— — —
“Sometimes Americans forget that this country
was founded on white supremacy.”
(Heidi Beirich, May 2017)
Heidi Beirich, long of the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), a US political commissar-like organization, was in the news recently (late Oct. 2019) as the latest high-ranking SPLC’er to be “purged” in what outsiders see as an ongoing, internal power struggle.
I present Heidi Beirich’s origin story: family, ancestry, and life trajectory, largely drawn from research original to this post and not previously available anywhere in anything like coherent form. (If you wish to use any of this information, please cite this post as the source.)
It turns out that Beirich spent the first twenty-five or so years of her life (through about 1992) in Southern California. Her childhood and adolescent years (early 1970s to early 1980s) were during the critical period when California was on in its early stages of being ‘lost’ (See: “Who Lost California?” [post]; see also Beirich’s own 2010s-era account of what White politics were like in 1980s California and follow-on comment from Alden [section of this post].)
In the course of this investigation, I also find some tantalizing clues on possible origins of Beirich’s politics, including Beirich’s own account of her left-wing radicalization, which I will post below. Following this are some thoughts of my own on what, in Beirich’s own recent ancestry, may have led her to turn towards left-wing extremism.
Towards the end of this post, I also present information on the political situation in Heidi Beirich’s mother’s hometown in Germany and the full voting results in her mother’s district in the 2017 national election.
The post ends with a question, “Will Heidi Beirich finally publish her book?” The working title of which has been long rumored to be: “Western Civilization: 3500 Years of Extremism.”
— — —
Investigation into Heidi Beirich’s personal origins
Not much is available online on Beirich’s personal origins, a void I am hoping the substantial amount of material compiled in this post will fill.
The Center for Immigration Studies published a profile on her in 2018 (“Heidi Beirich: A Character Assassin Under the Banner of ‘Peace, Respect, and Understanding'”), but it contains little to no solid biographical material beyond where she earned her degrees. Nothing on her family origins, nor on her upbringing. Not much of any kind of biographical info. Beirich also has no wikipedia entry, despite her long career as a left-wing political commissar and her substantial influence on US politics.
I’ve compiled a substantial amount of biographical material on Beirich, drawn from a variety of public sources, which I think (hope) gives us a well-rounded picture of the woman and is instructional in more general terms.
I believe this post to constitute the most substantial, comprehensive biography of Beirich ever published. It includes much primary material, including her own rather negative views on the California she knew in the 1970s and 1980s.
— — —
Heidi Beirich, Family Origin and Life Timeline
– Heidi Beirich’s father Russell Beirich (1933–2013) was of German-Catholic origin and partly raised in Kansas, partly in Denver; he graduated from Regis Jesuit High School, Denver, in 1951; two of his four grandparents, and all eight of his great-grandparents, were born in Germany, and emigrated to the US Midwest in the late 19th century; Russell’s father was listed on the 1930 census as a clerk at a wholesale grocery store in Colby, Kansas [note: Colby, Kansas, today constitutes seven-tenths of the population of 97%-white Thomas County in western Kansas; the county went 81–13 Trump-Hillary in 2016, as often seen in Middle America in 2016, this was the best-ever R result for that county];
– Heidi’s mother Evelyn (nee Paschmann) (born ca. 1939) is a native of Kaldenhausen, Germany (Ruhr area), who is very likely also of Christian origin. Kaldenhausen (now merged into the Rumeln-Kaldenhausen district of Duisburg) may have historically been as high as 75–25 Protestant–Catholic (per 1861 census), with historically a stronger Calvinist tradition than most other areas of Germany (Lutheran); Evelyn’s hometown was down to 55–45 Protestant–Catholic by the mid-20th century, presumably due to Polish and other labor migration to the ‘Ruhrpott’ that had occurred since. (See below for how Rumeln-Kaldenhausen voted in the Sept. 2017 German national election.)
– 1961: Heidi’s parents marry, after having “met on a train in Belgium while [her father] was serving in the U.S. Army” (draftee serving about late 1950s to 1960 or ’61?) and set up their married life in Palm Springs, Riverside, California, where they lived thereafter for twenty years, before moving to San Diego;
– Heidi was born in July 1967 in Palm Springs, California (younger brother follows, b.1971); Heidi’s father was working at an accounting firm at this time, eventually becoming Senior Partner, and was active in local politics in the 1970s until (apparently) moving south to San Diego about 1982;
– 1981-82 academic year: As a freshman at Palm Springs High School, Heidi wins the “ninth grade departmental prize for excellence in social studies” (Desert Sun, 3 July 1982), an early indication of what was to come; the family moves to Vista, San Diego County, probably right after Heidi completed ninth grade in Palm Springs;
– June 1985: Graduates from Vista High School, San Diego, California;
– 1989: Graduates with BA, Berkeley, Developmental Studies;
– 1991: Graduates with MA, University of California at Riverside, Economics;
– 1998: Graduates with PhD, Purdue University, Political Science; dissertation dealt with “white nationalism and neo-fascism;” in her 2017 ABC interview, the interviewer calls the degree a “PhD in Fascism;”
– 1999: Starts at the SPLC as an intern for the Intelligence Report, full control of which she inherited in Jan. 2012;
– 2000s and 2010s: Heidi is frequently at work behind the scenes attempting to ‘deplatform’ political opponents and/or get them fired, etc.; Heidi Beirich thus transitions into a kind of US political commissar, the kind of position the US government cannot directly set up but to which it can effectively outsource; in her ‘commissar’ capacity she begins to frequently appear quoted in the media attacking conservatives, immigration restrictionists, Christian patriots, all kinds of nationalists (if white), and other right-winger oppositionists, with defacto support from the state;
– 2008: Publishes book, Neo-Confederacy: A Critical Introduction (as editor and author of several chapters);
– 2010s: Having risen in the SPLC ranks, she begins to draw a highly comfortable salary of $150,000 (in fiscal 2016; acc. to IRS filing) with a further $21,000-worth of fringe benefits; this is more than fellow commissar Mark Potok ($138,000), but much less than pre-purge Morris Dees ($358,000) and President & CEO Richard Cohen ($351,000);
– Oct. 2019: Fired from SPLC in unclear circumstances. Unmarried, no children, age 52.
