Billmon:
These crazed fascists obviously have to be identified and weeded out of the ranks as quickly as possible — otherwise they might start doing horrible things …
Back to Main
July 8, 2006
WB: A Few Good Nazis
Comments
“Viereinhalb Jahre des Kampfes gegen Lüge, Dummheit und Feigheit” by Herr George Busch
Posted by: Lebens Raum | Jul 8 2006 4:32 utc | 1
“$60.000 kostet dieser Irakische, erhkranke
von den Muslim ehrfahr frommen Defekten.
Wieviel mehr Ihrer Steuern vergeudet werden
müssen, um zu neutralisieren!
VolkesAmerikaner, das ist auch Dein Geld!
Lesen Sie “Neuer Konservativer”, die
Monatszeitschrift des Projektes für ein
Neues Amerikanisches Jahrhundert, des GOP.”
Posted by: Peristroika Shalom | Jul 8 2006 4:52 utc | 2
As much as this story seems shocking on the surface, it’s a sideshow. The testosterone-charged, hyper-patriotic, us-versus-them frat boy mentality that pervades the military is much more dangerous, consistently, than a few skinheads. Abu Ghraib was not the product of a few neo-Nazi minds… it was the product of a system that resembles a giant fraternity with a very well-defined untermenschen.
Also, it may surprise people, but modern US white pride organizations typically are somewhat sympathetic to Arab causes. If you visit the Stormfront “white nationalist” website referenced in the article, you’ll see a much lower level of animosity towards Arabs than you’ll see even in relatively moderate Republican forums (and far, far less animosity than places like LGF). Certainly, there are individuals within the white nationalist community who are critical of Arabs, but there is a larger contingent of poor, disenfranchised, downwardly mobile Americans (particularly in the south) who see parallels between their situation and Arab/Palestinian causes. Stormfront and similar sites are also heavily anti-Bush. Though I do not agree with the racist undertones of such sites, for many of their readers, sites like Stormfront present a non-Republican political viewpoint that those readers (especially in the South) simply may not be exposed to anywhere else, given the ineptitude of the MSM, the dominance of Fox News, and the failure of the democratic party to reach out to the disenfranchised southern poor.
Posted by: Alan Y | Jul 8 2006 4:55 utc | 3
NPR had an interesting interview with a
member of the Neo Bush Administration who
was just explaining why we need an 18-foot
concrete wall along (inside) the border with
Mexico, “because the Arab terrorists with
their dark skin can easily learn Spanish
and blend right in with the Mexicans,
then walk across our borders.”
And they aired it!
AmerIsrael, or is it IsraeAmerica?
Posted by: Painted Black | Jul 8 2006 5:04 utc | 4
I think Alan Y (#3) touches on an interesting point. I’m not certain what the official positions of specific hate groups might be, but they make a wonderful smokescreen for people whose unofficial attitudes and policies are downright reprehensible.
Somebody (I forget who precisely, but it seems Bill Maher-ish to me) observed in the late 1980’s-early 1990’s that the safest thing for any politician to do would be to jump aboard the “war on drugs” bandwagon and beat that drum as loudly as possible… even though all thinking people knew the “war on drugs” was a complete sham. The reason was that no matter how much dirt an individual had on them, nobody could attack them if they made that their only issue because the “pro-drug” potential voters couldn’t find their way to the polls.
There’s a kind of poetry to it. If you want to make anyone look better, find a boogieman and stand ’em next to your client. Control the message and make the message as over-the-top as possible and you can get away with literal murder. Heilige Scheiss, I think we’ve hit on a way here to sell just about anything!
Jeb Bush 2008: “Nobody was murdered by Charles Manson on MY watch!”
Hillary Clinton 2008: “I have always advocated protecting America against brain-eating zombie Martians!”
Dick Cheney 2008: “Anybody but Bush!”
Posted by: Monolycus | Jul 8 2006 5:57 utc | 5
Well, part of the logic of the Iraq war was “We’ll fight ’em there so we don’t have to fight ’em here”.
And I guess the logic of allowing neofascists into the US military is “let ’em commit their atrocities there so they won’t commit them here!”
Posted by: ralphieboy | Jul 8 2006 7:53 utc | 6
This link from militarycorruption.com goes against prevailing sentiments
here at MOA, but seems to me to be interesting for several reasons, e.g.
Over at Camp Pendleton, a firestorm of bad publicity has rocked the Marine Corps. It seems the spectacle of decorated combat troops being treated like terrorists themselves – confined in stuffy eight by nine foot cells, shackled by the feet when let out for their one hour of exercise per day, interrogated eight hours at a stretch with no bathroom breaks, dining on bread and water, didn’t go over very well with the public.
Posted by: Hannah K. O’Luthon | Jul 8 2006 8:17 utc | 7
Having read Matt Taibbi’s first person account of embedding with US troops in Iraq, I am more convinced that to many enlistees, soldiering in Iraq does present a better life than the alternative back home.
There are opportunities for off-the-books businesses a la Catch 22, enforced fraternity with fellow soldiers, three hots and a cot, and a view of another part of the world they would never see otherwise.
Taibbi, perhaps tongue in cheek because he clearly had to agree to his report being vetted by the US military before they would let him go, says,
“The police saluted as we drove by, and the line went on seemingly forever, or at least for most of the whole road back to Mosul. It was an impressive show of force and, my eyes fixed on the passing desert behind cool wraparound sunglasses, I allowed myself to be seduced by it.
That’s right, motherfuckers, keep those hands up. America is driving by!
The conventional wisdom about Iraq these days is that this war was and is a colossal blunder, a classic crime of hubris that has metastasized into a disaster rapidly spinning far beyond our control. And, well, who knows, that may be true — but only a goddamn Canadian can fail to appreciate the dream of omnipotence roaring along these Middle Eastern highways.”
He also says,
“There is a certain psychologically inevitable quality to our blundering overseas, a kind of burning, insane desire to fuck with people we don’t like or respect in the slightest, to cure the disease of their cultures, as it were, by drying them out in the sun of our creepy suburban enlightenment. What kind of madmen come to the ancient territory of mountainous Kurdistan and search expectantly for Rollerbladers out the window of an armored vehicle? This kind of weirdness comes far too naturally to us for this to be an accidental consequence of the invasion; it has to be part of the reason we’re here, too.”
and
“Like the endless, inconclusive wars in Orwell’s 1984, this interminable technological back-and-forth assumes its own logic after a while, and it may be that nine or ten versions of the Humvee down the road, no one will even remember anymore why we needed to go to the police stations in the first place.”
He also shot some video there.
Posted by: jonku | Jul 8 2006 10:29 utc | 8
Jonku, great post.
On July 6, I watched TV news and surfed etc on blogs. The UK media was torn between the build-up to the 7/7 London bombings aniversary, the 6/7 anniversary of London winning the olympics, Kim sending huge useless dildo like missiles tin-cans to splash into the Sea of Japan, huge overfucking reaction of Israel to poor people who live in a virtual prison (aka Gaza strip) the UK blog chatter of DPM John Prescott about affairs and millenium dome casinos……. next thing boom……… a video from one of the suiciders from 7/7 from Al-Jazz.
Being a “internet-based” reader of news… this was what pretty heavy stuff and spent much time on the internet.
A biggie is coming soon so the 1984 brigade can assert themselves.
Posted by: Cloned Poster | Jul 8 2006 11:41 utc | 9
I mean, seriously, Taibbi was with these Oklahomans who had a government-issue black-painted fifteen-foot steel pipe on the front of their lead jeep (Humvee) to ward off suicide car attackers. He says that it makes it a bit tough to turn in a tight alley. They call it “the black dick” I think. RossK should pay attention, this is majorly absurd.
