Must we accept ?

[Michael]

I don't believe in banning groups because of their speech. Banning or prosecuting groups or people because of criminal actions is another matter. However, the left now defines speech as equivalent to physical violence. That's the justification Felarca's BAMN gives for her group stabbing and beating people, and so do Antifa whenever they gather enough wits to speak, which is rare.

We should give Antifa the appropriate amount of attention they deserve for their criminal activities and not a free pass on political violence because of the existence of a tiny percentage of discredited racists, while lumping anyone conservative into that extreme end of the spectrum to be vilified for thought crimes for expressing opinions.

It's important for me to add that I'm not really concerned about the KKK, white nationalists, or Nazis because of their threats or actions toward black people. Well, I don't think it's special to stand up for my supposed "race." That would be normal self-defense, and there'd be nothing noble or moral about standing up to them. Instead, I think about two groups of people. First are the white people who've sacrificed their lives for black people and others. They're my heroes. I told you. I can name names. Anyway, the second group are the people who fought the Nazis and were killed before they knew the war was won. I ain't mad at nobody, but I owe those people big time. As much as I can at my age, I got their backs. So, I'm more ... piqued at the "Jews will not replace us" and the Nazi flag than I can every be with Antifa or communists. Post your videos. Watch Shoah.

I hear you.

I watched the full series on post-slavery from the History Channel you put on the other discussion a few months ago and I watched as much of the KKK video as I could stomach that you just posted. That stuff disgusts me and winds me up. Saw some of Shoah about 30 years ago. It was difficult to watch.

[Steve James]

Banning or prosecuting groups or people because of criminal actions is another matter.

But, you even agreed that criminal actions by the KKK and their supporters (i.e., their radicalized lone wolves) has plenty of historical precedent. If criminal action is the benchmark, the video on them illustrates several times that KKK members have gotten death sentences for their attacks. We don't need to go into Nazi violence, I hope.

However, my point was precisely that people will use the "free speech" argument to justify whatever speech they think is tolerable. Generally, when that speech affects them, they naturally protest. Whether you answer the question of not, you know that an ISIL parade, with them carrying flags and torches, and members shouting their slogans, would be met by protesters. I'd say some of those protesters would be KKK members, and some would even be Trump supporters. I'm not sure that Antifa wouldn't be there too.

I don't think you'd complain about the protesters or them protesting. Otoh, I don't think you have a principle for stopping an ISIL parade. It's arbitrary. The KKK has killed lots more Americans than ISIL. It's not at all about free speech. IT is about dangerous speech, which causes violent reactions. Then, it's a matter of examining what is actually said.

Afa Shoah, I watched the whole thing when it first aired. I promised that I'd never turn away. It was a gut-wrenching eight hours. I also grew up watching movies like Casablanca and The Train. There were actual "civics" classes and tv shows stressing "truth, justice, and the American way." That's why, afa those values are concerned, I'd consider myself fairly conservative.

Anyway, France and the U.S. are both based on the principal of citizenship, and the equality of citizens. In England, the Netherlands or Sweden, a person can be born into a higher rank. No, Sally, you are not the Queen's equal. In the U.S., however, a person from any of those countries can come here and become as rich as anyone else; and have a child that could become president. If you're in China, you ain't going to get to be vice president. That is what makes "America" exceptional (or so they said), the "land of opportunity."

That's what it's supposed to mean. Supposedly that's why men and women have fought and died. One has to decide for oneself whether it's worth fighting for. But, there are those principles, on one hand, and everything else on the other. Ya can't have both without being hypocritical to one or the other.... or deliberately dishonest or schizophrenic.

[wiesiek]

Wiesiek don't forget that Poland invaded Germany in 1939. That was the story they gave at the time. Big lie.

yup,
hopefully I also remember, that on the beginning, Germans destroyed the radio station in Gliwice,
but
only because Polish radio was lair nest...

Poles are extremely sensitive when touching II WW theme, you know ,
topic something- like slavery in US

Speakin` more about ideas acceptation -
We are in time when old nightmares came again out of the limbo,
or better - are puling of from the box all over the world .
It is kinda of obvious, that they /ideas/ didn`t come from nowhere. They are used by contemporary politicians,
that`s all.
Problem is, that even in XXIc. lot of /even educated / peps are catch.
Only really free mind can save our as.

[Ian C. Kuzushi]

Hey Mike, are you part of the Alt-Right? You are certainly forwarding their mainstream arguments like a pro. A thin veneer of civility doesn't do much to cover the core of what you are saying. I mean, at least you aren't posting Alex Jones anymore?

You think white nationalists don't have any legitimacy in the US...But you clearly are a bit fuzzy on some of Trump's top staffers. You are also explicitly equating Antifa with Neo-Nazis and the KKK (whether you will admit it or not).

Now you are having to backpedal and talk about all the terrible things the Left ("lefties," as you put it) is doing or has done. Maybe it should strike you as strange that I don't need to highlight the horrors of the free market, economic and political intervention, and wars of capitalist aggression in order to denounce Nazis and the KKK. I can denounce the white supremacists because they are vile not only in their tactics and goals but in their very ideology.

Your videos (generally factually incorrect, such as the Sac event and how many people were stabbed by who) come nowhere near to indicating that Antifa has committed violence anywhere close to the level of the white supremacists since the founding of this country. Or in the last 50 years. Or in the last year. Or in the last week.

You make threads to deride the violence of Antifa. That, in and of itself, would not be a problem. But, where was your post condemning the murder in VA? Or the problems surrounding white nationalist ideologies? They weren't forthcoming. Just like Trump, you think Antifa is the problem. It's completely illogical. They are a reaction to fascists. The fascists are not a legitimate reaction to any actual social inequality or disadvantage or disenfranchisement.

I don't agree with some of the violence of Anarchists, but for you to constantly point out how "small" in number or "insignificant" the white supremacists are is, again, completely inconsistent.

I can't help but feel like you are just not willing to come out and say what you think. You have hinted at things in the past. for example, what do you think about homosexuals? What do you think about Jews?

What is so terrible about the Left? It seems like your use of the term SJW as an insult. That's pretty sad, and a strong use of Alt-Right rhetoric. As for the Left and what you find so repugnant: Is it the desire for an educated society? The desire to provide healthcare to all citizens? The desire to address blatantly racist social structures? The insistence that there are facts? The belief in science? Concern over the environment? The desire to help those less fortunate?

Instead, you are constantly out to defend what? The "oppressed" white nationalists? If I didn't suspect your true leanings based on your posts and non-posts, I would think it strange that you went from full blown conspiracy theorist to full blown Alt-Right mouthpiece and defender of ultra-Conservative (racist and classist) values.

[Michael]

How much of a difference is there between a Milo speaking event, an Ann Coulter speaking event, a documentary on men's rights, a university free speech conference with current professors on the lecturn, and a the Unite the Right rally in Charlottsville? I think there's a huge difference, but the tactics used by Antifa and other leftists against these vary little, if any, and all occurred this year. The biggest variable was the amount of physical push back from those being protested.

Leftists have declared hate speech to not be worthy of legal protection and give themselves license to label everything they disagree with hate speech and shut down any speaking event, or film, for any offense to their ideology imaginable. I do think this is a bigger problem than the actual KKK and neo-nazis, and I think these violent protests by the left are driving the recruitment of White Nationalists. Their argument for free speech and first amendment protection is just as valid as Cassie Jaye's for showing her documentary about men's rights activists, and the ACLU and federal courts agreed with them regarding Charlottesville.

The left needs to find a way to deal with diversity of opinions that varies in severity from people chanting "Jews will not replace us" to a former feminist giving a screening to her documentary, but currently they scream the most extreme insults and use extreme tactics for all of their opponents, including the initiation of physical violence against peaceful event attendees, which I documented at length here before Charlottesville.

[Michael]

This 22 minute documentary from VICE about Charlottesville looks pretty good to me. They were allowed by one of the event speakers, Chris Cantwell, to come along with him and his group. Cantwell is a white nationalist who wants an ethno state. He was filmed chanting, "Jews will not replaces us," on the Friday night on UVA campus with the tiki torch brigade.

I've never seen leftists allow this kind of scrutinization, so I'm unaware of any film or reporting on their point of view that's so extensive, but VICE basically provides some of it here by showing someone who is one of their "villains", a word I choose because that's my opinion of him.

VICE did include at the end of this docu the leftist attack on the event organizer, Jason Kessler, as he spoke to a crowd about the first amendment. The police did step in after things got physical, missing the easy chance to prevent the attack altogether as they were a few steps away, but apparently awaiting orders. It just seems wrong to let something like that escalate when you could stop it, but that is the police pattern at these events.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P54sP0Nlngg

[Ian C. Kuzushi]

How much of a difference is there between a Milo speaking event, an Ann Coulter speaking event, a documentary on men's rights, a university free speech conference with current professors on the lecturn, and a the Unite the Right rally in Charlottsville? I think there's a huge difference, but the tactics used by Antifa and other leftists against these vary little, if any, and all occurred this year. The biggest variable was the amount of physical push back from those being protested.

I would agree that the tactics vary little, although I would also say that they were quite ineffective and far less violent than white nationalist activities. That's what this thread was about. It's a thread about white supremacist movements in the US and you came in and started complaining about Antifa, as if they were the same thing.

Leftists have declared hate speech to not be worthy of legal protection and give themselves license to label everything they disagree with hate speech and shut down any speaking event, or film, for any offense to their ideology imaginable.

Actully, I am pretty sure they just label hate speech as hate speech. Hey, you can argue that hate speech should be protected, but you shouldn't then deny that hate speech is being employed.

including the initiation of physical violence against peaceful event attendees, which I documented at length here before Charlottesville.

You continued to ignore very clear history here by maintaining that the Antifa violence is in any way equatable to that perpetrated by white supremacists. There are lots of narratives within the Alt-Right, which makes it easy for adherents to sneak by without making their true thoughts known. For example, Jones just claimed that the swastika bearing people in VA were Jews and it was a false flag. Actually, he made clear to point out that they were "lefty Jews," huh, where I have I heard that? Anyway, you seem to think the lack of nuanced response to Nazi's and racists and homophobes is a problem but white supremacists are not. Got it. I disagree. I would also say that the intentionally layered nuance employed by the Alt-Right is exactly part of the problem--but it's very effective. It's calculated. It's working.

[Michael]

Ian, your ridiculous insults and pathetic taunting are meaningless because the left has cried wolf about nazis and labeled anyone disagreeing with them racist, xenophobe, or misogynist for so long that the shock value has worn off. However, I realize that as an ideological zealot, insults are your go to response because shaming tactics that sound like re-education camp questionnaires are what you were taught, and you haven't the personal integrity to discuss a complex topic with any level of honesty. That's your problem, not mine.

[Steve James]

Earlier in the thread, the removal of Confederate statues was brought up. Trump's lawyer tweeted that Robert E. Lee was like Washington, both saved the nation. The implication supported Trump's question about where the removal of statues would stop. After all, Washington and Lee were both slave owners, etc. Will we have to tear down the Washington monument, and so on.

Well, when it comes to saving the nation, it's true that Lee helped. Many southerners were willing to keep on fighting a guerrilla war after Appomattox. Lee was the one who refused to support those actions. But, that didn't stop many of them. Lee was also among the first to sit with Black parishioners at his church when it was integrated. Lee, in fact, used Black troops, arguably before the Union. Lee fought out of a sense of duty to his state and the confederacy, not because he supported racism or slavery. Btw, Washington ordered that all his slaves be freed upon his death.

Anyway, I'm against taking down statues of Lee because people don't know the history. In fact, I think that people should be told his whole story, and even follow his example. As it is, those statues were placed in front of government offices and the middle of towns solely to show that "we" (their descendants) were still in power and controlled the government. In reality, they are symbols of disloyalty --and Robert E. Lee knew it.

For example:

In light of all this, it's probably best to remember one relevant historical fact: Robert E. Lee was opposed to Confederate monuments.

“It’s often forgotten that Lee himself, after the Civil War, opposed monuments, specifically Confederate war monuments,” Jonathan Horn, a Lee biographer, told PBS.

After the Civil War, Lee received a number of letters requesting support for the erection of Confederate memorials, according to Horn.

In June 1866, he wrote that he couldn't support a monument of one of his best generals, Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson, saying it wasn't "feasible at this time."

"As regards the erection of such a monument as is contemplated," Lee wrote in December 1866 about another proposed Confederate monument, "my conviction is, that however grateful it would be to the feelings of the South, the attempt in the present condition of the Country, would have the effect of retarding, instead of accelerating its accomplishment; [and] of continuing, if not adding to, the difficulties under which the Southern people labour."

Not only was Lee opposed to Confederate memorials, "he favored erasing battlefields from the landscape altogether," Horn wrote.

He even supported getting rid of the Confederate flag after the Civil War ended, and didn't want them them flying above Washington College, which he was president of after the war.

"Lee did not want such divisive symbols following him to the grave," Horn wrote. "At his funeral in 1870, flags were notably absent from the procession. Former Confederate soldiers marching did not don their old military uniforms, and neither did the body they buried."

“His Confederate uniform would have been ‘treason’ perhaps!” Lee’s daughter wrote, according to Horn.

"Lee believed countries that erased visible signs of civil war recovered from conflicts quicker,” Horn told PBS. “He was worried that by keeping these symbols alive, it would keep the divisions alive."

