9 May, 2007

NELSON: Washington Prison Hosts Lecture by Black Militant

Posted by alex in black crime, black nationalism, double standards, prisoners at 6:44 pm | Permanent Link

By Michael Nelson

On Wednesday, April 18th, 2007, the Stafford Creek Correction Center (SCCC) in Aberdeen, Washington, hosted a lecture by black militant activist Angela Davis. In an April 6th, 2007, SCCC Facility Bulletin, Dawn Taylor advertised Ms. Davis as “an African American communist organizer [ ] who was associated with the Black Panther Party in the 1960s and 1970s as well as the Communist Party of the United States of America.” The April 6th blurb noted “If you have any questions, please kite Dawn Taylor.” Your reporter kited Dawn Taylor and asked how it was arranged for an historical figure like Davis to speak at SCCC, and if he (Nelson) was able to arrange for someone (say, David Duke) to speak at SCCC, how would that be? Taylor of course did not respond but instead issued an oblique reply in the April 13th, 2007, SCCC Facility Bulletin: “I offer my apologies as it appears I gave many of you the wrong idea of Ms. Davis[.]” Rather than the “wrong idea,” it appears that Davis’ speaking at SCCC was a ‘stupid idea.’ Angela Davis’ primary claim to fame is her stint on the FBI’s most wanted list after purchasing a shotgun which was used, two days later, in the murder of a federal judge in San Rafael, California. A review of law library databases referencing Angela Davis, Black Panthers, and the Communist Party reveals that all are associated with bona fide prison ‘Security Threat Groups’ (STGs).

Prison security threat groups are defined by DOC policy 400.310 as “groups who pose a potential thrat to the security or safety of staff, visitors, other offenders, and community members.” U.S. v. Garr (Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, 1972) described a chain of events surrounding over sixty firebombings in Columbus, Georgia, in the late sixties. The defendants were caught with incendiary devices produced with items found in the People’s Panther Headquarters where among other evidence were found pictures of Angela Davis. In U.S. v. Giese (Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, 1979) defendant Portland State University professor Frank Stearns Giese founded the “Radical [Communist] Education Project bookstore” in 1971. Giese sent books to prisoners at OSCI and led groups discussions at the prison. Wroking together with released prisoners, to whom he sent “free communist or Socialist literature” the conspirators exploded bombs at the US Navy and Army recruiting centers in Portland, Oregon, on January 2nd and 4th, 1973. In Rushen v. Spain (U.S. Supreme Court, 1983) the Black Panther Party was associated with a 1971 San Quentin prison escape that resulted in the death of three prisoners and three corrections officers. By the most objective measures imaginable Davis represents a genuine security threat to SCCC, and the people of the State of Washington. Washington’s black militant prisoners are emboldened in their anti-White race hatred by her official sanction.

While officially promoting the likes of Ms. Davis, SCCC was proceeding against prisoner Jeremy Hardebeck for mere possession of an essay by another (White) Davis equivalent, David Lane, titled “The 88 Precepts.” This anti-White double standard is not an isolated incident in the WSDOC. The statewide “Cultural Diversity” course for prisoners had to be cancelled for its anti-White race-baiting content revealed in an essay called ‘The War Against Whites.’ Likewise, the “Victim Awareness” curriculum in WA prisons was a Legislature Report titled ‘The Cult of Victimhood.’ WA’s Monroe Correctional Complex still sanctions an inmate-led Native American Nationalist community, but mere White Nationalist sentiment is deemed STG. Nation of Islam (NOI), which promotes the “inexorable hatred of White people” (as found in Sutton v. Rasheed [Third Circuit Court of Appeals, 2003]) has official DOC sanction to conduct ervices in Washington prisons. But honestly, racist group identity expressed by prisoners does not cause security concerns. Misguided policies forcing unwanted asociation are the only real ‘security threats.’ The point here is the distinction: solitary and private expressions of White racism, like nationalist literature in cells, or nationalist flyers on cell walls, are viciously prosecuted as misconduct by WA prison thought police while equivalent non-White expressions of resistance like NOI and Davis’ lecture are officially sponsored. A review of the same law library databases revealed there were no equivalent threats to prison administration (just censorship actions) related to White racism in prisons.

