White supremacists and counter protesters clash in Charlottesville

[Secular Elf]

This entire situation in Virginia, which started because of a city's decision to remove Confederate monuments, is a turning point for me.  I'm a Southerner with A LOT of Confederate ancestors.  Actually, all my ancestors are Southern, no Northern branch at all.  And I've often raised my voice in defense of the Confederate side of the debate as too many people today have reduced the American Civil War into a comic book with super heroes on one side and super villains on the other.  Humans and their actions rarely match those characteristics.

However, after this, all I can do is throw my hands in the air and exclaim, "This is why we can't have nice things!"

I reject all white supremacist groups, I reject... well Trump all together, but also his pathetic response to what the white supremacists have done.  At this point, I'm of the opinion that not only should Confederate monuments start coming down, but maybe even the National Guard should start coming out to do it.  One by one.  And that hurts for me to say.  But these assholes have now given us a required reason to do so.  One that I can't, in good conscience, argue against.

I too am a fellow Southerner with a Confederate ancestor. My position on the removal of public Confederate monuments is rather apathetic. I really don't care one way or the other. The Civil War has been over for over 150 years now. We lost. We Southerners need to get over it. Remember our past yes, but try to bring it all back, no.

---

Oh cmon, what do you expect...it was A Theist who, not but a few months back, couldn't contain his joy at a proposed law stating that it was okay to run over a protester..and, lo and behold, just such a thing materializes.

Ye reap what ye sow. The Right has forgotten that part of their Bible Belt tradition. Dumb fucks.

---

I'll never understand why the fuck people are 'proud' of their confederate ancestors.  "My great great great grandfather died fighting in a war to preserve slavery!  And he fought on the side that wanted to preserve slavery!  So damn proud of him!"

Wonder how many Germans are going "Man!  I'm proud of my grandfather!  He fought in the war with the Nazi's.  The Nazi's weren't just about exterminating the Jews!"

Exactly. I did some family history research and discovered my great great grandfather was a Confederate soldier. I found it interesting. Is he my hero? No. Am I proud of him? No. Neither am I ashamed of him. He did what he thought was right for whatever reasons or reasons. I do not fault my ancestor for that. I could join the Sons of the Confederacy if I wanted to, but I never really thought about it much nor desire to do so. I am a white Southerner but I don't go around flying the Confederate battle flag in people's faces. That would be just obnoxious. I recognize the history. There is a place for all the Confederate objects and flags and stuff from our past: it is called a museum.

---

Why Are Neo-Nazis on Twitter So Scared of Being Called Neo-Nazis?

Yesterday’s rally of neo-Nazis, Klansmen, and so-called “alt-right” activists predictably devolved into violence. One anti-fascist protester and two police officers are dead, and dozens more were injured by neo-Nazis in a fascist rally at the University of Virginia. But after the streets were cleared, far right thugs who participated in the demonstration seemed only concerned with one thing: Not being called Nazis.

It’s a curious thing that I’ve seen happen since President Trump was elected. People of the “alt-right” are very concerned about being called Nazis, even when they promote ideas that are unquestionably aligned with Nazism. There were literally Nazi flags at yesterday’s rally, and ABC News even made the obvious comparison to Nazi rallies of the 1920s and 30s on TV last night. But high-profile people from the protests have been clutching their pearls on social media whenever people have dared called them Nazis.

One of the most interesting cases of far right activists taking issue with being called Nazis is a man who goes by the name of Baked Alaska. He has been documenting his trip to Virginia on Twitter over the past few days, and has taken issue with people who have called him a Nazi again and again.

Baked Alaska, whose given name is Anthime “Tim” Gionet, regularly tweets about the persecution of white people, has tweeted out the 14 Words (a famous neo-Nazi phrase about white children), and retweets videos of his friends saying that “Hitler did nothing wrong.” He’s even known for tweeting images of people in gas chambers.

But after the smoke cleared yesterday Baked Alaska seemed very, very concerned about not being called a Nazi. His tweet from Virginia last night whined about how people were labeling those at the rally as white supremacists, neo-Nazis, and domestic terrorists. His insinuation was the he’s not any of these things.

This, of course, was after one of the neo-Nazis, identified as 20-year-old James Alex Fields Jr., drove his car through a crowd of counter-protestors, killing one woman and injuring at least 30 others. The attack has been denounced by politicians (excluding President Trump, for some reason) as an act of domestic terror. But why would white supremacists online worry about the names people give them?

Baked Alaska was hit with pepper spray yesterday during the clashes between Nazis and counter-protesters (sometimes called Antifa, or anti-fascist). But even after he got sprayed with bear mace, his largest concern seemed to be the labels people were using for him. Which is curious, given all of the things he’s tweeted.

On Friday, Baked Alaska tweeted a video of the “14 Words,” coined by the late white supremacist David Lane. The 14 words read, “We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children.” It’s not exactly subtle and is unquestionably a neo-Nazi slogan.

And yet, earlier in the week Baked Alaska took issue with the website Barstool Sports, who called him a neo-Nazi in an article originally titled, “Neo-Nazi Leader Baked Alaska is Sad No One Will Rent Him an Airbnb.” The title has since been changed to, “Alt-Right Troll Named ‘Baked Alaska’ is Sad No One Will Rent Him an Airbnb.” Baked Alaska called the original headline slanderous on Twitter and asked if someone would be fired over the piece.

But why is Baked Alaska so concerned with being called a Nazi? Some insist, as evidenced by the Barstool Sports revision, that he’s merely a troll, or someone who simply says incendiary things to get a reaction out of people. He doesn’t really believe in the causes of Nazism, they say, and is merely being outrageous.

But how long does someone get to joke about endorsing Nazism before they’re officially a Nazi? Is there a magic number of times people get to “jokingly” say they’re a Nazi before we take them at their word?

Is three gas chamber jokes enough? Does tweeting out the 14 words without a hint of irony count? How about if you attend a rally with Klansmen and neo-Nazis who are chanting “Jews will not replace us”? Does society finally get to call you a neo-Nazi if you’re marching with other people holding Nazi flags?

As far as the “trolling defense” goes, people used to say the same thing about an infamous neo-Nazi hacker who goes by the name of Weev. The tech community rallied around Weev, whose real name is Andrew Auernheimer, back in 2013 when he was sentenced to 41 months in prison for exploiting an AT&T iPad security flaw. His comments about Jews and black people were dismissed as “trolling” in the early days of his notoriety.

But it slowly became clear to anyone was paying attention that Weev’s trolling wasn’t just a silly game of being politically incorrect. Weev was a full blow neo-Nazi. He got a tattoo of a swastika sometime around late 2014 and published anti-semitic and anti-black screeds constantly.

Weev writes for the Daily Stormer, arguably the most important and high-profile white supremacist website on Earth, and in early July, Weev had a message for CNN: “Kill yourselves, kike news fakers.” Amazingly, some people in tech still to this day refer to him as a troll rather than a neo-Nazi.

Again, one has to start questioning how we describe people on the internet who aren’t shy about saying things that obviously align with Nazism and yet blanch at being called Nazis.

Richard Spencer, one of the most newly famous neo-Nazis, is another great example of someone who has shied away from the neo-Nazi label while obviously holding beliefs that match perfect with those of old school Nazis. Spencer coined the term “alt-right,” and though words can change and evolve over time, he was pretty clear about his intentions with the word. The term “alt-right” was a way to make the white supremacist movement more palatable, especially online. And it gave racists and fascists cover. They could echo the exact thoughts of neo-Nazis while feigned offense that anyone dare call them one. They’re alt-right, they insist. Not neo-Nazi.

I reached out to Baked Alaska for comment through Twitter and have yet to hear back. I’ll update this post if he responds. I suspect that he and anyone else you might ask from yesterday’s rally will respond that they’re no more neo-Nazi than the president of the United States, who made it clear that he was denouncing “many sides” for the violence, not just the people holding Nazi flags. And that should fucking terrify every American.

If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, flies like a duck, it is a fucking duck.

[Catholic_Lady]

Trump finally calls out the Nazis.


http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/do..._hp_ref=uk

Two days too late, and he obviously didn't want to.

---

Quote from President Lincoln:


I mean, we may as well take down his statues too if we're gonna be taking down Lee.

President Lincoln was speaking of egalitarianism with blacks in that statement, not slavery.  Indeed, the very next sentences are:

"I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied every thing. I do not understand that because I do not want a negro woman for a slave I must necessarily want her for a wife. My understanding is that I can just let her alone. I am now in my fiftieth year, and I certainly never have had a black woman for either a slave or a wife. So it seems to me quite possible for us to get along without making either slaves or wives of negroes."

Lincoln's position was that while blacks and white weren't equal as people, that slavery was still abhorrent.

Oh I know. I wasn't saying he supported slavery, I know he didn't. I was just saying he was nonetheless very racist, yet we still have his statues up while we take down Lee's.

[Mr.wizard]

Brian fuck you, I have asked now for the 3rd time to stop misrepresenting my position you angry dishonest little prick. I know the south supported slavery, I was pointing out that our laws do not grant the right to put up only statues of union soldiers. Towns are allowed to display monuments of statues that relate to the history of the town the people can vote whether or not they want these statues and that is a process that I support. I do not support your position that is a part of history that is embarrassing or immoral it shouldn't be displayed or worse should be forced by law not to be displayed.

---

I was referring to things like the Jefferson memorial and displays of the constitution which was signed by men who owned slaves and included no laws to protect against slavery.

You, "Mommy mommy, why cant we treat what the South did as equally as moral as what the North did?"

BECAUSE THE SOUTH SUPPORTED KEEPING SLAVERY FUCKFACE!

So you are right, but what the fuck does that have to do with the Civil War. You know what would have happened if the founders had pushed for Abolition, they would have either been drummed out of office or lynched. And yes some of the founders were Abolitionists. So the fuck what?

The Founders owned slaves yes no shit asshole. But we are not talking about the founders, we are talking about the side of a war that defended keeping slavery. The founders shouldn't have owned slaves either, so? That does not make what the South wanted in fighting to keep it moral.

Nobody is talking about justifying even the founders owning slaves so that is not an argument. And nobody is saying erase history. It still remains slavery was wrong. So was denying women the right to vote. So was genocide of native Americans. So was the internment of innocent Japanese during WW2.

"The Founders owned slaves too" is not an argument. No shit, and they were equally as wrong. 

FYI slavery ended in the majority of the North around the time Jefferson had died. Many of the founders were Abolitionists

The beginning of Abolition in the North began as early as 1777..... Advocates included Franklin and Paine.  By 1787 slavery was either outright banned or severely limited.  By 1808 the importation of slaves was outright banned. Point being, the beginning of the end to slavery STILL started in the North. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abolitioni...ted_States

You still can't actually address the issue, I don't even know what you are arguing against and I'm not sure you know either.  Should a town have the right to have a Robert E Lee statue, or should all confederate history be banned from public property? If you think it should be banned then why is the Jefferson Memorial allowed to stand.

[Anomalocaris]

Jefferson didn't kill people, or cause people to be killed, to protect slavery?

[Brian37]

You, "Mommy mommy, why cant we treat what the South did as equally as moral as what the North did?"

BECAUSE THE SOUTH SUPPORTED KEEPING SLAVERY FUCKFACE!

So you are right, but what the fuck does that have to do with the Civil War. You know what would have happened if the founders had pushed for Abolition, they would have either been drummed out of office or lynched. And yes some of the founders were Abolitionists. So the fuck what?

The Founders owned slaves yes no shit asshole. But we are not talking about the founders, we are talking about the side of a war that defended keeping slavery. The founders shouldn't have owned slaves either, so? That does not make what the South wanted in fighting to keep it moral.

Nobody is talking about justifying even the founders owning slaves so that is not an argument. And nobody is saying erase history. It still remains slavery was wrong. So was denying women the right to vote. So was genocide of native Americans. So was the internment of innocent Japanese during WW2.

"The Founders owned slaves too" is not an argument. No shit, and they were equally as wrong. 

FYI slavery ended in the majority of the North around the time Jefferson had died. Many of the founders were Abolitionists

The beginning of Abolition in the North began as early as 1777..... Advocates included Franklin and Paine.  By 1787 slavery was either outright banned or severely limited.  By 1808 the importation of slaves was outright banned. Point being, the beginning of the end to slavery STILL started in the North. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abolitioni...ted_States

You still can't actually address the issue, I don't even know what you are arguing against and I'm not sure you know either.  Should a town have the right to have a Robert E Lee statue, or should all confederate history be banned from public property? If you think it should be banned then why is the Jefferson Memorial allowed to stand.

Should an asshole be allowed to convince investors to give him money to a clear scam? Well the difference between Madoff and 45 is that Madoff fucked over the rich. 45 with his fake university conned the middle class and poor. With slavery it is even worse because it isn't just about stealing money, it is about vile subjugation of a fellow human on top of making money off of your abuse of them.

I don't know how more bluntly I can put it, SLAVERY IS WRONG.........  I don't see how anyone can equate the Civil War to the Revolutionary War.

Now idiot, nobody is or should justify Jefferson owning slaves. But between the North and South the North started the end of slavery as imperfect as our system was back then. 

"Jefferson owned slaves" still does not excuse keeping symbols of the South.

You sound like an asshole who gets pulled over by a cop and say, " Bu bu bu officer, other people were speeding too and I was just moving with the flow of traffic.

Now what makes you think I advocate ignoring Jefferson owning slaves? I don't. I am saying that the North started the end of Slavery and the South wanted to keep it.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Two days too late, and he obviously didn't want to.

---

President Lincoln was speaking of egalitarianism with blacks in that statement, not slavery.  Indeed, the very next sentences are:


Lincoln's position was that while blacks and white weren't equal as people, that slavery was still abhorrent.

Oh I know. I wasn't saying he supported slavery, I know he didn't. I was just saying he was nonetheless very racist, yet we still have his statues up while we take down Lee's.

Yes. Did Lincoln commit treason? Because Lee did.

Yours is a false equivalence.

[Secular Elf]

BLM has no organized leadership, no centralized headquarters, and no established manifesto. So how do you know what BLM is or isn't? What we know of BLM are videos of their protests chanting "Pigs in a blanket! Fry'em like bacon!" and "What do we want? Dead Cops!" As far as I can see, what has been witnessed by news videos, is that BLM is a hate movement that advocates violence against police officers....and the movement should be condemned for that.

I would consider myself a strong supporter of the BLM movement. It is a large group of people who are angry and who are sick and fucking tired of being targeted. It is not a hate movement. If you see it that way, you are not understanding why they exist in the first place. Anyone who advocates violence against the police or anyone else is wrong.

Listen to their message.

Generally I agree with this. My specific point of disagreement is with "Anyone who advocates violence...is wrong." I look at it this way: if a group of people have decided to name you and your people as an enemy and that is their rhetoric on a daily basis, then that group has become a threat to me and my people. I must of necessity prepare myself and advocate and promote to my people to defend ourselves and make preparations for defense. The Conservatives, Dominionists, and Alt-Righters have declared us Liberals, Progressives, and Secularists as their enemy because they can't evolve with the rest of us, will not evolve with the rest of us. Ok, they are my enemy and the enemy of my people, so be it. They have declared war against us so then we must now bring the war home to them. They started this shit. It is up to us to finish it.

[Minimalist]

Lee is a very interesting case.  Moderns seem to think that there can be only two sides to an issue:  You are either for something or against it.  Lee's feelings, expressed in an 1856 letter to his father in law, show nuance which makes him a man of his times, nothing more.

http://www.civilwarhome.com/leepierce.htm

December 27, 1856:

       I was much pleased the with President's message. His views of the systematic and progressive efforts of certain people at the North to interfere with and change the domestic institutions of the South are truthfully and faithfully expressed. The consequences of their plans and purposes are also clearly set forth. These people must be aware that their object is both unlawful and foreign to them and to their duty, and that this institution, for which they are irresponsible and non-accountable, can only be changed by them through the agency of a civil and servile war. There are few, I believe, in this enlightened age, who will not acknowledge that slavery as an institution is a moral and political evil. It is idle to expatiate on its disadvantages. I think it is a greater evil to the white than to the colored race. While my feelings are strongly enlisted in behalf of the latter, my sympathies are more deeply engaged for the former. The blacks are immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, physically, and socially. The painful discipline they are undergoing is necessary for their further instruction as a race, and will prepare them, I hope, for better things. How long their servitude may be necessary is known and ordered by a merciful Providence. Their emancipation will sooner result from the mild and melting influences of Christianity than from the storm and tempest of fiery controversy. This influence, though slow, is sure. The doctrines and miracles of our Saviour have required nearly two thousand years to convert but a small portion of the human race, and even among Christian nations what gross errors still exist! While we see the course of the final abolition of human slavery is still onward, and give it the aid of our prayers, let us leave the progress as well as the results in the hands of Him who, chooses to work by slow influences, and with whom a thousand years are but as a single day. Although the abolitionist must know this, must know that he has neither the right not the power of operating, except by moral means; that to benefit the slave he must not excite angry feelings in the master; that, although he may not approve the mode by which Providence accomplishes its purpose, the results will be the same; and that the reason he gives for interference in matters he has no concern with, holds good for every kind of interference with our neighbor, -still, I fear he will persevere in his evil course. . . . Is it not strange that the descendants of those Pilgrim Fathers who crossed the Atlantic to preserve their own freedom have always proved the most intolerant of the spiritual liberty of others?

In other words "let god handle it."

[The Grand Nudger]

Have we really become so gentrified that civility is a shield for racism?  Racism isn't civil, and it doesn't deserve civility.  There should be a national holiday for punching nazis - we should get the day off of work and everything to do it.

[Brian37]

Lee is a very interesting case.  Moderns seem to think that there can be only two sides to an issue:  You are either for something or against it.  Lee's feelings, expressed in an 1856 letter to his father in law, show nuance which makes him a man of his times, nothing more.

http://www.civilwarhome.com/leepierce.htm

December 27, 1856:

In other words "let god handle it."

More like while many thought that inhuman treatment was wrong, none of that quote really express Lee thought of blacks as equal, at best, like a pet one should not abuse. One could argue Jefferson was along the same lines. But again, by the time of the Civil war we know which side started the end of slavery and which side did not.

Considering that there WAS an attempt to end it at the revolution in the North, the North and South cannot be seen as equal. 

Jefferson, still freed Sally and her kids, and as conflicted as one might argue he was, why do that at all if one is going to claim slavery was good, even in the North? To me the fact that slavery was gone in the North virtually almost 100% by the time Jefferson and Adams died, says to me, credit deserves to be given, even if not to all, but the seeds, and the seeds in the North lead to the unfortunate Civil War, but it also lead to Lincoln, the defeat of the South and the total end of slavery in the entire nation.

North or South, it still seems to be an issue unfortunately today, that the South and middle America has yet still to come to grips with.