Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
My colleague Todd Heywood has an article at the Michigan Messenger that documents that two of the recently elected Republican precinct delegates in our state are, in fact, neo-Nazis. One is our old friend Kyle Bristow, former president of the MSU chapter of Young Americans for Freedom, which has rightly been declared a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center.
Since getting that designation in 2007, Bristow has given up anything but the most lame pretense of not being a racist and a white nationalist. When the openly racist Council of Conservative Citizens (nee White Citizens Council) listed his blog as one of the great "pro-white" blog, he not only embraced it, he's celebrating it. He thanks another neo-Nazi for congratulating them on that designation and calls his blog "excellent."
The blog he praises, written by Paul Borowicz, is blatantly anti-Semitic. In this post, Borowics praises Nixon for that tired old "Jews run the world" claim he made to Billy Graham during taped conversations. And what a surprise, Bristow does the same thing in a post titled Viva Nixon! In another post he praises another lunatic from Michigan, John Mangopolous, for saying that God sent Katrina to New Orleans to get rid of the gays and that if he was God, he would do far more than that. Yet Bristow still likes to pretend that it's a slander to call him a neo-Nazi. Sorry Kyle, it's what you are.
There's far more evidence than that, of course. Bristow invited other neo-Nazis to speak at MSU and in the surrounding area the last few years. They include Nick Griffin of the British Nationalist Party, who advocates throwing all non-whites and non-Europeans out of the UK, and Preston Wiginton, who brags on the Stormfront website about "stomping muds" (darkskinned people, of course) when they try to "seduce our girls." But it's so unfair when you call these guys nazis!
The other recently elected delegate is Randy Gray, who spoke last year at a rally put on by white supremacist Hal Turner.
One thing I've learned over the last year, and it really surprised me, is that there's a much deeper pocket of such people in this country than I ever imagined. And they aren't just hiding in the shadows, they're in mainstream society and in positions of authority. I've watched the author of that article, who has become a good friend, be targeted repeatedly by the Army of God and nazi thugs. There's a lot more of these cretins around than I ever thought. And that should scare the hell out of us all.
Politics
Comments
Interestingly, the Southern Poverty Law Center seems to declare that only the Michigan State chapter of Young Americans for Freedom qualifies as a hate group. Rather curious that the rest of YAF accepts them, no?
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | October 7, 2008 9:48 AM
Ed,
While these dirt bags, Gray and Bristow, deserve to be outed as racist hate mongers, your citing of the Southern Poverty Law Center as some sacrosanct authority is regrettable.
If you were to invest the time and energy you did in researching Bristow and Gray on Morris Dees and the SPLC you may not be inclined to list them as altruistic sources of truth in the future.
I was once taken in by the SPLC's slick P.R. machine and even sent a check in response to an emotionally inspiring mailer, but I have since learned the truth about this demagogic money machine.
Before you site them again you would be wise to do a little digging.
Posted by: Lance | October 7, 2008 11:24 AM
Lance, would you like to provide a single fact with your bluster? 'cause without it you sound like you don't have a leg to stand on. Where are interested people to go to learn this truth that you found?
Posted by: kodiak | October 7, 2008 11:43 AM
Pierce Butler wrote:
Actually, a lot of other conservative leaders, including the national YAF, have been very critical of them. If I recall correctly, the national YAF board took some action against them at some point.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | October 7, 2008 11:45 AM
Lance wrote:
I do so love being accused of taking positions I don't hold. I didn't say anything that even remotely suggested that I take the SPLC's statements to be "sacrosanct." I said that they rightly have declared this group to be a hate group. And that statement is correct. Let me point you to the post I wrote when this report was first issued about Bristow and MSU YAF, where I said:
Now perhaps if you would take the time to ask my views rather than project them on to me, you might avoid making statements like this. But I'm not holding my breath.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | October 7, 2008 11:55 AM
It saddens my heart that Bristow (who I knew from my time at MSU) has achieved anything in his life outside of going to prison.
Posted by: Steve | October 7, 2008 11:56 AM
kodiak,
A cursory Google search will get you started. Even the white washed Wikipedia article will give you a taste if you click down to "Fund Raising Criticism".
For a better start read Ken Silverstein's Harper's article "The Church of Morris: How the Southern Poverty Law Center profits from intolerance".
Posted by: Lance | October 7, 2008 12:11 PM
Ed,
Forgive my presumption but if you site an organization as a source it implies that you endorse that source as credible. For if you did not think it a credible source why would you bother citing it?
If I cite the National Academy of Science in reference to a scientific claim it could rightly be assumed that I endorse them as a credible source of scientific information. Thus when I see you quote the SPLC as a source I could perhaps be forgiven for thinking that you see them as credible source of information on the topic.
If it turns out that I agree with the American Nazi Party on some issue and then quote them as a source would I not be responsible for putting them forward as a credible source unless I explicitly include a specific disclaimer?
Would you be obliged to research my past statements about the American Nazi Party to question my listing them as a credible source?
Posted by: Lance | October 7, 2008 12:22 PM
Also why the nasty tone "I'm not holding my breath."?
My post wasn't insulting or accusatory. I even agreed with your main points about Bristow and gray. I just said that you might want to ckeck out the SPLC before quoting them as a source of unbiased information.
Posted by: Lance | October 7, 2008 12:34 PM
Upon further review...
My use of the words "sacrosanct" and "altruistic" was probably what raised your ire.
Apologies for perhaps overstating your confidence in the SPLC.
Still quoting them as a source implies that you at least find them credible on the topic for which you quoted them.
Posted by: Lance | October 7, 2008 12:43 PM
Lance wrote:
This is nonsense. You seem to think that SPLC has no credibility at all on any subject. You also seem to think that they're either totally credible so that if you cite them at all you must take everything they say as "sacrosanct" or they're totally non-credible so you shouldn't listen to anything they say. That's a false dichotomy. There is a perfectly reasonable middle ground - my position - which is that sometimes they define hate groups too loosely so rather than accepting that designation at face value, one should look at the evidence presented to see if the conclusion is credible and valid rather than making a presumption based on your views of their overall credibility. That's why I didn't just say "SPLC called them a hate group and that's good enough for me." I said, rather, that they rightly label YAF a hate group - and I gave the reasons why that label is correct in this case. The SPLC lists lots of organizations as hate groups. Most of them are, in fact, hate groups and the fact that you don't think they're credible in some general sense does not change the credibility of those particular designations. Some of them, on the other hand, are being called hate groups based on criteria that are too loose and subjective; likewise, the validity of those conclusions is not affected by someone's view of the SPLC as credible.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | October 7, 2008 12:44 PM
Lance: Because he wasn't commenting on the trustworthiness of the organization. He was referring to a particular report issued by SPLC. Either that report is accurate and trustworthy, or it isn't, and other things done by SPLC are irrelevant. Ed and others have investigated the report and found it to a factual account of the MSU YAF branch. You are free to disagree based on the issuing agency, but that is the fallacy of guilt by associatio.
Posted by: kehrsam | October 7, 2008 12:44 PM
My contention was, and is, that the SPLC is so discredited by their true goal, fund raising through emotionally over-hyped scare mongering, that they should not be listed as a source of information on "hate groups".
If I quoted the American Nazi Party as rightly listing the black separatist Hebrew Israelite movement as a hate group (which by the way so does the SPLC) wouldn't it raise a few eyebrows that I was quoting the American Nazi Party?
Would the use of the word rightly give me cover?
