It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Counter-protesters and their Unmitigated Fantasies

page: 2
37
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 22 2017 @ 03:14 PM
link   
And this above, is what i've been confused about with our whole political climate currently.

People use fear, violence and intimidation to denounce other's fear, violence and intimidation.... because fear, violence and intimidation are wrong....




posted on Aug, 22 2017 @ 03:20 PM
link   
Great thread and very well said.

Some people need a smack of reality.



posted on Aug, 22 2017 @ 03:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: Arnie123
Great thread and very well said.

Some people need a smack of reality.


couldn't agree more.



posted on Aug, 22 2017 @ 03:36 PM
link   
a reply to: RomeByFire

Many lives perished to rid Europe of the Nazis, not just Americans, how dare you so easily cast that aside. Even though Les may not be an American, that doesn't take away from that. Have you no shame?

Enlightened people see past the BS you so lovingly cling to, in that even though they are "neo-nazis" and "white supremist", they are still beholden to those rights.

I get it, you hate the nazis so much, they DESERVE NO RIGHTS AND I AGREE!!! however, thats not how our country works and I would be a damned hypocrite to think otherwise.

You seep of hate and its actually pretty sad, I feel sorry for my fellow American. Look past the BS and recognize, self reflection will help you. In other words, grow up.

Stop being afraid of old and dead ideologies that literally have zero meaning and impact to your life. With a Trump presidency, it suddenly matters, with an Obummer Presidency, WHERE WAS YOUR OUTRAGE THEN?

Show me your ATS links on these issues before a Trump presidency.



posted on Aug, 22 2017 @ 03:59 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

You're a beast Les. Great work as always


I wish I could write like you.



posted on Aug, 22 2017 @ 04:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: RomeByFire
Even when it comes to Neo-Nazi's using cars to murder an innocent and injure nineteen more?

I don't believe this kid was a Nazi. I think he just hated the counter-protestors for showing up without a permit.

Remember your mom and dad, and how they tried to teach you not to be in the street with moving cars? Where was that lesson on that day?



posted on Aug, 22 2017 @ 04:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: neo96

Scant difference between FDR & Hitler?

Really?



Yeah really.

The only difference between the two is FDR didn't have gas chambers.



what a ridiculous thing to say....that's like saying the only difference between today's white southerners and white southerners of1800 were the lynchings of black people



posted on Aug, 22 2017 @ 05:00 PM
link   
a reply to: jimmyx

Yo who is it trying to lynch nazis right now?

WHO ?

There is no GD difference.



posted on Aug, 22 2017 @ 08:22 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

I have three principal issues with this well written post. The first is this notion that the whole of Western civilization has been inoculated against ideologies like fascism by Nazi Germany.


Q: Do you yourself think it's acceptable or unacceptable to hold neo-Nazi or white supremacist views? Do you feel that way strongly, or somewhat?


The language of the question is a bit ambiguous but this recent survey of 1,000+ adult Americans found that 9% found neo-Nazi and white supremacist views acceptable.

Among those identifying as independents, the number was slightly higher at 10% and among those identifying as Democrats, the number was substantially lower at 5%. Those who identified themselves as Republican were highest at 13%.

Acceptable, I suppose, could be taken to mean that anyone is entitled to believe what they want as long as they're not hurting anyone else. However, I suspect if the question was asking people if they thought pedophilic ideation was acceptable, the numbers would be substantially lower.

Now this is only one question as a part of a single survey. It was however a telephone survey with a live survey taker so I can't help but wonder what the results would have been had it been automated or online. What does that tell us? How many currently harbor some sort of affinity for race-based ideologies in the vein of Nazism? How many are susceptible to "radicalization?" Something to ponder.

We're not impervious to fascism and the like, nor are we far removed from a sort of racist authoritarianism of our own. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was signed into law 53 years ago. White Southerners popularly supported the continued oppression of non-whites. Out of 116 members of Congress from 11 southern states who voted, 108 voted against it and only 8 for it.

