The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Charlotteville Survivor Archive
Anarcho-Tyranny vs. Rule of Law? Guess Which Side MSM Is On!
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
goodwin-cville

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

See also: The System Revealed: Antifa, Virginia Politicians And Police Work Together To Shut Down #UniteTheRight

Tale of two cities: Charlottesville VA and Burns, TN—home of the heroic Montgomery Bell State Park Conference Center, defender of American liberties. Guess which side the Main Stream Media is on?

Jacob Scott Goodwin, 22, was just convicted of the “malicious wounding” of DeAndre Harris at the Democrat-mugged Unite The Right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia last August. The jury recommended the astonishing sentence of 10 years in prison and a $20,000 fine—a verdict greeted with ecstatic ululations by the Main Stream Media. [White man convicted of beating black man at Charlottesville white nationalist rally, by Camila Domonoske, NPR, May 2, 2018]

DeAndre Harris, you may recall, was caught on video wielding a flashlight against a demonstrator. It was this action, following an attempt by one of Harris’ allies to seize an elderly demonstrator’s Confederate Battle Flag, that video proves sparked the entire brawl. Nonetheless, as in the case of demonstrators arrested during the Inauguration Day riots, judicial sabotage meant that Harris walked free.

In other words, there were absolutely no consequences for Harris’s violence—whereas Scott’s life has been essentially ended. This despite that fact that, according to an independent report from the city, local officials actively conspired to deliberately allow violence to create an excuse to shut down the Unite The Right rally.

There are still other cases to be decided (including that of James Fields, driver of the car that allegedly killed Heather Heyer), but the trend is already a grave threat to American liberties: Unite The Right attendees are being savagely treated by the judicial system, while Antifa vigilantes are being given leniency.

It is impossible not to see the political motivation in this; Right-wing dissidents are being slapped with “exemplary sentencingpour encourager les autres; Antifa can run wild. This alliance between Leftist government and Leftist mobs is what the late Sam Francis called “Anarcho-Tyranny.”

One of the main arguments the prosecution used against Goodwin: he arrived “outfitted for battle” and must therefore have been itching for a fight. “He’s got large googles, boots,” said the city’s assistant commonwealth’s attorney Nina-Alice Antony. “He’s got a full body shield” [White man found guilty of assaulting black man at Charlottesville rally, by Karma Allen, ABC News, May 2, 2018].

But the reason many Unite The Right demonstrators arrived with helmets and shields: Antifa are known for tactics such as throwing hard projectiles, hitting people on the head with poles, and using stabbing weapons.

In other words, UTR demonstrators were assuming police would not protect them. This assumption was proven correct. Carrying a shield while attending a lawful demonstration is inherently less aggressive than showing up to disrupt it while carrying offensive weapons (for example, a flame thrower).

I am not saying Goodwin acted perfectly. I was at Charlottesville, but I was not present in the parking lot, nor was I on the jury. But it is simply a fact that Goodwin and other demonstrators were thrown into a violent melee because the city authorities did not do their job, and indeed, made things worse.

Were there no Antifa, there would have been no violence at all. Had the police separated the two groups, or carried out their obligation to clear the streets following the declaration of a “state of emergency,” there would have been no parking lot brawl, no citywide scrum, and Heather Heyer would still be alive.

This context is important when looking at the coverage of the most recent American Renaissance conference, which recently concluded triumphantly [AmRen 2018: The Fire Taking Hold, by Gregory Hood, AmRen, April 30, 2018]. While there was a robust law enforcement presence, it was hardly oppressive. Indeed, police allowed Antifa to defy regulations and protest while masked. However, police did ensure separation between protesters and attendees.

Significantly, MSM reporters were upset by this. The Huffington Post’s Christopher Mathias described the Tennessee police doing their job as “Police Guard White Nationalist Conference At Tennessee State Park From Protesters” —as if police should have simply stood aside. “The white nationalists, whose conference lasts through Sunday, stayed fortified in the hotel,” Mathias intoned. “A large contingent of police remained outside, standing guard.” [Huffington Post, April 29, 2018].

It’s almost like the “white nationalists” were staying “fortified in the hotel” because that’s where the conference was.

Mathias quotes Lacy MacAuley, described only as an “anti-fascist activist from Washington D.C.,” dutifully reprinting her narrative that the police are protecting “evil” and “looking at us as if we’re the problem.” He neglects to mention MacAuley has a long history with extremist groups and is facing felony charges from the “anti-fascist” protest against Richard Spencer’s Michigan State speech in March [8 arraigned on felony charges in wake of Richard Spencer protest, Michigan Live, March 7, 2018].

But then, why would he? As Mathias himself sees his journalistic role as doxing activists he doesn’t like, he’s not a journalist reporting on Antifa—he is Antifa [Exclusive: Florida Public School Teacher Has A White Nationalist Podcast, by Christopher Mathias, Jenna Amatulli, and Rebecca Klein, Huffington Post, March 6, 2018]

Similarly, Natalie Allison of the Tennessean did her best to pathologize American Renaissance, reprinting the now de rigueur smear that the discredited Southern Poverty Law Center calls AR as a “hate group” (just like VDARE.com!) and reverently chronicling the conference’s various Antifa assailants [Antifa, Anti-Racist Action among those protesting conference at Montgomery Bell Inn Saturday, April 27, 2018]. But while Allison detailed the various security measures authorities were planning, she never said why these things were necessary.

For example, last year there was a very small police presence at American Renaissance and Antifa were permitted to enter the building to “use the restrooms” and to harass guests through ground-floor windows. Not surprisingly, they immediately began provoking confrontations. This culminated in a fight between an attendee and an Antifa member and two arrests [Sell-Out Conference Shrugs Off Anti-Fa, American Renaissance, July 31, 2017].

Antifa fully intended an enhanced performance this year, explicitly threatening to “shut down” the conference and make it “the last AmRen” [Call to action: To RESIST and SHUTDOWN AmRen In Tennessee, ARA Nashville, April 18, 2018]. When law enforcement prevented this from happening, Nashville Anti-Racist Action (ARA) complained about being kept at “an agonizingly safe distance [Reportback: AmRen 2018, ARA Nashville, May 1, 2018].

Not surprisingly, with little opportunity for violence, relatively few Antifa showed up.

So AMREN attendees who wanted peacefully to discuss recent science about race were actually able to do so. This simply would not have occurred if Antifa were able to provoke confrontations and fights—fights which the MSM would have pinned on attendees regardless of the facts on the ground.

The Antifa no-show at American Renaissance shows the extreme Leftists are uninterested in expressing their opinion peacefully. They simply want violence. Unfortunately, judging from the frustrated tone of “reporters” like Christopher Mathias, at least some MSM activists share their aims.

The fact is that firm law enforcement, objective rules, and enforced separation between white advocates and Antifa make it very easy for both sides peacefully to express their views. When this is done, white advocates win, because the truth and arguments are on our side and all we need is a fair hearing.

However, when the law enforcement does not do its job, a situation of Anarcho-tyranny develops in which Antifa are permitted to attack white advocates and white advocates are savagely penalized for defending themselves.

The decisive factor in explaining this treatment imbalance: The MSM’s bias in favor of Antifa.

For that reason, even those who don’t agree with American Renaissance have a vital stake in making sure law enforcement continues to defend dissidents’ right to free speech. It may start with American Renaissance, but it will extend to any group the MSM or Antifa don’t like. (Hello, NRA? Koch brothers?)

For all Americans, this ultimately comes down to one simple question. Does Antifa have the right to use physical force to prevent political speech that they disagree with—even when that speech is not an incitement to violence?

Increasingly, the Main Stream Media seems to be taking the position that yes, Antifa does have that right. Outlets and celebrities around the country gleefully celebrated the attack on Richard Spencer on President Trump’s inauguration day, who was sucker-punched while giving an interview to a reporter. (Needless to say, the D.C. police have made no arrests—although this occurred on camera).

Meanwhile, outlets such as the New York Times publish columns suggesting free speech exercised by the wrong people constitutes violence and can legitimately be banned.

And now, we have reporters angry that police won’t simply abandon their posts like they did in Charlottesville.

The late Christopher Hitchens, who would never be allowed to work for a mainstream publication today, declared of those who hold unorthodox views: “That person doesn’t just have a right to speak. That person’s right to speak must be given extra protection.”

Of course, no one who spoke at American Renaissance expressed anything other than common sense on race relations. But unfortunately, given systematic MSM gaslighting, speaking even obvious truths in today’s America is fraught with peril.

And as the headlines from Charlottesville tell us, in some areas of the country, America’s traditional rule of law is already lost.

Charlottesville Survivor [Email him] is a white man who voted for Trump. The Left hates all white men who voted for Trump, whether they were in Charlottesville or not.

(Republished from VDare by permission of author or representative)
 
Hide 71 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. fnn says:

    I’m just about certain helmets and shields are defensive tools/devices, not weapons.

    Read More
    • Replies: @animalogic
    Just a side point (& I make NO inference to the current topic) but in the hands of a Roman legionaire a shield & helmet were primarily defensive equipment, but could be & officially were, employed as offensive weapons. The shield boss was used to shove & smash enemies' faces/chests (sheild & sword were used in systematic coordination by individuals/ small/large units - punch out shield - stab -punch-stab etc) a shield top was used to smash jaws, the bottom rim to crush feet. Helmets were deployed to head butt.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. A white identitarian movement that wants to be successful needs to dump the swastika and Confederate flags. While some may see multiple meanings in those symbols, most will only see Nazis and slave-masters. Racial supremacy and domination will never draw the numbers and types of people that any political movement requires to thrive and survive. And at this point in human history, where there is a growing genocidal energy directed at the racial group that has been the global top dog since the Age of Discovery, survival is the issue.

    Read More
    • Agree: manorchurch
    • Disagree: schnellandine, Stonehands
    • Replies: @Bennis Mardens
    Oh bullshit.
    99% of the Charlottesville attendees were basic bitch Trump supporters and they were there to preserve our heritage.
    Spencer and Co. had legal permits.
    The local government conspired with law enforcement to encourage the violence, KNOWING that Antifa was there to do violence, period.
    It was a setup.
    Furthermore, even without Confederate flags and swastikas, every white man is labeled a naziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews. The outer trappings don't matter. All that matter is the color of the skin, if the skin is white.
    The optics discussion is an excuse to blame the victims of the Charlottesville Clusterfuck.
    Jacob Goodwin is getting the shaft and it's a tragedy.
    The hostile tribe that rules over us has now declared total WAR on our people. We are not allowed to assemble, we are not allowed to speak out, while Antifa SCUM is allowed to assault us without consequence.
    How long can this go on?
    , @Biff
    I agreed with you up until this point:



    where there is a growing genocidal energy directed at the racial group that has been the global top dog since the Age of Discovery,
     
    Mr. top dog has yet to discover enlightenment; clearly still in the dark.
    , @Randal

    A white identitarian movement that wants to be successful needs to dump the swastika and Confederate flags.
     
    Readers have a choice in response to the facts contained in the above piece - they can make it about the basic, profound injustice described in the story, whereby police protection and even justice itself is made subject to holding and expressing "acceptable" opinions, or they can, in effect and regardless of supposed intent, make it about blaming the victims of said injustice for holding and expressing those "unacceptable" opinions.

    You made your choice, clearly.

    , @Anonymous

    A white identitarian movement that wants to be successful needs to dump the swastika and Confederate flags. While some may see multiple meanings in those symbols, most will only see Nazis and slave-masters. Racial supremacy and domination will never draw the numbers and types of people that any political movement requires to thrive and survive. And at this point in human history, where there is a growing genocidal energy directed at the racial group that has been the global top dog since the Age of Discovery, survival is the issue.
     
    I’m not into the white identitarian movement or anything like that. And know nothing about it and don’t care to. In fact, I think the cause for maintaining European culture was lost in the Protestant Reformation. What we’re are seeing now is just the endgame playing out. When the majority of people of European culture— especially the elites— are on board with the destruction of that culture, what’s the point of white identitarianism? And to use symbols of Nazism and/or the Confederacy, two movements which divided and led to many deaths of European peoples, and in the end lost, seems odd. Why would anyone identify with something which ultimately failed? If you’re really into European culture and white people, instead of standing on a street corner waving a Confederate flag, why not wear a Michelangelo artwork t-shirt and read Shakespeare out loud with a bullhorn?
    , @Saxon
    ~99% of these guys were wearing things like white polo shirts and carrying American flags. You are simply delusional if you think that the right "optics' will stop enemy-controlled mass media monopoly from simply lying.

    Also, the idea that wanting to live apart in our own countries with demographic security being a guarantee is "supremacy" is ludicrous. We ask no more than any other people in this regard. Again though, the all-important mass media monopoly and who controls it is who can manipulate public opinion and simply create an echo chamber of lies where the other side isn't even heard.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  3. Anon[425] • Disclaimer says: • Website

    Jewish-ruled US is like West Bank. Just ask the Palestinians.

    But all those yrs, white Americans laughed and mocked Palestinians living under Occupation who were asking for justice.

    White Patriots are the new Palestinians in the US and EU.

    Anyway, every disadvantage had an advantage. Nelson Mandela in prison was a minus… that turned into a plus. It all depends on how to spin the narrative.

    This is an obvious loss for the Dissident Right and white patriots. But this guy serves as a victim of Jewish Judicial Tyranny. And it raises awareness that the Palestinian plight = White plight and for the same reason. Jewish monopoly power over media, law, politicians, and etc.

    The Right should never forget this guy. Hold him up as a political prisoner. Jews win can win the battle but not the war IF the Right maintains the Narrative.

    The Right has a martyr. Martyrs are good for any cause. Just don’t forget them.

    Antifa are the Cossack goons of the Jews. Jews use them to carry out pogroms against patriots.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  4. @SunBakedSuburb
    A white identitarian movement that wants to be successful needs to dump the swastika and Confederate flags. While some may see multiple meanings in those symbols, most will only see Nazis and slave-masters. Racial supremacy and domination will never draw the numbers and types of people that any political movement requires to thrive and survive. And at this point in human history, where there is a growing genocidal energy directed at the racial group that has been the global top dog since the Age of Discovery, survival is the issue.

    Oh bullshit.
    99% of the Charlottesville attendees were basic bitch Trump supporters and they were there to preserve our heritage.
    Spencer and Co. had legal permits.
    The local government conspired with law enforcement to encourage the violence, KNOWING that Antifa was there to do violence, period.
    It was a setup.
    Furthermore, even without Confederate flags and swastikas, every white man is labeled a naziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews. The outer trappings don’t matter. All that matter is the color of the skin, if the skin is white.
    The optics discussion is an excuse to blame the victims of the Charlottesville Clusterfuck.
    Jacob Goodwin is getting the shaft and it’s a tragedy.
    The hostile tribe that rules over us has now declared total WAR on our people. We are not allowed to assemble, we are not allowed to speak out, while Antifa SCUM is allowed to assault us without consequence.
    How long can this go on?

    Read More
    • Agree: AndrewR
    • Replies: @Miro23

    The hostile tribe that rules over us has now declared total WAR on our people. We are not allowed to assemble, we are not allowed to speak out, while Antifa SCUM is allowed to assault us without consequence.
    How long can this go on?
     
    We are not allowed to assemble, we are not allowed to speak out.

    This a question of scale. If you get a million people in the streets, then they can't do what they did in Charlottesville - and it's a completely different situation.
    , @RealAmerican
    How long can this go on? At minimum, seventy years, and counting. Ask any Palestinian.
    , @anon
    It can go on as long as the vast majority of [white] Americans remain repulsed by the idea of pro-white identity politics. It doesn't help that so many pro-white people and activists in particular are so highly flawed and in many cases toxic.


    I especially am repulsed by how strong the anti-LGBT sentiment is among so many pro-white folks. I'm not talking about opposition to the mainstream LGBT agenda and the overall degeneracy prevalent among LGBT today. I'm talking about the sentiment that LGBT people don't belong in the pro-white movement at all, or even more toxic beliefs including the advocacy of violence against sexual minorities.

    LGBT people have always and will always exist. Forcing them into the closet and/or into sham marriages isn't good for anyone. The degeneracy associated with the LGBT community today is not inherent to LGBT people. Society in general has become extremely degenerate. Heterosexual promiscuity and degeneracy has long been the norm. LGBT people may take it a bit further but this could be interpreted as an understandable backlash against the unreasonable repression to which they were subject for so long.

    Ideally, pro-white LGBT people could spend their money, time and energy on pro-white efforts other than the most important pro-white effort: creating and parenting white children.

    But by taking an explicitly anti-LGBT stance, foolish pro-white advocates are depriving the movement of an important subset of the white population, and to some extent driving that subset further into the arms of the anti-white left.

    Pro-white advocates need to decide what their top priority is: hating homos, or advancing the rights and interests of whites.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  5. BenKenobi says:

    The Battle of Berkeley was a resounding win for the right, and an instructive example of what happens if the authorities take a “hands off” approach.

    It could not be allowed to happen again. Cue Charlottesville.

    The polarization continues apace.

    “and how we burned in the camps later…”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  6. When one is accustomed to the Dutch friendly police one indeed expiriences the USA police as ‘internal army’, as a USA friend said how he saw USA police.
    Police of GB still does not carry firearms.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  7. Miro23 says:
    @Bennis Mardens
    Oh bullshit.
    99% of the Charlottesville attendees were basic bitch Trump supporters and they were there to preserve our heritage.
    Spencer and Co. had legal permits.
    The local government conspired with law enforcement to encourage the violence, KNOWING that Antifa was there to do violence, period.
    It was a setup.
    Furthermore, even without Confederate flags and swastikas, every white man is labeled a naziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews. The outer trappings don't matter. All that matter is the color of the skin, if the skin is white.
    The optics discussion is an excuse to blame the victims of the Charlottesville Clusterfuck.
    Jacob Goodwin is getting the shaft and it's a tragedy.
    The hostile tribe that rules over us has now declared total WAR on our people. We are not allowed to assemble, we are not allowed to speak out, while Antifa SCUM is allowed to assault us without consequence.
    How long can this go on?

    The hostile tribe that rules over us has now declared total WAR on our people. We are not allowed to assemble, we are not allowed to speak out, while Antifa SCUM is allowed to assault us without consequence.
    How long can this go on?

    We are not allowed to assemble, we are not allowed to speak out.

    This a question of scale. If you get a million people in the streets, then they can’t do what they did in Charlottesville – and it’s a completely different situation.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Miro23

    This a question of scale. If you get a million people in the streets, then they can’t do what they did in Charlottesville – and it’s a completely different situation.
     
    And forget about the Confederate flags. Make it an Anti-War demonstration. No one wants a war with Iran or Russia, and you'll probably even get the old Hippies joining in.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  8. Biff says:
    @SunBakedSuburb
    A white identitarian movement that wants to be successful needs to dump the swastika and Confederate flags. While some may see multiple meanings in those symbols, most will only see Nazis and slave-masters. Racial supremacy and domination will never draw the numbers and types of people that any political movement requires to thrive and survive. And at this point in human history, where there is a growing genocidal energy directed at the racial group that has been the global top dog since the Age of Discovery, survival is the issue.

    I agreed with you up until this point:

    where there is a growing genocidal energy directed at the racial group that has been the global top dog since the Age of Discovery,

    Mr. top dog has yet to discover enlightenment; clearly still in the dark.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  9. Miro23 says:
    @Miro23

    The hostile tribe that rules over us has now declared total WAR on our people. We are not allowed to assemble, we are not allowed to speak out, while Antifa SCUM is allowed to assault us without consequence.
    How long can this go on?
     
    We are not allowed to assemble, we are not allowed to speak out.

    This a question of scale. If you get a million people in the streets, then they can't do what they did in Charlottesville - and it's a completely different situation.

    This a question of scale. If you get a million people in the streets, then they can’t do what they did in Charlottesville – and it’s a completely different situation.

    And forget about the Confederate flags. Make it an Anti-War demonstration. No one wants a war with Iran or Russia, and you’ll probably even get the old Hippies joining in.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal

    And forget about the Confederate flags.
     
    If you abandon and exclude the symbols of white identity, any movement you create will just start out already subverted, by the same fake, antiracist "conservatives" that created the modern Republican Party and similar establishment tools of the globalists and antiracists. It will be hobbled and crippled by paranoid political correctness. That's exactly why the supporters of said fake rightists and the minority identity lobbyists of various kinds are so desperate for any rightwing radical movement to do exactly that - so it doesn't in any way threaten the establishment or the minority identity dominance that they prioritise.

    If it's not shocking, then it's not radical and it's not relevant. In the face of the almost complete triumph of leftwing radicalism, the only proper response for those opposed to it - even conservatives - must be radicalism to return to sanity.

    It might be that the globalists, the antiracists, the jewish, black, homo etc lobbies, the gender obsessives, are indeed too strongly entrenched in our media and political establishment to be beaten. But to give up without at least trying to build something that includes white identity politics as a legitimate part of the discourse, is hardly the way to test that. And if the leftists are indeed too entrenched to be defeated democratically and legally (as stories such as the one above suggest) then the only likely alternative outcomes in the longer run are Franco/Hitler or the Khmer Rouge. Might as well start building now.

    These symbols need to be renormalised, not further excluded and marginalised.

    Make it an Anti-War demonstration. No one wants a war with Iran or Russia, and you’ll probably even get the old Hippies joining in.
     
    If you set out to create an anti-war political mass movement that rejected the symbols of white identity, it would just become the same anti-white leftist organisation as all the rest, with witch hunts driving out anyone who was found to have ever said anything politically correct, or to have associated with anyone who said anything politically incorrect. What would be the point?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  10. Randal says:
    @SunBakedSuburb
    A white identitarian movement that wants to be successful needs to dump the swastika and Confederate flags. While some may see multiple meanings in those symbols, most will only see Nazis and slave-masters. Racial supremacy and domination will never draw the numbers and types of people that any political movement requires to thrive and survive. And at this point in human history, where there is a growing genocidal energy directed at the racial group that has been the global top dog since the Age of Discovery, survival is the issue.

    A white identitarian movement that wants to be successful needs to dump the swastika and Confederate flags.

    Readers have a choice in response to the facts contained in the above piece – they can make it about the basic, profound injustice described in the story, whereby police protection and even justice itself is made subject to holding and expressing “acceptable” opinions, or they can, in effect and regardless of supposed intent, make it about blaming the victims of said injustice for holding and expressing those “unacceptable” opinions.

    You made your choice, clearly.

    Read More
    • Replies: @manorchurch


    A white identitarian movement that wants to be successful needs to dump the swastika and Confederate flags.
     
    You made your choice, clearly.

     

    Interesting -- your stupidity, that is.

    The writer made no choice. The writer observed, as might any individual with 3-digit IQ, that identifying one's group via swastikas and Confederate flags is, for lack of nice words, insanely stupid.

    Which has been the cross born by the alt-right from instantiation: obsessive, dedicated, monomaniacal stupidity. Rather than, quite sensibly, adopting symbols and ideo-speak that would effectively disarm the MSM's bullshit artistry, sure enough, these alt-right geniuses deliberately picked up old, tired, inflammatory images which lost ALL positive connotation decades ago.

    Stupid, stupid, stupid. The entire movement could be turned overwhelmingly successful, with a few changes in approach, and in projected image.

    LOL. Like that's gonna happen. Keep wearing nazi helmets and waving the flags of causes long lost, and you jokers will soon pass the midpoint of your slide into absolute irrelevance.
    , @Stonehands
    Well said.

    If its not one thing- it'll be another. They'll keep you back pedaling, forever.

    Never apologize.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  11. Dante says:

    Msm is dying and White Nationalism is the inevitable reaction to the anti white agenda it will take time of course as the msm propaganda has until recently had it all their own way, Also I would point out that healthy nationalism is alive and well in Eastern Europe and the same trends are observed in Western Europe too, So Europeans are waking up.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  12. @fnn
    I'm just about certain helmets and shields are defensive tools/devices, not weapons.

    Just a side point (& I make NO inference to the current topic) but in the hands of a Roman legionaire a shield & helmet were primarily defensive equipment, but could be & officially were, employed as offensive weapons. The shield boss was used to shove & smash enemies’ faces/chests (sheild & sword were used in systematic coordination by individuals/ small/large units – punch out shield – stab -punch-stab etc) a shield top was used to smash jaws, the bottom rim to crush feet. Helmets were deployed to head butt.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  13. @Bennis Mardens
    Oh bullshit.
    99% of the Charlottesville attendees were basic bitch Trump supporters and they were there to preserve our heritage.
    Spencer and Co. had legal permits.
    The local government conspired with law enforcement to encourage the violence, KNOWING that Antifa was there to do violence, period.
    It was a setup.
    Furthermore, even without Confederate flags and swastikas, every white man is labeled a naziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews. The outer trappings don't matter. All that matter is the color of the skin, if the skin is white.
    The optics discussion is an excuse to blame the victims of the Charlottesville Clusterfuck.
    Jacob Goodwin is getting the shaft and it's a tragedy.
    The hostile tribe that rules over us has now declared total WAR on our people. We are not allowed to assemble, we are not allowed to speak out, while Antifa SCUM is allowed to assault us without consequence.
    How long can this go on?

    How long can this go on? At minimum, seventy years, and counting. Ask any Palestinian.

    Read More
    • Agree: AndrewR
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  14. WHAT says:

    I’m just waiting for Thomm to publicly defecate with the usual white trashionalists screed.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  15. Jake says:

    We white Gentiles are all just Palestinians now. Not only can they do anything to us they desire, but they also act always to deny us our identity.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  16. In my own blog, I have published a series of articles about the Charlottesville incident — in particular about suspicions that the events on Fourth Street involved a conspiracy.

    I submitted an article summarizing that particular issue to Ron Unz, but he rejected my article yesterday, writing:

    The problem is that everything happened quite a while ago, and I’d think most people have forgotten there had ever been that sort of James Fields “conspiracy theory” floating around, if they’d even ever heard of it in the first place (I hadn’t). So I’m not sure running your fairly effective debunking would make sense.

    Therefore, I have posted the rejected article on my own blog, and I am taking the liberty to link to the article from here. I assume that Unz will not mind my doing so.

    My article is titled Key Considerations About the Events on Fourth Street in Charlottesville.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  17. Randal says:
    @Miro23

    This a question of scale. If you get a million people in the streets, then they can’t do what they did in Charlottesville – and it’s a completely different situation.
     
    And forget about the Confederate flags. Make it an Anti-War demonstration. No one wants a war with Iran or Russia, and you'll probably even get the old Hippies joining in.

    And forget about the Confederate flags.

    If you abandon and exclude the symbols of white identity, any movement you create will just start out already subverted, by the same fake, antiracist “conservatives” that created the modern Republican Party and similar establishment tools of the globalists and antiracists. It will be hobbled and crippled by paranoid political correctness. That’s exactly why the supporters of said fake rightists and the minority identity lobbyists of various kinds are so desperate for any rightwing radical movement to do exactly that – so it doesn’t in any way threaten the establishment or the minority identity dominance that they prioritise.

    If it’s not shocking, then it’s not radical and it’s not relevant. In the face of the almost complete triumph of leftwing radicalism, the only proper response for those opposed to it – even conservatives – must be radicalism to return to sanity.

    It might be that the globalists, the antiracists, the jewish, black, homo etc lobbies, the gender obsessives, are indeed too strongly entrenched in our media and political establishment to be beaten. But to give up without at least trying to build something that includes white identity politics as a legitimate part of the discourse, is hardly the way to test that. And if the leftists are indeed too entrenched to be defeated democratically and legally (as stories such as the one above suggest) then the only likely alternative outcomes in the longer run are Franco/Hitler or the Khmer Rouge. Might as well start building now.

    These symbols need to be renormalised, not further excluded and marginalised.

    Make it an Anti-War demonstration. No one wants a war with Iran or Russia, and you’ll probably even get the old Hippies joining in.

    If you set out to create an anti-war political mass movement that rejected the symbols of white identity, it would just become the same anti-white leftist organisation as all the rest, with witch hunts driving out anyone who was found to have ever said anything politically correct, or to have associated with anyone who said anything politically incorrect. What would be the point?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Miro23

    If you set out to create an anti-war political mass movement that rejected the symbols of white identity, it would just become the same anti-white leftist organisation as all the rest, with witch hunts driving out anyone who was found to have ever said anything politically correct, or to have associated with anyone who said anything politically incorrect. What would be the point?

     

    I don't see it becoming "the same anti-white leftist organization".

    An anti-war political mass movement includes everyone who doesn't want new Middle East wars with Syria and Iran, or even worse a war with Russia - and that now includes millions of Americans across the political spectrum.

    In fact, the Hillary alliance and the MSM + US Zionists are on the other side, and support (or are silent about) ME wars, and will try to paint mass anti-war action as a large scale racist Charlottesville. I don't see them having much success with that - apart from alienating many of their supporters - Blacks, gays, old and young leftists, human rights people etc. who want to join it. I would see it as totally negative for the Zionist/MIC swamp.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  18. Joe Hide says:

    WOW… Brave Author,
    Willing to speak Truth.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  19. Them Guys says:

    Until recent times no whites or barley any were awake and jewized up, besides Biker guys and biker clubs. My first awakening that got me wized up to zios and jewry etc was a direct result of being a Harley biker in Detroit. And that was about 45 yrs ago.

    I never joined any club or outlaw biker clubs. But anybody that is a white Harley biker guy will by default end up riding and to a point associating with such club and outlaw club types if they live and ride in any large city like Detroit.

    And I can well verify that to date since 45 yrs ago till todays era, NO other white folk are even close to as awake as biker white guys are and have been period.

    I once simply asked an older outlaw club type guy “What does all those ZOG tattoos mean and stand for?”…..And that’s when my first intense awakening to it all began!….He and a few of his club members spent a couple hrs over a few beers explaining to me how almost all we ever got taught about WWII and the “famous six gazillion jews etc etc” was a huge Hoax Lie.

    Like all folks who prior to being awakened I too believed it all and never dreamed to question any of it.

    I was unsure what to make of their educating me about it at the time. But then due to internet ability I stumbled upon a few websites full of such truth/facts info. And it was as they say “I was off to the races!”

    Every issue I read about proved over and over that those biker guys were right and correct on it all.

    But the time lag between 45 yrs ago to My own actual truth realization moment took quite a long time frame. Like first made aware 45 yrs ago, yet only aprox 15 yr ago discovered internet sites with same infos.

    Most whiteys never go near any harley rider types and especially go near or even speak with outlaw club types. Too bad eh, since No other group of any worthwhile size of whites are awake and can teach more whites like I had the oportunity back then to learn from.

    But whiteys are finally “getting it” about an undebatable and Pre-Planned by marxist and jewish design all out War against White folk, especially White Males.

    And sooner or later either enough will awaken to tip those proverbial scales of justice. Or the anti gentile anti-white clowns will pick the wrong guy or family or group of whites and that is the day civil war II mixed with race war and all out anti corrupt govnt etc. Is going to break out.

    I predict that at this Late date once it tips in whiteys favor so to speak, we will see whites Again awaken to an important Factoid…That being as per historic usuals…..NO amount of whitey meetings like discussed in article, NO amount of factual logics-common senses-truths-or whatever else can be conjured up in the hopes of finally get those enemys of whites to back off or change Their ways is EVER going to work as hoped or wished for period.

    History proves about All that finally works to halt the march to madness such various enemy groups do and live for is when enough royally fed up whites with a Righteous Indignation comprehend they have zero left or near zero left to lose and go all out nazi on the antisemite card players and all out kkk on them african savage race card players.

    Say what you will…But Deep down most whites Know this is correct…It is just that most are afraid to ever admit it publically. That too is going to fast change once it kicks off.

    There is alot to be said for tactics such as bouncing the butt-end of a 10 lb battle rifle such as a nice M1A springfiled off the faces of the trouble makers eh.

    And being that white folk Are The Most nicest-loving of peace-compasionate-good-righteous-fair minded American folks one can be so lucky to reside amoung….

    I also predict that these undesirables and enemys off all that are going to be able to Choose between Three distinct choices…Which usually is Never afford to any enemy group.

    Those three choices will be…#1= Stop the crap and fast straighten up…..#2= Get the Fuck OUT of entire USA Lands within 48 hrs….Or…#3= WE shall choose For them/You!

    God help em all if they refuse to choose wisely and leave Us no other option but for #3 eh.

    Big kommie leftist mistake they made was to assume and believe that by awaiting the boomers age group to reach retiree ages will make whites too old to resist this total crapola being done.

    They never must have considered that another huge factor of older aged whiteys equals Far Far Less to lose on whiteys part…If anybody said race war or revolt to restore it all etc when I was 20 yrs old?…..I probobly would have rejected it fully….But Now at age 65 yrs old? Well I still Hope center holds and no such events happens…..But if They keep pushing, they are going to get what they wish or demand for and it will be Them what will be crying and sniveling once whiteys regain that Viking Warrior Spark that remains lit deep within each white mans soul like a pilot light waiting to go to full on Flame.

    Meantime if one don’t like to research read to get jewizd up and wized up about facts on jungle savages?….Try out asking a few bikers for the awaking info you need eh.

    Read More
    • Replies: @fnn
    All that may be why that police massacre of bikers in Waco a few years ago was quickly memory-holed by the MSM.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  20. Anonymous[196] • Disclaimer says:
    @SunBakedSuburb
    A white identitarian movement that wants to be successful needs to dump the swastika and Confederate flags. While some may see multiple meanings in those symbols, most will only see Nazis and slave-masters. Racial supremacy and domination will never draw the numbers and types of people that any political movement requires to thrive and survive. And at this point in human history, where there is a growing genocidal energy directed at the racial group that has been the global top dog since the Age of Discovery, survival is the issue.

    A white identitarian movement that wants to be successful needs to dump the swastika and Confederate flags. While some may see multiple meanings in those symbols, most will only see Nazis and slave-masters. Racial supremacy and domination will never draw the numbers and types of people that any political movement requires to thrive and survive. And at this point in human history, where there is a growing genocidal energy directed at the racial group that has been the global top dog since the Age of Discovery, survival is the issue.

    I’m not into the white identitarian movement or anything like that. And know nothing about it and don’t care to. In fact, I think the cause for maintaining European culture was lost in the Protestant Reformation. What we’re are seeing now is just the endgame playing out. When the majority of people of European culture— especially the elites— are on board with the destruction of that culture, what’s the point of white identitarianism? And to use symbols of Nazism and/or the Confederacy, two movements which divided and led to many deaths of European peoples, and in the end lost, seems odd. Why would anyone identify with something which ultimately failed? If you’re really into European culture and white people, instead of standing on a street corner waving a Confederate flag, why not wear a Michelangelo artwork t-shirt and read Shakespeare out loud with a bullhorn?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Them Guys
    Perhaps instead of read Shakespeare with bull horn, read Racist separatist Talmud and Protocols of zion elders excerpts eh. And be Certain to alert folks and passerbys that such racist and Hateful inspired teachings are from Jewish Sources.

    Another good tactic is to, every time any white person is attacked with typical screams or crys of..."Dats Raysssis!" or "Youse a Rasssis!" and "He/She/YOU are an Antisemite and/or holyhoax Deniar!"

    Then that White person so attacked need's to immediately stare into attackers eye's and state "NO! it Is YOU that is an Anti-Gentile! and/or an Anti Goyim Separatist Racist!

    Or "NO! You are an Anti White racist savage!"

    You can adlib also by including Facts and Truths such as how totally Ungrateful that african or jew is, especially since both blacks and jewry Know that neither group ever had it so damn good and swell as in Whitey-America.

    This agenda against white folk is akin now to an out of control forest fire. As such, sometimes when a fire get's so huge the only sure method to fight it is to fight fire With fire. aka use their tactics against them. And spare me any crying of how that will make us as bad or same as they are.

    To such I say So What? If it is all that shall work? Then use it.

    If the only way whites can Regain the Proper Due respect we are owed by these idiots and clowns is thru abject Fear on their part of Us?....Well so what? That's far better than zero respect eh.

    Why does folks think is reason they Never ever hear about any white biker guys being assaulted or etc by african savages?....Perhaps it is due to real Fear blacks have towards white biker guys eh?

    Ever checked cop stats on Blacks doing car jackings of whites?

    Hows about cop stats on Africans Bike-Jacking a bikers Harley? hahahah!! Never happens!

    So...why Is that so?

    They don't get our Harley bikes and they aint going to get our firearms either...
    , @Randal

    When the majority of people of European culture— especially the elites— are on board with the destruction of that culture, what’s the point of white identitarianism?
     
    The point would be to sweep away the very elites you refer to and try to halt the destruction of the culture by them and the minority identity groups they empower and enable, by giving the people an alternative which they do not have at present.

    And to use symbols of Nazism and/or the Confederacy, two movements which divided and led to many deaths of European peoples, and in the end lost, seems odd. Why would anyone identify with something which ultimately failed?
     
    Because those symbols shock, and represent a clear and easily understood statement of opposition to the prevailing groupthink.

    Which is exactly why they are so hated by those who like the established orthodoxy.

    If you’re really into European culture and white people, instead of standing on a street corner waving a Confederate flag, why not wear a Michelangelo artwork t-shirt and read Shakespeare out loud with a bullhorn?
     
    Because nobody would have a clue what you were standing for.
    , @Saxon
    "Culture" is an airy-fairy concept. It always changes even in completely ethno-racially homogeneous settings. For example, Japan of 50-60 years ago which still had teenagers willing to assassinate communist subversives using shortblades for their emperor, vs. now. It's not that important.

    The people who created these great civilizations, scientific achievements, philosophy, etc. almost certainly did so largely because of their genes which is the most precious of inheritances which to save for the future to create something new out of the ashes of the headed-for-crash-course dumpster fire we find ourselves in now. The gene explanation best explains why we see such similar cicumstances created no matter where these types of people went in recent modern history. Australia, New Zealand, Canada, South Africa, America. They were in each case able to replicate that greatness as long as they maintained that "purity of blood."

    We already know what happens when those genes are destroyed, replaced, or diluted. We have powerful examples in modern history like the eastern Roman empire (Anatolian Greeks) transforming into Turkey and becoming essentially a bunch of shambling things scurrying around the ruins of a civilization which they could never replicate or simulate much or any the greatness of, largely down to not having enough of the genes responsible for it. Another good example is the difference between North America (Canada and America) vs. South America and again the best explanation being the gene explanation. It's not like central and south America are resource-scarce. Quite the opposite--but what happened as that the people who began to create new countries there destroyed themselves by mixing with people who don't have genes like them.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  21. KenH says:

    Does Antifa have the right to use physical force to prevent political speech that they disagree with—even when that speech is not an incitement to violence?

    Antifa and their leftist supporters and coddlers have been arguing that any dissent from the far left wing platform of white dispossession and genocide is an incitement to violence. Something tells me that this writer thinks many leftists can be reached using factually sound arguments or by using appeals to tolerance and fairness. They can’t because you’re dealing with people who are emotional, ideological and very hateful and who’ve been convinced that pro-whites are the most malign force in the nation.

    The die has been cast. They left wants to destroy us or at least reduce us to abject servitude. They will brook no coexistence with us, so our goal should be the utter annihilation of the anti-white left and all of their sympathizers and (((financial supporters))).

    Read More
    • Agree: donut
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  22. Them Guys says:
    @Anonymous

    A white identitarian movement that wants to be successful needs to dump the swastika and Confederate flags. While some may see multiple meanings in those symbols, most will only see Nazis and slave-masters. Racial supremacy and domination will never draw the numbers and types of people that any political movement requires to thrive and survive. And at this point in human history, where there is a growing genocidal energy directed at the racial group that has been the global top dog since the Age of Discovery, survival is the issue.
     
    I’m not into the white identitarian movement or anything like that. And know nothing about it and don’t care to. In fact, I think the cause for maintaining European culture was lost in the Protestant Reformation. What we’re are seeing now is just the endgame playing out. When the majority of people of European culture— especially the elites— are on board with the destruction of that culture, what’s the point of white identitarianism? And to use symbols of Nazism and/or the Confederacy, two movements which divided and led to many deaths of European peoples, and in the end lost, seems odd. Why would anyone identify with something which ultimately failed? If you’re really into European culture and white people, instead of standing on a street corner waving a Confederate flag, why not wear a Michelangelo artwork t-shirt and read Shakespeare out loud with a bullhorn?

    Perhaps instead of read Shakespeare with bull horn, read Racist separatist Talmud and Protocols of zion elders excerpts eh. And be Certain to alert folks and passerbys that such racist and Hateful inspired teachings are from Jewish Sources.

    Another good tactic is to, every time any white person is attacked with typical screams or crys of…”Dats Raysssis!” or “Youse a Rasssis!” and “He/She/YOU are an Antisemite and/or holyhoax Deniar!”

    Then that White person so attacked need’s to immediately stare into attackers eye’s and state “NO! it Is YOU that is an Anti-Gentile! and/or an Anti Goyim Separatist Racist!

    Or “NO! You are an Anti White racist savage!”

    You can adlib also by including Facts and Truths such as how totally Ungrateful that african or jew is, especially since both blacks and jewry Know that neither group ever had it so damn good and swell as in Whitey-America.

    This agenda against white folk is akin now to an out of control forest fire. As such, sometimes when a fire get’s so huge the only sure method to fight it is to fight fire With fire. aka use their tactics against them. And spare me any crying of how that will make us as bad or same as they are.

    To such I say So What? If it is all that shall work? Then use it.

    If the only way whites can Regain the Proper Due respect we are owed by these idiots and clowns is thru abject Fear on their part of Us?….Well so what? That’s far better than zero respect eh.

    Why does folks think is reason they Never ever hear about any white biker guys being assaulted or etc by african savages?….Perhaps it is due to real Fear blacks have towards white biker guys eh?

    Ever checked cop stats on Blacks doing car jackings of whites?

    Hows about cop stats on Africans Bike-Jacking a bikers Harley? hahahah!! Never happens!

    So…why Is that so?

    They don’t get our Harley bikes and they aint going to get our firearms either…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  23. Randal says:
    @Anonymous

    A white identitarian movement that wants to be successful needs to dump the swastika and Confederate flags. While some may see multiple meanings in those symbols, most will only see Nazis and slave-masters. Racial supremacy and domination will never draw the numbers and types of people that any political movement requires to thrive and survive. And at this point in human history, where there is a growing genocidal energy directed at the racial group that has been the global top dog since the Age of Discovery, survival is the issue.
     
    I’m not into the white identitarian movement or anything like that. And know nothing about it and don’t care to. In fact, I think the cause for maintaining European culture was lost in the Protestant Reformation. What we’re are seeing now is just the endgame playing out. When the majority of people of European culture— especially the elites— are on board with the destruction of that culture, what’s the point of white identitarianism? And to use symbols of Nazism and/or the Confederacy, two movements which divided and led to many deaths of European peoples, and in the end lost, seems odd. Why would anyone identify with something which ultimately failed? If you’re really into European culture and white people, instead of standing on a street corner waving a Confederate flag, why not wear a Michelangelo artwork t-shirt and read Shakespeare out loud with a bullhorn?

    When the majority of people of European culture— especially the elites— are on board with the destruction of that culture, what’s the point of white identitarianism?

    The point would be to sweep away the very elites you refer to and try to halt the destruction of the culture by them and the minority identity groups they empower and enable, by giving the people an alternative which they do not have at present.

    And to use symbols of Nazism and/or the Confederacy, two movements which divided and led to many deaths of European peoples, and in the end lost, seems odd. Why would anyone identify with something which ultimately failed?

    Because those symbols shock, and represent a clear and easily understood statement of opposition to the prevailing groupthink.

    Which is exactly why they are so hated by those who like the established orthodoxy.

    If you’re really into European culture and white people, instead of standing on a street corner waving a Confederate flag, why not wear a Michelangelo artwork t-shirt and read Shakespeare out loud with a bullhorn?

    Because nobody would have a clue what you were standing for.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  24. Miro23 says:
    @Randal

    And forget about the Confederate flags.
     
    If you abandon and exclude the symbols of white identity, any movement you create will just start out already subverted, by the same fake, antiracist "conservatives" that created the modern Republican Party and similar establishment tools of the globalists and antiracists. It will be hobbled and crippled by paranoid political correctness. That's exactly why the supporters of said fake rightists and the minority identity lobbyists of various kinds are so desperate for any rightwing radical movement to do exactly that - so it doesn't in any way threaten the establishment or the minority identity dominance that they prioritise.

    If it's not shocking, then it's not radical and it's not relevant. In the face of the almost complete triumph of leftwing radicalism, the only proper response for those opposed to it - even conservatives - must be radicalism to return to sanity.

    It might be that the globalists, the antiracists, the jewish, black, homo etc lobbies, the gender obsessives, are indeed too strongly entrenched in our media and political establishment to be beaten. But to give up without at least trying to build something that includes white identity politics as a legitimate part of the discourse, is hardly the way to test that. And if the leftists are indeed too entrenched to be defeated democratically and legally (as stories such as the one above suggest) then the only likely alternative outcomes in the longer run are Franco/Hitler or the Khmer Rouge. Might as well start building now.

    These symbols need to be renormalised, not further excluded and marginalised.

    Make it an Anti-War demonstration. No one wants a war with Iran or Russia, and you’ll probably even get the old Hippies joining in.
     
    If you set out to create an anti-war political mass movement that rejected the symbols of white identity, it would just become the same anti-white leftist organisation as all the rest, with witch hunts driving out anyone who was found to have ever said anything politically correct, or to have associated with anyone who said anything politically incorrect. What would be the point?

    If you set out to create an anti-war political mass movement that rejected the symbols of white identity, it would just become the same anti-white leftist organisation as all the rest, with witch hunts driving out anyone who was found to have ever said anything politically correct, or to have associated with anyone who said anything politically incorrect. What would be the point?

    I don’t see it becoming “the same anti-white leftist organization”.

    An anti-war political mass movement includes everyone who doesn’t want new Middle East wars with Syria and Iran, or even worse a war with Russia – and that now includes millions of Americans across the political spectrum.

    In fact, the Hillary alliance and the MSM + US Zionists are on the other side, and support (or are silent about) ME wars, and will try to paint mass anti-war action as a large scale racist Charlottesville. I don’t see them having much success with that – apart from alienating many of their supporters – Blacks, gays, old and young leftists, human rights people etc. who want to join it. I would see it as totally negative for the Zionist/MIC swamp.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal

    I don’t see it becoming “the same anti-white leftist organization”.
     
    That's probably because you are more optimistic than I am :-)

    Someone once observed that: "any organization not explicitly right-wing sooner or later becomes left wing". As I recall it antiwar.com was set up as such an inclusive anti-war operation from the political right. I was an early enthusiast for it, and it did great work, but I no longer post there because my comments were censored by the political correctness enforcer they now have (or had at the time) as comments editor.

    An anti-war political mass movement includes everyone who doesn’t want new Middle East wars with Syria and Iran, or even worse a war with Russia – and that now includes millions of Americans across the political spectrum.

    In fact, the Hillary alliance and the MSM + US Zionists are on the other side, and support (or are silent about) ME wars, and will try to paint mass anti-war action as a large scale racist Charlottesville. I don’t see them having much success with that – apart from alienating many of their supporters – Blacks, gays, old and young leftists, human rights people etc. who want to join it. I would see it as totally negative for the Zionist/MIC swamp.
     
    The hard reality is that for most opponents of interventionism, it's an issue that is secondary to their primary political concerns. That's why the leftist opponents of Bush II era interventionism mostly vanished when Obama was doing the slaughtering, and likewise most opponents of the Obama wars cheered when Trump seemed to oppose them (and Bush's wars) but quietly stopped being bothered when Trump began to bomb Syrians for Israel.

    Any two party political system, in which people ultimately have to choose an issue that will determine where their support will go, will always end up like this.

    Any movement that tries to be an inclusive antiwar movement alone will always be overtaken by the deeper concerns of its supporters, and by and large the left tends to be keener on demonstrating and keener on being pacifist and anti-patriotic than the right is on being anti-establishment and noninterventionist. So the left will come to predominate. And as I noted, their primary concern will be enforcing leftist political correctness, as it always is.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  25. @Randal

    A white identitarian movement that wants to be successful needs to dump the swastika and Confederate flags.
     
    Readers have a choice in response to the facts contained in the above piece - they can make it about the basic, profound injustice described in the story, whereby police protection and even justice itself is made subject to holding and expressing "acceptable" opinions, or they can, in effect and regardless of supposed intent, make it about blaming the victims of said injustice for holding and expressing those "unacceptable" opinions.

    You made your choice, clearly.

    A white identitarian movement that wants to be successful needs to dump the swastika and Confederate flags.

    You made your choice, clearly.

    Interesting — your stupidity, that is.

    The writer made no choice. The writer observed, as might any individual with 3-digit IQ, that identifying one’s group via swastikas and Confederate flags is, for lack of nice words, insanely stupid.

    Which has been the cross born by the alt-right from instantiation: obsessive, dedicated, monomaniacal stupidity. Rather than, quite sensibly, adopting symbols and ideo-speak that would effectively disarm the MSM’s bullshit artistry, sure enough, these alt-right geniuses deliberately picked up old, tired, inflammatory images which lost ALL positive connotation decades ago.

    Stupid, stupid, stupid. The entire movement could be turned overwhelmingly successful, with a few changes in approach, and in projected image.

    LOL. Like that’s gonna happen. Keep wearing nazi helmets and waving the flags of causes long lost, and you jokers will soon pass the midpoint of your slide into absolute irrelevance.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal

    Stupid, stupid, stupid. The entire movement could be turned overwhelmingly successful, with a few changes in approach, and in projected image.
     
    Yeah, you must be right because conservatism has been run for decades now by the kinds of people who agree with you, and we can see all around us what a triumphant defeat of leftist social radicalism, mass immigration and globalist interventionism they have achieved.
    , @David
    An amazing coincidence, I had never seen the word instantiation before you used it here (unless I didn't notice it before) and then I see that Douthat used instantiate today too. Wow.

    But it seems you both use the word (in different forms) to mean initiate or institute, when every reference book I have says it means to provide and instance of.

    Help me out. What does the word mean?

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  26. Stupid. Went to Hopkins and know what cowards they are. When the door opens they will be shocked, shocked at what comes through it.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  27. Randal says:
    @manorchurch


    A white identitarian movement that wants to be successful needs to dump the swastika and Confederate flags.
     
    You made your choice, clearly.

     

    Interesting -- your stupidity, that is.

    The writer made no choice. The writer observed, as might any individual with 3-digit IQ, that identifying one's group via swastikas and Confederate flags is, for lack of nice words, insanely stupid.

    Which has been the cross born by the alt-right from instantiation: obsessive, dedicated, monomaniacal stupidity. Rather than, quite sensibly, adopting symbols and ideo-speak that would effectively disarm the MSM's bullshit artistry, sure enough, these alt-right geniuses deliberately picked up old, tired, inflammatory images which lost ALL positive connotation decades ago.

    Stupid, stupid, stupid. The entire movement could be turned overwhelmingly successful, with a few changes in approach, and in projected image.

    LOL. Like that's gonna happen. Keep wearing nazi helmets and waving the flags of causes long lost, and you jokers will soon pass the midpoint of your slide into absolute irrelevance.

    Stupid, stupid, stupid. The entire movement could be turned overwhelmingly successful, with a few changes in approach, and in projected image.

    Yeah, you must be right because conservatism has been run for decades now by the kinds of people who agree with you, and we can see all around us what a triumphant defeat of leftist social radicalism, mass immigration and globalist interventionism they have achieved.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  28. Randal says:
    @Miro23

    If you set out to create an anti-war political mass movement that rejected the symbols of white identity, it would just become the same anti-white leftist organisation as all the rest, with witch hunts driving out anyone who was found to have ever said anything politically correct, or to have associated with anyone who said anything politically incorrect. What would be the point?

     

    I don't see it becoming "the same anti-white leftist organization".

    An anti-war political mass movement includes everyone who doesn't want new Middle East wars with Syria and Iran, or even worse a war with Russia - and that now includes millions of Americans across the political spectrum.

    In fact, the Hillary alliance and the MSM + US Zionists are on the other side, and support (or are silent about) ME wars, and will try to paint mass anti-war action as a large scale racist Charlottesville. I don't see them having much success with that - apart from alienating many of their supporters - Blacks, gays, old and young leftists, human rights people etc. who want to join it. I would see it as totally negative for the Zionist/MIC swamp.

    I don’t see it becoming “the same anti-white leftist organization”.

    That’s probably because you are more optimistic than I am :-)

    Someone once observed that: “any organization not explicitly right-wing sooner or later becomes left wing”. As I recall it antiwar.com was set up as such an inclusive anti-war operation from the political right. I was an early enthusiast for it, and it did great work, but I no longer post there because my comments were censored by the political correctness enforcer they now have (or had at the time) as comments editor.

    An anti-war political mass movement includes everyone who doesn’t want new Middle East wars with Syria and Iran, or even worse a war with Russia – and that now includes millions of Americans across the political spectrum.

    In fact, the Hillary alliance and the MSM + US Zionists are on the other side, and support (or are silent about) ME wars, and will try to paint mass anti-war action as a large scale racist Charlottesville. I don’t see them having much success with that – apart from alienating many of their supporters – Blacks, gays, old and young leftists, human rights people etc. who want to join it. I would see it as totally negative for the Zionist/MIC swamp.

    The hard reality is that for most opponents of interventionism, it’s an issue that is secondary to their primary political concerns. That’s why the leftist opponents of Bush II era interventionism mostly vanished when Obama was doing the slaughtering, and likewise most opponents of the Obama wars cheered when Trump seemed to oppose them (and Bush’s wars) but quietly stopped being bothered when Trump began to bomb Syrians for Israel.

    Any two party political system, in which people ultimately have to choose an issue that will determine where their support will go, will always end up like this.

    Any movement that tries to be an inclusive antiwar movement alone will always be overtaken by the deeper concerns of its supporters, and by and large the left tends to be keener on demonstrating and keener on being pacifist and anti-patriotic than the right is on being anti-establishment and noninterventionist. So the left will come to predominate. And as I noted, their primary concern will be enforcing leftist political correctness, as it always is.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  29. you are a noble warrior. thank you for this article that speaks truth to power and thank you to ron unz for allowing it to be posted in the name of free speech even though he would never dare post one of my articles. your profound and heartfelt articulation serves as inspiration to gather with a bunch of my friends, even though I have none, and beat someone (preferably a n*gg*r or an immigrant or a refugee) to death with sticks and bats for donald trump the manhattanite honorary jew who now recognizes jerusalem as the capital of israel versus tel aviv. together, you, we, will help donald make israel great again. mazel tov!!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  30. Glad to see some of you idiots in jail. Hope it happens some more.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  31. Tulip says:

    Perhaps it is unworthy to bring to the attention of alt-retard, but you should not have a protest in a city where you can not guarantee safety and protection from law enforcement. Otherwise, you get a shit show and guess who the media will target as the instigator. Charlottesville was peak alt-retard, I give you that.

    Not that alt-retard could learn anything from supposedly “lower IQ” minorities, but King was able to successfully protest in hostile venues–because his people came unarmed, dressed respectful, and were prepared to get their heads beat in and police dogs sicced on them by the locals.

    The only way to conduct an operation in a hostile venue is to conduct nonviolent resistance–set your people up to get attacked by the anti-fa, and let the anti-fa kill and maim them without fighting back. You just want peace and preservation of your people man!

    As the MSM will be hostile, you need to make sure that enough good video is produced to document the slaughter. Some of your people will be killed, and some of your people will be permanently disabled, and you will have both martyrs and credibility arguing that your side, and not the enemy, has the real moral authority. You were just conducting a peaceful protest when the haters struck. Because the nationalists and the antifa are both just roving bands of violent thugs, and the only thing separating them is the appearance of moral authority on the side of the antifa.

    Of course, this requires discipline, vetting, and organization–and a willingness to make the ultimate sacrifice–which are the exact opposite of what was on display in Charlottesville. Since the tables are turned, it might do some good to bone up on the civil rights movement.

    If you expect in some mob scene that your boy will get sympathy for kicking a man down on the ground just cause someone grabbed a flag five minutes before, you are nuts. I’d probably give him 10 years too.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal
    Some truth in all that despite the infantile "alt-retard" stuff.

    However there is in reality no direct parallel between the "civil rights" marchers and right wing political marchers today. The former knew they could expect no quarter from the people whose communities they were invading and that non-violence was their only hope, whereas the latter (perhaps admittedly naively) actually thought they lived in a land of law and order where the police would do their job and protect lawful political meeting, and therefore that standing up and resisting any leftist thugs that got through was an option.

    And of course for the "civil rights" marchers the media and political establishments were divided between conservatives who would oppose them and leftists who would support them, whereas for the right today the political and media establishments are largely undivided, between leftists who will oppose them and pseudo-rightists who will agree with the leftists and blame the right for not being submissive enough on the symbols they choose to display and the opinions they choose to express.

    If the civil rights marchers had really faced the kind of uniformly hostile media and political establishment that the genuine right faces today, there would have been no sympathetic coverage of the various beatings, etc and no federal interventions on their behalf.

    Because the nationalists and the antifa are both just roving bands of violent thugs, and the only thing separating them is the appearance of moral authority on the side of the antifa.
     
    This is exactly the kind of dishonesty that prevails from both establishment sides - left and pseudo-right. In the real world, the alt right marchers were political demonstrators exercising a supposedly fundamental right to carry out a legally authorised political demonstration, and causing harm to nobody, whereas the left came with the specific intent to disrupt that demonstration violently and, if they could achieve it, silence their political rivals by force.

    No equivalence, but the pretence that there was speaks volumes for your lack of objectivity.
    , @KenH

    but you should not have a protest in a city where you can not guarantee safety and protection from law enforcement
     
    Everyone is now an expert on what went wrong and how it could have been avoided. We'll now add you to that long and growing list. What happened at Charlottesville is unprecedented. I don't think anyone would have guessed that the local authorities would have totally shirked their legal duty to maintain order and keep the peace.

    because his people came unarmed, dressed respectful, and were prepared to get their heads beat in and police dogs sicced on them by the locals.
     
    From what I can tell the "alt-retards" did not dress offensively and did not come armed. In fact, at the torchlight rally the night before media were sneering at the "privileged" and "preppy" white college kids. The only so called weapons were defensive in nature such as goggles, helmets and shields based on the knowledge that antifa uses pepper and bear spray to the face and blows to the head.

    ....set your people up to get attacked by the anti-fa, and let the anti-fa kill and maim them without fighting back. You just want peace and preservation of your people man!
     
    That won't work for pro-whites since we can't control the mainstream media narrative nor do we have (((sympathizers))) in major media organizations as the black "civil rights" protesters did. Even FOX news personalities were attacking the UtR rallygoers as "white supremacists" without knowing any of the facts. FOX merged with CNN and MSNBC on that weekend just like they all merge when Trump idiotically fires cruise missiles or we go to war.

    Had the UtR rallygoers done what you suggested and let themselves get waylaid then the media would have crowed about ordinary citizens and anti-racists kicking the shit out "Nazis" and "white supremacists" and how whites who don't hate themselves are pussies who always get physically bested by non-whites and self hating whites because anti-racism/anti-whitism is a superior belief system.


    I’d probably give him 10 years too.
     
    Glad you weren't the judge or a juror with that crappy, hateful attitude. The original trial should have been held in a different venue since UtR people can't get a fair trial given the politically charged atmosphere and clear left wing bias of Charlottesville media and authorities. I'm guessing this is Goodwin's first offense and Deandre Harris only had minor injuries so in a fair and just justice system Goodwin would either be given probation only or no more than one year in prison. Ten years is a punishment that does not fit the crime (of self defense) and constitutes cruel and unusual punishment.

    The verdict is a purely ideological one and I hope it gets reversed on appeal.

    , @Alfa158
    What planet are you living on? None of that “good video” will show up in any mass media. It will be on YouTube for five seconds before it gets removed and on altright websites for five minutes before they are hacked and de-platformed. The killed and maimed will be described as victims of violence at a Nazi rally.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  32. fnn says:
    @Them Guys
    Until recent times no whites or barley any were awake and jewized up, besides Biker guys and biker clubs. My first awakening that got me wized up to zios and jewry etc was a direct result of being a Harley biker in Detroit. And that was about 45 yrs ago.

    I never joined any club or outlaw biker clubs. But anybody that is a white Harley biker guy will by default end up riding and to a point associating with such club and outlaw club types if they live and ride in any large city like Detroit.

    And I can well verify that to date since 45 yrs ago till todays era, NO other white folk are even close to as awake as biker white guys are and have been period.

    I once simply asked an older outlaw club type guy "What does all those ZOG tattoos mean and stand for?".....And that's when my first intense awakening to it all began!....He and a few of his club members spent a couple hrs over a few beers explaining to me how almost all we ever got taught about WWII and the "famous six gazillion jews etc etc" was a huge Hoax Lie.

    Like all folks who prior to being awakened I too believed it all and never dreamed to question any of it.

    I was unsure what to make of their educating me about it at the time. But then due to internet ability I stumbled upon a few websites full of such truth/facts info. And it was as they say "I was off to the races!"

    Every issue I read about proved over and over that those biker guys were right and correct on it all.

    But the time lag between 45 yrs ago to My own actual truth realization moment took quite a long time frame. Like first made aware 45 yrs ago, yet only aprox 15 yr ago discovered internet sites with same infos.

    Most whiteys never go near any harley rider types and especially go near or even speak with outlaw club types. Too bad eh, since No other group of any worthwhile size of whites are awake and can teach more whites like I had the oportunity back then to learn from.

    But whiteys are finally "getting it" about an undebatable and Pre-Planned by marxist and jewish design all out War against White folk, especially White Males.

    And sooner or later either enough will awaken to tip those proverbial scales of justice. Or the anti gentile anti-white clowns will pick the wrong guy or family or group of whites and that is the day civil war II mixed with race war and all out anti corrupt govnt etc. Is going to break out.

    I predict that at this Late date once it tips in whiteys favor so to speak, we will see whites Again awaken to an important Factoid...That being as per historic usuals.....NO amount of whitey meetings like discussed in article, NO amount of factual logics-common senses-truths-or whatever else can be conjured up in the hopes of finally get those enemys of whites to back off or change Their ways is EVER going to work as hoped or wished for period.

    History proves about All that finally works to halt the march to madness such various enemy groups do and live for is when enough royally fed up whites with a Righteous Indignation comprehend they have zero left or near zero left to lose and go all out nazi on the antisemite card players and all out kkk on them african savage race card players.

    Say what you will...But Deep down most whites Know this is correct...It is just that most are afraid to ever admit it publically. That too is going to fast change once it kicks off.

    There is alot to be said for tactics such as bouncing the butt-end of a 10 lb battle rifle such as a nice M1A springfiled off the faces of the trouble makers eh.

    And being that white folk Are The Most nicest-loving of peace-compasionate-good-righteous-fair minded American folks one can be so lucky to reside amoung....

    I also predict that these undesirables and enemys off all that are going to be able to Choose between Three distinct choices...Which usually is Never afford to any enemy group.

    Those three choices will be...#1= Stop the crap and fast straighten up.....#2= Get the Fuck OUT of entire USA Lands within 48 hrs....Or...#3= WE shall choose For them/You!

    God help em all if they refuse to choose wisely and leave Us no other option but for #3 eh.

    Big kommie leftist mistake they made was to assume and believe that by awaiting the boomers age group to reach retiree ages will make whites too old to resist this total crapola being done.

    They never must have considered that another huge factor of older aged whiteys equals Far Far Less to lose on whiteys part...If anybody said race war or revolt to restore it all etc when I was 20 yrs old?.....I probobly would have rejected it fully....But Now at age 65 yrs old? Well I still Hope center holds and no such events happens.....But if They keep pushing, they are going to get what they wish or demand for and it will be Them what will be crying and sniveling once whiteys regain that Viking Warrior Spark that remains lit deep within each white mans soul like a pilot light waiting to go to full on Flame.

    Meantime if one don't like to research read to get jewizd up and wized up about facts on jungle savages?....Try out asking a few bikers for the awaking info you need eh.

    All that may be why that police massacre of bikers in Waco a few years ago was quickly memory-holed by the MSM.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  33. Randal says:
    @Tulip
    Perhaps it is unworthy to bring to the attention of alt-retard, but you should not have a protest in a city where you can not guarantee safety and protection from law enforcement. Otherwise, you get a shit show and guess who the media will target as the instigator. Charlottesville was peak alt-retard, I give you that.

    Not that alt-retard could learn anything from supposedly "lower IQ" minorities, but King was able to successfully protest in hostile venues--because his people came unarmed, dressed respectful, and were prepared to get their heads beat in and police dogs sicced on them by the locals.

    The only way to conduct an operation in a hostile venue is to conduct nonviolent resistance--set your people up to get attacked by the anti-fa, and let the anti-fa kill and maim them without fighting back. You just want peace and preservation of your people man!

    As the MSM will be hostile, you need to make sure that enough good video is produced to document the slaughter. Some of your people will be killed, and some of your people will be permanently disabled, and you will have both martyrs and credibility arguing that your side, and not the enemy, has the real moral authority. You were just conducting a peaceful protest when the haters struck. Because the nationalists and the antifa are both just roving bands of violent thugs, and the only thing separating them is the appearance of moral authority on the side of the antifa.

    Of course, this requires discipline, vetting, and organization--and a willingness to make the ultimate sacrifice--which are the exact opposite of what was on display in Charlottesville. Since the tables are turned, it might do some good to bone up on the civil rights movement.

    If you expect in some mob scene that your boy will get sympathy for kicking a man down on the ground just cause someone grabbed a flag five minutes before, you are nuts. I'd probably give him 10 years too.

    Some truth in all that despite the infantile “alt-retard” stuff.

    However there is in reality no direct parallel between the “civil rights” marchers and right wing political marchers today. The former knew they could expect no quarter from the people whose communities they were invading and that non-violence was their only hope, whereas the latter (perhaps admittedly naively) actually thought they lived in a land of law and order where the police would do their job and protect lawful political meeting, and therefore that standing up and resisting any leftist thugs that got through was an option.

    And of course for the “civil rights” marchers the media and political establishments were divided between conservatives who would oppose them and leftists who would support them, whereas for the right today the political and media establishments are largely undivided, between leftists who will oppose them and pseudo-rightists who will agree with the leftists and blame the right for not being submissive enough on the symbols they choose to display and the opinions they choose to express.

    If the civil rights marchers had really faced the kind of uniformly hostile media and political establishment that the genuine right faces today, there would have been no sympathetic coverage of the various beatings, etc and no federal interventions on their behalf.

    Because the nationalists and the antifa are both just roving bands of violent thugs, and the only thing separating them is the appearance of moral authority on the side of the antifa.

    This is exactly the kind of dishonesty that prevails from both establishment sides – left and pseudo-right. In the real world, the alt right marchers were political demonstrators exercising a supposedly fundamental right to carry out a legally authorised political demonstration, and causing harm to nobody, whereas the left came with the specific intent to disrupt that demonstration violently and, if they could achieve it, silence their political rivals by force.

    No equivalence, but the pretence that there was speaks volumes for your lack of objectivity.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  34. Sowhat says:

    Now retired, I’ve been around long enough to see a bunch of nonsense in America (born here). “Nonsense” comes in all colors and sizes. But, never in my life have I been witness to so many obviously-funded demonstrations covered by a bunch of “yellow journalists”. What is really disconcerting is that ALL of the Main Stream Media, especially (but not limited to) NPR and CNN. It is a sad day for America when it seems that the nonsense isn’t nonsense any longer but an intensional almost vicious, in-your-face, screaming and violent group of nut-cases wanting their way and their way alone. I could consider Charlottesville Burns to be “isolated and unusual” but, when all of the dots are connected, there is something desperate and even seditious going on here.

    As I listened as a local talk radio station host took a call from a frothing-at-the-mouth Anti-Trump’r with his heightened emotional voice, his long list of absolutes, his seething temperament, swearing that Trump was a Mafia Boss and a thug and that he will be impeached as if the caller’s life depended upon it.

    One other issue worth mentioning (at least to me) is that now, more than ever, it is a bit more clear that many in law enforcement appear to be paid off to either ignore the fracas in order to further a political narrative. That’s some scary crap! What appears to be as scary is that the judiciary is tainted as well.

    What happens when facts are substituted with “Narratives” and issues are used to further distantly related extremism while the Constitution is used as toilet paper? Gone are the words like détente, negotiate, and compromise. There seems to be a desire by many, named and unnamed, to throw away everything that was status quo for a new, different and somewhat unrealistic “reality”. I’m not afraid of or resistant to change as found in some readings but, if half of the swirling stories, online, are true, the world is really, really heading toward a darker plain. If people like Antifa Actors an not simply paid actors, they obviously haven’t thought through the concept of censorship or limiting free speech.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Miro23

    What happens when facts are substituted with “Narratives” and issues are used to further distantly related extremism while the Constitution is used as toilet paper? Gone are the words like détente, negotiate, and compromise. There seems to be a desire by many, named and unnamed, to throw away everything that was status quo for a new, different and somewhat unrealistic “reality”.
     
    Americans are unfamiliar with it, but it's Totalitarianism. People are divided into classes (always saintly "victims"- Gays, Blacks, Jews, Women, Minorities, Immigrants etc.) with a demonized oppressor "Enemy of the People class", who lose all their rights because they're Enemies of the People, are irredeemable deplorables, and need to be eradicated.

    It's Neo-Bolshevik totalitarianism run by radical Jews and their Gentile collaborators, aimed at gaining absolute power in the US. A key requirement is obtaining control of the media which they did - although digitalization and the internet information flood is causing them problems .

    Apparently more than 50% of the US population has somehow accessed enough contradictory information about 9/11 to disbelieve the official account.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  35. KenH says:
    @Tulip
    Perhaps it is unworthy to bring to the attention of alt-retard, but you should not have a protest in a city where you can not guarantee safety and protection from law enforcement. Otherwise, you get a shit show and guess who the media will target as the instigator. Charlottesville was peak alt-retard, I give you that.

    Not that alt-retard could learn anything from supposedly "lower IQ" minorities, but King was able to successfully protest in hostile venues--because his people came unarmed, dressed respectful, and were prepared to get their heads beat in and police dogs sicced on them by the locals.

    The only way to conduct an operation in a hostile venue is to conduct nonviolent resistance--set your people up to get attacked by the anti-fa, and let the anti-fa kill and maim them without fighting back. You just want peace and preservation of your people man!

    As the MSM will be hostile, you need to make sure that enough good video is produced to document the slaughter. Some of your people will be killed, and some of your people will be permanently disabled, and you will have both martyrs and credibility arguing that your side, and not the enemy, has the real moral authority. You were just conducting a peaceful protest when the haters struck. Because the nationalists and the antifa are both just roving bands of violent thugs, and the only thing separating them is the appearance of moral authority on the side of the antifa.

    Of course, this requires discipline, vetting, and organization--and a willingness to make the ultimate sacrifice--which are the exact opposite of what was on display in Charlottesville. Since the tables are turned, it might do some good to bone up on the civil rights movement.

    If you expect in some mob scene that your boy will get sympathy for kicking a man down on the ground just cause someone grabbed a flag five minutes before, you are nuts. I'd probably give him 10 years too.

    but you should not have a protest in a city where you can not guarantee safety and protection from law enforcement

    Everyone is now an expert on what went wrong and how it could have been avoided. We’ll now add you to that long and growing list. What happened at Charlottesville is unprecedented. I don’t think anyone would have guessed that the local authorities would have totally shirked their legal duty to maintain order and keep the peace.

    because his people came unarmed, dressed respectful, and were prepared to get their heads beat in and police dogs sicced on them by the locals.

    From what I can tell the “alt-retards” did not dress offensively and did not come armed. In fact, at the torchlight rally the night before media were sneering at the “privileged” and “preppy” white college kids. The only so called weapons were defensive in nature such as goggles, helmets and shields based on the knowledge that antifa uses pepper and bear spray to the face and blows to the head.

    ….set your people up to get attacked by the anti-fa, and let the anti-fa kill and maim them without fighting back. You just want peace and preservation of your people man!

    That won’t work for pro-whites since we can’t control the mainstream media narrative nor do we have (((sympathizers))) in major media organizations as the black “civil rights” protesters did. Even FOX news personalities were attacking the UtR rallygoers as “white supremacists” without knowing any of the facts. FOX merged with CNN and MSNBC on that weekend just like they all merge when Trump idiotically fires cruise missiles or we go to war.

    Had the UtR rallygoers done what you suggested and let themselves get waylaid then the media would have crowed about ordinary citizens and anti-racists kicking the shit out “Nazis” and “white supremacists” and how whites who don’t hate themselves are pussies who always get physically bested by non-whites and self hating whites because anti-racism/anti-whitism is a superior belief system.

    I’d probably give him 10 years too.

    Glad you weren’t the judge or a juror with that crappy, hateful attitude. The original trial should have been held in a different venue since UtR people can’t get a fair trial given the politically charged atmosphere and clear left wing bias of Charlottesville media and authorities. I’m guessing this is Goodwin’s first offense and Deandre Harris only had minor injuries so in a fair and just justice system Goodwin would either be given probation only or no more than one year in prison. Ten years is a punishment that does not fit the crime (of self defense) and constitutes cruel and unusual punishment.

    The verdict is a purely ideological one and I hope it gets reversed on appeal.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  36. Anon[178] • Disclaimer says: • Website

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  37. Miro23 says:
    @Sowhat
    Now retired, I've been around long enough to see a bunch of nonsense in America (born here). "Nonsense" comes in all colors and sizes. But, never in my life have I been witness to so many obviously-funded demonstrations covered by a bunch of "yellow journalists". What is really disconcerting is that ALL of the Main Stream Media, especially (but not limited to) NPR and CNN. It is a sad day for America when it seems that the nonsense isn't nonsense any longer but an intensional almost vicious, in-your-face, screaming and violent group of nut-cases wanting their way and their way alone. I could consider Charlottesville Burns to be "isolated and unusual" but, when all of the dots are connected, there is something desperate and even seditious going on here.

    As I listened as a local talk radio station host took a call from a frothing-at-the-mouth Anti-Trump'r with his heightened emotional voice, his long list of absolutes, his seething temperament, swearing that Trump was a Mafia Boss and a thug and that he will be impeached as if the caller's life depended upon it.

    One other issue worth mentioning (at least to me) is that now, more than ever, it is a bit more clear that many in law enforcement appear to be paid off to either ignore the fracas in order to further a political narrative. That's some scary crap! What appears to be as scary is that the judiciary is tainted as well.

    What happens when facts are substituted with "Narratives" and issues are used to further distantly related extremism while the Constitution is used as toilet paper? Gone are the words like détente, negotiate, and compromise. There seems to be a desire by many, named and unnamed, to throw away everything that was status quo for a new, different and somewhat unrealistic "reality". I'm not afraid of or resistant to change as found in some readings but, if half of the swirling stories, online, are true, the world is really, really heading toward a darker plain. If people like Antifa Actors an not simply paid actors, they obviously haven't thought through the concept of censorship or limiting free speech.

    What happens when facts are substituted with “Narratives” and issues are used to further distantly related extremism while the Constitution is used as toilet paper? Gone are the words like détente, negotiate, and compromise. There seems to be a desire by many, named and unnamed, to throw away everything that was status quo for a new, different and somewhat unrealistic “reality”.

    Americans are unfamiliar with it, but it’s Totalitarianism. People are divided into classes (always saintly “victims”- Gays, Blacks, Jews, Women, Minorities, Immigrants etc.) with a demonized oppressor “Enemy of the People class”, who lose all their rights because they’re Enemies of the People, are irredeemable deplorables, and need to be eradicated.

    It’s Neo-Bolshevik totalitarianism run by radical Jews and their Gentile collaborators, aimed at gaining absolute power in the US. A key requirement is obtaining control of the media which they did – although digitalization and the internet information flood is causing them problems .

    Apparently more than 50% of the US population has somehow accessed enough contradictory information about 9/11 to disbelieve the official account.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  38. Cyrano says:

    There are 2 types of struggle in the US:

    1. Class struggle and

    2. Race struggle.

    Both are initiated by the ruling elites. Class struggle is against them – the ruling elites, so it makes sense for them to shift the focus towards race struggle. Race struggle is not necessarily against the ruling elites, it’s mostly struggle among the ruled classes – so it doesn’t affect the ruling elites so much.

    By diverting the class struggle into a race struggle – it actually makes the rich elites look like saints. You see, because they are not racists, they have proven this by allowing hordes of third world immigrants to come to the west. The whole thing is designed to make the poor white underclass look bad – to whom Hilary referred as “deplorables”. I guess that makes senile degenerates like her – “adorables”.

    Read More
    • Agree: Seamus Padraig, Miro23
    • Replies: @Saxon
    This only works if you buy into their frame, and, furthermore I will tell you right now that you slavishly bending to their frame does not help you survive in the long run. The race struggle is also by the way largely against the ruling elites, because a large segment of those who are in the ruling elite or who hold the puppet strings of the ruling elite are indeed hostile alien elites which is at this point undeniable.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  39. First, let me say that I have no objection to the general thrust of this article. I agree that the post-Charlottesville arrests and convictions are politically motivated witch hunts. I agree that there is, in the words of C.J. Hopkins, a War on Dissent going on in the US and throughout the West, and that much of that war is directed against the dissident Right.

    However, I disagree with the author’s characterization that this war is being directed by an “alliance between Leftist government and Leftist mobs.” As a former leftist, I must say that I hardly recognize what the author calls the “Left” today. Now, I am not comparing today’s “Left” to the Left of the 1960s. I am comparing it to the Left of just 15 years ago.

    At the age of 18, shortly after 9/11, I joined a far-left socialist group and began participating in anti-war activism. I can say that in all the peace groups that I participated in, the Left was overwhelmingly dominant, and I don’t recall ever coming across a substantial Rightist anti-war faction. Yet, today, it seems that many of the most eloquent voices against war are from the dissident Right, with much of the so-called Left supporting or ambivalent to the wars in the Middle East.

    The socialist group that I was a member of was not steeped in the shallow identity politics that seem to be the obsession today’s “Left.” In fact, the group’s publications would occasionally touch on the dangers of identity politics as harmful to class consciousness and solidarity. Yes, the group was “anti-racist” and pro-gay marriage, but these were not the central focus of the group’s message or activities.

    My group was even open to debate with those who opposed its positions. I recall seeing not too long ago a YouTube video of a debate between George Galloway and the late Christopher Hitchens, with the latter representing the case for war in Iraq and the former opposing. As I looked closely, I realized from the banners and signs on the stage, that the debate was hosted by my former socialist group. This willingness to contend with your opponents’ ideas seems to be totally gone from today’s so-called Left.

    Looking back even further, I think about my own family. My dad is from northern Italy and I am the first generation of his side of the family to be born in the US. My dad’s uncles were all genuine Leftists, affiliated with the now-defunct PCI, and genuine Antifascists who took up arms against the German occupation forces. I am pretty sure they would be rolling over in their graves if they knew the state of the “Left” today, with its anti-white identity politics, its gender-bending obsessions, etc. Furthermore, as much as they may have disagreed with their ideological opponents, they were willing to engage in debate. My grandfather never saw eye to eye with his leftist brothers and was a life-long supporter of the Duce. But they managed to get along and even love each other in spite of having been on different sides of a world war.

    [MORE]

    Now, I’ll get to my point. I don’t think the War on Dissent is being led by Leftists. The ruling class is not leftist in any meaningful way and neither is the mainstream media or the Democratic Party that it controls. Rather, the War on Dissent is being waged by an oligarchic ruling class that employs and promotes identity politics as a strategy of tension to divide and conquer. The Antifa of today are at best useful idiots who are being used to crush dissent for their oligarchic masters.

    Look at those who are the targets of slanderous political campaigns. It isn’t just figures on the dissident Right, but also figures on the dissident Left. Take Mr. Corbyn who has risen to leadership in the British Labour Party. He is being tarred and feathered as an “anti-Semite” by both the Tories and the Blairite establishment of his own party as a way of intimidating genuine socialist and anti-war voices. Take Mr. Sanders. He is a genuine lefty, who was largely ignored by the mainstream media and had his campaign sabotaged by the Clintonista establishment of the Democratic Party. It was Clinton, a clear tool of the oligarchy, who made the appeals to identity politics, not Mr. Sanders.

    What is going on? There was a time when the Democrats in the US and the social democratic parties in Europe had a base within the working class. We can recall the New Deal coalition that formed in the wake of the Great Depression and that seemed to last until the takeover of the Party by the Clintons. The Democrats relied for much of the mid-20th century on organized labor for their support. However, as globalization took hold and capital became increasingly mobile, unions virtually disappeared from the US and were weakened throughout the western world. In other words, the working class base of the center-left parties withered away, and these parties became increasingly beholden to corporate money to stay afloat. They were increasingly taken over by the oligarchy.

    But, in order to remain relevant, these parties needed a message, and one that was acceptable to their oligarchic masters. Enter the era of identity politics. The message of the center-left parties became one of pitting women against men, gays against straights, brown against white, migrant against native, all positions that pose no threat to the oligarchy and in fact enhance its power by dividing people against each other.

    The events in Charlottesville gave the ruling class a way to up its strategy of tension and increase the focus around issues of identity. It allowed it to up the rhetoric against the “white working class” that had come out in favor of Trump. Of course, the working class doesn’t just consist of whites, but in its incessant association of the working class with whites the ruling class is able to turn what are issues of class into issues of race.

    Furthermore, it was after that day in August that the social media companies began their mass censorship against all voices of dissent. Witness the banning of Mr. Blumenthal’s interview with Abby Martin on the situation in Palestine. Both are clearly voices of the Left, but even they are being shut down in the name of fighting “hate speech.” Witness the shutting down of pro-Palestinian voices on college campuses. Of course, the Right is getting it too. By sending Antifa to harass the American Renaissance conference, the ruling class is making it clear that no deviation from official narratives will be tolerated. The prosecution and conviction of Mr. Goodwin is an attempt to make an example of a dissident who couldn’t be intimidated by politically correct talking points. The tolerance of the violence committed by Antifa is not because they are a force of the genuine Left, but because they can be used to intimidate those who are challenging the anti-white identity politics that are used to divide the population.

    We are living in very dangerous times. With the ever rising tensions between the West and Russia, there is the need for a strong anti-war movement more than ever before. But much of the Left has, wittingly or unwittingly, been brought around to focusing on meaningless issues, like bathroom politics, and will refuse to unite with anti-war Rightists over the most trivial of issues. I will repeat: the ruling class is not leftist. It is laughing its ass off at the insanity that has taken over the Left and made it a pawn of the oligarchy.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Miro23
    IMO this commentary says it all:

    Rather, the War on Dissent is being waged by an oligarchic ruling class that employs and promotes identity politics as a strategy of tension to divide and conquer. The Antifa of today are at best useful idiots who are being used to crush dissent for their oligarchic masters.

    Look at those who are the targets of slanderous political campaigns. It isn’t just figures on the dissident Right, but also figures on the dissident Left. Take Mr. Corbyn who has risen to leadership in the British Labour Party. He is being tarred and feathered as an “anti-Semite” by both the Tories and the Blairite establishment of his own party as a way of intimidating genuine socialist and anti-war voices. Take Mr. Sanders. He is a genuine lefty, who was largely ignored by the mainstream media and had his campaign sabotaged by the Clintonista establishment of the Democratic Party. It was Clinton, a clear tool of the oligarchy, who made the appeals to identity politics, not Mr. Sanders.

    But, in order to remain relevant, these parties needed a message, and one that was acceptable to their oligarchic masters. Enter the era of identity politics. The message of the center-left parties became one of pitting women against men, gays against straights, brown against white, migrant against native, all positions that pose no threat to the oligarchy and in fact enhance its power by dividing people against each other.

    The tolerance of the violence committed by Antifa is not because they are a force of the genuine Left, but because they can be used to intimidate those who are challenging the anti-white identity politics that are used to divide the population.

    We are living in very dangerous times. With the ever rising tensions between the West and Russia, there is the need for a strong anti-war movement more than ever before. But much of the Left has, wittingly or unwittingly, been brought around to focusing on meaningless issues, like bathroom politics, and will refuse to unite with anti-war Rightists over the most trivial of issues. I will repeat: the ruling class is not leftist. It is laughing its ass off at the insanity that has taken over the Left and made it a pawn of the oligarchy.
     

    There's only one issue left - and that's to get millions of Americans out the street in an anti-war movement.
    , @KenH
    IOW, the left left you and you want it back. I understand because the old left did have some redeeming qualities and even though they were still wrong on most issues and placed too much emphasis on class they weren't consumed with the demonic racial hatred of whites that they have today.

    You can speak in euphemisms if you prefer but the "oligarchic ruling class" is predominantly if not entirely Jewish. That's just a fact. All the camel faces at the various MSM news outlets lecturing us day and night about white supremacy and privilege are their kinsmen and their willing accomplices.

    I wouldn't commend ole (((Bolshevik Bernie Sanders))) too much. Recall that he went from supporting all lives matt-uh to black lives matt-uh in one of the Democratic presidential debates and has no moral qualms about embracing identity politics from the left (anti-whiteness) if it would catapult him to the presidency. The left is totally rotten to the core and devoid of principle

    The left has radically changed because the Jewish grand strategy in the white West has shifted from one of mere influence and control over governments to outright dispossession and genocide of their historic white majorities.

    , @Randal

    At the age of 18, shortly after 9/11, I joined a far-left socialist group and began participating in anti-war activism. I can say that in all the peace groups that I participated in, the Left was overwhelmingly dominant, and I don’t recall ever coming across a substantial Rightist anti-war faction. Yet, today, it seems that many of the most eloquent voices against war are from the dissident Right, with much of the so-called Left supporting or ambivalent to the wars in the Middle East.
     
    As I have noted elsewhere here, there is nothing strange about that. In the 2001-7 period anti-war activism was dominated by the left because there was a Republican president in office, just as I recall it was most dynamic on the right in the Clinton years when I was opposing the Kosovo war. I remember that many of those I regarded as reliable anti-war voices in that time suddenly disappeared when Bush II came into office and waged wars of his own. Likewise, when Obama took over the war-waging from Bush II, the voices on the left were largely stilled, and there was some resurgence of anti-war opinion on the right. People tend to be left or right in their political loyalty first, and anti-war only afterwards (though many of them in my experience would loudly claim otherwise until push came to partisan shove). Those such as you and I, who oppose wars of choice regardless of which side of the political divide is waging and rationalising them, are relatively rare, I think.

    The Trump era is too recent and too confused to judge so far, I think.

    However, I disagree with the author’s characterization that this war is being directed by an “alliance between Leftist government and Leftist mobs.” As a former leftist, I must say that I hardly recognize what the author calls the “Left” today. Now, I am not comparing today’s “Left” to the Left of the 1960s. I am comparing it to the Left of just 15 years ago.
     
    The whole concept of left and right is inherently misleading, squashing a multidimensional political range into a convenient one dimensional framework, so all these discussions utilising the terms are fraught with inaccuracies and approximations. Nevertheless, I get the impression as an old leftist you are taking for granted or evading the consequences of the many victories your side has won, and emphasizing only the few (but perhaps important for you) defeats. As a long-standing conservative I have watched these endless defeats roll by. The suppose victories for the right, meantime, have been merely victories for the ruling elites misrepresented as conservative by the establishment elites running the "conservative" parties - tax cuts presented as rolling back government but actually fuelling debt and enriching elites, "free trade" and "freedom of movement" that merely mean mass immigration and offshoring.

    The left is not and never was just the relatively wholesome socialism of what is now the "old left" and which seems to be where your loyalties lie. The left also always included the anti-racist minority identity lobbyists who have won out almost completely, whom you now refuse to recognise as of the left because you don't like what they have become. The left also always included the radical feminists and the homosexual lobbies that sought to break down gender roles and the family and normalise homosexual activity, who also won almost all their battles and again whom you decline to accept now as part of your left because presumably you don't like what they have become. The left also always included the internationalist, antipatriotic left that gave rise to mass immigration, in cynical collaboration with big business just as the fake conservatives collaborated with big business to enable it.

    Our societies now, as compared with those of the late C19th/early C20th, represent the triumph of all of the main threads of old school leftism, save only for the loyalty and solidarity with the indigenous working class that was the left's only redeeming feature. That aspect was abandoned by the more ideological or self-serving figures on the left as the price of winning power, and all the battles described above, in conjunction with the elites who profited by them all, and feared only the costs that a triumph of old leftism would have imposed upon them.

    Now, I’ll get to my point. I don’t think the War on Dissent is being led by Leftists. The ruling class is not leftist in any meaningful way and neither is the mainstream media or the Democratic Party that it controls
     
    The ruling class (inasmuch as such a Marxist construct has any general meaning) most certainly is leftist in every sense except that old left sense I mentioned above. It is leftist in its pushing of antiracism as a dogma, that originated on the left before it became received opinion throughout the ruling elite. It is leftist in its pushing of feminism and gender issues and the normalisation of homosexual behaviour - all of them stemming from the concerns of the left, and now established by their victory throughout our elites. It is leftist in its pushing of anti-patriotic internationalism and mass immigration - stemming directly from the longstanding internationalist ideology of the left (though in this it aligns as I noted above with elements of the right that share the same ends though rationalising them differently).

    For sure the various members of the ruling elites are also self-interested, and are not entirely politically homogenous. But by and large they, like their enablers - the politicians, the editors, the journalists, the academics, the businessmen, all the gatekeepers of opinion, and most of the big businessmen who live in the same society and have absorbed the same indoctrinations - mostly share all the dogmas of the politically correct left, except the few who are motivated by particular personal obsessions, usually identity lobby related. That's why expressing views that dissent from these politically correct (and quintessentially leftist) concerns is now so dangerous to the careers and livelihoods of people in these positions unless they are actually wealthy and connected enough to have some independent stature.

    The left has moved on no doubt from what you supported as a youth, but the fact that it has developed in ways you do not like does not mean those developments are not attributable, in large part, to aspects of the left that were assuredly there all along. The proof of the pudding is in the eating - compared to our nations in your youth, we are not now nations of small government, of Christian piety, of chaste obedience and moral probity in sexual relations, of patriotic unity - the concerns of the political right. On the contrary, we are nations that reflect the aforementioned triumphs of the left - the suppression of religion, the promotion of sexual perversion and marital decline, the breakdown of national authority and of all the structures of established authority and order.

    Look at those who are the targets of slanderous political campaigns. It isn’t just figures on the dissident Right, but also figures on the dissident Left.
     
    Leftist opinions per se are not targeted in general for suppression, and nor are leftist acivists threatened with violence or imprisonment, except where they fall foul of particular powerful identity lobbies - in particular of course the jewish/Israeli lobby that targets Corbyn (and many others, including increasingly being behind actual prosecutions for crimespeech in the UK). It is those who express opinions on the right - nationalist, patriotic and white identity positions in resistance to the anti-white racism that is antiracism, disapproval of homosexual behaviour, opposition to mass immigration - who face actual systematic suppression.

    My group was even open to debate with those who opposed its positions. I recall seeing not too long ago a YouTube video of a debate between George Galloway and the late Christopher Hitchens, with the latter representing the case for war in Iraq and the former opposing. As I looked closely, I realized from the banners and signs on the stage, that the debate was hosted by my former socialist group. This willingness to contend with your opponents’ ideas seems to be totally gone from today’s so-called Left.
     
    It's telling that you reference here a debate between a leftist and another leftist (albeit of a neoconnish pro-war variety). Disagreement within the bounds of leftist political correctness has always been allowed by the left and still is, though the boundaries obviously have shifted. I suspect your group would probably not have all quietly sat through a debate between Hitchens and, say, Pat Buchanan on the Iraq war.
    , @FKA Max
    Fitting videos:

    Christopher Hitchens talks about Tucker Carlson

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

    Giving Up Marxism – Christopher Hitchens

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6FcBeyEWgSM

    Source: http://www.unz.com/tsaker/is-communism-really-dead/#comment-2045037
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  40. Saxon says:
    @Anonymous

    A white identitarian movement that wants to be successful needs to dump the swastika and Confederate flags. While some may see multiple meanings in those symbols, most will only see Nazis and slave-masters. Racial supremacy and domination will never draw the numbers and types of people that any political movement requires to thrive and survive. And at this point in human history, where there is a growing genocidal energy directed at the racial group that has been the global top dog since the Age of Discovery, survival is the issue.
     
    I’m not into the white identitarian movement or anything like that. And know nothing about it and don’t care to. In fact, I think the cause for maintaining European culture was lost in the Protestant Reformation. What we’re are seeing now is just the endgame playing out. When the majority of people of European culture— especially the elites— are on board with the destruction of that culture, what’s the point of white identitarianism? And to use symbols of Nazism and/or the Confederacy, two movements which divided and led to many deaths of European peoples, and in the end lost, seems odd. Why would anyone identify with something which ultimately failed? If you’re really into European culture and white people, instead of standing on a street corner waving a Confederate flag, why not wear a Michelangelo artwork t-shirt and read Shakespeare out loud with a bullhorn?

    “Culture” is an airy-fairy concept. It always changes even in completely ethno-racially homogeneous settings. For example, Japan of 50-60 years ago which still had teenagers willing to assassinate communist subversives using shortblades for their emperor, vs. now. It’s not that important.

    The people who created these great civilizations, scientific achievements, philosophy, etc. almost certainly did so largely because of their genes which is the most precious of inheritances which to save for the future to create something new out of the ashes of the headed-for-crash-course dumpster fire we find ourselves in now. The gene explanation best explains why we see such similar cicumstances created no matter where these types of people went in recent modern history. Australia, New Zealand, Canada, South Africa, America. They were in each case able to replicate that greatness as long as they maintained that “purity of blood.”

    We already know what happens when those genes are destroyed, replaced, or diluted. We have powerful examples in modern history like the eastern Roman empire (Anatolian Greeks) transforming into Turkey and becoming essentially a bunch of shambling things scurrying around the ruins of a civilization which they could never replicate or simulate much or any the greatness of, largely down to not having enough of the genes responsible for it. Another good example is the difference between North America (Canada and America) vs. South America and again the best explanation being the gene explanation. It’s not like central and south America are resource-scarce. Quite the opposite–but what happened as that the people who began to create new countries there destroyed themselves by mixing with people who don’t have genes like them.

    Read More
    • Agree: mark green
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  41. Saxon says:
    @Cyrano
    There are 2 types of struggle in the US:

    1. Class struggle and

    2. Race struggle.

    Both are initiated by the ruling elites. Class struggle is against them – the ruling elites, so it makes sense for them to shift the focus towards race struggle. Race struggle is not necessarily against the ruling elites, it’s mostly struggle among the ruled classes – so it doesn’t affect the ruling elites so much.

    By diverting the class struggle into a race struggle – it actually makes the rich elites look like saints. You see, because they are not racists, they have proven this by allowing hordes of third world immigrants to come to the west. The whole thing is designed to make the poor white underclass look bad – to whom Hilary referred as “deplorables”. I guess that makes senile degenerates like her - “adorables”.

    This only works if you buy into their frame, and, furthermore I will tell you right now that you slavishly bending to their frame does not help you survive in the long run. The race struggle is also by the way largely against the ruling elites, because a large segment of those who are in the ruling elite or who hold the puppet strings of the ruling elite are indeed hostile alien elites which is at this point undeniable.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  42. Saxon says:
    @SunBakedSuburb
    A white identitarian movement that wants to be successful needs to dump the swastika and Confederate flags. While some may see multiple meanings in those symbols, most will only see Nazis and slave-masters. Racial supremacy and domination will never draw the numbers and types of people that any political movement requires to thrive and survive. And at this point in human history, where there is a growing genocidal energy directed at the racial group that has been the global top dog since the Age of Discovery, survival is the issue.

    ~99% of these guys were wearing things like white polo shirts and carrying American flags. You are simply delusional if you think that the right “optics’ will stop enemy-controlled mass media monopoly from simply lying.

    Also, the idea that wanting to live apart in our own countries with demographic security being a guarantee is “supremacy” is ludicrous. We ask no more than any other people in this regard. Again though, the all-important mass media monopoly and who controls it is who can manipulate public opinion and simply create an echo chamber of lies where the other side isn’t even heard.

    Read More
    • Replies: @SunBakedSuburb
    " ... the idea that wanting to live apart in our own countries with demographic security being a guarantee is 'supremacy' is ludicrous. ..."

    Agreed. I don't equate white only lands with racial supremacy. Separate but equal will prevent a civil war
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  43. Most Americans agree with what most of Alt Right has to say. Outside of the big cities.
    But it would be wise to get rid of the swastikas, dress like regular folks, most in the South wouldn’t have much of a problem with the Stars and Bars. But you’re getting ahead of yourself with swastikas and clothing. Lots of Americas are still brainwashed about WW2 and Hitler, the more stuff you give the MSM to box you in with, the worse they’re gonna smear you, thats just the way it is for now. Even though people are turning off MSM, many are still clueless about WW2, we’ve been programmed since birth on the official story, so it takes a good bit of research to find out the truth, and lots of people haven’t done that.

    Your best weapon right now is knowledge/truth, wake people up. Everyones lives are all negatively impacted by the current leadership of this country, and the Zionists, Globalist, Wall St Bankers, MIC, International Corporations that own them. Lots of blacks agree with most of the Alt Rights views, just listen to Farrakhan, basically says the same things. Wake black folks up, point out to them how they’re communities are being destroyed by the same goons, the music that stirs so much violence, who runs the music industry? Hollywood? CIA and Mossad bring in the drugs and guns , hand them out in the black communities. Theres lots of things the Alt right and blacks could come together on.

    Trumps election proves that most of America shares the views that he ran on, and like we seen during the election, the intimidation and demonizing from the MSM and the Establishment, a lot of people won’t admit in public that they support Trump or the things he ran on, for fear of being attacked. Same with the Alt Right views, people may not admit it in public, but they agree. Still they’re getting way ahead of themselves with the swastikas.

    I’m pretty sure a lot of the Alt Right is controlled by FBI, ADL, whoever, they know the divide and conquer thing works, and they know how to destroy a movement like no other, they do it to every movement in every country that goes against their goals. Theres probably lots of spooks in Antifa and the lefty groups too.

    They’ve had blacks and whites fighting since the 60′s, instead of fighting them, the ones in power, where has it gotten us? I know it may be hard sometimes, the MSM certainly doesn’t help, but lots of blacks and other races voted Trump too. Probably lots more than the fake polls/vote counts will ever tell. The truth will always win in the end, you can only lie for so long before you’re exposed, they’re being exposed now and it will continue no matter how hard they fight it.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  44. @Randal

    A white identitarian movement that wants to be successful needs to dump the swastika and Confederate flags.
     
    Readers have a choice in response to the facts contained in the above piece - they can make it about the basic, profound injustice described in the story, whereby police protection and even justice itself is made subject to holding and expressing "acceptable" opinions, or they can, in effect and regardless of supposed intent, make it about blaming the victims of said injustice for holding and expressing those "unacceptable" opinions.

    You made your choice, clearly.

    Well said.

    If its not one thing- it’ll be another. They’ll keep you back pedaling, forever.

    Never apologize.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  45. David says:
    @manorchurch


    A white identitarian movement that wants to be successful needs to dump the swastika and Confederate flags.
     
    You made your choice, clearly.

     

    Interesting -- your stupidity, that is.

    The writer made no choice. The writer observed, as might any individual with 3-digit IQ, that identifying one's group via swastikas and Confederate flags is, for lack of nice words, insanely stupid.

    Which has been the cross born by the alt-right from instantiation: obsessive, dedicated, monomaniacal stupidity. Rather than, quite sensibly, adopting symbols and ideo-speak that would effectively disarm the MSM's bullshit artistry, sure enough, these alt-right geniuses deliberately picked up old, tired, inflammatory images which lost ALL positive connotation decades ago.

    Stupid, stupid, stupid. The entire movement could be turned overwhelmingly successful, with a few changes in approach, and in projected image.

    LOL. Like that's gonna happen. Keep wearing nazi helmets and waving the flags of causes long lost, and you jokers will soon pass the midpoint of your slide into absolute irrelevance.

    An amazing coincidence, I had never seen the word instantiation before you used it here (unless I didn’t notice it before) and then I see that Douthat used instantiate today too. Wow.

    But it seems you both use the word (in different forms) to mean initiate or institute, when every reference book I have says it means to provide and instance of.

    Help me out. What does the word mean?

    Read More
    • Replies: @manorchurch

    But it seems you both use the word (in different forms) to mean initiate or institute, when every reference book I have says it means to provide and instance of.
     
    Instantiate means to establish an instance (of) (something).

    I worked for many years as a programmer, where "instantiate" and "instantiation" are in fairly common use.

    Your mileage may vary.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  46. Miro23 says:
    @Mario Partisan
    First, let me say that I have no objection to the general thrust of this article. I agree that the post-Charlottesville arrests and convictions are politically motivated witch hunts. I agree that there is, in the words of C.J. Hopkins, a War on Dissent going on in the US and throughout the West, and that much of that war is directed against the dissident Right.

    However, I disagree with the author’s characterization that this war is being directed by an “alliance between Leftist government and Leftist mobs.” As a former leftist, I must say that I hardly recognize what the author calls the “Left” today. Now, I am not comparing today’s “Left” to the Left of the 1960s. I am comparing it to the Left of just 15 years ago.

    At the age of 18, shortly after 9/11, I joined a far-left socialist group and began participating in anti-war activism. I can say that in all the peace groups that I participated in, the Left was overwhelmingly dominant, and I don’t recall ever coming across a substantial Rightist anti-war faction. Yet, today, it seems that many of the most eloquent voices against war are from the dissident Right, with much of the so-called Left supporting or ambivalent to the wars in the Middle East.

    The socialist group that I was a member of was not steeped in the shallow identity politics that seem to be the obsession today’s “Left.” In fact, the group’s publications would occasionally touch on the dangers of identity politics as harmful to class consciousness and solidarity. Yes, the group was “anti-racist” and pro-gay marriage, but these were not the central focus of the group’s message or activities.

    My group was even open to debate with those who opposed its positions. I recall seeing not too long ago a YouTube video of a debate between George Galloway and the late Christopher Hitchens, with the latter representing the case for war in Iraq and the former opposing. As I looked closely, I realized from the banners and signs on the stage, that the debate was hosted by my former socialist group. This willingness to contend with your opponents’ ideas seems to be totally gone from today’s so-called Left.

    Looking back even further, I think about my own family. My dad is from northern Italy and I am the first generation of his side of the family to be born in the US. My dad’s uncles were all genuine Leftists, affiliated with the now-defunct PCI, and genuine Antifascists who took up arms against the German occupation forces. I am pretty sure they would be rolling over in their graves if they knew the state of the “Left” today, with its anti-white identity politics, its gender-bending obsessions, etc. Furthermore, as much as they may have disagreed with their ideological opponents, they were willing to engage in debate. My grandfather never saw eye to eye with his leftist brothers and was a life-long supporter of the Duce. But they managed to get along and even love each other in spite of having been on different sides of a world war.



    Now, I’ll get to my point. I don’t think the War on Dissent is being led by Leftists. The ruling class is not leftist in any meaningful way and neither is the mainstream media or the Democratic Party that it controls. Rather, the War on Dissent is being waged by an oligarchic ruling class that employs and promotes identity politics as a strategy of tension to divide and conquer. The Antifa of today are at best useful idiots who are being used to crush dissent for their oligarchic masters.

    Look at those who are the targets of slanderous political campaigns. It isn’t just figures on the dissident Right, but also figures on the dissident Left. Take Mr. Corbyn who has risen to leadership in the British Labour Party. He is being tarred and feathered as an “anti-Semite” by both the Tories and the Blairite establishment of his own party as a way of intimidating genuine socialist and anti-war voices. Take Mr. Sanders. He is a genuine lefty, who was largely ignored by the mainstream media and had his campaign sabotaged by the Clintonista establishment of the Democratic Party. It was Clinton, a clear tool of the oligarchy, who made the appeals to identity politics, not Mr. Sanders.

    What is going on? There was a time when the Democrats in the US and the social democratic parties in Europe had a base within the working class. We can recall the New Deal coalition that formed in the wake of the Great Depression and that seemed to last until the takeover of the Party by the Clintons. The Democrats relied for much of the mid-20th century on organized labor for their support. However, as globalization took hold and capital became increasingly mobile, unions virtually disappeared from the US and were weakened throughout the western world. In other words, the working class base of the center-left parties withered away, and these parties became increasingly beholden to corporate money to stay afloat. They were increasingly taken over by the oligarchy.

    But, in order to remain relevant, these parties needed a message, and one that was acceptable to their oligarchic masters. Enter the era of identity politics. The message of the center-left parties became one of pitting women against men, gays against straights, brown against white, migrant against native, all positions that pose no threat to the oligarchy and in fact enhance its power by dividing people against each other.

    The events in Charlottesville gave the ruling class a way to up its strategy of tension and increase the focus around issues of identity. It allowed it to up the rhetoric against the “white working class” that had come out in favor of Trump. Of course, the working class doesn’t just consist of whites, but in its incessant association of the working class with whites the ruling class is able to turn what are issues of class into issues of race.

    Furthermore, it was after that day in August that the social media companies began their mass censorship against all voices of dissent. Witness the banning of Mr. Blumenthal’s interview with Abby Martin on the situation in Palestine. Both are clearly voices of the Left, but even they are being shut down in the name of fighting “hate speech.” Witness the shutting down of pro-Palestinian voices on college campuses. Of course, the Right is getting it too. By sending Antifa to harass the American Renaissance conference, the ruling class is making it clear that no deviation from official narratives will be tolerated. The prosecution and conviction of Mr. Goodwin is an attempt to make an example of a dissident who couldn’t be intimidated by politically correct talking points. The tolerance of the violence committed by Antifa is not because they are a force of the genuine Left, but because they can be used to intimidate those who are challenging the anti-white identity politics that are used to divide the population.

    We are living in very dangerous times. With the ever rising tensions between the West and Russia, there is the need for a strong anti-war movement more than ever before. But much of the Left has, wittingly or unwittingly, been brought around to focusing on meaningless issues, like bathroom politics, and will refuse to unite with anti-war Rightists over the most trivial of issues. I will repeat: the ruling class is not leftist. It is laughing its ass off at the insanity that has taken over the Left and made it a pawn of the oligarchy.

    IMO this commentary says it all:

    Rather, the War on Dissent is being waged by an oligarchic ruling class that employs and promotes identity politics as a strategy of tension to divide and conquer. The Antifa of today are at best useful idiots who are being used to crush dissent for their oligarchic masters.

    Look at those who are the targets of slanderous political campaigns. It isn’t just figures on the dissident Right, but also figures on the dissident Left. Take Mr. Corbyn who has risen to leadership in the British Labour Party. He is being tarred and feathered as an “anti-Semite” by both the Tories and the Blairite establishment of his own party as a way of intimidating genuine socialist and anti-war voices. Take Mr. Sanders. He is a genuine lefty, who was largely ignored by the mainstream media and had his campaign sabotaged by the Clintonista establishment of the Democratic Party. It was Clinton, a clear tool of the oligarchy, who made the appeals to identity politics, not Mr. Sanders.

    But, in order to remain relevant, these parties needed a message, and one that was acceptable to their oligarchic masters. Enter the era of identity politics. The message of the center-left parties became one of pitting women against men, gays against straights, brown against white, migrant against native, all positions that pose no threat to the oligarchy and in fact enhance its power by dividing people against each other.

    The tolerance of the violence committed by Antifa is not because they are a force of the genuine Left, but because they can be used to intimidate those who are challenging the anti-white identity politics that are used to divide the population.

    We are living in very dangerous times. With the ever rising tensions between the West and Russia, there is the need for a strong anti-war movement more than ever before. But much of the Left has, wittingly or unwittingly, been brought around to focusing on meaningless issues, like bathroom politics, and will refuse to unite with anti-war Rightists over the most trivial of issues. I will repeat: the ruling class is not leftist. It is laughing its ass off at the insanity that has taken over the Left and made it a pawn of the oligarchy.

    There’s only one issue left – and that’s to get millions of Americans out the street in an anti-war movement.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  47. @David
    An amazing coincidence, I had never seen the word instantiation before you used it here (unless I didn't notice it before) and then I see that Douthat used instantiate today too. Wow.

    But it seems you both use the word (in different forms) to mean initiate or institute, when every reference book I have says it means to provide and instance of.

    Help me out. What does the word mean?

    But it seems you both use the word (in different forms) to mean initiate or institute, when every reference book I have says it means to provide and instance of.

    Instantiate means to establish an instance (of) (something).

    I worked for many years as a programmer, where “instantiate” and “instantiation” are in fairly common use.

    Your mileage may vary.

    Read More
    • Replies: @David
    No big deal, but it can't mean what you say in this sentence: "Which has been the cross born by the alt-right from instantiation: obsessive, dedicated, monomaniacal stupidity." I suppose you meant to say something like, "the alt-right is an instantiation of obsessive, dedicated, monomaniacal stupidity."

    http://www.dictionary.com/browse/instantiation
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  48. KenH says:
    @Mario Partisan
    First, let me say that I have no objection to the general thrust of this article. I agree that the post-Charlottesville arrests and convictions are politically motivated witch hunts. I agree that there is, in the words of C.J. Hopkins, a War on Dissent going on in the US and throughout the West, and that much of that war is directed against the dissident Right.

    However, I disagree with the author’s characterization that this war is being directed by an “alliance between Leftist government and Leftist mobs.” As a former leftist, I must say that I hardly recognize what the author calls the “Left” today. Now, I am not comparing today’s “Left” to the Left of the 1960s. I am comparing it to the Left of just 15 years ago.

    At the age of 18, shortly after 9/11, I joined a far-left socialist group and began participating in anti-war activism. I can say that in all the peace groups that I participated in, the Left was overwhelmingly dominant, and I don’t recall ever coming across a substantial Rightist anti-war faction. Yet, today, it seems that many of the most eloquent voices against war are from the dissident Right, with much of the so-called Left supporting or ambivalent to the wars in the Middle East.

    The socialist group that I was a member of was not steeped in the shallow identity politics that seem to be the obsession today’s “Left.” In fact, the group’s publications would occasionally touch on the dangers of identity politics as harmful to class consciousness and solidarity. Yes, the group was “anti-racist” and pro-gay marriage, but these were not the central focus of the group’s message or activities.

    My group was even open to debate with those who opposed its positions. I recall seeing not too long ago a YouTube video of a debate between George Galloway and the late Christopher Hitchens, with the latter representing the case for war in Iraq and the former opposing. As I looked closely, I realized from the banners and signs on the stage, that the debate was hosted by my former socialist group. This willingness to contend with your opponents’ ideas seems to be totally gone from today’s so-called Left.

    Looking back even further, I think about my own family. My dad is from northern Italy and I am the first generation of his side of the family to be born in the US. My dad’s uncles were all genuine Leftists, affiliated with the now-defunct PCI, and genuine Antifascists who took up arms against the German occupation forces. I am pretty sure they would be rolling over in their graves if they knew the state of the “Left” today, with its anti-white identity politics, its gender-bending obsessions, etc. Furthermore, as much as they may have disagreed with their ideological opponents, they were willing to engage in debate. My grandfather never saw eye to eye with his leftist brothers and was a life-long supporter of the Duce. But they managed to get along and even love each other in spite of having been on different sides of a world war.



    Now, I’ll get to my point. I don’t think the War on Dissent is being led by Leftists. The ruling class is not leftist in any meaningful way and neither is the mainstream media or the Democratic Party that it controls. Rather, the War on Dissent is being waged by an oligarchic ruling class that employs and promotes identity politics as a strategy of tension to divide and conquer. The Antifa of today are at best useful idiots who are being used to crush dissent for their oligarchic masters.

    Look at those who are the targets of slanderous political campaigns. It isn’t just figures on the dissident Right, but also figures on the dissident Left. Take Mr. Corbyn who has risen to leadership in the British Labour Party. He is being tarred and feathered as an “anti-Semite” by both the Tories and the Blairite establishment of his own party as a way of intimidating genuine socialist and anti-war voices. Take Mr. Sanders. He is a genuine lefty, who was largely ignored by the mainstream media and had his campaign sabotaged by the Clintonista establishment of the Democratic Party. It was Clinton, a clear tool of the oligarchy, who made the appeals to identity politics, not Mr. Sanders.

    What is going on? There was a time when the Democrats in the US and the social democratic parties in Europe had a base within the working class. We can recall the New Deal coalition that formed in the wake of the Great Depression and that seemed to last until the takeover of the Party by the Clintons. The Democrats relied for much of the mid-20th century on organized labor for their support. However, as globalization took hold and capital became increasingly mobile, unions virtually disappeared from the US and were weakened throughout the western world. In other words, the working class base of the center-left parties withered away, and these parties became increasingly beholden to corporate money to stay afloat. They were increasingly taken over by the oligarchy.

    But, in order to remain relevant, these parties needed a message, and one that was acceptable to their oligarchic masters. Enter the era of identity politics. The message of the center-left parties became one of pitting women against men, gays against straights, brown against white, migrant against native, all positions that pose no threat to the oligarchy and in fact enhance its power by dividing people against each other.

    The events in Charlottesville gave the ruling class a way to up its strategy of tension and increase the focus around issues of identity. It allowed it to up the rhetoric against the “white working class” that had come out in favor of Trump. Of course, the working class doesn’t just consist of whites, but in its incessant association of the working class with whites the ruling class is able to turn what are issues of class into issues of race.

    Furthermore, it was after that day in August that the social media companies began their mass censorship against all voices of dissent. Witness the banning of Mr. Blumenthal’s interview with Abby Martin on the situation in Palestine. Both are clearly voices of the Left, but even they are being shut down in the name of fighting “hate speech.” Witness the shutting down of pro-Palestinian voices on college campuses. Of course, the Right is getting it too. By sending Antifa to harass the American Renaissance conference, the ruling class is making it clear that no deviation from official narratives will be tolerated. The prosecution and conviction of Mr. Goodwin is an attempt to make an example of a dissident who couldn’t be intimidated by politically correct talking points. The tolerance of the violence committed by Antifa is not because they are a force of the genuine Left, but because they can be used to intimidate those who are challenging the anti-white identity politics that are used to divide the population.

    We are living in very dangerous times. With the ever rising tensions between the West and Russia, there is the need for a strong anti-war movement more than ever before. But much of the Left has, wittingly or unwittingly, been brought around to focusing on meaningless issues, like bathroom politics, and will refuse to unite with anti-war Rightists over the most trivial of issues. I will repeat: the ruling class is not leftist. It is laughing its ass off at the insanity that has taken over the Left and made it a pawn of the oligarchy.

    IOW, the left left you and you want it back. I understand because the old left did have some redeeming qualities and even though they were still wrong on most issues and placed too much emphasis on class they weren’t consumed with the demonic racial hatred of whites that they have today.

    You can speak in euphemisms if you prefer but the “oligarchic ruling class” is predominantly if not entirely Jewish. That’s just a fact. All the camel faces at the various MSM news outlets lecturing us day and night about white supremacy and privilege are their kinsmen and their willing accomplices.

    I wouldn’t commend ole (((Bolshevik Bernie Sanders))) too much. Recall that he went from supporting all lives matt-uh to black lives matt-uh in one of the Democratic presidential debates and has no moral qualms about embracing identity politics from the left (anti-whiteness) if it would catapult him to the presidency. The left is totally rotten to the core and devoid of principle

    The left has radically changed because the Jewish grand strategy in the white West has shifted from one of mere influence and control over governments to outright dispossession and genocide of their historic white majorities.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  49. Alfa158 says:
    @Tulip
    Perhaps it is unworthy to bring to the attention of alt-retard, but you should not have a protest in a city where you can not guarantee safety and protection from law enforcement. Otherwise, you get a shit show and guess who the media will target as the instigator. Charlottesville was peak alt-retard, I give you that.

    Not that alt-retard could learn anything from supposedly "lower IQ" minorities, but King was able to successfully protest in hostile venues--because his people came unarmed, dressed respectful, and were prepared to get their heads beat in and police dogs sicced on them by the locals.

    The only way to conduct an operation in a hostile venue is to conduct nonviolent resistance--set your people up to get attacked by the anti-fa, and let the anti-fa kill and maim them without fighting back. You just want peace and preservation of your people man!

    As the MSM will be hostile, you need to make sure that enough good video is produced to document the slaughter. Some of your people will be killed, and some of your people will be permanently disabled, and you will have both martyrs and credibility arguing that your side, and not the enemy, has the real moral authority. You were just conducting a peaceful protest when the haters struck. Because the nationalists and the antifa are both just roving bands of violent thugs, and the only thing separating them is the appearance of moral authority on the side of the antifa.

    Of course, this requires discipline, vetting, and organization--and a willingness to make the ultimate sacrifice--which are the exact opposite of what was on display in Charlottesville. Since the tables are turned, it might do some good to bone up on the civil rights movement.

    If you expect in some mob scene that your boy will get sympathy for kicking a man down on the ground just cause someone grabbed a flag five minutes before, you are nuts. I'd probably give him 10 years too.

    What planet are you living on? None of that “good video” will show up in any mass media. It will be on YouTube for five seconds before it gets removed and on altright websites for five minutes before they are hacked and de-platformed. The killed and maimed will be described as victims of violence at a Nazi rally.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  50. What happened in Charlottesville should have been easily predicted: black police chief, liberal mayor/governor.
    That the Media would blame any violence on the Right is to be expected.

    My thing was this: Why march? Is that how to really help struggling whites who are unemployed/underemployed/ lack skills/dealing with personal problems and are otherwise not successfully navigating life and forming families with at least 2 children?

    If the whites want to help whites, I think a white antipoverty group that helped struggling whites with real advice, perhaps even apprenticeships, social organizations-that-lead-to-personal-friendships, and the like would be a better way to coalesce around their identity than to march around old statues so the left can send out a a few crisis actors in swastika-regalia to discredit them/use as an excuse to physically attack them.

    Organized letter-writing/telephone campaigns to elected representatives/newspapers would do more to defend those statues than marching around them with bad optics.

    Read More
    • Replies: @manorchurch

    My thing was this: Why march? Is that how to really help struggling whites who are unemployed/underemployed/ lack skills/dealing with personal problems and are otherwise not successfully navigating life and forming families with at least 2 children?
     
    Exactly. What coterie of ignorant jackasses is running this "alt-right" operation? How STUPID can any group be that fields "demonstrators" flying Confederate flags and swastikas, and marches through a mostly-black southern town? What committee of retards thought THAT one up?

    The "alt-right" is so lame, so defective, so ideologically dysfunctional, it must be a false-flag operation generated by the Antifa themselves. It's the best explanation.

    It defies belief. How could any organized, intelligent, structured, reasoned set of premises come up with pure CRAP like that as a "demonstration of unity"?
    , @fnn

    Why march? Is that how to really help struggling whites who are unemployed/underemployed/ lack skills/dealing with personal problems and are otherwise not successfully navigating life and forming families with at least 2 children?
    If the whites want to help whites, I think a white antipoverty group that helped struggling whites with real advice, perhaps even apprenticeships, social organizations-that-lead-to-personal-friendships, and the like would be a better way to coalesce around their identity than to march around old statues so the left can send out a a few crisis actors in swastika-regalia to discredit them/use as an excuse to physically attack them.
     
    This is the age-old question of engaging in political action against the ruling class as opposed to ameliorative "social work." The Old Left debated this question constantly. Political action is directed against the hegemony of anti-white cultural Marxism (aka Biological Leninism or whatever else you choose to call it). I think everyone has noticed that this ideology is completely endorsed by the corporate sector, and most enthusiastically by the giant New Robber Baron corporations like Google and Facebook.

    That said, "Unite the Right" was a poor slogan. It's easy to think of better ones like "Against the American Taliban' or "Against neo-Bolshevism" or "Unite against Tyranny." It's true that no one knows what "Bolshevism" means anymore, but no one has a clear idea of what "the Right" means either. "Negentropy" is the maybe the best definition of "Right", but it's too broad to be useful in ordinary discourse.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  51. Randal says:
    @Mario Partisan
    First, let me say that I have no objection to the general thrust of this article. I agree that the post-Charlottesville arrests and convictions are politically motivated witch hunts. I agree that there is, in the words of C.J. Hopkins, a War on Dissent going on in the US and throughout the West, and that much of that war is directed against the dissident Right.

    However, I disagree with the author’s characterization that this war is being directed by an “alliance between Leftist government and Leftist mobs.” As a former leftist, I must say that I hardly recognize what the author calls the “Left” today. Now, I am not comparing today’s “Left” to the Left of the 1960s. I am comparing it to the Left of just 15 years ago.

    At the age of 18, shortly after 9/11, I joined a far-left socialist group and began participating in anti-war activism. I can say that in all the peace groups that I participated in, the Left was overwhelmingly dominant, and I don’t recall ever coming across a substantial Rightist anti-war faction. Yet, today, it seems that many of the most eloquent voices against war are from the dissident Right, with much of the so-called Left supporting or ambivalent to the wars in the Middle East.

    The socialist group that I was a member of was not steeped in the shallow identity politics that seem to be the obsession today’s “Left.” In fact, the group’s publications would occasionally touch on the dangers of identity politics as harmful to class consciousness and solidarity. Yes, the group was “anti-racist” and pro-gay marriage, but these were not the central focus of the group’s message or activities.

    My group was even open to debate with those who opposed its positions. I recall seeing not too long ago a YouTube video of a debate between George Galloway and the late Christopher Hitchens, with the latter representing the case for war in Iraq and the former opposing. As I looked closely, I realized from the banners and signs on the stage, that the debate was hosted by my former socialist group. This willingness to contend with your opponents’ ideas seems to be totally gone from today’s so-called Left.

    Looking back even further, I think about my own family. My dad is from northern Italy and I am the first generation of his side of the family to be born in the US. My dad’s uncles were all genuine Leftists, affiliated with the now-defunct PCI, and genuine Antifascists who took up arms against the German occupation forces. I am pretty sure they would be rolling over in their graves if they knew the state of the “Left” today, with its anti-white identity politics, its gender-bending obsessions, etc. Furthermore, as much as they may have disagreed with their ideological opponents, they were willing to engage in debate. My grandfather never saw eye to eye with his leftist brothers and was a life-long supporter of the Duce. But they managed to get along and even love each other in spite of having been on different sides of a world war.



    Now, I’ll get to my point. I don’t think the War on Dissent is being led by Leftists. The ruling class is not leftist in any meaningful way and neither is the mainstream media or the Democratic Party that it controls. Rather, the War on Dissent is being waged by an oligarchic ruling class that employs and promotes identity politics as a strategy of tension to divide and conquer. The Antifa of today are at best useful idiots who are being used to crush dissent for their oligarchic masters.

    Look at those who are the targets of slanderous political campaigns. It isn’t just figures on the dissident Right, but also figures on the dissident Left. Take Mr. Corbyn who has risen to leadership in the British Labour Party. He is being tarred and feathered as an “anti-Semite” by both the Tories and the Blairite establishment of his own party as a way of intimidating genuine socialist and anti-war voices. Take Mr. Sanders. He is a genuine lefty, who was largely ignored by the mainstream media and had his campaign sabotaged by the Clintonista establishment of the Democratic Party. It was Clinton, a clear tool of the oligarchy, who made the appeals to identity politics, not Mr. Sanders.

    What is going on? There was a time when the Democrats in the US and the social democratic parties in Europe had a base within the working class. We can recall the New Deal coalition that formed in the wake of the Great Depression and that seemed to last until the takeover of the Party by the Clintons. The Democrats relied for much of the mid-20th century on organized labor for their support. However, as globalization took hold and capital became increasingly mobile, unions virtually disappeared from the US and were weakened throughout the western world. In other words, the working class base of the center-left parties withered away, and these parties became increasingly beholden to corporate money to stay afloat. They were increasingly taken over by the oligarchy.

    But, in order to remain relevant, these parties needed a message, and one that was acceptable to their oligarchic masters. Enter the era of identity politics. The message of the center-left parties became one of pitting women against men, gays against straights, brown against white, migrant against native, all positions that pose no threat to the oligarchy and in fact enhance its power by dividing people against each other.

    The events in Charlottesville gave the ruling class a way to up its strategy of tension and increase the focus around issues of identity. It allowed it to up the rhetoric against the “white working class” that had come out in favor of Trump. Of course, the working class doesn’t just consist of whites, but in its incessant association of the working class with whites the ruling class is able to turn what are issues of class into issues of race.

    Furthermore, it was after that day in August that the social media companies began their mass censorship against all voices of dissent. Witness the banning of Mr. Blumenthal’s interview with Abby Martin on the situation in Palestine. Both are clearly voices of the Left, but even they are being shut down in the name of fighting “hate speech.” Witness the shutting down of pro-Palestinian voices on college campuses. Of course, the Right is getting it too. By sending Antifa to harass the American Renaissance conference, the ruling class is making it clear that no deviation from official narratives will be tolerated. The prosecution and conviction of Mr. Goodwin is an attempt to make an example of a dissident who couldn’t be intimidated by politically correct talking points. The tolerance of the violence committed by Antifa is not because they are a force of the genuine Left, but because they can be used to intimidate those who are challenging the anti-white identity politics that are used to divide the population.

    We are living in very dangerous times. With the ever rising tensions between the West and Russia, there is the need for a strong anti-war movement more than ever before. But much of the Left has, wittingly or unwittingly, been brought around to focusing on meaningless issues, like bathroom politics, and will refuse to unite with anti-war Rightists over the most trivial of issues. I will repeat: the ruling class is not leftist. It is laughing its ass off at the insanity that has taken over the Left and made it a pawn of the oligarchy.

    At the age of 18, shortly after 9/11, I joined a far-left socialist group and began participating in anti-war activism. I can say that in all the peace groups that I participated in, the Left was overwhelmingly dominant, and I don’t recall ever coming across a substantial Rightist anti-war faction. Yet, today, it seems that many of the most eloquent voices against war are from the dissident Right, with much of the so-called Left supporting or ambivalent to the wars in the Middle East.

    As I have noted elsewhere here, there is nothing strange about that. In the 2001-7 period anti-war activism was dominated by the left because there was a Republican president in office, just as I recall it was most dynamic on the right in the Clinton years when I was opposing the Kosovo war. I remember that many of those I regarded as reliable anti-war voices in that time suddenly disappeared when Bush II came into office and waged wars of his own. Likewise, when Obama took over the war-waging from Bush II, the voices on the left were largely stilled, and there was some resurgence of anti-war opinion on the right. People tend to be left or right in their political loyalty first, and anti-war only afterwards (though many of them in my experience would loudly claim otherwise until push came to partisan shove). Those such as you and I, who oppose wars of choice regardless of which side of the political divide is waging and rationalising them, are relatively rare, I think.

    The Trump era is too recent and too confused to judge so far, I think.

    [MORE]

    However, I disagree with the author’s characterization that this war is being directed by an “alliance between Leftist government and Leftist mobs.” As a former leftist, I must say that I hardly recognize what the author calls the “Left” today. Now, I am not comparing today’s “Left” to the Left of the 1960s. I am comparing it to the Left of just 15 years ago.

    The whole concept of left and right is inherently misleading, squashing a multidimensional political range into a convenient one dimensional framework, so all these discussions utilising the terms are fraught with inaccuracies and approximations. Nevertheless, I get the impression as an old leftist you are taking for granted or evading the consequences of the many victories your side has won, and emphasizing only the few (but perhaps important for you) defeats. As a long-standing conservative I have watched these endless defeats roll by. The suppose victories for the right, meantime, have been merely victories for the ruling elites misrepresented as conservative by the establishment elites running the “conservative” parties – tax cuts presented as rolling back government but actually fuelling debt and enriching elites, “free trade” and “freedom of movement” that merely mean mass immigration and offshoring.

    The left is not and never was just the relatively wholesome socialism of what is now the “old left” and which seems to be where your loyalties lie. The left also always included the anti-racist minority identity lobbyists who have won out almost completely, whom you now refuse to recognise as of the left because you don’t like what they have become. The left also always included the radical feminists and the homosexual lobbies that sought to break down gender roles and the family and normalise homosexual activity, who also won almost all their battles and again whom you decline to accept now as part of your left because presumably you don’t like what they have become. The left also always included the internationalist, antipatriotic left that gave rise to mass immigration, in cynical collaboration with big business just as the fake conservatives collaborated with big business to enable it.

    Our societies now, as compared with those of the late C19th/early C20th, represent the triumph of all of the main threads of old school leftism, save only for the loyalty and solidarity with the indigenous working class that was the left’s only redeeming feature. That aspect was abandoned by the more ideological or self-serving figures on the left as the price of winning power, and all the battles described above, in conjunction with the elites who profited by them all, and feared only the costs that a triumph of old leftism would have imposed upon them.

    Now, I’ll get to my point. I don’t think the War on Dissent is being led by Leftists. The ruling class is not leftist in any meaningful way and neither is the mainstream media or the Democratic Party that it controls

    The ruling class (inasmuch as such a Marxist construct has any general meaning) most certainly is leftist in every sense except that old left sense I mentioned above. It is leftist in its pushing of antiracism as a dogma, that originated on the left before it became received opinion throughout the ruling elite. It is leftist in its pushing of feminism and gender issues and the normalisation of homosexual behaviour – all of them stemming from the concerns of the left, and now established by their victory throughout our elites. It is leftist in its pushing of anti-patriotic internationalism and mass immigration – stemming directly from the longstanding internationalist ideology of the left (though in this it aligns as I noted above with elements of the right that share the same ends though rationalising them differently).

    For sure the various members of the ruling elites are also self-interested, and are not entirely politically homogenous. But by and large they, like their enablers – the politicians, the editors, the journalists, the academics, the businessmen, all the gatekeepers of opinion, and most of the big businessmen who live in the same society and have absorbed the same indoctrinations – mostly share all the dogmas of the politically correct left, except the few who are motivated by particular personal obsessions, usually identity lobby related. That’s why expressing views that dissent from these politically correct (and quintessentially leftist) concerns is now so dangerous to the careers and livelihoods of people in these positions unless they are actually wealthy and connected enough to have some independent stature.

    The left has moved on no doubt from what you supported as a youth, but the fact that it has developed in ways you do not like does not mean those developments are not attributable, in large part, to aspects of the left that were assuredly there all along. The proof of the pudding is in the eating – compared to our nations in your youth, we are not now nations of small government, of Christian piety, of chaste obedience and moral probity in sexual relations, of patriotic unity – the concerns of the political right. On the contrary, we are nations that reflect the aforementioned triumphs of the left – the suppression of religion, the promotion of sexual perversion and marital decline, the breakdown of national authority and of all the structures of established authority and order.

    Look at those who are the targets of slanderous political campaigns. It isn’t just figures on the dissident Right, but also figures on the dissident Left.

    Leftist opinions per se are not targeted in general for suppression, and nor are leftist acivists threatened with violence or imprisonment, except where they fall foul of particular powerful identity lobbies – in particular of course the jewish/Israeli lobby that targets Corbyn (and many others, including increasingly being behind actual prosecutions for crimespeech in the UK). It is those who express opinions on the right – nationalist, patriotic and white identity positions in resistance to the anti-white racism that is antiracism, disapproval of homosexual behaviour, opposition to mass immigration – who face actual systematic suppression.

    My group was even open to debate with those who opposed its positions. I recall seeing not too long ago a YouTube video of a debate between George Galloway and the late Christopher Hitchens, with the latter representing the case for war in Iraq and the former opposing. As I looked closely, I realized from the banners and signs on the stage, that the debate was hosted by my former socialist group. This willingness to contend with your opponents’ ideas seems to be totally gone from today’s so-called Left.

    It’s telling that you reference here a debate between a leftist and another leftist (albeit of a neoconnish pro-war variety). Disagreement within the bounds of leftist political correctness has always been allowed by the left and still is, though the boundaries obviously have shifted. I suspect your group would probably not have all quietly sat through a debate between Hitchens and, say, Pat Buchanan on the Iraq war.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mario Partisan
    Thank you for taking the time to respond in a thoughtful and respectful manner. I’ve been thinking about how to respond to you, and I must confess that it hasn’t been easy crafting a response because in some ways I agree with what you say. At the risk of splitting hairs over semantics, I think the issue for me is what qualifies as genuine Left versus fake “Left.”

    Our societies now, as compared with those of the late C19th/early C20th, represent the triumph of all of the main threads of old school leftism, save only for the loyalty and solidarity with the indigenous working class that was the left’s only redeeming feature. That aspect was abandoned by the more ideological or self-serving figures on the left as the price of winning power, and all the battles described above, in conjunction with the elites who profited by them all, and feared only the costs that a triumph of old leftism would have imposed upon them.

     

    In simple terms, for me, the Left is characterized by two basic positions: pro-worker and pro-peace. Any politician, intellectual, or public figure who abandons these positions has ceased to be on the Left, regardless of what other positions they take. What you call the “old left” is in my opinion the only genuine Left, and the New Left is, in large part, a fraud.

    The left also always included the anti-racist minority identity lobbyists who have won out almost completely, whom you now refuse to recognise as of the left because you don’t like what they have become. The left also always included the radical feminists and the homosexual lobbies that sought to break down gender roles and the family… The left also always included the internationalist, antipatriotic left that gave rise to mass immigration, in cynical collaboration with big business…

     

    To some extent I think you are correct. Being very familiar with the Manifesto, I recall the line: “Abolition of the family! Even the most radical flare up at this infamous proposal of the Communists.” But this statement should be considered in context. Before and after writing it, Marx makes it clear that it is capitalism that has made the family virtually non-existent among the working class as it made all members of the family, including children, instruments of labor. Furthermore, I’ve read that Marx was quite worried that the nascent “women’s movement” of his day would divert attention away from the central issue of class. Aside from the quote above, I don’t recall ever coming across “radical feminist” or “homosexual” ideology in my reading of Marx, Lenin, or Trotsky. Radical feminism and the like seem to me to be post-1960s phenomena.



    Similarly, I don’t associate “anti-racist minority identity lobbyists” with any of the central figures of the traditional Left. Yes, they may have advocated racial equality, but nowhere were they anti-white and demanding of special minority treatment like today’s “Left.” To be sure, I believe Marx even advocated for the US in its war against Mexico. He saw the capitalist US as much more progressive than semi-feudal Mexico and saw the takeover of the western lands by the US as moving the “locomotive of history” forward.

    Yes, the Left has always been more or less internationalist. You are right about that. But its internationalism stemmed from its socialist and anti-war concerns. Recognizing that capitalism had created a world economy characterized by the “universal inter-dependence of nations” the Left saw proletarian internationalism as the only way forward. Internationalism became even more pronounced on the Left following the horrors of the Great War, in which millions of workers perished at the hands of other workers. I don’t think the old Left ever sought to reduce workers’ wages through mass immigration, “in collaboration with big business”

    I think it comes down to this: what is central to the Left, versus what is peripheral. It seems to me that the modern “Left” has abandoned all of the central, pro-worker/pro-peace, concerns of the “old left” and has brought to the forefront everything that was peripheral, divorced from its original context. The modern Left is the old Left flipped on its head.

    As I explained above, the elites have adopted “leftist” talking points, completely divorced from their original contexts, only to the extent that these can be used to divide people and forestall a real pro-worker/pro-peace movement. Where the rallying cry of the old Left was “workers of the world, unite!” the message of modern “Left” is “attack the white, cis-gender, heterosexual males!” The latter is a message of division promoted by a corrupt elite for its own, ultimately anti-Leftist, ends.

    And just so you don’t misunderstand where I am coming from, let me say that I recognize the costs of mass immigration, consider myself a race realist (not a racist), believe in innate differences between the two genders, and have never advocated for central planning. In fact, I have studied neo-classical economics in depth, and have always advocated for the importance of markets to any well-functioning economy, capitalist or socialist. Winston Churchill once said, “If you are not a socialist at 18, you have no heart; if you are a socialist at 40, you have no brain.” Well, I have both a heart and a brain; my heart is still on the Left, my brain not so much. We may not agree on everything, but it makes me happy to know that a “long-standing conservative” like you is opposed to wars of choice on principle. I would have no problem marching with you against the next stupid war. Cheers.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  52. FKA Max says: • Website

    DeAndre Harris, you may recall, was caught on video wielding a flashlight against a demonstrator. It was this action, following an attempt by one of Harris’ allies to seize an elderly demonstrator’s Confederate Battle Flag, that video proves sparked the entire brawl. Nonetheless, as in the case of demonstrators arrested during the Inauguration Day riots, judicial sabotage meant that Harris walked free.

    I am absolutely sickened by the following dishonest WaPo piece, and the blatant lies (my emphasis) spread by “Deep State” pet Ian “enjoys writing about people who have served in the military and intelligence communities” Shapira:

    Ian Shapira is a features writer on the local enterprise team and enjoys writing about people who have served in the military and intelligence communities. He has covered education, criminal justice, technology and art crime.

    Dad sitting ​in the pews of Adas Israel Congregation, holding Margot.https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/parenting/wp/2014/06/11/my-dad-died-one-month-before-my-daughter-was-born-here-is-how-my-family-honors-him/

    A membership survey in 1965 revealed that Adas Israel had 1,132 families with 478 children enrolled in its school. Many of the Washington area’s prominent Jews were among the synagogue’s members. That remains true today, as does Adas Israel’s status as the capital city’s largest Conservative congregation. Today Adas Israel has 1,450 households as members, with 350 children enrolled in the religious school and 200 in the nursery school.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adas_Israel_Congregation_(Washington,_D.C.)#Congregants

    White supremacist is guilty in Charlottesville parking garage beating of black man

    Just before Harris ran into the garage shortly after 11 a.m. that day, he was standing at its entrance. He saw a fellow counterprotester being speared in the abdomen with a flagpole by Harold Crews, the North Carolina state chairman of the white-nationalist group League of the South. To protect his friend, Harris swung a flashlight, trying to knock the flagpole away.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/white-supremacist-is-guilty-in-charlottesville-parking-garage-beating-of-black-man/2018/05/01/033396b4-4af9-11e8-8b5a-3b1697adcc2a_story.html

    The DeAndre Harris Race Hoax Exposed

    I contacted The Daily Progress and NBC 29 about the video. I sent it to detectives at the Charlottesville Police Department. I told the Associated Press what really happened in Charlottesville. I played the video in person on my smartphone for a news crew from Atlanta that was interviewing me about the arrest of Alex Michael Ramos. We bombarded reporters with the video of DeAndre Harris attacking with the mag lite on Twitter. No one was interested in investigating or reporting the truth.
    [...]
    Meanwhile, DeAndre Harris who started the huge fight in the parking garage was living it up while Borden and Ramos were held in jail without bail. With the help of Shaun King, he raised over $166,000 through GoFundMe by duping White liberals with guilty consciences into sending him money to pay for his medical bills. It appears he used the money from the melee that he had started to purchase a Mercedes Benz and a $2,000 pair of Nike Air Jordan Retros which he featured in his rap videos:

    http://www.occidentaldissent.com/2017/10/10/deandre-harris-race-hoax-exposed/

    Flight – Slippin’ | Shot By ILMG

    IvyLeagueMusicGroup
    Published on Sep 25, 2017

    Harold Crews’s injury from Harris’s MagLite attack:

    Source: http://restoringthehonor.blogspot.com/2017/09/jason-kessler-claims-deandre-harris-to.html Archived link: http://archive.is/ApMpx

    The Truth About DeAndre Harris

    What an absolute disgrace these people are! No respect for the Truth!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  53. @scumbag billy
    What happened in Charlottesville should have been easily predicted: black police chief, liberal mayor/governor.
    That the Media would blame any violence on the Right is to be expected.

    My thing was this: Why march? Is that how to really help struggling whites who are unemployed/underemployed/ lack skills/dealing with personal problems and are otherwise not successfully navigating life and forming families with at least 2 children?

    If the whites want to help whites, I think a white antipoverty group that helped struggling whites with real advice, perhaps even apprenticeships, social organizations-that-lead-to-personal-friendships, and the like would be a better way to coalesce around their identity than to march around old statues so the left can send out a a few crisis actors in swastika-regalia to discredit them/use as an excuse to physically attack them.

    Organized letter-writing/telephone campaigns to elected representatives/newspapers would do more to defend those statues than marching around them with bad optics.

    My thing was this: Why march? Is that how to really help struggling whites who are unemployed/underemployed/ lack skills/dealing with personal problems and are otherwise not successfully navigating life and forming families with at least 2 children?

    Exactly. What coterie of ignorant jackasses is running this “alt-right” operation? How STUPID can any group be that fields “demonstrators” flying Confederate flags and swastikas, and marches through a mostly-black southern town? What committee of retards thought THAT one up?

    The “alt-right” is so lame, so defective, so ideologically dysfunctional, it must be a false-flag operation generated by the Antifa themselves. It’s the best explanation.

    It defies belief. How could any organized, intelligent, structured, reasoned set of premises come up with pure CRAP like that as a “demonstration of unity”?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  54. FKA Max says: • Website
    @Mario Partisan
    First, let me say that I have no objection to the general thrust of this article. I agree that the post-Charlottesville arrests and convictions are politically motivated witch hunts. I agree that there is, in the words of C.J. Hopkins, a War on Dissent going on in the US and throughout the West, and that much of that war is directed against the dissident Right.

    However, I disagree with the author’s characterization that this war is being directed by an “alliance between Leftist government and Leftist mobs.” As a former leftist, I must say that I hardly recognize what the author calls the “Left” today. Now, I am not comparing today’s “Left” to the Left of the 1960s. I am comparing it to the Left of just 15 years ago.

    At the age of 18, shortly after 9/11, I joined a far-left socialist group and began participating in anti-war activism. I can say that in all the peace groups that I participated in, the Left was overwhelmingly dominant, and I don’t recall ever coming across a substantial Rightist anti-war faction. Yet, today, it seems that many of the most eloquent voices against war are from the dissident Right, with much of the so-called Left supporting or ambivalent to the wars in the Middle East.

    The socialist group that I was a member of was not steeped in the shallow identity politics that seem to be the obsession today’s “Left.” In fact, the group’s publications would occasionally touch on the dangers of identity politics as harmful to class consciousness and solidarity. Yes, the group was “anti-racist” and pro-gay marriage, but these were not the central focus of the group’s message or activities.

    My group was even open to debate with those who opposed its positions. I recall seeing not too long ago a YouTube video of a debate between George Galloway and the late Christopher Hitchens, with the latter representing the case for war in Iraq and the former opposing. As I looked closely, I realized from the banners and signs on the stage, that the debate was hosted by my former socialist group. This willingness to contend with your opponents’ ideas seems to be totally gone from today’s so-called Left.

    Looking back even further, I think about my own family. My dad is from northern Italy and I am the first generation of his side of the family to be born in the US. My dad’s uncles were all genuine Leftists, affiliated with the now-defunct PCI, and genuine Antifascists who took up arms against the German occupation forces. I am pretty sure they would be rolling over in their graves if they knew the state of the “Left” today, with its anti-white identity politics, its gender-bending obsessions, etc. Furthermore, as much as they may have disagreed with their ideological opponents, they were willing to engage in debate. My grandfather never saw eye to eye with his leftist brothers and was a life-long supporter of the Duce. But they managed to get along and even love each other in spite of having been on different sides of a world war.



    Now, I’ll get to my point. I don’t think the War on Dissent is being led by Leftists. The ruling class is not leftist in any meaningful way and neither is the mainstream media or the Democratic Party that it controls. Rather, the War on Dissent is being waged by an oligarchic ruling class that employs and promotes identity politics as a strategy of tension to divide and conquer. The Antifa of today are at best useful idiots who are being used to crush dissent for their oligarchic masters.

    Look at those who are the targets of slanderous political campaigns. It isn’t just figures on the dissident Right, but also figures on the dissident Left. Take Mr. Corbyn who has risen to leadership in the British Labour Party. He is being tarred and feathered as an “anti-Semite” by both the Tories and the Blairite establishment of his own party as a way of intimidating genuine socialist and anti-war voices. Take Mr. Sanders. He is a genuine lefty, who was largely ignored by the mainstream media and had his campaign sabotaged by the Clintonista establishment of the Democratic Party. It was Clinton, a clear tool of the oligarchy, who made the appeals to identity politics, not Mr. Sanders.

    What is going on? There was a time when the Democrats in the US and the social democratic parties in Europe had a base within the working class. We can recall the New Deal coalition that formed in the wake of the Great Depression and that seemed to last until the takeover of the Party by the Clintons. The Democrats relied for much of the mid-20th century on organized labor for their support. However, as globalization took hold and capital became increasingly mobile, unions virtually disappeared from the US and were weakened throughout the western world. In other words, the working class base of the center-left parties withered away, and these parties became increasingly beholden to corporate money to stay afloat. They were increasingly taken over by the oligarchy.

    But, in order to remain relevant, these parties needed a message, and one that was acceptable to their oligarchic masters. Enter the era of identity politics. The message of the center-left parties became one of pitting women against men, gays against straights, brown against white, migrant against native, all positions that pose no threat to the oligarchy and in fact enhance its power by dividing people against each other.

    The events in Charlottesville gave the ruling class a way to up its strategy of tension and increase the focus around issues of identity. It allowed it to up the rhetoric against the “white working class” that had come out in favor of Trump. Of course, the working class doesn’t just consist of whites, but in its incessant association of the working class with whites the ruling class is able to turn what are issues of class into issues of race.

    Furthermore, it was after that day in August that the social media companies began their mass censorship against all voices of dissent. Witness the banning of Mr. Blumenthal’s interview with Abby Martin on the situation in Palestine. Both are clearly voices of the Left, but even they are being shut down in the name of fighting “hate speech.” Witness the shutting down of pro-Palestinian voices on college campuses. Of course, the Right is getting it too. By sending Antifa to harass the American Renaissance conference, the ruling class is making it clear that no deviation from official narratives will be tolerated. The prosecution and conviction of Mr. Goodwin is an attempt to make an example of a dissident who couldn’t be intimidated by politically correct talking points. The tolerance of the violence committed by Antifa is not because they are a force of the genuine Left, but because they can be used to intimidate those who are challenging the anti-white identity politics that are used to divide the population.

    We are living in very dangerous times. With the ever rising tensions between the West and Russia, there is the need for a strong anti-war movement more than ever before. But much of the Left has, wittingly or unwittingly, been brought around to focusing on meaningless issues, like bathroom politics, and will refuse to unite with anti-war Rightists over the most trivial of issues. I will repeat: the ruling class is not leftist. It is laughing its ass off at the insanity that has taken over the Left and made it a pawn of the oligarchy.

    Fitting videos:

    Christopher Hitchens talks about Tucker Carlson

    Giving Up Marxism – Christopher Hitchens

    Source: http://www.unz.com/tsaker/is-communism-really-dead/#comment-2045037

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  55. Crimson2 says:

    Some real involved conspiracy theories here, but the problem is the Nazi patrol kicked and beat a dude on the ground. “But he started it” isn’t a defense.
    Maybe you should do something valuable with your lives instead of following garbage ideas towards an unattainable dream. The white race is doing pretty well. You guys, however…

    Read More
    • Troll: AndrewR
    • Replies: @wj
    I am sorry that you have to work for white people.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  56. anon[183] • Disclaimer says:
    @Bennis Mardens
    Oh bullshit.
    99% of the Charlottesville attendees were basic bitch Trump supporters and they were there to preserve our heritage.
    Spencer and Co. had legal permits.
    The local government conspired with law enforcement to encourage the violence, KNOWING that Antifa was there to do violence, period.
    It was a setup.
    Furthermore, even without Confederate flags and swastikas, every white man is labeled a naziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews. The outer trappings don't matter. All that matter is the color of the skin, if the skin is white.
    The optics discussion is an excuse to blame the victims of the Charlottesville Clusterfuck.
    Jacob Goodwin is getting the shaft and it's a tragedy.
    The hostile tribe that rules over us has now declared total WAR on our people. We are not allowed to assemble, we are not allowed to speak out, while Antifa SCUM is allowed to assault us without consequence.
    How long can this go on?

    It can go on as long as the vast majority of [white] Americans remain repulsed by the idea of pro-white identity politics. It doesn’t help that so many pro-white people and activists in particular are so highly flawed and in many cases toxic.

    I especially am repulsed by how strong the anti-LGBT sentiment is among so many pro-white folks. I’m not talking about opposition to the mainstream LGBT agenda and the overall degeneracy prevalent among LGBT today. I’m talking about the sentiment that LGBT people don’t belong in the pro-white movement at all, or even more toxic beliefs including the advocacy of violence against sexual minorities.

    LGBT people have always and will always exist. Forcing them into the closet and/or into sham marriages isn’t good for anyone. The degeneracy associated with the LGBT community today is not inherent to LGBT people. Society in general has become extremely degenerate. Heterosexual promiscuity and degeneracy has long been the norm. LGBT people may take it a bit further but this could be interpreted as an understandable backlash against the unreasonable repression to which they were subject for so long.

    Ideally, pro-white LGBT people could spend their money, time and energy on pro-white efforts other than the most important pro-white effort: creating and parenting white children.

    But by taking an explicitly anti-LGBT stance, foolish pro-white advocates are depriving the movement of an important subset of the white population, and to some extent driving that subset further into the arms of the anti-white left.

    Pro-white advocates need to decide what their top priority is: hating homos, or advancing the rights and interests of whites.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Miro23

    Ideally, pro-white LGBT people could spend their money, time and energy on pro-white efforts other than the most important pro-white effort: creating and parenting white children.
     
    I think that there's some confusion here.

    Jewish activists/Progressives are hard at work creating antagonistic "victim" classes out of the US population. They spread dissent and entrench their power while demonizing the "Deplorable" whites.

    "America First" is just the opposite. It's a more inclusive idea, that Trump got it right in the election. For him, Blacks, Latinos and LGBT could also be America First and they were welcome. This means Blacks rejecting BLM, Latinos rejecting La Raza (and open borders) and LGBTs accepting to not to make an issue of their sexuality. In other words it brings people together. Blacks can't help being Black, but it doesn't stop them choosing to have a positive America First attitude.

    This line has a chance of success unlike White Nation ideas. That bus is long gone, and the US is inevitably going to have a large ethnic Black and Latino element - the issue is to bring these parts together and integrate them into a new "America First" nation.

    And it's clear that Progressives absolutely hate America First because 1) it puts their Marxist style "class analysis" in the garbage along with their "cultural leadership" 2) it puts the spotlight on US Zionists who by definition aren't America First.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  57. Hey, have you been keeping track, do you have these guys’ addresses?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  58. Miro23 says:
    @anon
    It can go on as long as the vast majority of [white] Americans remain repulsed by the idea of pro-white identity politics. It doesn't help that so many pro-white people and activists in particular are so highly flawed and in many cases toxic.


    I especially am repulsed by how strong the anti-LGBT sentiment is among so many pro-white folks. I'm not talking about opposition to the mainstream LGBT agenda and the overall degeneracy prevalent among LGBT today. I'm talking about the sentiment that LGBT people don't belong in the pro-white movement at all, or even more toxic beliefs including the advocacy of violence against sexual minorities.

    LGBT people have always and will always exist. Forcing them into the closet and/or into sham marriages isn't good for anyone. The degeneracy associated with the LGBT community today is not inherent to LGBT people. Society in general has become extremely degenerate. Heterosexual promiscuity and degeneracy has long been the norm. LGBT people may take it a bit further but this could be interpreted as an understandable backlash against the unreasonable repression to which they were subject for so long.

    Ideally, pro-white LGBT people could spend their money, time and energy on pro-white efforts other than the most important pro-white effort: creating and parenting white children.

    But by taking an explicitly anti-LGBT stance, foolish pro-white advocates are depriving the movement of an important subset of the white population, and to some extent driving that subset further into the arms of the anti-white left.

    Pro-white advocates need to decide what their top priority is: hating homos, or advancing the rights and interests of whites.

    Ideally, pro-white LGBT people could spend their money, time and energy on pro-white efforts other than the most important pro-white effort: creating and parenting white children.

    I think that there’s some confusion here.

    Jewish activists/Progressives are hard at work creating antagonistic “victim” classes out of the US population. They spread dissent and entrench their power while demonizing the “Deplorable” whites.

    “America First” is just the opposite. It’s a more inclusive idea, that Trump got it right in the election. For him, Blacks, Latinos and LGBT could also be America First and they were welcome. This means Blacks rejecting BLM, Latinos rejecting La Raza (and open borders) and LGBTs accepting to not to make an issue of their sexuality. In other words it brings people together. Blacks can’t help being Black, but it doesn’t stop them choosing to have a positive America First attitude.

    This line has a chance of success unlike White Nation ideas. That bus is long gone, and the US is inevitably going to have a large ethnic Black and Latino element – the issue is to bring these parts together and integrate them into a new “America First” nation.

    And it’s clear that Progressives absolutely hate America First because 1) it puts their Marxist style “class analysis” in the garbage along with their “cultural leadership” 2) it puts the spotlight on US Zionists who by definition aren’t America First.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  59. It’s interesting how the Alt Right is seen as so horrible that all rules of fair play and due process go out the window when dealing with them. Current politics are defined by a single concept: racism. If you embrace racism you are more evil than which nothing can be conceived, to paraphrase Saint Anselm.

    I recall the student radicals of the late 60s waving Vietcong flags and “carrying pictures of Chairman Mao” as the song goes. The most prominent groups openly advocated violent revolution yet nobody called for them to be censored except a few YAFfers. The police were suspected of bending the law now and then to give them a hard time but nothing like today, when there seems to be a positive duty, a pride in vigilante brutality against the Alt Right. Faced with crowds willing to assault them and cops willing to flagrantly abuse their rights they seem to have withdrawn in shock. Meanwhile they have been largely chased from the internet and social media and their speaking engagements are too dangerous to attend for all but the most intrepid.

    The left is always seen as well-meaning while the right is always seen as uncaring at best and Satanic at worst. The right has done a very poor job of vilifying the left, largely because the most prominent people on the right have tended to be Jewish neoconservatives with family relatives on the left. Who wants to vilify their own parents? The history of Communism is ugly. Conservatives could still tarnish the left’s image if they put some thought into it, but I won’t hold my breath waiting for that to happen. Keeping the internet available will help.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  60. Tyrion 2 says:

    Honestly, I’m not exactly the biggest fan of people who march around carrying swastikas or who dispute the holocaust even while glorifying in it, and I must add that very obviously neither are politically adept moves, but it is clear that the disgusting treatment meted out to ‘Charlottesville survivors’ violates the basic norms of American civil society and organisations like the ACLU, if they are to mean anything, need to immediately begin to work to secure justice for those involved.

    My advice to all of you is to contact as many civil right type organisations as you can. Including those reserved for other ethnicities. Many people who disagree with you really do work from a position of good faith and if they say they support your civil rights in theory then they often really will support your civil rights in theory. Turning that into practicality is a matter of polite persistence on your behalf. Keep in mind that such an intervention may come at significant cost to them, so be pleasant and appreciative. No one wants to work for rude people.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  61. David says:
    @manorchurch

    But it seems you both use the word (in different forms) to mean initiate or institute, when every reference book I have says it means to provide and instance of.
     
    Instantiate means to establish an instance (of) (something).

    I worked for many years as a programmer, where "instantiate" and "instantiation" are in fairly common use.

    Your mileage may vary.

    No big deal, but it can’t mean what you say in this sentence: “Which has been the cross born by the alt-right from instantiation: obsessive, dedicated, monomaniacal stupidity.” I suppose you meant to say something like, “the alt-right is an instantiation of obsessive, dedicated, monomaniacal stupidity.”

    http://www.dictionary.com/browse/instantiation

    Read More
    • Replies: @manorchurch
    Well, yes it can mean what I said in that sentence. Can, and does.

    Just FYI, do you think for one minute you're fooling me? You could have just written something amusing, or mildly entertaining. However, you think you're being clever, which is okay, and not offensive, and not interesting, yanno? But, twice? Whatever for? You're Ignored.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  62. @David
    No big deal, but it can't mean what you say in this sentence: "Which has been the cross born by the alt-right from instantiation: obsessive, dedicated, monomaniacal stupidity." I suppose you meant to say something like, "the alt-right is an instantiation of obsessive, dedicated, monomaniacal stupidity."

    http://www.dictionary.com/browse/instantiation

    Well, yes it can mean what I said in that sentence. Can, and does.

    Just FYI, do you think for one minute you’re fooling me? You could have just written something amusing, or mildly entertaining. However, you think you’re being clever, which is okay, and not offensive, and not interesting, yanno? But, twice? Whatever for? You’re Ignored.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  63. @Randal

    At the age of 18, shortly after 9/11, I joined a far-left socialist group and began participating in anti-war activism. I can say that in all the peace groups that I participated in, the Left was overwhelmingly dominant, and I don’t recall ever coming across a substantial Rightist anti-war faction. Yet, today, it seems that many of the most eloquent voices against war are from the dissident Right, with much of the so-called Left supporting or ambivalent to the wars in the Middle East.
     
    As I have noted elsewhere here, there is nothing strange about that. In the 2001-7 period anti-war activism was dominated by the left because there was a Republican president in office, just as I recall it was most dynamic on the right in the Clinton years when I was opposing the Kosovo war. I remember that many of those I regarded as reliable anti-war voices in that time suddenly disappeared when Bush II came into office and waged wars of his own. Likewise, when Obama took over the war-waging from Bush II, the voices on the left were largely stilled, and there was some resurgence of anti-war opinion on the right. People tend to be left or right in their political loyalty first, and anti-war only afterwards (though many of them in my experience would loudly claim otherwise until push came to partisan shove). Those such as you and I, who oppose wars of choice regardless of which side of the political divide is waging and rationalising them, are relatively rare, I think.

    The Trump era is too recent and too confused to judge so far, I think.

    However, I disagree with the author’s characterization that this war is being directed by an “alliance between Leftist government and Leftist mobs.” As a former leftist, I must say that I hardly recognize what the author calls the “Left” today. Now, I am not comparing today’s “Left” to the Left of the 1960s. I am comparing it to the Left of just 15 years ago.
     
    The whole concept of left and right is inherently misleading, squashing a multidimensional political range into a convenient one dimensional framework, so all these discussions utilising the terms are fraught with inaccuracies and approximations. Nevertheless, I get the impression as an old leftist you are taking for granted or evading the consequences of the many victories your side has won, and emphasizing only the few (but perhaps important for you) defeats. As a long-standing conservative I have watched these endless defeats roll by. The suppose victories for the right, meantime, have been merely victories for the ruling elites misrepresented as conservative by the establishment elites running the "conservative" parties - tax cuts presented as rolling back government but actually fuelling debt and enriching elites, "free trade" and "freedom of movement" that merely mean mass immigration and offshoring.

    The left is not and never was just the relatively wholesome socialism of what is now the "old left" and which seems to be where your loyalties lie. The left also always included the anti-racist minority identity lobbyists who have won out almost completely, whom you now refuse to recognise as of the left because you don't like what they have become. The left also always included the radical feminists and the homosexual lobbies that sought to break down gender roles and the family and normalise homosexual activity, who also won almost all their battles and again whom you decline to accept now as part of your left because presumably you don't like what they have become. The left also always included the internationalist, antipatriotic left that gave rise to mass immigration, in cynical collaboration with big business just as the fake conservatives collaborated with big business to enable it.

    Our societies now, as compared with those of the late C19th/early C20th, represent the triumph of all of the main threads of old school leftism, save only for the loyalty and solidarity with the indigenous working class that was the left's only redeeming feature. That aspect was abandoned by the more ideological or self-serving figures on the left as the price of winning power, and all the battles described above, in conjunction with the elites who profited by them all, and feared only the costs that a triumph of old leftism would have imposed upon them.

    Now, I’ll get to my point. I don’t think the War on Dissent is being led by Leftists. The ruling class is not leftist in any meaningful way and neither is the mainstream media or the Democratic Party that it controls
     
    The ruling class (inasmuch as such a Marxist construct has any general meaning) most certainly is leftist in every sense except that old left sense I mentioned above. It is leftist in its pushing of antiracism as a dogma, that originated on the left before it became received opinion throughout the ruling elite. It is leftist in its pushing of feminism and gender issues and the normalisation of homosexual behaviour - all of them stemming from the concerns of the left, and now established by their victory throughout our elites. It is leftist in its pushing of anti-patriotic internationalism and mass immigration - stemming directly from the longstanding internationalist ideology of the left (though in this it aligns as I noted above with elements of the right that share the same ends though rationalising them differently).

    For sure the various members of the ruling elites are also self-interested, and are not entirely politically homogenous. But by and large they, like their enablers - the politicians, the editors, the journalists, the academics, the businessmen, all the gatekeepers of opinion, and most of the big businessmen who live in the same society and have absorbed the same indoctrinations - mostly share all the dogmas of the politically correct left, except the few who are motivated by particular personal obsessions, usually identity lobby related. That's why expressing views that dissent from these politically correct (and quintessentially leftist) concerns is now so dangerous to the careers and livelihoods of people in these positions unless they are actually wealthy and connected enough to have some independent stature.

    The left has moved on no doubt from what you supported as a youth, but the fact that it has developed in ways you do not like does not mean those developments are not attributable, in large part, to aspects of the left that were assuredly there all along. The proof of the pudding is in the eating - compared to our nations in your youth, we are not now nations of small government, of Christian piety, of chaste obedience and moral probity in sexual relations, of patriotic unity - the concerns of the political right. On the contrary, we are nations that reflect the aforementioned triumphs of the left - the suppression of religion, the promotion of sexual perversion and marital decline, the breakdown of national authority and of all the structures of established authority and order.

    Look at those who are the targets of slanderous political campaigns. It isn’t just figures on the dissident Right, but also figures on the dissident Left.
     
    Leftist opinions per se are not targeted in general for suppression, and nor are leftist acivists threatened with violence or imprisonment, except where they fall foul of particular powerful identity lobbies - in particular of course the jewish/Israeli lobby that targets Corbyn (and many others, including increasingly being behind actual prosecutions for crimespeech in the UK). It is those who express opinions on the right - nationalist, patriotic and white identity positions in resistance to the anti-white racism that is antiracism, disapproval of homosexual behaviour, opposition to mass immigration - who face actual systematic suppression.

    My group was even open to debate with those who opposed its positions. I recall seeing not too long ago a YouTube video of a debate between George Galloway and the late Christopher Hitchens, with the latter representing the case for war in Iraq and the former opposing. As I looked closely, I realized from the banners and signs on the stage, that the debate was hosted by my former socialist group. This willingness to contend with your opponents’ ideas seems to be totally gone from today’s so-called Left.
     
    It's telling that you reference here a debate between a leftist and another leftist (albeit of a neoconnish pro-war variety). Disagreement within the bounds of leftist political correctness has always been allowed by the left and still is, though the boundaries obviously have shifted. I suspect your group would probably not have all quietly sat through a debate between Hitchens and, say, Pat Buchanan on the Iraq war.

    Thank you for taking the time to respond in a thoughtful and respectful manner. I’ve been thinking about how to respond to you, and I must confess that it hasn’t been easy crafting a response because in some ways I agree with what you say. At the risk of splitting hairs over semantics, I think the issue for me is what qualifies as genuine Left versus fake “Left.”

    Our societies now, as compared with those of the late C19th/early C20th, represent the triumph of all of the main threads of old school leftism, save only for the loyalty and solidarity with the indigenous working class that was the left’s only redeeming feature. That aspect was abandoned by the more ideological or self-serving figures on the left as the price of winning power, and all the battles described above, in conjunction with the elites who profited by them all, and feared only the costs that a triumph of old leftism would have imposed upon them.

    In simple terms, for me, the Left is characterized by two basic positions: pro-worker and pro-peace. Any politician, intellectual, or public figure who abandons these positions has ceased to be on the Left, regardless of what other positions they take. What you call the “old left” is in my opinion the only genuine Left, and the New Left is, in large part, a fraud.

    The left also always included the anti-racist minority identity lobbyists who have won out almost completely, whom you now refuse to recognise as of the left because you don’t like what they have become. The left also always included the radical feminists and the homosexual lobbies that sought to break down gender roles and the family… The left also always included the internationalist, antipatriotic left that gave rise to mass immigration, in cynical collaboration with big business…

    To some extent I think you are correct. Being very familiar with the Manifesto, I recall the line: “Abolition of the family! Even the most radical flare up at this infamous proposal of the Communists.” But this statement should be considered in context. Before and after writing it, Marx makes it clear that it is capitalism that has made the family virtually non-existent among the working class as it made all members of the family, including children, instruments of labor. Furthermore, I’ve read that Marx was quite worried that the nascent “women’s movement” of his day would divert attention away from the central issue of class. Aside from the quote above, I don’t recall ever coming across “radical feminist” or “homosexual” ideology in my reading of Marx, Lenin, or Trotsky. Radical feminism and the like seem to me to be post-1960s phenomena.

    [MORE]

    Similarly, I don’t associate “anti-racist minority identity lobbyists” with any of the central figures of the traditional Left. Yes, they may have advocated racial equality, but nowhere were they anti-white and demanding of special minority treatment like today’s “Left.” To be sure, I believe Marx even advocated for the US in its war against Mexico. He saw the capitalist US as much more progressive than semi-feudal Mexico and saw the takeover of the western lands by the US as moving the “locomotive of history” forward.

    Yes, the Left has always been more or less internationalist. You are right about that. But its internationalism stemmed from its socialist and anti-war concerns. Recognizing that capitalism had created a world economy characterized by the “universal inter-dependence of nations” the Left saw proletarian internationalism as the only way forward. Internationalism became even more pronounced on the Left following the horrors of the Great War, in which millions of workers perished at the hands of other workers. I don’t think the old Left ever sought to reduce workers’ wages through mass immigration, “in collaboration with big business”

    I think it comes down to this: what is central to the Left, versus what is peripheral. It seems to me that the modern “Left” has abandoned all of the central, pro-worker/pro-peace, concerns of the “old left” and has brought to the forefront everything that was peripheral, divorced from its original context. The modern Left is the old Left flipped on its head.

    As I explained above, the elites have adopted “leftist” talking points, completely divorced from their original contexts, only to the extent that these can be used to divide people and forestall a real pro-worker/pro-peace movement. Where the rallying cry of the old Left was “workers of the world, unite!” the message of modern “Left” is “attack the white, cis-gender, heterosexual males!” The latter is a message of division promoted by a corrupt elite for its own, ultimately anti-Leftist, ends.

    And just so you don’t misunderstand where I am coming from, let me say that I recognize the costs of mass immigration, consider myself a race realist (not a racist), believe in innate differences between the two genders, and have never advocated for central planning. In fact, I have studied neo-classical economics in depth, and have always advocated for the importance of markets to any well-functioning economy, capitalist or socialist. Winston Churchill once said, “If you are not a socialist at 18, you have no heart; if you are a socialist at 40, you have no brain.” Well, I have both a heart and a brain; my heart is still on the Left, my brain not so much. We may not agree on everything, but it makes me happy to know that a “long-standing conservative” like you is opposed to wars of choice on principle. I would have no problem marching with you against the next stupid war. Cheers.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal

    Thank you for taking the time to respond in a thoughtful and respectful manner.
     
    You're absolutely welcome. You made an argument calmly and coherently that demanded such a reply.


    I’ve been thinking about how to respond to you, and I must confess that it hasn’t been easy crafting a response because in some ways I agree with what you say. At the risk of splitting hairs over semantics,
     
    For sure we are arguing over terminology, which means we should not get too excited over any disagreement. But terminology is important nonetheless.

    I think the issue for me is what qualifies as genuine Left versus fake “Left.”
     
    Having read and thought about your response, I agree with you that that is exactly what this is about. My impression is that in practice you restrict your idea of what counts as "genuine left" to Marxism and its derivations, with references to Marxist canon and prominent figures. This is why you restrict admittance to your category of genuine left to "pro-worker and pro-peace". [I'm not sure that a doctrine that is fundamentally revolutionary and whose advocates have made clear both in theory and in practice that such a revolution absolutely need not be non-violent can really claim to be honestly "pro-peace", but that's a difference for another time, perhaps - I accept that we are talking here about peace between states and that is the context in which you made the point.]

    But there was a left before there was a Marx, just as there was a radical feminism long before the 1960s, and although the left was largely subsumed into Marxism in the late C19th/early C20th, it was never completely so. Further, not all who called themselves Marxists necessarily agreed with you as to how to interpret that creed.

    We may not agree on everything, but it makes me happy to know that a “long-standing conservative” like you is opposed to wars of choice on principle.
     
    To some extent, perhaps, our disagreements have become subsumed over time with the emergence of common enemies of greater immediate concern. For my part, I'm happy these days to encounter an advocate of what I term the "old left" who is not on board with what I regard as the leftist/neocon establishment.

    It puts me in a tough spot with people like Jeremy Corbyn, who are opposed to the latter on some vital issues, including reluctance to endorse wars of choice, but who are absolutely on board with all the other issues of the left - mass immigration, suppression of free speech and opinion via the "hate speech" pretext, encouragement of homosexual behaviour, and the imposition of all the lies of political correctness: "there is no such thing as race", "there is no difference between men and women (except for the ways that women are better than men)", "homosexual behaviour is morally and practically equivalent to normal sexual behaviour", etc.

    If I really believed that a Corbyn victory would put an end to Britain's involvement in interventionist wars and policies, it might be worth supporting him despite the catastrophic reinforcement of all those positions of the left that Labour in office would enable. But in reality I have no doubt that if he were to win an election the very first day would see the Blairites that he still has infesting his Parliamentary party sabotaging any change of ending the interventionism that is so dear to their hearts and to their lobby loyalty, and if necessary they would get rid of Corbyn himself to protect it.

    I would have no problem marching with you against the next stupid war. Cheers.
     
    Cheers, and likewise.

    (Except that as a conservative I'm inherently disinclined to participating in demonstrations :-) Conservatives operate differently. The first and only demonstration I ever went on was the 2003 anti-war demo in London, "probably the largest protest march in UK history", and I persuaded my offspring to go along to bulk up the numbers (I say that to show that I was no adolescent at the time). The result - absolutely zip as far as affecting British government policy goes.

    Rather confirmed my scepticism.....)
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  64. KenH says:

    Here’s some good information on “malicious wounding” law in Virginia:

    https://www.davealbo.com/index.php/practice-areas/criminal-law/ask-the-arlington-fairfax-assault-lawyer-what-is-malicious-wounding-what-are-the-penalties/#3

    Sentencing guidelines for first time offender is 1.5 to 4 years. Maybe the judge will go easy on Goodwin, but the odds are against it based on what we’ve seen out of the Charlottesvill (in)justice system thus far. The state must prove malicious intent which should be almost impossible to prove, so the bar on proving intent must be pretty low and probably constituted by inflicting wounds on a victim that the state deems “malicious” even if the victim was the aggressor.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  65. Randal says:
    @Mario Partisan
    Thank you for taking the time to respond in a thoughtful and respectful manner. I’ve been thinking about how to respond to you, and I must confess that it hasn’t been easy crafting a response because in some ways I agree with what you say. At the risk of splitting hairs over semantics, I think the issue for me is what qualifies as genuine Left versus fake “Left.”

    Our societies now, as compared with those of the late C19th/early C20th, represent the triumph of all of the main threads of old school leftism, save only for the loyalty and solidarity with the indigenous working class that was the left’s only redeeming feature. That aspect was abandoned by the more ideological or self-serving figures on the left as the price of winning power, and all the battles described above, in conjunction with the elites who profited by them all, and feared only the costs that a triumph of old leftism would have imposed upon them.

     

    In simple terms, for me, the Left is characterized by two basic positions: pro-worker and pro-peace. Any politician, intellectual, or public figure who abandons these positions has ceased to be on the Left, regardless of what other positions they take. What you call the “old left” is in my opinion the only genuine Left, and the New Left is, in large part, a fraud.

    The left also always included the anti-racist minority identity lobbyists who have won out almost completely, whom you now refuse to recognise as of the left because you don’t like what they have become. The left also always included the radical feminists and the homosexual lobbies that sought to break down gender roles and the family… The left also always included the internationalist, antipatriotic left that gave rise to mass immigration, in cynical collaboration with big business…

     

    To some extent I think you are correct. Being very familiar with the Manifesto, I recall the line: “Abolition of the family! Even the most radical flare up at this infamous proposal of the Communists.” But this statement should be considered in context. Before and after writing it, Marx makes it clear that it is capitalism that has made the family virtually non-existent among the working class as it made all members of the family, including children, instruments of labor. Furthermore, I’ve read that Marx was quite worried that the nascent “women’s movement” of his day would divert attention away from the central issue of class. Aside from the quote above, I don’t recall ever coming across “radical feminist” or “homosexual” ideology in my reading of Marx, Lenin, or Trotsky. Radical feminism and the like seem to me to be post-1960s phenomena.



    Similarly, I don’t associate “anti-racist minority identity lobbyists” with any of the central figures of the traditional Left. Yes, they may have advocated racial equality, but nowhere were they anti-white and demanding of special minority treatment like today’s “Left.” To be sure, I believe Marx even advocated for the US in its war against Mexico. He saw the capitalist US as much more progressive than semi-feudal Mexico and saw the takeover of the western lands by the US as moving the “locomotive of history” forward.

    Yes, the Left has always been more or less internationalist. You are right about that. But its internationalism stemmed from its socialist and anti-war concerns. Recognizing that capitalism had created a world economy characterized by the “universal inter-dependence of nations” the Left saw proletarian internationalism as the only way forward. Internationalism became even more pronounced on the Left following the horrors of the Great War, in which millions of workers perished at the hands of other workers. I don’t think the old Left ever sought to reduce workers’ wages through mass immigration, “in collaboration with big business”

    I think it comes down to this: what is central to the Left, versus what is peripheral. It seems to me that the modern “Left” has abandoned all of the central, pro-worker/pro-peace, concerns of the “old left” and has brought to the forefront everything that was peripheral, divorced from its original context. The modern Left is the old Left flipped on its head.

    As I explained above, the elites have adopted “leftist” talking points, completely divorced from their original contexts, only to the extent that these can be used to divide people and forestall a real pro-worker/pro-peace movement. Where the rallying cry of the old Left was “workers of the world, unite!” the message of modern “Left” is “attack the white, cis-gender, heterosexual males!” The latter is a message of division promoted by a corrupt elite for its own, ultimately anti-Leftist, ends.

    And just so you don’t misunderstand where I am coming from, let me say that I recognize the costs of mass immigration, consider myself a race realist (not a racist), believe in innate differences between the two genders, and have never advocated for central planning. In fact, I have studied neo-classical economics in depth, and have always advocated for the importance of markets to any well-functioning economy, capitalist or socialist. Winston Churchill once said, “If you are not a socialist at 18, you have no heart; if you are a socialist at 40, you have no brain.” Well, I have both a heart and a brain; my heart is still on the Left, my brain not so much. We may not agree on everything, but it makes me happy to know that a “long-standing conservative” like you is opposed to wars of choice on principle. I would have no problem marching with you against the next stupid war. Cheers.

    Thank you for taking the time to respond in a thoughtful and respectful manner.

    You’re absolutely welcome. You made an argument calmly and coherently that demanded such a reply.

    I’ve been thinking about how to respond to you, and I must confess that it hasn’t been easy crafting a response because in some ways I agree with what you say. At the risk of splitting hairs over semantics,

    For sure we are arguing over terminology, which means we should not get too excited over any disagreement. But terminology is important nonetheless.

    I think the issue for me is what qualifies as genuine Left versus fake “Left.”

    Having read and thought about your response, I agree with you that that is exactly what this is about. My impression is that in practice you restrict your idea of what counts as “genuine left” to Marxism and its derivations, with references to Marxist canon and prominent figures. This is why you restrict admittance to your category of genuine left to “pro-worker and pro-peace“. [I'm not sure that a doctrine that is fundamentally revolutionary and whose advocates have made clear both in theory and in practice that such a revolution absolutely need not be non-violent can really claim to be honestly "pro-peace", but that's a difference for another time, perhaps - I accept that we are talking here about peace between states and that is the context in which you made the point.]

    But there was a left before there was a Marx, just as there was a radical feminism long before the 1960s, and although the left was largely subsumed into Marxism in the late C19th/early C20th, it was never completely so. Further, not all who called themselves Marxists necessarily agreed with you as to how to interpret that creed.

    We may not agree on everything, but it makes me happy to know that a “long-standing conservative” like you is opposed to wars of choice on principle.

    To some extent, perhaps, our disagreements have become subsumed over time with the emergence of common enemies of greater immediate concern. For my part, I’m happy these days to encounter an advocate of what I term the “old left” who is not on board with what I regard as the leftist/neocon establishment.

    It puts me in a tough spot with people like Jeremy Corbyn, who are opposed to the latter on some vital issues, including reluctance to endorse wars of choice, but who are absolutely on board with all the other issues of the left – mass immigration, suppression of free speech and opinion via the “hate speech” pretext, encouragement of homosexual behaviour, and the imposition of all the lies of political correctness: “there is no such thing as race”, “there is no difference between men and women (except for the ways that women are better than men)”, “homosexual behaviour is morally and practically equivalent to normal sexual behaviour”, etc.

    If I really believed that a Corbyn victory would put an end to Britain’s involvement in interventionist wars and policies, it might be worth supporting him despite the catastrophic reinforcement of all those positions of the left that Labour in office would enable. But in reality I have no doubt that if he were to win an election the very first day would see the Blairites that he still has infesting his Parliamentary party sabotaging any change of ending the interventionism that is so dear to their hearts and to their lobby loyalty, and if necessary they would get rid of Corbyn himself to protect it.

    I would have no problem marching with you against the next stupid war. Cheers.

    Cheers, and likewise.

    (Except that as a conservative I’m inherently disinclined to participating in demonstrations :-) Conservatives operate differently. The first and only demonstration I ever went on was the 2003 anti-war demo in London, “probably the largest protest march in UK history”, and I persuaded my offspring to go along to bulk up the numbers (I say that to show that I was no adolescent at the time). The result – absolutely zip as far as affecting British government policy goes.

    Rather confirmed my scepticism…..)

    Read More
    • Replies: @Tyrion 2

    If I really believed that a Corbyn victory would put an end to Britain’s involvement in interventionist wars and policies,
     
    Last time we were taken to the brink of a real intervention, it was Ed Miliband and backbench right wing Tory MPs who pulled us back.

    I don't think there is much danger of Anglo countries engaging in large scale military action anywhere. I don't think anyone really wants it, nor thinks we can afford it. They just like talking a big game.

    Syria was a close one but once Miliband shut it down, the government was embarrassed and the disaster that Libya is became obvious, that course of action was discredited. It will take another generation for real war to be an option.

    Admittedly, there are all sorts of 'secret' wars ongoing. Or rather, not 'secret' but just low risk and with mostly drones and special forces so they barely get reported on. This is as it has been for hundreds of years. They're not my idea of nationalistic representative government but they're not nefarious, nor, on balance, particularly harmful nor expensive. They aren't for regime change either, more to support allies to stop such change. Like very small scale versions of Putin's actions in Syria.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  66. @Saxon
    ~99% of these guys were wearing things like white polo shirts and carrying American flags. You are simply delusional if you think that the right "optics' will stop enemy-controlled mass media monopoly from simply lying.

    Also, the idea that wanting to live apart in our own countries with demographic security being a guarantee is "supremacy" is ludicrous. We ask no more than any other people in this regard. Again though, the all-important mass media monopoly and who controls it is who can manipulate public opinion and simply create an echo chamber of lies where the other side isn't even heard.

    ” … the idea that wanting to live apart in our own countries with demographic security being a guarantee is ‘supremacy’ is ludicrous. …”

    Agreed. I don’t equate white only lands with racial supremacy. Separate but equal will prevent a civil war

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  67. Tyrion 2 says:
    @Randal

    Thank you for taking the time to respond in a thoughtful and respectful manner.
     
    You're absolutely welcome. You made an argument calmly and coherently that demanded such a reply.


    I’ve been thinking about how to respond to you, and I must confess that it hasn’t been easy crafting a response because in some ways I agree with what you say. At the risk of splitting hairs over semantics,
     
    For sure we are arguing over terminology, which means we should not get too excited over any disagreement. But terminology is important nonetheless.

    I think the issue for me is what qualifies as genuine Left versus fake “Left.”
     
    Having read and thought about your response, I agree with you that that is exactly what this is about. My impression is that in practice you restrict your idea of what counts as "genuine left" to Marxism and its derivations, with references to Marxist canon and prominent figures. This is why you restrict admittance to your category of genuine left to "pro-worker and pro-peace". [I'm not sure that a doctrine that is fundamentally revolutionary and whose advocates have made clear both in theory and in practice that such a revolution absolutely need not be non-violent can really claim to be honestly "pro-peace", but that's a difference for another time, perhaps - I accept that we are talking here about peace between states and that is the context in which you made the point.]

    But there was a left before there was a Marx, just as there was a radical feminism long before the 1960s, and although the left was largely subsumed into Marxism in the late C19th/early C20th, it was never completely so. Further, not all who called themselves Marxists necessarily agreed with you as to how to interpret that creed.

    We may not agree on everything, but it makes me happy to know that a “long-standing conservative” like you is opposed to wars of choice on principle.
     
    To some extent, perhaps, our disagreements have become subsumed over time with the emergence of common enemies of greater immediate concern. For my part, I'm happy these days to encounter an advocate of what I term the "old left" who is not on board with what I regard as the leftist/neocon establishment.

    It puts me in a tough spot with people like Jeremy Corbyn, who are opposed to the latter on some vital issues, including reluctance to endorse wars of choice, but who are absolutely on board with all the other issues of the left - mass immigration, suppression of free speech and opinion via the "hate speech" pretext, encouragement of homosexual behaviour, and the imposition of all the lies of political correctness: "there is no such thing as race", "there is no difference between men and women (except for the ways that women are better than men)", "homosexual behaviour is morally and practically equivalent to normal sexual behaviour", etc.

    If I really believed that a Corbyn victory would put an end to Britain's involvement in interventionist wars and policies, it might be worth supporting him despite the catastrophic reinforcement of all those positions of the left that Labour in office would enable. But in reality I have no doubt that if he were to win an election the very first day would see the Blairites that he still has infesting his Parliamentary party sabotaging any change of ending the interventionism that is so dear to their hearts and to their lobby loyalty, and if necessary they would get rid of Corbyn himself to protect it.

    I would have no problem marching with you against the next stupid war. Cheers.
     
    Cheers, and likewise.

    (Except that as a conservative I'm inherently disinclined to participating in demonstrations :-) Conservatives operate differently. The first and only demonstration I ever went on was the 2003 anti-war demo in London, "probably the largest protest march in UK history", and I persuaded my offspring to go along to bulk up the numbers (I say that to show that I was no adolescent at the time). The result - absolutely zip as far as affecting British government policy goes.

    Rather confirmed my scepticism.....)

    If I really believed that a Corbyn victory would put an end to Britain’s involvement in interventionist wars and policies,

    Last time we were taken to the brink of a real intervention, it was Ed Miliband and backbench right wing Tory MPs who pulled us back.

    I don’t think there is much danger of Anglo countries engaging in large scale military action anywhere. I don’t think anyone really wants it, nor thinks we can afford it. They just like talking a big game.

    Syria was a close one but once Miliband shut it down, the government was embarrassed and the disaster that Libya is became obvious, that course of action was discredited. It will take another generation for real war to be an option.

    Admittedly, there are all sorts of ‘secret’ wars ongoing. Or rather, not ‘secret’ but just low risk and with mostly drones and special forces so they barely get reported on. This is as it has been for hundreds of years. They’re not my idea of nationalistic representative government but they’re not nefarious, nor, on balance, particularly harmful nor expensive. They aren’t for regime change either, more to support allies to stop such change. Like very small scale versions of Putin’s actions in Syria.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal

    Last time we were taken to the brink of a real intervention, it was Ed Miliband and backbench right wing Tory MPs who pulled us back.
     
    Intervention does not have to be open military action to be "real". And Miliband's personally inglorious but nationally glorious "defeat" of Cameron's warmongering in 2013 was more a matter of dithering incompetence than any real opposition to a war. Notoriously Miliband told Cameron that he would support a war provided he won enough concessions over the wording to satisfy his MPs. He was rightly terrified of the Iraq precedent, of the trivial popular support for war and of his own backbenchers. He even let slip afterwards that he had not wanted the result he got (although being a politician and therefore a liar he also regularly lied that it was actually what he wanted).

    My understanding afterwards from informal sources was that both Cameron and Miliband panicked and screwed it up between them. Cameron's lot had voted down Miliband's amendment so Miliband wanted to defeat the motion and have the government come back with a new one containing "concessions" Miliband could claim he'd won, but Cameron got all flustered over the defeat because for some reason he'd been under the misapprehension that his previous concessions had been enough to secure Labour support.

    All in all, ignominious for the government, but glorious, if sadly all but unique, for the country.

    Admittedly, there are all sorts of ‘secret’ wars ongoing. Or rather, not ‘secret’ but just low risk and with mostly drones and special forces so they barely get reported on. This is as it has been for hundreds of years. They’re not my idea of nationalistic representative government but they’re not nefarious, nor, on balance, particularly harmful nor expensive. They aren’t for regime change either, more to support allies to stop such change. Like very small scale versions of Putin’s actions in Syria.
     
    No, the big one is still Syria and Britain is up to its ears in meddling there, supporting the terrorists still with the overall objective of somehow achieving regime change, or at least if that can't be achieved at least preventing a clear victory and restoration of order by the Syrian government. The comical (if it weren't such a clear attempt to get up another mass murderous flare up of war in that suffering country) Ghouta gas attack frame-up had Britain's fingerprints all over it. And the external sponsors "influencing" our involvement are still the same - oil rich Gulf sunni Arab despots and politically "influential" Israel, together with the US as curious combination of fellow tool and sponsor.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  68. Randal says:
    @Tyrion 2

    If I really believed that a Corbyn victory would put an end to Britain’s involvement in interventionist wars and policies,
     
    Last time we were taken to the brink of a real intervention, it was Ed Miliband and backbench right wing Tory MPs who pulled us back.

    I don't think there is much danger of Anglo countries engaging in large scale military action anywhere. I don't think anyone really wants it, nor thinks we can afford it. They just like talking a big game.

    Syria was a close one but once Miliband shut it down, the government was embarrassed and the disaster that Libya is became obvious, that course of action was discredited. It will take another generation for real war to be an option.

    Admittedly, there are all sorts of 'secret' wars ongoing. Or rather, not 'secret' but just low risk and with mostly drones and special forces so they barely get reported on. This is as it has been for hundreds of years. They're not my idea of nationalistic representative government but they're not nefarious, nor, on balance, particularly harmful nor expensive. They aren't for regime change either, more to support allies to stop such change. Like very small scale versions of Putin's actions in Syria.

    Last time we were taken to the brink of a real intervention, it was Ed Miliband and backbench right wing Tory MPs who pulled us back.

    Intervention does not have to be open military action to be “real”. And Miliband’s personally inglorious but nationally glorious “defeat” of Cameron’s warmongering in 2013 was more a matter of dithering incompetence than any real opposition to a war. Notoriously Miliband told Cameron that he would support a war provided he won enough concessions over the wording to satisfy his MPs. He was rightly terrified of the Iraq precedent, of the trivial popular support for war and of his own backbenchers. He even let slip afterwards that he had not wanted the result he got (although being a politician and therefore a liar he also regularly lied that it was actually what he wanted).

    My understanding afterwards from informal sources was that both Cameron and Miliband panicked and screwed it up between them. Cameron’s lot had voted down Miliband’s amendment so Miliband wanted to defeat the motion and have the government come back with a new one containing “concessions” Miliband could claim he’d won, but Cameron got all flustered over the defeat because for some reason he’d been under the misapprehension that his previous concessions had been enough to secure Labour support.

    All in all, ignominious for the government, but glorious, if sadly all but unique, for the country.

    Admittedly, there are all sorts of ‘secret’ wars ongoing. Or rather, not ‘secret’ but just low risk and with mostly drones and special forces so they barely get reported on. This is as it has been for hundreds of years. They’re not my idea of nationalistic representative government but they’re not nefarious, nor, on balance, particularly harmful nor expensive. They aren’t for regime change either, more to support allies to stop such change. Like very small scale versions of Putin’s actions in Syria.

    No, the big one is still Syria and Britain is up to its ears in meddling there, supporting the terrorists still with the overall objective of somehow achieving regime change, or at least if that can’t be achieved at least preventing a clear victory and restoration of order by the Syrian government. The comical (if it weren’t such a clear attempt to get up another mass murderous flare up of war in that suffering country) Ghouta gas attack frame-up had Britain’s fingerprints all over it. And the external sponsors “influencing” our involvement are still the same – oil rich Gulf sunni Arab despots and politically “influential” Israel, together with the US as curious combination of fellow tool and sponsor.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Tyrion 2

    No, the big one is still Syria and Britain is up to its ears in meddling there, supporting the terrorists still with the overall objective of somehow achieving regime change, or at least if that can’t be achieved at least preventing a clear victory and restoration of order by the Syrian government.
     
    No, Op SHADER is and was almost solely dedicated to the defeat of IS. The paltry team helping to train Syrian "moderate" opposition may occasionally have targeted Syrian government forces in their lessons but it's be a bit churlish not to make at least a token theoretical effort.

    The comical (if it weren’t such a clear attempt to get up another mass murderous flare up of war in that suffering country) Ghouta gas attack frame-up had Britain’s fingerprints all over it
     
    No, there is no British unit, even irregular, that would be capable of both instigating a chemical weapons attack and then keeping their instigation a secret.

    The short-lived American effort to capture the opposition to Assad is long over. It was a failure and without succeeding there, they would never have worked to actually oust him, even if sometimes that capturing effort required some anti-Assad action.


    Intervention does not have to be open military action to be “real”. And Miliband’s personally inglorious but nationally glorious “defeat” of Cameron’s warmongering in 2013 was more a matter of dithering incompetence than any real opposition to a war. Notoriously Miliband told Cameron that he would support a war provided he won enough concessions over the wording to satisfy his MPs. He was rightly terrified of the Iraq precedent, of the trivial popular support for war and of his own backbenchers. He even let slip afterwards that he had not wanted the result he got (although being a politician and therefore a liar he also regularly lied that it was actually what he wanted).

    My understanding afterwards from informal sources was that both Cameron and Miliband panicked and screwed it up between them. Cameron’s lot had voted down Miliband’s amendment so Miliband wanted to defeat the motion and have the government come back with a new one containing “concessions” Miliband could claim he’d won, but Cameron got all flustered over the defeat because for some reason he’d been under the misapprehension that his previous concessions had been enough to secure Labour support.
     

    You have the way in which Miliband lied and played politics 180 degrees backwards. His real fear was in looking weak and incapable of 'action' on the world stage like a real British prime-minister who looks the part.

    Were reality to accord you with your story, Cameron would have merely arranged another vote and humiliated Miliband.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  69. Tyrion 2 says:
    @Randal

    Last time we were taken to the brink of a real intervention, it was Ed Miliband and backbench right wing Tory MPs who pulled us back.
     
    Intervention does not have to be open military action to be "real". And Miliband's personally inglorious but nationally glorious "defeat" of Cameron's warmongering in 2013 was more a matter of dithering incompetence than any real opposition to a war. Notoriously Miliband told Cameron that he would support a war provided he won enough concessions over the wording to satisfy his MPs. He was rightly terrified of the Iraq precedent, of the trivial popular support for war and of his own backbenchers. He even let slip afterwards that he had not wanted the result he got (although being a politician and therefore a liar he also regularly lied that it was actually what he wanted).

    My understanding afterwards from informal sources was that both Cameron and Miliband panicked and screwed it up between them. Cameron's lot had voted down Miliband's amendment so Miliband wanted to defeat the motion and have the government come back with a new one containing "concessions" Miliband could claim he'd won, but Cameron got all flustered over the defeat because for some reason he'd been under the misapprehension that his previous concessions had been enough to secure Labour support.

    All in all, ignominious for the government, but glorious, if sadly all but unique, for the country.

    Admittedly, there are all sorts of ‘secret’ wars ongoing. Or rather, not ‘secret’ but just low risk and with mostly drones and special forces so they barely get reported on. This is as it has been for hundreds of years. They’re not my idea of nationalistic representative government but they’re not nefarious, nor, on balance, particularly harmful nor expensive. They aren’t for regime change either, more to support allies to stop such change. Like very small scale versions of Putin’s actions in Syria.
     
    No, the big one is still Syria and Britain is up to its ears in meddling there, supporting the terrorists still with the overall objective of somehow achieving regime change, or at least if that can't be achieved at least preventing a clear victory and restoration of order by the Syrian government. The comical (if it weren't such a clear attempt to get up another mass murderous flare up of war in that suffering country) Ghouta gas attack frame-up had Britain's fingerprints all over it. And the external sponsors "influencing" our involvement are still the same - oil rich Gulf sunni Arab despots and politically "influential" Israel, together with the US as curious combination of fellow tool and sponsor.

    No, the big one is still Syria and Britain is up to its ears in meddling there, supporting the terrorists still with the overall objective of somehow achieving regime change, or at least if that can’t be achieved at least preventing a clear victory and restoration of order by the Syrian government.

    No, Op SHADER is and was almost solely dedicated to the defeat of IS. The paltry team helping to train Syrian “moderate” opposition may occasionally have targeted Syrian government forces in their lessons but it’s be a bit churlish not to make at least a token theoretical effort.

    The comical (if it weren’t such a clear attempt to get up another mass murderous flare up of war in that suffering country) Ghouta gas attack frame-up had Britain’s fingerprints all over it

    No, there is no British unit, even irregular, that would be capable of both instigating a chemical weapons attack and then keeping their instigation a secret.

    The short-lived American effort to capture the opposition to Assad is long over. It was a failure and without succeeding there, they would never have worked to actually oust him, even if sometimes that capturing effort required some anti-Assad action.

    Intervention does not have to be open military action to be “real”. And Miliband’s personally inglorious but nationally glorious “defeat” of Cameron’s warmongering in 2013 was more a matter of dithering incompetence than any real opposition to a war. Notoriously Miliband told Cameron that he would support a war provided he won enough concessions over the wording to satisfy his MPs. He was rightly terrified of the Iraq precedent, of the trivial popular support for war and of his own backbenchers. He even let slip afterwards that he had not wanted the result he got (although being a politician and therefore a liar he also regularly lied that it was actually what he wanted).

    My understanding afterwards from informal sources was that both Cameron and Miliband panicked and screwed it up between them. Cameron’s lot had voted down Miliband’s amendment so Miliband wanted to defeat the motion and have the government come back with a new one containing “concessions” Miliband could claim he’d won, but Cameron got all flustered over the defeat because for some reason he’d been under the misapprehension that his previous concessions had been enough to secure Labour support.

    You have the way in which Miliband lied and played politics 180 degrees backwards. His real fear was in looking weak and incapable of ‘action’ on the world stage like a real British prime-minister who looks the part.

    Were reality to accord you with your story, Cameron would have merely arranged another vote and humiliated Miliband.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  70. fnn says:
    @scumbag billy
    What happened in Charlottesville should have been easily predicted: black police chief, liberal mayor/governor.
    That the Media would blame any violence on the Right is to be expected.

    My thing was this: Why march? Is that how to really help struggling whites who are unemployed/underemployed/ lack skills/dealing with personal problems and are otherwise not successfully navigating life and forming families with at least 2 children?

    If the whites want to help whites, I think a white antipoverty group that helped struggling whites with real advice, perhaps even apprenticeships, social organizations-that-lead-to-personal-friendships, and the like would be a better way to coalesce around their identity than to march around old statues so the left can send out a a few crisis actors in swastika-regalia to discredit them/use as an excuse to physically attack them.

    Organized letter-writing/telephone campaigns to elected representatives/newspapers would do more to defend those statues than marching around them with bad optics.

    Why march? Is that how to really help struggling whites who are unemployed/underemployed/ lack skills/dealing with personal problems and are otherwise not successfully navigating life and forming families with at least 2 children?
    If the whites want to help whites, I think a white antipoverty group that helped struggling whites with real advice, perhaps even apprenticeships, social organizations-that-lead-to-personal-friendships, and the like would be a better way to coalesce around their identity than to march around old statues so the left can send out a a few crisis actors in swastika-regalia to discredit them/use as an excuse to physically attack them.

    This is the age-old question of engaging in political action against the ruling class as opposed to ameliorative “social work.” The Old Left debated this question constantly. Political action is directed against the hegemony of anti-white cultural Marxism (aka Biological Leninism or whatever else you choose to call it). I think everyone has noticed that this ideology is completely endorsed by the corporate sector, and most enthusiastically by the giant New Robber Baron corporations like Google and Facebook.

    That said, “Unite the Right” was a poor slogan. It’s easy to think of better ones like “Against the American Taliban’ or “Against neo-Bolshevism” or “Unite against Tyranny.” It’s true that no one knows what “Bolshevism” means anymore, but no one has a clear idea of what “the Right” means either. “Negentropy” is the maybe the best definition of “Right”, but it’s too broad to be useful in ordinary discourse.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  71. wj says:
    @Crimson2
    Some real involved conspiracy theories here, but the problem is the Nazi patrol kicked and beat a dude on the ground. "But he started it" isn't a defense.
    Maybe you should do something valuable with your lives instead of following garbage ideas towards an unattainable dream. The white race is doing pretty well. You guys, however...

    I am sorry that you have to work for white people.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Current Commenter says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS
PastClassics
Are elite university admissions based on meritocracy and diversity as claimed?
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.
The evidence is clear — but often ignored
Talk TV sensationalists and axe-grinding ideologues have fallen for a myth of immigrant lawlessness.
The major media overlooked Communist spies and Madoff’s fraud. What are they missing today?