion of white peo­ple.” He vowed to oper­ate peace­fully – unless the fed­eral gov­ern­ment infringed on his rights, in which case he would resort to “under­ground rev­o­lu­tion­ary tac­tics … with the armed resources at our dis­pos­al.”

It took less than a year for Miller and the White Patri­ot Par­ty to vio­late the con­sent order. The SPLC obtained pho­to­graphic evi­dence of active-duty Marines help­ing train his mem­bers. In a July 1986 tri­al, in which Dees act­ed as a spe­cial pros­e­cu­tor to assist fed­eral pros­e­cu­tors, Miller was found guilty of crim­i­nal con­tempt. One wit­ness tes­ti­fied he had pro­cured weapons and explo­sives, includ­ing 13 armor-pen­e­trat­ing anti-tank rock­ets, from mil­i­tary per­son­nel on behalf of Miller, after the set­tle­ment. He also said he received a duf­fel bag full of cash as pay­ment to con­duct train­ing intend­ed to help “cre­ate a para­mil­i­tary guer­rilla unit for lat­er use in estab­lish­ing a White South­land.” Miller was sen­tenced to a year in prison, with six months of that term sus­pended. He was also ordered to dis­as­so­ci­ate him­self from the White Patri­ot Par­ty and avoid con­tact with white suprema­cists.

In Octo­ber of that year, while out on bond await­ing an appeal of his con­vic­tion, Miller wrote to North Carolina’s gov­er­nor, ask­ing for an appoint­ment to the Governor’s Task Force on Racial, Reli­gious and Eth­nic Vio­lence and Intim­i­da­tion. He said he would be will­ing to pub­licly dis­cour­age racial vio­lence and act as a liai­son to “the many White groups in North Car­oli­na.”

But, in 1987, while still out on bond, Miller dis­ap­peared and went under­ground. He mailed a “Dec­la­ra­tion of War” to sup­port­ers, exhort­ing “Aryan war­riors of The Order” to kill “our ene­mies,” and estab­lished a point sys­tem for each kill. The tar­gets were: “Nig­gers (1), White race trai­tors (10), Jews (10), Judges (50) Mor­ris Selig­man Dees (888).” He signed the state­ment “Glenn Miller, loy­al mem­ber of ‘The Order.’”

The FBI caught up with Miller and four oth­er Klans­men in Spring­field, Mo., where he was tear-gassed out of a mobile home. Author­i­ties found hand grenades, auto­matic weapons, thou­sands of rounds of ammu­ni­tion, the explo­sive C‑4, and $14,000 in cash. He and the oth­ers were indict­ed for con­spir­acy to acquire stolen mil­i­tary weapons, explo­sives and equip­ment, and for plan­ning rob­beries and the assas­si­na­tion of Dees. Miller plead­ed guilty to a weapons charge and to send­ing a threat through the mail. He served three years in fed­eral prison, most­ly in Otisville, N.Y. As part of his plea deal, he agreed to tes­tify against 14 lead­ing white suprema­cists in a sedi­tion tri­al.


Miller has ties to Kevin W. Harpham, a neo-Nazi who was con­victed of attempt­ing to bomb a Mar­tin Luther King Jr. Day parade in Spokane, Wash., in 2011. Although Harpham plead­ed guilty, Miller was con­vinced that Harpham’s lawyers deceit­fully con­vinced him that he would be found guilty regard­less of his inno­cence. Through­out his tri­al pro­ceed­ings, Miller was a reg­u­lar pen pal with Harpham, who was sen­tenced to 32 years in prison.

3f. “LISTEN: Alleged Kansas Gun­man Fra­zier Glenn Miller Dis­cuss­es the Tea Par­ty, Oba­ma, and Ron Paul” by Tim Mur­phy and Dana Liebel­son; Moth­er Jones; 4/14/2014.

In a 2010 radio inter­view, Fra­zier Glenn Miller, the man sus­pect­ed of killing three peo­ple Sun­day at a Jew­ish com­mu­ni­ty cen­ter and a Jew­ish retire­ment cen­ter in Kansas, said he was inter­est­ed in the tea par­ty, voiced sup­port for then-Iran­ian Pres­i­dent Mah­moud Ahmadine­jad, and spoke approv­ing­ly of Ron Paul, the Texas Repub­li­can con­gress­man and pres­i­den­tial can­di­date. In late April 2010, Miller, a for­mer Ku Klux Klan Grand Drag­on, was a guest on The David Pak­man Show, a nation­al­ly syn­di­cat­ed left-of-cen­ter radio and tele­vi­sion pro­gram. At the time, Miller was run­ning for US Sen­ate as an inde­pen­dent in his home state of Mis­souri with the slo­gan “It’s the Jews, Stu­pid,” and Pak­man pressed Miller on his extreme views. . . .

. . . . Not sur­pris­ing­ly, Miller den­i­grat­ed most Amer­i­can politi­cians, but cit­ed one pos­i­tive­ly: “If I had my way [all US sen­a­tors] would be in jail right now for trea­son, if not hung from a stur­dy oak tree…Ron Paul is the only inde­pen­dent politi­cian, rep­re­sen­ta­tive in Wash­ing­ton.” . . . .

4a. In numer­ous posts and pro­grams, we have dis­cussed anoth­er of the Nation­al Alliance books–Ser­pen­t’s Walk. In that text, the Third Reich and the SS go under­ground, grow their wealth, buy into the opin­ion-form­ing media, and–after the U.S. is dev­as­tat­ed by a series of ter­ror­ist attacks using WMD’s–they take over the coun­try.

In the con­text of Ser­pen­t’s Walk, we have dis­cussed the advance of Ber­tels­mann in the cor­po­rate media world.

The for­mer sup­pli­er of books for the SS is wield­ing larg­er influ­ence. Ber­tels­mann will dom­i­nate a new Ran­dom House/Penguin merged unit, which will con­trol 25% of the world’s pub­lish­ing busi­ness.

For­mer­ly head­ed by SS man Hein­rich Mohn, Ber­tels­mann shows every indi­ca­tion of main­tain­ing its Nazi char­ac­ter and obscur­ing them at the same time. Its offi­cial house his­to­ri­an pub­lished books blam­ing World War II on Franklin Delano Roo­sevelt, U.S. impe­ri­al­ism and Jew­ish con­trol of the U.S. news media.

With Ber­tels­mann con­tin­u­ing its efforts in the music busi­ness and oth­er Under­ground Reich media enti­ties like Al Jazeera gain­ing in the Amer­i­can media mar­ket, we expect the sce­nario pre­sent­ed in Ser­pen­t’s Walk will come to pass.

“Ran­dom House and Pen­guin Merg­er Cre­ates Glob­al Giant” by Eric Pfan­ner and Amy Choz­ick; The New York Times; 10/29/2012.

The book pub­lish­ing indus­try is start­ing to get small­er in order to get stronger.

The announce­ment on Mon­day that Ran­dom House and Pen­guin would merge nar­rows the busi­ness to a hand­ful of big pub­lish­ers, and could set off a long-expect­ed round of con­sol­i­da­tion as the indus­try adapts to the dig­i­tal mar­ket­place.

John Makin­son, the chief exec­u­tive of Pen­guin who will serve as chair­man of the new com­pa­ny, said that with con­sol­i­da­tion inevitable, “we decid­ed it was bet­ter to get in ear­ly rather than be a fol­low­er.”

In announc­ing the agree­ment, the Euro­pean own­ers of Ran­dom House and Pen­guin — Ber­tels­mann and Pear­son, respec­tive­ly — said Ber­tels­mann would con­trol 53 per­cent of the com­bined enti­ty and Pear­son 47 per­cent. In a state­ment, Ber­tels­mann said the deal would most like­ly con­clude in the sec­ond half of 2013, after approval from reg­u­la­tors.

The merg­er will cre­ate the largest con­sumer book pub­lish­er in the world, with a glob­al mar­ket share of more than 25 per­cent and a book list that includes con­tem­po­rary best-sell­ers like Ran­dom House’s “Fifty Shades of Grey” and Penguin’s back­list of clas­sics from authors like George Orwell. . . .

4c. “Bertelsmann’s Revi­sion­ist” by Her­sch Fis­chler and John Fried­man; The Nation; 11/8/99. 

. . . . Rewrit­ing his­tory, he [Ber­tels­mann house his­to­ri­an Dirk Baven­damm] stat­ed that Roo­sevelt, not Hitler had caused World War II. He also wrote that Amer­i­can Jews con­trolled most of the media,’ and he claimed they gave a false pic­ture of Hitler. Did the book impress [Heinrich’s son Rein­hard] Mohn, then the major­ity share­holder of Ber­tels­mann? The firm hired Baven­damm as its house his­to­rian, and in 1984 he com­pleted a his­tor­i­cal study, 150 Years of Ber­tels­mann: The Founders and Their Time—with a fore­word by Mohn.

A year lat­er, Baven­damm edit­ed the firm’s offi­cial his­tory, which set forth the untrue sto­ry that the firm had resist­ed the Nazis and had been closed down by them. Mohn also asked Baven­damm to write the autho­rized his­tory of the Mohn fam­ily, pub­lished in 1986 under the title Ber­tels­mann, Mohn, Scip­pel: Three Families—One Com­pany. In a sec­ond book, Roosevelt’s War (pub­lished in 1993, reis­sued in 1998), Baven­damm accus­es the U.S. Pres­i­dent of enact­ing a plan to start World War II. In the same book he sug­gests that Hitler’s threats in ear­ly 1939 against Euro­pean Jew­ry were a reac­tion to Roosevelt’s strat­egy against Ger­many.

After the rev­e­la­tions about Bertelsmann’s Nazi past appeared, the com­pany announced that it had asked ‘the his­to­rian and pub­li­cist Dr. Dirk Baven­damm to look at the new infor­ma­tion and begin to rein­ves­ti­gate the role the pub­lish­ing house played in those days’ and defend­ed his work. . .

4c. Ber­tels­mann is also forg­ing ahead in the music indus­try:

“Ber­tels­mann Acquires Full Con­trol of BMG Music Com­pa­ny” by Ben Sis­ario; The New York Times; 3/1/2013.

Ber­tels­mann, the 178-year-old Ger­man media giant that has been try­ing to remake itself for the dig­i­tal age, announced on Fri­day that it would take con­trol of BMG Rights Man­age­ment, the music com­pa­ny it restart­ed in 2008, in a deal that val­ues BMG at $1.4 bil­lion.

Ber­tels­mann said it would buy the 51 per­cent of BMG that it did not own from its part­ner in the ven­ture, Kohlberg Kravis Roberts. The com­pa­nies did not dis­close finan­cial terms, but a per­son with direct knowl­edge of the deal, who spoke on the con­di­tion of anonymi­ty, said the pur­chase price was $700 mil­lion to $800 mil­lion, includ­ing the assump­tion of debt.

The deal sig­nals a full return to the music busi­ness for Ber­tels­mann, whose oth­er media prop­er­ties include Ran­dom House and the mag­a­zine pub­lish­er Gruner & Jahr. After build­ing the first incar­na­tion of BMG, which stood for Ber­tels­mann Music Group, into a glob­al pow­er­house in the 1980s and ’90s, Ber­tels­mann sold most of its music hold­ings through a series of deals with Sony and Uni­ver­sal in the mid-2000s.

“We are bring­ing the music home to our group,” Thomas Rabe, Bertelsmann’s chair­man and chief exec­u­tive, said in a state­ment.

BMG was revived in 2008, and the next year, K.K.R. made the first of its $270 mil­lion of invest­ments in the com­pa­ny. BMG has made a string of acqui­si­tions in music pub­lish­ing, the side of the busi­ness that deals with copy­rights for song­writ­ing, and built a cat­a­log of more than one mil­lion songs by artists like John­ny Cash, Car­ly Simon and Frank Ocean and Will.i.am of the Black Eyed Peas. . . . .

5. David Jang, whose busi­ness enter­pris­es con­trol both Newsweek and The Inter­na­tion­al Busi­ness Times, has a back­ground in the Uni­fi­ca­tion Church, for­mer­ly head­ed by the Rev­erend Sun Myung Moon.

An intel­li­gent analy­sis of the appar­ent method­ol­o­gy of The Com­mu­ni­ty, the Chris­t­ian orga­ni­za­tion Jang now oper­ates, sug­gests the pos­si­bil­i­ty that that orga­ni­za­tion MIGHT actu­al­ly be a clan­des­tine Moonie front–it uses some tac­tics sim­i­lar to Uni­fi­ca­tion Church prac­tices. The evi­dence was NOT suf­fi­cient­ly strong to con­vince a Japan­ese court of that alle­ga­tion in a law­suit filed against The Com­mu­ni­ty.

In FTR #291, we exam­ined the Uni­fi­ca­tion Church as an exten­sion of the Japan­ese Patri­ot­ic Soci­eties, that brought fas­cism to Japan through a pro­gram of polit­i­cal assas­si­na­tion and pro­pa­gan­da.

“Who’s Behind Newsweek?” by Ben Doo­ley; Moth­er Jones; May/June 2014.

Two days after Barack Oba­ma won reelec­tion, I met a young Chi­nese woman, whom I will call Anne, in the base­ment café at the San Fran­cis­co Pub­lic Library. Anne worked part time and gave a large por­tion of her earn­ings to a group she called “the Com­mu­ni­ty,” a Chris­t­ian sect led by a charis­mat­ic Kore­an pas­tor named David Jang. After join­ing the group in her late teens, Anne had spent more than sev­en years work­ing in its ministries—organizations and busi­ness­es run by Jang’s dis­ci­ples. With short hair and large glass­es, Anne was now in her late 20s but looked younger. She said she rarely had enough mon­ey for small lux­u­ries like cof­fee. We chat­ted with a mutu­al friend while we wait­ed for her hus­band, Caleb, who also worked for a min­istry: the Inter­na­tion­al Busi­ness Times [2], the flag­ship pub­li­ca­tion of an epony­mous online news com­pa­ny that would, nine months lat­er, become the new own­er of Newsweek [3] mag­a­zine.

Caleb was run­ning late because he was trans­lat­ing Oba­ma’s vic­to­ry speech into Chi­nese for IBT, which pub­lish­es 11 edi­tions in sev­en lan­guages.. . .

. . . . [David] Jang also has a his­to­ry with Moon’s Uni­fi­ca­tion Church. In 2013, a Japan­ese court resolved an almost six-year-long libel case that Chris­t­ian Today, a Jang-found­ed web­site, filed against Mako­to Yamaya, a Sal­va­tion Army major. Yamaya had claimed the Com­mu­ni­ty was part of the Uni­fi­ca­tion Church and that Chris­t­ian Today had mind-con­trolled its employ­ees; the court found that these charges had no basis. But it also found that Jang joined a Uni­fi­ca­tion Church stu­dent group as a young man, even­tu­al­ly ris­ing to the rank of exec­u­tive direc­tor of anoth­er church-affil­i­at­ed stu­dent orga­ni­za­tion. He then went on to a church-run the­o­log­i­cal insti­tute, and helped man­age the tran­si­tion when it became Sun Moon Uni­ver­si­ty in 1993, sub­se­quent­ly leav­ing the church. Four for­mer mem­bers tell me that Jang often spoke of his time in Moon’s church, includ­ing his mar­riage by Moon in a 1975 mass wed­ding, an event also affirmed by the Japan­ese court. . . .

6. In past arti­cles, we have not­ed the close rela­tion­ship between the Al Jazeera net­work and the Mus­lim Broth­er­hood.  (The Broth­er­hood is an Islam­ic fas­cist orga­ni­za­tion allied with the Axis in World War II and nur­tured in the post­war peri­od by West­ern intel­li­gence ser­vices and Per­sian Gulf oil king­doms as anti-com­mu­nist and anti-Israeli proxy war­riors.)

Based in Qatar (which is uti­liz­ing I.G. Far­ben’s Fischer/Tropsch process), the net­work is grow­ing its pres­ence in the Unit­ed States.

In addi­tion to its pur­chase of Al Gore’s “Cur­rent TV” and result­ing entry into the U.S. cable TV mar­ket, Al Jazeera has been broad­cast­ing for some time on the Paci­fi­ca Radio net­work, which caters to the so-called pro­gres­sive com­mu­ni­ty.

(In past posts, we have not­ed that Al Jazeera/Muslim Broth­er­hood’s benight­ed pres­ence in Amer­i­can media, along with that of Ber­tels­mann, cor­re­sponds to a tee to the Ser­pen­t’s Walk sce­nario we have dis­cussed for many years.)
One place where Al Jazeer­a’s influ­ence is NOT wax­ing is Egypt.  (See text excerpts below.) In addi­tion to the fact that many of their jour­nal­ists have resigned in protest over the net­work’s bla­tant pro-Broth­er­hood bias, the Egypt­ian army has been arrest­ing some of its staff in the crack­down on Mor­si’s sup­port­ers.
In addi­tion, Al Jazeera cor­re­spon­dents have been barred from news con­fer­ences by fel­low jour­nal­ists, because of the net­work’s pro-Broth­er­hood stance.

In an update, we note that the Egypt­ian gov­ern­ment con­tin­ues to be at log­ger­heads with the net­work.

