Balder Ex-Libris - Wilcox LairdReview of books rare and missing2024-03-27T00:16:02+00:00urn:md5:aa728a70505b2fae05796923271581c2DotclearWilcox Laird - Crying wolfurn:md5:9090eeb8903561a42220fbb448dd4d9b2015-04-19T14:29:00+01:002015-04-21T19:18:40+01:00balderWilcox LairdAmericaConspiracyConspiracyJewJewMJ-12United States <p><img src="https://balderexlibris.com/public/img3/Wilcox_Laird_-_Crying_wolf.jpg" alt="" /><br />
Author : <strong>Wilcox Laird</strong><br />
Title : <strong>Crying wolf Hate Crime Hoaxes in America</strong><br />
Year : 1994<br />
<br />
Link download : <a href="https://balderexlibris.com/public/ebook2/Wilcox_Laird_-_Crying_wolf.zip">Wilcox_Laird_-_Crying_wolf.zip</a><br />
<br />
Foreword. This book grew out of a research project I began in 1988 when the issue of racist and anti-Semitic hoaxes first came to my attention in a serious way. I had learned in talking with a former associate in the civil rights movement of the 1960s that a cross-burning I had always assumed was done by white racists was, in fact, done by civil rights workers. This aroused my curiosity, and more extensive probing convinced me that it may not be an uncommon occurrence. I quickly discovered that there were almost no sources of information on the subject of racist and anti-Semitic hoaxes. Rightwing groups, whom one might suspect would keep tabs on this, were rendered almost useless by their conspiratorial approach to the subject. The various black and Jewish groups were reluctant to discuss the issue. It was evidently a subject that had to be researched from scratch. In 1989 I established the "Hoaxer Project" to bring together information on the subject. I managed to collect a number of newspaper clippings and in 1990 published a small report entitled The Hoaxer Project Report., Altogether some 5,500 copies of that report were circulated. A few readers began sending me clippings of hoaxes that actually made the newspapers as well as their own accounts of incidents they knew or suspected were hoaxes. In time this added up to some 300 documented incidents from which the cases described in this book were drawn. I did not have the resources of a clipping service or a large network of "monitors" to assist me. If I had, this compilation might be many times as large. Obviously, hoaxers are people who have exercised pretty bad judgment. Their acts may have been hurtful to others and they have usually violated various laws. Nevertheless I think it’s important to avoid the concept of "good guys" and "bad guys" when considering this issue. What we seem to have instead are those who are simply responding to an opportunity. Whenever an abstract ideal acquires the moral urgency that racial equality or opposition to "bigotry" has today, it’s only a matter of time until we find individuals for whom the noble end justifies the questionable means. The militant, moralizing fanatic - g quick to compromise important principles in order to enjoy the flush of righteousness - is the stumbling block which any reasonable resolution of racial/ethnic problems must overcome. Further, in my experience, this uncompromising behavior is often a way of compensating for a hidden inner ambivalence. The social psychologist Harold D. Lasswell has written that "dogma is a defensive reaction in the mind of the theorist, but doubt of which he is unaware." This unconscious ambivalence appears to explain the willingness of many so-called "anti-racists" to justify and practice a kind of reverse racism or "counter-bigotry." This manifests itself in the "good" discrimination of affirmative action and race-preferential policies, as well as in rationalizing prejudicial and stereotyping statements about white people. Twenty years ago one couldn’t have said this, but today discrimination in schools, housing, jobs and government is minimal. Institutional racism is virtually gone. In its place, a series of preferential policies are firmly established. In recent years "anti-racists" have proclaimed that virtually every behavior and institution in our society is covertly racist. Anti-racism has become a small industry in the United States. Entire career fields are built around defining and combatting "racism" in one form or another. As individual problems are solved and offensive behaviors disappear, the definition of racism is broadened again and again to include more and more behaviors, hence we have the problem of "increasing" bigotry and intolerance. I suspect the last thing many professional anti-racists want is a truly race-neutral society. They have developed a vested interest in the continuation of the problem, a kind of "co-dependency" relationship, if you will. It’s no great surprise that a bright, socially-conscious individual would realize quite on his or her own that there’s nothing like some racist graffiti or some other "hate crime" to invigorate the militants, and what the hell, it’s for a good cause - right? Americans are not known for their ability to defer gratification for long. Hence, the racist or anti-Semitic hoax. It’s as easy as apple pie. Consider a college campus boiling with racial and gender sensitivity, with courses in victimization, organizations for victims, a constant barrage of victimization propaganda - but no immediate and palpable victims. "Anti-racist" vigilantes with no racists (or misogynists and homophobes) to hang had better get busy and make some, and as we see, they often do. What I see happening with hoaxes is a kind of "market" process: the frequency of hoaxes increases with their utility in accomplishing desired ends. When the "market" or payoff for victimization goes up, the temptation to create victimization where none exists is very strong and the temptation of exaggerate minor cases of alleged victimization is even stronger. Conversely, as the number of hoaxes increases (assuming they are reported) a greater skepticism toward unproven and marginal victimization claims will probably increase as well, and hoaxes will become less effective. It’s pretty much a matter of supply and demand. Concerning the text, it’s important to realize that in some cases there may have been further developments in some of the incidents I have covered. If a particular case is important to you, I advise that you attempt to determine its current status. Also, for the most part I relied on journalistic accounts for my information. While I believe that these are generally reliable, one has to be realistic and concede that they are hardly infallible. I have footnoted as many sources as I could find. It is up to the readers to judge their reliability. Finally, this publication is a continuing project. It is anticipated that future editions will appear. I would like to recruit you to help overcome the disadvantage I have in compiling information on hoaxes. If you see newspaper coverage or other information about a hoax in your community, please send it to me. Laird Wilcox. <strong>...</strong></p>Wilcox Laird - The watchdogsurn:md5:0376b774d9dc6e104033af3db01f1f502013-06-23T12:58:00+01:002021-01-11T22:18:11+00:00balderWilcox LairdADLConspiracyJewUnited States <p><img src="https://balderexlibris.com/public/img2/.Wilcox_Laird_-_The_watchdogs_s.jpg" alt="" /><br />
Author : <strong>Wilcox Laird</strong><br />
Title : <strong>The watchdogs A close look at Anti-Racist “Watchdog” Groups</strong><br />
Year : 1998<br />
<br />
Link download : <a href="https://balderexlibris.com/public/ebook2/Wilcox_Laird_-_The_watchdogs.zip">Wilcox_Laird_-_The_watchdogs.zip</a><br />
<br />
Any criticism of so-called anti-racist “Watchdog” organizations and activists is not without its perils. In the “either/or” and “good guys versus bad guys” mentality that characterizes the moral absolutism of the anti-racist milieu it’s easy to be misunderstood. Most people, unaware of the ideological roots of many anti-racist activists or their general disdain for the civil liberties of their critics, regard them as reasonable response to legitimate grievances - which in certain cases they may be. Watchdog groups do some laudable things, particularly in the area of promoting bona fide inter-group harmony. We all have to get along together, regardless of race, religion or anything else. Unjustified hatred based on racial, ethnic, religious or other differences is demeaning to both the perpetrator and the subject. It places burdens on our ability to govern ourselves, to remain a free people, and to provide the stability and civil liberties of a genuinely democratic republic. To the extent that Watchdog groups help that, they are a valuable and important part of our society. This report is not a criticism of genuine efforts to improve relationships between people. “Anti-racism” as used here generally refers to the complex network of assumptions, prejudices, modus operandi, rhetorical style and ideological biases that tends to characterize the militant anti-racist movement, including the Watchdog organizations mentioned. It does not refer to the practice of or belief in opposing genuine racism per se, which I applaud. Like most liberals of my era, I have always had a strong sympathy for the underdog. I first joined the NAACP when I was 17, in Baltimore, MD. At the University of Kansas I was active in the Civil Rights Council, an official student organization, and served a term as vice-chair of the Lawrence, KS, chapter of the Congress of Racial Equality (CORE). I marched in the picket lines during the early civil rights movement and was on the board of the local American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) chapter. I have remained an ACLU member for almost 40 years. I am a member of Amnesty International and work with them against capital punishment, which I oppose. I come from a large multicultural family and we make no distinctions with respect to race, ethnicity or religion. What I objected to about racism was the treatment of individual members of a class (in this case racial minorities) as if they were responsible for all other members of that class, that because they were alike in some respects they were alike in all respects, and that race or ethnic identity was a basis for the granting or denying of rights and privileges. For me the central issue in the civil rights movement was freedom - freedom in the sense of nonconstraint, of having choices, and of being able to speak one’s mind. There is a humanist anti-racism that focuses on reconciliation and healing, that works to bring people together, that functions openly and honestly....this I support and always have. What I did not realize at that time was the peculiar attraction of “anti-racism” as an ideology that could be adapted to explain all things and justify almost any course of action. Simply said, there are careers, status, jobs, and influence to be had as long as racism exists. There is also the peculiar utility of anti-racism to function as a carrier for extreme ideologies, which without such cover would be instantly exposed. As specific problems are solved new problems are defined and created to keep the movement alive. Indeed, there is an anti-racist industry entrenched in the United States that has attracted bullying, moralizing fanatics, whose identity and livelihood depend upon growth and expansion of their particular kind of victimization. In certain respects the anti-racist movement has become a massive extortion racket, as lawyers have used every nuance of civil rights and equal opportunity laws to extract massive judgments for objectively lesser offenses, and anti-racist street fanatics have attacked and vilified individuals for their values, opinions and beliefs. This is not what the civil rights movement was originally about. The simple fact is there are money and careers to be made. The classic case of this is Morris Dees’ Southern Poverty Law Center, which now (1998) has reserves approaching 100 million dollars acquired from donors. Even smaller anti-racist groups often find themselves awash in donations, government and private grants. In June 1998, for example, Leonard Zeskind, President of his self-created “Institute for Research and Education on Human Rights” was the recipient of a $295,000 award from the Chicago-based MacArthur Foundation. Anti-racism can be molded and shaped to serve other interests. Activists with a hidden radical agenda find anti-racist organizations very amenable to manipulation. Almost no one buys into traditional class struggle Marxism anymore. Democratic capitalism has produced the highest standard of living and most individual freedom the world has ever seen. In rational terms, class struggle Marxism is a hard sell. However, when it’s reframed as anti-racism and anti-fascism, much of the onus is gone. There is a humanist anti-racism that focuses on reconciliation and healing, that works to bring people together, that functions openly and honestly without the use of dossiers, spies, specious lawsuits, disinformation, and that recognizes the rights of individuals whether they agree with one another or not. This is the anti-racism of good neighbors, of people helping people, of community goodwill, and of the realization that we are all human beings. This I support and always have. On the other hand there is a vindictive and corrupt anti-racism that focuses on paybacks and punishment, that demonizes and degrades its critics, that attempts to carve out special rights for its constituency, that opposes free and open discussion of ideas, that attempts to silence, censor and stifle its opposition through intimidation and harassment, and encourages law enforcement scrutiny of opponents because of their alleged values, opinions and beliefs. This kind of anti-racism is more dangerous than the problem it purports to remedy, and this is the anti-racism that tends to characterize the Watchdog organizations. This is doctrinal and ideological anti-racism, a mindless fanaticism and extremism, more akin to a cult than a brotherhood and sisterhood of people accepting one another, freely and honestly, as the fallible imperfect human beings that we all are. Extremist behavior is characterized by a “style” that transcends content. Even a good cause may be compromised by a shrill, intolerant and vindictive advocacy. There is a great deal at stake in how we handle society’s rebels and discontents that bodes good or ill depending on the way the issue is addressed. The old saying about “burning down the barn to catch the rat” is very appropriate to this issue. Unless even the most unpopular and outcast members of society, including those who dissent on racial, ethnic, religious or historical issues, receive the same protections and consideration as the rest of us, we are all in serious trouble. Organizing for or against specific causes is an American tradition, and the right to organize, agitate, and propagandize is part of our constitutional heritage. Watchdog groups, of course, should enjoy these protections, too. Virtually all political organizations have some kind of “watchdog” function. The right of Watchdog organizations to investigate, publish, make public policy proposals, and so on is not an issue here. It would be nice if they would recognize the same rights of their opponents and critics. Rather, the issue is the abominable record of these organizations with respect to individual rights and civil liberties, their misrepresentations and lies, their exploita- tion of normal human sympathy for the underdog, their flagrant double standards, their hidden agendas, their unprincipled methods, and their unconscionable use of law enforcement to advance their own ends. These are serious issues that need careful examination. A couple of points need to be made here. My criticisms of the Anti-Defamation League have nothing to do with the fact that it is a Jewish organization. The ADL behavior that I document in this report would be equally susceptible to criticism if they were Christian, Muslim, Buddhist or any other religion or, for that matter, if they were not identified by religion. Throughout this report it is behaviors and not ethnic, racial, or religious identity that I am addressing. In point of fact, many of the greatest civil libertarians have been Jewish, including a number of my personal heroes. This report on the “dark side” of the Watchdog organizations is intended to focus on these abuses and to make a case for correction. It is also a plea for journalists to take their selfimposed blinders off and give these organizations the same scrutiny they would from any other agenda-driven special interest group. Laird Wilcox. <strong>...</strong></p>