White Supremacy And American Apathy

With a record number of hate groups in the United States, at 1,020 as of January, showing no signs of slowing down in their continual spread across America, the United States has a problem with hate. To be more specific, the United States has a problem with white supremacists and the hate groups that feed the white power movement in America. It is a problem that has spread across Europe, Australia and New Zealand, and over Canada and America as well. It is an international threat that the United States government is willfully turning a blind eye to. And in doing so, the Trump administration is creating a breeding ground for terrorists that can strike, and have, anywhere around the world at any time.

The Islamic State showed the West that terrorists can effectively exploit social media to incite and organize terror attacks around the world. World leaders and tech companies all rallied around calls to strip the ISIS accounts of their online platforms and limit the flow of propaganda and information sent out by the well organized terror group. Anonymous and Western countries found themselves working towards the same cause for a change. It has proven effective in countering the weaponizing of social media and online formats. But when it comes to white power terrorism, when it comes to a terrorist threat that has its origins in the West, suddenly those efforts are extremely limited to a few key players (such as Germany's government for example) while major ones (such as America) refuse to bring that same tenacity to the fight against white supremacist terror groups. 

The inaction by the United States has led to a *30% increase in hate crimes against people of color, Muslims, Jews and other minority groups in the United States (*according to the FBI, measured over a three year time span ending in Dec. of 2017). In 2018 the hate crime rate rose by an additional *10% in the United States 30 largest cities, showing a continued upward trend (*FBI statistics for 2018). White supremacists showed the most desire to take normally non-deadly hate crimes to the next level in 2018 by killing *40 people in the United States and Canada, up from 17 people killed by white supremacists in 2017 (*Southern Poverty Law Center stats for 2018). Making the threat of being killed by a white supremacist far more likely in the United States than being killed by any other terrorist threat. 

It is hard to imagine any other terrorist threat being allowed the room and comfort to operate within the United States, let alone abroad, and to claim lives each and every year, without serious and aggressive action being taken by the United States federal government. Both Republican and Democrat administrations have launched drone strikes, bombing runs, invasions and endless wars in the name of 'national security'. Countless war crimes have been committed in by the United States, in the name of each and every American, because Americans felt threatened by terrorism coming from abroad. Yet even hinting that white supremacists should be shutdown/deplatformed is taboo in America. We can't even hold an honest discussion about the threat to American lives because white power, a clear and present danger, is held in such regard, and shielded by exaggerated interpretations of the constitution, that one can only come to the conclusion that white supremacy is a sacred cow that America isn't willing to do away with.

For years now the country has been asked to at least take an honest look at the inequalities within the system that offer white supremacists support in their desire to retain influence as well as social and political power. The discussion gets side-railed by many things, ranging from a history of refusal to adequately address racism to outright denial of racism itself, but most often is shutdown by white supremacist spreading fear among white Americans that somehow any steps to address racism would make white people second class citizens. An outright lie. A lie that illustrates how the movement uses fear to fuel hate, hate to create fear and that entire cycle itself to create attacks on minorities.

This refusal to address racism, and bigotry of all forms, when talking about white Americans has only been exploited by politicians who, like Trump, often share the views that white supremacist hate groups thrive on. Which is exactly how America ended up with a White House riddled with white supremacists. The system starts at the ground level and rises from there. Trump's hate is not an anomaly - it is the direct result, and the most logical conclusion, of America's white supremacist roots. 

Until the United States can be forced to truly address the issue, that being the inequality of its systems and society, white supremacist terrorism will proliferate. More lives will be lost and more "thought and prayers" will be offered over the graves of people that should have never had to die due to American indifference. The power structure, as it is today, favors the hate that America claims doesn't define it. 

Bleed Black

The Soulless, The Coward
(The Lost Souls series)

Alder's Ledge supports the religious rights of all groups and peoples. We believe that it is the right of every individual regardless of where they live or what they believe to exercise their religious beliefs freely and openly. It is for that reason we have decided to highlight the most depraved of individuals that would attempt to undermine this freedom for others while pushing their own religious beliefs in such a distasteful and hostile manner. In coming portion of this series we will highlight discrimination against Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, Sikhs, Jews, and even Atheists (whom we believe have the same rights to not be religious as those who decided to practice a faith of their own).

