Neo-Nazis Clash With Protesters

As stated prior, the posts regarding other posters will cease now.

Consider this a last warning. Any further deviation from the topic, Neo-Nazis Clash With Protesters, will result in action.

Thank You...

reply to post by Rockpuck



You are right I am agreeing with you. Sorry if I might have phrased things in a confusing way.

I understand the quote was sarcasm. I was merely pointing out that there are those that will be crying the same thing in this thread before long. And that is that what the police were doing is a police state, which could not be further from the truth.

In the end I was simply trying to say that people are stupid and will make exaggerated generalized remarks in order to try and further their own hatred based agendas.


The Nazis party is pretty worthless in my opinion, but they do have the rights to speak the garbage they do, just as I can chose not to listen. But I agree fully with them that something should be done about illegal immigration.



Edit to add: You can see how this has already turned into a thread of the Neo-Nazis are wrong no matter what it was they were trying to say. As I stated I do not agree with their overall views, in fact I detest their views. But illegal immigration is an important matter that I will agree on. What I was trying to say though is since the police were protecting the rights of the Neo-Nazi group they would be associated with them and their beliefs. Just look at how some would rather kill/hurt/disrupt them than try to hear this message they might actually agree with.


Raist


[edit on 4/22/08 by Raist]

Originally posted by northwolf
You do know that socialism means that government (thus people in ideal case) controls the manufacturing assets. In 3rd Reich all control over major industry was ceded to the government. (alltough private ownership was retained, but owners had no control over their business) Thus germany was socialistic under Hitlers rule.

Oops wrong again...

Socialism, in it's traditional and true definition, means "the workers democratic ownership and/or control of the means of production". Such a definition implies that rather than a government bureaucracy for managing such means, there is a focus on highly democratic organization, education and awareness, and every individual is encouraged to become an active, rather than passive participant in that which effect their lives. Only the workers themselves bear the knowledge of what their own freedom and liberty means, and only they know what is best for themselves, ultimately. Advocates of the state, be they on the left, or the right, have repeatedly defined the meaning of "socialism" to mean arbitrary rule by a set of "leaders", or a political con-game in which socialism is no more than capitalism with a few token adjustments for bearability.

Source

In socialism the businesses are collectively (cooperatively) owned by the workers themselves, not government. That is why you can have socialism without government (libertarian socialism), but you can't have government without socialism (complete authoritarian control).

Again Germany under Hitler was FASCIST, which is exactly what you described. Was Mussolini socialist? Or Franco? No they were also fascist (nationalists), and Hitler was influenced by Mussolini. Mussolini named his party the "National Fascist Party', Hitler changed fascist to socialist because he needed to win the trust of the workers, who in those days had far more power than they do now and were predominantly socialist, even in the USA. In those days the workers new which side the bread was buttered on. But they fell for the fascist trick, just like many of you still are...

Who teaches you this stuff anyway? Capitalists?...

Genocide is an excepted act under fascism. Fascists believe in Darwinism, which they feel allows them to exterminate what they consider undesirable to the growth of the Human race. Hitler took it to an extreme.

And things haven't really changed much...

...the fundamental principle behind fascism today is Darwinism, which is deceptively portrayed as a scientific theory although it is not. Nevertheless, Darwinism, which professes such claims as "human beings are developed animals," "Some races have been left behind in the evolutionary process," and "through survival of the fittest, the strong survive and the weak need be eliminated," has been the source of numerous harmful ideologies throughout the 20th century, and, especially, fascism.

Source

Racism is the most important component of fascist ideology, which was responsible for the greatest genocides, massacres and wars of the 20th century. When we look at Nazi ideology, in particular, we see that racism is the main constituent of fascism. The Nazis set out with the dream of making the German race, which they regarded as the superior race, dominant all over the world, and tried to eradicate other races, and particularly the Jews, to that end. As Wilhelm Reich put it, "The race theory is German fascism's theoretical axis." [1]

The root of this theoretical axis is based on Darwin's theory of evolution.

