"911" done by right wing extremists?

No it isn't.

It depends on the context of "right wing" (Which, given it varies so much from culture to culture, is pretty useless as a term on it's own). It's certainly an Authoritarian and Moralist political philosophy that strongly pushes social conformity, which is generally considered the "Right Wing" half of Authoritarianism in the Western Context (versus Left-Wing Authoritarians focused more on economic factors IE Communists)

So, what would it take to get reverse Mccarthyism?

A large forgein Nazi/Authoritarian Right-Wing regeime that could be a credible source of forgein influence, or a massive shift in the actual broadly held opinions of the American people to the point extremism in the name of "White Identitarianism" was actually palitable to a substantial subset of the population. There are more Black Sepritists in the US than White Supremacists (A fact which amuses me, since both can get what they want at the same time) so any threat would have to be sponsored by/coming from the outside to be salient/real enough to fly. The only possible source I could see for this in the 21st Century is a Russia that took a haywire turn post-USSR, which could easily feed off lingering Cold War wariness and knowledge Russian dictators were indeed trying to shape our hearts and minds in the past (No comment on present events; resemblance to particular narratives is coincidental. Itd have to be something quiet further than Putinism)
 
It depends on the context of "right wing" (Which, given it varies so much from culture to culture, is pretty useless as a term on it's own). It's certainly an Authoritarian and Moralist political philosophy that strongly pushes social conformity, which is generally considered the "Right Wing" half of Authoritarianism in the Western Context (versus Left-Wing Authoritarians focused more on economic factors IE Communists)

Again, no. That's a western caricature based on Islamophobic prejudice. Islamism is not necessarily authoritarian (although it can be). It might be more accurate to note that it's perceived that way in the west, although the truth of the matter is considerably more murky. Don't get me wrong - authoritarian Islamism is definitely very much a thing. But just pointing out that isn't the only type that exists. It's just that the other types are never reported in English language media, mainly for obvious reasons (a bunch of peaceful, boring people who all agree with each other doesn't make for dramatic, attention-grabbing headlines).
 
Again, no. That's a western caricature based on Islamophobic prejudice. Islamism is not necessarily authoritarian (although it can be). It might be more accurate to note that it's perceived that way in the west, although the truth of the matter is considerably more murky. Don't get me wrong - authoritarian Islamism is definitely very much a thing. But just pointing out that isn't the only type that exists. It's just that the other types are never reported in English language media, mainly for obvious reasons (a bunch of peaceful, boring people who all agree with each other doesn't make for dramatic, attention-grabbing headlines).

We're discussing the context of political theory and advocacy, where I'd say the use of the term Islamism can be safely equated to Political Islam (A term I will use if you prefer). If we're being so loose with definitions, than technically I could argue White Nationalism is also not necessarily Authoritarian or "Right Wing". We need some level of specificity of language if we're going to discuss terms in any meaningful sense: so the only thing I can say about Islamism under its broadest umbrella is we can't say anything about Islamism (So, its advocates are prejudiced as well, merely being Islamophiles rather than Islamophobes, downplaying those negative aspects it has. At least under the terms you are suggesting).

Now, if we're talking in a more general cultural context, I'd agree with you. However, my suggestion there is we than need seperate terms to describe Authoritarian Islamism and Libertarian* Islamism to avoid false conflations from either side.
 
technically I could argue White Nationalism is also not necessarily Authoritarian or "Right Wing".

You're equating Islamists with white nationalists? That is even more offensive than the original post... perhaps it is better to 'pause' the discussion as it seems you're just digging yourself into an even bigger hole... :)
 
You're equating Islamists with white nationalists? That is even more offensive than the original post... perhaps it is better to 'pause' the discussion as it seems you're just digging yourself into an even bigger hole... :)

"You're equating people who just want to limit immigration and support their own culture (Which a subsection of White Nationalists are) to religious zealots who want to come in and enforce their strict moral code on everbody else via force (which a subset of Islamists do)"

I'm using White Nationalism as an example to point out how the unspecific language of the broad definition you are using for "Islamism" dosen't allow for meaningful discussion, as by applying that same broad brush to "White Nationalism" we get a similar result. If you are unwilling to extend the same latitude to highlighting the socially admirable aspects of an ideology as you ask for another, why should they give you said latitude. I advocate for neither position.
 
FFS in a thread that is explicitly about making 9/11 a home grown right wing extremist attack, we went to the 'authoritarian / moralist nature of Islam' PDQ!!!
 
The reaction would be far less. Islam is outside most American's experience, so they're afraid of it. Right-wing ideas are not, so they're viewed much less fearfully. The truth is that, since 9/11, right-wing terrorism has claimed three times as many lives as Islamic terror IOTL, but we have all these wars and surveillance programs to "deal with" the latter, but nothing comparable for the former.

Even a right-wing 9/11 wouldn't change this fundamental dynamic.
That's true, and the best example is Oklahoma City 1995. True, the killings were a magnitude less, but there was no public reaction against McVeigh and his henchmen as there was against Al-Qaeda.

Suppose a confederate Nazi group flies a drone full of explosives into a crowd and kills 3000 people. Now suppose it’s an Al-Qaeda suicide bomber in a plane of explosives, also killing 3000. The public reaction is going to be different. The composition of the victim group will also matter because some people are “more equal than others,” sad to say.
 
There also going to be a fair number on the left who will do their best to spin this against the administration, Republican party, the right in general, and all their other bogeymen. A 'war' on the right wing extremists never happened under the Clinton administration, despite crank claims, so its unlikely with G Bush as well.
So, the Al Gore administration then?
 
Well, one thing for sure. It would certainly prevent someone like Bush or Trump becoming president again right?

Why would that be? If anything, a knee-jerk overreaction that leads to an attack on the cultural Right that sweeps up the vast majority of the Right who are non-extremist and false accusations of Nazi Sympathizing is only going to increase their political consciousness and advocacy as they're subject to mutual attack and have to work to better define and spread awareness of their actual beliefs in order to defend themselves as they become the focus of the conversation, and clearer lines are drawn between them and the radicals (See how the Islamic community reacted to 9/11). Meanwhile, once people realize they made a mistake in that spur of the moment over-generalization, the culture will have to give its opinion of the subject a second look with a caution not to let their emotions run away and he Right having some sympathy as victims of overreached and an ideology more refined, a advocacy machine better built up and with experience, and having their worst (actual Nazi) elements purged in the no doubt deep search for domestic extremists. I fail to see how this would do anything to decrease their viability relative to the Left,

Neocon economic policy; that's another situation entirely.
 
Last edited:

Ian the Admin

Administrator
Donor
"You're equating people who just want to limit immigration and support their own culture (Which a subsection of White Nationalists are) to religious zealots who want to come in and enforce their strict moral code on everbody else via force (which a subset of Islamists do)"

I'm using White Nationalism as an example to point out how the unspecific language of the broad definition you are using for "Islamism" dosen't allow for meaningful discussion, as by applying that same broad brush to "White Nationalism" we get a similar result. If you are unwilling to extend the same latitude to highlighting the socially admirable aspects of an ideology as you ask for another, why should they give you said latitude. I advocate for neither position.

There is literally nobody who calls themselves a "White Nationalist" who just wants to "limit immigration and support their own culture". It's a term used only by the most hardcore, open racists. "Socially admirable aspects" of White Nationalism? WTF?

This kind of defense of racists is racist in itself, and isn't welcome on this site. You're kicked for a week.
 

Geon

Donor
Monthly Donor
There is a religious side to this as well that needs to be considered.

All of the hijackers in OTL 9/11 came from a subculture of Islam that taught a perverted view of jihad. Namely, that if one died in jihad against your enemies it automatically qualified you for Paradise regardless of anything you had done prior.

Right-wing extremists in this country are predominately of a subculture of Christian fundamentalism. And in general Christianity pronounces an anathema against all forms of suicide. Dying in battle is acceptable but deliberately committing suicide by slamming a plane into a target would be another thing entirely.
 
Religious extremists tend to be right-wing extremists given how radicals on the right-wing are all on adherence to law, order and tradition, which includes religion in a big way, so moot point.

The problem is that you’re being pretty vague given how you could go into specifics, though on the basis, I’m guessing this is an extension of these sort of groups that arose in the 90s: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_movement

9/11 was a massive defining thing. Look at everything that was lost, from the buildings to the people dead, not to mention that this was a direct attack to the government. And I’m guessing the anthrax attack follows as well.

And look at the perpetrators. To the average white person, they look just like everyone else and may have viewpoints that are just a warped version of others you or someone you know has. To minorities, it’d just be a massive escalation of the fears most have. This would sink into the public conscience.

How the Bush Administration approaches this would also have massive changes, but my guess would be that they would do larger extensive crackdowns on these sort of groups and as more are found out, maybe groups like the NRA would push back. If they were in the military, present or past, extensive crackdowns and background checks would be put in.

Europe would definitely follow suit after reacting in horror. I reckon even China and other places would be pretty damn horrified by it.

Overall, I do think the Bush Administration won’t do a really good job with this or at least perceived as such. Then there’s Iraq...

What if Bush still pushes for Iraq here?

That could either serve as a distraction to try and vent the frustration and fear to an outside source, and backfire later. Or backfire more or less immediately as the Bush Administration is criticized for trying to distract the severe situation with an unprovoked war and hide their incompetence and it’d just make them look worse, maybe costing the GOP in 2002 and 2004.

If not, well, Iraq would not be the big money sink it was and the US would have more prestige.

Pop culture would be affected still, with the criminals being more of these crazy radicals. The “moral guardians” would be... difficult to say. We would see a kneecap in shooter games for sure, but violence in the media is harder to say, especially since the attackers would not be sympathied with and would be interpreted different than say, the two of Columbine.

I am thinking more leftist politicians will rise up in response to this, especially with accusations in regards to the failure of the government in recognizing dangerous individuals. Minority groups would also likely point out the uncomfortable facts down the line that if the perpetrators were non-white and or non-Christians, it’d be a lot different.
 
There is a religious side to this as well that needs to be considered. ...

... Right-wing extremists in this country are predominately of a subculture of Christian fundamentalism. And in general Christianity pronounces an anathema against all forms of suicide. ....

They'd likely use larger truck bombs, maybe a 'ship Bomb' in a port. There a variety of non suicidal techniques. Turning airliners into cruise missiles is as you say a non starter here, & not essential anyway.
 
There is a religious side to this as well that needs to be considered.

All of the hijackers in OTL 9/11 came from a subculture of Islam that taught a perverted view of jihad. Namely, that if one died in jihad against your enemies it automatically qualified you for Paradise regardless of anything you had done prior.

Right-wing extremists in this country are predominately of a subculture of Christian fundamentalism. And in general Christianity pronounces an anathema against all forms of suicide. Dying in battle is acceptable but deliberately committing suicide by slamming a plane into a target would be another thing entirely.

I'm confused by this post. What are you trying to say? Your point appears to be that suicide is allowed by jihadist groups but discouraged by Christianity. But actually suicide is haram in Islam too.

Wiki is actually pretty good on this so I'll let them talk.

Muslim scholars and clerics consider suicide forbidden, including suicide bombing.[19][20][21][22][23][24]

A verse in the Quran instructs:

And do not kill yourselves, surely God is most Merciful to you.

— Qur'an, Sura 4 (An-Nisa), ayat 29 [25]
The prohibition of suicide has also been recorded in statements of hadith (sayings of Muhammad); for example:

Narrated Abu Huraira: The Prophet said, "He who commits suicide by throttling shall keep on throttling himself in the Hell Fire (forever) and he who commits suicide by stabbing himself shall keep on stabbing himself in the Hell-Fire."

— Sahih al-Bukhari, 2:23:446
Nevertheless, the militant groups that carry out "martyrdom operations" (and those that support them) believe that their actions fulfil the obligation of jihad (although in the Quran there is no mention of suicide being an act of jihad), and some clerics support this view under certain circumstances.[26][27][28]

For context, it is also worth being aware that suicide bombing by Islamist groups did not exist prior to 1983. It is a remarkably recent historical innovation which does not find support in classical sources. Needless to say, such actions are condemned and rejected in the strongest terms.
 
Last edited:
I think part of the issue has to do with targeting. An alt right group will be less likely to target the pentagon and the World Trade Center. The probable targets would be the UN bldg and the White House only one of which was targeted
 
Top