Posted by: Lance | October 7, 2008 12:56 PM
You're being ridiculous, Lance. Yes, the SPLC can be a little overzealous in its labeling. I've acknowledged that many times, which is why rather than accepting what they say at face value I take the time to examine the evidence first. But comparing citing them to citing the American Nazi Party is just plain fucking stupid.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | October 7, 2008 1:16 PM
Obviously the Nazi party reference was a purposeful exaggeration, perhaps skating dangerously close to Godwin's Law, but it was to make a point. The SPLC is no more credible on "hate group" designation than William Dembski is on biological speciation.
They make their living by willfully distorting the status of "hate groups" for profit. To quote them on hate group designation is to grant them credibility in the very area that they should never be given such credibility.
Did you read the article to which I linked? It is just a good start on exposing the real motivation of Dees and his "not for profit" organization.(Currently they have over $200 million in assets.)
Quoting them as a resource on hate groups is endorsing them whether you admit it or not. They do not deserve your endorsement.
Posted by: Lance | October 7, 2008 2:00 PM
Lance,
Do you have any other sources? No way am I forking over 15 bucks for one article!
I am curious to know more about your concerns though.
I think you are overstating the perception most readers would have of Ed's "endorsement" of SPLC. His record is one of not taking any group at their word, so I wouldn't expect an unqualified endorsement from Ed for anyone.
Posted by: Kelly | October 7, 2008 2:19 PM
I repeat: you're being ridiculous. And dangerously close to just plain being a fucking idiot.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | October 7, 2008 2:25 PM
i read splcenter's hatewatch blog regularly and i've never seen it be anything but well researched. have they ever gotten a story wrong? maybe, but i don't expect any group to be 100% right, 100% of the time.
...but other than the fact that splcenter makes money off of studying and identifying hate groups, (so that it can continue to study and identify hate groups, while fighting them in court and attempting to teach tolerance)... all i can find on google about their "willful distortion of hate groups" is a bunch of white supremacist type sites who dislike morris dees. ALOT. um. surprise?
Posted by: arin | October 7, 2008 4:00 PM
I think it can be agreed on that there is a range of credibility for organizations and individuals. If anyone cites an organization (example: NSADP on hate crimes - to pull out Goodwin's law, or the Congress on the Banking crisis) that I consider unreliable on a topic I would a) have to read the report myself b) be much less likely to agree, without verification, with that point of view. The same process would have to occur if you cited say Ancel Keys on diet, although I'd probably laugh you off the site first(as I've already done the verification). On the other hand, if you cited say someone like, to do it simple: Dawkins on evolution or genetics, or Pinker on linguistics I'd be much less likely to feel the need to verify, as those are (in my mind) reliable sources (on those specific topics). Trust then verify applies to the web. I trust Ed (because he's earned it) but I still verify if I need to use the data for something other than adding to my memory banks or if I'm in doubt as to Ed's conclusions/premises etc.
So to the specific example:
The SPLC is (in my view) a (mostly) credible source (on this topic), thus if you distrust them, go read the report, do your research and reach your own conclusion on the topic. That's cool, you don't need to trust the SPLC to go read the report and judge it, anyone can do that, and if you're suspicious about Ed and care about the topic this would be suggested.
As for me, you can add to that: Ed is pretty scrupulous about his sourcing and checking, and I know without any prompting who Nick Griffin is (from paying attention to Neo-nazis in European news sources when I lived there). Thus it's pretty clear to me that this is a unproblematic posting.
If you want to challenge the SPLC or even better the SPLC report as credible, then do so, but please provide links and solid arguments, and not vague innuendos and suggestions.
Posted by: RSM | October 7, 2008 9:38 PM
Just a warning; Kyle Bristow's website has a scan scam attack there, according to my Norton Security.
Posted by: trog69 | October 7, 2008 11:58 PM
I wonder if Lance is being so obtuse in order to illustrate the very point he wants to make? Maybe he is trying to get us to have such a low opinion of him that we just dismiss everything he says as almost certainly balderdash, just to show that it can be done. In my case, he is acheiving limited success.
Posted by: Valhar2000 | October 8, 2008 5:38 AM
What's the deal, Ed? You've always been pretty easy going and respectful of those whose opinions differ from yours and if someone criticized considered it fairly and disputed it politely if you still disagreed with them but lately you're anything but tolerant. You've been downright rude and short with any commenter who dares disagree with you or critique.
Lance has a point. I too took it that you found the SPLC a credible source. I admit I didn't have as much knowledge (though I'd heard a couple of short mentions) as he does about the situation and didn't react to your citing them. I understand your point about their being right in this instance but I am also glad that Lance put in so much information about it. I've got to tell you that so much attack against him for doing so is off putting. I, for one, didn't take it as a personal attack against you that he questioned this source. I thought he did so respectfully and was not even implying you were ignorant or anything of that nature.
Neo-Nazi's/skinheads/white supremists of any ilk are creeps to understate it. No argument. And Lance wasn't disagreeing with that. Nor do I. But we also must not ignore black racists and give them a pass either. I know you're not implying that we should and I am not implying the SPLC are racist (I don't know enough to know if they are or not) but if you can't cricitize blacks who play the race card, black racists are given a pass.
I respect you very much. That's why I read your blog. It's intelligent and well-written. But you seem to be on the defensive and I wonder why. And if a commenter can't disagree or question a source, well, it does make one unsure if they should put so much stock in it.
I'll save you the trouble. Why should you care if I put in any stock in it. I'm just a reader.
Posted by: T's Grammy | October 8, 2008 8:36 AM
What's the deal, Ed? You've always been pretty easy going and respectful of those whose opinions differ from yours and if someone criticized considered it fairly and disputed it politely if you still disagreed with them but lately you're anything but tolerant. You've been downright rude and short with any commenter who dares disagree with you or critique.
Lance has a point. I too took it that you found the SPLC a credible source. I admit I didn't have as much knowledge (though I'd heard a couple of short mentions) as he does about the situation and didn't react to your citing them. I understand your point about their being right in this instance but I am also glad that Lance put in so much information about it. I've got to tell you that so much attack against him for doing so is off putting. I, for one, didn't take it as a personal attack against you that he questioned this source. I thought he did so respectfully and was not even implying you were ignorant or anything of that nature.
Neo-Nazi's/skinheads/white supremists of any ilk are creeps to understate it. No argument. And Lance wasn't disagreeing with that. Nor do I. But we also must not ignore black racists and give them a pass either. I know you're not implying that we should and I am not implying the SPLC are racist (I don't know enough to know if they are or not) but if you can't cricitize blacks who play the race card, black racists are given a pass.
I respect you very much. That's why I read your blog. It's intelligent and well-written. But you seem to be on the defensive and I wonder why. And if a commenter can't disagree or question a source, well, it does make one unsure if they should put so much stock in it.
I'll save you the trouble. Why should you care if I put in any stock in it. I'm just a reader.
Posted by: T's Grammy | October 8, 2008 8:39 AM
Sorry for the double post. Next time it tells me I've timed out, I'll check before I repost.
Posted by: T's Grammy | October 8, 2008 8:43 AM
I must have missed something, where the fuck did that come from?
Posted by: tincture | October 8, 2008 8:50 AM
Ed,
I questioned one of your sources and you responded by personally attacking me. I asked if you had investigated the SPLC with the same vigor that you had investigated the two Republican delegates and you answered that question with a quote from one of your previous posts, "As I've said many times, when I first heard this accusation I was skeptical of it; I think the SPLC has a tendency to throw around the label 'hate group' a bit too casually at times. But in this case? They've got the goods on them." You then go on to say, "Yes, the SPLC can be a little overzealous in its labeling."
So you have been "skeptical" of the SPLC's reports in the past and admit that they are a problematic source but call me "ridiculous" and "and dangerously close to just plain being a fucking idiot" when I point out that they should not be quoted on the very topic that they are monetarily motivated to distort and indeed have a proven track record of distorting.
