California police worked with neo-Nazis to pursue 'anti-racist' activists, documents show - Polidicks

[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;53122438]Sure, just ignore the historical basis for America being a nation of immigrants because a bigoted supremacy faction within the nation wants a white ethnostate and has a President who's willing to pander to them. But, sure, it's just a poem, go ahead and shit on Lady Liberty and everything she represents as an image. It's not like the America today is even recognizably deserving of having the statue. Ship it back to the French or give it to us Canadians or something.[/QUOTE] Stephen Miller did a pretty good job arguing points about the poem. America was objectively not a nation of immigrants. This is not to apologize or justify our history. It was a nation of colonists that stipulated a pretty narrow definition of a) citizenship and b) voting franchise upon creation of the republic and come those waves of immigration in the late 19th/early 20th century, the government used national origin quotas to limit and decide who it wanted. This had the effect of limited consistent inflows and permitting assimilation, although this is widely criticized as letting certain groups of immigrants assimilate into whiteness and this is evidence of our racist system. Either we are a nation of immigrants or our history is a tale of white supremacy and patriarchy, I'm seeing either coming from one side of the political aisle here and it appears contradictory.

[QUOTE=Conscript;53122491]Stephen Miller did a pretty good job arguing points about the poem. America [U]was objectively not a nation of immigrants.[/U][/QUOTE] Source [B]immediately[/B] that demonstrates that the history of our nation has been wholly fabricated. Also a source that demonstrates that the Native Americans did not have 'countries' of their own at the time of the [I]immigrants[/I] arrival to American shores. I want people with PHDs and Doctorates stating that George fucking Washington was a Native American who grew up in America and if you can't I want you to withdraw the totality of that wholly ridiculous claim.

[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;53122489]Firgof already pointed out to you that [I]we are talking about American Nazis[/I]. Let's look back at Charlottesville, where you had pasty white fuckboys carrying tiki torches and yelling about not being replaced by Jews as well as tons of other shit, [URL="https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/lets-party-like-its-1933-inside-the-disturbing-alt-right-world-of-richard-spencer/2016/11/22/cf81dc74-aff7-11e6-840f-e3ebab6bcdd3_story.html?utm_term=.82bde4102ef2"]and their pal, Richard Spencer.[/URL] Now please tell me how you plan on invalidating the Washington Post as a valid source for my argument.[/QUOTE] You said a supremacy faction, how do these small groups of people with too much free time represent a supreme majority to you? Were you not referring to the Republican party as a majority party in Congress? Either way, if you think these small gatherings of angry young people pose a threat to the nation you're as delusional as the people who think the Antifa pencil necks pose a similar threat.

[QUOTE=Conscript;53122491]Stephen Miller did a pretty good job arguing points about the poem. America was objectively not a nation of immigrants. This is not to apologize or justify our history. It was a nation of colonists that stipulated a pretty narrow definition of a) citizenship and b) voting franchise upon creation of the republic and come those waves of immigration in the late 19th/early 20th century, the government used national origin quotas to limit and decide who it wanted. This had the effect of limited consistent inflows and permitting assimilation, although this is widely criticized as letting certain groups of immigrants assimilate into whiteness and this is evidence of our racist system. Either we are a nation of immigrants or our history is a tale of white supremacy and patriarchy, I'm seeing either coming from one side of the political aisle here and it appears contradictory.[/QUOTE] The American Dream used to be that anyone could make it in America. It didn't matter where you came from or where you were born, America was a land of opportunity and freedom, where all walks of life were celebrated and what mattered was your initiative and drive to succeed. Someone should update America's profile to say "No vacancy: Whites only, the less education the better".

[QUOTE=Johnny Joe;53122497]You said a supremacy faction, how do these small groups of people with too much free time represent a supreme majority to you? Were you not referring to the Republican party as a majority party in Congress?[/QUOTE] Who said anything about a 'supreme majority'? They said, as you quote properly, [I]a supremacy faction[/I]. As in [I]white supremacy[/I].

