The Hatewatch blog is managed by the staff of the Intelligence Project of the Southern Poverty Law Center, an Alabama-based civil rights organization.

Faculty Adviser Quits, YWC Loses Official Status at Towson University

By Ryan Lenz on March 28, 2012 - 3:26 pm, Posted in White Nationalism

Nearly two weeks after members of the Towson University chapter of Youth for Western Civilization chalked messages on university sidewalks that included the words “white pride,” the group has lost its campus privileges.

The school’s official recognition of the YWC was pulled when the group’s faculty adviser informed chapter president Matthew Heimbach that he would no longer be associated with the group.

“They were using rhetoric in their arguments that I found were not appropriate,” said the adviser, communications professor Richard Vatz.

In a letter to Heimbach, Vatz cited recent comments by YWC leaders at a Unity Campus Forum several weeks ago that included what he called “frightening rhetoric” describing political opponents as “cancer” and “disgusting degenerates.”

“This is not how conservatives comport themselves,” Vatz, himself a conservative, told Hatewatch.

YWC still can have a presence on campus, but it will not be recognized by the Student Government Association. That means it can no longer use campus facilities.

Vatz’s withdrawal is a blow to Heimbach, who has ties to the neo-confederate League of the South and worked hard to overcome resistance to the school’s  official recognition of the group.

“They found a loophole,” said Heimbach, explaining the YWC chapter’s ouster.

After the chalk messages, Heimbach admitted to The Baltimore Sun that members were indeed responsible for the sidewalk markings. But, he said the group is “only promoting traditional conservative values and is not racist.” He also told the Sun that he is advocating “pride in his culture,” not “white power.”

  • Ruslan Amirkhanov

    Again you didn’t answer my question. First of all, liberalism is idealistic. Whether we speak of human rights, the individual, or “representative” democracy, we are dealing with idealistic, not materialist concepts. The idea of universal human rights, as I have said, is a flawed concept. As long as humans are divided into competing classes, you cannot have universal human rights. But again, it is clear that what the European New Right is doing is not showing respect for other cultures.

    If you don’t believe me consider the works of one New Right author, Tomislav Sunic. He profiles the New Right in a book called Against Democracy and Equality. In it, we see the same beat-around-the-bush stuff that we see in all New Right publications. However, read another book of his called Cool Croatia, and you will see a very different tone.

    As for equality, can you explain to someone why they should be treated differently, simply because they were born with the wrong sex or of the wrong group? Shouldn’t they be treated as an individual and allowed to do whatever they can show aptitude for?

    As for science, empiricism, and materialism well I’m very sorry but I prefer to live in a world of the real, governed by reason, not metaphysical woo-woo.

  • CM


    Jean-François Lyotard, the founder of postmodernism, defined his thinking in terms of Wittgenstein’s concept of language games. I don’t think what he had in mind was the kind of game you’re playing, which is just old-fashioned sophistry.

    Your three-part definition of “modernism” is a straw man, and your supporting arguments are immaterial. (And incidentally, you apparently have no idea what “reductionist” means.)

    For example, you claim that modernism advocates “universal values” and also advocates imposing those values forcibly on others. A bad thing, no question, and one of the traditional underpinnings of colonialism; nothing very modern about that. But what does this have to do with Human Rights Watch, which undertakes the admirable work of helping to ensure, among other things, that no one is forced to submit to another person’s ideas about value? You’ve committed an equivocation, substituting “universal rights” for “universal values.” Worse, you’re being self-contradictory, first arguing that if someone imposes their values on you, they’re violating your rights, then claiming that there’s no basis for asserting any such rights.

    Then there’s your claim that “modernists” advocate equality. Apart from the fact that postmodernism as such certainly doesn’t provide any basis for arguing that equality or egalitarianism is a bad thing, there are of course movements within a broad conception of “modernism” that very obviously are anti-egalitarian, such as Fascism. Clearly, egalitarianism must be optional for modernists, if any exist.

    But it does appear that you may just be using “modernism” as a synonym for “liberalism,” as when you note the “core values I have taken from progressive liberal intellectuals and organizations” in your response to Ruslan.

    Lyotard certainly wouldn’t agree with that, and he wouldn’t much care for your plea that “we must come to some agreement as to basic philosophical foundations of our respective beliefs.” On the contrary, “I define ‘postmodern’ as incredulity toward meta-narratives,” he wrote in The Postmodern Condition.

    Speaking of meta-narratives, you’ve already supplied us with one: “The Age of Ideology ended in 1991, and around the world many are returning to the old values of ethnicity/Spirituality/Soil as a response to globalization, neo-liberalism and transnationalism.”

