The Nazis got the message that Trump is with them when Trump refused to denounce them.
The founder of the Daily Stormer, a neo-Nazi and white supremacist website that considers itself a part of the alt-right, celebrated the fact that Trump "outright refused to disavow" the white nationalist rally and movement.Didn't we settle this shit in 1945?
"People saying he cucked are shills and kikes," wrote the founder, Andrew Anglin. "He did the opposite of cuck. He refused to even mention anything to do with us. When reporters were screaming at him about White Nationalism he just walked out of the room."
And right after the yelling of the Tiki-Torch Nazis, wasn't there supposed to be some massive face-melting?
I wanted to see face-melting.
20 comments:
"Fascism arrived in America carrying a tiki torch and wearing a MAGA hat."
You know what would have been a whole lot better than finally being proven right about all the dire warnings about this bullshit I've ranted out since they were calling it the "Southern Strategy"?
Being wrong.
Having exhausted that option, my question now is what are we gonna do about it?
Perhaps we could try to contain it by turning it into the Kent State of our time, but I sort of feel like nobody responsible for it would care enough to be swayed by public opinion.
Be that as it may, there will be a massive backlash to this, and that may be of limited usefulness because the culprits aren't really of the elected variety this time, but at least the goddamn Nazis won't get it in their heads that they are some kind of majority.
Yesterday while it was all coming down, I noticed something strange in the comment section of a post about it at Crooks and Liars. It was a bunch of liberals, one after another, saying that contrary to the stereotype, they were in fact armed and competent with their firearms.
Those 300,000,000 guns can't all be owned by Republicans.
-Doug in Oakland
Happened across "Don't be a sucker", a 1943/1947 U.S. Government film about Fascism and resisting the call to divide the county. Quite amusing to watch it as you check off the steps that have been taken by Donnie's brigade...at least until it becomes quite chilling. Comparatively, Bannon fits the Goering role quite well, but Spicer was never going to work as Gobbels.
They are a minority, perptrating a tyrrany upon the rest of us: the majority. Yes yes yes, a loud and indeed influential minority, but a minority none-the-less. In their foresight The Founders established a mechanism to resolve the imposition of a tyrrany by a minority population upon the general population, upon the rest of us. The Second Amendment.
My g'da taught me all a guy ever really needs is a good deer rifle and pistol.
Thomas, as the saying goes: "Tain't much that a man can't fix, with $700 and a thirty-ought-six."
CP88: I watched that again recently also. It seemed weird to listen to the cheerleading for America at first, but god damn it, as far as we were from the equality they praise in the film back then, they were on the right track. I keep going back to Franklin and "if you can keep it."
I want to keep it.
-Doug in Oakland
Bringing a rifle to that fight would be a BAD thing.
'Cause if we get to use the Bullet Box to change our politics it will get REALLY ugly Real Fast.
Both sides will lose, really. But there are likely more Conservative (or "Right") than Left ("Liberal") that own and can use firearms.
I'd hate to see that. No one wins in the end.
I think you're wrong B. I would venture a guess, and this is only a guess, that there are nearly equal amounts, give or take 10K, of left learners and right leaders that own guns. If you have statistical proof of your conservative majority, please forewarn. In any case you are right, it would be ugly.
Dale
This didn't end in '45
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ulCw7RJ5eE8
I don't have any statistics. Not gonna look for any either. But hunters and firearms enthusiasts are, for the most part, Conservative. Most (not all) Liberals live in cities where they don't need or want (or have) firearms. Some do, but they (generally) don't practice with them. I teach NRA courses, and there are only a small percentage that area Liberals. Yes, the data is anecdotal and somewhat location specific, and yes, it is a small sample size. However, I think logic says that the Left would be outnumbered and outgunned (and out ammoed and outtrained) by a significant margin. The Left seems to think that shooting is like what they see on TV. Reality is much different.
Now, remember Warsaw though. They might well learn and get enough battlefield pickups to turn the tide. But as they tend to be more pacific and more dependent on others to do things and make decisions, they might not do that.
One never knows until the balloon drops.
I'd rather not find out, either way. There is no good outcome in that direction.
I agree with B that weapons like firearms should be avoided in this civil cold war. The police handle riots and are massively weaponized as is the NG and the army. The puny arms and non-trained personnel of nazis, trumpites, city dwellers of the 'left' et al, ensures mere slaughter if any faction brings firearms to the show. Who wins this war, if it happens, will be determined by the degree of trumpization of the military and exactly which chain of command they follow. 'Left' or 'right', your personal Smith or Colt or Glockenspiel or M-4 might reassure you but realize it's just your totem or fetish.
See, and you think we are untrained. We aren't, and we outnumber the military and paramilitary forces. They govern only by our acquiescence. If you think otherwise, you are ignorant.
Should things ever go to that point, there would be bloody losses on both sides, but the Right would win, I think. We aren't untrained ignorant Rednecks that you would wish us to be.
Let us hope that things never get to that point and we find out who is correct.
The problem with the left/right firearms question is one of legality. I live in California, where there are a lot of restrictions on what kind of firearms one can own, and regulations about how one goes about getting them.
With the requisite cash in hand, I could have any firearm you can name in my hand within a couple of hours and plenty of ammo to shoot out of it, up to and including an M-60 with extra barrels.
A lot of "lefties" grew up in the thick of the drug war and have spent their entire adult lives living with the possibility of being arrested or robbed (with no recourse to the law) and as such have a good working knowledge of firearms and the laws that govern them.
I grew up in Humboldt county, and my dad worked for the Forest Service, so he had access to the corporation yard where they took the CAMP helicopter that was supposedly shot down with a deer rifle.
My friend Larry, a master machinist, gunsmith, and competition shooter, measured the hole with his caliper and said "That's a fifty caliber armor piercing round, and only one, so whoever fired it knew what they were doing."
The stereotype of pacifist lefties is mostly a media construct employed to make us look weak on national security issues. I don't know many conservatives in real life, and almost everyone I know is armed. It's fucking Oakland fer chrissakes!
-Doug in Oakland
You crack me up, boy.
D: your sample size is just as poor as mine.
I'm not talking the types you are talking about. Those are the ones who will do the battlefield pickups and who will have the right mentality to be effective. They are action motivated and responsive, if, like my tribe, currently un-led.
I'm talking about the other 80% or so of city dwellers. The ones who can't pound a nail or fix a leaking toilet (or even shut off the valve). Who cannot change the oil in a car (if they have a car)or fix their bicycle. Whose only knowledge of firearms is TV and movies. The ones that just give up their wallet if mugged. Who will can't apply first aid at an accident, but call 9-11 and wait for an ambulance while the victim is bleeding out on the roadside.
B., you and your "trained" friends are in for a rude awakening if you face either a trained force with proper support or a mob. As for the numbers, the rural Conservatives have a problem, they are isolated and few...the mob streaming from the city is legion. The few Conservatives in the city will be dead and disarmed in your scenario, the mob will have some effective leaders and armed flying squads to reduce resistence, but also remember that quantity has a quality all of it's own.
There lots of "trained" folks in the 3% and stuff, but very few are ex-leaders of anything more than a squad. Once you start to get to and above platoon size, the tactics, logistics and stuff is pretty complex. The average NCO can muddle along for a while, but that's about all.
As for numbers, Pew Reports numbers show the Conservatives are outnumbered by gun owning Independents and Democrats in total...best not annoy those I's.
Gee, B, I've lived in a city for 33 years and I don't know a single person who conforms to your stereotype. Of course the folks I know tend not to be too affluent, so we sort of HAVE to know how to do things ourselves, so you may be right about some of the ones who have never had anything more adverse than a parking ticket happen to them.
My dad used to make fun of the kids they sent him to train as surveyors when he did road location for the Forest Service, like the one who showed up at the South Fork Mountain Ranger Station with a mackintosh and an umbrella, but he also said that every single one of them could do the job five weeks later.
-Doug in Oakland
B, 'nother armed "lefty" here. Of course we all read Misfit's blog so there may be some bias there...
But what I'm really not sure about is how you square your "conservatives have all the guns and will to do violence" views with the "inner cities are filled with vicious armed thugs who all vote democrat to keep their Obamaphones" mindset. I mean, it's gotta be one or the other, right? And what about all those Mexican illegals? I've heard that "..some are rapists and some are killers" and we haven't even started talking about MS-13. After all, they're "animals" who create "blood-stained killing fields".
