Conservative student group invites racist Holocaust denier to speak on Islam
posted at 8:49 pm on October 27, 2007 by Allahpundit
Send to a Friend |
printer-friendly
They call themselves YAF but that stands for Young Americans for Freedom, not Jason Mattera’s group, the Young America’s Foundation. (I did a double take the first time I saw it.) An abject disgrace, and not the first time this particular chapter has “distinguished itself” by its tactics. Here’s the Wikipedia entry on BNP leader Nick Griffin. Like I said about Ron Paul accepting that donation from Don Black, he can’t be blamed if he didn’t know whom he was dealing with. Did YAF know whom it was dealing with in Griffin? A-yup:
Kyle Bristow, chairman of YAF, said his organization invited Griffin to promote intellectual debate. Bristow said he doesn’t believe in many of the ideas Griffin has preached, particularly his alleged denial of the Holocaust, but does agree that the Islamic faith is a threat to America.
I’m guessing that the prevalence of Holocaust denial throughout the Middle East wasn’t part of Griffin’s critique. Charles advises the group to repent and apologize; given their culpability, I’d say it’s already too late for that.
The left will enjoy this story, of course, presenting as it does an opportunity to spin some lazy Olbermannesque “Larger Truths” about conservatism out of the fiasco. That’ll be a neat trick in one sense, as their usual complaint about us vis-a-vis those “New York money people” Wes Clark worries so much about is that we’re too cozy with them, not that we’re too antagonistic. Do savor the irony, though, that it’s LGF — the blog to which they so often maliciously attribute BNP-ish attitudes — that was the first to post on this. It’s of a piece with some of Charles’s other posts lately chronicling the slimier aspects of certain European critics of Islam, starting with this and more recently here. Read them both. These turds may sound like Ayaan Hirsi Ali in one sense, but whether they’d even be willing to receive her given her skin color is an open question. Shamefully, like YAF with Griffin, at least one righty blogger knocked Charles for writing those posts. All movements, political and otherwise, eventually face the temptation of “enemy of my enemy” logic. It’s seductive; it’s human nature. Resist it at every turn.
Update: The “conservatives” at MSU-YAF have pronounced LGF a “pro-Muslim, left-wing, politically correct” blog. Perfect.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 »
Fair enough. No hard feelings.
tad on October 28, 2007 at 9:54 AM
Well the can of worms has officially been opened at Hot Air.
I must admit, I had been thinking Hot Air might be staying out of this mess at least for the time being. But given the latest stateside events I suppose it was inevitable. This week in my blog life has been amazing intense and upsetting to say the least. This has involved most of the Bloggers I most admire and I have felt like the proverbial child whose parents are engaged in the worst kind of knock down drag out fight! Yet this is a discussion which must take place. There are things here I don’t entirely understand yet. Where does Holocaust denial fit in in the larger scheme of things? Why is it important to some people to diminish the significance of the Holocaust? It is what it is, is it not? That said, does a drunken rant make Mel Gibson a rabid Nazi? What are we witnessing here? Is this the inevitable further splintering process of balkanization effected by multi-culturalism and catalyzed by the events of Gore V Bush and 9/11? Do the fissures continue to multiply till our political landscape shatters altogether like a punctured windshield? Are these the new Dark Ages falling now upon us? A long dialogue is much needed yet, weather Hot Air is really the appropriate venue is not for me to say.
Nyog_of_the_Bog on October 28, 2007 at 10:03 AM
Good commentary. But really, how surprising is all this? Politicians, especially in Europe, but here as well (particularly in regard to non-enforcement of a host of laws, unequal treatment of people under the law, dishonest media, pandering to every special interest group under the sun, etc.), have failed to adequately address the issues facing various nations. How hard was it to see that some group/groups would arise (that otherwise wouldn’t and couldn’t) to fill the void?
This all seems like a perfectly straight line to me. Also, why in the world would anyone have assumed that the “response” would be neat and clean and orderly. The politicians and Islamists have been playing with matches for years. Now we are surprised that there is a fire?
It’s going to be a f’ing mess!
JiangxiDad on October 28, 2007 at 10:20 AM
Krydor and others - Yes, you finally broke my spirit. I confess. I’m a die-hard fascist from way back. Each morning my wife and I bow in our Shinto shrine and pray for the eternal health of the Emperor.
I get it. You are better than me because you think that Griffin a really, really, really bad man, just as bad as Khomeini; that the BNP is equal to Hizb ut Tahir or Hamas; that the 4th largest party in Britain is truly a collection of sinister gangsters waiting for the right moment to violently overthrow Her Majesty’s Government.
Clearly I’m unworthy to engage in this discussion with my moral superiors. My most abject apologies for polluting your pristine discourse with my filth and pro-fascist propaganda. I’d have more to say but I have to go polish my Oswald Mosley statuettes.
Thomas the Wraith on October 28, 2007 at 10:26 AM
Jihadwatcher,
I see this is futile. What you’re doing borders on Nazi apoligia. “Sure, they did some bad stuff to some people, but come on, they had running water and liked the glorious Brahms Lullaby!”
And yes, the Nazis did some incredible cultural purging of the Non-Aryan elements of their society. That includes books, art, music and people. Are you overlooking this because they purged the non Western elements and only killed the non Aryans?
I sure hope you’ll tell me the Soviets weren’t so bad because they had a internationally renowned ballet. This is an insane conversation. Nazis bad, Commies bad, Jihadis bad. All equally bad.
Krydor on October 28, 2007 at 10:31 AM
Morning, everyone. Jihadwatcher is banned.
Allahpundit on October 28, 2007 at 10:41 AM
Thank you JiangxiDad, for your attention to my words.
Yes you are right. Indeed I can recall a discussion in Gates of Vienna, about a year ago when Steyn’s America Alone was the rage and some one there postulating that Europe would not go gently into that islamic night, that indeed there would be Civil war but what’s been dizzying to me is how rapidly events are moving!
Nyog_of_the_Bog on October 28, 2007 at 10:42 AM
PRCalDude and Thomas the Wraith are also banned.
Allahpundit on October 28, 2007 at 11:09 AM
Why?
JiangxiDad on October 28, 2007 at 11:12 AM
For apologizing for a Holocaust denier. I rail against Ahmadinejad for his Holocaust denial endlessly on this site, and now we have commenters defending a scumbag like Nick Griffin with comments like “we can’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good” and “well, it happened awhile ago.” If you guys want to apologize for the BNP, you have every last constitutional right to do so. But not here.
I refer everyone once again to zane’s link of Griffin’s remarks up above. Note the bigoted lie about how it’s only Muslims who gang rape, note the racialist/separatist model of communities. Do you guys really not recognize this rhetoric when you see it?
Allahpundit on October 28, 2007 at 11:18 AM
I see your point Allah. I came on to this post this morning and had missed when the initial posting came last night. The comments were so long, I skipped over them to respond to your original post.
Nyog_of_the_Bog on October 28, 2007 at 11:38 AM
As I’ve been pointing out in this blog over the course of the past months, you sleep with dogs, you wake up with fleas.
Niko on October 28, 2007 at 11:47 AM
Uh, Allah, it appears that you also deleted one of my replies to Jihadwatcher. I haven’t read the entire thread and don’t know what might have caused his ban, but he did make one good point: The BNP has grown because of a vacuum created by the failure of the Tories to address what the British call “the national question.”
The Tories have muttered PC platitudes while communities in Britain have been overrun by Third World immigrants, they’ve failed to stand against European “unification,” and the BNP is the result.
This ought to be an object lesson to the GOP. If Republicans fail to take a stand on illegal immigration (and other issues touching on national sovereignty and culture) then the resulting political vacuum will be filled by a nativist party that will drain away votes, money and energy by addressing the real grievances of the citizens.
Ali-Bubba on October 28, 2007 at 11:56 AM
I didn’t delete anything.
Allahpundit on October 28, 2007 at 11:58 AM
I hate to see this come to multiple banishments.
Ali-Bubba on October 28, 2007 at 12:02 PM
I think we have here an understandable confusion about the nature of European conservatism (the BNP is the European conservative party in the UK, although being the UK and not mainland Europe. there are many rational conservatives there). Right-wing in Europe is inextricably bound up with fascism, and it always has been. David Duke would feel right at home in a European conservative party, and they would have no problem with his being a member. The Nazi sympathizers in the 30s existed in several groups (these were the fifth columnists, remember), which, like leftist organizations, have split and reunited over and over again, but the BNP descends from the following parties, all of them Nazi or neo-Nazi parties: British Union of Fascists, Blood and Honor, League of Empire Loyalists, National Socialist Movement, British Movement, Racial Preservation Society, National Front, and the New National Front.
To paraphrase my grandmother, you can’t roll with the hogs without getting filthy. It doesn’t matter if the hog says something you agree with. A hog is a hog.
rightwingprof on October 28, 2007 at 12:05 PM
You are correct. My mistake. Turns out, I was replying to “infidelpride,” not to “jihadwatcher.” The similarity of the names confused me, and so when I saw you’d banned a BNP defender, I thought maybe it was the guy I’d been doing the “one good point” exchange with.
Again, I will repeat: The BNP exists because of a failure of the Tories to address an important issue affecting the lives and fortunes of millions of Britons. As such, it is a warning to today’s GOP.
Ali-Bubba on October 28, 2007 at 12:11 PM
That’s a bit too pat. If I was a GOP leader and someone told me, “crack down on illegals or we’ll join hands with Nazis,” I’d spit in his face. There’s no excuse, ever, for making common cause with racists. Like I said to infidelpride, if it comes to that choice, start your own party.
Allahpundit on October 28, 2007 at 12:18 PM
I’m afraid Mr. Everyman will do otherwise.
JiangxiDad on October 28, 2007 at 12:25 PM
I am sufficiently ignorant of the record of the BNP and Nick Griffin to judge whether “BNP = Nazis” is a fair analogy. That’s not my point anyway.
What I’m saying is that political parties are responsible for their own failures. Look at the massive decline of the GOP vote between 2004 and 2006, after Bush and the GOP Senate spent spring 2006 pushing the Kennedy-McCain amnesty bill (which was much worse than this year’s “shamnesty”).
If the GOP drives away those voters whom the WSJ editors dismiss as “xenophobic nativists,” then those voters will either stay home — entirely alienated from the political process — or go to some party that’s willing to flip the finger in the WSJ’s face.
Ali-Bubba on October 28, 2007 at 12:36 PM
As do I. I could be wrong, but I don’t think jihadwatcher was defending the Nazis’ genocide of the Jews. In fact, he said as much at 1:24 a.m. His concern seems to be the culture clash between those who espouse fundamentalist Islam and everyone else. Your warning about the BNP is appropriate because there is a very fragile line separating those who want to preserve their own culture and those who will go to extremes to do so. When we have Chertoff implying that we are racists and bigots because we want to stem illegal immigration; when we have the Clintons implying we are racists because we want their connections to Chinese funny money investigated, we feel like we are being pushed into a corner. [We are not racists! We are not bigots!] What happens if people suddenly start snapping and that fragile line breaks?
I’ve been worried about that for awhile now. I think we should all worry about that. I don’t know if I said this right, but I tried.
Connie on October 28, 2007 at 12:52 PM
Exactly. We live in a representive form of government. When Republicans refuse to represent the people who elected them that is a political failure that will have consequences, among them the possibility that a third party will spring up to represent the unrepresented. The GOP ignores this possibiility at their own risk, and at the risk of the nation.
Ali-Bubba on October 28, 2007 at 12:57 PM
Excuse the multiple misspellings.
Ali-Bubba on October 28, 2007 at 1:02 PM
Indeed there is not. And
Absolutely, I agree, but that does not mean that racism does not exist. That may seem like an obvious point, but far too many conservatives, for exactly the reason you (correctly) point out, dismiss any accusation of racism out of hand, as if it were nothing but a word.
As for this happening here, I really doubt it. Bigotry (and I’m not referring to PC nonsense) is much less socially acceptable here than it is in Europe or the UK — look at Pat Buchanan’s run for the White House. I would hope that most conservatives would react the same way as AP would. I am sort of surprised, though, that so many here are unfamiliar with the YAF, which is a principled, conservative organization.
rightwingprof on October 28, 2007 at 2:16 PM
As a recently edified Republican, I am enthusiastic about the success of my party. Admittedly, even though I am new to the scene, I can be a bit of a stickler; I tend to be hyper-critical of Republicans. I demand excellence. I am not one to stand around while my team commits political malpractice. I support the banishments.
Of course I am sorry to lose some voices in the chatterbox. But I am glad my favorite blog is so demanding and exacting in its quest for relevance and excellence.
Those whom have been banished were basically planting poisonous seeds in a community garden. Obviously, radical Islam is a threat to our culture and freedom. Couple that with the foul ubiquity of failed U.S. immigration policies, and one can be easily moved to anger.
However a smart fighter knows that anger must be channeled or it will consume you. It can blind you leaving you vulnerable to attack. Hatred and bigotry are not acceptable or productive byproducts of anger. They stain and diminish those who succumb to their twisted catharsis.
Thank you for keeping my favorite blog commendable.
The Race Card on October 28, 2007 at 2:17 PM
Well from you I guess that I can only expect someone who only looks at the source (I guess you have an approved list of sources, probably a very short one I would surmise), and not someone who looks at what the sources said. Personally I like to look at what was said and analyze that, not “lynch” the source.
You must have far better vision and reading comprehension than I do ’cause I just didn’t see all those apologies. Of course I could not see where I had apologized for him either, not even in the slightest, tiniest, teeniest, little bit, as you emphatically accused me of doing earlier.
If this gets me banned too, then so be it. I need to spend more of my time remodeling my damn house anyway!!!
MB4 on October 28, 2007 at 3:34 PM
I do as well, especially of people who have been here for quite some time; however, the entire point of this thread is that we are to distance ourselves from that mindset entirely.
I do agree on the point made that a vacuum was created in politics that made the BNC possible. Still though, we’re people who have the cognitive ability to tell right from wrong. So long as we keep ideologies like that out of the mainstream, we’ve got a chance of keeping a power like that from making any headway.
As to the topic itself, it’s a real shame a conservative group would tar our good name with a man like that.
Esthier on October 28, 2007 at 3:50 PM
I believe Islam itself is a threat. Do I believe all Muslims are a threat? No. I can hate socialism, communism, fascism without being called a bigot. But because Islam is religion-based, I am labeled a bigot.
Is Ayaan Hirsi Ali a bigot? What about Christopher Hitchens?
I am against unchecked and illegal immigration. Does that make me racist?
Yes, anger must be channeled, but discussion is the key to channeling it properly and one or two poorly-worded posts made in the heat of the moment do not necessarily make someone hateful.
Connie on October 28, 2007 at 3:51 PM
I’m sure it’s harder to see when it comes disguised as “the enemy of my enemy” as you stated earlier.
Esthier on October 28, 2007 at 3:53 PM
He indiscriminately hates all religious people. I’m not confident that his opinions on those who prescribe to any religion are worth emulating.
He makes some great points, but in my opinion, the man is blinded by his opinions on religion.
Esthier on October 28, 2007 at 3:55 PM
Some discussions inform, others just inflame. There was very little to be gained from parsing the merits of obtuse bigotry.
Republicans have an image problem when it comes to racial issues. Discussions about whether to hug or merely shake hands with Holocaust deniers indicates that the problems are deeper than image.
The Race Card on October 28, 2007 at 5:07 PM
WRONG. I looked at what the source said and it was the same hysterical nonsense we keep hearing from the Left about us torturing people, spying on Americans and so forth.
Let me quote from it for you again:
I gather you agree with that assessment? Or did you just cherry pick the parts of that article that paint Guiliani as some sort of power hungry fascist?
One more question for you:
Why don’t you source your quotes? This website makes it really easy to do. If linking is too bothersome for you, at the very least you could provide the URL.
Buy Danish on October 28, 2007 at 5:09 PM
Who is causing that problem?
Connie on October 28, 2007 at 5:15 PM
It’s called history. Certainly the press, Democrats, political correctness and racial demagoguery are barriers to absolute clarity on issues of race.
But there are myriad reasons people believe the things they do about us…and some of them are even true.
A lot of people have acquired this unimpeachable racial doctrine of new. One of the symptoms is constantly defending the right on race. I hear and read Republicans invoking their own racailly pure instincts as righteous all the time. It’s tiresome.
The posturing happens on both sides. Nobody has a monopoly on culpability. Republicans are no more or less racist than Democrats.
This is America; we are not a racist nation. Most Americans live and let live. Most Americans love a success story. But every segment of our culture leaves something to be desired in how it deals with race.
The Race Card on October 28, 2007 at 5:44 PM
*
You gather wrong, as I have some real problems with that part of the article. That is why I did not excerpt it. You just sound like a lawyer arguing the strongest, however weak, part of a very weak case.
*
If you like links, and you have made it pretty obvious that you don’t unless the are on your short list of approved sources, the following is what I posted on October 25, 2007. This, my first posting of it, included a full link. I know that is the right date as I have it saved in an email draft folder and that is the date on it. I excerpted what I thought was the pertinent information. As you can see I did not choose the same passages as you did. I excerpted what I though was important to know about the character, or lack of, of a man who would be President of the United States. You just excerpted what you though would cast the source in a bad light. That is apparently your MO, it is not mine. You “cherry pick” what you think will make the source look bad, thinking that will fool people into rejecting the rest, as I guess you can not argue with the rest. I “cherry pick” what I think is the important part. You seem to operate in a very binary mode. I do not.
*
Why don’t you just debate the substance of what I excerpted, instead of just trying to trash the source? If Al Gore told you that 2 plus 2 was 4 would you site his claims on global warming and then say he must be wrong about what 2 plus 2 equals too? If he is wrong about one thing he must, ergo, be wrong about everything else too? Very narrow minded of you.
Rudy Awakening: As president, Giuliani would grab even more executive power than Bush and Cheney. His mayoralty tells the story. By Rachel Morris
*
From the first days of his term, Giuliani demanded a centralized operation that had no room for dissenters. He entrusted Tony Carbonetti, a former manager of a Boston bar in his twenties, with the task of installing loyalists not just in top positions but throughout the layers of the municipal government. The new recruits were quickly reminded that fidelity to Giuliani was their most important qualification; everyone knew the price of displeasing the mayor. “When Rudy read The Godfather,” a former deputy mayor remarked approvingly to one of Giuliani’s biographers, “he studied it from the point of view of how to communicate effectively down to the lowest ranks of an organization, so that every foot soldier understood his marching orders.”
*
Before long, his tough management style deteriorated into futile callousness. “People in his administration were terrified of him,” said former Mayor Ed Koch. Giuliani drove out even his best officials for being insufficiently deferential. Police Commissioner Bratton, the architect of New York’s crime-fighting successes, was ousted in 1996. Rudy Crew, a well-regarded education chancellor, surrendered in 1999, stalling much-needed reform of New York’s schools. Ultimately, the entire city government became an extension of Giuliani’s outsize personality.
*
Criscitello had run into what was becoming a signature feature of Giuliani’s governing style. Chafing against the limits of his authority, Giuliani was taking an increasingly instrumentalist view of the law: it was only as good as how well it was enforced, and should be overstepped when doing so served his ends.
*
When Giuliani wanted to do something and was advised by his staff that it was illegal, it was “hard for him,” one of his former commissioners explained to me. “As a lawyer, it offends him. He thinks, ‘Isn’t there a way around this?’” Giuliani often preferred to barrel ahead and force his opponents to go to court to restrain him.
*
Giuliani also unashamedly flouted the First Amendment to crush dissent both inside and outside his government. He lost thirty-five First Amendment cases in court. His administration was found to have shut down or delayed legal protests, illegally prevented its own employees from making protected public statements, and illegally prevented New Yorkers from gathering on the steps of City Hall. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals took the unusual step of reprimanding the administration, noting, “[W]e would be ostriches if we failed to take judicial notice of the heavy stream of First Amendment litigation generated by New York City in recent years.”
*
Pretty scary if anything like true. Maybe called Rudy II Duce is pretty much on the mark after all.
MB4 on October 28, 2007 at 6:00 PM
MB4,
I want to see the sources with a link so I can view what has been said in context.
For all you babbling, you did not provide a link here. You quoted a paragraph without sourcing it and I had to take the quote and Google it to find the source.
I lived in NYC before Rudy was the Mayor and for some time while he was the Mayor. Our civil liberties were far more threatened before under Dinkins and previous liberal administrations. During their tenure one could hardly walk down the street without being accosted by demented freaks whose “civil rights” and “first amendment rights” to uriniate and sleep on the street, to wildly harangue passersby, to block access to restaurants, and so on were sacrosanct.
That article you quote from doesn’t mention any of that, does it? If you were intellectually honest you’d want to know more about the cases that Rudy lost such as who the plaintiffs were, what the cases were about, and who the judges were who decided against him.
You have made up your mind about Rudy and any spin that fits your preconceived scenario is lapped up by you. IMO, that that makes you, not me, “narrow minded”.
Buy Danish on October 28, 2007 at 6:28 PM
Can you give me some examples of this?
Connie on October 28, 2007 at 6:54 PM
also true. the splc specificly is the media matters of the “your a racist” attack. they claim to monitor hate groups, but advance a hard left agenda by narrowing the qualification of hate group to exclude all but white and christian hate groups, exaggerating their volume and breadth, and, at whatever opportunity they they can seize, conflate these with mainstream conservativism. the splc could, for instance, include leftwing anarchist groups who view the civil war as an “imperialist” war against white workingmen, but they don’t. they do however include many right wing groups on their watchlist for similar, even less eggregious revisionism.
in fact, the saddest part of this is the space it grants leftwingers to act in bad faith. for instance, the msuyaf appears to have been the “victim” of what was actually a gwu flier-type hoax. during a debate on some state legislation regarding gay rights, some anarchists chalked some anti-gay slurs on the pavement around the university, and the msuyaf was implicated prejudiciciously. it was on this basis that the splc orginally classified the msuyaf as a hate group.
now, i could say how fishy that is. my money-line would be something like, “if republicans are such bigots, how come progressives have to manufacture incidents of bigotry to justify their attacks on ‘bigoted republicans’?”
but what does that mean now in light of the msuyaf basicly outing themselves? now in retrospect on can look over the chapter’s blog and see how deeply filthy they’ve been for years. i linked a video above. it’s a leftwing attack, but it reveals some things i wish i’d known, but would never have researched for myself, but which the yaf should have known and acted against. msuyaf’s graduate legal advisor was actually expelled from campus for persistant domestic battery of his girlfreind. when the cops came to remove him from campus, the place was full of white nationalist paraphenalia. he continues on as the msuyaf’s legal advisor off-campus - with his sallary paid by the yaf.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2n2LQNNW2Cg&eurl=http://spartanspectator.blogspot.com/
this isn’t to be laughed off or rationalized. i support ap’s bannings. a lot of this ugly crap came up in another old thread and i’m glad to see some of the filth from that thread go.
something that has to be understood about these people, is that they are fetishists of 20th century radical death cults. and while soviet fanboys don’t go around in red army uniforms (though, they’re allowed to socially) nazis don’t go around with their ideology hanging out.
white nationalists look and talk like this…
http://youtube.com/watch?v=q5h29pOPvbI&watch_response
the holocaust has nothing to do with it. it’s not as if there are no russian national socialists because russia fought the nazis in the “great patriotic war” or polish national socialists because of the nazi occupation of poland. nazi.org links to black nationalist groups and the linkage is reciprocated.
so a white nationalist may preface that “of course” they dissaprove of the holocaust. its as meaningful as a communist “of course i love america.”
jummy on October 28, 2007 at 7:03 PM
I hope you didn’t strain yourself too much. That googling for a link even once in a while can be oh soooooo strenuous. Babble, babble.
Giuliani also unashamedly flouted the First Amendment to crush dissent both inside and outside his government. He lost thirty-five First Amendment cases in court.
Do you dispute that? How many first amendment cases did Dinkins lose. BTW, I don’t want Dinkins as President ethier! Just say no to Dinkins. Just say no to Rudolf. Just say no to both of them!
He entrusted Tony Carbonetti, a former manager of a Boston bar in his twenties, with the task of installing loyalists not just in top positions but throughout the layers of the municipal government.
Do you dispute that?
Do you dispute any of the other items in my excerpt? All you seem to do is go off on a tangent.
You are wasting both our time.
MB4 on October 28, 2007 at 7:25 PM
er, maybe in fact, but not in the public mind. the hagiography which cleanses the progressive left of it’s early affinities with “racial hygene” and eugenics, the economic populist component which bound the new dealers and the kkk and revisies these as “conservative”, while forestalling any analasys of the left’s current thinking on race as white paternalist malignancy, is i’m afraid dominant. it should be stridently attacked.
what’s suck-all about this incident is that it doesn’t just frustrate that sort of discourse, it makes me wonder if its true enough to pursue.
jummy on October 28, 2007 at 7:28 PM
Keep up the good work of pinning The Race Card down. I look forward to hearing his/her response. We’ll probably get a link to Media Matters - if that.
Buy Danish on October 28, 2007 at 7:29 PM
BTW, do you expect me to provide you with a link every single time I post something? Even when it is a re-post? And then you don’t even like it anyway.
Dream on.
Do I look like your mother or what?
Get over it.
MB4 on October 28, 2007 at 7:29 PM
MB4,
You’ve told us that he prevented “students” from “protesting” on the steps of City Hall.
Why don’t YOU provide us with details about that event!
I’m off to eat dinner. I’ll check back later…
Buy Danish on October 28, 2007 at 7:32 PM
I think most of the readers here would agree that Griffin is not the kind of person we would associate with, for any reason. I knew very little about the BNP prior to this thread, but zane’s link gave me pretty much all I needed.
When I read this last night and saw the comments starting to get out of control I just decided not to enter the conversation. I bet most of HotAir’s other readers did the same.
BadgerHawk on October 28, 2007 at 8:00 PM
Re-post from where??? You had not posted ANY links or sources at that thread. I expect you to provide a source when you quote from somewhere. It’s blogging 101.
So what??? That’s not the point.
Hell no! In fact, you sound incredibly infantile when you say things like that.
Buy Danish on October 28, 2007 at 8:19 PM
How does that help confront the evil of rad. Islam or the rise of nationalist parties? Did they go away because you didn’t look?
JiangxiDad on October 28, 2007 at 8:24 PM
Well yahoo. I’m going to help confront the evil of radical Islam by taking part in politics and serving 20+ in the Army. I’m not going to do it by arguing over whether we should be making friends with a racist like Griffin. It’s a question that shouldn’t even need to be asked.
BadgerHawk on October 28, 2007 at 8:29 PM
I’m working my way UP^^^ MB4.
SO WHAT??? How
dumbnaive are you? That’s how politics works. Do you think he should have appointed liberal democrats instead?As I said earlier, it was considered a “first Amendment right” to do whatever you wanted, no matter how foul, prior to Guiliani’s tenure.
I’m sure that the windshield wiper guys found a lawyer at the ACLU to represent them. As did Billie Boggs who had the “right” to defecate in front of a restaurant. These are all “first amendment” issues (to the ACLU).
The NYC courts were packed with uber-liberal judges. Your job is to find one case that really is shocking. You’re the one making all these wild charges based on what a Left wing magazine says. Find something substantive to back them up.
Buy Danish on October 28, 2007 at 8:29 PM
MB4,
Here’s a 1998 recap from the NYT about Rudy and the First Amendment, where one learns (among other things) that there are 8,000 First Amendment cases a year brought against the City of New York.
Most of this stuff is just silly, like a musician complaining that a $45.00 fee was excessive. The musician was upheld b a Federal Court, but I hardly think that any of these cases constitute a threat to our civil liberties.
And for some reason the courts think that “vendors” have a right to open shop on any sidewalk in NYC. I don’t get the logic of that, and having lived there I can attest to what a nuisance it was and I certainly understand why Guiliani would try to regulate that sort of thing.
Buy Danish on October 28, 2007 at 8:48 PM
And yet there it is, acutally happening in Europe as we speak. These events bear a resemblance to Europe in the ’30’s. People are becoming attracted to nationalist parties again, for reasons described often, above. That is not something to ignore because it is distasteful. It can’t help not to talk about it.
JiangxiDad on October 28, 2007 at 8:50 PM
I could but it would be insulting to everybody reading because it is quite obvious what I’m talking about. The more you resist understanding such a simple dynamic the more it seems like you have a stake in ignoring the truth.
Buy Danish you gotta look deeper than the name. I’m not a proponent of playing the so-called race card. I believe in a very simple concept - hard work.
So, I’d appreciate if your aspersions were remotely on target. I have never cited
mediamattersas an authoritative source of anything. You can be angry with me for expressing my honest assessment of racial politics in America. But my message remains the same - every segment of the population shares in the dismal state of race relations.That’s it. But I have found that much of the blind cheerleading and piling-on you find on the left is alive and well on the right.
We don’t have a candidate. We don’t secure borders. We are losing seats in Congress. And the MSM media’s meanstreak is just getting started. In an election season, minor missteps can mean major loss.
Hate me so long as you hear me.
The Race Card on October 28, 2007 at 9:34 PM
People should direct their anger and looks of disbelief at Kyle Bristow and his organization.
For random fun, google Bredesen and coolie.
The Race Card on October 28, 2007 at 9:39 PM
Great dodge.
I’m not “angry” with you! I think you are making sweeping allegations you can’t back up. It is fatuous to think that relying on your “honest assessment” is sufficient.
Buy Danish on October 28, 2007 at 9:48 PM
You must have far better vision and reading comprehension than I do ’cause I just didn’t see all those apologies.
MB4,
Found one for you. This is why AP did what AP did. This is pretty much apologist claptrap for Nazis. I’m not about to write some paper for the way the Nazis imposed social control and attempted to create an ethnically and morally pure society, because I’m lazy. However, there is little difference between a perfect Aryan, a New Man and a pure Muslim or how to make one.
Krydor on October 28, 2007 at 10:07 PM
Indeed.
Vlaams Belang: Freedom Fighters
2Brave2Bscared on October 28, 2007 at 11:09 PM
I don’t catch every thread, nor do I click every link. For me to condemn someone, I would have to go back and examine other posts. If I did that and, in retrospect, determined that white supremacist ideology was a pattern, then they would have to go. I haven’t seen an indication of that anywhere from anyone on this blog.
As I stated earlier, I don’t think jihadwatcher was using the term “nazi” and referring to all the nasty specifics of what the term implies. I think what he was saying was very simply that if something isn’t done about the problem of Islam, we could end up with people going off the deep end to fix the problem themselves. In another vein of thought, didn’t Rush Limbaugh coin the term “feminazi?” Do you think he meant that feminists were white supremacists who want to exterminate (literally) all those who don’t agree with them?
I was less interested in “pinning” the Race Card down than in letting him know that the chip of victimization on his shoulder is highly visible. Feminists carry a similar chip and frankly, it’s tiresome.
Connie on October 28, 2007 at 11:16 PM
Are We All Nazis Now?
2Brave2Bscared on October 28, 2007 at 11:18 PM
You know what I am tempted to agree with you, great dodge. I think you’re right. It’s a dodge—because I find this argument boring. Don’t be let down, I’m really not much for this back and forth. You win.
I have not called anybody in here a racist, I have only pointed out the obvious. America, while being the best country on God’s Earth still has a long way. You disagree with me; that’s great. But quite honestly I don’t get what specifically what I said with which you disagree.
Was it a good idea to invite Nick Griffin to speak? In the future should we rely on fringe groups to bolster our numbers?
Nothing I say is more important than the answers to those questions. My opinion is certainly not worth all this text. The success of the Republican party, however, is integral with the future prosperity and sovereignty of this nation.
The Race Card on October 28, 2007 at 11:54 PM
Connie,
There is a reason I quoted, verbatim, what I quoted. He said Nazism, he meant Nazism and not some lame Limbaugh-ism.
Totalitarianism is simply totalitarianism. There is no preferable brand.
Krydor on October 28, 2007 at 11:55 PM
While I dislike organizations with anti-semetic and racist views/histories, it seems they are often the only openly anti-Islamofasicm allies we have in Europe right now.
This whole argument has historic precedent in WWII. The British and U.S. allying with Stalin. And while we flambeau Hitler, we often overlook the fact that Stalin killed more innocents than Hitler ever did.
So, if an Islamofacist fundamentalist has your head on the chopping block, would you deny a white supremacist group willing to free you from your predicament?
Lawrence on October 28, 2007 at 11:58 PM
So, if an Islamofacist fundamentalist has your head on the chopping block, would you deny a white supremacist group willing to free you from your predicament?
Lawrence
What does he want in return? You don’t think Mr. Skinhead is doing it for free, do you? Is saving your skin worth the price you’ll pay?
Krydor on October 29, 2007 at 12:08 AM
Here something I noted from LGF:
Then LGF adds links (you need to got there to get the links).
If you link on the link to the racist symbol description it says this:
“This is one of the most popular symbols for neo-Nazis and white supremacists. First popularized by the Ku Klux Klan, the symbol was later adopted by the National Front in England and other racists such as Don Black on his Web site, Stormfront, and the racist band Skrewdriver to represent international “white pride.” It is also known as Odin’s Cross. It is important to note that the Celtic Cross is used widely today in many mainstream and cultural contexts. No one should assume that a Celtic Cross, divorced from other trappings of extremism, automatically denotes use as a hate symbol.”
Which is exactly the point that PRCaldude and Thomas the Wriath were arguing (backed up by LGF’s own reference) when they got banned.
Remind me never to argue Devil’s Advocate here.
>>>
But this does not overshadow LGF’s illustration that the only anti-Islamofascist allies we seem to have in Europe have political or social ties to racism and anti-semitism.
Lawrence on October 29, 2007 at 12:09 AM
I’m nobody’s victim, that’s for sure. Every example in my family stands in direct support of the concept of the american dream.
I doubt it will make a difference, because you seem fairly fixed in your perception. But if you are interested in affecting a change, and not just playing gotcha, I would appreciate a primer in not playing the victim. What’s the first step in displaying a sufficiently respectable racial message? I don’t want to seem too uppity.
When you become bored with misplaced racial jabs (I’m not a supporter of Al, Jesse, et al.) just let me know what I am allowed to say about race. I’ve already learned that denouncing nazi sympathizers is verboten.
The Race Card on October 29, 2007 at 12:09 AM
I understand the point, but if you don’t let him save you, it really doesn’t matter what happens after that. We might as well just all get in line and let our enemies take us.
This is no longer about finding the perfect answer to the problem, this is about surviving to fight another day.
Lawrence on October 29, 2007 at 12:11 AM
Not true. There is a broad middle-class all over Europe with a very clear and distinct distaste for Islamism, and they do have platforms in all major parties. The point is that European extremist parties pretend that they are the only voices of opposition to Islamism, and it’s only gullible people like you who fall for the scam.
Wrong. The actual historic precedent is when Hitler gained power in the 30s and a great many Americans across the pond cheered him. Simple as that.
That’s bullshit. No one in Europe has their head on the chopping block, and actually, the white supremacist groups would be more than willing to put all kinds of heads (Jewish, gay, Sinti and Roma, non-white skinned) on the chopping blocks.
Your comment probably had the highest density of fabrications and outright lies in this whole thread, and for suggesting an alliance with white supremacist groups out of some fictitous emergency you should be dealt with by this blog’s owners as well.
Niko on October 29, 2007 at 12:13 AM
Untrue. In actual fact, the only people in Europe who try to survive in Europe right now are, well, like this one:
Or this one:
There you got your white supremacist groups in action. Or do you want to maintain that chasing Indians through inner-city is related to fighting Islamofascism?
Niko on October 29, 2007 at 12:22 AM
That is precisely the type of comment that negates progress. What is it exactly that you want to say about race? You’ve made very general statements, but have said nothing specific, except to make sure you blame everyone for racial problems. What are your solutions?
Connie on October 29, 2007 at 12:27 AM
Whereas I agree with you that “totalitarianism is totalitarianism,” we will have to agree to disagree on jihadwatcher’s intentions. Too bad he’s not around to ’splain himself.
Connie on October 29, 2007 at 12:33 AM
But which of these other major parties are openly and solidly working to combat Islamism? We have anti-Islamists in both our Democrat and Republican parties also, but only the GOP is taking aggressive actions.
I never said otherwise. This is the point that LGF is making, and the point I am supporting here. You’re just trying to paint me as gullible to further your argument, which is, in fact, in agreement with you.
Two different precedents. Americans cheering Hitler in 1930 quickly becomes irrelevant in the face of the war. The final precedent affecting any kind of change was our alliance with Stalin.
Well, yes, Europe is. That is why LGF and Hot Air put so much effort into reporting it. France is in terrible shape, with Spain not far behind. And if they weren’t under fire, we wouldn’t be having this debate.
And I agree with your argument about supremacists groups. But even LGFs reference to the Celtic Cross debate contradicts his argument about assuming too much.
