News: Richard Spencer’s metro Detroit lawyer dissociates from alt-right following negative press

Here’s Kyle Bristow’s resignation statement:

In recent weeks, journalists have published horrifically disparaging articles about me which contain acerbic, offensive, juvenile, and regrettable statements I mostly made over a decade ago while I was in college and a prominent and staunchly conservative activist, and which juxtaposed these statements with my recent legitimate and meritorious legal advocacy on behalf of people and organizations who espouse political views which happen to be controversial.

The media is not whatsoever justified in vilifying me. Just as I have stood up for the free speech rights of people on the right side of the political spectrum, I have likewise–in my capacity as an attorney–stood up for the rights of people on the left side of the political spectrum. I take my calling as an attorney seriously and have aggressively represented people from all walks of life: which includes homeless people as well as multimillionaires, people of all races, and people of all sexual orientations. You might be surprised to learn that I once was nearly held in contempt of court for repeatedly demanding that a rural judge from a conservative jurisdiction refer to my client–who was transsexual–on the record by their assigned gender rather than by their biological gender; you might also be surprised to learn that I served as the president of my high school’s international club while I was a junior and senior and that when I travel internationally, I try my best to speak the local language (albeit poorly)–which I only point out to show that I have respect for cultures and human dignity and that there is a side to the story which the media is not telling.

The people who know me best—my friends and family, my current and former clients, former employers, and lawyers and judges with whom I regularly deal—know me as a passionate defender of the law and an aggressive advocate of my clients’ rights. Whether I am demanding the dismissal of an unconstitutional criminal charge against a homeless client who merely held up a sign to request food near a busy street intersection, or I am repeatedly demanding that a rural judge refer to a transsexual client by their assigned gender, or I am providing pro bono legal assistance to poor people who happen to be down on their luck, I do my job and do it as well as I can

In light of the recent relentless and unjustifiable vilification of me, as well as the mischaracterizations of who I am as a person, I have unilaterally made the decision to provide this clarification and to withdraw from politics. Yesterday, an attorney substituted in for me so as to continue representing Cameron Padgett for his federal lawsuits against the University of Cincinnati and the Ohio State University, and today I deleted my private Twitter profile and now am announcing that I will no longer serve in any capacity with the Foundation for the Marketplace of Ideas, Inc.–which was founded by a number of licensed attorneys and me in 2016 so as to promote the rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution. I will not be in attendance at the upcoming Michigan State University event–which will happen as a result of the recent successful and high-profile lawsuit I filed on behalf of my client–, nor will I attend FMI’s upcoming Detroit conference where attendees will merely dine on appetizers and drink beverages from an open bar as they mingle. FMI will be transferred to the control of someone else to manage so its mission can be advanced, or else it will be dissolved.

In closing, I wish to relay that I abhor violence—of which I have never engaged and have always disavowed—, I regret having previously used language which is needlessly offensive, the characterizations made of me by the media are inaccurate, and I salute everyone who stands up for the rights that are guaranteed by the Constitution—no matter who is exercising those rights.

Although the media’s vilification of me prompted this statement, I nevertheless believe it is the morally right decision to make as I move forward in life.

MetroTimes.com reports:

The metro Detroit alt-right legal advocate who cleared the way for Richard Spencer to speak at Michigan State University says he’s withdrawing from politics following news stories that highlighted racist statements he’s made over the years.

Kyle Bristow, the executive director of the Foundation for the Market Place of Ideas, announced he would resign from the role in a statement posted to the FMI website Saturday. The Clinton Township-based group is to host an alt-right conference featuring Spencer, Cameron Padgett, and other white nationalists at a secret location in metro Detroit on Sunday, the eve of Spencer’s visit to MSU.

“The media is not whatsoever justified in vilifying me,” Bristow says in the letter. “Just as I have stood up for the free speech rights of people on the right side of the political spectrum, I have likewise — in my capacity as an attorney — stood up for the rights of people on the left side of the political spectrum.”

Bristow, 31, also downplayed his racist behavior over the years, saying that much of it occurred a decade ago when he was still in college at MSU. It was there that he served as the head of a chapter of an alleged hate group and organized a “Catch an Illegal Immigrant Day,” according to the Southern Poverty Law Center.

Up until recently, however, Bristow was posting racist epithets to Twitter. Pepe the Frog, a cartoon character the alt-right has adopted to denote anti-Semitism, was a mainstay on his feed. He also recently posted a video that suggested Mexicans who attempt to illegally cross into the U.S. be electrocuted.

“I wish to relay that I abhor violence — of which I have never engaged and have always disavowed,” Bristow says in the letter.

He deleted his Twitter account prior to issuing the statement.

Bristow says he will take further steps to disassociate from the alt-right. According to the letter, he will no longer represent Cameron Padgett, a Richard Spencer-sympathizer who has booked Spencer’s visits to college campuses around the country. Padgett has brought federal suits against the University of Cincinnati and Ohio State University.

Here is the news article from the Detroit Free Press that ended Kyle’s Alt Right career:

For years, Kyle Bristow has fought for racism, homophobia and the First Amendment.

It was Bristow, a 31-year-old attorney from Macomb County, who stepped in when Michigan State University rejected a request last summer from white nationalist leader Richard Spencer to speak on campus. Bristow successfully sued MSU, forcing a settlement that led the way to Spencer’s planned speech on Monday at the East Lansing school.

A decade earlier, as an undergraduate student on the same campus, Bristow argued that minority groups shouldn’t be automatically represented in student government, pushed for a “Catch an Illegal Immigrant Day” and led America’s first college-student organization to be listed as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center.

The Macomb County native now leads an organization describing itself as the “sword and shield” of the white nationalist, so-called alt-right movement. The Foundation for the Marketplace of Ideas, founded in March 2016 and based in Clinton Township, is 100% white and male, according to Guidestar, a nonprofit database.

Despite the group’s seemingly innocuous name, the ideas promoted by the Foundation for the Marketplace of Ideas are far from mundane. Members see multiculturalism as a plague on the U.S., believe in separation of the races and dream of white ethno-states. One board member once proposed banning anyone from permanently living in the U.S. with any trace of African blood in them.

Bristow describes the organization as an American Civil Liberties Union for the right wing — having helped dozens of people nationwide with legal matters, from criminal defense to civil litigation and more.

When universities or towns throw up barriers to hosting “alt-right” events, Bristow goes to work, using the constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech as his central legal weapon. The college towns are an important part of the movement, which is taking direct aim at young, white, middle-class men in its recruitment efforts…

“As the U.S. continues to decline in power, prestige, and prosperity as its European character wanes away, American youth will naturally gravitate to finding solutions to the problems. The current Alt-Right activists are simply a vanguard of a much large movement whose time will come,” says a post headlined “Attracting Millennials to the Alt-Right Movement” on the Foundation for the Marketplace of Ideas website.

In addition to speaking Monday at MSU, Spencer is scheduled to appear at the foundation’s “Michigan Alt-Right Conference” on Sunday at a secret location in Detroit, with about 100-300 guests background-checked and approved in advance.

During a similar conference in 2016, Bristow and Spencer toured the Heidelberg Project art installation in Detroit. Bristow’s unverified Twitter profile later called it a tour of “degenerate art,” the term used by Nazis to describe modern art they hated and destroyed.

“We visited various ruins that were iconic,” Bristow said, laughing in a January video interview with right-wing website Red Ice. “I called it a safari of Detroit.”

Heidelberg Project CEO Jenenne Whitfield called the group “hateful misguided self-promoters. Their attempt to use the Heidelberg Project to divide people will fail.”

As a lawyer, Bristow caused embarrassment for the State Bar of Michigan when it gave his racist entry into a short-story contest an honorable mention. The state bar in August 2015 apologized for the award, condemned the piece as “hateful speech masquerading as an alleged work of art” and canceled the contest.

After graduating in 2012 with a law degree from the University of Toledo College of Law, Bristow at one point worked at Helal Farhat’s law firm in Dearborn. Farhat said that when he hired Bristow, he was referred by another attorney.

“As an attorney, he was a good attorney,” Farhat said. “He was a comparatively mild person. I didn’t think his lawyering was bad.”