6a.  “Al-Jazeera Egypt Staff Resign Over Orders To “Favor” The Mus­lim Broth­er­hood” by gmb­watch; Glob­al Mus­lim Broth­er­hood Dai­ly Watch; 7/9/2013.

Gulf media is report­ing that 22 mem­bers of the Al-Jazeera Egypt­ian bureau have resigned in protest over what they say were instruc­tions from the man­age­ment to “favor the Mus­lim Broth­er­hood.” Accord­ing to a Gulf News report: The news chan­nel Al Jazeera Mubash­er Misr saw 22 mem­bers of staff resign on Mon­day in Egypt over what they alleged was cov­er­age that was out of sync with real events in Egypt.

Anchor Karem Mah­moud announced that the staff had resigned in protest against what he called ‘biased cov­er­age’ of the events in Egypt by the Qatari broad­cast­er.

Mah­moud said that the res­ig­na­tions had been brought about by a per­ceived lack of com­mit­ment and Al Jazeera pro­fes­sion­al­ism in media cov­er­age, adding that ‘the man­age­ment in Doha pro­vokes sedi­tion among the Egypt­ian peo­ple and has an agen­da against Egypt and oth­er Arab coun­tries.’

Mah­moud added that the man­age­ment used to instruct each staff mem­ber to favour the Mus­lim Broth­er­hood.

He said that ‘there are instruc­tions to us to tele­cast cer­tain news’.

Hag­gag Sala­ma, a cor­re­spon­dent of the net­work in Lux­or, had resigned on Sun­day accus­ing it of ‘air­ing lies and mis­lead­ing view­ers’.

He announced his res­ig­na­tion in a phone-in inter­view with Dream 2 chan­nel.

Mean­while, four Egypt­ian mem­bers of edi­to­r­i­al staff at Al Jazeera’s head­quar­ters in Doha resigned in protest against what they termed a ‘biased edi­to­r­i­al pol­i­cy’ per­tain­ing to the events in Egypt, Ala’a Al Aioti, a news pro­duc­er, told Gulf News by phone . . .

In 2009, Egypt­ian author­i­ties were report­ed to be in the process of revok­ing Al-Jazeera’s license to broad­cast and that the net­work was plan­ning to close its bureau office in Cairo.

Leaked US State Depart­ment cables indi­cate that Al-Jazeera, based in Qatar and fund­ed by the Qatari gov­ern­ment, oper­ates as an arm of Qatari for­eign pol­i­cy which has recent­ly been strong­ly sup­port­ive of the Mus­lim Broth­er­hood and the recent­ly deposed Mohamed Mor­si. . . .

6b.  Note that the gov­ern­ment of Qatar sub­si­dized the Mor­si regime. It is no sur­prise, there­fore, that Al-Jazeera, also sub­si­dized by the Qatari gov­ern­ment, man­i­fest­ed a strong pro-Broth­er­hood/pro/­Mor­si bias.

RECOMMENDED READING: “Why Does Al Jazeera Love A Hate­ful Islam­ic Extrem­ist?” by gmb­watch; Glob­al Mus­lim Broth­er­hood Dai­ly Watch; 7/11/2013.

Bloomberg colum­nist Jef­frey Gold­berg has pub­lished an arti­cle titled “Why Does Al Jazeera Love a Hate­ful Islam­ic Extrem­ist?” that sum­ma­rizes recent devel­op­ments adverse for Glob­al Mus­lim Broth­er­hood leader Youssef Qaradawi. The arti­cle begins:

So, it hasn’t been the best week for Al Jazeera, the tele­vi­sion net­work owned by Qatar’s despot­ic rul­ing fam­i­ly, for the same rea­son that it hasn’t been a great week for the despot­ic rul­ing fam­i­ly itself: the ouster of Egypt’s pres­i­dent, Mohamed Mur­si, the bump­kin fun­da­men­tal­ist.

Qatar pumped a lot of mon­ey into Mursi’s Mus­lim Broth­er­hood gov­ern­ment, and for what? The Qatari roy­al fam­i­ly should sue the Broth­er­hood for malfea­sance. So much hope was rid­ing on Mursi’s exper­i­ment in polit­i­cal Islam. Although Qatar spreads risk around a bit — it has pro­vid­ed mil­lions of dol­lars to Islamists in Syr­ia and to the Pales­tin­ian ter­ror­ist group Hamas (now there’s an invest­ment in the future) — Mur­si rep­re­sent­ed its main chance to advance the cause of Islam­ic fun­da­men­tal­ism.

And now, to add insult to finan­cial injury, Sau­di Ara­bia just promised post-Mur­si Egypt $5 bil­lion, and the Unit­ed Arab Emi­rates, anoth­er of Qatar’s main rivals, has kicked in $3 bil­lion.

As for Al Jazeera, which is sched­uled to intro­duce its Amer­i­can net­work next month in place of Al Gore’s hap­less Cur­rent TV, well, let’s put it this way: It will cer­tain­ly be more pop­u­lar among Amer­i­cans than it is among Egyp­tians. Which isn’t say­ing much.

Jour­nal­ists Protest

The mil­lions of Egyp­tians who rose up against Mursi’s rule also aired their feel­ings about Al Jazeera’s breath­less pro-Mus­lim Broth­er­hood cov­er­age. The harsh crit­i­cism direct­ed at the net­work prompt­ed Egypt­ian reporters to expel Al Jazeera reporters from a recent news con­fer­ence, and led sev­er­al jour­nal­ists to quit Al Jazeera’s Egypt oper­a­tion, appar­ent­ly to protest its obvi­ous bias.

One of the cor­re­spon­dents who quit, Hag­gag Sala­ma, accused his ex-boss­es of ‘air­ing lies and mis­lead­ing view­ers.’ The jour­nal­ist Abdel Latif el-Menawy is report­ed to have called Al Jazeera a ‘pro­pa­gan­da chan­nel’ for the Mus­lim Broth­er­hood. It’s pos­si­ble that some of the jour­nal­ists who quit did so as a mat­ter of self-preser­va­tion; the Egypt­ian mil­i­tary is behav­ing in pre­dictably heavy-hand­ed ways toward jour­nal­ists it doesn’t like. But it’s also entire­ly plau­si­ble that they quit because they couldn’t abide Qatari gov­ern­ment inter­fer­ence in their report­ing. . . .

6c.  “RECOMMENDED READING: Al Jazeera Faces Crit­i­cism In Egypt Over Its Cov­er­age Of Mus­lim Broth­er­hood”; Glob­al Mus­lim Broth­er­hood Watch; 1/8/2014.

The Wash­ing­ton Post has fea­tured a sto­ry titled “Al Jazeera Faces Crit­i­cism In Egypt Over Its Cov­er­age Of Mus­lim Broth­er­hood” which looks at crit­i­cism of Al Jazeera over its rela­tion­ship to the Mus­lim Broth­er­hood. The sto­ry begins:

“Ever since the military’s ouster of Egypt­ian pres­i­dent Mohamed Mor­si in July, Al Jazeera, the pio­neer­ing Arab-lan­guage news broad­cast­er, hasn’t shrunk from call­ing his removal some­thing the Amer­i­can gov­ern­ment won’t: a coup.

That high­ly loaded dec­la­ra­tion, as well as its relent­less and, crit­ics say, sym­pa­thet­ic cov­er­age of Mor­si and the Mus­lim Broth­er­hood move­ment, has turned Al Jazeera into a vir­tu­al ene­my of the state in Egypt. Its jour­nal­ists have been harassed and banned, and five remain in cus­tody, includ­ing three who were arrest­ed last week for alleged­ly harm­ing nation­al secu­ri­ty. Al Jazeera’s local TV stu­dios in Egypt, though not its transna­tion­al satel­lite trans­mis­sions, have been shut down, forc­ing its few remain­ing Egypt­ian jour­nal­ists to work from makeshift facil­i­ties, such as a Cairo hotel room. . . .

. . . . Since then, Egypt­ian author­i­ties and Al Jazeera’s crit­ics — includ­ing some of the network’s own employ­ees — have accused it of being a mouth­piece for Mor­si and the now-out­lawed Mus­lim Broth­er­hood.

Al Jazeera has giv­en a lot sup­port to the Mus­lim Broth­er­hood. There’s no doubt about that,’ said Hugh Miles, a free­lance jour­nal­ist in Cairo and the author of ‘Al-Jazeera: The Inside Sto­ry of the Arab News Chan­nel That Is Chal­leng­ing the West.’ . . .”

. . . . The GMBDW report­ed ear­li­er this week that Egypt had sum­moned the Qatari Ambas­sador to the Egypt­ian for­eign min­istry in order to object to Qatari crit­i­cism of the crack­down on the Broth­er­hood as well as to Qatari broad­cast­er Al-Jazeera’s cov­er­age of events.

The GMBDW report­ed in Sep­tem­ber 2013 on the ongo­ing con­flicts regard­ing Al-Jazeera’s cov­er­age of events in Egypt. In July 2012, the GMBDW had report­ed on the res­ig­na­tion of the 22 mem­bers of the Al-Jazeera Egypt­ian bureau in protest over what they say were instruc­tions from the man­age­ment to “favor the Mus­lim Broth­er­hood.” In 2009, Egypt­ian author­i­ties were report­ed to be in the process of revok­ing Al-Jazeera’s license to broad­cast and that the net­work was plan­ning to close its bureau office in Cairo.

Leaked US State Depart­ment cables indi­cate that Al-Jazeera, based in Qatar and fund­ed by the Qatari gov­ern­ment, oper­ates as an arm of Qatari for­eign pol­i­cy which has recent­ly been strong­ly sup­port­ive of the Mus­lim Broth­er­hood and the recent­ly deposed Mohamed Mor­si. Our pre­de­ces­sor pub­li­ca­tion exten­sive­ly cov­ered the role of Qatar as a sup­port­er of the Glob­al Mus­lim Broth­er­hood and was the first to report on the strong ties to the Glob­al Mus­lim Broth­er­hood and Hamas of Wadah Khan­far, the for­mer Direc­tor-Gen­er­al of Al-Jazeera who resigned in 2011 after serv­ing for eight years. . . . .

6d. After the coup in Egypt, Al Jazeera has been pay­ing for hotel rooms for exiled Egypt­ian Mus­lim Broth­er­hood mem­bers, who had fled to Qatar.

“Egyp­t’s Mus­lim Broth­er­hood Finds Havens Abroad” by Abi­gail Haus­lohn­er; The Wash­ing­ton Post; 11/5/2013.

. . . . Cast out by — or, per­haps, saved from— the harsh­est polit­i­cal crack­down in recent Egypt­ian his­to­ry, a hand­ful of Mus­lim Broth­er­hood and oth­er Islamist lead­ers found refuge here in the Qatari cap­i­tal, while oth­ers trav­eled to Istan­bul, Lon­don and Gene­va.

The exiles’ com­mu­ni­ty is small, dis­or­ga­nized and ide­o­log­i­cal­ly diverse, rang­ing from rel­a­tive­ly mod­er­ate Islamist politi­cians to hard-line Salafists — groups that less than two years ago com­pet­ed against each oth­er in Egypt’s par­lia­men­tary and pres­i­den­tial elec­tions.

Now, as they push back against the July coup that top­pled their country’s first demo­c­ra­t­i­cal­ly elect­ed pres­i­dent, Mohamed Mor­si, they are on the same team.

At the same time, an exile lead­er­ship is start­ing to take shape here among the shim­mer­ing high-ris­es of Doha. Sev­er­al of the exiles live tem­porar­i­ly in hotel suites paid for by Qatar’s state-run Ara­bic satel­lite net­work Al Jazeera — and it is in those suites and hotel lob­bies that the future of Egypt’s Mus­lim Broth­er­hood and, more broad­ly, the strat­e­gy and ide­ol­o­gy of polit­i­cal Islam in the coun­try may well be chart­ed. . . .

7a. In a series of com­ments on a blog, there was an exchange about BMW with­hold­ing ads when The Atlantic reviewed a book about the Holo­caust or WWII. BMW is owned by the Quandt firm, head­ed for years by Joseph Goebbels’ son-in-law.

7b. In addi­tion to detail­ing that fas­cism was­n’t some kind of freak occur­rence, we’ve not­ed the spawn­ing of the Bor­mann cap­i­tal net­work from the polit­i­cal and eco­nom­ic forces under­pin­ning Nazi Ger­many. Con­trol­ling the Ger­man core cor­po­ra­tions as well as pow­er­ful inter­ests around the world, the Bor­mann group is pre­em­i­nent on the world eco­nom­ic land­scape.

Not­ing that BMW is con­trolled by the heirs of Joseph Goebbels (whose stepchild inher­it­ed the Quandt indus­tri­al empire), the Bloomberg sto­ry notes that Mer­cedes-Benz also has sig­nif­i­cant cap­i­tal par­tic­i­pa­tion by the Quandts.

“Nazi Goebbels’ Step-Grand­chil­dren Are Hid­den Bil­lion­aires” by David de Jong; Bloomberg News; 1/28/2013.

In the spring of 1945, Har­ald Quandt, a 23-year-old offi­cer in the Ger­man Luft­waffe, was being held as a pris­on­er of war by Allied forces in the Libyan port city of Beng­hazi when he received a farewell let­ter from his moth­er, Mag­da Goebbels — the wife of Nazi pro­pa­gan­da min­is­ter Joseph Goebbels.

The hand-writ­ten note con­firmed the dev­as­tat­ing news he had heard weeks ear­li­er: His moth­er had com­mit­ted sui­cide with her hus­band on May 1, after slip­ping their six chil­dren cyanide cap­sules in Adolf Hitler’s under­ground bunker in Berlin. . . .

. . . Quandt was released from cap­tiv­i­ty in 1947. Sev­en years lat­er, he and his half-broth­er Her­bert — Har­ald was the only remain­ing child from Mag­da Goebbels’ first mar­riage — would inher­it the indus­tri­al empire built by their father, Guen­ther Quandt, which had pro­duced Mauser firearms and anti-air­craft mis­siles for the Third Reich’s war machine. Among their most valu­able assets at the time was a stake in car man­u­fac­tur­er Daim­ler AG. (DAI) They bought a part of Bay­erische Motoren Werke AG (BMW) a few years lat­er.

While the half-broth­ers passed away decades ago, their lega­cy has endured. Herbert’s wid­ow, Johan­na Quandt, 86, and their chil­dren Susanne Klat­ten and Ste­fan Quandt, have remained in the pub­lic eye as BMW’s dom­i­nant share­hold­ers. The bil­lion­aire daugh­ters of Har­ald Quandt — Kata­ri­na Geller-Herr, 61, Gabriele Quandt, 60, Anette-Ange­li­ka May-Thies, 58, and 50-year-old Colleen-Bet­ti­na Rosen­blat-Mo — have kept a low­er pro­file.

The four sis­ters inher­it­ed about 1.5 bil­lion deutsche marks ($760 mil­lion) after the death of their moth­er, Inge, in 1978, accord­ing to the family’s sanc­tioned biog­ra­phy, “Die Quandts.” They man­age their wealth through the Har­ald Quandt Hold­ing GmbH, a Bad Hom­burg, Ger­many-based fam­i­ly invest­ment com­pa­ny and trust named after their father. Fritz Beck­er, the chief exec­u­tive offi­cer of the fam­i­ly enti­ties, said the sib­lings real­ized aver­age annu­al returns above 7 per­cent from its found­ing in 1981 through 1996. Since then, the returns have aver­aged 7.6 per­cent.

“The fam­i­ly wants to stay pri­vate and that is an accept­able sit­u­a­tion for me,” said Beck­er in an inter­view at his Bad Hom­burg office. “We invest our mon­ey glob­al­ly and if it’s $1 bil­lion, $500 mil­lion or $3 bil­lion, who cares?” (Ital­ics added.) . . .

7c. In FTR #155, we pre­sent­ed Paul Man­ning’s research indi­cat­ing that the Bor­mann net­work fea­tures the heirs of key Third Reich offi­cials and mil­i­tary offi­cers, hier­ar­chi­cal­ly struc­tured along lines deriv­ing from the pow­er struc­ture of the Third Reich itself.

The Quandt sto­ry excerpt­ed below pro­vides sig­nif­i­cant depth to Man­ning’s reportage on the Bor­mann group and the Under­ground Reich.

We also not­ed (in AFA #3) that Quandt served as the cor­po­rate cov­er for Eich­mann deputy Alois Brun­ner’s post­war work for the Gehlen spy out­fit. (The August, 1944 doc­u­ment detail­ing the Third Reich’s plans to go under­ground pro­vid­ed for Ger­man heavy indus­try to give accused war crim­i­nals jobs to help them sur­vive.)

Mar­tin Bor­mann: Nazi in Exile by Paul Man­ning; pp. 26–27.

. . . . A small­er con­fer­ence in the after­noon was presided over by Dr. Bosse of the Ger­man Arma­ments Min­istry. It was attend­ed only by rep­re­sen­ta­tives of Hecko, Krupp, and Rochling. Dr. Bosse restat­ed Bormann’s belief that the war was all but lost, but that it would be con­tin­ued by Ger­many until cer­tain goals to insure the eco­nomic resur­gence of Ger­many after the war had been achieved. He added that Ger­man indus­tri­al­ists must be pre­pared to finance the con­tin­u­a­tion of the Nazi Par­ty, which would be forced to go under­ground, just as had the Maquis in France. (Ital­ics added.) . . .