Did Nazi Germany teach Americans that racial/ethnic/etc subjugation and oppression was so abhorrent that we immediately set about eradicating it?

In more recent years, we lived through an epic struggle to deny equal rights to homosexuals. Once more the conservatives — this time throughout the country — did whatever they could to prevent non-heterosexuals from enjoying the same civil liberties as they did. The last major hurdle was same sex marriage. It was on in 2015 that the SCOTUS ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges dashed the hopes of conservatives intent on denying a minority group fundamental civil liberties.

They weren't happy about it if you'll recall. And just a couple weeks ago, I saw a thread from a "conservative" on ATS lamenting that homosexuals had been "allowed" to marry. It wasn't unpopular by any stretch.

This thing, that some would refer to as authoritarianism, isn't an aberration. It's a base desire that must be beaten back where it occurs, hopefully with convincing arguments and appeals to reason and empathy.

Some might say that even as you make light of today's youth and their "first world problems," your own worldview is the product of majority privilege. That it's you who has the luxury to self-righteously dismiss the plights of others.

When is the appropriate time for sound the alarm? You seem abundantly concerned with "roving bands" of illiberal counter-protesters but you brush off concern for the destructive potential of other groups in other movements.

Which brings me to my second issue. One I'll address in a separate post.



posted on Aug, 22 2017 @ 08:23 PM
link   
a reply to: seeker1963

You should threaten to beat him up. I heard that's a thing you're doing now.



posted on Aug, 22 2017 @ 08:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Arnie123

Hahahahahahah Obama has nothing to do with this thread nor the topic



posted on Aug, 22 2017 @ 08:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: dothedew
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Do you want stars and flags?

Because this is how you get stars and flags.



Your post was correct up to this point.



posted on Aug, 22 2017 @ 09:20 PM
link   
Nazism didn't start at Normandy Beach. It started on street corners preaching hate against and harassing Jews. German society much like ours said, as is correct, we must let them speak. And we must. No one took them seriously, no one took Hitler seriously, at first.

Therefor we must be willing to counter speak. Speak not punch. We must take them seriously. We must be willing to call these speakers what they are. Vile, hate filled, racist scum whose rhetoric will increase as, by our own standards we are forced to let in them in to more and more spaces, from whimpering about the oppression of white men to ridding our society of all inferior races and religions. We've seen it before, we know it. We're not being melodramatic.

Trump coddled these wretched excuses of human beings, stoked them for their votes and continues to court them even as one committed an act of terror which he refuses to acknowledge as such.

Trump supporters do not all fit in the same category, in fact are so far a small percentage, as these self named Alt-Right who encompass the White Supremacist, White Nationalist and Anti-Semite. But many Trump supporters simply look away and pretend they don't exist or that they aren't a threat to America. That's unfortunate, because it's you... the supporters that voted for Trumps agenda because it's what you believe the right course for this country that could be the strongest resistance to the hate trying to push it's poison into the vein of American Conservatism.
edit on 8/22/2017 by Kali74 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 22 2017 @ 09:28 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

My second issue with your OP is that while you show this concern over "roving bands" of illiberal youth — a not entirely unfounded concern, I'll admit — like most conservatives you not completely fail to address "roving bands" of fascist youths (and adults), you're clearly dismissive of the mere idea of their existence.

And your wrong. Horribly, horribly wrong.

Let me ask you. How much time have you spent investigating the subject that you're so certain of your opinions? What informs them? Accounts of Antifa? We've certainly heard about Antifa. Antifa has become a household word. Antifa! Antifa! Antifa! Little old conservative ladies watching Fox News don't know a lot but they doubtlessly know about those "roving bands" of miscreants! Those little anarchist and commie bastards. If they watch Hannity, they might even be yammering around the hair salon about George-effing-Soros and the "globalist" Antifa.

Which is perhaps the most ironic thing about it all. While conservatives have cheered on our imperialistic ventures, our parasitical exploitation and our disaster capitalist destruction for decades — around the globe — it wasn't Alex Jones and MAGA hat wearing Breitbart fanboys blathering about "globalists" who were out there in the streets for G8/G20/WTO/IMF summits.

Because the "globalism" they're most concerned with is immigration. It wasn't fiscal concerns that passed BREXIT, it was concerns over refugees from Muslim countries.

To that subset of Trump supporters, what Donald Trump stands for is their membership in a burgeoning far-right nationalist movement in Western countries. In fact, many of these groups, particular those who consider themselves "Identitarian" draw heavily on the Nationalist Front in France. The West is lousy with far-right nationalists and their Camp of the Saints rhetoric: La Pen, Petry, Wilder, Salvini, Vilimsky, etc.

But I digress, that goes somewhat to my first response. Back on topic, what you've been missing is the roving bands of neo-Nazis, neo-fascists, white supremacists, etc who are not at all imaginary and who are in fact, out in the streets fighting with Antifa counter-protesters as they have been doing for years now.

See my posts here and here and my thread here.

I'm working on more research as time permits. I've started on Trad Workers and Identity Evropa which are two fairly large groups (Identity Evropa is a real up and comer on college campuses). Then there's NSM which you can see in many of the videos in the first linked post. They have chapters in over 30 states and a recently estimated membership of as much as 2,500. Vanguard America, an offshoot of NSM is what the Charlottesville terrorist appears to have been affiliated with. That's without even getting into what most people think of when they think "skinhead."

Then there's the emerging "Alt-Lite" which is best represented by Gavin McInne's "Proud Boys" of which, Jason Kessler, organizer of UTR, had been a member. They're ostensibly inclusive of (mostly) young males of different races though there is some overlap in the membership with white nationalists groups.

They have an actual street fighting division, promoted and supported by a massive online base of meme warriors.

Here you can see their super liberal leader, co-founder of VICE and alt-media celebrity, Gavin McInnes, in his own "roving band," assault an Antifa protester just for holding a sign:



Or perhaps you'd like to type "Based Stickman" into any search box. Try it on Google Images or YouTube. You'll find tens of thousands of hits on YouTube from adoring fans of this ex-con with convictions for robbery, who is currently facing charges for bringing a leaded stick to protests to beat people over the head with. For all McInne's talk about how the Proud Boys aren't racists (just bullies beating down "commies" because "we're not apologizing for creating the modern world" — f# yeah!), I can show you at least 5 events where Proud Boys were brawling alongside white nationalists and neo-Nazis this year.

And if you're not buying what I'm saying, take it from an Oath Keeper:


To some extent, the violence instigated by the Antifa organizations around the nation are a direct reaction to the racism promoted by the organizations discussed above. By co-opting the term “alt-right” and working diligently to associate their racist agenda with that of both Steve Bannon (former Brietbart) and President Donald Trump, they have created an environment where the left has been provided with a platform to oppose the nationalist policies of the current administration. Regardless of how many times President Trump condemns NPI, Identity Evropa and Vanguard America, these organizations continue to promote the lie that they and their “alt-right” movement are a principle reason he was elected. The Antifa has been able to grow exponentially over the past year supported by the rise of the “White Nationalists” and recruiting campaigns like #ProjectSiege sponsored by Identity Evropa.

The “Antifa” we face at the rallies and marches across America have no lineage or true association to the German Anti-Fascist Action group whose name they have adopted. They are agitators sponsored by colleges, universities and other leftist organizations that are both disappointed by the outcome of the recent election and alarmed at the rise of fascists like Nathan Damigo and “White Nationalists” like Richard Spence


He's out on the streets of America, at these events, witnessing it first hand. You're who knows where (not in the US right?) looking through the filter of wherever your getting your information. Hopefully it's not from the right-wing crowd on ATS because... YIKES. He's wrong about a few things in his post. The MSM hasn't done s# to expose these groups. Antifa is mentioned thousands of times a day. Vanguard America, how many? NSM? How many? Identity Evropa? How many times a day? And he's also wrong about them co-opting Bannon. It was the Bannonites who welcomed them into the fold in the first place.

That's it for me. My third issue can wait for some other time, I'm done ranting for the evening.
edit on 2017-8-22 by theantediluvian because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 22 2017 @ 10:13 PM
link   
a reply to: RomeByFire

😶...your hopeless.



posted on Aug, 22 2017 @ 11:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: RomeByFire


And whose to say they're actual Nazi's? I'm regularly told that waving Nazi flags, saying "the Jews will not replace us," and giving the Nazi salute does not make one a Nazi but instead is indicative of me being brainwashed to see anyone/everyone I don't agree with as a Nazi

So let's have some logical consistency here


Who is exactly saying that to you, Rome? Who has said those things are normal even? Please name names as you are leveling a huge accusation at people and they deserve to know.

If you aren't willing to name names with outright Nazis or Nazi apologists, then you need to walk back those arguements. You can't level blanket accusations like that.



posted on Aug, 23 2017 @ 02:37 AM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian


The language of the question is a bit ambiguous but this recent survey of 1,000+ adult Americans found that 9% found neo-Nazi and white supremacist views acceptable.


I’m not one for polling nor do I know much about that junk science—and I’m bad at math—but reading the question and numbers you linked to shows that it is 3 who strongly agree and 5 who somewhat agree that it is acceptable to hold white supremacist views. Why is that the only question where the Net result is not the sum of the other two numbers? Sincere question.

This is the same type of media that claims to have given Tump billions of dollars in free advertising, thus helping his campaign. I wonder how many billions of dollars of free advertising they have been given to the alt-right and neo-nazis. I wonder how much this free advertising, most of it negative, has given justification to illiberal activists and fascists alike.

Imagine if the media reported on this statement of Trump’s which he made in the exact same speech where he said “many sides”, which you surely know about by now given its incessant repeat.

“Above all else, we must remember this truth, no matter our color, creed, religion or political party, we are all Americans first. We love our country. We love our God. We love our flag. We're proud of our country. We're proud of who we are.”

Would people be rioting n the streets of Phoenix, throwing rocks and piss and # at police and rally-goers, had there been any reporting on these words? Would there be tens of thousands of illiberal counter-protesters, compelled by a lying media, descending on a couple dozen moderates at a free speech rally in Boston? Would the mayor and police have worked with mobs of people to effectively silence this small group? The sad part about the “many sides” argument is that it is exactly right, proven nearly every day, and you parrots still took it upon yourself to imagine apologism for white supremacy and other conspiracies, of which there is zero evidence, even in the face of this truth. And what shame to use these lies an excuse to spread bigotry and strip people of their rights, just like your enemies? History will not be kind.

The reactionary elements on the right have risen to oppose the reactionary elements on the left, not the other way around, as proven by the timeline of events. Both the police and those who profess to give a # about human rights refused to step in on their accord. No wonder self-proclaimed patriots and oathkeepers with shields and sticks started showing up.

Those stupid Berkley riots, aimed at disrupting a bloody speech, occurred before any subsequent rally or march where “stickman” and his ilk showed up; and any violence that did occur might not have occurred had large groups of counter-protesting illiberals not descended upon rally-goers in a free country to intimidate and coerce them into violence. All of this was after the riots at the inauguration of a democratically elected president. Your “alt-light” decided to have a cheeky inaugural ball (of course it was protested and its attendees assaulted) and antifascist groups conspired to release a noxious substance in the sprinkler system. 3 were arrested and plead guilty for conspiracy. I wonder why they feel they need to group together and get ready to fight. Not to mention the violence and intimidation of Trump supporters, rally-goers and the president himself, that have been occurring from about the time the media started its epic smear campaign, as it was dictated and disseminated via collusion, cheating, and outright subversion of the democratic process by the opposition party. Yes, now communists are literally tearing down your statues. Hell as I write this riots are occurring because the president dared to have a rally in Phoenix. And I'm the dismissive one?

The illiberal left and you parrots have given the neo-nazis, the KKK, the communists, the Russians, and even ISIS—none of whom care for your country or your constitution—exactly what they want: it’s destruction.



posted on Aug, 23 2017 @ 03:16 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope


I’m not one for polling nor do I know much about that junk science—and I’m bad at math—but reading the question and numbers you linked to shows that it is 3 who strongly agree and 5 who somewhat agree that it is acceptable to hold white supremacist views. Why is that the only question where the Net result is not the sum of the other two numbers? Sincere question.


Percentages appear to be rounded to nearest integer value. I don't see raw totals anywhere but something like 3.3+5.4=8.7 would be 3%, 5% and 9% respectively.

I wouldn't call polling a "junk science" — more an imperfect tool for which no perfect tool exists.


This is the same type of media that claims to have given Tump billions of dollars in free advertising, thus helping his campaign. I wonder how many billions of dollars of free advertising they have been given to the alt-right and neo-nazis. I wonder how much this free advertising, most of it negative, has given justification to illiberal activists and fascists alike.

Imagine if the media reported on this statement of Trump’s which he made in the exact same speech where he said “many sides”, which you surely know about by now given its incessant repeat.

“Above all else, we must remember this truth, no matter our color, creed, religion or political party, we are all Americans first. We love our country. We love our God. We love our flag. We're proud of our country. We're proud of who we are.”


Those are both fair points and worthy of in depth discussion. All media inherently presents a wildly skewed view of the world and it only gets worse with scale. And that's before editorial bias. Even the most independent, least agenda driven media is inherently flawed and as I think we can all agree, most media outlets reinforce the worldview of their target audience. That's just good business, even without editors seeking to influence public opinion (which arguably, most are). People seek confirmation.

What is the role of the media? To simply inform? Then we should all ignore all commentary and only focus on a transcript or video of any speech. Does the media have a legitimate role in guiding public discourse? I would argue that for better or worse, that's what the media has always done, since the invention of the printing press. But these are heady debates that are beyond the scope of this particular discussion.

To your specific point about which parts of the speech are emphasized, I think it's a bit of a red herring on your part. Context is important and I don't mean simply the lines within the context of the speech (which is important) but the context in which the speech is delivered.

First off, Trump is President of the entire United States. Yes, he's only human but his ego should be secondary to his office.

Secondly, you've got President Trump's history of responding to political violence and more generally, his commentary on those who have participate in rallies/marches/protests for/against him. Prior to Charlottesville:

- Had Trump signaled that violence by rally-goers is okay to deal with interruptions? Yes.

- Did Trump questione on multiple occasions whether or not those who protest against him are "being paid?" Yes.

- Had Trump called out violence from left-wing protesters? Yes.

- Had Trump ever acknowledged violence from his supporters? No.

So his history is basically, everyone who supports him is glorious and beautiful and those who protest him are being paid by somebody to do it and are violent. So the question becomes, were his responses correct as POTUS? We can further break that down into a more questions:

1. Should any president openly and frequently promote one group who supports him while regularly criticizing the other? And to what degree? (he's only human after and he is a politician)

2. Did his commentary reflect reality? Was there any proof that there were a significant number of those protesting against him who were doing so because they were paid for it. Were his criticisms proportionate? Did he comment about one side exclusively while refraining from criticism of the others where it was due?

Thirdly (and the sequence doesn't imply anything about importance), there's the history of recent events running up to Charlottesville and what transpired in Charlottesville that weekend.

