ModernityBlog

“Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man’s character, give him power.” Abraham Lincoln

For UCU Activists – How To Avoid Re-posting from Neo-Nazi, Ku Klux Klan or White Power Web Sites.

with 21 comments

This is a slightly updated version of my post on HP.

This guide was originally meant as a bit of fun, I was perplexed that some people found it hard to distinguish between neo-Nazi, KKK, White Power and other web sites. I think that the telltale signs are all too obvious and although the Extreme Right try to reach out, using fairly innocuous posts to bring in the punters, the contents of their web sites shouldn’t fool any literate adult, but apparently they do.

So this guide is not the last word on fascism, nor is it an essay on the Extreme Right, still less is it a biography of David Duke, there are plenty of web sites which detail his nasty career, no, this guide is aimed at helping people to avoid the obvious, reading and posting from the Extreme Right’s web sites.

A word of warning, if you feel comfortable with their diet of vitriolic racism, conspiracy theories, latent violence, etc then you won’t want to read any further, if, however, you have a strong dislike of the Extreme Right but are not 100% sure of what to look out for, then I hope this will help you. Use it with discretion.

Apparently some members of the UCU activist list are having problems discerning which material is fit for inclusion in civilised and academic debate, sadly one of them made the very egregious mistake of posting information from David Duke’s web site.

In mitigation another UCU activist commented “This has made me crucially aware of how difficult it is to set out rules, even guidelines, for avoiding errors. “

I can’t think why academics can’t apply some critical thinking to material found on the Internet, however, for the benefit of Mr. Cushman and other UCU activists here’s a very simple guide:

For UCU Activists – How To Avoid Re-posting from Neo-Nazi, Ku Klux Klan or White Power Web Sites.”

A word of warning, modern day neo-Nazis, Holocaust revisionists, White Power freaks and certified Jew haters do not always advertise their loathings so conspicuously, they have learnt to dress up their hatreds and make them more acceptable, more palatable to the undiscerning reader.

So initially you won’t necessarily see “we love Hitler” plastered all over their web sites, rather they will push a few dissident Jewish anti-Zionists in the hope that it fools the gullible, and make their diet of vile anti-Jewish racism somehow more palatable.

Don’t be fooled.

Broadly speaking there are five stages:

Preliminary scan.
Checking the initial link.
Verifying the author.
Examining the article.
Watching out for telltale signs.

Scanning the Symbols.

The preliminary scan of any dodgy web site is fairly simple, just look out for the obvious neo-Nazi insignia or Celtic symbols, combined with some lurid stories or references to Jews.

The Link.

1. Find a link on the Internet.
2. Go to the home page of that particular link.
3. If it says “David Duke”, “White Power”, “Aryan Nation” “Hitler”, “National Socialism is good” or “KKK”* then bin that link, it is from a neo-Nazi web site or one of their friends and go to step 1 again.

The Author.

4. Having found a link, verify the author.
5. Throw their name into Google with the selection of the following key words:

9/11, New World Order, supremacy, revisionism, Serbia, truth, Illuminati, Israel, etc.

6. Read the results and if the links are predominately to places like Jewish Tribal Review, Jew Watch, Stormfront, National Vanguard, Ziopedia, Rense, or sites that talk about National Socialism a lot then bin that link and go to step 1 once more.

The Contents.

7. Having found an article, look up the author’s previous works and ask the questions: does he/she essentialise different ethnic groupings? Does he/she appear to be paranoid? Or use conspiracy theories? Is there an overriding fixation?

8. Now read the article and look for discrepancies: is one work quoted a lot? Does the author entertain counter arguments? Does the article read like a screed? Try to cross reference any works cited and see if the article represent the arguments accurately?

9. Is the article consistently negative towards Jews, no matter how they are characterised, whatever euphemism or insult is used (“Cosmopolitan”, “Hebrew”, “Zionist” **,”Red Sea Pedestrian”,”Israeli, etc).

10. Does the author argue that the witless Goy/Goyim/Gentle has been fooled by the wily “Zionist” **? Or suggest that the media is controlled by manipulative “Zionists”?

If so, then you’ve probably hit jackpot, it is antisemitic filth and shouldn’t the recycled or passed on to others, particularly on union sanction email lists.

11. At this point, by using the above method and some common sense, you probably will have filtered out 95% of the neo-Nazi filth from the web.

That wasn’t so hard was it?

Warning Signs.