. . . . From this day, Ger­man indus­trial firms of all rank were to begin plac­ing their funds—and, wher­ever pos­si­ble, key manpower—abroad, espe­cially in neu­tral coun­tries. Dr. Bosse advised that ‘two main banks can be used for the export of funds for firms who have made no pri­or arrange­ments; the Basler Han­dels­bank and Schweiz­erische Kred­i­tanstalt of Zurich.’ He also stat­ed, ‘There are a num­ber of agen­cies in Switzer­land which for a five per­cent com­mis­sion will buy prop­erty in Switzer­land for Ger­man firms, using Swiss cloaks.’

“Dr. Bosse closed the meet­ing, observ­ing that ‘after the defeat of Ger­many, the Nazi Par­ty rec­og­nizes that cer­tain of its best known lead­ers will be con­demned as war crim­i­nals. How­ever, in coop­er­a­tion with the indus­tri­al­ists, it is arrang­ing to place its less con­spic­u­ous but most impor­tant mem­bers with var­i­ous Ger­man fac­to­ries as tech­ni­cal experts or mem­bers of its research and design­ing offices. (Ital­ics added.)  . . .






6 comments for “FTR #793 Miscellaneous Articles and Updates”

  1. Dog­gart alleged­ly men­tioned to a con­fi­den­tial FBI source that he’d set a dead­line of April 15 to car­ry out the attack in accor­dance with the plans of a pri­vate mili­tia group he’d been work­ing with, accord­ing to infor­ma­tion in the plea agree­ment. Dog­gart said that on that date, the mili­tia, iden­ti­fied only as “OAF,” was “gonna start a civ­il war”:

    TPM Muck­rak­er
    Ex-Con­gres­sion­al Can­di­date Plot­ted To Get Mili­tia To Attack Mus­lim Group
    By Cather­ine Thomp­son
    Pub­lished May 18, 2015, 2:03 PM EDT

    For­mer Ten­nessee con­gres­sion­al can­di­date Robert Dog­gart did­n’t think it would take much to attack a Mus­lim com­mu­ni­ty in upstate New York: a small group of gun­men with assault rifles, some Molo­tov cock­tails or a demo­li­tions expert and, just in case, a machete.

    “If it gets down to the machete, we will cut them to shreds,” Dog­gart said on a call inter­cept­ed by the FBI, accord­ing to a crim­i­nal com­plaint.

    The recent­ly unsealed crim­i­nal com­plaint, dat­ed April 13, alleged that Dog­gart had threat­ened to burn down sev­er­al build­ings in a Mus­lim com­mu­ni­ty near Han­cock, New York, nick­named by its res­i­dents as “Islam­berg” — and even kill res­i­dents if it came down to that. He planned to enlist the help of mem­bers of a mili­tia called “OAF” to car­ry out the plot.

    Fed­er­al mar­shals arrest­ed Dog­gart on April 10. He ulti­mate­ly signed an agree­ment under which he would enter a guilty plea to a sin­gle charge of inter­state com­mu­ni­ca­tion of a threat and was released from cus­tody on $30,000 bond.

    Pri­or to his arrest, Dog­gart’s claim to fame was run­ning an unsuc­cess­ful cam­paign against ultra-con­ser­v­a­tive Rep. Scott Des­Jar­lais (R‑TN) as an inde­pen­dent in 2014.

    From March through April, Dog­gart alleged­ly dis­cussed his plans to burn down a mosque, a school and a cafe­te­ria in Islam­berg with oth­er indi­vid­u­als in Texas and South Car­oli­na both in per­son and by phone, accord­ing to the com­plaint. Court doc­u­ments showed Dog­gart dis­cussed employ­ing a vari­ety of weapons in the attack, includ­ing M‑4 mil­i­tary-style rifles, pis­tols, Molo­tov cock­tails, explo­sives and the afore­men­tioned machete.

    He also alleged­ly attempt­ed to recruit peo­ple to par­tic­i­pate in the attack through Face­book, refer­ring to Islam­berg as “Tar­get 3.”

    “The Oper­a­tion in mind requires but <20 expert gun­ners,” one post read, accord­ing to the com­plaint. “Tar­get 3 is vul­ner­a­ble from many approach­es, and must be utter­ly destroyed in order to get the atten­tion of the Amer­i­can Peo­ple. If you are vol­un­teer­ing, and can show for a face-to-face meet­ing of these patri­ots, then we would wel­come your skill set.”

    The com­plaint showed that Dog­gart’s com­mu­ni­ca­tions were often full of such fiery, soar­ing rhetoric.

    “Our small group will soon be faced with the fight of our lives,” Dog­gart wrote in anoth­er Face­book post. “We will offer those lives as col­lat­er­al to prove our com­mit­ment to our God. We shall be War­riors who will inflict hor­ri­ble num­bers of casu­al­ties upon the ene­mies of our Nation and World Peace.”

    The com­plaint also ref­er­enced an inter­cept­ed phone call in which Dog­gart told a woman: “When we meet with this state, the peo­ple that we will seek will know who we are. We will be cru­el to them. And we will burn down their build­ings.”

    Dog­gart alleged­ly men­tioned to a con­fi­den­tial FBI source that he’d set a dead­line of April 15 to car­ry out the attack in accor­dance with the plans of a pri­vate mili­tia group he’d been work­ing with, accord­ing to infor­ma­tion in the plea agree­ment. Dog­gart said that on that date, the mili­tia, iden­ti­fied only as “OAF,” was “gonna start a civ­il war.”


    Posted by Pterrafractyl | May 18, 2015, 2:39 pm
  2. Details are start­ing to emerge about the man that killed nine mem­bers of a prayer group at one of the old­est African Amer­i­can church­es in the US. Sur­prise! He’s basi­cal­ly a Nazi:

    The Dai­ly Beast
    Every­thing Known About Charleston Shoot­ing Sus­pect Dylann Roof
    The man accused of killing nine inside a black church wore pro-apartheid flags, held ‘strong con­ser­v­a­tive beliefs,’ and made a ‘lot of racist jokes.’

    Katie Zavad­s­ki
    06.18.15 11:19 AM ET

    Police said they have arrest­ed Dylann Storm Roof, the sus­pect­ed killer of nine peo­ple at an his­toric black church in Charleston. Roof, 21, is from Lex­ing­ton, South Car­oli­na, and was tak­en into cus­tody in Shel­by, North Car­oli­na. At a press con­fer­ence, Charleston Police Chief Greg Mullen said a citizen’s tip led police to Roof’s car. He would not com­ment on whether weapons were found in the vehi­cle, but said Roof was “coop­er­a­tive.”

    Mullen refused to com­ment on whether Roof admit­ted to the shoot­ing.

    Roof was pre­vi­ous­ly arrest­ed on April 26 on a tres­pass­ing charge and was await­ing mod­er­a­tion. He was also recent­ly arrest­ed for pos­ses­sion of a con­trolled sub­stance on March 3.

    A sparse Face­book page shows an image of Roof in a jack­et with the flags of apartheid-era South Africa and Rhode­sia (now Zim­bab­we).

    Anoth­er Face­book pho­to of Roof sit­ting on the roof of his car shows an orna­men­tal license plate with a Con­fed­er­ate flag on it. Charleston police say the South Car­oli­na license plate is LGF 330.

    Roof’s father gave him a .45-cal­iber pis­tol for his birth­day, accord­ing to uncle Charles Cowles. The uncle said he rec­og­nized Roof from the police pho­to and “described him as qui­et and soft-spo­ken,” accord­ing to Reuters.

    John Mullins, who went to high school with Roof, told The Dai­ly Beast that he remem­bers him as being “kind of wild.”

    “He used drugs heav­i­ly a lot,” Mullins said. “It obvi­ous­ly hard­er than mar­i­jua­na. He was like a pill pop­per, from what I under­stood. Like Xanax, and stuff like that.”

    White Knoll High School had a mix of black and white stu­dents. Mullins says they occa­sion­al­ly mixed, and the school had “a lot of preps, a lit­tle bit of gang mem­bers, and a lot of out­casts.” But Roof wasn’t one of the out­casts, Mullins said.

    Yet Roof did have a rep­u­ta­tion for spout­ing racist mes­sages.

    “I nev­er heard him say any­thing, but just he had that kind of South­ern pride, I guess some would say. Strong con­ser­v­a­tive beliefs,” he said. “He made a lot of racist jokes, but you don’t real­ly take them seri­ous­ly like that. You don’t real­ly think of it like that.”

    But now, “the things he said were kind of not jok­ing,” Mullins added.


    Many of Roof’s Face­book friends, includ­ing those from his high school, are black. The cousin of the church’s pas­tor who was killed quot­ed a sur­vivor who said Roof told the church: “I have to do it. You’re rap­ing our women and tak­ing over the coun­try. You have to go.”

    Note that Roof’s asser­tion that “I have to do it. You’re rap­ing our women and tak­ing over the coun­try. You have to go,” is basi­cal­ly the same argu­ment Fra­zier Glenn Miller made in court last week in defense of his shoot­ing of a Jew­ish Com­mu­ni­ty Cen­ter. So that gives us a lit­tle more insight into the kind of guy Roof grew up into.

    Part of what makes this inci­dent extra trag­ic is that, if there’s one ray of hope shin­ing in the US at this point for a bet­ter future, it’s that the younger gen­er­a­tions appear to be devel­op­ing an immu­ni­ty to the racism mind-virus that’s infect­ed so much of human­i­ty through­out his­to­ry. Obvi­ous­ly that’s not always the case, but a rejec­tion of racism ideas appears to be a real, last­ing trend. And why would­n’t it? Once racism stopped get­ting offi­cial­ly or unof­fi­cial­ly sanc­tioned by soci­ety, there’s no rea­son to assume kids grow­ing up in a high­ly mul­ti­eth­nic soci­ety are going to grow up into a bunch of racists. So, in a twist­ed way, the shoot­ing in Charleston is a sign of progress...so much progress that the big­ots are basi­cal­ly dri­ven to acts of homi­ci­dal sui­cide.

    At the same time, the very fact that so many peo­ple are reject­ing Amer­i­ca’s racist tra­di­tions is exact­ly the kind of thing that’s going to cause the remain­ing racists to freak out and go on shoot­ing sprees. So domes­tic ter­ror­ism of this nature could end up becom­ing more com­mon as the racist world­views that used to be preva­lent in the US fade into his­to­ry.

    That’s all why we prob­a­bly should­n’t be too sur­prised if shoot­ings like this actu­al­ly increase in fre­quen­cy in com­ing years. And that’s why it’s going to be impor­tant to keep in mind that Roof does­n’t just appear to be the type of per­son that many would char­ac­ter­ize as a twist­ed los­er. His whole world­view is los­ing a gen­er­a­tional bat­tle for hearts and minds, he must know it, and that’s obvi­ous­ly going to fill him with a deep sense of both anger and despair.

    So you have to won­der how much of Roof’s mur­der spree reflect­ed an anger at the African Amer­i­can com­mu­ni­ty specif­i­cal­ly vs how much it reflects a com­bi­na­tion of both anger at soci­ety at large for increas­ing­ly reject­ing the hate he inher­it­ed and despair from the knowl­edge that his desired Hateoc­ra­cy is unlike­ly to come to fruition any time soon. Anger is no doubt a very pow­er­ful moti­va­tor, but as any par­ent with an out of con­trol tod­dler can tell you, there’s noth­ing quite like anger and despair. It’s one of those traits many humans nev­er out­grow.

    Posted by Pterrafractyl | June 18, 2015, 1:06 pm
  3. @Pterrafractyl–

    Indeed. One of the things to remem­ber about this inci­dent is the fact that this type of behav­ior is PRECISELY the action advo­cat­ed by the books of the Nation­al Alliance.

    “Hunter” specif­i­cal­ly advo­cates that “lone wolf” oper­a­tives under­take to kill “racial ene­mies,” so-called race mix­ers, in par­tic­u­lar.

    The book is ded­i­cat­ed to Joseph Paul Franklin, with whom Fra­zier was friend­ly.

    What Glenn Green­wald did was to obtain legal deci­sions that will insu­late the crafters of this type of doc­u­ment against civ­il dam­ages.

    This is NOT a ques­tion of out­law­ing free speech. When the ACLU defend­ed the Amer­i­can Nazi Par­ty against an injunc­tion against march­ing in Skok­ie, Illi­nois (a Chica­go sub­urb with a con­sid­er­able Jew­ish pop­u­la­tion), it did so on the grounds of con­sti­tu­tion­al­ly pro­tect­ed free speech.

    Pre-Green­wald, advo­cat­ing vio­lence along the lines of what Nation­al Van­guard Books (the NA’s pub­lish­ing arm) does was still legal.

    How­ev­er, IF some­one was advo­cat­ing vio­lence against minori­ties, “racial ene­mies,” etc. and some­one can be demon­strat­ed to have act­ed on the basis of such exhor­ta­tions, the author of the exhor­ta­tion to vio­lence could be held respon­si­ble for the con­se­quences of their actions.

    The con­se­quences were con­sid­er­able legal dam­ages.

    This is good law. It does­n’t say you can’t say such things, how­ev­er if you do, and that caus­es harm or death to oth­ers, you ARE RESPONSIBLE.

    If some­one leaves a rake on their prop­er­ty with the teeth fac­ing upward and some­one steps on it and is injured, the prop­er­ty own­er bears civ­il lia­bil­i­ty for their actions.

    That is the legal prin­ci­ple under which the Nation­al Ali­iance, et al were being sued.

    Green­wald ran inter­fer­ence for them. That son-of-a-bitch bears par­tial respon­si­bil­i­ty for what hap­pened in Kansas (Fra­zier) and what hap­pened in South Car­oli­na.

    His (Green­wald’s) actions are tru­ly evil and he did it all for FREE!

    Again, I won­der if his part­ner at the time, an Aus­tri­an-born lawyer named Wern­er Achatz may have been more than just a romantic/sexual com­pan­ion?

    I won­der if he was some kind of han­dler or case offi­cer?

    This case goes direct­ly to the heart of what Cit­i­zen Green­wald did and places the evil of his actions in bas relief.

    BTW–have you found any­thing about the guy Boul­ware, who shot up the police sta­tion in Dal­las?

    I won­der if he was one of these “Sov­er­eign Cit­i­zen” types?

    Keep Up the Good Work!


    Posted by Dave Emory | June 18, 2015, 5:38 pm
  4. @Dave: Regard­ing James Boul­ware and the shoot­ing of the Dal­las police sta­tion, based on reports there aren’t any clear indi­ca­tions that the guy was a white suprema­cists. He appears to have been quite inter­est­ed in the typ­i­cal gener­ic anti-gov­ern­ment con­spir­a­cy the­o­ries that you find held amongst many white suprema­cist cir­cles but noth­ing that plen­ty of non-racists might also sub­scribe to. And he appears to have voiced a rather low opin­ion of reli­gions, call­ing out both Jews and Chris­tians to his fam­i­ly, but there’s no indi­ca­tion of whether that was part of a gener­ic rejec­tion of reli­gion or some sort of spe­cif­ic sec­tar­i­an hatred. The gen­er­al view that emerges of the guy is that he was was a men­tal­ly unhinged indi­vid­ual with a his­to­ry of vio­lence, includ­ing a 2013 threat to kill his fam­i­ly mem­bers and shoot up church­es and schools that was also slurp­ing up plen­ty of anti-gov­ern­ment rhetoric from some­where.

    So if more info comes out indi­cat­ing the guy was a neo-Nazi it won’t be par­tic­u­lar­ly sur­pris­ing giv­en his men­tal state, but at this point he most­ly appears to be just a vio­lence-prone unsta­ble indi­vid­ual that was more of a tick­ing time-bomb out for revenge against the police for the loss of cus­tody of his son than a wannabe rev­o­lu­tion­ary like Dylann Roof. He seems more like a mix between Jared Lough­n­er and Joseph Stack.

    It’s also going to be very inter­est­ing to see just how “lead­er­less” Roof’s ambi­tions were giv­en the new infor­ma­tion trick­ling out about the guy. For instance, accord­ing to his room­mate, Roof was hop­ing his attack would start a civ­il war and he’s been plan­ning it for the last 6 months:

    ABC News
    Charleston Shoot­ing: A Clos­er Look at Alleged Gun­man Dylann Roof
    Jun 18, 2015, 3:41 PM ET
    By EMILY SHAPIRO via Good Morn­ing Amer­i­ca

    Dylann Roof, the alleged gun­man author­i­ties say is respon­si­ble for killing nine peo­ple in a pre­dom­i­nant­ly black Charleston, South Car­oli­na, church Wednes­day night, had been “plan­ning some­thing like that for six months,” accord­ing to his room­mate.

    Dal­ton Tyler, who said he has known Roof for sev­en months to one year, said he saw the white, 21-year-old sus­pect just last week.

    “He was big into seg­re­ga­tion and oth­er stuff,” Tyler said. “He said he want­ed to start a civ­il war. He said he was going to do some­thing like that and then kill him­self.”

    Tyler said he met Roof, a Lex­ing­ton, South Car­oli­na native, through a good friend. He also said Roof’s par­ents, with whom he said the sus­pect was “on and off,” had pre­vi­ous­ly bought him a gun but nev­er allowed him to take it with him until this past week.