1. How does Charlottesville relate to other political rallies/marches/protests if at all?
a. Are the same groups present and in the same numbers as previous events which have had violence?
b. What's been the recent frequency of events where violence broke out?
c. Where "both sides" equal participants in those events?

2. What were the intentions of the rally-goers? What were the intentions of the protesters?

3. Did both sides equally incite violence?

4. Did both sides equally participate in violence?

5. Was the violence proportional?

And that's off the top of my head. You can further drill down. But I think that when you look at the totality of the picture, what emerges is that for months, President Trump didn't talk about "both sides" ever. He was critical, sometimes quite unfairly of those who didn't support him and heaped nothing but praise on those who did while ignoring their violence.

Then all of a sudden, its an issue of "both sides" when a group of hundreds of white nationalists/neo-Nazis/KKK/etc descend on a college town — many if not most of whom had traveled from not just other states, but other parts of the country — beat up a bunch of locals on the first night (Friday), after marching through town with torches, and then on the following day, amid clashes incited by both (and I can show video of the UTR groups striking first at least half the time), on of their numbers plowed into a group of protesters, killing one and seriously injuring many.

With all that context, was the "violence on both sides" bit an appropriate response? I don't think so. I think if he was simply making a statement about political violence being a problem of "both sides," then he should have made it at any time before or perhaps in a follow up speech. Furthermore, the violence by both sides was clearly not the same. Friday night, the UTR crowd mobbed and beat up a group of locals that was about a tenth their size. The next day, this group of thugs clashed with a mixture of locals and some out of town activists, and yes, there were a smattering of Antifa. This culminated in a horrific act of violence that far exceeded anything to date at any event where there has been conflicts.

So that was false equivalence in ascribing the violence equally to "both sides." He also said that there were "very fine people on both sides." I suppose that is *technically* possible but it's entirely misleading as it implies that "both sides" were somehow equally composed of "very fine people."

If I have two groups and one is composed of 95% peaceful protesters and 5% agitators and another that is 5% peaceful not-neo-Nazis and 95% white nationalists, etc, a large percentage who demonstrated the night before that they were there to be violent, while it could be accurate that there are *some* "very fine people" on "both sides," isn't it a misleading statement that implies that "both sides" are somehow equivalent?

I don't think it would make sense to ignore those portions of his remarks because other parts were conciliatory.



posted on Aug, 23 2017 @ 03:24 PM
link   
a reply to: amazing

What exactly is achieved by counter-protesting?

It's just a giant form of virtue signaling, a way of shouting, "See how not like those people I am! Look how mighty and virtuous I am!"



posted on Aug, 23 2017 @ 04:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: amazing

What exactly is achieved by counter-protesting?

It's just a giant form of virtue signaling, a way of shouting, "See how not like those people I am! Look how mighty and virtuous I am!"


I'm really not even sure what "Virtue Signalling" means. That wasn't a term I heard in my entire 50 years of living in this planet and attending 3 colleges and reading at least a 1,000 books. It's a made up term within the last year.

But back on point. If the KKK holds a rally. one of the most accepted definitions of a counter rally or counter protest, are those that oppose something turn up to show that there is opposition.

I would think that rallying against the KKK would be a good thing. We don't want to oppose interacial relationships or promote the hanging of black people. It would also appear that standing against Nazis is a good thing. We don't want to exterminate the Jews in America and dispose of them in ovens do we? We want to make it clear that a large number of Americans aren't okay with that and one way you do that is protesting or rallying against those hate groups.

LIke I said it's just one way. Another is to vote for candidates with those views, write letters, internet forums, public forums, letters to the editor of news papers and online news sites, calls to elected officials, etc etc.

Don't forget that MLK and Ghandi got most of their work with public rallys and counter rallys and public marches and meetings. It can have a huge effect.

I would also like to say that yelling "I'm so not like that genocidal nazi and minority hating, murdering terrorst kkk guy" Nothing wrong with that is there?
edit on 23-8-2017 by amazing because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
37
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join