It took an anti-Semitic Muslim twit to introduce me to the most obnoxiously hateful bastard this blog has had the opportunity to research. This certifiable lunatic not only looks like a rabid ideologue wearing a throwback costume to the Knights Templar, but has views not so far off from those espoused in Europe's dark ages. The only difference here is that during those ages the rise of Islam took some of the heat off Judaism as Christendom suddenly found a new competitor to bash their weapons against. Now however, the radical fringe of Islam finds it entertaining to push the radical views of cowards like "Brother Nathanael" and his mildly entertaining "foundation".

In our modern age of so called enlightenment this combination of religious fervency and blind hatred is troubling to say the least. In rambling speeches and YouTube videos the fanatical Nathanael manages to collectively blame Judaism (as a singular entity) for everything from the Sandy Hook school shooting to Boston Marathon bombing. Of course these are just two examples of this sick individual hitching his cart to tragedies so as to profiteer off innocent blood. In other examples of his blind hatred for Jews and Judaism Nathanael goes as far as to accuse every Jew for their part in allegedly "stealing Christmas". Proving that there truly is no depth to which perverse ideologues like this man willing to sink to manipulate the opinions of others.

Stopping Short Of Pogroms 

For the most part Nathanael manages to stop his ranting just short of telling the viewer to go grab a gun and shoot up the local synagogue. In most of his ramblings the main threats come from pushing for legal oppression of Judaism in an attempt to force Americans to accept the United States as a "Christian nation again". *Note that Nathanael attaches the word again so as to emphasize his point that America was at some point a religious state dominated and run by the church.

However where there is legal action taken to oppress any minority, regardless of religion, there often follows the physical persecution of the targeted portion of society. It was for this reason that our founding fathers first decided to separate the church from the state and the state from the church. It was clear that if the religious freedoms of all citizens were to be protected that the country must not endorse or push the religious views of any one group over that of another. This was one of the very reasons the initial citizens of Europe had left their homelands in the first place. Yet it is the very thing that Nathanael and his foundation strive to instate through there religious fervor. 

This is made rather clear in The Brother Nathanael Foundation's website:

From the "Vision" statement- 

(capitalization not added by us, bold highlights however are)

"We will DEMAND equal time and MORE for Christian symbols in the public square and support Christian institutions dedicated to the advancement of a Christian society."

 "We will start an education program to bring WHOLESOME sexual ideology to Public School Students."

"We will expose the Zionist State of Israel as an Anti-Christ state due to its denial that Jesus is the Jewish Messiah."

Lets ignore the fact that Nathanael's organization uses the overtly anti-Semitic slogan of calling Israel collectively "Zionist" and thus indicting all Jews within it's borders of being such. Lets ignore that there is no room in his arguments for making a distinction between radical Jews and the rest of us. Lets ignore the fact that many of Nathanael's writings and speeches carry exerts from Mein Kampf and other well known hate saturated doctrines. Lets just focus on the more sadistic characteristics of Nathanael's "evangelism". 

"DEMAND... MORE for Christian symbols"

When was the last time you got to see an Ramadan service held publicly at the White House? Oh that is right, Obama just recently held on a White House Ramadan Iftar dinner on July 25th, 2013. Yet Judaism is supposed to be in complete control of the White House according to radicals like Nathanael. So obviously this was just a ploy, right? Yet this was President Obama's fifth Iftar meal and celebration at the White House.

But President Obama is a liberal president and thus a Jewish "goy", right? I mean that is what Nathanael's organization would like the world to believe. He has spent countless hours preparing videos in which he compares Democratic politicians as "Zionists' goys" being held captive to a global Jewish plot to take over the "world's leading superpower". So perhaps only liberal Jewish pawns allow Islam to take center stage regardless of Ramadan falling relatively close to the Jewish Three Weeks of fasting? 

But to believe this we would have to overlook President George W. Bush's eight consecutive Ramadan Iftar services during his presidency. And we would have to go back to President Clinton to find the first celebrations of Ramadan and the holding of Iftar meals at the White House. Yet of course if we are to listen to Nathanael these are new ploys by the Jewish conspiracy to further push Islam through a president (Obama) who has done more to harm America's relations with the Middle East than any other president (sadly, even Bush). 

Yet the Iftar meals and other Muslim celebrations held at the White House are only the starting point for Nathanael's campaign to force Christianity upon the rest of America through the executive branch. Besides demanding that the White House put up and maintain a nativity scene throughout the month of December, Nathanael's foundation demands that the Chanukah menorah be banned. Thus showing that Nathanael isn't really all that worried about other religions having their time in the public square but rather just wants Judaism banned from public view. 

This rather rabid approach to attacking what, if Nathanael was truly Jewish from birth, he should realize is a minor Jewish holy festival is just the starting point. From this jumping off point fanatics like Nathanael leap into pushing for restrictions on openly celebrating Passover (Pesach) and Yom Kippur. The real target in these perverse attacks is the ultimate denial of religious observances in any manner that might offend the fringe elements of Christendom.

And since it is impossible to exist without offending somebody, somewhere, it is impossible to celebrate any of these holy days at any time. Pesach is the mark on the calender with which Christians use to identify when Easter arrives each year. Yet the push for "MORE" Christian symbols in the public square while limiting Jewish symbols would mean that Pesach would basically have to be banned all together. 

Now I, as a conservative Jew, don't much care for the parts of Pesach which the rest of society gets to see in public (i.e. the grocery store). Matzo is one of the worst pieces of bread ever made... which makes it's name fitting. And yet if radicals like this are allowed any real respect in public thinking then the matzo would have to be done away with so the Easter Bunny can have it's place in the public square. For all public facilities are an extension of the public square and therefore symbols of a religion in those facilities are just as offensive as if they were placed upon the White House lawn. 

"WHOLESOME sexual ideology"

This one statement in his "vision statement" isn't Nathanael's first time indicating that Judaism in the reason for homosexuality across the world. This is a running theme in Nathanael's preaching as he pushes a homophobic ideology onto a modern society. It doesn't take long listening to Nathanael to realize that this ideologue truly believes that homosexuals are Satan's spawn and thus products of "the Jews". 

Once again it is hard to incorporate the traditional beliefs of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam with those of a modern, tolerant, and open society. The reality of living in a day and age where all people are to be accepted as they are rather than what a given religion would dictate for them has evaded Nathanael and his organization. Where members of all three Abrahamic faiths have found it within themselves to accept others the members of this hate group reject homosexuals outright. Instead of acceptance and the "love of Christ", homosexuals can only expect vile bigotry from Nathanael and his followers. 

This is only made more bizarre by Nathanael's belief that his narrow minded hate speech should be standard reading for our children in public schools. So much so that Nathanael's organization has drafted curriculum teaching "orthodox" Christian doctrine as fact instead of scientific reality that homosexuality occurs naturally. Thus attempting to force one religion's views upon the youngest citizens of our country through a state funded system (in direct violation of "separation of church and state"). 

Fortunately the "foundation" has had no such luck in forcing it's bigoted views upon any public school so far...

Antisemitism And Other Prejudice

Regardless of his main views of "the Jews" as being the main enemies of a Christian nation, Nathanael's hatred is not bound simply to religion. In several videos and throughout his writing Nathanael often expresses a profound hatred for non-whites. He takes this hatred for the "lesser races" by proposing that "white America" is on the brink of becoming extinct. He cites supposed illegal immigration regardless of the immigration process these "lesser races" took to arrive here. He also, of course, blames "the Jews" for this wave of "third world" immigrants.

"America's Multicultural Nightmare" 

- February 2011

"American Jewry's Push For Massive Immigration"

- October 2010

"White Anger Or White Stupor?"

- September 2010

"The End Of White America"

- May 2012

These "third world" immigrants from "non-Christian countries" are a threat in the eyes of radicals like Nathanael. All we have to do is compare his views with those of well known racists like David Duke (also an antisemitic hate monger). By noticing the common enemies these two radical Christian windbags choose we can see who the ultimate source of their hatred really is. Though the "third world" immigrants get to take some of the blame for the supposed downfall of "white America", "the Jews" get the bulk of the alleged guilt. 

Freedom Of Hates Speech

In a civil society we must always learn to tolerate the fringe elements of every given group. However, we must also make a consistent push to isolate these voices and separate ourselves from them. By giving them favorable recognition we allow their views to be seen as somewhat acceptable and even respectable. 

We must make certain that we speak out against these radicals with every chance we are given. We must be relentless in identifying their fallacies whenever and wherever they attempt to push them. By making it clear that these are not opinions that our society at large accepts we make it clear that the liberties of all our citizens are protected from the tyranny they attempt to push. Though we must allow them the opportunity to speak we do not have to give them the chance to be left unchallenged. For with every right there are obligations, and the challenging of hate speech is an obligation that arises with the freedom of speech itself.

Return To My Punk Roots

From Civil Debate To Kamikaze
(Screamer Post)

(A Decade Ago)

For most of my adult life the nature of hate groups has fascinated me. It has been a part of society that I have often found myself unable to peek into. Every time I have tried to approach members of these closed cliques I have found myself either with a door slammed in my face or a fist to my gut. Either way, I wasn't getting straight answers to simple questions. And yet I persisted almost relentlessly.

When I was younger it was easier to use these encounters with "skin-heads" and hate group members as excuses for senseless violence. An exchange of slurs often resulted into our own miniature recreations of the Civil War. It wasn't till after the first time I found myself out numbered that I realized the hostile method of approach wasn't exactly working. So with a little bit of time to lick my wounds I returned to the battlefield with the idea that I would exercise my brains instead of my brawn... I had more of the prior anyhow.

The first time I got to debate a guy that claimed to support the idea of an "Aryan Race" I miserably failed in my attempts to remain civil. Defenses for Nazi ideology proved my weakness. And the conversation exploded as tempers became painfully apparent. It wasn't till the guy, about a foot and a half taller and nearly a hundred pounds heavier, stood me up and prepared to knock me down that I began to think... maybe, just maybe, I had crossed a line somewhere.

Some of those who are reading this might think that it is never "crossing the line" to get in the face of an ignorant racist ideologue. Some of you might find it entertaining even... getting to jab your opponent with mildly clever attacks. But what do we really learn about the mindset of the individual when we resort to methods they regularly use against us? And is it not a tab bit hypocritical of us to stoop down to the level of degrading another human being when that is in fact the very reason we are opposed to their opinions?

But I digress...

The line I had crossed was the point in the debate where I no longer viewed the person I was talking to as an equal on any level. In a matter of moments I had gone from assuming the person was misguided in their beliefs and ethical views to disregarding my own. When I allowed a few remarks to put me on the defense I went from having a civil debate to engaging the "enemy" in kamikaze mode.

“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.” ~JFK

From the moment I allowed myself to degrade the other person I now viewed as my opponent I closed off all routes of peaceful interaction. Where there had been an outlet for fair and honest exchange of ideas I had helped create a battlefield. And though many people who do debate may view their debates as such, most wouldn't feel comfortable viewing it as tolerable to shoot the wounded. Yet that was precisely the level of relentlessness I had engaged in when lowering my standards to meet those of my challenger.

Thus we can fast forward to today.

Hate groups are still a major part of why Alder's Ledge is around today. We are intrigued by both the hate groups themselves and the reasons for which these groups survive and thrive in given areas. That is why the 969 Movement in Burma has been a particularly interesting subject to both our writers and contributors. And yet for all the discussion we have had amongst ourselves, we have had little opportunity to write about the group so far. 

Then came an American (possibly more than one) with a strange obsession with Wirathu and the 969 Movement. This English speaking outlet for the 969 movement was immediately seen by Alder's Ledge as an opportunity to learn why and how the group operates and spreads. It was a chance for Alder's Ledge to peek behind the curtain so to speak.

So after a few messages back and forth, we decided to go for it.

Our twitter handle, run by the main author, engaged the unofficial 969 twitter handle. Following our conversation while keeping an eye on other public conversations the 969 twitter account was having, we attempted to see what information slipped out. This method of passive debate got us nowhere. All the group would give us was the same answer it gave everyone else: "Email your questions to..."

So we did just that. And we waited. And after some time had passed we found ourselves waiting some more. Then a little more time had passed and I found one of my most trusted advisers telling me to wait some more. But given the title of this post... I didn't.

We asked our twitter followers to email the account with the following list of questions. This method was meant to flood the 969 twitter operator with emails till he listened and/or replied. Sure it isn't the most passive and respectful method and may have pushed that line between civil and ruthless... but it worked. And for the most part, we maintained a healthy level of respect in our exchange with the twitter handle for 969 (the American version).

1)      Outside Myanmar it is difficult for the world to understand the reasoning behind the original arrest of Ashin Wirathu. Could you please help clarify why a peaceful monk would have faced 10 years in prison? And why after less than half his original prison sentence was even close to having been served why was Ashin Wirathu released from prison?

2)      In previous remarks you have stated that 969 does not support nor perpetrate genocide. When Alder’s Ledge asked about this you told us “we did not know the definition of genocide”. So here is the legal definition of genocide:

 

"Article II:  In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a)     Killing members of the group;

(b)     Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

(c)     Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

(d)     Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

(e)     Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

 

Would the actions that your organization has helped put into motion in Myanmar, in your opinion, constitute any of the actions listed above by the UN’s Genocide Convention?

 

3)      Is the forcible detainment and blockading of internally displaced peoples’ camps by the Burmese military not constitute section C listed above? By keeping people in confinement with little or no food not “deliberately inflict on the group conditions calculated to bring about physical destruction” of the targeted community?

4)      If Ashin Wirathu is as peaceful as your organization insinuates then why do his speeches repeatedly instigate actions that would, as section B states, cause “serious bodily or mental harm to members” of the Rohingya community? Actions that include but are not limited to; rape, mutilation, murder, destruction of property, criminal confinement, and persistent verbal degradation targeting their ethnicity and religious beliefs.

5)      Over the past few decades the government of Myanmar has imposed laws upon the Rohingya community limiting the number of children they can legally have. Your leader, Ashin Wirathu, publicly supported a new law even further limiting the Rohingya peoples’ reproductive rights (covered in international law). For you as an organization is it tolerable to, as section D states, impose “measures intended to prevent the births within the group” targeted by genocidal policy? And if so could you please elaborate upon your views on the reason why Rohingya should be prevented from giving birth?

6)      In countless encounters between members of your organization and Rohingya (unarmed civilians) there have been violent clashes based upon race and religion. In every well-documented occasion of this violence the number of Rohingya killed dramatically dwarfs that of Buddhists killed. Can you explain how a peaceful faith such as yours’ can justify what section A of the Genocide Convention states is the deliberate “killing members of the group” you target with genocidal economic policies?

7)      Going beyond the genocide convention set forth by the UN shortly after the Holocaust in Nazi Europe, is not the implication of economic boycotts against a given ethnic group or religious group detrimental to the harmony of Myanmar’s society? What is the reason for the forced boycott of Rohingya in the Rakhine state? And for what reason do you feel it is necessary to deprive a targeted portion of society for economic starvation?

8)      The Dalai Lama has condemned both the resulting actions of your organization’s boycott and the motive behind it. If you could, what would you say to Tenzin Gyatso about his lack of support for your cause?

9)      In recent statements Ashin Wirathu stated that he would like the 969 Movement to be more like the English Defense League. His exact words in an interview were, “Do you know the English Defense League? We would like to be like the EDL.” However the English Defense League is a well-known hate group in England that targets Muslims for violent crimes and physical assault. Is this what you would like the 969 Movement to be associated with? Is 969 a movement based upon racial or religious ideology that would claim to be superior to the group they target in hate speech?

10)     You claim to be defending your religion and the public. What is it that you are defending the public against? For decades under the Junta in Myanmar there was far less racial and religious violence regarding the Rohingya. So why now are you so worried about a people that have lived alongside Buddhists for centuries?

 

Four hours after the twitter handle for 969 had promised to "answer" our "questions right away", we received a reply. The answers began simple and straight forward without much deviation from the sorts of responses we had expected. Of course this final response was predicated by several responses refusing to answer until we provided countless sources to "support" our questions in the first place. But anyhow, I won't complain about the lack of cooperation... we got what we wanted from this engagement.

Here is what we got. Raw and unedited.

Answering question one: 

"That is not clear to us at this time since our campaign is based in the
United States. However I can note that many monks were imprisoned and
persecuted during the military control of Myanmar and I believe Ven.
Wirathu was one of those. The reasoning I have for this is that he was
given an amnesty for "political prisoners" in 2007."

 

Answering question two:

 

"Some clarifications. 969 is a social movement and not an organization. It
acts as a Buddhist mutual aid campaign and is organizing petition
campaigns to show support for pro-Buddhist laws. Riots that have occurred
in Myanmar did not take place in areas directly influenced by 969 leaders,
e.g., Mandalay."

 

Answering question three:

 

"The displaced people are not citizens of Myanmar and have no right to
travel in the country at will. The military is there to protect them from
further mob violence. The reality is that they are being cared for by
UNHCR aid."

 

Answering question four:

 

"Venerable Wirathu has repeatedly called for calm and non-violence and is
on the record for supporting the government prosecuting convicted
criminals of crimes both Rohingya and Buddhist."

 

Answering question five:

 

"Countries choosing to regulate the birth of citizens or non-resident
aliens is nothing new. China has a one child per family policy to deal
with the problem of overpopulation. As a foreigner to Myanmar, it is not
proper for me to comment further on what is or is not the proper
demographic policy of their country nor do I think it is any one else's
concern."

 

Answering question six:

 

"969 is not an organization, it is a social movement. Rohingya's rape of
Myanmar women, forced marriages, and burning monks alive has inflamed the
wrath of the Myanmar people. This is not a new phenomena. The bad actions
of Rohingya's, armed and unarmed, with words and without words, with
machetes and with guns and bombs, has been going on for decades longer
then 2012.  I will offer this link for documented evidence"

 

(Link omitted due to being broken)

 

Answering question seven:

 

"969 is a movement in support of Buddhists businesses, Buddhist households,
and Buddhist individuals. 969 only developed in response to the Rohingya's
Islamic 786 campaign which is for Muslims in Myanmar to only do business
with Muslims, who were refusing to offer services to monks and Buddhists."

 

Answering question eight:

 

"With all due respect, I would ask the Dalai Lama how many Buddhists must
be burned to death, how many women to be raped and sold into slavery, and
how many temples have to be bombed before he supports the physical and
spiritual self-defense of Buddhism in a Buddhist country?"

 

Answering question nine:

 

"From what I understand of the EDL, EDL members are targeted for hate
crimes, EDL members are targeted for expressing their opinions, EDL
members are fired from their places of employment, and they are made
scapegoats for Muslim crimes in their country.  The Islamification of the
United Kingdom, such as the call to prayer on the BBC, is exactly what 969
is designed to prevent in Myanmar. The people of Myanmar are acting on
their own accord. That they refuse to allow Myanmar to become a formerly
Buddhist country like the long list of  Afghanistan, Sri Lanka,
Bangaladesh, Nepal, Iran, Indonesia, Tibet (by communism), and others who
have been vanquished by the sword of Islam. This triumph of democracy
should be praised."

 

Answering question ten:

 

"This is far from true as the above link describes in detail, in fact it
was merely less known to the Western media. The British brought the
Rohingya to divide and conquer the people of Myanmar. The Myanmar
Buddhists are peace loving people. Only the spark of Buddhist women being
violated and Buddhist monks being murdered set forth the long checked
wrath of an insulted people. You say peace lasted for years but it was
fake. The same fake peace that existed under Tito and his communist regime
disappeared after the fall of Yugoslavia and the ethnic and religious
conflict that followed was terrible. Thankfully the Myanmar military and
police are able to limit the damage from the warring parties from being
worse then it already is. A not dissimilar situation also exists in
Thailand where the southern provinces are under an Islamic insurgency,
people are killed all the time. You would blame the military of Thailand
for violating your human rights for not allowing you to visit these areas
but as a Western foreigner you would likely be attacked, killed, raped, or
held for ransom by terrorists like many before you. 969 means we say "no
more" to the people and causes of violence against Buddhist people. Thank
you."

Question one was a simple and straightforward question that has been answered by media outlets around the world. Yet I had to keep in mind that the operator of the 969 twitter handle had routinely discredited and hinted that media in the West was bias toward Muslim causes. So I avoided arguing the point with the person behind the 969 twitter account and American based webpage. 

However question two had nothing to do with 969 or the "movement". We had simply taken the opportunity to readdress the lack of knowledge on behalf of our counterpart regarding the legal definition of genocide. As the question is predicated it remarks that we had already asked one question and were now wanting clarification on the previous response. In doing so we had stated word for word the UN's definition of genocide. And yet we did not get a response that clearly and honestly stated that 969 (either here or in Myanmar) rejected the implementation of genocide as a method to completing current 969 economic policies.

Then came question three...

We blatantly stated the fact that the Burmese military is confining Rohingya to camps and villages while keeping food, water, and basic living necessities out of reach. This was not the question, it is the fact of the matter. And yet we did not receive an answer that would clarify the beliefs of this 969 supporter or the group at large when dealing with section C of section A of the Genocide Convention. Instead we got a short response about how the Rohingya are "not citizens" and therefore have no right to life apparently. The last part of the response showed a drastic lack of information or the intent to mislead us when talking about humanitarian aid the Rohingya have not readily received in their blockaded villages and camps that Myanmar claims are illegal yet the government established. 

Question four pushed the envelope on what our opponent could tolerate. By asking about Wirathu we made the response shorter than we had wished. But we did get enough out of the 969 unofficial account to realize that they have a blind devotion to the criminal monk Wirathu. Despite blatant calls for violent annihilation of the Rohingya people coming directly from Wirathu himself this 969 account refuses to admit the truth. There is clearly no room for debate upon the issue of their cult like leader. 

Our next question brought up the long history Myanmar has with regulating the birth rate of the Rohingya people. We have noted that it decreases the population and "prevents births" in a targeted community. Thus these laws violate the Genocide Convention and most human rights laws currently enforced by the UN. Yet the response we got showed a direct condoning of the genocidal law. The other side went as far as to hint that such issues were none of our concern. Bold. 

We didn't hide our intent after question five. In question six we went for the meat of the matter by opening up the question of section A in the legal definition of genocide. Yet the other side only had blame to offer for the Rohingya. One might even believe that this response could be used as justification for the outright slaughter of Rohingya in Myanmar. But that would be insinuating I suppose. So I'll have to wait to ask another 969 member... someday. 

Question seven targeted the economic boycott imposed by the 969 members in Myanmar. We wanted to understand the logic behind this economic attack. And yet the response we got once again blamed the Rohingya for the actions of the 969 members themselves. Instead of accepting some guilt in the conflict, this member gave justification by accusing the other side of instigating it. This sort of excuse does little in the way of answering our original question. But it does show us a little of the mindset one has to have to believe the reasoning behind such hate filled ideas. 

Eight was like putting a toe on the line. It was the point where I realized I was getting close to bringing the questioning to a close. To get this I had to dial back and offer a chance for my opposition to show their human side. Sadly I didn't get a very good look at that. 

Instead of asking the Dalai Lama about their own guilt and what could be done to end the conflict if their current actions would not... we got more hate. The persistent desire to paint the victims of their actions as the guilty party is a hallmark of hate groups around the world. The Nazis painted the Jews as the evil villains that were attempting to take over the world only so that the Nazis could do just that. 969 tells the world that the Rohingya are a rabid army of invaders ready to rape and pillage Myanmar yet we watch 969 do both those things with impunity as the government watches. 

Now question nine was a rather odd question really. We had given this 969 account seven links to show we weren't just making up this connection between Wirathu and the English Defense League. And yet we had to prove this connection a few more ways before getting this response. Then what we got was just appalling.

 

Instead of denouncing the EDL, this 969 account defended the neo-Nazi hate group. However we didn't ask him/her to back up their claims that EDL members were discriminated against by a mythical Muslim upper class. We didn't ask him/her to clarify just how they knew that 969 members were being fired because Muslims had somehow gained control over these EDL members' employment. We just went on to our next question. After all, doesn't that response raise an eyebrow on it's own? I really didn't think I needed to address it. 

 

So we finished with the question that gave our paste-bin it's name... the kamikaze.

 

The response we got shows the level of hatred that a follower of this 969 Movement can obtain without even once stepping foot in Myanmar (he/she told me, I'm not just guessing). It is a level of intolerance that is absolutely alien to me. No matter how hard I try I can't bring myself to hate somebody or a group of people I have never met. And I'll be honest, brutally honest, I have dealt with resentment for Croatia and Germany due to my own family history. Yet even for all the crimes committed against my ancestors, I couldn't bring myself to loath the people of those two countries. It just wasn't something I had been taught. 

So to end this I'm going to offer a simple response to the person or persons behind this 969 twitter handle. 

I was never taught to hate a group of people for any reason. I will never understand that part of the argument I got in response to my questions. But I do have one question left for you. If the tables were turned and the situation was reversed, you are now in the position of the Rohingya people, would you still be comfortable hearing the answers you gave us? Is there not a way that you would wish this could end without more deaths, without continued starvation, without this hatred between your faiths... your people... your communities?