Jump to content

US Politics: Locked, Loaded, Fired Up and Capitalized


Kalbear

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, MercurialCannibal said:

 dude,  divorce yourself from the methods and instead really think about what each group of espousing. 

one group is advocating, white supremacy,  genocide and slavery.

they don't deserve protection. 

But they both advocate beating the living shit out of their political opponents. I can't divorce them from that method.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

 But how do you kill it without adopting a fascistic strategy? That's my beef with antifas. At the end of the day, they are essentially anti-nazi nazis. 

   Battle not with monsters, lest ye become a monster, and if you gaze into the abyss, the abyss gazes also into you.-Friedrich Nietzsche

According to our esteemed college prof, we cannot criminalize it lest we damage their precious impressionable minds and dabblers become lifelong nazis. All that speech freedom everyone appears to be clinging to certainly hasn't wiped it out. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, kairparavel said:

According to our esteemed college prof, we cannot criminalize it lest we damage their precious impressionable minds and dabblers become lifelong nazis. All that speech freedom everyone appears to be clinging to certainly hasn't wiped it out. 

 Yeah, it's a dicey proposition all the way around, but at the end of the day I'm going to side with Free Speech. To take that right away or alter it in any significant fashion is to then threaten all of our other rights. It's foundational. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

But they both advocate beating the living shit out of their political opponents. I can't divorce them from that method.

 

this is not about political opponents. get that out of your mind. this isn't a difference on politics. 

one group wishes to destroy those who are not of their same ethnicity. they see others as less than and inhuman. they cannot be reasoned with and cannot be debated. 

sometimes violence as unpleasant as it is has to be the answer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, MercurialCannibal said:

this is not about political opponents. get that out of your mind. this isn't a difference on politics. 

one group wishes to destroy those who are not of their same ethnicity. they see others as less than and inhuman. they cannot be reasoned with and cannot be debated. 

sometimes violence as unpleasant as it is has to be the answer.

It might not be solely political, but the two are inextricably linked. I don't see how you separate them. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most of the views I hold have, in ages past, been minority ones. Many of them would have been offensive to the general population. I don't want to give current majority opinion the authority to do to minority opinions what I'd not have wanted done to me for mine had I lived in an earlier time. Just calling yourself a Nazi should not be illegal or open you up to violent attacks. You can call yourself a cannibal for all I care. Now if you start trying to eat people or openly advocating hate crimes, you should be arrested. 

There are no perfect solutions. Tolerance comes with margins of error which will translate to some people suffering where the law can't or doesn't protect people when the nazis or whoever cross the line between calling themselves nazis/marching etc. and committing criminal acts. I get that, and I get that it seems easier to err on that side when you're unlikely to be the victim of the unprotected margins. But it's still where I'll err over giving people the right to respond to unwelcome words with violence, or giving governments the right to decide which groups can and cannot express their affiliations. The margins there are very dangerous indeed. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No one here surely objects to our laws that supposedly make child pornography illegal, illegal to create, own and to disseminate through the mails, the webs or even hand-to-hand?

Back in the good ol days of Dixie and the slaveocracy those white supremacists throughout the south held marches, arrested, tarred and feathered, and even lynched those suspected of holding anti-slavery attitudes, made it illegal for antislavery publications to go through the mail, to create them, to own them.  It was all legal and protected by the southern 'governments.'  They were not children or youth, though there were some among them, who grew to adulthood doing the same things, and getting more extreme in every generation until they believed that slavery was a positive good, only the white male deserved any respect and rights, and these attitudes should be pushed by the might of a gun on everyone in North America, the Caribbean and even South America.  It was the only way.  They were also really god-fearing and religious, let us not forget.

Then, look at the connection of these convictions to the formation of nazi ideology, along with our own eugenics movements here in the US after the War of the Rebellion and the slaveocracy sobs were defeated with the gun.  Hitler often proclaimed how much he learned from them.

In the meantime it looks pretty much like Charlottesville -- and recall whose town this is, home to the university founded by the founding father of US white supremacy -- is a street brawl.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MercurialCannibal said:

this is not about political opponents. get that out of your mind. this isn't a difference on politics. 

one group wishes to destroy those who are not of their same ethnicity. they see others as less than and inhuman. they cannot be reasoned with and cannot be debated. 

sometimes violence as unpleasant as it is has to be the answer.

There are however more efficient methods to deal with them. At least imo. I'll just tell you what a small group of activists have picked up doing over here.

Step 1. Take a camera with a telephoto lens  and take pictures of their faces.

Step 2. Use the internet and identify the regulars (one of the few instances of facebook being useful).

Step 3. Out them. Inform their company/bosses and customers with whom they are dealing. Assuming most people do not wish to deal with Neo-Nazis this can be quite effective. Get them fired, get people to boycott their shops.

On a further note. Didn't Anonymous did something like that years ago? A part of their group once acquired a nice chunk of data from the KKK and outed them on the internet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The KKK, the nazis, all those ilks are violence.  They bring the violence.  Like slaveholders -- they hold power ultimately only in one way, they hold the rule of violence and use it.  Like slavery, white supremacy and the ideologies that promote it, from fascism to imperialism to nazis -- cannot be separated from violence. They never renounce its use until greater violence takes that power away from them.

No, don't try to counter with Mandela and Gandhi -- ultimately what they thought they achieved erupted in some of the worst violence in history as Partition in India and the horrors of the genocides in Africa in the last decades (though technically that's not white supremacy, but it is an ethnic supremacy).

Yes, it is both nazis and the Klan as well as other white supremacists in Charlottesville.  They brought the violence.  It's horrible for those living there.  52% of the people living in this area are descendants of the enslaved.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Notone said:

There are however more efficient methods to deal with them. At least imo. I'll just tell you what a small group of activists have picked up doing over here.

Step 1. Take a camera with a telephoto lens  and take pictures of their faces.

Step 2. Use the internet and identify the regulars (one of the few instances of facebook being useful).

Step 3. Out them. Inform their company/bosses and customers with whom they are dealing. Assuming most people do not wish to deal with Neo-Nazis this can be quite effective. Get them fired, get people to boycott their shops.

On a further note. Didn't Anonymous did something like that years ago? A part of their group once acquired a nice chunk of data from the KKK and outed them on the internet.

BINGO!

/This is how you go about it, IMHO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Yeah, cause that never works. 

Ultimately it didn't -- as I showed.  In the meantime Mandela's South Africa has descended into total corruption and violence again, it's financial rating is literally, 'junk.'  India is run by a totally racist and sexist party and president -- India for Hindu men only.

I fear this Charlottesville event is the beginning of Act 2, as the division moves out of discursive space into physical space, as the white, locked, loaded, capitalist e cadres mobilize to silence the rest of us with terror of their physical violence.

What do you think people should do to counter this?  Out them?  like that works much, or even at all, particularly now when the media is so much about serving a single, particular audience what it wants.  Fox news isn't even covering what's going on in Charlottesville.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, kairparavel said:

It's never going to die until it's put down for good.

What does that entail?  I was responding last night to the notion nazis should not be afforded basic physical protection from the police (I believe the exact phrase was "get the shit kicked out of them).  Basic universal rights are basic and universal, and it's hard to conceive of a more basic one than protection from bodily harm.

Now, if we're talking, say, the Westboro case, I'd agree.  Speech can cause emotional pain.  It has been demonstrated that emotional pain is actually more harmful than physical pain.  Individuals should have the right to be protected from speech that inflicts emotional harm -- when they have a reasonable expectation of privacy (and I think a funeral is a reasonable expectation of privacy).  But taking away basic rights like protected speech, assembly, and protest based on the ideological content?  Nope.  That's not how rights work, and is akin to the old canard, "why should he get a trial?  He didn't give his victims a trial."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Zorral said:

What do you think people should do to counter this?  Out them?  like that works much, or even at all, particularly now when the media is so much about serving a single, particular audience what it wants.  Fox news isn't even covering what's going on in Charlottesville.

 How about not beat the shit out of them or kill them, which seem to be the two primary options that you, the lobster, and the sword of doom have on offer. 

Perhaps we should round them up and put them into camps?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

 How about not beat the shit out of them or kill them, which seem to be the two primary options that you, the lobster, and the sword of doom have on offer. 

Perhaps we should round them up and put them into camps?

What would you say to this woman, a Charlottesville resident, who sees these people as nothing but violent threat?

Quote

Some businesses closed down Saturday to keep employees safe. Others reportedly opened their doors solely as a safe space in case of an emergency. Some locals were prepared to take drastic measures to protect their city.

“As a lifelong resident of Charlottesville and a mother of two, this is about making the world more equitable for my children,” Leslie Scott-Jones of Solidarity C’Ville wrote in a news release. “I am not naive about the urgent threat of August 12, nor do I believe the threat ends there. ... My family has been here since the 1700′s, this is my home, and I have no other choice than to protect it.”

I am curious about your insistence that things aren't so bad that violence shouldn't even be in the equation for those against whom the violence is directly directed.  Why do you think that these people are not as bad as we think they are, that the national situation isn't as bad as we see it is, that you can still talk people out of their determination to oppress and kill so many of us for not being white and male and straight?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Perhaps we should round them up and put them into camps?

Why not? If they're looking for the genuine "WW2 experience", I'd say let's give the people what they want. 

(I'm only half-kidding because I'm actually crushed with hopelessness right now. I kinda wish Lil' Kim nukes us all into oblivion and salts the radioactive earth. There's no coming back from this. We are done as a country).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Zorral said:

What would you say to this woman, a Charlottesville resident, who sees these people as nothing but violent threat?

How is the threat so urgent that you (and others here) feel that it needs to be met with violence? Are the neo-nazis attacking people in the streets? If that's the case, then by all means Leslie Scott-Jones should defend herself and her family by any means necessary. In absence of that, a violent physical reaction to an ideology that you find to be abhorrent is not reasonable, legal or warranted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Zorral said:

What would you say to this woman, a Charlottesville resident, who sees these people as nothing but violent threat?

I am curious about your insistence that things aren't so bad that violence shouldn't even be in the equation for those against whom the violence is directly directed.  Why do you think that these people are not as bad as we think they are, that the national situation isn't as bad as we see it is, that you can still talk people out of their determination to oppress and kill so many of us for not being white and male and straight?

It's not about us talking. I have little hope that we can talk them into changing. It's about them talking. To wit, so long as that's all they're doing, that's all we ought to respond with. Meeting words with violence is either right or wrong. You can't get that genie back in the bottle to suit your needs. If you approve of violence in response to words YOU don't like, you're without question easing the path for other people to violently disagree with your words or those with whom you agree. A belief that you can flip that on and off like a switch is dangerously naive, imo. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess I am the last one not feeling schadenfreude when a Nazi gets beaten up, but I have to admit that I think anyone advocating a violent reaction against this just feels helpless in regards to governmental protection. Let's face it: Your country is currently run by people who either don't care about or openly support white supremecy movements. Your council of cartoon villains doesn't care about that anti-constitutional idiologies are spreading, they are working hard to dismantle the constitution themselves.

In an ideal world people wouldn't need to advocate a policy that takes away human rights from Nazis. Because the government would make sure that anti-constitutional groups and their meetings are illegal and that their symbolic is illegal and that they would get fined or imprisoned if they have or do any of this. I say this because I somewhat trust my country to do just that. Of course there are problems, there scandals abound where the state failed to handle threats properly and I was only very recently very disappointed when the federal courts decided that yes, our 'national party' is anti-constitutional and therefore laws to ban it would apply, but decided not to with the excuse that it is too small and too financially struggling that they would pose any risk (and I suspect that they didn't want their remaining voters to run to the right-wing populists of the AfD, so this was a political move that just ended utterly harmful due to the anti-constitutionality being confirmed).

But this all doesn't change the fact that my country has laws in place to keep these people in check. Which forces them to sugercoat their 'völkisches Gedankengut', their eugenic thinking and their hostility towards migrants, because as soon as they would actually start to make demands of genocide the federal police would jump them in no time. Sure, the beaurocacy is tedious and somewhat sluggish, but it is needed to root them out in a process that is still in line with democratic liberal thinking. With such a system in place, regular citizens never need to talk about violence because they trust the government to use its figurative 'violence' to protect them (except antifas, who are notably distrustful of the government as well, that's kinda their thing).

When I read comments of a Richard Spencer, I'm fucking shivering, because I think sprouting genocidal demands and the advocation of violence shouldn't be allowed within the safe space of an organization that gives it credibility as a valid political view. Groups like these need to be dismantled, 'free speech' my ass! If you advocate the taking away of basic human rights of other human beings, you threaten the stability of your society and it is the duty of a government to prevent that. This is my view, this is the view of my constitution, and I would wish the US would act like it as well.

But alas, it doesn't. And that's why I completely understand why people feel helpless and why people might come to the conclusion that they need to help themselves against constant agitation of violent threats (and actual attacks, mind you).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...