    What it sounds like you’re saying here is that the most postmodern response to the modern is to revert to the premodern, the mediaeval, the tribal, primitive, or more likely some “neo-” construction of those things. There’s a wide streak of Nietzscheanism in that sort of thinking.

    I do agree that much of modern culture, for various reasons, is spiritually sterile and ethically vacuous, overly reliant on instrumental rationality and mired in physicalist absurdities. But I don’t think the remedy is to dream up new ways of dividing people and setting them against each other. From that point of view, your version of “deep ecology” sounds a lot like social Darwinism, or maybe Lord of the Flies. I’m more inclined to look for pathways to unity.

  • Deep Ecology

    “1. Universal Values: Applies to all people at all times”

    Michael Posner: Undersecretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor.

    “The work of Human Rights First is based on the principle that core human rights protections apply universally, and thus extend to everyone by virtue of their humanity.”

    2. “Equality/egalitarianism:”

    Universal Declaration of Human Rights, “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.”

    Really? So we (The progressive West) define those rights, to be adopted by everyone regardless of race, religion, or culture and enforce it how? That people are different and inherently unequal is intuitive the moment you step out of a developed country. Again, to make the above happen worldwide would require a coercive force greater than was implemented by Stalin or Hitler.

    3. Materialism/Empiricism:

    “liberal ideology is not materialist, and often not empirical”

    .?Pragmatism, both in its philosophical form of evaluating ideas based on their real world consequences rather than abstract ideals, and in more practical terms as an approach to problem solving grounded in science, empirical evidence, and policy experimentation

    “The original progressives charted a new and more realistic path in economics that preserved a market based society and private enterprise while strengthening democratic control over the economy and employing the positive power of the state to advance human welfare and national prosperity”.

    Center for American Progress: Intellectual platform.

    Ruslan, unless we agree on what we both believe, discussion will be circular and fruitless. All of the above are core values I have taken from progressive liberal intellectuals and organizations that state clearly what they believe and advocate. So we must come to some agreement as to basic philosophical foundations of our respective beliefs.

    Lastly, at some point we have to agree that each other means exactly what we say and not attempt a reductionist argument that seeks to either redefine the position differently than stated and held or to insinuate nefarious, disengenous motives masked by stated rhetoric.

    I take the progressive stance as genuinely and honestly held and that they mean exactly what they say they do.

  • Ruslan Amirkhanov

    The European New Right can claim whatever it wants in public, but it’s clear from private conversations with their supporters that the “pollution” they are truly concerned with is immigration, which they abhore.

    On the topic of “Modernism”, I know of no such ideology. Modern liberalism is an ideology which claims to be without ideology.

    “1. Universal Values: Applies to all people at all times”

    I don’t think anyone is actually making this claim. Sure, there is this concept of “human rights”, but human rights were chosen rather arbitrarily and if you read the UN Declaration you see not only that they are routinely violated all over the world by literally every country, but some rights are actually mutually exclusive.

    This does not mean that universal values cannot exist, but the problem is that mankind is divided into classes, and the dominant class get to decide the values and which values reign supreme.

    The New Right trots this out so they can sound like they respect and appreciate other cultures. However, these people tend to see “culture” as something static and produced by the people themselves(biological determinism). The fact is that many people in the developing world, and in fact all over the world would happily give up those “cultural traditions” which are in fact quite negative, because these aren’t so much cultural expressions as they are related to the development of their society. That’s why we can see many of the same “cultural” traditions over a wide spectrum of ethnicity and geography.

    “2. Equality/egalitarianism:”

    What is wrong with this? Can you explain why people should be treated differently and on what basis?

    “3. Materialism/Empiricism: Quantity versus quality”

    This has nothing to do with quantity versus quality. This has to do with science. I would prefer people prove their claims rather than make metaphysical claims based on idealistic notions. Furthermore, liberal ideology is not materialist, and often not empirical. The idea of human rights, for example, is idealist and metaphysical. The “individual” is as well. Ideas like “race” or “nation” are also idealistic.

  • Reynardine

    Gregory, that *is* smoke signals. This guy is a Highly Magnified and Thoroughly Miseducated Hornswoggle Bug. (Acknowledgements to L. Frank Baum)

  • Gregory

    @ DE
    “Deep Ecology rejects modernity, is highly suspicious of the benefits of science and technology, and believes small, organic communities living in bio-regions is the answer to the problems wrought by the contemporary values man has adopted.”

    If you believe that, then why are you using this medium? Wouldn’t smoke signals be more appropriate?

  • Deep Ecology

    Agree wholeheartedly with Mr. Pinkerton, it was childish and needlessly antagonistic. To repeat, I would no longer be an advisor to the group if this activity was the accepted norm.

  • Deep Ecology

    CM: Excellent analysis and goes to the heart of the discussion:

    “Deep Ecology’s suggestion (as I interpret it) that we must organize our world along ethnic or nationalistic lines or have no organization at all is deeply troubling. What about ideas – that we might unite in our dedication to democracy or equality or creativity? What about organizing our thinking about the world in terms of the maximizing of health, of wealth, of happiness, of freedom?”

    Modernism assumes three broad themes:
    1. Universal Values: Applies to all people at all times
    2. Equality/egalitarianism:
    3. Materialism/Empiricism: Quantity versus quality

    I will address these differences not from the Deep Ecology perspective, but from the Euro New Right and its post modernist elements.

    First, the adoption of universal values assumes two things, Enlightenment progressive values are right not just for us but for all humans, and we have an obligation to use moral, economic, political/military force to impose those on societies that don’t recognize them as such. Please articulate the argument you would make to a Mayan Indian in Chiapas or a Pashtun tribal elder who practices a very austere form of Islam as to the right or wrong of their worldview.

    The ENR believes in the inherent inequality and profound differences that exist amongst peoples, their cultures, and worldviews. These differences create social stress and require a highly centralized bureacratic nanny state to arbitrate disputes, distribute resources and attempt to equalize outcomes.

    The reign of quantity and the pursuit of material well being at the expense of the finite resources available to sustain mankind has created an enviromental catastrophe of global dimensions, and carries within it the seeds of its own demise. Materialism has proven a poor substitute for a transcendent spiritual worldview that is in harmony with a sustainable way of life, and left many bereft of any sense of higher purpose and with a profound sense of despair and alienation.

    The Age of Ideology ended in 1991, and around the world many are returning to the old values of ethnicity/Spirituality/Soil as a response to globalization, neo-liberalism and transnationalism. The Balkans and the recent breakup of Sudan into north and south plus numerous identarian movements in Europe are a testament to the growing strength of this opposition.

  • Robert Pinkerton

    Chalking sidewalks or “tagging” are not adult behavior. Childishness, real or imputed for propagandistic purpose, of one’s adversaries does not justify childish behavior on one’s own part. And that is the reason why I, a man of the Right, am disappointed and dismayed by this episode.

  • Deep Ecology

    Ruslan, from the Foundation for Deep Ecology:

    “The prevailing economic and development paradigms of the modern world, which place primary importance on the values of the market, not on Nature. The conversion of nature to commodity form, the emphasis upon economic growth as a panacea, the industrialization of all activity, from forestry to farming to fishing, even to education and culture; the drive to economic globalization, cultural homogenization, commodity accumulation, urbanization, and human alienation. All of these are fundamentally incompatible with ecological or biological sustainability on a finite Earth.”

    Deep Ecology rejects modernity, is highly suspicious of the benefits of science and technology, and believes small, organic communities living in bio-regions is the answer to the problems wrought by the contemporary values man has adopted.

    The rejection of cultural homogenization and the readoption of local community is the New Rights position. I do not believe they are being disengenous in this position, and since you have read much of their literature, you know they are not unsympathetic to traditional societies, the third world or Islam, a much different stance than conventional right movements and worlds apart from American conservatism or neo-conservatism.

    Deep Ecology shares most of these goals, but there is much diversity in our community and not all agree, especially the social ecology.

    We both decry globalization, materialism, the despirtualization of values, equality, and individualism.

  • Ruslan Amirkhanov

    The only thing I don’t get, Deep, is that I have looked into this movement’s history and I find no mention of nationalism, racialism, or anything of that sort. This of course makes sense, because whatever flaws this ideology may have, I don’t see any reason why race or nationality need be factored in to saving the environment. It seems to me that the European New Right is latching on to this movement in an attempt to reinvent itself as left-wing or failing that, revolutionary as opposed to reactionary. This does not come as a shock to me because I have read the works of the Danish National Socialist Povl Riis-Knudsen, who made such attempts over two decades or so ago.

    Basically I think these rightists trying to reinvent themselves look at the whole of the left wing and try to find something they can appropriate which does not offend their personal prejudices. The environmental cause(which really isn’t a left or right issue) is the one thing they can appropriate without feeling like they have betrayed their values. So they appropriate it. But in the end they are being intellectually dishonest and using it as a shield. “Stand with us to save the Earth,” they say, but if you balk at their racism, xenophobia, or metaphysical BS, well then you’re on the side of the neo-liberals, the capitalists, and so on. As if it’s impossible to take into account the state of ecology without also accepting ideas like “race” or “nation.”

  • Reynardine

    Well, you heard the man, C.M. Nothing fertilizes soil like blood.

  • RLavigueur


    You’ve actually hit on the main reason that “black pride” or “gay pride” exist as a concept, and why supporters of those celebrations and the use of these terms tend to shake their heads at those calling for “white pride” or “straight pride”.

    When LGBT organizations celebrate pride, they are celebrating the accomplishment of surviving and thriving in a world that is hostile to their existence, where anti-gay attitudes, violence, rhetoric and policies remain common and where the contribution of LGBT people to history is silenced and denied.

    Things have gotten (somewhat) better, and pride, whether at being gay, black or any other minority is sometimes less about defiance and more about celebrating past achievements and accomplishments. Either way, to express pride is such circumstances is certainly about the accomplishments of individuals, not for being born the way they were born, but for overcoming the challenges imposed on them for being born that way.

    The other issue, of course, is that the term “white pride” has often been used as a slogan by violent and hostile groups and understandably leaves minorities who have been the targets of that group edgy.

  • Deep Ecology

    Ruslan, you show a keen understanding of both the human condition and the real nature of revolutionary change. I suspect those that believe radical change can come about without violence are hopelessly naive or deliberately dishonest.

    Deep Ecology has within it many schools of thought. Our platform assumes a peaceful change brought about by a culture wide spiritual renewal, and as an idealist, my hope would be that it could be accomplished without violence or bloodshed. However, as a realist with a keen understanding of the human condition, I am pessimistic about it. Our current neo-liberal state and its industrial corporate-capitalist state will not die an easy death.

  • CM

    I’m getting the impression that some of the comments here are coming from people who want to wear the T-shirt of post-modernism without ever really having gone there.

    What I’m talking about is the repeated references to “construction” of nationality and identity and so on. And the thing I find especially troubling is what I take to be Deep Ecology’s claim that we must have “constructions” of some sort if we are to have any kind of social order.

    If one actually does the math, the philosophical idea of construction and deconstruction focuses on the fact that “modern” idea-structures mainly serve to enable sociopolitical domination. Ethical constructions criminalize behavior that is seen as a threat to the ruling elite, economic constructions valorize behavior that supports the interests of capitalists. Etc. etc. etc.

    What is being discussed on this thread is the construction of national or ethnic identity. The dispute seems to me to result from the fact that proponents of such ideas as “European culture” or “white culture” want to cling to 19th-century power-driven constructions of nationhood, of the very sort that plunged the world into catastrophe in the 20th century.

    Germany is a perfect example of constructed nationalism. Until 1871, no such place existed. It was the project of Otto von Bismarck to create a “unified Germany” under Prussian domination that caused this entity to exist, and it was his success in prosecuting the Franco-Prussian War that enabled him to carry out this project: Intimidation was a major factor in rounding up the “German” states under the common rule of the kaiser.

    Some of my own ancestors, Bavarians, emigrated in 1870 precisely to escape being absorbed into this monstrous creation. Bismarck was of course successful in amalgamating the “German” states (until he did so, “German” was an adjective, not a noun; the name “Germany” was summoned up from the Roman terminology of domination from 2,000 years before) into an effective political entity, but that doesn’t mean that everyone within that entity subscribed wholeheartedly to his propagandistic notions (what we’re now calling “constructions”) of what German-ness was.

    In fact, if you ask a Bavarian today what he thinks of Prussians, or vice versa, you’ll find that they don’t believe they have much in common and have little to like about each other. You’ll find much the same attitude if you ask a Dubliner about a Kerryman, a Provençal about a Parisien, a Sicilian about a Lombard, and so on, on and on.

    If pan-Germanism is illusory (or pan-Irishism, pan-Italianism, and so on), then how much more illusory is pan-Europeanism? The notion didn’t even exist until the post-World War II period, when European countries began to think about combining their economic and military interests.

    Deep Ecology’s suggestion (as I interpret it) that we must organize our world along ethnic or nationalistic lines or have no organization at all is deeply troubling. What about ideas – that we might unite in our dedication to democracy or equality or creativity? What about organizing our thinking about the world in terms of the maximizing of health, of wealth, of happiness, of freedom? I think the people who created the United States were thinking in those kinds of terms and weren’t at all trying to set up some kind of ethnic nation-state, and claiming that they were would be a gross anachronism.

    Ultimately, any construction of “us” is also a construction of “them” and creates a conflict, a competition, a cause of malice and destruction. We are all “us” and we are all “them.”

  • Ruslan Amirkhanov

    Marxists(at least the honest, serious ones as opposed to Soviet revisionists like Khruschev) never claimed that mankind would bring about a better society without massive violence and long, protracted struggle. Every other major change in the mode of production(and the society stemming from it) was characterized by violence and upheaval; why should socialism have been any different when in its time mankind had excelled in the methods of killing? Second the levels of “killing” are actually far less shocking than most people believe. It’s also worth noting that Pol Pot was not a Communist. He started out that way but the Khmer Rouge, upon gaining power went off in a backward back-to-the-land nationalist direction.

    Eliminating classes need not entail physical destruction of anybody. Hell, there are millions of Western Europeans, for example, whose ancestors were small peasants even though in Europe these days you won’t find peasants. The peasants weren’t massacred, they just moved to the cities and became workers and in many cases their descendants before upper class people. Eliminating a class can theoretically be totally bloodless. You just say, “Hey you know how you used to be a shareholder owning 40% of the stock in this company? Well now you don’t own any of that, and if you want to make any money off of this company you need to get a job in it.”

  • Deep Ecology

    Ah Ruslan, the rub of course is whether or not you believe this can be done without horrific levels of violence (Stalin’s Russia, Mao’s China, Pol Pots Cambodia). The elimination of classes, like ethnic groups with fascism, has tended to be done by genocide or ethnic cleansing.

    I believe the historical record is clear, Fascism and Communism cannot peacefully bring about their respective ideal visions of society without resorting to extreme violence. The New Left after 1968 in Europe had an almost universal falling out with Russia after Stalin’s crimes became more well known and the Soviet Union leadership repudiated the period. Same with fascism, once the unpleasant nature of National Socialism was exposed very few defenders of the old order could be found in Europe, nor would there be a revival of fascist thought for many years.

  • Reynardine

    Deep, I can’t what? See through you? I think most people here can, and I think most have.

  • Reynardine

    Ruslan, my mistake. I had assumed that where the Volga flowed to the Caspian, it had entered Asia, since the Caspian is considered an Asiatic inland sea/salt lake. Not so. There is, of course, a lowland at the southern end of the Urals where a marine highstand may have united the seas. He did, for some reason, derive his nom de guerre from the river Lena.

    As for Moscow being the only pig at the trough… I’ve heard it.

  • Ruslan Amirkhanov

    “Ruslan, if not nationalism as a form of international organization, and self-determination, then what would you replace it with?”

    Simple. Human society is divided into classes. Only the working class has the objective features and conditions to both run society(democratically) while also producing all that is necessary for human life. Once socialism, not capitalism, is the dominant mode of production all over the world, classes will disappear as nobody is denied access to the means of production or the fruits of their labor.

    @Reynardine- The Siberyak thing has less to do with claims of being a different ethnicity and more to do with the fact that Russia extracts great wealth from Siberia while letting the place rot. Siberia is notorious for crumbling infrastructure, particularly its terrible roads. They feel they are abandoned by Moscow. This is a common feeling in regions far closer to Moscow as well. Just a nit-pick but Lenin was from what we would call the Volga region.

  • Deep Ecology

    Reynardine, any idea can be articulated, it is the beauty of language. You can’t, because among progressives it is a self-evident truth divorced from reason, observation or logic.

  • Reynardine

    I think your last paragraph is the only one in which you have told the truth…about your ideology. As someone whose traceable ancestry is European (and anyone who pushes the trace a little further back is likely to get a surprise) I could easily blend in with this “dominant culture”. I am a product of that “ideologically driven” Twentieth Century, and its most bloody-handed ideologies were built on exactly that “ethnic/spiritual/soil” orientation you appear to look forward (or backward) to. The countervailing ideology arose exactly out of horror for what “blood and soil” had wrought.

    Churchill called the year I was born “the hinge of fate”. That year, a cornfield grew a volcano, pennies were made of steel to spare copper for ordinance, Russia withstood the most violent assault in a long and violent history, and the murderous tide of “blood and soil” was turned back. Yet it lingered in our own land. It took the life of another adolescent boy before I was twelve. The fight against it, if not as dramatic as the one in Europe, was longer and more tenaceous, and if for a while it seemed almost won, that was an illusion. The enemy is not at the gate, but within it. It speaks with a coded and glosing tongue. And damme, it often sounds like you.

  • Deep Ecology

    The argument that race is or is not a construct is irrelevant. Anthropologists and geneticists will have the final word on that, but I believe whatever conclusion they come to will be ignored by the larger community of mankind.

    Within the broader study of ethnic and nation-state conflict, what people perceive to be true drives their actions. Thus an identical people, the Croatians, the Bosnian Muslims and the Serbs can go to extreme lengths to prove their different, act on it and ignore the genetic evidence that they are one and the same people. Same goes for virtually any tribal grouping on earth.

    You can’t have it both ways, we either use race, ethnicity, religion, and gender orientation as protected and distinct classes, with legal differentiation/protection or we say and act as if they don’t exist.

    Reynardine, dominant ethnic groups within nation-states almost without exception end up controlling the political/legal, economic and cultural spheres within those borders. Minority groups resent and eventually chaff at the disparity, conflict results. It is an endless source of division and likely will remain so. As the ideologically driven 20th century fades and the historically driven ethnic/spiritual/soil groupings rise, expect more conflict, not less.

  • Reynardine

    Deep. Ecology, there is no point articulating anything to you, since you are resolved not to get it.

  • Reynardine

    Actually Aron, if it were a matter of pigment, there are pale-skinned members in every ethnic group. I doubt, however, that these “White Pride” groups would ever admit a blond Fula, a red-haired Japanese or Choco, or even a blue-eyed Jew as “white”. This whole flap on another thread about Zimmerman-wasn’t- really- white- because- his-mother- was- Hispanic is a stellar example of that. We all know what it stands for is “we’re the traditionally socially dominent group and we intend to wipe the pavement with anyone who says otherwise”. Used as a census term, it means anyone who does not stand out from that community.

  • Deep Ecology

    Aron, then what is it?

  • Deep Ecology

    Ruslan, if not nationalism as a form of international organization, and self-determination, then what would you replace it with?

    Reynardine, my point (not specious) is that in a multicultural enviroment, with incredibly diverse points of view and values, how do you reconcile them? Who decides what is or is not a threat and the consequences for violating it? It is not enough to constantly repeat the refrain, well, it is self-evident. If it is, then it can be articulated.

  • Aron


    Here’s the main issue with your question. Ethnic, religious, LGBTQ, and political groups cover genuine constructs. ‘White’ is not a genuine construct.

  • Reynardine

    I admit herein that Leonid Mikhailovich Kharitonov has been one of my favorite singers, even though I had the good luck to discover him only recently.

  • Reynardine

    Ruslan, I’ve heard about the Siberian nationalist movement, and that with it it there is a move to recognize Siberian as a fourth East Slavic language. The culture is an interesting and in many ways admirable one; I have heard since I was knee high to a Knee-Hi how co-operation and generosity were essential to survival there and selfishness and withholding from the commonweal were tantamount to murder. In view of this, I’d call it no accident that Lenin was a Siberian. But whether further fragmentation in what was one of the world’s foremost powers is desireable is another matter.

    Deep, you can cease to be specious. We know what is a threat, and what isn’t. Threats cannot be permitted on campus.

  • A.D.M.

    I don’t find the phrase “white pride” offensive in any way. Why should it be offensive? But I do find it a bit dumb just like “black pride” and “brown pride.” Sorry, but having pride in something you had no control over – the way you were born – doesn’t make sense to me. Pride is for personal accomplishments. Being born the way you were is not a personal accomplishment.

  • Deep Ecology

    Reynardine, if “white pride” is menacing to some, would you have any group, be it ethnic, religious, LGBT, or political, whose open advocacy could result in conflict with other groups or beliefs, cease and desist that advocacy to avoid ruffling anyones personal beliefs or background?

  • Ruslan Amirkhanov

    ” As an advocate for pan-nationalism, I assume the same for other people and their parent cultures. Love of one does not assume denigration of anothers.”

    You can’t have pan-nationalism; just try that in the Balkans, for example. Once you start advocating “my country is the best”(which is what nationalism inevitably degenerates to every single time), you find yourself in a situation where one nation’s hero is another’s oppressor or butcher. Then there is the fact that many “nations” today have arbitrarily-drawn borders which do not correspond to nationality. Ergo this is a recipe for separatism and civil war. Even nations which consist of what seems to be one nationality often have several divisions which, if they were willing, could declare themselves a separate nationality. In the last census in Russia, the government was surprised to find a significant amount of ethnic Russians in Siberia claiming their nationality as “Siberian.”

  • Reynardine

    Quite so. There are, as I stated before, any number of national clubs on and off campus that promote the cuisine and culture of different European nationalities, though I can’t say English Clubs have much traffic, because nobody can stand the Brussels sprouts (we all did quite like Churchill’s Pub, though). That is a different matter from going around scrawling “white pride”, which is generally construed as threatening to whoever is not considered white at the time, with good cause.

    A college or university, I would point out, is not the same as a community at large. Even in these days of majority at eighteen, it has students, including resident ones, who are minors, and the others are studying, using research and library facilities, eating, and often living, on the campus. They are doing so at either their own expense or the government’s, under a contractual agreement that they are all going to be provided a safe and adequate environment for study. When the school actually provides advisors for a group that is creating an atmosphere that is unconducive to that, it is in violation, at a minimum, to the students who are being threatened. We have not even reached the issue of grant money or the Commerce Clause, but outside some closed little Podunk College that has not one out-of-state student and gets no public money, we’d be looking at those issues, too. In that case, an organization that goes around scrawling menacing slogans or emblems can no longer have an official standing on campus without the university itself becoming liable to grave unpleasantries.

    Incidentally, Deep, I daresay there are writers to this blog who have spent more time on the campuses of genuine universities than you have spent time, period.

  • IludiumPhosdex

    But, he [Heimbach] said the group is “only promoting traditional conservative values and is not racist.” He also told the Sun that he is advocating “pride in his culture,” not “white power.”

    So what’s the difference between “pride in his culture” and “white power” exactly? We’d like the know the nuances thus distinguishing.

  • Deep Ecology

    Reynardine and other commentators, being on a campus all day I get to hear and see all kinds of expression of pride or advocacy across the spectrum of political, economic, religious, and racial/ethnic groups.

    The only one that seems to cause serious consternation and outright hysteria, is European or White Pride. Again, full disclosure, I am not a paleo-conservative and as a Deep Ecologist, I have lots of problems with fundamental Western Civilization tenets. However, as a German-American and long time former resident of Europe, never felt the least responsible for the wrongs done by my parent country and indeed, grew to love Europe and take tremendous pride in its art, culture, philosophy and Christianity despite many of its shortcomings. I love and take pride in my parent culture because it is mine, and not anothers. As an advocate for pan-nationalism, I assume the same for other people and their parent cultures. Love of one does not assume denigration of anothers.

    Final aside, Heimbach was over the top and the faculty advisor was correct in disassociating himself from the organization.

  • Reynardine

    Frankly, as a person of European extraction, I do find “White Pride” offensive.

  • Deep Ecology

    Phillip Greene, to my knowledge, the YWC has not been declared an “illegal” hate group. They are allowed to organize on campus as any other student group at my school. If anyone else has any other information, please share it.

  • Deep Ecology

    Tom Townsend, if chalking “white pride” is an affront to anyone other than a person of European extraction, one has to delve deeper as to why it is offensive, and someone can claim the right to not see or hear it.

    Ruslan had a good explanation as to why any expression of white racial/ethnic pride is offensive but the expression of minority ethnic pride, pride in ones sexual orientation or religion other than Christianity is not.

    That there is an inevitable backlash among Europeans and Americans of European lineage to a constant of barrage of guilt and or assumption of guilt should come as no surprise to anyone who understands human nature. The YWC and the veritable explosion of European and American right and far right expression in opposition to this constant self-excoriation is not surprising.

  • Deep Ecology

    Philip Greene…thought I was pretty clear in my response.

    Greene “I have not seen this commitment on your part. All I have seen is a complaint that those who agree with you are persecuted and oppressed. When I see you standing up for the rights of those who disagree with you and who are repulsive to your ideas, then I will take you seriously.”

    Deep Ecology “I am reminded of the time during the Cold War when in the west support for silencing socialist or communist groups was supported with the reasoning that they represented a threat to free speech. It was wrong then and it is certainly wrong now, no matter where on the scale of left or right the ideology lies.”

    I am not a supporter of communism or socialism, but in no way would I wish for their speech or organizing to be impaired. As for various ethnic communities, religious communities, or LGBT, the ability to organize and advocate should not be impaired nor should groups in opposition practice the kinds of protests that would block or threaten with violence their organization.

    YWC is for the most part a collection of paleoconservatives, and I am not a fellow travelor, nor of American Conservatism in general, which I consider to be as bankrupt of new ideas as the old left in this country.

  • Philip Greene

    Deep Ecology, you seem to have a misunderstanding of the legal aspects of issues such as this. The reason YWC lost its sanction was not an attempt to silence it, it is because, had the university continued to support it it would constitute a violation of both state and federal law which prohibits the use of public funds (tax money) in support of hate groups. By allowing YWC to use campus facilities, which cost money paid for by taxpayers, it would constitute a violation of law and the entire university could lose its funding and accreditation.

