Another Act of White Supremacist Terror. When Will GOP Leaders Say Enough?
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Another Act of White Supremacist Terror. When Will GOP Leaders Say Enough?
Posted:Sun, 28 Apr 2019 04:34:10 +0000
Two horrific acts of terrorism were committed this weekend against non-Christians. One by an Islamophobic Christian supremacist terrorist mistakenly targeting Sikhs (again), and one by an anti-Semitic white supremacist terrorist spouting “replacement theory” smears.
In the first case, a man whose father was a pastor and who was suffering mental illness in part due to service in Iraq, drove into a family of Sikhs in Sunnyvale, California, allegedly believing they were Muslims. A 13-year-old girl is now in a coma and fighting for her life as result. The terrorist was allegedly on his way to a Bible study group and praising Jesus when authorities caught him.
In the second, a white supremacist took credit for an arsonist attack against a mosque last month, only after gunning down several people at a synagogue in Poway, California, killing one. He apparently wrote a anti-Semitic manifesto containing many of the same slanders against Jews found ubiquitously on conservative message boards across the internet, and that fueled the rise of Nazism in Weimar Germany: that Jews are intentionally enabling non-white populations to grow in America and Europe in order to replace the white race. That the theory is utterly bogus doesn’t matter: large parts of the conservative movements in the Anglosphere and elsewhere believe in it, and white supremacist terrorists have increasingly begun to act on it.
These are only the latest in a series of escalating terrorist acts against non-Christians and non-whites in the wake of Donald Trump’s ascent to the Republican nomination and the presidency. Donald Trump, of course, doesn’t care: this is his base, as is obvious from even a cursory visit to any heavily pro-Trump forum on Fox News, Reddit, Voat, Gab or elsewhere. White supremacist, anti-Semitic, Islamophobic and misogynist rhetoric runs rampant across the entirety of the conservative movement, and the transformation of the Republican Party into a vehicle of violent white male grievance has rapidly accelerated its longtime trend under Trump. It’s also no surprise that the president is doing less than nothing to stop it .
After all, in the wake of neo-nazi protests in Charlottesville allegedly to protect worshipful monuments to those who turned traitors to the United States in armed defense of race-based chattel slavery, Donald Trump didn’t want to make a statement for several days and then ultimately said that there were “very fine people on both sides.” Among the chants of those very fine people? “ Jews will not replace us. ” The same conspiracy theory that drove the terrorist attack in Poway today. Trump doesn’t care, though. Today is also the day when he congratulated the white player picked second in the NFL draft, while ignoring the black player picked first. This is what he does. This is who he is. He knows his base, and he doesn’t care about anyone else. Beyond personal graft, enabling them is the core rationale behind his presidency.
The Democratic Party and the nation’s liberals are almost irrelevant to this conversation. Arguments among progressives and liberals persist as to the depth of the bigotry among the least committed portions of Trump’s voters, just how many of them may or may not be persuaded to vote against Republicans on the basis of economic appeals, and how best to energize the infrequent voters among core Democratic constituencies including women, youth and people of color. But functionally speaking, that argument is a strategic one over perhaps a 4-5% slice of the electorate. It’s a tactically crucial question that could make the difference between a Democratic landslide and a devastating narrow loss setting progress back for over a generation. But it doesn’t change all that much when considering the broad partisan direction of 90% of the country.
The more important question now is what the rest of the Republican leadership will do, and what the conservative infotainment complex will do.
As older, whiter, more male and more socially conservative voters decline as a portion of the electorate, the Republican Party has become increasingly hostile to democracy itself . Gerrymandering, census manipulation, poll taxes, power grabs against branches of government they don’t control, voter suppression, and legislative intimidation against voter registration can all be done with little public fanfare to help them delay the inevitable.
But violent acts of terrorism by their own base are much harder to sweep under the rug. And vague statements of general condemnation against violence won’t cut it as these despicable acts continue to increase, and as the Republican Party becomes increasingly associated with it. Whatever remains of the mushy middle of American politics is allergic to conflict, extremism and violence–and as conservative politics are increasingly associated with violent extremism, Republican room for electoral maneuvering decreases.
Conservative infotainment on cable news and the AM radio can maintain their radicalized audiences longer than the Republican Party can sustain its position: after all, a small population can keep conservative media in business much longer than it can continue to deliver majoritarian wins for one of America’s two major political parties, even buoyed by political affirmative action for older, rural white voters. But conservative media has its own problem: advertisers. Corporate America knows where its future customer base is, and it’s not with the Fox News audience. So ultimately even the likes of the Murdoch family, Clear Channel and Sinclair Broadcast Group will feel the hit from the abandonment of advertisers.
And that is all just tactical. Morally, how long can whatever is left of decency among Republican opinion leaders sustain the current trends as its base descends into radical violent extremism? We certainly haven’t hit rock bottom yet. Maybe there isn’t one, but common sense dictates that at least some portions of conservative intelligentsia must have a breaking point.
At what point, either out of moral revulsion, sense of patriotic duty or sheer self-preservation, do Republican leaders start to try to put out the fire instead of fanning the flames? How many more deaths will it take?
Tags
Who is online
45 visitors
White nationalism is not a glitch of the Trump support, it is a feature.
Over on Gab where a few actual white nationalists post they no longer support Trump because of his support of Israel. Even David Duke now supports the Democrats.
For those that are looking for supporting evidence.
Tulsi Gabbard is an isolationist, which probably accounts for Duke's support for her.
Dr. David Duke: No! I Did not Endorse Tulsi Gabbard for ...
Dr. David Duke : No! I Did not Endorse Tulsi Gabbard for President. I must make it clear that I did not endorse Tulsi Gabbard for President yesterday, but I do endorse her efforts to stop these insane Neocon Zionist wars for Israel in the Mideast and that even threatens us with a catastrophic war with Russia, a nation which has simply dared to ...
And this "this schmuck endorsed [fill in any Dem name here]!!!" is bullshit of the highest stench. What matters is whether a candidate asks for or accepts such an endorsement. A whole lot of racist, fascist low lifes can claim they've endorsed someone in order to tarnish him or her and that's what rightwingers hope to do with these phony reports. It's the pukefunnel's favorite tactic. And there are plenty of NTers happy to slop that garbage here.
That's simply not true. It's made up.
Actually you are wrong. Trump and the republicans want ignore domestic terrorism because of their base, of course, like everything. Follow the money, or in this case the lack of money. Here is more proof:
When he talks about being the victim of a coup that's a dog-whistle for insurrection which is a high crime.
No, I'm right. I have posted - in multiple places around here - video of Trump condemning white nationalism. Watch it. Hear it. The press keeps misrepresenting his remarks. Admit it happened or we can't talk honestly.
If that were true, this wouldn't have happened:
L.A. terror plot thwarted: Army vet planned ‘mass casualties,’ FBI says
They cut the budget, read my links. Domestic terrorism is more deadly than international for Americans right now, and Trump cut the budget. They want to suppress information about right wing groups too.
So? You said they wanted to ignore the problem. I see no evidence of that. Budgets get reduced all the time. It doesn't mean people are trying to ignore the problem. Defense spending declined quite a bit during Obama's second term. Am I supposed to conclude from that that he wanted to ignore his responsibility to protect the country?
Back on topic, are you prepared to acknowledge that Trump said white supremacists and neo-nazis should be condemned?
Bootstraps, man. Do a little work if you want to know what's going on in Trumpland they don't want you to know. How does this show a priority for domestic terrorism? Actions speak volumes.
Trump is consistent only in his inconsistency. He says high one day and low the next; hot one day and cold the next. "Fine people" one day and something else the next.
His own people don't try to track what he says. "Watch what he does," they say. What he does is promote white supremacy
This for the trolls
Kaine: Trump’s rhetoric ‘emboldens’ white nationalists
By CONNOR O’BRIEN
03/17/2019 01:31 PM EDT
Sen. Tim Kaine on Sunday slammed President Donald Trump’s rhetoric in the wake of a shooting that killed 50 people at two mosques in New Zealand.
In an interview on CBS’s “Face the Nation,” Kaine, a Virginia Democrat, ripped Trump for not calling out white nationalists and for “using language that emboldens them.”
“It is on the rise and the president should call it out but sadly he’s not doing that,” Kaine said. “We saw in the aftermath of the horrible attack in Charlottesville that he tried to say that the white supremacists, neo-Nazis, neo-confederates there were just, you know, ‘good people,’” Kaine said.
The accused shooter in Friday’s attack in Christchurch, New Zealand, praised Trump as a symbol of white identity in a lengthy, rambling manifesto filled with anti-immigrant rhetoric.
WHITE HOUSE
Mulvaney: ‘Absurd’ to say that Trump’s rhetoric influenced New Zealand attack
By CONNOR O’BRIEN
Trump mourned that attack in a tweet Friday. But Trump also said he doesn’t view white nationalism as a rising worldwide threat, calling white nationalists “a small group of people that have very, very serious problems, I guess.”
“The president uses language often that’s very similar to the language used by these bigots and racists,” Kaine said. “And if he’s not going to call it out then other leaders have to do more to call it out and I certainly will.”
“I think the president is using language that emboldens them. He’s not creating them. They’re out there,” Kaine said, adding, “That kind of language from the person who probably has the loudest microphone on the planet Earth is hurtful and dangerous and it tends to incite violence.”
Kaine, the 2016 Democratic nominee for vice president, isn’t the only lawmaker criticizing Trump’s rhetoric.
In an interview on CNN’s “State of the Union,” Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar, a candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination, said Trump’s language “doesn’t help.”
“I don’t think you can actually take each of the murderous acts and say what role Donald Trump played, but I can tell you this. His rhetoric doesn’t help,” Klobuchar said.
“And many of these people ... have cited Donald Trump along the way,” she said. “So, to me, that means, at the very least, he is dividing people. They are using him as an excuse.”
Dean take a look
Why Trump Is Soft on White-Supremacist Terrorism
Last week, President Trump repeated his absurd claim that he had never called the Nazi protesters who descended on Charlottesville in 2017 “very fine people.” On Saturday, yet another white-supremacist attack , on a synagogue in California, demonstrated the point that Trump and his allies wish to obscure: Right-wing terrorism is a more extreme version of Trump’s own political style. It draws inspiration from his ideas and some measure of protection from his political power.
Conservatives have long denied any links whatsoever between the brand of white supremacy represented by Nazis or the Ku Klux Klan and Republican-style conservatism. Conservative books like Jonah Goldberg’s Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning and Dinesh D’Souza’s The Big Lie: Exposing the Nazi Roots of the American Left have tried, absurdly, to identify these movements with the left side of the ideological spectrum.
The rise of Donald Trump has made this strained argument preposterous. Trump is not a white supremacist; if I showed you a block of text from one of his speeches side by side with a speech by David Duke, you would be able to tell the difference. But Trump’s rhetoric has excited and mobilized white supremacists because it teases the same theories that they make explicitly. Trump paints unauthorized immigrants as bloodthirsty rapists and murderers and touts their arrival as part of a geopolitical conspiracy to demographically transform the United States.
“A lot of people say” the caravan he hyped was funded by George Soros, Trump suggested last fall. (Trump favorite Lou Dobbs is one of the people who was saying this.) Trump’s closing campaign ad railed against “a global power structure that is responsible for the economic decisions that have robbed our working class, stripped our country of its wealth, and put that money into the pockets of a handful of large corporations and political entities,” juxtaposing this inflammatory claim over images of Soros and other Jewish figures.
The message is surely lost on the vast majority of Trump’s voters, but not on the white-supremacist movement. The shooters in New Zealand, Pittsburgh, and California all articulated this nativist theory in their manifestos.
To be sure, Trump formally denounces terrorist attacks on Jewish and Muslim worshippers. But he is not very good at masking the difference between those condemnations he offers grudgingly and those that have real passion behind them. When asked last month if he considered white-supremacist terror a growing threat, he demurred, “I think it’s a small group of people that have very, very serious problems, I guess.” Trump portrays white supremacists as a tiny force disconnected from politics. In contrast to his rhetoric about ISIS or other Islamist terrorism, which he insists must be labelled Islamic, Trump shrinks from placing white-supremacist terror in its ideological context. Just a handful of crazy nuts with big problems.
Some apologists ascribe the president’s reticence to mere stubbornness: Trump resents being pushed into a corner by the media, they say, and so he refuses to back down from any statement. The problem with this theory is that a certain softness about white-supremacist terror is official Republican doctrine.
In 2009, the Department of Homeland Security wrote a classified report highlighting the dangers of right-wing domestic terrorism. The report outraged conservatives by predicting, accurately, that the election of a black president would stoke far-right violent extremism. One hook Republicans used to discredit the report was its claim that white supremacists would target service members and law enforcement for recruitment, which they claimed was a slur against veterans.
The right’s primary objection to the report was in the link it posited between violent extremism on the one hand and the backlash against Obama and the federal government on the other. “It’s no small coincidence that Napolitano’s agency – referring to Homeland Security director Janet Napolitano – “disseminated the assessment just a week before the nationwide April 15 Tax Day Tea Party protests,” argued Michelle Malkin . The Drudge Report hyped the story with a banner warning, “She Is Watching You.” John Boehner insisted Napolitano “owes the American people an explanation for why she has abandoned using the term ‘terrorist’ to describe those, such as al Qaeda, who are plotting overseas to kill innocent Americans, while her own Department is using the same term to describe American citizens who disagree with the direction Washington Democrats are taking our nation.”
This episode took place at a time when Republicans were committed to presenting the tea party as a movement of principled deficit hawks sincerely concerned about inflation and debt-financed outlays. Yet their backlash against the Homeland Security paper reflected their recognition of a political affinity between their brand of anti-Obama panic and the violent kind identified by the department. The paper did not make the connection between tea-party protests and paranoid or violent extremism; Republicans drew the connection themselves.
The dynamic has only intensified in the Trump era. At a hearing on white-supremacist terrorism earlier this month, Republicans kept derailing the conversation. “Every time Democrats talked about President Trump’s anti-immigrant remarks, or how government agencies should do more to fight the spread of white nationalism, Republicans pivoted to criticism of identity politics, anti-Semitism on the left and off-topic foreign policy issues,” reported NPR .
Republicans do not wish to defend white supremacists, but they feel enough kinship with them to treat them as political allies and to consider measures directed against them as a shared threat. The way you can tell Republicans are soft on white-supremacist terrorism is that white-supremacist terrorism is a partisan issue.
• He has signed two executive orders, Executive Order 13769 and Executive Order 13780, that have banned or limited immigration from majority-Muslim countries. These orders are commonly referred to as "Muslim bans."
• He has repeatedly made implicitly and explicitly racist comments including questioning President Barack Obama's birthplace and dismissing a federal judge's qualifications because of his Mexican heritage.
