• ‘Reichsbürger’ members in Germany have increased by over 50 percent: report
    43 replies, posted
[QUOTE]The number of members of the so-called “Reichsbürger” movement has risen to 15,600 in January this year, according to a media report published on Friday. Meanwhile at the beginning of 2017, officials had counted 10,000 members of the far-right group - meaning that there was an increase of over 50 percent within one year, Focus newspaper reports. The biggest scene is in Bavaria, where the authorities counted about 3,500 “Reich citizens.” This is followed by Baden-Württemberg with 2,500 and North Rhine-Westphalia with 2,200. Further down are the states of Lower Saxony with 1,400 and Saxony with 1,300. But the Reichsbürger movement has existed in Germany and beyond for decades. Since the 1980s, the movement has consisted of a loose association of fragmented groups across the country that agree more or less that the Federal Republic of Germany is not legitimate. They instead believe that entities like the German Reich or even Prussia ought to still exist. Affiliates often circulate conspiracy theories among themselves - such as that Germany is an American colony - and they are also often linked to right-wing extremism. Reich citizens are monitored nationwide by the Office for the Protection of the Constitution.[/QUOTE] Source: [url]https://www.thelocal.de/20180112/reichsbrger-members-in-germany-increases-by-over-50-percent-report[/url]
So these guys are essentially Nazi sovereign citizens? Great. Just what we all needed.
I swear to god, we got sucked into a time vortex. The world is flat again, measles and polio and shit are killing folks, and now the fucking nazis are back. What happened
[QUOTE=Zakkshockv2;53052690]I swear to god, we got sucked into a time vortex. The world is flat again, measles and polio and shit are killing folks, and now the fucking nazis are back. What happened[/QUOTE] The Cold War and the Cuban Missile Crisis are also back too :frown:
[QUOTE=Zakkshockv2;53052690]I swear to god, we got sucked into a time vortex. The world is flat again, measles and polio and shit are killing folks, and now the fucking nazis are back. What happened[/QUOTE] We're making a desperate attempt at going back to the vague nebulous concept of "the good old days".
[QUOTE=Zakkshockv2;53052690]I swear to god, we got sucked into a time vortex. The world is flat again, measles and polio and shit are killing folks, and now the fucking nazis are back. What happened[/QUOTE] hey guess what: the nazis never went away, now they're just emboldened enough to rear their ugly heads we just have our civic duty to smack em back down like a game of wack a mole
[QUOTE=Zakkshockv2;53052690]I swear to god, we got sucked into a time vortex. The world is flat again, measles and polio and shit are killing folks, and now the fucking nazis are back. What happened[/QUOTE] Well, they say fads come in 20-year cycles, and it's been about 80 years since the Nazi Party started causing a ruckus in Germany, so...
[QUOTE=Zakkshockv2;53052690]I swear to god, we got sucked into a time vortex. The world is flat again, measles and polio and shit are killing folks, and now the fucking nazis are back. What happened[/QUOTE] Nah. The internet and social media has just made these people's views more noticable. People notice extremes, not averages. So when 10,000 people start using the internet or social media, you notice the 5 people posting about the flat earth instead of the 9,995 posting about mundane shit.
In school (UK) when we learned about the Nazis there was a lot of focus on "this could happen again, don't let it". Didn't think we would actually face that kind of threat though, certainly not this soon
[QUOTE=Zero-Point;53052778]Well, they say fads come in 20-year cycles, and it's been about 80 years since the Nazi Party started causing a ruckus in Germany, so...[/QUOTE] do you think Nazis havent been making a ruckus since then? white supremacist extremists have been responsible for the majority of terrorism in the US for the past two hundred years
[QUOTE=Judas;53052896]do you think Nazis havent been making a ruckus since then? white supremacist extremists have been responsible for the majority of terrorism in the US for the past two hundred years[/QUOTE] yea, that's not true. Right wing terrorism only overcame left wing terrorism with the end of the cold war (however, then and now it's not so simple), the only president to be assassinated besides lincoln was a guy shot by an anarchist, and america had one of the most militant labor movements in the world back in its day. also, reichsburger is not a nazi movement
[QUOTE=Conscript;53052955]yea, that's not true. Right wing terrorism only overcame left wing terrorism with the end of the cold war (however, then and now it's not so simple), the only president to be assassinated besides lincoln was a guy shot by an anarchist, and america had one of the most militant labor movements in the world back in its day. also, reichsburger is not a nazi movement[/QUOTE] Are you really equating labor movements to terrorism?
[QUOTE=ElectricSquid;53052966]Are you really equating labor movements to terrorism?[/QUOTE] Do you know what the word militant means? You're aware our country is the origin of May Day, right? Our labor struggles could be described as labor wars
[QUOTE=Conscript;53052955]yea, that's not true. Right wing terrorism only overcame left wing terrorism with the end of the cold war (however, then and now it's not so simple), the only president to be assassinated besides lincoln was a guy shot by an anarchist, and america had one of the most militant labor movements in the world back in its day. also, reichsburger is not a nazi movement[/QUOTE] ... you are aware that more than 2 presidents have been assassinated, right?
[QUOTE=Judas;53052990]... you are aware that more than 2 presidents have been assassinated, right?[/QUOTE] Didn't you know JFK was a myth? Also nobody tried to kill Jackson, nobody killed Garfield, nobody killed McKinley (and thus the Secret Service were never tasked to protect the President from that day forward), nobody tried to shoot T. Roosevelt, nobody shot at FDR, nobody tried to kill Truman, nobody tried to crash a plane into the White House to kill Nixon, nobody tried to kill Ford, nobody tried to kill Ford [I]again, in the same month[/I], nobody attempted to shoot Carter, nobody shot Reagen, nobody plotted to car bomb Bush H., nobody tried to bomb Clinton, nobody shot at Bush W., and nobody tried to assassinate 'the devil' Obama. We have a long standing history of Presidents whom have never been targeted for assassination, thank you very much. And all those people who attempted to assassinate presidents? They're all crazy so ignore whatever political leanings they might've had - just buy into my 'violent left' narrative. Sorry, be [I]Concsript[/I]ed into my 'violent left' narrative. [highlight](User was banned for this post ("Threadshitting" - UncleJimmema))[/highlight]
[QUOTE=Bob The Knob;53052816]In school (UK) when we learned about the Nazis there was a lot of focus on "this could happen again, don't let it". Didn't think we would actually face that kind of threat though, certainly not this soon[/QUOTE] Germany has suffered what its president called the "biggest crisis in 70 years" due to the collapse of coalition talks. For three months now, the previous government acted as a caretaker, and its still not known when the grand coalition will finally form again. [B]In light of all this[/B], the support of this "group" increased only by 0.06% across the population (doesn't make a really catchy headline, does it?). And Reichsbürger is really just an umbrella term of various [U]fragmented[/U] kinda Sovereign Citizen-ish groups. Their members aren't even supporting the same cause (for example, some want the Prussian Empire to be restored, borders of 1871 included), while only 900 of them are considered right wing extremists by local agencies. So I'm not at all worried about nazis taking over, unlike most people here. In fact, all this only shows how much trust Germans put in their democratic state and political processes.
[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;53053031]Didn't you know JFK was a myth? Also nobody tried to kill Jackson, nobody killed Garfield, nobody killed McKinley (and thus the Secret Service were never tasked to protect the President from that day forward), nobody tried to shoot T. Roosevelt, nobody shot at FDR, nobody tried to kill Truman, nobody tried to crash a plane into the White House to kill Nixon, nobody tried to kill Ford, nobody tried to kill Ford [I]again, in the same month[/I], nobody attempted to shoot Carter, nobody shot Reagen, nobody plotted to car bomb Bush H., nobody tried to bomb Clinton, nobody shot at Bush W., and nobody tried to assassinate 'the devil' Obama. We have a long standing history of Presidents whom have never been targeted for assassination, thank you very much. And all those people who attempted to assassinate presidents? They're all crazy so ignore whatever political leanings they might've had - just buy into my 'violent left' narrative. Sorry, be [I]Concsript[/I]ed into my 'violent left' narrative.[/QUOTE] If I recall correctly Theodore Roosevelt was shot but survived because the bullet hit his glasses case (I think) and a book with a copy of a speech he was going to make. edit: fixed lowercase edit2: first I and fixed name spelling. Was Theordore lol
[QUOTE=TheBorealis;53053048]If i recall correctly Theordore Roosevelt was shot but survived because the bullet hit his glasses case (I think) and a book with a copy of a speech he was going to make.[/QUOTE] That does sound right. Really, going through the list of attempts on our Presidents' lives it reads like fiction sometimes because something always either goes miraculously right or miraculously wrong. Also, Presidents getting shot and just 'shrugging it off' while maintaining their speeches and so forth. 16/45 Presidents have either had a known attempt on their life that was foiled or failed or were successfully assassinated (note: I'm only including ones that reached public knowledge, I'm sure it's much higher than that in reality). That's a staggering 35% chance that, if you're the President, someone is going to get at least part-way to finding a way to murder you.
[QUOTE=Judas;53052990]... you are aware that more than 2 presidents have been assassinated, right?[/QUOTE] My mistake, now address the argument [quote]We have a long standing history of Presidents whom have never been targeted for assassination, thank you very much. And all those people who attempted to assassinate presidents? They're all crazy so ignore whatever political leanings they might've had - just buy into my 'violent left' narrative. Sorry, be Concsripted into my 'violent left' narrative.[/quote] Wow, that post of yours makes you sound unhinged [highlight](User was banned for this post ("Threadshitting - Again" - UncleJimmema))[/highlight]
[QUOTE=Conscript;53053076]My mistake, now address the argument[/QUOTE] Your argument was addressed and found not only wanting but built on a foundation made of quicksand. [quote]Wow, that post of yours makes you sound unhinged[/quote] Not as unhinged as suggesting that who we would call 'the left' today is responsible for the majority of the assassinations of 'the right'. That's patently untrue. Are you going to sit there and state that Lincoln would be a member of the modern-day Conservative party, for instance? Because he was Republican at the time he was in office and would, in today's political climes, find their views to be rather against his own. That's not even getting in to your 'labor movements were terrorists' shtick, which is ridiculous on the face of it.
[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;53053081]Your argument was addressed and found not only wanting but built on a foundation made of quicksand.[/QUOTE] No it wasn't, I did indeed get the number wrong but it has no impact on the argument, which if I need to remind you is that right wing terror is not what overwhelmingly dominates US history. Your nutty rant aside, of four presidents assassinated one was by an anarchist and another by a marxist that was likely mentally ill. This point was only one component of my argument. Now try again. Do you realize how dishonest you look by seizing on an irrelevant detail to dismiss an entire argument out of hand?
[QUOTE=Conscript;53053095]No it wasn't, I did get the number wrong but it has no impact on the argument, which if I need to remind you is that right wing terror is not what overwhelmingly dominates US history. Your nutty rant aside, of four presidents assassinated, one was by an anarchist and another by a marxist that was likely mentally ill. This point was only one component of my argument. Now try again.[/QUOTE] The [I]number[/I] wrong? You insinuated that there was just two! And you didn't even mention the attempted assassinations, of which there have been a plethora. You're a man stating that you have an expertise and expert knowledge on history - and yet you're demonstrating that you're not even equipped with the most bare facts. All you've got is calling people nicknames like 'nutty' and going all overdramatic 'oh wow that's so unhinged' like the disingenuous debater you're proving yourself to be. Perhaps you should try again, starting from a point of legitimate contention with actual facts backing your wild assertions. Prove that there is a 'violent left' and prove that that 'violent left' is actually 'the left' you're even claiming it to be to begin with. [quote]Do you realize how dishonest you look by seizing on an irrelevant detail to dismiss an entire argument out of hand?[/quote] Do you realize how dishonest it is to state 'ignore my lack of knowledge on this subject and instead trust in my judgments, which I shall dictate as truth despite not having foundational-level knowledge in the subject matter I'm going to rant about'?
[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;53053099] You're a man stating that you have an expertise and expert knowledge on history[/quote] You just made this up, find this statement. I'm a guy on a gaming forum. I'm starting to think there may actually be something wrong with you [quote]All you've got is calling people nicknames like 'nutty' and going all overdramatic 'oh wow that's so unhinged' like the disingenuous debater you're proving yourself to be.[/QUOTE] Dude, I made a point about a whole side of terrorism and civil conflict in American history being conveniently ignored here to connect today's populist resurgence to a false narrative of white supremacy being the main threat. I referenced how this side has killed presidents, and in the process I made an embarrassing mistake on the number of them (although it doesn't actually change the ideological balance). You went on a complete rant because for some reason the idea of left wing terror triggers you Thanks for de-railing this conversation and helping sunder a discussion before it even started.
[QUOTE=Conscript;53053113]You just made this up, find this statement. I'm a guy on a gaming forum. I'm starting to think there may actually be something wrong with you[/quote] Whereas I'm starting to think that there's not an honest bone in your debating body. In order to claim an expert opinion (e.g. 'there is a violent left, despite your insistence that there is not') you have to demonstrate that you are an expert. Otherwise, how could you even begin to claim that what you know is more informed than what we know? If you're going to be talking about the violence of a spectrum of political views, and then demonstrate that you're not even read up on the subject, then your insistence that the movement you assert must exist falls flat on the face of itself because of one simple reason: How could you possibly know if you're not even aware of the history of violence within that portion of the political spectrum? How would you even know what a 'true narrative' was if you don't have the knowledge required to tell fact from fiction? [quote]Dude, I made a point about a whole side of terrorism and civil conflict in American history being conveniently ignored here to connect today's populist resurgence to a false narrative of white supremacy being the main threat. I referenced how this side has killed presidents, and in the process I made an embarrassing mistake on the number of them (although it doesn't actually change the ideological balance). You went on a complete rant because for some reason the idea of left wing terror triggers you Thanks for de-railing this conversation and helping sunder a discussion before it even started.[/QUOTE] And thank you for demonstrating your lack of knowledge on this subject so that it could be swiftly kicked in the arse before pages and pages of useless debate over points you're not even presently aware of were had. You're stating 'but you're ignoring American history' and I just slammed your nose into a book and told you to read it. That book is called 'American History' and it's obvious you haven't read it. I don't know how you could even begin to state there is a 'false narrative' if you don't even have the facts with which to reason whether it is or isn't. The one who is ignoring American history is you - and the reason you're ignoring it is as obvious as the nose on your face: It harms your position - and when facts harm a position then that means that position is built on either lies or a lack of expert knowledge. All you have is 'triggered' and 'false narrative' and 'something's wrong with you'. These are the statements a man with no real arguments states in the face of overwhelming fact. Concede your point or prove it.
I have no idea what you're ranting about. Address the points and stop shitting up the thread 1) Right-wing terrorism only overcame left wing following the end of the cold war 2) The late 19th and early 20th century was rife with labor conflict and outbursts of violence, bombings, and killings coming from one of the most militant labor movements in the world that delivered us May Day, and was frequently dealt with by national guard and private security 3) Of the presidents assassinated, one was by an anarchist, one was by a likely mentally ill marxist, one was by a southern reactionary, and the final one by someone very mentally ill. None of these are contested by historians. They're tragic, not political, claims. It's just reflective of a fact that our history of civil conflict is quite a bit more complicated than the original claim suggests. That was my original point, here is the quote in quoted claim in question. [quote]white supremacist extremists have been responsible for the majority of terrorism in the US for the past two hundred years[/quote] A cursory glance at the relevant [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_the_United_States#Attacks_by_type]wiki[/url] shows white supremacy is a significant threat among many significant threats, and that there is an ebb and flow in a dominant threat. The above claim is transparently political and attempting to spread fear during a time of populist upsurge and backlash to it.
[quote]I have no idea what you're ranting about.[/quote] Yes, that's the problem we all are having with you. But fine, let's get into it and see how long you last. 1: Define right wing and left wing. Are we going with Democrats v. Republicans or are we sticking with 'what is now considered left and right wing'? Because those are two [I]extremely[/I] different things and which version we're dealing with is very important to the overall topic of 'violence within American politics' and will significantly alter my responses to your issues. Further, if you can't pass at least this first gate then there is absolutely no reason to debate with you further on this subject, so please be precise in your answer. 2: That time period was rife with all manner of conflict. The 'police' themselves were violent and at times bombed places, murdered families, stole things and so forth - as law enforcement in the 18s (at the very least) had more in common with organized gangs being empowered by governments to enforce law (because that's precisely what it was) than the mostly-professional public organization we would recognize today. Demonstrate how your targets were [I]particularly more violent[/I] than those surrounding them. 3: And this bears into your point how? Why are we not also discussing the myriad attempts on the lives of our Presidents - are those not also 'acts of political violence' at their most extreme and high-reaching? 4: "No reason to claim white supremacist extremists responsible for majority of terrorism in the US for past two hundred years" What is: The Civil War. What is: The KKK. What is: America First. What is: The Unabomber. Et cetera. Edit: Please note I am using these examples as they are the most significant moments of 'home grown terror and/or extremism' the United States has bore witness to - thus are important to define presently. Also, pre-emptively, please note I am not attempting to necessarily exclude groups such as the Black Panthers, the Mafias, and so forth -- I am doing my best to remain focused on groups who have an interest in the 'national politic' rather than merely just the interests/safety of their own group and who were not born from pre-established criminal organizations. If I've forgotten some important groups of particular size/historical value by chance please include them in your response and we'll talk about them. I'm assuming we're only talking about political activists who produced semi-organized violence against targeted groups here, as 'terrorism' would imply.
[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;53053151] 1: Define right-wing terrorism and left wing. Are we going with Democrats v. Republicans or are we sticking with 'what is now considered left and right wing'? Because those are two [I]extremely[/I] different things and is very important to the overall topic of 'violence within American politics'.[/quote] I guess what is now (and then) considered left and right wing? The incidents are american, but the ideology behind it is not unique to us and can be seen in europe as well. They are generally related to issues of class and race/ethnicity. Also, why do I need to define it when it's defined for us in what I linked? The only categories that are tough to place are anti-abortion, which doesn't actually fit the mold of terror to preserve an oppressive supremacist structure and therefore doesn't support claims about a populist threat, and Islamic, which is technically right wing. [quote]2: That time period was rife with all manner of conflict.[/quote] Yup. What the police evolved in response to was originally draft riots, strikes, and other facets of mass crowd unrest. You might find this essay [url=https://worxintheory.wordpress.com/2014/12/07/origins-of-the-police/]of interest[/url]. It has a left-wing bias however. [quote]The police themselves were violent and at times bombed places - as it had more in common with an organized gang (because that's precisely what it was) than the mostly-professional public organization we would recognize today. Demonstrate how your targets were [I]particularly more violent[/I] than those surrounding them.[/quote] Why? This has no relevance to whether or not a certain brand of terrorism was more of a threat than another. This may help us understand how and why it has changed over time in an immeasurable way, but it does not give any support to the claim that right wing terrorism is the foremost threat to the US consistently over the last 200 years. This brand of logic ('the police or state are thugs for x class or group') is a common excuse for terrorism, by the way. [quote]3: And this bears into your point how? Why are we not also discussing the myriad attempts on the lives of our Presidents - are those not also 'acts of political violence' at their most extreme and high-reaching?[/quote] Because they succeeded, for one. But a lot of the attempts can't really be tied to either left or right extremism. For example, this is about the guy that made an attempt on Teddy Roosevelt: [quote]At Schrank's trial, the would-be assassin claimed that William McKinley had visited him in a dream and told him to avenge his assassination by killing Roosevelt. He was found legally insane and was institutionalized until his death in 1943.[26][/quote] [quote]What is: The Civil War. What is: The KKK. What is: America First. What is: The Unabomber. Et cetera. [/quote] The civil war wasn't a war against white supremacy in the slightest, it was a war against reactionary plantation owners that were doing too well with industrialization and were inconsistent with the liberal values of the north. That north was by no means anti-racist. The KKK is a legitimate example as is the Unabomber. America first was a party, not a terror group. But the point is it's pretty disingenuous to say that white supremacists are responsible for the majority of terrorism over the last 200 years and then try to use to spread fear over today's political polarization. We can look at the list events in the wiki I listed and see how muddled things are. Even when it comes to modern terrorism after each group 'had their time' after the 60s/70s, the 90s (specifically oklahoma city), and 2001 for the left, right, and islam respectively, there's balance between left and right after 9/11. Beginning in 2016, according to [url=https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/which-ideology-has-inspired-most-murders-terrorist-attacks-us-soil]CATO[/url], left wing terrorism accounted for 23 deaths and right wing 5 (14 if we adjust for Dylan Roof in 2015, and I think there was another incident recently that caused a handful of deaths). The reality of domestic terrorism and the source of political violence in general is not so simple, where we can just point to the right. America is a postcolonial country with a lot of racialized class strife, a history of riots, strikes, and mass unrest, so none of this is surprising at all. Your biggest gripe with me seems be that you think I'm saying left wing terror is the problem instead (I'm going to ignore when you asked me to prove a violent left exists), and there's a mandate for dealing with that. I am not making a black and white claim like the original one I quoted, I am poking holes in fear-mongering.
[QUOTE=Conscript;53053226]I guess what is now (and then) considered left and right wing? The incidents are american, but the ideology behind it is not unique to us and can be seen in europe as well. They are generally related to issues of class and race/ethnicity. Also, why do I need to define it when it's defined for us in what I linked? The only categories that are tough to place are anti-abortion, which doesn't actually fit the mold of terror to preserve an oppressive supremacist structure and therefore doesn't support claims about a populist threat, and Islamic, which is technically right wing.[/quote] The important bit was seeing if you were even aware that the party called Democrats today and the party called Republicans today were once the other. Since you've demonstrated a lack of knowledge on that I don't really see any point in further discussing anything with you, as that's a particularly important bit of information if you're even going to get into 'left versus right' in american politics as that's one of the most singularly important bits of information you could have on our political parties: that they switched places on the political spectrum despite keeping their names. Lincoln, for instance, is a Democrat on the spectrum today (not a Progressive either I'd argue - an Establishment Democrat smacks more true) - whereas he is touted as an 'amazing Republican' by the present-day Republican party, in hopes that 'nobody notices' that Lincoln wouldn't be caught dead in the present Conservative/GOP parties. "The Party of Lincoln" is truly the Democrat party, despite the Republicans insistence that we only look at the name/letter next to his rather than the policies he was after. If you lack that much information on the absolute core of the thing you're even mad about, I don't feel the need to educate you on what's certain to be a myriad of other topics that would be necessary for us to have an actual and interesting discussion over any of this. You lack the knowledge to debate on this subject. I recommend you go learn it and then come back if you want to have one as otherwise rather than debating I'll be tutoring - and that's a service I charge for. You've a lot of extremely surface-level knowledge on these topics - which I attribute to you Wikipedia-ing everything - which shows you're not read up on this subject enough to really form useful commentary about it. [quote]The civil war wasn't a war against white supremacy in the slightest, it was a war against reactionary plantation owners that were doing too well with industrialization and were inconsistent with the liberal values of the north. That north was by no means anti-racist.[/quote] Also this line is just precious: 'the north was by no means anti-racist'. Please. It wasn't even about 'racism'. It was about slavery. Incidentally about racism, sure, but the crux and fulcrum of the whole deal was slavery -- that men were being forced into lives of slavery through means outside of their control. Less 'make blacks our equals', more 'make blacks Americans'. Though, certainly, there were sentiments about blacks being treated as equal peers with some folks in the background it was more about American citizens not being treated as American citizens despite being American citizens. The distinction is that folks would be for black emancipation -- but against them using the same bathrooms as whites and so forth. 'Separate, but equal' - which was still somewhat racist. Through that lens we can conclude that, by majority, neither side was 'anti-racist'. [quote]Your biggest gripe with me seems be that you think I'm saying left wing terror is the problem instead [/quote] My [B]biggest gripe[/B] with you is stating that 'X is the problem' when you demonstrate you don't have enough actual knowledge of the topic in question to even state it's the problem. You have a conclusion and are just throwing together piecemeal 'evidence' to support your hypothesis which - by the way - you don't propose as a hypothesis but 'the only rational conclusion'. It's disingenuous, sophomoric, and poor debating; that's my biggest gripe.
^^Why are you lumping in strikes and unrest as if it were terrorist activities? By your logic France is full of terrorists lol
[QUOTE=_Axel;53053233]^^Why are you lumping in strikes and unrest as if it were terrorist activities? By your logic France is full of terrorists lol[/QUOTE] It's not full of terrorists, but you did have the Paris commune and 1968 did look like it was close to an outright revolution of some sort. The left is pretty strong historically there as far as I can tell. I didn't say they were terrorist activities though, I said they were part of a wider labor movement that was more militant than others in industrialized countries, and featured lots of individual violence that often led to the national guard being called in. The infamous Haymarket affair started with a bomb thrower. The Colorado Labor Wars featured basically insurgent elements of the strikers repeatedly blowing shit up. You have the Battle of Blair Mountain which was an outright mass uprising. And, of course, we have a dead president shot by an anarchist (and not the Rothbard sort). It seems pretty ridiculous to ignore this side of political violence in our history and claim white supremacy was it all along and this reflects on today's issues. It's not that simple. [quote]The important bit was seeing if you were even aware that the party called Democrats today and the party called Republicans today were once the other. [/quote] I'm well aware of that. It doesn't change anything about the historical balance of of terrorism/extremism in the US.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.