    As far as the Cold War era, you don’t think the Conservatives continue to try to silence the Left? By branding anyone who dares to disagree with them a “Socialist” — which they wrongly and inaccurately equate with “Communist” — and their denigration of the very word “liberal” they have sought for 40 years to have no voice heard but their own. Their mouthpieces such as Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and others who regularly and gleefully insult, berate, attempt to humiliate and immediate terminate any liberal voice who calls into their programs pretty well constitutes the same attempt to silence that voice much more clearly than anything the university has done, and yet I don’t hear you complaining about that. Can we count on you to as vigorously defend the rights of the Left to be equally heard and supported? How about the Muslim and Latino communities — will you defend their rights as vocally as you have the YWC?

    Years ago I was in a classroom at a time when a NeoNazi group wanted to march in Skokie, IL. The city council had initiated a law suit to stop the demonstration. In a discussion of freedom of speech, the professor asked if they should be allowed to march. Many of the students said they should not be allowed because their idea are repugnant and hateful. however, I noted that, if I wanted freedom of speech for myself and my ideas, I had to allow others — no matter how much I detest them — to have the same right. I have not seen this commitment on your part. All I have seen is a complaint that those who agree with you are persecuted and oppressed. When I see you standing up for the rights of those who disagree with you and who are repulsive to your ideas, then I will take you seriously.

    Beyond this, there is a vast difference between the free exchange of ideas and the incitement of repression or oppression against another or a group. Hitler, after all, sought only to defend Aryan culture. Adolf Eichmann, the architect of the Final Solution stated very clearly that he had absolutely nothing against Jews — in fact, he considered many of them his friend — but they posed a threat to Germanic culture and the rightful world order.

  • Tom Townsend

    Deep Ecology – I certainly see your point, but the comparison to the Red Scare stuff makes me wonder about the differences. My understanding of that period says that there were some credible threats to our country in that some Communists were working to the will of Stalin. We can’t find the same allegiances in this and similar matters. I happen to think that these ideas are simply poisonous and ought to be suppressed, but I agree that the channel for this needs to be popular opinion and not necessarily direct government action. However, it is also true that students at Towson or anywhere else have a fundamental right not to experience harassment or abuse based on any demographic position they may occupy, and so in that sense it is entirely OK for YWC to be rigorously restrained from expressing what it apparently wants to express – that very expression would undoubtedly infringe on others’ rights.

  • Matt

    It’s great put them out, back in the shadows. Where they can be more effective without all the attention. Ideas don’t go away, they just morph.

  • Deep Ecology

    Ruslan, any group or idea presented is open to examination and criticism, that’s what it means to be an open society.

    However, what I see is an effort to silence groups and remove them from participating on campus officially, which while not official state censorship it is the state limiting the scope of their participation and the spread of dissident ideas that challenge the neo-liberal state.

    It is common depending on the campus for speakers that challenge the current zeitgeist (support for Israel, conservatives, anti-immigration, legal or illegal) to face protests, and sometimes threats of violence.

    I am reminded of the time during the Cold War when in the west support for silencing socialist or communist groups was supported with the reasoning that they represented a threat to free speech. It was wrong then and it is certainly wrong now, no matter where on the scale of left or right the ideology lies.

  • Ruslan Amirkhanov

    The problem with conservatives and many radical Christian sects is that free speech isn’t enough. They must be protected from criticism, and they must have the ability to bash their enemies relentlessly without reprisal. Otherwise you are persecuting them.

  • Aron

    Incidentally, if any of you want a real hoot, look up Julian Lee (divinefellowship) on YouTube. The guy is the nutcase’s nutcase.

  • Deep Ecology

    The faculty advisor was quite correct in his actions and critique of Heimbach. YWC is aggressive in its defense of Western values and civilization, but it sometimes walks a fine line in its advocacy.

    Our culture is descending into armed and hostile camps, and unless we can keep lines of communication open, mutual understanding and tolerance will break down and violence and hatred will rule the day.

    I like the YWC stance on academic freedom and am anti-campus speech code. No one ever lost his life or property getting his or her feelings hurt, and the in the give and take of ideas and opinions, that is going to happen. None of us are insulated from life nor human nature. Paleoconservatism is a dead end though. The America of the 1950’s will not return nor should it.

  • Supersonic250

    I live near Towson, and had the option to go to Towson University… I’m SO glad I didn’t. Any college that allows a group like YWC to operate is not somewhere I wanna go. Glad MY University has a no-tolerance policy for hate speech.

  • Aron

    Well cry me a river, Matt. Guess it’s NOT a good idea to write racist slogans in chalk on your campus. What an extraordinarily stupid young man.

  • Gregory

    But, he said the group is “only promoting traditional conservative values and is not racist.”

    What’s the difference between the two?