A victory for the SPLC

Posted by Guest Blogger on Saturday, 11 June 2005 02:29.

Most readers will be aware of the Southern Poverty Law Centre: a well-funded left-wing American group which targets those who don’t accept the “diversity” agenda.

Well, the SPLC have scored another victory, one which is politically revealing.

Kevin Lamb was managing editor of a weekly magazine called Human Events. It’s a magazine which professes to have conservative social values, in particular on family issues. Yet after just one phone call from the SPLC Kevin Lamb was summoned to his employer’s office and given his marching orders.

His crime? In his spare time Kevin Lamb helps to edit The Occidental Quarterly, a journal focusing on issues of ethnicity, politics and culture.

There’s a lesson to be learnt here. If a genuine conservative received a phone call from a virulently leftist group attacking one of his employees, he would offer the leftist some choice words before slamming down the receiver.

But the so-called conservative management of Human Events did the opposite. They took their orders from the SPLC and hurriedly sacked their employee.

Kevin Lamb himself draws the right conclusion from this. He writes,

“If grassroots conservative readers of Human Events knew –as they should know – that their flagship publication caved in so quickly to a single phone call from the SPLC, a radical leftist group ... then those readers might also begin to glimpse why “conservatives” so often lose political battles with the left. The unfortunate truth is that the two groups share certain philosophical premises.

“For one might think that the editors of Human Events would have sneered at the SPLC’s efforts to purge one of its employees. Instead, they agreed with the SPLC’s aims, revealing that establishment conservatives have become just as intolerant of discussions of racial differences as the anti-American radicals of the far left. Under the guise of diversity and multiculturalism, the two sides have created an atmosphere of intolerance and retribution against anyone who even appears to challenge their ideological orthodoxies.”

The key insight here is “the two groups share certain philosophical premises”. Which they do. Both the left and the mainstream right share the liberal idea that what counts is an individual freedom to choose and that we should therefore not be limited in what we can choose by an unchosen, biological category like race. Race, in this view, must be made not to matter (should not be a basis for “discrimination”), which principle undermines the effort of any established, mainstream ethnicity to uphold its existence.

So what should our attitude to these establishment conservatives be? Personally, I favour labelling them not as conservatives at all but as right-liberals (in contrast to left-liberals). But if we are to call them conservatives we need to distinguish them from ourselves. My own preference here would be to call them “mainstream conservatives” as opposed to “traditionalist conservatives”.

Finally, Kevin Lamb ends his article with a nice quote from the pioneering social psychologist William McDougall. I don’t think it’s a sufficient definition of traditionalist conservatism, but it’s not a bad effort:

“The essential expressions of conservatism are respect for the ancestors, pride in their achievement, and reverence for the traditions which they have handed down; all of which means what is now fashionable to call ‘race prejudice’ and ‘national prejudice,’ but may more justly be described as preference for, and belief in the merits of, a man’s own tribe, race, or nation, with its peculiar customs and institutions – its ethos, in short.

“If such preferences, rooted in traditional sentiments, are swept away from a people, its component individuals become cosmopolitans; and a cosmopolitan is a man for whom all such preferences have become mere prejudices, a man in whom the traditional sentiments of his forefathers no longer flourish, a man who floats upon the current of life, the sport of his passions, though he may deceive himself with the fiction that he is guided in all things by reason alone.”

P.S. For examples of better ways to deal with missives from the SPLC here are replies to the SPLC from Lawrence Auster and Dr James Tanton.

Tags: Conservatism

Comments:

Posted by john fitzgerald on Sat, 11 Jun 2005 07:19 | #

“No nuttier than the New York Times”, John, what planet are you living on?
As for conservatives a better name is the blightwing, because thy’re a blight on white people.

Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 11 Jun 2005 07:20 | #

Human Events did what all non-Nationalist-minded commercial bodies will do: look first to its wallet.

It is owned by Eagle Publishing, from which one cannot exclude the possibility of Jewish managerial input, I suppose. However, the wallet is again probably the determining factor. Eagle describes itself thus:-

With its growing team of publishing professionals, Eagle has fast become one of America’s leaders in the public-policy publishing arena. Shaping the direction of Eagle’s growth and dedication to conservative, pro-American ideals are Chairman Thomas L. Phillips and President Jeffrey J. Carneal. They—together with a seasoned editorial team, top-notch marketers, and dedicated support staff—have positioned Eagle for solid growth well into the 21st century.

I admire Tanton’s subtle way with words in his reply to the execrable SPLC:-

I would like some assurances from an analysis of your staffing patterns that you do not discriminate on the basis of race, religion, gender or national origin. Please supply a list of your staff and governing board complete with an analysis for these four pillars of non-discrimination, and correlated with salary level. In your opinion, to avoid the charge of discrimination, should the makeup of your staff mirror the city of Montgomery, the state of Alabama, the United States - or perhaps the world? What groups are over- or underrepresented?

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 11 Jun 2005 14:01 | #

“Jewish managerial input”

GW, I find that a perfectly legitimate question to bring up. Does anyone happen to know if the decision to sack this individual rested ultimately with someone at Human Events who was Jewish? Among leftists the ones with the greatest inclination to ruthlessly suppress free speech are Jews and homosexuals (that includes both male and female homosexuals, by the way, lesbians being as bad as certain men homos in this regard, or worse—picture some of these shrieking, threatening, fist-shaking, free-speech-suppressing lesbian women’s-lib leaders).

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 11 Jun 2005 14:03 | #

I meant someone at Human Events or at Eagle Publishing who was Jewish. Anyone happen to know? It would be damned interesting.

Posted by Phil on Sat, 11 Jun 2005 14:24 | #

The SPLC’s biggest funders are Jews. I would go to the extent of saying that the SPLC would not exist without enormous Jewish financial support.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 11 Jun 2005 15:25 | #

Phil, that’s true of both the SPLC and the ACLU. There’s a sense in which Jews are attacking white Christians—attacking the foundations of white-Christian society—on a tribal basis. That seems undeniable. (Jews as an organized ethnic interest group of course were also influential in ushering the 1965 Immigration Holocaust Bill through Congress, a transparently genocidal bill, and to the extent Jewish influence played a role in its passage, that influence amounted to tribal strike by one tribe against another in a tribal war—sorry to phrase it that way but that’s what it was.) I have no interest in “demonizing” Jews as a group (incidentally, I still haven’t read Kevin MacDonald’s books on the Jews) but there is clearly a sense in which a tribal war is being waged, with Jews on one side and white Christians on the other. If there is anything to this, it has to be uncovered completely and exposed to the light of day. It cannot continue to be kept under wraps, as some Jews and some white Christians might prefer. It has to be discussed and dealt with because it’s a major problem for all concerned and can only get worse otherwise.

Posted by Phil on Sat, 11 Jun 2005 16:05 | #

I still haven’t read Kevin MacDonald’s books on the Jews

I haven’t read his first two books but his third book is very good.

Posted by Stuka on Sat, 11 Jun 2005 17:24 | #

I thought Kevin Lamb, in the Manews.org article, had partly attributed his firing to a homosexualist executive at Eagle Publishing. Whether this unnamed executive is Jewish, he doesn’t say.

In any event, forget about Human Events. A subscription to TOQ would be highly recommended.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 11 Jun 2005 17:53 | #

“a homosexualist executive at Eagle Publishing” (—Stuka)

There you go. (See my comment above, at 1:01 PM).

Posted by ben tillman on Sat, 11 Jun 2005 17:59 | #

Eagle Publishing’s management & board members are here:

http://www.regnery.com/eagle_manage.html

The first couple names, at least, are plausibly Jewish.

Posted by ben tillman on Sat, 11 Jun 2005 18:00 | #

I would like to see Lamb pursue legal action for redress for racial discrimination in employment, inter alia.

Posted by Svigor on Sat, 11 Jun 2005 21:55 | #

Among leftists the ones with the greatest inclination to ruthlessly suppress free speech are Jews and homosexuals

Not only that, but as far as I can remember every person I’ve ever read to have uttered or written phrases like “the white race must be destroyed” has been a Jew. Sontag and Ignatiev spring to mind. I’d be more than happy to review something that disabused me of this perception.

I haven’t read his first two books but his third book is very good.

I recommend the first two for context for CoC, among other things.

Posted by Phil on Sat, 11 Jun 2005 22:34 | #

I recommend the first two for context for CoC, among other things.

Svy,

I know I should. I’ve been intending to read them for more than 6 months now. But at 80 hours a week in the office at the moment, it just isn’t happening.

Posted by Mark Richardson on Sat, 11 Jun 2005 23:03 | #

Svigor, our main problem isn’t with the relatively small number of intellectuals who come out openly and say “the white race must be destroyed”.

It’s more with the larger number who, like John Ray, declare a pride in their own ancestry, whilst at the same time favouring “non-discrimination” immigration policies which will ultimately have the effect of ending that ancestral tradition.

Australian PM John Howard fits this category, as does former PM Malcolm Fraser - neither of whom are either gay or Jewish.

At my own workplace, we have lesbians galore who push their own agenda. Yet the real problem politically is the principal and the senior male teachers, who are as Anglo, gentile and heterosexual as you can get, who in their personal lives and personalities are quite conservative, and yet who are very vociferously and aggressively left-wing and who set the tone for the school.

Note that even Kevin Lamb who helps edit TOQ, and who therefore is hardly unaware of the JQ, did not primarily blame either Jews or gays for his dismissal (although he does raise the issue of a particular homosexual exectutive).

Rather he saw the problem in political terms as a failing of mainstream conservatism - specifically the fact that such conservatives share some of the assumptions of leftists on issues of race and ethnicity.

Posted by Geoff Beck on Sat, 11 Jun 2005 23:53 | #

I’m subscribing to the Occidental Quarterly,

http://theoccidentalquarterly.com/

http://theoccidentalquarterly.com/subscriptions-cc.html

Posted by Svigor on Sun, 12 Jun 2005 03:26 | #

Svigor, our main problem isn’t with the relatively small number of intellectuals who come out openly and say “the white race must be destroyed”.

That much is obvious. The number isn’t relatively small, it’s small in absolute terms as far as I know.

Posted by Steve Edwards on Sun, 12 Jun 2005 08:03 | #

Malcolm Fraser may not be gay, however Mark Richardson errs regarding Fraser’s ancestry. Malcolm Fraser’s mother was indeed Jewish:

http://www.nma.gov.au/schools/school_resources/resource_websites_and_interactives/primeministers/malcolm_fraser/

“John Malcolm Fraser was born in Toorak, Victoria, on 21 May 1930. He married Tamara (‘Tammie’) Beggs in 1956, and had four children. He’s known by his middle name - Malcolm.

He is the second of the two children of Una Woolf and John Neville Fraser. Una Woolf was of Jewish descent and J.N. Fraser, Scottish. J.N. Fraser, a pastoralist who had trained as a lawyer, owned property in the Riverina district of New South Wales.”

Furthermore:

http://malcolm-fraser.biography.ms/

“Fraser was the son of a wealthy grazier. His mother, Una Fraser (nee Woolf), was Jewish, a fact which influenced his attitudes towards multiculturalism.”

Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 12 Jun 2005 09:25 | #

Ultimately, Mark is right to say that all such matters as this are political failures of Conservatism. The capitulation to Jewish anti-White European advocacy is a failure of Conservatism. Conservatism is built on the rock of blood and soil or it is non-Conservative. All over the West this simple, unequivocal, inconvenient truth has been put away. The death of Conservatism is the death of Western Man, and he may have no peaceful means of revival without cleaving to a revived Conservatism.

Posted by john fitzgerald on Sun, 12 Jun 2005 11:21 | #

To help send money by paypal or to
The Occidental Quarterly
P. O. Box 3462
Augusta, GA 30914

Posted by john fitzgerald on Sun, 12 Jun 2005 11:30 | #

A card donation can be sent by e-mail to
.(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)

Posted by Mark Richardson on Sun, 12 Jun 2005 12:26 | #

I stand corrected, Steve. I had only ever heard Fraser talking about his pride in his Scottish ancestry.

Note, though, that what Fraser really identifies as is a liberal. For instance in 1980, when PM, he declared that “ours is a liberal government holding liberal principles”.

Similarly,in his 2002 book “Common Ground” he rejects conservatism in favour of liberalism when he notes of the founder of his party that:

“Menzies wanted to achieve ‘true revival of liberal thought, which will work for social justice and security ..’ Menzies rejected conservatism as being inappropriate for the Australia he wished to build.”

In the same book he complains that “We have again allowed ourselves to slip into the grievous mistake of making judgements based on religion and colour and ethnicity. This is a fundamental contradiction of liberalism. If liberalism is to succeed, this flirtation with reaction must fail.”

Perhaps a mixed ancestry did play some role in making Fraser unprotective of the mainstream ethnic tradition.

But at the level of ideas it was the question of liberalism versus conservatism which was Fraser’s way of garnering support for his policies - and we need to be able to respond confidently and intelligently in terms of these ideas if we are to successfully appeal to the younger members of the political class.

Posted by Amman on Sun, 12 Jun 2005 21:47 | #

I’ve never read “The Occidental Quarterly,” but I do feel sorry for Mr. Lamb. Does TOQ reimburse him for his services as editor, or has he found another employer? I hope he hasn’t suddenly found himself in dire financial straits…

Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 12 Jun 2005 22:12 | #

I know David Horowitz stirs up strong feelings among Paleos. But he - like Lawrence Auster - has had his difficulties with Morris Dees and been eloquent in his own defence.

It behoves us to constantly bear in mind the complexity of Jewish political opinion. It may perhaps never trace our ethnic interests but it can approximate - and allies, if they are sincere, are welcome whomsoever they may be.

Posted by Svigor on Mon, 13 Jun 2005 18:54 | #

I have no problem with the idea of WN/“Jewish WN” alliances. My position is that Jews in Jewish WN orgs advocating for WNism (or Jewisn WNism) would be a good thing; I don’t think Jews should be welcomed in WN orgs though, as history has provided adequate lesson in that regard.

Posted by friedrich braun on Mon, 13 Jun 2005 21:00 | #

Once again John Stuart Mill famous dismissal of conservatives as “the stupid party” comes to mind.

Posted by friedrich braun on Mon, 13 Jun 2005 21:12 | #

Fred Scrooby,

You’ve got to read this fascinating review of Benjamin Ginsberg’s The Fatal Embrace: Jews and the State, it touches on so many points you mentioned here.

http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/deadlyenemy.htm

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 13 Jun 2005 21:25 | #

Friedrich Braun, thank you. I’ve seen that book referred to, and am thinking of getting hold of it.

Posted by friedrich braun on Mon, 13 Jun 2005 21:41 | #

MacDonald (CoC) uses Ginsberg’s book as one of his sources.

Posted by ben tillman on Tue, 14 Jun 2005 00:47 | #

Friedrich Braun, thank you. I’ve seen that book referred to, and am thinking of getting hold of it.

There are always 4 or 5 copies sitting on the shelf at my favorite used-book store.

Posted by Svigor on Tue, 14 Jun 2005 21:26 | #

I don’t know if Scroob could handle MacDonald’s work, it might get him too worked up.

Just kidding Scroob.