[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;53122499]Who said anything about a 'supreme majority'? They said, as you quote properly, [I]a supremacy faction[/I].[/QUOTE] A supremacy faction is one who controls a large part of a government.

[QUOTE=Johnny Joe;53122501]A supremacy faction is one who controls a large part of a government.[/QUOTE] Prove that that phrase means what you say it means rather than it meaning a 'supremacist faction' which it has already been clarified to mean. And, yeah, there's definitely supremacists in the Republican party because the Dixiecrats folded into them after they got done with having to put up with their fellow Democrats poo-pooing their incredibly racist dogma. I won't make the claim that the Republican Party as a whole holds their sentiments but it would be inaccurate to state that they haven't successfully infiltrated and at least to some extent changed the goals and rhetoric of the party. "States Rights" was the Dixiecrat motto - and it is now the motto of many a Republican.

[QUOTE=Johnny Joe;53122497]You said a supremacy faction, how do these small groups of people with too much free time represent a supreme majority to you? Were you not referring to the Republican party as a majority party in Congress?[/QUOTE] Do you need five sources and your mom to hold your hand through the explanation of how the alt-right has staged a hijacking of the Republican Party with the election of "their" candidate, the swamp-draining outsider who's going to represent their interests in Washington? Not every Republican party member and voter is a white supremacist, but the party is listening to and espousing cryptosupremacist and not-even-crypto supremacist policies and views and they're trying to implement them: Slashing legal immigration, building a wall (which will fucking accomplish nothing), banning immigration from specific Muslim countries, deporting the fuck out of everyone they can (ICE actions have spiked since Trump took office), defending the President when he calls majority-brownskinned nations "shitholes", and cutting protections for minorities.

[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;53122505]Prove that that phrase means what you say it means rather than it meaning a 'supremacist faction' which it has already been clarified to mean. [/QUOTE] Because supremacist =/= supremacy. Supremacist implies a striving towards supremacy, Supremacy faction implies a supremacy has been reached already. [QUOTE=elixwhitetail;53122510] Not every Republican party member and voter is a white supremacist[/QUOTE] Really, because the way I see some of the talk around here, one would get the idea that all Republicans are putrid nazi bigots who deserve to be strung up and their children beheaded and the faultless and unerring and infinitely compassionate Democratic Party should ascend to the role of overseer of a one party nation.

[QUOTE=Johnny Joe;53122512]Because supremacist =/= supremacy. Supremacist implies a striving towards supremacy, Supremacy faction implies a supremacy has been reached already.[/QUOTE] No, [B]S[/B]upremacist implies something entirely different. Splitting hairs here, but I think describing the actions of a Supremacist faction would be describable as 'acts of supremacy', just as a racist would be conducting racism. [img]https://imgur.com/6Eb5Yxf.png[/img] [quote]Really, because the way I see some of the talk around here, one would get the idea that all Republicans are putrid nazi bigots who deserve to be strung up and their children beheaded and the faultless and unerring and infinitely compassionate Democratic Party should ascend to the role of overseer of a one party nati[/quote] Those Republicans who are refusing to stand up to all this crap are abetting and aiding those who are as nasty as you state. I don't think they should be strung up and all that ridiculous ultraviolence you're writing there - but they should absolutely be removed from power, removed from office, and barred from politics.

[QUOTE=Johnny Joe;53122512]Because supremacist =/= supremacy. Supremacist implies a striving towards supremacy, Supremacy faction implies a supremacy has been reached already.[/QUOTE] How about you stop this retarded semantics and actually confront my arguments instead of trying to rules lawyer about meaningless shit? I'm talking about a political party that's been half-replaced by radical white nationalists and Johnny Joe wants to argue over the dictionary. Amazing.

[QUOTE=Johnny Joe;53122497]You said a supremacy faction, how do these small groups of people with too much free time represent a supreme majority to you? Were you not referring to the Republican party as a majority party in Congress? Either way, if you think these small gatherings of angry young people pose a threat to the nation you're as delusional as the people who think the Antifa pencil necks pose a similar threat.[/QUOTE] The fact that Nazism is alive, if not entirely well, in America of all countries, not clue you in to the fact that something's badly wrong with that fact? Don't move goalposts here, the likes of Nazis, wherever they are, are a threat to basic human dignity because, I dunno, their entire ideology is based around a master race and eliminating anybody that doesnt fit in that category. They don't need any legitimization, pluralism be damned, because Nazism should've died with WW2. That orange ape getting elected to the Oval Office only encourages them because he's as much a piece of racist trash as any of these self-proclaimed neo-Nazis. I have less of a problem, but still a rather big problem, with the rest of the far right because they don't seem to support, or understand, any concepts of human dignity, societal dignity, or anything else besides "what's mine is mine" and "non-whites and dirty illegals get out", to say nothing of using the law as an excuse to trample on others.

[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;53122514]No, [B]S[/B]upremacist implies something entirely different. Splitting hairs here, but I think describing the actions of a Supremacist faction would be describable as 'acts of supremacy', just as a racist would be conducting racism. [img]https://imgur.com/6Eb5Yxf.png[/img][/QUOTE] I literally wrote this. [QUOTE]Supremacist implies a striving towards supremacy[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Johnny Joe;53122512]Because supremacist =/= supremacy. Supremacist implies a striving towards supremacy, Supremacy faction implies a supremacy has been reached already. Really, because the way I see some of the talk around here, one would get the idea that all Republicans are putrid nazi bigots who deserve to be strung up and their children beheaded and the faultless and unerring and infinitely compassionate Democratic Party should ascend to the role of overseer of a one party nati[/QUOTE] fucking lmao are you serious here quit with the hyperbole, quit with the quibbling, we just arent interested in seeing literal nazis gain any currency even with angry, disenchanted people who want something to blame because their lives suck for whatever reason.

[QUOTE=Johnny Joe;53122520]I literally wrote this.[/QUOTE] Except Supremacist is a noun. It is not a verb. Also, are you going to argue against the substance of the argument or merely the semantics of it?

[QUOTE=Zonesylvania;53122528]fucking lmao are you serious here quit with the [B]hyperbole[/B], quit with the quibbling, we just arent interested in seeing literal nazis gain any currency even with angry, disenchanted people who want something to blame because their lives suck for whatever reason.[/QUOTE] How ironic. You call Donald Trump an avowed National Socialist (and I can tell you with all my years in Political Science that that certainly is untrue in every regard and almost an insult to actual National Scocialists) and then accuse other people of hyperbole. Absolutely amazing, I can see there is no point arguing with people who believe in such wild and comical things. Have a lovely weekend. [highlight](User was permabanned for this post ("Cannot Function Here" - UncleJimmema))[/highlight]

[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;53122481]I want to know why you're perpetuating something that you refuse to specifically source; that you can't or won't demonstrate is more than your opinion.[/quote] I explained the cyclical history of US terrorism many times, how it fluctuates between right and left, in the past to you and gave evidence of political polarization and its correlation to violence in the context of today's challenges to liberalism and democracy, and how our racialized class system is leading towards extremism and violence on either side because both share frustration with globalization. I used numbers to support this thesis and offered my own personal experience on the left. You just get massively butthurt every thread I say this, de-rail, and never address the argument. Since it's led to us being banned last time, I'm expecting better behavior from you this time or I'm just going to ignore you. [quote]You started it by talking about said party.[/quote] I didn't mention a conservative party. You're about this close to being ignored. [quote]Prove that the objective of those sources you've pulled are specifically 'left extremism towards conservatives'.[/quote] This is an arbitrary standard that's impossible to prove because of the mob-like nature of antifa, however we can look at the 'collateral damage' when demand for fascism fails to meet supply (e.g. unlike the 30s, there is no brownshirted paramilitary) and people start going after the center-right (particularly when party figures start being anti-immigrant or campus orgs invite politically incorrect speakers like Shapiro), because in the end they still perpetuate the same intersectional system of oppression anyway. You're transparently trying to rationalize violence by assuming a default hypothesis that the violence is directed towards non-conservatives, so antifa is accomplishing its 'justified' intention, and setting the standard of proof at such a level that we must fall back on this default hypothesis. [quote]Prove that they were there, specifically, to commit violence against, [U]specifically[/U], conservatives.[/QUOTE] See above. Your debating tactics are beyond dishonest. First you ask for proof specifically targeting a party, and now proof for specifically targeting the center-right as a whole. How about we just stop justifying mobs targeting people in general, because as a system they have no incentive to responsibly use the label 'nazi' and the power it afford you by calling someone such and this vigilante justice has no proven effects on right wing terror. Intelligence agencies do, and incidentally they are now monitoring the left as well because of past history (e.g. left wing terrorism in the 70s).

[QUOTE=Conscript;53122536]I explained the cyclical history of US terrorism many times, how it fluctuates between right and left, in the past to you and gave evidence of political polarization and its correlation to violence in the context of today's challenges to liberalism and democracy, and how our racialized class system is leading towards extremism and violence on either side because both share frustration with globalization. I used numbers to support this thesis and offered my own personal experience on the left. You just get massively butthurt every thread I say this, de-rail, and never address the argument. Since it's led to us being banned last time, I'm expecting better behavior from you this time or I'm just going to ignore you. I didn't mention a conservative party. You're about this close to being ignored. This is an arbitrary standard that's impossible to prove because of the mob-like nature of antifa, however we can look at the 'collateral damage' when demand for fascism fails to meet supply (e.g. unlike the 30s, there is no brownshirted paramilitary) and people start going after the center-right (particularly when party figures start being anti-immigrant or campus orgs invite politically incorrect speakers like Shapiro), because in the end they still perpetuate the same intersectional system of oppression anyway. You're transparently trying to rationalize violence by assuming a default hypothesis that the violence is directed towards non-conservatives, so antifa is accomplishing its 'justified' intention, and setting the standard of proof at such a level that we must fall back on this default hypothesis. See above. Your debating tactics are beyond dishonest. First you ask for proof specifically targeting a party, and now proof for specifically targeting the center-right as a whole. How about we just stop justifying mobs targeting people in general, because as a system they have no incentive to responsibly use the label 'nazi' and the power it afford you by calling someone such and this vigilante justice has no proven effects on right wing terror. Intelligence agencies do, and incidentally they are now monitoring the left as well because of past history (e.g. left wing terrorism in the 70s).[/QUOTE] You do a lot of 'explaining' and very little sourcing. [I]Sources please.[/I] I don't care much for your explanations, I care for the sources backing those explanations. Also I am only asking for sources on claims you have made. When you stated those weren't the claims you made, I then asked for sources on the claims as you stated they were meant to be. e: If you don't like that the burden of proof lies firmly on the accuser then perhaps you should stop making accusations without sources at the ready to back your claims.

[QUOTE=Johnny Joe;53122532]How ironic. You call Donald Trump an avowed National Socialist and then accuse other people of hyperbole. Absolutely amazing.[/QUOTE] Point out anywhere that I called Trump, avowed or not, as a National Socialist. What I pointed out is that Trump is the beacon for such dregs of humanity to rally around because they see in him somebody willing to support racism, isolationism, and what have you that disproportionately affects people of color compared to whites. And none of that is the same as "Trump is a nazi because of my say-so".

[QUOTE=Johnny Joe;53122532]How ironic. You call Donald Trump an avowed National Socialist (and I can tell you with all my years in Political Science that that certainly is untrue in every regard and almost an insult to actual National Scocialists) and then accuse other people of hyperbole. Absolutely amazing, I can see there is no point arguing with people who believe in such wild and comical things. Have a lovely weekend.[/QUOTE] Aw hell no, you can't make shit up as an excuse to parachute out of the thread without addressing my arguments after you spent several posts ignoring them for the sake of trying to rules lawyer a word in order to make the argument that...???? I don't fucking know because you didn't actually substantiate anything except trying to weakly poke holes in what other people are saying. Zones didn't say anything about Trump being "an avowed National Socialist" so quit lyin and defend your arguments like a fucking man lmao Way to go, you sure did a great job defending Republicans today. :v:

[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;53122492]Source [B]immediately[/B] that demonstrates that the history of our nation has been wholly fabricated.[/quote] ...what? [quote]Also a source that demonstrates that the Native Americans did not have 'countries' of their own at the time of the [I]immigrants[/I] arrival to American shores.[/quote] Immigrants arrive between systems. Colonists create them. The entire contradiction between our civilization and their's, which led to all sorts of atrocities and Amerindians being pushed westward, was that their's was less developed. It wasn't based on private ownership and exploitation of the land, formation of cities, and subsequent states that immigrants migrate between. [quote]I want people with PHDs and Doctorates stating that George fucking Washington was a Native American who grew up in America and if you can't I want you to withdraw the totality of that wholly ridiculous claim.[/QUOTE] Colonists are not immigrants. [QUOTE=elixwhitetail;53122498]The American Dream used to be that anyone could make it in America. It didn't matter where you came from or where you were born, America was a land of opportunity and freedom, where all walks of life were celebrated and what mattered was your initiative and drive to succeed.[/quote] I agree somewhat, but it's not that simple. The republic clearly had a manifestation of identity that the state was for the posterity of, and immigration was tailored accordingly to protect a demographic balance until 1965 (in which case, Ted Kennedy promised it wouldn't alter this balance, and it really didn't until 20 years later). Further, the republic had a voting franchise that clearly emphasized some sort of internal hierarchy past race (class, gender, etc). So, I see a rivalry between the narrative that America is of the free and for all, and the idea that it's a white supremacist capitalist patriarchy. It would appear that for most of its history, it was the former for whites (western europeans progressing to eastern and southern), property owners, and men. While past history isn't justifiable, the right could easily make a case that we are re-inventing itself and it thus has a conservative role in moderating this. However, this seems to have reached a breaking point as that middle class civic identity has died and tribalism has risen, so all conservative motions against this re-invention are interpreted in the context of preserving a racial power structure. Case in point: You said Trump was pandering to ethnonationalists. [quote]Someone should update America's profile to say "No vacancy: Whites only, the less education the better".[/QUOTE] Interesting how one form of chauvinism and bigotry is more acceptable than others. No wonder Democrats have lost the white working class since the collapse of the New Deal coalition and struggle to win them back. I suppose identity politics is relenting on this point and giving up all hope of regaining the image of labor movements, unions, and talking about jobs and economy. That is why Trump won the rust belt, incidentally. [QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;53122540]You do a lot of 'explaining' and very little sourcing. [I]Sources please.[/I] I don't care much for your explanations, I care for the sources backing those explanations. Also I am only asking for sources on claims you have made. When you stated those weren't the claims you made, I then asked for sources on the claims as you stated they were meant to be. e: If you don't like that the burden of proof lies firmly on the accuser then perhaps you should stop making accusations without sources at the ready to back your claims.[/QUOTE] I don't know what you're asking. I gave a list of well known incidences and sourced claims on others. I'm just going to ignore you because you're not debating and continuing to argue with you despite that has gotten me banned

[QUOTE=Conscript;53122563]Colonists are not immigrants.[/quote] Illegal immigrants that [I]think[/I] they're colonists are not colonists simply because they think they are. Nobody agreed to let them 'colonize' that part of the US - or, in fact, any part of the US before they decided to just start showing up, cutting down trees, and building houses and farms for themselves on other peoples' land. If Russia decided to 'colonize' upstate Maine would they be 'colonists and not illegal immigrants'? Of course not; they'd be invaders - illegal immigrants at best. "Colonist" implies there was nobody living on (or in this case off) those lands to begin with; ergo 'colonizing'; ergo 'colonists'. They called themselves Colonials because they thought, at first, that most of America was unpopulated and that the tribes of the American Natives did not have nations of their own (after a series of lame and racist justifications; that they didn't understand what 'possessions' were, that they didn't have 'possessions', then that they didn't 'own land', then that they didn't have 'a society', and so on). After all, you can't 'colonize' an area that's already been colonized. (e: a more apt analogy) It's like moving onto somebody's tree farm, building a house, and saying 'now someone owns this land'. Nobody gave you permission to do that; you are not a 'colonist' for having migrated to that land and having built a house: you are a squatter, an illegal immigrant, or an invader (take your pick). e: And even if you get permission [I]afterward[/I] to move there, you're [I]still[/I] not a colonist; you just successfully changed yourself from an illegal immigrant to a legal immigrant. [quote]So, I see a rivalry between the narrative that America is of the free and for all, and the idea that it's a white supremacist capitalist patriarchy. It would appear that for most of its history, it was the former for whites (western europeans progressing to eastern and southern), property owners, and men. [/quote] I don't see that 'rivalry of narratives' as anywhere near 'equal' to each other. I don't think you can demonstrate that the average American believes that America is a white supremacist capitalist patriarchy as much as they believe that America is for all. [quote]I don't know what you're asking. I gave a list of well known incidences and sourced claims on others. I'm just going to ignore you because you're not debating and continuing to argue with you despite that has gotten me banned[/QUOTE] So when someone asks you for the sources that form the foundation of your argument, and you refuse to provide them specifically, then [I]they[/I] are not debating with you? I'm not here to debate your opinions; I'm here to analyze and sort through your facts. You've given me a lot of names, places, and dates -- and no evidence that directly backs your claims. Simply repeating those names, dates, and places does not count as 'sourcing'. I want to see why you think what you do, not hear you explain why what you think is correct. I don't want 'a list of names, dates, and places' - I want sources that demonstrate the relevance of those claims you're bringing; you say those incidents are relevant, that's fine, but I'm asking you to prove their relevance to your claim because I'm not going to take your claim that 'they just are evidence' at face value - you must explain [I]why[/I] they are 'evidence' of your claim. I'm not here to do your homework for you. If you don't want to demonstrate to me how your sources are relevant then don't bring them up to begin with.

[QUOTE=Conscript;53122473] This was as of August 2017. [URL]https://www.cato.org/blog/terrorism-deaths-ideology-charlottesville-anomaly[/URL] [/QUOTE] Worth mentioning that 10 of those 13 murders were committed by black supremacists, 7 of which targeted police officers specifically. As long as we are going to pick and choose what goes into what political category attacks like these fall into, it's worth keeping that context in mind. [QUOTE=Conscript;53122473]I want to know why you're trying to rehabilitate one extreme here.[/QUOTE] I don't think anyone here is trying to rehabilitate any extremist elements except for maybe your eagerness to downplay/ignore right-wing extremism. [QUOTE=Conscript;53122491] Either we are a nation of immigrants or our history is a tale of white supremacy and patriarchy[/QUOTE] I don't see how these are contradictory in the least. You'll have to explain to me that one.

[QUOTE=Conscript;53122563]I agree somewhat, but it's not that simple. The republic clearly had a manifestation of identity that the state was for the posterity of, and immigration was tailored accordingly to protect a demographic balance until 1965 (in which case, Ted Kennedy promised it wouldn't alter this balance, and it really didn't until 20 years later). Further, the republic had a voting franchise that clearly emphasized some sort of internal hierarchy past race (class, gender, etc). So, I see a rivalry between the narrative that America is of the free and for all, and the idea that it's a white supremacist capitalist patriarchy. It would appear that for most of its history, it was the former for whites (western europeans progressing to eastern and southern), property owners, and men. While past history isn't justifiable, the right could easily make a case that we are re-inventing itself and it thus has a conservative role in moderating this. However, this seems to have reached a breaking point as that middle class civic identity has died and tribalism has risen, so all conservative motions against this re-invention are interpreted in the context of preserving a racial power structure. Case in point: You said Trump was pandering to ethnonationalists. Interesting how one form of chauvinism and bigotry is more acceptable than others. No wonder Democrats have lost the white working class since the collapse of the New Deal coalition and struggle to win them back. I suppose identity politics is relenting on this point and giving up all hope of regaining the image of labor movements, unions, and talking about jobs and economy. That is why Trump won the rust belt, incidentally.[/QUOTE] America's certainly been less equal and less free for some people; it has no means always been from day 1 about [I]universal[/I] equality, you're certainly right about that. But America decided in the 20th century that Jim Crow laws and banning women from voting was wrong, and these followed a long and lurching process of enfranchising and empowering the non-white-man population in the previous century. This process was, ideally, to continue for the sake of achieving a more perfect union of these American states. But apparently the ideals of the last half of the 20th century have been thrown in the trash in less than 20 years into the 21st, or at least that's what would happen if all decisions were handed exclusively to the right. Black, Latino, and other minorities are having their voting rights attacked, social and civil protections rolled back, and the social atmosphere is one of [I]increasing[/I] hostility. A minority in the country is trying to roll back the progress of two entire generations. That's fucked up. I concede that you have a reasonable point to make in response to my "No vacancy" comment, but that line is meant as a snarky jab at Johnny Joe who refuses to argue with integrity, and my posts in this thread have made clear that I am not judging all Americans for the actions of a bigoted minority; instead, I am pointing out that this bigoted minority has seized a concerning amount of control in the federal government with which it is attempting to advance its harmful agenda. It's about identity politics because the alt-right is making it about identity politics -- namely, we want to harm, disadvantage, and deport people who belong to these identities (black, Muslim, LGBTQ, etc.). Democrats failed to offer the Rust belt any real message, thanks to Hillary doing her damned best to permanently engrave her image as a "rich coastal elite" candidate and assuming she'd win and coasting for the last leg on lazy campaigning in safe states while writing her book on how she won before she actually won. However, I'm assigning an equal amount of blame to Republicans for using bigotry dog whistles to feed on misplaced white anger about immigrants and minorities -- you don't end up with Nazis marching in the streets protesting in support of the sitting President if someone didn't invite them to the conversation. Not all Americans in the South are hood-wearing negro-kickers but fuck if they aren't being quiet and letting the noisy assholes ruin their image for them. Both sides need to loudly and firmly repudiate the extreme elements infecting their political grandstands - and, no, I am not making any implication that the alt-right and antifa/turbo-SJWs are [I]equal[/I] in magnitude or intensity, only saying that both need to be ejected from the political sphere so adults can start talking sensibly again. However, that'd mean kicking out almost half the Republican Party and the optics of such a "purge" would just create a fascist reactionary party, so I don't know how the fuck this gets solved but it has to before a putsch hits. (edit: unfucked bad phrasing that made it look like I was talking shit at Conscript when I meant Johnny Joe)

Here is another source [url]https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/feb/09/california-police-white-supremacists-counter-protest[/url]

[QUOTE=Conscript;53122473] This was as of August 2017. [url]https://www.cato.org/blog/terrorism-deaths-ideology-charlottesville-anomaly[/url][/QUOTE] You can't discount Salon and then post an article from the Cato institute

[QUOTE=proboardslol;53122672]You can't discount Salon and then post an article from the Cato institute[/QUOTE] To be fair, according to the rules in this section, yes he can. [URL="https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/cato-institute/"]Cato Institute:[/URL] Center-right, HIGH factual [URL="https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/salon/"]Salon:[/URL] [B]Left[/B], HIGH factual [QUOTE]Notes: The Cato Institute is an American libertarian think tank with a moderate right wing bias that is headquartered in Washington, D.C. It was founded as the Charles Koch Foundation in 1974 by Ed Crane, Murray Rothbard, and Charles Koch. In July 1976, the name was changed to the Cato Institute. The mission of the Cato Institute is to originate, disseminate, and increase understanding of public policies based on the principles of individual liberty, limited government, free markets, and peace. (7/12/2016) Updated (1/2/2017)[/QUOTE] Whether you and I like it or not, the Cato Institute is an allowable source while Salon is not.

Oh crap what did I start. I’d like to clarify a few things and didn’t mean for this topic to get out of hand. [QUOTE=Elspin;53120620]I mean I can't speak for Wesker but I'm pretty sure that wasn't the point. I took the point to be more that the protesters that are facing charges could very well have done all the illegal things they're claiming are bullshit. If there was antifa presence at the rally the kinds of charges that are listed don't sound all that outlandish I also assumed when he said protesters he wasn't referring to the legitimately peaceful ones, just the ones that allegedly committed violent crimes[/QUOTE] Pretty much this. I was a bit skeptical of the narrative that the counter protesters were just minding their own business when the Nazis decided to start stabbing people while the cops conspired with them. The main reason being that in the article there’s a captioned picture of a group who is identified as “Antifa Sacramento”, but they are never really mentioned throughout the entirety of the article. Going by what we generally know about groups who self identify under the “Antifa” banner, they aren’t generally known for being well behaved at events like these, especially towards cops who have the unpleasant task of providing security for racists or possibly even Nazis. I don’t think it’s out of the question that an Antifa group could have hijacked the counter protest and started antagonizing police who were there to make sure nothing would happen, which could explain why the police may have sided more with the racists if they acted cooperatively with the police AND the Antifa victims acted combatively towards the police. The problem is even if Nazis are terrible violent people, they seem to know when not to be combative with the authorities, while generally an Antifa activist will probably be kicking and screaming at officers calling them fascist pigs for just being present at the protest and trying to maintain a protective perimeter around the Nazis to maintain order. The Nazis are more organized and probably planned things ahead to take advantage of the chaos and get a few stabs into the crowd when the officers lost control of the situation. Then after it was over they could back off and cover for each other for legal questioning while acting like a victim. [QUOTE=F.X Clampazzo;53120621]You seem to be trying to avoid associating the "nationalists" with the term "Nazis", I feel like maybe you're not giving the full story here either. I think you're right to be skeptical, considering an FBI investigation is still underway as far as I understand the OP/article, but lets be honest here; it's a bit disingenuous to dismiss the story based on the journalist not jumping to a buzzword/group association without solid proof of said association.[/QUOTE] I was avoiding outright calling them Nazis because as you just described, it would be bad to jump on labeling that group under the Nazi label without being 100% sure about it. There’s a distinction to be made between run of the mill white supremacists and actual Nazis. Let me be clear here. Nazis should be treated as terrorists and traitors similar to ISIS. Comparing someone to a Nazi or calling them one should have serious connotations, and it’s not a label I would throw around lightly. My personal opinion is that this word has been devalued severely by people using the term with wanton abandon to describe people they don’t like in political discussions. So now that actual fascism is making a comeback and actual Neo Nazis are starting to become more prevalent, a substantial amount of people who lean towards the right politically are not going to take the label or warnings seriously since it has been abused so often when it clearly was not warranted.

[QUOTE=Johnny Joe;53122532] (and I can tell you with all my years in Political Science that that certainly is untrue in every regard and almost an insult to actual National Scocialists) [highlight](User was permabanned for this post ("Cannot Function Here" - UncleJimmema))[/highlight][/QUOTE] wow wouldn't want to insult the *double checks post* actual nazi party?

[QUOTE=AlbertWesker;53122897]Pretty much this. I was a bit skeptical of the narrative that the counter protesters were just minding their own business when the Nazis decided to start stabbing people while the cops conspired with them.[/QUOTE] I think it's worth pointing out that, according to the article, the police investigation/prosecution of Antifa started after a riot last year where Antifa showed up to a legal, scheduled, approved nationalist rally and spurred a violent confrontation. They turned a peaceful (if distasteful and ideologically threatening) rally into a fight, so it's not surprising to me that now the police are going after them. This is how Nazis operate; they follow the law to the letter and count on reactionary fringe elements to lash out and confirm their persecution narrative. Then they can claim innocence while the authorities go after the counter-activists who actually broke the law. If these people did even the most rudimentary research into the history of hate groups and how organizations like neo-Nazis operate, they'd know that they're playing into neo-Nazis' hands by reinforcing exactly the narrative they want to maintain. Even in this thread people are repeating the idea that violence at a peaceful rally is 'self-defense', which both isn't true legally and plainly isn't true in the public consciousness either. Instigating violence, even if you feel provoked, is how you get the law to come down against your side, and slowly force the institution to side with your enemies- these people are doing more harm than good.