Soi-Disant “Responsible White Separatist Community” Concerned About Image Problem
An amusing find from my colleague Matt Corley, who finds moderate white supremacist John de Nugent telling the Washington Post that he’s worried James von Brunn will give the movement a bad name:
De Nugent called von Brunn a genius but described the shooting as the act of “a loner and a hothead.”
“The responsible white separatist community condemns this,” he said. “It makes us look bad.”
In the real world, of course, racism and violence go hand-in-hand. Integration-oriented movements often operate with an ethos of non-violence, as seen in the Civil Rights Movement in the United States, Gandhi’s movement in India, or the main current of thinking in the African National Congress’ struggle against apartheid. By contrast, though you sometimes see mass movements in favor of racist violence (lynchings in the US, or the Hitler’s Willing Executioners phenomenon) I’m not familiar with any examples of mass non-violent action in favor of racist ideology.
79 Responses to “Soi-Disant “Responsible White Separatist Community” Concerned About Image Problem”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
June 11th, 2009 at 10:47 am
Every once in a while I wonder if The Onion has taken over the entire news media while I wasn’t looking.
June 11th, 2009 at 10:53 am
What strikes me about this case is von Brunn’s age. How often do you hear of an 88 year old hothead going on a shooting rampage? But after thinking about it, I’m kind of surprised it doesn’t happen more often. I mean, by the time you’re 88, its not as if you have a lot to lose.
June 11th, 2009 at 10:56 am
I’m not familiar with any examples of mass non-violent action in favor of racist ideology.
Well, this is probably a reasonable counterexample.
Not really sure what conclusion you’re trying to draw here, since the vast majority of “integrationist” movements are violent as well (the American civil war, Palestinian intifadah, Basque terrorism in Spain, etc).
We should also probably define terms more carefully, since Gandhi was behind an independence movement, not an integration movement. Pretty big difference.
June 11th, 2009 at 10:57 am
Well, there was the KKK marching in Skokie . . . and David Duke running for governor of Louisiana . . . these were not non-violent civil disobedience, but they were non-violent attempts to exert power through the political arena. Heck, even Hitler won an election in 1933. . . That said, I think it only serves to underscore your point that hate merchants like many white supremacists show a discernible preference toward violent actions, if they seek a broader impact in the public arena. Outright hate merchandizing usually doesn’t fare well in the full glare of sunlight. Now if we could only expose the code words, the wink, wink, kind of racism as effectively.
June 11th, 2009 at 11:00 am
The Muslim League that declared “Direct Action Day”, that constantly said it would fight for Pakistan to the last man, was a non-violent mass movement? In which world?
June 11th, 2009 at 11:04 am
The ETA is an integrationist movement? Amazing what I wouldn’t know without the internets.
June 11th, 2009 at 11:07 am
All this talk about race is kind of funny though. I mean, I think I look pretty much like the goyim in the countries my family comes from.
June 11th, 2009 at 11:08 am
I’m kind of surprised it doesn’t happen more often. I mean, by the time you’re 88, its not as if you have a lot to lose.
Every so often — no more than 10-20 times a day — Time’s winged chariot hurries a little too near and I have to stop a moment to re-run the end of The Unnameable in my head. At such times, I marvel — knowing what I think I know about people — that more of us don’t simply go berserkers. I know that religion is an opiate, but I’ve had opiates and they don’t really dull the anxiety over the fact that once you’re done, you’re done.
June 11th, 2009 at 11:10 am
Matt, you are the only person I know of who semi-regularly uses the phrase ’soi-disant’. It’s adorable.
June 11th, 2009 at 11:11 am
Gandhi’s movement wasn’t oriented around ‘integration’, whatever that means, but rather around national independence. And while it was nonviolent in itself, it succeeded in large part because the British Empire had been bled white by fighting the Second World War, and it was complemented by violent independence movements like Chandra Bose’s. The situation in South Africa is similar: it was well known to the White government that there were armed militants ready to take over the freedom struggle if the nonviolent wing of the ANC failed. (Indeed, the ANC itself had an armed, paramilitary wing if I recall correctly). Plus, as in India, the South African government was being bled white by fighting SWAPO in Namibia and the Cuban Army in Angola. Mr. Mandela was always very clear about his political debt to the Cuban Army, so it would be nice if Mr. Yglesias was equally perceptive.
In short, to call either the ANC or the Indian Congress “nonviolent movements” is technically true but misleading. They succeeded in the context of a violent situation, and would probably not have suceeded outside that context, as much as it bothers Mr. Yglesias to think so.
June 11th, 2009 at 11:11 am
Well, there was the KKK marching in Skokie . . . and David Duke running for governor of Louisiana . . . these were not non-violent civil disobedience, but they were non-violent attempts to exert power through the political arena.
Plus, the Illinois Nazis.
I guess it depends on what you consider a mass movement, but racist ideology has gotten a lot of politicians elected over the years.
June 11th, 2009 at 11:11 am
Re “I’m not familiar with any examples of mass non-violent action in favor of racist ideology. ”
———-
Well, some might argue that the founding of Israel was such.
That The sneaky new immigrants waited until the native inhabitants of Palestine went on summer holiday on the cool forested slopes of the West Bank –and then moved in.
Kinda like grabbing an apartment in Manhattan. Leon Uris told the story. I think they made a movie about it –called “Exodus”.
June 11th, 2009 at 11:14 am
What the hell is a “moderate” white supremacist?
June 11th, 2009 at 11:15 am
Mahatma Gandhi was involved in two things – an integrationist movement AND an independence movement. He supported Khilafat as an integrationist. His prayer meetings were multifaith. And so on. It is his integrationist efforts that led him to be assassinated – Hindu extremists interpreted it as partiality and surrender to Muslims.
Apart from Hindu-Muslim integration, Mahatma Gandhi worked, much more successfully for Hindu caste & outcaste integration.
Some quotes:
(http://www.mkgandhi.org/momgandhi/momindex.htm )
“It has been said that Indian Swaraj {self-rule} will be the rule of the majority community, i.e., the Hindus. There could not be a greater mistakes than that. If it were to be true, I for one would refuse to call it Swaraj and would fight it with all the strength at my command, for to me Hind Swaraj is the rule of all people, is the rule of justice. Whether, under rule, the ministers were Hindus or Musalmans or Sikhs and whether legislatures were exclusively filled by the Hindus or Musalmans or any other community, they would have to do even-handed justice. (YI, 16-4-1931, p. 78)”
“I am not anti-English; I am not anti-British; I am not anti-any Government; but I am anti-untruth, anti-humbug, and anti-injustice. So long as the Government spells injustice, it may regard me as its enemy, implacable enemy. (SW, p. 523)
“No one will accuse me of any anti-English tendency. Indeed, I pride myself on my discrimination. I have thankfully copied many things from them. Punctuality, reticence, public hygiene, independent thinking and exercise of judgment and several other things I owe to my association with them. (YI, 6-3-1930, p. 80)
“…No Indian has co-operated with the British Government more than I have for an unbroken period of twenty-nine years of public life, in the face of circumstances that might well have turned any other man into a rebel……
I put my life in peril four times for the sake of the Empire; at the time to the Boer War, when I was in charge of the Ambulance corps whose work was mentioned in general Buller’s dispatches; at the time of the Zulu Revolt in Natal, when I was in charge of a similar corps; at the time of the commencement of the late war, when I raised an Ambulance corps and, as a result of the strenuous training had a severe attack of pleurisy; and lastly, in fulfillment of my promise to Lord Chelmsford at the War Conference in Delhi, I threw myself in such an active recruiting campaign in Kaira District, involving long and trying marches, that I had an attack of dysentery which proved almost fatal. I did all this in the full belief that acts such as mine must gain for my country an equal status in the Empire. (YI, 27-10-1920, p. 1)”
“India’s greatest glory will consist not in regarding Englishmen as her implacable enemies fit only to be turned out of India at the first available opportunity, but in turning them into friends and partners in a new commonwealth of nations in the place of an Empire based upon exploitation of the weaker or undeveloped nations and races of the earth and, therefore, finally [based] upon force. (YI, 5-1-1922, p. 4)”
—- This man was an integrationist to the core.
June 11th, 2009 at 11:15 am
Right,
The Muslim League wasn’t a racist movement (since Islam isn’t a race), and they weren’t a supremacist movement (they didn’t want Islamic supremacy over all of India, but rather Muslim independence, as far as I know). I’m anything but an Islamophile, but I do think the formation of Pakistan was a necessary thing, for the reasons that Jinnah stated. It’s impossible to form a cohesive nation out of some citizens who feel Aurangzeb was a great fellow, and others who think he was a genocidal tyrant.
June 11th, 2009 at 11:16 am
Racism, at its core, is about difference. And while “separate but equal” is a plausible construct to handle difference, in practice it never works that way. So racism quickly becomes about inequality. And if the “other” is less than you, he has a lesser claim to rights than you. He can be dominated, and domination begets violence.
From racism to violence is a straight line.
June 11th, 2009 at 11:17 am
Re Matthew’s comment “I’m not familiar with any examples of mass non-violent action in favor of racist ideology. ”
——-
Kinda hilarious coming from the beneficiary of Harvard’s $35 Billion –no, make that $26? Billion –Endowment. How do you think that fund got started?
How do you think all those black people got from Africa to South Carolina — that they SWAM the Atlantic? Looking for a better life?
That particular Exodus was largely done non-violently –with Chains. Sure , you had some beatings but the Bostonian ship captains tried not to damage the merchandise.
June 11th, 2009 at 11:20 am
I hate Illinois Nazis.
June 11th, 2009 at 11:20 am
Arun,
All right, I’ll retract that. Gandhi was an integrationist _as well as_ an independence leader. He’s better known for his nationalist struggle though, since he wasn’t totally successful in his integrationist efforts (i.e. while India did abolish the caste system, he was not able to prevent Partition).
June 11th, 2009 at 11:21 am
I guess it depends on what you consider a mass movement, but racist ideology has gotten a lot of politicians elected over the years.
In which universe does elected office = non-violence?
June 11th, 2009 at 11:23 am
Similarly, La Reza is executing its vision of Greater Mexico by non-violent means. By long hikes and by out-fucking the gringos.
June 11th, 2009 at 11:29 am
I guess it depends on what you consider a mass movement, but racist ideology has gotten a lot of politicians elected over the years.
I believe in States’ Rights!
June 11th, 2009 at 11:39 am
The ETA is an integrationist movement?
Well, no, now it’s not. But it started due to the oppression of the Basque minority by Franco.
The Muslim League that declared “Direct Action Day”, that constantly said it would fight for Pakistan to the last man, was a non-violent mass movement? In which world?
Well, the Muslim League was around for forty years before Direct Action Day. I’m no expert, but my understanding is they were non-violent during most (all?) of that period.
Similar to Hector’s point about the ANC above, which was a non-violent movement that succeeded in some part due to the implicit threat of violence.
It’s impossible to form a cohesive nation out of some citizens who feel Aurangzeb was a great fellow, and others who think he was a genocidal tyrant.
I think history has proved you wrong about that. India still has one of the world’s largest Muslim populations and is a tremendous success. Pakistan is a basket case.
Mahatma Gandhi was involved in two things – an integrationist movement AND an independence movement.
Sure, and Mandela was involved in two things — a movement to end apartheid and a movement to redistribute wealth to the African people. But when we talk about “Mandela’s movement” or “Gandhi’s movement” everyone knows which we’re talking about.
June 11th, 2009 at 11:41 am
This is sort of an oversimplification. To be quite cynical about it, a lot of successful political movements consist of a large arm dedicated to peaceful change (the public face), and a violent group dedicated to the same goals that causes trouble. Generally the threat, implicit and sometimes explicit, is that you can deal with the reasonable, peaceful people and give them some ground, or … well, we just might not be able to keep those crazies in check. Gandhi and Mandela would not have succeeded had they not been able to position themselves as alternatives to violent fanatics in the same cause.
June 11th, 2009 at 11:44 am
De Nugent is right. Racially and religiously motivated mass shootings, assaults, and lynchings really tend to take the focus away from all the positive things the white supremacist movements does. Like, for example, free Turner Diaries puppet shows for kids. When will the liberal media ever mention those?
June 11th, 2009 at 11:49 am
Don Williams,
The conventional wisdom is that Mexican (and more generally, Latina) women have lots of kids, but the conventional wisdom is false (or more charitably, outdated). Mexicans _in Mexico_ are just around replacement level or a bit above (2.4 kids per woman) these days. First generation Mexican-Americans have a higher rate (2.9 kids per woman), but A) that drops in the second generation to closer to the U.S. average, B) that’s less than 50% above the U.S. average, and C) it’s lower than the U.S. average for, say, white Mormons.
June 11th, 2009 at 11:52 am
Right,
India is not without its religious divisions even today. And the Muslims who stayed in India, by and large, are the more tolerant minded ones, not the ones who think Aurangzeb was a nice fellow. Would India really have been better off having millions of Pashtuns inside its border?
June 11th, 2009 at 11:56 am
I do understand the non-ridiculous sense in which you can be a “responsible White separatist.” You have to be serious about the separatism, to the point where you’ll make significant sacrifices to carve out your own slice of Whiteydom right up to the limits our laws permit. At that point we get into troubling questions about adults’ rights to inculcate children into lunatic beliefs, but that’s something that covers a much wider group of lunatics than just White separatists.
June 11th, 2009 at 12:00 pm
Re Matthew’s comment “I’m not familiar with any examples of mass non-violent action in favor of racist ideology. ”
————-
Another Example: Growth of the American suburbs.
I would have added “Growth of America’s Enormous Prison Complex” –but some convicts don’t go into the cages quietly.
June 11th, 2009 at 12:00 pm
Human beings are basically breed to be peaceful and cooperative among members of their in-group while killing people not in their in-group.
June 11th, 2009 at 12:02 pm
I wonder if these “responsible white separatists” will be shown as much deference and respect as the “responsible pro-life activists” have been.
I suspect not, because while it’s evil to be racist, the equality of women is something upon which reasonable people may disagree.
June 11th, 2009 at 12:05 pm
So Matt’s saying those groups who advocate “integration” promote non-violence while groups who advocate some form of “separatism” promote violence. I think that thesis could be well supported because, simply, the groups who are championing integration are oppressed groups fighting for equality, and are fighting against the power structure. Groups who advocate separatism are doing so to retain or regain power, i.e. they are fighting for dominance, not equality. Inherently, non-violence is not an effective tool for gaining dominance. Dominance is won through influence and control, by the submission of others.
June 11th, 2009 at 12:12 pm
So. Are “responsible” white supremacists embarrassed by von Brunn because they think he’s a vicious, cold blooded murderer, or because they find him a crusty, old, poorly armed putz who couldn’t even make it past Security?
Someone should ask that jerkoff De Nugent to clarify.
June 11th, 2009 at 12:13 pm
Would India really have been better off having millions of Pashtuns inside its border?
India may have been marginally worse off (although hard to say, as the Partition and 1971 war were awfully destructive, to say nothing of any future conflicts, nuclear or otherwise, that are at risk of occurring). Pakistan and Bangladesh, however, would be far better off. The tradeoff seems inarguably worth making, unless you believe in the necessity of a “Muslim state” for its own sake.
June 11th, 2009 at 12:20 pm
Well, as the name suggests they’re nominally fighting for separation. An all-white homeland in Idaho or what have you. To the extent that such projects could be carried out without evicting people, I’m not sure how you can characterize them as being about dominance. For example, if a group of white separatists decides to establish a racist private school (whites only), it’s not clear to me how this involves ‘domination’ of anyone; in fact violence enters the picture only when the Feds show up to enforce the Civil Rights act on them…
June 11th, 2009 at 12:33 pm
Drew,
Typically, the only kind of equality that matters for you is the equal right to legalized butchery of one’s offspring. You want women to be ‘equal’ to men by having the freedom to be as callous and selfish in their pursuit of money, sex and power as men have been. I, on the other hand, believe that a decent society would be one that stresses obligations over rights, self-sacrifice over self-fulfilment, and virtue and love over your g*dd*mned autonomy and choice. As Tolstoy said, the feminists want to make women more like men, whereas a civilized society would make men more like women. You can take your ‘rights over my body’, ‘autonomy’, ‘freedom of choice’ hipster s**t and take a f*cking leap off a very long pier, and take the Judith “Jezebel” Jarvis f*cking Thomsen with you. Scr*w your “freedom of bl**dy choice”, and screw pigf*ckers like the late and unlamented Harry “C*cksucker” Blackmun.
And no, reasonable people cannot disagree on abortion. A civilized society would utterly prohibit abortion except in extreme circumstances (terminally damaged fetuses, threats to the mother’s life or health, etc.) and enforce such prohibitions sternly. With the f*cking knout, Drew.
June 11th, 2009 at 12:35 pm
We in the Responsible Zombie Community wish to express our sincere outrage at the events of last Friday, in which a fellow zombie seized and devoured a young child. This in no way reflects upon the broader zombie community; we believe that only adults, preferably trapped in old farmhouses, are suitable meals for those of us who are living-challenged.
June 11th, 2009 at 12:39 pm
It’s a good thing these guys don’t have nuclear weapons, a shitload of conventional weapons, a base to operate from, and financial and diplomatic support of a superpower – like their Zionist counterparts.
June 11th, 2009 at 12:42 pm
Re abb1
It’s a good thing that we have freedom of speech in the US or goat fuckers like Mr. abb1 would be incarcerated in nuthouses with their fellow whackjobs.
June 11th, 2009 at 12:45 pm
Re Don Williams
Well, some might argue that the founding of Israel was such.
That The sneaky new immigrants waited until the native inhabitants of Palestine went on summer holiday on the cool forested slopes of the West Bank –and then moved in.
Kinda like grabbing an apartment in Manhattan. Leon Uris told the story. I think they made a movie about it –called “Exodus”.
A typical Don Williams mischaracterization. Just a case of the real owners showing up and shooing away the squaters.
June 11th, 2009 at 12:48 pm
Re Tessa at 32: “Inherently, non-violence is not an effective tool for gaining dominance. ”
—————-
Oh, bullshit. You understand nothing about power– and how it is wielded.
Even the most rabid KKK member would agree that you can’t hang ALL the negros –just a few. Enough to keep the rest in line. Even the most violent slaveowner laid down the whip as the sun grew high and his arm grew tired.
No –power is loved by sadists and sadists grow to enjoy the MENTAL cat and mouse game. Seeing the expression of fear , the sudden facial sweat — the averted eyes — is as satisfying to such as an outright cry of pain — and is less tiring to elicit.
Dominion is gained by the UNSPOKEN Threat. And in that regard, there is not much difference in MEANS between the racist slaveholders of the Old South and the our modern day police,judges and politicians. Only the ENDS differ — and our history suggests there has not been all that much daylight there either.
If you are a racist white corporate manager, you don’t fuck a black man by DENYING him employment. If he is not under your control, he might prosper. Might Found a rap company and get richer than you, even.
Far more satisfying to hire him and to encourage him to work his ass off for years in hope of an illusory career. To encourage him to take on debt, a mortgage and to marry. To wait for the opportune moment –when his wife is 8 months pregnant — and to then orchestrate events that will justify his firing. That’s how corporate America –racist and allegedly non-racist –works.
There is nothing more blind to Reality than a wealthy white Liberal. Matthew’s statement “I’m not familiar with any examples of mass non-violent action in favor of racist ideology. ” is Blind. As the examples I’ve given above show.
And if they don’t convince you, take a look at America’s K12 educational system — which controls access to college and to lucrative careers. Look at how K12 funding is set up and allocated.
June 11th, 2009 at 12:50 pm
Don makes a good point about the growth of suburbs. Non-violent white separatism has been a major theme of American culture since WWII at least but mostly under the radar. Most whites won’t even admit it to themselves, but the reason American cities have mostly fallen apart in the last 60 years, and European cities haven’t, is pretty clear – white flight. Most white people have nothing against blacks or latinos, they apparently just don’t want to live near them.
June 11th, 2009 at 12:53 pm
Another Example: Growth of the American suburbs.
That’s quite right, actually. White flight was a perfect example of a passive, peaceful, and responsible form of separation, without violence or personal injury toward the others.
It wasn’t socially optimal, mind you. Segregation is never socially optimal. But it was legal, and people do have the freedom to conduct their affairs as they like, within legal bounds.
Also, a violent example of integration? Hutus and Tutsis. SWAPO terrorism during apartheid years. Mexican revolution.
June 11th, 2009 at 12:54 pm
Re vanya
Of course, in Mr. Don Williams least favorite city, Washington, D.C. the whites, like Mr. Yglesias, are moving in and driving the blacks out to the suburbs, mainly Prince Goerges Co., Md.
June 11th, 2009 at 12:54 pm
Most whites won’t even admit it to themselves, but the reason American cities have mostly fallen apart in the last 60 years, and European cities haven’t, is pretty clear – white flight.
Well, you haven’t been in the banlieus, have you. Poverty, misery, degradation, and joblessness and ennui are all intertwined, whether in the banlieus or in inner-city Baltimore.
June 11th, 2009 at 12:55 pm
Drew @31 says,
the equality of women is something upon which reasonable people may disagree
Is this a sick joke? Is my snark-o-meter in need of calibration? Or is this actually a serious comment? If so, WTF?
June 11th, 2009 at 12:56 pm
And if anyone tries to take effective action against how Power is exerted in America –THAT is when the GUN comes out.
You can afford to display a facade of non-violence — when you control the politicans, the lawyers, the Judges, the police, and the prisons. Just never forget the base on which that deceitful mechanism rests.
Someone pipe up and say “Popular Sovereignty” , so that we can all break down and hoot with laughter.
June 11th, 2009 at 12:56 pm
On the other hand this point by Don makes no sense at all:
“If you are a racist white corporate manager, you don’t fuck a black man by DENYING him employment. If he is not under your control, he might prosper. Might Found a rap company and get richer than you, even.
Far more satisfying to hire him and to encourage him to work his ass off for years in hope of an illusory career. To encourage him to take on debt, a mortgage and to marry. To wait for the opportune moment –when his wife is 8 months pregnant — and to then orchestrate events that will justify his firing. That’s how corporate America –racist and allegedly non-racist –works.”
I’ve worked with racist corporate white managers. They just don’t hire black men or women, case closed. Most white racists I’ve met don’t believe black men will prosper on their own, and certainly wouldn’t get off their lazy asses to implement the time consuming crazy paranoid plan Don’s suggesting. Defining racist as “white people who go well out of their way to hurt black people” is far too narrow a definition. At least in the North most racist whites simply try to avoid blacks at every opportunity – I’d say it’s more fear driven than actual malice.
June 11th, 2009 at 12:57 pm
Of course, in Mr. Don Williams least favorite city, Washington, D.C. the whites, like Mr. Yglesias, are moving in and driving the blacks out to the suburbs, mainly Prince Goerges Co., Md.
I am going to reverse that sentence a bit:
Of course, in Mr. Don Williams least favorite city, Washington, D.C. the blacks, like Mr. Yglesias, are moving in and driving the whites out to the suburbs, mainly Prince Georges Co., Md.
I presume you are not a racist; clearly, however, the implication of your statement is unmistakable reverse racism.
June 11th, 2009 at 1:01 pm
Re SLC at 44: “Of course, in Mr. Don Williams least favorite city, Washington, D.C. the whites, like Mr. Yglesias, are moving in and driving the blacks out to the suburbs, mainly Prince Goerges Co., Md.”
———-
Yes, SLC. The Whites are moving into piss-soaked crack houses while the blacks are strolling down the leafy greens of Prince George country clubs.
Right.
June 11th, 2009 at 1:02 pm
I have been in the banlieues Myles. How do they disprove my point? That’s also an example of non-violent white separatism. The difference being only that in Western Europe the whites like to keep minorities isolated in suburban projects so they can keep the downtowns white, in the US we mostly isolate minorities in the inner cities.
June 11th, 2009 at 1:07 pm
Sometimes, religion is the PCP of the masses.
June 11th, 2009 at 1:17 pm
Re vanya at 48: “On the other hand this point by Don makes no sense at all”
———
What I was trying to illustrate was that to destroy someone does not require PHYSICAL violence — driving him into a deep depression will work as well. While physical violence is restrained in America, there is a lot of malice and mental violence. Look at the $Billions the drug companies make from selling anti-depressants.
So Matthew’s assumption that absence of Physical violence means everything’s peachy keen is ignorant. A large percentage of Afro-American males are in prison. I don’t see where their lives are all that vastly improved over the Deep South circa 1850.
And this is no accident. Not in the world’s richest nation.
It is policy.
June 11th, 2009 at 1:25 pm
Edward: It was irony.
June 11th, 2009 at 1:32 pm
There are IRON LAWS that govern American politics.
President Obama may do many things. He may raise taxes. He may declare war on China. He may invade Iran. He may take over Citibank.
But the one thing I guarantee you that he will never do is let that kinky hair grow out more than one quarter of an inch.
After decades of ESPN indoctrination, America can now accept a President who looks like a rich NBA athlete.
But with an Afro –never.
June 11th, 2009 at 1:45 pm
the equality of women is something upon which reasonable people may disagree.
Hey, look, it’s a straw man! News flash: The intractability of the abortion debate stems in part from an unwillingness to recognize that the two sides are arguing different questions. I’m all for women’s equality, but I don’t see what that has to do with arbitrarily setting birth as the point at which it becomes illegal to kill someone.
June 11th, 2009 at 1:56 pm
Don Williams wrote: “Yes, SLC. The Whites are moving into piss-soaked crack houses while the blacks are strolling down the leafy greens of Prince George country clubs.
Right.”
That is more or less the case, and if you live in the DC area, you already know that.
