TERB In Need of a Banner
Toronto Escorts

Scary or just plain sad? Al Qaeda and Aryan Nations brothers in arms?

WoodPeckr

Protuberant Member
May 29, 2002
47,017
5,950
113
North America
thewoodpecker.net
Not really that surprising. Both groups share a common hatred of Jews and espouse anarchy as a means to gain power in creating their peculiar versions of 'utopia'.
 

Truncador

New member
Mar 21, 2005
1,714
0
0
AN may safely be regarded as the most marginal Leftist group in American politics today, exercising no influence on anything or anyone outside of prison-gang culture- not least of all because they're naive enough to actually put their agenda out into the open, which mere fact alone goes to show that they're not worth worrying about. Far more dangerous are Bin Laden's fellow travellers on the mainstream Left, especially academics and journalists (who, unlike the lowly AN, possess considerable "cultural capital", and moreover control the cultural apparatus) and above all so-called "liberals" (who claim the status of moderates and thus can convincingly assume a cloak of respectability). These tendencies, unlike the rather rustic and countrified AN, have enough savoir-faire to bury their own Fascist and anti-American proclivities under endless layers of academic obfuscation, disclaimers, and bet-hedging. They style their own anti-Semitism under the sign of humanitarianism, as a "human-rights" campaign against Zionism, and repeat all the standard Fascist anti-Semitic conspiracy theories verbatim save for replacing the phrase, "international Jew" with "neoconservative". They don't, at least when confronted, voice support to terrorist actions against the State as such- but they do oppose any effort to actually thwart terrorism, under guise of defending "civil liberties". And there is no need for them to demand that the State disallow inferior life in the name of racial purity when they have the Courts to do the same thing in the name of individual-private rights; exactly the same trick is duplicated in their efforts to outlaw Christian religion.

All of this is far more corrosive than anything a chump-change neo-Nazi group could accomplish in a month of Sundays. These groups come from small towns, and as such embody too much of an old-fashioned Yankee combination of bluntness and naivety to make it in the big-city political world of French-style perfidy (which your old-school Yankee plain-dealer would regard as both immoral and unmanly). It is rather the likes of the ACLU, People for the American Way, the Brady Campaign, etc. who know that there is no better way to conceal an agenda than to project that very agenda onto an opponent, and accordingly purport to defend America in the very act of trying to destroy it. Indeed, the efforts of these groups and their sympathizers go far beyond mere subterfuge; instead of merely trying to conceal their Fascism under an external veneer of Liberalism, they find and exploit points of overlap between Fascist and Liberal ideologies, deconstructing the latter into the former and blurring the two together. The result accomplishes much more than a mere cynical "conspiracy" ever could, insofar as this group- like all the best scammers and con-men- actually believes its own line, and has crossed the point where perfidy becomes so brazen as to turn into naive sincerity again.
 

lenharper

Active member
Jan 15, 2004
1,106
0
36
An interesting post with lots of nice big words but I would quibble with your characteriaation of the Aryan Nations as a leftist organization. It seems your a being a little disingenuous here.
 

Truncador

New member
Mar 21, 2005
1,714
0
0
lenharper said:
I would quibble with your characteriaation of the Aryan Nations as a leftist organization. It seems your a being a little disingenuous here.
A little, but only insofar as no extant American political ideology is uniformly "right" or "left" wing. I rest my case for classifiying the Aryans as a leftist movement, for practical purposes, on the basis of its following, defining features:

-It is internationalist as opposed to nationalist: it posits supra-national bases of solidarity and loyalty (race, and, in this case, even common cause against opponents), to the point of open treason

-It is fanatically hostile to the State, once again to the point of open treason; it dreams of abolishing the State in favour of restoring the mythical absolute sovereignty of the individual supposed, a la Rousseau, to have existed in some lost golden age (see the crackpot pseudo-legal and pseudo-common law theories of the "sovereign citizen" that this sort of movement always subscribes to)

-Hand in hand with this radical individualism goes an equally radical collectivism, which seekd to defend the purity and integrity of the social (in this case, the "race") against threats associated with excessive individual freedom and untrammelled desire: race-mixing, homosexuality, drug use, and the pursuit of wealth. As a corrollary of the last point, it is:

-Fanatically hostile to capitalism, which it radically opposes to the well-being of the social as a despotic and corruptive force Where most leftists identify economic corporations as the ultimate embodiment of the capitalist bogeyman, AN and other similar groups target finance above all, reflecting the rural origin of their movement (independent farmers, on the basis of centuries of historical memory, tend to see debt as inseparable from servitude).

Generally, it's been pointed out on this forum that you can't spell "National Socialism" without "Socialism"; AN, realizing the tension between the national and the social that was only implicit (but clearly present) in the thought of Hitler, proceeds to remove "National" from the equation altogether; only a few, patriarchal-type elements (veneration of God's authority, support for the subordination of women, rejection of equality in general, etc.) remain to differentiate AN from any number of far-left ideologies from which it is otherwise indistinguishable. I stand by my characterization.
 

lenharper

Active member
Jan 15, 2004
1,106
0
36
Your post makes perfect sense if you apply the classic definitions of political movements. Bravo.

But if you apply the definitions of "right" and "left" as they are in common usage now -- the AN is somewhat unclassifiable as either right or left, IMHO.

Wouldn't you agree that the way we label "right" and "left" today turns those classic definitions on their head. Liberals are now seen as the party FOR big government while conservatives are seen as advocates of a more "laissez faire" approach to economics. As I understand it (and I may be wrong) the classic definitions are vice versa.

And I do agree that despite work of fear mongers the AN poses no credible threat to anyone except themselves.
 

Truncador

New member
Mar 21, 2005
1,714
0
0
lenharper said:
But if you apply the definitions of "right" and "left" as they are in common usage now -- the AN is somewhat unclassifiable as either right or left, IMHO.
I do agree that this is true, in the final analysis- but my point is that the overall thrust of AN ideology is what common usage itself would identify as leftist, to wit if you edited out the overt racism, sexism, and theism you'd be left with something indistinguishable from, say, the Unabomber Manifesto, which common usage would immediately situate within the extreme Left of the spectrum.

Wouldn't you agree that the way we label "right" and "left" today turns those classic definitions on their head. Liberals are now seen as the party FOR big government while conservatives are seen as advocates of a more "laissez faire" approach to economics. As I understand it (and I may be wrong) the classic definitions are vice versa.
Good point. AFAIK, until the 19th century it was conservatives who, representing the point of view of the old landed nobility, denounced free-market capitalism and capitalists as vulgar, anarchic, and despotic upstarts threatening the integrity and purity of the social order. Only later, with the rise of the working class movement, the rise to pre-eminence of the industrial bourgeoisie as the new dominant class, and when the concept of a planned economy came to be perceived as an enlightened and futuristic idea by some elites, did defense of the rights of property and a "natural" economic order become synonymous with maintaining the status quo. However, the old, aristocratic conservativism persisted, and moreover became an important constitutent component of modern socialist/left-wing ideology; even to this day, such fashionable salon-lefties as Linda McQuaig continue to be fascinated with the psychotically conservative ravings of Karl Polanyi, and it's hard to avoid discerning the historical echoes of loyalist monarchism and ultramontane Catholicism in the discourse of that obnoxious species of faux-socialist Canadian that likes to bother Americans on Internet message boards.

All of this painfully complicates the analysis of political ideologies, to be sure.
 

Don

Active member
Aug 23, 2001
6,289
10
38
Toronto
WoodPeckr said:
Not really that surprising. Both groups share a common hatred of Jews and espouse anarchy as a means to gain power in creating their peculiar versions of 'utopia'.
True... but still surprising considering that you'd assume the Aryan Nation would hate anyone not euro-white. This probably just shows how desperate they are. Their membership probably doesn't even crack 3 digits.

On the flip side, this sort of remindes me of back in the 70's when the KKK and The Nation of Islam were negotiating that "secret" plan to divide America up into two parts, one for each of them and then kick everyone else out. Both groups had the common interest of not wanting to inetgrate with the other.
 
Jan 24, 2004
1,279
0
0
The Vegetative State
Truncador said:
A little, but only insofar as no extant American political ideology is uniformly "right" or "left" wing. I rest my case for classifiying the Aryans as a leftist movement, for practical purposes, on the basis of its following, defining features:
I'll play this silly game, purely for the sake of argument and because I'm trying to avoid doing any actual work tonight:

-It is internationalist as opposed to nationalist: it posits supra-national bases of solidarity and loyalty (race, and, in this case, even common cause against opponents), to the point of open treason
The remaining semblance of "internationalism" left in the leftist movement can be found only in the seemly Left Bank lofts of beardless Trotskyites. The "mainstream" of the White Supremacist movement ruthlessly ascribes to a nationalist paradigm - which has its origins, as I need not remind you, in 19th century theories of the autochthonous relation of the "Volk" to the "state". They love America, the White Christian part of it anyway.

-It is fanatically hostile to the State, once again to the point of open treason; it dreams of abolishing the State in favour of restoring the mythical absolute sovereignty of the individual supposed, a la Rousseau, to have existed in some lost golden age (see the crackpot pseudo-legal and pseudo-common law theories of the "sovereign citizen" that this sort of movement always subscribes to)
And this makes it Leftist? That's odd, given the taste for big government prevalent in most liberal circles. Yes, Bakunin-ite anarchists have had their role in leftist history, but neither the extreme right nor left have found themselves allergic to Big State power.

-Hand in hand with this radical individualism goes an equally radical collectivism, which seekd to defend the purity and integrity of the social (in this case, the "race") against threats associated with excessive individual freedom and untrammelled desire: race-mixing, homosexuality, drug use, and the pursuit of wealth. As a corrollary of the last point, it is:
Collectivism has no place within conservative ideology? Don't tell that to Edmund Burke or Joseph de Maistre.

-Fanatically hostile to capitalism, which it radically opposes to the well-being of the social as a despotic and corruptive force Where most leftists identify economic corporations as the ultimate embodiment of the capitalist bogeyman, AN and other similar groups target finance above all, reflecting the rural origin of their movement (independent farmers, on the basis of centuries of historical memory, tend to see debt as inseparable from servitude).
As you note, it wasn't so long ago that finance was the bogeyman of some staunchly conservative voices. This remains the case - look at Pat Buchanan.
 
Last edited:

Peeping Tom

Boil them in Oil
Dec 24, 2002
803
0
0
Hellholes of the earth
It is that those classifications are vague and often misused, the confusion owing to the marxist need to categorize National Socialism as something they opposed. But they only opposed NS in practice, for it was to demonstrate itself as the utopian perfection of socialism, or better yet, scientific paternalism - NS and KPD only differed on the national character and in practice NS and Soviet communism had very much in common.

Still, the left is socialist and so are the AN - it is impossible to keep from tarring the left with this brush - as it was, and is, their shared utopian destiny.

lenharper said:
But if you apply the definitions of "right" and "left" as they are in common usage now -- the AN is somewhat unclassifiable as either right or left, IMHO.
 
Toronto Escorts