Americas twin political cancers

Post Reply New Topic

Can you expand on that? i'm not sure it's necessarily obvious what that means.

Anyone against hate stands with the rest of us, as far as I'm concerned.

Any particular thoughts on people who stand for the rule of law and due process?

From what I've seen and heard there are some who have the attitude the rule of law is hate.

I figure if anyone thinks that way they should be that much quicker to send their lawyers and politicians to work on the rule of law then. It seems like the country has been flooded with just as many liberal and left-wing attorneys and politicians as anyone else. Wonder what that says about those who think that about the rule of law.

Well, that would doubtlessly leave out white nationalists, as they hardly want to extend those rights to those they see as their lessers.

Radicalism, left and right, leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

And the fact that the KKk and Neo-Nazis were able to be so open.....worries me.

As difficult as it is to admit the white identitarian issue varies in both trajectory and merit based on continent.

I think, for example, that people in the UK and continental Europe have a much different sort of claim to their right to at least a white majority in European countries, the US and the commonwealths self-identified as melting pots and if that's in your fundamental ideology - and you're a commonwealth - its probably best to stick with that ideology through both the easy times and the more challenging ones. In Europe this takes on a very different flavor these days because you do have groups who are ostensibly liberal/libertarian rather than right or alt-right who are trying to argue that European countries should have a >50% populace European stock and rather than being anti-diversity for the sake of it they're making a case that once you pass a particular tipping point you have thousands of years of culture riding on chance.

But to bring it back to white nationalists in the US - they're bringing up a hodge-podge of issues, some valid others really just ignorant/racist or conspiratorial anti-Jewish garbage, and it seems like the alt-right at that rally represented everything from the mostly sane to mostly insane with plenty in the middle. As far as the numbers go and the degree to which you had that spectrum I think it also shows that to whatever extent these people were there for seemingly sane reasons a lot of that could have been extinguished ahead of time by both sides of the national debate hearing each other out properly - ie. both sides Antifa and Alt-right seem like the results of Balkanization, not the causes.

The guy who drove his car through a crowd killing a woman and injuring nineteen others is a murder plain and simple, hopefully not an official terrorist - we don't need more domestic terrorism and I shudder at the thought of what liberties the federal gov't could grab up with that - but for right now murderer is about all we have strong evidence for. Anyone else in the alt-right at that rally who at any point were physically attacking Antifa unprovoked are just as much thugs IMHO as the Antifa who did the same. As far as anyone who's using violence to make their points I don't think there's anything they're doing that's worth standing by and I don't think there's a place for their hearts to be which would justify tolerating that sort of behavior.

So instead of saying alt left big D should have said antifa. Personally I like alt left better.

The Spanish Inquisition would probably call itsself chemotherapy if it existed today.

That's not what you want the hands to be doing. More like this:



It's just more mental gymnastics to justify an ends justify the means stance and put a positive spin on it.

This is more like using chemotherapy to prevent ever getting another zit, not cancer. It's doing more damage than the occasional zit ever could if left alone.

They always have been able to be open. They were just never given attention before.

Bingo.

Do you really think the racist, white people are being persecuted?

200 years ago the "rule of law" allowed me to own other people. It allowed me to beat my wife and children.

30 years ago it allowed South Africa to jail a black person for having a intimate relationship with a white person.

This only changed because people were willing to "stand against hate."

Of course it would. All reactionary political movements consider themselves to be chemotherapy.

You know that objective reality exists right? You don't have to roll your eyes at everyone who believes in something. Some "extremist" groups are better than others.

The Spanish Inquisition blamed Jews and Muslims for the problems that were actually caused by monarchy ... so they were evil.

So... in other words it came, not through violence.... through *changing* the rule of law....