Brought to you by:

Liberty Rights Advocates
Brush Fires News
P.O. Box 713
Johnstown OH 43031

  • 7 Responses to “NELSON: Washington Prison Hosts Lecture by Black Militant”

    1. Olde Dutch Says:

      Hmmm. Angela Davis is about as close as you are going to come to a rational educated Black Nationalist. Alex, why not invite her to do a segment of Goyfire or FTL with you. I bet the jew would feel the heat, and I got a hunch her opinions would surprise the listeners.

      Here’s a joke Angela Davis tells. Why do Black people have sex on the brain?

      Their pubic hair is on their head… :)

    2. John Says:

      I guess they’ll be calling Metzger to speak next just to be fair and balance things out.

    3. brutus Says:

      The 1970s useful idiots for the jew, Angela Davis and JoAnne Chesimard, have been protected and glorified by the jew for decades. These niggresses need to be skinned.


    4. Chris Says:

      Here’s a pretty good article about the way the Jew uses the nigger to further Jew interests

      David Horowitz And The
      Mechanics Of The Zionist
      Exploitation Of Blacks
      By Curt Maynard

      I recently read David Horowitz’s autobiography Radical Son. Horowitz was a well- known Marxist journalist in the 1970s supposedly transformed into a less well-known modern day neo-conservative converso. He once wrote for the Ramparts, a liberal Marxist rag that touted every single degenerate cause in the late sixties and early seventies, actively supported the Black Panther Party, and rubbed shoulders with the likes of Huey Newton, Elaine Brown, Angela Davis, Jerry Rubin, Tom Hayden, Jane Fonda and Abby Hoffman. Horowitz’s Radical Son is really nothing more than the author’s weak attempt to explain how it is that he so easily converted to neo-conservatism from a radical 1970s Jewish liberal. The book is little more than liberal propaganda of the crudest nature from beginning to end. According to Horowitz he finally “saw the light,” he came to see that Marxist groups like the Black Panthers weren’t ideologically motivated at all, that they were instead composed of “thugs,” and that they used the cause to forward their own agendas, mostly of a self absorbed criminal nature. For most people the idea that the Panther’s were a criminal organization isn’t anything new, but Horowitz wants the reader to sympathize with him, so he reinvents the Panther’s just as he did in the seventies in an effort to confuse the simpleminded reader. This is an interesting process and extremely difficult to identify unless one is familiar with kosher revisionism.

      First off Horowitz wants the reader to believe that the he, David Horowitz was never motivated by anything except the most altruistic and benevolent of causes ­ Marxism ­ true Marxism, brotherhood, equality and tolerance and all that rhetoric. Unfortunately, according to Horowitz, he was stymied at every opportunity by less ideologically motivated sell-outs who took advantage of Horowitz’s devotion to the cause and naivety. Horowitz is tricky though ­ he does this in such a way as not to expose himself for what he really was, a fanatical anti-Gentile Jew that exploited the Black Panther’s to advance Jewish interests ­ Zionist interests for those still not inclined to see that Zionism is nothing more than Jewry’s latest “ism.”

      He wants the reader to believe that he admired Huey Newton, the one time leader of the Black Panthers, who was gunned down on an Oakland street corner in the late eighties; the result of a bad drug deal. Horowitz wants the reader to believe that Newton guided and/or mentored Horowitz rather than the other way around. He does this by constantly inserting insinuations in the text that suggest he felt ecstatic every time Newton treated him as an equal and/or accepted some of his advice. He gives himself away though by telling the reader that it was he that raised considerable sums of money for the Panthers from his wealthy Jewish friends. In fact, Radical Son names so many Jews within its pages that it reads like the guest list at a New York City Bar Mitzvah. Horowitz exposes other interesting facts about Huey Newton that suggest Newton was “bought and paid for,” in a sense, by divulging the fact that another extremely wealthy and well connected Jew by the name of Burt Schneider financed Newton’s lavish lifestyle, which included paying for Newton’s drug habit, which was quite considerable if Horowitz is to be believed, as well as a house in an upper scale neighborhood.

