Alabama
The SPLC suffered a blow to its legitimacy today when 22 congressional Republicans (including Steve King and Lamar Smith) and numerous other prominent figures in the conservative movement signed a statement condemning the SPLC as a “liberal fundraising machine” and a radical leftwing organization trying to shutdown informed discussion on important public policy issues.
This effectively pulls down the curtain on the SPLC’s influence as a “watchdog group” in conservative circles. Their various exposes of “hate” and “bigotry” will now be read and taken seriously only by their fellow likeminded progressives. The statement consigns the SPLC to the same ideological ghetto that the NAACP now occupies in the eyes of White America.
Alinsky Lessons
In Rules for Radicals, Saul Alinsky repeatedly stressed the point that the right thing in politics is almost always done for the wrong reasons. If you want to win an important victory in politics, you will usually have to seize upon the wrong reasons to mobilize a sufficient number of people who do not necessarily agree with you to support your course of action:
Alinsky’s field of action was the field of change and a constant stream of conflict. Alinsky knew that in today’s world, people are not motivated by altruism, you need to somehow appeal to their self-interest. The right thing usually done for the wrong reasons. When he came into a community in order to organize it, he had to get the local churches involved. He said that he never appealed to the ministers or priests in terms of Christian principles because they did not really believe in Christianity. Therefore, Alinsky appealed to what really motivated them, their self-interests and talked more about membership and more money. It worked every time.
This book is full of so many gems of good practical advice. You won’t understand my change of approach until you read it. I can flip through the book and find excerpts that address many of the comments I get here on a daily basis:
But the answer I gave the young radicals seemed to me the only realistic one: “Do one of three things. One, go find a wailing wall and feel sorry for yourselves. Two, go psycho and start bombing — but this only swings people to the right. Three, learn a lesson. Go home, organize, build power and at the next convention, you be the delegates.”
The psychos and the wailing wallers are ubiquitous in the pro-White movement. The pragmatic realists are a much rarer breed:
With very rare exceptions, the right things are done for the wrong reasons. It is futile to demand that men do the right thing for the right reason — this is a fight with a windmill.
Alinsky stressed the importance of incremental compromise:
But to the organizer, compromise is a key and beautiful word. It is always present in the pragmatics of operation. It is making the deal, getting that vital breather, usually the victory. If you start with nothing, demand 100 per cent, then compromise for 30 per cent, you’re 30 per cent ahead.
I came away from Alinsky a much more effective radical than I had been before. I started seeing all the “square” conservatives in a new light, not as gullible lemmings or enemies of my agenda, but people who I could work with who already agree with me on the most important issues.
If we don’t reach these people and influence them, our progressives enemies like the neocons will succeed in doing it, and we will be setback and left worse off than we were before.
Late To The Party
The Family Research Council and these other Christian groups didn’t see the light until their own ox was gored and the SPLC miscalculated and tarred them with the “hate group” label. That’s fine with me.
Misery loves company.
It is better to arrive late to the party than to not show up at all. Now the SPLC can be denounced as “anti-Christian” and as a partisan leftwing organization that considers the Bible to be “hate speech.” That’s not why White Advocates oppose the SPLC, but it is a message that can be sold to other bigger White constituencies to provoke them into opposition to the likes of Mark Potok and Heidi Beirich, which has the same effective result.
This statement only made our task of discrediting the SPLC easier. I fail to see what exactly the problem is here.
Excellent point! I also rejoiced when the SPLC put my Baptist uncle under the same “hate” tent that I’m in.
White Nationalists’ next move should be reminding these Christians the SPLC is run by Jews.
The only thing James Dobson has done to incur the SPLC’s rath is to be mildly critical of the homosexual lifestyle.
Where I go to church, we get a little monthly feel good flyer from James Dobson’s Focus on the Family included in the church bulletin. Dobson’s stuff really is Disney multi-cultural in my opinion, if the SPLC has a problem with Dobson, they really have a problem.
Btw, Boehner and Pat Tieberi (pronounced tea berry) were the only two Roman Catholics in the Ohio Congressional Delegation to vote in favor of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. The other nine (9) Roman Catholics all voted to repeal Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell!
“The SPLC suffered a blow to its legitimacy today …”
Ah, there is some good news after all.
“The psychos and the wailing wallers are ubiquitous in the pro-White movement. The pragmatic realists are a much rarer breed:
With very rare exceptions, the right things are done for the wrong reasons. It is futile to demand that men do the right thing for the right reason — this is a fight with a windmill.”
Very true, can’t argue against the reasoning here except, every time “one of ours” goes to Congress or gets elected to some position of prominence, he or she is bought out, either before or after “arriving”. The latest example of course was Scott Brown. Whites aspiring to political power seem to wear a price tag on their hats like Minnie Pearl at the Grand Ole Opry. You will only very rarely see that behavior among Jews.
Ours is not so much a war to convince whites that something is wrong with “the system” as it is a struggle to battle against pols who vote against our will. This reality is what has made so many whites disaffected with politics to begin with.
This is great news.
Does anyone think Boehner should stop it with the tears? I mean my god – I can’t imagine our ancestors displaying such emotional pageantry? It’s hard for me to watch – I’m literally embarrassed for him.
Furthermore, this guy is pussyfying every impressionable White male and dislocating them from what is natural and what has made us a great race of people: real leadership.
It’s human nature for men to be: strong, stoic and steadfast. Boehner’s theatrics are a subconscious admission that he lacks the fitness to be Speaker of the House. We don’t need an exponent of Glen Beck leading congress.
Now, I am not saying men shouldn’t cry – I’m saying displays like Boehner’s should be kept private. Perception is reality and this guy continues to show the strength of his weakness.
We should have folks protesting outside SPLC headquarters – protesting that they WEREN’T included on the list of “Haters”.
People could be honest and list some of the things/groups they hate like:
Jeffrey Dahmer – homosexual serial killer, canibal
John Wayne Gaxy – homosexual, rapist, sadist, mass murderer
Al Qaeda
Personal injury lawyers that work for large judgements against McDonalds for serving hot coffee
Thugs who run dog fighting
White Whigger Rap singers like Vanilla Ice
Rich trust fund kids who do global warming protests in the middle of Winter when it’s zero $*@&#$ degrees.
🙂
Does the Family Research Council explicitly, on an ongoing basis, as part of their mission, advocate open discrimination against homosexuals in public life? Or do they only advocate on the “anti-gay” side of gay issues-related laws that we see in the headlines, like DADT or gay marriage? Also, do they advocate taking away the rights of homosexuals? Do they propose killing homosexuals, or deporting them from the country? Do they explicitly advocate any sort of violence or intimidation against homosexuals? Does the FRC have a well documented history of engaging in or supporting real-world acts of intimidation or violence against homosexuals?
The answers to these questions are no. This is the sort of stuff people think of when think of things that “hate groups do.”
In their quest to both stay relevant and to push the boundaries of politically correct thought crime, the $PLC is going after the FRC purely for things they’ve said, nothing more. They don’t cite a single incident of real-world “hate crime” as the basis for their designation. And if you bother to go through the $PLC’s list of horrible things that the FRC has said, the worst of it seems to be “homosexual men are more likely to molest children than heterosexual men.” I don’t care whether or not it’s true – let’s go ahead and assume it’s a lie – should saying such a thing be enough to get your group called a “hate group?”
The upside is that by expanding the definition of “hate group” to include any group that the $PLC targets because they’ve talked shit about their political opponents, the definition of “hate group” becomes unworkably broad, meaningless even. The FRC represents millions of good people and the $PLC has characterized them as the worst people in society, borderline criminals even. That’s not going to convince many average evangelical Christian to break with their leaders – it’s going to confirm to them that what their leaders have been saying is true, that there’s a hostile elite which looks down on them and their values.
The downside is that I’m sure the $PLC would like to criminalize certain speech and thus, thought. They would probably piss their pants in ecstasy to help implement a Canadian-style “Human Rights” Commission. By expanding their own definition of “hate group” within their organization, perhaps they’re trying to lay the groundwork for moving their language from theory to actual legislative practice.
But even this downside has an upside. Let them try it. Fights like this where the PC multicultists try to overreach are exactly the polarizing battles we want. Americans love their free speech.
Also, someone at the Nation Magazine – a Rednest – did an expose on the $$$$$PLC a while back; might’ve been Alex Cockburn. He noticed the Wall Street $$$$$$$$$$/globalist connection.
Given the facts, the $PLC should label itself a hate group, sue itself, hire Edgar Steele to handle the lawsuit and then give the money and property it won (or didn’t win) to… I dunno… Church of the Creator? Seriously, I don’t support those guys, but you catch my drift. The $placs are the greatest haters around.
The $PLC is getting into the fight rather late – gay marriage and gay “rights” already have broad support among the public, thanks to a propaganda campaign originating in Hollywood.
There is a pattern of the $PLC coming into battles after they are already won. They were not much interested in “hate groups” or black civil rights until the late 70s and early 80s. The civil rights marches started in the 50s and were well over by the time the $PLC arrived on the scene.
This is because the $PLC is an organization that packages and sells palliatives to white guilt and racial anxiety, and they cannot sell their “cure” for racism until they have a market to sell it into, namely, a large segment of the public that thinks “racism” is a problem, and the $PLC is the solution.
Clearly they are dealing with a shrinking market by making a new one out of people who think “homophobia” is a problem. Back when when blacks and queers were real underdogs, the $PLC wouldn’t touch them. Can you imagine the $PLC coming out with this homophobia-is-hate-speech jazz before Brokeback Mountain? No way.
They are getting into it now because now it pays.
Riley
SPLC is an anti-White org. nothing more. With that aside it is Morris Dees’ money making gig which rips off old jewish women with lurid tales of nazis in the heartland. All in all Morris’ daddy did right by sending out his boy to totally discredit the anti-Whites and rip off old jewish women and create our future white children’s college fund after our lawyers and judges find them guilty of promoting genocide (ours). And that is the story of Morris.
When Eric Cantor figures out that all along he’s been taken for a ride by “Hunter Wallace,” he’s going to be pissed!