Two dozen skinheads turn out for a rally in rural Georgia, and the New York Times suddenly takes an interest in what goes on in the Bible Belt—if only to spite its denizens. Jacey Fortin writes:

A neo-Nazi rally outside of Atlanta on Saturday drew only a few participants and did not last very long. But the event still upended Newnan, Ga., a city of about 38,000, for an afternoon as downtown shops closed and counter-protesters gathered. Hasco Craver, the assistant city manager, said more than 700 law enforcement officers were present from 42 agencies.

Were the 700 officers there to protect the 100 counter-protesters and Antifa from the two dozen skinheads? The event didn’t last long and few people showed up, but the media wants Americans to believe that this is proof of a thriving white supremacist movement, resurgent ever since President Trump took office. Why?

Because white supremacy and Nazism are political nonfactors in America today, but reports about the ongoing but not really expanding activities of these few losers, fuel the impression that mass media seeks to create of a resurgent racist America.

In a reasonable world, Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi declaring that the “face of the future of our country” shall have “brown skin and brown eyes,” or the fact Keith Ellison is deputy chairman of the Democratic National Committee—despite his support for left-wing extremists, and his black nationalist and Islamist connections—would be proof enough that racial politics are acceptable when the peddler and the audience are not white.

But these are not reasonable times.

Racial and Ethnic Pride Selectively Decried

At a 1998 Gold Cup soccer game between Mexico and the United States, 91,255 fans were immersed in a “sea of red, white, and green flags,” and they booed when “The Star-Spangled Banner” was played. American players were assailed with “debris and cups of what might have been water, beer or worse.” A few fans who tried to raise an American flag were attacked with “fruit and cups of beer.”

“The match didn’t take place in Mexico City but in Los Angeles. Most of the fans were Mexican or Mexican-American,” writes John J. Miller. “Something’s wrong when I can’t even raise an American flag in my own country,” mused a fan. “Playing in Los Angeles is not a home game for the United States,” one Los Angeles Times reporter agreed.

Today, such reporting on a story like this would result in mass outrage, perhaps even violent demonstrations, and the development and implementation of new techniques to address the spooky, systemic racism . . . of the reporters. Herein lies the pernicious double standard of the much vaunted tolerance in “multicultural” America.

Nazism and white identity movements are deemed unacceptable pretty much across the board in America today. But they are decried nowhere more loudly than in media and academia, and among progressive politicos. The lonely calls for racial unity, purity, and pride in whiteness are deemed “fascist” or worse—which is fair enough, as far as it goes—but it reflects an amazing lack of self-awareness on the part of those progressives leading the charge against this fringe.

If ethno-racial pride is bad and movements based on those terms are unacceptable, it is difficult to see upon what grounds progressives condemn them since they are all too happy to applaud the same when the participants are brown.

It is strange, for example, that the manifesto of the Brown Berets is proudly touted at a place like Mesa College in San Diego. The first point of the Brown Beret 13-point program is: “Unity of all of our people, regardless of age, income, or political philosophy.” Now, don’t let charlatans like Gustavo Arellano fool you; “all of our people” is a code for ethnic nationalism, at the very least for racial-ethnic consciousness, as expressed by La Raza’s motto: “For The Race everything. Outside The Race, nothing.” Compare it to Benito Mussolini’s: “Everything within the state; everything for the state; nothing outside the state.”

Mesa College, like most other colleges in the United States, partners with the Chicano Student Movement of Aztlan (MEChA). “El Plan Espiritual de Aztlan” (The Spiritual Plan for Aztlan), is MEChA’s blueprint for a brown ethno-state:

In the spirit of a new people that is conscious not only of its proud historical heritage but also of the brutal gringo invasion of our territories, we, the Chicano inhabitants and civilizers of the northern land of Aztlan from whence came our forefathers, reclaiming the land of their birth and consecrating the determination of our people of the sun, declare that the call of our blood is our power, our responsibility, and our inevitable destiny. . . . Aztlan belongs to those who plant the seeds, water the fields, and gather the crops and not to the foreign Europeans. . . . We are a bronze people with a bronze culture. Before the world, before all of North America, before all our brothers in the bronze continent, we are a nation, we are a union of free pueblos, we are Aztlan. Por La Raza todo. Fuera de La Raza nada.

Indeed, Mesa College, UCLA, UC Irvine, and many others, hold “Raza Grad” celebrations. These graduation ceremonies are designed to venerate “Chicano/Hispanic/Latino” students, although participation is open to all students. Does this mean that traditional graduation ceremonies are not inclusive enough? Might we see a “Race Grad” ceremony that venerates students of European descent and their culture? (To ask that question is to answer it.)

By virtue of this blatant double standard, American racism—as construed by the media and academia—is a myth. It’s a myth that can only survive by being pushed onto America’s youth through colleges and universities, where they learn to become receptive to the narrative of an ongoing white race war against non-whites.

Assigned reading for a political science course in the San Diego Community College District (one of the largest community college districts in the nation) warns students, “it is clear that right-wing extremism is a powerful force in politics today.” The author supports this broad claim by citing her own expertise as a person who has studied trendy fascist, white supremacist metal music. This is not a joke. She then goes on to equate concerns over terrorism in the wake of 9/11 as comparable to a fascist ploy: “Not surprisingly, liberal democratic states have constructed political ‘enemies of the people’ to maintain political support; in this respect, antiterrorism parallels anticommunism and anti-Semitism.”

Fascist ideology persists, according to the author, because “it appeals not only to a few pathological individuals, but also to large numbers of democratic citizens in the United States and Europe.” This might explain why so many students leave college conditioned to think they will find a white fascist under every bed.

If You’re White, You’re Not Right

When Scottish comedian Mark Meechan was convicted of a hate crime for teaching his dog to perform the Nazi salute, Sheriff Derek O’Carroll said the act was “grossly offensive.”

On the other hand, Latino gang members (often comprised of illegal aliens) in California have a penchant for “terrorizing and killing blacks.” This problem became so prevalent at one point that authorities declared it “ethnic cleansing.” Even the Southern Poverty Law Center called it, “racial terror that is directed solely at African Americans.” Still, Los Angeles Police Chief Charlie Beck persists in calling the sanctuary state laws that protect criminal aliens a “[display] of courage.”

When Latino gang member Ulysses Ocampo approached a dark-skinned man and asked, “You’re not one of those Crip or Blood faggot niggers, are you?” then said, “We don’t want no niggers in our ‘hood,’” before punching his new neighbor in the face, a judge failed to charge Ocampo with a hate crime. The judge argued Ocampo treats everyone “very badly” and dismissed three “hate crime” allegations. Of course, most anyone capable of punching random strangers in the face on the street is likely to the sort of person who treats everyone “very badly.” But a white man would have been charged with a hate crime, anyway.

After Latino gang member Louis Vasquez stabbed two random black men while shouting racial slurs, in what a police sergeant called a “hate-motivated” crime, prosecutors “did not substantiate a hate-crime allegation” and dropped that charge. “We have a serious interracial violence problem in this county involving blacks and Latinos,” said Lee Baca in 2008, addressing mounting brown-on-black crime. “The truth is that, in many cases, race is at the heart of the problem.”

If you are white and you teach your dog dumb tricks, you are a hate criminal (in the U.K., anyway). If you are brown and you terrorize and kill blacks, you are rewarded with sanctuary cities and special social status.

In fact, believing that whites violently terrorize and kill non-whites to the extent mass media and academia claim, would require utterly denying all available data. The Manhattan Institute’s Heather Mac Donald reports:

. . . white violence against blacks is dwarfed by black on white violence. In 2012, blacks committed 560,600 acts of violence against whites (excluding homicide), and whites committed 99,403 acts of violence (excluding homicide) against blacks, according to data from the National Crime Victimization Survey provided to the author. Blacks, in other words, committed 85 percent of the non-homicide interracial crimes of violence between blacks and whites, even though they are less than 13 percent of the population. Both the absolute number of incidents and the rate of black-on-white violence are therefore magnitudes higher than white-on-black violence. There is no white race war going on.

Interracial killings ticked up between blacks and whites in recent years, but the ratio at which it occurs has remained more or less consistent. FBI data show: 454 black-on-white killings and 209 white-on-black killings in 2009, 447 black-on-white killings and 218 white-on-black killings in 2010, 448 black-on-white killings and 193 white-on-black killings in 2011, 431 black-on-white killings and 193 white-on-black killings in 2012, 409 black-on-white killings and 189 white-on-black killings in 2013, 446 black-on-white killings and 187 white-on-black killings in 2014, 500 black-on-white killings and 229 white-on-black killings in 2015.

Police officers killed nearly twice as many whites as blacks in 2015; 50 percent of the victims of fatal police shootings were white, while 26 percent were black. Between 2015 and 2016 there was a 53 percent increase in gun murders of police officers, committed “vastly and disportionately” by black males. “The percentage of blacks arrested for crimes is consistent with police reports,” writes Aaron Bandler, citing data from the National Crime Victimization Survey and a study from 1985. Bandler says “the data disproves the notion that racism is what drives higher rates of arrests among the blacks than among whites or broader America.”

In 2016, “[a]mong all homicide suspects whose race was known, white killers of blacks numbered only 243,” so, “[i]f there is a bias in police shootings, it works in favor of blacks and against whites,” Mac Donald concludes.

If there is “no white race war going on,” why does the media insist otherwise? Maybe because there is no better winning political formula than victimhood in this era.

Victimhood is profitable and in vogue, it means a perennial readership, applause from academia, political endorsements, and revenue for publications willing to manufacture a “white race war.” For politicians, it means crafting an adversarial white “other,” with which they can cow nonwhites into forming a permanent electorate.

The sad fact is, no other demographic finds themselves at the unique disadvantage whites in America do today. Not only are whites academically, politically, and economically disadvantaged by affirmative action policies that favor non-whites, but they are now subject to incessant attacks by the elites of our society and are strictly forbidden from defending themselves. Consider the claim by P. L. Thomas, a “Black Voices” columnist at the Huffington Post, that “Humanity Has A Serious White Man Problem”:

White men, often themselves mediocre, have parlayed their amassed wealth (typically begun in eras characterized by the very worst of human nature) into assuring that the general public has developed a skewed system for evaluating self-worth: white men are forgiven for any and every flaw because “he built this,” but everyone else cannot survive even one flaw, unless he is conveniently associated with the right white man.

Frank Joyce writes for Salon, “White men must be stopped: The very future of mankind depends on it.” Whites, according to Joyce, have for “500 years . . . exploited their fellow man and plundered the planet. It’s time they rein themselves in.” Brian Stauffer writes in Politico, “Donald Trump’s appeals to working-class white Americans have no doubt stoked racial tensions.” In an article for the New York Times titled, “Should I Give Up on White People?” Emory University psychology professor George Yancy asserts that to be “haunted while awake by a teratology of whiteness is far more frightening” than any nightmare. Again for the Times, Cardozo Law professor Ekow N. Yankah asks, “Can My Children Be Friends With White People?” His answer is almost identical to the one that got John Derbyshire fired from National Review a few years ago, with one crucial difference. Yankah says he will teach his children “to be cautious [of white people], I will teach them suspicion, and I will teach them distrust. Much sooner than I thought I would, I will have to discuss with my boys whether they can truly be friends with white people.” Meanwhile, Professor Joseph Kuilema of Calvin College wrote in the school’s paper:

I, Joseph Kuilema, am certainly a racist. As a white male, I benefit tremendously from institutions and systems that have been built by and for people like me. This is how the social sciences define racism, not as merely the product of prejudice, explicit or implicit bias, but a system of power based on the invention of the “white race” by people in power.

Is that self-abasing enough? Not for Noel Ignatiev, the founder of Race Traitor, a journal with the motto, “Treason to whiteness is loyalty to humanity.” Years ago, Harvard Magazine carried an excerpt from When Race Becomes Real: Black and White Writers Confront Their Personal Histories, which details the the journal’s mission:

The goal of abolishing the white race is on its face so desirable that some may find it hard to believe that it could incur any opposition other than from committed white supremacists. Of course we expected bewilderment from people who still think of race as biology. . . . Race Traitor will not abandon its focus on whiteness, no matter how vehement the pleas and how virtuously oppressed those doing the pleading. The editors meant it when they replied to a reader, “Make no mistake about it: we intend to keep bashing the dead white males, and the live ones, and the females too, until the social construct known as ‘the white race’ is destroyed—not ‘deconstructed’ but destroyed.”

Note, “virtuously oppressed.” Persecution of whites is therefore justified as virtuous. Ignatiev is a professor of history at Massachusetts College of Art and Design and a fellow at Harvard’s W.E.B. DuBois Institute—a prominent “black studies” department. The executive editor of Harvard Magazine, Christopher Reed, defended Ignatiev: “He’s arguing against the mind-set and attitude that automatically grants privileges to white people he wants more fairness.”

“White genocide would not only be good, it is necessary and even unavoidable; that is, if we are interested in the survival of the planet, humanity, and all life forms,” writes Roberto D. Hernández in, “Why ‘White Genocide’ is Key to the Earth’s Survival.” Hernández, an assistant professor of Chicana and Chicano Studies at San Diego State University, claims that by “genocide” he is referring harmlessly to “the concept of collective mass ‘white’ ontological suicide.” Oh? This mass suicide will bring an end to “white supremacy,” which can be defined as whatever is inconvenient to this narrative. By writing this article as a dissenter, I am promoting white supremacy. Of white people in general, Trinity College Professor Johnny Eric Williams writes, “Let. Them. Fucking. Die. And smile a bit when you do. For you have done the universe a great service. Ashes to ashes. Dust to bigots.” The original post on Medium was met with much praise.

“Suppose Frontpagemagazine.com ran a headline ‘Abolish the Black Race’?” asks David Horowitz. “What do you think the reaction would be? But at Harvard, where demonizing whites is merely the standard curriculum, an article like this can appear in a glossy magazine whose cover story is ‘Whither the Art Museum?’” Horowitz says that “[r]ace hatred, if directed against white people, is just part of the progressive culture.” Institutional racism exists after all, but it is exclusively codified against whites.

Horowitz is right. This narrative could not be carried out against any other group, not without untenable reprisal, whereas it is encouraged against whites. Our schools preach the evil of the white man, our media rationalizes and justifies their extinction, our politicians champion their annihilation. And if the soaring rate of suicide among white men and the media’s utter indifference to their plight tells us anything, it’s that whites have decided it’s time to acquiesce in their fate.

When two loiterers were arrested for refusing to make a purchase or leave a Starbucks, Karen Attiah wrote in the Washington Post, “Calling the police on black people isn’t a Starbucks problem. It’s an America problem.” America’s problem is that it has made every nonwhite group a protected class. In Who Are We?, Samuel P. Huntington notes:

President Clinton explicitly set forth this challenge when he said that America needed a third “great revolution” (in addition to the American Revolution and civil rights revolution) to “prove that we literally can live without having a dominant European culture.” Attacks on that culture undermine the [American] Creed it produced, and were reflected in the various movements promoting group rights against individual rights.

America’s problem is that mass media and academia are so concerned with revising history in a way that confirms their biases, that they ignore, downplay, or spin existing social and cultural problems that contradict their narrative. Liberal paternalism toward nonwhites and identity politics have cultivated a society and culture that viciously resents the European Christian Westerners who fostered the American Creed, and thus the very principles that made this nation one that provides more legal protections and more opportunity to more people of color than any other—including all the nations of Africa and Latin America.

The white race war on nonwhites isn’t real, but Huntington warns that the “various forces challenging the core American culture and Creed” might someday lead “white Americans to revive the discarded and discredited racial and ethnic concepts of American identity and to create an America that would exclude, expel, or suppress people of other racial, ethnic, and cultural groups.” What comes next is “a racially intolerant country with high levels of intergroup conflict.”

I generally agree with Huntington, but I don’t think we have to wait for the Anglo-Protestant core of America to awaken to hate in order to see evidence of race hatred. The days of “a racially intolerant country” have arrived, and it’s nonwhites leading the charge.