60,000 Nazis Marched in Poland this weekend

[iNow]

7 minutes ago, koti said:

The fact that nobody got shot in a country where anybody can have a gun is amazing.

A good point, though people have been shot when the extreme right came out in previous marches, it seems many were in the Orange County of California.

The film will do a part 2 this fall, but one of their closing messages was how likely it is that we may soon look back on Charlottesville as somehow being quaint and peaceful relative to what is currently brewing now and yet to come. 

The problem is worsening and I suspect (to Ten Ozs point) that people will need to overcome their passivity and choose a side to ultimately get us past this. 

[Ten oz]

13 minutes ago, koti said:

I’m not saying that Charlotsville was a good thing, what I’m saying is that hopefuly the majority is more central in their pollitical views than the people from Charlotsville. Ofcourse its not fair to put an equal sign between white supremacists and SJW’s, one group is plainly revolting while the other is infantile and hypocritical. Saying that the „extreme left” are behind equality for all proponents is like saying that Trump has integrity.

You list BLM, LGBT, and SJW. Only BLM is a specific organization. LGBT and SJW are just titles you can potentially be using to describe any number of organizations. I have no way of knowing which. As for BLM they are for criminal justice reform and equality at large. I am not sure what you find hypocritical about that? I think it is important to keep in mind BLM has been specifically targeted by conservative groups and Russia who spread disinformation about them. Much of the uglier things people associate with BLM is purely propaganda. Lots of fraud going on regarding BLM. 

Quote

 

In September 2017, CNN uncovered a sham organization called "Blacktivist." The group described itself as a black American activist campaign and had been active on social media for years. It even had a bigger following than the official Black Lives Matter Facebook page. CNN confirmed Blacktivist was not a real American group, however. It was a troll operation run from 4,000 miles away in St. Petersburg, Russia, by a Kremlin-linked group known as the Internet Research Agency. The revelations helped to show Russia's use of social media to interfere in American life extended beyond the presidential election, and into efforts to exacerbate existing divisions in the U.S. A few weeks later, in October 2017, CNN found another group posing as an organization of Black Lives Matter activists -- "Don't Shoot."

https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/26/us/russian-trolls-exploit-philando-castiles-death/index.html

 

Internet Research Agency workers created hundreds of social media accounts across many platforms in an effort to turn up the volume of political disputes taking place among Americans online. Mueller Indictment Of Russian Operatives Details Playbook Of Information Warfare That included using fake online accounts to organize real-world political events and posing as black Americans to address real black Americans discussing race, law enforcement and the 2016 political campaign. On Tumblr, the Russians used accounts called "black-to-the-bones," "blackness-by-your-side," "blacknproud," "blacktolive" and "bleepthepolice." Others were called "noteverythingiswhite," "starling-all-black-all-day" and "weproud2black." Still other accounts changed their names to drop or pick up apparent black affinity — one went from "blackprideworldwide" to "shoutoutworldwide"; another went from "heygeraldmartinjohanssen" to "ghettablasta" to "postingwhileblack."

https://www.npr.org/2018/03/27/597021235/tumblrs-ban-of-russian-accounts-adds-detail-to-targeting-of-black-americans

The largest Black Lives Matter Facebook page had 700,000 followers and had raised some $100,000 to support the prominent racial justice group. And it was a complete fake. On Monday, a CNN investigation revealed that the page was a “scam with ties to a middle-aged white man in Australia,” named Ian Mackay. Mackay is an official with the Australian National Union of Workers and is not affiliated with Black Lives Matter. In addition to the Facebook page, Mackay was also allegedly connected to a Black Lives Matter Facebook group that had nearly 40,000 members. The fake page was previously highlighted in a December 2017 blog post by Jeremy Massler, a freelance investigator. Mackay had also reportedly created other pages focused on black rights, including blackpowerfist.com, created in April 2015, which operated as a “Reddit-like discussion forum.” Another website, blacklivesmatter.media, was also registered by Mackay. CNN noted that Mackay used the Facebook page to direct traffic to these other sites.

https://www.vox.com/identities/2018/4/10/17219676/facebook-black-lives-matter-page-fake

 

 

[iNow]

I believe koti referenced them specifically bc they were referenced in the first few minutes of the film I shared.  To anchor the story, they showed a group of 10-15 of them being surrounded by hundreds of white supremacists and how violence was initiated by a core group of those on the right. 

Edited August 12, 2018 by iNow

[Ten oz]

Just now, iNow said:

I believe koti referenced them specifically bc they were referenced in the first few minutes of the film I shared. 

I understand but but Koti also called them infantile and hypocritical. 

[DirtyChai]

15 hours ago, iNow said:

The problem of white nationalism is worsening. 

I can agree that the problem seems to be worsening, but that's most likely due to various news outlets and social media giving more attention to these trolls rather than ignoring them like we have for the past 30-40 years.

The fact is that the number of white hate groups have been on the decline.

According to SPLC figures,  white nationalist groups are down nearly 50% since they peaked in 2011.  https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/ideology/white-nationalist

KKK groups are down to their lowest number in almost 20 years, maybe even longer. https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/ideology/ku-klux-klan

Racist skinhead groups are also down nearly 50% since they peaked in 2012.  https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/ideology/racist-skinhead

 

Interestingly enough however, the number of black separatist groups have been on the rise and have more than doubled over the past 4-5 years.

https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/ideology/black-nationalist

We just don't hear about it because nobody cares.  Nobody empowers these trolls by giving them a platform and entertaining their hateful nonsense - and we should treat white supremacy groups the same way.

 

 

Edited August 12, 2018 by DirtyChai

[iNow]

1 hour ago, DirtyChai said:

can agree that the problem seems to be worsening, but that's most likely due to various news outlets and social media giving more attention to these trolls

Perhaps, though I see a bigger role in the current US president and his administration seeming to give them sanction, refusing to rebuke the white extremists in the same way they call out kneeling football players, basketball stars, Muslims, Mexicans, and others.

They used to use dog whistles. Now thy use bullhorns.The media covers events and tells us what words are coming out of the bullhorns, but those events are being triggered by other things and the media is being used IMO as a scapegoat. 

Further, this type of racism has long been an open festering wound in the US and I find it facile and simplistic in the extreme to suggest its driven by the media.

Intereting premise, but I find it rather lacking and quite likely only marginally relevant. 

[Ten oz]

1 hour ago, DirtyChai said:

Interestingly enough however, the number of black separatist groups have been on the rise and have more than doubled over the past 4-5 years.

https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/ideology/black-nationalist

We just don't hear about it because nobody cares.  Nobody empowers these trolls by giving them a platform and entertaining their hateful nonsense - and we should treat white supremacy groups the same way.

In as linked in a previous post some of the organizations claiming to be led by Black SJW are actually just fakes designed to create division. The numbers may or may not be on the rise. In 2018 when anyone can claim to be anything on social media and funds can be anonymously moved around via bitcoin and other digital currency it is hard to know what's real and what is fake. Loops are created throughout social media to generate traffic. Somethings a single person fronts as multiple organizations. That said groups showing up in person chanting "Jews will not replace up" in tangible and can't be ignored. Once Black groups start popping up around the country chanting anti Caucasian slogans I will become just as considered about Black Separatist Groups as I am about What Nationalists. Hate speech is hate speech and none should be tolerate. 

 

[CharonY]

22 hours ago, DirtyChai said:

I can agree that the problem seems to be worsening, but that's most likely due to various news outlets and social media giving more attention to these trolls rather than ignoring them like we have for the past 30-40 years.

The fact is that the number of white hate groups have been on the decline.

According to SPLC figures,  white nationalist groups are down nearly 50% since they peaked in 2011.  https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/ideology/white-nationalist

KKK groups are down to their lowest number in almost 20 years, maybe even longer. https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/ideology/ku-klux-klan

Racist skinhead groups are also down nearly 50% since they peaked in 2012.  https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/ideology/racist-skinhead

 

Interestingly enough however, the number of black separatist groups have been on the rise and have more than doubled over the past 4-5 years.

https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/ideology/black-nationalist

We just don't hear about it because nobody cares.  Nobody empowers these trolls by giving them a platform and entertaining their hateful nonsense - and we should treat white supremacy groups the same way.

 

 

So, there are several ways to interpret the data. One is that these groups have always been around and there has been no significant change in the last 18 years. I.e. they are part and parcel of society that sticks around and festers and only come to prominence with media interest. While the reports may come and go, this ideology is going to be a part of society. The issue with that is that in the graph the only the number of groups are plotted, but not membership. This is an issue if one wants to extract overall trends as these groups can have anything between a dozen and several thousand members. Many of the groups are not stable and splinter into several, often rivaling groups, thus inflating the numbers of groups, without increasing membership.

Difficulties in assessing membership is especially problematic as some of the newer movements (including the self-named "alt-right") are social media based. Groups such as these are also often diffuse and bleed into mainstream, as they like to give themselves a flair of respectability. That all being said, there is of course the issue in a) how persistent certain ideologies (e.g. racial anxiety) are in the broader society and b) what is the influence of folks with this type of ideology in a political context.

a) has been show quite consistently to be a major driver in many strongly conservative voters. This is also seen outside of the USA (as seen in the surge of populist right-wing movements across Europe). b) is the part where white nationalist movements distinguish themselves from e.g. black nationalist movements. The former do have support (directly or indirectly) from various levels of political power. Most recently, this also includes the white house (with folks like Bannon and Miller at minimum). 

I will also add as a general comment (not aimed at anyone in particular) that I do have problems with terms like "PC" and "SJW" as they are just on the right side of nebulous so that can be used as a apparent counterweight to ethno-nationalists movements. However, while the latter can be classified according to their ideology (in which racial/cultural purity is a main factor and society is seen largely as a zero-sum game), I still have no idea what an SJW is (aside from an IRC meme). Unfortunately, while especially SJW has started as a joke, it seems to have become more common in use and I really have trouble figuring out what it means specifically now.

If folks are concerned about social justice, are they SJWs? Weirdly, most folks when asked neutrally about those issues, one would find a sizeable proportion of folks that agree that inequality should be addressed. Are those all SJWs? Or only those that are loud on the matter, but also uneducated (i.e. first-year know-it-all students?). It is a bit like the issue with racism and what it entails. I found some old polls (I believe Gallup) where folks were asked their attitude regarding racism in USA. Through the decades a firm majority was against racism or had a negative view of it. This includes polls through the 60s and 70s. However, connected polls do see a sharp difference from that to matters that today would be considered racist (e.g. being in favour of segregation). What it means is that while the attitude to racism (and perhaps social justice/equality) perhaps has not changed a whole lot. However, especially in recent times there is a broader discussion in terms of what social justice and racism actually is and what it entails. 

For example, the classic attitude was that the USA is in essence a egalitarian (and perhaps meritocratic) society. Thus not doing well is all down to personal abilities and choices. Since certain minorities were doing especially worse, there must be something inherent to them (does not matter whether one calls it cultural or genetic, the important bit is that it is inherent) that causes this disparity. Policies were built upon this assumption (including e.g. mandatory minimum punishments). Now, with the data of all these policies we do see that these assumptions were not only wrong, but also devastated already struggling communities. From there, social sciences have investigated these social mechanisms in more detail and it has shaken the view of many with a particular view on society to the core.

Folks do not consider themselves racist when they think that black folks take too many handouts. After all, it is not a race thing, it is just that those folks just do not work hard enough. Also, it is not that they call for actions against blacks or use racial slurs (for the most part). Now, folks are telling them that this is actually inaccurate and that among many factors, policies that limit generational wealth is a driver. Or that being tough on crime resulted in disproportionate policing of poor communities etc.  Rather than re-evaluate ones own viewpoint, which frankly few of use like to do, it is easier to start blaming society, media etc. to distort the nature of things.

Now with Trump and other populists, those folks get re-assured that they were right all along. Really, there is no racism (especially in policies) or at least the press exaggerates it. Racism is really only there if you feel a hatred and commit active discrimination. Engaging in a worldview that excludes a proportion of the population just does not cut it anymore. I think the surge is ultimately in those folks. Not really racist in terms of race hatred, or  having a clear-cut segregated vision or racial superiority. Rather, it is the odd feeling of having more and more "other" folks in an otherwise nice neighbourhood. The fact annoyance on the fact that the cashier has a weird accent. The feeling that drugs are more prevalent and it is probably those black folks doing it. These low-boil attitudes that seem harmless enough, until they enable politicians to enact policies that seem innocuous enough, but in hindsight will harm certain communities. Ironically the failure of these communities can then be used to enforce more of the same, if support holds.

[Ten oz]

23 minutes ago, CharonY said:

I will also add as a general comment (not aimed at anyone in particular) that I do have problems with terms like "PC" and "SJW" as they are just on the right side of nebulous so that can be used as a apparent counterweight to ethno-nationalists movements. However, while the latter can be classified according to their ideology (in which racial/cultural purity is a main factor and society is seen largely as a zero-sum game), I still have no idea what an SJW is (aside from an IRC meme). Unfortunately, while especially SJW has started as a joke, it seems to have become more common in use and I really have trouble figuring out what it means specifically now.

If folks are concerned about social justice, are they SJWs? Weirdly, most folks when asked neutrally about those issues, one would find a sizeable proportion of folks that agree that inequality should be addressed. Are those all SJWs? Or only those that are loud on the matter, but also uneducated (i.e. first-year know-it-all students?). It is a bit like the issue with racism and what it entails. I found some old polls (I believe Gallup) where folks were asked their attitude regarding racism in USA. Through the decades a firm majority was against racism or had a negative view of it. This includes polls through the 60s and 70s. However, connected polls do see a sharp difference from that to matters that today would be considered racist (e.g. being in favour of segregation). What it means is that while the attitude to racism (and perhaps social justice/equality) perhaps has not changed a whole lot. However, especially in recent times there is a broader discussion in terms of what social justice and racism actually is and what it entails. 

In my opinion a lot of people are not addressing any group or organization in particular when they criticize PC or SJWs. Rather they are merely attempting to be moderate. Slandering "both sides" as a means of faux pragmatism. If also works defensively. I often see people criticize the Clintons or Obama in advance or just aftercriticizing Trump because they anticipate being labelled a Clinton/Obama supporter in response to any Trump attack. The Trump admin has done a great job creating a sense that anyone who supported Clinton, Obama, supports BLM, or any SJW cause in bias and has a partisan tilt. People to want their opinions to be viewed as fair so they attempt to undercut the charge. Of course one can have supported whomever and still have valid criticisms. It is a paradigm which forces concessions which error towards the worst between "both sides". In all political environments post WW2 leading up to 2015 when Trump announced he was running counter protesting Nazis would have been viewed as unequivocally patriotic by both Democrats and Republican alike. 

[DirtyChai]

23 hours ago, iNow said:

this type of racism has long been an open festering wound in the US and I find it facile and simplistic in the extreme to suggest its driven by the media.

I'm not suggesting that the media is driving racism, just the perception that it's worsening. 

You claimed that the "problem with white nationalism is worsening." 

I illustrated how the number white nationalist groups among other racists peaked around the middle of Obama's presidency.  They were outwardly protesting much in the same way they do today.  They were protesting against immigration, they were protesting Holocaust museums, they were protesting against changing the names of parks that were dedicated to confederate leaders, they had keynote speakers addressing the Federalist Society which is one of the most influential legal institutions in the country.  Some of these protests were met with opposition while others weren't. 

And while these numbers peaked during Obama's term, he didn't pay them much attention and there wasn't this preoccupation with them as there is today - and looked what happened - white nationalist and skinhead groups dropped by nearly 50% while the KKK dropped from 272 groups down to 72.

Furthermore, hate crimes have been on a downward trend since 2001 and seemingly reached an all time low in 2014.

https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/aIoTc/1/

There was a slight uptick in 2016 due to an increase in hate crimes against whites and Muslims, but we can expect to see the downward trend continue just as it has with it's various fluctuation.

https://www.cnn.com/2017/11/14/us/hate-crimes-muslim-white-fbi-trnd/index.html

https://www.economist.com/democracy-in-america/2017/09/01/racist-behaviour-is-declining-in-america

 

23 hours ago, Ten oz said:

In as linked in a previous post some of the organizations claiming to be led by Black SJW are actually just fakes designed to create division. The numbers may or may not be on the rise.

The SPLC is very meticulous when it comes to identifying hate groups. Their lists are compiled using "hate group publications and websites, individual and law enforcement reports, field sources and news reports.  Most of these newer groups are additional chapters of well documented black separatist organizations like the Nation of Islam and the New black panthers.

Also, SPLC specifically states that "black nationalists, however, should not be confused with the many non-racist African-American organizations that work for social justice and the elimination of institutional racism in America."

23 hours ago, Ten oz said:

groups showing up in person chanting "Jews will not replace up" in tangible and can't be ignored. Once Black groups start popping up around the country chanting anti Caucasian slogans I will become just as considered about Black Separatist Groups as I am about What Nationalists.

The majority of Black Separitist groups are extremely anti-Semitic. 

They can be found on the streets in combat uniforms with assault rifles spouting off their hatred.

"Kill every goddamn Zionist in Israel! Goddamn little babies, goddamn old ladies! Blow up Zionist supermarkets!"

"Our lessons talk about the bloodsuckers of the poor… . It's that old no-good Jew, that old imposter Jew, that old hooked-nose, bagel-eating, lox-eating, Johnny-come-lately, perpetrating-   a-fraud, just-crawled-out-of-the-caves-and-hills-of-Europe, so-called damn Jew … "

"I hate white people. All of them. Every last iota of a cracker, I hate it. We didn't come out here to play today."

“The revolution is on, off the pigs.  Time to pick up the gun, off the pigs.  Oink Oink… Bang Bang!”

  "Kill all white men, women, babies, blind, crippled, faggots, lesbians and old crackers, then dig them up and kill them again."

 

23 hours ago, Ten oz said:

Hate speech is hate speech and none should be tolerate. 

From The SPLC:

If we seek to expose white hate groups, we cannot be in the business of explaining away the black ones.

 

To CharonY:

Good post overall - lot's of content. 

The two points that stood out the most to me are how the graphs plot out the number of groups, but not membership.

Also, how black separatists don't generally find themselves in positions of political power. 

Two points worthy of more research.

Edited August 13, 2018 by DirtyChai

[Ten oz]

5 minutes ago, DirtyChai said:

The SPLC is very meticulous when it comes to identifying hate groups. Their lists are compiled using "hate group publications and websites, individual and law enforcement reports, field sources and news reports.  Most of these newer groups are additional chapters of well documented black separatist organizations like the Nation of Islam and the New black panthers.

Also, SPLC specifically states that "black nationalists, however, should not be confused with the many non-racist African-American organizations that work for social justice and the elimination of institutional racism in America."

I clearly said in my post that if a group of black activists protested chanting anti Caucasian slogans I would be against that. However that isn't currently happening and as CharonY accurately pointed out your link cannot speak to the number of individuals in any of the groups listed.  As for the SPLC I have no issue with them. However the attacks by Russia have not been easy to detect or stop. Facebook for example is one of the a premier technology companies in the world and they are struggling with how to handle fake information. Hundreds of billions of dollars worth of the stock has swung back and forth as they struggle. Fake information and Russian intel pretending to be BLM, Blacktivist, and etc are real problems. Perhaps it has no impact on the list the SPLC created or perhaps it might. 

27 minutes ago, DirtyChai said:

If we seek to expose white hate groups, we cannot be in the business of explaining away the black ones.

Yesterday it was white hate groups marching in the streets. Not black ones. In the midst of a white hate group protest it feels like whataboutism to be called on to criticize black hate groups who were out marching. Soon as one of those black hate groups creates a disturbance or champions hate up and down public streets I will gladly participate in a thread criticizing them.  

[DirtyChai]

3 hours ago, Ten oz said:

I clearly said in my post that if a group of black activists protested chanting anti Caucasian slogans I would be against that.

Right, and in response I posted examples where they did exactly that.  It's not a matter of "if."

3 hours ago, Ten oz said:

Soon as one of those black hate groups creates a disturbance or champions hate up and down public streets I will gladly participate in a thread criticizing them.  

Now you're just moving the goal posts - and ya, they do that too.

But that initially wasn't my point in bringing this up.  This isn't about "whataboutism," or whatever  you want to call it.  My point was that black separatists are just dismissed as a bunch of wack jobs.  Nobody empowers them by entertaining their hateful message.  They have the right to say whatever they want, but it isn't until they start acting on their threats that I become concerned.

That's why I think it's foolish, and dangerous to incite naive young people to confront these psychopathic white supremacists over some stupid statue that was going to be destroyed anyway.  The supremacists have already lost.  It's not worth the exasperation, it's not worth starting a race war, it's not worth your life.  Trump will be gone soon along with this temporal delusion of a dystopia and the "downward trend" toward equality will persist.

I think our time would be better spent fighting institutionalized racism, racist lobbyists, and white supremacists seeking public office, rather than entertaining a bunch of double digit IQ racists bitching about some statue that nobody really cares about.

Unfortunately tho for us, the human brain desperately seeks stimulation, and it seems anger is the path of least resistance regardless of how displaced it is.

3 hours ago, Ten oz said:

As for the SPLC I have no issue with them.

I know, I simply posted a quote illustrating how you're in agreement.

 

4 hours ago, Ten oz said:

However the attacks by Russia have not been easy to detect or stop. Facebook for example is one of the a premier technology companies in the world and they are struggling with how to handle fake information. Hundreds of billions of dollars worth of the stock has swung back and forth as they struggle.

Dude, that's just lame.  Now I suppose we can just blame russia in order to cast doubt and dismiss any data that isn't inline with our world view?

I should remind you that most of the data I provided was being accumulated over a period of almost 20 years, far before russia's supposed meddling.

4 hours ago, Ten oz said:

Fake information and Russian intel pretending to be BLM, Blacktivist, and etc are real problems.

The SPLC doesn't list BLM and keyboard warrior blacktivists as hate groups.

Can you please provide sources for your claims so that I know exactly what it is you're talking about?

...and btw, I'm still waiting for supporting documentation for the initial claim by iNow that "the problem with white nationalism is worsening."

4 hours ago, Ten oz said:

Perhaps it has no impact on the list the SPLC created or perhaps it might. 

  Where would you put your money?

[Ten oz]

9 hours ago, DirtyChai said:

Right, and in response I posted examples where they did exactly that.  It's not a matter of "if."

I am honestly unaware of any protests of a scale anywhere near what has taken place akin to South Carolina's State House or Charlottesville where large groups of people were injured. It is possible I am simply uninformed. Perhaps I missed it in the news cycle where Black extremists have held large events and Black extremism is a much bigger problem than I am aware of. Please provided links to the large scale protests where people have been hurt or killed and I will review them.

9 hours ago, DirtyChai said:

But that initially wasn't my point in bringing this up.  This isn't about "whataboutism," or whatever  you want to call it.  My point was that black separatists are just dismissed as a bunch of wack jobs.  Nobody empowers them by entertaining their hateful message.  They have the right to say whatever they want, but it isn't until they start acting on their threats that I become concerned.

My point is that this thread is about Nazis. They are the ones who just marched yet you are carrying on about Black extremist groups. Islamic based terrorist organizations are a problem too and have been linked to acts of violence against the LGBT community, women, and Western citizens at large. I guess we could discuss them too but that isn't what this thread is about. You are in a thread about White racists making points about Black racists. 

9 hours ago, DirtyChai said:

Dude, that's just lame.  Now I suppose we can just blame russia in order to cast doubt and dismiss any data that isn't inline with our world view?

I should remind you that most of the data I provided was being accumulated over a period of almost 20 years, far before russia's supposed meddling

The SPLC doesn't list BLM and keyboard warrior blacktivists as hate groups.

Can you please provide sources for your claims so that I know exactly what it is you're talking about?

...and btw, I'm still waiting for supporting documentation for the initial claim by iNow that "the problem with white nationalism is worsening."

I am not purely just blaming Russia. Rather I am pointing out that there is a lot of propaganda out there related to these issues. That is just a fact. The extremist groups you listed are more or less anonymous in that you have no idea what their numbers are or who their members are. The White Nationalists this thread is discussing have numbers and faces. We see them marching in the streets. I have never seen more than a dozen New Black Panther Party members at one time. I have never seen a member of the Black Riders Liberation Party at all. I have no sense of the size of such groups, I do not see evidence of their impact, and I do not feel what I see on social media can be accepted at face value. 

[DirtyChai]

4 hours ago, Ten oz said:

I am honestly unaware of any protests of a scale anywhere near what has taken place akin to South Carolina's State House or Charlottesville where large groups of people were injured.

Right, because we ignore black separatists like we should. They just march around with their guns in a lonely circle-jerk. We don't have these massive counter-protests against them so they never escalate to the point where people get hurt or even killed.  And that was the point I initially stated in my original post - that we should ignore white nationalists just as we do black separatists, effectively making them powerless.

Charlottesville was an exercise in futility, and nothing good can came from disorganized debacles like that.  Our time would be better spent protesting institutional racism, not risking our lives because of some dumb statue.

5 hours ago, Ten oz said:

I do not feel what I see on social media can be accepted at face value. 

Exactly, don't believe the hype that the problem with white nationalism is worsening as propagated throughout social media, because it's not.  If you disagree, please provide supporting documentation for your claim.  I'm still waiting. . .

[Ten oz]

37 minutes ago, DirtyChai said:

Right, because we ignore black separatists like we should.

You are free to start a thread about Black Separatists. 

38 minutes ago, DirtyChai said:

Exactly, don't believe the hype that the problem with white nationalism is worsening as propagated throughout social media, because it's not.  If you disagree, please provide supporting documentation for your claim.  I'm still waiting. . .

What claim of mine are you waiting for documentation for? 

 

[DirtyChai]

10 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

You are free to start a thread about Black Separatists.

That's fine, you can selectively quote my post and play dumb if you want, but you're not fooling anyone.  I had a legitimate reason for making the comparison, I'm sorry you refuse to see it.

[CharonY]

On 8/14/2018 at 10:55 AM, DirtyChai said:

Exactly, don't believe the hype that the problem with white nationalism is worsening as propagated throughout social media, because it's not.  If you disagree, please provide supporting documentation for your claim.  I'm still waiting. . .

Well, for that there are a couple of indicators. First, is the increase in political clout. There are folks in the White House that are close (or actual) white nationalists who actually enact policies aimed at limiting influx of non-whites. Plus the lack of condemnation of white supremacists when they actually killed someone or the way the President reacted when he got endorsed by the KKK. These factors do not necessarily increase the numbers of white nationalists, but it certainly mainstreams their ideas.

An additional indicator is that there a handful of GOP candidates that are openly supremacists or of similar ilk. While they generally do not have much support, the fact that they are in the mix can be seen as a signal.

Now, the issue of actual rise in white nationalism on the population side is more difficult to assess. It is one thing of having organization with declared goals, but there are also the diffuse groups and individuals who knowingly or not sympathize with the same ideologies. Finding good data set for a baseline and finding evidence for significant change is going to be difficult no matter what, due to the diffuse characters of associated ideologies and the short time frame of the current administration. At the same time, belonging to a hate group sends an open signal of ones ideology and while certain folks sympathize with certain aspects of white nationalism (or just good old xenophobia) actively joining a group may be a bridge too far. Likely,  many of the same folk would agree that racism is a bad thing and joining such groups unless they manage to polish their sheen of respectability would be an issue.

But you mentioned social media. Here, it is important to note that social media are not only used to propagate the rise of hate groups, but it is also becoming the major platform to recruit and perpetuate these ideologies. Similar, in fact, to Islamic radicalism, which increasingly uses these platforms to radicalize folks. If you look at current lit, you will find that researchers struggle to get a grips on e.g. the "alt-right" movement (a term, which incidentally was coined by white supremacists to normalize their stance it kind of worked). But since much of it is internet-based, it is difficult to assess the scope. More work has been done in terms of their tactics, but some studies indicate an increase in reach. But since it is a relatively new movement, but also bleeds over from fringe conservatives, it is difficult to establish a quantitative trend. 

That being said, according to various polls starting 2017 only ca. 5-10% of respondents share all core values including a strong sense of white identity  and white solidarity coupled with a sense of white victimization (as expressed in slogans of concerning white genocide/ fear of replacement) with these white nationalist/identity movements.

My suspicion is simply that a part of the population always had ideologies that at least partially align with white nationalist ideals. A certain amount of xenophobia is present in virtually all societies. What I think has changed (and again, it is pure speculation) are two things. On the one hand the normalization of certain rhetoric emboldens some to be more open with regards to certain attitudes as they may not be seen as racist as they used to be. This increase in open hostility is not new and happens periodically, especially when there is a crisis (or perceived crisis) of sorts. Typically these worries are masked as economic worries, but when e.g. politicians are openly using a certain verbiage (in congress folks like Steve King come to mind) and face no blowback, the racial elements tend to become more apparent.

On the other hand, there are counter movements that expose or try to expose (with different levels of aptitude) some hitherto accepted norms as racist or at least controversial. For example, while controversial in some areas the conclusions offered in The Bell Curve was still often mentioned or taught in class with little skepticism as facts some 20 years ago.  The pushback nowadays is not exclusively due to newer findings but also because of an increased sense that the original studies  used biased selection and ignored confounding factors to build a narrative. Or because nowadays there is a sense that folks are not only in poverty and/or crime because of poor personal choices, but because they were in an environment where good choices were harder to come by. I.e. instead of punishment, social and economic policies and interventions were found to have a deeper impact on crime rates.

The latter serves as a threat of the former worldview and at least seemingly leads to more conflict, amplified by social media, which can lead to a general impression of an increase of extremism. Another interesting element is that extremists, even on different sides tend to have similar interests. I remember reports where there was a weird level of support from neo-nazis to black separationist, for example. The reason being that both groups eventually want segregation.

 

[DirtyChai]

23 hours ago, CharonY said:

There are folks in the White House that are close (or actual) white nationalists who actually enact policies aimed at limiting influx of non-whites.

Personally, I felt such restrictions were unwarranted given that the previous administration had already addressed problems with the system.

In 2008, the family reunification program was suspended not because of a security threat, but because of fraud.  It was found that  people from Kenya and Nigeria weren't actually related to those granted asylum in the U.S.

In 2011, it was discovered that Iraqi operatives infiltrated the Iraqi refugee program.  As a result, that program was also suspended to address the problem.  The operatives were arrested for arms dealing and plotting attacks against former military personnel they encountered back in Iraq. 

Having said that, we still have to look at the data to see if these policies actually limited the overall number of "non-whites."  BTW, "Non-whites" is a rather poor choice of words considering the amount of immigrants coming from various parts of Africa, India, and China that weren't subject to such policies.

There is also a proposal to cut immigration overall by 50% within 10 years, but pushback and criticism from both the left and the right will most likely result in it's failure.  So again, the case for the problem of white nationalism worsening is speculative at best.

On 8/15/2018 at 2:00 PM, CharonY said:

An additional indicator is that there a handful of GOP candidates that are openly supremacists or of similar ilk. While they generally do not have much support, the fact that they are in the mix can be seen as a signal.

No, this is neither a signal, nor an indication that the problem with white nationalism is worsening.  And it's not just because these people get very little support, but because they've already reared their ugly heads to a greater extent in the recent past.

Your link showed an exhaustive list of 17 right wing extremists/supremacists, 5 of which have already lost.  James Ulsup won the renowned high office of the most prestigious Whitman County Republican Precinct Committee Officer [/sarcasm] - But he only won because he went unchallenged - and now the GOP has denounced him and desperately searching for loopholes to remove him, so what does that tell you?

The rest of the pack probably doesn't have much of a chance either.  Art Jones thinks he can win in Illinois (Chicago) against a guy named Dan Lipinski.  It just goes to show how delusional these people are.  I would definitely agree that this is a case of Trump "emboldening" white supremacists if Jones wasn't doing this same thing for the past 50 years - hasn't won yet.

But anyway, back to my point.  Compare your ADL list of 17 extremist candidates in 2018 to a list compiled by the SPLC in 2010 of 23 extremists candidates, 5 of which actually won.

https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/intelligence-report/2011/electoral-extremism-23-candidates-radical-right

This is just another example of the data showing that the problem really isn't getting worse.  And that pretty much holds true for almost everything we argue about today given the fact that we have 24 hour on demand access to bolster whatever negative perspective we want.  Anger is a very powerful stimulant, and we as a nation are practically addicted to it.  But overall, things tend to get better and progress marches onward.

I understand that the majority doesn't like Trump, therefore the perception of racism is heightened in order to link it all to back to him and get him out of office - and I suppose that's all fair game.  Just don't get yourself killed over it by picking a fight with a bunch of delusional rednecks over a statue.  I think there are more constructive ways to fight hate, and your link to ADL is a very good starting point.  Thanks for posting that.

As for the rest of your post, I don't really have much to add.  I hope you don't feel that I'm just trying to dismiss your points.  I really enjoy reading your posts and appreciate your thoughtful response. 

Cheers!

 

 

 

 

[CharonY]

I am open to the idea that the current administration has not resulted in a significant change in white nationalist/supremacist activities, especially as it will take a while longer to have data on that. A few years down the road we will know more.

1 hour ago, DirtyChai said:

Having said that, we still have to look at the data to see if these policies actually limited the overall number of "non-whites."  BTW, "Non-whites" is a rather poor choice of words considering the amount of immigrants coming from various parts of Africa, India, and China that weren't subject to such policies.

I was referring specifically to the the way the White House has expressed their policies. There are legal restrictions that would forbid them to specifically target folks based on ethnicity. However, certain aspects, such as the forced separation of children does disproportionately affect Hispanic folks. Based on what the administration has said (including contrasting shit hole countries with Norwegian immigrants, calling travel restrictions Muslim bans etc.), it is hard to imagine that it was not by design.  

Knowing that certain powerful factions in the White House are clearly racist makes it hard to imagine that it will go unnoticed in the population. The question, as I mentioned is whether it will result in a meaningful net change in openly classifiable extremist actions and group memberships. After all,  aside from personal ideologies, these openly enacted policies (during the Obama administration deportations were for example not openly celebrated) are clearly a signal for the Republican base. Even if those views are prevalent and they find themselves vindicated, it may not result in any quantifiable change. 

Unless, of course, white nationalist ideologies are actually on their way out (which could be questionable). This then shows that it is going to stick around for a while longer.

I suspect we are looking at slightly different segments of the population. I am including the otherwise "normal", perhaps conservative part who feel uneasy about the increasing amount of diversity in the neighbourhood, which is even more difficult to quantify than outright hate groups. In this context looking at the Obama administration is quite interesting. As you mentioned several hate groups seemed to have peaked during his presidency. In fact, it appears that having a (half-) black president mobilized resistance on that fringe. One could argue that the same is happening with regard to black nationalist groups. One difference one could see is that Obama triggered outrage by virtue of his skin colour. Trump by his rhetoric and inner circle.

Edited August 16, 2018 by CharonY

[CharonY]

Well, now a town in East Germany was basically taking over by over 5000 neo-nazis. It started as a protest of the far right (or call them alt-right if that makes anyone feel better) and ended up in attacking counter-protesters, journalists and foreign-looking folks. It started with the death of a German who was allegedly killed by two men from Syria and Iraq. Ironically, the German had a migratory background as it was revealed later by someone who knew him  (he was half-Cuban and dark skinned; in Germany personal details of victims are typically not allowed to be broadcasted). I.e. he was someone that would himself be a target of those far-right dunces. Some members of the populist-right parties are adding fuel to the fire ("If the State does not protect its citizens, people will go to the street and protect themselves"). 

Merkel called to a stop of this "vigilante justice". However, that seems like a stupid remark. How is it justice to chase down unrelated folks? Either way, seems to be that those folks are always around and just need an excuse to unleash violence...

 

 

Edited August 28, 2018 by CharonY

[iNow]

On 8/11/2018 at 9:09 PM, iNow said:

It’s a year after Charlottesville. The problem of white nationalism is worsening. 

The following is a must watch for anyone hoping to understand. 

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/documenting-hate-charlottesville/

Video at the link

In case anyone followed this amd wants to see Part 2, it came out this week:

 

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/documenting-hate-new-american-nazis/

Quote

In the wake of the deadly anti-Semitic attack at the Tree of Life synagogue in Pittsburgh, FRONTLINE and ProPublica present a new investigation into white supremacist groups in America – in particular, a neo-Nazi group, Atomwaffen Division, that has actively recruited inside the U.S. military. Continuing FRONTLINE and ProPublica’s reporting on violent white supremacists in the U.S. (which has helped lead to multiple arrests), this joint investigation shows the group’s terrorist objectives and how it gained strength after the 2017 Charlottesville rally. [Watch the first documentary in this series, August 2018’s Documenting Hate: Charlottesville, online.]

 

[Ten oz]

Those kids in Wisconsin won't be punished for their Nazi salutes.

Quote

 

Officials with a Wisconsin school district say free-speech rights would make it difficult to discipline students who appeared in a photograph that showed several high school boys giving what appears to be a Nazi salute.

The State Journal reports that Baraboo Superintendent Lori Mueller said in a letter to parents Wednesday that officials cannot know the "intentions in the hearts" of those involved. She also said the district isn't in a position to punish the students because they are protected by the First Amendment.

https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/midwest/ct-nazi-salute-wisconsin-students20181124-story.html

 

I could have gotten out of a lot of detention in High School if only I had used my First Amendment rights. Who knew? 

 

[iNow]

8 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Those kids in Wisconsin won't be punished for their Nazi salutes.

I have mixed feelings about this, and suspect in the long-run this is a net good for us.

Let people express their views. Let those views be challenged openly. Pushing hateful ideas into hiding doesn’t neutralize them, it just prevents us from engaging them and making our own counter messages stronger and better refined. Alowing them to be shared openly also allows social punishments to be levied (loss of friends, fewer job opportunities, not as many potential mates, etc.).

I wonder if local school policies or expulsion may be the right path on this stuff. Again, though. I have mixed feelings

Edited November 24, 2018 by iNow

[Raider5678]

9 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

I could have gotten out of a lot of detention in High School if only I had used my First Amendment rights. Who knew? 

 

According to the article, the photographer told the boys to wave goodbye to their parents before heading to prom.

As a result, when you have 60 boys wave for a photograph, some are going to look like they're giving a Nazi Salute. Mind you, people aren't saying all the boys are doing the salute, just a few of them. 

I think the school saying they don't want to infringe on their First Amendment rights was just the school's way of trying to get out of punishing a bunch of kids for nothing but an accident.

1 minute ago, iNow said:

I have mixed feelings about this, and suspect in the long-run this is a net good for us.

Let people express their views. Let those views be challenged openly. Pushing hateful ideas into hiding doesn’t them, it just prevents us from engaging them and making our own counter messages stronger and better refined. It also allows social punishments to be levied when the views are openly shared (loss of friends, job opportunities, potential mates, etc.).

See above for my opinion on if they were actually doing it or not, but regardless, I agree with your general position.

Hate speech shouldn't be illegal. It's speech. I don't think to tolerate it gives it credibility or anything if all speech is tolerated. It's when some speech is tolerated, and other speech isn't, that suddenly the speech that is tolerated gains credibility. Additionally, when you get into the grounds of defining hate speech, it can get questionable really quickly.

For example, on several college campuses, students are taught that asking "Where are you from?" is a minor form of hate speech because it implies they aren't from here. I can see how you can draw the correlation between that, but I also really don't think that should qualify as hate speech. So if we set the precedence now of punishing hate speech, what happens as the definitions of hate speech broadens over time, as it already has? If my future grandkids are punished for asking "Where are you from?" I'll roll over in my grave.

Edited November 24, 2018 by Raider5678

[koti]

I'm not a particular fan of Jordan Peterson's rhetoric in general but I think this time he perfectly grasped the psychological mechanisms of how Hitler came into power. It's like cancer and it I can't stop noticing that it takes a tiny little mutation for it to spread again into unstoppable proportions: