Generational Theory Forum: The Fourth Turning Forum: A message board discussing generations and the Strauss Howe generational theory

Full Version: The Maelstrom of Violence
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32
I would define the alt-right as extreme right, however many people there are in it. At least 30% of America is extreme right of one kind or another today. "Extremist" really just refers to views, not actions, however that term may be mis-used. What I might concede is that relatively few of them are violent members of hate groups. It depends how big the contagion grows. Trump fuels or enables it and depends on it.
(08-14-2017, 12:34 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]I would define the alt-right as extreme right, however many people there are in it. At least 30% of America is extreme right of one kind or another today. "Extremist" really just refers to views, not actions, however that term may be mis-used. What I might concede is that relatively few of them are violent members of hate groups. It depends how big the contagion grows. Trump fuels or enables it and depends on it.

I'd disagree with the definition.  The alt right dances with white supremacy.  At best, expect an equality argument that affirmative action has been taken too far.  At worst expect the old symbols of blatant racism to be openly displayed.

I quite agree that Trump has flirted with it, generally holding himself a few millimeters short of blatant.  If 'fuels or enable is' is strong, it's not very strong.  At the same time, there are enough liberal press members to blow any hint way out of proportion.`

But it is quite possible to embrace the unraveling memes without associating with the alt right.  Not all of the right are with the alt right.  The alt right cares about specific issues.  It's quite possible to belong to the conservatives, right, or Republican party without being committed to said issues.

Me?  I see pockets of American culture where you can't get in unless you're a white male.  It's not as bad as it was, but it's still there.  As long as those pockets persist, I'd expect some variation on affirmative action to break down the cultural supremacist elements.  Where these pockets have vanished, the affirmative actions should vanish as well.  It is possible to take affirmative action too far.  The question is not only how to strive for equality, but how to measure it.
(08-13-2017, 05:29 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: [ -> ]
(08-12-2017, 01:21 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]
(08-12-2017, 08:42 AM)gabrielle Wrote: [ -> ]Protesters clash in Virginia city on eve of white nationalist rally

The timing of the alt-right violence seems a bit strange to me.  All it takes is a few dozen to hit national headlines, yet it has been erratic rather than continuous.

That's because while the alt right is large, very few of them are extremists such as the ones who conducted this rally.  And even then, violence requires a counterprotest.  Basically, these white nationalists are even more of a fringe group than Occupy Wall Street or the Black Lives Matter militants were.

However, Kinser correctly notes that the tremendously overinflated news coverage they get works to their advantage.  The publicity is a great recruiting tool for them.

The leaders of the Alt Right are extremists. Followers may still consider themselves moderates. But there were plenty of Germans who endorsed the  Fuehrer in general even if they thought the vileness of the cartoons and 'news' items in Der Stuermer unspeakably vile and thought the street violence excessive... and perhaps that the Jews were getting a raw deal but there must be something to the mass hatred against them. But we have more jobs (paid much less and requiring more hours) and the propaganda is dazzling.

One can compromise with flawed people to seek out the best of them, perhaps with some inducements to get them to do better than they might otherwise have done. One cannot compromise with pure evil and not be soiled. Pure evil can manipulate commonplace dreams and even virtues, let alone the tools of entertainment and information, turning them to evil ends.

A cause like the Nazis, the Bolsheviks, the Ba'athists, or ISIS not only needs the fanatics who shape the cause and give it its meaning -- but also the gullible sympathizers who go along as if nothing has changed except the direction of the country. America under control of the Alt.Right will likely go down much the same way as Nazi Germany and Thug Japan went. You will remember the pageantry while you forget that people whom you should have seen as brothers are carted off... out of sight, out of mind? No, you're not going to believe the lies of the ZDF, RAI, or NHK, are you? (those are German, Italian, and Japanese broadcasters, and this time freedom is far more secure in Germany, Italy, and Japan than in America). Maybe not until some occupying army shows the 2026 equivalent of people from the cities surrounding Dachau, Bergen-Belsen, Mauthausen, or Buchenwald being compelled to go on an excursion to see the consequences of the obscene deeds against the pariahs of the fascistic regime.

But remember -- it is the moderates who squeal on a neighbor who complains about being pressed to work too hard or to do unpaid work on behalf of some Party Boss. Or that the neighboring "Simpsons" in Springfield, Missouri (who are not to be confused with Homer, Marge, Bart, and Lisa in "Springfield, state undisclosed) "are really the Silversteins". Or maybe "He talks like that blogger who thought that the middle name of Donald Trump was Judas". Or even "My cranky uncle once sent a postcard from Toronto that read "It's great to be in a free country again!" So your reward is a paid vacation to an amusement park, time off from work and a voucher for lodging and dining as you get to see the Party Rally, the nice car that the 'Simpsons' were using, a piece of a savings account that your uncle will never get to enjoy in the labor camp, or a gift certificate for some new clothes. Your children appreciate your choice. With totalitarian rule come moral compromises in the name of the Nation, the Race, or the Inexorable Tide of History.  

Americans, prepare yourselves for the worst time in your history. Do not compromise with evil even if it has an American flag attached. And yes, that means you, Warren.

What would Jesus do? In Nazi Germany He would have been packed away in a cattle car to be gassed in some fake shower.
(08-14-2017, 12:59 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]
(08-14-2017, 12:34 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]I would define the alt-right as extreme right, however many people there are in it. At least 30% of America is extreme right of one kind or another today. "Extremist" really just refers to views, not actions, however that term may be mis-used. What I might concede is that relatively few of them are violent members of hate groups. It depends how big the contagion grows. Trump fuels or enables it and depends on it.

I'd disagree with the definition.  The alt right dances with white supremacy.  At best, expect an equality argument that affirmative action has been taken too far.  At worst expect the old symbols of blatant racism to be openly displayed.

I quite agree that Trump has flirted with it, generally holding himself a few millimeters short of blatant.  If 'fuels or enable is' is strong, it's not very strong.  At the same time, there are enough liberal press members to blow any hint way out of proportion.`

But it is quite possible to embrace the unraveling memes without associating with the alt right.  Not all of the right are with the alt right.  The alt right cares about specific issues.  It's quite possible to belong to the conservatives, right, or Republican party without being committed to said issues.

Me?  I see pockets of American culture where you can't get in unless you're a white male.  It's not as bad as it was, but it's still there.  As long as those pockets persist, I'd expect some variation on affirmative action to break down the cultural supremacist elements.  Where these pockets have vanished, the affirmative actions should vanish as well.  It is possible to take affirmative action too far.  The question is not only how to strive for equality, but how to measure it.

Not disagreeing
[Image: DHNjaOrVwAg_eLb.jpg]

Which is like saying that the pedestrian killed by a drunk driver is culpable for being within range of the drunk driver.

Blaming the victim is a common practice among the villains of history.

The problem isn't "white guilt" or "minorities seeking dignity".
(08-14-2017, 02:31 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]
(08-14-2017, 01:05 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: [ -> ]The problem is that we're clearly in a 4T and in a 4T the center never holds.  I would say that like summoning a demon by saying its name, the left is busy doing that now with fascism.  Fascism can only arise if there is a credible threat of communism.

I'm dubious that we're in a true 4T.  We haven't had a regeneracy, a clear decisive shift into new values and trial and error mode.  We're in see saw mode.  That puts as more in 3T stagnation and disagreement than in a 4T decisive culture shift.  Of course, there is a partisan tendency to see any brief moment on the top of the see saw ride as some sort of permanent thing.  Hillary will win.  Trump will suddenly develop people skills.  At this point, I'm not holding my breath.

What would this be if not 4T, the timing of the Financial Crisis and election of Obama was spot on. Delayed regeneracy does not mean back to 3T which I have not recognized, I'm thinking we're looking at years a major civil strife(short of civil war) during this 4T, possibly with other countries getting involved. It will probably involve international conflict and US domestic upheaval. 

Most 4Ts devolve into civil wars, even the American Revolution was a civil war with up to a third of the population at the time belonging to the Loyalists. Actually the last 4T was the exception to the rule with the New Deal coming very early in the 4T with democratic  dominance.

If we do go down the route of civil strife/civil war then this 4T will probably end badly for many, we could end up with dictatorship, continued wealth inequality and corporate supremacy, and bitter social/race relations like after the first Civil War.
(08-14-2017, 03:36 PM)Emman85 Wrote: [ -> ]
(08-14-2017, 02:31 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]
(08-14-2017, 01:05 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: [ -> ]The problem is that we're clearly in a 4T and in a 4T the center never holds.  I would say that like summoning a demon by saying its name, the left is busy doing that now with fascism.  Fascism can only arise if there is a credible threat of communism.

I'm dubious that we're in a true 4T.  We haven't had a regeneracy, a clear decisive shift into new values and trial and error mode.  We're in see saw mode.  That puts as more in 3T stagnation and disagreement than in a 4T decisive culture shift.  Of course, there is a partisan tendency to see any brief moment on the top of the see saw ride as some sort of permanent thing.  Hillary will win.  Trump will suddenly develop people skills.  At this point, I'm not holding my breath.

What would this be if not 4T, the timing of the Financial Crisis and election of Obama was spot on. Delayed regeneracy does not mean back to 3T which I have not recognized, I'm thinking we're looking at years a major civil strife(short of civil war) during this 4T, possibly with other countries getting involved. It will probably involve international conflict and US domestic upheaval. 

Most 4Ts devolve into civil wars, even the American Revolution was a civil war with up to a third of the population at the time belonging to the Loyalists. Actually the last 4T was the exception to the rule with the New Deal coming very early in the 4T with democratic  dominance.

If we do go down the route of civil strife/civil war then this 4T will probably end badly for many, we could end up with dictatorship, continued wealth inequality and corporate supremacy, and bitter social/race relations like after the first Civil War.

I am not confident that patterns that held fine in the industrial age will hold if we enter a information age or post scarcity pattern.  You spin on things is too clockwork for my taste.  My vision is more see saw, featuring false regeneracies as new world views fail.

Bush 43 was hailed early on in the old forum as a potential grey champion.  He had a new culture that might be called neo colonialism, which I labeled as preemptive unilateral serial nation building.  He went into Iraq, marched on the oil, and proceeded to start building huge military bases and embassy buildings.  There was lots of talk about where he should go next after Iraq was secured.

In the age (moment?) of the sole superpower, that would have been a 4T transformation had he managed to make it work and have the people back the transformation.  Instead, while he had a brief moment of popularity in Iraq, it fell away and he lost an insurgent war and ruined the US economy trying to pay for war without increasing taxes.  I would propose that a true 4T involves a total commitment to a very different behavior.  For the most part, Bush 43 had his commitment.  His efforts failed.  The debate of stay the course against cut and run ended with cut and run and a middle east destabilized.

Obama similarly lost in the end, losing both houses of Congress and the White House.  He did stabilize the economy but did not punish Wall Street when a lot of folks were calling for it.  He spent a lot of political capitol and good will getting the kluge that is Obamacare passed, leaving half the country disappointed and the other half angry.  During his time the flag cartoon was drawn, which marked a triumph of equality but brought a lot of racists into the open that had been hiding in corners since the awakening.

[Image: flags.jpg]

I see both 43 and 44 as having big ideas that could conceivably have changed the country had all gone well.  All did not go well.  Instead of leaving behind a changed culture, they handed power to political opponents.  Neither would be remembered as a grey champion who transformed America for the better.  Trump 45?  It’s still pretty early but he doesn’t seem to have the people skills to make things work.  The question is what lessons the voters will learn, what the reaction will be to his failures.  The see saw is apt to do what see saws do, but what exactly will replace the Trump protest presidency?  Too early for me to call anything.

