The ADL on Alex Curtis
Alex Curtis has quickly become one of the most radical and influential voices on the racist right. The San Diego-based Curtis hopes that a violent revolution will topple the United States government, which he considers "a Jew-occupied government," and replace it with a "race-centered" government, with citizenship and residency restricted to "those of pure White ancestry."
He considers integration and intermarriage the components of a Jewish plot to commit "genocide" against the "white race."
Curtis envisions a two-tiered revolutionary hate movement. The first tier is "above ground" and meant to spread "divisive or subversive" propaganda that will "guide the underground." In the "second tier" are "lone wolves," racist "combatants" acting alone or in small groups of three or four, who will "chip away" at the government's infrastructure "by daily, anonymous acts."
"Violence is going to happen," Curtis contends, "because the governement that occupies our people and nation is ruthlessly and violently murdering our race."
Curtis sees himself as a propagandist sowing the seeds of a racist revolution, and he predicts that "lone wolves" will reap the harvest.
He advocates the use of any and all means, including bombs and biological weapons, in this struggle. "Some well-placed Aryans will one day cause some serious wreckage," Curtis writes."A thousand [Timothy] McVeighs...would end any semblance of stability in this racially-corrupt society."
Alex Curtis employs the Internet, his Nationalist Observer magazine, and his telephone hotlines in an attempt to make his destructive fantasies a reality. Through his "privately-controlled media," he claims to "reach 100s - 1000s of the most radical racists in the world each week." These extremists can view his Web site, sign up for his E-mail mailing list, or call his phone lines without him knowing who they are. Then, they may choose to act on his fiery rhetoric.
Punishing White Nationalists
As an American black, I am growing more alarmed and even ashamed of the way that the "guardians" of my civil rights are using the excuse of protecting me and other "minorities," in order to trample on the rights of white Americans.
On Nov. 9, 2000, Alex Curtis was arrested in San Diego, California. Since that date, 25-year-old Curtis, a self-described white nationalist, has not set foot outside his cell, except to attend court hearings and limited visits with his attorney and parents. Curtis's parents (his father an engineer, his mother a schoolteacher) have willingly offered to put up the value of the family business and their home, so their son can be released from jail to await his trial. All of their pleas have been rejected.
The state, whose charges against Curtis are still vague and tend to drift somewhere along the lines of "conspiracy to violate civil rights," and "conspiracy to commit civil rights violations," has decided that no amount of bail should be accepted to free this young man. In reading the prosecution's case against him, it appears that Curtis has been incarcerated more for what it is expected he might do than for anything he has done.
What he has allegedly done is this: distributed "racist" propaganda, spray-painted graffiti on a synagogue, shoved a fake, plastic snakeskin through the mail slot of a public official, and vociferously verbalized his disdain for that same official--actions described as "harassment."
What he has certainly done is maintain a white nationalist website that was derogatory towards ethnics and racial minorities and publish a newsletter expressing similar sentiments. He has exercised his right to dissent from the popular orthodoxy on race, especially denouncing the enormous influx of immigrants into California, while making these views known to others.
Curtis is not charged with physically harming anyone, and the Star-Telegram newspaper reports, "No direct acts of violence are alleged in the indictment." For this reason, it is important to the prosecution that a case be built against Curtis to convince a jury that he has indeed, in the words of an FBI agent, "conspired to commit highly disruptive, life-threatening crimes." Although the FBI claims to have taped conversations between Curtis and a friend, a spokesman is quoted in the San Diego Union-Tribune admitting, "Curtis's statements are general in nature and not specific."
This, however, is not slowing down the prosecution, which is being egged on by both the Southern Poverty Law Center and the B'nai B'rith Anti-Defamation League, and is expected to demand the minimum "hate crime" sentence of 10 years of prison punishment for Curtis's impertinent behavior and beliefs. The brazen, irreverent Curtis is denied bail for what in a saner political climate, would be deemed nothing more than fraternity capers or Halloween pranks. What happened to 30 days in the county jail? Ten years for "harassment" and conspiring to violate rights?
The ADL has described Curtis as a "rising star in the racist movement," and has expressed concern over the popularity, although limited to a small circle, of his website and newsletter. Spokesmen for this self-styled human rights group staunchly justify Curtis's arrest on the basis of his potential to be a future "danger." Is it now acceptable to arrest American citizens on the basis of nipping future trouble in the bud? Do we detain and deny freedom to nonconformists for what we think will be their prospective crimes?
The story grows worse as we learn of other young white men who are being incarcerated on similar charges or have received long, harsh prison sentences for minor crimes. For example, in Houston, last June, 21-year-old Matthew Marshall and four friends decided to end a night's drunken revelry by burning a cross on the lawn of a black family. No one was harmed by this foolish gambit and no property damaged. In fact, the family of Dwayne Ross, asleep throughout the escapade, did not know of its occurrence until the next morning, when they viewed the remains of charred wood. All five white men were arrested and charged with "violating civil rights," for which Marshall has been sentenced to 10 years in prison.