You quoted the SPLC as a source with the "qualifier" rightly that you seem to indicate should have meant to me that you really don't trust them but in this case you had checked up on them and then I was supposed to go back and research your prior statements on the SPLC where you have impugned their credibility. This prompts the question of why you felt it appropriate to quote them as a source in the first place.
Just exactly who is being "ridiculous" here?
T's Grammy,
I was also surprised by the rancor of Ed's reply but as I said above I did "spice" up my first post with two words "sacrosanct" and "altruistic" that were inflammatory. That said I think quoting the SPLC as a source on "hate" groups is like quoting the American Temperance Society on the quality of distilled spirits.
You needn't worry about the SPLC discriminating by race however, they are equal opportunists. They are just as willing to distort the status of black "hate" groups such as the Hebrew Israelites so long as it can be used in a fear-mongering fund raising mailer.
Posted by: Lance | October 8, 2008 12:10 PM
Re Lance
That said I think quoting the SPLC as a source on "hate" groups is like quoting the American Temperance Society on the quality of distilled spirits.
But not nearly as bad as quoting assfuck Lance on the subject of global warming.
Posted by: SLC | October 8, 2008 12:26 PM
Kelly,
Sorry I didn't realize that the link to Harper's required a subscription. In any case a two minute Google search will reveal other sources for the article along with various other investigative journalism pieces on Morris Dees and the SPLC.
Yes some of them are supremacist cites, hardly surprising that they would be motivated to make the information easy to access, but they provide links to independent information by credible sources.
If you are Google challenged let me know and I will post up a link or two, but as I said to Ed the information showing the true nature of the SPLC is quite easy to find.
Posted by: Lance | October 8, 2008 12:37 PM
Granny: Having met Mr. Dees on a few occasions, I am sure that after being a "Nigger Lover" all of his adult life, he will be ecstatic to have graduated to "Black Racist." Whatever that means.
Posted by: kehrsam | October 8, 2008 1:37 PM
setting the record straight: "Although most Hebrew Israelites are neither explicitly racist nor anti-Semitic and do not advocate violence, there is a rising extremist sector within the Hebrew Israelite movement whose adherents believe that Jews are devilish impostors and who openly condemn whites as evil personified, deserving only death or slavery."
hebrew israelites, themselves, are not identified as "a hate group". extremists within that movement are. groups that advocate things like, "the imminent return of Jesus Christ, who they expect will kill or enslave whites, Jews, homosexuals and others". groups such as the isupk.
are the splcenter "alarmist"? possibly. tho i tend to think that alarm is the proper response to a hate group. that hate groups are on the rise, hate crimes are on the rise... IS alarming and should be, as it speaks to the mood of the country. as someone told me once, "bad economic times makes for some mean people".
Posted by: arin | October 8, 2008 4:27 PM
Or maybe, arin, just possibly, affirmative action and all other such programs giving preference to blacks over whites need to fucking end and we need to get to a place where no race is favored over any other.
There was a time it was necessary because of the white race being favored over black. Affirmative action did what it was supposed to do and gave blacks a chance. They took that chance and proved themselves our equals.
But that time has passed. No one who still thinks like that is taken seriously in larger society. When we've reached a point where a black man is at last able to run for president neck to neck with his opponent I think affirmative action has served its purpose and is obsolete.
Frankly, it has become the thing it was put in place to end. It has become a mechanicism for racial favortism. It once equalled the playing field. Now, it has become something for which one race and one gender are held to different standards than other races and the other gender. All races and both genders should be held to the same high standard so that we truly have the best person for the job.
Until we admit this, race relations in this country are only going to further deterioate but if you even try to discuss this: if you're white, you're labelled a racist and if you're black, you're a tom.