    So whether or not Roof was plan­ning his ter­ror attack entire­ly on his own or with assis­tance, he def­i­nite­ly was­n’t the only one to know about it. And he cer­tain­ly was­n’t hid­ing his white suprema­cist views. As anoth­er friend made clear in a recent inter­view, when Roof recent­ly con­tact­ed him after five years they used to hang out in high school all he want­ed to talk about was the need for some­one to “do some­thing” about black peo­ple “tak­ing over the world”:

    Friend says church shoot­ing sus­pect rant­ed about race

    Jun. 19, 2015 12:02 AM EDT

    LEXINGTON, S.C. (AP) — In recent weeks, Dylann Storm Roof recon­nect­ed with a child­hood bud­dy he had­n’t seen in five years and start­ed rail­ing about the Trayvon Mar­tin case, about black peo­ple “tak­ing over the world” and about the need for some­one to do some­thing about it for the sake of “the white race,” the friend said Thurs­day.

    On Thurs­day, Roof, 21, was arrest­ed in the shoot­ing deaths of nine peo­ple dur­ing a prayer meet­ing at a his­toric black church in Charleston — an attack decried by stunned com­mu­ni­ty lead­ers and politi­cians as a hate crime.

    In the hours after the Wednes­day night blood­bath, a por­trait began to take shape of Roof as some­one with racist views and at least two recent run-ins with the law. On his Face­book page, the young white man wore a jack­et with the flags of the for­mer white-racist regimes of South Africa and Rhode­sia.

    In an inter­view with The Asso­ci­at­ed Press, Joseph Meek Jr. said he and Roof had been best friends in mid­dle school but lost touch when Roof moved away about five years ago. The two recon­nect­ed a few weeks ago after Roof reached out to Meek on Face­book, Meek said.

    Roof nev­er talked about race years ago when they were friends, but recent­ly made remarks out of the blue about the killing of unarmed black 17-year-old Trayvon Mar­tin in Flori­da and the riots in Bal­ti­more over the death of Fred­die Gray in police cus­tody, Meek said.

    “He said blacks were tak­ing over the world. Some­one need­ed to do some­thing about it for the white race,” Meek said, adding that the friends were get­ting drunk on vod­ka. “He said he want­ed seg­re­ga­tion between whites and blacks. I said, ‘That’s not the way it should be.’ But he kept talk­ing about it.”.

    Meeks said Roof also told him that he had used birth­day mon­ey from his par­ents to buy a gun and that he had “a plan.” He did­n’t elab­o­rate on what it was, but Meeks said he was wor­ried — and said he knew Roof had the “Glock” — a .45 cal­iber pis­tol — in the trunk of his car.

    Meek said he took the gun from the trunk of Roof’s car and hid it in his house, just in case.

    “I did­n’t think he would do any­thing,” he said.

    But the next day, when Roof was sober, he gave it back.

    Meek said that when he woke up Wednes­day morn­ing, Roof was at his house, sleep­ing in his car out­side. Lat­er that day, Roof dropped Meek off at a lake with his broth­er Jacob, but Roof hat­ed the out­doors and decid­ed he would rather go see a movie.

    Jacob said that when he got in the car, Roof told him he should be care­ful mov­ing his back­pack in the car because of the “mag­a­zines.”

    Jacob said he thought Roof was refer­ring to peri­od­i­cals, not the devices that store ammu­ni­tion.

    “Now it all makes sense,” he said.

    Joseph Meek said he did­n’t see his friend again until a sur­veil­lance-cam­era image of a young man with a soup-bowl hair­cut was broad­cast on tele­vi­sion Thurs­day morn­ing in the wake of the shoot­ing. Meek said he did­n’t think twice about call­ing author­i­ties.

    “I did­n’t THINK it was him. I KNEW it was him,” he said.

    The South­ern Pover­ty Law Cen­ter, a civ­il rights group that tracks hate orga­ni­za­tions and extrem­ists, said it was not aware of Roof before the ram­page. And some oth­er friends inter­viewed said they did not know him to be racist.

    “I nev­er thought he’d do some­thing like this,” said high school friend Anto­nio Met­ze, 19, who is black. “He had black friends.”

    Roof used to skate­board while grow­ing up in the Lex­ing­ton area and had long hair back then. He attend­ed high school in Lex­ing­ton and in near­by Colum­bia from 2008 to 2010, school offi­cials said. It was not imme­di­ate­ly clear whether he grad­u­at­ed.

    “He was pret­ty smart,” Met­ze said.

    Meek’s moth­er, Kim­ber­ly Konzny, said she and her son instant­ly rec­og­nized Roof in the sur­veil­lance cam­era image because Roof had the same stained sweat­shirt he wore while play­ing Xbox video games in their home recent­ly. It was stained because he had worked at a land­scap­ing and pest con­trol busi­ness, she said.

    “I don’t know what was going through his head,” she said. “He was a real­ly sweet kid. He was qui­et. He only had a few friends.”


    Roof dis­played a Con­fed­er­ate flag on his license plate, accord­ing to Konzny, but that is not unusu­al in the South.

    His Face­book pro­file pic­ture showed him wear­ing a jack­et with a green-and-white flag patch, the emblem of white-ruled Rhode­sia, the African coun­try that became Zim­bab­we in 1980. Anoth­er patch showed the South African flag from the era of white minor­i­ty rule that end­ed in the 1990s.

    In Mont­gomery, Alaba­ma, the pres­i­dent of the South­ern Pover­ty Law Cen­ter, Richard Cohen, said it is unclear whether Roof had any con­nec­tion to any of the 16 white suprema­cist orga­ni­za­tions the SPLC has iden­ti­fied as oper­at­ing in South Car­oli­na.

    But Cohen said that based on Roof’s Face­book page, he appeared to be a “dis­af­fect­ed white suprema­cist.”

    In a state­ment, Cohen said the church attack is a reminder that while the post-Sept. 11 U.S. is focused on jiha­di ter­ror­ism, the threat of home­grown extrem­ism is “very real.” Since 2000, the SPLC has seen an increase in the num­ber of hate groups in the U.S., Cohen said.

    “The increase has been dri­ven by a back­lash to the coun­try’s increas­ing racial diver­si­ty, an increase sym­bol­ized for many by the pres­ence of an African Amer­i­can in the White House,” hed said.

    So Roof’s Face­book page made him look like a “dis­af­fect­ed white suprema­cist” and one of the first things he talks about with an old friend from five years ago is about the need to do some­thing about black peo­ple. If he was try­ing to not get caught he was­n’t very good at it! And yet, based on his high school friends’ state­ments, Roof was­n’t like this at all in high school, although we can’t for­get the claims from anoth­er high school stu­dent that Roof was known for spout­ing racist jokes.

    On top of all that, “He appar­ent­ly told peo­ple that he was involved in groups, racist groups,”:

    The Wall Street Jour­nal
    Charleston Shoot­ing Sus­pect Dylann Roof Became a Lon­er in Recent Years
    Rel­a­tive says he told peo­ple he was involved in racist groups; ‘he just fell off the grid some­how’

    By Jen­nifer Levitz and Jon Kamp

    Updat­ed June 18, 2015 7:02 p.m. ET

    About a month ago, Dylann Roof’s fam­i­ly was con­cerned. The once-qui­et, bright boy from a mid­dle-class South Car­oli­na fam­i­ly was espous­ing trou­bling racist views.

    “He appar­ent­ly told peo­ple that he was involved in groups, racist groups,” .said a woman who said she was the moth­er of Mr. Roof’s for­mer step­moth­er.. “He was kind and sweet and polite to my daugh­ter. He didn’t even want her to know what kind of things he was doing. She told him she didn’t approve.”

    Mr. Roof, 21 years old, was the son of a con­trac­tor, did well in school in ear­ly years and loved ani­mals, his rel­a­tive said. But he stopped going to high school and was adrift, she said.

    “He turned into a lon­er in the last cou­ple of years and no one knew why,” she said. “He just fell off the grid some­how,” she said. The woman was reached at the home of Mr. Roof’s for­mer step­moth­er, who couldn’t be reached to com­ment.

    Mr. Roof repeat­ed ninth grade at White Knoll High School in Lex­ing­ton, S.C., and left in 10th grade in Feb­ru­ary 2010, a spokes­woman for Lex­ing­ton Coun­ty School Dis­trict One said. A month lat­er, Mr. Roof enrolled as a ninth-grade stu­dent at Dreher High School in Colum­bia, S.C., accord­ing to Rich­land Coun­ty School Dis­trict One. He attend­ed through May of 2010 but didn’t return, a dis­trict offi­cial said.

    Police said Mr. Roof fatal­ly shot nine peo­ple who had gath­ered Wednes­day evening at a his­toric black Charleston church for a prayer meet­ing. They called the shoot­ing a hate crime and said Mr. Roof had shout­ed antiblack sen­ti­ments at his vic­tims.

    He was arrest­ed Thurs­day in Shel­by, N.C. Mr. Roof’s last known address was in Eas­t­over, S.C., a rur­al com­mu­ni­ty about 15 miles south­east of Colum­bia, the state cap­i­tal. The prop­er­ty has two homes, and peo­ple at both homes declined to com­ment.

    Mr. Roof lived off and on with his father, Ben Roof, in Colum­bia, a fam­i­ly friend said. He described the father as a hard-work­ing, friend­ly, church­go­ing man who had recent­ly expressed con­cerns about his son’s lack of direc­tion, the friend said. He was try­ing to get his son to be pro­duc­tive, to stop play­ing as many video games and stay employed, said the friend.

    The friend described the sus­pect as a lanky young man who looked younger than his age, and a lon­er who rarely smiled. “You could see that he was trou­bled,” he said.

    The elder Mr. Roof has a racial­ly diverse set of friends, and wouldn’t have taught his son racial intol­er­ance, the friend said. “There are African-Amer­i­cans over at that home all the time,” he said.


    A pho­to of Mr. Roof on what appears to be his Face­book page shows him wear­ing patch­es rep­re­sent­ing South Africa’s apartheid-era gov­ern­ment and the for­mer white-ruled coun­try Rhode­sia.

    Todd Blod­gett, the for­mer co-own­er of a now-defunct record label that pro­duced hate music, said the patch­es were often sold at white-suprema­cist ral­lies.

    “They were sold at Nation­al Alliance, Aryan Nation, and Ku Klux Klan events,” he said.

    In both police reports, Mr. Roof gave his mid­dle name as Storm, which is pop­u­lar among white suprema­cists and could derive from stormfront.org, a web­site fre­quent­ed by so-called white racial­ists, accord­ing to Mr. Blod­gett, who said he co-owned the record label for oppor­tunist rea­sons and nev­er per­son­al­ly har­bored racist views.


    So Roof was, in his own words, involved with hate groups and those patch­es on his jack­et were the kind of things sold at white pow­er events.

    That’s part of why it’s going to be very inter­est­ing to learn about the extent of Roof’s influ­ences were and the far-right con­tacts he had in the lead up to this attack. Giv­en Roof’s open, enthu­si­as­tic embrace of the white suprema­cy move­ment, and giv­en the steady drip of use­ful idiots will­ing to kill oth­ers and them­selves for any sort of Ser­pen­t’s Walk-style of “Lead­er­less Resis­tance” move­ment to suc­ceed, you have to won­der if he was active­ly recruit­ed for this. After all, the whole point strat­e­gy appears to revolve around the sim­ple tac­tic of:
    1. Have one per­son after anoth­er com­mit a hor­ri­ble act in the name of white suprema­cy or what­ev­er.

    2. When the gov­ern­ment inevitably responds to this trend with increased gun con­trol laws or what­ev­er, make as much noise as pos­si­ble about gov­ern­ment oppres­sion and the need to start a race war.

    3. Rinse and repeat until the desired civ­il war gets under­way.

    And as long as you have a steady flow of use­ful idiots that do thus on their own, like the man that tried to start a rev­o­lu­tion by shoot­ing up the Tides foun­da­tion and ACLU after lis­ten­ing to too much Michael Sav­age, the strat­e­gy can con­tin­ue. But any lull in the attacks weak­ens the strat­e­gy since the tem­po of ter­ror is a key com­po­nent of get­ting the desired response.

    So while it could eas­i­ly be the case that Roof was just drawn to this kind of act on his own, it’s worth keep­ing in mind that, giv­en the shock­ing­ly high rate of mass mur­der sprees over the last 6 years, main­tain­ing that high rate of domes­tic ter­ror could actu­al­ly become an increas­ing­ly impor­tant fac­tor for the neo-Nazi under­ground. As Gary Brech­er point­ed out last year, when ISIS gets a use­less recruit, they turn him into a use­ful idiot sui­cide bomber, and Roof sure did­n’t seem like a charis­mat­ic ris­ing-star in the white pow­er move­ment. So you have to won­der if he made him­self “use­ful” on his own, or had some more active, direct help.

    Posted by Pterrafractyl | June 18, 2015, 9:49 pm
  5. So Dylann Roof left a man­i­festo. It’s pret­ty much a stan­dard white nation­al­ist rant about why var­i­ous races suck (except he seems like like East Asians) and why slav­ery was­n’t so bad and a race war is long over­due. It’s like a blend of the kind of open­ly hard­core white suprema­cist stuff you might find on stormfront.com, but blend­ed with the kind of lan­guage found in more “respectable” white nation­al­ist pub­li­ca­tions like vdare.com or Amer­i­can Renais­sance. There’s also an expla­na­tion for how Roof came to his white suprema­cist “awak­en­ing”: it sounds like he start­ed binge-read­ing the web­sites of groups like the Coun­cil for Con­ser­v­a­tive Cit­i­zens in the wake of the Trayvon Mar­tin shoot­ing, and it was all down­hill from there:

    The Wash­ing­ton Post
    Charleston shoot­ing sus­pect left racist man­i­festo on Web site, author­i­ties say

    By Lenny Bern­stein, Sari Hor­witz and Peter Hol­ley

    June 20 at 3:50 PM

    Author­i­ties said Sat­ur­day that the man accused of killing nine African Amer­i­cans in a ven­er­a­ble Charleston, S.C., church left a racist man­i­festo tar­get­ing blacks, Jews and His­pan­ics on his Web site, a white suprema­cist broad­side that also appears to offer a ratio­nale for the shoot­ings.

    The lengthy dec­la­ra­tion, loaded with offen­sive racial char­ac­ter­i­za­tions of blacks and oth­ers, includes the con­clu­sion that “some­one has to have the brav­ery to take it to the real world, and I guess that has to be me.”

    “I have no choice,” states part of that final sec­tion, titled “An Expla­na­tion.” “I am not in the posi­tion to, alone, go into the ghet­to and fight. I chose Charleston because it is [the] most his­toric city in my state, and at one time had the high­est ratio of blacks to Whites in the coun­try.”

    Law enforce­ment offi­cials said that the site belonged to Dylann Roof, the 21-year-old accused of gun­ning down nine peo­ple at a Bible study in Charleston’s his­toric Emanuel African Methodist Epis­co­pal Church on Wednes­day night, and that it reflect­ed his views. The site also includ­ed 60 pho­tos, most of which showed Roof.

    The Web site domain was reg­is­tered on Feb. 9 to Roof, accord­ing to a law enforce­ment offi­cial. Anoth­er offi­cial said the mate­r­i­al on it was last mod­i­fied late Wednes­day after­noon, just hours before Roof alleged­ly attacked the Bible study group at the church. In its penul­ti­mate para­graph, the man­i­festo states: “Unfor­tu­nate­ly at the time of writ­ing I am in a great hur­ry and some of my best thoughts, actu­al­ly many of them, have been ... left out and lost for­ev­er.” The last line apol­o­gizes for typos.

    As the inves­ti­ga­tion con­tin­ued, a church dea­con said that Emanuel would be open

    Roof was arrest­ed Thurs­day about 250 miles north of Charleston, in Shel­by, N.C., and is being held on $1 mil­lion bond. He has been charged with nine counts of mur­der and one count of pos­sess­ing a firearm while com­mit­ting a vio­lent crime. He is in soli­tary con­fine­ment in the Charleston Coun­ty jail and, accord­ing to coun­ty police, is on a sui­cide watch.

    The man­i­festo unearthed Sat­ur­day states that “the event that tru­ly awak­ened me was the Trayvon Mar­tin case,” which, a friend of Roof’s said Sat­ur­day, is a theme Roof has spo­ken of before. Mar­tin, an unarmed African Amer­i­can high school stu­dent, was fatal­ly shot in 2012 by George Zim­mer­man in a racial­ly charged case in Flori­da. Zim­mer­man, who said he act­ed in self-defense, was found not guilty of sec­ond-degree mur­der.

    But the vast major­i­ty of the rant, which dis­plays some unusu­al­ly sophis­ti­cat­ed lan­guage if all of it was writ­ten by Roof, a ninth-grade dropout, reveals a deep hatred of minori­ties — par­tic­u­lar­ly blacks — and a strong belief in racist stereo­types.

    “Negroes have low­er Iqs, low­er impulse con­trol, and high­er testos­terone lev­els in gen­er­als,” the man­i­festo declares. “These three things alone are a recipe for vio­lent behav­ior.”

    It observes that “if we could some­how destroy the jew­ish iden­ti­ty, then they wouldn’t cause much of a prob­lem” and that there are “good his­pan­ics and bad his­pan­ics,” many of whom, it says, “are White.”

    “But they are still our ene­mies,” the sec­tion on His­pan­ics con­cludes.

    The man­i­festo also con­demns whites who have moved to the sub­urbs in search of bet­ter schools and neigh­bor­hoods, which, it declares “is just a way to escape [blacks] and oth­er minori­ties.” That pas­sage used an epi­thet for African Amer­i­cans.

    “I hate with a pas­sion the whole idea of the sub­urbs. To me it rep­re­sents noth­ing but scared White peo­ple run­ning. Run­ning because they are too weak, scared and brain­washed to fight,” the man­i­festo states. It also spurns patri­o­tism as “peo­ple pre­tend­ing like they have some­thing to be proud while White peo­ple are being mur­dered dai­ly in the streets.”

    One pas­sage acknowl­edges “great respect for the East Asian races,” who “are by nature very racist” and could be “great allies” of whites.

    Author­i­ties and peo­ple who have spo­ken to sur­vivors of the mas­sacre have said that Roof spent an hour with the Bible study group in the land­mark Charleston church before method­i­cal­ly exe­cut­ing nine of its mem­bers with a hand­gun. He stopped to reload five times and spared one woman so she could tell the sto­ry of what he had done, accord­ing to some. Two peo­ple, a woman and a 5‑year-old girl, escaped.

    “I have to do it,” the shoot­er told his vic­tims, accord­ing to Sylvia John­son, cousin of a pas­tor who died in the attack, who spoke to a sur­vivor. “You rape our women, and you’re tak­ing over our coun­try. And you have to go.”

    Accord­ing to a state law­mak­er who had been briefed by police, Roof told author­i­ties that he “almost didn’t go through with it because they were so nice to him.”


    Roof lived on and off with sev­er­al friends in a trail­er in Red Bank, S.C., before the shoot­ing. Court records indi­cate that he had a frac­tured fam­i­ly life and that his father divorced twice. Detailed records of the sec­ond divorce case, obtained by Britain’s Dai­ly Mail, showed a volatile and abu­sive rela­tion­ship between Roof’s father, Franklin Roof, and his step­moth­er, Paige Mann. Their divorce was final­ized about the time that Roof dropped out of high school.

    Franklin Roof answered the door to his home Sat­ur­day and told a reporter to leave. Mann could not be reached for com­ment. A close rel­a­tive of Mann’s, who declined to give his name because of safe­ty con­cerns, said the fam­i­ly sit­u­a­tion was a “mess.”

    “But did any­body see this com­ing?” he said. “Doubt­ful.”

    The 60 pho­tos on the Web site are most­ly por­traits of Roof, many of which appear to have been tak­en at South Car­oli­na his­toric sites. There are pho­tos of Roof — clad in cam­ou­flage pants and com­bat boots — pos­ing among the grave­stones in a Con­fed­er­ate ceme­tery, crouch­ing amid the hang­ing moss of a plan­ta­tion and stand­ing in front of for­mer slave quar­ters.

    There also are more provoca­tive images, such as Roof wear­ing all black and stand­ing on an African bur­ial site; burn­ing an Amer­i­can flag; hold­ing a Con­fed­er­ate flag; and pos­ing shirt­less in a bed­room with a hand­gun point­ed at the cam­era.

    In one pho­to, Roof is shown stand­ing in front of a Con­fed­er­ate his­to­ry muse­um in Greenville, S.C. Tele­phone calls and an e‑mail to the muse­um direc­tor were not returned.

    In anoth­er pho­to, Roof scowls at the cam­era on a beach, where he’s writ­ten “1488” in the sand. The num­bers, accord­ing to the Anti-Defama­tion League, are a com­bi­na­tion of two white suprema­cist numer­ic sym­bols. The num­ber 14 is short­hand for the “14 Words” slo­gan: “We must secure the exis­tence of our peo­ple and a future for white chil­dren.”

    The num­ber 88 stands for “Heil Hitler,” accord­ing to the ADL, because H is the eighth let­ter of the alpha­bet.

    “Togeth­er, the num­bers form a gen­er­al endorse­ment of white suprema­cy and its beliefs,” accord­ing to a state­ment on the ADL’s Web site. “As such, they are ubiq­ui­tous with­in the white suprema­cist move­ment — as graf­fi­ti, in graph­ics and tat­toos, even in screen names and e‑mail address­es.”

    Pat Hines, the South Car­oli­na state chair­man of the League of the South, an orga­ni­za­tion that wants South­ern states to secede from the Unit­ed States, said Roof did not appear to belong to any white suprema­cist groups and could have been indoc­tri­nat­ed on the Inter­net.

    “I think [his view] was prob­a­bly heav­i­ly influ­enced by what he read online,” Hines said. “He’s not in any of our rolls or direc­to­ries, nor are his par­ents.”

    The League of the South, which calls for a white-led soci­ety, is one of the 19 orga­ni­za­tions in South Car­oli­na clas­si­fied as a hate group.

    “I can­not ever see the League of the South encour­ag­ing any­body to do any­thing so bizarre,” Hines said. “It only accom­plish­es the heartache of these fam­i­lies. It doesn’t advance the stand­ing of the South­ern peo­ple. We’re sor­ry it hap­pened in South Car­oli­na.”

    Among neo-Con­fed­er­ate and white nation­al­ist groups, Zimmerman’s shoot­ing of Mar­tin was a major event. In its after­math, a Web site oper­at­ed by the Coun­cil of Con­ser­v­a­tive Cit­i­zens, anoth­er alleged hate group, received more than 170,000 page views in a sin­gle day.

    The man­i­festo says the group’s Web site was the first one encoun­tered in a Google search for “black on White crime.”

    “I was in dis­be­lief,” it states. “At this moment I real­ized that some­thing was very wrong. How could the news be blow­ing up the Trayvon Mar­tin case while hun­dreds of these black on White mur­ders got ignored?”

    On Sat­ur­day, the CCC’s Web site appeared to have been tak­en down. A descrip­tion on the group’s Face­book page says that its mem­bers believe that the Unit­ed States is a Chris­t­ian nation and that Amer­i­cans are part of the Euro­pean peo­ple. The page, which has 558 mem­bers, notes that its mem­bers also believe in “racial integri­ty.”

    Over the years, the council’s con­ser­v­a­tive causes­ have also includ­ed strict oppo­si­tion to immi­gra­tion and forced bus­ing for school deseg­re­ga­tion.

    In the past, the South­ern Pover­ty Law Cen­ter has accused the CCC of hav­ing ties to the Ku Klux Klan and the Nation­al Asso­ci­a­tion for the Advance­ment of White Peo­ple, both “open­ly white suprema­cist orga­ni­za­tions.”

    The CCC’s Web site has run pic­tures com­par­ing pop singer Michael Jack­son to an ape and referred to black peo­ple as “a ret­ro­grade species of human­i­ty,” accord­ing to the SPLC.

    Found­ed in 1985 by Gor­don Baum, a per­son­al injury lawyer, the CCC had more than 1 mil­lion mem­bers at its height, includ­ing bankers, busi­ness peo­ple, judges, news­pa­per edi­tors and politi­cians, accord­ing to the SPLC.

    Baum died in March of an undis­closed ill­ness at age 74, the SPLC report­ed.

    This is prob­a­bly a good time to remind our­selves that the Coun­cil of Con­ser­v­a­tive cit­i­zens has­n’t just been inspir­ing folks like Dyl­lan Roof over the years. It’s got a much larg­er audi­ence:

    The Wash­ing­ton Post
    Sen. Trent Lott and a Trou­ble­some Tie

    By Kevin Meri­da
    Wash­ing­ton Post Staff Writer
    Mon­day, March 29, 1999; Page C1

    Every­where he speaks, Julian Bond unfurls the refrain: “Where are the sen­a­tors?”

    He did it in Con­necti­cut, in Flori­da, in Ten­nessee, in Louisiana, in Geor­gia, in Indi­ana, in Vir­ginia. Named names, too.

    “They were there for Khal­lid Muham­mad. Where are they on this?”

    Khal­lid Abdul Muham­mad is the for­mer Nation of Islam lieu­tenant whose hate­ful rant­i­ngs to a group of col­lege stu­dents were con­demned by the U.S. Sen­ate in 1994 on a 97–0 vote. That kind of sen­a­to­r­i­al una­nim­i­ty is hard to come by. But who’s going to vote against denounc­ing racism, big­otry and anti­semitism?

    So the chair­man of the NAACP wants to know where these same sen­a­tors are when it comes to the Coun­cil of Con­ser­v­a­tive Cit­i­zens, which pro­motes the preser­va­tion of the white race and whose Web site fea­tures arti­cles warn­ing that the nation is turn­ing into a “slimy brown mass of glop.” Sen. Trent Lott once addressed this group’s nation­al board, wel­comed its lead­ers to Wash­ing­ton, had pho­tos tak­en with them in his office and then said he did­n’t know what they were about. The CCC’s direc­tors wink and nod at that. One of them was a coun­ty chair­man of Lot­t’s ’94 reelec­tion cam­paign. One of them is his uncle.

    Asked recent­ly dur­ing an impromp­tu news con­fer­ence why he could­n’t sup­port a res­o­lu­tion con­demn­ing the CCC, Lot­t’s face con­veyed that it was not the kind of ques­tion he yearned for.

    “I think if any­body wants to have a res­o­lu­tion con­demn­ing any groups that advo­cate white suprema­cy or racism, then we should sup­port that,” he said. “But when you start nam­ing one group or anoth­er group or this group or that group, the list is going to get to be pret­ty long.”

    Lott was remind­ed that he was one of the 97 sen­a­tors who con­demned the speech by Khal­lid Muham­mad, in which he called the pope a “crack­er,” talked of killing white South Africans, demeaned black social com­men­ta­tors and labeled Jews the “blood suck­ers of the black nation.”

    “That was one indi­vid­ual, and then are we going to start doing that repeat­ed­ly and nam­ing indi­vid­u­als?”

    Lott was asked if it might be seen as hyp­o­crit­i­cal to con­demn Muham­mad but not the CCC.

    “No, that does­n’t seem hyp­o­crit­i­cal to me.”

    Then the Sen­ate major­i­ty leader turned away. Next ques­tion, please.

    Defin­ing Expe­ri­ences

    Some­times in Amer­i­can pol­i­tics there are sto­ries that start small, grow slow­ly, nev­er quite die. They become net­tle­some because they are about more than a set of eas­i­ly under­stood facts. This is one of those tales. It’s about a 57-year-old Repub­li­can leader whose defin­ing expe­ri­ences with race occurred in the seg­re­gat­ed South, about the pro­tec­tive cul­ture of the Sen­ate and about how even a sym­bol­ic con­dem­na­tion of big­otry can get mired in pol­i­tics.

    Last week, for instance, the House quar­reled pas­sion­ate­ly about how to put itself on record against racism. Repub­li­cans offered lan­guage that enveloped the uni­verse of hate­mon­gers but cit­ed no cul­prits. Speci­fici­ty, they argued, only made racism small­er. Most Democ­rats viewed that posi­tion as more strat­e­gy than heart, a ruse designed to shield Repub­li­cans who had been tar­nished by their asso­ci­a­tions with the CCC.

    Which brings us back to Lott.

    The Coun­cil of Con­ser­v­a­tive Cit­i­zens, which was found­ed in 1985, was not even on the nation­al radar screen before Decem­ber, when it was dis­closed that Rep. Bob Barr (R‑Ga.) had spo­ken before the group. Then The Wash­ing­ton Post revealed that Lott also had addressed the orga­ni­za­tion and it was report­ed in Mis­sis­sip­pi that he was even a mem­ber.

    He ini­tial­ly denied any “first­hand knowl­edge” of the group’s agen­da and added through his spokesman that he did­n’t con­sid­er him­self a mem­ber (Lot­t’s uncle says he paid his nephew’s dues). A week lat­er, Lot­t’s office was told of a 1992 CCC newslet­ter that pic­tured the sen­a­tor deliv­er­ing a speech to the group’s nation­al board in Green­wood, Miss.: “The peo­ple in this room stand for the right prin­ci­ples and the right phi­los­o­phy.”

    At that point, Lott renounced the group but con­tin­ued to decline inter­views on the sub­ject. The group claims 15,000 mem­bers nation­wide and its largest fol­low­ing is in Lot­t’s home state. Lott had his spokesman explain that he was­n’t aware of the CCC’s views on white suprema­cy, that he deplored those views and that he would­n’t have any­thing to do with the group now or for­ev­er more. In Jan­u­ary, Lott put out a two-sen­tence state­ment say­ing that use of his name by the CCC “is not only unau­tho­rized – it’s wrong.” Recent­ly, he sent the Anti-Defama­tion League a let­ter of fur­ther clar­i­fi­ca­tion:

    “I think of these mat­ters in per­son­al, not polit­i­cal, terms. I could nev­er sup­port – or seek sup­port from – a group that dis­dained or demeaned my friends, my neigh­bors, my staffers, or my con­stituents because of their race or reli­gion. I grew up in a home where you did­n’t treat peo­ple that way, and you did­n’t stand with any­one fool­ish or cru­el enough to do so.”

    Receiv­ing CCC lead­ers in his office, the let­ter con­tin­ued, was an inno­cent act. “I have always made a point of see­ing, how­ev­er briefly, as many of my home-state vis­i­tors to Wash­ing­ton as pos­si­ble. . . . It’s just not pos­si­ble to research the back­grounds of all these folks, and I don’t think any­one would want me to.”

    Lott fig­ured that would end the con­tro­ver­sy, but it keeps hang­ing around. He declined to be inter­viewed for this arti­cle. His press sec­re­tary, John Czwartac­ki, said his boss is not eager to engage in a dis­cus­sion of his racial views. “He does­n’t see what nec­es­sar­i­ly good would come of it.”

    While oth­er politi­cians have spo­ken to the CCC, Lott is by far the most promi­nent. As the high­est-rank­ing Repub­li­can in the land, he has drawn darts from the left and right. Con­ser­v­a­tive colum­nist Ari­an­na Huff­in­g­ton called on him “to end any spec­u­la­tion that he has ongo­ing ties with that group” by intro­duc­ing a Sen­ate res­o­lu­tion con­demn­ing it. Tom Cos­grove, a long­time Demo­c­ra­t­ic con­sul­tant, estab­lished Cit­i­zens for Tol­er­ance, which asked the Sen­ate Ethics Com­mit­tee to inves­ti­gate Lot­t’s CCC ties.

    Wade Hen­der­son, exec­u­tive direc­tor of the Lead­er­ship Con­fer­ence on Civ­il Rights, calls the sit­u­a­tion “deeply trou­bling.”

    “The issue is the con­ti­nu­ity of Sen­a­tor Lot­t’s rela­tion­ship with the CCC and what it says about the group’s access to main­stream pow­er and influ­ence in Amer­i­can life,” he says. “It’s more than just one speech.”

    But these crit­i­cisms are gnats that Lott dis­mis­sive­ly swats away. From his peers, in the regal set­ting where he makes his liv­ing, there has been not a whis­per.

    Which is why Julian Bond has been on this cru­sade. It’s not a huge cam­paign, but he is per­sis­tent. One day, he hap­pened to be on the same train from D.C. to Philly as Arlen Specter, and when the train pulled into the sta­tion he approached the Repub­li­can sen­a­tor from Penn­syl­va­nia.

    “What are you going to do about Lott?” Bond asked.

    “What about him?” Specter replied. He had­n’t heard about Lot­t’s ties to the CCC, he said. “I’ll speak to him about it.”

    That was Jan. 16. Bond fol­lowed up with a let­ter and a pack­et of news clip­pings about the con­tro­ver­sy. Nev­er heard a peep back.

    Then on Feb. 12, Bond ran into Sen. Mitch McConnell (R‑Ky.) in the Detroit air­port. He asked McConnell the same ques­tion. McConnell also said he was unaware of Lot­t’s asso­ci­a­tions. Bond sent him the same clip­pings. No response.

    But he’s not sur­prised.

    “To talk about it, for these sen­a­tors, is to admit that they them­selves are com­plic­it,” says Bond. “For them to con­demn one of their fel­lows is an admis­sion to them that this virus exists among them, and they can’t bring them­selves to do that. And I’m not just talk­ing about Repub­li­cans, it’s Democ­rats too.”

    No Com­ment

    Chris Dodd (D‑Conn.), the for­mer Demo­c­ra­t­ic chair­man, has­n’t tak­en up the cam­paign. Nei­ther has Ted Kennedy (D‑Mass.), who, an aide explained, needs Lot­t’s good­will if he’s to be suc­cess­ful with his min­i­mum wage and man­aged care leg­is­la­tion. Bob Ker­rey (D‑Neb.) has been busy, his spokesman says. Jim Jef­fords (R‑Vt.), who co-spon­sored the con­dem­na­tion of Khal­lid Muham­mad, is wor­ried about being involved in a par­ti­san hunt for Lot­t’s head.

    Pete Domeni­ci (R‑N.M.)? “I don’t have any com­ment on that.”

    Strom Thur­mond (R‑S.C.)? “What they want to cen­sure them for?”