One recalls how, in the James Byrd dragging case in the same state of Texas, the court refused to allow Byrd's past criminal record to be entered into testimony In this case, however, not only did Judge David Hittner allow the prosecution to bring in instances of Marshall's past juvenile, albeit non-criminal antics, Hittner admitted to being influenced by an overheard off-hand remark, that included a racial slur, supposedly spoken during a pre-trial hearing by Marshall's angry father. As reported by the Associated Press, the 10-year prison sentence was deserved, explained Hittner, because the "seeds" of the young Marshall's racism "were sown at home."
In December 1999, in Riverside, California, a black woman, Tyisha Miller, while sitting in her car, was tragically shot to death by several policemen--for no reason that makes any sense to this day. The police officers who did the killing were fired but not prosecuted. Needless to say, the Riverside police have been fighting the stigma of racism, as the local media and community groups have kept alive the issue of police excesses. The charge of "systemic racism" now dogs the department.
Since the mindless shooting of Miller, many white residents have charged the police with the overzealous apprehension of young white men. The rationale of the police seems to be that their own exoneration from the taint of racism can best be attained by coming down hard on other whites.
Woe to those whites who happen to find themselves in the wrong place at the wrong time, as, apparently, did several young whites, earlier this year, who are members of a group called "Western Hammerskins." Their trouble began when a fight broke out at a bonfire party, and a black man, Randy Bowen, was chased and assaulted The whites who were responsible for the assault, all in their 20s, were quickly caught and arrested. Charged with a "hate crime," the six face stiff sentences. Although three of the men were identified by witnesses as the actual perpetrators of the assault, the other three appear to have only been onlookers. (Bowen's injuries were not life-threatening and he recovered.)
In a rare, open journalistic moment, the Press-Enterprise newspaper, reported the frustration and anger expressed by the parents and friends of the arrested men. Said the mother of Travis Miskam about the relationship between her son and the assaulted man, "These boys have been at each other's throats ever since middle school. That fight would have happened even if Bowen was white."
And the father of Gregory McDaniel expressed the sentiment of many, by claiming, "Our children are being used by the district attorney's office to pacify blacks and other groups after the Tyisha Miller shooting. It's that simple. I don't know how anybody could look at this case and deny that."
Jason McCully's father pointed to the current anxieties among the police about their department's image. "There's a lot of pressure being put on Riverside right now by the state and civil rights groups. The easiest thing for them to do is sacrifice our boys and say, 'Look, see how tolerant we are here.'"
Deputy District Attorney John Ruiz dismissed the parents' comments and called the assault "one of the most shameful incidents this county has seen in a long time." He expressed horror over a T-shirt imprinted with a racial insult that was found during a sweep of the accused Miskam's bedroom. Ruiz intoned, "That's why this is an important case."
Does the offending T-shirt make this case important for the same reasons that Alex Curtis's case is treated in such a critical manner? In dozens of cases like these, the defendants' homes have been ransacked and "objectionable" literature, videos, and other materials have been removed and held as "evidence" of the defendant's wicked state of mind. In the two-year period before Curtis was arrested, his home was twice invaded by the local police, who confiscated his computer and his writings. From the emphasis placed on the thoughts and mental outlook of these young men, whether expressed in a newsletter, on a website or on a T-shirt, it would appear that it is their offensive ideas that condemn them in the eyes of the state and the bullying lobby groups that have power to impact the state's prosecution.
Curtis, facing a possible 10-year prison sentence for tasteless mischief making, is learning the hard way what life is like in a post-constitutional United States, where orthodox ideologies make certain behaviors more "incorrect" than others, and where simple civil offenses can be ratcheted up into felony crimes.
Take a look at the case of Sara Jane Olson (formerly Kathleen Soliah). Olson, a former member of the Symbionese Liberation Army, was a fugitive on the run from the law since 1976, until her arrest in June 1999 In 1976, Olson was indicted in absentia, along with other SLA members, for planting pipe bombs under police cars. Today, she faces one count of "conspiracy to commit murder" and two counts of "attempted explosion of a destructive device with intent to murder."
A month after Olson's capture, this woman, who has already demonstrated her propensity to run from the law and is charged by the state with serious felonies, was released on bail and is subject to an electronic monitoring system. In contrast, the approximate $250,000 which is the value of savings, business and home offered by the parents of Alex Curtis as bail, is rejected at each court hearing. Also, his lawyer's plea that Curtis be put under house arrest and be subjected to a similar electronic monitor, goes unheeded.
While Olson and her many fans and supporters are successfully raising money through a defense fund set up in her behalf, anyone who might contribute money to the defense of Curtis will have to face the possibility of being targeted in the future as a fellow travelera "hater" and "racist."
In a society where citizens are thoroughly conditioned to be intolerant of even a vague approximation of "white consciousness," Alex Curtis's rightwing views are held as more contemptible than those of the leftist Olson, who, although charged with the commission of particular felony crimes and implicated in others, is still accorded greater due process of law.
Is there much chance that at some point we will begin to witness organized protests against this lop-sided justice? Not likely, since the typical white American tends to shy away from outspokenness, especially on the subject of race. With social ostracism as the paramount fear, most whites seem satisfied to live within the safety of self-imposed censorship. Given this reality, the rare white who dares to indicate displeasure with the status quo, or unexpectedly erupts in anger, as did baseball player John Rocker, can expect little support from fellow whites and a whole lot of trouble directed his way from a state that is determined to enforce conformity and compliance.
Elizabeth Wright Editor, Issues & Views http://www.issues-views.com