Web Analytics

Racial, Ethnic & Sexual Identity & Difference - Pt 6

White Supremacism, Neo-Nazi Skinheads and Criminal Gangs

Last Updated: 14 June 2016

White Supremacism, Neo-Nazi Skinheads and Criminal Gangs

White Supremacy is defined in Wikepedia at the link below.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_supremacy

Let us look at the white power and white supremacist movement for a moment. Extreme nationalists in the UK, and in particular national socialists, for example, claim to be extremely patriotic. They have historical figures that they are very proud of, for example, Winston Churchill AND Adolf Hitler. They admire Hitler's attempts to strive for racial purity, but at the same time seem to conveniently forget that he was actually responsible for the deaths of many British soldiers, and tried to invade the UK. Is it patriotic to support a foreign power that attempted to invade the UK? If one wishes that Britain sided with Germany in the war, then perhaps it would have been overrun by German soldiers who were 'helping', a little like Italy was occupied in many areas by German soldiers. Would nationalists really want foreign soliders in the own country? I think not. It is very popular for British football hooligans (the majority of whom claim to be nationalists or patriotic) who believe they are very patriotic to despise other European nations, in particular the Germans. And anyone who has dark skin. And they are often extremely classist. So they are proud of their race, but only as long as those members of their race are British, working class, support their local football team, share their values, come from the right town or region, talk in the right way, and don't cross them or irritate them when they are drunk. That isn't really being proud of the white race at all! If that was the case, football hooligans, skinhead gangs and neo-Nazis would never fight each other. They would all be united across Europe. In reality, neo-nazi and skinhead gangs across Europe have a superficial unity, but depending on the context, they may hate each other and want to beat each other up; and consider each other foreign scum; but they also have a respect for each other on some level and strive to keep their movement underground. What we have in reality is a group of elitists. Far right nationalists like to think they are representing the nation, their class, their race. But the reality is that they are not. Not all members of their class share all these values. But also not all far right nationalists support violence. And not all are drunken hooligans. They are by no means unified. They do not represent the majority but more individual, divided minorities in the country.

Skinheads (the violent subset), football hooligans and neo-Nazis are very often those playground bullies who never grew up and are still bullies in their own adult lives. Indeed, if one goes to traditional white working class communities on a Friday or Saturday night, for example, Romford in Essex, one finds that a significant number of different groups of youths like to get drunk, mouth off and after closing time, spill out on the streets and like to fight each other given the slightest excuse, as a way to express their freedom and their masculinity, and feel like they have respect with their peers. Where is the class unity? Where is the race unity? Where is the national unity? What we really have are people who like to fight. They may make up ideology to make themselves feel good about themselves and justify their actions, but in reality they are just thugs. In the UK, supporters of the British National Party used to come from traditional, 'white', working class neighbourhoods, and skinheads, but increasingly membership is being made up of upper and middle class people. Are these middle class people proud of everyone in their perceived ethnic group? Or have they eliminated class tensions? I suspect their unity is very context dependent and they reinforce the class divides rather than overcome them.

I would like to point out that contrary to public belief, not all skinheads are racist or violent. Violent skinheads are often presumed to be also racist, although this is not necessarily the case either. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skinhead

It should be noted that the first skinheads were 'black' in the 1960s, or rather 'white' skinheads emulated their 'black' contemporaries, in terms of short hair and also musical tastes, including soul, rhythm and blues, ska, rock steady and early reggae. Skinhead scene first evolved from the mod scene of the 1960s, which was all about the American pursuit of leisure and sharp musical styles (from 'black' America and Jamaica) and Italian fashion. Early skinheads were known as hard mods, or rather those that embraced the mod love of soul, rhythm and blues and so on, but who combined the mods' smart, fashionable and stylistic dress sense with some more working class themes, such as working boots, short practical haircuts and braces. As with the mod scene, hard mods were also influenced by the Jamaican Rudeboy music and culture. Hard mods were also known as Trojan skinheads. Within the mod scene, the Union Jack was a fashion item, and this was also true of the hard mods or early skinheads. Early skinheads, like mods, were non-political and non-racist in general, although still patriotic like the mods. Of course, political affilitations of hard left or hard right may have evolved later on, particularly in the 1980s. The skinhead movement was about personal freedom, working class values, realism, equality and up tempo and soulful music. As with the mod scene, there were always some violent elements in the skinhead scene.

As with the mod love of nightclubbing and dancing away to their favourite musical styles, Trojan skinheads of the late 1960s and early 1970s were also keen club goers, dancing at the ska, rocksteady and reggae clubs along with 'black' youths. Relations between the two groups were not always so smooth but there was no overt racism between the two as a whole. As reggae started to embrace black nationalism, Rastafari religion and ganga smoking, and move away from its dancehall roots and lyrics about rudeboys, sex and relationships; and with the hippie movement of the 1970s with its arguably middle classed intellectual sensibilities, psychedelic and marijuana drug use, and ideology of peace and love; the skinhead scene disappeared from popular culture somewhat, perhaps tended to move away from the reggae clubs to some extent and more into other areas. The skinhead movement fragmented to a large extent, into suedeheads, smoothies and bootboys (synonymous with drinking and football hooliganism).

The skinhead scene saw a revival again in the late 1970s with the punk rock scene and 2 Tone (Two Tone) scene (a fusion of the ska, rocksteady and reggae styles with punk rock sensibilities and a pop sound). 2 Tone was always strongly anti-racist, and punk rock had predominantly being anti-establishment and individualistic, and usually slightly anarchic or socialist in stance. www.garry-bushell.co.uk/oi/index.asp

The 'oi' or 'street punk' movement in the early 1980s in the UK saw a skinhead revival and slight change in fashion and values. Contrary to popular belief, the 'oi' scene was not a racist or Neo-Nazi movement. It was a working class punk movement that sought to bring punk rock away from a middle classed audience and middle classed values, but to the working class and to council estates; to embody working class values and a sense of street realism - to include topics such as violence, sex, football, politics, class struggle and so on - that were relevant to working class youths of Britain. The 'street punk' scene was arguably started by socialist working class bands such as the Angelic Upstarts. Other bands followed, such as the Cockney Rejects (who were non-political and big jokers) and the Exploited (a highly political Anarchist street punk band). By the early 80s, punk had fragmented into many different directions, to new wave, post-punk (e.g. PiL, magazine, Wire, Killing Joke etc.), goth (a label which more describes the fans than the actual bands who were rarely actually goths), hardcore punk (e.g. GBH), Crustcore and Anarcho punk (e.g. Discharge, Crass, Flux of Pink Indians, Conflict etc.) and of course 'Oi'.

The label 'oi' was created by Sounds music journalist Gary Bushell to describe street punk, named after a Cockney Rejects song 'oi oi oi'. Oi was punk rock but fused elements of pop, heavy metal, 'working class chants', pub anthems and even ska. Whilst a few of these bands were Anarchist Punk (e.g. the Exploited), most were either non-political or slightly socialist in outlook, but with a sense of national pride and cheeky sense of humour. All were anti-Thatcherite. The scene was more about social and political realism, day to day existence than strict political manifestos. It was only later in the mid 1980s that the scene was associated with racism after a misinformed attack on a concert venue hosting non-racist oi bands. The 'oi' scene was populated by some punks, and ordinary kids, but mainly skinheads. The vast majority of bands were good natured and non-violent. Naturally, a sub-set of skinheads were racists, but this is simply a reflection of the number of kids in council estates at the time who were extreme right wing and racist. One record Strength Through Oi (a pun on the Nazi 'Strength Through Joy') featured a Neo-Nazi skinhead Nicky Crane with his racist tattoos edited out on the cover and this was considered by the music press as further evidence of 'oi' being Neo-Nazi. Oi, whilst generally patriotic and anti-Thatcherite, some bands were more 'patriotic' than others, and some skinhead oi bands were right wing in their views, but never openly racist (e.g Combat84). However, some of the latter were later associated with the British National Party (BNP), which contains non-racist members as well as openly racist members (although the BNP gift shop does sell 'golliwogs' making a mockery of its claims to be officially non-racist). It would be wrong to classify such bands as Neo-Nazis, as they did not sing about white power. There is a difference between being conservative, right wing and a national socialist. Not everyone who is right wing is racist or a 'fascist' and into totalitarianism, repatriation or ethnic cleansing. However, this is not to say that many of their fans were not White Power skinheads, and indeed that many white power skinheads do not listen to some of the early oi bands that were not racist at all, and in some instances sang songs against white power.

Later on, overtly 'Fascist' or Neo-Nazi bands tried to take over the scene but still remained a minority. They formed a subgroup known as 'RAC' or Rock-Against-Commnunism, which although oi-inspired in the 80s (e.g. inspired by bands such as the second incarnation of Skrewdriver with it's strong White Power manifesto, the first Skrewdriver having been a non-racist, non-political Clash sounding punk band), later took on more 'dodgy' heavy metal and trash metal overtones. Neo-Nazi skinheads are generally disliked by most other skinheads, even those that are of a right wing (but non-fascist) disposition. Some skinheads consider Neo-Nazis not to be true skinheads, but just idiots who happen to look like skinheads but not embracing the true skinhead ethos. Neo-Nazi skinheads may choose to differ however and deny their Jamaican inspired roots. The RAC bands tended to associate more with Combat 18, the paramilitary wing of the racist organisation Blood and Honour. Ironically, music has cross-pollenated, so that there are now actually (a few) Neo-Nazi ska bands! As strange as it may seem. Most white power skinhead RAC bands now are more thrash metal style than oi in style today. There are numerous more articles on the internet about skinheads and the 'oi' scene should the reader care to read further.

It should be noted that when being 'grossly offended' by RAC bands or anyone who expresses racist or views against the culture or religion of another group of people, or views/lyrics that are inciting violence against minority or other ethnic groups, one should consider the right of people to express their views or the right to free speech. But trying to shut people up, it does little to actually eradicate these views or feelings, and simply drives such networks underground where they are harder to track and control. In addition, where does not exactly draw the line? People 'love to hate' the far right, but there are probably more bands and artists that are anarchists, revolutionary or anti-establishment that label 'all police' as 'pigs' or 'fascists', any politican as 'scum', and anyone involved in animal testing in the pharmaceutical industry or otherwise as a target for 'retribution'. Indeed, picking up a typal anarcho-punk or gangsta rap record will reveal many references to violence, drug dealing or killing police. Some argue that 'gangsta rap' is merely reflecting 'real life on the streets' but clearly it is targeted for a more 'male' audience who like the gangster image more than anyone else. Such hate mongering and calls to violence are clearly worthy of attention as much as the less fashionable sorts from the far right. Very few anti-ALF or anti-animal rights extremist marches take place, protesting about their inhumane treatment of anyone they don't like for whatever reason. So a greater degree of consistency would show less prejudice, which is clearly what everyone is complaining about in the first place!

We should bear in mind that many movements, like some of the above, are more fashion-based and others are more of a lifestyle or movement that may last a year or two, or several decades, changing its meaning between individuals and across generations. We should consider however that anyone who defines himself in terms of a movement or lifestyle group is in a sense limiting himself to the meanings of that group and not allowing a more fluid sense of identity or self-expression. Any movement that is class-based and uses class as part of its meaning will ultimately by defined by that class, or that sub-section of that class, both internally and from the outside. Anyone who defines himself in terms of class is using 'group' as a form of identity and thus reinforcing perception of difference between 'his group' and the 'groups of others', rather than taking elements from all groups and creating one's own sense of identity. Class-based movements, whilst giving many people a renewed sense of pride and ability to express their 'class' life, ultimately serves to reinforced class perception and division in society.

Fashion or lifestyle groups tend to evolve because people get bored of them or find them limiting and want something new. And so it is with the 'skinhead' movement in some respects, although there will always be 'diehards' and also new 'revivalist' entrants who were never there initially to have gotten bored of it, so to them it is all new and still fresh! Whilst I myself am clearly not a 'proper skinhead' and certainly never was when I was in my youth, I like certain aspects of the skinhead 'lifestyle' or attitude, it's unpretentiousness and raw edge, it's unashamed representation of certain elements of working class values, and can relate to skinheads on many levels. There are many refreshing things here that are a panacea to middle class values and enforced political correctness. However, I like to think he can relate to any person of any class, on some level, and does not identify particularly with any class, but is more his own person. Thus he does not embrace the entirety of skinhead values (whatever that means) nor does he embrace the 'BBC style middle class values' that many people feel they are expected to adopt. I am a traditionalist (whatever that is!) and progressive and liberal all at the same time, if that makes any sense. Various positions are a basis for philosophical thought. I would like to make it clear that whilst I can appreciate some aspects of those of the 'extreme right', he believes their logic is flawed and does not generaly identify with them at all, but more the non-racist element of skinheads, i.e. 'proper' skinheads. I am not a proponet of violence and do not glamorise violence but that is not to say that I would not use violence when absolutely necessary, or always necessarily back down in a confrontational situation, as it is on occasion a street reality. This however is not necessarily 'skinhead' but I could be describing many types of people here.

If we look at Orange County in the USA, the local white power movement consists of a number of skinhead gangs, e.g. Nazi Low Riders (NLR) and Public Enemy No.1 (PEN1) which are involved in organised crime (identity theft and methyl amphetamine production/distribution), stabbings, gang murders etc. They despise those 'white' folks who talk to 'coloureds' or who do not wish to break the law or beat people up. So they are really only proud of a tiny segment of the white population. They consider violence and murder as actions of reasonable, good, caring white folk. If they did indeed achieve their goal of a white America or a white state, would they indeed give up violence? It is unlikely and would focus even more on beating each other up and escalating inter-gang violence. Is this the kind of land they want to live in? Full of violence? Those who support racially motivated acts of violence anywhere in the developed world often dislike the police because of their interference in stopping (sometimes with violence) or arresting those taking part in these activities and in their drunken exploits; but these same people often believe in a firm hand of government in law and order - when it suits them.

Whilst gangs have certain attractions for prospective members, i.e. the respect, the easy money, the 'glamour' of the violence and carrying guns or weapons, a sense of family, having people to protect you, the reality is not always so positive. Ex-gang members are usually less than flattering about the gangs they used to belong to. Whilst protecting you, gangs put you in the firing line and dramatically shorten your life expectancy or years of liberty outside of jail. Many people are born into gangs, or join through peer pressure or social adversity, and to form or join a gang just for the sake of it, because it tickles your fancy could be considered by some as rather 'borgeois' (c/f middle classed 'wigger' gangs). Many gang members take drugs and are hardly positive influences on one's life - most are in poor physical condition. Whilst gang's may claim on occasion a moral agenda, e.g. white supremacism, they rarely live up to these aspirations and sell out their principles for the sake of making more money and selling more drugs, and exercising power over others. A video about the multi-racial aspects of the prison gang, the Aryan Brotherhood, is shown below, the leader of which is Jewish!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PsNC9Z0EIwA

Many ex-gang members report 'family members' turning on them for no reason whatsoever, so the sense that a gang will always treat you fairly if you respect it is not always true. Gangs in many respects are a form of alternative justice/police and alternative capitalism. They are like ruthless corporations, but working to their own set of rules, outside of the law. Whilst gangs and corporations may have fancy mission statements, at the end of the day, their primarily function is money. Respect, image and power are important but probably come second. There is no sense in having respect if you aren't making any money. A gang that has respect but makes no money will likely have a coup d'etat. If one makes a big mistake in one's job in a corporation, or lose a large amount of the company's money, one may well be fired or even sent to prison. In a gang, you will likely be killed. The difference between the two is fear. However, as they are at the end of the day enterprises, claiming a high ground that one is more 'real' is debatable. "Freakeconomics," by Steven Levitts, worked on a study performed by a sociologist involving an interview with a gang member. He describes the gang structure as the same as a large corporation, with the top being ruled by a group that called themselves the "Board of Directors," who demanded regular reports on the drug trade in said gang's territory.

Enterprises have their downsides as well as upsides, and compromises, whatever the context. Wealth can allow one to achieve one's goals more effectively and liberate one to live the life one wants, but it can also render one a slave to the wealth, and fixate the mind on materialism, at the detriment of spiritual growth. It can become like a crack addiction. Whilst some entrepreneurs are in control of their lives, most of the wealthy have to sacrifice something, including the right to control their own destiny. Living every day in fear, basically in a war zone, having to watch your back continuously, from your enemies in rival gangs, people with a grudge, the police or even your own gang, and not being able to walk down certain streets for fear of death is not exactly my idea of an ideal scenario. It may be something you can put up with or thrive on for a while, but as inter-gang conflicts escalate, it can become beyond amusing after a while. Soldiers who fight in wars go on tours of duty, and in between, return home to rest and recuperate. In gangs, this is not possible as you are immersed in it 24/7, until you leave the gang (with great difficulty) or until you die. Those who join gangs for a sense of family could equally get that family bonding elsewhere, with less strings attached. Many skinhead gangs act tough when they are together, with fellow gang members who are 'tooled up', but when they are on their own, whilst some may be genuinely 'tough', the vast majority are not. The days of all gang members being physically tough are long gone and replaced by a drug-fuelled teenage generation who rely on guns instead to be tough. Is a gang worth dying for? Arguably not. It may be worth dying for something that has some real meaning, but a turf conflict or because the boss wants to have a nicer BMW is hardly that. So whilst there may be some attractive and appealing aspects of gang life, and it may seem 'badass', overall, it is not for me.

Although criminal gangs can be viewed as some as a way of escaping the 9 to 5, getting easy money, and basically carrying on in a lawless manner, it is not the same as being 'free' or as being outside of the system/society. Whilst the income stream may be part of the independent/black/illegal economy and there is a source of power outside of the law and normal society, the actual spending patterns of gang members are no different from the average law abiding, sheepish and cowardly consumer. Successful gang members are often more ostentatious in their spending than the next person with the same level of income, it being more difficult to save the money, bank or launder it. Thus, gang members, with their consumer power, are actively supporting the multinational-dominated economy and actively supporting the structure of society, even though they rarely actually pay tax. They are capitalist themselves, albeit in a brutal and violent manner, and are supporting and perpetuating the capitalist society that they belief may be 'oppressing' or killing the spirit of the average person. They are as much to blame for the destruction of the planet and brainwashing media as the next greedy consumer. Gangs therefore break society's laws on the one hand but reinforce society's grasp over the population on the other. They are essentially hyper-capitalist, lawbreaking consumers. Not 'anarchy' exactly. Not national socialism either by any means. Gangs cannot exist without a law abiding society to predate on, or without ways of creating income in the case of various vices being legalised. Laws are required for there to be something to break to generate easy money. Where drugs, prostitution and gambling being deregulated, gangs have to resort to various forms of theft. Gangs are essentially like a parasite on mainstream society, they cannot survive without it. If everyone was in a gang, no one would be growing food, building Mercedes and expensive stereos etc. As described above, some gangs have a claimed nationalist or even white supremacist focus. This usually comes at the bottom of the priority list, below money and criminality, and often racial values are compromised. Patriotism and nationalism are difficult concepts, as the gangs rarely contribute anything positive to their societies, and often what they are patriotic about are the peaceful institutions of their nation, rather than the criminal elements. One is therefore patriotic about a country but at the same time one kills one's own countrymen. One does not pay tax towards the nation's upkeep and one costs the nation a great deal of money in police time and court time. What exactly is one being nationalistic about? And is one in a position to really be nationalistic? Would one prefer a gangster tolerant nation? Clearly that would never work as one needs to break the laws to make money. It is a bit like having one's cake and eating it perhaps. In the case of the far right, is the sort of hard rule from a nationalist government likely to put up with one's own criminality? What is it about a group of 'white' drug dealers working together and giving their countrymen the tools with which to destroy their own lives with that is patriotic or helping the cause of the 'white' man?

If gangs who truly want to be free to use excessive violence to settle their own personal or gang-related affairs, or want society to emulate a more Greek or Roman model, with public executions and killing, then unless there is special allowance for people settling their own 'scores', then in all likelihood such a society would not tolerate violent criminals and would have them promptly and publicly executed, rather than grant them the leeway to actually to carry on being criminals or to join prison criminal gangs in the first place. For example, in the current judicial system, police can't arrest senior gang members without any evidence, or if they are convicted, and are sentenced to death (e.g. in the USA), they are placed on Death Row often for years. In a more violent society, the authorities might simply send soldiers over to cut off the offending persons heads without trial, or if there was a trial, an execution might take place the same day. That is of course not an ideal way to run a country, as if there are mistakes they cannot be undone. Many gangsters claim that they are serving their own communities, and whilst this may be true to some extent, they are also causing large problems in their own communities. For example, it is widely known that the police and judicial system can only do so much about certain forms of antisocial behaviour and crimes or theft where no proof exists, but one knows who is responsible. Here, gangs can step in and 'take care' of things. Gangs like to have a monopoly on violence or serious crime on their own turf, so whilst a gang may be 'cleaning' up the neighbourhood, it is doing so only in the sense that it wants to ensure that only it can do these things! In the event that one asks a gang to help sort out a dispute or 'problem', then one is forever indebted to that gang, and may have the favour called upon any number of occasions - and who is that person to argue with the gang. One then can end up becoming tied to the gang. Aside from all this, one also has the aspect of the local gang being likely responsible for the majority of the drug supply into the community. Whilst they do not make people become physically or psychologically addicted, they can offer incentives, and openly selling drugs can tempt many into developing habits. They provide role models of a sort to children, who see gang members as having power, respect and getting easy money and may tempt youngsters into joining gangs rather than higher education and making something of themselves in a creative sense or wider contribution to society. Whilst gangs can solve community problems, they can also accidentally kill innocent bystanders caught in the crossfire, e.g. in drive by shootings or in cases of mistaken identity. Clearly if one wants to express oneself with extreme violence, there are outlets for such aggression such as boxing, or even joining the army. However, even there, excessive force and sadism are generally not tolerated, as there is a code of conduct or honor. In my opinion, gangs should drop their ideological, political or moral claims/pretence and simply stick to being criminal gangs if that is what they want. If a gang member happens to be a Satanist or a racist, that is a personal choice, but to make claims about a gang's mission statement and goal outside of violent crime and making money is in most cases misleading and pretentious; they should just be honest about what they are.