You are now assuming somthing I never said or claimed, to support whatever agenda you wish.
Yet, I am arguing the information as posted by both Hot Air and LGF, and their respective authors. Does this mean the two respected bloggers in question are also fabricators and liars?
Ahh.. I see. I’m arguing an allegorical positing, but the fact I use an uncomfortable illustration upsets you? So, by golly, lets stomp out any speech we deem contrary to our views?
Lawrence on October 29, 2007 at 12:34 AM
You are mixing up your arguments. These are gangs, not political parties. I am fully in agreement with you regarding rogue gang action like this.
Lawrence on October 29, 2007 at 12:38 AM
@Lawrence
Actually, the current governments in France and Germany have put forth very strict laws that wouldn’t even pass under a Democrat President in the US. France, for example, recently banned hijabs in all public education, and Germany - which is ruled by a coalition of both major parties - is aggressively stepping up surveillance and monitoring of extremist Islamist groups, and they also prohibited Islamic religious symbols from being used in public service. Mosque construction projects receive ample scrutiny, and intensive background checks are being performed for immigrants from Muslim origin, even introducing specific “citizenship exams” for Muslim applicants.
This is what you actually wrote:
I see no indication that those are not your own words, so I stand by my critique.
Not true. It’s the correct precedent because America and, to a much larger degree, European nations cheering Hitler were actually what made his rule possible in the first, with countries like the US sending athletes to Berlin 1936 and lending credibility to Germany’s fascist regime, to cite just one concrete example. Back in the 30s more than a sizable proportion of US academics and pundits agreed with Hitler that the “Jewish and communist problem” should be dealt with “before it destroys Germany”.
I quoted above from your own words. There is no “agenda” at work here.
So are you claiming now that LGF or HA wrote something like this? Quoting again:
The problem is not that it were an illustration, but your characterization of Europe and her problems is plain wrong.
Not true. The successor to German NSDAP, the NPD, is actually in parliament in East Germany, and even though the two major political parties in Germany tried to ban the NPD a few years ago, they failed due to technicalities. According to the German Verfassungsschutz (Secret Service) the NPD maintains close ties to various skinhead groups and fascist movements, and from time to time a leading member of the NPD and other extremist movements is put in jail. These “rogue gangs” receive direct financial support from the NPD.
And before you try to downplay this inconvenient argument, let me add that the NPD received 7.3% of the vote in recent state elections, and her sister party, the DVU, received 6.1%.
Please get your facts straight before trying to opine on the actual European situation.
Niko on October 29, 2007 at 1:09 AM
As for your attempted separation of political parties and “rogue gangs”, German fascist party NPD had a bumper sticker for general elections a while back which read, “Ausländer raus!” - “Throw out all foreigners!”
These “rogue gangs” are simply executing the party plan. There is no seperation between both, they act in lockstep, with “rogue gangs” being the para-military wing of their parliamentary representatives.
Niko on October 29, 2007 at 1:11 AM
I am commenting in context of the LGF posts in question and the comments added here at HA. As long as you understand that by discrediting my statements also discredits LGF and Hot Air posts I’m basing my comments on.
And I’m okay with all that in the larger context.
You interjected the rogue gangs issue. Considering this is true, which I’m not arguing against, then the political parties discredit themselves. Which discredits them as allies. Which serves to back up my position that we have few if any true anti-Islamofacist allies in Europe. And backs up the LGF and HA arguments that the allies we do have, we maybe don’t want as allies.
The point you are making, and which I agree, is that just because someone is fighting a common enemy it doesn’t make them allies. But it does make it easier for us to fight our enemies if our enemies are fighting on many fronts at once.
I’m not going to try and untwist this one tonight.
If you have no agenda then what is the point to your argument?
Lawrence on October 29, 2007 at 1:23 AM
It doesn’t, because I can’t find anything posted at LGF or HA that remotely resembles these words as written by you:
That’s illogical and factually untrue. The “true anti-Islamofascist allies in Europe” are actually in power, i.e. they sit in cabinet. The Merkel and Sarkozy governments are very actively engaged in the fight, with new laws being passed every month that pale anything that the ACLU decried in the US.
So are you suggesting that by having these extremist groups around the Islamofascist movement is having a harder time?
Let me enlighten you: Contrary what you guys might believe the Islamists all over Europe are actually teaming up with supremacist white groups. Yes, you read that correctly. For example, last year when Ahmadinejad wanted to attent the soccer games of Iran’s national soccer team at Germany’s World Soccer Championships, the only support he received was - gasp! - from Germany’s right-wing extremist party NPD. Why? Because the NPD applauded Iran’s fight “against Zionism”.
All over Germany the NPD is welcoming Islamists, not fighting them!
What I wrote above - these supremacist groups are not only a danger because they’d kill Jews or gays if given the chance, but they actually share the same goals as Islamists.
In other words, in Europe far-right extremists and Islamists have a common enemy: moderate Muslims, and just as Al Qaeda is mainly targeting Muslims in Iraq, these white supremacist groups would be more than happy to share power with Islamists, and in the course of that expel or kill all moderate Muslims.
Niko on October 29, 2007 at 1:38 AM
I think I’ll agree with you too. That was obnoxious. And the statements I made were general, not clear enough to warrant a more detailed reply. I’m hungover and bored and can’t believe I am arguing the merits of inviting a reformed holocaust denier to speak during the already controversial IFAW at a school where the YAF already has questionable standing.
I have one solution for one particular problem - if someone accuses you of being a racist, ignore them. Simply do not address arguments not worth your time. I think race is the unavoidable tar baby for Republicans—impossible to ignore—indelibly staining. But every insult does not require vigorous defense. I’ve been called Uncle Tom many times, and my response is dead-pan silence.
Another solution is just getting to know people. I have a neighbor, he’s skinhead from Circle One, a So Cal skinhead family. He’s not the type of guy most people want to approach. Well, he and I talk a lot. He’s an angry dude and he knows it. But I also know that he’s a person trying to change some of his ways. I know some things in his past that would twist any life into confusion.
He’s a family man and his wife is Jewish. So obviously he’s got some issues. But my point is this, I could easily write the guy off. I could stop giving them tomatoes and lemons form our yard. Perhaps the smaller efforts we make, the gestures of humanity will serve as examples for those in need of a little guidance.
