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: 3
37
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 23 2017 @ 04:09 PM
link   
But I really want to punch a Nazi!!
The rush of self-righteousness can be very intoxicating indeed.
It is the psychological fuel of all popular movements.
Most of us want to feel we are making a difference in the world.
Such political grandstanding is one way to get that rush without actually doing anything.
It's the political equivalent of soccer hooligans.




posted on Aug, 23 2017 @ 04:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: Asktheanimals
But I really want to punch a Nazi!!
The rush of self-righteousness can be very intoxicating indeed.
It is the psychological fuel of all popular movements.
Most of us want to feel we are making a difference in the world.
Such political grandstanding is one way to get that rush without actually doing anything.
It's the political equivalent of soccer hooligans.


But MLK wasn't a soccer hooligan. Look what he accomplished. Same with Ghandi and leck walesha (spelling) and on and on and on.



posted on Aug, 23 2017 @ 04:26 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko




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 think the larger issue is that it's not so much an attempt to be heard, but to deny others a chance to be heard. To the extant that it is the latter, it's a problem and not within the spirit of the notion of free speech.



posted on Aug, 23 2017 @ 04:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: imwilliam
a reply to: ketsuko




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 think the larger issue is that it's not so much an attempt to be heard, but to deny others a chance to be heard. To the extant that it is the latter, it's a problem and not within the spirit of the notion of free speech.





However with Nazis, as we saw in Germany after WW1. When left unchecked they start gaining power and well....the rest is history.



posted on Aug, 23 2017 @ 04:30 PM
link   
a reply to: amazing



However with Nazis, as we saw in Germany after WW1. When left unchecked they start gaining power and well....the rest is history.


But there were attempts to "check" them. The communists fought them in the streets. It didn't stop their rise to power.



posted on Aug, 23 2017 @ 04:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: imwilliam
a reply to: amazing



However with Nazis, as we saw in Germany after WW1. When left unchecked they start gaining power and well....the rest is history.


But there were attempts to "check" them. The communists fought them in the streets. It didn't stop their rise to power.



But that's different than counter protests by all kinds of citizens.



posted on Aug, 23 2017 @ 04:45 PM
link   
a reply to: amazing


I don't know what your time is like, assuming you're busy like I am, here is a link to a short brief on what things were like during Hitler's rise to power.

The Ruthless Rise of the Nazis in Berlin

The Nazi party was opposed by more than just the Communists, it was even illegal at one point in time.

It's not the simple situation some would have others believe



posted on Aug, 23 2017 @ 05:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: imwilliam
a reply to: amazing


I don't know what your time is like, assuming you're busy like I am, here is a link to a short brief on what things were like during Hitler's rise to power.

The Ruthless Rise of the Nazis in Berlin

The Nazi party was opposed by more than just the Communists, it was even illegal at one point in time.

It's not the simple situation some would have others believe


I'm familiar with the gyst of it and I understand it was not as cut and dried ...but I think the point remains... Is it worthwhile to protest a known hate group like KKK, Nazis, White Supremacists, ISIS or not?



posted on Aug, 23 2017 @ 05:28 PM
link   
a reply to: amazing




. . . Is it worthwhile to protest a known hate group like KKK, Nazis, White Supremacists, ISIS or not?


I think there is a larger and more important issue at stake, and that issue has been pointed out many times, including here on ATS. It's an issue of free speech. And the right to free speech becomes more and more important as we the people of the US share less and less common ground, as the divide between us grows larger and larger.

So, to the extent that these counter protests are really about silencing, drowning out, or denying others their right to free speech, I think they do more damage than good and they should be condemned.

But is it worthwhile to protest groups like the KKK? Sure, to the extent that one is trying to make themselves heard, standing up to be counted, trying to persuade others to their camp, but not to the point or for the purpose of silencing/denying someone else right to the same.

Different days, different locations, things to that effect, that's what I think is the best of a number imperfect solutions.



posted on Aug, 23 2017 @ 06:22 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

LesMisanthrope, will you marry me?
Great post.



posted on Aug, 23 2017 @ 06:34 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope



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?



Quite probably. Remember the hysteria, when Trump first took office, about him saying "America first"? If the media had bothered to report this quote, we'd be hearing screeches that being proud of our country and proud of who we are makes us Nazis and racists.



posted on Aug, 23 2017 @ 07:02 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

I appreciate the lengthy reply, I really do.

The role of journalism in particular is to inform, and to do so by the standards and ethics of their own craft, which they admitted to throwing to the wind during the course of the election and beyond.

Again you’re focusing on two simple statements (“both sides”, “very fine people”) of a much longer presser, as they were dictated by you by a quote-mining media. Yes Trump isn’t the most eloquent man, but no one is paying any attention to his clarifications to his remarks, which came in the exact same presser!

Here’s an example:


And you had people — and I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists — because they should be condemned totally. But you had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists. Okay? And the press has treated them absolutely unfairly.

Now, in the other group also, you had some fine people. But you also had troublemakers, and you see them come with the black outfits and with the helmets, and with the baseball bats. You had a lot of bad people in the other group.


Here’s the follow up question(s):




Q: Who are the good people?

Q: Sir, I just didn’t understand what you were saying. You were saying the press has treated white nationalists unfairly? I just don’t understand what you were saying.



Is that what he said? Or was that the exact opposite of what he said? So much for context. Reporters just refuse to listen. It doesn’t matter anyways, because none of it is reported on. The journalist’s feelings and interpretation of what was said is presented first as fact, with quote-mined statements to support it, while suppressing all the rest. They have lied by omission, destroying a basic tenet of journalism (fairness) in order to effect the outcome of democratic elections for their ideological ends, like good little post-modernists.

Yes, I refuse to be informed by journalists unless they adhere to their own ethics, which is a simple way to discriminate between fake news and otherwise. Yes, I read the statements in full and in context, usually from the horses mouth, before I accept any quote-mined churnalism as an accurate depiction of what was said.

This is the sort of nonsense we’re dealing with here. It is true that in Charlottesville there was violence on both sides, both sides engaged in bigotry and violence. Only one side engaged in political terrorism and white supremacy, true. But what of the rest? Suddenly, after over a year of political violence against Trump supporters, the suppression and censorship of conservative and liberal voices and writers at the hands of violent activists, and a blatant propaganda campaign against the GOP frontrunner resulting in assassination threats and attempts. All of this with nary a whisper by the media and its parrots. Now they want to cry foul because right-wing extremists are involved.

Neo-Nazis and KKK have been marching and rallying in the US for decades with diminishing returns. It is obvious this isn’t about these groups at all, but about Trump’s words, and the relegation of his and other people’s thoughts and words to the status of crime, as dictated by your ideological handlers and their massive PR firms.

Sorry, but I do not trust anything of this new brand of journalism, nor the fact that you guys pad your own writing with it. They report more on words and tweets than actual states of affairs. You guys act like Donald Trump is supposed to be the paragon of truth and high-mindedness, as if the president was in charge of dispensing truth, but in reality you are so inured to the far superior lying of his predecessors, that you have withdrawal symptoms. You want to be lulled back to sleep by the robotic and pre-fabricated droll of PR firms and their marketing campaigns.



posted on Aug, 23 2017 @ 09:24 PM
link   
a reply to: amazing

"Virtue signaling" is a term that was made up only a couple years ago. It basically means expressing an opinion to signal to others how virtuous you are. I think its popularity among certain people stems from their lack of ability to empathize. They assume that everyone is just like them so when the express a different opinion, they naturally assume that the person is a disingenuous showoff.

The best part of "virtue signaling" for me is that using the term, which is jargon among right-wingers, is in itself a sort of virtue signaling. It's inherently hypocritical.



posted on Aug, 23 2017 @ 10:35 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

To your example the bolded part in your example:


And you had people — and I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists — because they should be condemned totally. But you had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists. Okay? And the press has treated them absolutely unfairly.


The follow up question is... not great. Though we have the benefit of reading the initial remark so perhaps the journalist simply didn't understand what the President was saying. Perhaps more likely, the journalist was making a point but whatever the case may be, the follow up questions I would have asked would have been along these lines:

"Sir, could you please be more specific? What percentage of the rally-goers were not part of these groups, what proof do you have of them being there and do you really feel that many non-white nationalist or neo-Nazis would willingly participate in a rally that is almost entirely made of white nationalists, neo-Nazis, etc?"

Because I think what the President did here was to largely make up a group of imaginary people so that he could assert that that these imaginary people significantly altered the composition of the rally attendees, one again, in a bid to imply an equivalence between the sides. That's false.


Yes, I refuse to be informed by journalists unless they adhere to their own ethics, which is a simple way to discriminate between fake news and otherwise. Yes, I read the statements in full and in context, usually from the horses mouth, before I accept any quote-mined churnalism as an accurate depiction of what was said.


As do I under most circumstances and as should everyone. If I had a dollar for every out-of-context quote I've ever read, I'd have more expensive hobbies than posting on ATS.


This is the sort of nonsense we’re dealing with here. It is true that in Charlottesville there was violence on both sides, both sides engaged in bigotry and violence. Only one side engaged in political terrorism and white supremacy, true. But what of the rest? Suddenly, after over a year of political violence against Trump supporters, the suppression and censorship of conservative and liberal voices and writers at the hands of violent activists, and a blatant propaganda campaign against the GOP frontrunner resulting in assassination threats and attempts. All of this with nary a whisper by the media and its parrots. Now they want to cry foul because right-wing extremists are involved.


Is that really an accurate account of the events of the preceding year? How much do you believe that your own view of events has been shaped by reporting and other exposure, such as forum discussions, that is wildly disproportionate to actual rates of incidence? How about a dearth of accurate accounting of the composition of the "pro-Trump side" and its violence in that time frame?

From my recollection, and I looked into this a couple of weeks ago in responding to a post in another thread, there were only 2-3 large protests that "shutdown" speakers on college campuses. Two of them being Milo Yiannopoulos engagements. One in January and another at the beginning of February, the former at UC Davis and the latter at UC Berkeley. The third was Heather MacDonald in April and again, it was in California, at Claremont McKenna College.

There are roughly 5,000 colleges and universities in the US. We're talking about 3 events out of thousands of schools that have likely hosted tens of thousands of speakers in the eight and a half months prior to Charlottesville. And those had all occurred more than 4 months prior. Only two of those events were significantly violent (one more than the other) and only one led to widespread property destruction.

Do you believe that your perception of the frequency of the events is accurate? Or could it be that incessant mentions of the events has led to an outsized alarm?

To the second part, the fact these events in California *could* be coincidence but I absolutely do not believe that it's any more coincidental than the fact that they happened on college campuses. If you looked at the posts I linked earlier, you'll notice that the violent clashes were almost exclusively on the West Coast with most of the activity in California and Portland. (there's also been confrontations in Phoenix but I don't think I mentioned any there)

So what's going on out there? California, aside from being a "liberal bastion," has had a high incidence of confrontations between Antifa (and to a lesser extent other left-wing groups) and neo-Nazis, mostly the country's largest organized group, NSM. Same with Portland. However there are others — groups like Identity Evropa — the newer "alt-right" breed of better dressed not-quite-neo-Nazis with "fash" haircuts, who have been actively recruiting on college campuses in recent years, even prior to the recent election.

I have a lot of research to aggregate and compile and I'm not really prepared to lay it all out here, but there are networks involved and an agenda at work. For instance, there are members of the Berkeley College Republicans, who invited Yiannopoulos to Berkeley, who are linked to Identity Evropa.

I'm sure you remember the Antifa college professor, "bike lock guy?" How much exposure have you had to reporting, discussion, mentions in posts, etc to "bike lock guy?" I know I've heard quite a lot about him in the context of how violent leftists are assaulting "Trump supporters."

The problem is, particularly if you follow right-wing media exclusively or base your opinions on what you read on ATS, which is a massive far-right filter, you didn't hear about who was on the other side and what they were doing. And if you did, you probably heard some bull# narrative about how these were "patriotic Trump supporters" who had been compelled to act by the "violent Left" to protect anything from "Trump supporters" and "free speech" to "traditional Americans values."

That's not at all an accurate picture of what's been going on. I'm going to quote myself from another thread in the next post as this is getting rather length (and also for tidiness).



posted on Aug, 23 2017 @ 10:37 PM
link   



posted on Aug, 23 2017 @ 10:38 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Now, I was immediately accused of "victim shaming" for posting this:


originally posted by: theantediluvian
You've all heard of "bike-lock guy" and probably assumed he was just beating up "Trump supporters." Here's one of the people he assaulted:



Here's how The Blaze and Daily Caller covered it:

Professo r arrested on suspicion of assaulting Trump supporters with metal bike lock in Berkeley
Police Arrest Professor Accused Of ‘Bike Lock’ Assault

They name the Antifa thug and make sure you know exactly who he is and who he's affiliated with but what they don't show you? What they don't tell you? What has been ignored time and time again? The red t-shirt guy? Willful combatant fighting alongside DIY Division, Identity Evropa and Hammerskins.

(larger)
(larger)
(larger)


I'm actually going to quote myself in another post too because after being accused of victim shaming, I wanted to follow up.



posted on Aug, 23 2017 @ 10:38 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope


originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: Grambler

I'm not interested in victim shaming. I'm trying to show how we're all being manipulated. I've tracked some video from when that dumpster picture was taken. As you can see, it wasn't 4 vs 50 or anything. This was two opposing groups lined up against one another. It was actually the guy in the red shirt who grabs the dumpster first. (I'm not implying that he deserved to be hit with a bike lock in the head, just showing that he was in fact a participant in the violent clashes, not a bystander)



Here's a video (at 1:30) from the point where the picture of "Based Stickman" Chapman, Damigo, etc was taken. As you can see, this wasn't them just hanging out either. This has been an ongoing coalition. Or at least it was. Now McInnes is cracking down, at least publicly.



Interesting to note, right before that you'll see Brittany Pettibone speaking. Later on there's some violent clashes, flag burning, etc.

Now keep in mind who was listed as the speakers at today's "Free Speech rally." These aren't smears. When "Based Stickman" hits people in the head with sticks, he's celebrated:



At 00:34, you can see him get tired of waiting for violence:



Ironically, you can see "bike lock guy" 5 seconds later swing his bike lock. All I'm saying to you is that we've been getting only one part of the story and that while bike lock guy is universally denounced (rightly), "Based Stickman" is made into a celebrity who gets speaking engagements like this one at today's rally. How does that make sense?

BTW, he might be spending some (more) time in jail soon. He was arrested and charged for his leaded stick. I don't know if we want to argue about a leaded stick vs a bike lock, but to me, these two assholes are both violent hooligans. I don't understand why one of them, the one who we can see fighting alongside violent neo-Nazis, is the "good guy?"

Aside from engaging in and promoting violence (I've got videos of him threatening to bring the violence — "we're coming c**ksuckers" — to all sorts of towns, including Boston), his past history doesn't comport well with somebody who should be an icon of a group claiming support for law and order. Details about his prior convictions at TSG.

Here you can see Gavin McInnes whining the month before Berkeley that they're being "unfairly" lumped in with Nazis. You've now seen some of his Proud Boys, including the one he's gushing praise over, fighting alongside them. Gavin McInnes is a liar and a chicken hawk and I'll stand by that with no hesitation. If he wasn't, he would have already kicked Kyle Chapman to the curb like he did some others who have been caught up associating/fighting alongside neo-Nazis. But he won't because "Based Stickman" has too much propaganda appeal and is too useful for recruitment. Meanwhile, he's pushing nonsense about how the people on the "other side" are Antifa that have... wait for it... $13 Billion in funding from George Soros. Do you honestly believe that? I don't think you do and you know from looking with your own eyes that Gavin McInnes is full of #.

Anyway, I've got work to do today. I'll keep checking on the feeds but it's been pretty peaceful today thankfully. Hopefully it stays that way.



posted on Aug, 23 2017 @ 11:23 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

I have a lot more to say about this but it suffices to say that I believe you, like most people, have not had adequate exposure to a good deal of information and that when you say things like this:


This is the sort of nonsense we’re dealing with here. It is true that in Charlottesville there was violence on both sides, both sides engaged in bigotry and violence. Only one side engaged in political terrorism and white supremacy, true. But what of the rest? Suddenly, after over a year of political violence against Trump supporters, the suppression and censorship of conservative and liberal voices and writers at the hands of violent activists, and a blatant propaganda campaign against the GOP frontrunner resulting in assassination threats and attempts. All of this with nary a whisper by the media and its parrots. Now they want to cry foul because right-wing extremists are involved.


It belies that ignorance. And I'm not in any way criticizing you. This is something that is really only getting *some* exposure because of Charlottesville. And this didn't start in 2017. It's actually quite interesting for me personally to see because some of the players came to my attention last summer and *nobody* was talking about them.

I posted about some of that research here and he re on DailyKos in October of last year.

And I have piles of pictures and video clips and notes to go back through to track other individuals which brings me to this last part of your post:


Neo-Nazis and KKK have been marching and rallying in the US for decades with diminishing returns. It is obvious this isn’t about these groups at all, but about Trump’s words, and the relegation of his and other people’s thoughts and words to the status of crime, as dictated by your ideological handlers and their massive PR firms.

Sorry, but I do not trust anything of this new brand of journalism, nor the fact that you guys pad your own writing with it. They report more on words and tweets than actual states of affairs. You guys act like Donald Trump is supposed to be the paragon of truth and high-mindedness, as if the president was in charge of dispensing truth, but in reality you are so inured to the far superior lying of his predecessors, that you have withdrawal symptoms. You want to be lulled back to sleep by the robotic and pre-fabricated droll of PR firms and their marketing campaigns.


You're you guysing me and you couldn't be further from the truth. Last summer, I set out — all on my lonesome, without any journalists or "PR firms" — to get a better grasp of what has been going on. At the time, it was the political violence that was occurring at Trump rallies and just like this year, the highest concentrations by *far* were in California (mostly Central-to-Southern) but also in Portland and Arizona.

Initially, I started out with a hypothesis — agitators were at work, inciting violence. I needed material to look through and that's when I realized that there was this concentration out West, particularly in California. So I set about spending hours and hours of my time, looking through images, watching videos. Paying close attention to the actually conflicts. And what I was finding was that the same people were showing up time and time again. Then as I sought to identify these people, I stumbled upon connections. Which is how I ended up talking about Jack Posobiec a year ago, before he was the "Rape Melania" sign hoaxer. Before he was the guy breaking the Macron leaks on Twitter. Before he was part of the duo breaking up Shakespeare in the Park. Before the other night when Donald Trump retweeted him and I was largely brushed off by any and all Trump supporters.

Which is how I was talking about "Based Stickman's" buddy "Based Skywalker" before they had even paired up.

Hopefully I can find the time to really tie all this together. I now have a contact in the area who has been an active participant in "Patriots Prayer" and knows some of these people that keep popping up — in California, in Charlottesville and some of whom like "Based Stickman" who were supposed to be at the Boston rally that wasn't.

But it likely be all for nothing, at least on ATS. It's TLDR — it's too complex for people to care. They want to get memes spoonfed to them and Trump supporters want to believe that everyone else is brainwashed my "the mainstream media." (or a shill)

You write very well. In terms of the quality of your writing and your argumentation, you may even be my favorite poster. You're obviously well read and a very bright person. But I don't get the impression (and maybe I'm wrong) that you're actually informing your opinions with information gleaned from sources any better than you falsely accuse me of drawing from.



posted on Aug, 24 2017 @ 01:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: imwilliam
a reply to: amazing




. . . Is it worthwhile to protest a known hate group like KKK, Nazis, White Supremacists, ISIS or not?


I think there is a larger and more important issue at stake, and that issue has been pointed out many times, including here on ATS. It's an issue of free speech. And the right to free speech becomes more and more important as we the people of the US share less and less common ground, as the divide between us grows larger and larger.

So, to the extent that these counter protests are really about silencing, drowning out, or denying others their right to free speech, I think they do more damage than good and they should be condemned.

But is it worthwhile to protest groups like the KKK? Sure, to the extent that one is trying to make themselves heard, standing up to be counted, trying to persuade others to their camp, but not to the point or for the purpose of silencing/denying someone else right to the same.

Different days, different locations, things to that effect, that's what I think is the best of a number imperfect solutions.







But at the core of what you just said is freedom of speech. If the KKK has a right to speak publicly, I have a right to denounce them as hateful racists. Freedom of speech works both ways.



posted on Aug, 24 2017 @ 01:47 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope


Political language... is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.

George Orwell



Nothing rational, to be sure. Fearing ideas so ugly and absurd is exactly what they want. It means you take them seriously. A more apt and thus lucrative comparison would be to compare Nazis to Bronies and other laughable obsessions. By God, laughter and ridicule would be a better avenue of approach!


Agreed. Except it isn't about neo-nazis at all. Antifa fights capitalism as well, the roots of fascism. And this is where your thread falls short, it doesn't address the whole picture.


According to the German intelligence agency Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution, the contemporary anti-fascist movement in Germany includes those who are willing to use violence.[6] Militant behaviour against police is an expression of the "Autonome Szene" and part of the concept "Antifaschistische Aktion". There are illustrations made public in the antifascist movement with mottoes that sometimes call for not only violence against police or skinheads but also bishops and judges. There are slogans like "antifascism means attack" not only against neonazis but also against the civil and capitalist system of the "Bundesrepublik Deutschland".[7] In modern usage, anti-fascism is sometimes shortened to "Antifa"

Antifa - Wiki


The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, but he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them.

George Orwell

Can we stop spreading biased propaganda and return to deny ignorance for a brief moment?


edit on 24-8-2017 by PublicOpinion because: (no reason given)


edit on 24-8-2017 by PublicOpinion because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
37
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join