1,269 words
It’s nearly impossible to explain to anyone who doesn’t try to publish essays from the perspective of the Dissident Right just how difficult it is to get certain opinions published. Even a willing interlocutor has trouble comprehending just how impenetrable the wall is between the institutions curating public opinion and the public itself.
Until very recently those opinions deemed verboten would have included fairly anodyne conservative sentiments. If it weren’t for the internet, the uniformity of opinion as expressed by the media would be total. But despite the existence of outlets such as this one, it still frustrates me that ideas I believe to be commonsensical and questions I consider to be in obvious need of airing are viewed with the degree of suspicion and horror that they are. I haven’t gotten used to it. I still think it’s bizarre.
Take for instance a recent attempt I made to publish an essay I titled “Is the Anti-Defamation League a Hate Group?”
I know, I know. What did I expect? Especially as I submitted this as an op-ed to my local paper, which has had three sets of editors running the op-ed department in the years I’ve been submitting to this suffocatingly liberal organ, all of whom having been Jewish, interestingly enough.
Now while I’ve had some icy rejections from this editorial team before, never, after inquiring about the status of my submission, have I had one of the editors email me back with a request to call him. Directly.
You can order Greg Johnson’s Loving Our Own here.
I was so nervous as I dialed that I was quite relieved when I only reached his voicemail. And, believe me, I was too cowardly to try again. After all, what was he going to do? Yell at me? Possibly. Tell me to never, ever submit to the paper again? Quite likely. Relate the history of the ADL, which I don’t need because I already watched that YouTube video “One Hundred Reasons Why Leo Frank is Guilty”? (I highly recommend it. He was guilty as hell. The ADL should be ashamed.)
But eternal optimist that I am, I decided to submit my reasonable ponderings to the next level after mainstream, which for me is usually The Federalist. They have published me before, even essays covering what might be considered “dicey” topics in some conservative circles.
But, surprisingly enough (to me) the piece was rejected, as was the unrequested revision I offered in response. Hmm, I thought. This is not good. I’m only asking some rather simple questions which I really think need to be aired.
Now, you might ask, why didn’t I start with Counter-Currents?
Because the readers of this outlet have been asking and answering these questions for decades. And while that’s good, and we’re all glad for that, I still insist that the audience for certain opinions needs to be a bit broader, which is why I usually start my submission process with the local paper, and work from there.
Here, as a possibly needless exercise in demonstrating just what cannot be asked, is the essay.
Is the Anti-Defamation League a Hate Group?
Recently I found myself wondering whether or not the Anti-Defamation League actually followed up on its September, 2025 promise to remove or at least revise its “Glossary of Extremism and Hate” as they agreed. This announcement had been spurred by FBI director Kash Patel’s decision that the FBI would no longer partner with the organization after it was discovered that the ADL had labeled Turning Point USA an extremist group. That did not sit well with many Americans, especially after the assassination of TPUSA’s founder, Charlie Kirk.
At the time, I greeted the ADL’s decision with optimism, thinking that they might revise their glossary of hate symbols on their Hate Symbols Database as well. But after a recent browse of their web page, I see that they have not. This is a problem. Why? Because, although the ADL might not see it this way, the philosophical underpinnings of several of these designations are an expression of anti-whiteness. How is that even remotely compatible with the ADL’s purported mission to fight racial prejudice?
Let’s consider one of the symbols on the very first page of this list, “14” or “14 Words.” This number refers to the number of words in the sentence “We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children.” Now, I probably don’t have to spend much time offering various racial and ethnic replacements for the words “white children” to make the point that with ANY other race or ethnic group, the phrase is not only unobjectionable, it expresses a commendable stance for a group that may be in the minority, either globally or within a nation. After all, what racial or ethnic group wouldn’t desire the continuance of their people and their culture? Yet the implication in the ADL’s designation of this symbol as a hate symbol is that the white population of the world shouldn’t desire the continuance of their people and culture.