Lee should be used as a symbol of reconciliation, unity and loyalty to country.

Of course, if Lee were alive and competing with Trump, Trump would undoubtedly point out that Lee was a "loser" not a hero. The Confederacy did lose, after all. Trump likes winners. You won't find pictures and statues of Saddam in Baghdad.

[Ian C. Kuzushi]

Ian, your ridiculous insults and pathetic taunting are meaningless because the left has cried wolf about nazis and labeled anyone disagreeing with them racist, xenophobe, or misogynist for so long that the shock value has worn off. However, I realize that as an ideological zealot, insults are your go to response because shaming tactics that sound like re-education camp questionnaires are what you were taught, and you haven't the personal integrity to discuss a complex topic with any level of honesty. That's your problem, not mine.

Pointing out things that you have said and not said and information that you have shared here do not constitute insults. You never really answer the important questions I pose, either. Your sources are not credible. Your argumentation is vapid. You literally just did what you are accusing me of. You also have the audacity to call me an ideologue after making your intransigent and illogical stances clear for all. You use terms to identify people (Social Justice Warrior, Lefty, etc...) in a derogatory manner. Of course, I use terms (Alt-Right, Neo-Nazi, white nationalist) that people give themselves. See the difference there? No, probably not.

That fact is that you have not responded with "personal integrity" or "honesty," but I truly don't know if it's an inability or the typical evasiveness of the Alt-Right and their adjacents that prevent you from answering direct questions or seeking out credible sources.

Edited to include the quote to clarify simultaneous posting confusion.

[Steve James]

Um, regarding insults, etc., divide and conquer is an historically useful strategy. Anyway, the first thing I've learned about dealing with the KKK/Nazis, etc., is that it is necessary to be cold-blooded.

[Ian C. Kuzushi]

FWIW, I see no value in calling someone a racist, homophobe, or xenophobe unless they are one or are acting like one. What could that possibly do to forward my case? It's funny to be caricatured by a caricature, though.

BTW, the people marching in VA themselves admit, rather, proudly claim, that they are these things. It's not some crazy ideologically driven claim I am pushing. So weird that I have to clarify that.

Like Trump, it's hard to stay on point, no?

[Ian C. Kuzushi]

This 22 minute documentary from VICE about Charlottesville looks pretty good to me. They were allowed by one of the event speakers, Chris Cantwell, to come along with him and his group. Cantwell is a white nationalist who wants an ethno state. He was filmed chanting, "Jews will not replaces us," on the Friday night on UVA campus with the tiki torch brigade.

I've never seen leftists allow this kind of scrutinization, so I'm unaware of any film or reporting on their point of view that's so extensive, but VICE basically provides some of it here by showing someone who is one of their "villains", a word I choose because that's my opinion of him.

VICE did include at the end of this docu the leftist attack on the event organizer, Jason Kessler, as he spoke to a crowd about the first amendment. The police did step in after things got physical, missing the easy chance to prevent the attack altogether as they were a few steps away, but apparently awaiting orders. It just seems wrong to let something like that escalate when you could stop it, but that is the police pattern at these events.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P54sP0Nlngg

Um, your takeaway from the Vice video is that the "Lefties" aren't being scrutinized enough. WTFF?

[Steve James]

Antifa has clearly become the alt-right talking point similar to "remember the Alamo." I mentioned the '30s Germany because the Nazis said the Poles, Slavs and Jews were the problem. The KKK first said that the ex-slaves and freemen were the problem; then, it was the immigrants; after the WW, it was the Jews, Catholics, Masons, and Negroes who were the problem. And during the civil rights era, the freedom riders and people demonstrating for the right to vote were causing the problems.

Again, it's not that violent anarchists are acceptable. They've been around for a long time. However, they're being promoted as an excuse to join the alt-right as a counter to the "left." That's only because it's being presented as such. Nazis don't exist because of Antifa. Yep, you can hoodwink someone into thinking he's fighting for America and against evil by being against Antifa, or BLM, or the Jews, or the Muslims, or the Mexicans, etc. And, no that doesn't mean that there are criminals in those groups.

If the group you think you belong to shits, you have to accept that there will be assholes.

[Michael]

Antifa is definitely not the reason why racists exist, but their violence and intimidation tactics are directed at anyone who disagrees with any radical left-wing ideas, effectively preventing free speech from a large segment of society through de-platforming and censoring, as well shaming and doxxing that leads to severe social ostracization and loss of income. Antifa is the talking point for the right because the media has refused to acknowledge them for a long time, especially during several high profile cases since Trump's election.