A Note on So-Called White Supremacist Terror
by Hadding Scott
FOR SEVERAL YEARS now there has been an effort (for example, by the SPLC) to redirect some of the paranoia about terrorism that developed after 9/11 into a persecution of White racial advocates, on the premise that “White supremacists” commit a significant amount of terrorism.
I will admit that some of what could be called White Supremacist Terror (WST) has happened. There was Glenn Miller who killed three in 2014, and Dylann Roof who killed nine in 2015, and … what else? In a country with about 14 thousand murders every year,f “White Supremacist Terror” is a microscopically tiny phenomenon.
You wouldn’t know this from the amount of attention devoted by mainstream media. When a Negro criminal kills several White people, it may not even make national news, but when a White person kills several Blacks — or even one Black, if an argument can be made that it might be racially motivated — mass-media make sure that everybody knows, and they try to make everyone believe that this is the real crime-problem in the country (when in reality Blacks are much more likely to commit violence against Whites than vice versa).
The rhetoric that is used to magnify and generate alarm about this tiny phenomenon of White Supremacist Terror is based mainly on (1) selectively defining certain actions as terrorism and removing them from the overall context of violence in the United States, and (2) labeling perpetrators as White Supremacists who are not.
In the case of the death of Heather Heyer in Charlottesville last August, there has been a hasty insistence that James Alex Fields deliberately killed her with his car and therefore committed an act of terrorism, even though he is not even charged with first degree murder, and has not yet been convicted of anything, and even though circumstances suggest that it may have been an accident resulting from panic at the fact that he found himself amidst a crowd of Antifa who were attacking his car. People with credentials and in positions of responsibility have been attempting to provoke hysteria about this alleged incident of terrorism and trying to portray it as an example of a much larger problem. They attacked President Trump for not playing along with their histrionics.
From their perspective there really is a “larger problem” but it isn’t White Supremacist Terror: it’s the fact that White people are now openly organizing in support of White interests. They would like to use the accusation of terrorism to shut down a movement that is completely legal.
The fact that they would leap at such a dubious example to support their complaint of White Supremacist Terror indicates that they really don’t have much to show. They are grasping at straws.
What they call “White Supremacist Terrror” is mostly not that. Most of the violence that the SPLC has associated with WST (in its report a few years ago) was actually perpetrated by “sovereign citizens” and anti-government types in general.
Sovereign citizens are a different kettle of fish from White nationalists/alt right.
A few decades ago there was a lot of overlap between White racists and people obsessed with the Constitution. This was probably a legacy of the Constitutional rhetoric used to oppose federally mandated racial desegregation, for example in the “Southern Manifesto” of 1956, drafted by Strom Thurmond and signed by 101 Southern congressmen and senators. Although the real concern was racial, the form that it took was a complaint that the government was not abiding by the Constitution. For several decades it was typical for would-be defenders of White racial interests to use Constitutional arguments — increasingly, as time progressed, without even mentioning that the real concern was racial. As they became more and more afraid to talk about their racial concern, they talked more and more about substitute concerns, like the right to keep and bear arms.
Constitutionalists, in their endeavor to remain within the bounds of respectability, typically have a great fear of criticizing Jews. This, however leaves a void that has to be filled. How do you explain who is responsible for anti-White agitation and why; how do you explain the paradox of supposedly White people trying to undermine the White race, if you cannot talk about Jews? To fill that void the Constitutionalists resort to substitute terms and substitute conspiracy-theories: “Communists” (which is true but not the whole truth), “liberals” (which is really only a euphemism for Communists), “Insiders” (a term used by the John Birch Society), “Illuminati.”
White racial advocacy seems to be much less tied to Constitutionalism and its inhibitions these days. Why is that?
There is the influence of White racial advocates like George Lincoln Rockwell, and especially William Luther Pierce, whose message has become much more accessible in the age of Internet than it ever could be during their lifetimes. In their discourse they made relatively little reference to the Constitution and individual rights, because these are useful only for defensive arguments. They introduced a much broader perspective. Instead of pleading for the federal government to abide by the Constitution, Rockwell and Pierce unabashedly focused on race, and explained the actions of the federal government as an attack on the White race, not fundamentally by Blacks, but by Jews. The attack is aimed not so much on our bodies as on our minds. The way to deal with this attack is, first and foremost, to make people aware of it. There was, for example, Dr. Pierce’s pamphlet, Who Rules America?, detailing Jewish control of mass-media. Once the insight about Jewish influence on our thinking has been gained, that influence can be rejected, and correct thought, and then correct action, can follow.
What is called the “alt right” today seems to owe much more to Rockwell and Pierce than to the Constitutionalists. You can see the continuation of Dr. Pierce’s awareness-campaign about Jewish media-control in the use of triple parentheses to identify (((Jewish journalists and other Jewish public figures))), and in the recent attention called to the Jewish trick of representing themselves as a “fellow White person” as a way to be more persuasive to White people. The whole baggage of Constitutionalist ideology is being discarded by the alt right. Richard Spencer exclaimed defiantly to a questioner at Texas A&M University, “Big government forever!”
What became of the Constitutionalist approach to defending the White race? It has the mild ramification of people who listen to Rush Limbaugh and vote for “less government,” and a more strident ramification in phenomena like the patriot movement of the 1990s. Constitutionalism as a strategy for racial survival has the very great disadvantage that it is straitjacketed by the imperative to portray itself in terms of approved values and principles, and therefore, being afraid to talk candidly about its own real purpose, is easily sidetracked.
Jews set up mouthpieces like Milton William Cooper [host of the oddly-named Hour of the Time radio program and author of the bizarre conspiracy-themed book Behold a Pale Horse] to make sure that the patriot movement was sidetracked. Anti-racist Constitutionalism was promoted, and seems to have become a significant phenomenon. Whereas racists in the past had invoked the Constitution as a defense for the White race, this new anti-racist Constitutionalism makes the Constitution, and general obsession with individual rights, an end in itself. This is an anti-government ideology with no purpose beyond opposing the government. Consequently, the people who have gravitated to this ideology end up in much pointless conflict with the government, like William Cooper himself who died in a shootout with police over a completely trivial matter. The heir to William Cooper as pontiff of this unhinged movement is Alex Jones, who likewise has Jewish connections.
Some of the people obsessed with the Constitution and individual rights call themselves sovereign citizens. A significant portion of the incidents lumped in with “White Supremacist Terror” have involved sovereign citizens shooting police, whom they believed to be violating their individual rights under color of law, as William Cooper used to teach.
But the sovereign citizens’ movement has no clear connection to White activism of any kind. The defining motives of a sovereign citizen are not racial motives. In fact, some of the sovereign citizens in the SPLC’s report were not even White.
Thus, the statistics for “White Supremacist Terror” are heavily padded with crimes that are in no way racially motivated, stemming rather from an ideology promoted by anti-racists, most prominently by Milton William Cooper with the backing of some Jews — Hollywood Jews Aaron Russo and Anthony J. Hilder, to name two whose association with him is publicly known.
The propaganda about “White Supremacist Terror” is mostly a fraud.
* * *
Source: National-Socialist Worldview