White Supremacy Is Terrorism, Not a Difference of Opinion

[Willie T]

When people keep pushing the Black supremacist threat in the face of white supremacy that is routinely taking lives, you have to wonder what world people are living in that they simply ignore the clear and present danger. White supremacy is terrorism, synagogues, churches, malls, etc., have been routinely targeted. If you want to discuss the "Black supremacist threat," by all means create that thread showing the daily threats and its spread across the US, radicalizing people and leading to the murder of non-Black people based on skin color.

Just turn on your TV. That is just about all you will see, Black Violence. Even against yourselves... it's a wonder there is still anyone alive in South Chicago. But, the Media can't even locate a "supposed" White Supremist group to film doing ANYTHING.

 

[rambot]

That's nonsense....everyone has thoughts all day long they don't act on.

what's nonsense is equating an ethos with "I think I want a tuna sandwich".

 

[mothcorrupteth]

Maybe, but who thinks compromising with white supremacists is an admirable goal?

It seems we have a miscommunication. I'm not suggesting you compromise with white supremacists. I'm suggesting you compromise with moderate conservatives and civic nationalists. Because when you de-legitimize moderate positions, you offer people no social incentives to settle for a moderate position over a radical one. That's why Russia's so smart. Russia says, "Oh, yes. Islam is one of our four historic religions. We don't tolerate--we don't even negotiate with--Salafists, but moderate Muslims are welcome in our country. In fact, let's prop up Assad so he can suppress the crazies on our borders who might try to acquire nuclear MUF."

 

[mothcorrupteth]

White House rebuffed attempts by DHS to make combating domestic terrorism a higher priority


It is hard to fight this terrorism when the current administration wishes to ignore it.

But now you (and CNN) are begging the question. You are assuming Trump isn't assigning higher priority to an issue that needs higher priority. Does it need a higher priority? Is domestic terrorism really on the rise to a degree disproportionate to other threats and spending priorities? In WWI, British authorities expanded the powers of the state to monitor the private doings of its own people because certain career-enterprising individuals inflated paranoia over German spies and German amphibious invasion. We know they inflated paranoia because we have declassified documents by both British and German governments that show German espionage was never a real threat, that invasion was logistically impossible. Why should I discount the possibility that history is repeating itself with the bogeyman of "domestic terrorism"?

 

[SummerMadness]

Just turn on your TV. That is just about all you will see, Black Violence. Even against yourselves... it's a wonder there is still anyone alive in South Chicago. But, the Media can't even locate a "supposed" White Supremist group to film doing ANYTHING.

"Black violence" is not more special or more unique than "white violence." Most crime is intra-racial, thus singling out "black crime" is a needless, although this racist trope has historic precedence. It arose in the post-Civil War South, where freed Blacks were called brutish, lazy, inferior, uncultured criminals. While some of those racist adjectives have fallen by the wayside, criminal and lazy are still in vogue today. This racist trope even figured prominently in "The Birth of a Nation", a film that glorified the Ku Klux Klan. Nonetheless, if someone is the victim of a crime, the perpetrator likely shares their race, so treating a black person victimizing another black person as worse than any other intraracial crime is a racist idea.

However, that is not relevant to this topic, white supremacist terrorism, which is not a interchangeable or synonymous with "white violence." The motivation of these terrorist attacks are based on white supremacy and/or white nationalism. "Black violence" (and "white violence" for that matter) are not motivated by race, so pointing out race, when it is not pertinent to the topic illustrates the racial underpinnings of the idea. Much like the violent rhetoric of some Islamic extremists, we too should be concerned about the violent rhetoric of white supremacists. Just the other day a man beat up a child because he wore a hat during the national anthem, should that be termed white violence? Or should it simply be termed violence? That point illustrates why mentioning Chicago and "black violence" are racist tropes, as the violence there is simply violence. The violence there is not a "black problem," it is a American problem and should be treated as such. When we turn violence among black people as being different from violence among white people, the racial bias is quite evident. This contrasts to white supremacist or religious terrorism as the belief system is motivated by the ideology about race, ethnicity or religion. Being Asian, Black, Hispanic, white, etc., is not the motivation of most intraracial crime, thus calling out the skin color in "black violence" or "white violence" makes no sense.

Perhaps instead of getting defensive, it is time to focus on combating white supremacy, as its overt expression has increased in the past few years. While some may hold the racist view that "black crime" is a reflection of black people, those of us concerned with white supremacist terrorism are concerned with the spread of white supremacy, which is not synonymous with white people (although those that follow that ideology are usually white).

There have been several terrorist attacks by white supremacists over the past few years, it's quite real.

 

[Ana the Ist]

what's nonsense is equating an ethos with "I think I want a tuna sandwich".

I honestly don't care if it is an ethos rambot...even deeply held beliefs aren't acted upon.

Farrakhan said "the only good jew is a dead jew" decades ago...and to my knowledge, he's never killed or tried to kill any Jewish people. What should we do with him?

 

[SummerMadness]

'Blood on their hands': the intelligence officer whose warning over white supremacy was ignored

Ten years ago, the Department of Homeland Security sent American law enforcement agencies an intelligence briefing warning of a rising threat of domestic rightwing extremism, including white supremacist terrorism.

The economic recession and the election of America’s first black president would create fertile ground for rightwing radicalization, the 2009 report concluded. Military veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan, in particular, would be attractive targets for recruitment.

Republican politicians and conservative pundits reacted with outrage and demanded a retraction. The report was politically motivated and unfairly demonized conservative views, they argued. "Americans are not the enemy. The terrorists are," the head of the American Legion, a veterans group, wrote.

When Fox News devotes more of its front page news to crimes committed by illegal immigrants, it should be no surprise that the terror threat of white supremacy continues to grow.

 

[rambot]

I honestly don't care if it is an ethos rambot...even deeply held beliefs aren't acted upon.

Farrakhan said "the only good jew is a dead jew" decades ago...and to my knowledge, he's never killed or tried to kill any Jewish people. What should we do with him?

Yes. But how did he speak of Jews? How did he treat the jews in his life?

I'm not saying that hatred leads to violence. But hatred DOES lead to us acting in unkind and/or disrespectful ways towards other people with absolutely no basis other than the colour of skin/identification with a group. These behaviours that are not beneficial for society as a whole.

This should not be a huge shocker.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Yes. But how did he speak of Jews? How did he treat the jews in his life?

What are you talking about?

He leads a racist hate group that teaches whites and jews are evil races that should be destroyed. He teaches that blacks are superior in every way.

Did you catch the point of the thread? It's about punishing people for their ideas....ideas like those Farrakhan teaches. He has a lot of followers and fans in the black community.

Do you think people should be punished for their ideas, beliefs, and opinions....or not? This isn't about behavior or actions.

 

[rambot]

What are you talking about?

He leads a racist hate group that teaches whites and jews are evil races that should be destroyed. He teaches that blacks are superior in every way.

Did you catch the point of the thread? It's about punishing people for their ideas....ideas like those Farrakhan teaches. He has a lot of followers and fans in the black community.

Do you think people should be punished for their ideas, beliefs, and opinions....or not? This isn't about behavior or actions.

My point is that thoughts and actions are inextricably linked. So punishing for thought would be unnecessary if untoward behaviours are exhibited.

 

[Ana the Ist]

My point is that thoughts and actions are inextricably linked. So punishing for thought would be unnecessary if untoward behaviours are exhibited.

Well let's revisit the topic...

The article is about a woman who is a vendor at a market. She's a white supremacist, but supposedly...she hasn't broken any laws. The author is lamenting the fact that she isn't being punished for the beliefs she holds. The author wants legal changes to be made to enable the lawful punishment of white supremacists based solely on their beliefs.

That's why he's making the argument that beliefs = violence and therefore, all white supremacists are terrorists.

I'm not sure what argument you're making....but punishing people for their beliefs is unnecessary.

 

[SummerMadness]

My point is that thoughts and actions are inextricably linked. So punishing for thought would be unnecessary if untoward behaviours are exhibited.

I don't know why anyone is talking about punishing thought, that's not the issue, it's the increase threats, harassment, violence and vandalism that arose with ideology. Why? Because white supremacy is terrorism.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I don't know why anyone is talking about punishing thought, that's not the issue,

From the article....

"The online presence of Mackey and Dye is an extensive record of their involvement in violent extremist groups. Even after the FBI interviewed the pair in relation to a fellow Identity Evropa member’s vandalizing an Indianapolis synagogue (which received national news coverage), Bloomington officials declined to take stronger steps.

Matters came to a head during July of this year. The tenor of the Trump presidency and the increasing boldness of white nationalist violence increased activists’ attempts to get the city and market organizers to do something....

Punishing thought is the issue. Police investigated the 3 reports of harassment and decided that no laws were broken.

If they aren't breaking the law....what do you expect to happen? The whole article is trying to argue that merely being a white supremacist makes someone a terrorist who should be punished. You argued white supremacist = terrorist.

Thought crime.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I don't know why anyone is talking about punishing thought, that's not the issue, it's the increase threats, harassment, violence and vandalism that arose with ideology. Why? Because white supremacy is terrorism.

Here you go....

White supremacy is terrorism, ....

Do you think white supremacy is terrorism or not?

 

[rambot]

Well let's revisit the topic...

The article is about a woman who is a vendor at a market. She's a white supremacist, but supposedly...she hasn't broken any laws. The author is lamenting the fact that she isn't being punished for the beliefs she holds. The author wants legal changes to be made to enable the lawful punishment of white supremacists based solely on their beliefs.

That's why he's making the argument that beliefs = violence and therefore, all white supremacists are terrorists.

I'm not sure what argument you're making....but punishing people for their beliefs is unnecessary.

I think that there was a 3 reports of harrassm ent at her stall. And she invited others to the market to intimidate.

The definition of terrorism as I've read has included the use of intimidation.


Broadly though,It's no longer a thought , is it?

 

[rambot]

Do you think white supremacy is terrorism or not?

If you believe that white supremicists use intimidation, I'd argue a soft yes to that.

Where we differ, I think Ana, is what we consider actions/violence. The article listed events where their thoughts were born out into an action. You disagree there was action (I would presume because there was not an assault or physical violence) and seem to believe they are being punished for ONLY their thoughts.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I think that there was a 3 reports of harrassm ent at her stall.

Right...which were investigated and determined to be under freedom of speech.

And she invited others to the market to intimidate.

You mean when people began protesting her presence in the market?

The definition of terrorism as I've read has included the use of intimidation.


Broadly though,It's no longer a thought , is it?

If she made a credible threat against someone....she could be arrested for it. Since she wasn't...I'm assuming any "threat" she made didn't rise to the level of "crime".

So were just talking about someone expressing ideas and opinions.

 

[Ana the Ist]

If you believe that white supremicists use intimidation, I'd argue a soft yes to that.

Football players use intimidation. That doesn't make them terrorists. The idea that use of intimidation = terrorism has to the lowest bar for terrorism I've ever heard.

Where we differ, I think Ana, is what we consider actions/violence. The article listed events where their thoughts were born out into an action.

The article mentions three unfounded accusations of harassment. Do you even wonder why they didn't elaborate on what exactly these three incidents were?

You disagree there was action (I would presume because there was not an assault or physical violence) and seem to believe they are being punished for ONLY their thoughts.

You realize that by thoughts I mean the expression of thoughts, right? Nobody is a mind reader...

 

[Ana the Ist]

I think that there was a 3 reports of harrassm ent at her stall. And she invited others to the market to intimidate.

The definition of terrorism as I've read has included the use of intimidation.


Broadly though,It's no longer a thought , is it?

Here....maybe you missed this...

"Instead, as Bloomingtonian Teal Lynn said, “the City responded via the local paper that they could do nothing because of the First Amendment.”

So she didn't threaten or harass anyone illegally. A credible threat is a punishable offense by law.

The author of the article is upset that they can't just remove her for her white supremacist beliefs.

 

[SummerMadness]

Violent White Supremacists Threaten Basic Civil Rights—and Our Lives

Every right we have fought for and won since Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. delivered his monumental "I Have a Dream" speech 56 years ago this Wednesday is under unrelenting attack and in grave peril — from the right to drink fresh water and breathe clear air, to the right of workers to organize for better wages and safer conditions to the right to vote without interference from "enemies foreign and domestic" to the rights of women, children, the LGBTQ community and immigrants.

But it's not just our rights that are in danger.

It is our very lives.