The Impeachment of Trump?

[Arete]

3 hours ago, MigL said:

How is that different from the protest ?

No one I know of is saying "This shows that Christianity is a religion of violence and hate." or "We should ban all immigration from predominately white Christian countries in case some of them are Nazis." 

3 hours ago, MigL said:

People were protesting the removal  of the Statue of a war hero. The fact that it was an unjust war, and symbolism of the statue, has no bearing. The fact that a number of protesters were Nazis also has no bearing, as some were not.

Regardless of the purported purpose of the demonstration, it was a self described white nationalist rally with a message of white supremacy - look at the imagery that was present; it's chilling 

 

The guise under which that message was presented does not eliminate the message, nor does the fact that some people who went to a white nationalist rally weren't white nationalists. 

Imagine I went to a march supposedly in solidarity for Syrian rebels, organized by and Abu Sayyaf chapter, and a significant proportion of the marchers were waving ISIS flags, carrying AK47s and chanting "death to the great Satan". Then one of them detonated a bomb in a crowd of counter protesters. The fact I went and wasn't an Islamic extremist wouldn't change the fact it was an Islamic extremist march. 

Edited August 16, 2017 by Arete

[zapatos]

10 minutes ago, Delta1212 said:

You literally cannot separate the one from its consequences. You cannot say "I non-violently believe that all Jews, blacks and gays should be forcibly removed, subjugated or executed."

 

Several references in this and other posts to what they believe. Do we have any of this on record? Is there indeed a 'creed', or do we have interviews with any of those protesting that they believe things like "...all Jews, blacks and gays should be forcibly removed, subjugated or executed."?

33 minutes ago, geordief said:

 

Join the line of those who haven't actually addressed my points .I am done with arguing with you.

I am addressing a point you made. Just not the one you want me to address.

[Delta1212]

16 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Several references in this and other posts to what they believe. Do we have any of this on record? Is there indeed a 'creed', or do we have interviews with any of those protesting that they believe things like "...all Jews, blacks and gays should be forcibly removed, subjugated or executed."?

I am addressing a point you made. Just not the one you want me to address.

Arete and I both linked to the Vice piece that includes interviews of protesters from that rally espousing those exact views.

[zapatos]

7 minutes ago, Delta1212 said:

Arete and I both linked to the Vice piece that includes interviews of protesters from that rally espousing those exact views.

Sorry, I missed it. Thanks.

[Delta1212]

Since it's a longer video and we're supposed to be able to discuss without watching, I transcribed a couple of interviews from it with relevant material below. There is more in the actual video than what is below, including some near the end where Cantwell explains why the car attack was justified, but this should be enough to cover the above point, I think.

 

Ellen Reece (VICE News): So when did you get into, as you said, the racial stuff?

 

Chris Cantwell: When the Trayvon Martin case happened, you know, Michael Brown and Tamir Rice and all these different things happened, every single case it's some little black asshole behaving like a savage, and he gets himself in trouble shockingly enough. Whatever problems I might have with my fellow white people they generally are not inclined to such behavior and you gotta kinda take that into consideration when you're thinking about how to organize your society.

 

Ellen Reece: I mean, Oklahoma City.

 

Chris Cantwell: Ok, so exactly, you have to go back to Oklahoma City to talk about a white act of terrorism-

 

Ellen Reece: Elliot Rodger, Dylan Roof

 

Chris Cantwell: Ok, so now you've managed to name three people, and I'm pretty sure Elliot Rodger wasn't explicitly white by the way. But the thing is you remember the names of white bombers and mass shooters, ok. Can you tell me the name of all nineteen hijackers on 9/11? Off the top of your head? You can remember Dylan Roof's name-

 

Ellen Reece: You were asking if there were white people who were capable of violence.

 

Chris Cantwell: I didn't say capable. Of course we're capable. I'm carrying a pistol. I go to the gym all the time. I'm trying to make myself more capable of violence. I'm here to spread ideas, talk in the hopes that somebody more capable will come along and do that. Somebody like Donald Trump, who does not give his daughter to a Jew.

 

Ellen Reece: So Donald Trump, but like, more racist.

 

Chris Cantwell: A lot more racist than Donald Trump. I don't think you could feel about race the way I do and watch that Kushner bastard walk around with that beautiful girl, ok.

 

 

-Later-

 

 

Chris Cantwell: We're here obeying the law. We're doing everything that we're supposed to do, trying to express opinions, and the criminals are over there getting their way, and that is a foundational problem with our society. And whatever you think of my opinions, that's gonna be something that puts you in danger. 

 

Robert Ray: Yeah, and that is because this city is run by Jewish communists and criminal n*****s. That's exactly what it is.

 

Chris Cantwell: That's true by the way.

 

Ellen Reece: So you're the true non-violent protesters?

 

Chris Cantwell: I'm not even saying we're non-violent. I'm saying that fucking we didn't aggress. We did not initiate force against anybody. We're not non-violent. We'll fucking kill these people if we have to. 

 

 

-Later-

 

Ellen Reece: Why don't you tell me what you think?

 

Robert Ray: Huh?

 

Ellen Reece: What do you do for the Daily Stormer?

 

Robert Ray: I am a feature writer. I do crypto-report, and I'm generally their man on the ground at events. 

 

Ellen Reece: So what do you hope to get out of today? Like, what does it mean to you?

 

Robert Ray: Well, for one thing it means that we're showing to this parasitic class of anti-white vermin that this is our country. This country was built by our forefathers. It's sustained by us. It's going to remain our country. I believe, as you can see, we are stepping off the Internet in a big way. For instance, last night at the torch walk, there were hundreds and hundreds of us. People realize they're not atomized individuals they're part of a larger whole because we have been spreading our memes. We've been organizing on the Internet, and so now they're coming out. And now, as you can see today, we greatly outnumbered the anti-white, anti-American filth. And at some point, we will have enough power that we will clear them from the streets forever. That which is degenerate in white countries will be removed 

 

Ellen Reece: So you're saying showing up in physical space let's people know that there are more like them.

 

Robert Ray: We're starting to slowly unveil a little bit of our power level. You ain't seen nothing yet.

 

 

-Later-

 

Matthew Heimbach: The Governor is declaring a state of emergency, so any assemblies are now unlawful. So, the Left wasn't able to beat us. The Left who were the boot boys of the capitalist class and the bourgeoisie and the status quo. So they weren't able to beat us with their armed militant left-wing radicals so they had to turn to the state. And if that doesn't go to show that the radical Left, the corporations, the state are all on the same Jewish side, a moment like this proves it.

 

Ellen Reece: Can you tell us a little bit about the organizing tactics you guys used?

 

Matthew Heimbach: Sure, primarily following the European example of Golden Dawn, Nordic Resistance Movement and other organizations that really are the vanguard of nationalists organized in the world. Be able to coordinate over a large area to bring our people together. This is the largest nationalist rally in over two decades here in the United States. It's incredibly exciting and if you look at what's happened they've had to bring in leftists from around the entire country to try and stop us, and now we're continuing. We're gonna keep having a great time and we're gonna keep fighting.

[Ten oz]

2 hours ago, zapatos said:

 

I imagine there are monuments to Hirohito in Japan. You seem to be forgetting that the South was also part of the U.S. Should the 'South' accept monuments to Grant in the North? Certainly the behavior of many Northern soldiers left much to be desired.

We were a British colony. After the revolutionary war we didn't erect monuments to venerate British Generals. We do have memorials celebrating English settlers like in Jamestown and other memorials celebrating key battles like in Yorktown but people like Sir Henry Clinton don't have monuments on state and federal lands, Colleges, and city parks all over. The British lost the war and the U.S. ceased to be their colony. Just as the Confederates lost the war and their Republic cease to be. 

After the Mexican American War many people who were formerly Mexican became U.S. citizens and the lands they had inhabited for generations became U.S. territory. Nearly a third of U.S. use to be Mexico. Where are the all the monuments and Colleges named after Mexican Generals? There are many memorials for battles and museums in TX, CA, and etc, many cities and school in honor of missionary workers but nothing celebrating Mexican leaders who killed U.S. soldiers. 

 

There is more to that simply saying Confederates were part of us. Mexicans became part of us. The British were us. What we do by venerating Confederates is different than the way we handle the rest of our history. 

Edited August 16, 2017 by Ten oz
Formatting

[swansont]

3 hours ago, iNow said:

The statues ARE part of our history and simply belong in a museum, not elevated on a pedestal. 

Most of the statues were erected in the 20th-21st century and many mass-produced, as part of intimidation tactics associated with Jim Crow laws and later during the civil rights movement.

https://www.vox.com/identities/2017/8/15/16153220/trump-confederate-statues

[rangerx]

http://thehill.com/policy/finance/346827-trump-disbands-economic-councils-amid-wave-of-defections

Trump claims to have disbanded his economic and manufacturing councils after all 17 CEOs reportedly resigned.

 

[CharonY]

Let's be frank here, for a minute. The people that were invited speakers were not people with deep roots in the confederacy, nor where they historically interested (except in one particular aspect, it seems). At best the statue was seeing as a symbolism of the Jim Crow-era way of thinking and they see their removal as another attack in their race war ideology. 

If there were historically interested, they would have tried to keep people like the organizers and speakers at arms length, instead of wholeheartedly embracing them. But then whitewashing the civil war could be considered in line with fetishizing the Third Reich.

 

Edit: Cross-posted with Swansont

Edited August 16, 2017 by CharonY

[swansont]

1 hour ago, zapatos said:

Several references in this and other posts to what they believe. Do we have any of this on record? Is there indeed a 'creed', or do we have interviews with any of those protesting that they believe things like "...all Jews, blacks and gays should be forcibly removed, subjugated or executed."?

Chanting Nazi slogans and giving the Sieg Heil salute are insufficient to determine intent?

[Delta1212]

I also have a serious problem believing that a stream of hundreds of people carrying torches and shouting "Jews will not replace us" and "Blood and soil" (a reference to the Nazi concept of Blut und Boden) are actually there primarily to preserve the historical importance of Confederate statuary. 

[MigL]

Maybe this section on the protest should be spun off to a separate thread.
I tried to inject some controversy, and it seems to have worked.
( thanks CharonY )

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a Nazi sympathizer, but an interview with one person should not discredit the whole protest. That was the whole point of the comparison with Islam. The few that advocate 'death to America' should not discredit the rest of the people.
And even if it did...
A just society is characterized by the level of opposing views it allows, no matter how vile or anti-social.
IOW, if we don't tolerate their vile, anti-social, free speech, then we are no better than them.
And, in no circumstance, is violence allowed.
( by either side )

[CharonY]

Just now, swansont said:

Chanting Nazi slogans and giving the Sieg Heil salute are insufficient to determine intent?

 

Well, some also have swastika tattoos, but that evidence is only skin-deep. I mean they maybe just meant it ironically.

[swansont]

3 hours ago, MigL said:

Maybe war hero was the wrong choice of words, but he was an integral, if not major, part of US history.
You can't take down a statue and 'remove' him from that history.

Note that those are two distinct things. Why can't you do the former? A statue celebrates and honors the existence of some one or thing. Not having statues of Hitler around does not erase him from history.

[CharonY]

5 minutes ago, MigL said:

A just society is characterized by the level of opposing views it allows, no matter how vile or anti-social.
IOW, if we don't tolerate their vile, anti-social, free speech, then we are no better than them.
And, in no circumstance, is violence allowed.
( by either side )

I think you have to qualify that. You have to tolerate their right to express themselves (non-violently) but you do not need to tolerate their essence of their speech. I.e. I think it deserves criticism. Likewise as religious hate preachers should be criticized, and if appropriate (such as when inciting violence or hatred) should be charged to the extent of the law. 

 

Also, as you can see from footage, it was not one interview. Rather the organization invited a series of speakers that proclaim themselves as white supremacists (several of which have openly done the whole Sieg Heil-Hitlergruss thing), a significant portion was walking on the streets and chanting "blood and soil" and other Nazi slogans. 

Edited August 16, 2017 by CharonY

[rangerx]

2 minutes ago, MigL said:

And, in no circumstance, is violence allowed.

( by either side )

Are you taking issue with the allied veterans of WW2 then?

If not, what's the difference?

[Delta1212]

8 minutes ago, MigL said:

Maybe this section on the protest should be spun off to a separate thread.
I tried to inject some controversy, and it seems to have worked.
( thanks CharonY )

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a Nazi sympathizer, but an interview with one person should not discredit the whole protest. That was the whole point of the comparison with Islam. The few that advocate 'death to America' should not discredit the rest of the people.
And even if it did...
A just society is characterized by the level of opposing views it allows, no matter how vile or anti-social.
IOW, if we don't tolerate their vile, anti-social, free speech, then we are no better than them.
And, in no circumstance, is violence allowed.
( by either side )

Define tolerate.

I don't advocate arresting or killing Nazis just for saying Nazi things. I do advocate denouncing, rebuking and generally opposing them in every lawful way that is available.

I am also not basing my views on an interview with a single person but on the fact that hundreds of people were shouting Nazi slogans, marching alongside people carrying Nazi flags or the banners of a variety of different white supremacist groups and invited speakers who are renowned for their racism and white supremacist views.

The entire rally was explicitly white supremacist from top to bottom.

Edited August 16, 2017 by Delta1212

[Ten oz]

1 minute ago, CharonY said:

Let's be frank here, for a minute. The people that were invited speakers were not people with deep roots in the confederacy, nor where they historically interested (except in one particular aspect, it seems). At best the statue was seeing as a symbolism of the Jim Crow-era way of thinking and they see their removal as another attack in their race war ideology. 

If there were historically interested, they would have tried to keep people like the organizers and speakers at arms length, instead of wholeheartedly embracing them. But then whitewashing the civil war could be considered in line with fetishizing the Third Reich.

 

Edit: Cross-posted with Swansont

Obviously but the argument of proving a negative has been launched. Less we interviewed everyone there how can we know every individuals intentions. Thus there may have been one history scholar  amongst the nazi flags who isn't racist and purely wants to preserve history......hahaha. I personally don't know a single person who wouldn't remove themselves immediately once Nazis started chanting anti Semitic chants and carrying on about homosexual and what not less that was what they were there for. Challenging that there could have been history interested non-bigots amongst the Nazis carrying shields, swastika flags, and wearing helmets really challenges all sense of logic.  

[MigL]

The allied veterans of WW2 reacted to violence initiated by A Hitler.
Read some history, RangerX, and learn about Checkoslovakia and Poland.
If A Hitler had just talked about invasion ( or even death camps for that matter ), without acting, war would not have been justified to the extent of over 40 Mill deaths.

[Ten oz]

14 minutes ago, MigL said:

Maybe this section on the protest should be spun off to a separate thread.
I tried to inject some controversy, and it seems to have worked.
( thanks CharonY )

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a Nazi sympathizer, but an interview with one person should not discredit the whole protest. That was the whole point of the comparison with Islam. The few that advocate 'death to America' should not discredit the rest of the people.
And even if it did...
A just society is characterized by the level of opposing views it allows, no matter how vile or anti-social.
IOW, if we don't tolerate their vile, anti-social, free speech, then we are no better than them.
And, in no circumstance, is violence allowed.
( by either side )

The Protests was known about for months. Local authorities had tried unsuccessfully to stop it. The permitted group were known White Nationalist. Your maybe this maybe that arguments simply don't add up. 

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/08/14/543462419/charlottesville-violence-highlights-cities-struggle-to-balance-rights-and-safety

[MigL]

I did define it Delta...
" if we don't tolerate their vile, ant-social, free speech"

And still, that doesn't take away their right to protest and free speech, Ten oz.
But the violence, FROM BOTH SIDES, should not be tolerated !

Edited August 16, 2017 by MigL

[Delta1212]

1 minute ago, MigL said:

I did define it Delta...
" if we don't tolerate their vile, ant-social, free speech"

"Tolerate" is not a definition of "tolerate."

I'm asking to what degree. Tolerate as in not escalate violence against them for their speech? Tolerate as in not vocally denouncing them in public? Tolerate as in politely nodding our heads and not challenging their statements? Tolerate as in help to provide them venues to speak from?

Where exactly are you drawing he line between tolerance and intolerance at this juncture?

7 minutes ago, MigL said:

The allied veterans of WW2 reacted to violence initiated by A Hitler.
Read some history, RangerX, and learn about Checkoslovakia and Poland.
If A Hitler had just talked about invasion ( or even death camps for that matter ), without acting, war would not have been justified to the extent of over 40 Mill deaths.

On the other hand, if someone had done something about it when it was still just talk, we might not have had 40 million deaths.

[rangerx]

2 minutes ago, MigL said:

The allied veterans of WW2 reacted to violence initiated by A Hitler.
Read some history, RangerX, and learn about Checkoslovakia and Poland.
If A Hitler had just talked about invasion ( or even death camps for that matter ), without acting, war would not have been justified to the extent of over 40 Mill deaths.

Killing people is not the sole burden to prove hatred. However, a neo-nazi did indeed kill a person who was lawfully exercising their right to peaceful protest.

Yet protesters (groups you've yet to name nor provide evidence to support the claim) are equally to blame?

 

Wow, just wow.

 

[MigL]

Tolerate as in it is perfectly legal for them to voice their vile, anti-social,opinion, as long as it doesn't lead to violence.

Just as anyone else then, has the right to protest against them, and voice their opinion, as long as it doesn't lead to violence.

And are you now arguing for the merits of pre-emptive strikes now ( in the case of WW2 ), Delta ?

 

 

Any news station will tell you that there was violence on both sides.
( before the car incident )

Maybe you should inform yourself before entering a discussion, RangerX.
( and "Wow, just wow" doesn't really make a valid point )

 

 

( how come now its merging my posts ? )

Edited August 16, 2017 by MigL

[rangerx]

9 minutes ago, MigL said:

Maybe you should inform yourself before entering a discussion, RangerX.

( and "Wow, just wow" doesn't really make a valid point )

This is the second post today where you've made dismissive personal attacks, instead of addressing the concerns I've brought to the discussion.