Posted on 05/07/2004 8:14:30 PM PDT by MegaSilver
Jayna Davis's recent book, The Third Terrorist: The Middle Eastern Connection to the Oklahoma City Bombing, convincingly presents the case that Timothy McVeigh colluded with radical Islamists in destroying the Murra Building in Oklahoma City on April 19, 1995, at the cost of 170 American lives. One question certainly involves the degree of concern we should harbor that other white supremacist political groups, in this country and around the world, might find political, if not philosophical, allies in radical Islamist militants. Radical politics does indeed strange bedfellows make.
At first glance, of course, the question seems absurd. To take one example among many: The British National Party (BNP) abhors above all things the incursion into English working class society of immigrants of color, particularly Muslim immigrants. Unfortunately, like the National Front, the more openly racist party from which they were spun off, the BNP's objections to the influence such Islamic populations exert, particularly on foundering English working class towns, tend to focus on race and ethnicity, with political concerns taking an acknowledged but nonetheless secondary place in their hierarchy of important issues. Their race-based policies take the form of recommending that people of color be prohibited from immigrating to Britain and that these people should be repatriated, forcibly if necessary, to their countries of origin.
Make no mistake about it: There is a dramatic resurgence of race-based political organizations throughout the world today. And note also that the racialist principles of such groups often tend to get obscured in the political causes they support. It's relatively easy, in the United States and abroad, to recruit allies in support of tightening immigration regulations and strictly enforcing the regulations that exist. It's an important issue in America today, especially in light of the terrorist threats our nation faces and the relative laxity that characterizes both immigration quota enforcement and the very procedures that have been put in place to insure that those quotas are honored.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtondispatch.com ...
Umm... because they're in Belgium, not England?
But you'll also encounter "StormFront," a blatantly Fascist/Aryan-supremacist international organization dedicated, in its own words, to being a "resource for those courageous men and women fighting to preserve their White Western culture, ideals, and freedom of speech and association. . . . " Assuming you can get past the brutal Nazi graphics adorning the site (which I can't), I don't have any problem with any of the above verbiage as long as you don't include the word "white."
Not that I have a problem with people of different skin color who want to assimilate into my ancestors' culture--not by ANY means--but is it really a heinous crime to want to preserve one's ancestors' genetic legacy?
Obviously, the problem arises when people begin to discriminate solely based on another's skin color. Bobby Jindal, for example, is an all-American boy, a solid Roman Catholic, and a Conservative Republican--of Indian ancestry. The fact that he has Indian ancestry does not at all preclude him from being able to participate in the American system, as he has assimilated quite remarkably.
I guess groups like the BNP would be a lot less offensive if they downplayed skin color and stressed culture a bit more.
I disagree. An analogy can be made of the KKK, which has tried to change it's image, and failed. Once a group is tainted, the game is over
The other problem is that these groups draw many members who have no concerns about preserving culture. They just hate other races. It is those members who are the most vocal, most visible and who define the group as a whole, right or wrong.
Yes. The Jews seem to be the "elephant in the living room". It's too bad, not only for the Jews, but for the rest of us. The Jews are also the "canary's in the coal mine".
I agree with your assessment, but IMHO the active dynamic is not really "race", but "group". It is the perceived group that one appears to belong to that another group will hate. Blacks sold other blacks to white slavers. The Japanese, an Asian race committed atrocities against other Asians. The Germans attacked other white Europeans. If race was the impetus, these phenomena would not likely occur.
Human beings simply seem to hate each other for as small a reason as the kind of tennis shoes one wears.
So am I. Along with the bitter taste of hate for them.
Yes; if that was so, that was CLEARLY racism.
But concern for the "mosaic" of immigrants watering down one's own culture is NOT racist. Unfortunately, the Big Media makes us think it is, so respectable people with legitimate concerns shy away from "alternative" political parties and nothing ever gets done...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.