Comments on: Hatewatch Interviews Expert on White Nationalism

By: Shadow Wolf

Shadow Wolf — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 17:24:43 +0000

Well, that depends on which “they” you are referring to. If you’re discussing the mainstream(obviously) aspects of the WN–i.e. take the National Socialists Movement for example, then I agree with you’re concept.

When I meant “Lone Wolf” actions by a WN extremists, I meant simply just that. On Sunday, an abortion doctor was killed by a “Lone Wolf” gunman. I called this gunman a “Lone Wolf” because of his very actions that led to this method, not to forget his connections/links with the Montana Militia and his rants that are in consistent with WN idealogy. That is what a “Lone Wolf” is. If this gunman was a nonwhite, he is not a “Lone Wolf” but rather a “gunman”.

By: Carter

Carter — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 16:28:21 +0000

The book is available via Amazon for $25 & much of the above critique (IMO) is very accurate.

The Joe Six-pack is turned off (to WN) by the anti-government rhetoric which is viewed as Sedition. For veterans that whole collection of thought is disgusting. Frankly it’s tough to sell “I hate my country: the Constitution is garbage”.
Those who were first introduced to “the movement” via Constitutional rationalizations for Tax Protest were eventually shown the flip side of the book sellers which were the con-men and sham legal maneuvers to get out of paying taxes or returning loans.

The “lone-Wolf” concepts were discussed back in the day by some of the Movement Leaders who realized that they were the only ones in the cross-hairs of the Feds & wanted someone else to take heat while they could be arm-chair Leaders; available to collect the spoils – should a :”revolution” actually occur. What they got were psychotics, repulsive to the public. Even those with racist leanings thought the shooting up of a Day-School was over the top & distanced themselves.

The “Leaders” are too different in their world view. Later in life Butler spoke of the innocence of the mixed race child & that violence should not befall them. While Metzger had to become an Atheist to avoid any leanings of compassion. While this is NOT meant to show Butler in any more compassionate light than Tom; it shows that diversity in thought or group model which is tough to mend a cohesive revolution to.

By: Ruslan Amirkhanov

Ruslan Amirkhanov — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 08:17:26 +0000

“They” don’t resort to Lone Wolf action, because they are too disorganized and infiltrated through and through. Remember that WN celebrities have been preaching for years that everyone needs to “drop the list” and go lone wolf. Yet it never happens. Why? Because WNism is good business for some people.

By: Shadow Wolf

Shadow Wolf — Mon, 01 Jun 2009 14:25:25 +0000

I assumed that’s why they’re retorting to “Lone Wolf” tactics, which btw, is more of a threat, than the movement itself. Given all the recent “Lone Wolf” style shootings on civilians and law enforcement. I wouldn’t underestimate them in this context. I, however firmly believe that most law abiding citizens should be allowed to carry a firearm, if “Lone Wolf” tactics becomes a method of choice by these WNs.

I think its rather naive for the SPLC to focus on “movement idiocy”. That sounds quite laughable. Instead, they should remain as they are and carry on…..

By: Ruslan Amirkhanov

Ruslan Amirkhanov — Sat, 30 May 2009 18:52:14 +0000

Of course. These guys can barely run a mail-order book business with an extremely small customer base. Needless to say, they aren’t much of a threat. Honestly sometimes I think that the SPLC would be far more effective if they focused on the real examples of movement idiocy. If enough people saw how comical these people are, they would be through. Basically there are two reactions that can occur:

SPLC reports as it does: WNs assume “the Jews” are afraid of them, and they measure this negative attention as success.

SPLC reports the full truth, that is the comedy that is the movement: More WNs realize that they are a laughing stock, get fed up with the movement.

By: Shadow Wolf

Shadow Wolf — Sat, 30 May 2009 15:15:57 +0000

Good point Ruslan.
But they are only “revolutionary” in idealogical terms. So I agree with you on that. But a “revolution” is not achieved through elegance, social dinners and rallies. Much of what the WN movement is all about today.

By: Ruslan Amirkhanov

Ruslan Amirkhanov — Sat, 30 May 2009 05:25:59 +0000

They are “revolutionary” in the sense that their goals require an overthrow or collapse of the existing system; they society they wish to implement cannot be achieved through Constitutional and legal political means.

By: Shadow Wolf

Shadow Wolf — Fri, 29 May 2009 00:20:59 +0000

I think the term “revolution” is a bit exaggerated in these context. Its been almost 10 years since the 90′s. And 16 years since the Okalahoma City bombing. Ironically, that bomb was done by McVeigh–who BTW, did not have any *direct* connections to known white supremacist organizations. Depsite the fact, that he employed their rhetorics in his letters to his sister and others, not to mentioned his possession of the Turner Dairies. So I can’t say that the WN was “revolutionary” in its respective term.

A “revolution” is a true violent uprising against any powerful political force. To cite a good example of a “revolutionary movement”, one can look to the Zapatistas(or the EZLN) people’s army of Chiapas, Mexico. That is a “revolution”.

Another point I disagreed with Zeskind, is that he said that the violence today is not as bad as it were in “1987″(or the 80′s?). I’m not sure if I’m following up on that, given all the recent shoot-outs we’ve seen this year(and last year) from “Lone Wolf” WN types/wannabe’s. The number of law enforcement officials killed in the 80′s by WNs compared in the 2000′s??? I’m not sure if I can answer that positively, but I think its fair to say its rather violent now than it was in the 80′s. But I think others may disagree with me.

Nonetheless, I do want to buy his book and will look for it very soon.