Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
A Developing Narrative: Far Right Extremists worse than Islamic Extremists
On last Sunday’s progressive indoctrination of “60 Minutes” and “Madam Secretary,” there was a “60 Minutes” story of an ex-White Supremacist who is attempting to get others out of this … well … cult. Scott Pelley said something that I found was a direct quote from this article: “The numbers don’t lie. Far Right Extremists are behind more plots and attacks than Islamic extremists.”
OK. To get the obvious out of the way: I thoroughly condemn the philosophy and actions of White Supremacy groups and any hurtful action towards Blacks and Jews whether physical or verbal. Same for Islamic Extremists.
Having said that, I’m trying to put together in my head why it seems so important to the Left to show that White Supremacy is a larger, more pressing, and all-around worse threat than Islamic Extremism. As opposed to claiming, say, that both are really bad.
The math side of me wants to know what is being measured and compared in this statistical claim. The cynical side of me is wondering how this issue serves as a deflection mechanism for the Left to avoid taking ownership for their contribution in pushing our nation into a greater moral abyss and division among varying social groups. And the compassionate side of me wonders if there is something I need to learn from all of this — is racism really the big issue of our day that I need to give more prayer and attention?
Published in Islamist Terrorism
Yes. People will have forgotten about Antifa thugs so it’s time to recycle the story as part of a general effort to keep the narrative going.
Another reason to keep pimping the fear of Big White Supremacy is as cover for the fact that dead white male bashing has morphed into live white male bashing. But, hey, don’t let those sneaky white guys fool ya with their tricknology. They’re the racist ones, I tells ya.
The fact that you consider this disclaimer necessary is a big part of the problem.
I wonder. There was a recent something where someone went to a Richard Spencer rally to get dirt and most of what they were going on about was lefty shibboleth that she agreed with.
So I’m curious if maybe this narrative is to control for disaffected white libs in this identity politicking Democrat party from jumping ship.
I’ve been wanting to write this somewhere, also on the Sunday night propaganda fest is The Wisdom of Crowds, the 11/12 episode was inadvertently shark jumping hilarious. The terrorist bad guys were anti government Timothy McVey types all with pickup trucks, natch. There was a comment about stupid deplorables and when the Federal government was mentioned a reference was made to ‘the head Cheeto’. Finally when it was necessary to close the parking garage from which all the bad guys were trying to escape, they went out of their way to introduce the minor character who could close all the exits with a switch, the hero’s name was …. wait for it….MUHAMMED. I couldn’t help but laugh out loud.
I agree with you on 1 and 3, but firebombing seems like it could reasonably be considered “terrorism” to me.
They chose January 2008 as the starting point, conveniently excluding 9/11 from the count.
Even so, since 2008, their own data shows the following:
So even excluding 9/11, the Islamic extremist body count is still higher.
Thanks for watching 60 Minutes so I don’t have to. Did Scott Pelley speak in complete sentences? Last time I saw him he started with the attempted sentence, “The miracle of compound interest.” Besides missing a verb, and his subject is arithmetic, not a miracle.
He and his network are just too stupid for me to watch. I’m sorry!
And so the heightened security at airports is due to what? The white supremacists? The far right? Or those newly found friends of the left: the Islamo-fascists?
FWIW, these days I’m more afraid of North Korean nuclear ICBMs than any flavor of terrorists.
“When it comes to right-wing extremism, attackers are also “mostly men” and “almost purely white,” Neiwert said.” This is a dumb sentence and I don’t understand the quotes around mostly men and almost purely white. Islamists are mostly men too. It seems terrorism or violent crime are more male no matter the color. Then “almost purley white” reminds me of the Princess Bride’s “almost dead” scene. What does that mean? The press tried to tell us George Zimmerman was a white man. Perhaps not purely white.
The blurring of crime and terrorism is problematic for me. If bank robbery is terrorism, what is a Saturday night in Chicago?
My nephew’s wife is an immigration lawyer, and they post the same stuff on facebook. They are white, proud athiests, liberals. So there you go. Like all Hollywood movies where a white guy is the hero of a different race, I guess that is how they view themselves, now that they are God.
If you post an article asking “is there Right Wing terrorism?” with the tag “Islamist Terrorism” (you did) then….perhaps? Was it conscious?
It’s irritating, but I think they mean “(Jewish or) Christian and not Black”.
Race is a very imperfect way of classifying the Right, but race does play an inexact role in classifying Right wing ideology.
Except Zimmerman wasn’t right-wing. So what purpose did it play other than to create the illusion that he was right-wing?
In which case, race plays an inexact role in how the left characterizes the right.
Lampooning. Sorry—should’ve been clearer!
Terrorism is the ultimate crime against humanity; the idea of the act is to target vulnerable groups, and scare those you don’t kill into submission. It is the tactic thugs of every stripe use to intimidation and gain power. Whether it is religious or political, the motive is the same. There are groups that either need to get with the program, or be eliminated. The twentieth century was full of examples.
If the idea of a surprise attack killing a group identified as the enemy is so Allah can reign over the world, it is probably terrorism. If the idea of killing a group in church is to get back at your inlaws, it is probably mental illness. If a white guy kills a black guy for some personal reason, it is a crime. If a white guy kills black people because they are black, it is terrorism. If a black professor says white people need to be eliminated, it is terrorist rhetoric. If a black person kills another black person because of a personal issue, it is a crime. If you kill someone in the commission of a crime not intending to kill, it is criminal. If the idea is to rob a bank and get money for yourself (my cousin did that in the 80’s), it is pretty selfish, dangerous, and stupid, and a crime. In all those cases, a person’s mental facilities don’t seem healthy to me. But the difference to me would be in what the intended effect of the outcome of the attack by the perpetrator would be. I think that as a historically Christian country, including blacks and hispanics, Islamic terrorism is definitely an attack on people that crosses racial lines. The racist white guy has a narrow target. I also think that the publicity is a factor, I don’t know how much, in copycat behavior. Some of the Islamists seem to be individuals, but ISIS and other groups don’t mind the credit. I can’t think of one mainline church that advocates killing for Christ.
This further convinces me we haven’t heard much about the Vegas shooter because he was a hardcore lefty. Call me cynical.
@zafar I was initially thinking of finding the category racism but I didn’t find it. The tag Islamist Terrorism seemed like a related topic so I put it there. I really didn’t put a lot of thought into the category so no messaging is implied.
Why? Flesh out the declaration a bit. Is it the type of weapon used that does it for you? Is it the target? Why exactly would you put that in the terrorism camp versus the act of discriminatory violence camp? The reason why I refuse to put these types of acts into the terrorism camp is because doing so allows the policing authorities in the United States to exercise tremendous power as it pertains to gathering evidence, taking action to prevent, and a lower standard needed for conviction. You start slapping terrorism on every thing that occurs in the criminal world and you are asking for the SS to start patrolling the streets. Hell, if you look at cases like the John Doe cases in Wisconsin, we are already there in many respects. No, terrorism has a specific meaning and is for a specific purpose. Muddying the waters because of the implement used or the target chosen is dangerous.
Zimmerman was a self-identified Hispanic, a registered Democrat, and Obama supporter.
Omar Mateen was a self-identified ISIS adherent, registered Democrat, and Hillary Clinton supporter. Despite this the press and Progressives blamed the Orlando massacre on Republicans, people who peaceably opposed same-sex marriage, and millions of law-abiding gun owners. It is the repeated inversion of the truth by Progressives that has become so poisonous to our society.
You still watch network television?
Weird.
Apart from the sophistry and false equivalencies the left uses to inflate their cartoon gun-publicans into the same threat as Islamic terrorism, there is also this; they forget that since militia-types are born and raised here according to American values, hey are our problem by definition.
Terrorists from other countries have to be imported. Normally I’m not into protectionism, but if we must have terrorism, it should be Made In America terrorism.
The intent. Whereas the purpose of robbing a bank is to acquire money, firebombing a mosque seems to serve no purpose besides terrorizing the local Islamic community.
I suspect Joe is talking about the definitions of words, for general usage, and you are talking about legal jargon. The two don’t always coincide.
I concur with your misgivings about “hate crime” laws.
The intent would be no different if they were firebombing a Starbucks. The intent is to cause the victimized people to leave. I don’t know if that fits into the Nat. Security definition of “terrorism.” I suppose one could reasonably argue that violently inducing a group of people to leave an area is an act of violence for political ends. I think on the face, this action holds no other message.
All that said, I can see your point of this. The intent could push it from a very violent method of attempted murder toward the act of terrorism side of the scale.
I’m imagining the “Made in America” commercials now…
(The closest I could get was this Canyonero commercial.)
Zimmerman seems like a nut.
Zimmerman’s gun issue seems a Right wing issue to me, whoever he initially voted for, and so do some of his subsequent antics:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Zimmerman
If Zimmerman is a nut, it’s easily explained by the way he was unfairly villified by the establishment press, and targeted by a racially-motivated mob. Add in the pressure from legal authorities, and it’s not surprising if he cracked. Did you forget that he’s survived two life-threatening, unprovoked attacks now? He seems to have gone from an idealistic young man, with occasional bad judgment; to a hated, hunted man, that perhaps lashes out in anger. (And I’m talking about the things he’s said, not any of his alleged crimes.)
Just my opinion, judging by what I know of his case.
Yes, I think that’s true.
The media is the enemy of the country right now. We must bring them to heel.