Follow Up on KTHV Story

Posted by mmi on September 13, 2005, 07:42 PM | #

I feel much safer knowing you won’t be coming to my home state anytime soon.  How about making that a permanent goal?

Posted by Geoff Beck on September 13, 2005, 08:30 PM | #

Dear mmi:

Just minutes after sending KTHV an email notifying them of this post, MMI left that message, above. I grabbed MMI’s IP address and traced it back to KTHV:

> nslookup 12.109.205.236
name = kthv-lclnscvi.kthv.com

So, I upset you cowards at KTHV? You dirty rotten castrated cowards!

+ Why don’t you serve your community by reporting the true incidence of Black on White crime?

+ Why don’t you tell you viewers the danger posed by black populations?

+ Why don’t you tell them Blacks are SEVEN times more like to kill then Whites?

+ Why don’t you tell them 90% of interracial rapes are Black on White?

You disgusting cowards!

Again here are KTHV’s contact numbers:

Main
501-376-1111

News
501-244-4564

News Tipline
888-848-6397 Call TOLL FREE!

11 Listens
501-244-4606

Posted by Guest on September 13, 2005, 08:43 PM | #

I recall a horrific rape of an elderly White woman, a lovely and dear soul ever so helpful to all in the neighborhood.
She was victimized by a male black.
The newspaper account gave every possible
description, height, weight, hat, coatk, pants but you guessed it NOT RACE.
It is sad to see our nation a victim, not
so much of these thugs and punks who are only doing what comes naturally to them, but the media bosses who determine WHAT our people will know about crime.

They choose, they select.
That is why the many cases of Whites, children and women, dragged to their deaths by blacks was never national news but when 2 ex-cons dragged another ex-con to his death that was WORLD NEWS, for YEARS.
Who decided that the homosexual rape and torture murder of 13 year old Jesse Dirkhising was not newsworthy but that Matthew Shepard was?
The JQ is the most important one because it is the foundation of all America’s ills.

Posted by Geoff Beck on September 13, 2005, 08:52 PM | #

If you write to those cowards at KTHV be sure to give them the URL to this post.

http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/1429/

I want them to know they don’t control information anymore.

DO YOU HEAR THAT KTHV - we aren’t just lemmings anymore taking whatever crap you cook up!

Posted by JW Holliday on September 13, 2005, 09:04 PM | #

The comment that struck me by this “police officer” was:

“One question kept coming to me when I was reading your web page, what was the name of your organization before it was called Majority Rights? “

Now, what exactly did he mean by that?

If the idiot is reading the thread, I can tell him that:

a) “Majority Rights” is not an organization, it is a blog.  Do you know what a blog is?

b) the blog, insofar as I know, never had another name.

Posted by JW Holliday on September 13, 2005, 09:10 PM | #

The Garland County Sheriff’s website is here.

Posted by Martin Hutchinson on September 13, 2005, 09:12 PM | #

I think Lt. Neighbors is insinuating MR is an iteration of the American Nazi Party or some such, which is insulting and wrong but frankly only to be expected if we engage in self-indulgent rhetoric to the extent sometimes used here. 

With KTHV, too, it would be much more effective to make the case in as quiet and academic a manner as possible that the public is being denied proper access to news, and race relations themselves harmed, by this kind of media suppression of anti-liberal facts. For one thing, a quieter approach means they have to take us more seriously.

Behaving like a gentleman is MUCH more disarming, even to those you know are opponents.

Without avoiding self-indulgence, MR will never be taken seriously, which is surely the object of the exercise.

Posted by Svigor on September 13, 2005, 09:14 PM | #

The girl is obviously white.  There’s no way, no way in HELL they’d hold out this long if she was black.  They’d have caved and said “ha ha you dirty racists!  She’s black!  Put that in your evil pipe and smoke it!” by now if she was black.

We know she’s a white girl, and we know you’re complicit in the overarching media agenda of lying to the public, you lowbrow paltroons.

Tell me, oh professional liars (the lowest profession on Earth, I should point out), how does it feel to know that everything you tell yourselves about “serving the public” and having a “duty to report the truth” is a lie?

Professional liars.  I hope you can’t sleep well at night.  I know for a moral certainty that the men among you have trouble getting it up.

Posted by Svigor on September 13, 2005, 09:16 PM | #

we engage in self-indulgent rhetoric to the extent sometimes used here.

Though I’m usually not, here I am guilty as charged.  I hate these lying bastards (don’t hate non-whites, or jews, or homosexuals, just professional liars).

Lies by omission are still lies, and those who truck in them for their daily bread are still professional liars.

Posted by Geoff Beck on September 13, 2005, 09:17 PM | #

JW,

My impression of the Garland Country Sherrif’s office was not as bad as KTHV, those folks are down right arrogant.

Lt. Neigbors was fairly quick in responding, but it is obvious to me the dept. is controlled by the PC codes of thought and mind control.

No doubt the Feds and ADL are watching every step local Southern law enforcement’s - just waiting to sue or destroy a cop’s career if the mistakenly arrests a Negro of Mestizo.

On the other hand…

> “One question kept coming to me when I was reading your web page, what was the name of your organization before it was called Majority Rights? “

I thought he was trying to insinuate we are the Klu Klux Klan, or some non-sense like that?

Posted by Geoff Beck on September 13, 2005, 09:18 PM | #

Martin,

Are you still worried you won’t be invited to tea with the Queen of England? No, wait, it was your ethnic friends down at the polo fields?

Posted by Svigor on September 13, 2005, 09:22 PM | #

I wonder how these people distinguish themselves from the others throughout history who have served evil because “they were just following orders”?  I’m sure in their worldview, the Nazis who told themselves, “if I lose my job for doing the right thing it’ll change nothing, for if I’m not willing to lie then they’ll just hire someone who is” were evil for doing so; I’m equally sure they give themselves a pass.

Posted by Svigor on September 13, 2005, 09:31 PM | #

Behaving like a gentleman is MUCH more disarming, even to those you know are opponents.

As a rule, this is true.  Those are words I live by.  I make an exception with these sons of bitches.

Posted by AD on September 13, 2005, 09:32 PM | #

This is probably worth submitting to AmRen.You might want to include the first comment,and the fact that it was someone posting from KTHV.

Posted by Guessedworker on September 13, 2005, 09:37 PM | #

Gentleman,

Martin is perfectly right.  Momentarily satisfying though it may be to pour diatribe upon your opponent, he will only be hardened by it.  Any discomfiture he may have had at the injustice of his own actions will quickly be transformed into righteousness.  Are you not, after all, as wild and dangerous as “they” say?

Of course, if a great wave of a thousand angry callers decended on every Pee-Cee journalist and frightened police lieutenant that would be a different matter ... an expression of the popular will which could not be so easily written off, or written off at all.  But we are not at that stage.  Geoff is just one splendidly stubborn, courageous man campaigning for honesty over political deception.  The politically correct can afford to write him off all too easily, and will feel fully entitled to do so.

It is enough for now to hold up the standards and practices of all these supposed “servants of the public” to the light of day.  Increase their sense of discomfiture at what they do without giving them the respite of your animosity.

Posted by Geoff Beck on September 13, 2005, 09:39 PM | #

I JUST got an email from Lt. NeigHbors, and in a quite dramatic fashion he told me the victim was Black. He’s been reading the thread.

Saying:

It did not matter to me that the victim was black. Sorry to disappoint you.

Apparently, this has been something of dust-up down there in Garland, Co. - conversations between KTHV and the Sheriff’s office.

Alright, so, I’d remind everyone my original post said:

I’ve investigated many news reports of this sort, and a curious pattern emerges - when the victim is White and the attacker is Mestizo or African-American somehow the race of the victim is not mentioned. Of course the reader has no way of knowing the race of the victim in this report, since you have omitted it.

I though, as in other cases, the race of the victim was being squelched by news agencies and reporters. I still believe that is the case.

Now before anyone feels all embarrassed remember that I’ve posted TWO such stories where the victims were White, and posters here remember very well the Wichita Massacre and Jessie Dirkhieser crime.

Alright, back to you Martin.

Posted by JRM on September 13, 2005, 09:57 PM | #

Geoff,
I have to disappoint you also.  I checked out the sex offender websites for Garland County and most of the pictures are of white men. 

http://www.hsnp.com/megan/garland_index.cgi

http://www.sexcriminals.com/sites/20089/

Posted by Geoff Beck on September 13, 2005, 10:01 PM | #

JRM,

Sorry to disappoint, that Lt. NeigHbors lowered the boom right on my head.  (Remember too, I didn’t conceal the facts when they were presented).

But…

I did perform some demographic checks on Garland County, and it appears to be a Majority White county - the white offenders list seems to corroborate that fact.

Well, if that is the case, then there is indeed a higher probability a victim ought to be White.

Posted by Geoff Beck on September 13, 2005, 10:14 PM | #

A few emails have come to me, folks rubbing it in.

Well, let me say this,

1) I didn’t sit on this information.  When I learned the facts I told them.

2) Nothing I said about the incidence of crime is false.

3) I still maintain if a report identifies the race of the perpetrator it ought also identify the race of the victim. The media, across the nation, is concealing these facts.

Ok, well, I’m a bit defensive, Sure. I’ll defend myself.

Posted by JRM on September 13, 2005, 10:19 PM | #

Geoff,
By saying the victim is mentally challenged, the press gave an important piece of information.
If you assume the victim has a IQ of 70 or less, what is the demographic mix such that the likely assumption is that the victim is white?

The black-white IQ differential is one standard deviation.  2.3% of whites are below 70 and 15.8% of blacks are below 70.  Assume only black and white, no other ethnicities, then the as long as the county is less than 87% white, the victim is likely black.

JRM

Posted by JRM on September 13, 2005, 10:20 PM | #

Geoff,
On the whole, I do support you.
I just want you to know. 
Keep it up.
JRM

Posted by Geoff Beck on September 13, 2005, 10:22 PM | #

JRM,

Thanks. I do feel raw about the whole affair, and I’m sure the proprietor isn’t thrilled.
Again, where I’m at fault I’ll confess, otherwise I’ll defend myself.

Posted by Svigor on September 13, 2005, 10:33 PM | #

Now before anyone feels all embarrassed remember that I’ve posted TWO such stories where the victims were White, and posters here remember very well the Wichita Massacre and Jessie Dirkhieser crime.

I don’t feel the least bit embarrassed.  The fact that we have to drag the truth out of our public servants and the media is a source of shame for them, not us.  They’re the ones standing between us and the truth, acting as self-appointed guardians of knowledge, of what we “should” and “shouldn’t” know or care about.

Truth be told our motivations make no nevermind.  One is not allowed simply to be fascinated with the truth, according to their worldview.

Try this, oh gatekeepers of the truth: just report the facts.  Let US decide what is relevant.  Inundate us with an overabundance of data, and let us choose how we wish to consume it.

I’m not at all surprised that the girl was black.  Most crimes, especially sex crimes, are intra-racial as far as I know.

Posted by Matthew on September 13, 2005, 10:34 PM | #

Geoff,

He may of been white but the officer may still be lying.  I would say this is 50/50 at this point.

Until we see mugshots, I am not convinced this is the case.

Mr Officer, If you are telling the truth we appreciate you giving us the facts in this case as many public servants wouldn’t do this. Please read the Color of Crime that Geoff posted above, it is your duty to alert the public to the facts of genocidal rage blacks that are a daily danger to all European people.