Further, in the current zeitgeist, white people are prohibited from showing pride in the historical accomplishments of their European ancestors because it appears that doing so is inherently hostile to other cultures. White people simply cannot openly express any racial pride without a severe backlash. And the ADL chimes in to reinforce this view by designating the phrase “love your race” as yet another hate symbol—for whites. Presumably this is because white people expressing love for their race is tantamount to thinking it is superior to other races, which then is immediately interpreted as an expression of hatred toward other races.
But that only begs a question. Why would love for one’s own people automatically be considered an expression of hatred for others? For years, people on social media have attempted to counter this warped reasoning with the example of locking one’s own doors at home. Doing so, they have argued, is an expression of care for those within, rather than enmity for those without. The focus of concern is inward looking, not outward. And yet it is the reverse (perverse?) interpretation that is the immediate response from the open borders crowd.
I think that anyone who subscribes to the idea that a desire for borders is an expression of hatred for those on the other side of the border must explain this opinion in terms of the locked door, and explain clearly how love for one’s own necessarily entails an emotional escalation to hatred for everyone not one’s own.
The ADL appears to justify its designation of certain symbols as hate speech because it associates them with support for white supremacy. But any racial or ethnic group which embraces the belief that they, their progeny, and their culture should be able to continue in existence does not mean at the same time that they possess imperialist ambitions (the supremacy part of this fear-mongering). Some do, for sure. The world is full of groups aiming to achieve world-wide hegemony, and jockeying for global power will continue till the end of time. But love of one’s own and a desire for continuance do not automatically entail a desire for geographic expansion or the erasure of other peoples.
In order to be consistent, the ADL should give more thought to why they have singled out white people for prohibitions that are instead promoted for every other group in the world. Please, explain it to me like I’m five years old.
Jocelynn Cordes has published a collection of essays as well as two novels under the name Plum McCauley.
22 comments
To ask the question is to answer it.
The problem with posting your article on this website is that all of its readers know the answer to the question in the final paragraph. We will never hear it answered.
Great description of a world with which I am very familiar. As somebody who spent close to 20 years as a writer in Conservative Inc., I sympathize with the author’s publishing problem. For the first 7-8 years, I was publishing almost everywhere on the right. But publishing outside of my own organization grew more difficult as my knowledge and understanding of the world of ideas advanced. Eventually, even my own organization started rejecting some of my articles since I refused to stay within the narrow lines prescribed for me. I wasn’t writing about racial realism or anything, just suggesting ways to aggressively push back against the left. My organization wanted to advance legislation, but the only way it could do so was through the Republican Party. So we avoided proposing policies that the Republicans weren’t already on board with–therefore allowing the Republicans to gate-keep our ideas. Finding Counter-Currents as an outlet for my real ideas lifted 1,000 pounds off my shoulders.
With John Derbyshire being the high-profile example of your experience.
I should add that trying to get published in the MSM is a waste of time at best. Some of the darlings will rat people out to social media to get them cancelled, and goodness knows what else they’ll do with personal information.
I think it’s important to push the envelope of what’s permitted to be discussed in the public sphere. I’ve always thought that the team on my local paper should at least be forced to confront different opinions. The same reasons apply to why I submitted my volume of essays to Kirkus. It forces a couple more people to encounter what they obviously deem beyond the pale.
And I have nothing to lose, except maybe the possibility of finally getting an agent for my fiction. But since I’ve self-published the first three, I’m content to continue doing so.
It’s far WORSE. The ADL had Timothy McVeigh as an informant via Michael Collins Piper book. ADL does what FBI/Mossad cannot do legally, it’s not merely a woke think tank.
Mark Ames here may be a typical leftist, but somehow also became a target in the 90s scandal:
https://psmag.com/news/kings-garbage-76228/
Timothy McVeigh? Now that is VERY interesting. I wonder what sort of arrangement they had?
I don’t believe you, “Bertrand.” What evidence did Piper provide about a McVeigh/ADL connection? I read the “leftist’s” article that you link to, looking for it. There’s nothing there of consequence beyond Ames admitting “I’m a Jew, for Christ’s sake! … I’d protested against apartheid.” Spit it out about your McVeigh/ADL claim.
Bertrand russell: April 29, 2026 The ADL had Timothy McVeigh as an informant via Michael Collins Piper book… Mark Ames here may be a typical leftist… https://psmag.com/news/kings-garbage-76228/
Maybe you could submit this to TPUSA and see what they think?
The ADL is the greatest hate organization of all time.
The truth-oriented European mind that believes in good faith, fair dealing, honesty and impartiality cannot comprehend how Jews see and use language as a weapon to bend and twist reality to gain an advantage over their adversaries. When they’re speaking to goys everything they say is calculated, self-serving propaganda.
Since October 7 it has become clear that “antisemite” doesn’t mean “Jew hater” but rather means “enemy of the Jewish community” and is how they single targets out for harassment, persecution, and destruction, in the same way the Sanhedrin commands them to “rise and kill first” and wipe out the Amalek, I.e., the enemies of the Jews. The ADL and its assorted groups label people “antisemites”and then the Jewish community unpersons them, cancels them, debanks them, harasses them, or kills them.
Jewish groups like the ADL fanatically persecute white advocates in white countries to maintain Jewish supremacy, for the same reason that Israel carpet bombs Gaza and sprays Lebanon with toxic chemicals that cause cancer and infertility. They wish they could do that here but they have to settle for lobbying for hate speech laws and vehemently persecuting lone individuals because they don’t have the manpower and need to operate within the confines of American law.
When they seized power in the Soviet Union they made “antisemitism” a crime punishable by death:
https://www.unz.com/article/on-the-true-meaning-of-hate-speech/
An “antisemite” is really just a victim of organized Jewry.
Thank you for posting Dr. Dalton’s essay, KV. It’s not necessary to put it up from the multi-millionaire racial Jew Unz’s site, however. Know that it’s also available at our own people’s site nationalvsnguard.org “On the True Meaning of Hate Speech “
KV: April 29, 2026 The ADL is the greatest hate organization of all time… When they seized power in the Soviet Union they made “antisemitism” a crime punishable by death: https://www.unz.com/article/on-the-true-meaning-of-hate-speech/
—
“It’s always about the Jews!”
So, let’s get down to the rub. I have a tentative hypothesis that I am willing to put forward: Hate speech is by, for, and about Jews. (Oops—is that hate speech?) That is, that hate speech laws have been invented and promoted by Jews, primarily for their benefit. I further hold that Jews are the master-class haters in world history, and that they understand the power of hatred better than any other people. They have furthermore learned how to project their hatred onto others in service of their own ends, including by trickery and deception. Let me marshal whatever evidence I can, mostly implicit, to build a case for this hypothesis.
Start with a little history of Jews and hatred. Perhaps the first explicit connection came way back in 300 BC, in a short writing by Hecateus of Abdera titled “On the Jews.” Only two fragments remain, one of which is relevant: As a result of the Exodus, “Moses introduced a way of life which was, to a certain extent, misanthropic (apanthropon) and hostile to foreigners”.[3] It is striking that, even at that early date, the Jews had a reputation for misanthropy—a hatred of humanity. The same theme recurs in 134 BC, when King Antiochus VII was advised “to destroy the Jews, for they alone among all peoples refused all relations with other races, and saw everyone as their enemy.” The king’s counselor cited “the Jews’ hatred of all mankind, sanctioned by their very laws.”[4] Not only was their hatred notable, so too was the fact that it was “they alone, among all peoples”; the Jews were exceptional haters, it seems….
Thank you for posting the link to the Dalton essay. It was quite well written and very interesting.
Great article! The irony of it all, is that we actually helped them in WWII. 🙃
That group hates all White folk. German. American, English doesn’t matter. If only white people could start to think like that about other groups.
That’s just what I was thinking too. Other than that, we saved them from Czarist oppression a couple generations prior. And this is how the big Zio-orgs show their gratitude. If they want to know why people don’t like Jews, they should consider their own behavior for once.
The folks at the ADL know exactly what they are doing. They truly are the Ashkenazi Defamation League, a tribal based league dedicated to defaming and destroying Whites. As long as these peolle literally print our money, they will keep skating along and thumbing their generally large noses at us.
You are well-intentioned, Joycelynn, but still naive.
Joycelynn: Take for instance a recent attempt I made to publish an essay I titled “Is the Anti-Defamation League a Hate Group?”
I know, I know. What did I expect? Especially as I submitted this as an op-ed to my local paper, which has had three sets of editors running the op-ed department in the years I’ve been submitting to this suffocatingly liberal organ, all of whom having been Jewish, interestingly enough.
—
Of course the ADL is a hate group. The question should be “is the ADL part of the Jews’ Mossad or is the Mossad part of the Jews’ ADL?” Your essay would not be published if submitted to National Vanguard because you leave doubt whether ADL is actually a hate group — a fact that has been established on NV by honest, intelligent Whites for decades.
Put ‘adl’ in NV’s search block and dozens of essays establish that fact, including, for example, this one 24 years ago by William Pierce: “Jewish Hate, the Media, and the ADL” at nationalvanguard.org. Imagine submitting that to the Jewish editors at your local paper or to any MSM periodical.
I’ve enjoyed writing letters to the editors of periodicals since the 1980s. Some are published, many are not. But, if not, I can publish the rejected letter on my own site where it will be archived, for the record, and will receive more views than if it had appeared in the paper.
This is a letter rejected by my small local paper, meant to inform my neighbors of the FBI’s disavowal and repudiation of both the SPLC and the ADL back in October. “Chairman Williams: Letter on ADL, SPLC, FBI” at nationalvanguard.org Read it and my comment under it, considering the DOJ’s eventual indictment of SPLC this week for fraud. It’s funny (and my paper’s editors and their bosses are not Jewish, but have been conditioned to be anti-White goy “journalists”).
This has been the state of print journalism for decades, though supposedly, “controversy sells papers.” The Internet has changed things.
Naive? What a strange comment. And I think you missed the whole point. I KNOW the ADL is a hate group. But does the public?
As I said in a comment above, I think it’s important to push the envelope of what’s permitted to be discussed in the public sphere. I’ve always thought that the team on my local paper should be forced to confront different opinions. The same reasons apply to why I submitted my volume of essays to Kirkus. It forces a couple more people to encounter what they obviously deem beyond the pale. That’s an end in itself.
Publishing essays on your own website is preaching to the choir. The value in that lies in uplifting the morale of one’s group and reinforcing its foundational beliefs. Great. I appreciate that. But there’s more to be done than that, and that involves getting one’s opinions out there to a wider sphere of citizens. And I am not interested in simply having “readers.”
Thanks for your response.
Jocelynn Cordes: April 30, 2026 Naive? What a strange comment. And I think you missed the whole point. I KNOW the ADL is a hate group. But does the public?
—
Why ask if the ADL is a hate group in the title of your essay when you KNOW that it is? That’s what I ask.
You are not naive. You know the truth. I apologize if that word offended you. Perhaps “uncritical,” but you won’t like that word, either.
I’ve never heard of Kirkus. We travel in different circles. I’m a National Socialist and uncompromising racial separatist/preservationist. How do you identify?
—
Publishing essays on your own website is preaching to the choir… there’s more to be done than that… I am not interested in simply having “readers.”
—
I see. You keep reaching out to and trying to educate the herd about the ADL. We’ll keep kicking the ADL’s butt while preaching to our choir, building from that radical core that’s singing from the same revolutionary sheet.
Remove duplicate comment.
You are well-intentioned, Jocelynn, but still naive….
Enjoyed the article and the commentary. Hate group that hates hate. Maybe they should be a strongly dislikes hate group. This subject has bothered me for a long time since there have been laws passed to create classification of speech to be considered hate, yet a white man or woman could be called literally the devil incarnate with no consequences. I’m fine being called whatever since it’s only words, but it must go both ways. The current system has embedded rules against saying anything even remotely offensive about the protected classes to the point of criminal prosecution for words. It’s tiring to see how much power was wielded by the hate industry.
I have felt the Trump administration showed some promise, but in the end has solely sought to protect only his speech and his reputation and not his supporters. He swims in the same swamp he screamed about to get elected. The groups to remain unnamed are far too big an influence on his decisions and our blood and treasure pay the price once again.
If you have a Subscriber access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.