Taibbi is great and funny and young. Perhaps America’s answer to Fisk, Margolis, others who I don’t know. I have a good story about an older reporter with the same last name (Taibbi) who I met years ago. Just hearing the name Tie-ee-bee sounds good. Google Matt’s New York Press stories, and maybe you can find out more about the magazine he co-edited in Moscow during the collapse and sale of the USSR.
Posted by: jonku | Jul 8 2006 12:26 utc | 10
The US army problem in Iraq is not crazed fascists or white nationalists – though some may exist -, but plain old fashioned GANGS. Phenomenon which is I guess underrated and certainly underreported.
Just one story (google has more)
Gangs, see photo gallery
Primary loyalty to a particular, unofficial, group (clan, tribe, gang, etc.) takes precedence over more general, often national, institutionalised in law and custom, adherence. Not surprising in this case if one thinks of the contractors in Iraq who are in fact mercenaries, earning triple to ten times as much as US soldiers, are free to do as they please as private persons (in lawless Iraq) provided they accomplish tasks contracted for, are not bound by a code of honor, dress as they like and well…. fill in the rest. Secondly, not surprising taken the fact that the US invasion has efficiently broken down Iraqi belonging and solidary to splinters based on religion, tribe, social position, type of work, etc.
Posted by: Noirette | Jul 8 2006 17:19 utc | 11
Alan wrote: Also, it may surprise people, but modern US white pride organizations typically are somewhat sympathetic to Arab causes. If you visit the Stormfront “white nationalist” website referenced in the article, you’ll see a much lower level of animosity towards Arabs…
The first time round, US Muslims voted for Bush; Jews did not. (talking % here..please correct if…) That was because of the conservative social stance.
Anyway, here in Switzerland, the shades of opinion mentioned are stark. Neo-nazis, Black Blocks, ultra-right wingers, Swiss pridies, out-and-out fascists, and nutty conventional racists etc. are either:
a) completely and determinedly pro-Arab, because they are anti-semitic, anti-Zionist (I leave the distinction aside), anti-Bush, anti-US, pro conservatism, and at the end of the spectrum, for harsh laws, the separation of peoples, each to his own. They may be very staunch defenders of Palestine, as oppressed by the ‘Jews’, are aghast by US actions in the ME. They say women should be kept in the home.. and they are strongly anti-globalisation, for economic protectionism, and even bright green around the edges.
b) more sympathetic to Arabs / Muslims than towards Blacks or Asiatics. Blacks are viewed as an inferior race, Asiatics as unwelcome competitors -they are always rich or about to become so- Arabs are of course present here on every street corner and in every office, even in Gvmt. offices, and they are nice people, regular folk, very Western (‘Market Muslims’) and they bring in a lot of money, deal, treat, collaborate, speak languages, etc. Their ethnocentric and mildly socially conservative bent, their polite and proper behavior, is admired – e.g. the fact that they do not accept public manifestations or avowals of homosexuality- , if only the Swiss, etc. So, as far as all the enemies are concerned, the Arabs are the most acceptable. Some bad apples may be terrorists, but even that is a stretch for most of them.
Posted by: Noirette | Jul 8 2006 18:16 utc | 12
Noirette, I agree with your classification. It’s largely accurate with respect to attitudes among the American white extremist community as well, though in the US there is somewhat of a separation between truly extreme elements (skinheads, outright neo-Nazis, etc.) and more moderate elements (white nationalists, white pride-ists, conservative racialists, etc.). The true extremists are not worth much ink; they are beyond logic and largely unreachable. The more moderate groups, however, exhibit political positions consistent with their marginalized economic circumstances. They are anti-globalist and anti-immigrant out of a reaction that good jobs are disappearing, especially in the South, anti-Bush out of a sense that “whites” are being used as cannon fodder in an enterprise that they perceive as not benefitting them (instead benefitting a Zionist/Neoconservative clique) and putting the country deeper in debt, etc. I also agree with your observation that they tend to give a nod to groups they feel exhibit traditionalist or hard-working values, such as Asian-American immigrants.
My main point is that it’s wrong to write these people off as “racists” or “skinheads” en-masse. The phenomenon is more complex than that. Stanley Greenberg’s book “The Two Americas” calls a slightly larger superset of people (downwardly mobile largely southern whites) the “fuck you boys”, and despite the crude term, Greenberg argues that appealing to the economic circumstances of these people is the only way the Democratic party will make any inroads in the south. Right now, no one reaches out to these lost souls, who often possess suprising political energy, channeled in unproductive, unfortunate directions because they see no legitimate way out of their circumstances.
BTW, I also found your comment about gangs in Iraq interesting because in my research I’ve seen that very issue discussed on the Stormfront white supremacist forum. They disapprove vehemently about that kind of gang activity, viewing it as a breakdown of military order (a concept generally heavily respected by the US white extremist community) as a consequence, in their opinion, of an influx of Mexican gurkhas and lowered recruiting standards thanks to Bush pushing the army to its limit.
Posted by: Alan Y | Jul 9 2006 1:22 utc | 13
One of the arguments against globalisation in Switzerland is that ‘we’ are tired of all these imported conflicts which don’t concern ‘us.’ Having school kids get into fist fights about the Holocaust or ex-Yugo. takes precious time away from spelling tests.
Heh. A bit late in the day!
Anyway, the similarities speak to the importance of core attitudes.
But one difference is that here in Switz. people who hold such attitudes are not amongst the economically disenfranchised, or not yet. In fact, they tend to be middle class, or even often, upper upper. Collaboration with the Nazis (to reach that far back..) or adherence to the official ultra-right wing party (beyond cheap demagoguery it appeals to economic interests only) was a guarantee of conserving social position and income, an in with the dominant class; and it has remained that way, in a watered down, feeble, sketchy way. (This is in contrast to France for example.)
Those facing the wall – the no future kids generation, people on clapped out pensions, single moms, regular rebels, some kind caring persons of every stripe, are determinedly Socialist (center left, more center than left, and often very authoritarian) because that party has really kept redistribution and the nanny state chugging along and continues to do so today. They are all anti-racist (multi-culti) but by now hate Arabs – or at least some bad apples, those terrarists — following the mainsteam Gvmt. spin, to which they must adhere to to keep the party alive and money flowing in. (See the Democrats in the US.)
The block of anti-state, rebel, new, actors is over there on the right – and it is far more powerful than anyone suspects. People cover it up…
Here rabid extremist are Neo-Nazis and instrumentalised by N-N parties in the North (Germany, Denmark) and no one listens to them.
Anyway, I agree with you, this is just a snapshot from a country far away.
Posted by: Noirette | Jul 9 2006 16:37 utc | 14
And I guess the logic of allowing neofascists into the US military is “let ’em commit their atrocities there so they won’t commit them here!”
This is the same reason why Toyotomi Hideyoshi invaded Korea in the 16th century. The “ashigaru” peasant infantry of premodern Japan, (as contrasted with the “samurai” aristocratic cavalry) were as atrocity-prone as the WWII-era Imperial Japanese Army. Once Hideyoshi had united Japan, he neede to get the ashigaru killing, raping and pillaging somewhere outside the Japanese Home Islands. When the invasion failed, the Japanese ruling class was forced to put the ashigaru down by force of arms – this led to the Tokugawa shogunate, with one of the first modern-style police states.
When round 2 came in the 1930s the neo-ashigaru (aka “Imperial Japanese Army”, which since the Meiji era was increasingly of peasant background) was determined to war, as they feared that the Great Depression would send them back to the rice fields. They terrorized the government in Tokyo into going along with a massive invasion of China which would secure their livelihoods, and it was ultimately left to the Americans to deal with the mess.
Posted by: George Carty | Jul 11 2006 17:34 utc | 15