The truth cannot be racist.

http://www.amren.com/color.pdf

Posted by Svigor on September 13, 2005, 10:37 PM | #

Btw, gatekeepers, if you think we’re wacko, then get used to a wacko world, because we’re the direction of the trend.  If you think this is wacko, wait until the majority of the aggrieved parties (the ones you’ve been victimizing for decades now) get word of what you’ve been doing.

They’re going to make me look objective.

Posted by Geoff Beck on September 13, 2005, 10:38 PM | #

Matthew,

I thought the same thing - but kept that idea quiet lest someone think I’m scheming to avoid some fault.

Still, it was only when this thread got rolling that the Lt. NeigHbors dropped the boom.

Still, this is what he told me.

If he is lying I’m damned sure KTHV won’t discover or report it.

Posted by Svigor on September 13, 2005, 10:40 PM | #

He may of been white but the officer may still be lying.  I would say this is 50/50 at this point.

Until we see mugshots, I am not convinced this is the case.

You don’t seem to be keeping up with the conversation.  The perpetrator is black, this has been known (which is unusual) from the word go.  We’re talking about the race of the victim.

You are of course correct that skepticism is in order, but then again this man is probably legally liable if he’s lying so I doubt he is.

Posted by Geoff Beck on September 13, 2005, 10:42 PM | #

Matt,

Yes. Svi is right, unlikely he is lying. BTW, this is the perp:

Posted by Matthew on September 13, 2005, 10:54 PM | #

Svigor

You are correct. It should of said said “photo of victim” not “mugshot”

Posted by Geoff Beck on September 13, 2005, 10:59 PM | #

To All:

I’ve got to get my wife out of the house, she says I spend too much time in front of the computer.

So, if anyone has any questions or abuse to direct towards me, I’ll be back later tonight to reply.

Posted by Kubilai on September 13, 2005, 11:14 PM | #

No abuse is warranted, Geoff.  I have a feeling that once the IP address of “mmi” was discovered and the comments took off, the good officer wanted to squelch any further potential problems AND make you look bad.  To me, the behaviour of “mmi” is reprehensible because we aren’t the ones who lie, or hide any facts, or “create” news, or close our eyes to the world around us.  It is them.  Same goes for most of the law enforcement agencies across the western world.  We simply WANT the TRUTH!!  For Lt. Neighbors to state that there isn’t a “conspiracy” is infantile.  He knows full well there has been a dramatic and calculated effort by the media and law enforcement to NOT reveal Black on White crime, or at the very least to downplay it.

Let me ask the LT, do they keep the race of the perp and victim secret to other police officers and agencies because it “doesn’t matter”?  Even having me spell it out like this is absolutely ridiculous because we ALL KNOW, LT.  We all know.

Posted by Kubilai on September 13, 2005, 11:24 PM | #

I don’t feel the least bit embarrassed.  The fact that we have to drag the truth out of our public servants and the media is a source of shame for them, not us.  They’re the ones standing between us and the truth, acting as self-appointed guardians of knowledge, of what we “should” and “shouldn’t” know or care about. - Svi

Exactly right.  More so with the media who are to be simply a conduit of information NOT a creator or suppressor of it.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on September 13, 2005, 11:41 PM | #

You have nothing to apologize for, Geoff.  In fact, they deserved a lot worse than they got.  They know perfectly well what we’re talking about.  (I almost said, “they know damned well what we’re talking about,” but I’ve been trying to mellow my language out a bit ... have been making an effort to heed Martin’s excellent advice—those times when I remember it, that is ...).

Posted by Svigor on September 13, 2005, 11:48 PM | #

Let’s all keep in mind that we had this much trouble finding out the victim’s race and we’re white-Euro particularists and the victim is black.  Imagine how much less forthcoming the gatekeepers (bailiffs) might’ve been had her race been different.

The fact that the answer to our queries eventually became a sort of f-you from our bailiffs is no doubt salient.

Posted by ben tillman on September 14, 2005, 12:14 AM | #

We know that the mainstream media, in the aggregate, practice a double standard designed to present a false version of “reality” to the public.  I’m not sure that we have reason to believe that Lt Neighbors engages in such a double standard.  If we do, it would have to be based on facts not yet presented in this thread, i.e., his conduct in releasing information in other instances where the racial component differs.  His “organization” comment, however, was weird.

Posted by Geoff Beck on September 14, 2005, 12:59 AM | #

Thanks for rallying in my support, this thing really gave me quite a headache.

Yet, there are a number of things about this affair this that stink - as Kub, Svi, JRM, Matt and Ben have all pointed out.

Posted by Lurker on September 14, 2005, 01:03 AM | #

We do know that had the victim been black and the attacker white, the TV people would have been sure to remind us from the start.

Posted by Geoff Beck on September 14, 2005, 01:25 AM | #

BTW, I just read at VDARE that Jared Taylor reports the New Century Foundation has released a new issue of the The Color of Crime 2005

Summary of findings is here: http://www.nc-f.org/findings.htm

Posted by Mrs. Blessed on September 14, 2005, 02:52 AM | #

You did great, Geoff.  You were intrepid in your investigations and you reported the facts you uncovered regardless.  This White woman thanks you.

Posted by Geoff Beck on September 14, 2005, 02:55 AM | #

> This White woman thanks you.

What encouragement! Thanks.

Posted by AD on September 14, 2005, 04:05 AM | #

If the public even had an inkling of the rate of targeted,violent anti-white crime in the US since the 1960s,everything would change overnight.It makes every libel against ‘racist white America’ fade into utter insignificance.There is a similar trend in the UK and Australia.

Exposing it is our #1 task.Don’t let anything get in your way,Geoff.Keep lifting the veil.