    Paul Coverdell (R‑Ga.)? “I need to first look at it. I don’t even know where their office is head­quar­tered at.”

    What about Lot­t’s asso­ci­a­tion?

    “My under­stand­ing is he did­n’t know what they stood for,” said Orrin Hatch (R‑Utah). “He just thought they were a con­ser­v­a­tive group. We all some­times get caught in speak­ing to groups that we are not ful­ly aware of.”

    “I’m not going to take a pot shot at Sen. Lott on this,” said Thad Cochran (R‑Miss.).

    Specter did have his chat with Lott, just as he promised Bond. “And Trent does­n’t sup­port their ideas.”

    Then why not con­demn the CCC on the Sen­ate floor?

    “My instinct is we would give them more expo­sure and more pub­lic­i­ty,” Specter explained. “The way to beat them is on the bat­tle­field of ideas.”

    Hatch said he could sup­port a con­dem­na­tion if . . .

    “If I could get all the infor­ma­tion that is avail­able that shows to me it’s a racist group, yeah, you bet your life. But I’d have to have more infor­ma­tion than I have now because I real­ly don’t know that much about them.”

    “No, let’s not get into that busi­ness,” said Bob Ben­nett (R‑Utah).

    Weren’t you around when the Sen­ate con­demned Khal­lid Muham­mad?

    “Yeah, and I prob­a­bly vot­ed for it. Yeah, yeah, so, okay, I’m not being con­sis­tent. Well, I guess on that basis I’ll maybe take a look at it. But I don’t like to go down that road.”

    Final­ly, a ques­tion for Richard Lugar (R‑Ind.). It is the ques­tion Julian Bond keeps ask­ing: Why haven’t more of Lot­t’s peers chal­lenged him about his ties to the CCC? “Large­ly, prob­a­bly, because there are an end­less num­ber of issues. If each one of us was busy cen­sur­ing each oth­er every day on every meet­ing we have attend­ed or not attend­ed it would be a long day.”

    This issue, Lugar added, “has not been a cen­tral focus for the Sen­ate or pub­lic life in Amer­i­ca.”


    Yes, those were indeed trou­ble­some ties to the CCC for the GOP back in 1999. And, as the SPLC taught in in 2004, those are the kinds of ties that don’t sev­er eas­i­ly:

    South­ern Pover­ty Law Cen­ter Intel­li­gence Report
    Mis­sis­sip­pi Sen­a­tor Trent Lott and Geor­gia Con­gress­man Bob Barr Have Con­nec­tions to White Suprema­cist Group Coun­cil of Con­ser­v­a­tive Cit­i­zens

    When a race hate scan­dal engulfed a right-wing group in 1998, politi­cians ran for cov­er. They did­n’t stay away long

    By Hei­di Beirich and Bob Moser

    Fall 2004, Issue Num­ber: 115

    Though it had deep roots in South­ern pol­i­tics and claimed 15,000 mem­bers — more than the Ku Klux Klan has boast­ed for decades — the white-suprema­cist Coun­cil of Con­ser­v­a­tive Cit­i­zens (CCC) was a mys­tery to most Amer­i­cans until 1998. Late that year, a scan­dal erupt­ed over promi­nent South­ern politi­cians’ ties to the brazen­ly racist group.

    At first, even the politi­cians in ques­tion claimed they did­n’t know what this Coun­cil was all about. Sen. Trent Lott of Mis­sis­sip­pi, who had spo­ken to the group five times, once telling its mem­bers they “stand for the right prin­ci­ples and the right phi­los­o­phy,” claimed he had “no first­hand knowl­edge” of it.

    Con­gress­man Bob Barr of Geor­gia, who touched off the brouha­ha by deliv­er­ing a keynote speech at the CCC’s nation­al con­ven­tion in June 1998, said he had “no idea” what the orga­ni­za­tion stood for.

    Those expla­na­tions would­n’t suf­fice for long. An Intel­li­gence Report inves­ti­ga­tion (see Sharks in the Main­stream, Issue 93), picked up by sev­er­al net­work news­casts and major news­pa­pers, made it crys­tal clear what the CCC was: a hate group that rou­tine­ly den­i­grat­ed blacks as “genet­i­cal­ly infe­ri­or,” com­plained about “Jew­ish pow­er bro­kers,” called gay peo­ple “per­vert­ed sodomites,” accused immi­grants of turn­ing Amer­i­ca into a “slimy brown mass of glop,” and named Lester Mad­dox, the base­ball bat-wield­ing, arch-seg­re­ga­tion­ist for­mer gov­er­nor of Geor­gia, “Patri­ot of the Cen­tu­ry.”

    Denun­ci­a­tions flew fast and furi­ous, with embar­rassed con­ser­v­a­tives tak­ing the lead. “Lott and Barr gave legit­i­ma­cy to this racist orga­ni­za­tion by speak­ing before them,” wrote right-wing colum­nist Arm­strong Williams. Peg­gy Noo­nan, Ronald Rea­gan’s for­mer speech­writer, said that any­one asso­ci­at­ed with a group like the CCC “does­n’t belong in a lead­er­ship posi­tion in Amer­i­ca.”

    As evi­dence of wide­spread asso­ci­a­tion between South­ern GOP office­hold­ers and the CCC mount­ed, Repub­li­can Nation­al Com­mit­tee Chair­man Jim Nichol­son took the unusu­al step of ask­ing par­ty mem­bers to resign from the group because of its “racist views.” A res­o­lu­tion moved through the U.S. Con­gress “con­demn­ing the racism and big­otry espoused by the Coun­cil of Con­ser­v­a­tive Cit­i­zens,” although it ulti­mate­ly failed.

    Barr and Lott issued state­ments attempt­ing to dis­tance them­selves from a group that was fast becom­ing polit­i­cal poi­son.

    In Jan­u­ary 1999, the Mia­mi Her­ald report­ed that it was­n’t just gov­er­nors, sen­a­tors and con­gress­men who’d dal­lied with the group. Accord­ing to the CCC’s own Cit­i­zens Informer news­pa­per, more than 20 state law­mak­ers — 17 of them from Mis­sis­sip­pi — had met with chap­ters of the hate group in 1997 and 1998. Some politi­cians claimed they’d been lured to CCC gath­er­ings by mem­bers who cov­ered up the extrem­ist nature of the group.

    Still, after months of head­lines expos­ing the group’s views, “no one should be duped into believ­ing that they are main­stream con­ser­v­a­tives” any longer, said Anti-Defama­tion League nation­al direc­tor Abra­ham Fox­man.

    But five years lat­er, South­ern law­mak­ers are still meet­ing with the CCC — and still plead­ing igno­rance. Accord­ing to an Intel­li­gence Report review of the Cit­i­zens Informer, no few­er than 38 fed­er­al, state and local elect­ed offi­cials who are still in office today have attend­ed CCC events since 2000, most of them giv­ing speech­es to local chap­ters of the hate group.

    Anoth­er 38 for­mer elect­ed offi­cials and can­di­dates for office have addressed CCC groups dur­ing the past four years. Of the 38 cur­rent office-hold­ers who’ve attend­ed CCC events, 26 are state law­mak­ers — most of them, 23, from Lot­t’s home state of Mis­sis­sip­pi (see See No Evil).

    That ros­ter includes such lead­ing lights as Mis­sis­sip­pi’s gov­er­nor, Haley Bar­bour, and the pre­sid­ing jus­tice of the state Supreme Court, Kay Cobb. It excludes 12 local offi­cials.

    Though the vast major­i­ty of these politi­cians are Repub­li­cans — 23 of the 26 cur­rent state law­mak­ers, to be exact — the Repub­li­can Nation­al Com­mit­tee, so forth­right five years ago, now declines to con­demn the CCC. No mem­ber of either par­ty has been sanc­tioned or rep­ri­mand­ed for main­tain­ing ties to the Coun­cil.

    Only half of the 26 state law­mak­ers respond­ed to repeat­ed phone calls, fax­es and e‑mail mes­sages from the Intel­li­gence Report, ask­ing why they would open­ly asso­ciate with one of Amer­i­ca’s best-known racist orga­ni­za­tions. State Rep. Jim Elling­ton, who addressed the Great South­ern CCC this Feb­ru­ary in Jack­son, Miss., was among those who did respond — with a famil­iar sto­ry.

    “They invit­ed me to come to a din­ner to speak to their group and I don’t know a thing about them,” Elling­ton said. Asked whether he was aware that the CCC was con­sid­ered a hate group, Elling­ton replied, “They seem like nor­mal peo­ple to me.”

    But what about the raw racism on their Web site, which once com­pared singer Michael Jack­son to an ape in side-by-side pho­tos? “Well, I don’t con­done any­thing like that,” Elling­ton said.

    The ‘Uptown Klan’ Reborn
    Polit­i­cal influ­ence has always been a point of pride for the Coun­cil of Con­ser­v­a­tive Cit­i­zens. Found­ed in 1985 by Gor­don Baum, a work­er’s com­pen­sa­tion attor­ney and long­time white-pow­er activist, the CCC rose from the ash­es of the Cit­i­zens Coun­cils of Amer­i­ca (CCA), a coali­tion of white-suprema­cist groups formed through­out the South to defend school seg­re­ga­tion after the Supreme Court out­lawed it in Brown vs. Board of Edu­ca­tion.

    Unlike the “white trash” KKK, the CCA groups — com­mon­ly called “White Cit­i­zens Coun­cils” — had a veneer of civic respectabil­i­ty, inspir­ing the nick­name “Uptown Klan.” While there were plen­ty of bare-knuck­les racists attract­ed to the Coun­cils’ anti-inte­gra­tion slo­gan, “Nev­er!” the mem­bers also includ­ed bankers, mer­chants, judges, news­pa­per edi­tors and politi­cians — folks more giv­en to wear­ing suits and ties than hoods and robes.

    Many of them, includ­ing Trent Lot­t’s uncle, were elect­ed to state and local offices. Some were even more pow­er­ful: gov­er­nors, con­gress­men, U.S. sen­a­tors.

    Dur­ing the White Cit­i­zens Coun­cils’ hey­day, the groups claimed more than 1 mil­lion mem­bers. Though they weren’t immune to vio­lence — Byron De La Beck­with, who mur­dered civ­il-rights leader Medgar Evers in 1963, was a mem­ber — the Coun­cils gen­er­al­ly used their polit­i­cal and finan­cial pull to off­set the effects of “forced inte­gra­tion.”

    One tac­tic was par­tic­u­lar­ly effec­tive: The Coun­cils raised mil­lions of dol­lars to fund “white acad­e­mies,” pri­vate schools through­out the South that gave par­ents the option of keep­ing their chil­dren seg­re­gat­ed.

    Though the CCA groups pre­sent­ed them­selves as civic orga­ni­za­tions akin to the Kiwa­nis and Civ­i­tan clubs, they left no doubt where they stood on race. “Inte­gra­tion rep­re­sents dark­ness, reg­i­men­ta­tion, total­i­tar­i­an­ism, com­mu­nism and destruc­tion,” wrote Robert “Tut” Pat­ter­son, the leg­endary white suprema­cist who found­ed the CCA and still writes columns for the Cit­i­zens Informer.

    “Seg­re­ga­tion rep­re­sents the free­dom to choose one’s asso­ciates.”

    Once the seg­re­ga­tion bat­tle was lost, the air went out of the White Cit­i­zens Coun­cils. The coun­cils steadi­ly lost mem­bers through­out the 1970s and 1980s. Sens­ing the need for a new direc­tion, Baum, for­mer­ly the CCA’s Mid­west field direc­tor, called togeth­er a group of 30 white men, includ­ing for­mer Geor­gia Gov. Lester Mad­dox and future Louisiana Con­gress­man John Rar­ick, for a meet­ing in Atlanta in 1985.

    They cooked up a suc­ces­sor orga­ni­za­tion: the Coun­cil of Con­ser­v­a­tive Cit­i­zens.

    Like the White Cit­i­zens Coun­cils, the CCC is made up of local chap­ters — some of them active in civic affairs that have lit­tle to do with the nation­al group’s racist agen­da. But the group’s “uptown” days are large­ly gone; by 1985, there was pre­cious lit­tle “respectabil­i­ty” left in join­ing an unabashed­ly white-suprema­cist orga­ni­za­tion.

    And with the CCC, as with the White Cit­i­zens Coun­cils of the 1950s and ’60s, rabid extrem­ism is nev­er far from the sur­face.

    ‘Death By Mul­ti­cul­tur­al­ism’
    Ear­li­er this year, while Pres­i­dent George W. Bush went to Tope­ka, Kan., to cel­e­brate the 50th anniver­sary of Brown vs. Board of Edu­ca­tion, the CCC’s Web site pub­lished a sto­ry about the his­toric impact of the deci­sion. The writer was Edgar Steele, one of Amer­i­ca’s most vocif­er­ous anti-Semi­tes.

    “Just a lousy fifty years,” Steele lament­ed. “After hun­dreds of thou­sands, even mil­lions, of years of evo­lu­tion, it took just fifty years [for Amer­i­ca] to devolve into some­thing on par with Sene­gal.”

    Since the 1999 scan­dal stripped much of the remain­ing var­nish off the CCC’s main­stream pre­ten­sions, the extrem­ist views expressed on its Web site and in its news­pa­per have become increas­ing­ly direct, even crude. “What do you call ... four blacks, three his­pan­ics, three Russ­ian Jews, and one white guy?” the CCC home page asked last year. “The FBI’s Most Want­ed List!”

    Anoth­er home page ran pho­tos of accused Belt­way snipers John Muham­mad and John Mal­vo, 9/11 con­spir­a­tor Zacharias Mous­saoui and shoe-bomber Richard Reed. “Notice a Pat­tern Here?” asked a cap­tion under­neath the four pho­tos. “Is the face of death black after all?”

    After the NAACP declared its boy­cott of South Car­oli­na because the state con­tin­ued to fly the Con­fed­er­ate bat­tle flag over the Capi­tol dome, the CCC dis­trib­uted a mock adver­tise­ment pro­claim­ing, “South Car­oli­na Now Has Whiter Beach­es!” The ad urged Cau­casians to vaca­tion in South Car­oli­na and “enjoy a civ­il lib­er­ty that has been denied to them for many years at hotels, restau­rants and beach­es: the free­dom to asso­ciate with just one’s own peo­ple.”

    In 2002, the Web site fea­tured a pho­to of Daniel Pearl, the “Jew­ish Wall Street Jour­nal reporter” who had just been decap­i­tat­ed by Islam­ic ter­ror­ists. In the pho­to, Pearl was shown with his “mixed-race wife, Mar­i­anne.” The head­line above the cou­ple’s pic­ture read: “Death by Mul­ti­cul­tur­al­ism?”

    The dan­ger “of race-mix­ing” has been a con­sis­tent theme since the days of the White Cit­i­zens Coun­cils. “God is the author of racism,” accord­ing to a sto­ry on the CCC’s Web site in 2001. “God is the One who divid­ed mankind into dif­fer­ent types. ... Mix­ing the races is rebel­lious­ness against God.” Along with such the­o­log­i­cal argu­ments, Cit­i­zens Informer has pub­lished count­less sto­ries detail­ing “sci­en­tif­ic” evi­dence for white peo­ple’s inher­ent supe­ri­or­i­ty.

    Writ­ing about Brown vs. Board of Edu­ca­tion last spring, con­trib­u­tor Michael Polig­nano not­ed that many com­men­ta­tors were using the anniver­sary to talk about “how far Amer­i­ca still falls short of racial equal­i­ty.”

    Accord­ing to Polig­nano, that lack of progress “should sur­prise no one, because racial inequal­i­ty is genet­ic and can­not be changed by social pro­grams. ... Blacks are on aver­age prob­a­bly less intel­li­gent than Whites and more aggres­sive, impul­sive and prone to psy­chopatholo­gies.”

    Flex­ing Their Mus­cles
    The CCC’s increas­ing­ly bald extrem­ism has­n’t just been rhetor­i­cal. This spring, nation­al offi­cer Sam Dick­son, an attor­ney, rep­re­sent­ed the Coun­cil at neo-Nazi David Duke’s prison-release par­ty in New Orleans. Along with lead­ers of Amer­i­ca’s neo-Nazi and Holo­caust-denial move­ments, Dick­son signed Duke’s “New Orleans Pro­to­col,” pledg­ing to work with oth­er hate groups to achieve their col­lec­tive dream of a white Amer­i­ca.

    Even though it has large­ly left “respectabil­i­ty” behind, the Coun­cil still wields a big polit­i­cal stick in Mis­sis­sip­pi, where it claims some 5,000 mem­bers. The Coun­cil helped orga­nize oppo­si­tion to a 2001 ref­er­en­dum to change Mis­sis­sip­pi’s state flag to a less Dix­ie-fied design (the flag includ­ed a minia­ture rep­re­sen­ta­tion of the Con­fed­er­ate bat­tle flag). The ref­er­en­dum’s thump­ing defeat in a racial­ly polar­ized vote — 64% to 36% — was a major vic­to­ry for the CCC.

    The Coun­cil also flexed some mus­cle in last year’s guber­na­to­r­i­al elec­tion, which pit­ted incum­bent Demo­c­rat Ron­nie Mus­grove — who led the fight to change the Mis­sis­sip­pi state flag — against Repub­li­can Haley Bar­bour. Dur­ing the cam­paign, the CCC Web site ran a pho­to­graph of Bar­bour pos­ing with Coun­cil lumi­nar­ies at the Black Hawk Bar­be­cue, a CCC fundrais­ing event for “pri­vate acad­e­my” school bus­es.

    When the pho­to caused a stir, Bar­bour was quick to call the CCC’s seg­re­ga­tion­ist views “inde­fen­si­ble.” But he refused to ask that his pic­ture be tak­en down from the Web site. It was a mat­ter of prin­ci­ple, Bar­bour explained. “Once you start down the slip­pery slope of say­ing, ‘That per­son can’t be for me,’ then where do you stop?” he asked. “Old seg­re­ga­tion­ists? For­mer Ku Klux Klan?”


    That state­ment at the end by CCC mem­ber, and for­mer Mis­sis­sip­pi gov­er­nor Haley Bar­bour pret­ty much sum­ma­rizes the strange space occu­pied by groups like the CCC, where the neo-Nazis and “respectable” main­stream politi­cians:

    “Once you start down the slip­pery slope of say­ing, ‘That per­son can’t be for me,’ then where do you stop?” he asked. “Old seg­re­ga­tion­ists? For­mer Ku Klux Klan?”

    And that’s part of why it’s going to be so grim­ly fas­ci­nat­ing to see how the main­stream right-wing media and politi­cians han­dle the out­cry over the ter­ror­ism in Charleston: Con­demn­ing Roof’s actions is easy. And casu­al con­dem­na­tions of the most extreme ele­ments of Roof’s world­view, like his advo­ca­cy of slav­ery, is also going to be polit­i­cal­ly risk-free. But the far more thor­ough con­demn­ing Roof’s, includ­ing his sim­ple­ton analy­sis of his­to­ry and real­i­ty that sees the “white race” as some­how being on the verge of los­ing every­thing to hordes of minor­i­ty invaders, would the polit­i­cal equiv­a­lent of burn­ing a bridge that the GOP’s plu­to­crats have been build­ing and main­tain­ing with the white nation­al­ists for decades. Roof may have been an mur­der­ous nut job, but if you removed the racial epi­thets and calls for a white insur­rec­tion that reim­pos­es slav­ery from his man­i­festo, Roof’s diag­noses for what’s wrong with Amer­i­ca starts to sound awful­ly close to what many in the right-wing media are spew­ing every day.

    So, who knows, maybe Roof will end up doing the US a favor: By com­mit­ting an act so over the top evil in the name of white nation­al­ism and then leav­ing a man­i­festo that makes it pret­ty damn clear that the ideas that led him to do such a thing aren’t wild­ly dif­fer­ent from what pass­es as main­stream right-wing rhetoric across the media today, per­haps a bit of self-reflec­tion with­in the right-wing medi­a­s­phere is on the way. At least, let’s hope that’s the case, but there’s prob­a­bly going to be a lot of resis­tance to that kind of pos­i­tive path for­ward.

    Posted by Pterrafractyl | June 20, 2015, 6:39 pm
  6. The Guardian took a look at the his­to­ry of cam­paign dona­tions by Earl Holt, pres­i­dent of the Coun­cil of Con­ser­v­a­tive Cit­i­zens which Dylann Roof cit­ed as his ini­tial source of knowl­edge about black-on-white crimes. The Guardian also found a num­ber of inter­est­ing com­ments made by Mr. Holt over the years and let’s just say that if any of the many GOP can­di­dates Mr. Holt has donat­ed to over the haven’t already returned his dona­tions, they’ll be return­ing that mon­ey now:

    The Guardian
    Leader of group cit­ed in ‘Dylann Roof man­i­festo’ donat­ed to top Repub­li­cans

    Coun­cil of Con­ser­v­a­tive Cit­i­zens cit­ed on site linked to Charleston sus­pect
    Ted Cruz cam­paign tells Guardian it will ‘be mak­ing a full refund’
    FEC shows Earl Holt gave to 2016 hope­fuls San­to­rum, Paul and oth­ers

    Jon Swaine in New York

    Mon­day 22 June 2015 09.03 EDT

    The leader of a rightwing group that Dylann Roof alleged­ly cred­its with help­ing to rad­i­calise him against black peo­ple before the Charleston church mas­sacre has donat­ed tens of thou­sands of dol­lars to Repub­li­cans such as pres­i­den­tial can­di­dates Ted Cruz, Rand Paul and Rick San­to­rum.

    Earl Holt has giv­en $65,000 to Repub­li­can cam­paign funds in recent years while inflam­ma­to­ry remarks – includ­ing that black peo­ple were “the lazi­est, stu­pid­est and most crim­i­nal­ly-inclined race in the his­to­ry of the world” – were post­ed online in his name.

    After being approached by the Guardian on Sun­day, Cruz’s pres­i­den­tial cam­paign said it would be return­ing all mon­ey the sen­a­tor had received from Holt.

    Holt, 62, is the pres­i­dent of the Coun­cil of Con­ser­v­a­tive Cit­i­zens (CofCC), a Mis­souri-based activist organ­i­sa­tion cit­ed by the author of a man­i­festo-style text that was post­ed on a web­site reg­is­tered in Roof’s name along with pho­tographs of the gun­man. The FBI said on Sat­ur­day it was inves­ti­gat­ing the web­site.

    The manifesto’s author, who has been wide­ly report­ed but not ver­i­fied as Roof, recount­ed learn­ing about “bru­tal black on white mur­ders” from the CofCC web­site.


    In a state­ment pub­lished on Sun­day, Holt said it was “not sur­pris­ing” that Roof was appar­ent­ly informed by the group’s web­site as it report­ed race rela­tions “accu­rate­ly and hon­est­ly”. How­ev­er, he added: “The CofCC is hard­ly respon­si­ble for the actions of this deranged indi­vid­ual mere­ly because he gleaned accu­rate infor­ma­tion from our web­site.”

    Reached by tele­phone at home on Sun­day evening by the Guardian, Holt said he was busy and hung up.

    Holt has since 2012 con­tributed $8,500 to Cruz, the Texas sen­a­tor run­ning for the Repub­li­can pres­i­den­tial nom­i­na­tion, and his Jobs, Growth and Free­dom Fund polit­i­cal action com­mit­tee, accord­ing to Fed­er­al Elec­tion Com­mis­sion (FEC) fil­ings. On some fil­ings Holt’s occu­pa­tion was list­ed as “slum­lord”.

    He has also giv­en $1,750 to Rand­PAC, the polit­i­cal action com­mit­tee of Paul, the Ken­tucky sen­a­tor and pres­i­den­tial con­tender, and he gave $2,000 to the 2012 pres­i­den­tial cam­paign of Mitt Rom­ney.

    A fur­ther $1,500 was donat­ed by Holt to San­to­rum, the for­mer Penn­syl­va­nia sen­a­tor and 2012 Repub­li­can pres­i­den­tial pri­ma­ry run­ner-up, who is run­ning for pres­i­dent again in the 2016 race and attend­ed Sunday’s memo­r­i­al ser­vice at Emanuel AME Church.

    In response to ques­tions from the Guardian, Rick Tyler, a spokesman for Cruz, said in an email: “Upon review, we dis­cov­ered that Mr Holt did make a con­tri­bu­tion. We will be imme­di­ate­ly refund­ing the dona­tion.”

    Tyler said Cruz’s own cam­paign and lead­er­ship Pac would “be mak­ing a full refund”.

    On Mon­day morn­ing Paul’s pres­i­den­tial cam­paign said he, too, would be for­feit­ing the mon­ey con­tributed by Holt.

    “Rand­PAC is donat­ing the funds to the Moth­er Emanuel Hope Fund to assist the vic­tims’ fam­i­lies,” said Doug Stafford, his chief strate­gist.

    Matthew Beynon, a spokesman for San­to­rum, said in an email: “Sen­a­tor San­to­rum does not con­done or respect racist or hate­ful com­ments of any kind. Peri­od. The views the Sen­a­tor cam­paigns on are his own and he is focused on unit­ing Amer­i­ca, not divid­ing her.”

    A series of racist state­ments have been post­ed over the past four years to the web­site of The Blaze, a con­ser­v­a­tive news out­let, by a user going by Holt’s full name, Earl P Holt III. The user referred to Longview, Texas – which is where Holt lives – as his home­town. A com­menter using the same screen name on var­i­ous oth­er news web­sites has iden­ti­fied him­self as a mem­ber of the CofCC.

    Jared Tay­lor, a close asso­ciate of Holt and for­mer direc­tor of the CofCC, who said Holt had asked him to han­dle media inquiries relat­ing to the mas­sacre, said in an inter­view: “If there’s a state­ment that is ‘Earl P Holt III’, he prob­a­bly made it.”

    Sev­er­al of the com­ments referred to black peo­ple as “Africanus Crim­i­nalis”, a faux-Latin label also used in an online mes­sage for which Holt report­ed­ly apol­o­gised in 2004. Holt, then a radio host in Mis­souri, referred to black peo­ple as “nig­gers” five times in the mes­sage.

    In June 2012 the poster “Earl P Holt III” stat­ed that he had bought and become pro­fi­cient in “a great many weapons” to ensure that being white did not “get me mur­dered” by non-white peo­ple. Two months ear­li­er the same user respond­ed to an arti­cle about the New Black Pan­ther Par­ty with a request for advice on buy­ing ammu­ni­tion “Does any­one know where I can get 180 grain .308 NATO rounds with a poly­mer tip?,” he wrote

    Under a Feb­ru­ary 2014 arti­cle, the same user warned oth­er read­ers that black activists would “kill you, rape your entire fam­i­ly, and burn your house to the ground”. Accord­ing to an account of a report by a wit­ness, Roof com­plained to his vic­tims in Charleston last week: “You rape our women.”

    One com­ment said of black peo­ple: “One can extri­cate them from the jun­gle, but one CANNOT purge the jun­gle from THEM”, while anoth­er said: “I do wish they’d keep their vio­lence and sav­agery with­in their own com­mu­ni­ties”.

    The com­menter using Holt’s name also com­plained under a sto­ry about white priv­i­lege about his tax­es being dis­trib­uted “to every baby-dad­dy, baby-mom­ma, wel­fare cheat, drug-deal­er, Oprah-watch­er, felon, alco­holic, drug-addict and dead­beat in Amer­i­ca”.

    Holt has also dis­trib­uted tens of thou­sands in cam­paign con­tri­bu­tions among promi­nent Repub­li­cans in con­gress, such as Rep­re­sen­ta­tive Steve King of Iowa ($2,000), Sen­a­tor Tom Cot­ton of Arkansas ($1,500) and Sen­a­tor Jeff Flake of Ari­zona ($1,000). He also gave $3,200 to the for­mer Min­neso­ta con­gress­woman and pres­i­den­tial can­di­date Michele Bach­mann.

    And yes, you read that right, While Mr. Holt decried Dylann Roof’s act of vio­lence, the CCC does assert that Roof had “legit­i­mate griev­ances”:

    TPM Livewire
    Group That May Have Influ­enced Charleston Killer: He Had Some ‘Legit­i­mate Griev­ances’

    By Cather­ine Thomp­son
    Pub­lished June 22, 2015, 11:12 AM EDT

    A white nation­al­ist group that may have influ­enced the sus­pect­ed gun­man in last week’s mas­sacre at a his­toric black church in Charleston, South Car­oli­na said Sun­day in a state­ment that it believes he had “legit­i­mate griev­ances” against black peo­ple.


    “The C of CC unequiv­o­cal­ly con­demns [Dylann] Roof’s mur­der­ous actions,” the spokesman, Jared Tay­lor (pic­tured), said in the state­ment post­ed on the group’s web­site. “How­ev­er, the coun­cil stands unshak­ably behind the facts on its web­site, and points out the dan­gers of deny­ing the extent of black-on-white crime.”

    In a man­i­festo that sur­faced Sat­ur­day and appeared to be writ­ten by Dylann Roof, the white, 21-year-old man who killed nine peo­ple Wednes­day night at Emanuel AME in down­town Charleston, the Coun­cil of Con­ser­v­a­tive Cit­i­zens was cred­it­ed with open­ing the author’s eyes to black-on-white crime in the wake of the 2012 Trayvon Mar­tin shoot­ing.

    “The first web­site I came to was the Coun­cil of Con­ser­v­a­tive Cit­i­zens,” the man­i­festo read. “There were pages upon pages of these bru­tal black on White mur­ders. I was in dis­be­lief. At this moment I real­ized that some­thing was very wrong. How could the news be blow­ing up the Trayvon Mar­tin case while hun­dreds of these black on White mur­ders got ignored?”

    The man­i­festo goes on to defend seg­re­ga­tion and lament that white peo­ple are fault­ed for slav­ery and oth­er “bad” acts that race has com­mit­ted through­out his­to­ry. In his state­ment, Tay­lor said the man­i­festo out­lined “legit­i­mate griev­ances” with­out spec­i­fy­ing what those griev­ances were.

    “In his man­i­festo, Roof out­lines oth­er griev­ances felt by many whites,” Tay­lor said. “Again, we utter­ly con­demn Roof’s despi­ca­ble killings, but they do not detract in the slight­est from the legit­i­ma­cy of some of the posi­tions he has expressed. *Ignor­ing legit­i­mate griev­ances is dan­ger­ous*.”

    The pres­i­dent of the group, Earl Holt III, also issued a state­ment that dis­avowed Roof’s crime while assert­ing that the infor­ma­tion Roof got from his orga­ni­za­tion was “accu­rate.”

    Read both state­ments below in full:

    Spokesman for Coun­cil of Con­ser­v­a­tive Cit­i­zens Avail­able to Speak to Media about Dylann Roof and Charleston church killings.

    In a man­i­festo wide­ly attrib­uted to Dylann Roof, he cites the Coun­cil of Con­ser­v­a­tive Cit­i­zens ( C of CC) as the orga­ni­za­tion that first drew his atten­tion to black-on-white crime.

    C of CC spokesman, Jared Tay­lor, wel­comes media inquiries about the council’s posi­tions and how they relate to Dylann Roof.

    The C of CC unequiv­o­cal­ly con­demns Roof’s mur­der­ous actions.

    How­ev­er, the coun­cil stands unshak­ably behind the facts on its web­site, and points out the dan­gers of deny­ing the extent of black-on-white crime.

    Every year, there are about 500,000 vio­lent, inter­ra­cial crimes. Of these, about 85 per­cent are com­mit­ted by blacks against whites.

    Every year, there are some 20,000 rapes of white women by blacks, but rapes by white men of black women are so unusu­al, they scarce­ly appear in crime sta­tis­tics.

    If these fig­ures were reversed—if there were wide-spread white-on-black rape and violence—it would be con­stant nation­al news. Instead, the true nature of inter­ra­cial vio­lence is ignored.

    This is dan­ger­ous. Our society’s silence about these crimes—despite enor­mous amounts of atten­tion to “racial­ly tinged” acts by whites—only increase the anger of peo­ple like Dylann Roof. This dou­ble stan­dard *only makes acts of mur­der­ous frus­tra­tion more like­ly*.

    In his man­i­festo, Roof out­lines oth­er griev­ances felt by many whites. Again, we utter­ly con­demn Roof’s despi­ca­ble killings, but they do not detract in the slight­est from the legit­i­ma­cy of some of the posi­tions he has expressed. *Ignor­ing legit­i­mate griev­ances is dan­ger­ous*.

    For fur­ther com­men­tary on Roof, please con­tact Jared Tay­lor at 703–716-0900. Tay­lor is a for­mer board mem­ber of the Coun­cil of Con­ser­v­a­tive Cit­i­zens, and fre­quent speak­er at coun­cil con­fer­ences.

    Mes­sage from the CofCC Pres­i­dent:

    It has been brought to the atten­tion of the Coun­cil of Con­ser­v­a­tive Cit­i­zens that Dylann Roof — the alleged per­pe­tra­tor of mass mur­der in Charleston this week — cred­its the CofCC web­site for his knowl­edge of black-on-white vio­lent crime.

    This is not sur­pris­ing: The CofCC is one of per­haps three web­sites in the world that accu­rate­ly and hon­est­ly report black-on-white vio­lent crime, and in par­tic­u­lar, the seem­ing­ly end­less inci­dents involv­ing black-on-white mur­der.

    The CofCC web­site exists because media either “spike” such sto­ries, or inten­tion­al­ly obscure the race of black offend­ers. Indeed, at its nation­al con­ven­tion some years ago, the Soci­ety of Pro­fes­sion­al Jour­nal­ists adopt­ed this tac­tic as a for­mal pol­i­cy.

    The CofCC is hard­ly respon­si­ble for the actions of this deranged indi­vid­ual mere­ly because he gleaned accu­rate infor­ma­tion from our web­site.

    We are no more respon­si­ble for the actions of this sad young man, than the Olin Cor­po­ra­tion was for man­u­fac­tur­ing the ammo mis­used by Col­in Fer­gu­son to mur­der six whites on the Long Island Rail­road in 1993.

    The CofCC does not advo­cate ille­gal activ­i­ties of any kind, and nev­er has. I would glad­ly com­pare the hon­esty and law-abid­ing nature of our mem­ber­ship against that of any oth­er group.

    Earl Holt III, Pres­i­dent, CofCC

    So the GOP is run­ning from the CCC, and the CCC is run­ning from Roof, but the CCC is also stand­ing by the world­view Roof artic­u­lat­ed, espe­cial­ly regard­ing black-on-white crime, and is basi­cal­ly beg­ging soci­ety to engage in a debate over whether or not its views on black-on-white crimes are valid and backed by sound data and analy­sis. That’s going to com­pli­cate the GOP’s flight from the CCC rather sig­nif­i­cant­ly giv­en that the CCC’s views on these top­ics are prob­a­bly pret­ty much in line with the GOP and main­stream right-wing media.

    So denun­ci­a­tions of Roof are guar­an­teed by every­one. And denun­ci­a­tions of the CCC appear to be the GOP’s blan­ket response. But what about denun­ci­a­tions of the CCC’s world­view, espe­cial­ly regard­ing black-on-white crime? How’s that going to play out?

    That’s going to be a rather crit­i­cal ques­tion going for­ward, because if there real­ly is a wide swath of Amer­i­can soci­ety that large­ly agrees with the CCC’s views, at least its views regard­ing black-on-white crime, that’s impor­tant. It’s impor­tant to acknowl­edge, con­front, and cor­rect. And, as should be very appar­ent giv­en the his­to­ry of the GOP, its rela­tion­ship to the CCC, and its larg­er his­to­ry of engag­ing in using dog-whis­tle pol­i­tics for decades now, A LOT of Amer­i­cans real­ly do share the CCC’s view that white Amer­i­cans are expe­ri­enc­ing an epi­dem­ic of black-on-white crimes, in part due to the efforts of groups like the CCC and the main­stream right-wing media, but in part due to soci­ety at large not too long ago:

    Pan­do Dai­ly
    Bal­ti­more & The Walk­ing Dead

    Two decades ago, after Los Ange­les explod­ed in the worst Amer­i­can riots of the 20th cen­tu­ry against years of police bru­tal­i­ty against minori­ties, the polit­i­cal estab­lish­ment respond­ed by dou­bling down and ramp­ing up all the wrong ideas that are blow­ing back today in places like Bal­ti­more and Fer­gu­son. Pres­i­dent Bush blamed the LA riots on lib­er­al anti-pover­ty pro­grams from the 1960s and 1970s, which he claimed destroyed black fam­i­lies and a sense of respon­si­bil­i­ty in their com­mu­ni­ties. Can­di­date Bill Clin­ton talked “tough on crime” while squirt­ing a few croc­o­dile tears in pub­lic, all part of his New Demo­c­rat pro­gram. Lib­er­tar­i­an Par­ty nom­i­nee for pres­i­dent Andre Mar­rou vowed he would “send in troops right away” as his solu­tion to the Los Ange­les riots and griev­ances. Mean­while, “prin­ci­pled” lib­er­tar­i­an Ron Paul wrote in his newslet­ter after the riots that he taught every­one in his fam­i­ly, includ­ing his son Rand Paul, to use a gun because “the ani­mals are com­ing.”

    Mark Ames
    May 1, 2015

    As with Bal­ti­more, there was an enor­mous amount of long pent-up anger in South-Cen­tral LA, where the noto­ri­ous­ly vio­lent police under Daryl Gates had been wag­ing a kind of counter-insur­gency cam­paign against poor minor­i­ty res­i­dents for well over a decade . . . and no one, lib­er­als least of all, want­ed to hear about it. The riots—in response to an all-white jury acquit­ting four LAPD offi­cers who were filmed sav­age­ly beat­ing a black motorist, Rod­ney King—left over 50 dead, 2000 injured, and over 10,000 arrest­ed.

    The polit­i­cal response to the 1992 riots makes for some infu­ri­at­ing, sick­en­ing reading—all the more so when you real­ize that most of the same names, par­ties, and bank­rupt ide­olo­gies who had the solu­tions in 1992 are now hus­tling us again, promis­ing that they have the answers, if we just trust them one more time.

    Hillary Clin­ton is one obvi­ous exam­ple of this: Her husband’s mass incar­cer­a­tion poli­cies, which she sup­port­ed, are poli­cies she’s just now decid­ed to cam­paign against. In her book “It Takes A Vil­lage,” Hillary 1.0 boast­ed about her husband’s tough on crime poli­cies as if they were her own (h/t Zaid Jilani):

    “As part of a ‘zero tol­er­ance’ pol­i­cy for weapons, drugs, and oth­er threats to the safe­ty of teach­ers and stu­dents, the Pres­i­dent signed an exec­u­tive order decree­ing that any stu­dent who comes to school with a gun will be expelled and pun­ished as a con­di­tion of fed­er­al aid.


    As for Jeb Bush’s father—President Bush blamed the 1992 LA riots on lib­er­al social wel­fare pro­grams in the 1960s and 70s, and the break­down of the fam­i­ly struc­ture in black com­mu­ni­ties. While for Vice Pres­i­dent Dan Quayle, the LA riots were his moment to shine. And shine he did, blam­ing the upris­ing on a pop­u­lar TV char­ac­ter Mur­phy Brown, and sin­gle moth­ers every­where (not too dif­fer­ent from Rand Paul’s lat­est analy­sis, come to think of it). Quayle pro­duced some star­tling insights into the caus­es of the Los Ange­les upris­ing, such as:

    “Ille­git­i­ma­cy is some­thing we should talk about in terms of not hav­ing it.”

    And in what stands as per­haps Quayle’s sin­gle most coher­ent moment of his vice pres­i­den­cy, he declared:

    “I have been asked who caused the riots and the killing in L.A., my answer has been direct and sim­ple: Who is to blame for the riots? The riot­ers are to blame. Who is to blame for the killings? The killers are to blame.”

    So when Rand Paul went on Lau­ra Ingraham’s radio pro­gram to blame Bal­ti­more on black cul­ture and val­ues and “lack of fathers,” the lib­er­tar­i­an whom Time called “the most inter­est­ing man in pol­i­tics” was mere­ly rehash­ing 25-year-old main­stream Repub­l­i­crat big­otries, the very same big­ot­ed, wrong assump­tions that led to all the dis­as­trous poli­cies we’re now pay­ing for today.

    Which brings me to the Lib­er­tar­i­ans of 1992.

    After Fer­gu­son explod­ed last year, Lib­er­tar­i­ans posi­tioned them­selves as the only polit­i­cal force that had no blood on their hands, the only polit­i­cal force that was “prin­ci­pled” enough through­out the past few decades to offer the right analy­ses — and the right solu­tions — to the prob­lems faced by peo­ple now ris­ing up in Bal­ti­more.

    In 1992, the most famous lib­er­tar­i­an of all, Ron Paul, was still between Con­gres­sion­al stints when Los Ange­les erupt­ed, but he did run a prof­itable lib­er­tar­i­an newslet­ter, “The Ron Paul Polit­i­cal Report,” to keep his ideas alive. Short­ly after the LA riots, Ron Paul put out a “Spe­cial Issue on Racial Ter­ror­ism” offer­ing his lib­er­tar­i­an analy­sis of what he termed black “ter­ror­ism”:

    “The crim­i­nals who ter­ror­ize our cities—in riots and on every non-riot day—are not exclu­sive­ly young black males, but they large­ly are. As chil­dren, they are trained to hate whites, to believe that white oppres­sion is respon­si­ble for all black ills, to ‘fight the pow­er,’ to steal and loot as much mon­ey from the white ene­my as pos­si­ble.

    “The cause of the riots is plain: bar­barism. If the bar­bar­ians can­not loot suf­fi­cient­ly through legal chan­nels (i.e., the riots being the wel­fare-state minus the mid­dle-man), they resort to ille­gal ones, to ter­ror­ism. Trou­ble is, few seem will­ing to stop them. The cops have been hand­cuffed.

    “The riot­ers said they were act­ing out of frus­tra­tion over the acquit­tal of four L.A. police­men accused of using exces­sive force when arrest­ing Rod­ney G. King. In fact, they were look­ing for an excuse to kill, burn, and loot.

    “Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their wel­fare checks three days after riot­ing began. The ‘poor’ lined up at the post office to get their hand­outs (since there were no deliveries)—and then com­plained about slow ser­vice.” Dr. Paul, in his “spe­cial report,” repeat­ed­ly described blacks as “ter­ror­ists,” “racists,” and crim­i­nals:

    “We are con­stant­ly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, but it is hard­ly irra­tional. Black men com­mit mur­ders, rapes, rob­beries, mug­gings, and bur­glar­ies all out of pro­por­tion to their num­bers.”

    “I think we can safe­ly assume that 95% of the black males in [major U.S. cities] are semi-crim­i­nal or entire­ly crim­i­nal.” Not only are blacks invet­er­ate crim­i­nals, but they’re also com­mies at heart, accord­ing to Dr. Paul:

    “Opin­ion polls con­sis­tent­ly show that only about 5% of blacks have sen­si­ble polit­i­cal opin­ions, i.e. sup­port the free mar­ket, indi­vid­ual lib­er­ty, and the end of wel­fare and affir­ma­tive action.

    “...The advice some lib­er­tar­i­ans give—‘don’t vote, it only encour­ages them—applies here. We must not kow­tow to the street hood­lums and their sanc­ti­mo­nious lead­ers.” A few months lat­er, in Octo­ber 1992, Dr. Paul explained how he taught his own family—presumably includ­ing his favorite son, Rand Paul—how to defend them­selves and even mur­der what Dr. Paul called “hip-hop” car­jack­ers, “the urban youth who play unsus­pect­ing whites like pianos”:

    “What can you do? More and more Amer­i­cans are car­ry­ing a gun in the car. An ex-cop I know advis­es that if you have to use a gun on a youth, you should leave the scene imme­di­ate­ly, dis­pos­ing of the wiped off gun as soon as pos­si­ble. Such a gun can­not, of course, be reg­is­tered to you, but one bought pri­vate­ly (through the clas­si­fieds, for exam­ple.).

    “I frankly don’t know what to make of such advice; but even in my lit­tle town of Lake Jack­son, Texas, I’ve urged every­one in my fam­i­ly to know how to use a gun in self defense. For the ani­mals are com­ing.” Imag­in­ing scenes like this—Ron Paul sit­ting his fam­i­ly down, teach­ing them how to fire guns, warn­ing them of “ani­mals” com­ing to steal their cars, and offer­ing vig­i­lante advice on how to get away with mur­der­ing black kids— puts Rand Paul’s grub­by Con­fed­er­ate out­bursts into new light. Unless you block it from your mind, which most of Rand Paul’s pro­gres­sive fan­boys tend to do.

    Mov­ing on down the Lib­er­tar­i­an line: Andre Mar­rou, the Lib­er­tar­i­an Par­ty can­di­date for pres­i­dent in 1992, had been Ron Paul’s run­ning mate on the Lib­er­tar­i­an tick­et in 1988. Marrou’s Lib­er­tar­i­an solu­tion to the LA riots: more troops, more quick­ly, as he explained to Lar­ry King:

    “Send troops in to stop the loot­ing. It’s some­thing that [Gov. Pete] Wil­son wait­ed 24 hours for, and [Los Ange­les police chief] Daryl Gates of course with­drew his troops of police. They ran away when the riot­ing start­ed. That’s what we would’ve done—we would’ve sent the troops in to stop the loot­ing.”

    So what dis­tin­guish­es the Lib­er­tar­i­ans from the old two-par­ty respons­es is their hair-trig­ger in bring­ing in troops to sup­press the uppi­ty minori­ties. Beyond that, the Lib­er­tar­i­an Party’s polit­i­cal solu­tion to African-Amer­i­can pover­ty and injus­tice was to abol­ish all wel­fare pro­grams, pub­lic schools, and anti-dis­crim­i­na­tion laws like the Civ­il Rights Act. This was the solu­tion pro­mot­ed by an up-and-com­ing lib­er­tar­i­an, Jacob Hornberger—who this week co-host­ed an event with Ron Paul and Glenn Green­wald. Horn­berg­er believes that 19th cen­tu­ry ante­bel­lum slave-era Amer­i­ca was “the freest soci­ety in his­to­ry”. . . and after the LA riots, he offered this solu­tion:

    “the repeal of: (1) every law that takes mon­ey from some peo­ple and gives it to oth­ers; (2) all reg­u­la­tions that inter­fere with peace­ful exchanges between con­sent­ing adults; (3) all drug laws; and (4) all com­pul­so­ry-atten­dance laws and school tax­es.”

    And then there’s lib­er­tar­i­an philoso­pher Mur­ray Rothbard’s response to the LA riots. Rand Paul cred­its Roth­bard as “a great influ­ence on my think­ing”; and Roth­bard blamed the LA riots not on racism and black griev­ances, but rather on slow and insuf­fi­cient police response and “the moral and esthet­ic nihilism cre­at­ed by many decades of cul­tur­al lib­er­al­ism.”

    As for solv­ing the prob­lem, Roth­bard, who had come out in sup­port of for­mer Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke, wrote in 1992:

    “Send­ing in police and troops late and depriv­ing them of bul­lets, can­not do the job. There is only one way to ful­fill the vital police func­tion, the only way that works: the pub­lic announcement—backed by will­ing­ness to enforce it—made by the late May­or Richard Daley in the Chica­go riots of the 1960s—ordering the police to shoot to kill any loot­ers, riot­ers, arson­ists, or mug­gers they might find. That very announce­ment was enough to induce the riot­ers to pock­et their ‘rage’ and go back to their peace­ful pur­suits.”

    And in case Rothbard’s anar­cho-lib­er­tar­i­an solu­tion wasn’t clear enough, he reit­er­at­ed it once again:

    “Devo­tion to the sanc­ti­ty of per­son and prop­er­ty is not part of their val­ue-sys­tem. That’s why, in the short term, all we can do is shoot the loot­ers and incar­cer­ate the riot­ers.”

    On the main­stream side of lib­er­tar­i­an­ism, Rea­son mag­a­zine edi­tor Vir­ginia Postrel denounced “the hate-filled pol­i­tics of Rep. Max­ine Waters,” and pro­posed as solu­tions to South-Cen­tral LA’s prob­lems pri­vate polic­ing in the form of “cit­i­zen patrols” on foot, like “pri­vate secu­ri­ty firms” who patrol “wealthy enclaves.” In oth­er words: Stand Your Ground and vig­i­lante groups:

    “Cer­tain­ly cit­i­zen patrols would need more than com­mu­ni­ty spir­it; they would require police train­ing, extra super­vi­sion, prob­a­bly pay, and pos­si­bly weapons.”

    Along with armed pri­vate patrols, Reason’s edi­tor pro­posed turn­ing inner city blacks into pri­vate jit­ney bus dri­vers, rea­son­ing that since blacks in South Africa do it, blacks would be hap­py doing it in South Cen­tral too:

    “If South Africa can let black entre­pre­neurs make it big in the jit­ney busi­ness, so can L.A.”

    These same zom­bies are still with us today, still walk­ing the earth—or at least, America—snarling and snap­ping their jaws at us every night, try­ing to infect the mor­tals with their ran­cid, dead­ly zom­bie politics—liberalism, lib­er­tar­i­an­ism, doesn’t real­ly mat­ter any­more. For some of us, the goal is to avoid get­ting bit­ten and turned into one of them; for oth­ers, the hope is just to avoid get­ting your neck snapped.

    So that hap­pened. A mere 23 years ago. And it was­n’t just Repub­li­cans that seemed to view the African Amer­i­can com­mu­ni­ty as some sort of alien inva­sion requir­ing a mil­i­tary response. Politi­cians from both par­ties joined in the fray. That was just what Amer­i­ca was like back in the 90’s: if you want­ed to get elect­ed to office, you pushed ‘tough on crime’ poli­cies which were obvi­ous­ly focused on the black com­mu­ni­ty. And it applied to both par­ties. In oth­er words, the lethal polic­ing tac­tics that have gar­nered so much pub­lic atten­tion and scruti­ny in over the last year, have large­ly been a reflec­tion of crim­i­nal poli­cies the major­i­ty of Amer­i­cans have called for and endorsed for decades. They’ve most­ly just been fol­low­ing orders. Pub­lic orders.

    Of course, times have changed, as evi­dence by the fact that Bill Clin­ton has called his own “tough on crime” poli­cies a mis­take and Hillary’s plat­form calls for a rever­sal of some of those very same poli­cies. But, as evi­dences by the num­ber of GOP politi­cians rac­ing to give back their CCC dona­tions, times haven’t changed enough.

    And that’s why it’s actu­al­ly pret­ty impor­tant that the US basi­cal­ly take the CCC’s bait and explore the bases of its “legit­i­mate griev­ances”. When the CCC asserts that Roof had “legit­i­mate griev­ances”, the CCC isn’t just talk­ing about Roof’s griev­ances. Its refer­ring to per­cep­tions about the black com­mu­ni­ty that were so wide­ly held in Amer­i­ca that cater­ing to those “legit­i­mate griev­ances” was how politi­cians from both par­ties got elect­ed less than two decades ago. And for a sub­stan­tial por­tion of the elec­torate, dog-whistling to the CCC’s world­view is how some politi­cians still try to get elect­ed today. It’s a legit­i­mate­ly egre­gious sit­u­a­tion.

    Posted by Pterrafractyl | June 22, 2015, 2:37 pm

Post a comment