Source

I think that even if the march was peaceful on the part of the Neo-Nazis, it is still bound to instigate bad emotions among anyone. Maybe a Jewish man whose Father died in a concentration camp. Or a black woman whose child was killed by white supremasists. These people are wearing military clothes and marching down our streets and we are allowing this. Peaceful or not this should be more moderated I know we believe in the "Say what we want" motto but I would not like someone saying that "Thank God for soldiers dying in Iraq" as some protesters have. Its incencitive, like the act of wearing a Nazi uniform and saying you are one while marching down the street. Its incencitive and it instigates violence. Like yelling fire in a crowded theatre.

I guess my question is where do we draw the line? When does Liberty and freedom turn into Domestic Terrorrism?

I dont know... maybe I'm wrong but sometimes it seems like this world has stopped and it has begun to slowly turn backwards.

reply to post by 3vilscript


I do see what you're sying above, but thing is, others should have actually joined these guys. Why not? This was a rally against illegal immigration. My guess is the neo-nazis would have welcomed other supporters. Maybe I'm just naive, but I don't think they are even ignorant enough to turn away support for a common cause, in this instance.

[edit on 4/23/2008 by RabbitChaser]

Ok, I know this has nothing to do with this thread but I need help. I want to start a new thread int this area and I dont know how. Can someone tell me how to start a new topic? Thanks in advance for your help.

reply to post by doit


[I sent you my suggestion doit]

Simply FYI -- Hal put up the audio from his speech on his site for download...
Audio of Speech, here

I made comments on his speech on the new thread I started The Hal Turner Report

For those who think this group of neo-nazis was "radical" I suggest you listen to the speech and particularly take note of their reaction (or lack thereof) to what Hal says at the 8:30--8:40 mark.

I contend if it was a group of ATS'ers in front of him at that point, it would have been deafening, and you will understand why I listen to him.

[edit on 4/23/2008 by RabbitChaser]

Originally posted by Rockpuck

Originally posted by Dark Crystalline
Actually the title should be: Zionist Neo-Cons clashed with U.S. Patriots.

OK.... I am trying to figure how this makes sense... these National Socialist or "neo-Nazi's" are ..... also in disguise "neo-cons" and the people who attacked them ... for absolutely no reason... are "US Patriots"?

I am sorry.. I do not find a single one of the people who assaulted people partaking in a LEGAL RALLY to be US Patriots.

More like pathetic little children who cannot control their over active emotions.

Rather disgusting then anything.

As a last note, people support free speech. When it is THEIR message. When it is ANOTHER message... well then Free speech does not exist.

And I found this humorous:



Hehe, naturally every officer has to be white.

My thoughts exactly!

[edit on 27-4-2008 by FuZe7]

I was brought to the United States by my parents when I was three... illegaly. I still dont have my residence or citizenship but my parents are working on it. My father has always worked for what we have. We use no food stamps or government help of the sort. I speak perfect English and my parents are not far off aswell. My parents pay taxes, I dont, but I dont work either I'm in college. Should I now go back to Mexico? When I was younger I could not because I had to be were my parents were, but now? Imagine how many kids find themselves in the same trivial posititon.

I will be leaving this country in about a year and a half. I'm trying to get my passport so I can get to France and join the French Foreign Legion. Maybe they will take me in, I tried to join the Army here but they could not take me. I watch the news and here everything they say, and I know there are very bad people among us immigrants, but we're not all bad. I'm willing to serve this country if they'll have me. I'm fairly smart, I speak 3 languages English, Spanish, and French, I'm physically fit, If nothing else, I would make a decent soldier. Why would this country refuse a person like me? That sounds ilogical.

reply to post by 3vilscript


I think the main problem Americans have with the illegal immigrants is with the massive over-run of our southern border since 911. You were apparently here before then and it's at least good to hear your family was one that was appaerntly not living off a system that you did not pay into... like so many of the ones here today.