At the time, he didn’t know about Bristow’s activist history, and they didn’t discuss political views. Farhat, who declined to say how Bristow ended up leaving the law firm, said he now knows about Bristow’s associations. He said the movement “poses a threat to America in general,” and he doesn’t agree with it.

But Bristow appeared to treat people equally, he said.

“If I felt that he was treating people differently in my office, and most of my clients are of Arab-American descent, of course I would never maintain any association with him,” Farhat said.

At Michigan State, the Young Americans for Freedom chapter that Bristow reportedly led (the national organization’s leadership has since said the chapter was never authorized, and YAF “prohibits racists”) held a “Koran desecration contest,” the Toledo Blade reported. In Bristow’s 2016 “Detroit Alt-Right Conference” video, he said the movement is engaged in a “total war, zero sum game in a contest of civilizations,” and that there should be an immigration moratorium based on race and religion.

Asked how he reconciles his beliefs with his professional obligations, Bristow said he was “shocked that you would insinuate that being right-wing is somehow violative of my professional obligations as an attorney.

“I defend the freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution and do so unapologetically,” he said in an e-mail. “There are justices on the U.S. Supreme Court who rule as I would if I was there — there is nothing exotic about being right-wing.”

Bristow has also received positive media attention for his work as a lawyer. He won two high-six-figure awards in revenge-porn lawsuits.

The mission of Bristow’s “nonpartisan” Foundation for the Marketplace of Ideas, according to its website, is to “educate the public about the freedoms guaranteed by the United States Constitution and people who and organizations which strive to usurp said freedoms.”

That all sounds like something any American can get behind. But after reading a few posts — That time an Indian argued to the U.S. Supreme Court that he is a ‘free white person’ and entitled to citizenship,” “Ancient European cucks” or “Hail Richard Spencer! Hail Our People! Hail (legal) victory!” — the mission seems less benign.

Bristow’s foundation solicits donations in most, if not all, of its online posts. In 2016, its first year, Bristow’s foundation received $8,000 in contributions, according to documents in the Guidestar nonprofit database. Bristow said that contributions are up to about $40,000-$50,000 per year, with an average donation of $100. It has received donations from across the U.S. as well as Canada, Europe and Australia, Bristow said in an e-mail.

“Funds are primarily used for organizing events, marketing, subsidizing lawyers for people who need them in other states, etc.,” Bristow said.

“Prior to FMI, right-wingers had to either hire private attorneys — who are expensive and who charge premiums for clients who they consider unsavory — or right-wingers would rely on public interest groups for help (every now and then, the ACLU would take a token right-wing case),” he said. “Richard Spencer, for example, has been unable to find an attorney to represent him in Virginia due to many attorneys being cowardly in defending controversial people. This is a sad commentary on the state of the American legal profession, which is supposed to protect the Constitution.”

Posted in Alt Right | Comments Off on News: Richard Spencer’s metro Detroit lawyer dissociates from alt-right following negative press

Everything You Love Will Burn: Inside the Rebirth of White Nationalism in America

I bought this book because I was under the impression that the author had been undercover with WNs for six years, but apparently he was always out as a “reporter.” He doesn’t stint on the virtue-signalling, which does not mean he has nothing valuable to say. I’ll read and I’ll let you know if there’s anything important. So far, I’ve found nothing.

On the other hand, I find that our enemies just as often have valuable insights as our friends.

Here are some excerpts:

As I write this, nineteen people are being treated at University of Virginia Medical Center for injuries sustained when a white supremacist drove his car into a crowd on the streets of Charlottesville, Virginia. One woman is dead. The victims were struck as they protested one of the largest gatherings of right-wing radicals in America in recent history. Last night I watched hundreds of predominantly young, white men march in a torchlight parade, paying tribute to a history that produced slavery, Jim Crow, and a society that still discriminates against its minorities in a million ways, large and small. They were not only paying tribute to white hegemony but also protesting the cracks in that hegemony, airing grievances that seemed both petty and fabricated. As they marched en masse to chants of “Jews will not replace us!” I had to wonder exactly how Jews were replacing them and how these young, white men—by any statistical measure perched at the top of the societal food chain—had come to feel so deeply aggrieved as to see the world’s progress as an attack on them…

