How a Violent Alt-Light "Hero" Turned His Back on Neo-Nazis

a reply to: Anathros

So ... "they" are being indoctrinated? I want to see you justify that argument without suggesting that for some reason Black people en masse can't understand this while you can.

Of course, the idea that Democrats are trying to harm Black Americans is ridiculous and one-dimensional, but let's leave that aside for now. You make the absurd mistake of believing that any significant number of Black people come from "ghettos" and are on Welfare. Your analysis seems to be based on 1970s sit-coms.

You also ignore the number of White Americans who depend on the same social safety net that you're complaining about, while they support a party of rich folks who want to take all that away to save a few pennies on their taxes.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Anathros

So ... "they" are being indoctrinated? I want to see you justify that argument without suggesting that for some reason Black people en masse can't understand this while you can.

Of course, the idea that Democrats are trying to harm Black Americans is ridiculous and one-dimensional, but let's leave that aside for now. You make the absurd mistake of believing that any significant number of Black people come from "ghettos" and are on Welfare. Your analysis seems to be based on 1970s sit-coms.

You also ignore the number of White Americans who depend on the same social safety net that you're complaining about, while they support a party of rich folks who want to take all that away to save a few pennies on their taxes.

Yes, I said "They". I did not say that "They" all lived in the ghettos. I remember mentioning the Suburbs and rural areas but you must've missed that part. I was born in 80 so I didn't watch 70 sitcoms.

Oh yeah, I can run down the local white trash EBT barefoot and pregnant locals here too. They too are afraid of losing their free rides and earned income child tax returns. Yeah..I'm against anyone that expects a hand out.

What's wrong with able-bodied men and woman working 8 hours a day in their communities to get their welfare? Why can't they clean up parks, the ditches, mow and weedeat local businesses that contribute to those benefits they reap?

The Bible says if a man doesn't work, a man shouldn't eat and regardless of your faith or lack thereof..it makes sense.

Sorry for the thread drift Anti. I'm done trying be to painted into a corner.

a reply to: theantediluvian

Looks to me it's a riot guy.

Just going wherever the "fight" is.

I guess I missed the story. He was fighting, not protesting for dumbasses.... Then he switch sides to the opposing dumbasses.

a reply to: Anathros

He isn't, he got in a fight with an Oathkeeper in Portland for wanting to attack people, got upset and denounced them, then went on this 'victim rant' where he said he is about love and a 'Trump supporter' not an alt-righter

originally posted by: Anathros

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: Anathros

Much better video. Seems sincere to me and I applaud his decision to move away from the hate spewing Nazis. One thing I don't understand is how do these people make it to all those damn rallies and protests? Hell, I have to scratch and claw to get a day to off to get a check up at the Dr's Office.

He calls himself "Based Spartan Man", wears a roman helmet, is covered in home job tatts... I'd say he's on benefits.

a reply to: Anathros


I didn't miss anything. Sure you tossed in a weak reference to the suburbs so that you could respond just as you have to critiques of your "Good Times" image of the Black community.

LOL ... "White trash" eh? Yeah, you're a regular paragon of racial epithets aren't you?

(Hint, your argument fails because most of those low-income White folks you just slandered are supporting the same Republican party that wants to give tax breaks to the rich and cut social services to the needy ... but don't let reality bother you.)

There isn't a thing wrong with folks working ... and no one has ever said there is. BS false dichotomy.

Your examples as pure right-wing propaganda in the style of Reagan's "Welfare queens" screed. NO one advocates for "free money" except those making the same dipstick argument you are.

The Bible? Yeah, the Bible says a lot of things. I seem to remember something about loving your neighbors, taking care of them, helping the sick, the infirm, the widows and the children ... based on sharing what you have including giving them your coat, etc.

Funny you guys never mention those parts, eh? Why is that?

You don't like the corner you're in? Then put down the paintbrush.

As I was posting replies in this thread last night, I noticed that #LagunaBeach was trending on Twitter. Discovered that there was a "free speech rally" and protest in Laguna Beach yesterday. As I'm scrolling through tweets, lo and behold, there's "Johnny Benitez" and Irma Hinijosa of "Latinos With Trump" talking about how they'd organized the rally and how it couldn't have had neo-Nazis on it because they're both Hispanic. This is Irma, Baked Alaska andJack Posobiec:



They were all thick as thieves with Cernovich, etc until the falling out just before the DeploraBall when Cernovich disinvited Baked Alaska because he was dragging down the brand with his Nazi saluting and other antics.

So of course, I called them out on Johnny's association with neo-Nazis. Irma's response was essentially that she stands by her friends no matter what because they have one another's backs against "the globalists."

"Johnny Benitez" at first accused me of holding his prior associations against him. (probably thinking I'd read the OC Weekly story) When I reminded him that there's video of him hanging out with these thugs in July, he went with some nonsense about how he preferred Nazis to "communists." (as though everyone has a choice to make between "Nazis" and "commies") A tweet, it looks like he's since deleted.

a reply to: theantediluvian

But what gets me is how you say people like Mcinnes and Cernovich are scrubbing their connections to these people and this implies they are somehow terrible people.

I can post example after example of BLM people saying vile racits things, yet I don't see BLM leadership ever calling out these people and denouncing them like I have seen Micinnes do.

Lets not forget, one of the most inspiring people to the creation of BLM was Assata Shakur, convicted cop killer.

Show me the links showing BLM people condemning or separating themselves from her.

How about Fidel Castor who they spoke glowingly of.

Here is their official statement praising castro, shakur, and the black power movement and black nationlist huey newton.

A final lesson is that to be a revolutionary, you must strive to live in integrity. As a Black network committed to transformation, we are particularly grateful to Fidel for holding Mama Assata Shakur, who continues to inspire us. We are thankful that he provided a home for Brother Michael Finney Ralph Goodwin, and Charles Hill, asylum to Brother Huey P. Newton, and sanctuary for so many other Black revolutionaries who were being persecuted by the American government during the Black Power era.

medium.com...@BlackLivesMatterNetwork/lessons-from-fidel-black-lives-matter-and-the-transition-of-el-comandante-c11ee5e51fb0

somehow someone like cernovich or mcinnes distancing themselves from extremism is bad, yet you defend BLM which embraces castro, cop killers, and black nationalism.

a reply to: Grambler

Did you intentionally take that quote utterly out of context, or did you not have the context?

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Grambler

Did you intentionally take that quote utterly out of context, or did you not have the context?

The link is strange. I will post the whole thing.

You tell me where I am out of context with them praising Fidel, Shakur, and Huey Newton.

Lessons from Fidel: Black Lives Matter and the Transition of El Comandante

We are feeling many things as we awaken to a world without Fidel Castro. There is an overwhelming sense of loss, complicated by fear and anxiety. Although no leader is without their flaws, we must push back against the rhetoric of the right and come to the defense of El Comandante. And there are lessons that we must revisit and heed as we pick up the mantle in changing our world, as we aspire to build a world rooted in a vision of freedom and the peace that only comes with justice. It is the lessons that we take from Fidel.

From Fidel, we know that revolution is sparked by an idea, by radical imaginings, which sometimes take root first among just a few dozen people coming together in the mountains. It can be a tattered group of meager resources, like in Sierra Maestro in 1956 or St. Elmo Village in 2013.

Revolution is continuous and is won first in the hearts and minds of the people and is continually shaped and reshaped by the collective. No single revolutionary ever wins or even begins the revolution. The revolution begins only when the whole is fully bought in and committed to it. And it is never over.

Revolution transcends borders; the freedom of oppressed people and people of color is all bound up together wherever we are. In Cuba, South Africa, Palestine, Angola, Tanzania, Mozambique, Grenada, Venezuela, Haiti, African America, and North Dakota. We must not only root for each other but invest in each other’s struggles, lending our voices, bodies, and resources to liberation efforts which may seem distant from the immediacy of our daily existence.

Revolution is rooted in the recognition that there are certain fundamentals to which every being has a right, just by virtue of one’s birth: healthy food, clean water, decent housing, safe communities, quality healthcare, mental health services, free and quality education, community spaces, art, democratic engagement, regular vacations, sports, and places for spiritual expression are not questions of resources, but questions of political will and they are requirements of any humane society.

Revolution requires that the determination to create and preserve these things for our people takes precedent over individual drives for power, recognition, and enrichment.

A final lesson is that to be a revolutionary, you must strive to live in integrity. As a Black network committed to transformation, we are particularly grateful to Fidel for holding Mama Assata Shakur, who continues to inspire us. We are thankful that he provided a home for Brother Michael Finney Ralph Goodwin, and Charles Hill, asylum to Brother Huey P. Newton, and sanctuary for so many other Black revolutionaries who were being persecuted by the American government during the Black Power era. We are indebted to Fidel for sending resources to Haiti following the 2010 earthquake and attempting to support Black people in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina when our government left us to die on rooftops and in floodwaters. We are thankful that he provided a space where the traditional spiritual work of African people could flourish, regardless of his belief system.

With Fidel’s passing there is one more lesson that stands paramount: when we are rooted in collective vision when we bind ourselves together around quests for infinite freedom of the body and the soul, we will be victorious. As Fidel ascends to the realm of the ancestors, we summon his guidance, strength, and power as we recommit ourselves to the struggle for universal freedom. Fidel Vive!

a reply to: Grambler

Well, perhaps it's out-of-context because out of the entire article, that's the only mention of Black revolutionaries?

For example ... the paragraph before your quote:

Revolution requires that the determination to create and preserve these things for our people takes precedent over individual drives for power, recognition, and enrichment.

and the REMAINDER OF THE PARAGRAPH YOU CHOOSE TO SNIP ...

We are indebted to Fidel for sending resources to Haiti following the 2010 earthquake and attempting to support Black people in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina when our government left us to die on rooftops and in floodwaters. We are thankful that he provided a space where the traditional spiritual work of African people could flourish, regardless of his belief system.

The article is addressing the spirit of revolution and community involvement ... not merely praising "Black revolutionaries."

ETA: The link is wierd ... I can't get it to work either

a reply to: Gryphon66

Yeah I wasn't trying to mislead. It was copying very weird for me.

Sure they say good things in their, but they praise castro all throughout, they praise cop killer Shakur, they praise black nationalist Huey Newton.

The white nationalist do this too. They sound warm and fuzzy, and then praise horrible people.

You don't get to say "We like david duke because he gave money to a homeless shelter" and then have the start of your eulogy to him saying we need to fight the left wing smears of him.

I am sure anyone that reads the whole things can clearly see they are praising this murdering thug as a revlutionary, along with Shakur and Newton.

a reply to: Grambler

I'm putting out fires at work today so I'll address what I can as I can. Your link is getting mangled by the link renderer. It's choking on the @. I pasted it back together and shortened it so that it could be embedded:

link

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: Gryphon66

Yeah I wasn't trying to mislead. It was copying very weird for me.

Sure they say good things in their, but they praise castro all throughout, they praise cop killer Shakur, they praise black nationalist Huey Newton.

The white nationalist do this too. They sound warm and fuzzy, and then praise horrible people.

You don't get to say "We like david duke because he gave money to a homeless shelter" and then have the start of your eulogy to him saying we need to fight the left wing smears of him.

I am sure anyone that reads the whole things can clearly see they are praising this murdering thug as a revolutionary, along with Shakur and Newton.

The article is about Fidel Castro. You may be surprised to find that folks who think of themselves as revolutionaries hold Castro as a hero.

Yes, Shakur and Long are praised ... once in the paragraph you initially cited that prompted my questions.

The "murdering thug" you're speaking of is Fidel Castro? Heh. Don't throw that rock too far.

a reply to: Grambler

But what gets me is how you say people like Mcinnes and Cernovich are scrubbing their connections to these people and this implies they are somehow terrible people.

Whether or not they're terrible people is a subjective decision that everyone has to make. In my opinion, they are in fact deserving of disdain. Here's why I believe that:

Up until this schism developed, they were both more than happy to promote the "alt-right." Here's a deleted tweet from Cernovich as an example:



That wasn't a one off. It's not like he didn't know exactly what the "alt-right" was when he said it. He's even talking "white genocide." The video that McInnes removed was him and Kessler (a then Proud Boy) on McInnes's radio show. It's not like he didn't know who Kessler was. Kessler was a part of his organization. He wasn't just a neutral person giving Kessler a platform. He's uploading videos entitled, "10 Things I hate about Jews" and then after getting high fives from Spencer and the media calling him out for it, he deletes the videos. So I can't refute his claim that he was taking out of context because... he removed the context.

Then both of them fall back on accusing the media of smearing them. Now they're denying what they advocated time and time again and trying to clean up their feeds so they can lie about it.

In summary:

They happily introduced people to the "alt-right" when it was building their brands. They eagerly promoted it. Then when it began to impact them negatively, they tried to distance themselves and "bleachbit" the evidence (as one of their apologist might say of somebody else destroying evidence) and falsely claim that, no no, it's all a smear by the "fake news" or "globalists" or whatever crap they're pushing. Or actually worse, "it's Soros!" "Soros and the globalists!" No, it's not Soros and the "globalists" at all. Kessler for instance wasn't a plant. McInnes was fine with Kessler until the heat got to be too much.

It's a lie. They're liars and I think that they're both corroborators and facilitators and what makes it worse is how they now try to wriggle out of it and point fingers.

Even now, people in their network (like Irma, who is a friend of Cernovich's) are STILL up to the same shenanigans. They invite neo-Nazi thugs to their events to beat people up and then go on Twitter and claim to the public that they're being unfairly maligned. Then when you try to tell Trump supporters, "hey look, these people are bringing neo-Nazis into the fold" — you get accused of trying to smear Trump supporters.

I'm not trying to smear anyone. I'm literally trying to show how a cadre of agitators are making Trump supporters look bad (not to mention fomenting violence). And the more I look at it, I wonder if they're not bringing in neo-Nazis strictly to get a reaction out of Antifa so that they can then point to the Antifa while denying their own involvement.

a reply to: Grambler

I can post example after example of BLM people saying vile racits things, yet I don't see BLM leadership ever calling out these people and denouncing them like I have seen Micinnes do.

I don't care if Cernovich and McInnes call out everyone who says racist things now. This isn't about other people. This is about what they themselves have advocated and are now trying to pretend that they had no involvement in.

Your whole argument is that unless I'm critical of Patrisse Cullors, Opal Tometi, and Alicia Garza for not denouncing every person who has ever claimed affiliation on any level and said something racist, then I can't be critical of Cernovich and McInnes for what they've themselves done.

Not only is that a false equivalence, if that's the case then it can easily be flipped back on you. That is to say, you're horribly critical of BLM but you're not at all critical of McInnes and Cernovich. Setting aside the issue of false equivalency, the best you can hope for is to convince me that we're both being hypocrites.

Lets not forget, one of the most inspiring people to the creation of BLM was Assata Shakur, convicted cop killer.

Show me the links showing BLM people condemning or separating themselves from her.

I don't know the personal opinions of the leadership of BLM (the national org or chapters) but I do know that there are people who feel that she was setup. Again, it seems that you're going with a false equivalence here. A common belief is that Shakur was setup, the trial was a farce and that she's not in fact, a vicious cop killer. Do I agree with that? I honestly haven't researched her case enough to have a firm opinion. But there's nuance there that I think you might be glossing over.

Are they lionizing Assata Shakur as a cop killer or standing up for her as a wrongly convicted revolutionary?

How about Fidel Castor who they spoke glowingly of.

Here is their official statement praising castro, shakur, and the black power movement and black nationlist huey newton.

Is that an official statement? I have no idea. I do know that on the official website of the national org setup by the three founders, they don't promote black nationalism (how would that even work in a country where they are like 19% of the population?), black separatism (more realistic) or black supremacy. They advocate for what they refer to as "black liberation" which isn't any of those things AFAIK.

website

This is the Official #BlackLivesMatter Organization founded by Patrisse Cullors, Opal Tometi, and Alicia Garza. #BlackLivesMatter is an online forum intended to build connections between Black people and our allies to fight anti-Black racism, to spark dialogue among Black people, and to facilitate the types of connections necessary to encourage social action and engagement.

Here's their principles page.

I don't see anything about black nationalism/separatism/supremacy let alone hating white people or advocating for the killing of law enforcement.

You can point to example after example of BLM connected (presumed or otherwise) saying things because there are millions of people involved and it's a favorite thing for right-wing media to report — even if the claims are dubious. Can you point to BLM leadership advocating for black nationalism, black separatism or black supremacy or killing white people or killing cops?

100% of people in the Alt-Right are at the very least, white nationalists. 100%.

a reply to: Grambler

The white nationalist do this too. They sound warm and fuzzy, and then praise horrible people.

That's a fair criticism if it's applicable. I will point out that from what I know of Huey P Newton, he wasn't a black nationalist per se. That is, he wasn't trying to establish a black "ethno-nation" in the US.

an interview

LOUIS MASSIAH: OK, again, the notion of community control in Black communities and also fighting for public access to public accommodations, how is that part of the Panther philosophy and how--?

HUEY NEWTON: Ah, at the time there were many Black nationalist groups that were influenced by the, ah, African liberation movement. And, ah, we differed from the Black American National Movement, Nationalist Movement in that, ah, we thought that we wanted, ah, it wasn't a, it wasn't a, ah, our goal for segregation or integration really. We wanted, ah, control of the institutions in our community where we were most numerous. And at the same time that we, ah, thought that we would, we would, we would do public, ah, to access to public institutions on an equal basis. And we thought everyone should, ah, participate, be able to equally participate in public institution. Ah, I think that as I remember back, ah, I was influenced by the situation and the condition in China, ah, in the People's Republic of China where there was, ah, there were many, many minority groups. I think the Huns are the majority group. Ah, ah, all of the, in the areas, ah, of the minority, ah, ah, ethnic groups, ah, the Chinese, this, this ethnic minority controlled its community. Get that full access to the public facilities. So I thought that if it could there, it could work here.

I don't how you could really describe that? I honestly don't know gobs about Huey P Newton and the Black Panthers beyond the basics. I'm not looking to defend them. At any rate, it seems to me that you're avoiding addressing the topic head on here by trying to make me address arguments that have no real bearing on the topic.

If the BLM leadership is also guilty of something, that's doesn't mean that Cernovich and McInnes are not guilty of what they have done. That would be like using for a defense in a murder trial that, "well I might be guilty of murdering one person but that guy is guilty of killing two people therefore you shouldn't convict me until he's convicted!"

(assuming that all of your arguments are true)

I'm open to having an honest debate about BLM. I'd just prefer to not to go down that rabbit hole while I'm still digging this one out.

a reply to: Deny Arrogance

How can your handle be deny ignorance, and post something so ignorant? What a joke!

a reply to: theantediluvian

Its fair that BLM and their stance does nothing about McInnes and cernovich.

Cernovich I don't know much about.

McInnes I like and think is funny.

Here is a video of him describing how the Proud Boys are not racist.

He goes on about how the media constantly labels them white supremacy when they are not.

He shows members that are minorities. He says they are just western chauvinists.



He is married to an indian woman. (doesn't prove anything, but it would be strange).

Here is him describing how he is different than the alt right.



This kind of gets into Gavins mindset.

He says he likes spencer and jarod taylor, he anjoys arguing with them, but finds there stance on being white nationalist to be wrong.

He mentions how he hates blaming jews for things which the alt right does.

I don't think he is racist. I think he shares a lot of the views that the alt right do, but doesn't buy the race portion. I buy that.

He says he is totally on a different side than alt right.

He specifically says liking black that are western chauvinist and applaud them.

He mentions baked alaska but says he hasn't heard him say anything alt right (diagree after charlotteville)

Mentions cernovich as alt lite.

Calls out the nazis at the end.

I don't know, I just don't see him as a racist.

I don't mind him having alt right people on his show. Rogan has had Gavin and others on his show; do I think that makes rogan a bad guy, no.

Now with BLM, I have said that I think there are good people associated with it.

My contention is that it was created based on a lie, and there are many violent people in it.

What I posted was the official BLM response to castro being killed. They celebrate cop killers and black panthers. They celebrate Castro who had execution squads.

Does that mean Deeray believes that, probably not. I feel deeray is probably a very smart good non violent guy that I believe is misguided.

And much could be said for many of the other leaders and members.

But there official platform includes vile things.

Gotta run will post more later.

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: Deny Arrogance

Robert Byrd was certainly in the Klan. He was never a Grand Wizard though. Do you have any proof that when Robert Byrd quit and disavowed the Klan half a century ago, he wasn't sincere?

You don't believe that people can change?


Lmao.

People could ask the very same thing about David Duke.
But they won't.