      In one exchange between Newton and Horowitz, the author suggests that he felt morally obligated to correct an erroneous belief that had developed in the Panther party; yep, you guessed it, anti-Semitism. According to Horowitz, some Panther’s had come to accept this racist idea because of Stokely Carmichael and his less than revolutionary belief that Jews within the movement were acting as a Fifth Column and weren’t particularly interested in the black cause; sound familiar? Of course Horowitz carefully sets up his narrative in such a way that the naïve reader will reject the possibility that what Carmichael believed might have had some basis in reality; Horowitz does this by admission and denial ­ a common tactic employed in kosher revisionism. According to Horowitz, after a time he felt honored to be thought of as an equal by Newton and for that reason he was “emboldened,” to speak his mind:

      “Talking to Huey as a kind of equal. emboldened me to raise yet another difficult issue. A strain of anti-Semitism had developed in the Party during the years he [Newton] was in prison. Of course, the Panthers were not alone among black radicals in their attacks on Jews. In 1966, Stokely Carmichael and the leaders of the SNCC had expelled whites from the civil rights organization, accusing them of being a fifth column inside the movement. Since Jews were a near majority of the whites in these organizations, and had played a strategic role in organizing and funding the struggle, it was clear to everyone that they were the primary target of the assault. This was underscored by the support that Carmichael and the black left gave to the Arab states during their 1967 attack on Israel.[1]”

      In the above paragraph Horowitz absolutely reveals himself to be the liar he is, but it goes unnoticed by the vast majority of readers because most people aren’t aware of the fact that Israel preemptively attacked the Arab states on June 5, 1967, not the other way around. This is what I would refer to as “kosher revisionism,” and it is quite common in the world today, as a matter a fact, it’s the norm. Historical revisionism has developed a bad name primarily because kosher revisionism rules the airwaves, radio and television; ethnic Jews have a near monopoly on the media in all its forms, and for that reason, lies like Horowitz’s go unnoticed by most people. Horowitz predictably sets up his “admission,” i.e. that Jews were disproportionately represented in the black civil rights movement by first prostrating himself in such a way as to fool the reader into believing that he, Horowitz, was only able to influence Newton, because Newton, the black man in the relationship, felt that Horowitz was an equal. Many people will laugh at the very idea that a Jew would consider any black to be an equal ­ as a rule, Jews loathe blacks more than they do whites, but they find that exploiting blacks is advantageous to the advancement of their agenda, and it is for this reason, and no other, that they associate with blacks.

      Many blacks know this; perhaps that is why the unapologetic and openly pro-white Larry Darby polled as many black votes as he did in the recent June 5, 2006 democratic primary election for Alabama Attorney General; because he is vociferously critical of organized Jewry. An excellent book on the reality of the Jewish/Black relationship is The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews, put out by the Nation of Islam, a group Horowitz absolutely despises as shown by the fact that he allegedly considered the Nation to be more violent than the Black Panther’s, a total joke really, and one that no knowledgeable person could possibly accept. Horowitz again “creates,” this impossibility by revealing that he promised a property owner that a building the owner was to sell to the Black Panther’s wouldn’t be used by any violent black groups like the “Nation of Islam.”[2]

