Beware The Mob

18 posts / 0 new
Last post
tommclaughlin
Offline
Last seen: 5 days 14 hours ago
Joined: 10/26/2007 - 5:27am
Beware The Mob

Up to now, we have been a nation of laws and not of men, but I fear we are becoming unhinged. I fear the mob is gaining power and rule of law is diminishing. Nazis and the KKK are certainly evil and if they existed in any great numbers they would be a threat to our republic, but they don’t. They have a web presence that exaggerates their influence and media coverage that magnifies it further.

Whenever they hold meetings, FBI infiltrators likely comprise a quorum. The [Jewish] Anti Defamation League, or ADL, estimates membership in the KKK at five thousand. In 2011, The New York Times estimated membership in the National Socialist Movement [NSM]: “…the largest supremacist group [is NSM], with about 400 members in 32 states, though much of its prominence followed the decay of Aryan Nation and other neo-Nazi groups.”

It’s much harder to find out the size of “Antifa” which is perhaps the largest violent left-wing group, but it is international in scope with chapters all over Europe and the United States. Unlike the KKK and neo-Nazis, it tries hard to be anonymous. One USA Antifa web site called itsgoingdown.org declares:

“We strongly recommend against [emphasis in original] antifa groups being organized using the open, public model of most contemporary activism… that you stay anonymous both while forming and until your first action. Anonymity is your best defense, and you should keep it intact as long as you can.”

They dress in black and wear masks when they use violence so police cannot easily identify them from video. Antifa advises:

“Build a culture of non-cooperation with law enforcement…The cops will be Trump supporters; do not collaborate with them.”

And Antifa is universally leftist. From the same site:

The anti-fascist movement has come from multiple theoretical currents; it is based on an agreement on tactics, not ideological uniformity. In the U.S., most activists are anarchist, although a few are Maoist or anti-state Marxists. In other countries, the movement is predominately Marxist.

The rest is here.

Melvin Udall
Offline
Last seen: 14 hours 47 min ago
Joined: 05/01/2002 - 12:01am
Wow; no comments on your blog

Wow; no comments on your blog post at the moment.

Seems the chilling effect of peace through violence, and those lovable kids on the Progressive Supremacy spectrum, are working their 'direct action' magic.

Black hoods, white hoods; is there much difference?

Mike G
Offline
Last seen: 2 days 8 hours ago
Joined: 02/17/2000 - 1:01am
"An idle mind is the devil's

"An idle mind is the devil's workshop"

It is said that if our government estimated unemployment from past indices it would be at 22 percent. Consider how your food bill has increased and rent, homeowner slip, when the government says they try and keep inflation at 2 percent. Point: government lies, can you imagine.

My point is that there is a large segment of unemployed people that have become dependent on government handouts to pay their menial lives. It's a service economy that has been brought about by the Uniparty for decades, Nafta , China most favored nation status, bail outs of corporation in 2007 2008, federal reserve actions to prop up the banks at the expense of the middle lower class.

It's a blizzard of financial shit that is aimed at the lower middle classes at the benefit of the top crew, those sobs in the beltway and the corporations.

Why wouldn't these ignorant and sometimes criminal do-nothings not want to riot when their future is and looks like shit.

Many are good people, might even be your sons and neighbors. This country is heavily skewed towards the very wealthy and influential, it is too bad that we that are being sacrificed for the wealth of the rich have been told that its a battle between lower classes why it's those SOBS at the top that are getting us to fight each other, at always their gain.

mainemom
Offline
Last seen: 3 weeks 2 days ago
Joined: 03/09/2004 - 1:01am
I've tried in vain to make

I've tried in vain to make headway toward mutual understanding with a niece who thinks any mention of Antifa is in effect making a moral equivalence between peaceful protesters and murderous Nazis.

At first denying that Antifa exists as an organization in the US, she quickly shifted to dismissing them as a "fringe" element that shouldn't be lumped in with the people just standing there holding signs.

Try as I might I couldn't get her to concede that White Supremacists are a tiny fringe and shouldn't be lumped in with the people just standing there holding signs or American flags.

Further, I couldn't get her to concede that just as the White Supremacist fringe is there to provoke a response (called trolling when it happens on the internet), Antifa and other violence-friendly fringe groups also show up at rallies to provoke a response. It's trolls trolling trolls.

We had to end our dialogue conducted via email because it was impossible to find common ground beyond, Nazis are evil. In her view, there is only one acceptable way to condemn Nazis, and I wasn't saying it right.

I don't do well with scripted political pledges and loyalty oaths, either.

Melvin Udall
Offline
Last seen: 14 hours 47 min ago
Joined: 05/01/2002 - 12:01am
Amazing, mainemom. Exactly

Amazing, mainemom. Exactly the same in other public 'discussions.' As if they are all being controlled from a central authority.

mainemom
Offline
Last seen: 3 weeks 2 days ago
Joined: 03/09/2004 - 1:01am
My Trump-deranged ex-GOP

My Trump-deranged ex-GOP brother was more honest. I offered a problem statement: In America, white supremacists and other bigots are feeling newly confident. I then asked for suggested solutions. Brother quickly said the solution is to make Trump resign.

anonymous_coward
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 10 hours ago
Joined: 10/21/2016 - 12:18pm
The issue (at least with me

The issue (at least with me and most grown up liberals) is not in associating the fringe nazis with the rest of the conservatives, it's with the conservatives (mostly just Trump and his cohorts) not strongly disavowing the KKK & Neo-Nazi hate groups.

Trump supporters will typically counter with, "but you mainstream liberals don't disavow Antifa" - to which I would say that the KKK has a long history of systematically murdering people (don't really even need to talk about what the Nazis did), whereas Antifa really just shows up at rallies and acts like immature douchebags.

Am I wrong? Is Antifa associated with Stalinism? Do they have statues of Stalin that they defend? Is there some sort of moral equivalence that is there that I'm missing?

mainemom
Offline
Last seen: 3 weeks 2 days ago
Joined: 03/09/2004 - 1:01am
a_c I'm glad you asked. First

a_c I'm glad you asked. First of all, everyone I know begins the conversation by saying something like, white supremacists and Nazis and the KKK are the vilest of the vile.
Why isn't that considered strong enough?

Is Antifa just a bunch of mask-wearing heroes standing up against "fascism" however they define it?
Let's ask this professor who has spent lots of time with them, and is in fact an apologist for them.
Drawing Equivalencies Between Fascists and Anti-Fascists Is Not Just Wrong—It’s Dangerous
Stanislav Vysotsky

The set-up: Antifa is heroic because what they oppose (fascism, not defined) is at its end a violent ideology. They reject peaceful protest as ineffective against fascism. They claim self-defense because they are fighting an ideology that is violent at its core.
Now this, about what inspires them:
radical transformation of society inspired by communism or anarchism

The evasion by this apologist for Antifa/antifa violence is that communism and anarchy are both violent ideologies, at their ends, too. Nowhere on Earth has either been implemented and sustained without mass murder.
Stalin, Mao, Che, Castro. The Reign of Terror (anarchy). Even in the utopic world of John Lennon's "Imagine" you cannot get there (no possessions, no countries, no religion) without a militarized faction applying force against individuals who want to live under ordered liberty with individual rights, including property rights, secured by the State operating with the consent of the governed.

So what? By their own logic, Antifa is violent at its core, to the extent it is inspired by Marxism and/or anarchy. If we accept their claim to self-defense, do we extend that same claim to all who fight them, too? Isn't this a recipe for escalation, rather than peace? Am I far wrong that what we get, mixed in with earnest, peaceful sign holders, is a bunch of violent trolls trolling a different bunch of violent trolls?

Melvin Udall
Offline
Last seen: 14 hours 47 min ago
Joined: 05/01/2002 - 12:01am
Why do you demand that they

Why do you demand that they be moral equals in any sense of that word?

Could you please define the metrics used to check for equivalence?

I don't base my comments re Antifa, BLM, etc on any such measure, but more on the free pass they receive for their anarchy, violence, masked garb, destruction, etc. Progressive supremacists seem to see them as urban heroes acting on their behalf.

Melvin Udall
Offline
Last seen: 14 hours 47 min ago
Joined: 05/01/2002 - 12:01am
There may be a few editing

There may be a few editing inconsistencies, and a term or two from another forum, but here it is anyway:

====================================================================
It occurs to me that what we have here is an evolution, for the realities of the internet age, of the old “mine is bigger than yours” hydraulics contests in the locker rooms of the past. Nothing seemed more important at the moment to young adults with raging hormones than a claim on size superiority. Claims that both were the same size just couldn't stand when establishing the local pecking order.

To current day progressive supremacists, nothing is more important to their self-image than moral superiority. Their embrace of that identity explains why they can so easily label those who challenge them as bigots, racists, sexists, evil, Nazis, homophobes, transphobes, or whatever else seems appropriate in the circumstances of the moment. An objective survey of Eddie Beem's columns over the years would find an impressive collection of such hostile epithets, and instances of their use beyond counting.

Almost without exception, application of this overarching precept and its specific tactical application, besides signaling the virtuous superiority of the user, is intended to summarily end any debate or discussion. Rather than respond to logical points or questions coming from those outside the progressive fold, label the respondent as morally inferior on their face. This theory even allows progressive supremacists to elevate the likes of Ted Kennedy and Robert Byrd to legendary status in the annals of American socio-political purity and policy.

Moral superiority, of course, can not allow for even the slightest hint of “moral equivalence” (whatever that is!) in discussing and comparing the behaviors of conservatives and progressives.

Which brings us to discussions about Charlottesville over the last 10 days or so. Progressives are outraged that President Trump asserted “moral equivalence” about the events. Participants on AMG, various web sites, and newspaper comment threads are rife with the same accusations hurled at anyone who suggests that Antifa, BLM, and the rest of the alt-left are violent thugs, many dressed in monochrome outfits with matching headgear showing only eyes to minimize the chance they would be recognized, and holding to the belief that a simple proclamation like “all lives matter” is racist and calls for abject humiliation in public, if not loss of employment. How do you even characterize demands for dead cops? Now!

To be clear, I haven't heard a single example of an individual claiming that the protesters on the left and the protesters on the right were “morally equivalent.” And I mean by using those specific words; none-the-less, numerous pundits from the progressive axis have hurled those charges about freely, including at the President.

Moral superiority and moral equivalence are complex terms in such circumstances. Are there ten (or more? or less?) measures of moral behavior that add up to a combined score? Or is it simply a matter of performance in challenging circumstances, such as being on camera or microphone?

Such specifics aside, demonstrating moral superiority to avoid moral equivalence 'charges' can be done in at least two ways. One is to do your best to elevate perceptions of morality for your favored side. The other is to lay a barrage of moral inferiority charges upon your opponents. Either way, it's clear moral superiority and relevance are relative, comparative terms, not absolutes.

This is at the crux of hyperbolic progressive objections to any statements or comments made by anyone who is not a progressive supremacist. It's simply impossible for such a progressive to put forward arguments that prove Antifa, BLM, and their fellowalt-left soldiers are nothing but a bunch of good-hearted, moral, principled advocates for lively debate and protection of the interests of all. At least not arguments that decent people could believe and hold dear (see Eddie Beem's work).

Given that situation, the alt-left Antifa/BLM moral stature is pretty much what it is, and on the record. As is their record of violence and destruction. Not much can be done about it.

So, there is no choice but to attempt to make them look superior except by pounding on the alt-right participants until they pale in comparison to the upstanding model activists on the alt-left. Heaven knows white supremacists, Nazi sympathizers, and KKK zealots are unworthy of respect, support, or any other defense of their tenets and behaviors.

No matter; anyone who makes the slightest mention of alt-left anarchy, lawlessness, and police hatred is immediately charged with being an evil Nazi sympathizer because of it. Again, this is to stay as far away as possible from any challenge to the self-perceived moral superiority of progressive supremacy.

(Note: We thought about mentioning that Antifa, BLM, and the other alt-left components are clearly of this age and of this day. Nazi sympathizers and KKK zealots, and their white superiority claims, are for the most part attempts to hang onto remnants of the past. But any such assertion would likely open up another whole can of worms, so we'll save it for calmer times)

Spider
Offline
Last seen: 2 weeks 5 days ago
Joined: 06/16/2011 - 3:13pm
http://investmentwatchblog

http://investmentwatchblog.com/guy-tries-to-have-a-conversation-with-ant...

Guy tries to have a conversation with ANTIFA protesters. He is called a fascist, swarmed by people, and arrested by the police. Nobody realized he had a camera on his shoulder capturing everything.

Are you ready to talk about it?

pmconusa
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 1 hour ago
Joined: 04/20/2000 - 12:01am
When I first went to Saudi

When I first went to Saudi Arabia in the early 1970s and you had a accident involving another person, say a fender bender, it was the policy of the police to allow the parties to amicably settle the issue as to who was at fault. I was driving to one of my job sites and was hit by a car coming from my left. It was obvious he didn't see me as he ran into my left front fender and the driver side door at slow speed. I saw him and tried to veer to my right to avoid the impending collision but failed, because he could not stop in time.

In Saudi Arabia, at that time, you could not take your car to a repair shop to fix obvious collision damage without a release from the police, attesting to the fact that if someone else caused it and carried the mandatory insurance, that the parties had agreed to the allocation of blame and who was to pay for what. This being the case, we had to wait for a policeman to show up who would attest to the agreement of the parties and issue the necessary release for the repairs.

It seemed strange at the time but the underlying philosophy was that if either of you were there, an accident couldn't have occurred so the problem created was who was the most to blame, the fellow who hit me or my inability to avoid the collision in the first place by getting out of his way.

We take pride in the fact our laws give us the freedom to speak out against things with which we disagree. Those who disagree with us also have there chance to speak in opposition to our position, but not at the same time. That is an impairment of our rights but unfortunately it has never been punished except by removal of the offending party from the venue at which this is perpetrated. This removal is by the authorities who are empowered to protect our rights.

So what happens when the authorities who are empowered to protect our rights, neglect to protect our right to speak out, because we are speaking out against abuses by the very government we have empowered to protect us and our rights? Those who disagree go after not only the peaceful protesters but after the authorities, not only with verbal abuse and signs, but stones, bottles, tear gas, Molotov cocktails. Not only are they only randomly punished, but in many cases allowed to get away with it because they are in support of the very government against whom the peaceful protesters are complaining.

This lack of punishment has emboldened those who favor bigger government to after what are past abuses of those with whom they would have disagreed in the past. You guessed it Civil War leaders and anyone who seemed to support what they claim as discriminatory behavior, i.e., Civil War leaders and even a recycling of animus against Christopher Columbus, who lost his holiday in some parts of the U. S. some years ago. What these idiots fail to realize is that slavery is not dead, in some cases it just pays better.

One of the definitions of slavery is one who surrenders himself to any power, in this case the dollar, which makes us all slaves. God's objective for his chosen people, the Jews, was to war on other tribes, occupying the Promised Land and to kill or enslave their opponents in order to secure it. In the process, the numbers of opponents were either greatly reduced or dispersed to where they could not reassemble and return to retaliate. A lesson we should learn in our fighting of current wars. The spoils of war in this case was the acquisition of land to enable the occupants to be self sufficient, that is, be able to produce enough food to feed the population.

We have seen pictures of the current rage to tear down Civil War Monuments to men who happened to be slave holders. The mistaken impression is that the Civil War was fought over slavery and nothing could be further from the truth. These are monuments raised by private contributions or even public tax funds but in any case public or private property. I have not heard of a single person involved in this destruction being charged with destroying public or private property. Why, because the government is afraid to deny this small minority of idiots and malcontents for fear they will lose their vote and be able to retain power. I think they may balk if there were attempts to destroy the Washington Monument or the Jefferson Memorial but acquiesce in the case of Monticello.

Melvin Udall
Offline
Last seen: 14 hours 47 min ago
Joined: 05/01/2002 - 12:01am
You infer that punishing the

You infer that punishing the cited vandals would only cause lost votes.

As I view it, it would cause many gained votes as well.

Perhaps you can work out an equation set for the circumstances.

jaded57
Offline
Last seen: 6 hours 7 min ago
Joined: 07/30/2015 - 7:49pm
And how many Kcals it will

And how many Kcals it will cost....

pmconusa
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 1 hour ago
Joined: 04/20/2000 - 12:01am
It should not matter but it

It should not matter but it does and the only reason is pandering to gain or retain support. If it were not so the recalcitrant should be punished in one way or another, preferably in the pocketbook. The vast majority of them are either on the government dole or indebted to the government through the banks. I don't see many hard working people, other than government or government subsidized workers among the lot. I think a poll would prove my point but the authorities don't dare take one.

anonymous_coward
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 10 hours ago
Joined: 10/21/2016 - 12:18pm
@mainemom: "So what? By their

@mainemom: "So what? By their own logic, Antifa is violent at its core, to the extent it is inspired by Marxism and/or anarchy."

Well, just to play Devil's Advocate, by that logic, one could make the argument that, since Christianity has a long history of violence (crusades, Spanish Inquisition, etc.), anyone inspired by Christianity is "violent to the core".

This is obviously silly, since *everyone* 800 years ago was violent, that's just how things were back then.

Or, you could make the argument that any German protesters are by definition rooted in violence, since their nation started 2 world wars. Again, that's just a silly argument.

Just to reiterate, I'm not saying Antifa is good, just that to say that, "they are just as bad" as the KKK and Neo Nazis is an exercise in rationalization.

anonymous_coward
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 10 hours ago
Joined: 10/21/2016 - 12:18pm
@Melvin: "To be clear, I

@Melvin: "To be clear, I haven't heard a single example of an individual claiming that the protesters on the left and the protesters on the right were “morally equivalent.” And I mean by using those specific words; none-the-less, numerous pundits from the progressive axis have hurled those charges about freely, including at the President."

Melvin, good, solid post. However, WRT the above sentence, I would say that, even though he didn't explicitly say, "Antifa and the KKK are the same," it *really* came off that way.

Consider, what Trump said - an impromptu comment about "on both sides" in the middle of a prepared speech (that is, he asserted his own opinion over the administration's agreed statement), and compare that to what Ivanka said on twitter ("There should be no place in society for racism, white supremacy and neo-nazis.")

Ivanka came out *strongly* against neo nazis and white supremacy, and Trump basically said, "eh, violence is generally bad", and never really named the neo nazis until the entire world dragged it out of him kicking and screaming.

When I look at those two statements, I KNOW where Ivanka stands, and I don't really know where Donald stands. And I don't like that; I want to know that Donald will prosecute the shit out of Neo Nazis if they act up again.

(BTW Jeff Sessions did a great job and my opinion of him has really gone up over the last year. I may not agree with his politics but I now see him as a man of integrity.)

Melvin Udall
Offline
Last seen: 14 hours 47 min ago
Joined: 05/01/2002 - 12:01am
By the logic of many on the

By the logic of many on the left, I should infer that Ivanka endorses Antifa and BLM and anarchy etc.

She needs to denounce and renounce them 100 times to atone.

The left cannot abide the moral equivalence that follows from declaring both sides hateful and violent. The Forecaster ran two articles...one on Portland and one on Yarmouth....that both ignored the the alt-left wing and their role in Charlottesville, almost as if they weren't there.

Log in to post comments