Posted by Martin Hutchinson on September 14, 2005, 01:04 PM | #

I disagree that sensitizing the population to the level of anti-white race crime is our #1 prioroty, or that much would change if we succeeded in doing so.  I’m sure the public is pretty well aware that there’s a fair amount of such crime, and that the media, one of whose self-imposed jobs is to promote better racerelations, suppresses accounts of it. 

Equally, we are NOT in a race war, and should not want to be in such—the looters of New orleans do not represent a majority of the African-American community although their gentic makeup (possibly—new data appearing all the time) adverse social behaviour (e.g. 80% illegitmacy) and excess exposure to the applalling extremes of US pop culture produce more of them than would exist in a well ordered society.  Our goals should surely be (i) to control US borders, (ii) to promote the strength and well-being of countries with hard working, intelligent populations and sensible governments, and (iii) to ensure that PC, affirmative action and damaging leftist pop culture do not unduly damge the lives and welfare of the majority population.

That is surely enough for one movement!

Posted by Martin Hutchinson on September 14, 2005, 01:37 PM | #

But incidentally, Geoff, while I disagree with your tactics and rhetoric, I think calling the media and even the police (poor guys) on their suppression of material facts was aboslutely the right thing to do.

Posted by JW Holliday on September 14, 2005, 02:08 PM | #

I’m disinterested in investing significant time and energy to promote reforms to a system that must be replaced.

So my goals differ from yours, Martin.  Can’t you see that we must “surely” undermine multiculturalism and deconstruct Constitutional Patriotism? Then the multiracial regimes in the USA, Europe, etc will collapse?  Only that will give space for the formation of an ethnostate for the racial preservation of white America.

Posted by Martin Hutchinson on September 14, 2005, 02:24 PM | #

There indeed we differ. there are indeed two or probably many versions of the ultimate goal in MR, while pretty general agreement on both the direction and some of the important initial steps.

For the next decade (or however long initial stage victory takes) the latter is more important, although as post-Maggie and post-Reagan history has showed, inital victory, eevn great victory, may expose new divisions and problems thereafter.

Posted by Guest on September 14, 2005, 04:39 PM | #

“One question kept coming to me when I was reading your web page, what was the name of your organization before it was called Majority Rights? “

Well the way the demographics are going it will be retitled “Minority Rights” in a few years.

Posted by Tournament of Champions on September 14, 2005, 05:52 PM | #

The JQ is the most important one because it is the foundation of all America’s ills.

The JQ can only be properly explored on a dedicate site or subdomain, and within clear parameters (scholarly + evolutionary approach, etc). There is much to add to KMD’s foundational work.

Posted by JW Holliday on September 14, 2005, 05:57 PM | #

Martin,

Here we differ again.  Where was the great victory?  I won’t talk about Thatcher, that I will leave to my English friends here at MR.  But Reagan?  In foreign policy, yes, a victory over communism, no doubt.  But, domestically - a disaster.  Amnesty for illegal aliens, an enormous legal alien influx, the exponential increase in political correctness and the further entrenchment of the hard left into academia, affirmative action continuing, shall I go on?

Clinton produced a more substantial welfare reform that anything Reagan did. Ronnie essentially sacrificed domestic policy in favor of foreign policy.  Domestically, in fact, I am extremely dissatisfied with the Reagan legacy, which I see as, in practical terms, being no better than Clinton.  Now, Reagan supporters will attempt to defend their hero, and explain why his adminstration, in practical terms, was Clintonesque domestically.  That’s not the point though - the point is, was Reagan really a “great victory” for ‘rightist’ values and “majority rights” in America? Certainly not.  He was a disaster.

With respect to initial steps, I would think we differ there as well.  I see initial steps as being the hard-nosed practicing of the “politics of exclusion” and getting white Americans to practice identity politics and withdraw consent from the multicultural
state.  Supporting Amren, EAIF, National Policy Institute is one way to begin.  Getting some folks to run for office on an explicitly pro-white platform will be important.  The point is NOT for them to win elections (although any victory would of course be outstanding and important).  The point is to create and enhance racial friction and balkanization, to exacerbate the fissures apparent in the ruling regime. Legal, non-violent sociopolitical chaos is required.

Too bad we don’t have the infrastructure in place now, the whole Katrina situation could have been properly used.  Imagine a white politician openly saying what Taylor wrote at Amren.

Posted by JW Holliday on September 14, 2005, 06:01 PM | #

More on Reagan.

Actually, any western (sic?) leader who proposes abolishing nuclear weapons is an idiot.  With an industrializing China, with an incomprehensibly enormous manpower base, WMD are needed to keep all sides “honest.”

Mutually assured destruction has its good points.  A conventional war against a nation that can field an army larger than many countries, does not.

Note that Raygun’s beliefs in this regard seem to have had a religious context.  I really would like secular leaders to keep their religious beliefs away from the sort of serious strategic decisions that need to be made.

The more I learn about Reagan, the less I find to like.

Posted by Martin Hutchinson on September 14, 2005, 06:25 PM | #

JWH, you have encapsulated pretty well where I differ from majority opinion on this site. I regard Reagan as a great President, and believe his principle of “trust but verify” would have prevented him from abolishing nukes altogether, because of the impossibility of verifying Chinese/N.Korean compliance. On domestic policy, he cut taxes and made substantial steps in reversing the tide of socialism—his work was carried further by the welfare reform of 1996, which was of course a Gingrich initiative not a Clinton one.

I believe the accentuating of racial differences, let alone the incitement of race war, to be a thoroughly bad idea, although immigration needs to be bought firmly under control and antisocial behavior, whether Cockney, Islamic or black, needs to be firmly stamped on. From my own experience doing business in about 30 countries, I have found race to be a very limited determinant of behavior and politics/culture a much better one. Arabs are a danger because they are brought up to believe anti-American religious rubbish, not because they are Arabs. Southern religious fundamentalists who try to prohibit the teaching of evolution and ban genetic engineering are equally a danger, although obviously a much lesser one.