The Race Card on October 29, 2007 at 1:43 AM
Considering all the hateful garbage spewed from jummy about Christians, this current round of bannings seems a bit selective. That said, AP probably needs to put up a correction:
Young America’s Foundation: 501(c)(3)
Young Americans for Freedom: 501(c)(4)
The two are only as disjoint as tax law requires them to be. Source
Politics makes strange bedfellows, I guess. Not a clean hand in the house. Jew-hating psychotics with brown skin on one side.. Jew-hating psychotics with pink skin on the other. In the end, the Lord will have them all in derision.
spmat on October 29, 2007 at 2:08 AM
I did not read it that way. I read it as not praise for nazis, but extreme condemnation for islam. Besides the real nazis are long dead and gone and islam is not, so it is a little hard for me to get all exercised about them now and get diverted from islam which is the clear and present danger now. Maybe I will print it out and run it past my dad who fought the nazis in WWII and see what he thinks.
MB4 on October 29, 2007 at 2:28 AM
I’m still “kinda here,” in that I read, but for the most part, I have a rule. The minute I have to read something twice in order to understand what someone is saying, I go do a jigsaw puzzle. I’m still trying to deal with the fact that I got used to staying up to watch Red Eye and now that they’ve gone from 2 a.m. to 3 a.m., I have to change my routine.
Tomorrow is another day only after I get some sleep. The point you made here
is why I originally said this whole thing was a head-spinner and why people needed to take a break. Not that it doesn’t warrant discussion, but somehow cooler (non-sleepy, non-hung over, non-reactionary, non-whatever) heads need to prevail.
Connie on October 29, 2007 at 2:30 AM
You are taking a secondary point out of context. What you quote is not the main point to my original post. The main point of which it seems we mostly agree.
I’m not arguing this, and the thread isn’t about what Merkel and Sarkozy are doing. Yes, I see why what I said demands that you clarify, and I’m okay with you clarifying the issue in greater context.
I’m suggesting this in context of the one political party in question. It is you who are bringing all the parties and gangs into the debate. And, again, in the larger context I am pretty much in agreement.
Thank you for putting words in my mouth and then straightening me out.
I completely understand your point. I don’t think anyone is arguing against you on this. But the issue of the thread is one particular political party.
I disagree that supremacist groups would be happy or even able to share power with Islamists. They will be fighting each other just as much as any common enemy. Kind of like what is happening already in the Middle East between any number of factions.
But still, however detestable, this kind of red on red conflict works in our favor.
Lawrence on October 29, 2007 at 9:19 AM
I see! You are bored and hungover and that explains why you are you going on and on and on about…nothing! Just toss out some innuendo here, a negative inference there, float it like a trial balloon and when it doesn’t receive the desired effect you retreat into a YAWN.
MB4,
History begins this morning for you, doesn’t it? The Nazi thing is so last century!
Apparently you have missed the obvious lesson that history provides a window into the future and we ignore it at our peril.
I really am having a very hard time figuring out what your solutions are. You hate Islam but oppose the Iraq War which is fighting Islamofascists. You hate Guiliani who takes on the very liberals who create the multi-culti p.c. environment that lets Islamofascism (and groups like La Raza) thrive.
You fall for a bunch of claptrap written by Washington Monthly which portrays Guiliani as a fascist who would take away our First Amendment rights, when it is liberals who censor speech and impede our ability to prevent our culture from being overwhelmed by those who are hostile to it.
By the way, this is the chaotic environment that Guiliani had to deal with when he took office. The Assault on Public Order: How the Civil Liberties Union Goes Astray
Perhaps you could share your thoughts as to what you would have done differently.
Buy Danish on October 29, 2007 at 9:44 AM
Lawrence,
I understand the point, but if you don’t let him save you, it really doesn’t matter what happens after that. We might as well just all get in line and let our enemies take us.
This is no longer about finding the perfect answer to the problem, this is about surviving to fight another day.
So, the price you are willing to pay is freedom for survival. If Nazi McKlansman saves you from Choppy el Jihadi, Nazi McKlansman wants your loyalty or you go right back on the chopping block. Only this time, your actual allies are dead or otherwise occupied in the salt mines and there will be no one to save you.
You’ve merely bought a stay of execution.
Connie & MB4
I quoted what I quoted because there was no nuance and no chance for a misinterpretation.
He would choose one Jew/Gay/Atheist/Mentally Incapacitated/Ideologically Impure killing ideology over the other because, apparently, they have better taste in music.
Krydor on October 29, 2007 at 10:11 AM
jihadwatcher: follower of Christ and Nazi apologist
PRCalDude: follower of Christ and Nazi apologist
Christians, you have some *serious* house-cleaning to do. Being anti-jihad does NOT trump all sins. The Nazis were evil and deserved to be utterly destroyed and their evil ideology ground into the dirt.
Is this the face you want put on your religion — one that lovingly embraces neo-Nazis?
Loundry on October 29, 2007 at 10:18 AM
Nazism is an ideology. It lives as long as anyone espouses it. Whether or not it is “real” is a “No True Scotsman” argument.
Loundry on October 29, 2007 at 10:20 AM
Theocons? You chump.
aengus on October 29, 2007 at 11:49 AM
Connie on October 29, 2007 at 12:30 PM
Connie,
Sorry, but it’s not a question of what I think he wrote or what might be inferred, it’s actually what he wrote. I called it borderline apologia at the time, and later on it got worse.
Really? I didn’t know that Handel, Bach, Brahms, Mozart, and Beethoven were banned for being non-Aryan, and that the great artworks of Europe were destroyed for being non-Aryan. Weren’t they, in fact, looted for their value? I didn’t know that the libraries were closed to Germans and the art museums shut down for being non-Aryan. And all the statues in Paris, I didn’t know that they were destroyed as being offensive to God for being non-Aryan.
jihadwatcher
There is no way to spin it favourably, Connie. Utter whitewash of the cultural purge across Europe. A great deal of masterworks are still missing, because they weren’t for the public, but in the private collections of Hitler’s inner circle.
It’s also not a question of which classical/baroque artists were allowed, it’s a question of which ones were banned. Same with philosophers, historians and scientists. Good Aryans (and there was a list of what made one a good Aryan) were allowed, non-Aryans were unpersons and purged from the record.