Charlottesville

[blue_ruin17]

Part of me casually glances at what is happening in Charlottesville and shrugs it off as white-noise.



Another part of me screams that Charlottesville suggests that the socio-political tensions that have been building in America for years now are finally coming to a boil, i.e. blood in the streets, at least on a very small scale.

My intuition is that, as long as it is economically "business as usual" in America, flashpoints like Charlottesville will continue to sporadically occur, but they will quickly fizzleout with little consequence, just like all those "Black Lives Matter" riots.

Introduce double digit unemployment, rising interest rates, and maybe a nice stock market crash to spoil some retirement accounts, and I think that flashpoints like Charlottesville could trigger some pretty serious situations.

[Maddy]

I sense that there's an agenda behind our constant bombardment with stories of this sort--the apparent purpose of which is to create waves of intense emotional destabilization, anxiety and fear. Take a look at Drudge these days, which used to be a pretty decent news site. If it's not "Artificial Intelligence Set to Extinguish Humans," it's "FEMA Preparing for Four- to Six-Year Blackout." The easy answer is that these are the stories that viewers click on, but I'm not sure that there's not more to it than that. I say that because the waves of this stuff seem almost orchestrated to create feverpitch moments that take you to the emotional precipice, back off slightly, then take it one step higher, etc. Who the hell knows.

[ochotona]

Maddy, you could be right,but I think a more likely explanation is the one that Tyler put forth in another thread: everything these days is about identity politics. It's really getting tiresome, that's for sure.

What a waste of time, energy, sweat, and blood, when there are so many real and huge problems in the country that need to be solved. My son is really into this, and I keep shaking my head, wondering, "This Scheiss is what you want to build your life around?"

[farjean2]

Predictably, it's all Trump's fault for unleashing these demons upon us....

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/tr ... 3c1bf8ed43

Thought about posting this on the thread about Google because I found it as the stop story on Google News. Had to ask, how is it News? Sounds like somebody's opinion to me.

[dualstow]

^ Well, it is in the "Perspective " (read: opinion) section.
How Google News aggregates items, I do not know.

[farjean2]

^ Well, it is in the "Perspective " (read: opinion) section.
How Google News aggregates items, I do not know.

All I know is that it came up first when I clicked on Google News. Don't remember any thing like it when the Republicans practicing for a baseball game came under fire by a Bernie Sanders supporter.

And speaking of predictable responses, I would suggest that white nationalism might be a predictable response to the constant demonization of white people but I'd probably really be stepping in it if I did that so I won't.

[dualstow]

And speaking of predictable responses, I would suggest that white nationalism might be a predictable response to the constant demonization of white people but I'd probably really be stepping in it if I did that so I won't.

It's a curious thing. Beyond something like perceived demonization, a lot of white supremacists express concern about the white race disappearing. For me, this is a separate category than supremacy. Maybe it's vaguely related to the "retribalization" that Marshall McLuhan predicted.

Whether this concern is misplaced or not doesn't matter. If they really believe it's a possibility, I'm as sympathetic as I would be for Hawaiians with the same fears. Of course, they wouldn't accept me as white, so I'm like a ferret trying to sympathize with my fellow aardvarks. It's absurd.

Anyway, there is more going on than just old-style supremacy.

Btw, I know the SPLC is reviled here, but I find it interesting that they have noted a huge surge in black supremacy groups over the past few years.

[Mr Vacuum]

Not surprisingly, Donald Trump has handled this event in a completely un-presidential fashion.

Put differently, heavy on the "tragi-", and not so much on the "comedy".

Yeah. I thought he was handed his best chance this weekend to step in and take credit for unifying the nation, both parties, and the media and garner some goodwill as Mueller continues to turn up the heat and no one wants to hear about incinerating Korea. But he refused and kept talking about Korea and Guam instead.

[blue_ruin17]

It's interesting how Charlottesville bothers people for different reasons.

For example, I actually find it concerning that the park is being renamed and that statue removed (or something along those lines). Changing the name of some silly park today doesn't change what happened in the past. Actually, I would argue it makes it easier to forget the lessons of history. If I would have been at that rally, I actually would've been on the side of the alt-right.

Of course, then that Nazi flags show up, and that's when I would have not walked but ran away.

I guess it is the politics of the extreme that bothers me. The Marxist extreme of attempting to delete history in order to reconcile it. The fascist extreme of having the audacity of showing up to a protest in full KKK gear and then screaming about being oppressed because your grievances are not taken seriously.

[WiseOne]

Just had to jump in to ask about one thing: the conflation of the white supremacy message of Charlottesville with Nazi ideology. Can someone tell me where exactly it came from? It's been (very) prominently reported but without actual evidence presented. As in, photos, quotes etc.

Please tell me this isn't yet another case of confabulation and free association by the press - in which case the dishonor of the mainstream press is once again on display, and probably the more interesting story in some ways. The Nazi card has been played so many times that I just don't trust it anymore without solid evidence. There's plenty to report about without that embellishment anyway - the outright murder and pepper-spraying of counter-protestors, for instance. That's more than enough to condemn the actions of this group - and ironically says the city may be doing the right thing by getting rid of its symbols.

[dualstow]

There's no place for neo-Nazis in this country, in my opinion. BUT, if they have a permit to march, and they're not pulling a Westboro Baptist Church at someone's funeral, let them march.

Maybe I thought it would be cool for people to violently confront them when I was thirteen years old. Now...it justlooks like a antifa people are mercenaries looking for a good fight. They're not much better than the nazis.

Before Fields jr murdered and maimed people with his car, there were people using makeshift flamethrowers on the marchers. Is that a side I want to be on?

[dualstow]

Just had to jump in to ask about one thing: the conflation of the white supremacy message of Charlottesville with Nazi ideology. Can someone tell me where exactly it came from? It's been (very) prominently reported but without actual evidence presented. As in, photos, quotes

I'm too lazy to dig up photos, but yesterday I did see swastika flags and Hitler quote t-shirts on news sites.
Also, people from a neonazi forum whose motto is "No Jews, Just Right" were reporting live from the protest.

[blue_ruin17]

The problem is that a couple of protesters did indeed show up with Nazi flags:



The problem with this is it makes constructive dialogue about the actual reason for the protest (in which there is legitimate, rational arguments to be made for both sides) impossible. As soon as that Swastika image enters into the public psyche, its game over for someone like me who wants to say, "Well, you know what maybe these protesters have a point, and here is my logical argument for why that is ..." If I go on Facebook right now and wrote that, I would be called a "Nazi".

It is very clear which side the media has taken on this one, though. Even the fact that the label "anti-protester" is used is pretty indicative of which side the media is on. Those weren't ANTI-protesters...they were PROTESTERS, who engaged in violence and civil disorder, no different than the right-wing protesters, just with different beliefs and political aims that the MSM obviously have sided with.

[dualstow]

A lot of redditors have remarked, under links to Charlottesville articles, that they see increasing numbers of young people who are comfortable wearing "88" and SS tattoos. Not just in the grocery store, but at work, and not covered up. The prevailing message was, "I know these people have always been around, but now they seem quite comfortable coming out of the woodwork."

[blue_ruin17]

Before Fields jr murdered and maimed people with his car, there were people using makeshift flamethrowers on the marchers. Is that a side I want to be on?

I think we have to set the Fields murder aside until we have more information. For example, apparently his Facebook is filled with ANTI-Trump rants, so it doesn't sound like he is the type who would have been associating with the protesters. As well, there are reports which indicate that the antifa protesters mobbed his car and may have spooked him, causing him to panic and run people down in order to escape.

If we set aside the Fields incident and chalk it up to being a horrible accident rather than an act of terrorism, then the violence was basically equal on both sides...both sides came looking for a fight, it is fair to say.

