DOUGLAS OLSON — What makes a "civil rights leader"?

Reprint rights


The Olson file

What makes
a "civil rights leader"?



One of the most carelessly-thrown-about phrases in American journalism is the term "civil rights leader." As with the honorific "Reverend," which often accompanies that designation, there is no absolute authority for the legitimacy of its use. It is only the acceptance and repetition of the term by the mass media, and never the reality of the situation, that matters.

One thing is certain: no white who stands up for the legitimate rights of his people will ever be accorded that exalted status. The press invariably designates such people as "ultra-conservatives" at best, and more often "white supremacists," "extremists," "haters," or just plain "racists." Case in point: In a recent article in a Washington, D.C., newspaper, one Ken Zrallack, 22, leader of the White Wolves, says specifically that his organization is "pro-white" rather than a hate group, and complains what whites are discriminated against as much as any minority group. But what is the headline on this story? "Conn. white supremacist leader agrees to meet with minister."

On the other hand, there is hardly any depth of depravity that can disqualify a loud and obnoxious minority individual (especially one who happens to be black) from the mantle of "civil rights leader" in the eyes of the adoring media.

The archetype, of course, is Martin Luther King, Jr. — plagiarist, constant and joyful violator of his marriage vows, abuser of women, willing tool of Communists at the height of the Cold War. As Mark Twain observed long ago, "Martyrdom covers a multitude of sins," and King is now the officially designated Patron Saint of America, referred to today with awe and reverence even by yellow-striped "conservatives" who know better.

Or take "civil rights leader" Jesse Jackson, who launched his career by dipping his shirt in King's blood hours after the shooting, and whose claim to have been "at the side" of his "mentor" when the shot was fired is sniggered at even by friends and colleagues. Since his days as a young waiter when he liked to spit in the salads of white customers, Jackson has become the most blatant shakedown artist since Al Capone. He illegally used non-profit funds to pay off at least one mistress and the mother of his bastard child. His race and status protect him from answering for such arrant lawbreaking. How many other politicians/con artists of any ethnicity would be able to call New York "Hymietown" and still have a public career? Jackson is the confidant of both black and white Democratic politicians and chosen father-confessor to Bill Clinton in the area of sexual shenanigans. One can only imagine the raucous, can-you-top-this tales of sex and the degradation of women that those two must have exchanged during their "counseling" sessions.

Then there is "civil rights leader" Al Sharpton, a shameless liar who still defends his role in the Tawana Brawley hoax; a documented rabble-rouser whose fiery rhetoric unquestionably contributed to the loss of lives in the notorious Freddie's clothing store incident; and a convicted slanderer who showed his contempt for the judicial system by refusing to pay a court-ordered fine. (It was paid by friends and allies to keep His Eminence out of the slam.) Although Sharpton has never even been elected dog-catcher, he holds an honored place at the Democratic presidential debates, just as if he were a serious candidate, and he presumes to lecture other participants on their morality and rectitude.

Can anyone imagine David Duke, who has actually held office and was nearly elected governor of Louisiana, being allowed within five miles of an officially sanctioned Republican Party debate? Some years ago, the GOP took extraordinary steps to keep Duke out of its presidential primary in Georgia, declaring that he was not sufficiently Republican to grace the party ballot and defending that position successfully in court. That is perhaps the only instance in modern American history where anyone was denied self-identification with one of the ruling political parties and the opportunity to run under its endlessly touted "big tent" banner.

All kinds of opportunists and rabble-rousers bask in the glory of the media's "civil rights leader" designation, including more than a few openly white-hating black separatists, some of whom are aligned with Louis Farrakhan's notorious Nation of Islam.

One virtual nonentity recently attempted to catapult himself into the headlines by creating a "racial incident" out of whole cloth — condemning Senator Zell Miller (D-Ga.) for describing the treatment of black California Supreme Court Justice Janice Rogers Brown by Senate Democrats as a "lynching." Wade Henderson, executive director of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, issued a hyperventilating press release declaring the remark "despicable" and alleging quite truthlessly that "all Americans value civil rights progress and would be deeply offended by Senator Miller's comments. His ugly lynching remark has no place in any debate." The release went on to demand a "deep apology," noting, "Just as Senator Lott apologized for his insensitive remarks, so should you." Henderson somehow neglected to mention that Lott's craven apology was hurled back in his teeth by the nation's compassionate "civil rights leadership."

Miller, to his credit, stood firm. Perhaps he learned from the Lott fiasco, although most Republicans — including Lott himself — did not.

We wait breathlessly for Henderson's condemnation of the same simile — and the even more melodramatic hyperbole — used by Jermaine Jackson about the arrest of his brother, the bizarre Michael, for child molestation: "This is a modern-day lynching. My brother has become a threat like Christ became a threat, like Martin Luther King, Mahatma Gandhi became a threat. My brother's consciousness has become a threat because he is a person who cares about people." Not a single negative peep has been heard about that lynching reference from any "civil rights leader," or even about the comparison to Saint Martin, whose family usually shrieks for payment every time his name is mentioned. Not one white minister, of course, will dare even mention the reference to You-Know-Whom.

The truth is that blacks have it so good in this country today that "civil rights" organizations, which rely on conflict and "racism" for their continued existence, have to manufacture incidents such as the "lynching" non-issue to garner publicity and raise money.

Libertarian Neal Boortz, a nationally syndicated talk show host, is one of the few public figures who dares call this kind of spade a spade, and often refers to Jackson, Sharpton, and their kind quite accurately as "race warlords." Boortz recently expanded on the corruption and distortion of language in an excellent piece on his Website, and to end this piece I'll rely on his words:

When a race warlord uses the term "racist" he does not necessarily mean someone who believes in the inherent genetic superiority of one race of people over another. In most cases the word "racist" is now used to describe anyone who voices any opposition to the personal or political agenda of anyone who calls himself a civil rights leader. "Racist" is also used to describe anyone who believes that the government should be colorblind in all matters relating to the treatment of citizens. (Neal's Nuze, November 18, 2003)

December 22, 2003

© 2003 Douglas Olson.
Douglas Olson contents page.

If you found this column to be interesting, please donate at least $3 to our cause. You should make your check or m.o. payable in U.S. dollars to WTM Enterprises and send it to:

WTM Enterprises
P.O. Box 224
Roanoke, IN 46783

Thanks for helping to assure a future for TLD!

Notice to visitors who came straight to this document from off site: You are deep in The Last Ditch. You should check out our home page and table of contents.