Ku Klux Klan Distributes Fliers in Virginia…Insists It’s Not a Hate Group

Ku_Klux_Klan_Virgina - CopyBY ELAINE MAGLIARO

Two weeks ago, the Richmond Times-Dispatch reported a story about the Ku Klux Klan distributing fliers in several neighborhoods in Chesterfield County, Virginia. The fliers—which were said to contain a hotline number, an email address, and two websites where people can learn more about the KKK—were left in people’s driveways and yards. The fliers proclaimed that the KKK was nonviolent, not a hate group—and not “enemies of the colored and mongrel races.”

One of the distributed fliers said, however, that “many people have experienced the blacks firsthand” and have seen the “savagery and animalism in many of these people.” According to the KKK fliers, the mission of the organization is “exalting the Caucasian race and teaching the doctrine of white supremacy.”

Marion L. Bines, a Chesterfield County resident, was upset. She said, “It’s the same old nonsense. I thought this stuff was extinct by now. I didn’t think people were still going around with this ignorance.”

Frank Ancona, president and imperial wizard of the Traditionalist American Knights of the Ku Klux Klan, said, “The thing that really gets me is that (people are) saying we’re teaching our children to hate people just because of their race, creed and color, and that’s a complete lie and falsehood.” Anacona, who is based in Missouri, complained that the KKK had “been dealt a bad hand by the media and the Union government after the Civil War.” He added that the group is “a fraternal organization that has specific values, including preserving the constitution as written and traditional Christian beliefs.”

Ancona said he was tired of “a few rogue Klansmen” ruining the group’s reputation. He told NBC 12, “We don’t hate people because of their race, I mean, we’re a Christian organization.” Ancona continued, “Because of the acts of a few rogue Klansmen, all Klansmen are supposed to be murderers, and wanting to lynch black people, and we’re supposed to be terrorists. That’s a complete falsehood.”

While Anacona insisted that the KKK isn’t a hate group, he admitted that “We just want to keep our race the white race.” He said, “We want to stay white. It’s not a hateful thing to want to maintain white supremacy.”

Nightline from ABC News : Inside the New Ku Klux Klan (2012)—Part 1

Nightline from ABC News : Inside the New Ku Klux Klan (2102)—Part 2


Virginia KKK Fliers: We’re Not The Enemy Of ‘The Colored And Mongrel Races’ (Talking Points Memo)

Chesterfield residents receive KKK fliers (Richmond Times-Dispatch)

Virginia KKK insists: We are not the ‘enemies of the colored and mongrel races’ (Raw Story)

Virginia Ku Klux Klan Tired Of Being So Misunderstood (Wonkette)

KKK Leader Disputes Hate Group Label: ‘We’re A Christian Organization’ (Huffington Post)

KKK leader: We don’t hate people because of their race (NBC 12)


Virginia KKK Uses Obama’s Presidency As A Recruiting Tool (ThinkProgress)

KKK says recruitment up as locals receive flyers (WTVR)

This entry was posted in Racism, Society, United States and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

45 Responses to Ku Klux Klan Distributes Fliers in Virginia…Insists It’s Not a Hate Group

  1. pdm says:

    Forgive me – this is OT but I gotta “share”

    Spinelli, Mr. Civility, over at the other place just wrote that he “thinks most Chinks are honest”.

    HOW can Turley tolerate this slug?

  2. Elaine M. says:


    I saw that today. Some things never change. I’ve taken to ignoring the petulant little man. He’s not worth the effort of a response.

  3. Still. That Turley would rather have nick’s “contributions” over others says a lot about JT. None of it flattering. Politeness and civility are often mistaken for one another, but the ignorance of that kind of comment is self-explanatory (but hardly unique).

    He wanted nick. He got him. His problem. Fuck ’em. And I mean that in the nicest way possible.

  4. gbk says:

    Speaking of “the other” it sounds like these Klansmen get their talking points from davidm.

  5. gbk,

    I’m really glad Elaine decided to cover this. I caught it in my filters earlier as a remarkable piece of spin and considered adding an analysis of it as propaganda to the series, but alas, time prevented me this week. It is a fine example of the difference between “spun” and “spun out” though. 😀

  6. swarthmoremom says:

    Nick caught my attention when he insulted asians when he first started posting. And yet he holds himself out as some expert on race relations.

  7. Blind Faithiness says:

    Anyone seen the 2012 documentary “The Last White Knight”? Very interesting look at the klan, then and now. The son of Medgar Evers’ killer and a returning Freedom Rider meet face-to-face to tell their remarkable story.

  8. pete says:

    I guess “hoodies” are okay for some.

  9. Mike Spindell says:

    “We want to stay white. It’s not a hateful thing to want to maintain white supremacy.”