      In this case, Horowitz kosher revisionism borders on the absurd, yet most readers won’t pick it up, again because the predominantly Jewish media has so effectively smeared the Nation of Islam, that most Americans know very little about them, other than they are supposedly anti-Semitic and violent. The truth is that the Nation understands the nature of the Zionist and hasn’t shied away from talking about them, or documenting factual stories that relate the actual relationship that Jews have with blacks; which is now and has always been exploitative. In this vein, Horowitz again attempts to create a sympathetic response from the reader by alluding to the idea that he, and Jews in general, were actually the ones that had been exploited by the Panthers. He again divulges important admissions in respect to Jews and the civil rights movement, and then denies that these Jews were motivated by anything but altruism ­ and again he endeavors to reinforce his earlier lie at the expense of the Arabs:

      “I began to review events of the past to which I had paid little attention before, like the expulsion of the Jews from the civil rights movement in 1966. Jews had funded the movement, devised its legal strategies, and provided support for its efforts in the media and in the universities ­ and wherever else they had power. More than half the freedom riders who had gone to the southern states were Jews, although Jews constituted only 3% of the population. It was an unprecedented show of solidarity from one people to another. Jews had put their resources and lives on the line to support the black struggle for civil rights, and indeed two of their sons ­ Schwerner and Goodman ­ had been murdered for their efforts. But even while these tragic events were still fresh, the black leaders of the movement had unceremoniously expelled the Jews from their ranks. When Israel was attacked in 1967 by a coalition of Arab states calling for its annihilation, the same black leaders threw their support to the Arab aggressors, denouncing Zionism as racism.[3]”

      Here again Horowitz reveals what a propagandist he is, as mentioned previously the Israeli’s preemptively attacked the Arab states in 1967, not the other way around, thus in no sense could the Arabs be considered “aggressors.” Once again Horowitz admits to the fact that Jews were disproportionately represented in the black civil rights movement, a fact that many liberal college professors are still afraid to acknowledge to this day. Earlier Horowitz attempted to convince the reader that he felt honored to be thought of as an equal by Huey Newton, but in the above paragraph he reveals something he had carefully hidden up to this point in his biography and that is the fact that Jews single handedly funded the black civil rights movement, that they essentially developed all its strategies and that they utilized their media to advance its causes, ideas that organized Jewry has collectively denied for more than forty years. Now I ask the reader – does this sound like a relationship founded on the concept of equality?

      Read the rest here http://www.rense.com/general75/mech.htm

    5. mantra77 Says:

      Well the chickens are coming home to roost. Check out these GREAT NEWS:

      Where have all the viewers gone?

      NEW YORK (AP) — Maybe they’re outside in the garden. They could be playing softball. Or perhaps they’re just plain bored.


      In TV’s worst spring in recent memory, a startling number of Americans drifted away from television the past two months: More than 2.5 million fewer people were watching ABC, CBS, NBC and Fox than at the same time last year, statistics show.


      Everyone has a theory to explain the plummeting ratings: early Daylight Savings Time, more reruns, bad shows, more shows being recorded or downloaded or streamed. (Blog: What — and when — are you watching?)


      ..and so on.

      They need to hire me to help them fix their ratings. I have a three point action plan that’s guaranteed to work. Remember how CNN’s ratings shot up during Gulf War One? Ok. Since they lied us into war we can raise ratings by:


      I guarantee we’ll get those 2.5 million viewers back.

      Bob’s Riddle: All anti-white racists agree that it’s ok for whites to become minorities in their own countries. All anti-white racists also agree that a Japanese person who wants to become a minority in his own country is either a traitor or clinically insane. Therefore, what is an anti-white racist? Answer

    6. jackumup Says:

      Olde Dutch Says:

      9 May, 2007 at 7:42 pm

      Hmmm. Angela Davis is about as close as you are going to come to a rational educated Black Nationalist. Alex, why not invite her to do a segment of Goyfire or FTL with you. I bet the jew would feel the heat, and I got a hunch her opinions would surprise the listeners.

      I think this is a great idea, but it should be done on a FTL and opened to listeners

    7. -JC Says: