Kuro5hin.org: technology and culture, from the trenches
create account | help/FAQ | contact | links | search | IRC | site news
[ Everything | Diaries | Technology | Science | Culture | Politics | Media | News | Internet | Op-Ed | Fiction | Meta | MLP ]
We need your support: buy an ad | premium membership

[P]
The National Alliance: America's Al-Qaeda

By theboz in Culture
Thu Jul 04, 2002 at 06:48:59 PM EST
Tags: Freedom (all tags)
Freedom

What do Timothy McVeigh, William Pierce, and many other affluent Americans have in common? An organization known as the National Alliance. This group is much more sinister than the Ku Klux Klan, and most skinhead groups. However, most people have never heard of them. This article exposes the origin and goals of the National Alliance, and their role as a terrorist organization.


What does the National Alliance want?
One of their goals is to have a "white living space." On their site, they state, "We will do whatever is necessary to achieve this White living space and to keep it White. We will not be deterred by the difficulty or temporary unpleasantness involved, because we realize that it is absolutely necessary for our racial survival." They dance around actually saying it, but this organization is known for plotting an armed overthrow of the U.S. government, as well as the mass murder of millions of people. They say, "The fact is that we need a strong, centralized government spanning several continents to coordinate many important tasks during the first few decades of a White world: the racial cleansing of the land, the rooting out of racially destructive institutions, and the reorganization of society on a new basis." They not only want to control the United States, but other continents as well. This group's goals are nothing short than global terrorism. They try to recruit the top people in society, from college professors, successful businessmen, and military and law enforcement personnel.

Where did they come from?
The National Alliance was founded in 1974 by a physics professor named Dr. William Pierce. He expanded on an existing neo-Nazi organization and expanded it into a paramilitary group. On their site, it says that "the programmatic emphasis had shifted from a superficial confrontation with the enemies of our people to the building of the necessary organizational foundation for a final victory over those enemies." They were no longer satisfied with merely plotting the deaths of the people they hated, but now the overthrow of the U.S. government in order to further their goals. William Pierce advocates violence in his radio addresses. He has stated, "We should be going from door to door with a list of names and slaying those who have engineered this assault on our people....And we know who the engineers are....They are, first and foremost, the media bosses and the other leaders of the Jews." He also spoke of the removal of white members of the government who are not racist by saying, "The feminized wimps need to be removed from our government, from our media, from our educational institutions, and replaced by real white men....That'll be a tough job....I don't really care how the job is done -- whether the wimps all get machine-gunned and bulldozed into giant lime pits or whether their thinking is eventually straightened out by a program of prolonged trauma and privation." He clearly stated his idea of government overthrow in the mid 1970's during one of his radio speeches where he said:

In 1975, when I began writing The Turner Diaries...I wanted to take all of the feminist agitators and propagandists and all of the race-mixing fanatics and all of the media bosses and all of the bureaucrats and politicians who were collaborating with them, and I wanted to put them up against a wall, in batches of a thousand or so at a time, and machine-gun them. And I still want to do that. I am convinced that one day we will have to do that before we can get our civilization back on track, and I look forward to the day.

Pierce also founded a sect of Christianity called the Cosmotheist Community Church in order to bring religious authority into his organization.

Who are they?
A short list of some of the members of this group can be found here. As stated previously, the National Alliance prefers to take the top members of society. They list a professor at Arkansas Tech, a middle-class working man, a mother and housewife, and a firefighter for the U.S. Forest Service. They have their roots in many universities, as well as law enforcement and other government offices. Their people are encouraged to participate in government and education as much as possible. One of their most notable followers was none other than Timothy McVeigh, and who drew inspiration for the Oklahoma City bombing from the National Alliance's book "The Turner Diaries."

The National Alliance and Terrorism
In the early 1980's, a group called "The Order" which was run by a man called Robert Matthews went on a crime spree in order to fund an aryan paramilitary organization. Matthews was a member of Pierce's organization, and had went on a spree of murder, robbery, counterfeiting, and the bombing of a synagogue.

Another group called the Aryan Republican Army committed 22 bank robberies and bombings across the Midwest between 1992 and 1996. They too claimed to be inspired by The Turner diaries and their members have ties to the National Alliance.

The Turner Diaries also inspired a group of white supremacists in East St. Louis, Illinois, who called themselves The New Order. In March 1998, three men in the group were arrested. They had planned to bomb the Anti-Defamation League's New York headquarters, the Southern Poverty Law Center in Montgomery, Alabama, and the Simon Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles. They had also talked of bombing state capitols and post offices and poisoning public water supplies with cyanide.

The National Alliance has ties to racist organizations in other nations as well. Pierce has been documented as meeting with the British National Party, a racist, anti-minority, neo-Fascist party in Great Britain, and the German National Democratic Party, an ultra-right-wing nationalist party in Germany. He also has ties to other groups in Greece, Portugal, Romania, Belgium, Denmark, Holland, Germany, Austria and South Africa.

What should be done about the National Alliance?
Most racist speech is protected because the groups are mostly non-violent, no matter how despicable their words. The first amendment of the U.S. constitution does allow for free speech. However, Article 3 Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution lays out the foundation for treason and how this group may be guilty of crimes against the U.S. government.

Overt act of betrayal - This covers hate speech that calls for the violent overthrow of the U.S. government, as well as giving material aid or comfort to enemies of the United States. Furthering Nazi beliefs and policy could be considered aiding our enemy from World War II, but that may be subject to interpretation in a court of law. Their assistance of terrorist organizations in other countries may be another angle for the prosecution here.

Intent to Betray - This may be more difficult to prove, but the speeches given by members of the National Alliance may be used here as well.

Espionage - Members of the National Alliance are encouraged to participate in government, military, and law enforcement careers in order to further the goals of white supremacy. Since their allegiance is primarily to the National Alliance, there are likely cases where they have stolen classified information for them. There is no tangible proof of this yet, but it is likely that a search of Pierce's records would find evidence of this.

Insurrection - This group's members are often in paramilitary anti-Government groups. These groups train themselves to be ready for an armed overthrow of the U.S. government. While the National Alliance does not directly support one individual armed group, it does encourage its members to prepare themselves for armed insurrection.

Sedition - The National Alliance is clearly guilty of sedition. They actively recruit with the goal of building an army that can overthrow the U.S.

Syndicalism - By definition, this is the creation of a political group with the intent of overthrowing the government. The National Alliance is such an organization.

Terrorism - The National Alliance has been associated with many acts of terrorism, the most notable was the Oklahoma City bombing.

Counterfeiting - The National Alliance has been linked to counterfeiting rings, such as "The Order" which was mentioned previously.

There are many other crimes that this group has been a part of, so this list could become much larger over time.

Where do we go from here?
The United States has claimed to lead a war on global terrorism. So far, the only terrorist organization the U.S. government has focused on is al-Qaeda. However, there are many more groups that the U.S. is aware of, such as the National Alliance, who pose a much greater risk to Americans. The war on terrorism should be focused on terrorism in general, not reacting to only one terrorist group. It has been seven years since the Oklahoma City bombing, but smaller acts of terrorism by the National Alliance have been going on since then. While they may not have yet murdered thousands of people like al-Qaeda has, the potential and desire are there. If the government of the United States fails to act on domestic terrorism, then the war on terrorism will fail.

Sponsors

Voxel dot net
o Managed Hosting
o VoxCAST Content Delivery
o Raw Infrastructure

Login

Poll
Which terrorist group is the worst?
o National Alliance 5%
o Ku Kux Klan 1%
o al-Qaeda 12%
o Irish Republican Army 2%
o Jewish Defense League 18%
o Aryan Nation 5%
o Animal Liberation Front 10%
o All of them are equally bad in my eyes 45%

Votes: 98
Results | Other Polls

Related Links
o National Alliance
o Ku Klux Klan
o skinhead
o here
o who drew inspiration for the Oklahoma City bombing
o The Turner Diaries
o Robert Matthews
o a crime spree in order to fund an aryan paramilitary organization
o the Aryan Republican Army committed 22 bank robberies and bombings
o three men in the group were arrested
o Article 3 Section 3
o National Alliance [2]
o Also by theboz


Display: Sort:
The National Alliance: America's Al-Qaeda | 135 comments (129 topical, 6 editorial, 1 hidden)
Freedom of speech (3.66 / 6) (#3)
by psychologist on Thu Jul 04, 2002 at 01:20:49 PM EST

Osama Bin Laden is not free to speak on the telly, but the KKK is free to do so. What freedom of speech you have, grandma!


(BTW, for those wondering why psychologist is writing such a short comment, I'll write a longer commentry soon when I do a bit of research on the topic)


The Feds (5.00 / 1) (#31)
by davidduncanscott on Thu Jul 04, 2002 at 04:34:31 PM EST

asked the networks to hold off on the broadcasts, and the networks agreed -- for a while. Once again, freedom of speech does not compel the networks to broadcast everything anybody says.

If it makes you feel any better, go ask a Klansman if he feels like his views are aired sufficiently often on US TV. My guess is that you'll get a lot of "Jew-controlled media won't let me speak!"

[ Parent ]

I have never seen any KKK speech covered in full. (4.00 / 1) (#51)
by joegee on Thu Jul 04, 2002 at 07:41:50 PM EST

And I call my telly a TV or a television, meaning I sit in an American TV market, in America. In 30 + years of TV viewing I have seen OBL's material more widely quoted and/or covered than any KKK material. Material from neither is widely disseminated in American media because the words coming out of these morons' mouths are deemed hateful or not newsworthy by those who decide what gets airplay on our newscasts.

<sig>I always learn something on K5, sometimes in spite of myself.</sig>
[ Parent ]
The US goverment won't do shit about them (2.21 / 19) (#5)
by Bob Dog on Thu Jul 04, 2002 at 01:22:57 PM EST

Remember, the president is one George W. Bush.  A Texas good old boy who most likely is in full agreement with them.  He's the one who sold a house with the contract stipulation that the purchasers wasn't allowed to sell it to black people.

The "War on Terrorism" is designed to harrass non-whites, not to save the world from terrorism.


source? (4.75 / 4) (#8)
by MathJMendl on Thu Jul 04, 2002 at 01:33:51 PM EST

You said about our President, "he's the one who sold a house with the contract stipulation that the purchasers wasn't allowed to sell it to black people." Could we see a source? I won't believe this until then because I think that the press might have picked up on it, or at least the Democrats in the last election cycle.

[ Parent ]
Urban Legend of sorts (5.00 / 6) (#12)
by Iesu II on Thu Jul 04, 2002 at 01:46:14 PM EST

See here. The gist is that Bush owned a house with an archaic contract rider that he proabably wasn't even aware of.

[ Parent ]
so does that mean (4.50 / 4) (#24)
by dr k on Thu Jul 04, 2002 at 03:18:53 PM EST

George doesn't read is End User Licence Agreements, either? Hey, he's just like the rest of us!


Destroy all trusted users!
[ Parent ]

Snopes are right-wing apologist liars (1.00 / 2) (#40)
by Bob Dog on Thu Jul 04, 2002 at 06:01:40 PM EST

False??? What the fuck are they on about?  The deed had this to say:

"Said premises shall be used for private dwelling purposes only and by white persons only, not excluding bona fide servants of any race"

[ Parent ]

Such restrictions were common (none / 0) (#116)
by vectro on Sat Jul 06, 2002 at 04:54:00 PM EST

right up to the passage of the civil rights act. The house I grew up in had that restriction. Once it's been put on the title, it can only be removed by mutual consent of everyone that's owned the house since - an impossible job, and completely unnecessary since the CRA makes the clause illegal anyhow.

Snopes is being reasonable in putting "False", because the thing named false -- that he "refused to sell his home to blacks" is in fact false. The deed may have had the restriction, but it wasn't added by Bush, is unenforceable, and he may not have even known it was there.

“The problem with that definition is just that it's bullshit.” -- localroger
[ Parent ]

You, sir, are an idiot (4.16 / 6) (#9)
by KilljoyAZ on Thu Jul 04, 2002 at 01:35:19 PM EST

Yeah, Bush is a closet member. The fact that he appointed the most diverse cabinet in US history giving unprecedented political power to women and people of color is a mere smokescreen.

Give me a break. Of all the criticisms of Bush, "sheet-wearing, cross-burning virulent racist" is one that probably holds the least amount of water.

===
Creativitiy cannot be SPELT by over 98% of all American troops. - psychologist
[ Parent ]

Colin Powell (4.00 / 1) (#43)
by Bob Dog on Thu Jul 04, 2002 at 06:39:41 PM EST

Is pretty much a puppet to give Bush credibility.  He has little real decision-making power.  And unlike my previous posts in this thread I'm not trolling when I'm saying this.


[ Parent ]
I don't think Bush is a racist, per-se. (none / 0) (#48)
by theboz on Thu Jul 04, 2002 at 07:19:29 PM EST

I would look more closely at John Ashcroft if you want to attribute racism to the Bush administration.

Stuff.
[ Parent ]

Bush isn't altruistic enough to be a racist (none / 0) (#117)
by nomoreh1b on Sat Jul 06, 2002 at 06:02:52 PM EST

Racism has as an essential feature the idea that a degree of mutual altruism should exist among people of the same race. I see no evidence that the Bush family think of anyone outside their particular clan. Clan identity and racial identity are somewhat exclusive(i.e. clans can span racial lines-George W. Bush's nephew is hispanic).

In the case of Ashcroft, he's enough of a Christian that tends to mitigate his ability to identify with either his clan or race. It isn't an accident that folks like Jesse Jackson and Martin Luther King were ministers. Taking the role of a minister provided a degree of protection in Southern society because there were lots of white folks around that identify more with their religion than with race or clan. At the onset of the Colonial period, Christianity somehow got identified with the white races. At the same time, the first Christian nation was Ethiopia-a nation that did have representatives in some European courts. Today, the most conservative/traditional Christians in many major churches are Africans.

Ashcroft in particular is a Pentacostal Christian. From my experience in the part of the country he's from, there are about was many black Pentacostals as white folks that follow that faith. I'm not saying that Ashcroft may not have a racist side, but he's really not particularly consistent on that point--and he probably couldn't function as a government official if he were(i.e. if he were to say for example that he felt that repeal of segregation was a mistake or that division of the United States along racial lines to include white/black/and integrated countries is an idea worthy of consideration).

The structure of the US political scene today demands a good bit of hypocrisy from political players today-which I personally see as a problem. I happen to have known some fairly serious political players from the part of the country Ashcroft is from--and there is a real difference between what folks say privately and what they say to get campaign donations/get good press--and that is IMHO a serious problem.

[ Parent ]

Powell (5.00 / 1) (#57)
by cr8dle2grave on Thu Jul 04, 2002 at 09:04:29 PM EST

Is surely the most powerfull Secretary of State since Kissinger and unlike Kissenger he is tremedously popular with the public -- before and september 11th his populatity ratings were higher than Bush's. So what in the world are you talking about.

---
Unity of mankind means: No escape for anyone anywhere. - Milan Kundera


[ Parent ]
The fact (none / 0) (#58)
by Bob Dog on Thu Jul 04, 2002 at 09:14:59 PM EST

That Bush, Ashcroft and their croonies got their war and he didn't have shit to say about it.  And popularity don't mean power.

[ Parent ]
Uhhhh (none / 0) (#73)
by cr8dle2grave on Fri Jul 05, 2002 at 12:30:43 AM EST

If you think that Powell didn't support decisive military action after Setember 11th, you've seriously misunderstood what Powell is all about.

---
Unity of mankind means: No escape for anyone anywhere. - Milan Kundera


[ Parent ]
I didn't say that (none / 0) (#88)
by Bob Dog on Fri Jul 05, 2002 at 11:28:10 AM EST

He didn't support it in its current form.


[ Parent ]
blah. (5.00 / 1) (#74)
by /dev/trash on Fri Jul 05, 2002 at 12:45:20 AM EST

Powell was respected way before Bush was even considering a run for president.

---
Updated 02/20/2004
New Site
[ Parent ]
And your point is? [nt] (none / 0) (#87)
by Bob Dog on Fri Jul 05, 2002 at 11:26:38 AM EST



[ Parent ]
Have to agree (none / 0) (#131)
by wrinkledshirt on Tue Jul 09, 2002 at 06:27:16 PM EST

He just had a press conference in which he was asked how he responded to criticism from the NAACP that his administration hasn't done enough to support minority rights, and all he said was something like, "I just had a meeting, and when I looked around the table I saw Connie Rice and Collin Powell." I wonder how pleased they were to have been so obviously Uncle Tommed to divert criticism.

[ Parent ]
Powell could become Prez. (none / 0) (#132)
by nomoreh1b on Tue Jul 09, 2002 at 10:26:17 PM EST

Is pretty much a puppet to give Bush credibility. He has little real decision-making power. And unlike my previous posts in this thread I'm not trolling when I'm saying this.

I think puppet is the wrong word. I suspect you are right that Powell doesn't have much authority in he Bush administration-but he's also in a position to remove himself from Bush's mistakes. Powell has been able to express opinions clearly outside the Bush "party line"-even if he can't act on them. If Bush dies in office, I expect Powell would have a better chance of getting elected than Cheney. Personally, I'd put the odds of Bush getting hit by a terrorist before 2004 at 1/4.

[ Parent ]

Say what? (4.33 / 3) (#11)
by 3waygeek on Thu Jul 04, 2002 at 01:37:15 PM EST

He's the one who sold a house with the contract stipulation that the purchasers wasn't allowed to sell it to black people.
Do you have a cite for that?

[ Parent ]
it's true (none / 0) (#81)
by streetlawyer on Fri Jul 05, 2002 at 04:54:07 AM EST

Although is is pretty trollish to phrase it in a way which implies that Bush put the clause in there.

--
Just because things have been nonergodic so far, doesn't mean that they'll be nonergodic forever
[ Parent ]
The house (3.66 / 3) (#18)
by strlen on Thu Jul 04, 2002 at 02:37:17 PM EST

Incidentally I know another person with such a contract. Yet he's a perfect, California liberal (TM). The thing is that that clause in the contract was inserted by the housing association on the 50s, and that was fairly common in any decent neighborhood. Disgusting? Yes. Real reminder of how real racism was, and how it wasn't something "long gone". Yes. But valid today? No.

--
[T]he strongest man in the world is he who stands most alone. - Henrik Ibsen.
[ Parent ]
My speculation that was left out of the article (2.90 / 11) (#13)
by theboz on Thu Jul 04, 2002 at 01:47:08 PM EST

I was watching TV and saw something on this group, and a few things clicked in my brain. Basically, I think they might be the ones responsible for the anthrax letters that were sent out last year. If you look at the profile, it seems to fit:
  • The anthrax letters were sent out to liberal politicians and prominent members of the media. The NA clearly states that they want to destroy liberal politicians and the "Jewish" media.
  • The anthrax strain appears to be from a government source. The NA encourages it's people to participate in government positions.
  • The NA have been involved with other terrorist acts which were attempted to look like they were performed by Islamic terrorists (e.g. the Oklahoma City bombing.)
It's just a hunch, but I do think that the National Alliance is involved with the anthrax mailings somehow. They may not be directly responsible as an organization, but I'd bet that one of their members is directly involved.

Stuff.

No way (5.00 / 2) (#22)
by psychologist on Thu Jul 04, 2002 at 03:08:15 PM EST

The timing of the Anthrax letters was set to maximise the fears of the public after Sept. 11th. And was the frame-up not somehow made to look like it was an islamist?

I'd rather think to other groups that don't like Islam.

[ Parent ]

FUD! (1.72 / 11) (#14)
by drquick on Thu Jul 04, 2002 at 02:11:17 PM EST

It's GWB that's the problem. Where did you dig up this paranoia from? You're diverting our attention away from the no-human-rights-to-non-americans president.

What's the "Aryan Nation"? (2.00 / 4) (#15)
by mami on Thu Jul 04, 2002 at 02:24:31 PM EST

Who are the "Knights of Columbus"? (Historically and today, if they still exist as a group)? Who are "White Knights"? How do they all relate to Libertarianism?

How do we know that this article is not written by an National Alliance troll?

+1 FP

Knights of Columbus (2.00 / 1) (#30)
by Quick Star on Thu Jul 04, 2002 at 04:30:20 PM EST

This is a Catholic organization - are you on crack?

"absolutely no one can sex a lobster without cutting it open" -- rusty
[ Parent ]

K o C - here's a brief history lesson for you... (none / 0) (#32)
by Quick Star on Thu Jul 04, 2002 at 04:34:55 PM EST

 The Knights of Columbus was founded in 1882 by a 29-year-old parish priest, Father Michael J. McGivney, in the basement of St. Mary's Church in New Haven, Connecticut. Today, more than a century later, the Knights of Columbus has become the largest lay organization in the Catholic Church.

The Order has been called "the strong right arm of the Church," and has been praised by popes, presidents and other world leaders, for support of the Church, programs of evangelization and Catholic education, civic involvement and aid to those in need. As recently as 1992, Mother Teresa of Calcutta praised the Knights in a speech on the occasion of her reception of the first Knights of Columbus Gaudium et Spes Award.

Thanks to the inspired work of Father McGivney--as well as that of millions of other Knights over the past century--the Knights of Columbus now stands at its pinnacle of membership, benefits and service. Currently, there are over 1.6 million Knights of Columbus--more than ever before in our Order's history. Together with their families, the Knights are nearly 6 million strong. In addition, from the first local council in New Haven, the Order has grown to more than 12,000 councils in the United States, Canada, Mexico, the Philippines, Puerto Rico, Cuba, the Dominican Republic, Panama, the Virgin Islands, Guatemala, Guam and Saipan. Each year, the Order continues this strong growth.

"absolutely no one can sex a lobster without cutting it open" -- rusty
[ Parent ]

You forgot to mention... (none / 0) (#38)
by ectospasm on Thu Jul 04, 2002 at 05:49:23 PM EST

...that the Knights of Columbus was founded because Catholics were being denied insurance because they were Catholic. I know when I got inducted into the KofC they tried to get me to buy insurance. That's what turned me off from it.

[ Parent ]
I had heard (none / 0) (#49)
by gauntlet on Thu Jul 04, 2002 at 07:20:34 PM EST

that its formation had something to do with Catholic men having been banned from joining the FreeMasons, that having been made an offense worthy of excommunication. Can anyone confirm?

Into Canadian Politics?
[ Parent ]

Hmmmm (none / 0) (#61)
by Quick Star on Thu Jul 04, 2002 at 09:35:19 PM EST

Well, part of the K o C is that it's a fraternal insurance organization.  Surely, you knew that in advance - right?

"absolutely no one can sex a lobster without cutting it open" -- rusty
[ Parent ]

heh (4.00 / 1) (#65)
by EriKZ on Thu Jul 04, 2002 at 10:07:20 PM EST

That has got to be the most amusing mix of the spiritual and the mundane that I've ever heard of.

[ Parent ]
Thanks, I thought I had already answered this (none / 0) (#45)
by mami on Thu Jul 04, 2002 at 06:51:34 PM EST

but I guess I didn't hit the post button and got distracted. I read the web site of the Knights of Columbus myself before.

I just wondered why they never changed their name to distinguish themselves from the White Knights, who grew parallel to their group as well. It's a misleading name, which invites bad associations. I wouldn't understand why they wouldn't care about that.

 

[ Parent ]

Why should they? (none / 0) (#60)
by Quick Star on Thu Jul 04, 2002 at 09:34:20 PM EST

They have a long history with that name - what would the point of changing it be?

"absolutely no one can sex a lobster without cutting it open" -- rusty
[ Parent ]

KoC vs Freemasons (none / 0) (#121)
by porkchop_d_clown on Sun Jul 07, 2002 at 09:34:01 AM EST

I thought part of the reason the KoC was founded was to give Catholics an alternative to the Freemasons?


--
ACK.


[ Parent ]
Aryan Nation (5.00 / 1) (#50)
by gauntlet on Thu Jul 04, 2002 at 07:27:48 PM EST

Aryan as a adjective means non-jewish caucasian with nordic features. Blonde, and blue-eyed as the story goes.

The White Knights are a white-supremecist group, which could be considered more inclusive than an aryan supremecist group.

The Knights of Columbus is a Catholic benevolent secret society for men. Kind of like a church-sponsored version of the Free Masons.

Into Canadian Politics?
[ Parent ]

The Definition of "Aryan" (5.00 / 1) (#76)
by andrewhy on Fri Jul 05, 2002 at 02:26:17 AM EST

Although the modern and commonly accepted definition of the word aryan refers to non-jewish white persons of nordic descent, the origins of the word refer to a far different set of people.

Aryan is a Sanskrit word referring to peoples of Indian and Middle Eastern descent. Specifically, Aryan referred to a class of people who were very religious.

Hitler took much of the symbolism for Nazi Germany from the Aryan peoples of India, including the swatstika (which was and still is a religious symbol for many Hindus) and the idea of the Aryans being a superior class of men.

You can read more below:
http://www.veda.harekrsna.cz/encyclopedia/vedicsystem.htm#5
http://kpearson.faculty.tcnj.edu/Dictionary/aryan.htm
http://malkan.com/edufiles/swastika.pdf

If "Noise" means uncomfortable sound, then pop music is noise to me -- Masami Akita, aka "Merzbow"
[ Parent ]

What the? (4.25 / 12) (#16)
by gibichung on Thu Jul 04, 2002 at 02:28:01 PM EST

the National Alliance, who pose a much greater risk to Americans.
This is a rather outrageous statement, don't you think? McVeigh wasn't a member of the group, and the best connection that has been presented between them thus far is "inspiration" -- as in, to attack the government; McVeigh was neither a racist nor a Nazi. The only common ideological ground between them is "U.S. government bad." Do you have any evidence linking them to the anthrax attacks, or is this just speculation?

It's rather absurd to claim that these people are more dangerous than al Qaeda, who have killed thousands of Americans and hundreds of non-Americans who just happened to be near a target. Al Qaeda fielded an army numbering hundreds or thousands, organized and operating in a foreign country.

It appears that you believe that these people are more dangerous than bin Laden because of their stated aims -- which are, incidently, completely unattainable. They're no doubt under close watch, as they're better known for plots foiled in the planning stages than actually accomplishing anything. Is this worth giving up our freedom of speech?

-----
"No man is above the law and no man is below it; nor do we ask any man's permission when we require him to obey it." -- Theodore Roosevelt

I don't think you really read the article (4.00 / 1) (#19)
by theboz on Thu Jul 04, 2002 at 02:37:44 PM EST

This is a rather outrageous statement, don't you think? McVeigh wasn't a member of the group, and the best connection that has been presented between them thus far is "inspiration"

I never claimed he was a member, just that he had ties. The other crimes I mentioned were from people with ties to it as well, some stronger, some not. The point is that this group should be investigated, and that they are a threat.

Do you have any evidence linking them to the anthrax attacks, or is this just speculation?

The anthrax attack link was in a comment, not the article, and the subject of the comment did include the word "speculation" so the answer should be obvious.

It's rather absurd to claim that these people are more dangerous than al Qaeda, who have killed thousands of Americans and hundreds of non-Americans who just happened to be near a target.

That's your opinion, and I happen to disagree. I feel that the potential danger is larger from an organization that has operatives within the U.S. government, law enforcement, and the military.

Al Qaeda fielded an army numbering hundreds or thousands, organized and operating in a foreign country.

Do you care to back these numbers up? The usual list in the news of prisoners in Guatanamo bay are both Taliban and al-Qaeda. I don't doubt that there are possibly a few hundred al-Qaeda, but I have not seen any evidence that they are any better organized than your typical U.S. anti-government militia (which contain many NA members.)

They're no doubt under close watch, as they're better known for plots foiled in the planning stages than actually accomplishing anything. Is this worth giving up our freedom of speech?

I never proposed giving up freedom of speech at all. I believe in quite the opposite actually. I simply provided suggestions of how existing treason laws apply to what they've done.

Stuff.
[ Parent ]

"ties" (3.50 / 4) (#20)
by gibichung on Thu Jul 04, 2002 at 02:52:45 PM EST

I never claimed he was a member, just that he had ties.
That's a cheap cop-out. You cite Oklahoma repeatedly, but you don't substantiate these "ties" at all. Hell, you call him a "follower." The fact is, McVeigh wasn't inspired by ideology of the book any more than bin Laden was by Clancy's novels in which planes are used as weapons. If you have any journalistic honesty, you'll remove the references completely.
The anthrax attack link was in a comment, not the article, and the subject of the comment did include the word "speculation" so the answer should be obvious.
Whoops, but I still think it says something that you considered it without any evidence. And, in that comment, you made another reference to Oklahoma. Prove these "ties," or drop the idea entirely.
That's your opinion, and I happen to disagree. I feel that the potential danger is larger from an organization that has operatives within the U.S. government, law enforcement, and the military.
Document. Document. Document. You haven't demonstrated any of these connections. If there's a list of members, I doubt that you know if it and the FBI doesn't. A page claiming that a fire-fighter is a member is the best you've yet produced.

Face it, your piece is based entirely around McVeigh, and yet he had absolutely nothing to do with this group.

-----
"No man is above the law and no man is below it; nor do we ask any man's permission when we require him to obey it." -- Theodore Roosevelt
[ Parent ]

Follow the links (none / 0) (#21)
by theboz on Thu Jul 04, 2002 at 03:01:25 PM EST

All the stuff about Timothy McVeigh can be summed up here. McVeigh really loved the books, and actually sold them at gun shows.

You haven't demonstrated any of these connections. If there's a list of members, I doubt that you know if it and the FBI doesn't.

I never claimed to have a list of members, and anonymity is something that they take seriously. Still, I believe one of the crimes I linked to in the stories involved someone in law enforcement. I don't feel like repeating everything I already wrote, nor do I want to have to write here what is in the links I provided. Go read them yourself.

Stuff.
[ Parent ]

It says nothing (3.75 / 4) (#23)
by gibichung on Thu Jul 04, 2002 at 03:13:39 PM EST

about racism or any support for this organization. What it does say is that McVeigh was interested in strategy for anti-government attacks. Hardly surprising, considering what he did.

McVeigh didn't like the government, we all know that. Buy would you argue that a politician who was inspired by Hitler's speaking methods is automatically a Nazi? Does this make him a "Nazi follower"? What about an industralist inspired by Stalin's 5 year plans -- a mass murder follower?

-----
"No man is above the law and no man is below it; nor do we ask any man's permission when we require him to obey it." -- Theodore Roosevelt
[ Parent ]

Timothy McVeigh wasn't a racist. (4.00 / 2) (#26)
by snowlion on Thu Jul 04, 2002 at 03:44:38 PM EST

Sorry, theboz, but gibichung is right- Timothy McVeigh wasn't a racist, much as people have tried to pin him as one.

I've followed your link, and found that he had the books that were written that included racist tracts. However, I've also read numerous interviews with Timothy McVeigh, and it was quite clear to me that he wasn't a racist in the slightest. He was just against the federal government, and felt sympathy with people who were also against the fed, racist or otherwise.

If the media wanted to pin me for something, I am sure that they could find something, given my library. Let's see; You could take my metaphysical books, and call me a cultist. You could even find in my notebooks places where I say that I think that they contain good ideas... Which means I must obviously agree with everything the author says, including that there was a Lemurian island, and that California is about to sink into the seas, right? Some of these books have negative things to say about the Old Testament God (which is understandable) and further say that the Jewish religion is fundamentally flawed, and that Jews are bad (which I disagree with strongly). Okay, so I can be painted as anti-Jew, because of the books I own. (See also my support for the Palestinian cause, and there you go: I must therefor be anti-Jew, no?) I believe strongly that the same has happened to McVeigh.

Here, I found a McVeigh interview; Read that.
--
Map Your Thoughts
[ Parent ]

Timothy McVeigh wasn't a racist (none / 0) (#29)
by mami on Thu Jul 04, 2002 at 04:04:50 PM EST

I don't know why it would matter if he was or wasn't. What he did doesn't get any better or worse just because someone declares his motives non racist or racist. So, why do you get so upset about the (possible) ties to racist view points?

If you think that people would bother about what you read and what kind of notes you make, I don't think they would as long as you don't act out some of your anti-whatever hate thoughts.

If you start displaying them in hate speech, people will categorize you as a racist or as an anti-Jew or because of your pro-Palestinian view points as anti-semitic. They have the freedom to make a judgement about your speech and categorize you according whom you support, the same way as you can categorize a lot of people fascist governmental oppressors (or some such, just an example).

Let's see, if Nazis in 1932 read "Mein Kampf" and made notes about obvious racist view points and you would have started to "discuss" them in public favorably, that also wouldn't have made them then a Nazi supporter and racist, right?

Sigh.


[ Parent ]

I've got a friend who've read Mein Kampf (none / 0) (#35)
by strlen on Thu Jul 04, 2002 at 05:21:07 PM EST

He also discussed the origins of Nazism with me. And he discusses the Israel-Palestine conflict, and he's pro-Palestian to a degree. Yet to call him a Nazi or anti-semite, would be a great insult to me (a Jew) and to him, because he clearly isn't one. In fact the reason he read Mein Kampf is to understand how you can convice others to kill 6 million of peacefull individuals, and how you can turn a liberal, tolerant, Germany into the Nazi Germany of World War II. What makes you a Nazi is avidly supporting the Nazi viewpoint, not merely learning what their view point is.

--
[T]he strongest man in the world is he who stands most alone. - Henrik Ibsen.
[ Parent ]
Sigh, of course. (none / 0) (#41)
by mami on Thu Jul 04, 2002 at 06:30:17 PM EST

Though my father never got himself to read through the whole "Mein Kampf" (after WWII and after coming back as Russian POW), I think you won't find a lot of people, who didn't try to understand how it was possible for the NSDAP and Hitler to turn Germany into what it became during WWII and the thirties, after the Germans were defeated.

What has that to do with it? I was talking about someone reading "Mein Kampf" in 1932 and discussing its beneficial ideas at that time period. Hitler prepared the overthrow of the German legal system and the Weimar Republic from 1926 to 1933.

I can assure you that German families during that time did discuss Nazi view points and they took quite clear positions privately. If you didn't express your criticism against the Nazi's view points at that time , there is no way to believe that you were not a supporter of the Nazis. That is as simple as that.

The only thing to consider for people living through that time period as adults is that there wasn't much public criticism possible without risking your life. The militia mentality and the power of their guns had taken the police and Armed Forces over. They were infiltrated by Nazis all over the place.

To finish this, I think the situation you describe doesn't compare to what I said. Some student who tries to educate himself about the history of the rise of the Third Reich sixty years later the events happen.

And it is, BTW, not necessary for you to mention you being a Jew to make your argument more convincing to me.

It implies you can't be a supporter of racist Nazi view points and a Jew at the same time. There is no reason to believe a Jew can't be a racist (just not an anti-jewish racist) by default. If you would just exchange the race of the Jews with any other race of - let's say we would take the race of the Tutsi, you would see that it is very possible for a Jew to have Nazi view points against the Tutsis. (Just an example, not to be taken literally)

In general, these days, as groups is called Nazis, when they proclaims that another ethnic group needs to be eliminated or segregated for the reason of them to belong to a race or ethnicity.

Well, and then, how do you think you "avidly" support the Nazi viewpoint, if you are not at the level of going in the woods to sharpen your militia fighting skills?

All that is left to "avidly" do (aside from shooting), is to convince intellectually other people from the beneficial and benign aspects of the Nazi view points.

Usually you do this in discussing with people in more or less sophisticated, rhetorical manners about Nazi philosophies, online or in your neighborhood pub. If you call a Nazi just the ones, who are anti-semites, or if you replace it with any other anti-some-ethnic-group doesn't change much, your view points are that of a Nazi.

Al-Queda view points are Nazi view points, because they invoke Allah against the Americans as a ethnic group representing Western Civilization values.

So, what do we do about the NA?

[ Parent ]

correction: In general, these days, as groups is c (none / 0) (#42)
by mami on Thu Jul 04, 2002 at 06:33:20 PM EST

... should be "these days, a group is called Nazi"...

[ Parent ]
anti-<whatever>, nazi and the like (none / 0) (#47)
by strlen on Thu Jul 04, 2002 at 07:10:42 PM EST

if you say that just because mc. veigh trained with the racists/nazis/whatever he by implication is a racist, you're mistaken. you do know that after the war US worked with nazi-scientists to develop jet aircraft, rockets, and the like? while it is definately 'wrong' and 'immoral' to do such a thing, it doesn't imply being a nazi themselves. the general militia mentality is that they share a common enemy, the government, and aren't interested in fighting themselves, but are more interested in fighting the government, which is why you see people like mc veigh training with people with whom he doesn't necesserily agree entirely. this is simply an example of someone who believes the ends justify the means (another example of such is America's support for Franco after World War II didn't actually imply the US themsleves are fascists). there, by the way, militia groups who expressedly ban racism and refuse to cooperate with racist militia groups, but that's besides the point.

About NA? I suggest simply monitoring them whenever there's a reasonable suspicion that something is up. If there's evidence that can stand up in court that they in fact were responsible for terrorism, then of course they should be brought to jusitce, with due process and the like (and yes, i am against indefenite detention of al qaida members, lack of due process towards them etc). but  if they simply want to get together, sing nazi song, shout heil hitler, drink beer and read mein kampf and blame jews, blacks and the like for the losers they themselves are, it's their right. in fact, if we establish infrastructure and legal allowances which enable us to go after people simply due to their political beliefs (no matter how reprehensible they are), there's no guarantee that the religious right / any racists/nazis/etc.. in the government won't be using these same allowances for their own purpose. freedom is a two way street.

--
[T]he strongest man in the world is he who stands most alone. - Henrik Ibsen.
[ Parent ]

the logic of it (none / 0) (#67)
by mami on Thu Jul 04, 2002 at 10:46:55 PM EST

but if they simply want to get together, sing nazi song, shout heil hitler, drink beer and read mein kampf and blame jews, blacks and the like for the losers they themselves are, it's their right. in fact, if we establish infrastructure and legal allowances which enable us to go after people simply due to their political beliefs (no matter how reprehensible they are), there's no guarantee that the religious right / any racists/nazis/etc.. in the government won't be using these same allowances for their own purpose. freedom is a two way street.

So, you say it's your right to be (racist looser, because you want to be sure that the government can't act as racist loosers themselves and do the same thing to you as you do to them?

Strange, if you want a right to be a racist looser, I guess that gives you the right to run for office, which means you end up providing members for a racist looser government, exactly the thing you don't want. Huh?

[ Parent ]

re: (none / 0) (#68)
by strlen on Thu Jul 04, 2002 at 10:59:30 PM EST

Strange, if you want a right to be a racist looser, I guess that gives you the right to run for office, which means you end up providing members for a racist looser government, exactly the thing you don't want. Huh?

You have a right to hold racist loser beliefs. You have no right to excersize these beliefs as you'll be interfering with the rights of others if you do. That's why this country has a strong constitution. What will a racist loser be able to do in office if he has no power to force segreation on people, no power to send anyone to the concentration camps, no power to censor books? Also having laws against nazis doesn't prevent racist losers from coming to power, see France, see Netherlands, see Belgium, see Austria.



--
[T]he strongest man in the world is he who stands most alone. - Henrik Ibsen.
[ Parent ]
you have the right to make a fool out of yourself (none / 0) (#69)
by mami on Thu Jul 04, 2002 at 11:16:48 PM EST

You have no right to excersize these beliefs as you'll be interfering with the rights of others if you do.

What kind of fuzzy argument is that supposed to be. You hold beliefs, because you are convinced they are the right ones and you want to exercize those beliefs. Otherwise you don't need them and you wouldn't have them to begin with.

What will a racist loser be able to do in office if he has no power to force segreation on people, no power to send anyone to the concentration camps, no power to censor books?

The racist loser in office has the nasty little capability of having exactly that power available to him.

Why would you be scared of a racist loser government (as you said before), if not because of that. Or is it unimaginable to you that the racist person in power influences the laws so that they reflect his view points? There are no perfect laws or a perfect constitution, that can prevent the majority of the Congress and the President in power from changing the laws to their liking. If they all happen to be racist loosers, you get racist looser's laws. Simple as that.

[ Parent ]

re: (none / 0) (#70)
by strlen on Thu Jul 04, 2002 at 11:48:34 PM EST

What kind of fuzzy argument is that supposed to be. You hold beliefs, because you are convinced they are the right ones and you want to exercize those beliefs. Otherwise you don't need them and you wouldn't have them to begin with.

except that their beliefs aren't the right one. they have as much right as they want to hhold theose beliefs and believe that they're right, but they can't excersize that belief. that belief violates the rights of others, and hence there's a constitution to protect it.

The racist loser in office has the nasty little capability of having exactly that power available to him.

may be if we follow the slippery slope of allowing politicians to censor books and determine which beliefs are "ok" or "not ok" for citizens to hold he will. as of now there's the 14th and 13th ammendment to the constitution, amongst with many others, that require 3/4th of the states to repeal. if 3/4 of the state already already wish for nazism to occur, then i'm sorry mami, but banning mein kampf won't help -- they'll come to power in any case. for example of how nazi scum can come to power despite all sorts of anti-nazi laws, please see what's going in europe at the moment. what you suggest -- giving government wide censorship powers, will make it a lot easier for a marginally or disputedly elected nazi/or nazi-leaning loser to erode the civil liberties to the extent he wishes. oh by the way, loser has only one o in it.



--
[T]he strongest man in the world is he who stands most alone. - Henrik Ibsen.
[ Parent ]
dream on (5.00 / 1) (#83)
by mami on Fri Jul 05, 2002 at 07:18:12 AM EST

if 3/4 of the state already already wish for nazism to occur, then i'm sorry mami, but banning mein kampf won't help -- they'll come to power in any case.

Aha, and where did I say one has to ban "My Kampf" in order to avoid racist philosophies to flourish in people's minds? You can read "My Kampf" freely in Germany, you get even a set of "interpretations" with it for free, so that some not so enlightened readers have a chance to actually really learn something from the book.

And where can you prove that the constitution, which you trust so much to avoid the empowerment of racists and prevent all evil from happening, actually will be able to do that?

for example of how nazi scum can come to power despite all sorts of anti-nazi laws, please see what's going in europe at the moment.

Your favorite Europe bashing going on again. Can you find something more interesting than using cheap "you are all Nazi scum" propaganda and look "how bad your anti-Nazi laws are working. Despite of them, your Neo-Nazis are are all over the place and gaining power. What kind of fascist losers are you therefore trying to infringe of Neo-Nazi free speech. Well paid for your fascist attitudes"?

Can you quote all our supposedly so outrageous dumb "Anti-Nazi" laws, which all are supposedly infringing so much on our freedom of speech that the opposition to Nazi scum is dead and therefore the laws were just doing the opposite of what they are supposed to do, letting the Nazis coming to power again? That's your pitiful logic, right?

Can you support your claims that Europe is on the brink of fascism again, because we are supposedly all oppressing free speech for extremist hate groups and therefore we are oppressing the critical free speech, that could work against Nazis too. You want to convince me that we shooting us in our own feet with our anti-Nazi-hate-speech legislation?

Can you stop your nasty little scum trick to blame Europe for having the spine to call a extreme or terrorist, racist movement by its name and having the guts to express their concerns about their hate actions they incite in some form potentially in their laws?

If you want to blame Europe for anything than the most I can come up with is that they tend to express their concerns about right-wing hate groups more clearly than about left-wing extremists. But I do believe that those days are numbered as well.

Ok, dream on and trust your constitution to be capable to protect you from racist, extremist political philosophies no matter how bad or sophisticated they come.

oh by the way, loser has only one o in it.

Not in my vocabulary, they have at least two o and a bunch of zeros in it. Looser.

[ Parent ]

jewish Nazis (5.00 / 2) (#80)
by streetlawyer on Fri Jul 05, 2002 at 04:51:43 AM EST

There is no reason to believe a Jew can't be a racist (just not an anti-jewish racist)

Sadly, many documented cases of Jewish Nazis during the Reich.

--
Just because things have been nonergodic so far, doesn't mean that they'll be nonergodic forever
[ Parent ]

yeah, why don't you show the documentation? (none / 0) (#122)
by mami on Sun Jul 07, 2002 at 11:00:10 AM EST

... sadly many documented cases of racist thought crimes on K5 ...

[ Parent ]
Documentation (none / 0) (#123)
by nomoreh1b on Sun Jul 07, 2002 at 02:30:03 PM EST

You might want to check out "The Transfer Agreement" by Edwin Black, which deals with various intrigues between elements in Jewish Palestine and the Third Reich.

[ Parent ]
What for? (none / 0) (#125)
by mami on Sun Jul 07, 2002 at 08:40:22 PM EST

To prove that Jews are no saints all the time? Or can misjudge? Or make mistakes? Or be human?

I will read it, but as always, I bet the book is used by the wrong people to justify a view point of their own that has nothing to do with what the book might have to tell about a certain moment in history.

[ Parent ]

Hate Crimes... (none / 0) (#54)
by Skywise on Thu Jul 04, 2002 at 08:12:52 PM EST

"What he did doesn't get any better or worse just because someone declares his motives non racist or racist. So, why do you get so upset about the (possible) ties to racist view points?"

Because murder for racist purposes is "worse" than just plain murder according to hate crime laws.

No, it doesn't make sense to me either, but that's the current thought trend.

Therefore if McVeigh wasn't racist his actions could be seen as revolutionary and not blind hatred...

[ Parent ]

was it locke? (3.75 / 4) (#17)
by auraslip on Thu Jul 04, 2002 at 02:34:39 PM EST

That had the idea of a social contract. That the goverment is just a contract, and if they break it, it is your duty (right?) to overthrow it. I don't think the goverment is breaking the contract enough to warrant revoloution, but if it did why are there so many laws against it:
Insurrection
Overt act of betrayal
Syndicalism  
Sedition
Intent to Betray
And their is the free speach issue, when do you cross the line? Is it when you say you want the goverment to be violently overthrown, or is it when you say anything about wanting a revoloution. This could be dangerous for anybody who is too political radical if these laws were interpreted as they are read.
(if they are in fact actuall laws)

124
Social Contracts. (none / 0) (#28)
by me0w on Thu Jul 04, 2002 at 03:46:09 PM EST

That had the idea of a social contract.

The earliest I can think of is Plato. See Plato's Apology and Republic.


"The only reason we PMS is because our uterus is screaming at our brain to go out, get fucked, and have a baby ... and it makes us angry."
[ Parent ]

Scaremongering (4.14 / 7) (#25)
by freddie on Thu Jul 04, 2002 at 03:19:32 PM EST

I'm sure the FBI is on top of this already.

It would be safe to say that the NA, like the KKK and other right-wing organizations has been aggressively infiltrated by the FBI.

This process started in the 1960's were it was effective against the Klan.

It seems that it must be an on-going process.  Remember the Ruby Ridge massacre?  The FBI killed a man's wife and son because he wouldn't agree to become an informer.

If the NA was planning any crimes why wouldn't they be held accountable, just like the FBI has held up the Klan accountable in the past?


Imagination is more important than knowledge. -- Albert Einstein

Mmm yes... (3.50 / 2) (#27)
by tthomas48 on Thu Jul 04, 2002 at 03:44:46 PM EST

inflitrated. That's a good way to put it. It wasn't that all those politicians and law enforcement were members of the KKK, National Alliance, or Army of God, it was that they were inflitrating... right.

[ Parent ]
Extent of Infiltration (none / 0) (#127)
by nomoreh1b on Mon Jul 08, 2002 at 09:46:51 PM EST

Some of these organizations have more FBI agents and what not than real members. FBI agents have been known to take major leadership roles in both right/left wing organizations under the guise of "infiltration". Some leftist organizers have joked that when they suspected someone of being an FBI plant, they'd just work them hard till they burned out.

The other side of course: "extremist" organizations are the perfect patsy for anyone that wants to do something that they'd like someone else blamed for.

[ Parent ]

Ruby Ridge was a royal goatfuck (none / 0) (#55)
by Perianwyr on Thu Jul 04, 2002 at 08:29:12 PM EST

The sad thing about Ruby Ridge was that both sides, out of carelessness, ended up giving the other exactly what they wanted, to the detriment of one another.

The FBI expected a survivalist who would violently and irrationally resist government interference.

The Weavers expected stormtroopers and black helicopters coming to destroy a God-fearing family.

Idiotic bloodshed resulted.

[ Parent ]

You sure that's not... (none / 0) (#56)
by Skywise on Thu Jul 04, 2002 at 09:00:30 PM EST

Ideological blood shed?

[ Parent ]
Same thing (n/t) (none / 0) (#66)
by magney on Thu Jul 04, 2002 at 10:46:01 PM EST


Do I look like I speak for my employer?
[ Parent ]

Nope, I meant idiotic. (none / 0) (#77)
by Perianwyr on Fri Jul 05, 2002 at 03:57:56 AM EST

What happened at Ruby Ridge was just plain stupid, and it happened because everyone involved was stupid.

The Weavers were stupid. Specifically, Randy Weaver was dumb for sawing off a shotgun for a FBI informant. The family's whole defensive reaction was just too much, and resulted in the deaths of Randy Weaver's family.

 The FBI was also stupid. They got together a huge army of agents to take down a supposed white supremacist, who if they'd done a little research would have found that he had actually very few ties with those folks and mostly shared a common interest in "The Late Great Planet Earth" with them. If the agents hadn't come in like they did, no FBI operatives would have been injured, and Randy Weaver's family would have survived the encounter.

Waco and Ruby Ridge were major FBI flubs, and they taught the agency quite a lot about dealing with isolationist extremists.

[ Parent ]

Domestic spying... (2.00 / 1) (#62)
by dipierro on Thu Jul 04, 2002 at 09:45:05 PM EST

From the 1970s until just recently was not permitted to infiltrate domestic political organizations.

[ Parent ]
I quote; (4.00 / 5) (#33)
by ti dave on Thu Jul 04, 2002 at 04:35:17 PM EST

From the [rather nicely designed] NA web site's Membership Requirements page:

The National Alliance does not advocate any illegal activity and expects its members to conduct themselves accordingly.

How are you associating the alleged infiltration of the Government, with the point that *some* Government employees have apparently joined the NA?

Please note the difference between the two perspectives.

"If you dial," Iran said, eyes open and watching, "for greater venom, then I'll dial the same."

No shit ... (3.00 / 1) (#36)
by mami on Thu Jul 04, 2002 at 05:26:25 PM EST

I guess if they want to infiltrate the government, it would make kind of sense to ask its future members not to have a criminal record, don't you think?

Wasn't the author of this article asking "What should be done about the NA"? I guess some NA member is testing how safe they can feel, as even anarchist K5-ers can't come up with some answers.

Let's see, if I would ask "What should be done about the liberal Socialists and Communists", would you still be out of answers?    

[ Parent ]

Reply (3.00 / 1) (#39)
by ti dave on Thu Jul 04, 2002 at 05:56:21 PM EST

I guess if they want to infiltrate the government, it would make kind of sense to ask its future members not to have a criminal record, don't you think?

Not necessarily. I'd like to remind you that our sitting President has a criminal record.
Perhaps at the end of his term he will attempt to pardon himself?

Let's see, if I would ask "What should be done about the liberal Socialists and Communists", would you still be out of answers?

Your question has inspired me to seek out more information on the John Birch Society.
You're awakening my Inner Fascist.

"If you dial," Iran said, eyes open and watching, "for greater venom, then I'll dial the same."

[ Parent ]
Fascists never sleep - they are too scared (nt) (5.00 / 1) (#44)
by mami on Thu Jul 04, 2002 at 06:42:43 PM EST



[ Parent ]
heh (4.33 / 3) (#78)
by streetlawyer on Fri Jul 05, 2002 at 04:48:10 AM EST

The National Alliance does not advocate any illegal activity and expects its members to conduct themselves accordingly

I seem to remember a similar catch-all disclaimer on Napster, which was about as credible.

--
Just because things have been nonergodic so far, doesn't mean that they'll be nonergodic forever
[ Parent ]

Aiding and abetting Nazi Germany!? (3.85 / 7) (#34)
by davidduncanscott on Thu Jul 04, 2002 at 04:56:55 PM EST

I don't think you really need a judge to test this one. That war is over. I can safely say nice things about England (great music, guys!) without committing treason, because both the War of 1812 and the Revolution are over. I can drive a Japanese car to buy Spanish wine and mix in Mexican fruit to make sangria without fear of prosecution.

John Walker Lindh (none / 0) (#46)
by Bob Dog on Thu Jul 04, 2002 at 06:55:56 PM EST

Isn't he up on treason charges?


[ Parent ]
Yes (none / 0) (#79)
by vinay on Fri Jul 05, 2002 at 04:48:30 AM EST

He is.

but the key is that he was apprehended during a war against al qaeda.

-\/


[ Parent ]
JWL's rights (none / 0) (#82)
by drquick on Fri Jul 05, 2002 at 07:10:02 AM EST

The thing is that hes wrongly tried.

[ Parent ]
re: JWL's rights (none / 0) (#84)
by vinay on Fri Jul 05, 2002 at 08:15:24 AM EST

How so? Are you referring to the fact that FBI was brought in to question him, or specific charges (and which ones?)

-\/


[ Parent ]
unfair trial (none / 0) (#120)
by drquick on Sun Jul 07, 2002 at 03:30:01 AM EST

I just meant that he is charged with treason but, all he's done is defend Afghanistan. What Al Quaida did/does is not JWL's crime, no matter if they trained him (but actually Talibans did).

My objection is the vindictive atmosphere of the trial, combined with questining without lawyer etc technical errors. Theres plenty of technicalities the case should fall on. Almost all evidence is illegally aquired.

If there was equality in the the legal process you'd get a fair trial even if the charge is treason.

[ Parent ]

Not really (5.00 / 1) (#86)
by Bob Dog on Fri Jul 05, 2002 at 11:05:26 AM EST

He was not part of al-queda.  He was fighting for the taliban way before THe US ever started bombing them.  And it isn't a war.


[ Parent ]
It's not really clear to me (5.00 / 1) (#92)
by davidduncanscott on Fri Jul 05, 2002 at 12:55:56 PM EST

that he fought for anybody, ever. Certainly he enlisted with the Taliban, and he accepted training from Al Queda, but on balance, since that training was not (AFAIK) in anything but standard military practice, suitable to a Taliban soldier (as opposed to, say, flying planes into buildings or bombing school buses).

It would seem reasonable to me that issues arise around his citizenship -- he did enlist with a foreign power -- but I don't see that treason comes into it. So far as I can determine, he never fired a shot against US troops, and even his enlistment came at a time when the US and Afghanistan were at peace (not that we've declared war even now, which would certainly help to clarify a number of things.)

[ Parent ]

NA = AlQ? (4.16 / 6) (#37)
by markaze on Thu Jul 04, 2002 at 05:28:25 PM EST

Like others have mentioned below, I don't think that the NA quite matches up with Al Qaeda.  
(NA is content in their evil trash way with staying domestic, for one thing).

However, I will give you +1 FP, if only because of the lack of an anti-America bent to this story.  Most K5 users, I'm sure, would have written this article as "America is hypocritical and evil because they have terrorists, too" rather than staying relevant and focused.  Good job.

_
"To each of them it seemed plain that things were just at that stage when a word or so of plain sense, spoken in a new voice, would restore the whole room to sanity" -C.S. Lewis

Utopia Creation (4.50 / 2) (#52)
by faustus on Thu Jul 04, 2002 at 07:43:53 PM EST

Many groups through-out history have tried to create utopia's to fulfill their personal desires and wants. The problem with people attempting to do this is that the end product, a "heaven on earth", becomes so desirable that anything can be justified to achieve that goal. Case in point:

We will not be deterred by the difficulty or temporary unpleasantness involved [to create a white living space]

The Nazi's thought that the Third Reich would achieve perfection once it was cleansed of the Jews. The final solution was just a "temporary unpleasantness", on the road to a German utopia.

Human's long for God-like abilities because they dislike their own shortcomings, and desire to fix them. When this desire becomes organized and powerful, it rapidly deteriorates into events like the Holocaust and institutions like the USSR.

The lesson from this is to ensure that people like these never attain any more power than they already have. There are Adolf Hitler's walking around the United States today, but they don't have the means to act out their desires.

I donno, man... (3.50 / 4) (#53)
by Trollificus on Thu Jul 04, 2002 at 08:04:21 PM EST

...It's just not the same without the hoods and burning crosses. ;p~
Anything else is just boring 'ol terrorism.

"The separation of church and state is a fiction. The nation is the kingdom of God, period."
--Bishop Harold Calvin Ray of West Palm Beach, FL

Affluent? (2.66 / 3) (#59)
by mrdroopydrawers on Thu Jul 04, 2002 at 09:15:34 PM EST

Neither of these people are rich...

af·flu·ent  
adj.
Generously supplied with money, property, or possessions; prosperous or rich. See Synonyms at rich.
Plentiful; abundant.
Flowing freely; copious.

McVeigh and Nichols may have had Islamist ties (4.85 / 7) (#63)
by beg2differ on Thu Jul 04, 2002 at 09:47:23 PM EST

The following information was gleaned from an editorial by Jack Kelly, dated June 28, 2002. You can read the editorial in its entirety here. You're looking for an article entitled, "Muslim link in Oklahoma City bombing revisited". If it's not the feature article, go to the bottom of the page and look for this title among the archived editorials.

Among other things, the article reminds the reader that when Timothy McVeigh was apprehended, he had on his person a number of Iraqui telephone numbers. It also points out that even though Terry Nichols worked minimum-wage jobs, he spent somewhere between $80,000 and $100,000 from 1990 to 1994 traveling back and forth to the Philipines. On his last trip to the Philipines, Nichols was on Basilan island at the same time as Iraqi intelligence operative, Ramzi Youssef, who is currently serving time in Colorado for masterminding the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center.

Kelly's article includes a lot of other interesting info. Check it out if you're interested.



McVeigh and the National Alliance, what?... (3.37 / 8) (#64)
by ceramicnuts on Thu Jul 04, 2002 at 09:55:43 PM EST

can you offer a little more evidence that the National Alliance is a "terrorist" organization? references to obscure, outdated websites is not exactly solid ground. nor are "facts" from the notorious censorship group, the ADL. it would be like using National Alliance pages to prove "the jews dominate the media".

perhaps something from a trusted news source? for example: In January, JDL chairman Irv Rubin and a group member were charged with conspiring to blow up a mosque and the office of an Arab-American congressman in California. They have pleaded innocent. - AP

people like you, "theboz", who want to -- what, censor/disband/shut down and lie about irrelevant far-right groups scare me more than the groups themselves.

Craziness ... (3.00 / 3) (#71)
by waverleo on Fri Jul 05, 2002 at 12:13:04 AM EST

What's happened to us? Don't we have _any_ objective measures by which to judge the credibility of such NA people, or solid foundation on which take down "extreme-right" (as much as I hate the term) views??? Seems to me that it used to be we had a few values that we used as measures to expose the blatant hypocrisy (and cronyism) of most of these groups, and yet none of these topics seem to be coming out ... These groups should not even _have_ members! A number of years ago there would be huge public outcry directed at those at those advocating these positions. We shouldn't be discussing whether or not the NA is a terrorist organisation, we should be focussing on putting together websites that expose these ultra-hypocritical organisations - websites impressive to the average user (as bigotted ones tend to be) instead of hoping that validity will compensate for bad presentation. The "right" (or better: self-serving) has become better and better at putting together effective ad campaigns, slogans and speeches. Instead of arbitrary, and generally misguided, banter, we should group together the genuinely democratic, progressive, and egalitarian and form meaningful forces of opposition. BTW It would sure be a coup if it was discovered who were supporters of these crazy groups. (*cough* John *cough* Ashcroft)

Who is really crazy (none / 0) (#118)
by nomoreh1b on Sat Jul 06, 2002 at 06:43:32 PM EST

Ted Kennedy claimed over 30 years ago that changes in US immigration policy wouldn't cause significant migration from Asia, Latin America or Africa and wouldn't change the ethnic composition of the United States. Proponents of integration of public schools made lots of wild claims that the process of integration would dramatically improve educational attainment among African-Americans. Both predictions were dead on wrong.

One good measure of the "credibility" of a milieu is how accurate the predictions of their leaders are over time. I personally think that Mr. Pierce is wrong on some key points. The chance of his organization ever participating in a sovereign government in North America in my lifetime I would put as slim to none. Still, try as I might, I can't say that he lacks any more credibility than folks like Ted Kennedy or George Bush(or Paul Ehrlich that has yet to be right in any substantial predictions he's ever made).

What bothers me personally that noone is keeping score. The mathematics of assessing predictions is pretty well developed(US weather Bureau did a lot of this over 35 years ago). The question of who is accurate in their predictions is at one level just a number.

If you were to say that Pierce and for that matter Pat Buchanan were rather mean spirited and lacked some imagination in how to achieve their goals, I'd tend to agree with you. To say they lack credibility because their predictions have failed to come to pass? Well, right now, they are ahead of other folks that are accepted in he mainstream---and that is a damning indictment of how pathetic the US mainstream is.

There should be some room in public debate that acknowledges the credibility of people with a wide range of opinions. If we can't have that, sooner or later society is going to be making some big mistakes from which it can't recover-if it hasn't already.

[ Parent ]

National Alliance (3.00 / 3) (#72)
by AnalogBoy on Fri Jul 05, 2002 at 12:13:39 AM EST

A bunch of fundamentalists of any brand - White Power, Baptist, Nazi, Black Power, Islamic, GNU - are dangerous people.    This world is MUCH too diverse to be inflexible to values designed for a world 500, 1500, or 2000 years ago.

The National Alliance is, IMHO, less of a threat than the KKK in the public's eye due just to the fact that nobody has ever heard of it.  And let's face it; they have about 0 chance of taking anything over.    <X-Files Theme> Its the groups nobody has ever heard about that you have to worry about.. Like whatever ultra-secret society the Skull & Bones / Eulogia society is covering up. </X-Files Theme>
--
Save the environment, plant a Bush back in Texas.
Religous Tolerance (And click a banner while you're there)

GNU (5.00 / 3) (#75)
by barnasan on Fri Jul 05, 2002 at 12:59:10 AM EST

While I see your point, I think throwing GNU in one box with the other groups you mention goes a bit too far.

I'm not particularly fond of their "manifestos", nor RMS himself, but I think they are an integral part of the high-tech ecosystem and as such we all here benefit from them (just think about the technology that drives K5). They might have a different vision and strong opinions, but that's still a long way from real fundamentalism.

b-san


[ Parent ]

Sorry (none / 0) (#90)
by AnalogBoy on Fri Jul 05, 2002 at 12:04:48 PM EST

I have a dry and un-funny sense of humor that i interject into serious conversations just to maintain a sense of "me".

Hope you understand.

And RMS isn't dangerous.. just.. scary.   When the brotherhood of the penguin starts walking around in robes and chanting in the street is when i'll start worrying.
--
Save the environment, plant a Bush back in Texas.
Religous Tolerance (And click a banner while you're there)
[ Parent ]

http://www.vanguardnewsnetwork.com (1.40 / 15) (#85)
by Mark Konrad on Fri Jul 05, 2002 at 10:13:29 AM EST

It IS kind of funny, in a highly cynical way, that is, to read the comments on this board regarding closing down the freedom to speak in the USA.

Always enlightening and sobering to realise just how many future government informants and collaborators there are out there lurking behind that cloak of anonymity, wringing their hands and mewling on about this website or that which they feel must be shut down. Not a very encouraging collection of "Freedom Lovers."

And THOSE are the types that I fear and loathe -- not William Pierce and the NA. He states his beliefs openly, then puts his real name on his website and commentary for all to see. He DOESN'T hide behind a cutesy-pie alias then furtively promote the benefits of cooperating with a criminal fed govt in order to put anyone who disagrees with him in jail for what they think or say.

There is a sizable segment of the present residents of this country that he does prefer to remove from within the borders of the United States, but this is purely in response to the destructiveness, and violence, and nation wrecking behavior they they are responsible for. He rightly perceives violence and rape and murder being committed against his own race, and culture, and people, so he recommends counter-attack against those perpetrating that violence against White Europeans. That is a perfectly understandable and reasonable position to take, any objective observer will admit.

In addition, I read more than a few comments here accusing the National Alliance and other "Right Wing" organisations of "hypocrisy," but the commentators virtually NEVER POINT OUT EXAMPLES of what they percieve to be said "Hypocrisy," nor do they proceed to deconstruct it for us. So it must be easier to simply make the accusation of hypocrisy than it is to provide examples of it. [BTW -- I am personally, and many others of us are Nationalsozialistische  -- National Socialist -- is that considered to be "Right Wing ?"]

Mark Konrad

http://www.vanguardnewsnetwork.com

http://www.vanguardnewsnetwork.com/letters.htm

eMail: VanguardNN@uboot.com


Nobody asked for that (5.00 / 2) (#94)
by theboz on Fri Jul 05, 2002 at 01:51:56 PM EST

It IS kind of funny, in a highly cynical way, that is, to read the comments on this board regarding closing down the freedom to speak in the USA.

There's a huge difference in freedom of speech and planning to overthrow the government.

Always enlightening and sobering to realise just how many future government informants and collaborators there are out there lurking behind that cloak of anonymity, wringing their hands and mewling on about this website or that which they feel must be shut down.

Show me where anyone, especially myself, asks for the shutdown of their site.

And THOSE are the types that I fear and loathe -- not William Pierce and the NA. He states his beliefs openly, then puts his real name on his website and commentary for all to see.

So does Usama bin Laden. Is he a great hero of yours as well?

He DOESN'T hide behind a cutesy-pie alias then furtively promote the benefits of cooperating with a criminal fed govt in order to put anyone who disagrees with him in jail for what they think or say.

Most people use aliases here for purposes of anonymity. Not to hide, but because we don't need a bunch of morons harassing us. In any case, you're deluded if you think that anyone is calling for putting people in jail for what they think or say, as long as they're not conspiring to commit crimes, which members of the NA have repeatedly been shown to do.

There is a sizable segment of the present residents of this country that he does prefer to remove from within the borders of the United States, but this is purely in response to the destructiveness, and violence, and nation wrecking behavior they they are responsible for.

Sizeable doesn't mean large necessarily. I imagine there's a rather small group of people this stupid. If you want to pin down who has been the most destructive to this country, and the world, it would be the wealthy white conservative men. However, I'm not stupid enough to blame an entire group for the actions of a few, so I don't think people should be forced to leave the U.S. just because they belong to a group of bad people.

Anyways, I'm not going to respond to any more of your post. I don't think you've thought too deeply about immigration, poverty, crime, or any of the other issues. Your site is a well-known racist site, and I don't think very many people take it seriously.

Stuff.
[ Parent ]

Right Wing Vs. Left Wing (none / 0) (#95)
by theboz on Fri Jul 05, 2002 at 02:30:38 PM EST

The neo-Nazi groups are right wing. Examples of left wing groups would be someone like the Animal Liberation Front, or the Earth Liberation Front, even Peta although they are not directly responsible for the crimes of their members (much like I see the NA or Al-Qaeda.)

Stuff.
[ Parent ]

heh (none / 0) (#107)
by infinitera on Fri Jul 05, 2002 at 03:47:04 PM EST

A lament I heard from a friend of mine in Wisconsin, who was involved with anarcho-socialist organizing there: "They co-opted our term. Leaderless resistance is such a beautiful thing, and now it has all these oppressive and violent connotations."

[ Parent ]
Character (5.00 / 1) (#130)
by aphrael on Tue Jul 09, 2002 at 05:26:58 PM EST

He rightly perceives violence and rape and murder being committed against his own race, and culture, and people, so he recommends counter-attack against those perpetrating that violence against White Europeans.

Even if he is correct in his assertion that there are a lot of such crimes committed by non-white people against white people, where his suggestions fall down (and are, in my view, actively repugnant) is in the aspect of guilt-by-association: some non-white people are bad, so therefore the US should get rid of all of them.

I was always taught that the US was one of the primary bastions of individualism, where people are judged for their actions, not for the actions of others; where a man or a woman can rise up beyond his origins. Trying to create a "haven for white people" stands against that; it would use race as a proxy for character --- when nothing should be used as a proxy for character.

[ Parent ]

Abuse of zero ratings (none / 0) (#133)
by John Miles on Sat Jul 13, 2002 at 03:29:48 AM EST

Some of you people seem awfully threatened by this guy's writing.  I don't agree with a word he says, but it isn't spam or abuse.  And if it isn't spam or abuse, you don't rate it zero.

From the FAQ:

If you have been contributing nicely (like everyone should), your mojo-ness will increase. If it goes high enough (rumor has it that it is 3.5), you will be able to rate other comments below 1 to 0 (note: this rating to be used on spam only!).

Zero does not mean "I disagree with this post.  Nobody else needs to see it."  It means "This is crapflooding or spam or a goatse.cx troll.  Nobody else needs to see it."  

So cut out the zero shit, already.

For so long as men do as they are told, there will be war.
[ Parent ]

Strange (3.00 / 1) (#89)
by gotak on Fri Jul 05, 2002 at 11:40:52 AM EST

How people at the extreme always think that once their goals are achived they'll have "perfection". Never once realizing how extremist attitude breeds imperfection.

Once they get their white living space. What then? I don't think that they'll know what to do with themselves. After the first goal's achived they'll most likely find another thing to do. Most likely involving another minority. Maybe the homosexual next? Or maybe people who wear something red?

Although they way things are going white extremist are more a minority then a majority. Good thing that.

Censorship -- a kosher tradition (1.63 / 19) (#96)
by Mark Konrad on Fri Jul 05, 2002 at 02:36:14 PM EST

See how this works folks ?

It is perfectly allright for the writer to suggest that William Pierce just MAY be fronting for an American version of Al-Quaeda, and he just MIGHT be a domestic "terrorist" (all thinly veiled, quite provacative suggestion, and speculation and hypothetical, no proof whatsoever. Dr Pierce has never been arrested, let alone convicted of any criminal action in his life). Nevertheless, no problem there. That's kosher approved.

When one of the readers points out, on the other hand, that the writer himself was most likely jewish, and that fact might explain a personal and/or religious agenda that is motivating his unflattering comments directed toward Dr Pierce and the National Alliance, THAT post suddenly disappears.

There, in a nutshell, is your laughably non-existent freedom of speech. Any close examination or criticism of jews is forbidden, while jews are free to ridicule and criticise and speculate upon whatever and whomever they please. Ever notice that ? Getting tired of it yet ?

I think that post just removed was from Bill White. You can visit his website at

http://www.overthrow.com

Mark
VNN


It was not removed, it was hidden (5.00 / 2) (#101)
by theboz on Fri Jul 05, 2002 at 02:55:30 PM EST

The reason it was hidden, unlike the post that you made, is that it was a personal attack on me, the author of this piece. Even though I very much disagree with what you said in your comment, you put your word in maturely. Also, this site works as a democracy. If you feel that a comment is of quality, you give it a higher rating. If you think it's of low quality or just plain bad (as in the case of the comment you are complaining about) it gets hidden. Besides, freedom of speech doesn't apply to non-government entities. If the administrators of this site wanted, they could delete my article and all of the comments on it. It's their choice. The same goes for your site. I doubt you would be too happy for me to write articles on why I think immigration is a good thing, you would refuse to post it, or probably delete it. You have the right to do so.

Stuff.
[ Parent ]

How Extreme Really (3.00 / 1) (#99)
by nomoreh1b on Fri Jul 05, 2002 at 02:52:19 PM EST

100 year ago in the US, most of the folks in the US supported the idea of Racial segregation. Calvin Coolidge supported an immigration bill explicitly aimed at maintaining the ethnic composition of the United States. How would people with that mindset view the US experiment with mass immigration and integration of the last 70 years? My own take is that frankly from their perspective, their worse fears were realized.

We have a situation in which the majority of the white population in Louisiana can vote for a candidate like David Duke and the views represented by that vote are depicted in the mass media as a worse crime than child molestation or human sacrifice. From a purely democratic view, there is a serious problem here. Say 5-20% of the US public have views that aren't that far deep inside to what David Duke represents. These folks now have zip representation in the national scene. The very nature of the US poliical system is such these folks vote always for the lessor of evils-and many find the folks they vote for rather disgusting. That is a situation which creates fertile ground for viewpoints that make the National Alliance look rather moderate. So far, the simple fact is that the "right wing"/racialist element in the US generates less crime per capita than the average--and far less than other groups that are treated quite nicely in the media.

That doesn't make it right (none / 0) (#102)
by theboz on Fri Jul 05, 2002 at 03:11:33 PM EST

100 year ago in the US, most of the folks in the US supported the idea of Racial segregation.

If you go even further back, black people were to be slaves, which were little more than cattle. Do you think that's a good idea or not, when they are clearly human beings? If you go back 50 years, people thought that you had to eat a ton of red meat to be healthy, now we know eating a lot of red meat can clog your arteries. Clearly, just because people thought something once upon a time, does not mean that it was a better way of doing things.

We have a situation in which the majority of the white population in Louisiana can vote for a candidate like David Duke and the views represented by that vote are depicted in the mass media as a worse crime than child molestation or human sacrifice.

I disagree. It is looked at as a bad thing, but if the people from Louisiana really wanted him elected, he would have been. I think the "majority" that you speak of was a very small minority.

So far, the simple fact is that the "right wing"/racialist element in the US generates less crime per capita than the average--and far less than other groups that are treated quite nicely in the media.

Do you have any statistics to back that up? Another thing to keep in mind is that there are possibly racist sympathizers in government jobs including law enforcement so many crimes committed by racist groups were overlooked by their friends who were cops. I'm not saying that they definitely commit more crimes than anyone else, I'm simply saying that the data doesn't exist on how many crimes right-wing racist groups get away with.

Stuff.
[ Parent ]

re: doesn't make it right (3.00 / 1) (#112)
by nomoreh1b on Fri Jul 05, 2002 at 09:28:59 PM EST

I disagree. It is looked at as a bad thing, but if the people from Louisiana really wanted him elected, he would have been. I think the "majority" that you speak of was a very small minority.

I said the majority of white folks in Lousiana voted for David Duke over that crook. Duke lost because he got virtually no votes among the black community.

Do you have any statistics to back that up? Can you name the criminal organizations that recruit from the white rural community? The simple fact is that organizations like "The Order" are tiny and fringe-whereas organizations like "The Mafia" and the Bloods and Crips play a much more prominent role in those communities.

Another thing to keep in mind is that there are possibly racist sympathizers in government jobs including law enforcement

Yeah, right, we have evil racists sending white guys to prison to get gang raped by ethnic gangs. What have you been smoking?

so many crimes committed by racist groups were overlooked by their friends who were cops. I'm not saying that they definitely commit more crimes than anyone else, I'm simply saying that the data doesn't exist on how many crimes right-wing racist groups get away with.

In Idaho a man got sentenced to the state pen for a hate crime that constisted of telling some folks of Mexican descent to leave a park. He didn't threaten violence. Compare this to what happened in the Mardi Gras Riot in Seattle a while back --or the slap on the wrist that folks involved in major financial swindles typically get.

Now, I can believe that big city police forces tend to attract a certain type of racist-the job description of guys like Mark Fuhrman consists largely of beating up/harassing black/hispanic men-and sucking up to the local elites that aren't really much like small town America. Still, in the small towns and burbs, the places where most white guys live, the cops job description consists largely of sending white guys in to be raped by non-white guys. I don't think that is exactly apppealing to a "racist".

Now, that said, I think that white folks do have a very violent element-but violence committed by white folks tends to be done under the sanction of the government-which means things like white cops shooting defenseless black kids or harrassing black guys on the street(essentially picking fights). This isn't stuff organized racialist groups did. It is part of human nature being exhibited in a sick situation by guys backed up by a government that is a technological superpower.

[ Parent ]

Assuming that Pierce has an army... (4.66 / 6) (#100)
by mingofmongo on Fri Jul 05, 2002 at 02:54:40 PM EST

Is making a mountain out of a molehill. If you counted, as members of his giant organization, everyone who has ever read the Turner Diaries - you would have to include me, and I hate that white power shit.

Pierce is a nutter who talks on the radio, and writes interesting, yet totally batshit books. You have a right to be as batshit as you like in America.

This article isn't any better than the skinheads ranting about ZOG. Get a grip.

People who are going to blow stuff up, are going to blow stuff up. If McVeigh didn't get the idea from Pierce, he would have got it from some other nutter on the bus. If enough people start thinking "books and radio shows are dangerous in the wrong hands," we will end up suspending the first amendment, and making all these nutters look less nutty. And we don't need any of that.

"What they don't seem to get is that the key to living the good life is to avoid that brass ring like the fucking plague."
--The Onion

Evidence. (none / 0) (#126)
by Khedak on Mon Jul 08, 2002 at 12:48:43 AM EST

Without evidence, that excuse would just as well have worked for the perpetrators of the NYC attacks. If they hand't gotten the idea from Osama Bin Laden, they would've gotten it from some other nutter. So if the situations are indeed analogous, should our response perhaps be a little more symmetric? Or maybe our response abroad is exaggerated?

[ Parent ]
And The Colored Girls Go They Say (2.66 / 6) (#110)
by Baldrson on Fri Jul 05, 2002 at 06:21:56 PM EST

The New White Nationalism in America

We don't hear much from white nationalists these days. The Klan is out of date, out of money. Timothy McVeigh is dead and gone. David Duke no longer runs for office, the Aryan Nation's been sued out of existence.

Okay America, gather round. This is good, right? Shut down the hate speech, shove it into the shadows.

Carol Swain says NO. She's a black law professor with a warning. She says white nationalism is growing, its roots being fed, its ugly shoots judiciously pruned, and unless this shade-lover is exposed to the sun, it'll overwhelm us. She says the trick is understanding the truths that power the lies, and the solution is to fix injustices that bolster the so-called Identity Movement. Immigration, affirmative action, and the new white nationalism.

Carol, baby, you forgot something very important didn't you little sweet potato pie?

According to a quote of a black prisoner in the book No Escape: Male Rape in US Prisons by Joanne Mariner of the Human Rights Watch:

"The belief that all or most white men are effete or gay is very prevalent..."
With Spielberg promoting prisoner rape in his most recent movie, "Minority Report", as a way for white men to "get in touch with themselves" one has to wonder if it isn't too late for even sane black women like Carol Swain to do anything about the load of shit that's heading down the eye of the cetrifugal blower.

-------- Empty the Cities --------


stop high-fivin' yourself (none / 0) (#114)
by Lode Runner on Sat Jul 06, 2002 at 01:24:16 AM EST

Baldrson, it's one thing to logon as nomoreh1b and use that account to give yourself a bit of rhetorical leverage. But it's another thing completely to use your other accounts to mod yourself up as you've clearly done here.

Look, I know you were just trying to look good in front of Mark Konrad and Bill White -- who wouldn't want to impress them? -- but you've got to stop this behavior before you embarrass yourself and the whole community.

Please stop,

jsm

[ Parent ]

I am not Baldrson (none / 0) (#115)
by nomoreh1b on Sat Jul 06, 2002 at 02:43:39 AM EST

Seriously. Just look at the writing style: I make a lot more spelling mistakes than he does :).

Generally I do like Baldrson's articles-and he likes mine-still, there are other folks that have mutual congratulations networks on K5. IMHO what this really points out: the rating system needs to be changed so that the rating of each article is customized for each viewer(an example of how this works is on www.netflix.com).

[ Parent ]

don't deny it (none / 0) (#119)
by Lode Runner on Sun Jul 07, 2002 at 02:10:38 AM EST

The leger-de-main you play with solecisms may fool your fellow autodidacts, Baldrson, but you've no chance of pulling the wool over the eyes of someone who's been trained in the dark art of proper writing.

nomoreh1b is clearly an account Baldrson created to convey a few points in his article about the dangers of the H1B visa program. I admired cheek at the time, but I don't find amusing the current iteration of the nomoreh1b account as Baldrson's leghumper. That's just sad.

Your solipcistique re rating can only be the last expression of a (chromosomal) region that's about to cross over -- or rather, be crossed over, MUHAHAHAAHAHA -- into oblivion.



[ Parent ]

NA doesn't support MidEast Genocide (3.00 / 2) (#111)
by nomoreh1b on Fri Jul 05, 2002 at 08:42:52 PM EST

William Pierce isn't supporting mass-murder of civilians in the Middle East--which is a big chunk of what the foreign policy of the US has amounted to in recent years. Per person, Pierce's supporters are probably more law abiding and less violent than most Americans. At the same time, Pierce's constitutency have legimate civil rights issues.

What kind of leaders do you think a constituency that is vilified in the mass media, denied political representation and and single out for the most base humilitation in the justice system are going to produce? Today in US prisons, the leading candidate for gang rape is a middle class, blonde-haired white man--and those that purpose to represent such men have been doing nothing about those kinds of problems.

Personally, as concerned as I am about the problems that I think have given rise to Pierce, I don't think is solutions are optimal or realistic in the long term. Still, I don't think he's as crazy or corrupt as George Bush(sr. or jr.) or Bill Clinton(and those folks were given actual authority over weapons of mass destruction)--and he sure isn't as much a genocidal maniac as those elites taking the US into war in the Middle East(which he opposes).

I've personally met former NA members and supporters. One thing that bothered me here that was missed in the article: the NA tends to use people up and burn them out--it has almost a cult-like aspect to it-but the author here doesn't seem to care much for the people that might be attracted to the NA-so he didn't look at that issue very hard.

The National Alliance also may have ties to... (4.00 / 2) (#124)
by leviramsey on Sun Jul 07, 2002 at 02:45:00 PM EST

...various anti-globalization and environmental groups (including the ALF and ELF), or at least Michael Reynolds of the Southern Poverty Law Center seems to think so.



Left, meet right (none / 0) (#128)
by Nick Ives on Tue Jul 09, 2002 at 12:28:21 AM EST

The NA sounds like a facist group, wheras anti-globalization and environmental groups are useually left wing. Somehow the idea of the left unifying with facists to overthrow the US political system sounds a little too far-fetched to be true, wouldnt have any URL's for that particular conspiricy theory would you?

--
Nick
trees

[ Parent ]

The Third Position (4.00 / 1) (#129)
by nomoreh1b on Tue Jul 09, 2002 at 01:44:21 AM EST

There is a whole history of fascists attempting to work with environmentalist and animal rights organizations(in the pre-WW II era this came under the term "Third Position"-neither left nor right). Lots of Nazi recruiters claimed it was fairly easy for them to recruit communists to their cause.

As far as anti-globalism, that is an issue where nationalists were there long before leftists.

[ Parent ]

"affluence" (none / 0) (#134)
by khallow on Tue Jul 16, 2002 at 08:36:50 PM EST

You have a weird definition of affluence. McVey didn't own a house nor had significant resources at the time of his arrest for the Oklahoma City bombing. Pierce OTOH appears to be downright wealthy. However, the profile of most White Power people is that they aren't affluent. That's a large part of the draw of these groups. Namely, some Jewish or other conspiracy is keeping you from getting what's rightfully yours.

Stating the obvious since 1969.

Palestinian terrorist groups (none / 0) (#135)
by gjetost on Tue Aug 06, 2002 at 08:00:17 PM EST

What about some of the Palestinian terrorist groups? Bombing a bus of civilians and then shooting them with machine guns as they get out isn't bad?

The National Alliance: America's Al-Qaeda | 135 comments (129 topical, 6 editorial, 1 hidden)
Display: Sort:

kuro5hin.org

[XML]
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. The Rest 2000 - Present Kuro5hin.org Inc.
See our legalese page for copyright policies. Please also read our Privacy Policy.
Kuro5hin.org is powered by Free Software, including Apache, Perl, and Linux, The Scoop Engine that runs this site is freely available, under the terms of the GPL.
Need some help? Email help@kuro5hin.org.
My heart's the long stairs.

Powered by Scoop create account | help/FAQ | mission | links | search | IRC | YOU choose the stories!