Ed Dueling protests spark state of emergency in Virginia.

[trustbutverify]

6 reasons why Chomsky is wrong about antifa

Chomsky is wrong about something? How could that possibly be?

 

[quadraginta]

Not quite the whole story. Kessler applied for his permit to use Emancipation Park for a "Free speech rally in support of the Lee Monument" on May 30, 2017. In addition to the $25 permit fee, he had to obtain a $1 million insurance policy (from Evanston Insurance Company). He also estimated attendance at 400.

The City granted his permit on June 13, 2017, then tried to revoke it (or significantly curtail it) on August 7, 2017, leading to a lawsuit filed on August 10, 2017.

<snip>

You misspelled "move it to a larger venue because the estimated attendance had grown so much".

 

[trustbutverify]

Chomsky formed his views years ago, before I was born. He just says whatever he wants now.

He says whatever he reads on the internet useful in propping up his massively inflated ego.

 

[Skeptic Tank]

I think they were very clearly expressing the idea that they are afraid of Jews replacing them in importance in society. They see the Jews as sub-human and themselves as the ultimate human and so the idea that sub-humans will replace the master race is very scary to them.

I don't know anyone in the alt-right who thinks Jews are "subhumans" - I know a lot of people who think that different groups within our species are always going to have different interests and agendas and these will cause competition and conflict and what is best for Jews and what is best for gentile whites will rarely line up perfectly.

In the past, gentile whites were highly attuned to the group strategies of Jews and fiercely protective of their own interests - pushing back against the Jewish strategy for pursuing THEIR group interests when it seemed to impinge upon their own. This can be called counter-semitism, as opposed to antisemitism.

With the holocaust narrative ascendant, it has been many decades since gentile whites have had any sort of social permission to even notice the Jewish group strategy and its impact on their own group's well-being. This has naturally resulted in a completely unchecked push by Jews to make conditions more favorable to them. They have, for a VERY long time, been quite open about how a homogeneous society makes for a dangerous host for them because they stick out more if they are literally the only appreciable minority group. They view that as the conditions which led time and time again to them getting expelled, targeted, etc. They're not incorrect about that.

It is not hard at all to demonstrate a hugely outsized role by Jews in pushing for open-borders and multiculturalism in white nations. Even small nations like Ireland, if you look at who the real key people in politics were in changing the immigration standards, it is almost always people of Jewish descent. This is not surprising or even cause to hate Jews, it is natural and simply something which it behooves the white goyim to be aware of and prepared to counter. Because again, what is in their best interest is not what is in ours.

The holocaust narrative was the justification for the white goyim to totally lower their shields and power down all their defenses. Predictably, and rapidly, this is leading to the total dissolution of the white goyim as a result. The alt-right is an attempt to blow the dust off those old defense subroutines and power them back up. It's a matter of survival to do so.

You have to rely "on any assumed priors in a reader's mind." Those words evoke very specific "assumed priors." When a group of Nazis chant, "Jews will not replace us," we all know exactly what they mean. So yeah, a pretty horrible thing to say -basically that you want to exterminate the Jews to ensure they can't replace you.

The main thing I wanted to clarify is that they weren't really saying they are worried about being replaced WITH Jews, so much as with PoC as a result of Jews seeing to it that that happens. I just wanted to make sure people understood that these guys chanting didn't envision some scenario where actual Jews were filling up the society. They mean that Jews are orchestrating their replacement (literally and undeniably true, by the way. In Jewish newspapers this is sometimes very openly admitted and bragged about. They are, without any possibility of debate, the primary engine of the demographic change in the west. This. Cannot. Be. Disputed. It is VERY well established and again, openly bragged about by Jews. They view it as a positive thing, obviously, and a safeguard against xenophobia and antisemitism and racism, etc.)

A non-violent protest against the would-be Nazis marching through a street is perfectly legal and not "just accepting it." Better would be to simply ignore these ignoramuses.

Agreed. The person I was quoting seemed to imply that active, violent measures might be necessitated to avoid having failed and ended up "Just accepting it."

 

[quadraginta]

And they rarely do. They might surround him, intimidate him, call him names, but they won't beat him up. Not until he and his friends (because let's face it, Nazis don't stand around alone - they don't have the balls) flip out. Then the fighting starts.

The one who found himself separated from the group, panicked, stripped off his shirt, and tried to hide in the crowd pretending he wasn't a Nazi until he got back to his buddies sure was a hoot.

 

[quadraginta]

Here are some more detailed statistics:



Source: http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/trump-is-more-in-touch-than-you-think/

I personally don't have a strong opinion either way, although I guess I'm mildly on the "keep them where they stand" side. Mostly from reading arguments from Condaleeza Rice.

I support allowing the local jurisdictions decide whether or not they want to take them down and/or relocate them.

Did your survey ask that question?

 

[BobTheCoward]

I don't know anyone in the alt-right who thinks Jews are "subhumans" - I know a lot of people who think that different groups within our species are always going to have different interests and agendas and these will cause competition and conflict and what is best for Jews and what is best for gentile whites will rarely line up perfectly.

In the past, gentile whites were highly attuned to the group strategies of Jews and fiercely protective of their own interests - pushing back against the Jewish strategy for pursuing THEIR group interests when it seemed to impinge upon their own. This can be called counter-semitism, as opposed to antisemitism.

With the holocaust narrative ascendant, it has been many decades since gentile whites have had any sort of social permission to even notice the Jewish group strategy and its impact on their own group's well-being. This has naturally resulted in a completely unchecked push by Jews to make conditions more favorable to them. They have, for a VERY long time, been quite open about how a homogeneous society makes for a dangerous host for them because they stick out more if they are literally the only appreciable minority group. They view that as the conditions which led time and time again to them getting expelled, targeted, etc. They're not incorrect about that.

It is not hard at all to demonstrate a hugely outsized role by Jews in pushing for open-borders and multiculturalism in white nations. Even small nations like Ireland, if you look at who the real key people in politics were in changing the immigration standards, it is almost always people of Jewish descent. This is not surprising or even cause to hate Jews, it is natural and simply something which it behooves the white goyim to be aware of and prepared to counter. Because again, what is in their best interest is not what is in ours.

The holocaust narrative was the justification for the white goyim to totally lower their shields and power down all their defenses. Predictably, and rapidly, this is leading to the total dissolution of the white goyim as a result. The alt-right is an attempt to blow the dust off those old defense subroutines and power them back up. It's a matter of survival to do so.



The main thing I wanted to clarify is that they weren't really saying they are worried about being replaced WITH Jews, so much as with PoC as a result of Jews seeing to it that that happens. I just wanted to make sure people understood that these guys chanting didn't envision some scenario where actual Jews were filling up the society. They mean that Jews are orchestrating their replacement (literally and undeniably true, by the way. In Jewish newspapers this is sometimes very openly admitted and bragged about. They are, without any possibility of debate, the primary engine of the demographic change in the west. This. Cannot. Be. Disputed. It is VERY well established and again, openly bragged about by Jews. They view it as a positive thing, obviously, and a safeguard against xenophobia and antisemitism and racism, etc.)



Agreed. The person I was quoting seemed to imply that active, violent measures might be necessitated to avoid having failed and ended up "Just accepting it."

Those groups are fictional. You and I are not joined in any capacity.

 

[trustbutverify]

Those groups are fictional. You and I are not joined in any capacity.

C'mon man, where's your white pride?

 

[Elagabalus]

...I don't know anyone in the alt-right who thinks Jews are "subhumans"... << SNIP>>

And with that screed, you have lost all credibility.

...The holocaust narrative was the justification for the white goyim to totally lower their shields and power down all their defenses. Predictably, and rapidly, this is leading to the total dissolution of the white goyim as a result. The alt-right is an attempt to blow the dust off those old defense subroutines and power them back up. It's a matter of survival to do so...

Could you elaborate on this "holocaust narrative"? Was there a "holocaust?" Basic questions, I know, but your whole post makes me wonder ...

 

[xjx388]

I don't know anyone in the alt-right who thinks Jews are "subhumans" -

What about the White Supremacists at the rally? They very clearly think that the white race is superior to other races- it's right there in the name. The Nazis at the rally, by emulating Hitler and his sheep, believe that the Jews must be eradicated. You may not "know" them but that's who was at the rally.

I know a lot of people who think that different groups within our species are always going to have different interests and agendas and these will cause competition and conflict and what is best for Jews and what is best for gentile whites will rarely line up perfectly.

And it's pretty obvious that "gentile whites" are not a homogenous group with perfectly aligned interests and agendas either. Jews aren't a homogenous group themselves. No "race" is. We're all human and we share some goals and interests with some people and others with other people.

In the past, gentile whites ... <snip>

I'm not here to debate you on white separatist theory -at least not in this thread. I understand what you are saying here, i just disagree with it for many reasons that are not relevant here. But I'll address some of the points that are relevant below.

The main thing I wanted to clarify is that they weren't really saying they are worried about being replaced WITH Jews, so much as with PoC as a result of Jews seeing to it that that happens. I just wanted to make sure people understood that these guys chanting didn't envision some scenario where actual Jews were filling up the society. They mean that Jews are orchestrating their replacement (literally and undeniably true, by the way. In Jewish newspapers this is sometimes very openly admitted and bragged about. They are, without any possibility of debate, the primary engine of the demographic change in the west. This. Cannot. Be. Disputed. It is VERY well established and again, openly bragged about by Jews. They view it as a positive thing, obviously, and a safeguard against xenophobia and antisemitism and racism, etc.)

I'm sorry, but that just sounds ridiculous. These white dudes are afraid of the Jewish people orchestrating a multicultural society so that the Jews can hide better and avoid getting kicked out? First of all, this country was never an exclusively white country. Obviously, the Native Americans were here before any white dude laid foot on the land so it was multicultural from the get-go. Secondly, why wouldn't the other ethnic groups have a problem with the Jews? Doesn't seem like an effective way to hide given that every ethnic group seems to have problems with each other and within themselves. Finally, what's the plan when all of these ethnic groups who have been in this country for generations now and call this country home refuse to leave? The WS/NN groups represented at the rally have not been shy about sharing their violent plans. And in real terms, that's what they meant by "Jews will not replace us!" and "Blood and Soil.

 

[dudalb]

The #1 Tactic of the Neo Nazis is to make themselves look respectable;luckily they are not very good at it.

 

[dudalb]

Rather like this little song:


If you’re a Nazi and you’re fired, it’s your fault. *CLAP *CLAP

If you’re a Nazi and you’re fired, it’s your fault. *CLAP *CLAP

If you’re spotted in the mob, and now you’ve lost your f-----g , job,

If you’re a Nazi and you’re fired, it’s your fault. *CLAP *CLAP


Employers don't want to employ a Nazi. What a freaking surprise.

 

[jimbob]

The equivalence is dependent on how many Jews a group has murdered*? I don't think so. The equivalence is dependent on how "bad" a group is. If Black Bloc is "bad," then the equivalence is valid.

You would agree that if I am attending an anti-illegal immigration rally and the Nazis show up to rally with me, I should just go home, yes? Likewise, when Antifa is counter-protesting, they oughta skedaddle when Black Bloc shows up.



*And let's not forget that that the American wanna-be Nazis are not actually a continuation of the German Nazi Party -as much as they wish it were so.

It depends on what you are protesting about.

If you are attending a rally organised by Nazis and Klansmen, and they dominate it, then yes.

Take a stupid example - Hitler was famously a vegetarian. If you went to a demonstration about battery farming and there was a small contingent of Nazis protesting as Nazis, then they should be told that they're not welcome at that demonstration. If it was organised by the Nazis, and you feel strongly about the cause, you should arrange an alternative demonstration.

If you are attending a rally and it's organised by and dominated by violent anarchist hooligans and it's anything other than an antifascit counter demonstration, then probably yes.

If it's a counter demonstration against Nazis, then it's up to you. However this is hypothetical compared to what happened in Charlottesville.

Also, I see that people like The Big Dog are decrying the non-volent blocking of the fascists march as an offront to the fascist's free speech. In this case, the fascists had the option of letting the police clear their route and behaving within the law. They didn't, but went straight to violence against them.

 

[jimbob]

Apparently 62% of Americans polled favor keeping the Confederate monuments in place.

Surprised me, since this and other left-leaning sites led me to believe that most wanted them down.

I know my fallacies, so I'm not putting forth that the majority supporting something means it's right. Only that in a democracy, the will of the people has to count for something.

As an aside, I only know of this from listening to Rush Limbaugh today. In the area I'm in, he was on the only talk radio station I could receive. I'm not a fan, but sometimes leaving one's bubble does expose one to some interesting counter factuals.

As a further aside, I find myself marginally in that 62%, though I certainly understand the arguments against such monuments.

I am in favour of letting the locals decide where they are. The majority of Americans probably don't realise that a lot were put up during the Civil Rights movement. That strikes me as an attempt at intimidation that is marginally more subtle than a statue of a lynching.

Upthread I linked to an open letter from the great great grandsons of Stonewall Jackson, who made some very good points.

 

[Brainster]

Employers don't want to employ a Nazi. What a freaking surprise.

I don't disagree with this tactic at all. For one thing, it should make radicals on both sides pay the price, cutting down their influence.

 

[jimbob]

I don't disagree with this tactic at all. For one thing, it should make radicals on both sides pay the price, cutting down their influence.

I don't even think it's a tactic. If you run a restaurant and one of your staff becomes locally well-known as a Nazi, then it's going to be far less welcoming to potential customers unless you do something about it.

If their job requires them to treat people equally and to be seen to be fair, they would have raised questions about that.

About the only job their publicly avowed beliefs wouldn't be a problem would be a limited subset of the most menial solitary jobs (any black colleagues would be justified in wondering if they were going to be victimised).

 

[Sabrina]

I am in favour of letting the locals decide where they are. The majority of Americans probably don't realise that a lot were put up during the Civil Rights movement. That strikes me as an attempt at intimidation that is marginally more subtle than a statue of a lynching.

Upthread I linked to an open letter from the great great grandsons of Stonewall Jackson, who made some very good points.

I'm in agreement with this. As I understand it, the vast majority of Confederate statues are in limited or no danger of being removed at any point in the near future. This particular statue which "sparked" the rally (and I use the term loosely at best, since from the advertisement it's fairly clear that these guys were looking for any flimsy excuse) was voted to be moved (note: not destroyed, MOVED) out of the park well before the events of last weekend. A majority voted to do this. That is how our democracy is supposed to work. It's not going to change history to move a damned statue, for pete's sake; Robert E. Lee will still be taught about in schools nationwide and we're not going to forget him. The largest cemetery in our nation for soldiers (including, if I'm not mistaken, multiple Confederate soldiers) is on land which belonged to his estate in Arlington, and that fact is not going to change, nor is his participation in the nation overall, both before and after Virginia seceded. I say, leave it up to the local governments; if a majority vote to move the statues to other locations, move 'em; if they don't, don't. It's as simple as that.

 

[Darat]

I don't even think it's a tactic. If you run a restaurant and one of your staff becomes locally well-known as a Nazi, then it's going to be far less welcoming to potential customers unless you do something about it.

If their job requires them to treat people equally and to be seen to be fair, they would have raised questions about that.
About the only job their publicly avowed beliefs wouldn't be a problem would be a limited subset of the most menial solitary jobs (any black colleagues would be justified in wondering if they were going to be victimised).

Only if they weren't when they were doing their job should an employer have any grounds for taking action.

As much as Nazis are odious and have an abhorrent ideology they should be free to express that to the extent the law allows outside work and suffer no consequences in employment in doing that. Only if they bring it into the workplace should an employer have any ability to penalise them.

I know there are some grey areas - the type of "bring into disrepute" employment clauses but I think they have to be very carefully watched to not be an overreach into people's right of expression.

 

[Upchurch]

Only if they weren't when they were doing their job should an employer have any grounds for taking action.

As much as Nazis are odious and have an abhorrent ideology they should be free to express that to the extent the law allows outside work and suffer no consequences in employment in doing that. Only if they bring it into the workplace should an employer have any ability to penalise them.

I know there are some grey areas - the type of "bring into disrepute" employment clauses but I think they have to be very carefully watched to not be an overreach into people's right of expression.

The business needs have only one non-white employee or customer and the cause is automatically there.

 

[Darat]

The business needs have only one non-white employee or customer and the cause is automatically there.

Strongly disagree. If we have rights we have rights even when they conflict with business profits. Sometimes that does mean "innocents" will suffer some harm. So a business who employs someone in a town that is a Nazi may suffer some harm in terms of their business but the Nazi still has rights and they should be protected.

If you can be sacked for having legally held political views that your employer does not share and you do not bring them into your workplace then you don't really have freedom of expression.