June 11th, 2009 at 1:57 pm
Re Don Williams @ 50
Obviously, Mr. Williams hasn’t been visiting DC much lately or paying any attention to demographic trends therein. The percentage of blacks in P.G. County now exceeds that in D. C., which is barely at 50% and headed down. Mr. Yglesias and his fellow Yuppies are taking over.
June 11th, 2009 at 2:05 pm
Re Don Williams @ 55
Apparently, Mr. Williams is in a time warp and still thinks its the 1970s. Take in an NBA basketball game some time. Afros are long gone. The shaven head look is in.
June 11th, 2009 at 2:06 pm
Look, the point of the post is solid, but do you really need to reference Daniel Jonah Goldhagen and his warmed over neocon shit? There’s a reason that dude wrote for TNR. Goldhagen has a distinctly Peretzian view of the world.
June 11th, 2009 at 2:20 pm
tomemos @54: Edward: It was irony
I’ll go check my irony detection system, then.
June 11th, 2009 at 2:22 pm
Adam Villani,
If you think that your reasonable and inarguable points can make any headway with yahoos like Drew, you’re kidding yourself. You would do better to counter his insulting language with abusive language of your own, as I did. Thank you for being a pro life Democrat, though.
June 11th, 2009 at 2:48 pm
Right, we should distinguish between the Muslim League of pre-1937 and post-1937, exactly as we should distinguish the Muslim League of pre-August-15-1947 and post-August-15-1947 (or Congress before and after Mahatma Gandhi and so on). Keeping the same name does not mean it is the same organization.
June 11th, 2009 at 3:32 pm
‘ with an Afro ‘ now THAT I’d like to see. In fact, what’s to stop him?
June 11th, 2009 at 4:09 pm
By the way, have you seen this video of racist swine?
June 11th, 2009 at 4:26 pm
Yes, it was irony.
Hector, I’m glad you recognize that the criminalization of abortion renders women unequal to men. But your solution – the creation of a slave society where neither have any choice on any issue – is untenable.
And Adam, given that criminalized abortion endangers the lives and health of women, the equality of women – which must, at the very least, include an equal right to life and health – cannot be separated from the right to choose.
But then again, maybe the white separatists are right. I bet they support racial equality, but don’t see what integration, civil rights, etc., has to do with it.
June 11th, 2009 at 5:47 pm
Hitler’s Willing Executioners is a terrible book. There are enough good books about the Holocaust that you could cite one rather easily.
June 11th, 2009 at 6:01 pm
If you’re looking for mass movements in favor of “responsible racial separatism”, how about the Million Man March?
June 11th, 2009 at 6:59 pm
Matt,
You should check out (if you’re reading comments) Blood and Politics:The History of the White Nationalist Movement from the Margins to the Mainstream by Leonard Zeskind.
http://us.macmillan.com/bloodandpolitics
I just got done reading this book about a month ago and it was a real eye-opener. According to Zeskind, there are two wings of the white supremacist movement. There are “main-streamers” like de Nugent and David Duke who want to seek an entry into politics and peddle their swill to under code words and euphemism like “white separatists”. They will incite violence when no one in the mainstream is listening but are usually non-violent.
On the other hand, you people like Don Black and the late William Peirce, who are much like Leninist vanguardists of the right. They think that small terrorist-like cells of white nationalist can bring a apocalyptic race war and disintegration of America. They are more associated with skinheads and are violent. But they were mainly active in the ’80s and early ’90s (Tim McVey has strong connections to them).
According to Zeskind, the “mainstreamers” with electoral ends are the ones are emergent right now, not the militants. Lately, they’ve been active in organizing Conservative Citizen Council and in the (what else?) anti-immigration movement, particularly the “Minutemen”*
I think this guy is a lone nut, he may be evidence of a trend of violence in the extreme right-wing. But I don’t see a wave of white supremacist in the near future. What we need to watch for is for the loner nuts.
* David Duke held the first “patrol” of the Mexican border with the Klan way back in the ’70s.
June 11th, 2009 at 7:02 pm
Hitler’s Willing Executioners is a terrible book. There are enough good books about the Holocaust that you could cite one rather easily.
Goldhagen makes some good points about the “banality” and demographics of average Nazi killers and eliminationist politics. But he over reaches when he infers that industrial genocide or extreme anti-Semitism is a particularly German thing.
June 11th, 2009 at 7:20 pm
At least in the North most racist whites simply try to avoid blacks at every opportunity – I’d say it’s more fear driven than actual malice.
So for a white person to notice that the black murder rate is about 8 times that of the white murder rate, and to infer from that that living in a black neighborhood would likely mean a greater chance of being murdered (and presumably more subjected to other violent crimes as well) is racist? *
So the only way for a white person to be non-racist is to deliberately subject himself to danger?
* And don’t give me that crap about being more likely to be murdered by someone of your own race – the only reason that this is true is because so many white people avoid blacks that opportunities to kill outside one’s race are relatively rarer than to kill within one’s own race.
June 11th, 2009 at 7:25 pm
So for a white person to notice that the black murder rate is about 8 times that of the white murder rate, and to infer from that that living in a black neighborhood would likely mean a greater chance of being murdered (and presumably more subjected to other violent crimes as well) is racist?
I would add that not only is it justifiable for a white person to avoid a minority neighbourhood that happens to be dangerous, it is imperative that he does so if he has family to whom he is responsible. You can put your own life on the line if you like, but it would be the height of irresponsibility to place your family at the risk just to placate one’s sensibilities.
June 11th, 2009 at 7:26 pm
As I understand it, there are three different terms with differenet implications, although there is likely a huge amount of overlap:
White supremacist – believes that whites are superior.
White separatist – believes that whites should be able to isolate themselves from other races.
White nationalist – believes that white people ought to be able to explicitly pursue their interests as a race; e.g. by forming groups paralleling minority ethnic interest groups.
I do not endorse any of these positions, by the way.
June 11th, 2009 at 8:10 pm
Glaivester:
White supremacist – believes that whites are superior.
White separatist – believes that whites should be able to isolate themselves from other races.
White nationalist – believes that white people ought to be able to explicitly pursue their interests as a race; e.g. by forming groups paralleling minority ethnic interest groups.
White Nationalist- The definition you wrote is correct, yet White Nationalism can embrace not only that a race should pursue their own interest-but that a nation-state is by definition based on “race” and that white Americans can only defined as “Americans”, therefore other races are guests in this country. But that’s the point where it bleeds into separatism, which goes to show that even though these ideas are separate they are indeed very interlinked to the point that they are sometimes indistinguishable.
June 12th, 2009 at 9:51 am
71, Glaivester: So for a white person to notice that the black murder rate is about 8 times that of the white murder rate, and to infer from that that living in a black neighborhood would likely mean a greater chance of being murdered (and presumably more subjected to other violent crimes as well) is racist?
Of course it is. This immediately demonstrates that you view social life thru the prism of tribalism, and this makes you a racist swine.
You could notice that poorer neighborhoods are more dangerous, but this simple causation doesn’t occur to you, you prefer the correlation with race – and why? Well, I suggest it’s because you just might be a racist swine.
June 12th, 2009 at 5:50 pm
You could notice that poorer neighborhoods are more dangerous, but this simple causation doesn’t occur to you, you prefer the correlation with race
Of course this correlation occurs to me, you moron. Believe it or not, one can notice both correlations.
People who are not total morons like you are actually factor in several factors here, and race is often one of them.
But abb1 shows exactly why I hold “anto-racism” in such contempt. abb1 clearly implies that being suicidally ignorant of statistical danger is necessary to avoid being “racist.”
June 13th, 2009 at 4:19 am
Wrong, Glaivester. One is correlation, the other one is causation. People are violent because they’re desperate, not because they are black.
Following your logic, you’ll avoid middle-class towns populated by blacks, but you’ll walk right into a white-populated slum and you’ll get killed. Who is a moron now?
June 13th, 2009 at 9:51 am
Following your logic, you’ll avoid middle-class towns populated by blacks, but you’ll walk right into a white-populated slum and you’ll get killed. Who is a moron now?
Right, because again, people who notice racial correlations cannot possibly notice other correlations.
In any case, in terms of effect, whether it is causation or correlation is not going to matter as much; those who put great stock in avoiding crime rates will wind up avoiding communities with high crime rates, which will disproportionately mean avoiding heavily black communities even if they are not deliberately trying to do so.
In any case, my point is that white flight to the suburbs is about a lot more than mere racism, and to suggest otherwise is very unfair to suburbanites.
June 13th, 2009 at 10:11 am
Oh, I agree that flight to the suburbs has little to do with racism. Nevertheless, gratuitous association of criminality with race seems rather tasteless.