“It’s gonna end with concentration camps..."

[Shalidor]

As of right now, it doesn't seem that they are mobilizing to try to increase the violence, which I think pretty much everyone can agree is a good thing. Recent (last 20-30 years) has shown that currently, right-wing terrorism is far more prevalent in the US (74% of terroristic murders, according to NPR). Many of the recent history right-wing acts seem exactly like what the worst of the alt-right would encourage if they could get away with it. Even if the alt-right is too new and small for any of those older acts to actually part of their specific actions, it definitely seems like they have a more radical audience to pull from.

If we're labeling violence committed for political ends as terrorism, then Antifa is currently winning, big, even in the US. Antifa was only recently labeled a terrorist organization and that stat regarding the US doesn't account for that. That said, for the most part, not counting Antifa, that is true. I think it's important to note though that in focusing on the US, it leaves out the rest of the world, and once you look at the entire world, you've got Islamic violence, left-wing violence, and then right-wing violence, in that order, in the last 15ish years.

I'd also remind you that we've had the bike lock attacker, Steve Scalise, and Jeremy Christian who, despite media spin, was a full-blown Sanders supporter. I don't consider people like Dylan Roof to be a member of the alt-right, and I'm pretty far left myself. I don't categorize things as "right-wing terrorism" or "left-wing terrorism." I care about specific people and the groups they support. The reality is that any given member of Antifa is far more likely to have assaulted someone, or destroyed someone else's property than a member of the alt-right.

Conversely, while Antifa and such has grown this year, I strongly suspect that most of that is reactionary. If the issues they're concerned with were addressed, I strongly suspect most of their new growth would leave. Maybe even the old members, if they felt things were being addressed. If they continued to riot and such, or (god forbid) started amassing a body count, then I would be strongly in favor of addressing them as well.

The NJ office of Homeland Security has labeled them a domestic terrorist organization, and for (arguably) good reason. At the very least they should be treated as a criminal organization, and it turns out they have in fact been treated exactly as that. They're communists, and they've proven time and time again they won't hesitate to beat and kick already-unconscious people, or brain someone with bike locks, or, in other parts of the world, set cops on fire with Molotov cocktails. Their "issues" that they want addressed, are that they want a communist society, they want Trump gone, and they want to prevent people with a certain ideology from exercising their free speech rights. I don't like fascists, and I've repeatedly argued against Spencer's white ethno-State in the past, but Antifa is just as bad, arguably worse, than the alt-right for the damage they have already caused.

As of right now, however, I only see one side that is taking uniforms, chants, and ideologies from a monstrous regime. Even if you want to make the comparison between Antifa and the Soviets, I haven't seen any evidence that they want to institute the kind of purges Stalin did.

Not to sound like a libertarian meme, but communism is always one execution away from their idyllic social vision. Most of them are what they call Marxist-Leninist-Maoists, or "MLMs" for short. To give you the short-short version of what that means, each of those three guys had major writings about capitalism, socialism, and communism, and MLMs take a holistic approach to using those writings to formulate their ideology. If you think Antifa isn't taking their ideology from a monstrous regime, you don't know Antifa. You haven't talked to them. If you think they haven't taken chants from a monstrous ideology "It is our duty to fight for our freedom, it is our duty to win! We must love each other and protect each other! We have nothing to lose but our chains!" then you aren't familiar enough with communism to spot what they're doing. That is literally a quote from Marx's Communist Manifesto. Sure, it doesn't sound malicious in a vacuum, but neither does "blood and soil." They might not have adopted the Soviet uniforms, but they aren't Soviets. They're MLMs, so they dress in red and black with the hammer and sickle. That's the closest you can get to an ancom uniform.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating for violence here. I have no sympathy if someone like Richard Spencer gets punched, but I do believe that they are adept at spinning that as a recruitment tool. I would much rather limit it, as much as possible, to things like the online shaming and deplatforming.

I just can't agree with this. People have a right to speak, and anyone who wants to hear them has a right to hear them, and it's a strategically unsound move anyway. The more you try to silence them, the more compelling you're going to make them. Drag their ideas out into the harsh light of day instead. It's not like it's hard to do. You don't even need to throw them hardball questions. The very first time I heard Spencer speak in a softball interview, he was asked about his ethno-State, and how he was going to achieve it. He said he'd offer economic incentives to get non-whites to leave America. For anyone with even a passing knowledge of the history of Nazi Germany, you know that was like the third or fourth "solution" they tried. The majority of Americans aren't Nazis, and they won't support Nazi policies. All we have to do is point out the facts. If the alt-right didn't have so much sympathy from Antifa bashing peoples' skulls in, and the alt-right constantly being silenced, all it would take is a single instance of the curtain being pulled back to dispel what thin hope of majority support they might have had. I've done it before. Question a member of the alt-right enough, eventually they will admit that their ethno-State will require violence to enact. Interestingly enough, most commies I talk to defend their ideology as non-violent, right up until I tell them that Marx said the proletariat should make sure they are never disarmed, because they will need weapons for the revolution, and that Mao said all political power proceeds from the barrel of a gun, and Lenin said counter-revolutionaries have to be killed. Then they admit they're willing to resort to violence. Fascists and communists are both totalitarian demons that need to be opposed on whatever battleground we happen to find them in. Right now, the alt-right is to weak to fight, so they talk. It's perfect for us. Antifa, on the other hand...well, I'll just say I'm happy to see the cops cracking down on assholes who drag stragglers into crowds and beat the shit out of them.

Non-violent is far better when it is possible. Hopefully it doesn't get to the point where we need to actually worry about being forced to abandon non-violent means of change.

One of the first things any self-defense instructor teaches is that you win every fight you don't participate in by default. Antifa have been the ones doing the majority of the escalation. It's not like the alt-right are the aggressors here. Otherwise, see my spiel just above.

[Pannonian]

Well there are two types of "nazis". A: "Hitler build the autobahns in germany, at least something came of it." B: "Death to all da yews. May the great fuhrer rise again! o/" Sadly both are treated the same. If the stuff in the OP is authentic, then the guy belongs to the 2nd category and needs to be watched.. closely.

You know what the problem is with type A. He is lying to somehow redeem Hitler and try to find something positive to flash out, and thereby creating revisionist history*. in my opinion your type A is more dangerous than your type B.

*Hitler neither invented nor started building the Autobahn. The first part was opened a year before he came into power. http://www.dw.com/en/the-myth-of-hit...ahn/a-16144981 - and even if you don't believe any of the wrong myths about the autobahn, it was still a massive forced labor project in the end, and i don't think that's something to glorify.

[raz98]

You know what the problem is with type A. He is lying to somehow redeem Hitler and try to find something positive to flash out, and thereby creating revisionist history*. in my opinion your type A is more dangerous than your type B.

*Hitler neither invented nor started building the Autobahn. The first part was opened a year before he came into power. http://www.dw.com/en/the-myth-of-hit...ahn/a-16144981 - and even if you don't believe any of the wrong myths about the autobahn, it was still a massive forced labor project in the end, and i don't think that's something to glorify.

So was the Panama canal, but we all still benefit from its use.
Im not saying 'Heil Hitler! lord of der Autobahn" you actually taught me something new about the Autobahn today! thank you. In primary school they did actually teach us that Hitler built it, but never specified that it was a project that was already in the works.

[Shkar]

- - - Updated - - -
Yes but it hasnt happened yet. We have to act reactively, not preemptively to people being crazy; otherwise you only give them fuel, and push them closer to that violent reaction.

I dont think deplatforming is the right answer. This is America, every opinion no matter how shitty should be able to be preached here. It is up to the citizen to combat the real crazy shit by opposing them with rationality and discourse. Attacking people with opinions you dont like at this stage just elevates that person and gives them a better vantage for their voice, whereas combating them with counter-points and facts damages their following and catches the ear of someone who otherwise might have joined them.

