Editorial 1/21/99

Northwest Coalition Against Malicious Harassment meeting

Northwest Coalition Against Malicious Harassment Seminar Reveals Itself

Is the Love Movement a Hate Movement?

    I would like to take this opportunity to share a few personal reflections I had after attending a meeting at the St. Pius X Catholic Church in Coeur d' Alene, Idaho the 19th of January. I have never met anyone from the Aryan Nations or the Identity movement and I have never met anyone from the various coalitions against hate speech and hate crimes. I felt this was a good opportunity for me to gather some information and, perhaps, write a story about the meeting held that day. In this writing I am sharing what I observed.

     When I arrived at the meeting it was in a non-critical and non-judgmental attitude. I have not had an opinion about the specific group holding this meeting since I had never met anyone connected with it. I had not met anyone in the Aryan Nations or Identity so I could not form an opinion there either. I do not believe the media generally, so I cannot make a personal assessment of others from that source. This meeting proved beyond all doubt, in my own mind, the dishonesty of some media portrayals of current events.

     The moderator of the meeting was Zachary Bruce, the Assistant Director of the Northwest Coalition Against Malicious Harassment. The speaker was Susan De Camp. Susan De Camp spoke for about an hour regarding the beliefs of the Identity movement. She explained how the beliefs contributed to racism and how these beliefs were not provable. She said that the bottom line of the Identity beliefs is that they hold the white race to be the true Israel of God.


     We were given a ten-minute break after which she finished her talk and opened the meeting for questions. During the ten-minute break I spoke with Ms. De Camp at which time I stated that all that she had said could easily apply to Jewish racism. She nodded. I receive e-mails from some of our readers who have warned me against using quotes from the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion. They say in their communications that the Jews are God's chosen people. That is, because they belong to the Jewish race, they are God's chosen. This is racism pure and simple and all Christians are racists who believe this. When men teach and believe that men are special or better because of their race, they are racist. That is what a racist is. Some who sat in that meeting who were making a statement against Aryan Nations' racism were racists themselves. The Scriptures clearly state, "God is no respecter of persons." Also, it is written, " They which are the children of the flesh (Jews), these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise (faith) are counted for the seed." Romans 9:8.

     When Louis Farrakhan preached that the blacks should have a homeland apart from the whites, it was called racism. When the Jews called for a homeland, the United Nations gave them a country. When the Identity people call for separation of the races, that is called racism or separatism. Randy Weaver was called a separatist. When the Jews wanted their own country, it was not called separatism. I think it was called "going back to their homeland." When Saddam wanted to reclaim the previous Iraqi territory of Kuwait, that was called aggression. When the Jews did that, it was not called aggression. I think Jewish racism should be given up. Christians should know better than to practice racism, but it seems they do not.

     If Identity ministers preach in front of their congregations regarding the errors of the Jews and the specialness of the white Aryan race, the Northwest Coalition would call that racism and bigotry. Yet, as I sat in that meeting, I heard this young lady spend the hour speaking against Identity. What I am saying is, how does one justify that speaking against Jews for what they do is racism, but spending an hour speaking against Identity for what they believe is somehow acceptable? If the Jews can spend an hour speaking against the Aryan Nations, is it not okay for the Aryan Nations to spend an hour speaking against the Jews? I think my question is, what's the difference? Should not one spend the hour speaking the truths of God? Would that not be the better way to spend it?

     Ms. De Camp did a good job of presenting her views. She could not help but show contempt for the identity beliefs, but this contempt was not too prominent. She did her best to show the reasons she believed the way that she did. From time to time, though, it became evident where she stood in the political arena and where the coalition and other like groups seem to be heading. She said, "The Constitution was made for white, male, landowners." This view of the Constitution seems to me to be the statement of annihilation. It makes me think that the Constitution, in their minds, must go. When I heard this, I felt a certain foreboding of where these peace and freedom groups were taking America. These organizations are not based on truth, but on the emotional whims of those who place the glasses upon their noses. I felt that while the Identity people were being presented as a danger to America, it was actually the Coalition and other such groups that were the danger. The Coalition was doing the very things they said their opponents were doing but they  were doing it with a smile, while saying they were not doing it. Where smiles are used to control the society, it is only a matter of time till those smiles fade away.