    What an amazingly ironic quote this is in its complete lack of self-awareness. This represents a mind that thinks that the “haters” are those who detest “White Supremacy”.

    As for JT and Nick the sad truth is that of “birds of a feather……..”. Didn’t someone quote here in months back about JT doing a post where he called Richard Sherman a thug. This is the Richard Sherman who: “graduated in 2010 from Stanford with a degree in communication and returned for his final year of eligibility in order to begin a Masters degree.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Sherman_%28American_football%29 . Thug in football has been a code word for Black players who don’t act white enough and in effect is calling someone a “Nigger” with civility.
    in JT’s mind civility is all important.

  10. Blouise says:

    In a fit of thread-jumping I’m thinking of reverse-eugenics

  11. Oro Lee says:

    Blousie — why not?

    I once heard a fellow claim he wasn’t descended from no monkey. Another fellow noted that monkeys might be descended from man — if it provided ’em with a advantage in passing on their genes . They were talking pure genetics.

    At least since the neolithic revolution, culture has been driving human evolution as much if not more than genetics, at least according to Edward O. Wilson. Some may be driven to pass on genes (fundamentalist Christians with a boatload of kids} resulting in offspring unable to grasp a reality (climate change) at odds with a more readily consumable superstition (baby Jesus gonna save ’em) resulting in a species that has sowed seeds of its own destruction. So, why not?

    Mike, don’t the authoritarians have a higher birthrate than the rest of us?

  12. Tony C. says:

    Gene says: Still. That Turley would rather have nick’s “contributions” over others says a lot about JT.

    Agreed, and nick is an example petite of why “government” is needed in the first place; one person can pollute a commons to the point it is unusable by others, and thereby create harm to others for their selfish benefit, even if that benefit is just egoism. A blog is very much that sort of commons; a virtual park that must be somewhat policed lest it become the de facto private grounds of a gang or bully or wannabe “big man.” In other words, hijacked.

    I think JT wanted a selling point of some kind of tolerance of diversity in the name of free speech. But the commons will fail, for many reasons, it is a limited resource, and unlimited posting ability leads to hijacks and a dilution of commentary to the point of unusability.

    Upon reflection, I think the problem is less about what is said, even if hateful or insulting, and the more important aspect is the volume and frequency of it being said; and whether that constitutes an unfair taking (or even complete monopolization) of one’s share of the commons.

    For example, even if we overturned Citizens United, should one wealthy candidate be allowed to buy ALL the television and radio airtime in a State? Don’t we think that would create some kind of harm, not only to their opponents, but to democracy itself?

    For some kinds of property, one can purchase a right of first refusal. For example, a strip mall might arrange such a thing with the owner of an adjacent empty commercial lot, so if the owner decides to sell the property, or gets a legitimate offer on the property, the strip mall has the right to buy it, sometimes at a particular price (or a particular relative price, like 20% over the appraised value at the point of sale, or at the offer price the owner is willing to take plus $10K).

    Should a candidate be allowed to purchase a right of first refusal on a particular radio station’s advertising air time? e.g. Pay them $5K up front for essentially the right to deny their competitors any airtime on that station, with the guarantee to the radio station that all their time slots will be filled at a 20% premium? Is that part of free speech, or is it a denial of free speech?

  13. I find his post this morning about ABC allowing Nancy Grace to pollute the discussion on ABC strange. By changing a couple of names, he could be talking about the blog.

  14. Tony C. says:

    Oro Lee says: Mike, don’t the authoritarians have a higher birthrate than the rest of us?

    Whether true or false, I doubt that makes any difference. You are making the assumption that mindset is genetically inherited or produced by training. If both things were true — Authoritarianism is strongly heritable and Authoritarians have a higher birth rate — then the Authoritarians would wipe out the rest of us. But that hasn’t happened, they remain a large minority (at least 55% of people are non-Authoritarian). Which is similar to a gender split; certainly gender is a genetically determined trait, but we maintain a 50/50 split, because which gene one inherits is about a 50/50 chance. But even that relies on the 50/50 relationship between mother and father, and presumably Authoritarians are more likely to mate with each other than with non-Authoritarians. That would skew the ratio considerably.

    Which is the evidence that makes me suspect Authoritarianism is not a heritable trait at all, genetically or culturally, or is a very weak heritable “bias” to one side or the other, that can easily be overcome by environmental training, peer pressure, cultural norms, etc.

  15. Anonymouly Yours says:

    We like you so long as you are like us…… You sure people haven’t adopted this as a basic philosophy…..

  16. Anonymouly Yours says:

    Elaine….. Nick just has something for you….

  17. Elaine M. says:


    Ya think? I know he wants to get rid of me as a guest blogger at RIL. He keeps trying to bait me. I think he’s a sad, angry little man. He certainly has done damage to RIL.

  18. Mike Spindell says:

    “Mike, don’t the authoritarians have a higher birthrate than the rest of us?”

    Oro Lee,

    I imagine that they do have a higher birth rate. As to whether this is a genetically inherited disposition is something still up in the air. How much would it be nurture in the sense of the effect of children growing up in an authoritarian environment, would they tend to be authoritarians? From what we see of religious fundamentalists, perhaps the ultimate authoritarians, the education of their children is quite limited. Would a limited education, in addition to parents authoritarian mindset, tend to create authoritarian children? I don’t know if a study has been done, but if it has I’d be quite interested in seeing it.

  19. Elaine,

    Sadder still is he probably thinks he’s the reason Mike and I left when speaking for myself it wasn’t him but rather JT’s incredibly poor handling of the situation and inability to see that free speech is not a stand alone right but exists within the context of other rights (including self-defense). To his seemingly celebrity addled mind, our “fame by association” somehow meant we abdicated our other inherent rights. Which is, of course, utter nonsense. What Tony said above is a concise encapsulation of the mechanic by which JT has allowed nick (and to a lesser degree davidm) to dilute the value of the commons. All the current malaise at RIL, from the increased trollery to the decrease of general quality of conversation? I lay squarely at JT’s feet. He’s been a mostly absentee landlord and (as relayed to me and another long time and now absent poster over there who shall remain nameless) he isn’t the person he presents himself as being. I think this latter part is true especially when he feels his “fame” is endangered. At that point, principled reasoning seemed to go out the window. I think he forgets he “became famous because he was good” (i.e. he had a civil and human rights stance that resonated with a lot of people who see/sense the growing oligarchical oppression in the world and our country) and somewhere along the line started thinking he was “famous because he was him”. The alternative being that he’s a hypocrite or has a fundamentally unbalanced understanding of rights within the context of other rights instead of simply a bit lost . . . and I don’t think that is the case at all. Well, maybe a bit flawed in understanding rights within the context of other rights. How much of that flawed understanding is based in his “fame poisoning” and how much is substantive is an open issue with me considering the behind the scenes conversations that led to the schism.

    Without a doubt though, the times I’ve looked in over there, it is a lesser place than it once was and I can say that without any hint of my ego in that analysis. That I’m no longer there is irrelevant. What brought and kept me there so long ago – namely the high quality conversation? Is simply gone.

  20. Mike Spindell says:

    As for RIL, which I continue not to visit, people like Nick and DavidM weren’t the problem. The problem was JT and his need to maintain himself as someone with “standing” inside the Beltway. He wanted me gone and I suspect he wanted Gene gone, because we were perceived by him as “loose cannons”. This is a sad truth about me that actually was a feature of my former career. Though I rose dramatically through the ranks in NYC’s HRA, there was never a chance of me becoming a Deputy Commissioner (a coveted position), simply because I was too outspoken and refused to play any game but my own. From the perspective of any organization that I’d be a part of this is a major flaw because I could never be trusted to be “the good soldier”. From my own perspective though, I’ve examined this aspect of me and it’s one that I like in myself and prefer.

    My discovery, through years working in bureaucracy is that in any “organization” (and RIL is an organization of sorts) there comes a point where your loyalty to the leader will be tested. I was always quite loyal as long as that “leader” operated within a range that my “ethical conscience” encompassed. If the “leader” strayed beyond those bounds, then I would no longer feel bound by loyalty. JT clearly gave the message that Nick was not to be responded to and I not only directly told JT he was wrong in an exchange of guest blogger E Mails, but on the threads I kept attacking Nick. From JT’s perspective I put him into an untenable position. This is why he reached out to other GB’s personally to ask them to stay, but choose to only deal with me in a setting where he had witnesses and his words gave him deniabilty. His problem was my long history at RIL and the fact that I had gained some respect among the readers. To directly “fire” me would have been unseemly. He gave me enough rope to in effect hang myself and I recognized the signs putting the noose around my neck with gusto.

    The question is do I think he did me wrong and my answer is that he didn’t. His blog, his rules and his comfort level, I am the only person to blame for my leaving because I clearly could have stayed had I followed JT’s program. I wouldn’t do that because as the years went by my attitude towards JT changed. He was not the person I imagined him to be when I first saw him years ago on MSNBC. I projected onto him a mindset that really wasn’t there, except in my imagination and thus elevated him in my esteem. As the years went on I found myself less able to justify publicly JT’s views (Citizen’s United for instance) and more in the position of challenging those views.

    While he and I are both civil libertarians, he is more of an “absolutist” than I am. Freedom of expression for instance can be used as an effective tool against “civil liberties” as Nick showed at RIL. The simple difference between JT and me is he believes in the “System” and its processes. I believe that the “System” and its processes are corrupt. I believe the path towards dealing with that corruption is trying to get people to understand what is happening beyond the “smoke and mirrors”. JT believes that the corruption can be dealt with through the legal process and in believing such has put himself into a comfortable and respected position. He has accomplished certainly more than I have ever accomplished, or ever will accomplish.

    When I was a young man, tall, attractive and a wonderful extemporaneous public speaker I saw myself in politics, as a potential star. In my first political race for the Presidency of my Union I did quite well given my resources. In the aftermath, however, I realized that in the passion of my quest for victory I had betrayed many of the things that caused me to run in the first place. I understood why I had betrayed my conscience and realized too that to succeed in politics I would have to learn the skills of compartmentalization. The choice of how to proceed was mine and I chose to give up politics as a career option. As my career played out I found I had to make that choice many times and I always stayed with my conscience. The question was never that “I could have been a contender” but rather that I didn’t have the emotional makeup to be a contender. JT in his metier is not a “contender”, but a “champion”. I’m content with my lot in life in “obscurity” as one of the other guest bloggers put it to me when I was deciding to leave. So it goes.

  21. Elaine M. says:


    The creationists/science deniers have been active over at RIL. There are some who would rather curse the darkness than to light the candle of knowledge.

  22. Mike Spindell says:

    And what Gene and Tony said.

  23. swarthmoremom says:

    Birthers have been showing up over at RIL again. Who wants to spend their time debating birthers, creationists and bigots?

  24. Anonymouly Yours says:

    What everyone said…..

    And yes Elaine….. He’s got something for you….. In reality I think he’s fearful of intelligent women…. And to me…. That’s a big selling point….. He will smooze you so long as he thinks he has the upper hand or is smarter than you…. Other than that he will bait you….

    I have been wondering if he’s part of a group effort to destabilize rational talk at Turley and turn into a right wing cauldron….

  25. Elaine M. says:


    “I have been wondering if he’s part of a group effort to destabilize rational talk at Turley and turn into a right wing cauldron….”

    I think you’re not the only one who has wondered about that.

  26. Anonymouly Yours says:

    I’m slow… I guess… Elaine…

  27. Mike,

    To echo your comment, I know systems can work, but the systems as it stands are manifestly broken in many ways and sometimes on purpose.

  28. swarthmoremom says:

    Whatever nick is, Turley welcomes his type and posts quite a few topics that appeal to him and his fellow travelers. Anti” PC”, anti democrat, and anti-union seem to be nick’s main things. Not sure that he is a creationist or birther .Like I said before, Turley’s TV appearances are now on Fox, either on the Sean Hannity show or the Megyn Kelly show.

  29. swarthmoremom says:

    And anti-teacher but particularly a unionized public school teacher.

  30. Elaine M. says:


    He’s most definitely anti teacher/anti public education.

  31. “Fame is a fickle mistress who makes harlots and whores of her companions.” – Something William Shakespeare Should Have Said

  32. Anonymouly Yours says:

    Buddha would have stated that….

  33. Did you know that the original meaning of the word “harlot” was basically a synonym for “buffoon”?

    True story.

  34. Blouise says:

    In my opinion that other place is exactly as the owner wants it to be. The owner may be many things but a victim he definitely is not.

  35. swarthmoremom says:

    Blouise, Absolutely not a victim.

  36. Anonymouly Yours says:

    Has anyone seen this ……l


    Snoopy drone steals cellular data looking for cellular towers…… From the black hat convention….

  37. Mike Spindell says:

    Um…..uh……This may be an unfair question, but has Jonathan ever represented any people of color in his Constitutional cases? I can’t remember any and his Wiki entry doesn’t name any.

  38. OroLee says:

    An absolutist civil rights attorney . . . for the privileged white. Or am I being thuggish?

  39. gbk says:

    It would be nice to bring this thread back to the article that Elaine submitted.

  40. Tony C. says:

    gbk: Well, make an observation or something. Elaine’s article is interesting, but it is hard for me to think of anything to say about the KKK specifically other than they are delusional and I wish their members and the idea of white supremacy would just fucking die already, the world would be better off by subtraction. But such a statement does not inform the argument at all.

    Other than that, I suppose you could broaden this to observations on free speech, and try to link it to other freedoms that can turn toxic like religion and Fred Phelps. Or link it to terrorism, which is what the KKK practices. Or link it to politics; isn’t white supremacy akin to other kinds of supremacy? Like the idea that America and Americans are inherently better than the citizens of other countries, or the religious are superior to the atheists, or the rich are superior to the poor, or men are superior to women, or Christians are superior to Muslims?

    Anyway. On this specific article, we can only say the KKK are stupid racists a few times, then we are done.

Comments are closed.