Melissa Macauley (Ph.D. Berkeley, 1993) specializes in the late imperial and modern Chinese history. Her current research concerns Chinese social, economic and cultural connections with Southeast Asia in the 19th and early 20th centuries. Liberal in evident outlook, her opinions concerning Zionism and the Second World War appear to have been accepted from the Jews without question. She is currently an associate professor of history at Northwestern University.

Dear Professor Macauley,

I understand that you posted an editorial to a Northwestern University newspaper not long ago, concerning Matthew Hale, the leader of the World Church of the Creator. I would like to share my opinion of your letter with you.

[Title] School should prevent Hale from spreading his message

You (allegedly) said:

Matt Hale said, "only through dialogue [will] . . . disagreements among racial groups be settled through a peaceful manner." So I dutifully checked his Web site and painfully plowed through his bad grammar, tortured syntax, faulty history, and crazy, racist, anti-Semitic rantings.

I reply:

Matthew Hale is correct. Free speech often makes violence unnecessary. Furthermore, I have probably read more of Reverend Hale's writing than you have, and your characterization of it ("bad grammar, tortured syntax, faulty history...") is pure baloney. He writes well, if often informally, and there's nothing wrong with his syntax, by and large. Someone who didn't know better, upon reading your description, would think that Hale was nearly illiterate. I believe that you probably denigrated his writing skill on purpose, and possibly with malice.

And there's nothing wrong with his history either. You might know more about Chinese emperors than he does, but when he writes about the so-called Holocaust, a grossly exaggerated account of Jewish victimization during World War 2, his summary of it is likely to be more accurate than yours. Hale is a bit of a showman, but that's necessary to publicize his religious beliefs despite the opposition of people, such as yourself, who would use any means to deny him the chance to speak to many, as intelligent as you are, who don't need you to judge him, for them.

You (allegedly) said:

I learned as much as I need to know about this "church." In the frequently asked questions section, we read this: "Isn't it part of your religion to hate the Jews, blacks, and other colored people?" The answer: "True, but if you love and want to defend those whom you love - your own family, your own White Race, then hate for your enemies comes natural and is inevitable. Love and hate are two sides of the same coin. Only a hypocrite and a liar will go into battle against his enemies proclaiming love."

I reply:

Do you know why Matthew Hale is right? Do you have any idea why race, and moral dual-codes, arose in the first place? Do you understand why hate gives an embattled person, or a beseiged group of people, the moral strength to do what they must do, to survive? Do you appreciate why knee-jerk efforts to eradicate racial hate, which in the first place arises only when races are unnaturally mixed, are disadvantageous to the group losing the capacity to feel it?

I suspect that you know at least some of the answers to these questions, but you also understand that it would not be a good career move to recognize these things, however true they are. What is good, in the long run, for your race is bad, in the short run, for you personally. Reviling Hale is so easy, and it will get you a pat on the head from the Jews, whereas publicly recognizing the essential correctness of his statements could get you kicks on the way out of the university door.

You (allegedly) said:

Later on, Hale says, "We say that, in order to survive, we must overcome and destroy those that are a threat to our existence, namely our deadly enemies."

I reply:

Okay. Which part of that do you believe is incorrect? If you mean that other races are not our deadly enemies, at least when they dwell among us, you are either a media dupe or a medacious fellow-traveller.

Anyone with access to the FBI Uniform Crime Reports and the demographic data from the Census Bureau, with the rudimentary math skills required for correlating racial and crime factors, can understand that the racial holy war that Matt Hale speaks of began years ago--except that the White race represents the side that has not yet begun to fight. I offer to you my own work toward understanding the racial factor in violent crime, which you may find on my web page at http://pw1.netcom.com/~jna/facts/racestat.htm.

You (allegedly) said:

He plugs on, explaining why whites should use the word "niggers" to refer to African Americans and why whites need to expand all over the world, "since there is not enough land and food ... to support an ever exploding horde of mud races ... do we want our own kind to survive, or do we want the suicide of our own future generations in a world flooded by the sub-human races?"

I reply:

It isn't my habit to refer to Blacks as niggers, though I consciously avoid the term "African-American." The term "negro US citizen"* might more accurately convey what you probably mean. Lumping all citizens into an "American" category suggests that we are not of different ethnic stocks, when, in fact, we are. Citizenship can be manipulated legally, but nationality (people of like nativity) cannot be. Hale, however, has an interest in publicity, and using words like "nigger" tends to stir up the controversy that generates publicity. The more he is suppressed, the more radical he must be to get attention.