And you wonder why white supremist groups are on the rise? They're fucked-up individuals but they are on the rise because there's plenty of young, white males feel they're not being given the same chance at making a life, plain and simple. They're right in that but definitely wrong and twisted in their approach on how to address the problem. Of course, when those who try to speak up and address the problem are slammed down as "racist" for even bringing it up (I'm 90% sure I will be and 100% sure I'm not racist), they are not being allowed to vent their frustrations in a more civilized, open-minded, constructive fashion. I despise white hate every bit as much as I do black hate but it's rising out of anger and frustration.
Posted by: T's Grammy | October 9, 2008 7:29 AM
they always were equals. how sad that some think they had to "prove" it.
you immediately contradict yourself by then claiming,
so ~someone~ in larger society is taking them seriously. (just ask lou dobbs, who has featured them on his show.)
furthermore, i didn't wonder why "white supremacist" groups were on the rise. it's apparent that you want to make this a white vs black issue, but i'm sorry that's just not going to fly: framing this as an "affirmative action" issue doesn't explain the anti-semitism, anti-gay message of the neo-nazis in the original post, but it does say alot about you.
Posted by: arin | October 9, 2008 11:20 AM
T's Grammy:
I'd say you might be a closet racist, but I don't think you're in the closet.
Posted by: democommie | October 12, 2008 8:49 PM
T's Grammy - Where do you live where equal protections and rights have been achieved?
I can assure you that in Michigan non-white children do not enjoy equal protections and rights, not even close though better than forty years ago. A good example is school funding, in which the State, not local gov't, collects and distributes the bulk of funds where they allocate a vastly disproportionate amount per student to rich, primarily white school districts (rural school districts also receive a disproportionately low share).
Posted by: Michael Heath | October 12, 2008 9:14 PM
I rest my case. Even though I explicitly said that blacks are equal to whites, I'm a racist for daring to even suggest that reverse affirmative action has reached the point where it's supporting reverse racism.
Or maybe my problem is that I'm not communist? God forbid, we should hint that affirmative action has run it's course for doing any good, let alone that it's gone beyond that to be a bad thing.
One question: at what point can we? If Obama wins? Whether or not he does, a black man had a fair shot at becoming president. I'd think that alone proves things have fairly well equalized despite pockets of problems.
Interesting thing about those problems though -- all of them, they're not about black, white, yellow or brown. They're about green.
And poor whites are the biggest screwed because they've got no entitlement programs working for them. My daughter was actually told when applying for social services she'd come in behind blacks in getting them. I've known for quite some time when going up against someone black for a position -- despite my skills and experience -- I couldn't expect to get the job because I'm in a typically female field and white and hence don't fill any quotas.
As I said -- though the three of you hear only what you want to hear -- the white supremacist groups are taking the wrong tack. They want to revert to white privilege instead of seeking equality. But if you wonder why they're on the rise, consider the fact that the races aren't treated equally.
Of course, I said the taboo and you will continue to live in the past because it suits your purposes to.
Posted by: T's Grammy | October 14, 2008 9:05 AM
I won fair and square, get over it
Posted by: Randy Gray | October 22, 2008 5:25 PM
I think the best thing for this country is for the government to get out of involvement in the issue of race. The equal opportunity laws, Fair Housing, Community Reinvestment Act, Affirmative Action, etc, should all be repealed. The government should not be involved in forcing people together or apart. Both are morally deficient and tyrannical. Voting rights should be limited to producers. Then let the chips fall where they may. Some will revert to separatism, but many will not. This is not 1964. Those who prove themselves valueable to society will have no problem accessing the goodies of society. Those who want to mix it up can do so, and those who want to stay separated can do so also. It's called freedom. Everybody will be much happier, except Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton who will be unemployed until they can find honest work. Where in the Constitution is there any authority for any of this stuff anyway? We don't need to go back to Jim Crow, but we do need to get rid of what we have now. It's all wrong. But with Obama and the Dems in, we'll probably just get more of the same.
Posted by: The Quadfather | November 16, 2008 11:42 AM
If I found a group dedicated to the destruction of the Republican Party, would that be a hate group?
Posted by: hate_republicans | April 10, 2009 5:05 AM