[dualstow]

I think we have to set the Fields murder aside until we have more information.

I'm all for waiting until things settle down and getting more information, weeding out early and false reporting.
However, I thought Fields' mother was saying that she believed he was going to a pro-Trump rally. (Maybe she did, and he was anti).

When Mr. Fields was a freshman, he wrote a report for another class that was “very much along the party lines of the neo-Nazi movement,” Mr. Weimer said.

A photographer said he saw Mr. Fields on Saturday with symbols of Vanguard America, a group whose manifesto declares that “a government based in the natural law must not cater to the false notion of equality.” The organization denied any ties to Mr. Fields.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/13/us/j ... iver-.html

Maybe it will turn out that he was spooked by something and that this was a car accident, but so far signs are pointing to his being a neo-nazi or nazi wannabe, and terrorism by car is en vogue, don'tcha know.

[blue_ruin17]

Okay...well nevermind, maybe he's a terrorist then, at least if he intentionally ran them down.

*sigh*

[dualstow]

Well, like you said, we can bide our time.

[WiseOne]

The problem is that a couple of protesters did indeed show up with Nazi flags:



The problem with this is it makes constructive dialogue about the actual reason for the protest (in which there is legitimate, rational arguments to be made for both sides) impossible. As soon as that Swastika image enters into the public psyche, its game over for someone like me who wants to say, "Well, you know what maybe these protesters have a point, and here is my logical argument for why that is ..." If I go on Facebook right now and wrote that, I would be called a "Nazi".

Yes, exactly. Thanks for pointers dualstow - still think that slapping on the "neo-Nazi" label on the entire crowd (which is unlikely to be true and is probably based on a small percentage) is a shorthand, lazy way of condemning the entire group, and also immediately destroys any possibility of a reasoned presentation of the protestors' views. Not that this was going to happen anyway, after it turned violent.

If this was just a crazy small fringe group it wouldn't be worth worrying about...the problem is that it might not be. If it's a sizeable chunk of the population, then there are probably legitimate concerns that should be aired, and the implied polarization is VERY troubling. That's a big reason why trumpeting the word "Nazi" is an incredibly dangerous and poorly considered move.

[dualstow]

EDITED

...
still think that slapping on the "neo-Nazi" label on the entire crowd (which is unlikely to be true and is probably based on a small percentage) is a shorthand, lazy way of condemning the entire group, and also immediately destroys any possibility of a reasoned presentation of the protestors' views.

I'd be interested in the numbers, too. Variety said the list includes;

Identity Evropa, Vanguard America, League of the South, the Daily Stormer, and the Right Stuff.

http://variety.com/2017/tv/news/charlot ... 202525825/

How is a Nazi defined and what does it take to legitimately called one? Member of the Neo-Nazi party with a signature in some book? Probably not many of those.

Marchers worried about the white race? Probably all of them. And of course, that doesn't make one a nazi.

As much as I defend their right to march, I seriously doubt that many, if any, of those marchers said to themselves, "I'm fine with Blacks, Jews, Asians and Mexicans, but I'm going to march because I'm worried about the fate of white people."

There might be a sprinkling of those who have pride in the South, love the confederate flag and what it stands for *to them* (not slavery), and want to preserve history. Seems fine to me, but I doubt they're anything but a tiny minority. Just conjecture on my part, of course. And, I understand that it's hard to have a protest these days that doesn't have fringe elements glomming on. We can't go back in time and have something like the 60s civil rights march on Washington which my mother participated in.

But, some final thoughts:
The assembly was called "Unite the Right". I'm pretty sure that's not a reference to fiscal conservatism.
It was mentioned on hate forums like the one I brought up earlier, two weeks ago.
How naive is the person who goes to this march to preserve a statue and doesn't think it's going to be dominated by klansmen and Identity Europa?

I know this is a contrarian board, but sometimes a cigar is really a cigar if it marches like a duck...

[WiseOne]

Well, yes true statement. I didn't know that united the right was a pre-existing thing and likely composed of hate groups etc, but then I haven't exactly made a complete study of the topic. Also not defending their behavior in the slightest.

I'm just talking about the treatment in the press coverage, which reads more like a gossip column than a reliable statement of fact. It's hard to untangle the truth out of those hyperbole-filled reports.

[dualstow]

It's hard to untangle the truth out of those hyperbole-filled reports.

Indeed it is. Kind of the same deal as the Google memo.

[dualstow]

Exactly.

[jhogue]

Just had to jump in to ask about one thing: the conflation of the white supremacy message of Charlottesville with Nazi ideology. Can someone tell me where exactly it came from? It's been (very) prominently reported but without actual evidence presented. As in, photos, quotes etc.

Please tell me this isn't yet another case of confabulation and free association by the press - in which case the dishonor of the mainstream press is once again on display, and probably the more interesting story in some ways. The Nazi card has been played so many times that I just don't trust it anymore without solid evidence. There's plenty to report about without that embellishment anyway - the outright murder and pepper-spraying of counter-protestors, for instance. That's more than enough to condemn the actions of this group - and ironically says the city may be doing the right thing by getting rid of its symbols.

WiseOne,

The harmonious relationship between the KKK , neo-Nazis, and some so-called Confederate heritage groups may be abetted by the sensationalism of current media coverage, but it is real.
I date the amalgamation of all three with the rise of David Duke of Louisiana. As a student at LSU in the early 1970s, he displayed swastikas, paraded around in stormtrooper gear giving Nazi salutes, and gave white power speeches. After graduation, he founded his own KKK group. He also held pro-Confederate rallys at Lee Circle and the white supremacist Reconstruction monument on Canal Street, that were recently taken down by the New Orleans city government. Some of those had Confederate, KKK, and Nazi flags.
When he ran for governor of Louisiana he announced that he was a Republican and excused his past associations as merely, “youthful indiscretions.”
I was at the South Carolina capitol when the governor ordered the Confederate flag taken down in 1999. While most of the flag wavers had Confederate flags, some also had KKK, neo-Nazi, and white power banners.
Today, I think of Duke (who has done jail time for tax fraud) as a clever professional agitator—a sort of Al Sharpton of the extreme right—who is always looking out for another opportunity to make a fast buck by pressing hot buttons of his fringe group allies.


As something of an aside, the only thing that I think that the old East Germany and the old West Germany ever agreed on was banning Nazi symbols after World War II. It may be a free speech issue in the USA, but it was an issue of political legitimacy for Germans during the Cold War. Since the wall came down, however, the neo-Nazis have definitely migrated toward a far-right party, Alternative für Deutschland, (AfD), which is also anti-immigration.

[Xan]

The original KKK was a guerrilla Confederate organization, founded by Nathan Bedford Forrest. The modern KKK was founded in Ohio, I think, somewhere around 1915? Its official flag is the US Stars & Stripes.

Sure, I suppose there's overlap between Nazis and white supremacists and Confederate sympathizers. But there's overlap between a lot of groups.

I should point out that not everyone who wants to keep the statues and memorials is a Confederate sympathizer: many of these were erected as symbols of reconciliation. For example, there's a Confederate memorial on Martha's Vineyard built by Union veterans. What do you do with that?

Even the people being called "supremacists" aren't necessarily espousing supremacist views. Wanting your own country with your own people living in it doesn't necessarily imply that your people are the supreme people in the world. Just that that's the kind of country you want to live in.

I should also point out that a key issue of the Late Unpleasantness was whether slavery would be allowed in the territories. The Southern position was that, as equal participants in the Union, Southern institutions should be expanded to at least some of the territories. The Northern position was that the territories should be for whites only: no black people allowed to mess things up.

It sounds like the position of the so-called "supremacists" is exactly that of the antebellum North. So the solution is to demonize the South?