My point was that I see them as a far more volatile risk. At this stage, what I want to see done in regards to the alt-right is intense scrutiny. I don't want them arrested, savagely beaten, or anything like that. However, I want them to know that they are being watched, and that if they try to escalate, they will not like the result. So, basically what we've been doing with North Korea, I suppose.

As for deplatforming, while your views are great in theory, people just aren't really rational enough for that to work great in practice. Humans handle all kinds of things in weird ways. The first thing you hear on a subject will seem more trustworthy. The more often you hear something repeated, the more likely you are to think it's true. In a world where people think on the facts and arguments, debate works well. In a world where the loudest voice is often seen as the most accurate, you need to play that game.

Think of the vaccine issue. If a news channel, for instance, wanted to have a debate they'd have a person from each side. One of those sides is going to ignore facts and evidence, in favor of shouting what people want to hear, and that side is being represented equally as well as the other. If the two sides are being represented as being equal (one debater each), there's a decent chance that people will side with the person willing to peddle to their more primal fears. Yet, things would likely end up different if you based it on actual stances and such, and had 20 or 30 people on the pro-vaccine side. Even if they're making the same arguments, that would add a ton of weight to their side.

Conversely, if you have some yahoo shouting conspiracy theories on youtube, each person who buys into his arguments and starts repeating them is not only increasing the size of his base, but making it seem more valid by adding their voice to his.

[Pannonian]

So was the Panama canal, but we all still benefit from its use.
Im not saying 'Heil Hitler! lord of der Autobahn" you actually taught me something new about the Autobahn today! thank you. In primary school they did actually teach us that Hitler built it, but never specified that it was a project that was already in the works.

Which is more or less the problem. At least in my country there are people who are very well aware of these facts, but obscure them anyway to somehow justify Hitler. They cannot go around claiming "Look around, Hitler got rid of all the Jews that plagued europe for millenia" (this is what he actually achieved, we had a lot of jewish citizens here, they're nearly completely gone) so they have to find something else. And the Autobahn, or the working initiative is what they mostly go for.

That's also the reason why i do find them even more dangerous. If someone runs on the street yelling "gas all jews", we all know this is either a real nazi or a youtuber. But a friendly guy explaining why some of the things Hitler was doing was good is much less obvious. These people are actually recruiting for the modern Nazi parties in these lands.

[Armakus]

Haha nazis what a non problem lol

Funny, people said the same thing in the 1940's!

[Barnabas]

People wonder why we removed these idiots from the RNC convention now?

[raz98]

My point was that I see them as a far more volatile risk. At this stage, what I want to see done in regards to the alt-right is intense scrutiny. I don't want them arrested, savagely beaten, or anything like that. However, I want them to know that they are being watched, and that if they try to escalate, they will not like the result. So, basically what we've been doing with North Korea, I suppose.

As for deplatforming, while your views are great in theory, people just aren't really rational enough for that to work great in practice. Humans handle all kinds of things in weird ways. The first thing you hear on a subject will seem more trustworthy. The more often you hear something repeated, the more likely you are to think it's true. In a world where people think on the facts and arguments, debate works well. In a world where the loudest voice is often seen as the most accurate, you need to play that game.

Think of the vaccine issue. If a news channel, for instance, wanted to have a debate they'd have a person from each side. One of those sides is going to ignore facts and evidence, in favor of shouting what people want to hear, and that side is being represented equally as well as the other. If the two sides are being represented as being equal (one debater each), there's a decent chance that people will side with the person willing to peddle to their more primal fears. Yet, things would likely end up different if you based it on actual stances and such, and had 20 or 30 people on the pro-vaccine side. Even if they're making the same arguments, that would add a ton of weight to their side.

Conversely, if you have some yahoo shouting conspiracy theories on youtube, each person who buys into his arguments and starts repeating them is not only increasing the size of his base, but making it seem more valid by adding their voice to his.

They should be allowed to spread their belief no matter how they convey it or how stupid it might. You cannot take away free speech from people because they might use it irresponsibly or because irresponsible people might agree with something stupid. All opinions have a right to be heard, and all opinions should be rent asunder by the cold scrutiny of logic. Strong opinions will improve and thrive while weak opinions will whither and die. People who hold a weak opinion will inevitably encounter someone who will question their belief and make them doubt, thus turning in on themselves to reassess their idea. Those who are unwilling to do so are beyond help, and will continue to parrot whatever they hear first, but the answer isnt to control what it is that they hear.
The moment you police what people are allowed to say in public is the moment you have become a petty Tyrant fearing that he will lose control over what the people will discuss without regulation.

Which is more or less the problem. At least in my country there are people who are very well aware of these facts, but obscure them anyway to somehow justify Hitler. They cannot go around claiming "Look around, Hitler got rid of all the Jews that plagued europe for millenia" (this is what he actually achieved, we had a lot of jewish citizens here, they're nearly completely gone) so they have to find something else. And the Autobahn, or the working initiative is what they mostly go for.

That's also the reason why i do find them even more dangerous. If someone runs on the street yelling "gas all jews", we all know this is either a real nazi or a youtuber. But a friendly guy explaining why some of the things Hitler was doing was good is much less obvious. These people are actually recruiting for the modern Nazi parties in these lands.

as long as they are non violent in their approach, then they should be able to make any claim they want. However since you arent American: if those arent the rules there it is not my place to say how your country should be ran or handle such speech since I imagine it isnt black-bagging or killing anyone over it. I'm an absolutist in regards to free speech.

[Cosmic Janitor]

You know what the problem is with type A. He is lying to somehow redeem Hitler and try to find something positive to flash out, and thereby creating revisionist history*. in my opinion your type A is more dangerous than your type B. *Hitler neither invented nor started building the Autobahn. The first part was opened a year before he came into power. http://www.dw.com/en/the-myth-of-hit...ahn/a-16144981 - and even if you don't believe any of the wrong myths about the autobahn, it was still a massive forced labor project in the end, and i don't think that's something to glorify.

The point is not really that he built the fiirst one (We'd have to back to 1921ish for that in theory). It's more that they extended the infrastructure in general because it was of use to them but also benefited the people later on as well. In the same vein, most human achievments are wrought in blood, being aware of that is nice, but for the most part we don't universially condem these (or are expected to). You also made my point, since you injected value into a blank statement and declared it worse than calling for literal genocide because of that. Looking at things from more than one angle does not make you Nazi, but if someone dares to find even a shred of positive in the time friom 1933-1945 he is even worse than Hitler these days, some times not even in hyperbole. You could say that grass was also green in 1933 and people start calling you a Nazi. We have a serious Nazi hysteria at the moment and I'm starting to wonder if 2017 will go down in history as the beginning of that craze or it's peak, I personally hope for the later. Because I'm getting the feeling that the word Nazi and the associations with it become more and more watered down. You can currently see this happening in Germany with the upcoming election where the conservative right wing party get's more Nazi labels thrown at them than the actual Nazi-wannabe party (instead of actual arguments which there are plenty of against them). This trend is troubling and will ultimatelay just help to enable "my" category B types to flourish, because we pretty much don't have labels worse than Nazi in "our" repatoire.

[Orbitus]

I'm not sure who coined the term, but it's been quite useful for the left. This way they can lump anyone they disagree with about anything in with the Nazis without having to defend the claim that they're actually Nazis.

Richard Spencer coined the term because of his website called "Alternate Right". Considering Richard Spencer has been seen doing a lot of Nazi saluting during the campaign for Trump, it is safe to say that anyone that is with him is a Nazi.

[raz98]

Richard Spencer coined the term because of his website called "Alternate Right". Considering Richard Spencer has been seen doing a lot of Nazi saluting during the campaign for Trump, it is safe to say that anyone that is with him is a Nazi.

I believe he actually lost a ton of support over that roman saluting shit when people saw what he was proposing. Which is good, that's just asshattery.

[Orbitus]

The "alt right" does not have any sort of central leadership this is all bs.

Might want to ask Richard Spencer about that, since he made the term, and he has the website, and he was one of the keynote speakers at the Charlottesville hate rally.

- - - Updated - - -

And people wonder why I hate the Alt-left and the Communists.

There is no "alt-left" or communists in this country. So I guess you don't have to worry. Especially since you are FUCKING ENGLAND.

[Pannonian]

The point is not really that he built the fiirst one (We'd have to back to 1921ish for that in theory). It's more that they extended the infrastructure in general because it was of use to them but also benefited the people later on as well. In the same vein, most human achievments are wrought in blood, being aware of that is nice, but for the most part we don't universially condem these (or are expected to). You also made my point, since you injected value into a blank statement and declared it worse than calling for literal genocide because of that. Looking at things from more than one angle does not make you Nazi, but if someone dares to find even a shred of positive in the time friom 1933-1945 he is even worse than Hitler these days, some times not even in hyperbole. You could say that grass was also green in 1933 and people start calling you a Nazi. We have a serious Nazi hysteria at the moment and I'm starting to wonder if 2017 will go down in history as the beginning of that craze or it's peak, I personally hope for the later. Because I'm getting the feeling that the word Nazi and the associations with it become more and more watered down. You can currently see this happening in Germany with the upcoming election where the conservative right wing party get's more Nazi labels thrown at them than the actual Nazi-wannabe party (instead of actual arguments which there are plenty of against them). This trend is troubling and will ultimatelay just help to enable "my" category B types to flourish, because we pretty much don't have labels worse than Nazi in "our" repatoire.

I agree with you that the Nazi label gets thrown around way too much, but in this case i have to take my local experiences. And i don't say type A is always worse - if thats what you read, my bad, should have been more clear - but it can be worse, because that's how modern Nazis recruit.

They don't go around talking about the superiority of the aryan race. No, they talk about how Hitler infrastructure plan really helped Germany (which is a lie) and then they may inject something like ((globalists)) and wink to it.

This has been going on in my country for nearly 40 years now, since the FPÖ (a direct descendant of the Nazi party) was taken over by Jörg Haider. Since then they're always prudent enough to not say stuff that could get them in trouble (and looking at their court record, they still say a lot of bullshit, especially on the lower ranks) but they always have their codes and little winks to their actual beliefs.

And that's while i don't think the AfD is a Nazi party, it definitely plays with a lot of the words symbols and emotions. Especially since the FPÖ had a lot of influence on how the AfD works. So, the AfD is not a Nazi party in my opinion, but they have some Nazis in their ranks, and don't seem to have a problem with it.

[Orbitus]

Communist, that's up in the air. Alt-left? You qualify.

There is NO ALT-LEFT.

[Shkar]

If we're labeling violence committed for political ends as terrorism, then Antifa is currently winning, big, even in the US. Antifa was only recently labeled a terrorist organization and that stat regarding the US doesn't account for that. That said, for the most part, not counting Antifa, that is true. I think it's important to note though that in focusing on the US, it leaves out the rest of the world, and once you look at the entire world, you've got Islamic violence, left-wing violence, and then right-wing violence, in that order, in the last 15ish years.

I'd also remind you that we've had the bike lock attacker, Steve Scalise, and Jeremy Christian who, despite media spin, was a full-blown Sanders supporter. I don't consider people like Dylan Roof to be a member of the alt-right, and I'm pretty far left myself. I don't categorize things as "right-wing terrorism" or "left-wing terrorism." I care about specific people and the groups they support. The reality is that any given member of Antifa is far more likely to have assaulted someone, or destroyed someone else's property than a member of the alt-right.

- Trimmed to shorten post -

One of the first things any self-defense instructor teaches is that you win every fight you don't participate in by default. Antifa have been the ones doing the majority of the escalation. It's not like the alt-right are the aggressors here. Otherwise, see my spiel just above.

As I believe I said, I think a great deal of the Antifa rise is reactionary. Sure, the original people might be pushing for a communist change, but I think the bulk of their members are people who are desperate after the Trump election and the emboldening of the alt-right. I see them as directly responding to those changes, and think that much of the Antifa problem will start to go away if, say, Trump is impeached and groups like Stormfront keep getting shut down. Any violence they commit should absolutely be prosecuted, and any damage they cause should be handled as appropriate.

Even if they are truly, utterly trying for a Marxist US, I find the probability of them succeeding as nearly impossibly low. The US is so staunchly anti-communist that even moderate social programs are looked at with utter distrust. Plus, as I understand things, Marxism isn't outright violent, while Nazism is. That's not too say that communism is specifically peaceful; just that it isn't inherently violent.

As for the deplatforming, I touched on it a bit in my previous post as to why I see it as a somewhat reasonable issue. Obviously, no matter what we do, they're going to be able to spread their message. I'm not saying we should cut out their tongue or something equally horrendous. However, allowing people like Richard Spencer on television, or on a campus, or to have a youtube channel to spread a message is allowing him to amplify his message in a way that his views don't deserve. If people truly want to hear what he has to say, he can start up a newsletter or something. They can have private events. He can have his voice, but we shouldn't be handing him a megaphone to speak louder.

[Orbitus]

Shalidor is the only one here making sense. He's making sound observations, backing up his points, and is calm and rational in his delivery.
most of the people responding to him: "Yeah b-but .. we gotta bash the fash! D:"
He's right, Antifa isnt going to win this culture war because the Alt-Right is using information as their weapon while the Alt-Left is trying to use violence to silence its flow. The average thinking American(the majority) is seeing this and saying "whats are they saying that's so bad that people are willing to attack them to silence?"

You got some proof that he's self professed? because you're implying that he came out and publicly said "I am a nazi". If you could back that claim up, I would appreciate it and be willing to do a complete 180 on my views, as I do not believe we should round up and kill "subhumans".

No, he isn't. He is using a group that doesn't exist and labeling people as such. There is an alt-right group, there isn't an alt-left though. It was made up by the alt-right to try to lump all of the groups that are against the alt-right/nazi douches.

- - - Updated - - -

Right now I am more worred about those antifa guys, who imo might like the idea of camps even more.

Why? Do you see them going around committing terrorist attacks? Nope.

You do, however, see tons of right wing attacks on people. 65 people killed in the last 16 years alone by right wing terrorist attacks and you have ZERO by left wing attackers.

- - - Updated - - -

I believe he actually lost a ton of support over that roman saluting shit when people saw what he was proposing. Which is good, that's just asshattery.

Doesn't matter, he still tried to unite the KKK, Neo-Nazis, and Alt-Right together at that Charlottesville rally that ended up in a terrorist attack. It may be good that he might have lost a little support, but when Trump had an Alt-Right douche being the mouthpiece of the whitehouse for the longest time, Trump encouraged them instead of doing the slam dunk thing for EVERY OTHER PRESIDENT and distancing themselves away from the racists. Trump embraced them.

[raz98]

QUOTE=Orbitus;47374054]No, he isn't. He is using a group that doesn't exist and labeling people as such. There is an alt-right group, there isn't an alt-left though. It was made up by the alt-right to try to lump all of the groups that are against the alt-right/nazi douches.[/QUOTE]

You mean like what you're doing? and technically alt-right refers to really anyone who is conservative who does not like the current conservative party. Thus making them "Alternative right"

There is NO ALT-LEFT.

Yes there is. They're the guys who are violently attacking people in the streets and preaching communism.



- - - Updated - - -

As I believe I said, I think a great deal of the Antifa rise is reactionary. Sure, the original people might be pushing for a communist change, but I think the bulk of their members are people who are desperate after the Trump election and the emboldening of the alt-right. I see them as directly responding to those changes, and think that much of the Antifa problem will start to go away if, say, Trump is impeached and groups like Stormfront keep getting shut down. Any violence they commit should absolutely be prosecuted, and any damage they cause should be handled as appropriate.

Even if they are truly, utterly trying for a Marxist US, I find the probability of them succeeding as nearly impossibly low. The US is so staunchly anti-communist that even moderate social programs are looked at with utter distrust. Plus, as I understand things, Marxism isn't outright violent, while Nazism is. That's not too say that communism is specifically peaceful; just that it isn't inherently violent.

As for the deplatforming, I touched on it a bit in my previous post as to why I see it as a somewhat reasonable issue. Obviously, no matter what we do, they're going to be able to spread their message. I'm not saying we should cut out their tongue or something equally horrendous. However, allowing people like Richard Spencer on television, or on a campus, or to have a youtube channel to spread a message is allowing him to amplify his message in a way that his views don't deserve. If people truly want to hear what he has to say, he can start up a newsletter or something. They can have private events. He can have his voice, but we shouldn't be handing him a megaphone to speak louder.

It wouldnt be cutting out his tongue, but forcing an opinion to operate from hiding is still silencing it.
If he can afford to speak on television he should be allowed to do so, if he pays his dues on time, and can afford it he should be allowed to host his views on his website, if he can muster the strength to press a few buttons and create a youtube channel he should be allowed to do so and use it as he sees fit. His opinions should be layed bare so that cooler minds can attack it with logic, reason, and wholesome discourse.

[OrcsRLame]

Might want to ask Richard Spencer about that, since he made the term, and he has the website, and he was one of the keynote speakers at the Charlottesville hate rally.

- - - Updated - - -



There is no "alt-left" or communists in this country. So I guess you don't have to worry. Especially since you are FUCKING ENGLAND.

Nope, no Communists here.

But lemme guess, this is another false flag by the notorious hacker 4chan.

See, I just love using pictures as empirical evidence. People try and say the Nazis didn't have concentration camps, I link a picture of the Nazi concentration camps. People try and say there's no Communists in this country, I link a picture of Communists in this country. I love having reality on my side. ^_^

[Deleted]

And only morons think Antifa are Soviets. Anarchists don't like the USSR, and most modern communists have no love for the USSR either, so why would anyone who is part of either group sign their graffiti with the hammer and sickle?

I'm pretty sure most of them would have nothing against the Soviet political system in principle - a system where wrong opinions, which their favorite party would get to define, would get anyone who disagrees with them sent to concentration camps - but they just can't live without their iPhones.

[Orbitus]

QUOTE=Orbitus;47374054]No, he isn't. He is using a group that doesn't exist and labeling people as such. There is an alt-right group, there isn't an alt-left though. It was made up by the alt-right to try to lump all of the groups that are against the alt-right/nazi douches.

You mean like what you're doing? and technically alt-right refers to really anyone who is conservative who does not like the current conservative party. Thus making them "Alternative right"


Yes there is. They're the guys who are violently attacking people in the streets and preaching communism.



- - - Updated - - -



It wouldnt be cutting out his tongue, but forcing an opinion to operate from hiding is still silencing it.
If he can afford to speak on television he should be allowed to do so, if he pays his dues on time, and can afford it he should be allowed to host his views on his website, if he can muster the strength to press a few buttons and create a youtube channel he should be allowed to do so and use it as he sees fit. His opinions should be layed bare so that cooler minds can attack it with logic, reason, and wholesome discourse.[/QUOTE]

You do realize the Alt-Right named themselves right? I am not making it up, it was coined by Richard Spencer.

And no, there is still no "alt-left". The only reason there is mention of any "alt-left", is because the alt-right tried to make it seem like there is some sort of terrorist organization like the KKK/Neo-Nazis/White Supremacists on the left. And there isn't. Antifa isn't even fucking close.