Now he's got a point about MS-13. They and other American street gangs are some dangerous hombres. If you believe the stats there are about 70k in that gang alone. Throw in another 100k for the Latin Kings, 100k for the Netas, another 100-150k for People Nation, and we're nearing half a million organized without even digging very far. That represents a very large number of people who are armed, organized, and very used to living among ever-present violence. Think they won't throw aside their differences to take on an "organized" alt-right? Think again. And believe me, I've spent a great deal of time in rural America among conservative, right-wing American folk of all sorts. They might like to fantasize about a civil war but they'd be woefully isolated and unorganized if it happened.
Oh, and your impression of 80% of city dwellers? I'm afraid you've watched too much Portlandia and extrapolated it onto the country. Tends to lead to views that are far more humorous than they are accurate.
BMQ. I'm not wrong about city dwellers. Were that the case them there wouldn't be so many plumbers, so many mechanics and oil change places, etc. Nor would the Home improvement stores have to hold "clinics" on how to use a caulking gun, a drain snake, or a plunger.
My 80% statistic was made up, but it is accurate enough.
You fail to realize how many rural and suburban folks there are. How many hunters too. The armed and dangerous folks you quote? A drop in the bucket....and they are all concentrated. Get 'em out of the city and they will be helpless. Big difference between a drive-by and a 350 yard shot (or longer). and once they are out of the city they will be targets that stand out. Your dreams of armed city liberals doing in the conservatives is a joke. Wrong equipment, wrong mindset. Yes, there are individuals that are capable, but they are, when it comes down to it, a minority in all ways that count.
Again, I'd rather not find out how that ends. But I can assure you it won't end well for anyone.
B, I assure you they aren't dreams. I have no desire to see any part of America done in, rural or city. Sounds like you've done some thinking about it though.
Having seen a good deal of both rural and urban America, I tend to disagree (surprise!) But, as you say, let's hope we never find out.
I've also actually worked with a fair bit with land use and outdoor rec statistics on a professional basis. Unless you're in the field as well, I assure you that I have a more nuanced view of "how many rural and suburban folk there are. How many hunters too."
If your 80% statistic is made up, then by definition you're unable to say whether it's "accurate enough'. If you had the data to certify it as so then it wouldn't be made up.
As for "Big difference between a drive-by and a 350 yard shot (or longer).", I suggest talking to some vets. They'll back up the fact that since WWII most infantry engagement ranges have been <100m and often 20-30m. Hillside-to-hillside fighting in Afghanistan has been an exception to that, but that's one of the craggiest regions in the world. The truth is that a war in America would much more closely resemble the European campaign of WWII mixed with the city-fighting of Iraq.
I also regret to inform you that you're confusing money and proximity with lack of capability or motivation. There are plenty of people who hire mechanics and plumbers not because they can't do it, but because they can afford to. As for the others, sure, they may not know how to handle a caulk gun before they attend a DIY clinic but they do afterwards and there are obviously many who have learned or else such clinics wouldn't continue to be held. Tbh, I've also seen many a repair (rural and otherwise) where the workman could've used a few of those clinics. They aren't called "redneck repairs" for nothing.
As always, though, it comes down to you making a number of assertions and then going silent when challenged to provide facts and data. In fact, I'm still waiting to see your evidence for an assertion several posts back (and I know Misfit and others have been waiting far longer). Care to prove that your statements are more than just empty talk?
Three hundred and fifty, thousand foot, shots look good as deer hunters on tv and snipers in East Hollywood war movies, but in real life not a very practical shot. A thirty caliber is at about the end of its effective velocity and more likely wound a deer or elk than kill it with an equally high likelihood it'll crawl off so far in the time it takes to traverse three hundred and fifty yards of mountain terrain you won't be able find it to put it out of its misery. Lighter calibers would bounce off your backpack, if they flew that far. Not to mention the little problem of hitting something you can barely see. Not a shot I would take, and I've been hunting almost sixty years.
Is this a bad time to point out that most casualties of urban warfare are from explosive and incendiary devices that burn and crash buildings on people. Running gunbattles in the streets are apocalypse porn, and waste a lot of ammunition.
Speaking of ammunition, it runs out quick.
Post a Comment