Also, watch out for lurid colours, multiple fonts etc that’s a big of a give way of a crank web site.

When the particular web site offers it, use the local search facility and put in a variety of keys: Illuminati, NWO, shadow government, Khazars, Rothschild, Protocols, blood, RAHOWA, 88

If these web sites use words like “International Jewry” or have references to mind control, tentacles, etc. then watch out, oh and if they post stuff from David Duke that is really, really a no no!

Finally, it is best to avoid sites that promote or approve of thetruthseeker, zundelsite, natvan, conspiracyplanet, ihr, codoh, adelaideinstitute, vho, zionistswatch ***.

If in doubt, don’t use the material. Email one of the many anti-racist/anti-fascist organisations and ask for advice.

—-
* Extending on to include any sites that rant about Jews, New World Order, 9/11 and dancing Jews, etc.

** Don’t be fooled if some neo-Nazi site uses the transparent tactics of switching “Zionist” for the word “Jew”, they really really mean “Jew!”, but think they’re being smart.

*** This is not a complete list, use own discretion.

PS: If you still don’t know anything about David Duke read this article:

“Wunderkind

David Duke’s preoccupation with racist ideology dates back to his youth. At 17, he became active in right-wing extremist groups. While attending Louisiana State University in the early 1970s, he founded the White Youth Alliance, a group affiliated with the neo-Nazi National Socialist White People’s Party in Arlington, Virginia. To protest a speech by attorney William Kunstler at Tulane University, Duke picketed wearing a Nazi brown shirt and a swastika armband and carried a placard that said “Kunstler is a Communist-Jew” and “Gas the Chicago 7” (referring to the well-known leftist activists). Duke now describes the event as a folly of youth.

Shortly after graduating in 1974, Duke covered his swastika with a Klan robe and founded the Louisiana-based Knights of the Ku Klux Klan. He first came to broad public attention during this time: the young Imperial Wizard successfully marketed himself in the mid-1970s as a new brand of Klansman – well-groomed, engaged, professional: the Klan leader as a corporate manager. And as a progressive: for the first time in the group’s history, women were accepted as equal members and Catholics were encouraged to apply for membership.”

Written by modernityblog

25/08/2008 at 13:43

Posted in Uncategorized

21 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. We may agree to disagree on Israel, Mod, but I think we’re of one mind on this David Duke business. The activist who linked to him mustn’t had got a clue. It’s not exactly difficult to work out where his political sympathies lie from even the most cursory of glances!

    Btw, any chance if an inclusion on your roll of honour over there >>>> ? 😉

  2. Phil,

    I disagree with a lot of people on many subjects, but as people rarely ever ASK me my views on the Middle East (or most other things) it is hard to say.

    no problem on the blogroll, I’ll do later on

    modernity

    25/08/2008 at 19:58

  3. Great piece Mod. One thing related to the author – it may be that in this Web era of granularity and “small pieces loosely joined” it is OK to treat one piece (one comment, one article etc) as a standalone (with the corollary that one should write everything one writes to stand alone – but that’s another story).

    If so, this would suggest that while it is very important to check the site where the thing you’re thinking of linking to is hosted (so the UCU activist has failed on that count), maybe you don’t have to vet its author or familiarise yourself with their body of work. Relaxing about this would be in keeping with the principle that it is not who says it, but what is said that is important. Given though that some people consider a link to one bit of work to be an endorsement of everything the author has produced, it would probably be responsible to put a caveat to the effect that you can’t vouch for the author etc.

    Thoughts?

    fleshisgrass

    25/08/2008 at 23:36

  4. difficult question and my mind is turning to mush, but…

    I suppose it depends on the nature of the work, academic, general or political.

    Not being an academic, it is hard to comment, but if I were then I would take extreme care when referencing material, scanning academic databases for reviews of any particular books or articles by the author, and then generally gaining an assessment of the author’s abilities, idiosyncrasies and strong points.

    For general work, I would still try to reference the individual concerned and see if he or she has any peculiarities and if quoting a particular work I would specify why the quote is germane to the point and how it fits with the argument, what works and what does.

    I think for political work the standard should be slightly higher cross checking against unsavoury characters and their views.

    If your quoting a work you have to know why you are quoting it and what basis, and would you be prepared to defend your selection if queried? that kind of thing.

    If it’s a particularly sensitive subject, race, sexism, etc then a lot of care should be taken and all the angles considered:

    is the author too harsh? not balanced? what sources do they use? how do they conflict with others?

    are we taking their views into account because they are an expert in the field, or because they have experienced something firsthand?

    So naturally there’s different reasons for picking material, expertise, knowledge or experience?

    You might, for example, quote an SAS soldier on the mechanics of a military operation (botched or not), because they were there, but not necessarily for his political views of the British state.

    modernity

    26/08/2008 at 00:59

  5. On reflection, your point is a different one though – that we need to check out authors of pieces presented as evidence to condemn something or somebody – particularly presented as ‘facts’ which ‘speak for themselves’. If somebody, as Joe Quinn is, is a 9/11 conspiracy theorist, and one with Israel at the centre of his theory, then he is untrustworthy on Israel. And if he links to David Irving, who is hardly anything except a Holocaust denier, then the aspersion deepens.

    fleshisgrass

    26/08/2008 at 01:22

  6. In case you haven’t seen this yet: Harry’s Place is threatened with having its DNS disabled as a result of a complaint suspected to have come from the UCU deniers or reality – http://www.hurryupharry.org/2008/08/26/dont-panic-if-we-disappear-briefly/

    JR

    26/08/2008 at 13:28

  7. thanks, I didn’t see it, but I have put up links to their backup blog.

    modernityblog

    26/08/2008 at 14:12

  8. […] More information on how to detect a neo-Nazi site here. […]

  9. […] Instead of addressing the issue of why Jenna Delich couldn’t work out the racist nature of David Duke’s web site they attacked the messenger, […]

  10. […] More background is available courtesy of Modernity Blog here, here and here. […]

  11. […] The Very Public Sociologist has a decent brief summary (with lots of comments, and the formatting of my quote is slightly off – sorry as time is short tonight): HP is under attack – and not for the first time. The (hopefully) temporary stand-in while HP is off the air takes up the story: Harry’s Place may be removed (or rather have it’s DNS disabled) after a ‘complaint’ to the company that our domain name is registered with. We assume after threats were made on the weekend that this ‘complaint’ originates from Jenna Delich or her supporters. Though we have not yet seen the complaint submitted, we assume it runs along the lines that pointing out that Ms Delich linked to the website of a known neo-Nazi figure and former Ku Klux Klan leader is defamatory. This is extraordinary since Ms Delich has not denied that she circulated links to David Dukes website. There would be no point since the evidence is in the public domain. Nevertheless, a malicious complaint has been made to the company hosting our DNS. More background is available courtesy of Modernity Blog here, here and here. […]

  12. Modernity, very nice post. Filed under “satire” or “stating the obvious”…unfortunately! The so-called “academics” drive me batty. I’m all for the boycott the academic boycott of Israel.

    These haters of free speech pose a real danger to the freedom of ideas and flow of information–to our most precious freedoms.

    Adding you to the blogroll at Neo, by the by…

    NeoConstant

    28/08/2008 at 15:18

  13. […] Modernity has written a useful web guide instructing activists on how to avoid reposting material from far right websites – for example, […]

  14. […] Modernity Blog devoted several postings to the issue, carefully setting out the background in depth in Mr Cushman, Sue Me Too, part 1; part 2; The Implications of Silencing Harry’s Place and culminating in a comprehensive demolition of the flimsy plea of ignorance in For UCU Activists – How To Avoid Re-posting from Neo-Nazi, Ku Klux Klan or White Power Web Sites. […]

  15. […] Still his answer about “Khazas” gave the game away. See my previous post for the warning signs, For UCU Activists – How To Avoid Re-posting from Neo-Nazi, Ku Klux Klan or White Power Web Sites. […]

  16. […] For UCU Activists – How To Avoid Re-posting from Neo-Nazi, Ku Klux Klan or White Power Web Sites. […]

  17. […] they should have read my slightly tongue-in-cheek guide For UCU Activists – How To Avoid Re-posting from Neo-Nazi, Ku Klux Klan or White Power Web Sites. leave a comment « Rebellion In […]

  18. […] if you search their site you will find links to the neofascists at Ziopedia. Plenty of filth from the well known anti-Jewish racist, Gilad Atzmon and a lot of barely disguised […]

  19. […] For UCU Activists – How To Avoid Re-posting from Neo-Nazi, Ku Klux Klan or White Power Web Sites. […]

  20. […] Years ago, I wrote a simple guide around this topic, For UCU Activists – How To Avoid Re-posting from Neo-Nazi, Ku Klux Klan or White Power Web Sites. […]


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: