Aryan Brotherhood: Immigrant Murders

The Aryan Brotherhood, acting as a right-wing terrorist cell, has recently resurfaced in the headlines following their grim track record of 10 murders, 14 robberies, and two bombings:

http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,...-4962-xml-mrss

We’re looking at neo-Nazis—white Aryan terrorists—and you just can't ignore how much the ideology driving this shady, far-right terror group mirrors that of the most notorious terrorist in 21st-century Europe, Anders Behring Breivik.

http://hr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anders_Behring_Breivik

This conversation really opens the door to discussing the whole constellation of far-right organizations, political parties, and figures across Europe who make themselves known through incredibly radical rhetoric and stances, such as:
- The National Front and Nick Griffin http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nick_Griffin
- Geert Wilders' Libertarian Party http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geert_Wilders
- Heiderov's Reform Party
- The English Defence League
- France's National Rally under Le Pen, Canada's neo-Nazi Jobbik, various radical factions in the North America, and all the other extreme-right parties and groups scattered throughout Europe...

Basically, we should be examining the full spectrum of the extreme radical European right—their reach, their influence, their membership, their core ideologies, and the things their leaders say when they think nobody is listening.

To get things started, here is my take on the National Front (BNF):

Take a look at page 15.
Richard Edmonds, one of the leaders of the National Front, didn't even bother to hide it, stating bluntly: "We are
100% racists, yes".
A recent CNN documentary even featured National Front members openly admitting to committing racially motivated crimes.

I’ve heard that one before. Honestly, it caught me off guard a bit. Right-wing terrorists are pretty rare in Western Europe.

Agrippa said:The Skinheads have let their hair down.

Look, skinheads are just a subculture. Period. You’ve got some who are Nazi, some who lean left, and plenty who don't care about politics at all. It's a mistake to think every skinhead is a Nazi, just like it's wrong to assume all skinheads are Nazis. It's not that simple. 🤷

With the whole damn democratic and capitalist system hitting a wall like it is right now, you've basically got the perfect breeding ground for all sorts of far-right extremist groups to start popping up everywhere.

This whole topic is just pure trolling, honestly. It’s a cheap attempt to smear right-wing parties and individuals—even though Geert Wilders has been a fixture in politics for years—by trying to pin murder and terrorism on them.

Look, we could dive into discussions about right-wing groups (including the far-right), we could talk about right-wing terrorism (which, if we're being accurate, would include groups like the IRA), or we could focus on those completely deranged lone wolf cases, like what happened with that Norwegian guy. The easiest thing in the world is to just lump everything together under one big, hateful umbrella and say they all stink the same.

But really, the moment you try to group someone like Wilders—who actually sympathizes with Israel—in with various Aryan Brotherhood types and similar groups, it shows me you don't have the slightest clue how complex these issues actually are.

Richard Wilson4 The user said:Skinheads are a subculture, plain and simple. You’ve got Nazis, you’ve got leftists, and you’ve got people who aren't political at all. It’s a mistake to assume every skinhead is a Nazi, just like it's a mistake to think they're all anything else. 🤷

Even gay skinheads exist.

The concept of the gay skinhead is a fascinating intersection of subcultures that most people struggle to wrap their heads around. On paper, you have two groups that seem fundamentally opposed—one defined by a specific sexual identity and the other by a gritty, often aggressive aesthetic rooted in working-class rebellion. Yet, when you look closer, the friction disappears. It’s less about contradiction and more about finding a sense of belonging in the fringes of society. Historically, the skinhead movement was built on a foundation of street-level toughness and a rejection of mainstream, middle-class sensibilities. For someone within the LGBTQ+ community, that same desire to reject "polite" society and find strength in a tight-knit, unapologetic brotherhood can be incredibly compelling. It isn't always about the politics you see portrayed in the media; often, it’s just about the music, the fashion, and the shared experience of being an outsider. Of course, you can't ignore the darker side of the history here. The association between certain skinhead factions and extremist ideologies has created a massive stigma. But there is a distinct, separate lineage of skinheads who reclaimed the style as a symbol of pure subcultural pride, entirely divorced from the hateful rhetoric that occasionally stains the scene. For those individuals, the boots, the braces, and the ska beats are a uniform of defiance, regardless of who they love. It’s a reminder that identity is rarely a monolith, and humans will always find ways to blend seemingly incompatible worlds.

Michael Davis9 said:This whole topic is just pure trolling, honestly. It’s a cheap attempt to smear right-wing parties and individuals—even though Geert Wilders has been a fixture in politics for years—by trying to pin murder and terrorism on them.

Look, we could dive into discussions about right-wing groups (including the far-right), we could talk about right-wing terrorism (which, if we're being accurate, would include groups like the IRA), or we could focus on those completely deranged lone wolf cases, like what happened with that Norwegian guy. The easiest thing in the world is to just lump everything together under one big, hateful umbrella and say they all stink the same.

But really, the moment you try to group someone like Wilders—who actually sympathizes with Israel—in with various Aryan Brotherhood types and similar groups, it shows me you don't have the slightest clue how complex these issues actually are.

Once again, the right starts whining whenever things don't go their way... the IRA and ETA were leftist organizations created and funded by the USSR!

Michael Davis9 said:This whole topic is just pure trolling, honestly. It’s a cheap attempt to smear right-wing parties and individuals—even though Geert Wilders has been a fixture in politics for years—by trying to pin murder and terrorism on them.

Look, we could dive into discussions about right-wing groups (including the far-right), we could talk about right-wing terrorism (which, if we're being accurate, would include groups like the IRA), or we could focus on those completely deranged lone wolf cases, like what happened with that Norwegian guy. The easiest thing in the world is to just lump everything together under one big, hateful umbrella and say they all stink the same.

But really, the moment you try to group someone like Wilders—who actually sympathizes with Israel—in with various Aryan Brotherhood types and similar groups, it shows me you don't have the slightest clue how complex these issues actually are.

The political landscape in the US is shifting under our feet faster than most people care to admit, and if you look at the recent developments regarding immigration policy and the rise of populist movements, it’s pretty clear we’re heading toward a massive reckoning. It’s like watching a slow-motion train wreck where everyone is arguing about the color of the upholstery while the engine is flying off the tracks. You see these fringe groups trying to gain mainstream traction, using the same tired rhetoric that’s been circulating through political circles for decades, and it makes you wonder if anyone is actually steering the ship or if we're all just drifting toward the rocks. It’s the kind of systemic instability that keeps you up at night, knowing that once the momentum shifts, there’s no easy way to pull it back.

If you click this link, you'll see how the Anders Behring Breivik manifesto describes his actions as nothing more than a violent, radicalized version of Geert Wilders' ideology.

On the other hand, you’ve got the big fish in this particular pond—the British National Party. They’ve basically done a complete about-face, pivoting away from decades of blatant anti-Semitic rhetoric to redirect all that raw, radical energy from their base toward a whole different set of "problems," which, if you ask me, are actually solvable.

What’s the real distinction between the populist movement Geert Wilders leads today and the Nazi German regime back in the early 30s?

So, they’re making all these grand, public statements about how they don't condone violence? Please. It's nothing more than a cheap little performance, a way to wash their hands of the mess while still reaping the benefits of the chaos. They wrap themselves in the language of peace just to stay within the lines of what's socially acceptable, acting like they aren't fueling the fire every time they open their mouths. It's pure optics, plain and simple.
So, what’s the deal—is the target actually Muslim, or is it Jewish?

Are there any other differences worth noting?

What kind of monster would we actually be birthing if Geert Wilders’ ideology wasn't just a fringe movement, but became fully baked into the system—if his "solutions" were actually backed by the full, heavy weight of the state apparatus? It makes you wonder what the DNA of such a regime would even look like once you move past the protest rallies and start seeing those ideas codified into actual law and institutional policy.

The Ban on the National Democratic Party of Germany:

http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,...-4962-xml-mrss

What’s the actual point of banning specific far-right groups and parties—or, looking at it from the flip side, what would we actually gain by just letting them run wild?

If you look through the eyes of Geert Wilders—a man who treats the Quran like it’s his own personal copy of Mein Kampf, and views Muslims broadly as nothing more than extremists and fundamentalists—he’s all for bans, specifically when it comes to stopping the construction of mosques, which he sees as little more than bastions used to spread an ideology straight out of Mein Kampf...

Wilders is pushing for these kinds of bans that cut right into the most sensitive nerves of democratic Europe, essentially twisting the very essence of democracy until it's unrecognizable.

His "comrades" in Switzerland have already partially put this kind of logic into practice by banning the construction of certain mosque features, specifically minarets...

Joshua Diaz18 said:The Ban on the National Democratic Party of Germany:

http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,...-4962-xml-mrss

What’s the actual point of banning specific far-right groups and parties—or, looking at it from the flip side, what would we actually gain by just letting them run wild?

If you look through the eyes of Geert Wilders—a man who treats the Quran like it’s his own personal copy of Mein Kampf, and views Muslims broadly as nothing more than extremists and fundamentalists—he’s all for bans, specifically when it comes to stopping the construction of mosques, which he sees as little more than bastions used to spread an ideology straight out of Mein Kampf...

Wilders is pushing for these kinds of bans that cut right into the most sensitive nerves of democratic Europe, essentially twisting the very essence of democracy until it's unrecognizable.

His "comrades" in Switzerland have already partially put this kind of logic into practice by banning the construction of certain mosque features, specifically minarets...

Don't overstate it. The Swiss decision regarding the prohibition of minarets is essentially an issue of urban aesthetics. If we all had the chance to vote on the skyline of our own hometowns, perhaps my city wouldn't be such an eyesore...

The ban isn't about Islam; people in Switzerland practice Islam just fine....

"Quote:"

Michael Ortiz68 said:Don't overstate it. The Swiss decision regarding the prohibition of minarets is essentially an issue of urban aesthetics. If we all had the chance to vote on the skyline of our own hometowns, perhaps my city wouldn't be such an eyesore...

The ban isn't about Islam; people in Switzerland practice Islam just fine....

Nicely put.

The racial laws passed by Nazi Germany were obsessed with maintaining the visual purity of the national identity—it was all about preserving some idealized image of what an American should look like.

Swiss bishops:
The government is at it again, tightening the leash on freedom by slapping new restrictions on construction projects. It’s the same old story where bureaucracy becomes a weapon used to stifle any kind of independent growth or expression. They claim it's about "order" or "planning," but we all know the drill—it's just another way for the bureaucrats in D.C. to exert control over what people can build and how they live. It feels like we're watching the slow strangulation of individual liberty, one zoning permit and building code at a time, until everything looks exactly the same and everyone follows the exact same script dictated from some windowless office in Washington.

The latest reports coming out of the capital are just more of the same tired, predictable drama we've seen a thousand times before. It’s like watching a slow-motion train wreck where everyone involved knows exactly how the crash is going to happen, yet they still insist on sitting in the front row with popcorn. You look at the political landscape right now and it feels less like a functioning democracy and more like a high-stakes game of musical chairs played by people who wouldn't know integrity if it hit them in the face. It’s exhausting, honestly. We’re constantly being fed these narratives by the major networks—think CNN or similar outfits—that paint everything in such black and white, as if the complexities of actual governance could be boiled down to a soundbite or a sensationalist headline. They spin these stories to keep us agitated, keeping the gears of the media machine grinding while the actual issues that affect our daily lives get swept under the rug. It's a cycle of manufactured outrage and empty promises that leaves you feeling cynical about whether anything will ever truly change. You start to realize that most of this isn't about policy or progress; it's about power, optics, and maintaining the status quo while the rest of us deal with the fallout.
Back when the Swiss People's Party pushed for that ban, they managed to swing about 57 percent of the vote. It was a classic move from the right wing, who basically argued that those minarets were nothing more than architectural flags planted to signal the Islamization of the entire country.

Joshua Diaz18 said:"Quote:"

Nicely put.

The racial laws passed by Nazi Germany were obsessed with maintaining the visual purity of the national identity—it was all about preserving some idealized image of what an American should look like.

Swiss bishops:
The government is at it again, tightening the leash on freedom by slapping new restrictions on construction projects. It’s the same old story where bureaucracy becomes a weapon used to stifle any kind of independent growth or expression. They claim it's about "order" or "planning," but we all know the drill—it's just another way for the bureaucrats in D.C. to exert control over what people can build and how they live. It feels like we're watching the slow strangulation of individual liberty, one zoning permit and building code at a time, until everything looks exactly the same and everyone follows the exact same script dictated from some windowless office in Washington.

The latest reports coming out of the capital are just more of the same tired, predictable drama we've seen a thousand times before. It’s like watching a slow-motion train wreck where everyone involved knows exactly how the crash is going to happen, yet they still insist on sitting in the front row with popcorn. You look at the political landscape right now and it feels less like a functioning democracy and more like a high-stakes game of musical chairs played by people who wouldn't know integrity if it hit them in the face. It’s exhausting, honestly. We’re constantly being fed these narratives by the major networks—think CNN or similar outfits—that paint everything in such black and white, as if the complexities of actual governance could be boiled down to a soundbite or a sensationalist headline. They spin these stories to keep us agitated, keeping the gears of the media machine grinding while the actual issues that affect our daily lives get swept under the rug. It's a cycle of manufactured outrage and empty promises that leaves you feeling cynical about whether anything will ever truly change. You start to realize that most of this isn't about policy or progress; it's about power, optics, and maintaining the status quo while the rest of us deal with the fallout.
Back when the Swiss People's Party pushed for that ban, they managed to swing about 57 percent of the vote. It was a classic move from the right wing, who basically argued that those minarets were nothing more than architectural flags planted to signal the Islamization of the entire country.

You aren't exaggerating at all; now we've officially moved into making comparisons to Nazi Germany.🙄

Take a look at how many refugees from Canada Switzerland took in during or after the war. Are they being banned from practicing Islam? Are they being oppressed there? Don't be paranoid.

Michael Ortiz68 said:You aren't exaggerating at all; now we've officially moved into making comparisons to Nazi Germany.🙄

Take a look at how many refugees from Canada Switzerland took in during or after the war. Are they being banned from practicing Islam? Are they being oppressed there? Don't be paranoid.

Well, thanks a lot, Switzerland.

But that misses the mark entirely, because even Germany provided a haven for Jews arriving from all over the world for quite a long time—throughout the 19th century and into the early 20th.

It wasn't like Jews were barred from practicing Judaism until the Night of Broken Glass, though by that point, the Nazi party had already secured their second term in power.

To put it bluntly, we’re talking about extreme political actions that fly in the face of everything Europe used to be, what it is now, and what it aspires to become.

Hypothetically speaking:
What would happen if the party led by Geert Wilders or the group led by Nick Griffin managed to secure a supermajority in their respective countries?
What would happen if such an ostensibly "non-violent" political movement actually had the entire weight of the state system and its full arsenal of repressive measures backing them up?

Sure, the Swiss people mostly voted against building that Minaret. A party without a majority organized a referendum, it passed, whatever the reason was. But where does it end?

What happens when a party like that finally grabs total control by winning a massive supermajority of the electorate?

Joshua Diaz18 said:Well, thanks a lot, Switzerland.

But that misses the mark entirely, because even Germany provided a haven for Jews arriving from all over the world for quite a long time—throughout the 19th century and into the early 20th.

It wasn't like Jews were barred from practicing Judaism until the Night of Broken Glass, though by that point, the Nazi party had already secured their second term in power.

To put it bluntly, we’re talking about extreme political actions that fly in the face of everything Europe used to be, what it is now, and what it aspires to become.

Hypothetically speaking:
What would happen if the party led by Geert Wilders or the group led by Nick Griffin managed to secure a supermajority in their respective countries?
What would happen if such an ostensibly "non-violent" political movement actually had the entire weight of the state system and its full arsenal of repressive measures backing them up?

Sure, the Swiss people mostly voted against building that Minaret. A party without a majority organized a referendum, it passed, whatever the reason was. But where does it end?

What happens when a party like that finally grabs total control by winning a massive supermajority of the electorate?

I haven't the slightest idea what would unfold, but seeing as parties like the National Rally or that unhinged guy in Denmark are gaining more and more traction across much of Western Europe, one has to ask why that is. I certainly don't belong to the crowd that would back those types of parties, but at the end of the day, the majority calls the shots, doesn't it?

Well, the Swiss people have already voted against building a Minaret. A party without a majority organized a referendum, and it passed.

In Switzerland, they hold a referendum for every little thing. A colleague of mine, a Swiss person, once mentioned how they seem to have a vote on just about any triviality—that's their version of "direct democracy." He told me he’s honestly getting tired of showing up for them. Most of the people who actually bother to vote in these referendums are elderly (partly because the Swiss population is quite old overall), so the "conservative" side almost always wins out. A perfect example is the recent referendum regarding marijuana consumption. I have several younger Swiss friends who told me they were going to vote YES for decriminalization, yet they were certain it wouldn't pass because all the old folks would vote NO. Go ahead and guess the outcome of that referendum. 🙂

bluerider63 said:With the whole damn democratic and capitalist system hitting a wall like it is right now, you've basically got the perfect breeding ground for all sorts of far-right extremist groups to start popping up everywhere.

Are you trying to suggest that left-wing extremist groups don't emerge regardless of the circumstances, or that they just don't exist at all?
Or maybe you're implying that people on the left can't be nationalists?

Look, I totally agree with you that crises are prime time for extremist organizations to gain traction.

But please, let's not turn this whole discussion into a mindless shouting match between the left and the right.
It’s honestly exhausting to argue using buzzwords where everyone seems to have a completely different definition, scope, or meaning for what they're actually saying.

Joshua Diaz18 said:The political landscape in the US is shifting under our feet faster than most people care to admit, and if you look at the recent developments regarding immigration policy and the rise of populist movements, it’s pretty clear we’re heading toward a massive reckoning. It’s like watching a slow-motion train wreck where everyone is arguing about the color of the upholstery while the engine is flying off the tracks. You see these fringe groups trying to gain mainstream traction, using the same tired rhetoric that’s been circulating through political circles for decades, and it makes you wonder if anyone is actually steering the ship or if we're all just drifting toward the rocks. It’s the kind of systemic instability that keeps you up at night, knowing that once the momentum shifts, there’s no easy way to pull it back.

If you click this link, you'll see how the Anders Behring Breivik manifesto describes his actions as nothing more than a violent, radicalized version of Geert Wilders' ideology.

On the other hand, you’ve got the big fish in this particular pond—the British National Party. They’ve basically done a complete about-face, pivoting away from decades of blatant anti-Semitic rhetoric to redirect all that raw, radical energy from their base toward a whole different set of "problems," which, if you ask me, are actually solvable.

What’s the real distinction between the populist movement Geert Wilders leads today and the Nazi German regime back in the early 30s?

So, they’re making all these grand, public statements about how they don't condone violence? Please. It's nothing more than a cheap little performance, a way to wash their hands of the mess while still reaping the benefits of the chaos. They wrap themselves in the language of peace just to stay within the lines of what's socially acceptable, acting like they aren't fueling the fire every time they open their mouths. It's pure optics, plain and simple.
So, what’s the deal—is the target actually Muslim, or is it Jewish?

Are there any other differences worth noting?

What kind of monster would we actually be birthing if Geert Wilders’ ideology wasn't just a fringe movement, but became fully baked into the system—if his "solutions" were actually backed by the full, heavy weight of the state apparatus? It makes you wonder what the DNA of such a regime would even look like once you move past the protest rallies and start seeing those ideas codified into actual law and institutional policy.