• He was endorsed by numerous white nationalist and white supremacist individuals and organizations including Richard Spencer, former KKK Imperial Wizard David Duke and neo-Nazi website The Daily Stormer.
• He had repeatedly promoted white nationalist people, ideas and narratives on Twitter. ↑ BACK TO CHART
• Neo-Nazi Andrew Anglin praised Breitbart for going "hardcore" after Bannon became its executive chair, further stating that Breitbart's content is "basically stuff that you would read on [Anglin's neo-Nazi site] the Daily Stormer."
• Bannon's appointment was praised by white nationalists and white supremacists including former KKK Imperial Wizard David Duke, white nationalist publisher Peter Brimelow and Chairman of the American Nazi Party Rocky Suhayda. ↑ BACK TO CHART
• Breitbart has regularly promoted conspiracy theories including the racist "birther" conspiracy theory that President Barack Obama is a Muslim who was born in Kenya. Breitbart has also published articles promoting President Trump's false claim that President Obama wiretapped him and false allegations that Hillary Clinton and John Podesta were involved in a pedophile ring working out of a pizza shop. ↑ BACK TO CHART
• Miller regularly derided multiculturalism and immigration in articles and radio appearances during high school and college. One high school classmate described him as having "an intense hatred toward people of color, especially toward Latinos."
• He is one of the architects of President Trump's nationalist, Islamophobic and anti-immigrant "America First" agenda, including Executive Order 13769, often referred to as the "Muslim ban."
• He served as Attorney General Jeff Sessions's communications director when Sessions was a U.S. Senator for Alabama. ↑ BACK TO CHART
• He advocates for ethnic cleansing and for the creation of a white ethno-state in North America. ↑ BACK TO CHART
• During the hearings, black Assistant U.S. Attorney Thomas Figures testified that Sessions had made several racist and racially insensitive comments including calling him "boy." Coretta Scott King wrote a letter to the Committee stating that Sessions had used his office as U.S. Attorney to "intimidate and frighten elderly black voters." ↑ BACK TO CHART
• Three leaders of the Vitézi Rend have stated that Gorka is a sworn member of the group.
• He has repeatedly expressed Islamophobic views, including the idea that Islam is inherently violent. ↑ BACK TO CHART
• He tagged racist conspiracy theorist Mike Cernovich as well as anti-Semite Jared Wyland in several of his tweets. He also re-tweeted an anti-Semitic comment blaming Jewish people for criticism of Russia. He later deleted that re-tweet, claiming that it was a "mistake."
• Flynn's appointment was praised by former KKK Imperial Wizard David Duke.
• On February 13, 2017, Flynn resigned as National Security Advisor after The Washington Post reported that he had discussed sanctions with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak prior to Donald Trump's inauguration. ↑ BACK TO CHART
• Called Islam a "militant faith that exalts conversion by the sword and inspires thousands to acts of terror."
• Wrote of immigration, "America is not a 'nation of immigrants'; we are originally a nation of settlers, who later chose to admit immigrants, and later still not to, and who may justly open or close our doors solely at our own discretion, without deference to forced pieties."
• On April 8, 2018, Anton resigned after John Bolton was hired as President Trump's National Security Advisor. ↑ BACK TO CHART
• Before joining the Trump administration, Smith worked for the Immigration Reform Law Institute, a legal organization founded and affliated with Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), a anti-immigrant organization designated as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center. • Smith resigned on August 28, 2018 after he was questioned about his contact with white nationalists. ↑ BACK TO CHART
• Beattie was fired in mid-August 2018 after CNN asked the White House for comment on its story about Beattie's involvement in the 2016 conference. ↑ BACK TO CHART
And you don’t like what I seed. Your articles headline is clearly inflammatory and the whole article is a giant sweeping generalization made up of multitudes of them and half truths. The article has no redeeming value.
And yet, it seems that the only person who agreed or even thought that comment of yours had enough value to vote it up was...you.
oh, the irony...
-david-duke-backs-tulsi-gabbard-for-president
Tulsi Gabbard is extremely eccentric. She has as much chance of winning the nomination as you do.
The shooter called Trump "a Zionist, Jew-loving, anti-White, traitorous cocksucker ” and attacked conservatives.
But John desperately need you to believe this is "Trump's base."
Maybe it's the fact that Scumbag called someone like this "very fine [people]." But, we don't need every single one of the scum that do this kind of thing to link directly to your Scumbag. The fact that nearly every other one of them* has had at least complimentary if not laudatory things about your Scumbag is already enough.
*The Pittsburgh and Christchurch mass murderers, and Sayoc, the pipe bomb sender. Hasson, the Coast Gurard officer who planned to murder "all" the Jews he could also used language that was identical to Scumbag's denunciation of foreigners of color or of particular religion.
That's not true.
Oh, but it is precisely true. He didn't just say that in the immediate aftermath of the nazi torch parade in Charlotteville but just last week called it a "perfect comment" and stuck by it. As a way of justifying support for him do you just seal yourself off from knowing who he is and what he says and does?
Then you will please provide a link to a video of Trump saying a murderer is a very fine person. Or retract your lie.
[delete]
You're just making stuff up, how about some sources?
He doesn't support white nationalism or groups like the KKK. Any comments to the contrary are simply lies. How come Obama never denounced black on black crime, like what continues to happen in last metro areas like Chicago.
And you're the last person who'd we consult for that. Oh, and the link you gave us that was going to prove your point gave us this:
Tex, let me thank you again for existing because it saves me from having to invent you.
Stop lying and trying to Trumpsplain 'what he really meant'. We can all listen and decide for ourselves. He did say white nationalists were very fine people in that comment (I know exactly where the 'on both sides' belongs, it adds nothing to your defense). You forget we have the context of multiple 'explanations' over time, and his comments and behavior over other racist or supremacist crimes. We get to make our own judgement. Don't try to minimize his race baiting hate, we see it all the time.
Where? What were his exact words? What you are saying is simply not true.
No explanation is necessary. You are denying the truth right in front of you. Clearly you didn't watch the video.
Context is everything Tacos! There is no convincing the left of that Trump was not necessarily speaking of supremacists when stating '…very fine people, on both sides.' There were other people that were not members of supremacists groups protesting the statues removal.. as there were those that had nothing to do with Antifa counter protesting.
Just as the right will not take the comment of H.'s 'What difference, at this time does it make' in context - politics in the media is sound bites and snip its .. that is what drives the ratings, and the powers that be benefit from the divide that is created...
I make no excuses for the president .. he is a puke .. but I question if calling him a racist is accurate
I could be wrong -James Comey
From where I stand, Trump is getting crucified for nothing more than being fair.
ok... but that does include the supremacists, correct ? so this statement:
is inaccurate now ? it seems accurate to me, but a bit misleading because (as you pointed out) he did state that white nationalists were "very fine people" - but he also included others. (but his inclusion of others doesn't negate the fact that he also included the supremacists)
i can very much agree with this.
I cannot argue with you there Tacos! It seems everything is open to speculation and 'intent' is now interpreted...
'Intent' can be interpreted anyway one wants to .. I stated how I felt on the subject .. so I guess (albeit I could have worded it differently) that is my interpretation of what the president said, even if it can be considered 'a bit misleading' - the president did not say white nationalists were 'very fine people'...
just how I see it Phoenyx ..
Peace...
yes very true and we've seen that many times with Democrats and Republicans !
i see that as odd since you stated plainly -
but the supremacists (white nationalists, KKK or whoever) were there as well and Trump included everyone, right ? i would be more inclined to agree with you if the President stated something like "there were very fine people on both sides, except for supremacists" or something like that. Words don't matter anymore ? (side note: this applies to both sides of the aisle, not just one)
peace to you and i hope you've been well
Since when do I state anything plainly? It always seems it takes me too long to get to my point!
I can see that if a 'disqualifier' had been added, it would be 'crystal' clear .. I have felt that way about many comments made by presidents as 'their side' put the spin on 'what the president intended to say' ..in this case I do not believe the president was calling Antifa nor supremacists 'very fine people' .. the violence between those protesting groups spoke for itself - 'very fine people' were the ones caught in the middle of it..
I am doing well Phoenyx, thank you for asking. It has been a while, I hope you are doing well also. I always look forward to running into you on an article..
Tacos I can't honestly believe you said that. How much truth can you stand. Day after day people show you how errant you are and yet you continue with comments like that.
What you wrote is the type of thing that paid trolls put out.
about the right wing trolls
Don’t feed the trolls — how to combat the alt-right
Nazism and white supremacy are forms of violence. Let’s start there.
The constitution does not protect violence, and I’m happy to see that the California chapter of the ACLU has taken a stand against protecting the “free speech” of hate groups.
But with or without marching permits, it is clear that public displays of hatred are a growing trend in the United States. And as much as I don’t want to give these groups more attention, it is also clear that simply ignoring them is not going to make them go away.
So what do we do?
Many communities seem to have embraced the militant tactics of Antifa , so much so that it seems like it’s already an expectation that every alt-right rally will turn into a violent battlefield.
Yet I can’t help but wonder if these tactics are giving the alt-right exactly what they want. Is it possible that we could be winning small battles while losing the war? Is it possible that as we celebrate Nazis getting punched, their numbers are growing as a direct result of it?
I don’t pretend to have all the answers. I would even admit that a portion of the blame for the rise in violence has to go to those of us committed to nonviolence for our failure to come up with the type of assertive response necessary in these urgent times.
And I do give a lot of credit to Antifa activists, for as much as I have major disagreements in strategy, they have had the courage to put their bodies on the line. When the levels of hatred are as extreme as they are, our responses to it — nonviolent or otherwise — has to match its intensity, and Antifa has done that.
But as these battles rage on (the alt-right has planned rallies this weekend in San Francisco and Berkeley), it’s critical that we not get dogmatic and are able to evaluate our strategies.
Violence has a simple dynamic that Rev. James Lawson once described as, “I make you suffer more than I suffer.” If we think that punching Nazis and pepper spraying them will make them suffer so much that they go away, I’m afraid that we are severely underestimating their commitment to their cause.
Right or wrong (spoiler: they’re wrong), they feel like their culture is being threatened and white people are being oppressed. As the adage goes, “when you are used to privilege, equality feels like oppression.” If members of the alt-right already feel like they are being oppressed (and they do), using violence to shut them down may only make them dig down even deeper into their hole and fight back even harder.
What ‘works?’
As I’ve written before , “we shut their event down” is a poor measure of success if it comes at the expense of growing their base. Is it possible that when we confront these hate groups with violence, that we are actually empowering them?
Over 14 years after President Bush announced “Mission Accomplished” on the deck of an aircraft carrier, the war in Iraq rages on, with one result of the U.S. invasion being the formation of ISIS. And that can be the unintended consequence of violence: when the other side is convinced that they are “right,” and when they feel like they are the ones being oppressed, violence against them is the best recruiting tool they can ask for.
While that is an extreme example, there are countless smaller examples of this dynamic, and it goes both ways. Milo Yiannopoulos’ book became the number one seller on Amazon overnight after his speech was shut down at UC Berkeley. The Birmingham campaign in 1963 exploded when Bull Conner attacked children with fire hoses, giving the movement one of its principal victories within days. After the Alabama state troopers attacked civil rights marchers in Selma, the number of marchers grew ten-fold within two weeks.
While many mocked and celebrated the original “ punch-a-Nazi ,” I’d never even heard of Richard Spencer until he got punched. Now he’s a national hero to many. If that interview had gone on without incident, almost no one would have seen it. It would have been just one more video of Spencer talking on YouTube. Instead, it became a rallying cry for the alt-right.
When white supremacists gather, I get that our initial impulse is to do everything we can to simply shut them down. But it’s very possible that attempts to do so are giving the alt-right exactly what they want. To feel like they are being victimized, to feel like their way of life is being threatened, to gain media attention to legitimize their movement, to demonize the left and to gain more and more recruits for their cause.
Of all the places in the country where they could go, there is a reason that this coming weekend will mark the third time in six months that the alt-right is coming to the San Francisco Bay Area: Because they know they can count on a fight.
And while there are many involved in Antifa who are as dedicated as anyone to defeating white supremacy, I also wonder sometimes if some others want to fight more than they want to win.
So what do we do?
Perspective
Part of what we need to do is to keep things in perspective. Part of that perspective is that this is a serious moment in history. Charlottesville escalated to a point where a woman — Heather Heyer — was killed, and many more could have easily died.
And even that is just an outward expression of a system of white supremacy that is killing people every day. So calls for people to “just get along” isn’t going to cut it.
When San Francisco mayor Ed Lee says, “I ask that when they chant of hate, San Francisco chants of love,” I am not sure he understands that. We cannot simply offer free hugs to Nazis and hope they change their minds.
At the same time, we should keep this in mind: We are not the resistance.
All over the country, confederate memorials are coming down. This was beginning to happen even before Charlottesville. Even GOP leaders are distancing themselves from comments made by Trump, something we would not have seen a couple of decades ago.
As slow as progress can feel at times, things are changing. As a nation, we are making progress. And it is the alt-right that is reacting to those changes. Their worldview is being threatened by progress, and they are the ones resisting .
A friend of mine heard Angela Davis speak some time ago, and that was her message to those involved in the “Trump resistance.” We need to remind ourselves that we are the majority, and they are the ones resisting the changes our society is going through. While we need to meet the urgency of this moment, we can also allow ourselves time to breath and not feel like the world is collapsing around us.
Maintain the moral high ground
This is ultimately a battle for the morals of this country. It is about right and wrong.
Most people like to think of themselves as moral people, and while white supremacy runs deeper than the average person realizes, most people would not identify as Nazis or white supremacists.
In a battle for morals, imagery and messaging is everything . If we lose the PR battle, even if we are ultimately on the right side of justice, we may give the alt-right ammunition they desperately need. And if we don’t provide them with that ammunition, their movement will struggle to gain momentum.
When you see images from nonviolent movements confronting forces of injustice, the images are very clear which side is on the right side of justice. When you see images of the alt-right confronting Antifa, that’s not so clear.
And this is not in any way to make a moral equivalency between the two as Trump has repeatedly done. One side are Nazis and white supremacists. The other side is fighting Nazis and white supremacists. There is no moral equivalency there.
What I am suggesting is that rather than meeting violence with violence, we need to expose their violence. Trump is finding himself more and more isolated as he continues to expose his violence. We need to do the same with the alt-right, and fighting them with sticks makes that harder.
Build mass popular movements
I grew up in Massachusetts and am a die-hard Boston sports fan. And I’ve always been a little embarrassed by the long history of racism there. That’s why I was so proud of my home state this past weekend when counter-demonstrators so outnumbered the alt-right that they were completely drowned out.
