A lot of people have picked up on the fact that white separatists are apparently worried that the shooting makes them look bad. This is hilarious in a laugh-until-you-cry sort of way, as is their strenuous efforts to ensure that we all realize he's nuts. Trust me, folks--we think you're all nuts.
But like Yglesias, what really struck me is that John de Nugent telling the Washington Post that "the responsible white separatist community condemns this." What, one wonders, characterizes the responsible white separatists? Are their swastika armbands all made from 100% biodegradeable materials? Do they take care that the leather in their jackboots comes from humanely raised cows? Do they carefully follow the Forest Service's wildfire prevention guidelines when burning crosses? Are their white separatist brownie points for attending school board meetings or chairing the Community Chest drive?
But their concern does raise one interesting point: it's not actually possible for the white separatist movement to look any worse than it does. George Tiller's killing cast some genuine shame over the pro-life movement that nurtured his killer. But did yesterday's horror make you think any less of W.A.R.? You couldn't actually think any less of them, could you?
Copyright © 2009 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
Why is it that thinking one is innately superior to another due to their genetic code is reprehensible, but thinking one is superior to another due to place of birth is sensible?
I thought it was posting the first comment that made one superior.
Why is an unborn child in the US more valuable than an unborn child in Somalia, Afghanistan or Iraq?
It isn't sensible, Ken. It's reprehensible.
That said, it's politically economical.
Well, there is a difference between finding your culture, or at the very least the traditions and values from your culture superior and thinking you are literally a superior person of more worth because you were born a certain place.
The fact that I am grateful I was born in the US instead of 95% of the rest of the world tends to show how I consider our culture in terms of superiority. But I certainly don't think I am a better or superior person because of it. Maybe I have more opportunity, "better" alternatives, etc.
But that says nothing of the level of my worth as a human being, which is supremacist territory.
I'm thoroughly disgusted and feel very deeply for the officers family. If there ever was a senseless death this is surely one example.
Years ago I was acquainted with several white separatists (well they didn't call themselves that, but they were pretty much racists skinhead types that weren't actually skinheads...)
Needless to say, I didn't have a good opinion of their world view or their belief that more often than not they had better judgement when compared to a black person... But they were people, just the same, and didn't go around fighting or murdering anyone. So it would indeed be possible to think less of those people if they were murdering fighting all the time I suppose...
Their thoughts were pretty repulsive, but at the same time you could go watch a movie with them, eat at McDonalds and discuss a variety of things with them that never made you think they were any different.
Ultimate I guess what I'm trying to say is they were perfectly nice and amiable unless you were one of those they hated....
Not that I'm coming out in anyway on the side of supremacist types. The strangest thing about talking with them was the wonder how someone could go so wrong, how they could put on their blinders to everything else and see all the wrong in the world as a result of someones race.
But generally I get what your saying. No one has a positive opinion of supremacists. It's only in degrees of "bad" opinions...
But did yesterday's horror make you think any less of W.A.R.? You couldn't actually think any less of them, could you?
Actually, until now I never thought W.A.R. at all, which qualifies as thinking "less," I suppose.
But I confess I've always been highly amused by the thinking that goes into being anti-black and anti-Jew. They don't like blacks because of "inferior intelligence," and they don't like Jews because of...well...because of apparently superior intelligence, which permits Jews to control everything over the wishes of "whites."
So I guess they think "the white race" has managed to find the marvelous Goldilocks level of intelligence: just right. Not too smart, and not too dumb.
everything in moderation...
It's not the "dumb" or "smart" that's important, Rob, it's the right to eat someone else's porridge and bust up their furniture that the Goldilocks need to protect. And the beautiful, golden hair. (Mine's rapidly turning silver, so I no longer count as important. . .)
Years ago I was acquainted with several white separatists (well they didn't call themselves that, but they were pretty much racists skinhead types that weren't actually skinheads...)
Years ago I was acquainted with a guy who called himself a skinhead, but was careful to clarify that he was an anti-racist skinhead, not like those white supremacist skinheads. Sort of the inverse of your acquaintances.
Most skinheads are anti-racist skinheads. Skinhead culture originated in the UK in the late sixties as a working class movement that was really into reggae. White supremacists co-opted the whole deal sometime in the 80's, switching the music to hardcore punk, obviously. Since the "boneheads" (as other skins call them) get more press, they've come to dominate the public perception of all skins.
The commenters are confusing white separatism with white supremacism. One can be a white separatist without being a white supremacist, although there's no doubt that the two labels often overlap in practice.
I'm sure I'm in the minority here, but I don't feel white separatists are "all nuts". Jared Taylor, for instance, strikes me as a reasonably sane individual. The desire to live among those who are racially and culturally similar isn't confined to the loonies, unless you want to include nearly the entire population of Japan in that category.
Among America's upper middle class, there are a number of practicing white / Jewish separtists who can and do price minorities out of their neighborhoods. Meanwhile these hypocrites are the first to criticize any other white or Jew who raises the mildest criticism of immigration or a NAM culture.
So, the "white separtist" movement ends up being composed of the poorer, marginally educated whites who are forced to deal with the downside of diversity in their daily lives: affirmative action, cross-racial crime, cultural dilution, etc. Call it odious, ungenerous, misguided, or extreme if you want, but calling it "insane" is a pretty clear indicator just how superficial your thinking when it comes to taboo topics.
The "responsible white separatists" are probably the ones who wish to separate from minorities without harming them.
Personally, I fully support their goals. The sooner they go away and leave the rest of us alone, the better.
This posts reminds me of a question that I've wondered about in the past: why is it that the only unacceptable form of ethnic solidarity is "white" solidarity? The obvious answer is the Holocaust, but I think it goes deeper than that.
Perhaps because it's kind of silly to feel "solidarity" for a racial group that used to comprise 80% to 90% of all population (and it's still 66%), and that is the one group who doesn't have an history of racial discrimination. It could be that.
So, by your logic, when whites become a minority group, white solidarity will become acceptable? Somehow I don't see that happening.
What you don't see happening is white people somehow becoming an underprivileged minority. If it were to happen white solidarity would become acceptable, sure.
There are plenty of groups for which solidarity is permitted that have little history of racial discrimination. Various specific types of Asian Americans (i.e. Indian, Vietnamese, Korean), for instance.
Why is their solidarity permitted?
"Types" of Asian-Americans? We were talking about races, those are nationalities. They solidarity is "permitted" for the same reason that Irish or Italian solidarity is permitted.
It doesn't have to be nationality, specifically. Konkani (a specific ethnic subgroup of Indians) solidarity is permitted, AFAIK. Certainly no one views the Konkani Youth Convention the same way one would view the White Youth Convention.
But maybe the general principle is that only small groups are permitted solidarity. If so, what is the cutoff?
Also, why are groups which are large worldwide, but small in the US, permitted solidarity (e.g. Chinese or Indians)? Is the us somehow special, and if so, why?
I'm really curious what the rules for ethnic solidarity are.
I think you're pointing out a real inconsistency in US culture. But I also think there's a practical answer to your question: Most kinds of racial/ethnic group solidarity movements are pretty limited in their scope to do evil. The biggest and most influential of those groups (something like La Raza or the ADL) actually do have some power, and can do some evil stuff. But their power is limited, because they pretty-much can't expand beyond their minority base. Most small separatist sorts of groups have such a small base, the most they can do is bring home some patronage for their members--aka some affirmative action, set-asides in government contracts, maybe some office space for the Oddball Separate Students Association.
That doesn't deal with the moral argument, but I think it goes a long way to explain why most people would find a version of La Raza for whites to be way, way creepier than La Raza.
Did Abdulhakim Muhammad's shooting last week of two US soldiers (killing one) in front of a recruiting station in Little Rock, Ark. last week make you think less of Muslims?
Of the anti-war movement?
Of liberals?
Watch out, a similar comment just got me summarily banned from Ta-Nehisi's blog.
No, but that's a false equivalence. Who's blaming Christians in general for von Brunn's shootings? Or conservatives?
A lot of liberal bloggers and commenters are doing exactly that - blaming conservatives. Just as they did for the abortion doc killing.
Well guess what - Von Brunn also hated Bill O'Reilly, "NEOCONS" and the Weekly Standard. Guess who also hates those things - liberals/lefties - so I guess that makes him a liberal / MSNBC employee? Of course it doesn't, he's still a deranged, bigoted murderer.
Abdulhakim Muhammad parroted a lot of the same bile regularly spewed by ANSWER, Code Pinko, Harry Reid and everyone on MSNBC except Joe Scarborough - I guess he must be a liberal?
Well, what are you going to do? No political inclination has a monopoly on stupidity. But I don't think the vast majority of people with liberal inclinations is blaming conservatives.
Usually, the people who point fingers are not very worried about consistency: Michelle Malkin (always a good example) is now making a fit about how the right-wing is getting blamed for von Brunn and Tiller. Strangely, a while ago Abdul Hakim was an ambassador for liberalism (and, simultaneously, people of Muslim faith).
