Posted on August 7, 2019

Conservatives Declare War on ‘White Supremacy’

Gregory Hood, American Renaissance, August 7, 2019

We recently learned that in 1971, Ronald Reagan called African diplomats “monkeys” who were “still uncomfortable wearing shoes.” Reagan is the demi-god of Conservatism Inc., the model for Beltway Republicans. You’d think they would be a little less self-righteous, but no. After the El Paso shooting, National Review wants a new war.

Crush This Evil,” declare “the editors:” “In concert, Americans must recognize that they have a crucial role to play in rooting out this awful ideology and in superintending the places in which it spreads.” “This awful ideology” is, of course, “white supremacy,” but just what that is they don’t explain. It reminds me of the Beltway Right’s last Big Idea, the “War on Terror,” which continues in Afghanistan to this day.

Who is a “white supremacist?” I’m not and neither is anyone I’ve ever met. If average group intelligence defines “supremacy,” this is a “yellow supremacist” publication.

As for the corporate media and Democrats, when they’re not frothing about “supremacists,” they are sounding the alarm about “white nationalists.” That includes President Donald Trump, Fox News, and Republicans generally. Conservatives who think they won’t be called white nationalists are naive.

But back to NR. “[T]he president should work with Congress to devote more resources to infiltrating, tracking, and foiling nascent plots,” wrote the editors, “and he should instruct the federal government to initiate an information campaign against white-supremacist violence in much the same way as it has conducted crusades against drunk driving, human trafficking, and domestic violence.”

Any “information campaign” would interpret “white supremacy” so broadly it would probably demonize National Review’s own readers. And who’s behind these “nascent plots?” National Review and other publications blame 8chan — which has since been deplatformed — for hosting terrorist manifestos. However, a recent affidavit about the Chabad of Poway shooting revealed that government agents track threads and even post in them.

The Daily Beast has even reported that the FBI “egged on” the terrorist who tried to assassinate Pamela Geller at an event in Texas. Earlier this year, Jerry Drake Varnell was convicted of trying to bomb an Oklahoma City bank. In a very sobering statement, his parents explained why they believe it was a case of unconscionable FBI entrapment.

In 2017, CNN reported that the FBI sought out a depressed Muslim man and manipulated him into making extreme statements so he could be arrested. Reporting on the case of Michael Todd Wolfe, convicted in 2016 of attempting to aid terrorists, the Houston Press said, “As is the case with many, if not most of these plots, Wolfe’s ‘terrorist’ plot was largely instigated and planned by the FBI itself.” There are many other examples of the FBI “creating” terrorists.

“Civil libertarians” protest when Muslims are victims, but who will protest entrapment of whites? National Review’s campaign to “crush this evil” would put any normal white person at risk. If you see someone encouraging violence online, you are probably watching your tax dollars at work.

National Review’s Andrew McCarthy wants more. He argues that to combat “white supremacists,” the government should use “the federal statutes that target racketeering activity” and can be used against any “association in fact.” An “association-in-fact enterprise” can be just about any group — or even a single individual — a DA wants to lock up.

“There are no domestic groups, no matter how small and disorganized,” writes Mr. McCarthy, “that we cannot surveil, aggressively investigate, and prosecute under existing law if they are linked to violence and preparations for violence.”

This is a call for a police state. He goes on to argue that “white supremacism” implies a “hostility to our societal order and sympathy for racist brutality.” Again, there no definition of “white supremacism,” but it is apparently inseparable from “brutality.” Does calling African diplomats “monkeys” count as white supremacy? Should Ronald Regan get a posthumous RICO conviction?

Mr. McCarthy is less worried about antifa. In 2017, he wrote, “’Designating’ Antifa a Terrorist Organization Is a Bad Idea.” Why? There are “civil-rights concerns.” “Someday,” he explained, “Democrats will be in power again.” “[D]o we really want to give them enhanced federal powers to harass ideological opponents under the guise of ‘designating’ domestic terror threats?”

Looks like he’s changed his mind.

Mr. McCarthy is libertarian compared to his National Review colleague Jim Geraghty. Mr. Geraghty notes the suggestion that “shitposters” who encourage mass violence online “should be arrested and charged as accessories.” He called this suggestion “uncomfortably appealing” because he’s sick of “trolling” culture. He admits his plan would mean “the government arresting people and charging them with crimes for what they write on the Internet.”

Presumably this won’t apply to FBI agents, but what about antifa? The Dayton shooter was reportedly sympathetic to antifa, and even participated in armed march against the KKK with a weapon similar to (if not the same as) the one he used in the shooting. Anarchist groups are openly praising Willem Van Spronsen’s attack on an ICE facility. Does Mr. Geraghty want these groups investigated? He mentioned the Dayton shooter’s leftist beliefs but didn’t suggest surveillance.

In 2017, former National Review contributor Jonah Goldberg wrote a column saying “Antifa Is Trouble, but Not Terrorism.” But NR thinks differently about “racists.” Editor Rich Lowry has fantasized about bringing a “lead pipe” to an argument with the “White Patriot Party militia.” He fired John Derbyshire for writing sensible things about race, and also thanked left-wing commissars for alerting him to the heresies of AmRen conference-speaker Robert Weissberg.

Rich Lowry (Credit Image: © Brian Cahn/ZUMA Wire)

Not surprisingly, his new column is called, “The FBI Crushed the Klan and Should Target Violent White Supremacists Today.” He lauds the FBI’s efforts to infiltrate and destroy the KKK in the 1960s, though there are serious allegations the FBI promoted and even engaged in Klan violence. While Mr. Lowry thinks manipulating the Klan was fine, he bemoans “abuses” like the targeting of “civil-rights groups and the New Left.”

Mr. Lowry admits that “violent white supremacists” are “self-radicalizing,” so he suggests the FBI should monitor 8chan. As noted above, it’s already doing that. Now that the website is down, the FBI’s job is probably harder.

“Posters who cross over from First Amendment–protected speech to incitement should be prosecuted,” says Mr. Lowry. Again, does this apply to antifa? Probably not. He doesn’t mention the Dayton killer.

Finally, there’s David French. He wants a “war on white-nationalist terrorism,” which he calls a “new youth movement of hate.” “It used words like ‘invasion’ to describe immigration, and words such as ‘replacement’ to describe the imagined fate of white America,” he writes. He chronicles various acts of “white supremacist” terror and asks us mentally to substitute the word “jihadist.” “[I]magine how we’d act,” he says.

That’s easy. Since September 11, Islam has massively grown in power and influence in the United States. Immediately after the 9/11 attacks, President George W. Bush reassured Muslims that the “war on terror” was not about them. In just the past 10 years, the Muslim population has increased 47 percent to 3.45 million, and by 2040 Muslims will be the second largest religious groups after Christians. Keith Ellison, who promoted a black ethnostate in his late 20s, became the first Muslim elected to Congress. Even commemorating the September 11 attacks has been banned in some places lest it wound Muslims’ feelings.

By Mr. French’s reasoning, American Renaissance should be besieged by a parade of dignitaries assuring us of their solidarity, condemning any potential “backlash” against whites, and telling the country that peaceful Identitarianism is fine. We should be getting grants and concessions to steer whites away from violent extremism.

That’s not what Mr. French wants:

We can and should debate proper levels of immigration, including debating more immigration restrictions, without using the exact language and exact claims that energize and inspire an actual racist terrorist movement. But somehow all too many Americans have convinced themselves that the only way to ‘fight’ is to use language that is deliberately designed to stoke fear and rage — that pushes the envelope with the express purpose of enraging our opposition.

It’s gracious of Mr. French to let us “discuss immigration limits” — even with emasculated language — but it’s probably too late. In 1992, National Review actually published a cover story asking, “Time to Rethink Immigration?” Of course, NR later purged the author — Peter Brimelow — and anyone else who wanted to “rethink immigration.” Now, California is lost to the Republicans. Texas will be lost either in 2020 or 2024, probably sooner rather than later. Mr. French and those like him permanently destroyed conservatism’s electoral prospects and lost the country. I don’t mind the former, but cannot forgive the latter.

What will this new non-white America be like? David French gives us a clue because he’s also endorsed so-called “red flag” laws in National Review. They let the police confiscate someone’s weapons if enough people say he is dangerous. Mr. French has reservations: “Grant too many people standing to seek an order, lower the burdens of proof, or allow for easy access to ex parte orders, and you expose law-abiding citizens to the threat of vindictive proceedings.”

I doubt he is worried about the rights of “white nationalists.” He calls them enemies in a “war,” partly because he doesn’t like the way they talk about immigration.

Government programs almost always grow. Affirmative action, started by Richard Nixon, spawned a huge network of handouts that encourage non-whites to reject assimilation. Arabs and Israelis, among others, are desperate not to be labeled “white.” “Hate crimes” have also expanded in scope, which is especially ominous because the President yesterday called for the death penalty for those convicted of them. “Red flag laws” would probably be used to take away the firearms of anyone who could be called a “white nationalist.”

Mr. French recognized the Dayton shooter’s leftist ties, but does not call for “war” against antifa, as he does against “white nationalists.” He goes no further than denouncing the “angry political hyperbole that invokes the language of death.”

Other conservatives echoed National Review. Matt Walsh wants the El Paso shooter dead.

But after he learned the Dayton shooter was a leftist, Mr. Walsh suddenly wanted unity.

Note that the El Paso shooter was a “monster” who must die. The Dayton killer is merely a “scumbag.”

These calls for “war” and “crushing” are dangerous. It’s disappointing but not surprising to see “movement conservatives” leading the charge. After all, what are they conserving? First of all, their racket. But they are also conserving the system that is dismantling the country.

Readers, be careful. Run as fast as you can from anyone who talks violence. He’s probably being paid by the government. Unfortunately, despite Dayton, antifa will continue to organize violence openly without much opposition from the government or condemnation from Conservatism, Inc.

White Americans are in a demographic, economic, and above all spiritual crisis. The conservative movement makes things worse. They are collaborators with a system that is destroying us. The United States of America is still “free” compared to the United Kingdom or Germany, but it would certainly horrify the Founding Fathers.

“Red flag” laws and “crushing the evil” are nothing more than ways to gut the First Amendment. They will mean freedom has failed. Liberty has lost. “Conserving” such a society is unworthy of any American.