Meanwhile the spiral of rhetoric and violence are not going critical.  After both OKC and 911 the political establishment came out and declared that violence was not how Americans instituted domestic political change.  The People have more or less agreed.  Thus far the spirals have not taken off.  In spite of a sensationalist press, the violence has been sporadic and the perpetrators are more apt to be declared lone nuts than patriots.  Thus, I’m not with those who predict a new civil war.

That’s where I’m at.  I see half the country still enthralled with the unraveling memes, borrow and spend, trickle down, spend on the military, cut domestic spending, the government is the problem, cut regulation.  It hasn’t worked, but I anticipate many will be looking for someone who might try to make them work.  Trump 45 without people skills isn’t apt to make it work, and wouldn’t even if the unraveling ideas were still in season.  If the current muddle continues, the blue faction is apt to have its turn on top of the see saw.  The question is whether things will so clearly need to be done that people are ready to do them.  If the blues try and do not succeed in a spectacular 4T fashion, the see saw flips again.
Another charming (sarcasm intended) image:

[Image: DHDgHaGVwAAeyNy.jpg]
(08-14-2017, 02:31 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]
(08-14-2017, 01:05 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: [ -> ]The problem is that we're clearly in a 4T and in a 4T the center never holds.  I would say that like summoning a demon by saying its name, the left is busy doing that now with fascism.  Fascism can only arise if there is a credible threat of communism.

I'm dubious that we're in a true 4T.

You can be dubious all you want. We're still in a true 4T and have been since 2008 at least (though I date it at 2005).

Quote: We haven't had a regeneracy, a clear decisive shift into new values and trial and error mode.

Actually we have. It just didn't take the form you expected so you're denying it. For someone who accuses others of values lock frequently you have more than touch of it yourself. What is Trump himself if not the hostile take over of one of the major parties.

Quote:  We're in see saw mode.  That puts as more in 3T stagnation and disagreement than in a 4T decisive culture shift.

I imgine you'd have said the same in 1937 or 1858 too. I would argue that we are in the micro-3T of the 4T. Since we are going to have an internal crisis in a Mega-Unraveling we are of course going to have two camps emerge from the micro-2T which passed away around the close of 2015ish. That is of course the Regressive Leftists of the Antifa/Occupy/BLM stripe vs the Tea Party/"alt" right.

Quote:  Of course, there is a partisan tendency to see any brief moment on the top of the see saw ride as some sort of permanent thing.  Hillary will win.  Trump will suddenly develop people skills.  At this point, I'm not holding my breath.

Hillary had no chance of winning. As I've pointed out previously unless a candidate is running against an incumbent president of their own party one does not lose the primary and then later get elected president. Indeed losing the primary to an incumbent president and later becoming president itself is rare happening only with Reagan so far as I'm aware. History was against her so it didn't matter how many were "with her".

Trump has always had people skills. He's just a true born New Yorker. Having lived for an extended period in NYC/NJ I get him, but people from outside that area don't seem to get him.

Quote:I have a feeling that some of the Alt Right people wearing Nazi or Klan regalia and praising Hitler are doing so because it makes people jump and go all irrational.  This doesn't imply that the violent folks don't often take it more seriously.  I remember my old high school American History class, where we had an extended discussion of an awakening race riot held in a nearby town.  We actually had eyewitnesses, participants, two close friends, ladies, both ever so ready to say how much fun they had throwing punches and scratching at folks with opposite pigmentation.  In the end, they got in the car together and drove home.

Here's the thing. You may be right or wrong, I'm unsure because I'm not part of the alt-right. I'm currently on the right (right now) but only because the left is so far left as to be essentially Trotskites (most of them are too irrational to be Marxist-Leninists). I will say this though, the alt-right does have intellectual content. Content that isn't readily apparent if your only information on them is whatever the lie du jour is on on CNN about them. The ideological component of the alt-right is identitarian in nature, it is the white response to racial and sexual identity politics that has been the play thing of the left since the 1960s.

Let me be clear, we can either have identity politics for everyone (which includes cis gender, straight white men--with bonus points for being southern and Christian) or we have identity politics for no one. If the choice is everyone, then the likes of Richard Spencer and Jared Taylor have to have a seat at the table. If you were to ask me there should be identity politics for no one. But of course that would mean a more or less permanent domination by the right for at least two turnings. Because lacking ideas the left turned to identity.

Quote:While there is admittedly a strong streak of anti communism in classic mid 20th century fascism, there are many forms of autocratic racist dictatorship.  Saddam might stand as an example of one who took the authoritarian way of thought and applied it to totally non-European cultures.

Fascism is not a synonym for authoritarian, much less "things I don't like". It is a political ideology that only raises its head in the presence of a credible threat by communism which is why fascism arose in the 1920s.

Saddam's Ba'athist Party was mostly an Arab Nationalist Party, its ideology was largely that Iraq is an arab nation and is friends with other arab nations and hates all non arabs particularly a certain tribe closely related to the arabs. Apart from Jew Hate and silly looking mustaches Saddam had little in common with Hitler.

Quote: I see Hitler, Stalin and Mao as creating authoritarian structures, alike in too many ways, the left right distinction lost behind a commitment to Agricultural Age hierarchy, authority and intimidation.  I could see the current owners of the means of production using fascist ideas and values without communists hiding under every bed.

The reason for that is because Nazi Germany, Stalinist Russia and Maoist China were all authoritarian regimes with more or less centrally planned economies. (Remember Nazi is a German Language abbreviation for the words National Socialist. All three were socialist so their differences were more a matter of what spices the baker favored rather than if yeast and flour were used.)

I don't see the use of fascist or fascist like tendencies without a credible threat of communism, or some other leftist absurdity. The class interests of those who own capital is to see that capital make them huge profits. Fascists eventually end up with a centrally planned economy, something not in the interests of the owners of capital unless those owners happen to be the largest and most well established firms. That said in the West such blue chip corporations have far too many shareholders to please.
(08-14-2017, 05:51 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: [ -> ]The reason for that is because Nazi Germany, Stalinist Russia and Maoist China were all authoritarian regimes with more or less centrally planned economies.  (Remember Nazi is a German Language abbreviation for the words National Socialist.  All three were socialist so their differences were more a matter of what spices the baker favored rather than if yeast and flour were used.)

I don't see the use of fascist or fascist like tendencies without a credible threat of communism, or some other leftist absurdity.  The class interests of those who own capital is to see that capital make them huge profits.  Fascists eventually end up with a centrally planned economy, something not in the interests of the owners of capital unless those owners happen to be the largest and most well established firms.  That said in the West such blue chip corporations have far too many shareholders to please.

The structure I put on things has modern authoritarian governments growing out of agricultural age values. The government is willing to terrorize its own people and features such things as secret police and knocks on the door in the middle of the night. The values do not include functioning multiparty democracy or real human rights. See Genghis Khan for one early authoritarian example, or any of Cynic Hero's old time examples of how things were and might yet be done.

Sure, you can find patterns where modern authoritarian governments take a shape similar to others which have come before. It is easier to borrow than create. I just wouldn't consider such patterns to be inherent limits. The pattern will be shifted as necessary to meet the dictator's need.

I'm also not sure that a blue leaning solution to the hypothetical post scarcity economic problems might not count as a "leftist absurdity" by some right leaning extreme partisan authoritarian. An awful lot of people are stuck looking at things from the mid 20th century perspective. I think that lessons were learned in that era, that the things tried now will not be as extreme as they were back then. I am watching the Scandinavian 'socialist' pattern with vague hope, while others scream in panic at the word 'socialist' as much as what is actually going on.

I see the key question is if democracy and human rights can hang on, or whether the elite owners of the means of production can co-opt government. An awful lot of attention has been diverted in the US to the urban / rural values divide, but the haves / haves not divide might truly be more key.
It is more key indeed, but the trick which the haves have pulled is to get the rural folks voting for them, by means of appealing to their prejudices and fears.
(08-14-2017, 05:37 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: [ -> ]Another charming (sarcasm intended) image:

[Image: DHDgHaGVwAAeyNy.jpg]

McAuliffe calls you UN-American. (assuming of course that the guy is actually one of the "deplorables" who might have shown up in Charlottesville)
(08-14-2017, 01:13 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: [ -> ]Americans, prepare yourselves for the worst time in your history. Do not compromise with evil even if it has an American flag attached. And yes, that means you, Warren.

People waving Confederate flags in WWII did not bring back slavery.  People waving WWII German flags are not going to bring back Hitler.

I'm far more worried about Antifa, as they have a direct connection to a group of elites ready to take power.  When I see you spending as much time criticizing Antifa as you do white nationalist demonstrators, I'll know we can start worrying about the white nationalists.  Until then, I'll concentrate on the greater threat.

Quote:What would Jesus do? In Nazi Germany He would have been packed away in a cattle car to be gassed in some fake shower.

I'm an atheist; why would I worry about what Jesus would do?
(08-15-2017, 02:07 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: [ -> ]I'm far more worried about Antifa, as they have a direct connection to a group of elites ready to take power.  

And others are worried that the white supremacists have a direct connection to Donald Trump. (The fact that he has been known to re-tweet Neo Nazis and his own father was once arrested at a KKK rally doesn't help.  And that he had to be dragged kicking and screaming to condemn them specifically after this last atrocity.)

No, I'm more afraid of the white supremacists, because you know, they're racists.  

Just listen to what they have to say for themselves:



(08-15-2017, 08:44 AM)gabrielle Wrote: [ -> ]No, I'm more afraid of the white supremacists, because you know, they're racists.  
And the BLM / Antifa savages aren't? I agree with Warren Dew, they're the bigger threat. They're the ones that are getting violent and they're doing a great job of turning a lot of people against their cause, at least down in this part of the Southeast where I have started seeing calls to start tearing down MLK monuments and street signs. While the majority of the people may not be mustering the militia and taking the fight to them, many of them are preparing for a perceived coming civil war while praying for a balkanization and break up of the country.

The rise of white nationalism is nothing more than a response to the perpetual, never ending howls of "institutionalized racism" and the bogus excuse that whitey is keeping the black man down. There's a running joke around these parts that the reason you don't see "us" out there protesting is that "we" have to get up in the morning and go to work, unlike those "protesters" that sit on their asses with their hands out waiting to get bussed in to some protest du jour.
(08-15-2017, 08:44 AM)gabrielle Wrote: [ -> ]
(08-15-2017, 02:07 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: [ -> ]I'm far more worried about Antifa, as they have a direct connection to a group of elites ready to take power.  

And others are worried that the white supremacists have a direct connection to Donald Trump. (The fact that he has been known to re-tweet Neo Nazis and his own father was once arrested at a KKK rally doesn't help.  And that he had to be dragged kicking and screaming to condemn them specifically after this last atrocity.)

It's extremely unlikely that they have a direct connection to Donald Trump.  Unlike, say, Black Lives Matter, whose events always occurred at times convenient to Obama and to the Clinton campaign, the timing of these events is often quite inconvenient for Trump.

Quote:No, I'm more afraid of the white supremacists, because you know, they're racists. 

Both sides are racist, so that's not a differentiating factor.
(08-15-2017, 02:36 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: [ -> ]Yeah, BLM and Antifa are Kremlin bootlickers, supported by GRU/Spetsnaz, anti American scum ...

ooops ... wait ... they are not.

Well, I happen to think they are scum, based upon their behavior and actions but saying they are Kremlin bootlickers or supported by the GRU / Spetsnaz is giving them too much credit. I don't think they really understand the communism / socialism that they claim they want.
(08-15-2017, 02:36 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: [ -> ]
(08-15-2017, 11:14 AM)noway2 Wrote: [ -> ]
(08-15-2017, 08:44 AM)gabrielle Wrote: [ -> ]No, I'm more afraid of the white supremacists, because you know, they're racists.  
And the BLM / Antifa savages aren't?  I agree with Warren Dew, they're the bigger threat.  They're the ones that are getting violent and they're doing a great job of turning a lot of people against their cause, at least down in this part of the Southeast where I have started seeing calls to start tearing down MLK monuments and street signs.  While the majority of the people may not be mustering the militia and taking the fight to them, many of them are preparing for a perceived coming civil war while praying for a balkanization and break up of the country.

The rise of white nationalism is nothing more than a response to the perpetual, never ending howls of "institutionalized racism" and the bogus excuse that whitey is keeping the black man down. There's a running joke around these parts that the reason you don't see "us" out there protesting is that "we" have to get up in the morning and go to work, unlike those "protesters" that sit on their asses with their hands out waiting to get bussed in to some protest du jour.

Yeah, BLM and Antifa are Kremlin bootlickers, supported by GRU/Spetsnaz, anti American scum ...

ooops ... wait ... they are not.

So what?  Any and all groups who advocate violence should be subject to the MIC's spying so evidence can be collected for the purposes of assigning any group as a terrorist organization.

terrorism definition Wrote:The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

Sorry, if a group of any sort walks like a terrorist organization, advocates violence to further a political agenda like a terrorist organization, and performs actual acts of violence like a terrorist organization then it is a fucking terrorist organization.

And those Antifa clowns are a bunch of worthless Stalinists.  Stupid fucks calling their buddies "comrades".
Yeah, if BLM does this shit also, it high fucking time to cuff 'em and stuff 'em. Angry And since the MSM has droned on and on about right wing terrorists groups, I can just defer to them to out that stuff.  I'm out to bring balance to the meme that leaves out other groups.
(08-15-2017, 02:07 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: [ -> ]I'm far more worried about Antifa, as they have a direct connection to a group of elites ready to take power.  When I see you spending as much time criticizing Antifa as you do white nationalist demonstrators, I'll know we can start worrying about the white nationalists.  Until then, I'll concentrate on the greater threat.

As far as I can tell, Antifa is a consortium of privileged children doing penance,  SJW types from college campuses and simple joiners looking for a rush.  I fail to see any evidence of "a direct connection to a group of elites ready to take power". Enlighten us ... please.
(08-15-2017, 05:09 PM)David Horn Wrote: [ -> ]
(08-15-2017, 02:07 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: [ -> ]I'm far more worried about Antifa, as they have a direct connection to a group of elites ready to take power.  When I see you spending as much time criticizing Antifa as you do white nationalist demonstrators, I'll know we can start worrying about the white nationalists.  Until then, I'll concentrate on the greater threat.

As far as I can tell, Antifa is a consortium of privileged children doing penance,  SJW types from college campuses and simple joiners looking for a rush.  I fail to see any evidence of "a direct connection to a group of elites ready to take power". Enlighten us ... please.

I am reminded of the Nixon White House delusions.  They sincerely believed that the Democratic Party, SDS and similar organizations were being sponsored and run by the Soviets.  The possibility of sincere disagreement with Republican policy was dismissed by their level of paranoia.  Between the habit of Jim Crow and purported wisdom of the domino theory, they let go of reality, embraced partisanship, and trampled on the law and Constitution.  Misplaced common sense and tradition can lead one quite far astray.

I'm used to strawmen here on these forums.  Extreme partisans of any flavor will attribute false motivations to any that disagree with them.  That's what this smells like.  Some will make up lies, and partisans of the correct ilk are disposed to believe it.  The lies get repeated as if truth.

I'm not inclined to believe the worst even of the racist element.  A lot of their ilk could be wearing swastika because it makes their elders over react, not because they really want to push minority folk into cattle cars heading for gas chambers.  Some people just like attention, violence and belonging.  Some will adapt beliefs to get these things.  Alas there are lone nuts and patriotic believers mixed in who take it beyond games.

At this same time, sensationalist and partisan elements of the media are willing to blow everything way out of proportion.

One should take the views of extreme partisans here with many a grain of salt.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32