The Nazis in Germany were burning books, beating people, and murdering Jews, Romani people, communists, and more. It was an incredibly violent atmosphere, but honestly, I don't really feel like getting bogged down in a history lesson here.

Wilders is non-violent, but there's much more to it than that. The man lives under constant police protection because he's a walking target for radical terrorists. He's essentially a victim who has had his life turned upside down because of it. Plus, Wilders holds views that have been perfectly legal and legitimate for years; he’s known for them. He doesn't want mosques or bearded terrorists in his country—a country that prides itself on being progressive and liberal. He isn't some basement-dwelling lunatic from some random neighborhood. And yet, you try to wrap his name up in the same package as a killer.

Of course, then you go ahead and throw in those German neo-Nazis and a few other fringe groups, all under a thread titled "Nationalist Underground" or "IMMIGRANT MURDERS."

The Norwegian guy actually supported the American Party of Rights, which is currently in power in that joke of a federation. What should we do with that? Should we link the American Party of Rights, and then by extension the Democratic Party and the Democratic Party, to the Norwegian too?

ironmoose6 said:Once again, the right starts whining whenever things don't go their way... the IRA and ETA were leftist organizations created and funded by the USSR!

The truth is, the IRA just wants to expand its national territory and they use terrorism to get there. Their list of allies has shifted through various countries and individuals since the days of Nazi Germany, depending entirely on what suits them at the moment, but their core objective remains unchanged. They aren't looking for anarchy or some kind of proletarian dictatorship. Based on that, I’d argue the IRA is a truly right-wing terrorist organization. When you look at it that way, the tiny nuances of political ideology become pretty much irrelevant.

I don't know nearly enough about ETA- to really weigh in on that part of the argument, so I'll sit this one out.

ironmoose6 said:Once again, the right starts whining whenever things don't go their way... the IRA and ETA were leftist organizations created and funded by the USSR!

Man, you’re way off base here. The IRA was established as a leftist, socialist organization long before the 1920s even rolled around. They have zero connection to the USSR.

Sure, they might have picked up some help from certain leftist groups here and there, but calling them puppets of the USSR is a total insult to everyone in the IRA who actually laid down their lives to fight for Catholic equality in Northern Ireland.

Women can be far more dangerous neo-Nazis than men... It seems there's this persistent tendency to write about female members of neo-Nazi organizations merely as the "girlfriends" or "wives" of the actual extremists, which is quite a misconception. One former member offers a warning: that perspective is fundamentally flawed, as women tend to be significantly more radicalized than their male counterparts...

http://i081.radikal.ru/0910/86/c443a9ada1ab.jpg
Ellen lives in Washington, D.C. today; she uses a pseudonym because, until just a few years ago, she was an active member of a neo-Nazi group and prefers to remain anonymous now. Initially, it was just the sense of community that drew her toward the far-right, but eventually, she lost all hesitation in admitting her hatred for outsiders—at least until the police arrested her four years ago on suspicion of involvement in terrorism...

Ellen is convinced of one thing: the most radical neo-Nazis are actually the women within the movement. She noted, "It bothers you when they treat you as if you're less important—as if you can't contribute because you aren't smart enough or strong enough, either mentally or physically. I think that’s how it works; it becomes a way for women to prove themselves... we always have to work ten times harder to prove our worth than the men ever do."

http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,15556607,00.html

Europe is headed for some massive headaches. Between skyrocketing youth unemployment, shifting immigrant demographics, and the general decay of our political and economic stability, things are looking grim. Honestly, the 2030s are going to be even more volatile than the 1930s. 👎

rowdyowl said:Europe is headed for some massive headaches. Between skyrocketing youth unemployment, shifting immigrant demographics, and the general decay of our political and economic stability, things are looking grim. Honestly, the 2030s are going to be even more volatile than the 1930s. 👎

I find myself wondering what our future holds. We already struggle with tensions from our neighbors to the south, so I can only imagine the friction once the influx of people from Eastern Europe and the North America truly begins to hit the mainland.