Words of Advice:

"If Something Seems To Be Too Good To Be True, It's Best To Shoot It, Just In Case." -- Fiona Glenanne

"Flying the Airplane is More Important than Radioing Your Plight to a Person on the Ground
Who is Incapable of Understanding or Doing Anything About It." -- Unknown

“Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level
and then beat you with experience.” -- Mark Twain

"Stay Strapped or Get Clapped." -- probably not Mr. Rogers

"Eck!" -- George the Cat

Tuesday, August 29, 2017

I Am of Two Minds On This

An army of anarchists in black clothing and masks routed a small group of right-wing demonstrators who had gathered in a Berkeley park Sunday to rail against the city’s famed progressive politics, driving them out — sometimes violently — while overwhelming a huge contingent of police officers.
But once again, counterdemonstrators frustrated efforts by police, who numbered about 400. As the crowd swelled to several times that size, officers stepped aside and allowed hundreds of people angered by the presence of the right-wing rally to climb over the barriers into the park, said Officer Jennifer Coats, a spokeswoman for Berkeley police.
I am aware of the history of the 43 Group and the 62 Group, who responded to fascist violence and intimidation in kind.

Nazis and fascists have no respect for democracy, free debate, or the rule of law. I have no doubt that they regard the American tradition of free speech and the constitutional protections of the First Amendment as weaknesses that they are all to happy to exploit. The past is more than clear in proving that fascist regimes have no tolerance for dissent. History is replete with examples of fascist street groups commiting acts of violence and intimidation, including the acts that resulted in the formation of the 43 Group.

So on the one hand, it does not bother me one iota to see fascist rallies crushed by counterdemonstrators.[1]

On the other hand, it allows fascists/Nazis like Steve Bannon, Sebastian Gorka and Donnie Trump to claim to their weak-minded followers that there is no difference between the "alt-right" (a cute term for fascists and Nazis) and those who oppose them.
[1] Nor does it bother me that the Nazis are being outed. Be nice, though, if those doing the outing exercised some due diligence to reduce the chance of mistakes.


Slybrarian said...

I worried about that for a while myself when the debates over Nazi-punching started. Then I remembered that Bannon and the other collaborators already claim there's no differnece, even while the alt-Nazi marchers beat people with pipes, ram cars into crowds, and try to shoot counter-protestors but fail because they can't work a safety.

dinthebeast said...

I read this article on Susie Madrak's blog (via Alternet) that suggested, just as a strategic move, that we stop counter-protesting.

"In 1926, 50,000 KKK marched down Pennsylvania Avenue. Adjusted for current population, that would be close to 150,000 people today. A march before commercial air travel that did not include other groups. Today, Unite the Right has the benefit of a well-oiled, online ecosystem and convenient transit to bring supporters together.
And all they could muster were 500 people."

The idea was to avoid the sort of violence that almost inevitably occurs when another group crashes someone's march, and makes ready fodder for biased media attacks on either group by the other, but more importantly not to inflate the numbers these morons get by our presence.

About Charlottesville:
"The consensus seems to come in at 500 on Saturday and less than 250 people on Friday night."

That would have been a much different story than the one we got, and there would be one woman still warm and breathing who now is not.

I don't quite know what I think about this yet, as I seem to have a fairly strong part of myself that believes these morons should at least face some resistance when they gather and show their faces, but I must say the article makes some good points.

Having lived in the East Bay since 1984, I would caution against basing any policy on our protesting habits. We're pretty much crazy when it comes to demonstrations. We'll riot over winning a football game, or losing one, or just because we heard somebody else was having a riot, and the media, local and otherwise, eats it up.
I drove past the place where the Fergus/Anti-Fergus melee went down a few months ago the next morning, and couldn't tell any sort of event had occurred, but the video footage made it look like a goddamn war.
Anyway here's the article:


-Doug in Oakland

B said...

SO violence against someone with whom you disagree is ok?

Can I start shooting ANTIFA? OR Communists? Beating Leftists with baseball bats?

Look, I dislike the White Supremacists and the National Socialists. But once you stoop to that level of "the ends justifies the means" and "Violence is ok because Nazi", then you have removed the Rule of Law and you are likely to be the next victim of that mindset.

The police that allowed this (and Charlottseville, etc) are derelict in their duty. (and the "demonstrators" are fools).

CenterPuke88 said...

The crux of this is discourse in the public square. You are free to say what you want, but not free from consequence...but how will we deal with this consequence? The ACLU has it right, in their decision to litigate FOR the alt-right and their right to protest. However, as the alt-right suggests actions that are expressly, and blatantly, "Unconstitutional", we edge closer to yelling fire in a crowded theater. The catch there is that some of these ideas were, at one time, considered "Constitutional" (and, heaven forbid, could be again).

That makes the speech no less hateful, but challenges us to respond in a way that is more effective than violence against violence. Now, some will say "outing" the Nazi's (and possibly costing them their jobs, etc.) is unfair, but this is clearly discourse in the public square, where the actions of an individual may be jusdged by anyone, including their employer. So, if Neal Nazi loses his job, who is next, is the question...perhaps the answer is a question, will the outrage turn to someone else? Or perhaps die down?

Now, Neal Nazi chose to make his belief public, so anyone identifying him is not doing anything anyone else might do, so this is a legitimate tactic...and one that can only effectively be used against groups that have great opprobrium among the public at large. People will arrgue that we are punishing people for their beliefs, but we are actually punishing them for their public demonstration of those beliefs, not their holding of these beliefs. Of course, they will yell "Free speech", forgetting the caveat. This has been going on in one form or another for centuries in America, so why do we think it will stop now? You want to try to even it up, identify the Antifa protestors (except they give interviews where they identify themselves) and see how their employers react. If they are blasé, then we see the direction of the tide, and freedom of speech or not, the Nazi's are getting shunned.

dinthebeast said...