My question... why the hell would you want to fight for these corrupt agendas all over the world? Why would you want to be a 'worthless' pawn for TPTB?

ahahahahahaha one of the cops couldn't catch one of the guys. there was no reason for those ignorant cops to beat people like that. since when is it wrong to protest against other protesters.

[edit on 28-4-2008 by anti us gov]

reply to post by FuZe7


I don't know if you were responding to the picture itself, or the situation. There were officers there of other races, read up on it and watch some of the video and you'll find 'em.

"I disagree heartily with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." --Voltaire

the neo-nazis were having a rally against illegal immigration... not against immigrants.

Yes, because neo-nazis are known and in fact famed for their tolerance of legal immigrants of all walks of life.

I mean hey, it's just a movement that calls for the eradication of Jews and Native Americans, the reenslavement of blacks and the deportation of all others not of Western European descent, followed by mass expulsions / execuions of whites who aren't Protestant heterosexuals.

What the hell problem would they POSSIBLY have against a guy here legally from Honduras, right?



Thank you for dragging ATS to a new low of ignorance.

reply to post by TheWalkingFox


Regardless of how you feel about the neo-nazis, at least they were making their voices heard about the HUGE PROBLEM of illegal immigration. What are you doing, TheWalkingFox?

And if you listen to the speech, I'm guessing you will agree with 85% of it.
However, feel free to remain close minded to all walks of life.

Originally posted by xmotex
I can't blame anyone for attacking a bunch of Neo-Nazis.

Frankly if they'd been shooting at the Nazis instead of yelling at them, I'd respect them more.

Is this the view of most liberals?
If you agree with me and my views, you have the right to free speech.
If you disagree with me and my views, you should be arrested, have a trial by a State official with no "jury of peers" and either be summarily executed or shipped off to a labour camp somewhere in the Amazon.

Oh, wait - wasn't that Communism?

What I respect most about the U.S. is the right to free speech, and freedom to protest.

What gives you the right to say who can express their views in public and who can't? How's the weather up there on your moral high-horse?

Originally posted by xmotex
Yeah please, I'm going to "respect the rights" of a bunch of genocidal freaks.

Could you please explain where these "genocidal freaks" carried out "acts of genocide"? Or is this simply more knee-jerk jingoism, ala:
"You criticise Israel's treatment of Palestinians! Your an anti-semetic Nazi!"

Oh, right - you read minds now, don't you?

Originally posted by xmotex
Screw them - anyone who chooses to follow in the path of the Nazis deserves a 7.62mm lobotomy.
.

"Anyone who criticises the State, and the Utopia of the Soviet Union, is obviously a sick individual".

Originally posted by xmotex
I am generally fairly tolerant of a wide variety of beliefs, but I draw the line at Neo-Nazis, whom I have had my fair share of violent encounters with in the past. They are scum, on the same moral level as child molesters.

Yes, the typical "I'm tolerant of all beliefs that fit in my

As bad as "Neo-Nazi" beliefs are, how are they equivalent to "child molestation"? Last time I checked, "moral levels" were not subjective to beliefs that you agree/disagree with.

Originally posted by xmotex
(EDIT: Actually I'm being unfair to child molesters here - awful as they are they don't generally advocate genocide. Nazis do.)

Does anyone see the obvious parallels with Orwellian "thought-crimes" here?

Originally posted by xmotex
An apologist for Nazi's getting all bent about "violence"

What problem have you got with people expressing beliefs that you do not believe - no matter how bad they are?
I disagree with Communism, yet I don't advocate "anti-Communists" attacking pro-Communist rallies and injuring/killing the Communists for their "twisted beliefs".

Originally posted by xmotex
I am not a pacifist, and Nazi's are my enemies and far more of a threat to me and mine than any illegals ever are, were, or will be.

Yes, we all know about those Neo-Nazi identity thefts, Neo-Nazi detention camp riots, bringing Chagas disease wherever they tread.

Wait - have you ever been victimised by a "Neo-Nazi"?

Originally posted by xmotex
I will always respond to them with violence, because violence is the core of their philosophy, and the only language they truly understand.

Chilling.
Look at "gangsta culture" prevalent in black/Mexican ghettos/barrios - "Hey, they only understand violence - do some of you white cops wanna go down there and bust some skulls"?

Originally posted by xmotex
If they were conducting a "non-violent protest", it's only because they know that if they used violence they are outgunned and would get their behinds kicked all the way back to their trailers...

Trailer remarks - classy!

Originally posted by xmotex
Kill 'em all... preferably with Zyklon B.
Turnabout is fair play...

Don't you just love liberals and free speech?

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
I mean hey, it's just a movement that calls for the eradication of Jews and Native Americans, the reenslavement of blacks and the deportation of all others not of Western European descent, followed by mass expulsions / execuions of whites who aren't Protestant heterosexuals.

Please! Is there any jingoistic remarks you haven't avoided?
They believe that Jews are "enemies of Western culture" - look at the threats here towards the "Illuminati puppetmasters" - substitute "Jew" for "Illuminati" and hey presto! We have an anti-semite!
Why would they want to "eradicate" the Native Americans? What logic would that follow?
Also, don't Neo-Nazis believe that black slavery was what caused the "black problem" to begin with?

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
Thank you for dragging ATS to a new low of ignorance.

Please - this coming from the "Ban all free speech that doesn't follow my views" crowd...

reply to post by RabbitChaser


I've stated plenty around here that I have no issue with "illegal" immigration. People will move where they need to move when they feel the need to move. it's called migration, and it's a fact of human existence. That a bunch of white people are up in arms over someone "illegally invading" their turf is hugely ironic, you realize?

You really think the Neo-nazis draw a line between "legal" and "illegal"? Do you think their position - and this includes overt threats of violence against communities they dislike - deserves points in your book?

THey can make their voices heard. So can I. They're stupid, violent, racist #s, and due to your support for them, well... what can I say?

[edit on 28-4-2008 by TheWalkingFox]

But seriously, weren't the protests within their rights? Doesn't the U.S. allow "freedom of association"?

Whether you agree with the "Neo-Nazis" or not, I believe this applies:

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it"

Most persons on ATS would like to believe that "free speech" will end when "The Council" or some such ominous, mysterious group seizes control of the world declares that they have control of all free communication devices, and any disagreement with the views of "the Council" will send jack-booted Council agents to bust your door down, and sentence you without trial to fifty years of hard labour.

However, seeing the views..."expressed" here, could we not see that the end of free speech is nearer than we thought.

I'm not going to stoop to the self-degrading "Note: I do not endorse Neo-Nazi/Racist/Martian policies or persons" nonsense - you should know by now that I'm not "quite" advocative of such ideas.

This is like the supposed "antifa" groups running rampant throughout Europe, using violence against any percieved "facist" group from the British National Party to the Old Lady's Quilting Union according to the logic of:
"Violence is the only language they understand (as per xmotex :@@", and
"We are preventing future violence from occurring".

Come on people! Using violence to prevent "violence"?
War is Peace! Freedom is Slavery!

Lastly, I'll end with this note:

"In Germany, they came first for the Communists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist;
And then they came for the trade unionists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist;
And then they came for the Jews, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew;
And then . . . they came for me . . . And by that time there was no one left to speak up."

P.S.: Did anyone notice the rumours floating around that Hal Turner is "actually" an F.B.I. informant?

Hmm... Nazis, from what remember hold racist genocidal totalitarian beliefs striving for one world government. While they may be able to say their plans and ideals, any subtle or outright action on their part aught to be resisted.

Perhaps they should have just let the Nazis have there silly little protest and fizzle out until another day. Perhaps not.