*I should have written "Negro US resident." I wrote this letter to Dr. Macauley before I learned that the ratification of the 14th Amendment was fraudulent and that, therefore, Blacks are not citizens.

You (allegedly) said:

By the way, Hitler's problem was not the attempt to exterminate European Jews. (In Hale's mind, that's just Jewish propaganda.) No, Hitler's problem was "nationalism" because it separated Germans from their natural group - guess who?

I reply:

The White race. Did you think that you had scored some sort of points with your obvious question? Again, Hale is right. Hitler did have racial nationalist hopes that transcended Germanism, but he did not base his party ideology or his official policies on them. That was one of his basic mistakes.

I believe that there might have been another, which Reverend Hale didn't mention. Adolf Hitler represented a social movement that was at least seventy years ahead of its time, and he tried to do with the resources of his country what required the resources of the entire White world. Although the strength of his fight was amazing, considering the circumstances, he could not hope to win a World War against the military power of the United States. National socialism really should have waited a bit, despite the hardships that the German people were experiencing during the 1930s because of the Jewish-led international boycott. The social ideology of the future would no more work in the past than the reverse.

And consider, if you will, the similarities between National Socialism in Germany between 1939-1944 and Zionism in the Middle East between 1930, or so, to the present. Inasmuch as the (Nazi) Holocaust is a gross exaggeration and the plaque, even the revised plaque, tolling the numbers of the dead at Auschwitz is a lie, it's rather clear that the Jews have engaged in "Nazi" practices more than the Nazis themselves did. Note, however, that I do not blame the Jews for advancing their own group interests. I blame liberal Whites for not having a comparable level of racial common sense.

You (allegedly) said:

In light of the explicitly threatening messages of the Web site (too numerous to cite exhaustively here) and the shooting rampage of one of Hale's fellow nuts, I do not believe this issue is simply a question of free speech.

I reply:

Benjamin Smith acted contrary to Reverend Hale's wishes and contrary to the established policy of the World Church of the Creator. Smith's crime was partly the result of anger over Hale's being denied a law license, and partly the result of intense anti-racist badgering immediately prior to the shooting. If Reverend Hale had known of Smith's mental condition before the shooting took place, he'd probably have advised Smith to take a vacation. What sort of idiot does it take to suppose that a Church would deliberately start a violent conflict that, if prolonged, would involve a war with the armed forces of the United States government?

And this is certainly a question of free speech. If Hale picks up a gun and begins shooting people, then he should go to jail along with Mr. Smith. But while he obeys the law, he should be allowed to practice law and to have the same access to his thinking fellow citizens as, say, you have. NWU students don't need you to filter their minds for them. They can examine Reverend Hale's message, each of them for themselves.

You (allegedly) said:

Members of World Church of the Creator pose a physical threat to our Jewish, African-American, Asian-American and Hispanic-American students. They should not be allowed on campus. I would support any efforts by the administration to keep them as far away as possible. -Melissa Macauley, Associate history professor

I reply:

When Creators break the law, they should go to jail. But before they break the law, they have all the rights that any other US citizen has. You engage in aggression as much as they do, when you advocate excluding them from the right to advocate.

Jerry Abbott
jna@ix.netcom.com

Another letter, sent to the "Daily Northwestern" on this same subject.

Isaac Baker's article, "NU hints at World Church rejection," [Daily Northwestern, 11 November 1999] plainly reveals the hypocrisy of the Politically Correct liberal establishment of Northwestern University. At the core of the controversy is a disagreement about whether destructive racial competition is inevitable in a multicultural society. On one side, Matthew Hale says "Yes it is, we must separate the races to gain a better world." On the other side are the liberals, who say that harmony among the races is possible and that multiculturalism doesn't necessarily produce interracial conflict.

Because Matthew Hale believes that racial violence is inevitable in a multicultural society, he advises White people to be prepared to fight when the conflict comes to their doorstep. He does not give orders to his church members to instigate such violence, and he has duly condemned and repudiated Benjamin Smith's crimes. A moment's thought would convince any rational person that Hale would not authorize a deed that would cast a shadow on his religious organization and on his bid for a license to practice law, but asking liberals to admit this, obvious though it is, is like trying to persuade a hungry dog to give up a big, meaty bone.

The liberals are being dishonest, as usual. They really don't want to debate Matthew Hale on the substance of his beliefs, and so they raise the obfuscatory alarmism that Hale is dangerous to the non-White students at NU. They could as easily scream that having a Zionist organization on campus would be dangerous to the university's Arab students, but, of course, they won't. We all know why that is, don't we?

Jerry Abbott