White supremicists, ISIS aren’t so different
Let’s give Donald Trump some credit for consistency — he has never, at any time, said that there are “some fine people” among Islamic terrorists.
And he’s probably right that there are “some fine people” among the white-supremacist neo-Nazi racist alt-right Confederacy-clinging thugs who rioted and murdered in Charlottesville. If you use the right criteria to evaluate them, that is. They drink beer with their buddies. They go to church and to ball games. They probably tithe. They loan their lawnmowers to neighbours.
What’s not to like about that?
Trump probably considers himself to be a good father, a good neighbour, a nice guy — when he’s not playing president.
Little wonder he found it hard to condemn people like himself.
I see remarkable similarities between the two extremes — Islamic terrorists and white supremacists. They seem to be copying each other, regardless of their religious or political affiliations. Building bombs. Using assault rifles. Using cars and trucks as weapons. Killing as many “enemies” as possible, before being killed oneself.
I have argued for years that the major terrorist threat to U.S. security does not come from outside the country, but from its own rebels. After having spent half a century trying to root out dangerous communists such as Pete Seeger and Paul Robeson, even the FBI has finally acknowledged that home-grown terrorists pose a greater threat to the security of American citizens than foreign-based Islamic sects.
Last May, the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security warned that white supremacist groups had carried out more attacks than any other extremist group over the past 16 years.
A Congressional report agreed: “Of 85 violent extremist incidents that resulted in death since Sept. 12, 2001, far-right wing violent extremist groups were responsible for 62 (73 per cent) while radical Islamist violent extremists were responsible for 23 (27 per cent).” That’s a margin of almost three to one. And how do they differ? Consider some characteristic practices of ISIS, al-Qaida, and Boko Haram:
— They are male dominated. Women exist mainly for pleasure or procreation.
— Impressionable boys are indoctrinated in madrasas, male-only schools that teach a fundamentalist perspective on life and religion.
— Their members take a text, the Qur’an, as absolutely authoritative. They memorize verses that demand unthinking obedience and that urge the faithful to destroy unbelievers.
— They demand unquestioning loyalty. Deviation is treason.
— Some mosques and imams preach fiery sermons that promote hatred of other religions, other cultures, other civilizations — only their own way of life is worthy.
— They do not represent either the mainstream or the liberal elements of Islam.
— They maintain solidarity among their members through media networks.
Now compare that list to the practices of the “alt-right”:
— They are male dominated. Women can’t be trusted to make decisions about their own bodies — especially about abortion.
— Impressionable children are indoctrinated in segregated Sunday school classes and taught a fundamentalist perspective on life and religion.
— Their members take a text, the Bible, as absolutely authoritative. They memorize verses that demand unthinking obedience, and verses that justify violence against unbelievers. (Texas megachurch pastor Robert Jeffress endorsed Trump’s threats of nuclear war against North Korea, stating that “God has given Trump the moral authority to take out Kim Jong-un.” When challenged, he quoted Romans 13:4, “Authority does not bear the sword in vain; it is the servant of God to execute wrath on the wrongdoer.”)
— Some churches and pastors preach fiery sermons that promote hatred and distrust of other religions, other cultures, other civilizations — only the American way of life is worthy.
— They demand unquestioning loyalty. Deviation is treason.
— They do not represent either the mainstream or the progressive elements of Christianity.
— They maintain solidarity among their members through media networks.
These two lists say to me that we have used the wrong criteria for assessing threats to our social fabric. We have looked at who the members are, rather than what they stand for.
Who means that they are superficially like us. Therefore, they can’t be the enemy.
Instead, I argue, we should be looking at what people stand for. What are their values? Where do they get those values? How do they act out those values in their lives?
Yes, there were two “sides” in Charlottesville. But I didn’t hear of any anti-racists driving vehicles into crowds of pedestrians. Or of civil liberty advocates demanding the deportation of people who had different skin colour, religion, or sexual orientation.
The other “side” stood for something different. And their actions — mostly — showed it. Jim Taylor is an Okanagan Centre author and freelance journalist.