— — —
Heidi Beirich’s own account of her political radicalization in 1980s Southern California
In the biographical-timeline above, we see that Beirich was born and raised to age 15 in Palm Springs, Riverside County, California, and then spent politically formative years in northern San Diego County, from around 1982 to mid 1985. After that she was, at least when the semester was on, far north attending classes at Berkeley (fall 1985 to spring 1989 semesters, presumably).
In Beirich’s telling of her own political story, the years she spent in San Diego County, in a place called Vista, California — full-time from ca.1982 to mid-1985, and now and then thereafter — were critical to her political radicalization.
Two street scenes of present-day Vista, San Diego County, California:
By the 1990s, having left sunny Vista, California, behind, Beirich emerges as a left-wing crusader against White right-wing politics, against (what she might call) Christian fascism, and definitely against any sort of white racialist- or nationalist sympathies in any form.
Here is Beirich, in her own words, in an ABC News interview for a program called “Uncomfortable,” May 16, 2017. (The interviewer is Amna Nawaz, of Pakistani origin.)
I’ve transcribed the relevant portion of the interview (1:30–3:15):
Interviewer: I’m curious about you — How someone comes to work in ‘Hate.’ Tell me about you.
Heidi Beirich: Well, it was a bit of a round-about thing [laughs].
So I was in graduate school getting my PhD at Purdue University. I was studying Fascism in Europe. I was actually studying Spain, specifically. I knew about the Southern Poverty Law Center because when I was growing up, when I was in high school, at Vista High School in the Eighties, one of my friends was actually the son of the head of the White Aryan Resistance, at the time.
Interviewer: Really –!
Heidi Beirich: Yeah, the guy’s name is Tom Metzger. Not the son, but the father.
Interviewer: And where were you growing up?
Heidi Beirich: It’s northern San Diego County. Vista, California.
Tom Metzger was sued by the Southern Poverty Law Center. His organization was sued, frankly, out of existence. Some of its members, skinheads, were involved in the beating death of an Ethiopian immigrant in Portland. So when I was in high school, this lawsuit was going on [Heidi’s timeline on her political awakening is off; see note below –Hail], and I knew —
Interviewer: This was your friend’s father —
Heidi Beirich: My friend’s father, John Metzger, who went to a different high school but I would run into him on swim team and other situations.
Interviewer: Wow —
Heidi Beirich: So I was very, very cognizant of the SPLC from a young age. I also had friends, when I was at Vista High School, who got sucked into White Aryan Resistance’s skinhead movement. …So I…knew people who became racist skinheads connected with Metzger.
We see that Heidi Beirich, in front of a highly sympathetic interviewer, characterizes Tom Metzger’s group in the 1980s as the origin point for her move towards the Hard Left (or the “Ctrl-Left,” certainly a valid label in this case).
This is a useful datapoint, but the caveat should always be that autobiography is often self-serving. I don’t doubt that Metzger’s racialist-nationalist group was of some kind of importance to her then-forming political consciousness as a teenager (at which time, we learn she was — against stereotype — an athlete on the school swim team). But allow me a moment to analyze the claim, as after checking it I find at least one glaring problem:
Heidi’s timeline on her political awakening is off. She tells the interviewer, “[W]hen I was in high school, this lawsuit was going on,” referring to the SPLC’s lawsuit over the murder of an Ethiopian immigrant. She may be misremembering this, or is confusing it with something else, because the the murder of the Ethiopian immigrant happened in Nov. 1988, by which time Heidi (b.1967) was in her final academic year at Berkeley. The SPLC then filed the suit against Metzger in Nov. 1989 (the day before Thanksgiving, in fact) (a few weeks after the jubilations back in Heidi’s ancestal Fatherland over the opening of the Berlin Wall), and the trial opened in Oct. 1990, closing the same month.
Beirich graduated from high school in June 1985 and the events related to the SPLC lawsuit are in late 1989 and 1990, meaning her narrative (“when I was in high school, this lawsuit was going on”) is off by five years.
Beirich’s mixing up her own political-awakening timeline conveniently presents herself, in anecdote form, as a frightened teenager and thus sympathetic, and not as the early-mid 20s elite-college graduate she was. What to make of this? It was either a case of misremembering, or a deliberate attempt to ‘retcon’ the story to maker herself look more like the victim, with the hope that no one checks on the specifics. It’s possible both things are going on, and the latter not even consciously. Memory is not perfect. Heidi was back in her native Riverside, California, working towards an MA in Economics when the lawsuit was filed, so at least she was her geography was right. I’d therefore suggest an on-the-spot misremembering:retconning ratio of 70:30.
Beirich’s early-1990s decision to pursue the academic-activist life
The fact that Beirich decided, by about early 1989, to pursue an MA in Economics is worth highlighting and worth a further word.
We see from this choice (and to a lesser extent also in her choice of undergraduate major, Developmental Studies) that Beirich was, in her early 20s, conflicted on what she wanted to do: Should she follow in her accountant father’s footsteps, or should she go for the academic-activist life? The latter won out decisively for her by the early 1990s. Her “work-tivism” has been pretty similar from her PhD program to present. She did left-wing political science at Purdue, ca. 1992 to 1998, before being hired by the SPLC in 1999.
— — —
Heidi Beirich on Southern California Politics in the 1980s
Back to Heidi Beirich’s own retrospective analysis on the political situation in the Southern California she knew in the 1970s/1980s, again in the 2017 ABC interview:
Heidi Beirich: There was very strong white nationalist and anti-government activism in the whole region [Southern California]. Orange County’s the next county to the north in California [above San Diego County]. That’s where the John Birch Society had a huge foothold in the Sixties and the Seventies.
So, the whole region — which is so different today, right [rolls eyes on the word ‘so’] — It’s multi-ethnic, right, it’s not the same!
Heidi Beirich: The whole region had some very extremist politics infecting it. In fact, [laughs], my high school history teacher was like somebody out of Dr. Strangelove. He was a rabid anti-communist. Didn’t think Reagan was radical enough. So there was a lot of this going on in the area.
I have tried, in the transcript above, to faithfully reproduce the stresses Beirich puts on words. She stresses the word ‘Reagan,’ which in context suggests she believes Reagan was a “radical.” This is puzzling but just shows Beirich’s commitment to left-wing partisanism. On Ronald Reagan’s legacy in California as two-term governor, see the section on Reagan in the Hail To You post “Who Lost California?“:
The point here is to say that whatever Reagan was doing in California in the late 1960s and 1970s, he was already aiming for 1600 Pennsylvania Ave, three thousand miles to the east. We know he had presidential aspirations as early as 1967. As a presidential aspirant he must have believed/realized that he could not be seen to be any kind of hardliner, despite his conservative credentials. If one is looking for why Reagan didn’t do more in the late 1960s and early 1970s, when he had such a strong hand to play in California and could have accomplished nearly anything in the state, this really is it.
A commenter named Alden says this on Beirich’s characterization of Southern California as a right-wing, racialist hotbed:
She’s lying. By 1980 Orange and San Diego county were turning left for various reasons. Conservatism [was] on its way out by the time she was in high school.
And since 1958 every high school history book in California public high schools was full of McCarthy was a Nazi persecutor of liberals and anti free speech, the Hollywood Ten Martyrs, Roosevelt was a combination of fairy godmother and Jesus, evil isolationist Lindbergh and others in the 1930s, the holy crusade against evil Nazis evil southerners lynching blacks […] the entire liberal brainwashing of the public schools.
Here is the graph I made elsewhere using census data to show the White population’s relative and absolute decline during the period in question:
Note the rapid “closing of the gap” during Southern California-native Heidi Beirich’s formative years, the 1970s and 1980s.
By this reasoning, one can take anyone born/raised in California, place them along the graph during a window of Birth+15 Years or Birth+20 Years (I would suggest Age 4 to 19 as the political-formative window), and see where they fit to get a rough idea of the (statewide) racial-political conditions they experienced in their formative years. This is an instant-analysis look for a quick possible clue as to the origins of a given person’s own political thinking. (If extending the graph back earlier, the White:Nonwhite ratio maintains a steady steady 8:1 or higher well back into the 19th century.)
For Beirich (b.1967), the politically formative Age-4-to-19 range was 1971 to 1987, distinctly during the critical period of steady White displacement in California that immediately preceded White decline in that state, a process profiled at some length in “Who Lost California?”. When Beirich was 19 (mid-1986 to mid-1987), the loss of White California may have already been a ‘done deal’ and only a matter of time (absent some kind of political cataclysm on the scale of the breakup of the USSR).
I would suggest, therefore, the possibility of a kind of political Stockholm Syndrome,
Beirich as a case of ‘political Stockholm Syndrome’
The young Beirich joining the perceived winning side as an unconscious defense mechanism seems reasonable as a general explanation for her political turn (to which I refer elsewhere in this essay as her “radicalization”), if knowing nothing else.
To the extent this Stockholm Syndrome Politics theory has merit, it probably explains quite many of the people like Beirich in the b.1970s cohort in places like California, and b.1980s and b.1990s Beirich-like figures elsewhere. Beirich is thus a good early case of this phenomenon, and indeed this essay constitutes a ‘case study’ thereof.
(With the b.2000s cohort set to begin to enter political life in the 2020s, I would expect both more of these political-Stockholm-Syndrome whites, of which Beirich may be an early example. I would also, for various reasons, expect to see more of the opposite among this age-cohort, more of ‘Those Who Can See,’ to use a line from They Live and the name of an excellent research-commentary blog run by M.G. Miles; Hail To You is among the latter; as a b.1980s American in an area ahead of the demographic-change curve, I recognize the power of ‘Political Stockholm Syndrome’ and have observed it often.)
— — —
Other explanations for Heidi Beirich’s Radicalization
The portrait of Heidi Beirich we have up to now feels incomplete. We know the ‘when,’ but we don’t know the ‘why’ for her move to the Hard Left, except that is roughly aligns with the vast increase in foreigners in her state.
All we have from her is a rather-questionable assertion that she was frightened by the “skinhead” movement of the 1980s, and so much so that she radicalized. She claims to have seen acquaintances get involved in the Metzger group and that this led her, in righteous indignation, to the Left; she then drifted further and further into an unhealthily ethnomasochist Left by the late 1990s. Her personal trajectory landed her in a career with the left-wing inquisitor group at which she spent twenty years.
I cannot be alone in feeling that Beirich’s characterization of her own journey to the ethnomasochist Left (i.e., fear and indignation at Skinheads) is a self-serving one. I cannot be alone in feeling there must be more to this story.
I’d really like to understand this, but I don’t know Beirich, have never met her or any of her family or friends or the like, and can only see her through her quasi-public persona (as a “domestic left-wing political commissar,” as it were).
Here is a hypothesis that coalesced in my mind as I was researching her recent ancestry:
A theory on Heidi Beirich’s left-wing radicalization: ‘Blowback’ from late-1940s US policy of ‘denazification’
I suggest above that Heidi Beirich’s formative years in Southern California, during the period when the state was fast losing its White-Christian supermajority, could have been fertile ground for Heidi’s left-wing radicalization, in which political conditions possibly reacted with something in her personality to produce a kind of ‘(ethno)political Stockholm Syndrome’ by which she psychologically ‘dove in’ to the ascendant side.
The great majority of people in such circumstances, though, do not radicalize. Residence in Southern California alone cannot be all there is to the Beirich political origin story. What else is there?
A few people in Steve Sailer’s comment section made one or another remark on Heidi’s ancestry, with some implying they had assumed she was Jewish; Heidi appears to have no Jewish ancestry at all. Once I posted the result of my initial genealogical investigation showing that Beirich to be of entirely German ancestry, many other comments relating to her ‘Germanness,’ her German-Catholic ancestral origins, appeared.
I expanded on their thoughts by saying that
Heidi Beirich is also not just any old American of German ancestry. She has a German-born-and-raised mother. Her mother’s maiden name, Paschmann, is also the name of a chain of grocery stores in the Ruhrgebiet area of Germany.
Maybe there is more to the story via the mother.
It turns out that Heidi Beirich’s German mother was of the exact right age to have been exposed, at a vulnerable age, to the intense de-Nazification of the late 1940s — the psychological conditioning of a defeated and occupied people. A people whose country had just been cut in several ugly chunks; millions, from the less-fortunate ‘chunks,’ had lost everything and become westward-bound refugees in their own land; the picture of the Germans ca.1946 as a people standing amid ruined cities, huddling together for warmth, metaphorically for all but often also literally for many, as starvations and the like thinned the ranks on the margins (such deaths only tapered off in occupied Germany, I believe, by early 1948).
(The timing here partly depends on Heidi’s mother’s age at marriage in 1961 to Mr. Beirich of Kansas/Denver, then-recently of the US Army. We would expect a GI bride to be a few years younger than the GI groom [the latter being b.1933 in this case], which would put Heidi’s mother at born circa late 1930s and probably no later than 1940. A 1939 birth would have mother Evelyn turning 22 during her marriage year of 1961, and also thus of elementary school age during the most intense period of denazification.)
This timing, with Heidi’s mother early youth (circa ages 7 to 11) spent in a ruined, occupied Germany, subject to a comprehensive program of psychological conditioning, leads to the idea that Heidi Beirich could be an example of ‘blowback’ to the late-1940s US policy of intense denazification, and of blowback against the enthusiastic promotion, towards the denazification policy aim, of any and all atrocity claims, including the wildest, blackest, and least substantiated, some of which hardened into unquesitoned narrative by the late 20th century.
This is to say that Heidi’s mother would have been subject to a religious-cult-like indoctrination on the evils of Germany/Germans specifically, and against nationalistic feelings generally, which could have magnified or weaponized other political strains she inherited from her family.
Given that we tend to get our politics from our parents, it is not so hard to imagine that such views could plausibly have been passed down to daughter Heidi Beirich — in whom they became ‘weaponized,’ to our detriment, in the 2000s and 2010s era.
[End of Post]
— — —
[Addendum I, on voting patterns in Kaldenhausen]
The 2010s-era politics of Heidi Beirich’s mother’s hometown in Germany
Without some serious primary research, it is hard to make any more progress on Heidi’s mother and the ‘blowback’ hypothesis, presented in this post. But we can look for clues on the margins, one of which is to look at the politics of/in her specific town of origin — Kaldenhausen, the Ruhrgebiet, Germany.
If records are available on how this town voted in the critical elections of the 1920s and early 1930s, and to some extent also the elections in the early Federal Republic in the 1950s, those would be of interest. I cannot readily locate such records, but if anyone reading this can, please leave a comment.
We do have the voting patterns in Heidi Beirich’s mother’s hometown in the 2010s, though. The most recent national election, as of this writing, is the Sept. 2017 Bundestagswahl, and the results for the town of Kaldenhausen may be of interest here. I will record and comment on them here.
Beirich’s mother’s hometown is in the present-day voting district of “Bundestagswahlkreis Duisburg I” which had 168,000 voters on the rolls as of 2017. The district historically voted Social Democrat (SPD) with a strong but generally secondary CDU base. (Since 2016, though, voters across Germany have turned against the SPD-CDU duopoloy that has co-administered Germany under most of the long tenure of “Madman Merkel,” overseer — and, in part, director of — the 2015–16 migration disaster. In this district [Duisburg I], there was a net move of 12% from SPD-CDU to the right-wing parties with a nationalist component.)
In Sept. 2017, the voters in “Duisburg I” re-elected a woman named Bärbel Bas (SPD) to represent them in the Bundestag. Frau Bas (born May 1968) is about the same age as Heidi Beirich (born July 1967).
A glance at Bas’ biography shows that she and Beirich have led somewhat parallel, political lives even if across oceans, except that Beirich is a more extreme and activist version of the same archetype.
(Frau Bas was involved in local politics in her area, as an SPD’er, beginning about 1990; Beirich was doing her left-wing political science PhD in the 1990s, before linking up with the SPLC in 1999; Bas describes on her website that she was one of six children but herself has none, though she is married; Beirich is unmarried and no children. So the n=2 final fertility rate for these daughters of the Ruhrgebiet is “zero point zero.”)
Voting patterns of Heidi Beirich’s mother’s hometown in the present day
Here are the totals for Zweitstimmen (party-list votes) in the Sept. 2017 federal election for Bundestagswahlkreis Duisburg I (incl. Kaldenhausen, in which Heidi’s mother had grown up, some sixty to eighty years earlier):
— 58% of the vote for ‘The Establishment’ (the so-called “Volksparteien,” a term that may soon be retired as the two combined are polling well below 50%) and post-Migrant-Crisis Merkelites [a net loss of -12 points vs. 2013, on the rise of the AfD]
— — SPD (Social Democratic Party), 32%;
— — CDU (Christian Democratic Union), 26%.
— 22% of the vote for Rightist (of various kinds), Nationalist, and anti-Ethnoreplacement parties [+11 points vs. 2013]
— — AfD (Alternative für Deutschland), 11%;
— — FDP (Free Democratic Party), 10% (note: this party actually sits approximately between the ‘Establishment’ and ‘Right-Wing,’ but when the “cards were down,” they are reliable, as shown by their walkout and derailing of the then-forming government in 2017, in protest against a Green and Merkelite drive for more Islamic asylum seekers);
— — an aggregate of 1% for minor right-wing parties (NPD, Volksabstimmung, Freie Wähler, ÖDP [the ‘right-wing green party’], Deutsche Mitte).
— 17% of the vote for Leftist and strongly pro-Ethnoreplacement parties [+1 point due to gains by the Turko-Islamic party]
— — Die Linke, 9% (partial descendants of the East German regime party; in the west, as in the Ruhrgebiet, an ‘Antifa’ element is predominant);
— — Greens, 6.6%;
— — Allianz Deutscher Demokraten, 1.3% (a Turko-Islamic party);
— — An aggregate of 0.3% for old-line Marxists (the Marxist-Leninist Party of Germany; the “Socialist Unity Party of the 4th International;” and the DKP [Detsche Kommunistiche Partei]).
— Other parties, 3% (mainly single-issue and oddball parties like the Animal Protection Party and the party whose only platform item is Universal Basic Income; also joke parties like the Pirate Party); a total of 1.7% of votes cast were ‘spoiled ballots,’ many of which were probably also spoiled in protest.
Comment: One can guess which category, above, Beirich would gravitate towards, if she were back in the ancestral Heimat.
— — —
Will Heidi Beirich finally publish her book?
Lawrence Auster once had an exchange with a still-moving-up-in-the-commissar-ranks Heidi Beirich which he posted on. One of Auster’s readers, Van Wijk, commented:
[Heidi Beirich wrote:] “[…] we are the only publication that is wholesale dedicated to the topic of American extremism […]”
This is possibly the most amusing thing I’ve read all month. If a pocket of Western people who want to see their own survive as a culture and as a nation qualifies as extremism, what could possibly be mainstream? What is normal to a person like this?
Perhaps she could write a book entitled “Western Civilization: 3500 Years of Extremism.”
I pray that Ms. Beirich lives to see her revolution annihilated; its fields razed, its cattle and flocks taken, and its city walls smashed.
Now, with Heidi’s new-found freedom in light her apparent purge from the SPLC in 2019, she finally has the time to get that book written and published.
I can see it now:
Western Civilization: 3500 Years of Extremism
— by Heidi Beirich, PhD
— Forthcoming: Jan. 20, 2021
— Dedicated to the memory of Dr. Noel Ignatiev (“Abolish the White Race”)
[End of original post]
— — —
Update, July 2020: Beirich is back in the news. In July 2020 she and a confederate named Wendy Via have successfully ordered another mass purge of European activists. See comment for more.
— — —
— — —
Pingback: “Who Lost California?” The ‘When,’ the ‘Who,’ and the ‘Why’ of California’s Decline from Midwest-on-the-Pacific to Brazil-on-the-Pacific | Hail To You
See also, this:
“It’s like white people can’t handle the idea that there are devils in our midst.” — Heidi Beirich, Apr. 2017 (quoted in Huffington Post).
I think the biggest reason for her anti-white ideology is her pitbull-like looks. Seriously. Most white men would want nothing to do with a woman who looked like her and she would be painfully aware of this. Being rejected by white males she had crushes on in school and then the workplace would have built up a huge amount of resentment in her that ultimately manifested as hatred of white men. All white men.
That would peg the origins of her political fixation in her formative years, circa the mid-1980s. It would be an interesting theory to test. I don’t know that she has ever been asked questions like that; it is true that she has never been married. It is also true that she herself identifies the 1980s as the key period in her move towards Ethnomasochism.
Ironically, in a healthy, low-to-no-net-migration, nationalist-leaning, somewhat-traditionalist-leaning society, Heidi could well have been married, to someone. Could have even had a family. She is no dummy in an IQ sense and could have done good for her people, instead of what has happened. In a sense I do view her, at this level of analysis, as a victim, of the same system the nationalists aim to fight against.
Thanks for an interesting analysis. Stockholm Syndrome and Denazification Blowback are both interesting hypotheses I would not necessarily have thought of, and they undoubtedly account of part of the Beirich phenomenon. Nevertheless, I think the most significant sentence in your analysis may be
“Unmarried, no children”.
Combine that with Christian Identity Australia’s undeniable observation that Ms. Beirich is obviously hideous, and an important axis of investigation emerges.
Ms. Beirich had all the ingredients: fair skin, blonde hair, blue eyes, Northern European ancestry, she claims to have been on a hard-body-producing swim team, yet somehow the ingredients never came together for her. Even in the more youthful pictures, she looks repugnant. And this would be aggravated by the fact that in her SoCal youth, she would have been surrounded by modern Adonises and Aphrodites.
All her life choices make perfect sense as existential rage. She was invited to the Lifetime Feast of Tantalus, but denied entry. Now her life’s work is revenge. All her mind’s higher functions now merely serve to to feed her amygdala’s thirst for vengeance, vengeance on the Cosmos for spawning her into these circumstances, on the World for bearing her weight, on her people for their weakness, on those aloof SoCal Chads of yesteryear for being themselves. This Ragnarok-ian burn-it-all-down-if-I-can’t-have-it attitude she shares with her Mitteleuropean cousin A. Hitler, who also ordered Germany to be laid waste if it would not win the war for him.
Could this have been avoided? Perhaps.
Great comment and points, well-phrased. Thanks.
See below for a full-reply and expansion on this point.
A full-reply to Almost Missouri‘s comment above:
An expansion on this point re: Heidi Beirich, in addition to the reply posted above:
It may help to think of this in terms of the crime cliche, “motive, means, and opportunity.” If the motive is as you describe it, what are the ‘means’? What is the ‘opportunity’?
I would propose the ‘means’ could be her high IQ and her chosen field (political science). If she had been some dummy or had stayed with accounting or a field like that, there’d be no problem.
Even with the aforesaid motive (psychological hang-ups from youth) and means (a serious political science credential and commitment to the field), the opportunity is the third critical piece, or it hasn’t come together yet.
I would propose three forms of ‘opportunity’:
(1) General-Political. Organizations like the SPLC exist and are empowered by the state (or the “media-run state”);
(2) Gender-Political-Educational. “Women in serious higher education” began to be promoted as a positive-good in the third quarter of the 20th century, and the drumbeat continues as we close out the first quarter of the 21st. The drumbeat for it was well-established by Heidi’s early years, certainly so for a Southern Californian. We see in the data that women’s numbers in a lot of fields began to pull equal to or exceed men’s in the 1980s, and that women have actually exceeded men outright, sometimes by a fair margin, in a lot of fields since the 2000s. The 1990s can be seen as a transition period. Heidi was an undergrad in the late 1980s and in a PhD program in the 1990s, right during this transition;
(3) The collapse of the sexual marketplace social contract. Beginning approximately with people of her age (b.1967) and a little older, the old social pressure to marry eroded greatly, kind of in parallel with (2) above (it would be interesting to track the rise and fall of the term ‘MRS degree’ in this context). The transition came earlier in her native San Diego than in some places in Middle America. If Heidi were raised in her father’s ancestral Colby, Kansas (which went 81–13 Trump–Hillary in 2016), that would also change things. An exact copy of Heidi Beirich born twenty-five years earlier (b.1942), and certainly one born thirty-five years earlier (b.1932), even in a ‘liberal’ area, would be much more likely have ended up married and with a child (and probably at-least-nominally attached to a church), one way or another, presenting much less ‘opportunity’ to work full-time at lucrative Ethnomascochist activism even if motive and means were both present.
Viewed from this triple-layered form of analysis (motive, means, opportunity), Heidi Beirich is not necessarily a villain, and I would say is best viewed partially as a victim of the system she has devoted so many years to fight to uphold.
Keep trying. You know nothing about Heidi.
I agree that it is worth it to keep trying to understand people’s motivations. It would go a long way on all sides.
I see Dr. Beirich is back in the news:
Good news: Gloprahex as a term IS available; no results on google as of this writing.
No website for the group. First mention is in Feb. 2020 (Jerusalem Post, “White supremacists work together, united by hatred of Jews”).
A top result for this at google for the group, as of this writing, is written testimony to Congress about right-wing extremism in the military in February, pre-Corona. More recently (May) she was quoted somewhere regarding a so-called extremist group supposedly promoting the anti-lockdown protests in Michigan.
(The current top story on that PRWatch website: “A Coalition of Pro-Trump Doctors Is Forming to Defend the President’s COVID-19 Blunders.” Pure blue-team-red-team hackery.)
Is it possible GloPrAHex is a one-woman show, for now? She is already on the speaking circuit with this group, in any case.
Beirich is Back, and up to her old tricks.
She has recently published a “hit-list” demanding certain European activists be banned from all social media; total suppression and salting the Earth. Within days, authorities carried out the ‘hits’ she demanded.
The wave of high-profile bannings against Beirich’s political targets in Europe took some by surprise. How could some obscure American self-appointed political commissar manage this?
The hit-list was published in “Global Project Against Hate and Extremism July 2020: International White Nationalist Movement Spreading on Twitter and Youtube,” published last week by Heidi Beirich and Wendy Via.
The latter author, Wendy Via, appears to be of similar background to Beirich, of similar age and class background; both Beirich and Via had some kind of crisis in life by which they eventually turned to the ethnomasochist Far-Left, eventually drifting into the commissar organization SPLC and served it, Beirich as one of the top commissars and Via as a lower-level figure. Via is listed as a co-founder of the “GloPraHex” group, which formed about early 2020 as a splinter off the extremist SPLC.
Beirich and Via see themselves as ideological police (commissars) with authority across all the White world, not limited to a specific political boundary. This is not necessarily brand new, but the bold publishing of a hit list involving non-Americans, followed by quick compliance by authorities, has a lot of implications.
By the way:
This post is an attempt to retrace what it was that pushed Beirich that way. In the course of the fairly heavy research that went into this (the most comprehensive biography of Heidi Beirich available online), a lot of possibilities emerged. It’s a tragedy when people turn to extremist ethnomasochism, and we should beware the warning signs.
Views of this post are way up.
– 1 to 5 views per day from time of publication in Nov. 2019 to July 9, 2020.
– Starting July 10, and through this writing (July 22), views are up to 25-60 views per day.
– At this rate, there could be twice as many views in July 2020 as for all previous months combined.
This sudden interest spike is associated with the latest Beirich antics related in the comment above, her new political-commissar group’s first major “hit,” carried out against Europeans in Europe.
An example of the reactions in Europe against Beirich associated with the big rise in interest in this article coming in via searches and links:
“Was ist das Southern Poverty Law Center?” by journalist Martin Lichtmesz (July 17) at Sezession.de, an online journal of right-wing thought in German, active since 2003, and since the mid-2010s close to the AfD.
Lichtmesz opens with this:
Pingback: Who Radicalized Robin DiAngelo? A biographical investigation into the coiner and promoter of White Fragility theory | Hail to You
Great article and I’ll check out the rest of your blog. I stumbled in due to some digging on FBI-SPLC connections (both are terrorist organizations who orchestrated the Oklahoma City bombing) and read about this creature, Heidi, with interest. I looked her up in Google images and couldn’t help but notice how hideous she is with a very visible decline over her hate filled career. A direct result of that poisoned vessel, no doubt.
I wanted to take issue with your term “blowback”. To me that means unintended consequences of the opposite variety. In Heidi’s case, if denazification in her mother’s homeland was a factor, then it’s a case of INTENDED consequences of the anti western Christian civilization brainwashing by communist Jews and their Marxist but non Jewish co-conspirators. They would have been delighted to see their demonic handiwork passed from German mother to American child, so many years later.
anon, Thanks for your comments.
Heidi Beirich is not now and may never be a household name, but I do believe this biographical investigation is the most substantial there is of her online anywhere.
If we take Beirich in the 1990s-2020s as a legacy of US policy towards Germany in the 1940s, probably only a radical minority of those with a hand in policymaking in the 1940s would have wanted this kind of outcome.
Whether we think ‘Blowback’ is a conceptually useful term or not, the point seems to hold with Beirich: Policy Has Consequences.
I find the political Stockholm syndrome hypothesis somewhat absurd.
Stockholm syndrome only comes into play in extreme situations of power imbalance, where the victim is completely under control of an entity, with direct or indirect threat of violence brought to bear upon non-compliance.
To argue that the changing demographics of Southern California even remotely resembles such an extreme power imbalance to the detriment of Europeans is nonsensical.
This analytical failure might have sprung from an inability to understand a world view that is not racialist. It is much more likely that Beirich did not view the demographic switch in terms of winning sides. Only a racialist sees the world in such terms, and it should be understood, at the very least, that Beirich is not a racialist.
Equally absurd are comments to the effect that Beirich’s physique would lead her to hate white men. First obvious observation: plenty of women with less charm find romantic attachments. There are also plenty of white racialists with less charm than her: why did they not come to hate white men? Frankly, even the assumption that she hates white men is without merit. She is unmarried: that means she avoided marrying anyone, regardless of ethnicity. The fact that she is politically opposed to white nationalism may well have no connection to her marital status whatsoever.
If one thing defines Beirich, it appears to be that she is strongly motivated to oppose hateful ideologies, or political movements based on ethnic identity. Opposing hate or exclusion of non-whites does not equate to hating whites. An absence of racial pride is not equivalent to racial self-loathing. There are plenty of more neutral interpretations in between that seem to be lost upon many of the participants in this discussion.
Finally, I am mystified by the interpretation that Beirich was consciously or unconsciously trying to paint herself as a victim by remembering the demise of Tom Metzger’s organisation as contemporary with her high school years. It is not made clear how this would paint her as a victim, and no obvious reason presents itself. I applaud the author of the post for at least being able to attribute a preponderance of odds in favor of her simply misremembering the timeline. When in one’s 50s, events from one’s early 20s can easily be remembered as being from one’s teens, especially if those events are considered by the experiencer as seminal in some way. The assumption that can override more precise recollection is that events that were defining in some way must have been early in one’s timeline. For instance, I love a certain musician and have done so all of my adult life: the assumption then is that I probably discovered their music in my teens, because I feel like I’ve always loved the music, and most of my musical discovery occurred in my teens. In reality, I discovered this musician in my early 20s, about five years later than my first casual recollection.
So, not only is it not explained how Beirich would be painting herself as a victim by placing the events in her teens: there really is no indication whatsoever that Beirich is dissembling, whether consciously or unconsciously. The only objective reason why one would contemplate deceit here, is bias against her as a person. Let’s not allow ourselves to be confused by our political disagreements: a clear analysis should be unclouded by personal feelings.
Stockholm Syndrome can have a flexible definition but works here more like a convenient metaphor.
We do not have a proper vocabulary to describe people like Heidi Beirich, or the archetype she fits into, the angry crusader against her own people. There are a lot of quasi-euphemisms for it. The late-2010s term “social justice warrior” was one.
HB is a crusader against her own people, someone whose moral framing of the world is that the grand-narrative of world-history and human purpose on Earth is that an evil group of people (her own) must be stopped by heroic resisters (like her).
Without the evil people, she would have no purpose, so there is an irony inherent to people like this. One way or another it’s unhealthy. There is probably a role HB fits to a tee described in the game-theory literature.
The grand narrative you invoke as being Beirich’s is one you may be more pre-occupied with than she is. There certainly is no evidence that she views white people as evil. There is however plenty of evidence that she views the effects of white nationalism as being detrimental within her country. You should not confuse one with the other.
Maybe it will be helpful for you to consider this same question in the context of an ethnicity other than your own. Surely you see that being opposed to black nationalism is not the same things as being opposed to black people as a whole? It is possible, and even extremely common, for people to find certain forms of militant nationalism as problematic, without holding any notion of a special evil proper to a single ethnicity.
White nationalists have a much stronger vested interest in focusing on a narrative involving demonizing and victimizing white people, than non-racialists do: over the past few decades, this has become the central strategy of white nationalism to seek more mainstream appeal. A white nationalist can recruit with this narrative – that is a far stronger motivation to embrace it than Beirich has, on the face of things. Her focus needs only rely on the dominant political currents of her own nation, in order to explain her choices. There is zero requirement for her to believe in an inherent evil of white people.
How much you resist these facts will be a measure of how wed YOU are to the narrative of white victimisation.
I accept that one could denature Stockholm Syndrome to try to apply it to this situation, but it doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. Nothing indicates that Beirich viewed herself as being reliant upon a non-white power structure for her safety and well-being. To ANY extent. I’m sorry, but it just isn’t a successful metaphor. If Beirich had been moved from her own family, into foster care in a non-white household, then maybe there would be something to your hypothesis, but that is not the case. Or if she had experienced inter-ethnic political violence against herself or her social circle. That doesn’t appear to be the case either.
Please consider that you might be operating within your own biases rather than shining light on hers. If you are preoccupied with the changing demographics of California (your posts seem to demonstrate that you are), you may have fallen prey to a desire to make that relevant to something it is not. It is very commonplace in white nationalist circles, to place enormous emphasis on changing demographics, and indeed to impart a sense of urgency about them. That’s your prerogative, but if your goal is to understand Beirich, you need to accept the strong likelihood that the changing demographics of her state were not even in her awareness during the formative years in which her political interests took shape. Did the ethnic composition of her own local area change noticeably? Remember the world of children and adolescents is generally much smaller than that of an adult. Her block, her high school, the social settings that made up her realm of direct experience: you would need to look to the demographics of these before you can calibrate the extent of your metaphor. Instead you postulate it as a potential main avenue for understanding this woman’s psychology.
You are missing something very important.
Even most charitably towards Heidi Beirich, she is “motivated” to oppose extreme ideologies…among her own people, and among them alone. The preceding seven words are what you are missing, though I assume you know it well enough but chose to present a whitewashed and ‘ambiguitized” version in your comment.
Heidi Beirch says nothing of anti-Tutsi hate by Bantu Hutus in central Africa. (To take one of dozens of easy examples.) I wonder if HB ever has. I conclude that HB cares nothing about Bantu-Hutus, nor groups among the Hutus who may or may not “hate” their Nilotic Tutsi co-nationals in Rwanda and Burundi.
If you say that is not exactly a fair comparison, we can go much closer to come. She says nothing of anti-White bias in the USA itself. Does it not exist? It would seem this is the party line, but everyone with experience in the USA especially lately basically knows it does exist. Why not tackle that? No. Nothing. Why?
If one chooses only one specific group to target, to politically crusade against extremism or bias within it, who chooses his or her own group and not some out-group? (Answer: We White-Christians do this often; and in so doing may be unique in the world). Imagine the ADL never mentioning anti-Semitism and solely and exclusively pressing the line against anti-Catholicism under every rock. That’s kind of like what Beirich does.
It all demands a psychological explanation. Even within your framing of Beirich and who she is, it still demands an explanation why she would focus narrowly on fighting against White-Christians (of which she is one), which this investigation was meant to be.
I challenge the notion that there is anything unique or even ‘wrong’ with choosing one’s own ethnic group to seek to rid of ethnic-based politics. In Rwanda, plenty of Hutus worked to try to prevent genocide against the Tutsis. In Zimbabwe and South Africa, there are dark-skinned Africans who oppose discrimination against whites. Should we hold these people to the standard that they should also be working against ethnic oppression half way across the world? To focus on the dominant ethnic dynamics of one’s own nation is pretty natural if you ask me.
Furthermore, specialization is hardly novel or surprising: it has been one of the most relentless and far-reaching under-pinnings of human culture for centuries, and in Western culture, at least since the Enlightenment. You chartered Beirich’s studies, where her focus arose, on through to her professional career, so you are well aware that she went on to work on the areas she explored in her thesis. This happens to hundreds of thousands of people in our nation.
As a racialist, it is your prerogative and right to view her through the lens of someone who ‘bizarrely’ chose her own race to focus on, but again, if you want to be a more effective human being, you need to work on the ability to view the world through more than one lens. It is impossible to understand the psychology of others, if you are rigidly imprisoned within your own gestalt. Beirich is not a racialist, and looking through the lens of a non-racialist, her choices are not bizarre at all. I’ll step you through it.
Beirich discovers the politics of identity, and how the dominant ethnicity of her nation, which she happens to have been born into, has political factions that believe in making America a white ethno-state, and who operate with varying levels of hate and xenophobia towards non-whites.
She discovers a deep interest in this, and decides to study it.
That interest grows into a career.
Perhaps, if the USA were historically dominated by Hispanics, she might have focused on ethnocentric politics and extremism within Hispanic culture. Or perhaps not.
The concept of ‘race-traitor’ really only makes sense to a racialist, and I think you need to come to grips with the fact that the psychology of non-racialists does not even have a workable concept for betraying one’s race. My bet is that Beirich would argue she would be betraying her country by directing her efforts in a racialist manner, putting her own ethnicity above the in-group of the nation. She would probably argue, and possibly more convincingly than you have argued so far for her choice being abnormal, that white ethnic identity politics have done more to shape the nation than the identity politics of any other group, and if one wants to devote one’s finite energies towards the most salient and relevant phenomenon, hers would be a solid choice.
I hope this helps you step outside your own gestalt. You obviously are preoccupied with the psychology of this woman. Psychology is not about applying your own biases in order to understand others: it is about understanding their own unique mental constructs. I can see that you understand that intellectually, but where you stumble is when it comes to race: you don’t seem to be able to navigate her psyche without imposing your own racialist lens.
Pingback: The elections of 2022 in Sweden (nationwide) and Germany (Lower Saxony): Sweden’s AfS vs Nyans a preview of battles to come | Hail To You