It should be stated that I’m not a neutral observer. In many ways I represent what my subjects believe to be the enemy. As long as I’ve been able to vote I’ve voted socialist (in my native Norway that is still, thankfully, a viable option), and I’ve made no secret about that in my reporting…

Matthew [Heimbach] had no doubt that the elites were bought and paid for by the Jews, and if there was one thing no one could accuse Matthew Heimbach of, it was being part of the elite…

He switched on the wipers and watched as the threadbare rubber strip redistributed the rain across the windshield. He needed to get new ones. In fact, he needed to get a new car, but he had no money since losing his job at Child Protective Services in Indiana when they found out about his other life as one of the most notorious nationalists in the country. It wasn’t the first time he’d been fired for his politics: he had been excommunicated from his church, cut off by his family, and suffered daily death threats since he was a teenager. Losing a job was nothing new, but it did make it harder to do political work when he had to hustle to find new employment. Also, Brooke was pregnant with their second kid—Matthew wanted a large brood—so there was that to pay for. Recently he’d found a new job as a picker in one of Amazon’s giant warehouses, but it was lonely, miserable work. The warehouse was vast, and to save money on electricity Amazon had installed motion detectors that made sure the light was only on where the picker was, meaning Matthew spent close to twelve hours per day walking around in a small cone of light, barely ten feet in diameter, surrounded by endless darkness.

BY NOVEMBER 2016 I had known Matthew for a few years, having met him in the early days of what would be a six-year field trip into the underbelly of the American white nationalist scene. It had been a journey littered with skinheads, Klansmen, fights, bad barbeque, rallies, threats, and endless highway miles. Matthew was an unexpected encounter, a seemingly earnest and in some ways sensible outlier in a sea of virulent racists—which isn’t to say that Matthew wasn’t racist, merely that he wasn’t so unambiguous about it. Also, you didn’t need to wince your way through a conversation littered with racial slurs when talking to him, which set him apart from many of his fellow white nationalists. One could argue that this made him all the more dangerous—an ostensible voice of reason covering up an insidious form of white supremacy—but it also made him easier to talk to. What had initially motivated my excursion into the world of white supremacy was curiosity about a brand of politics that seemed almost too outdated to be real—and one that I was surprised to find thriving throughout the country. At the time my impetus was little more than a fascination with the strange and offensive.

Posted in Alt Right | Comments Off on Everything You Love Will Burn: Inside the Rebirth of White Nationalism in America

Halsey English Vs Mark Collett On The JQ

My notes after watching the debate:

I’ve never wanted to get glib talkers on my show. I’m not interested in slick speakers because they are never careful about facts, they’re not scholars, not intellectuals.

* Mark Collett came across best, but he’s glib and not always fact based. When I listen to someone as glib as mark, i am immediately suspect because such people are usually economical in their commitment to the truth… KMAC and GJ and RS are not glib.

He claims:

* Interracial marriage is illegal in Israel. While you can’t perform interfaith marriages in israel, plenty of people in israel are intermarried.
* He claims Jews have been banned from 359 countries and states. 109 countries all christian and islamic. Plenty of stateless people have been kicked around. So what?
* He uses the fake voltaire quote: “If you want to know who rules over you, look at who you cannot criticize.”

* Jews control by subversion… the Israel Lobby is not remotely subversive, it is how the US politics game is played.

* Jews control the porn industry. You could have accurately said the italian-american mafia controlled the porn industry for decades.

* Mark: 85% of the bolshevik government was jews. Absurd.

* Mark: “The Jewish number of 6 million” for the holocaust.

* Karl Marx was Jewish. He was also a christian. Karl’s ancestors were Jewish… If you want to blame jews for marx, you also have to blame christians.

* I like it that people think i am more devious than i am. Porners thought i was undercover LE.

* Patrick Slattery always impresses…I’ve not heard him to say false things.

* Tom Luongo says the Holocaust is unique, that it was done to kill Jews, while stalin simply killed people who threatened him. And that you can’t question certain things about the holocaust because that is “counter-factual”.

* Luongo says George Soros worked w his dad to hunt down Jews. Mark corrects.

* Luongo says Soros was just coincidentally jewish.

* Israel bans interfaith marriage. False. “I invite everyone in the audience to Google everything I’ve said because it is just the tip of the iceberg.”

* Mark does not care about facts. He never once said anything new or surprising.

* Mark says Jews are doing the opposite to Europe as opposed to what they want for themselves…Multiculturalism for thee, cohesion for me.

Posted in Jews | Comments Off on Halsey English Vs Mark Collett On The JQ

Hitler Vs Churchill

James Thompson writes:

Rarely have two men been so savagely opposed, and so different in their formative experiences, though each had war experiences . Hitler (1889-1945) rose from nothing to absolute dominion over Europe, and fell like a stick; Churchill (1874-1965) started high, aimed higher, and after years in the wilderness achieved greatness…

So, the battle of wits between an ascendant 51-year-old Hitler and a last-choice, embattled 66-year-old Churchill is a story always worth telling, perhaps worth telling for ever. Churchill turned the course of history. The very first German biography of Hitler, by Joachim Fest, made the telling point that, for all his oratory, Hitler left little of note in the German language. Art Historian Burckhardt again: “The essence of tyranny is the denial of complexity”. Churchill, on the other hand, lifted English to the sunlit uplands. He was a most quotable man. Does any of this matter, in the cold calculation of war? Yes. Rhetoric is worth many battalions. Language can move hearts because it is the supreme tool of thinking…

Joachim Fest again: although Marxist historians have sometimes argued that historical events are inevitable because of major economic forces, and that historical biography is no more than courtly flattery, Hitler proves them wrong. His capture of the German soul and his face-saving explanation for their lost first world war proved all too powerful, with dreadful results. He was the spark in the methane swamp…

And on that point, historian Robert Tombs has put forward a good argument that Britain should have ducked out of the war, kept the Empire, and let the Nazi regime fail under its own dreadful contradictions. Conquering with lightening war is one thing, governing for the long term another. Empires are costly. Even subjugated peoples rebel from time to time. Policing them takes time, and saps profits. Ask the English. The audience was not convinced by this championing of prudent self-interest in the face of a barbaric regime, but it was a reasonable position in 1940, as the film, perhaps too vividly, depicts…

Perhaps Churchill versus Hitler is the best story ever told, and will be told again and again, long after Alexander, Hercules, Hector and Lysander are all forgotten. It will enter world history as the greatest confrontation ever: two men fighting for Europe in a battle that spread across the whole world, dragging in others till the death toll reached 50 million.

Comments:

* After seeing a 2050 showing of this film, the following comment was heard. “We had to fight the Nazis or we’d be speaking German today,” said the British man in Arabic.

* Hitler was a product of his times. Even if he had been throttled in his crib, someone else would have arisen to take his place.

If you want to see the roots of WWII, you need only study the politics of WWI. (And, no, I don’t mean just the Versailles Treaty.) All the things you see in the history of WWII – deportations, ethnic cleansing, massacres of civilians, annexations, political arrests, expansionist politics, race theory and so on – one can discover easily in the actions of *all* the participants in WWI, and on a large scale. Indeed, it can be argued that all Hitler and the Third Reich were following the plans laid out before and during WWI by, variously, the Second Reich, Austro-Hungarian Empire, France, Russia and, to a lesser degree, Britain. It’s fair to assert that all Hitler was doing was following somebody else’s blueprint, and with the full support of German Speakers everywhere who didn’t want to repeat the privations, deaths, rapes and destruction of recent memory.

As has been pointed out elsewhere and above, Churchill was to a large degree an indebted fraud with a good PR machine. One very much doubts if all that “Stirring Oratory” was actually written by him at all. (Ditto the books. And that “We Will Fight Them…” speech was made by an actor on the radio.) Pretty much drunk most of the time – a high functioning alcoholic – a deep analysis of Churchill reveals a manipulative and superficially charming Psychopath who managed to drag both his country (and the United States) into a bankrupting war that pretty much destroyed the Empire he purported to be saving. It’s worth noting that in a different time and place he would be considered a War Criminal.

In contrast, Hitler’s writings – pretty much dictated – are pedantic and plodding to be sure. Where he shined brightly was in oratory. Working only with basic notes – bullet points – He would begin a speech, stop and pause, begin again, stumble then start, all the while reading the audience. Moving ahead extemporaneously, he soon had them mesmerized. If you ever watch one of his speeches from beginning to end – and not the Allied Propaganda middle excerpts where too often in he’s shown screaming and gesticulating wildly – you quickly realize that this guy made one hell of a speech. And that, along with making concrete the fears (born of experience) and desires of his audiences, was what made him so successful.

(It’s also worth noting that rarely do they tell you what he’s saying. Instead, you usually get a solemn announcer talking about “These Words of Hate.”)

This is all revisionist of course. And the takeaway is that in history the more a personage is presented as a cardboard cutout – saintly or demonic as (((circumstances and pressures))) dictate – the further you are from the truth of that person (and the forces and politics around him) you actually are. That’s where reading deeply into history becomes important.

* Hitler vs. Stalin was the real cage match, with all talons out, sharpened.

Looking abroad, Chiang Kai-Check vs. the Tojo vs. Mao was an even bigger deal.

* Who was the better painter?

Churchill?

Or Hitler?

* The least discussed of the famous Churchill stories is his one embarrassingly public failure of morale in the 24-hours before D-day. D-Day invasion was heavily planned around correcting Churchill’s mistakes and Gallipoli – especially his failure to realise the importance of contemporaneous Intel, and the consequent ability of the defending Turks to prevent or delay critical pushes by bluffing with only a handful of men until reinforcements arrived with which to pin the invaders on the beaches (hence D-day’s emphasis on high casualty paratrooper and air reconnaissance tactics – to avoid Churchill’s error, they needed to know what was happening beyond the beachfront).

After several years of everything a public image of unflappable confidence, Churchill spent the day slowly disintegrating , emotionally and intellectually, until in the last few hours he began insisting that the invasion had to be delayed, with increasingly spurious excuses. He even to get on the phone to FDR and any American general in his Rolodex, until his minders and American liaisons essentially blocked him for fear that in his hysterical state, Churchill would completely violate communications secrecy and give away the invasion date.

In retrospect, we now know that Churchill was subject to mood swings throughout his life. But it certainly looks a lot like the old man was human enough, and suffered enough guilt for his role in the First World War, that he had a near breakdown over the thought of being responsible for a 2nd Gallipoli.

* Churchill was very good with words but an abject failure in military strategy. He failed at Gallipoli, he failed in Norway, he failed at Anzio, he was wrong about the Normandy Invasion (an American plan) etc…

The Brits performed poorly in WWII, they rode the coattails of America and Russia to victory. It is ridiculous to see them thumping their chests and pretending as if Churchill was the hero of WWII.

* He was probably more worried that his reputation would suffer than about sending thousands of men to die climbing up the cliffs under the pounding of the German guns.

Posted in Adolf Hitler, Winston Churchill | Comments Off on Hitler Vs Churchill

Do Non-Jews Have Agency?

If so, the Jewish Question is of moderate importance at most. If the JQ is primary to you, then you’re saying non-Jews lack agency. Pick a path, white man. Blame or step up?

Larry says: So let’s stop “blaming” all other non white minorities too shall we? I mean, Why give just the Jews a pass?

Why should we “blame” Black crime or Muslim terrorism for anything for example? I’m sure the Jews don’t. Do they?

I find it hilarious to see people who make a career of pointing to uncomfortable patterns in certain groups suddenly getting nervous and and testy when it comes to (((certain uncomfortable patterns))).

If white societies should be predicated on the interests of whites then Jews are just as desirable as gypsies and blacks because the JQ is just a subset of the broader Biological Realism Thought Complex. We should start making this point because it cuts down to the core of ethnonalism itself.

And this tweet is pure passive aggressive kosher bitching.

“You insecure, goy? You goin’ to grow up and man up or blame the jooo, goy?”

This is so old and tired.

Posted in Jews | Comments Off on Do Non-Jews Have Agency?