Some Satanists and Satanic Luciferians are gang members, as they feel it compliments their ideology. Satanism is about the self, and to me, to belong to a gang or populist movement which suppresses some of your own rights to anarchically do your own thing (but which allows you freedom in which to express other chaotic or violent aspects to your existence) or which tells you what to do and think, is potentially out of sorts with this. For some Satanists, a gang is a means to bring about a new age of violent chaos, where one can prove oneself in a Neo-Darwinian fashion. Life is about living your own destiny and choosing your own path, making your own decisions, even leadership, not following orders or being manipulated like the 'masses'. If you choose a gang, even if you are in tune with the goals and intentions of other members, then you have to take the rough with the smooth to a large extent. Prison gangs are like civilian criminal gangs but without the glamour and girls. Your weapons don't look sexy and have to put shoved up your bottom. If you choose to be a 'civilian', then you have to be wary of becoming brainwashed consumer and another cog in the machine, and having your soul slowly eaten away. There are numerous life choices available most of which require guts, determination and self-belief to really pull off well. That is not to say that non-gang existence has to necessarily be boring, mundane and a life an an employee (9 to 5er) working a job you hate. Ultimately one's choices and lifestyle is limited by one's imagination.Whatever path you choose, you have to live with the consequences. Some individuals will choose a gang lifestyle if they were to live their life all over again. That is their business and their choice, but like they say 'What goes around comes around, kid' - Cypress Hill.

Russian skinheads and national socialists look up to Hitler, and also Stalin who massacred millions of Russians. Is this patriotic? Stalin was in fact a nationalist imperialist. And Nazi Germany the USSR's sworn enemy. Nationalistic governments/leaders have historically only got along when their countries are not too close together, when their interests usually conflict. It is all very well being allies when one is far enough apart, but at the end of the day, a far right government seeks to serve its own country's interests above all others and usually at the expense of others, and to expand its territory at another country's or other countries' expense. This is usually how they often appear to have booming economies, when the reality is that their over-intervention in their own countries economies and population bleeds money and they can only subsidise this by exploiting other foreign nations.

It is curious to notice how much emphasis is placed upon the elements of a physical being that are visible and little interest in what lies underneath, biologically and neurologically. Skin colour and facial features make up a tiny percentage of the total body mass and genetic material. It is curious to note that those who profess a pride in their race perhaps have less pride in belonging to the human race, or in their own bodies (e.g. their internal organs, biochemistry or blood type), besides the skin. It is also ironic that those who believe they are proud of their skin colour do not look after their skin very well, nor the rest of their bodies, or their posture, and show their physical form little respect, pouring alcohol, drugs, unhealthy foods and essentially speeding up the ageing process. This is not really any form of pride in my opinion, even if there is lip service to some notion of skin colour or pride in one's 'race'. Very few people have real pride in their personality and treat themselves very poorly psychologically, abusing their own psyches and having a very unhealthy self-dialogue. One could equally use general level of health or a positive healthy lifestyle choice as a loose and not too serious group identifier if one wanted to. Tattooes and body art or piercings are also used as group identifiers, and ironically many use tattooes as a racial identifier, depending on the style and designs chosen. This is ironically 'defiling' or scribbling on the masterpiece of the skin that many belonging to such groups claim to have pride in. Many white supremacists are obese, unhealthy 'slobs' who drink, smoke, eat junk food and defile the very skin they are so proud of with insignia and designs that are intended to say 'I'm white' which should be obvious by looking at the physical form! Many are trying to be 'more white' with their tattooing. Claims of pride over 'race' are dubious and there is certainly a lack of pride over the rest of the physical form! Even where many white supremacists keep themselves in shape, their diets are frequently not so great, and their livers are taking a battering.

[Continue to Part 7]



© 2006-2020 Fabian Dee