     Ms. De Camp spent a little time debunking the "conspiracy theorists." She stated that the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion was proven to be a hoax. She referred to some ancient manuscript that was the original protocols written by a Frenchman and borrowed by the Russians and converted into a Jewish document. I asked for a copy or where I might get this book, and I was referred to the librarian at North Idaho College. I contacted the college and the book in question was not heard of before. They are still checking for me. E-mails that I have received referred to this book and I would be happy to put it on The WINDS if it can be found. Everyone uses it as the source to show the Protocols are a forgery, but no one has a copy of the book. I cannot base my judgments on man's assertions which have no basis and which stand unproven.

Changing face of hate symposium


     I think the Changing Face of Hate can be applied in both directions. It is a mirror reflecting back on those who say they do not participate in hate. During the meeting of the Coalition the participants were asked to sign a pledge. It stated, "We believe that every human being is created in God's image, that God's love is freely offered to every person, and that it is contradictory to biblical belief to use the name of Jesus Christ to advocate either racial superiority or the deliberate mistreatment of any person." I thought that this sounded about right, but I questioned how the coalition could seriously put this out. A large group of Christians accept that the Jews are superior in God's estimation. If they believed this statement about racial superiority, they would not hold such beliefs that the Jews are God's chosen people because they are born Jewish. Besides this, many of the Christians sitting in that room supported the bombing of Iraq and the sanctions of starvation placed upon the Iraqi people. How can one sign a statement condemning the deliberate mistreatment of any man, yet mistreat the Iraqis? I have to say I felt it was hypocritical of the folks to pass the paper out until they got their own house in order.

     As I sat and considered, the question and answer portion of the program commenced and some of the Identity people, along with others, asked questions. It was brought out in the presentation that homosexual activity was not wrong and should be accepted. An Identity believer brought up the Scriptures about how homosexual activity was condemned. Ms. De Camp stated that that was merely the belief of the day, but things are different now. I noticed that Ms. De Camp did not have a good knowledge of Scripture. She seemed to have no knowledge of it, even quoting incorrectly the Scriptures she did use. It seemed to me that the questioner won the argument in this instance.

     Another Identity believer brought up the question about South African white genocide. This has also been presented on national TV. White farmers are being killed off by black racists and the Identity believer seemed to be asking for fairness in this thing. Zachary Bruce, who is black, answered that question justifying the murders because the black people have been under apartheid for so long. I failed to find in the Scriptures where murder is justified because one has had a hard time. I don't think the courts considered that argument when deciding the fate of Timothy McVeigh. I receive communications from South Africa and this wonderful free country is not so wonderful any longer. Since the white government was ousted, the nation has been reduced to a state of semi-chaos. The economy is not doing well and people are worse off than during the days of apartheid. The black population is far worse than before, contributing to the temptation for them to murder and steal. In this meeting against malicious harassment, black racists were somehow excused while white racists were vilified. I wondered why there was a difference. It seems to me that the Scriptures say that one should not kill no matter who he is. Our own national laws do not make a distinction either. The religion of Jesus Christ had no murders in it. He did not take a weapon with which to kill His enemies. His followers won't either. Yet, some of the folks at the meeting that night would have said they were Christians. Zachary Bruce is a minister in a Christian church. Seems to me he would practice what he preaches and rebuke both black and white racists, rather than white racists only.

     When the meeting ended, I had the view that there were a lot of nice people there and it was a nice meeting with some honest exchange. Zachary Bruce had been introduced in the beginning of the meeting and he was generally known, but I did not know him and I had not remembered hearing his name, so I went forward to ask him his name so I could include him in the article. When I asked Mr. Bruce his name, he suddenly became suspicious and asked, "why?" I told him I was doing an article for The WINDS and I wanted to include him.

Zachary Bruce


     He asked me my name which I gave him and also who I represented. After some hesitation, he gave me his name. While very agitated he said, I don't know you. I told him that I had told him who I was. He said sharply, how do I know that? Suddenly, he was flanked by two bodyguards. He then asked me for my phone number. I offered the first three digits and then asked him for his. I was interested in knowing what was motivating his offended behavior. He then said, "never mind, we know how to find you." He then walked away from me. I was quite surprised at his sudden reaction to simply being asked his name (since it had already been announced earlier). I then directed myself to where he was so that I could ask him a few more questions about that. His threat of finding me raised my interest to a new level. I was standing right in front of him. If he was going to find me and do something, why did he not do it right then? I felt it was odd that this meeting on love and acceptance had so much fear in it. I asked Mr. Bruce why he hated me. He seemed to catch the irony of my question and started telling me how he was loving. I said, "no, you hate me. All I did was ask you for your name." Suddenly the goon squad came closer and I was surrounded on either side by his body guards. I asked his body guard, "why are you so terrified of me." He said, "you might have a gun."

     Perhaps I am not sensitive to protocol, but I touched one of the bodyguards on his sleeve saying, "I simply want to gain information for our report of the meeting." The guard suddenly jumped back about three or four feet and yelled, "Don't touch me, don't touch me!" By now my interest was truly aroused. This strange and even bizarre behavior somehow did not seem to match the love and acceptance message they were espousing. I began to feel it was not the Identity people who were the hate group, but the very ones I was speaking with. I told the bodyguards they were acting like skinheads. At least they were acting in the way they say skinheads act. When I spoke with these folks, I had no attitude or even a negative judgment of them. I had never met the Coalition people before. Now I was beginning to see a picture form. A man who preached against hate, yet surrounded himself with bodyguards, seemed incongruous. I thought to myself, a man who surrounds himself with bodyguards is up to something.

     I want to share something here that may not be too flattering to the Identity people. From the Press/North Idaho News Network, an article was printed from the Associated Press. In the January 17th edition the story reads, "If Not You, Who?" That was in reference to Saddam Hussein and the need for a bad guy to help American foreign policy. The article read, "The United States needs Iraq's Saddam Hussein -- or a 'bad guy' nemesis like him -- to rally support for U.S. foreign policy and defense spending, world affairs experts say. ...Robert Gates, former CIA director and deputy national security adviser during the Gulf War, said Americans have been 'conditioned' to see Saddam as a threat. ...A tangible enemy helps unite the nation and justify a massive military --1.4 million strong and costing about $280 billion a year --equipped and trained to fight two regional wars at once if necessary, analysts say. ...Retired Army Col. Harry Summers said the United States has a long history of demonizing enemies, sometimes an entire population like the Japanese during World War II, but more often individual leaders. 'It helps explain things to the American people,' Summers said. 'It always makes it easier to fight a war if you demonize people so that you're not killing human beings, you're killing the devil'."

     I discussed this with other WINDS staff members and we believe the Identity movement, in general, and the Aryan Nations church, in particular, are being used for the same purposes that Saddam is. As I sat in the meeting, I saw that the people in general were feeling, "we are the good guys and those Identity people are the bad guys." I saw how this is being used to justify laws which are now being passed to silence free expression. While these laws may silence violent speech, those same laws will now be able to silence any speech the new order is not happy with. The Coalition and other new order supporters needs the Aryan Nations and others to make a reason for their activities in regards to human control. If they did not have them, they would create them. We have seen reports where the U.S. government has infiltrated some of these organizations and then their own agents would agitate the organizations to violence so that they could be used as a reason for setting more human controls in place. As with Saddam, so it goes with the Branch Davidians and Identity. These are forces used to make an excuse for total control. I would counsel any group, stay away from these users of people. Let them give their seminars to themselves.


     After considering this meeting over the past few days and hearing the President's State of the Union address, I feel it is all the same. The change agents are at work in society, but the people cannot discern it. The president happily announced a huge surplus in the budget. I noticed that he will not be giving the surplus back to the people who gave it, and neither will it be used to pay off the national debt. It will be used to expand the powers of government in education, manufacturing and foreign affairs. The president stated (albeit in government speak) that government was going to help the nation with billions of dollars. That translates into: the government will overtax the people, then give some of it back if they will sign papers of debt or agree to the proposals of the State. In other words, I will give the government some money they do not need so that they can buy chains for me which I do not need. This may seem somewhat cynical, but I have lived long enough and traveled enough to see how the officials in Washington have done exactly that.

     The president also said he will be expanding efforts for the overthrow of the Cuban government, the Iraqi government and others around the world to force them into the "new way" which they call democracy. He mentioned specifically South America, Africa and the Caribbean. If these nations have to look forward to the politics and fears I witnessed in the Coalition meeting, I can only have pity for them. When American Jackboots come to call, the nations will not have a chance. These poor souls are stripped of their land and heritage for the moral slime America seeks to sell them.

     President Clinton proposed the largest thrust of American control over our homeland as at any time in history. He stated that more land will be taken away from the citizens and placed under federal control. The goal of his administration as stated is to make all men cooperate in the scheme. He calls it a "united" people. The question that comes to my mind is, what will they do with those who don't care to go with their united people? Will we be put in some sort of camp? Will we go to jail and work in the prison slave industry? Will we be terminated if we do not play? I know what those 100,000 more policemen are for. More will be coming. I must honestly say, I would rather have dinner with some of those Identity folks than the political schemers who now rule. I see where they are taking us and it is not a good place. By the way, Mr. President, I would like to serve notice that I am not going with you. Any nation that enslaves the world and "deliberately mistreats others" is not my nation. You do all things with a smile on your face and that only makes matters worse. Your bodyguards belie your profession. You have a whole nation of bodyguards. Your armies push out into the world and they hope to be rewarded for this aggression. In plain simple terms, you and your sympathizers are hypocrites. You say, but you do not do what you say.

Madeleine Albright


     While still not telling all, Madeleine Albright said enough. She said, 'There will be no retreat from global responsibilities for the United States as it enters the next century. The challenge is determining how the United States can best project its enormous power.

     "Other nations will 'either organize with us or against us,' she said. 'But we are the organizing principle, and we have to understand our responsibilities'.''

     What this arrogant little woman said was, the United States is on the move and all countries will either play the game or become pariah states, for we are right. We have the enormous power raised on the backs of the taxpayers of America and we will use this awesome power to rule the world. I don't think I have perverted the truth here. 1999 may very well go down in infamy. The world had better come to attention and so should everyone who is being used for the purposes of satanic agencies.

     To conclude my thoughts I would like to explain why I used the term "satanic agencies." Considering all things, and the way I have seen people used and manipulated, I am convinced our nation has been taken over by a cult. I do not mean this symbolically. I mean this absolutely. This cult has many tentacles. The organizations supported by this cult use the terms of peace such as Coalition against Hate Speech, Organization for Family Planning, Organization for Human Freedom, Human Rights Force for Change etc., etc. The cult forces brainwash their unsuspecting members, having them all chant the mantra of love while all the time destroying morality and virtue. They crucify the Christ all over again.

     This cult is now so strong that they feel nothing can stop them. The recent scandals in the White house are needed to help demoralize the people, especially the young. This is why this is being pushed into the faces of the society month after month. This, is used to promote the beliefs of this cult force. In saying this, I am saying this cult is a religion. We are not dealing with civil government any longer. We are dealing with an alien religion. This religion has its moral code. Right now one of their commandments is to deny the religion of the Bible and promote immorality between the sexes. Early child destruction in the womb is one of their articles of faith. Their religion uses the principle of force as Roman Catholicism did in the middle ages where Protestants were burned at the stake for protesting. This principle has once again invaded as the current national religion. This cult uses its policies to starve the populations of other nations to force them to join up.

     This cult also believes the year 2000 is the catalyst year for great forces of change. Cults often have this mentality to attribute a year to some great mystical event. Cults also force their people to behave in certain ways and uses the people for its world agenda. The recent activities of the last few years has shown this new cult more prominently than ever before. I will not be sending my tithes to this cult. I will have to let the cult members support their own belief system. Someone has said, give unto Caesar. One may also say, give the devil what belongs to him. I say, I will not be giving them anything which belongs to God.

    I say to this new system, send your goons if you like. If they get past my angels, I have nothing to say about it. If God permits you to take me out, it will be for His own purposes and to His glory. If He does not permit you past His angels, there is nothing you can do to me. A thousand of your goons will be powerless. Be on notice, I will not work in your slave labor factories called prisons. I will not, I cannot be part of your cult. I belong to the King of heaven. I am a citizen of His country.

     To the Northwest Coalition Against Malicious Harassment I would say, give up your pseudo-tolerance and your pseudo-love and accept the real thing. When you have the real thing, you will not need bodyguards.

Related Articles:
Conference Will Use Hate Crime Issue As Cover For Hate Crimes
Change Agents Address Hate Symposium In Spokane
Southern Poverty Law Center Promotes Y2K Race War
Gay Martyr Used to Promote Hate Crime Legislation


The WINDS Main Page


Disclaimer: APFN is not responsible for the accuracy of material on 'The Winds'
and does not necessarily endorse the views expressed within their web pages.This page is in the public domain.

Go to Top