Conservative, White Nationalist, and Christian Terrorism in the USA

Goddamnit, Ted.

Would you appreciate a photo like this of your loved one being used to make a point by a total stranger?

Your point is made. Take the image down.

Post 21

Tuesday, April 29, 2008 - 4:26am

I removed the image. I haven't followed this thread, and I realize Ted is trying to make a point. I found the image, as I do all such images to be horrific. I'm sure that was Ted's point, however, Teresa is correct, what if a relative stumbled on it?

Ethan

Post 22

Tuesday, April 29, 2008 - 4:35am

[No Pictures]

You can find out about the death of James Byrd, Jr., on June 6, 1998.
You can find out about the Alfred P. Murrah Building in Oklahoma City.
You can find out about conservative, white nationalist and christian terrorism in the USA, if you are interested in the topic.

If the topic make you feel uncomfortable inside, then you can argue with me to reduce your cognitive dissonance. The facts of reality remain, independent of your hopes, wishes, fears or desires.

Are there Muslim terrorists in the world? Indeed there are. Are the Tamil Tigers Hindus? Yes, they are. Is the IRA internally conflicted between its Catholics and its Communists (to say nothing of the communist catholics or catholic communists)? It is true.

Between 1976 and 1983 the government of Argentina via its paramilitaries killed 30,000 people, The Disappeared, in order to save the nation from "communism."

Betwen 1981 and 1992, between 70,000 (PBS) to 75,000 (CIA) El Salvadorans were killed in a civil war fueled by the USA government in Washington which feared that "communists" were active in local politics.

Collectivism can be parsed out into many shades of ideology and be tallied by places and times. There is no argument in this. What is arguable, it seems, is whether your own favorite collectivists are not as bad as the ones you like least.

Objectivists who participate in the culture of their philosophy know of seemingly pointless flailing about as one respected author cudgels another over the nuances of inter-governmental aggressions and agreements. The heat generates smoke but never produces light. What is hidden is "nativist populism" within Objectivism. Just as the Bolsheviks had their apparatchiks and nomenklatura enjoying dachas and other perogatives, just as the Pope is lavished in opulence to serve the poor, just as Hitler was one-quarter Jew, so, too, does Objectivism have its own seamy underbelly.

(Edited by Michael E. Marotta on 4/29, 4:43am)

Post 23

Tuesday, April 29, 2008 - 8:10am

Taking down that photo is total BS. Sure, no one wants to see their father, son, or brother's decapitated remains, but that does not mean the photo has no value in this debate. There are many other ways to make a point, but none as powerful I am sure.

Don't forget, the first strangers to make a point out of Paul Johnson were al Qaeda.

Post 24

Tuesday, April 29, 2008 - 8:18am

Hi Steve,

I took it down at the request of a poster who was upset by it. I myself was upset by it, especially over my morning coffee. If you think it should go back up, please contact Joe Rowlands via rormail, he's the site owner and he can decide. It's his site and I'll not argue with him over what he allows here.

Ethan

Post 25

Tuesday, April 29, 2008 - 8:30am

The New Intellectuals don't need pictures to help them think. When you use your mind properly, reading is enough.

Post 26

Tuesday, April 29, 2008 - 9:06am

Steve, would you post kiddie porn to make the point that pedophiles are depraved? I think not.

Post 27

Tuesday, April 29, 2008 - 10:46am

Steve wrote:

> Don't forget, the first strangers to make a point out of Paul Johnson were al Qaeda.

That's true. But we shouldn't judge what is correct or appropriate behavior by observing the lowest common denominator of society and then adopting their tactics and methods. I thought that one of the objectives of formulating and holding a comprehensive integrated philosophy like Objectivism was to provide ourselves with the tools to guide us in deciding how to act successfully in life. It saddens me to see just how effective al Queda has been in infecting the West with its poison. Basic civility has taken a nosedive as people react to one another more out of fear than carefully reasoned thought, and individual freedom has plummeted as the monolithic authoritarian government has expanded due to constitutional checks and balances having been cast aside.

