Last flag of the Republic - courtesy Flags of the World
Guest Columnist at New Nation News
by Elizabeth Wright

The following is an Update on the Alex Curtis case.
If you have not read the original article to which this Update refers,
"Punishing White Nationalists," go to:

Update - May 15, 2001

Not content to deny bail to Alex Curtis, not content to hold him in confinement for seven months prior to trial, not content to coerce him into groveling apologies to his tormentors, who have been granted inordinate power over his life, these same tormentors are now evaluating whether or not his apologies are "sincere" and, therefore, acceptable. It couldn't be clearer that this young man is in jail for his beliefs and the thoughts in his head, rather than for any of the trivial pranks for which he is charged. Thought crime prosecution wasn't supposed to happen here, right?

On April 18, as reported in the San Diego Union-Tribune, Curtis apologized to the bureaucrats whose delicate sensibilities he had offended through his capricious antics. However, to their dissatisfaction, the account goes on to say, Curtis "stopped short of disavowing the white supremacist beliefs he once expressed on his website." Soviet recantation, anyone?

This dangerous thought criminal was surrounded by a battery of federal marshals throughout the apology sessions. The Union-Tribune claims that "Curtis' four victims [victims!] said their sessions with Curtis were emotional and, at times, upsetting." Are these grown-up people we're talking about here?

There seemed to have been much concern about Curtis's demeanor and attitude. One of the "victims," Morris Casuto, regional head of the B'nai B'rith Anti-Defamation League, claimed, "I don't want him to think a simple 'I'm sorry' is going to cut it with me." Bob Filner, a Congressman who was also a Curtis "victim," lamented, "Somehow, he never learned of the virtues of diversity." Will seven months in a prison cell, with the prospect of spending the rest of his youth there, have taught him these virtues?

They must all have taken satisfaction in Curtis's genuine show of emotion when his parents were mentioned. Lord only knows the threats that probably have been made by the prosecution's crew against his faithful, supportive parents to whom he is very close. As more and more dissident whites are prosecuted, perhaps these enforcers will adopt the Israeli model of leveling and destroying the homes of the parents and relatives of recalcitrant offenders. This might also teach some further lessons about the virtues of diversity.

If his plea bargain goes through, the prosecution, ever so generous, claims it will recommend that Curtis spend only three years in prison for his pranks, instead of the possible ten. For three years after his release, Curtis must refrain from promoting his views on race and immigration. Further, says the prosecutor, Curtis will not be allowed to associate with a list of 138 people whom the government have targeted as "white supremacists." Curtis's lawyer, Bernard Skomal, says, "He has basically given up his First Amendment rights for three years." Does anyone know of a precedent for these kinds of terms?

Anything can be expected of a justice system that is not about meting out justice to fit the crime, but is merely a tool of self-appointed, vindictive lobby groups with ideological axes to grind. Their aim is clear: after months of incarceration totally demoralizes the stubborn dissident, make him publicly recant all his beliefs, which should fill him with self-loathing, and then let him face the contempt of his peers whose respect he once enjoyed. Alex Curtis's next hearing or trial, or whatever it turns out to be, is scheduled for sometime in June.

How proudly the multiculturalists must chortle over their success in waging their unconstitutional wars, first against the Ku Klux Klan, then against various militia groups, and the Aryan Nations, and the Church of the Creator. And countless individuals. The jackboots have been busy. What satisfaction they must derive from yet another feather in their caps by bringing down a popular figure like Curtis. Can their ultimate prize, Dr. William Pierce of the National Alliance, be far beyond their reach and their schemes of entrapment?

But before the move is made on Pierce, it's likely that law enforcers will hit another angry white troublemaker, who just won't see the light, and has the nerve to believe that he has First Amendment protection to disseminate his views. This is Arizona shortwave radio host and anti-government protester William Cooper, who is currently under investigation for failing to pay income taxes for two years and for writing misinformation on a bank's loan form. For his "heinous" crimes, Police Chief Scott Garms ruminates over the appropriate action to take against Cooper. As reported in the Arizona Republic, our man of the law at least sensibly claims that it might not be wise "to go in and storm that house and make a martyr out of him." But they're thinking about it.


"I can't say it often enough. Everyone must buy and read Laird Wilcox's
"The Watchdogs: A close look at Anti-Racist 'Watchdog' Groups."
Get info at:

As an American black, I am growing more alarmed and even ashamed of the way that the "guardians" of my civil rights are using the excuse of protecting me and other "minorities," in order to trample on the rights of white Americans.

On Nov. 9, 2000, Alex Curtis was arrested in San Diego, California. Since
that date, 25-year-old Curtis, a self-described white nationalist, has not
set foot outside his cell, except to attend court hearings and limited
visits with his attorney and parents. Curtis's parents (his father an
engineer, his mother a schoolteacher) have willingly offered to put up the
value of the family business and their home, so their son can be released
from jail to await his trial. All of their pleas have been rejected.

The state, whose charges against Curtis are still vague and tend to drift
somewhere along the lines of "conspiracy to violate civil rights," and
"conspiracy to commit civil rights violations," has decided that no
amount of bail should be accepted to free this young man. In reading the
prosecution's case against him, it appears that Curtis has been
incarcerated more for what it is expected he might do than for anything he
has done.

What he has allegedly done is this: distributed "racist" propaganda,
spray-painted graffiti on a synagogue, shoved a fake, plastic snakeskin
through the mail slot of a public official, and vociferously verbalized
his disdain for that same official--actions described as "harassment."

What he has certainly done is maintain a white nationalist website that
was derogatory towards ethnics and racial minorities and publish a
newsletter expressing similar sentiments. He has exercised his right to
dissent from the popular orthodoxy on race, especially denouncing the
enormous influx of immigrants into California, while making these views
known to others.

Curtis is not charged with physically harming anyone, and the
Star-Telegram newspaper reports, "No direct acts of violence are alleged
in the indictment." For this reason, it is important to the prosecution
that a case be built against Curtis to convince a jury that he has indeed,
in the words of an FBI agent, "conspired to commit highly disruptive,
life-threatening crimes." Although the FBI claims to have taped
conversations between Curtis and a friend, a spokesman is quoted in the
San Diego Union-Tribune admitting, "Curtis's statements are general in
nature and not specific."

This, however, is not slowing down the prosecution, which is being egged
on by both the Southern Poverty Law Center and the B'nai B'rith
Anti-Defamation League, and is expected to demand the minimum "hate crime"
sentence of 10 years of prison punishment for Curtis's impertinent
behavior and beliefs. The brazen, irreverent Curtis is denied bail for
what in a saner political climate, would be deemed nothing more than
fraternity capers or Halloween pranks. What happened to 30 days in the
county jail? Ten years for "harassment" and conspiring to violate rights?

The ADL has described Curtis as a "rising star in the racist movement,"
and has expressed concern over the popularity, although limited to a small
circle, of his website and newsletter. Spokesmen for this self-styled
human rights group staunchly justify Curtis's arrest on the basis of his
potential to be a future "danger." Is it now acceptable to arrest American
citizens on the basis of nipping future trouble in the bud? Do we detain
and deny freedom to nonconformists for what we think will be their
prospective crimes?

The story grows worse as we learn of other young white men who are being
incarcerated on similar charges or have received long, harsh prison
sentences for minor crimes. For example, in Houston, last June,
21-year-old Matthew Marshall and four friends decided to end a night's
drunken revelry by burning a cross on the lawn of a black family. No one
was harmed by this foolish gambit and no property damaged. In fact, the
family of Dwayne Ross, asleep throughout the escapade, did not know of its
occurrence until the next morning, when they viewed the remains of charred
wood. All five white men were arrested and charged with "violating civil
rights," for which Marshall has been sentenced to 10 years in prison.

One recalls how, in the James Byrd dragging case in the same state of
Texas, the court refused to allow Byrd's past criminal record to be
entered into testimony In this case, however, not only did Judge David
Hittner allow the prosecution to bring in instances of Marshall's past
juvenile, albeit non-criminal antics, Hittner admitted to being influenced
by an overheard off-hand remark, that included a racial slur, supposedly
spoken during a pre-trial hearing by Marshall's angry father. As reported
by the Associated Press, the 10-year prison sentence was deserved,
explained Hittner, because the "seeds" of the young Marshall's racism
"were sown at home."

In December 1999, in Riverside, California, a black woman, Tyisha Miller,
while sitting in her car, was tragically shot to death by several
policemen--for no reason that makes any sense to this day. The police
officers who did the killing were fired but not prosecuted. Needless to
say, the Riverside police have been fighting the stigma of racism, as the
local media and community groups have kept alive the issue of police
excesses. The charge of "systemic racism" now dogs the department.

Since the mindless shooting of Miller, many white residents have charged
the police with the overzealous apprehension of young white men. The
rationale of the police seems to be that their own exoneration from the
taint of racism can best be attained by coming down hard on other whites.

Woe to those whites who happen to find themselves in the wrong place at
the wrong time, as, apparently, did several young whites, earlier this
year, who are members of a group called "Western Hammerskins." Their
trouble began when a fight broke out at a bonfire party, and a black man,
Randy Bowen, was chased and assaulted The whites who were responsible for
the assault, all in their 20s, were quickly caught and arrested. Charged
with a "hate crime," the six face stiff sentences. Although three of the
men were identified by witnesses as the actual perpetrators of the
assault, the other three appear to have only been onlookers. (Bowen's
injuries were not life-threatening and he recovered.)

In a rare, open journalistic moment, the Press-Enterprise newspaper,
reported the frustration and anger expressed by the parents and friends of
the arrested men. Said the mother of Travis Miskam about the relationship
between her son and the assaulted man, "These boys have been at each
other's throats ever since middle school. That fight would have happened
even if Bowen was white."

And the father of Gregory McDaniel expressed the sentiment of many, by
claiming, "Our children are being used by the district attorney's office
to pacify blacks and other groups after the Tyisha Miller shooting. It's
that simple. I don't know how anybody could look at this case and deny

Jason McCully's father pointed to the current anxieties among the police
about their department's image. "There's a lot of pressure being put on
Riverside right now by the state and civil rights groups. The easiest
thing for them to do is sacrifice our boys and say, 'Look, see how
tolerant we are here.'"

Deputy District Attorney John Ruiz dismissed the parents' comments and
called the assault "one of the most shameful incidents this county has
seen in a long time." He expressed horror over a T-shirt imprinted with a
racial insult that was found during a sweep of the accused Miskam's
bedroom. Ruiz intoned, "That's why this is an important case."

Does the offending T-shirt make this case important for the same reasons
that Alex Curtis's case is treated in such a critical manner? In dozens of
cases like these, the defendants' homes have been ransacked and
"objectionable" literature, videos, and other materials have been removed
and held as "evidence" of the defendant's wicked state of mind. In the
two-year period before Curtis was arrested, his home was twice invaded by
the local police, who confiscated his computer and his writings. From the
emphasis placed on the thoughts and mental outlook of these young men,
whether expressed in a newsletter, on a website or on a T-shirt, it would
appear that it is their offensive ideas that condemn them in the eyes of
the state and the bullying lobby groups that have power to impact the
state's prosecution.

Curtis, facing a possible 10-year prison sentence for tasteless mischief
making, is learning the hard way what life is like in a
post-constitutional United States, where orthodox ideologies make certain
behaviors more "incorrect" than others, and where simple civil offenses
can be ratcheted up into felony crimes.

Take a look at the case of Sara Jane Olson (formerly Kathleen Soliah).
Olson, a former member of the Symbionese Liberation Army, was a fugitive
on the run from the law since 1976, until her arrest in June 1999 In 1976,
Olson was indicted in absentia, along with other SLA members, for planting
pipe bombs under police cars. Today, she faces one count of "conspiracy to
commit murder" and two counts of "attempted explosion of a destructive
device with intent to murder."

A month after Olson's capture, this woman, who has already demonstrated
her propensity to run from the law and is charged by the state with
serious felonies, was released on bail and is subject to an electronic
monitoring system. In contrast, the approximate $250,000 which is the
value of savings, business and home offered by the parents of Alex Curtis
as bail, is rejected at each court hearing. Also, his lawyer's plea that
Curtis be put under house arrest and be subjected to a similar electronic
monitor, goes unheeded.

While Olson and her many fans and supporters are successfully raising
money through a defense fund set up in her behalf, anyone who might
contribute money to the defense of Curtis will have to face the
possibility of being targeted in the future as a fellow traveler—a "hater"
and "racist."

In a society where citizens are thoroughly conditioned to be intolerant of
even a vague approximation of "white consciousness," Alex Curtis's
rightwing views are held as more contemptible than those of the leftist
Olson, who, although charged with the commission of particular felony
crimes and implicated in others, is still accorded greater due process of

Is there much chance that at some point we will begin to witness organized
protests against this lop-sided justice? Not likely, since the typical
white American tends to shy away from outspokenness, especially on the
subject of race. With social ostracism as the paramount fear, most whites
seem satisfied to live within the safety of self-imposed censorship. Given
this reality, the rare white who dares to indicate displeasure with the
status quo, or unexpectedly erupts in anger, as did baseball player John
Rocker, can expect little support from fellow whites and a whole lot of
trouble directed his way from a state that is determined to enforce
conformity and compliance.

Elizabeth Wright
Editor, Issues & Views

Presented as Public Service: New Nation News not affiliated with above organization
and views expressed not necessarily those of New Nation News
Last flag of the Republic - courtesy Flags of the World
Editor email since 8/22/98 web site map