"Can I start shooting ANTIFA?"
Sure you can. You might get in trouble for it, since it's against the law, but nobody's stopping you.
But didn't we used to have a name for people who shot anti-fascists? I seem to remember a rather large deal being made over them by a few different, oh, allies...

-Doug in Oakland

Anonymous said...

Lets get something clear you libshits. There are 3000 KKK in the ENTIRE COUNTRY according to the ADL. How many Nazis? Not much more I'd imagine.

1. Trump is NOT a NAZI.
2. Trump is NOT Hitler.
3.Trump supports the state of Israel.
4. Most Trump supporters, support Israel.
5. Israel is full of JEWISH PEOPLE.
6.Nazis hate JEWISH PEOPLE.
7.Therefore Trump & his supporters are NOT NAZIS.

Was that simple enough to get through your thick skulls? Probably not. You folks are literally dumb as the rocks you throw through windows.

Now let's get something else CLEAR:

1. Antifa TERRORISTS violently suppressing free speech are NOT defending free speech.
2. You liberal imbeciles in no way whatsoever support free speech. Facebook,Twitter,YouTube ETC censor anything and everything even remotely conservative.
3. Opinions you disagree with are NOT hate speech.

But anyway! Please, Please! Don't stop the violence. Or any of your varied sociopathic behaviors. Or lies.

Because no one believes the BS you're spreading except yourselves. Your insanity and violence is driving scores of people belonging to the VAST silent apolitical non voting MAJORITY to the RIGHT.

Thank you all libshits! Keep up the great work! ;-)

CenterPuke88 said...

Well now, our distinguished visitor has a few cracks in his reasoning. The enemy of my enemy is my friend has a long and distinguished history. Donnie "supports" Israel for two reasons; one is financial...a lot of the money in development in New York is Jewish influenced to some extent, and that's where he got started, number two is he hates the Arabs and Co. more than the Israeli's.

1) Is Donnie a Nazi, not really, but he likes their angle.

2) Is Donnie Hitler, not really, but he admires his power and authority.

3) Does Donnie support Israel, while it's convenient.

4) Most Donnie supporters probably don't support Israel, they want the money spent here.

5) Israel is 6.4 million Jews and 1.8 million Arabs, with the Arab population growing faster...and the US Jewish population is nearly the same...full, er, no.

6) Nazi's used the Jews as someone to blame, they didn't hate them, they used and exterminated them as part of a way to unite the population.

7) Does not follow. For bonus points, look at the number of Family Values Christians who turn out to be gay...seems people who hate groups are often members of those groups.

As for someone else, well, you are entitled to your opinions. I believe you are in error, but that's your problem.

The "VAST silent apolitical non voting(sic) MAJORITY" showed up for the election open 2016 eh? Isn't it amazing that Donnie won the popular vote with all their support...er, wait, he lost the popular vote, didn't he?

3383 said...

I had already read the linked articles, and my question is- does anti-Marxist equal Nazi? There is a difference.
People should be allowed to express their views, but it has been true for a long time in the Bay Area that if you disagree with the politically correct views- and PC has no sarcasm in it at all, here- then you do not deserve to be heard at all. Attempts at discussion are shouted down.
Now we have proceeded beyond shouting down- you will not be allowed here, if you want to express an opinion the police will not protect you- but they will sometimes tell you in advance they will not try to protect you- and they will stand aside while the correct people are beaten down.
Berkeley's Free Speech Movement never was.

Ten Bears said...

Lately I am reminded daily, but all the moreso with our Tuesday Coffee Clatch in front of Oregon's only retard representative's office, of something the (christians) precious lord and master is reputed to have said (Matt 6:5, roughly): don't be like the hypocrites who love to stand on the street and be seen, they have their reward.

Dove-tails with Susie (Madrak)'s thoughts on not physically protesting, though stems from my experience back in the day with (protest) groupies and agents provocateur, and my disdain for the yuppie duppies that were no where to be found when the rest of us were running around with our hair on fire.

Protesting is counter-productive, and plays right into their hands.

That said, I have no problem punching NAZIs and klansmen. Not only are they a bunch of pussies that run crying to the cops, but forty-six years ago I swore an oath to defend this land against all enemies, foreign and domestic. I determine who is the enemy.

Getting sued for a set of dentures right now.

3383 said...

The Klan used to get permits, the locals would hold their noses and allow all 20 of them to march, and everyone else would laugh at them.
I think they are getting too much credit, but if they actually run for office (I will not name the idiot who tried 25- 30 years ago) or try to have real impact, I will be right there with Thomas.
But let people speak. I want to know what is on everyone's mind. Remember, if voters weren't vilified for opposing/ not supporting Hillary, Trump would have been no surprise.

dinthebeast said...

Your "VAST silent apolitical non voting MAJORITY" generally shakes out to +/- 27%. And they deserve to be represented in the government like everyone else.
What they do not deserve is the disproportionate number of them now serving as representatives due to the gerrymandering of the congressional districts, vote suppression tactics employed by Republicans, and relentless propaganda served up 24/7/365 by the right wing media complex.
And by the way, Fergus wouldn't make a pimple on Hitler's ass, and I don't know of anyone saying he would.

-Doug in Oakland