I think that raises more questions about why the KKK isn't deemed a terrorist organisation more than anything else tbh.
Charlottesville
- Thread starter Neutral
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
I think that raises more questions about why the KKK isn't deemed a terrorist organisation more than anything else tbh.
Bollocks. It's deflecting away from the real issue, and that is racism within parts of our society and a feckin idiot racist bigotist US president. We're not talking about some kind of anarchist anti-establishment protest here, were talking about protestors confronting movements such as the neo-Nazi's and KKK.
Absolutely. But as far as I've heard, nobody was shouting in support of the KKK at these protests, and my understanding is that much of the far-right consider the KKK to be a bit of an embarrassment.
The ex-KKK leader was there.
The whole meeting was governed around preserving white majority within the US.
It was a white nationalist meet-up.
What more do you need? Burning crosses and a lynching?
Just because they didn't wear the hoods doesn't mean they don't believe in the same ideology.
And the far-right consider the KKK and Black Lives Matter to be the same thing, I don't really take their opinions seriously on matters of racism as a result.
But that was exactly my original point - rallying in support of specific aims (e.g. a white America, an Islamic UK) and a general ideology (White or Islamic Supremacism) is generally legal, while rallying in support of a specifically proscribed organisation is not. In the U.K. al-Muhajirun have held protests for years in support of the same ideology held by ISIS. Yet their leader Anjem Choudary could only be locked up after they nailed him specifically for supporting ISIS.
I understand what it is you're saying, but that begins to blur the lines. I don't think that those who turned up at the weekend should be arrested, or what they were protesting for, should be made illegal - that will only rally them further.
You made the point that ISIS is a designated terrorist group being the difference between a group of ISIS members rallying & waving flags, and a group of Nazi's & KKK's doing the same thing.
I'm simply saying that just because these snowflakes on the weekend didn't show up in hoods and burn a few crosses doesn't mean that their ideology is wholly different - and as such this whatabouttism when it comes to people's emotional response to such gathering is simply deflecting from the main issue.
Ok, I was only making a point about the legal implications here. Agree with the above of course.
I might be wrong, but I think neo-nazis there actually don't get their right for absolute 'free speech' and are effectively suppressed by the authorities. That's why they are not as aggressive and can be mocked this way.
The Nazis have been given a kind of dark glamour by our culture (cinematic, literary etc) which appeals to immature minds. I'm dubious about morality governng art but nevertheless feel this is a terrible dereliction of humanistic duty by artists. The perceived glamour is built on a ludicrous foundation of clichés: the idea that ruthlessness equals strength is merely one easily refuted falsehood amongst many. Never mind the reams of true-life horror stories of what the Nazis were really like; a single photograph of their 'strength' and 'dark glamour' makes for a particularly tragic laughing stock of them and their latter-day followers:
That's why people romanticize criminals, and why sociopaths are usually presented as cool in movies and TV shows. It's the ugly side of human nature, and fascism feeds on it.
You don't think the approach I referenced in Germany was a better way to deal with a similar issue? Taking the piss out of these idiots just seems far more sensible than giving them the violent confrontation they obviously wanted. They turned up wearing helmets and carrying shields ffs.
All 2016 media outlets were presenting the alt-right as some kind of cool, young, modern hipster who wear leather jackets and drink coffee with sunglasses on.
They've been normalised and their glamour & appeal has been heightened as a result.
That kind of thing doesn't happen by accident, mate. Notwithstanding the butterfly-mindedness of fashion or the shifting passions of young people, it's driven by politics.
https://www.vox.com/world/2017/8/16/16152088/nazi-swastikas-germany-charlottesville
They have to watch themselves carefully over there, and are basically a laughing stock. In USA not so much, unfortunately. That's the big difference.
Precisely, it was very direct and seemingly happened overnight.
Richard Spencer & Milo and the like, went from nobodies in 2015 to basically on the news every other day - it was very deliberate.
I think it's disingenuous to ignore the role identity politics played in raising their profile and appeal. Combine that with the effects of a punishing recession and failure of trickle down economics and it's not hard to see the appeal of counter-cultural right wing personalities, who claim to want to smash the status quo, create common enemies (immigration, money "wasted" on a welfare state) and spread myths about systemic persecution of the white working class. In it's own fecked up way it was very much a grass-roots movement and blaiming it on big corporations, politicians or neoliberalism itself is missing the point IMO. Trump and Saunders were opposite sides of the same coin.
You'd think that such an old trick - encouraging us to fight amongst ourselves as a means of distraction - would've been seen through by now; not so, it seems. Even the Neo-Nazis are being played.
You think this is all a deliberate cunning plan, with shady figures in Capitol Hill pulling the strings?
As with most conspiracy theories, I think you're giving the alleged perps far too much credit.
There's quite a few veterans in these groups. You got to wonder what they have got up to when deployed in the land of a people they hate
The white house chief advisor ran a white supremacist news site.
There's no conspiracy, it's the logical consequence of a current political and economic system. As long as most people are dull (and comfortable) enough to believe that the final aim of politics is maintaning a centrist illusion of status quo, with simplistic belief in 'free market' and 'free speech', it's going to be that way.
It's an age-old conspiracy: encouraging the public to choose the targets of their ire unwisely.
Do you really think it's that much of a stretch that they're engaging in this kind of divide and conquer tactic, given Trump and Bannon's suggestions that they employ basically the same principles in their working environment, and given the words they use? Trump is a buffoon but he does say these kinds of things with a purpose. The fact he hasn't said it since being elected shows he knows there is a time and a place where he can just about get away with it.
Don't you think its much much more likely that this is exactly what it appears at face value?
I don't, Bannon is a true believer. He is on record as saying he wants to burn the whole political construct down so he can rebuild it to fit his views.
The scary thing is someone on record with those views is on the whitehouse.
For the record, I actually think trump is as much a true believer as bannon, his entire life is littered with instances of racism and in particular, the idea he is a superior human thanks to genes.
As per my initial response, I think you're giving them far too much credit. Trump is a blow-hard who will say any old shit, whenever the mood takes him so long as he thinks it will be to his own, personal benefit. The Mexican crap was because of his stupid wall idea, which was getting a bit of traction during the election. He's backed off from it as its become increasingly apparent that he's going to have a hell of a job delivering on what he promised.
Bannnon's got his own agenda, which is fairly close to that of a lot of people that marched in Charlotteville. I'm sure he was pleased to see them out on the streets and maybe even pleased that they were met with a violent reaction but I don't think he's a Machiavellian genius masterminding all of these events from Washington and I certainly don't think he was "playing" anyone that rocked up with a swastika flag.
I don't doubt that the endgame of these 'shadowy figures' - ever-present in history - is the usual, historical one: power and wealth. In this sense, the surface politics is interchangeable.
Well yeah, I agree that he will say what he wants to benefit himself. Divide and conquer is a tactic that is supposed to benefit the individuals at the top. I'm not suggesting Trump is doing it for any reason other than to become more powerful and to feed his ego. He looks around at dictators and likes what he sees, so he's trying to stoke the flames of hatred to create division and in doing so create more opportunity for power. I'm not saying he's master-minding it in any way but it's not a tactic that requires a genius. You only need to understand a few basic principles and then say what needs to be said from a position of influence. I don't think that's beyond Trump at all.
I'm not sure what you mean by "playing" them? They are being played. Regardless of who you want to attribute that to - whether it's a person, a group, an institution or some invisible hand - the reality is they are being played. Their hatred is driven by fear. Fear for their families, fear for their livelihoods, fear for themselves. The reality is that their fear is being misdirected at groups that have no influence over the things they're fearful of, while the people that do have direct influence over these things are being ignored as a result. Are you suggesting that it's just a convenient mixup that the people they should be directing their hatred it - the people in power - are being ignored almost entirely? The people who are creating more fear and hatred are not complicit in any meaningful way?
Trump's ham-fisted handling of this has weakened him. He is now less powerful (even less support from within GOP) than he was before the events of this week. Struggling to see any kind of underlying strategy here. He's doing his usual shtick of being entirely reactive, without any kind of long-term strategy or foresight.
Huh? The people in power are being ignored?! You didn't see the armed militia, then? Those guns are quite literally being carried so they can be used against the government. Most of these people have a borderline hatred for the "people in power", always have done.They want to be left alone to do whatever the hell they want. Even if that includes lynching black people.
Trump getting elected has allowed people with underlying racist agendas to be a bit more up front about their ambitions. That's not them being deceived by some sort of deliberate distraction, that's a completely understandable reaction to a racist buffoon taking charge of their country. "He tells it like it is, so we can too!"
Brave woman and shows the lack of logically sense behind this movement
I'd agree it hasn't worked out at all well so far. I'd say a big part of that is one of the strengths of the American political institution: the relative weakness of the American presidency. The system has worked fairly well so far. That said, we have seen presidents gain strength almost immediately after going to war against other countries so I think it would be careless to overlook that potential factor. If domestic violence and division on a large scale was encouraged and chaos did ensue, I think it's hard to predict what impact that would have on his strength and the effectiveness of the tactics employed.
Sure, absolutely. There are lots of anarchists who want to overthrow the Jews in power. I think we're both in danger of over-generalising a bit here, though. The words of support from prominent leaders of the movement for Trump suggest that not all of them have a hardline stance against everyone in power. Just some of them. Yet the people they ignore and sometimes support are also the people that are implementing policies that have a direct and significant negative impact on their lives. Don't you agree?
The policies of the government has a direct effect on the lives of every citizen. Sure. Isn't that stating the bleeding obvious?
You seem to think/imply that these people are unable to take on the powers that be because they're distracted by protecting statues/beating up students in Backarseofnowheresville. That'a strange claim to make in the same post you reference the biggest bloody nose that the American electorate have arguably ever given the political establishment: putting Donald Trump in the White House.
Obviously, there's a certain irony in that electing Saunders might have done more to improve their day to day lives (although that's far from certain) but electing an elderly Jew looks like being too big an ask for our Nazi flag waving buddies in America.
The alt right is full of blubbering man babies
I don't know why we're going down the route of being deliberately obtuse and offensive.
It's not that it has an impact. It's that it has a negative impact on themselves. The people put in power do harm to the people that put them there. If you see that as a successful feck you to the institution and an appropriate way to direct their fear and hatred then fair enough. I see it as unintentional self-harm due to a misunderstanding of who their "enemies" are, and the driver of that is a co-ordinated campaign of misinformation playing on their fears and sowing division.
I didn't think any of that was a controversial viewpoint either. If that is the case then it stands to reason that something is the cause of that campaign of misinformation and quibbling over the individuals, groups, institutions or the invisible hand that employ it distract from the broader point.
I didn't think I was being obtuse and I certainly didn't intend to be offensive.
If your argument is that Trump got into power mainly by convincing poor people that other poor people are the reason that they're poor then, sure, I agree.
This latest tangent we went down was about this specific event, long after Trump won the election. Are both sides of the clashes just pawns in a bigger game? I guess you could argue it's the end result of something set in motion by his campaign tactics? I think that's a reasonable suggestion. Although it's impossible to know whether these tensions were so close to the surface that the simple act of him winning was all it took to get these wankers on the streets, rather than a prolonged effort to rile them up.
My take on all of this is that the world suddenly found itself a lot poorer for complex macroeconomic reasons and the poverty, unhappiness and disenchantment this created allowed Trump to take advantage by making outrageous lies and promises he could never fulfil, like the two-bit huckster that he is. With parasites like Bannon riding his coat-tails to try and pursue their own agendas. There's no grand plan, though, just opportunism and greed. The economic downturn alone was more than enough to stoke racial tensions, without any need for anyone in power to deliberately stir things up.
Agree with almost all of that! No doubt the chips fell in favour of a divisive, reactionary demagogue like Trump, and even if someone on the opposite side of the spectrum was put in power the problem would exist to a significant degree.
I just think that Trump and Bannon have deliberately exacerbated the problems in the search for power and, even if the tactics haven't been overly sophisticated or successful, they were part of a larger plan to not only capture the hearts and minds of angry Americans, but to exploit them and divide the country further apart. And I worry where that leads on a national and international level.