With regard to the two threads where Ted posted the pictures of the al Qaeda slayings, I would like to add the following comment. Passion (i.e., emotional expression) has been a big theme on this list going back to its inception as SOLOHQ. There are many areas of life where there is nothing wrong with the application and display of passion and it should be encouraged. However, passion is rarely an appropriate state or means of expression when disagreeing with another person and it is categorically wrong when entering the territory related to punishing, incarcerating or killing another human being. In the other thread, the discussion was titled "The Liquidation of Islam". If there is any topic that must be held to the highest level of clear rational thought it would be a discussion of genocide. As I said in the previous paragraph, I am saddened that such a subject is even up for discussion in this country let alone on an Objectivist forum, but there it is. If we are going to discuss it, then there is absolutely no place for emotionalism in that discourse. This is why I have been an opponent of posting the pictures. They are revolting and they can engender fear (which may be why Ted doesn't want his posts peppered with the word Islam), but neither revulsion nor fear are useful or appropriate when discussing strategies that will lead to the death of another person. If we must have this discussion at all, then let's please attempt to keep the level of discourse thoughtful and rational.

As much as anyone else here, I believe that the defense of our freedom as Americans is an important issue and certainly appropriate for discussion. However, when I step back and look at the topics on this forum as a whole, it is a bit discouraging to me that so much of the time and effort by participants revolves around negative issues relating to the sad state of individualism, rights, environment and culture, while by comparison, the number of posts focusing on positive topics in the arts and sciences or discussions for strategies to create a more pro-liberty, pro-individualism world are relatively few. Sometimes I think we all loose sight of the goal that life should be a striving for a more exalted state which maximizes the experience of radiant joy. It is important to keep that in mind as we struggle with the challenges of the contemporary world. If we do that, I think the general level of any of these discussions could be elevated considerably.

Regards,
--
Jeff

Post 28

Tuesday, April 29, 2008 - 5:56pm

In the other thread, the discussion was titled "The Liquidation of Islam". If there is any topic that must be held to the highest level of clear rational thought it would be a discussion of genocide. As I said in the previous paragraph, I am saddened that such a subject is even up for discussion in this country let alone on an Objectivist forum, but there it is.

Jeff, thank you for the insightful and heartful statements of fact.

Allow me to say here -- I will repeat it there -- that if you read my posts, it should be clear that the purpose of the "Liquidation" thread was to discuss taking the best of that philosophy and discarding the rest, truly, selling off its intellectual assets. I have long resisted the conservative-populist rants here that have called for military destruction of places where some people have said things that Objectivists disapprove of. As a capitalist, I see no profit in war... or hatred... Neither do I see any gain in turning a blind eye to hoodlums just because they come from your "family."

Post 29

Thursday, May 1, 2008 - 9:34pm

Political Correctness Protects the Evil

How many people have seen the pictures of the "atrocities" at Abu Ghraib? Since these pictures put the US in a bad light, and are actually quite tame, they have been ubiquitous. But how many media outlets visually portrayed the actual atrocities of al q@ida and the other jihadists? How many media outlets were brave enough to reprint the Danish anti-prophet cartoons? Most media outlets will not rebroadcast the images of those leaping to their deaths to escape the flames of the Twin Towers. Movies have digitally excised the Twin Towers from the Manhattan Skyline.

This thread is posted on the assumption of moral equivalence. Isl@m is no worse than the West, or at least its religious extremists. The mindset that allows this is the mindset that refuses to identify evil for what it truly is. Refuses to discuss it. Like the villains in Atlas Shrugged, we avoid identifying evil by refusing to name it explicitly.

No, I would not portray kiddie porn in order to identify it as evil. First, who here is denying that it is evil? Second, snuff films are the proper metaphor for kiddie porn. It is the actual depiction of death in snuff films or sex in kiddie porn which is offensive. The picture of a murder victim is not complicity in his murder as the distribution of snuff or kiddie porn is complicity in those activities. Only the percept bound mentality cannot see the difference.

If you wish to engage in a discussion of religious murder as if there is no difference between that which is endemic to the east and a very rare and universally condemned occurrence in the west, then you should be able to deal with the evidence. I don't watch the local news while I eat dinner because I know the if it bleeds it leads. I submit that those here who fail to see a difference between jihadists and conservative white nationalists Christians have unexamined biases that could use a draught of bitter medicine to dispel.

Arguments which cannot be linked to evidence are based on floating abstractions. Some here even complain that the current obsession with jihadists is letting Christianity off the hook. So be it. Put "Christian" terrorism on the spot as you will. But don't blame I who bring the message instead of the beheaders who commit the atrocities for your discomfort.

Post 30

Friday, May 2, 2008 - 12:13pm

Mr. Marotta, I don't think anyone here actually supports or endorses "White Christian Fudnamentalist Terrorism" it certainly sucks and pointing to examples of it I think is legitimate, however it is important to remember it within context to all terrorism and all threats we face. In the past, the biggest threat we faced was murderous stalinistic communism. Right now, the biggest threat we face is from fundamentalist islamic terrorism. Once that is defeated, the biggest threats we will probably face will be from nihilistic secularists who despise the very existence of humanity. We will always face threats, the point is to always deal the best blow you can against the worst one.

How many people have actually been killed by "white Christian Fundamentalist Terrorists" (W.C.F.T's) While I can not access the "Religion of Peace" web site and it's recent totals, it is no doubt orders of mangitude higher than those killed by WCFTS. Fully some 95% of those killed in Iraq should be directly attributable to fundamentalists terrorists merely seeking to impost their own murderous tyranny on others.

Between 1976 and 1983 the government of Argentina via its paramilitaries killed 30,000 people, The Disappeared, in order to save the nation from "communism."

And prior to 76 Allende's government of Chile killed some 300,000 while attempting to bring forced nationalization of all land and stalinistic communist to Chile. Pinochet's (widely considered the worst of the 'right wing dictators) despicable acts in Chile are not even a drop in the bucket compared to the least bad soviet client dictatorship. Today Chile is pretty much the only decent country in South America.

Betwen 1981 and 1992, between 70,000 (PBS) to 75,000 (CIA) El Salvadorans were killed in a civil war fueled by the USA government in Washington which feared that "communists" were active in local politics

Where do you get this stuff, from MarxistPropaganda.com? "Fueled by the US Government" and I don't suppose those AK 47's guerilla warfare strategists of the El Salvadorian communists weren't "fueled" by the Soviet Government or anything. None of these conflicts existed in a geopolitical vacuum, the over riding strategy of the cold war was to deal the best blow to communism possible in any given situation. Lest we lose site of context, Soviet communism killed 170 MILLION people THIS CENTURY I'm not saying all of our actions were just, but if you want to start placing moral blame, start with the nation whose explicit goal was to take over every other nation on the planet and destroy the concept of human rights and private property.

Post 31

Saturday, May 3, 2008 - 4:48am

Moral equivalency is exactly what this is about for me.

I believe that the white nationalists and patriotic militia are morally equivalent to the wahabbi and jihadists because both are mystical, altruistic and collectivist. Both believe that the ends justify the means. Both believe that they have a mandate from God (the same God) to kill those who disagree with them.

Interestingly, that same God gave them both the mandate to kill each other.

I have no problem with that.

As long as all the cards are on the table, they should be given some safe place on Earth -- away from everyone else -- where they can engage each other.

I believe that it is seriously wrongheaded to say that A is worse that B or that B is not as bad as A because one has killed hundreds, thousands or millions more or fewer than the other.

Is John Wilkes Booth better or worse than Lee Harvey Oswald or James Earl Ray and was any of them worse than John Raymond Woodring because he only killed his wife, Bonnie, an anonymous hillbilly from western North Carolina, or was he not as bad as them because they killed great men and he did not?

Post 32

Saturday, May 3, 2008 - 5:29am

Michael Moratta,
I am very much with you here. I see very little difference between Red Guards, Hitler Youth, Serbian followers of Milosevic, neo-Nazi skinheads, and young extreme Muslim suicide bombers. Had any of these people born into a different culture, he or she could easily be one or another. They all have the same mentality that is more basic than ideologies.

Regards,

Hong

(Edited by Hong Zhang on 5/03, 5:32am)

Post 33

Saturday, May 3, 2008 - 11:32am

I think the point here is that the two cultures are not the same. Yes, neo-Nazi skinheads who commit horrific crimes are as bad as Muslim terrorists who commit horrific crimes, but the incidence of these kind of atrocities by home-grown terrorists doesn't come close to those perpetrated by Muslim terrorists. It is simply bizarre to hold up white nationalist or domestic "Christian" criminals as somehow an indication of the moral equivalency of the West and the Islamic Middle East.

- Bill

Post 34

Saturday, May 3, 2008 - 11:37am

Hong wrote:

I am very much with you here. I see very little difference between Red Guards, Hitler Youth, Serbian followers of Milosevic, neo-Nazi skinheads, and young extreme Muslim suicide bombers.

I am still very much failing to see Mr. Marotta's point here. We know christian terrorists kill people, I don't seriously see any major threat from the Hitler Youth of today or neo-Nazi skin heads, though their mentality is vile and disgusting. How many people have "christian terrorists" killed in the last decade? How many abortion clinic bombings have their been? Every murderous terrorist mentality ought to be opposed at all times to the best of our ability, but given our finite resources we should also focus on the worst of the murderous terrorists and do what is best to combat it over both the long and short term.

According to the "TheReligionofPeace" web site, Islamic fueled terrorism has killed over 11,000 people since 9/11.

According to wikipedia on this, Abortion Clinic bombings have resulted in 7 deaths in the United States since 1993, probably roughly half of the number of children who accidentally die by drowning in buckets of water in one year.

Frankly, for 11,000 times one mentions murderous islamic terrorism, they ought to mention christian fueled terrorism about 7 times.

Post 35

Saturday, May 3, 2008 - 1:04pm

I am very much with you here. I see very little difference between Red Guards, Hitler Youth, Serbian followers of Milosevic, neo-Nazi skinheads, and young extreme Muslim suicide bombers. Had any of these people born into a different culture, he or she could easily be one or another. They all have the same mentality that is more basic than ideologies.

An yet at this point it in time, it is the Islamists who pose the greatest, most imminent threat. Minimizing that threat is tantamount to suicide.

Neville Chamberlain would be proud...

(Edited by Summer Serravillo on 5/03, 1:21pm)

Post 36

Saturday, May 3, 2008 - 1:22pm

Verily.......

Saturday, May 3, 2008 - 7:16pm

Useful Idiots

The title of this post is Conservative, White Nationalist and Christian Terrorism. Not Christian vs Muslim Terrorism.

I hear enough whining in the mainstream media about how horrible it is that isl@m has stolen the thunder that they wish were still aimed towards McCarthyists, The Salem Witch Trials, Pope Gregory, Ronald Reagan, Franco and every bugbear of the left for the last century going back through history for the last two millennia. This thread amounts to special pleading to justify a paranoid fantasy. In fear of what conservative white-nationalist Christian group does anyone here live?

Certainly there are terrorists who consider themselves Christians. But isl@m defines itself as a militant ideology seeking political hegemony through force and the active murder of innocents in cold blood. One can't "define" Christianity, but if one takes Jesus' words as having any meaning, then what do "love your enemies" "he who lives by the sword shall die by the sword" "turn the other cheek" "my kingdom is not of this world" "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's" imply about Jesus' political motivations?

Never mind Chamberlain, Lenin would be proud.

Post 38

Sunday, May 4, 2008 - 4:25am

Summer Serravillo wrote: "An yet at this point it in time, it is the Islamists who pose the greatest, most imminent threat. Minimizing that threat is tantamount to suicide."

What word applies to ignoring the other threats? Even the radical right is a known threat. How do you seek out and counteract the ones you do not yet know about?

It took the FBI about a decade or more to "connect the dots" on the Earth Liberation Front. While no one has died, some people have been seriously injured. In cases of arson, the dangers to first responders cannot be ignored. (More on ELF elsewhere.) The fact remains that there are all kinds of threats out there and some may not be real or violent.

Take us for example... Some Objectivists talk about revolution and quote the Declaration about our right to abolish any government that is destructive of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. Should not the FBI at least monitor weblogs and websites like this one to see who is advocating what? Robert Bidinotto has made the point (in Criminal Justice? via Stanton Samenow, David Kelley and others) that so-called "crimes of passion" are only the acting out of long-practiced ideation. The "senseless" murder of a spouse is only the culmination of a habit of thought and chosen imaginings. Therefore, it is reasonable to expect that among the many Objectivists who excuse rightwing violence are those who are willing to engage in it. While most Objectivists -- like most liberals or most golfers -- are law-abiding people trying to live their own lives to the best of their ability, some are dangerous. At least, that would be a workable theory for any law enforcement agency of proper jurisdiction seeking to avoid another Olympic Bombing, Oklahoma City or 9/11. (Wall Street, September 16, 1920. Anarchists. Only President Garfield was killed by a disappointed office-seeker. Lincoln, McKinley, Kennedy, the attempts on Roosevelt and others were political.)

The rational plan of action is to not put all your eggs in one basket. While most resources will be dedicated to addressing the most pressing threats, some other assets must be employed against any perceived potential problem.

(Edited by Michael E. Marotta on 5/04, 4:54am)

Post 39

Sunday, May 4, 2008 - 4:44am