I am a Conservative, in the sense of Liverpool (who was 1/8 Indian) and Coolidge (who signed and welcomed the 1924 Immigration Act but was no racist.)To the extent that Thatcher and Reagan folloowed Liverpool and Coolidge’s example (in Thatcher’s case, entirely accidentally) they succeeded, to the extent they veered from it, they failed.

Posted by JW Holliday on September 14, 2005, 08:38 PM | #

To be perfectly clear: I think, domestically, Reagan was a terrible President and a genuine disaster for America.  The illegal amnesty alone - setting the precedent for the future and stimulating more illegal immigration - is sufficient for those of us concerned about race to view Reagan’s legacy with disgust.

On the flip side, I wonder how many “Atzlanites” mourned the passing of their benefactor?  Not many, I suppose.  After all, Ron was just one of those “old white guys” who - in part due to Reagan’s own policies - are fading from history.  Now, if we do not fade from history, I do hope that Reagan is viewed as the atrocious opiate that he was for whites.

Of course, I and others here consider disregard for racial and ethnic determinants of behavior as, at best, facile.  But that is not really the point.  I am unconcerned if racially alien peoples “behave well”, the point is that they are racially alien.  I have posted here enough about ethnic genetic interests to make further comments along that line superfluous for the time being.  Suffice to say that for the majority of majority rightists, race is paramount while concerns for “economic growth” and “behavior” are secondary.

In point of fact, I’ve posted here about how virtually all such proximate concerns are relevant only insofar as they effect living human beings; thus making biology, and the question of “who benefits” prior to, and more important than, the proximate issues.

I’m curious as well as who here - speaking of posters, not commentators - is promoting “race war”?  The idea that white identity politics will inevitably lead to apocalyptic catastrophes is the sort of strawman argument produced by cognitively challenged South Asians from a certain race-denying, “genes are mystical”, Asian-supremacist, Neo-Stalinist, freedom-of-association-denying blog.  It is not true.  I am disappointed to see this canard repeated here.  Its purport is that whites must remain passive and supine, and eschew the same sort of identity politics pacticed by everyone else, or we’ll be accused of “trying to start a race war?” No, no - I don’t think so.  Gee ... is America really that fragile? 

I sure hope so.

Talking to guys like me about ‘reform’, Martin, you might as well be talking to a stone.  I loathe this system, and my only view is for legal, non-violent destabilization.

OK, so you guys like cricket.  How about this analogy?  A cricket team is successful based on the performance of one great player.  BUT ... the entire team’s agenda, ‘culture’ and ownership is all about humiliating, exploiting, degrading, and abusing that player.  In other words, they depend upon the one guy they despise and are trying to ruin.

For his part, he has been mesmerized into a perverse loyalty to the team so, despite the abuse, he continues playing well and the team continues winning - with all the prestige and money from its success going directly to the campaign of abuse.  And let us say that this campaign of abuse is intrinsic to the team, in that the status of all of the other players depends on this exploitation.

Should the star try to ‘reform’ the team, so his abuse is a bit less?  Or should he shake off the mesmerization, realize his interests are not beng served - really that they need him more than he needs them - and STOP participating in his own abuse?

No question.  He must wipe his hands of the team, refuse to accept the abusers and exploiters as his “fellow teammates”, and join with those like him to form a new team, where his work will redound to his own benefit.

Posted by Geoff Beck on September 14, 2005, 09:01 PM | #

JW,

The whole foundation of American society has rotted. We are living on the accumulated accomplishments of past generations. Since I am unsure it is legal to advocate a revolution and the necessary severe punishment of all those associated with the “system” I will not advocate such a position.

BTW, very happy to see you’re posting again, your clarity and realism is admired

Posted by June Gordon on September 14, 2005, 11:59 PM | #

So, Geoff Beck tried to bully a police spokesman and a television news station into supporting him in an outright lie.  Now, his name is on record as a white supremacist who attempts to harass people performing their duties, including law enforcement.  Hopefully, it will be passed on to the FBI since the kinds of threats made in this thread suggest someone capable of violence.  People are learning not to wait until these situations reach Matt Hale proportions. 

Congratulations, Geoff.  A dubious achievement, but one that deserves recognition. 

(BTW:  Do the rest of you not recognize that Geoff is a fool?)

Posted by Martin Hutchinson on September 15, 2005, 12:59 AM | #

No, Ms. Gordon, Geoff merely attempted to prevent them from suppressing the truth, if indeed they were doing so. His language was intemperate, but his action was perfectly reasonable. Paranoia at the extremes of politics is inevitably fed by attempts by the media and the authorities to cover up realities of which they do not approve. There was in this case no reason whatever not to answer Geoff’s question with the correct information in the first instance, instead of playing deceitful games.

I’m sure the implied threat in your posting gave you a frisson of corrupt excitement; others will treat it with the contempt it deserves.

Posted by Geoff Beck on September 15, 2005, 01:11 AM | #

June,

You are a nut.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on September 15, 2005, 01:31 AM | #

June Gordon, your Spanish-sounding e-mail name, Pajaranita, suggests you may be Mexican or Hispanic.  Are you?

Posted by Lurker on September 15, 2005, 01:55 AM | #

June - you must have read something different to me. GB just wanted the TV & police to verify a fact of the case. In this case his suspicions were unfounded. But come on June you and I both know that had the victim been black and the attacker white, that fact would have been repeated at every opportunity. Suddenly it would matter.

Posted by June Gordon on September 15, 2005, 02:54 AM | #

No to various misconceptions.  Suffice it to say that the level of actual factual information the close-minded participants in this site have is nil. Perhaps spending so much time republishing the same old tired racist propaganda over and over again leaves the purveyors little time to learn actual information.

Let’s straighten out a few of those misconceptions.

~Very little information is released regarding victims of alleged rape, particularly when they are minors.  The goal is to protect the person from further trauma by not making him or her subject to gossip or ridicule.  Media who do have information about the alleged victim generally keep it private for the same reason.  So, asking the police or media to release personal information about a rape victim is a rather stupid thing to do. 

~The race of a victim is irrelevant.  A person who suffers a violent crime is concerned about the damage, physical and emotional, caused.  The race of the assailant has nothing to do with the harm in the bulk of cases.  Would Joseph Duncan’s growing list of alleged victims be better off if they had been assaulted, raped, and murdered by someone other a white male?  Of course not.  What was done to them is what matters, not the melanin content of the skin of the person who did it. 

~People who genuinely care about crime don’t dismiss the majority of crimes committed, which are intraracial, to focuse on interracial crimes.  Those who do don’t care about the victims.  They are just interested in fueling a racist agenda.  This is demonstrated by the complete lack of interest in the victim of the alleged rape in this example, especially once persons on this site were given the impression the victim is black.  Does that make the crime (if it occurred) less abhorrent?  No, to reasonable people.  Yes, to racists. 

~The anti-terrorism statutes current in the U.S. today are being used to address both domestic and foreign terrorism.  There is a correlation between participation in white supremacist activities, including sites such as this one, and committing terrorist acts.  So, it is reasonable for law enforcement to report harassment from participants in this site to the FBI and other law enforcement agencies that gather information on potentially dangerous people.  I recall reading that Matt Hale believes he was exposed partly through his Internet communications being tracked by law enforcement.  I would not be surprised to learn he is right about that.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on September 15, 2005, 04:24 AM | #

“white supremacist activities, including sites such as this one” (—June Gordon)

This isn’t a “white supremacist” site.  Hate groups such as the SPLC use that libel to gin uip donations so their honchos can get rich off of human distress and misery.  This site, as I view it, is an anti-genocide site.  It opposes precisely that genocide which hate groups such as the SPLC and haters such as Morris Dees fanatically advocate.

“it is reasonable for law enforcement to report harassment from participants in this site”

No one from this site harrassed law enforcement.  Asking about details of a crime isn’t harrassment.

“The race of a victim is irrelevant.”

The races of the victim and perpetrator certainly are irrelevant for some purposes, such as, say, the purely medical concerns of the emergency room doctors who have to treat the injured individual.  For other purposes, such as setting certain aspects of social policy, immigration policy, and so on, their respective races are highly relevant.  When white people are exposed inordinately to physical violence at the hands of Negroes and Mexicans they might wish to think twice before letting lots of them in.  That’s one way in which race is relevant to immigration policy.  Race is also relevant to law enforcement:  the statistics proving a preponderance of violent crime is committed by certain races justify racial profiling in police work.  There are many ways in which the respective races of perpetrator and victim are relevant.

Are you the professor at the University of California, Santa Cruz?  Have you an opinion of the behavior of the Negroes in the Superdome and the Convention Center?  Do you consider it equally safe for a white woman to walk down the street in Harlem, NYC, and in Sands Point, Long Island?  Where would you rather send your children to public school:  one in a white neighborhood or one in a Negro neighborhood?  Should the sexes of victims and perpetrators of violent crimes be ignored too, or just the races?

Posted by Fred Scrooby on September 15, 2005, 04:35 AM | #

Furthermore, Prof. Gordon, we’re sick and tired of your side always trying to suppress free discussion of these ideas through the tactic of libeling them as “hate” then citing anti-"hate" restrictions on freedom of speech.  Your side, Professor, are the haters.  Your side are the racists.  Your side are the genocide advocates.  Your side are the totalitarians.  And you know something?  We’re sick to death of it—of you, your “ideas,” and your tactics.  We claim the right to speak.  And speak we will!  We will not be silenced, not by you or anyone else.  Those days are over.  We will be heard.  So take your veiled threats and go peddle them elsewhere.  You impress no one here, you bigoted, extremist totalitarian posing as a college professor!

Posted by Fred Scrooby on September 15, 2005, 05:16 AM | #

“People who genuinely care about crime don’t dismiss the majority of crimes committed, which are intraracial, to focus on interracial crimes.”

Those are two separate issues.  First, we’re not dismissing the fact that the majority of victims of Negro crimes are Negroes.  We’re concerned about it and would like something done about it other than the sole solution your side comes up with, to blame astronomical Negro crime rates on “white racism.” Your side have had the microphone and the podium entirely to yourselves forty years and done naught but spout that pathetic Marxist theory and gotten nowhere with it, so hand the microphone to us please, and get off the podium because you’re incapable of uttering a word of truth.  As for the “focus on interracial crime,” a focus on that topic in certain discussions is legitimate given your side’s constant propaganda barrage in the form of the lie that the only interracial crime going on is white-on-Negro.  Why don’t you stop that lie and admit that exactly the opposite is the problem? 

“Those who do don’t care about the victims.  They are just interested in fueling a racist agenda.”

If your side cared about the Negro or white victims of Negro crime you’d accept the truth about its cause instead of pushing one fantasy after another on society as untold numbers of people of all races, most of them non-whites, fall victim to it while your dither, lie, cast blame where it doesn’t belong, and spout your Marxist PC crap.  Your side don’t care about crime victims, only about feeling holier-than-thou with your nauseating, lying, hypocritical, destructive feel-good liberalism. 

“the complete lack of interest in the victim of the alleged rape in this example, especially once persons on this site were given the impression the victim is black.  Does that make the crime (if it occurred) less abhorrent?  No, to reasonable people.  Yes, to racists.”

We do care about the Negro victims of Negro crime.  The proof we care is we’re actually trying to do something about it, while as for you and your hypocrite ilk, all you care about is impressing each other with how much more moral you are than those “racists” who are the only ones looking at the problem realistically and with any hope of finally, at long last, addressing it effectively.  Who are the racists—the ones who squelch truth and real solutions?  Or the others?  You others?

Posted by JW Holliday on September 15, 2005, 06:50 AM | #

Geoff,

See this.

Not only is that still on the books, but I suspect that every pro-white group is infiltrated by government agents.  All these “bullets, not ballots” guys are just blowing a lot of hot air.  Do NOT, ever, promote violent revolution.  Just, don’t.

Now, I’m not saying “ballots, not bullets” either.  No, I’m saying what we really need is neither ballots nor bullets.  We need white Americans to withdraw support from the multicultural regime, and eschew constitutional patriotism in every way possible within the confines of what can be done legally, etc.  We have, in fact, wasted decades with “Turner Diaries"-like fantasies and the “armageddon is around the corner” mentality more fitting of religious cults.  If only intellectuals and others had “marched through the institutions”, if only white-only private organizations - encompassing all facets of daily life - been established, if only an openly racial political party been established (I’m talking serious people here, not vulgar race war-mongers). But, no.  Instead, we had idiots proclaiming that “the revolution” will happen “within five years.” They’ve been saying that for, I don’t know, maybe 40 years already!  Wake up, guys!

What we need to do is make non-whites want to be separate from us, by denying to them the acceptance, handouts, “inclusion”, and “good old passive whitey” that they so crave.  Sometimes when a “guest” overstays their welcome, some judicious rudeness may give them the hint.  No, NOT violence, one does not hit a boorish guest over the head ... but one <>does make it clear they are not wantied (note: of course, legally justifiable self-defense is another issue, but that’s not what we are talking about here).

IF (and that’s a big IF, I do know) a significant fraction of whites start practicing “the politics of exclusion”, then the multicultural state collapses.  Of course, that state may attempt draconian methods to enforce inclusion.  That’s why we do need to infiltrate the system, and have political participation.  We need to work on all angles to preserve enough of free speech and private freedom of association to make exclusion a viable option to promote sociopolitical chaos.  And by chaos, I am NOT talking about those fantasies again.  I do mean a situation in which no one believes any more in the viability of multiracial America, and all groups, including whites, organize for group interests and the “dream” (sic) of a harmonious multicultural nation is drowned out by the loud noise of constant racial friction, ethnic neoptism, and race-group identity politics. 

We need a multi-faceted approach in which the different methods interlock and support each other.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on September 15, 2005, 12:45 PM | #

“But come on June you and I both know that had the victim been black and the attacker white, that fact would have been repeated at every opportunity. Suddenly it would matter.”

I don’t see where in her long comment June Gordon answered Lurker’s point, above.  Prof. Gordon (if that’s who you are), if “the race of the victim doesn’t matter” why is it that the one time in a zillion a violent street crime is committed by a white against a Negro we never stop hearing about it, day and night, for months nay years if not decades—wait, it is decades!  It’s decades!  For decades we never stop hearing about it, if you count the Hollywood movies that get made about it and the CNN, ABC, CBS, and NBC news-hour anniversaries and retrospectives ten, fifteen, twenty, thirty, forty years after the fact.  Why is that, if “the race of the victim doesn’t matter,” Professor?  And if, according to you, all that matters is the crime—the race of the victim and of the perpetrator never matter—why are so many Negro-on-white crimes completely blacked out of the national news, as was done in the case of the horrific multiple kidnapping-and-murder case in Kansas City a few years ago, which had been reported only in one local paper, leaving people in the rest of the country to find out about it solely thanks to the internet?  Wasn’t it a crime?  And didn’t you say all that mattered was the crime that had been committed?  If all that matters is “the crime, not the race,” why is race the determining factor in certain crimes being blacked out of the national news media?  Since your side, Professor, are the ones doing the highly-selective blacking-out, maybe you can explain the phenomenon to the rest of us who are scratching our heads?

Posted by Fred Scrooby on September 15, 2005, 12:58 PM | #

Prof. Gordon, is race a factor in your own personal decisions as to which neighborhoods you feel it is safe for you to walk through, or even, in some cases, drive through?  Jesse Jackson (a Negro prominent in the U.S. racial politics, for any non-Americans reading this who may not know) said it always brought a feeling of relief when, on hearing the sound of footsteps behind him on a deserted street at night, he looked around and saw it was a white person.  Was there something wrong with what he said, Prof. Gordon?  Shouldn’t the well-known hater and hate-group founder Morris Dees classify Jesse Jackson as a hater for making that comment?

Posted by JW Holliday on September 15, 2005, 01:06 PM | #

Fascinating character, this “June Gordon”.  It calls us “close-minded”, then implies that our discussions on race here at this blog should be correlated to “terrorism” and be brought to the attention of the authorities. Very interesting.  It seems like folks like JG want to set the boundaries of discourse.  If you disagree with them, then you are a “terrorist” and should be legally sanctioned (hmmm ... sounds like a GNXP type argument to me ...).

Why stop there?  Criticism of Negro behavior during Katrina - perhaps that’s “terrorism” as well?  Academic studies on race and IQ- “terrorism?” That recent pair of scientific papers concerming the geographic distribution of brain-size genes - “terrorism?” Perhaps we need to ask: what is not terrorism?  The views of “June Gordon?” I guess when one cannot debate issues on the basis of facts and logic, then label the opponent “white supremacist hater terrorists” and demand they be thrown in the gulag, and that they are “mentally ill.” Hey, it worked in the USSR, why not here?