And that is the best way for us to win — by surrounding these hate groups with so many people that they can’t get their message out. By showing them and the country how isolated they are. By embarrassing them to the point that they don’t want to come out in public again.
If we outnumber them five-to-one, ten-to-one, twenty-to-one, a hundred-to-one, then we won’t need to use violence to stop them. Our mere presence will, like it did in Boston when 40,000 people showed up to counter “a few dozen” alt-right demonstrators. “Boston right-wing ‘free speech’ rally dwarfed by counterprotesters ” does not make for an effective recruitment tool for the alt-right.
Violence limits the number of people who are willing to come out to these types of events. We can’t let the alt-right feel like this is anything close to an equal fight. And if those of us on the radical left are the only ones showing up to counter-protests, that’s the sense that they will get. We need the masses to win, and we need to maintain nonviolent discipline to turn the masses out.
While the actions of Antifa are getting support on my social media feed, we know that social media can be an echo chamber of limited political views. The masses do not support violence, and that needs to be part of our calculations.
Creative nonviolence
We also need to stop thinking that going head-to-head is the only option we have. There is so much diversity within nonviolence, and we are doing ourselves a disservice when we don’t fully utilize our creativity.
My favorite example of this is a dilemma action where the German town of Wunsiedel turned a Nazi march into a walk-a-thon for an anti-hate group organization. Residents committed to donating money for every meter that the Nazis marched. When the marchers came to town, the residents welcomed them, celebrated and thanked them for raising money to fight Nazism.
Or when clowns showed up to counter a KKK rally in Knoxville, Tennessee. It’s hard to fight when the other side is dressed like clowns, and the images don’t make for good recruitment either.
Or what if instead of trying to stop them, we mix in with them with signs opposing hate? If our signs outnumber theirs, again their photo-ops would become useless.
What if we hold massive banners and completely surround them, not letting anyone see them?
What if instead of shields and sticks, every person came with instruments, pots, pans, air horns and drums and completely drowned them out without actually trying to stop them?
What if we go to the site of their rally the night before and somehow transform the site itself? Maybe paint the entire ground a bright rainbow?
What if we coordinated the “Yes, You’re Racist” Twitter feed and tried to take pictures of everyone who shows up at the event? Members of the alt-right have already had their businesses boycotted, been fired from work, had their accounts suspended from Airbnb, social media and even the dating site OK Cupid.
Action vs. inaction
At the end of the day, the most important thing for anyone reading this is to be ready to mobilize every time the alt-right gathers. The fewer counter-demonstrators there are, the more likely it will be that violence will erupt. The more counter-demonstrators there are, the more likely that the alt-right will simply run away.
For those of us committed to nonviolence, it is easy to criticize people who have played a role in escalating violence. But if we are not at least in the streets with them, then our criticisms ring hollow. If we believe that we can defeat hate by building a popular movement, then we need to get into the streets and create one.
Violence vs. nonviolence is an important question, and a complicated one. A less complicated one is the question of action vs. inaction. Regardless of where you stand on nonviolence, if you stand for inaction you are helping hatred gain steam.
Yes....Yes it is !
i agree.. and i'm sick of constantly repairing my secret decoder ring, or buying a new one with each new president...
ok, well that's your belief
i enjoy our conversations - it provides different viewpoints and doesn't hurt anything between us :)
ok, explain why it is inaccurate if Trump was referring to the entire group which also contained supremacists (white nationalists etc) along with non-supremacists. I can't wait to hear this explanation.
Well let your heart be still.
How many of those that Trump spoke of....have "Killed' anyone ?
so... no explanation i guess ? let's try this again:
so far.. i haven't seen the word "killed" in my statement nor the statement i was referring to... so i'm still waiting for an explanation.. but i won't hold my breath.
This question is very pertinent given the topic of this article.
Why the earth and blood for your avatar?
That is not a joke and certainly not a toy.
I am surprised you have not been called on it, as it has been up quite a while.
I can't believe it's beginning is tied to this thread. As stated, it has been up a while.
Why not just the swastika?
My avatar has several layers:
- an anarchist "A"
- a Socialist rose
- the phrase "in good faith"
- the antifa logo of red and black flags, in a black circle.
I've never seen the origins of the antifa colors. I assume they "socialist red" and "anarchist black".
Now... would you please explain where, and more importantly why, you see "earth and blood".
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Perhaps Nazi symbols, too?
Here are some of the more well known earth and blood flags these days:
That color combination is not a new invention for the far right wing. Strange the antifa group would adopt the same colors.
I don't see any beauty there. Do you?
Interestingly enough, the actual shape of the antifa flag is remarkably similar to that of the 1930s German Communist party.
While adopting the Earth and Blood colors.
Those are irrelevant to our discussion, about supposed Nazi symbols in my avatar.
I asked you where you found Nazi symbols in my avatar. (That was your initial assertion.)
Please either explain your initial diatribe:
... or recognize that you made an ugly mistake, and apologize.
None needed.
Every Group, has nice folks in it. Even Followers of Islam....right ?
C'mon, Dave.
You said I used Nazi symbols in my avatar. No, there are none, as I hve shown.
You owe me an apology.
No, I did not say you had nazi symbols in you avatar. I said this:
You followed with this question:
I gave you clear examples to THAT question, examples of the earth and blood symbols.
Not once did I state you have nazi symbol in your avatar
I did ask:
I would ask the same question again, as your comments and questions do not exactly relate to what I posted and you explained the background to the graphic.
The graphic is clearly a combination of 1930s German communist symbolism and earth and blood, which is clearly fascists in representation.
Interesting combination.
I made no mistake and I have nothing apologize for with regards to noticing the obvious.
If that recognition bothers you, then I am sorry it bothers you.
I'll keep note of that.
Bob, I am sorry you took it this way.
Again, see 3.1.35.
Again I did not say you had nazi symbols. However, you do have earth and blood.
Even you stated that you hadn't researched the background of the insignia.
Unfortunately, because of family history and both of those extremist trying to kill us, yes, kills, spotting their symbols is pretty much second nature to me.
Tess, I do not know how that quote got in there.
It certainly wasn't meant for you.
i didn't suggest otherwise, so you surely must agree that the statement is true that Trump has called the supremacists "very fine people" in his statement since he included everyone and didn't specifically put in a disqualifier, correct ?
Basically, you called me a Nazi. How should I take it?
Basically, with that graphic, you took on the persona of earth and blood.
How is anyone, who sees that as clear as day supposed to interpret that?
It's the antifa logo. The opposite of fascist.
Your insistence is more and more offensive.
Which completely put me through a loop.
History tells us what those colors are. History insists. Just as history tells us what the symbols are.
Very odd combination.
I am not insisting on anything, I asked a question.
You are inferring in a passive aggressive way. You want to talk history? Deal with the conservative attempts to redefine 'nationalism' to ignore the significance in WWII. Lets talk about the uptick in hate crimes by white NATIONALISTS and supremacists and neo-nazis, those domestic terrorists that mass murder. And Trump's inability to condemn them with the same voracity he does with our intelligence community. Or democrats. Doesn't the right have enough to deal with without accusing others (of what they are doing, the typical projection)?
Get the entire statement out correctly if you're gonna spout !
“What about the alt-left that came charging at, as you say, at the alt-right?” Trump said. “Do they have any semblance of guilt?”
“I’ve condemned neo-Nazis. I’ve condemned many different groups. But not all of those people were neo-Nazis , believe me,” he said.
“You had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists,” Trump said. “The press has treated them absolutely unfairly.”
“You also had some very fine people on both sides ,” he said.
SEEMS HE DID PUT IN A DISQUALIFIER HUH.
I looked at a lot of images from Charlottesville. If there were any "fine people", they stayed out of sight.
Oh, and... Heather Heyer...
Yep !
1% would STILL be some …… right ?
A 'very fine person' would have left any rally that included tiki torches and white supremacists chanting against Jews. I submit nobody who participated in that rally was fine. They are racists whether they admit it or not.
It's really funny listening to "Liberals" try to interpret their own thought processes.
"On the one hand, the 1%(billionaires) are too big, but on the other hand, the 1%(what Trump Spoke of) is too small.
Didn't see anyone leaving this "Tolerant" group of protestors.
The first Pic is a bit blurry. is that on Purpose ?
The second pic shows some folks walking.
Your doing your Best?.....to show me what now ?
And we still have that 1%, that weren't involved. Might have even been 99.9999 % that weren't involved either. I don't know of a car that can handle "Multiple" drivers driving.....do you ?
You're laughing about White Supremacist terrorism. Neo-Nazi murder.
Perrie gets angry when I say there are White Supremacist / neo-Nazi fellow-travelers on NT. I hope she's following your "contribution" here.
I never said such a thing.
"Other supporters of the Rump are killing"
The "Other" side has the same problem.
Scalise was just out for a day of fun and baseball.
People "KILL' other People all the time.
What Excuse they use, is just that, an excuse. They were gonna "KILL" anyway !
what ?
Shot is shot !
Beaten up is beaten up !
Killed is Killed !
Like Liberals say about Islamic Terrorists...…"Don't Judge all muslims by a few individuals".
Should fit ALL on ANYTHING, shouldn't it ?
I did ?
Where ?
Are YOU one folks should actually be looking at with Nonsensical Shit comments like that ?
You really didn't mean it though ….. Didja ?
Sure he is, not because the shooter wanted him alive, but because, before he could deliver the finishing shot, a couple of good guys with guns blew the shooter's ass away.
I am not inferring anything and there is nothing passive aggressive about what I stated and why I questioned the earth and blood reference in the graphic of question.
It is a straight out internationally accepted understanding the black and red in socio/political symbolism is a sign of earth and blood and associated groups. It is. I did not invent that. Wave any kind of black and red flags in in such a scenario and that means you have just entered a earth and blood zone.
Some actually claim to be anarchists, some don't. However, they are all extremely right wing.
Antifa adopting those colors is like a stupid analogy such as this:
In many, many places in western society, signs like these mean STOP.
Then one day a group of folks come along and declare the exact same sign with the very word STOP across it, now means GO to them and declare, every time we see this sign, we are going to GO.
Doesn't make any sense does it?
That is why I asked the question. The combination doesn't make sense. But there it is.
BTW, why did you pose some of the BS the right wing here is doing? I have already condemned that stuff many times over. Don't, for one minute think BS from either left or right running roughshod with their ideologies over either their target or victims has my approval in anyway shape or form.
Check my thoughts in one of Perries "stuck in the middle" articles.
I hate them both to no f'ning end at this point in time.
Yet I stand by my comment that I am sorry, this bothers Bob.
ok, point out where he condemned the KKK or white supremacists please ( did you even read the statement ? ). oh wait.. you can't ... and yet, it's still an accurate statement that he stated these people were " very fine people ", just as he stated the same for the other side.
make sure for future reference you read " entire statement out correctly if you're gonna spout ! " ok ?
Shut him off and use the ignore. This hurts more,
You have reading problems too.
Yes, ignore reality.
Not hurting me.
I hear "Goal Post" movers don't make much.
The only fucking earth and blood reference is in your imagination... which says something about your imagination.
Look at the flags.
It is earth and blood anywhere else in the western world.
Not my invention nor imagination. It's there.
Google "antifa logo" images:
You're saying that antifa is neo-Nazi. And, having been shown that that's nonsense, you're persisting. Imagine whatever you wish. I'm done.
Bob, you are not paying attention.
I keep getting replies that have nothing to do with what I stated.
Of course those are antifa symbols. If you recall I gave you an example, of which you just posted.
Yes, you are done. The question of why the use of earth and blood symbolism is apparently too allusive.
I asked a simple question and have given multiple examples why I asked the question and you keep replying with things that have nothing to do with the question.
[REMOVED]
Silliness.
Are you a middle schooler?
As I stated earlier:
mmmmmm. She is the most beautiful of all.
[Removed]
you could be right, i wouldn't know. how much do you make ?
Sure you do.
i wouldn't know... and if you were following the conversation from the beginning - you'd know i haven't moved any goal posts.. so how much do you make ?
Of course.
You don't know your self ?
someone once said some good advice for you to follow - they said you should read "entire statement out correctly if you're gonna spout !"
please let me know if you need help reading or comprehending the above statement.
I did !
Since he did not specifically exclude the murderer from the group of "very fine people" my comment stands, it is no lie and there will be no retraction (but lots of laughing at you that you think you deserve one).
Like hell...because if that were true that would be a self-indictment of illiteracy and I'm going to give you the benefit of doubt assume and chalk it up to BS.
Well, that's creepy.
Why?
That's as quick a confession of "I got nuthin'" as I've ever seen. Thanks for giving up so fast. Saves you the pain and us the trouble of pounding your statement to a pulp.
That entire comment absolutely doesn't.
That question answers itself.*
*in that if you have to ask it that explains why it was creepy.
You have a very weird fixation, not to mention interpretation, on what's an "earth" color is.
Then obviously you didn't understand it, which you just admitted.
What makes it creepy?
Try explaining why you think that, instead of some BS.
That's it. When your "argument" is bogus and getting ripped to shreds, try whining. By the way, didn't we already go around this link to Politifact that you tried to use to prop up Scumbag:
Thanks ever so much, Tex, for always giving so many laughs
What fixation?
Look up earth and blood flags and you will get things like this.
Thank you for helping to explain why antifa is not aware of the obvious.
Outside of antifa's world, the rest of the western world calls those colors earth and blood. Who, by the way are also, often anarchists.
your continued replies indicate you did not.
What other group was there that he had in mind, then? There were basically three groups there: nazis, white-supremacists and counter-protestors. Was it the white-supremacists who weren't shouting "Jews Will Not Replace Us" or the Nazis who were? And what were the counter-protestors doing that made some of the a part of the "very bad" designation? The fact that they weren't white supremacists and nazis? Here's your problem: When you throw your lot in with a racist, hate-mongering scumbag like Trump you are going to always have to keep trying to play the "Scumbag whisperer" and try to make up shit about what he means when he vomits out puke like this. So, live with that.
I admit it: blithering is hard for me to understand.
So, again, not dead.
Why don't you tell us what you meant by the "mmmmmmmmmmmmm" bit and was there some lip-licking as you wrote it?
Black and red are "earth colors" in your eyes? Weird.
At least we have thought processes. I was looking for your comment about where you were standing but couldn't find it. I wanted to suggest you might be able to see things more clearly if you moved out from under Scumbag's anus.
Are you a middle schooler?
Now, I am very interested in why your judgemental, sharia mentality is so hateful towards those who are different than you.
Please tell us all what drives this hate?
Polyamorous people don't need don't need heavy doses of medications including hormones, nor intensive, mental, emotional or physical therapies, nor body mutilation in order to present themselves as or identify as polyamorous.
Being polyamorous doesn't hurt anybody.
Are you following some superstition? Maybe some ancient made up sorcery? Or, maybe some deep seated issue is causing you to think hateful thoughts?
Then again, I know you can't back away from your M.O.
Come on. quit running from your own statement. Please, explain why, in your mind a polyamorous relationship is "creepy".
Without stating the obvious about learning disorders, I will ask where I ever said that.
I guess you need reminding that just a week ago he described his earlier "very fine people" comment as "perfect." So. your claim that we're making a big deal about a "sound bite" that has now been repeated and amplified to "perfection" falls completely flat.
I am hearing intolerant sharia proclamations and incoherent deflections, but no explanations for such hateful words.
Please, without bs, explain your hate against people who have done you no harm.
You know, "well, that's creepy".
Please, explain your sharia hate.
For the "eleventy hundredth" time Earth and Blood. Also, for the "eleventy hundredth" time not my invention. I understand typing google searches can be very difficult. It's okay, I understand not everyone has the same capabilities.
Here is earth and blood in action, promoted and paid for by our prior administration.
See the red and black? Earth and Blood? I will save the best implication pictures for later.
Oh...btw, my "creepy" friends needed special help here.
Small pond syndrome.
OMG, I forgot, your head is in middle school gutter.
I am thinking if you remain true to form, you went off in the wrong direction from this statement:
Please forgive me, if my sudden realization is incorrect.
Special help means making sure my "creepy" friends remained alive.
Gee willikers, one would think someone who has made such proclamations as "well, tht's creepy" AND has been here and gone several times would have the guts to answer or respond to a few comments as to why such a hateful and judgemental sharia statement was made.
Could it be the small pond syndrome?
Hope not.
Really want to hear the reasoning behind the sharia hatefulness.
I have 2 very beautiful friends who are very curious about your sharia hatefulness and want to know why they are considered creepy.
Can you provide details about your sharia hatefulness?
He didn't exclude him from the "very fine people on boths sides," did he? In fact, can you find a comment from him that even acknowledged that there was a murderer among those "very fine people?" If so, please bring it to the conversation.
No he didn't, just as you did not separate people from your "well, that is creepy" comment, from which you have no knowledge.
Or, was that "really" you? Or maybe one of your many spoofed personas on the board? (HELLO Board monitors, have any of you recognized the many personas for this poster?)
BTW, reminds me, what is up with your sharia hate for people you know nothing about?
Example:
Run coward , run.
Go fix your algorithm which you use to hack the board.
When Will GOP Leaders Say Enough?
Never.
The only reason for the GOP's existence is to funnel money to the already-ultra-rich from... everyone else.
Obviously, this program should be popular with the ultra-rich, but no one else. To get votes, the GOP panders to people stupid enough to screw themselves, in order to screw whatever category they hate.
So the GOP will be racist, xenophobe, misogynist, ... forever...
Power is their primary driver and nothing, not even appeals to address an internal threat to this republic by a lawless and reckless President, will deter them from that pursuit. As we've seen many times whenever they control Congress or the Executive, they are ruthless and take no prisoners in their goal of bending this country to the extreme right. Karl Rove once said it out loud. His dream was to create a permanent Republican majority in this country. IOW, a one party state. You don't get something like that by adhering in word, deed or spirit to Constitution of the United States.
But why?
What is a guy like McConnell after?
Atheist said....One Party Rule
$200 some million for Kentucky through bribery
Aren't you conceding that the Democrats want a one party nation, with themselves in charge. Everyone of their collective actions since Trump has been elected points to that fact. The Dems don't care about the people, but only in having full power.
How in the hell did you come up with that comment which is nothing but lies
Right off the top: To pack the SC with any and every candidate the Federalist Society tells him to and to obstruct anything a Democratic president would get elected to do.
And that, too.
Oooops, looks like you need a vocabulary lesson. Sure Dems would like to govern but to rule is what despots and fascists aspire to as we see from today's monstrous reincarnation of the Republican party so you do get half credit.
That's possible...
Sure. But stuff like that is a means to an end, not an end in itself.
McConnell seems to be working to obtain absolute power for the ultra-rich. That's clear enough.
But I don't understand why.
Well, please give us an example of any Dem saying anything like what Rove promised years ago and McConnell is trying to do now.
It does but that comment has nothing to do with what Republicans are hoping to accomplish--permanent one-party rule. If you're going to keep trying to deflect every subject you need to not be so glaringly obvious about it, Tex.
And you don't think that Obama, and every other Democratic President, and Senator, isn't doing the exact same thing for their side?
Wow, talk about naive.
I'd love the comedy value for you even beginning to back that claim up.
You do that so much that you should be complete FA-free by now.
What a disgraceful thing we keep seeing from the loony far left fringe to keep accusing Trump (and some others) of somehow endorsing violence against any group, but particularly to accuse him of supporting people who want to exterminate Jews. Trump is the closest thing we have had to a Jewish president thus far and he has enthusiastically condemned anti-semitism as he did during the rally held after the synagogue shooting in Pittsburgh.
You can keep restating the lie that Trump supports anti-semites but the reality does not support that lie.
What a sad and dangerous state we're in when people are so devoted to a cult of personality that they refuse to admit the damage is being done by current occupant of the WH has done and will continue to do if those people, in particular, keep on denying what their ears hear and eyes see.
That's delusional. You have no evidence for that. There is ample evidence on this site of me being critical of Trump and also declaring that I didn't vote for him in the primaries. I am no fan of his particularly, but you and the sources you cite are lying about him. That demands a response.
You mean, other than Scumbag's Nüremberg-style rallies in which he loves to rouse his rabble with verbal images of beating up (or worse) journalists who attack him and calling nazis "very fine people" and openly obstructing investigations into his acts and those of his toady appointees and accusing anyone who does that investigating should be removed. You're either asleep or deliberately blinded and deafened yourself to what's happening. Or, despite sounding reasonable sometimes you really are just a hard core Trumper or might as well be for all the interference you run for him.
For the millionth time, he never said nazis were very fine people. He expressly made clear that he was not referring to nazis. He literally condemned nazis and you won't admit it.
That rally was full of white people with tiki torches chanting 'Jew will not replace us'. It was about white supremacy. Anybody at that rally deserves that racist label. That statue excuse is also just that - an excuse to pretend its really not about race hate. He never calls out white domestic terrorists like he does every other group, it is always qualified. We have a long history of his words and actions. It was not about southern generals (Trump has told a few whopper lies about that subject even recently). We will not let republicans redefine history and whitewash this.
Well, of course there wouldn't be to someone who refuses to accept the facts:
BTW, 2015--the year these incidents started to spike--just happens to be when Scumbag began regularly lying in public about immigrants in general and Mexicans in particular as being responsible for increasing violence in this country. You can keep pretending he had nothing to do with that and ignoring the fact that he keeps lying about these things and the incidents increase correspondingly but it's clear you're just trying to cover for him and that's almost as despicable as what he's doing.
I'm just going to keep repeating myself since you aren't actually responding to what I write. So, to repeat: Trump condemned nazis and white supremacists and you won't admit it.
Wow, you have a really high opinion of his ability to persuade people. Unfortunately, you won't acknowledge and you won't admit that he has condemned - on multiple occasions - white supremacy, neo-nazis, and antisemitism. You won't acknowledge that when the anti-semitic killers have some kind of manifesto, they actually condemn Trump for sympathizing with Jews.
And that's understandable I guess, because you have already tied yourself to this idea that his powers of persuasion are so irresistible. So, logically, if he ever said anything like I have described, you would expect a corresponding decrease in the incidents.
The debate over statues in the South, for example, began years before Trump decided to run for president or attack illegal aliens.
Maybe open your mind to the possibilities that 1) Trump is not pro-nazi/pro-white nationalism/anti-semitic like people claim, and 2) Maybe assholes are just assholes and they didn't suddenly become that way because of Trump.
Exactly!
Trump condemned nazis and white supremacists and progressives lie in denial about what he said.
This is always a funny line from people who freaked out every time Obama started a sentence.
No, he did not. And the proof he has not is that you haven't produced a single word much less a full sentence from your Shitbag to that effect.
Opps you got a problem Tacos
One video refutes Sarah Sanders’s claim that Trump has never encouraged violence
Trump in fact has a long history of encouraging violence.
White House press secretary Sarah Sanders dismissed a question from a reporter on Friday about whether President Trump has any plans to “tone done his rhetoric” after Coast Guard Lt. Christopher Hasson was arrested over an alleged plot to kill journalists and prominent liberals.
“I certainly don’t think that the president at any point has done anything but condemn violence, against journalists or anyone else,” Sanders said.
But Sanders’s characterization is directly at odds with her boss’s history of routinely making incendiary comments about the media and his political opponents. In fact, you don’t have to go far back in history to find footage of the president explicitly encouraging violence against reporters.
In one of the most dramatic examples, Trump literally celebrated a lawmaker for assaulting a reporter. The moment is memorable for its egregiousness, even by Trump-era standards.
At a political rally last October, Trump boosted Rep. Greg Gianforte (R-MT) for assaulting Guardian reporter Ben Jacobs while Jacobs attempted to interview him in 2017.
Jacobs was attempting to ask Gianforte about his response to a government report on health care when Gianforte grabbed Jacobs’s recorder and pushed Jacobs to the ground. Gianforte later pleaded guilty to misdemeanor assault.
But instead of condemning Gianforte’s behavior, Trump praised him.
“Any guy that can do a body slam, he’s my kinda guy,” Trump said, before going on to mimic a body slam while the crowd cheered.
Here’s footage of Trump’s praise:
This one video refutes Sanders’s claim that Trump has never encouraged violence “against journalists or anyone else.” In fact, it’s emblematic of Trump’s habit of explicitly encouraging violence.
A brief history of Trump directly and indirectly encouraging violence against the media and political opponents
Trump is no stranger to casually talking about violence against his opponents.
During a rally in December 2015, he joked about killing journalists while defending Russian President Vladimir Putin, whose government has reportedly been involved in murdering dissident journalists.
“I would never kill them,” Trump said, alluding to reporters, before seemingly reconsidering his statement. “Ahh ... let’s see... well ... no, I wouldn’t. I would never kill them. But I do hate them. And some of them are such lying, disgusting people.”
In the months that followed, Trump repeatedly encouraged his fans to beat up protesters at his rallies, even going as far as to promise on two different occasions to pay their legal bills if they were charged with crimes.
With the exception of applauding police for roughing up gang members and his comments about Gianforte, Trump hasn’t been as explicit about encouraging violence since taking office. But he has of course repeatedly referred to the “Fake News Media” as “crazed lunatics” and “the enemy of the people,” including as recently as Wednesday — the same day Hasson was arrested.
Statements like that one aren’t direct threats, but there’s evidence some Trump supporters interpret them as a call for action. For instance, days after Trump praised Gianforte for assaulting Jacobs, someone began sending bombs to prominent Trump critics in politics and the news media.
As explosives showed up in the mail at CNN, the Clintons’ residence, and elsewhere, Trump downplayed the situation, continued attacking the media , and even seemed to suggest the package bombs were false flags meant to make Republicans look bad. But the suspect ultimately arrested in connection with the incidents turned out to literally have pro-Trump propaganda covering his van .
While the charges against Hasson indicate that his violent tendencies and extremism predate Trump’s political rise, there are indications that he was influenced by Trump’s rhetoric. The hit list he had of prominent Dems and media figures referred to Elizabeth Warren as “poca warren,” a description that appears to be shorthand for the slur Trump regularly uses for her. According to authorities, Hasson also Googled phrases like “what if trump illegally impeached” and “civil war if trump impeached.”
On February 12, a BBC camera operator was assaulted by a man wearing a MAGA hat at Trump’s first political rally of 2019. After attacking the camera operator, the assailant yelled, “Fuck the media!”
Trump briefly paused his speech, but resumed his attacks on the media minutes later. His fans responded with “CNN sucks!” chants.
The president still hadn’t commented on Hasson’s arrest as of Friday afternoon. He was finally asked about it during a question-and-answer session during an event at the White House, and denied any responsibility.
“I think my language is very nice,” Trump said when asked if he thinks he should moderate his language.
Your post is irrelevant to the conversation and to anything I have written. You are attempting a straw man tactic by arguing against something I didn't say. I have posted - repeatedly - a video of Trump condemning white nationalists and neo-nazis. Do you deny this? Do you deny that Trump said white nationalists and neo-nazis should be condemned totally?
One little clip of a nazi condemnation is not enough when every other thing you've said belies it. Sorry, too much of a body of racist comments for that to help him.
Yes. It's what you think you posted but it isn't what you pretend it to be. And, you probably realize that as well.
[Removed]
Since the GOP is doing nothing, what are Democrats going to do about it?
Let voters repeat the 2008 election and give Democrats control of Congress and the White House. What are Democrats going to do about white supremacy?
Even after obtaining complete control over elected Federal government, Democrats claimed they could do nothing because they were two seats shy of a super majority and the Republican minority obstructed everything. So, what happens if Democrats are given a super majority? What are Democrats going to do about white supremacy?
How much control is enough for Democrats to start addressing everything they complain about? When are Democrats going to do something? Are Democrats going to obstruct themselves? Isn't that how we got Obamacare instead of financial regulations, living wages, gun control, anything to address climate change, and taxes on the rich? If Democrats had actually done everything they promised then there wouldn't have been a need for Obamacare.
Why should voters give Democrats political power if Democrats aren't going to do anything they have promised? Democrats have to be given power because they haven't done anything to earn it.
What are Democrats going to do about white supremacy?
They've tried to make racism and so called white power an issue since day one of Trump's campaign and presidency.
As always, they've failed miserably. Neither issue is wide spread or more than an individual or local problem.
The seem to have been taken over by the far left radical faction, not realizing that the average American citizen doesn't want anything to do with that kind of government.
The Dems could be working with Trump on doing things for the common good for American in a bipartisan way, but all they are doing is still trying to get rid of him. The voters are not impressed by their ongoing stupidity and lack of purpose
Awww, no, Greg. Scumbag is the one who brought those issues with him and his toadies have been more than happy to aid and abet him. Aren't you guys the ones who are always complaining that we should blame the perps for crimes instead of the victims but it seems, like most everything else, that's just that a cover line to deflect away from the crimes being enabled.
Its like you bring an alternative reality, where everything Trump and republicans say and do is projected on to the opposition, no matter who it is. STOP GASLIGHTING. Everything you list is exactly what republicans are doing.
And when they're not doing that they're following the Goebbel's propaganda formula:
In reality it isn't clever at all but it certainly works on enough ignorant and suggestible people to frequently be successful.
[Removed]
[Removed]