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

[Kuntantee]

Jason Reza Jorjani sounds like a fucking Persian to me. In that case, this whole story is pretty fucking hilarious and ironic.

[Rooflesstoofless]

I don't like Fox News but I get the feeling a lot of people here get their information from a similar echo chamber that preaches what they want to hear about an America on fire and the collapse of society.

Dateline and 20/20 type shows love their 'America on the Brink' type stories. I used to watch those programs but now just turn off the TV when the local news is over.

[Poopymonster]

... so are these camps the same as the ones being set up 5 years ago under the left leaning groups?

No.

These will be better. Yuge. The best. With gold plated bars They'll be the most concentrated people in there. Only the most.

[Shalidor]

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.

Then why are they always flying the hammer and sickle or the ancom flag? They might be making a lot of noise after the appearance of the alt-right in the mainstream consciousness, but that doesn't mean they're appearing because of that.

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.

I don't. The problem with Antifa is that they attack anyone they wish. They don't allow people their rights. Most of the people they target aren't Stormfront or Nazis or whatever. They're ordinary people.

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.

I supported Sanders before he sold us down the fucking river with that Clinton endorsement. If the DNC hadn't done everything they could to rig the election against him, he would have won the primary, and he would have destroyed Donald Trump in the general. Don't confuse all of America with the conservatives. Again, the people creating Antifa are the ones who own the State-funded universities, and it is those people who will be the new leaders of the country eventually. You think a Marxist takeover is impossible? I think it's damn-near inevitable. Besides, these people aren't just Marxists, they're MLMs.

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.

Well, there's what Marx wrote, and there's what people think he meant, as is the case with most authors. Marx never really wrote the Communist Manifesto as a prescription he felt should be enacted, he just saw it as inevitable. There were a couple of minor prescriptions in there though, like that thing about how if the proletariat actually wants to seize the means of production, it will be essential that they don't allow themselves to be disarmed first, because that revolution will be a violent one. Lenin and Mao were even more pro-violence than Marx, and it showed in their regimes. Communism is just as inherently violent as Nazism, and the communists have way more control over social institutions than the Nazis do, despite the shrieking from some people about how the entire US conservative party is a fascist party...

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.

If we're talking about State-funded campuses, and a student group wants to invite him to speak, he should be allowed to. Anything less is a violation of the free speech rights of the students and Richard Spencer. Again, you start trying to prevent people from being heard, and others wonder what they have to say. You have to treat people equally, even if you don't like what they have to say.

[Yvaelle]

Jason Reza Jorjani sounds like a fucking Persian to me. In that case, this whole story is pretty fucking hilarious and ironic.

Oddly, white supremacists over here are bizarrely accepting of Persians. It's like they think the Nazi appropriation of the term "Aryan" somehow means Persians were officially approved by Hitler or something. It's super weird.

[Kuntantee]

Oddly, white supremacists over here are bizarrely accepting of Persians. It's like they think the Nazi appropriation of the term "Aryan" somehow means Persians were officially approved by Hitler or something. It's super weird.

They haven't seen an average Persian, as Middle Eastern as it can get, with of course plastic surgery over nose to have that bit of beauty on the looks

[Airlick]

Well, the only race that's in danger of getting put in concentration camps this century is the white race, but I very much doubt muslims will bother with camps. Taking good care of a machete so it can cleanly cut off head off an infidel takes a lot less effort than controlling concentration camps. Swedish muslims are the safest of all people, I'd say.

[Shalidor]

Uhu a few reasonably peaceful protests are now somehow a massive communist threat.

There is no such thing as a "reasonably" peaceful protest. A protest is either peaceful or it isn't.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7tt0lYQCTxA

They dragged him to the ground, surrounded him, and beat the shit out of him before the cops intervened. That is not peaceful.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CPqgnC1gW-A

That is not fucking peaceful. Do people not understand how fragile the human body is? That guy likely has a concussion, which can be anywhere from annoying to fatal.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cnjGrcyCRXI

Here's an interview with a victim of these "reasonably peaceful" protesters.

https://youtu.be/2AhGYo9TExU?t=2m27s

A guy is down on the ground, unconscious, and they're kicking him and beating him in the back of the head with a sign. That is not "reasonably peaceful."

And yes reasonable peaceful, because there was barely any more or any less violence than you'd find at most protests. The violence that was reported on isn't any different from the violence that was reported during Trump rallies caused by Trumpkins.

"Trumpkins?" Oh Jesus...find me some violence that was just as bad as what I've linked in these videos, and then find me compelling evidence that it was Trump supporters that did that shit. Otherwise, you're a liar.

If you really want to push that 'red scare' agenda I'd look at the White House and at how Russia is actually manipulating the politics in your entire country.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AKpiSEVf78w

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDzsZIg_KWA

Van Jones actually responded to the second video, saying it's bullshit. Here's his argument for why the video is a hoax.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/29/opinio...nes/index.html

"I said in a recent Twitter chat: "I am glad there is a Russia investigation, and I hope they get to the bottom of it. But I think Democrats are fooling ourselves if we think that something is going to come out of this investigation that is somehow going to end the Trump presidency and make everything better. Unless there is a real smoking gun, which there is probably not, it's just going to be a big old mess."

Then he starts ranting about solutions to poverty, trying to deflect from getting caught with his pants down, and then he gives his three reasons for why he believes there is a Russia connection with Trump.

"I do think Putin must have something over Trump, because Putin is the only person (besides Ivanka) whom Trump never disses. Given how Trump lashes out at everyone else, that fact alone is fishy."

It's "fishy." That's some real compelling evidence there Mr. Jones. He didn't diss Putin, so he's involved in some sort of conspiracy with him, because he disses everyone but his wife? Even that claim that Trump disses everyone else isn't true. There are several generals that Trump has worked with that he hasn't insulted. They must be in on the conspiracy too.

"I think there probably was collusion by some people in the Trump campaign with Russian operatives."

Where's the evidence, Mr. Jones? Where is it? Oh, that's right, you say right in that article that you will probably never find any. I wonder why.

"I think Trump fired Comey to stop the Russia investigation (which Trump has all but admitted, himself). That's obstruction of justice, in my book."

No, he didn't. Go watch the interview again.

Here's what we do know about this Russia bullshit.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-1b2x9ZZb1o

https://youtu.be/_OKNOdojHBw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R6bpHTJiKEI

There is no Russian conspiracy with Donald Trump. You people are out of your minds.

- - - Updated - - -

Oddly, white supremacists over here are bizarrely accepting of Persians. It's like they think the Nazi appropriation of the term "Aryan" somehow means Persians were officially approved by Hitler or something. It's super weird.

Look into Hitler's writings on what he called "Mohammadens." There was a fair stretch of time when he was looking at making Islam the State religion of Nazi Germany.

[-Nurot]

Well, the only race that's in danger of getting put in concentration camps this century is the white race, but I very much doubt muslims will bother with camps. Taking good care of a machete so it can cleanly cut off head off an infidel takes a lot less effort than controlling concentration camps. Swedish muslims are the safest of all people, I'd say.

Ah yes, good old Islamophobia. Don't worry about the very first post of this thread, instead let's jump right in and demonize an entire religion that has not one iota to do with the topic at hand. Brilliantly done.

[Shkar]

Then why are they always flying the hammer and sickle or the ancom flag? They might be making a lot of noise after the appearance of the alt-right in the mainstream consciousness, but that doesn't mean they're appearing because of that.

I don't. The problem with Antifa is that they attack anyone they wish. They don't allow people their rights. Most of the people they target aren't Stormfront or Nazis or whatever. They're ordinary people.

I supported Sanders before he sold us down the fucking river with that Clinton endorsement. If the DNC hadn't done everything they could to rig the election against him, he would have won the primary, and he would have destroyed Donald Trump in the general. Don't confuse all of America with the conservatives. Again, the people creating Antifa are the ones who own the State-funded universities, and it is those people who will be the new leaders of the country eventually. You think a Marxist takeover is impossible? I think it's damn-near inevitable. Besides, these people aren't just Marxists, they're MLMs.

Well, there's what Marx wrote, and there's what people think he meant, as is the case with most authors. Marx never really wrote the Communist Manifesto as a prescription he felt should be enacted, he just saw it as inevitable. There were a couple of minor prescriptions in there though, like that thing about how if the proletariat actually wants to seize the means of production, it will be essential that they don't allow themselves to be disarmed first, because that revolution will be a violent one. Lenin and Mao were even more pro-violence than Marx, and it showed in their regimes. Communism is just as inherently violent as Nazism, and the communists have way more control over social institutions than the Nazis do, despite the shrieking from some people about how the entire US conservative party is a fascist party...

If we're talking about State-funded campuses, and a student group wants to invite him to speak, he should be allowed to. Anything less is a violation of the free speech rights of the students and Richard Spencer. Again, you start trying to prevent people from being heard, and others wonder what they have to say. You have to treat people equally, even if you don't like what they have to say.

Perhaps it's best to put it this way. Both sides are issues that should be addressed. We seem to be at least mainly in agreement about that. They shouldn't be committing or advocating violence or property damage. Particularly when neutral parties are getting caught in the crossfire. Maybe I'm falsely projecting too much of my own thoughts onto them, but I truly think that Antifa would be less radical without the alt-right, whereas the alt-right would simply have less sympathy without Antifa. Essentially, one side is an angry mob and the other is largely people who are afraid of said mob. Take away that mob, and many of them would calm down. Again, I might be wrong and/or projecting too much, but that's how I see it.

As for Marxism, if that's about the worst that's involved in it, I have to disagree about it being as violent as Nazism. You make it sound like Marx was saying that the goal would probably require violence, whereas with Nazism violence essentially was the goal. Lenin and Mao are definitely warning signs. Massive ones. Truly abhorrent ones. But from everything I've heard, their purges are not the root of the theory. Much like how the Greek/Roman slaves and conquests weren't the root of Democracy. I don't even want to switch to a Marxist society; I have more to lose than most, and I don't think Marxism would truly work until we are post-scarcity. But between the two ideologies, one is more horrendous in my eyes. As for the university point, maybe it's because I'm at an engineering school in a very rural area, but I have seen no evidence of the kind of Leftist control people talk about as being responsible for Antifa.

As for speakers at public universities, that's one thing I haven't really understood. Why should a university have to let anyone speak just because they have some public funding, particularly when most of those speakers charge for their presence? How much of their funding should come from the government for them to follow that rule? How many students should have to request for that speaker? Why is it just universities, and nobody talks about speakers at high schools? If a ROTC squad requests someone like Richard Spencer to speak, should the Army force it to happen for the entire division (or whatever higher size applies)? If public universities have to accept all speakers but private universities don't, how come companies that receive tax exemptions or government contracts don't have to allow everyone a platform?

I'm not trying to be obstructionist here. These are things I've never seen addressed. What is it that makes this specific case so special?

[Bigbamboozal]

I think I'll finally weigh in.
I've been watching and hanging back for some time.
I'm a Canadian, I'm straight, white, male, and my girlfriend who is indian, is technically muslim.
I say technically, because she's about as practicing as I am at christianity. Which is to say, not at all.
She has no accent, was born here, loves me as much as any woman I've ever met, is into pretty normal things, and is undoubtedly one of the sweetest human beings I have ever had the distinction of getting to be with.

I read your ultra-leftist/alt-right posts, charged with piss and vinegar and hate on both sides and I can't help but get a sense that the alt-right is irrationally afraid of my girlfriend and find it completely funny as I know her and how much of a gentle person she is...
And with the ultra-leftists I get a sense that I wouldn't want you bunch representing us in this world either with your broad assumptions and constant hate for everything white and male, AND more often than not, your fever pitch and ramrod mindset that easily matches alt-right levels of rage when you perceive anything as not matching your views.
As far as I can tell, it's mostly unrealistic, broad stroked, mouth foam all around on both sides, and it's as frightening a future no matter which of the two groups would in theory be in power.

I do hope that many of you learn and soon, that assholes come in every colour and from every culture, as do amazing people, no matter what your view.
If I have one thing to ask, it's that you stop throwing the baby out with the bathwater on every go, and start holding your own beliefs up for a hard look, and have conversation with people of differing opinions than yours.
It doesn't HAVE to lead to arguing, you CAN see it as walking a mile in someone else's shoes; a chance to understand why that ultra-leftist or alt-right person feels the way they do. If you want change, that's probably the best way to get it.
Screaming how wrong the other side is doesn't seem to be working for any of you.
I guess what I'm saying ultra-leftist and alt-right members of mmochamp, you get to decide if you are an asshole or amazing as your represent your side.

[Ironhorn]

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.

Paul Gottfried coined the term in 08 long before that shit stain Spencer came into the picture.

Milo Yiannopoulos a gay man is loved by many factions in the Alt Right while many (like Spencer) hate him for being gay. David Clark is black and extremely popular within the alt right.

The Civic Nationalists are the largest group in the alt right and they hate the White Nationalists. To Civic Nationalists the only thing that matters is America not all this race shit thats why Bannon called the white nationalists "losers" and "a collection of clowns". Those comments threw the left for a loop because they don't understand the alt right.

[primalmatter]

It will likely end badly... only way it won't sis if by some miracle the refugees turn out to be as great of a boon as promised and stop being walking drains on society at the very least.

[Shkar]

Paul Gottfried coined the term in 08 long before that shit stain Spencer came into the picture.

Milo Yiannopoulos a gay man is loved by many factions in the Alt Right while many (like Spencer) hate him for being gay. David Clark is black and extremely popular within the alt right.

The Civic Nationalists are the largest group in the alt right and they hate the White Nationalists. To Civic Nationalists the only thing that matters is America not all this race shit thats why Bannon called the white nationalists "losers" and "a collection of clowns". Those comments threw the left for a loop because they don't understand the alt right.

To an extent, it doesn't matter the true origin of the phrase, particularly as it's not really unique. Gottfried may have first used the term, but Spencer is really the one who took it and ran with it.

The different groups may hate each other, but they are certainly willing to work together. Many of the factions that see Milo as repulsive still see him as a useful tool for easing people into the alt-right. If someone disagrees with the views of Richard Spencer, they shouldn't be associating with his cause. They aren't trying to save a country, company, or etc from going down the tubes. They could just fracture off and make a new group away from the others.

Actually just like Marxism, violence wasn't the goal. Thats why the holocaust was called the final solution. It was the solution in their warped minds, not the goal, but the way to achieve it, just like Marxism.

I'll leave someone else to address this. I've seen some of the quotes from Mein Kampf, but I didn't save them and haven't read it, so I'm not the best to respond to this.

[Theodarzna]

Paul Gottfried coined the term in 08 long before that shit stain Spencer came into the picture.

Milo Yiannopoulos a gay man is loved by many factions in the Alt Right while many (like Spencer) hate him for being gay. David Clark is black and extremely popular within the alt right.

The Civic Nationalists are the largest group in the alt right and they hate the White Nationalists. To Civic Nationalists the only thing that matters is America not all this race shit thats why Bannon called the white nationalists "losers" and "a collection of clowns". Those comments threw the left for a loop because they don't understand the alt right.

Is Civic Nationalism that different from Ethnic Nationalism?

[Tijuana]

A snippet from one of the articles linked below



Interesting Opinion articles to say the least. While the Raw Story article is questionable...the Times one is very interesting.

http://www.rawstory.com/2017/09/its-...r-their-money/
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/09/1...ndercover.html

Yeah, well they have no support for their wild ideas. None of this can become law, and there sure aren't enough of them to revolt. So basically...bye Felicia.

The origins of the alt-right, regarding racism are murky. But anyone still self labeling as that is pretty much a racist.

It just grinds my gears that they call themselves right though, given their collectivist/authoritarian ideals.

- - - Updated - - -

Is Civic Nationalism that different from Ethnic Nationalism?

Yes. One is based in racism, one is based in culture-ism.

[Doctor Amadeus]

Is Civic Nationalism that different from Ethnic Nationalism?

No it isn't by it's very essence it's the same mechanism, the theory though is that it is fed by another source, however if you stop to explore what it is the answer is the same. Just like with communism.

[Airlick]

Ah yes, good old Islamophobia. Don't worry about the very first post of this thread, instead let's jump right in and demonize an entire religion that has not one iota to do with the topic at hand. Brilliantly done.

How does it have nothing to do with the topic when one of the article specifically mentions Muslims as one of the ethnicities that should be purged?

And then, islamophobia? Are you going to deny that Christians face FAR worse oppression in muslim countries than vice versa?

[Orbitus]

The thing is, liberals are applying that label, well, liberally. Not everyone who identifies as conservative, or even the vast majority of Trump supporters for that matter, identifies with, associates with or agrees with Richard Spencer. When you call everyone you disagree with Nazis, or you replace the word Nazi with Alt-right but still mean Nazi, you're removing the ability of people to disagree with both you and assholes like Spencer. Just in case you were wondering, when you're accusing someone of being evil, they begin to sympathize with everyone you're calling evil, not with you.

I don't think everyone that is conservative is a Nazi, just everyone that is still holding Trump's nuts after his failures for the last 8 months and especially after Charlottesville, can be given the title. His excuse that there were bad people on both sides and good people on both sides is BULLSHIT. Even Fox News crucified him over this. One side is full of redneck fascist wannabes that want the "white race" to rule over everyone, and the other side is against that. There is no similarities here.

- - - Updated - - -

Abraham Lincoln was a Republican, also the Civil rights movement was assisted by Republicans, and led by Republican Martin Luther King. The Ku Klux Klan was also the violent arm of the Democrats when it was created to force the new black voters to vote for Democrats.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Lincoln
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Africa..._(1954–1968)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ku_Klux_Klan

Abraham Lincoln was a Republican yes, but then the Southern Strategy happened, effectively switching the parties.

- - - Updated - - -

There is no Russian conspiracy with Donald Trump. You people are out of your minds.

So, Robert Mueller isn't investigating anything? He isn't adding new people basically every week? In your eyes, the Trump Jr. Emails didn't happen?

[Shalidor]

Sighs, no it isn't.

Wrong.

The world isn't black and white,

That's what we call a thought-terminating cliche folks.

there are always incidents and nearly every single goddamn protest.

No, there isn't. At the most recent Berkeley protest, it was perfectly peaceful. There were two incidents that I know of, but neither of them were in any way connected to the actual main group of protesters, who were simply standing outside the event and using their words.

Even a silent 'white march' (white as symbolism for the innocence of children) here a number of years ago had incidents with the police, even if it was just a bunch of parents mourning the loss of kidnapped / abused children.

Describe to me these "incidents."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zyYjUvXzeBQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VlcnkI7ga3Y

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2qOcyLlo3cU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R_jq5iUqtBo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zmy9W9-xlac

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4wjRIXDTxDM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2RFqwWj5T8g

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RIrcB1sAN8I

Video 1: One person getting dragged away by security, from a private event. In no way comparable (one of the goalposts I called for) to the videos I linked. Where was the M80 thrown into the crowd? Where was the unconscious guy being beaten?

Video 2: Oh, a news commentator. This should be good. Oh. That incident. That guy was filming the event. Whether he was a Trump supporter or not (that's unknown, the commentator has no grounds on which to make that claim, plenty of conservatives are libertarians who hate Trump) he was actually not only justified in pulling, but shooting, because those people were the aggressors and they were within 21 feet. Clear intent to harm, disparity of force. They represented an immediate and obvious threat. Before he drew, they closed distance and reached out their hands, and all he was trying to do was film the event. If I was armed, I would have drawn on them too. Actually, I probably would have ran because my back was not to a barrier, but, turning your back to a group of assailants when they're that close is a dangerous move. They were in fact pushing and shoving him, and using their flagstaffs as weapons. This commentator in particular is really stupid when he complains about the amount of ammo. "Which we all know is exactly what you carry when you go to video tape a peaceful protest." By the point of that incident, there had already been several extremely violent protests by the left, and that much ammo is only a little more than what world-class self-defense experts like Massad Ayoob say you are supposed to carry as you EDC.

Video 3: Huh. A clipped-down compilation of single-moment incidents with zero context, e.g. who struck first, and several incidents where the worst people were doing was yelling at each other. Wouldn't be the first time media has lied about the violence that occured at Trump rallies.

Video 4: Someone comes in and hits a Trump supporter on the top of the head. So, your evidence for Trump supporters being violent in video 4, is someone starting a fight with a Trump supporter by hitting them on the head. The commentator even said that protesters "followed Trump supporters to their cars as they left the convention center," and that guy who got hit, he didn't even hit back. He put distance between himself and his attacker, like he was supposed to do. As I continue to watch the video, I see a Trump supporter wearing a "build the wall" t-shirt who gets attacked repeatedly and gets his shirt torn off of him before he hits back. Even the commentator says, "fearing for his safety, I yelled at him to "get away." Then they start surrounding him and beating the shit out of him. This video isn't supporting your argument, it's supporting mine. It's just another example of aggressive leftist violence. Did you watch this video before you linked it? This is damning, for you. Or did you only link this because this was the only video you could find that had the level of violence remotely comparable to the violence in the videos I linked?

Video 5: Ah, the now-famous Battle of Berkeley. Interesting how you have this video start right when the Trump supporters have started beating back Antifa. You have of course, left out the large majority of this particular incident, which was started by, guess who, Antifa. This was one of those events where Antifa was doing shit like throwing M80s into crowds.

Video 6: Ah, the Clinton News Network. This aught to be interesting. Let's see what they have to say. Wait a sec...this is a pro-Trump video. Like, an actual, straight-up, Pro-Trump video, on a Pro-Trump Youtube account, with all sorts of footage of liberals stealing and destroying Trump signs. This whole video is about how people put Trump signs in their yards, and got death threat spray-painted on the walls of their houses and on their sidewalks for it. You've literally linked a video from a Pro-Trump account. What are you doing? I mean, the account name is "America for the TRUMP."

Video 7: This is the title for video 7: March 14, 2016 Violent Trump Protesters VS Peaceful Trump Supporters, North Carolina. I think that says it all. This is one more video of the left being violent against peaceful Trump supporters. You're literally adding to my list of videos I'm going to link next time someone tells me that Antifa isn't a violent group. This video is from a channel called "Conservatism Speaks." They're a conservative channel. Are you out of your mind?

Video 8: Oh God, it's Vice. Oh and it's about Charlottesville, that event where there was a shitload of leftist protesters beating the crap out of everyone, and that thing where that guy in that car got attacked, pushed into panic mode, and ran someone down who got pushed into a heart attack.

You're really going to need to come up with better agitprop than that.