“Reap The Whirlwind”? What Our Rulers` Non-Reaction To AR 2010`s Suppression Means

As
VDARE.com
was the first to

report
, the 2010
American
Renaissance
Conference was shut down by
concerted, sometimes illegal action by people who
hate
free speech.
Thugs who do not want anyone to speak
honestly about

race
or immigration—even if they are not there to
hear it—bullied and threatened four successive hotels
into canceling contracts to host our conference, with
the last pulling out just two days before guests were to
arrive. (We were able to hold a much-reduced

private meeting
).

It is, of course, shameful that
anyone in America would deliberately prevent a
non-profit educational
organization
from assembling to discuss matters of
importance to

white people
. It is disturbing that the police did
nothing to stop them.

And it is especially shocking that
the Main Stream Media showed an almost complete lack of
interest in this thuggish, contemptible behavior.

Nothing could more clearly
highlight the utter lack of principle of our rulers and
elites. If a non-white group—or any other group—had been
treated as we were, it would have been a major free
speech issue. It would have sparked a media uproar, and
perhaps a Congressional investigation. But for us?
Dissidents from racial orthodoxy are treated like

dissidents
in the
old
Soviet Union.

American
Renaissance
, the monthly publication of which I am
editor, has held conferences every two years since 1994,
and in the Northern Virginia area since 1998. They have
prompted protests and crank calls, but no hotel had ever
canceled its contract.

Pressure began to increase,
however, at the time of the 2006 conference. A hotel
near Washington Dulles Airport that had hosted three
conferences in a row decided it no longer wanted our
business because of rising levels of threats and
demonstrations, including a trespasser who shoved lurid
leaflets about hosting
"racists"
under guest-room doors.

The hotel that hosted the 2008
conference came under even greater pressure. It was
swamped with protest calls and the general manger even
got death threats at home. Still, the hotel stuck to its
contract. At the time of the conference itself,

there were a dozen or so demonstrators,
but they
stayed off the hotel property and there was no hint of
violence.

The real trouble began in the run
up to this year`s conference. The first hotel we
contracted with decided to cancel when its managers
learned of the pressures on the hotel in 2008. After
that, we revealed the names of the hotels only to people
who had registered, but three more hotels buckled under
threats and refused to hold the conference.

 Our opponents` tactics were
designed simply to stop the conference: flood the hotels
with protest calls, trespass on hotel property and pass
out inflammatory leaflets, promise to hold aggressive
demonstrations and, of course, death threats. At one
hotel, front office staff wanted to resign after taking
calls like this one:

"If you hold this conference I will go in there and shoot you."

One hotel even reported pressure from its suppliers, who
said they might stop doing business with the hotel if it
hosted us. There were also rumors that a local high
school would be mobilized to demonstrate and leaflet.

A loose collection of groups that
call themselves anti-racists, anarchists, and

anti-fascists
was behind this effort to stifle
debate. Some are avowed communists who hate the
World Bank
and rail against global capitalism.
Others worry about
animal
rights
and

global warming
, while some just seem to hate
"bourgeois"
society, whatever that is. And they all oppose
"racism," whatever

that
is. Each of these groups runs a web
site or a blog, and they often cross-post each others`
material.

Some of the groups that claimed
responsibility for

shutting down the AR conference
were:

Other groups, including a British
labor federation and the United Steelworkers, approved
putting pressure on the hotels but had little real
effect.

The

Anti-Defamation League
and the

Southern Poverty Law Center
($PLC
to VDARE.com) also pay attention to AR conferences. But
they probably want them to go forward. Hundreds of
"bigots," all
together in one room, make good copy for pressuring
donors:

Fascism
is on the march! The SPLC also likes to send
a spy who can stagger back to conventional reality and
describe the conference in frightening superlatives that
will open wallets.

Some of the lefty groups operate
under the umbrella of another organization, the
Anti-Racist Action Network (ARA), which tries to set out
a rationale for its lunatic
"anti-racism."
Its goal is
to "organize a variety of actions to expose, oppose, and confront hate in
whatever form threatens the diversity and safety of our
communities."
It claims to be fighting
"white
supremacist groups like the KKK and neo-nazis,"
and
intends to
"disrupt and ultimately destroy these groups."
Its
motto is, "Have
fun, stay young, smash the fash [fascists]."

ARA has such a well-established
reputation for violence that it is compelled to

address the subject at some length
:

"The problem comes when we confront hate groups that are violent. . . .
ARA reserves the right to defend its members and other
people against racist violence. . . . We don`t advocate
violence as a solution to hate, but we also don`t tell
people what is the `correct` way to respond to hate
group activity."

ARA confuses cause and effect:

"Anti-racism doesn`t cause racist violence; it prevents racist violence
by making the racists know that a lot of people are
prepared to take the steps necessary to prevent them
from hurting others. Without strong anti-racist
opposition to hate groups, it`s not a question of
whether a bigot will hurt an innocent person; it`s a
question of when!"

In

2007
, I tried to give a lecture in Halifax, Nova
Scotia. ARA-affiliated
"anti-racists"
destroyed my literature, banged pots and pans, and
finally locked arms and pushed me out of the meeting
hall. [Video]
Did they actually think they were preventing
violence? Of course not. They are totalitarians who
want, as they say, to
"disrupt and ultimately destroy" people they don`t like.

The Halifax
"anti-racists"
also used a

typical leftist tactic;
they hid behind bandannas.
Some of the protesters at the 2008 AR conference also

wore masks.
They claim that this is so
"racists"
can`t identity them and hunt them down, but the real
reason is to prevent police from identifying them when
they break the law. I pressed assault charges against
the Halifax thugs, but the police did nothing because
they claimed they could not identify them.

Why doesn`t ARA just ignore
"racists," who just want to meet and talk to each other? First, of
course, there is the

reductio ad Hitlerum
:

"When Hitler first appeared on the scene in Germany, people thought the
best thing to do was to ignore him, hoping he would just
go away. That example alone proves how foolish it is to
close our eyes and hope that the racists will just
disappear on their own."

Then there is the obsession with
violence:

"Ignoring a problem never makes it go away. If hate groups encounter no
opposition to their activities in a community, they`ll
take that to mean that they have no opposition there
willing to stand up to them and they will act
accordingly. This makes it more likely that hate group
activity will increase and they will start hurting
people."

Presumably, if an
American
Renaissance
conference were not picketed we would
rush out and lynch people. Since ARA members are
constantly thinking about violence they seem to think
everyone else is, too.

ARA knows its tactics violate

"liberal" rules of free speech
. But its obsession
with violence trumps everything. Its members are
convinced that anyone who talks about

race and IQ
, the legitimate rights of whites, or the
disadvantages of
"diversity" is on the verge of mayhem and

must be stopped
:

"Free speech shouldn`t endanger people`s lives. You

can`t yell
`Fire!` in a crowded theater,

because people will probably get hurt trying to get out.
We think that hate speech acts in the same way—by trying
to make certain kinds of people seem less than human and
by glorifying violent acts against them—it`s just a
matter of time before a follower or supporter of a hate
group puts words into action."

Their reasoning is bone-headedly
simple. Anyone who says something ARA doesn`t like can
be denied free speech because anything ARA doesn`t like
can lead to violence. And it`s fine to use violence to
stop that kind of speech.

The language these people used on
the Internet to mobilize supporters shows how they
think. After the first hotel canceled, the Self
Described Anarchist Collective (SDAC)
wrote:

"Yo, so it`s happening: American Renaissance is trying to have their
racist, white supremacist conference right here in our
own backyard (VA, what up) . . . .
[SDAC]
launched an oral sneak attack on the mothaf—–as . . .
. Proving that there`s power in the phone lines, the
hotel reversed their decision on hosting them and gave
them the boot! Power to the People. Next stop: the next
skeezy hotel that tries to host these bastards. Try it
if you dare."

When we contracted with the second
hotel, this call went out from SDAC and

allied websites
:

"SHUT DOWN THE RACISTS! The white supremacist newsletter American
Renaissance (AmRen) is holding their 9th annual [sic]
conference . . . .
[The hotel]
has not made a decision yet on whether or not they are
going to allow the conference to continue. There will be
a massive phone-in all day on Tuesday, January, 19th,
2010."

The groups

suggested callers say this to the hotel
:

"I
understand that several of the conference speakers have
gone to prison for inciting racial violence, and in the
interest of the safety of the DC community, and of all
people worldwide, I ask that you do not endorse these
views."

This was pure invention. No
conference speaker had ever gone to prison for any
crime. And it gives the impression that the conference,
not the thugs, was dangerous.

When the hotel at first held firm,
the

message changed
:

"SHUT DOWN THE RACISTS! . . .  IF THEY DON`T CANCEL THEN WE
CONVERGE! THEY


WILL NOT PASS!"

As the

thug sites explained
:

"They are apparently alright with Nazis meeting in their hotels. Well .
. . if they are going to let that scum stay in their
hotels, we aren`t. We tried playing nice, we tried
asking, but there is no room for compromise when it
comes to fascists trying to organize. The time to ask is
over, now we take action. . . . If they don`t cancel we
will converge . . . to confront these white supremacists
when they crawl out from under their rocks and try to
gather! Save the Date, February 20 . . . . We will not
let them pass!"

Several hundred more phone calls,
combined with threats and leafleting, and the hotel
buckled. As its managers explained, they feared for the
safety of their employees—and certainly not from us.

When the conference was moved to
its final hotel, in Washington, DC, something called DC
Direct Action News spread this message:

"NOW THEY ARE MEETING IN DC ITSELF INSTEAD! . . . You can see what
hatemongering a–holes they are by visiting


www.amren.com
but be sure to have someplace to puke, because this sh-t is nasty."

One People`s Project was

itching for a fight
:

"[A]ntifa is steppin` out to play! We are waiting for the official call
from other organizations, and when we get them we will
post it here, but in the meantime if you were planning
to come out, keep those plans. This is going to be
damned interesting!"

Intimidation and threats of
violence work. In the end, lefties were able to deny 300
people from three continents the right to assemble, and
denied four hotels a piece of profitable business during
a slow season.

When the conference finally had to
be shut down, I distributed a press release with what I
thought was an arresting headline:

"Death Threats
End Biennial Conference of Controversial Group: Is there
freedom of speech and assembly in Virginia?"
I
also sent notices to hundreds of radio and television
programs describing what happened and offered to be a
guest. I cleared my schedule and prepared for a media
deluge.

Silly me. There was no deluge. The
Associated Press and National Public Radio at first
showed some interest but then dropped the story.

Aside from two small, racially
oriented radio programs,

"The Political Cesspool"
in Nashville, and

"The Derek Black
Show"
in West Palm Beach, Florida, only one
radio station, WGSO New
Orleans
invited me as a guest. I was also
interviewed for a

podcast
on the new website
Alternative
Right
. I wrote directly to several conservative
columnists asking them to write about this suppression
of free debate. All I got was silence or regrets. Only
John
Derbyshire
wrote an excellent piece on
Secular Right,
aptly titled "How
Liberty Dies
"—which
was ignored, too. (Derbyshire also

mentioned
the conference on his weekly
National Review

podcast
.)

I know of only one liberal who was
outraged at what his fellow liberals had done. David
Kelsey, who describes himself as having abandoned
"fundamentalist
Judaism,"
wrote a column on his blog,

The Kvetcher
, called
"Solidarity
With Those We Disagree With
".
"If we do not allow for free speech for those whom we disagree with and
perhaps even scare us just a bit,"
he asked,
"how much do we
truly value free speech?"
He went on to call what
happened to the conference
"horrible."

Is Mr. Kelsey the only honest
liberal left in America?

I am accustomed to being out of
the mainstream. I was long ago hardened to the stony
looks that greet any deviation from racial orthodoxy—at
least when people know they are being observed. And yet,
I have always had some faith in the basic fairness of
Americans. I always thought that away from such
aggressively narrow-minded places as college campuses,
there was still some respect for debate, some
recognition that we must protect our liberties if we
expect them to protect us.

I am now learning a lesson I did
not wish to learn. Our rulers and elites do not want
free speech for anyone but their friends and their pets.
They are utterly unprincipled, and have no idea what
their lack of principle means for American society.

Surprisingly, it is foreigners
who understand this. The (British) London correspondent
of the Wall Street Journal—not anyone in New York
or Washington—interviewed me about the cancellations and

quoted me
on the lack of liberty in
"the land of the
free and the home of the brave."
Television
broadcaster Russia Today invited me to its Washington
studio for a very fair

news segment
on media indifference to the rights of
racial dissidents.

But the American media? The people
who presumably defend our liberties? They might as well
have been the Soviet media under Brezhnev.

Many people have asked: is there
no recourse to the authorities in cases like this? Hotel
managers said they reported death threats to the
authorities, but the police did nothing. We alerted the
FBI—which claims to be studying the matter—but it shows
no sign it will investigate. The
Civil
Rights Division of the Department of Justice
says it
will not investigate because people who attend AR
conferences are

not a "protected
class
."


David Yeagley
, who has
written
for VDARE.com
and who was one of the speakers
prevented from giving his talk,

points out
there is much irony in the Justice
Department`s lack of interest. [Open
Letter to Eric Holder
, February 24, 2010] Not
long after he was sworn in, Attorney General Eric Holder
complained that Americans are

"essentially a nation of cowards"
because they do not

talk honestly about race.
The hallmark, of course,
of an AR conference is honest talk about race—and that is precisely why
the
"anti-racists"
don`t like them.

If Eric Holder really wanted
honesty, he would order the FBI to ensure that our
conferences had safe venues. But he doesn`t want
honesty. All he wants is for whites to apologize and
beat their breasts.

The cancellation of the AR
conference and the lack of principled opposition to it
has other implications. AR has always operated on the
assumption that American institutions can respond to the
will of the people and that the

legitimate interests of whites
can be reflected in
policy. I have always believed that progress can come
through traditional activism, outreach, and politics.

My faith is not lost—but it has
been badly shaken.

Those who know their history will
remember that even at the height of the

McCarthy era
, Communists could

rent meeting halls
and

gather freely
. Americans understood the need to
protect unpopular speech. No longer.

There has always been a segment of
the racial right that never shared my faith. Many
race-realists believe that American institutions are
hopelessly rotten, and that whites will never get
justice by conventional means. What happened to
AR will
encourage this radical rejection of America and its
institutions.

Entirely aside from what happens to AR, the United States is moving in an unstable and potentially
dangerous direction. From the call-ins I receive when I
am on radio programs and the comments sections of even
the most liberal mainstream newspapers, it is clear that
many whites now understand what is at stake. And yet,
aside from a few publications, websites, and radio
programs, no-one speaks for them. In the official world
of American institutions, everyone

speaks loudly and hysterically against them.

In European countries not
dominated by two parties,

increasingly influential
"far right"

parties have begun to reflect the aspirations of whites.
But in America, there are

no such political options.
And it now appears that
even whites who wish only to meet to discuss what kind
of country they are leaving to their grandchildren will
find their meetings shut down by thugs—to the complete
indifference of elites who prate about democracy,
tolerance, and human rights.

Since the cancellation, we are
twice as determined. Our voices will be heard.

But when our rulers are indifferent
to the suppression of legitimate debate on the most
pressing issues we face, they encourage rage and
radicalism—the consequences of which no one can predict.


For they have sown the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind
.


Jared
Taylor (
email
him) is editor of


American Renaissance
and the author of Paved
With Good Intentions: The Failure of Race Relations in
Contemporary America
.

(For
Peter Brimelow`s review, click


here
.)