I may also point out that a refusal to racially identify victim and assailant is common to many cases other than rape, when it “so happens” that the crime is inter-racial and the victim white.

All of which brings up a logical flaw in the arguments of folks like Gordon.
On the one hand, they assert that black pathology is due to ‘racism’ of society and so forth; on the other hand, they always assert that our ideology is a “dead-end” because no one - including most whites - believes in it, and “our” government is so anti-white racist that our exercise of free speech here would be likened to “terrorism.”

So, which is it?  Is society so racist that it forces blacks to act as they do, meaning that our views are really more mainstream, or are we just a tiny, powerless fringe, meaning that black behavior needs be examined independent of the “endemic institutional racism” that some cite?

Or, is it just that a cabal of those in government are racists against blacks?  If so, then why jail Matt Hale?  Wouldn’t he be their hero?  And if “the government” is racist, aren’t they then themselves the “terrorists?” Or are those who criticize the “racist government” the “terrorists” themselves?  Then, “anti-racists” are “terrorists?” Getting mighty complicated, isn’t it?

Or should we just chalk up black failures to past racism, to which one may ask, if such “racism” no longer exists outside of here, when are blacks going to stop being so pathological?  I mean, Japanese-Americans show no signs of such pathology, despite internment ...

Posted by JW Holliday on September 15, 2005, 01:10 PM | #

Of course, if the Gordon/SPLC types were really concerned about “white supremacist violence/terrorism”, then they would be strongly supporting blogs like this one as well as pro-white activism in the political arena.

After all, there is no more sure way to provoke dissident violence than to prevent the dissidents from legally pursuing their agenda within the system.

Since Gordon talks about Matt Hale, let’s look at that.  I’m not condoning Church of the Creator violence, but let us admit: the troubles, starting with the Smith shootings, started because Hale was denied the right to practice law, despite passing his bar exam. And the only reason he was so denied, was because of his beliefs.

So, we are an interesting point with these anti-racists.  On the one hand, they wish to deny pro-white activists legal participation in America’s political and legal systems, and equate free speech discussion with “terrorism.”

On the other hand, of course, if people turn to violence, then they are de facto terrorists.  That’s just like the anti-racist ‘take’ on guys like Duke and Strom.  On the one hand, they denounce any and all examples of “racist violence” such as the Church of the Creator, Ben Smith, etc.  BUT, if Duke and Strom come out with a “New Orleans protocol”, which specifically forbids violence and even the merest mention of violence and illegality, then they are denounced for that, because they are “mainstreaming hate.”

Thus, the talk of violence and “terrorism” is just a strawman.  The real agenda is that any and all ideas and activism, regardless of how legal, that promotes white interests is to be forbidden.

Posted by JW Holliday on September 15, 2005, 01:15 PM | #

Contrary to the assertions of certain specimens, there are, of course, legitimate reasons to determine the racial identities of both victim and criminal.  For example-

1) If the victim was chosen on the basis of race.  Interesting, is it not, that leftists have no problem with the race-crime link when the subject is “white racist hate crimes.” However, the possibility that much minority-on-majority crime may have at least a partial racial basis is met with the “what difference does it make?” mantra.

2) Certain population groups may be more crime-prone than others, and it is useful to understand the costs to society, and, in particular, the costs to less violent groups, of enforced (*) multiracialism.  The practical usefulness - from a law enforcement
standpoint - of identifying the race of a suspect should be obvious, but is not to those in the media who withhold that information even during a manhunt.

3) The involvement of immigrants, particularly illegal immigrants, in crime (both as criminals and victims) needs to be determined, since this immense cost to society must be figured into any calculation of the relative “benefits” of migration.

I do understand that those arguing from a weak position may wish to bury unpleasant facts.

*If diversity is so wonderful and so self-evidently strengthening, why must it be enforced by law?  And why is it so eschewed by others?  In point of fact, why don’t anti-racists of all stripes concentrate on the racially exclusive migration policies of many non-white nations?  Or, I can ask, do the anti-racists believe that segregated, ethnically homogenous neighborhoods in the USA are morally/legally acceptable?  If not, why do they not protest against certain such towns that exist in New York State, made up of a particular Middle Eastern ethnie?  Or, in today’s America, are certain groups more equal than others, eh?

Posted by JB on September 15, 2005, 10:34 PM | #

“Matt Hale proportions”

Matt Hale got 40 years for NOT committing a crime. This guy Evola was paid 30,000 or 50,000 $ by the FBI (a very low amount of money BTW, that’s cheap labor) to get a murder sollicitation from Hale but all he got was basically a “whatever, do what you want Tony”. No explicit orders or instructions, nobody died and yet Hale was convicted by a majority non-white jury and sentenced to 40 years of jail. Hale was targeted by the government because of his political activities. The government and the media is at war against whites and anyone who wants to defend whites one way or another.

Posted by ben tillman on September 16, 2005, 10:29 PM | #

Very little information is released regarding victims of alleged rape....

Go back to your manual, June.  That statement is VERY un-PC!

Posted by ben tillman on September 16, 2005, 10:32 PM | #

A person who suffers a violent crime is concerned about the damage, physical and emotional, caused.  The race of the assailant has nothing to do with the harm in the bulk of cases.

A facile analyis.  For a white woman, being raped by a black man is more hatmful than being raped by a white man.  It is indeed a greater crime.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on September 17, 2005, 03:06 AM | #

“For a white woman, being raped by a black man is more hatmful than being raped by a white man.”

There was inadvertant truth in that typo of Ben’s, above:  for most white women, being raped by a Negro probably is more hateful and more harmful than being raped by a white man, horrific though the latter experience must be.  So, the word “hatmful,” combining “harmful” and “hateful,” was actually sort of an appropriate coinage for that sentence.