Some Perspective on the White Supremacy Movement

 

The actual number of White Supremacists in America is miniscule. They are a fringe of a fringe of a fringe. But the Democrat Media Complex is intent upon hyping up their numbers.

Why? Because it gives cover to the violent left and because it is part of their Preferred Narrative that the United States is a sickeningly racist country.

There are 19 comments.

  1. Martel Member

    Yet for the sake of our integrity, it’s somehow imperative that conservatives denounce and renounce these societal fringes every time the left even hints we should. Never mind that Bush, Romney, and just about every other Republican leader is still a Nazi despite all the prior denunciations.

    In the meantime, for the sake of racial harmony, let’s hold back in our criticisms of Democrats who exploit blacks and help ensure they remain impoverished and easy prey for street thugs. Helping blacks involves taking down statues and decrying irrelevant fringe losers and has nothing whatsoever to do with fighting actual oppression.

    (sarcasm off)

    Millions of Americans in small towns understand this, but our elites insist that playing the left’s game on this is somehow key to actually improving black lives, actually being virtuous, or even being seen as virtuous.

    Wonder why we got Trump? This is why we got Trump.

    • #1
    • August 21, 2017, at 9:12 AM PDT
    • 20 likes
  2. Manny Member

    You nailed it!

    • #2
    • August 21, 2017, at 9:21 AM PDT
    • 3 likes
  3. James Gawron Thatcher

    VTK,

    This is especially ironic after 8 years of Barack Obama’s insurance actuarial approach to Jihadist murder. As the number of people killed by Jihadists, screaming Allahu akbar, on the internet with known Jihadist recruiters, posting their avowed allegiance to Jihad, was less than the number of automobile accidents there was nothing to worry about.

    Antifa came to Charlotte armed and hooded. They outnumbered the “White Nationalists” by at least 2:1 and they initiated the full-scale violence. This intentional riot resulted in somebody being killed. The last dozen or so Jihadist incidents, any one of which caused multiple deaths, was the result of a preplanned assault by the Jihadist on the totally innocent and unsuspecting. Obama soft-peddled this carnage for 8 years. Now the media, the dems, and the DC Republicans are screeching because of Trump’s inadequately strong condemnation of an incident that truly wasn’t terrorism and was partially the fault of Antifa’s aggressive vigilante actions.

    People with a Fascist leaning are always a concern. However, this situation really is making a mountain out of a molehill. Jihad started as a molehill but Barack Obama’s cultural Marxist interpretation allowed it to metastasize into a mountain.

    The simple response is to support the rule of law and criticize anybody who doesn’t. Too bad that kind of straight shooting disappeared from the MSM 40 years ago.

    Regards,

    Jim

    • #3
    • August 21, 2017, at 9:26 AM PDT
    • 4 likes
  4. Pony Convertible Member

    Nazi’s are bad. It is one of the few things nearly all of us agree on. It could (should) be used as something to unite us. Yet they try to use it to divide us. Why? Simply because they want to divide us.

    • #4
    • August 21, 2017, at 9:46 AM PDT
    • 6 likes
  5. Valiuth Member

    Bronies don’t dress as ponies…they simply outwardly express their inner equine in a colorful fashion, because… friendship is magic.

    • #5
    • August 21, 2017, at 10:00 AM PDT
    • 2 likes
  6. Valiuth Member

    Pony Convertible (View Comment):
    Nazi’s are bad. It is one of the few things nearly all of us agree on. It could (should) be used as something to unite us. Yet they try to use it to divide us. Why? Simply because they want to divide us.

    See, you say this now. But let me paint you a picture of the world we live in. It is one of binary choices and and crashing planes. Where if the Democrats win the country falls. In this world are Nazis really so bad? Given that they aren’t Democratic far left progressives. How long before we have to hear that we must choose either between Hillary Clinton and the Nazis? We know what Hillary Clinton means for America, but do we really know what the Nazis mean? So we should take a risk on Nazis then because at least with them we might have a chance while with Hillary we know we don’t have a chance.

    You laugh at this now. I expect in three years this is where we will be, and then we can have a Journal of American Supremacy to try to cobble together some intellectual underpinnings to all of this rank tribalism.

    • #6
    • August 21, 2017, at 10:07 AM PDT
    • Like
  7. Ekosj Inactive

    I recall reading somewhere an opinion bit that there were no actual members of the KKK, only paid informants of various law enforcement agencies and undercover journalists all pretending to be Klansmen.

    • #7
    • August 21, 2017, at 10:22 AM PDT
    • 8 likes
  8. Full Size Tabby Member

    Pony Convertible (View Comment):
    Nazi’s are bad. It is one of the few things nearly all of us agree on. It could (should) be used as something to unite us. Yet they try to use it to divide us. Why? Simply because they want to divide us.

    Division is their modus operandi. That’s why they’re always describing us by group identity (wealth, sex, skin color, ethnic background, education level, etc.). There always has to be a “them” to pit against “us.” And to get their desired “us” going, the “them” has to be large enough or strong enough to be a threat to the desired “us.”

    The desired “us” changes with the circumstances, so there also has to be an ever-changing “them.”

    • #8
    • August 21, 2017, at 10:56 AM PDT
    • 2 likes
  9. The Reticulator Member

    I recently listened to the audio version of Anna Fundar’s 2002 book, Stasiland. One thing I learned was that the Stasi feared the churches in East Germany as a place where oppositional thought could get a toehold, so they monitored them intensely and infiltrated them. In the end 65 percent of the church leaders were informers for the Stasi. Internally within the Stasi, there grew an awareness that their infiltration of the church was so heavy that the Stasi was in danger of contributing to the strength of the institution.

    It made me wonder what percentage of the white nationalist groups in the U.S. are FBI informers and agents. Enough to bulk out the membership numbers to make them seem more of a factor than they really are?

    Another thing that makes me wonder is the people on social media who try to draw you into racist discussions. I haven’t run into these types since I’ve been on Ricochet (not that this place is 100% free of white racists) but I used to call them out as provocateurs when I thought I detected the fakes. My guesswork wasn’t completely accurate, but the responses made me think I was right the great majority of the time. I don’t know that those fakes were all government people – some seemed too amateurish to get paid for that kind of work – but I wonder if some of them were.

    • #9
    • August 21, 2017, at 12:22 PM PDT
    • 4 likes
  10. Aaron Miller Member

    On a related note, see Dinesh Dsouza’s latest work on how the Left has projected its own fascism (statism) and racism:

    • #10
    • August 21, 2017, at 1:22 PM PDT
    • 2 likes
  11. Johnny Dubya Inactive

    The Wall Street Journal‘s James Freeman today writes:

    Struggling to find neo-Nazis to condemn in Boston on Saturday, some activists decided to attack the police instead. Or perhaps that was their objective all along….

    Thank goodness that in our nation of 323 million people, neo-Nazis are extremely rare. But this can make the task of confronting them rather challenging. Tens of thousands of protesters descended on Boston Common Saturday in search of white supremacists to condemn at an event called the Boston Free Speech Rally. But it was unclear how many supremacists could be found within the tiny group of free speakers.

    The New York Times reports that rally “participants appeared to number only in the dozens.” Among the speakers in this small group was Shiva Ayyadurai, an immigrant from India and former technology entrepreneur who holds several degrees from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Mr. Ayyadurai, who is seeking the Republican nomination to challenge Bay State Democrat Sen. Elizabeth Warren, later tweeted, “FAKE NEWS scam saying Boston Free Speech Rally was NAZI event!”

    RealClearPolitics has the video of Mr. Ayyadurai’s appearance, in which he stands in front of supporters holding signs saying, “Black Lives Do Matter” and condemns racist comments made over the years by elected Democrats.

    Boston Globe columnist Jeff Jacoby summed up the day’s events with his own tweet:

    The rally in a nutshell: “Excuse me,” one man innocently asked a Globe reporter, “where are the white supremacists?”

    On the basis of newsworthy events over the last couple of years, it is apparent that either (a) the Antifa (and like-minded groups on the far left) greatly outnumber the Fa (and their brethren on the far right), or (b) the Fa simply don’t get out much.

    Freeman goes on to report (emphasis added):

    …Saturday’s events weren’t funny. While thousands of very fine people may have gathered to condemn bigotry, at least some of them went to extremes that could hurt people. Fox News showed a protester assaulting a woman holding an American flag. Protesters also pelted police with rocks and bottles filled with urine. The Associated Press reports that 33 protesters taken into custody will be in court this week….

    It’s unclear exactly how many of those present were very fine, but coverage of the event revealed significant numbers of “Antifa” activists wearing masks. CNN calls this “a tactic known as ‘black bloc’ that aims to unify demonstrators’ efforts and hide their identities.” Journal reader Kathleen Schauer asks why this is necessary if people are showing up to promote a righteous cause.

    If you gather with other “antifascists” to engage in violent conflict with fascists, and there are no fascists to be found, and you assault someone because she is carrying an American flag, and you throw rocks and bottles filled with urine at police, and you wear a mask to hide your identity, well, then, maybe you’re the fascist.

    • #11
    • August 21, 2017, at 1:22 PM PDT
    • 10 likes
  12. Von Snrub Inactive

    I hope everybody signed this

    https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/formally-recognize-antifa-terrorist-organization-0

    • #12
    • August 21, 2017, at 1:47 PM PDT
    • 2 likes
  13. Doctor Robert Member

    This is all crap. There are no Nazis in to the point of mattering. There are no KKK either. When was the last time a Jew was put in a work camp in America? When was the last lynching?

    Yes, this is all a MSM fantasy designed to cow us. Yes, we have to call crap crap. God Bless Mr Trump for doing so.

    And a pox on the houses of all you Never Trumpers who denounced hm for being too soft on the “nazis”. You play right into the game of the progressives.

    Republicans really are the stupid party. Stop assisting in our suicide.

    • #13
    • August 21, 2017, at 9:45 PM PDT
    • 3 likes
  14. Michael Brehm Member

    Bronies are nice, but I think it would be more illustrative to compare the numbers of Roderick Spode’s Richard Spencer’s little gaggle against the number of people who believe that the earth is flat, or the number of people who believe a race of subterranean reptile people secretly control the government.

    Does anybody know a good source to find the numbers of people who believe wacky conspiracy theories?

    • #14
    • August 22, 2017, at 4:39 AM PDT
    • Like
  15. Chris O. Member

    300/312,000,000+ = one ten-thousandth of a percent. My wife and I discussed this the other night. The media gave these guys a heck of a big platform, but then the media tends to do that with statistically-insignificant groups. Occasionally it’s a good thing, such as calling attention to a disease. Not that they always get that right, either.

    When does the discussion of media culpability start? (Not holding my breath.)

    • #15
    • August 22, 2017, at 8:00 AM PDT
    • 2 likes
  16. Hoyacon Member

    I don’t intend this to be disingenuous in the least, but I’m always alert to word changes among the commentariat. For years, we spoke of, and decried, white supremacists. Now, we speak of, and decry, white nationalists. Although there is certainly a point to be made that the latter is simply the former rebranded for public consumption, I don’t follow these issues enough to know whether this phraseology marks a distinction without a difference or whether there is a difference, however slight. Anyone?

    • #16
    • August 22, 2017, at 9:35 AM PDT
    • 2 likes
  17. Martel Member

    Hoyacon (View Comment):
    I don’t intend this to be disingenuous in the least, but I’m always alert to word changes among the commentariat. For years, we spoke of, and decried, white supremacists. Now, we speak of, and decry, white nationalists. Although there is certainly a point to be made that the latter is simply the former rebranded for public consumption, I don’t follow these issues enough to know whether this phraseology marks a distinction without a difference or whether there is a difference, however slight. Anyone?

    There is a difference, albeit with some substantial overlap.

    Supremacists believe that whites are superior, white nationalists believe that whites shouldn’t be obligated to mix with other races. It’s more the idea that each race does best when left to its own devices. You’ll find staunchly pro-Israel white nationalists who just don’t want any Jews in other countries, and they’ll often praise Korea and Japan for their ethnic homogeneity. (I’m not saying I agree, I’m just explaining.)

    And yes, there is some overlap between the categories. I’d say that virtually all white supremacists are white nationalists, but not all white nationalists are supremacists.

    However, I do believe that the media is trying to taint the term “nationalist” in general. It’s quite possible to be an American nationalist who’s not a white nationalist, but the more the very term is associated with racism the better.

    Thank you for pointing out that’s what’s going on. I myself hadn’t noticed.

    • #17
    • August 22, 2017, at 10:11 AM PDT
    • 3 likes
  18. Chris O. Member

    Hoyacon (View Comment):
    I don’t intend this to be disingenuous in the least, but I’m always alert to word changes among the commentariat. For years, we spoke of, and decried, white supremacists. Now, we speak of, and decry, white nationalists. Although there is certainly a point to be made that the latter is simply the former rebranded for public consumption, I don’t follow these issues enough to know whether this phraseology marks a distinction without a difference or whether there is a difference, however slight. Anyone?

    Following the point, many more people can be painted “nationalist” and why not lump them in with racists?

    • #18
    • August 22, 2017, at 10:14 AM PDT
    • 1 like
  19. Chris O. Member

    Martel (View Comment):
    However, I do believe that the media is trying to taint the term “nationalist” in general. It’s quite possible to be an American nationalist who’s not a white nationalist, but the more the very term is associated with racism the better.

    In olden days, learning the history of World War I tainted the term nationalist just fine. Still, further demonizing “nationalist” is the step before going after “patriot.” Some already treat it as a loaded term.

    • #19
    • August 22, 2017, at 10:31 AM PDT
    • 1 like