Of course, there are mirror images of this on the left (Pandagon comes to mind). Let them have their fun. Their credibility went down the drain a long time ago.
Stan B,
You are courageous for raising these points. But you're wrong - there's a line to be drawn. For example, a community can retain cohesion economically. But this isn't necessarily done on purpose: the high price is just reflective of the desire to live in such a nice community. The minute we take such a communal solidarity and inject the law into it - that is, do it at the point of a gun - then we've entered a place I do not want to go. For instance, take your strawman upper-middle class white/Jewish community. And lets say that a minority wishes to move in that can well afford it and does not mind, and may very well desire, the characteristics of that community. Nobody has the right to keep that person out. And no white/Jewish person I know would move against that. What they publicly move against are laws that discriminate, and they are right to do so.
And while you are raising hackles against such Jewish communities, you may wish to have a look at "The Death of an American Jewish Community" by Lawrence Harmon. Middle-class Jews have been historically amongst the few to accept minorities into their neighborhood.
You might try looking at some communities in Rockland County, NY where, unless you're of the "preferred" ultra religious part of a certain religion, you will not find a house for sale.
You might try visiting Cedarhurst, Long Island, NY (and a good bit of its neighboring Lawrence) and see the stores forced to close on Saturday under threat of boycott. If you happen to be Christian and live there because you lived there for 25 years, predating the certain influx, you might find that your neighbors totally shun you. In fact, when they don't shun you it might be because, while walking your dog, one asks: "Why are you still here?"
Trust me, bigotry runs both ways
why is it that the only unacceptable form of ethnic solidarity is "white" solidarity?
It's for the same reason they don't use water cannons to break up riots in the US (as they do in Europe).
And the same reason Chris Rock can say things Michael Scott can't say.
OK, it's kind of unfair, and long-term, I hope the double standard will fade into irrelevance. But as racial injustices go, I think this is one we can learn to live with.
There's a more descriptive name for white separatists, "suburbanites", which includes many nice NPR-listening liberals. When people say they want to live in a "nice neighborhood" with "good schools" what they mean is they want to live around white people.
Oh come on - a few smart Asians thrown into the mix would be ok, surely?
It doesn't work out that way, because when Asians say they want to live in a "nice neighborhood" with "good schools" they mean they want to live around Asians. Some cities in eastern Los Angeles County (San Marino, Sierra Madre, Arcadia) are coming up on 100% Asian.
I was sort of being tongue in cheek, but I believe you. I was lucky enough to grow up in a neighborhood that was both pretty middle class and ethnically diverse, though most folks were 2nd or 3rd gen in the country, or emigrated from an English-speaking place. There was very little pressure for ESL in the schools and pretty much everyone was on the same page of music in terms of pop/mass culture, regardless of what church/temple/mosque/meeting house they attended. Actually, I recall that at Christmas, all the Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, etc took part in the Christmas stuff - it was only the JW's who were required (by their parents) to go and study in the library while we constructed cardboard lanterns.
Anyway, I think that most suburban refugees care more about the contents of your bank account then the color of your skin.
"But did yesterday's horror make you think any less of W.A.R.?"
No, but for the same reason George Tiller's murder didn't make me think any less of the NRLO or Operation Resuce, either. Extremeist organizations breed extremists. Duh.
When people say they want to live in a "nice neighborhood" with "good schools" what they mean is they want to live around white people.
Can you explain how you know this? It's possible, after all, that those people want to live in a nice neighborhood with good schools. And of course there are plenty of black suburbanites who seem to find nice neighborhoods and good schools congenial.
The ideal neighborhood for a black suburbanite is an upper-middle class black neighborhood. In Los Angeles Baldwin Park or Ladera Heights, or in Atlanta various ones I'm not familiar with.
There's a more descriptive name for white separatists, "suburbanites", which includes many nice NPR-listening liberals. When people say they want to live in a "nice neighborhood" with "good schools" what they mean is they want to live around white people.
No, it really doesn't. It means they want to live in a nice neighborhood with good schools. I live in Ann Arbor -- lots of nice neighborhoods with good schools and also plenty of ethnic/racial/cultural diversity. And NPR-listening liberals who value both the good schools and the diversity and prefer not to live in a lily-white suburb.
I can't speak for white supremacists, but I don't think what they're most worried about is the Huxtables moving in next door...
Meant separtists rather than supremacists in the post above ... yeah, it does get confusing to keep 'em straight.
And I happen to live in nassau County, Long Island, NY, where the nice liberal Democrats are always complaining about how segregated it is. Funny thing is, none of these oh so liberal white Dems ever seem to buy a house in any of the "minority" areas. If the white liberals just did that, the "segregation" would end. Not only that, since the houses in those areas tend to sell for less, the nice white liberal Dems could get a much bigger house for their money.
Amazingly, that never seems to happen. I don't suppose it could be due to the fact that these white liberal Dems are total hypocrites?
"if one believes that blacks and Jews are conspiring to take over this country (which McMegan will assure us that she herself does not), it is not only morally permitted, but morally necessary to behave in this way"
You do realize that you're making an implicit equivalence between the beliefs "blacks and Jews are conspiring to take over this country" and "a fetus is human life". Don't get me wrong, I'm pro-choice and all, but you can't be serious about this.
Screw these guys. Who I really feel sorry for are the mobsters and other professional criminals. Now everytime they kill somebody, even for perfectly legitimate business reasons, they'll be looking over their shoulder worried that someone will think they're racist.
Von Brunn was anti-Christian, anti-Neocon, anti-government, and a socialist. If anything, he has as much in common with progressives as he does conservatives (i.e. not much).
The guy was a nut. Insane. A lunatic. Bonkers.
An anti-government socialist?
It's quite possible, you know. I think Earnest is implying that Von Brunn was a closet anarcho-syndicalist :)
Isn't that what the anarchists who protest meetings like the G20 are?
I believe so. Most of them are anarcho-__________ (write your favorite political word here).
He hated our current government... but that's not unusual for white separatist nutcases. Though I wonder if he'd eventually warm up to Obama (except for the whole being black thing).
I am the person whose remarks triggered this discussion, parts of which I found valuable.
I wrote to Richard Cohen of the Washington Post, following his June 16, 2009 column calling James von Brunn a "lone crackpot," the following to deflate his smug balloon:
* * *
Richard Cohen calls James von Brunn a lone crackpot
Dear Mr. Cohen, columnist for the Washington Post:
Re your column
===================
Where Anti-Semitism Is
Mainstream
By Richard Cohen
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
====================
I am the person your colleague Darryl Fears interviewed re James von Brunn. I spoke with him several times by phone and read his mass emails. He was, whatever his views and alleged actions, a highly intelligent man with a fine war record. It is alleged that he shot the Holocaust Museum guard, but an eyewitness, Maria Hernandez, said on the CNN live feed that she saw one guard shoot and kill the other. I suspect von Brunn may have gone into the Museum to take hostages, as he sought to do in 1981 at the Federal Reserve. His actions were thus no more “crackpot” than those of John Brown, who assaulted the federal arsenal at Harper’s Ferry. The man sought to make a statement, at the very least, and he succeeded.
Further, von Brunn’s “statement” reflected a growing consensus. Whether it was Jimmy Carter’s Palestine: Peace, not Apartheid, or the Israel lobby books of Walt and Mearsheimer, which I assume you will not disqualify as the works of crackpots, or the recent finding that support for Israel has dropped by 20%, von Brunn represents just the extreme tip of a new general American consensus which an endless litany of Jewish names has reinforced (Goldman Sachs, Lehmann
Brothers, Bernie Madoff, etc.): that Jews rule Wall Street, they control the media (you, sir, hardly are well-placed to disprove that), and they hold pernicious sway over the economy (Greenspan and
Ben Shalom Bernanke) and also over US mideast policy.
Was von Brunn a crackpot? Well, perhaps John Brown was too — but Brown succeeded in making his abolitionist views far more high-profile by his act, and that led to the “Civil War” and the emancipation of the slaves. In my conversations with von Brunn, he sounded very sane, very sane and yet bitter, and thus like many millions of other Americans who see Jewish banks still being bailed out and Main Street still going straight down to hell.
I lived off and on in Washington DC 1977-2008, and now I am again outside the Beltway, in the Pittsburgh area, and here von Brunn’s
action is considered extreme but the “being fed up” part is not.
The crackpots are those who think white anger, increasingly empty white stomachs and white tent cities of the unemployed will not translate into
further unrest. We just lost 600,000 more jobs, and your “Tribe,”
as I know well you call it from having dated a Jewish lady, accepts no responsibility, as usual, for this economic mega-crime that it has instigated.
I would also suggest you read the latest Rolling Stone article on Goldman Sachs.
Sincerely,
John de Nugent
(724) 353-0154
www.johndenugent.com
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_de_Nugent