search results matching tag: neo nazis

» channel: learn

go advanced with your query
Search took 0.000 seconds

    Videos (26)     Sift Talk (1)     Blogs (3)     Comments (148)   

The real history of the kkk. Democrats leave this out

newtboy says...

How many times are you going to try this dishonest lie by omission, because you leave out the southern strategy (actually you just deny it, la la la la la, neverhappened neverhappened, lalalalala), when the parties switched sides on social issues. After the 60's Republicans courted white racist southerners as Democrats supported civil rights for everyone.
Every single klansman today affiliated with a political party chose Republican. Every neo Nazi with a party preference chooses Republicans. Every white supremacist that votes voted Republican. +-8% of "black" voters voted Republican. They aren't as stupid as you think, people know which party doesn't think black lives matter.

This propaganda is technically correct, Democrats WERE the party of racists, but as presented it is a lie by omission, Bob, which is a lie. You know it's a lie too.

Edit: or do I misunderstand you and you post this to indicate the Republican Party is redeemable, just like the Democrats redeemed themselves from their racist, hateful beginnings? Because you are, but you need to reverse almost every position on every issue to get there, and all I see is heels digging in farther and farther on the wrong side of every issue.

Voices

A Night at the Garden

moonsammy says...

For context (because I know I was curious): this video is from November 2017, 3 months after the "Unite the Right" rally in Charlottesville in which a neo-nazi dickhead ran over a peaceful protestor. Trump had stated that in the conflict between the peaceful anti-racism group and the white supremacist / neo-nazi group there had been "fine people on both sides". I get the impression some of the people at PBS weren't thrilled about that, and wanted to give the public a gentle reminder that it can, in fact, happen here.

Fascism is alive and has been thriving the last few years in the US. With any luck we'll soon defeat it, like we did 75 years ago.

Professor dismissed over use of a common Chinese word.

newtboy says...

Lol.
You've forgotten Trump and Goodyear.
You've forgotten the clan are MAGA.
You've forgotten neo-Nazis are MAGA.
You've forgotten Trump is MAGA.
You've apparently forgotten who MAGA is....or how to spell it.

bobknight33 said:

Apparently cry baby liberals got the professor kick out.

MEGA are tolerant. Liberals are not.

Free Speech Considered Support for Nazism

newtboy says...

Try the first one....lazybones. ;-) It lays out both the stated intent and the actions that belie that statement.

When the video guy is well known for publicly defending the far right, neo Nazi supporting gallery that holds private, secret white power rallies, that's enough for me. He clearly made himself look like a Nazi or Nazi sympathizer, and that's how the community sees him. He may just be a friend to Nazis, not one himself, but that's both a distinction without a clear difference and an image he created without stating clearly that he disagrees with them but supports their right to be wrong. That's on him.

It seems far easier to read the links than try to research it yourself, so I don't understand why you decided to ignore the research offered in favor of your own unproductive but far more labor intensive research. Seems a bit like putting fingers in your ears and saying you hear no evidence during a discussion.

bcglorf said:

Not that I'm lazy, but I don't care enough to read every single article you linked. I read the couple that seemed most promising, and then I went and did some searches for more evidence, I haven't found better evidence than what I mentioned.

Do you have a specific link, or one of those above, that clearly lays out the intent of gallery or any other evidence against the video guy than, he dared suggest the gallery was covered under free speech?

Free Speech Considered Support for Nazism

newtboy says...

The gallery has been accused of providing a platform for fascist, neo-Nazi and Islamophobic speakers and individuals who promote white supremacy and eugenics.

In the summer, it held a “Neo-reaction conference” which included a talk by Brett Stevens, a white supremacist who has lauded the “bravery” of Anders Breivik - the Norwegian white supremacist who killed 77 people in 2011.

Mr Stevens' writing was said to be an inspiration to Breivik.

After the attack, Mr Stevens, who edits a far-right website called Amerika, wrote: “I am honoured to be so mentioned by someone who is clearly far braver than I, no comment on his methods, but he chose to act where many of us write, think and dream.”

Mr Stevens comments on his blog, Amerika, where he says the “neoreaction conference” was hosted behind a “veil of secrecy", confirming the secret agenda of the gallery because you can't have a beneficial discussion of these issues when the discussion is hidden from one side of the issue. Clearly then this isn't an effort to facilitate “a dialogue between two different and contrasting ideologies” when the event is hidden from all but one ideology, right?

The gallery has leaked the identity of artists who exposed its activities to the far-right neo-Nazi website, Amerika.

The gallery has also hosted, Peter Brimelow, a high profile American anti-immigrant activist. He has been described as the “new David Duke” – the former Imperial Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan (KKK).

Mr Brimelow founded website VDare, which the Southern Poverty Law Centre describe as “a nonprofit that warns against the polluting of America by non-whites, Catholics, and Spanish-speaking immigrants.”


Ms Diego, the owner, described the left as “more like a fascist organisation than the real fascists”“I’m not even sure if I disagree with the Muslim ban. I see it also as a temporary measure in order for America to get sorted while they transition to another form of government,” She said: “Our position has always been that the role of art is to provide a vehicle for the free exploration of ideas, even and perhaps especially where these are challenging, controversial or indeed distasteful for some individuals to contemplate." But her actions, holding far right racist events in secret exposes that statement as pure bullshit.

I can't speak to the student/Jordan Peterson thing without knowing all the facts or I might end up as wrong as the title and description of this video, which is pure lies btw.
I feel it's likely the video she played actually promoted hatred and violence directly, not just that it included one person who had a different political affiliation like you indicate, but I don't know.

After how you erroneously described this event/video, I'm not so sure I can trust your explanations. Sorry.

Again, all this info is in the links provided.

bcglorf said:

The gallery is accused of repeatedly bringing in white-supremacists. The guy in the video is accused of being a neo-nazi figurehead.

The only evidence I’m seeing though is the gallery bringing in one guy I’d clearly label white supremacist, and then a bunch of people that same to have the wrong opinions on immigration, but it’s hardly clear that there is anymore evidence than that with which to convict.

This matters to me because here in Canada a student assistant was brought in for discipline and became the center of a storm for playing a fee minutes if an interview that included UT prof Jordan Peterson. She was accused of promoting hate and violence(and even committing violence herself) for the act of playing the video. All this because Jordan Peterson is a ‘well known’ alt-right extremist...

The evidence I’ve seen here has the same stink to it and so I’m reluctant to just convict the accused on the mobs say so.

Free Speech Considered Support for Nazism

newtboy says...

He is a vocal supporter of the gallery who has repeatedly gone on TV to defend the gallery holding white power events, a gallery who's intent is to legitimize Nazism and far right racist ideology through art and lectures. To me, that's Nazi figurehead.

The gallery leaked the identity of artists who exposed its activities to the far-right neo-Nazi website, Amerika.
This makes them not just a place that allows Nazis a platform, but an active member.

This info and more is in the links provided. Read it please.

bcglorf said:

Please enlighten me then. The only evidence I have seen so far that the guy in the video is a "well known Nazi figurehead" is your statement of such, and the crowd in the video accusing him of it. The articles I've looked up and an admittedly short/half hearted google search have turned up no evidence either save for his appearance again in the video. Do you have a better link or reference for me?

Free Speech Considered Support for Nazism

bcglorf says...

The gallery is accused of repeatedly bringing in white-supremacists. The guy in the video is accused of being a neo-nazi figurehead.

The only evidence I’m seeing though is the gallery bringing in one guy I’d clearly label white supremacist, and then a bunch of people that same to have the wrong opinions on immigration, but it’s hardly clear that there is anymore evidence than that with which to convict.

This matters to me because here in Canada a student assistant was brought in for discipline and became the center of a storm for playing a fee minutes if an interview that included UT prof Jordan Peterson. She was accused of promoting hate and violence(and even committing violence herself) for the act of playing the video. All this because Jordan Peterson is a ‘well known’ alt-right extremist...

The evidence I’ve seen here has the same stink to it and so I’m reluctant to just convict the accused on the mobs say so.

newtboy said:

If the same standard applies, then yes, you are saying you expect a lone BLM activist at a clan rally to be treated better...because this treatment is unacceptable in your opinion.

His speech, or at least the speech he's defending, has been used to exactly that effect publicly and repeatedly in recent past, maybe just seconds earlier we don't know, so now it seems you've come around to my side. Am I wrong?

No, I never heard of this before this video, I have no other info, nor have I independently verified what I found. That said, a gallery that repeatedly hosts Nazis and white power speakers, surely bringing with them crowds of Nazis and white power groups into a neighborhood IS acting as a neo Nazi hq, at least during those multiple events.

I think if the gallery wasn't in a residential neighborhood but in the country, the "wrong think" would be fine, it's that they repeatedly turn the neighborhood into a race war zone by holding what amounts to white power rallies people would be outraged by, imo...but I'm not British, I can imagine they think worse about Nazis than Americans do and might be less tolerant.

I don't disagree that the gallery may have intended to just be an open space available to anyone, but what they became was a beacon to Nazis and racists, a safe place to hold rallies and events in a neighborhood that clearly doesn't want them. A place from which to provoke. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
When they saw how angry their neighbors were at the groups they brought to the neighborhood they should have changed how they operate, or where, but seemingly didn't.


So, while the gallery may not be specifically a Nazi HQ, by hosting the speakers and groups it does, it supports their ideologies and facilitated spreading their message by offering them a platform. That makes them complicit, intentionally so after the first protest when they were put on notice the neighbors are outraged.

Free Speech Considered Support for Nazism

newtboy says...

If the same standard applies, then yes, you are saying you expect a lone BLM activist at a clan rally to be treated better...because this treatment is unacceptable in your opinion.

His speech, or at least the speech he's defending, has been used to exactly that effect publicly and repeatedly in recent past, maybe just seconds earlier we don't know, so now it seems you've come around to my side. Am I wrong?

No, I never heard of this before this video, I have no other info, nor have I independently verified what I found. That said, a gallery that repeatedly hosts Nazis and white power speakers, surely bringing with them crowds of Nazis and white power groups into a neighborhood IS acting as a neo Nazi hq, at least during those multiple events.

I think if the gallery wasn't in a residential neighborhood but in the country, the "wrong think" would be fine, it's that they repeatedly turn the neighborhood into a race war zone by holding what amounts to white power rallies people would be outraged by, imo...but I'm not British, I can imagine they think worse about Nazis than Americans do and might be less tolerant.

I don't disagree that the gallery may have intended to just be an open space available to anyone, but what they became was a beacon to Nazis and racists, a safe place to hold rallies and events in a neighborhood that clearly doesn't want them. A place from which to provoke. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
When they saw how angry their neighbors were at the groups they brought to the neighborhood they should have changed how they operate, or where, but seemingly didn't.


So, while the gallery may not be specifically a Nazi HQ, by hosting the speakers and groups it does, it supports their ideologies and facilitated spreading their message by offering them a platform. That makes them complicit, intentionally so after the first protest when they were put on notice the neighbors are outraged.

bcglorf said:

@newtboy
Do you honestly believe a BLM sign holder at a clan March would be treated better? What about at a Trump rally? If you claim to think either case wouldn't end in hospitalization, you're not being honest.

Not only did I never claim that, I have trouble figuring why you think I would? My second sentence again:"My opinion though lies the same whether it’s this guy treated as he was in the video, or if the situation was reversed and the lone guy had a BLM sign instead, same standard applies."

I oppose meeting speech with force excepting when that speech is being used to promote violence or harm, I'm also willing to allow that 'speech' can also amount to being disruptive or harassment like your notion of bringing inappropriate material to a kids park, or using a megaphone inches from someone's face.

I kind of thought on that point we'd find agreement, or at least understanding and agree to disagree?

Opening a new point from you're statement:He was the instigator. His sign amounts to "you will not silence our Nazi voice" at a rally pushing to silence their Nazi voice in their neighborhood.

I've read a few of the links you provided, and looked up a few articles on the gallery and I'm having troubles with the characterization. Do you have a good specific link that more clearly focuses on the nazi support from the gallery? The reading I've done seems to describe an art gallery, that allowed exhibits and talks from far-right and at least arguably fascist speakers on possibly a few occasions. You seem to talk like it was operating openly as a neo-nazi HQ.

So, what I've looked up so far, it does look an awful lot like a gallery pulled in speakers that people disliked, so they rallied to shut down the gallery as punishment for allowing wrong-think to be spoken. Then when guys like the one in the video came to defend free-speech, they too were classed as nazi's and lumped in as enemies too. Last article I found by the guy in video, so maybe he's lying, but other articles I've found also suggest that the gallery operated more generally rather than being an explicitly alt-right hub:
https://medium.com/@dctvbot/i-regret-nothing-c05401636032

Free Speech Considered Support for Nazism

bcglorf says...

@newtboy
Do you honestly believe a BLM sign holder at a clan March would be treated better? What about at a Trump rally? If you claim to think either case wouldn't end in hospitalization, you're not being honest.

Not only did I never claim that, I have trouble figuring why you think I would? My second sentence again:"My opinion though lies the same whether it’s this guy treated as he was in the video, or if the situation was reversed and the lone guy had a BLM sign instead, same standard applies."

I oppose meeting speech with force excepting when that speech is being used to promote violence or harm, I'm also willing to allow that 'speech' can also amount to being disruptive or harassment like your notion of bringing inappropriate material to a kids park, or using a megaphone inches from someone's face.

I kind of thought on that point we'd find agreement, or at least understanding and agree to disagree?

Opening a new point from you're statement:He was the instigator. His sign amounts to "you will not silence our Nazi voice" at a rally pushing to silence their Nazi voice in their neighborhood.

I've read a few of the links you provided, and looked up a few articles on the gallery and I'm having troubles with the characterization. Do you have a good specific link that more clearly focuses on the nazi support from the gallery? The reading I've done seems to describe an art gallery, that allowed exhibits and talks from far-right and at least arguably fascist speakers on possibly a few occasions. You seem to talk like it was operating openly as a neo-nazi HQ.

So, what I've looked up so far, it does look an awful lot like a gallery pulled in speakers that people disliked, so they rallied to shut down the gallery as punishment for allowing wrong-think to be spoken. Then when guys like the one in the video came to defend free-speech, they too were classed as nazi's and lumped in as enemies too. Last article I found by the guy in video, so maybe he's lying, but other articles I've found also suggest that the gallery operated more generally rather than being an explicitly alt-right hub:
https://medium.com/@dctvbot/i-regret-nothing-c05401636032

Joe Biden's Crime Bill In his own words.

newtboy says...

Who wants proven innocent blacks executed anyway because, based solely on their skin color, he believes "they mugged someone"? Mr Don Trump- Trumpublican

Who wants to shove more "thugs" (his word for blacks) in prison for longer sentences? Mr Don Trump-Trumpublican

Who complained loudly that the Biden crime bill didn't lock up enough blacks for long enough? Mr Don Trump-Trumpublican

Who wants to execute way more "thugs" (blacks), but wants something less "comfortable" than lethal injection (like slow public hangings)? Mr Don Trump-Trumpublican

Who thinks white supremacists, treasonous confederates, and neo Nazis are "good people" who shouldn't serve time for rioting and attacking peaceful anti-racism protesters? Mr Don Trump-Trumpublican

Who still holds these beliefs and has never once apologized for them? Mr Don Trump-Trumpublican

You are so dishonest and desperate.

bobknight33 said:

Who is behind shoving blacks in jail? Mr Joe Biden, Democrat.

Who does not care about locking up blacks? Mr Joe Biden, Democrat.

Meanwhile at a Democratic Socialists Convention...

newtboy says...

Kinda gonna disagree with YOU here.

So, you think nuttiness directly correlates with violent tendencies? But you then admit the nuttiest Christian group is Westborough, who has not been violent, just outrageously disgusting. You seem to think these democratic socialist people are nuttier than the moronic right, yet you admit they have yet to become violent, unlike many on the right. Even if it's also a function of numbers, there should be some violent acts if not murders coming from both outrageously nutty groups, right? But there just isn't.
Remember, Manson's family only had a few members, but a ton of nuttiness. They murdered many trying to start a race war.

Today, the left has more members than the right. Why, then, is the right so much more violent and terroristic? Simply because the far right has more members than the far left? That still doesn't jibe.

Granted, the lunacy on display here is over the top, but less so than the disgusting and divisive dehumanizing rhetoric coming from the right's leaders, spokespeople, and splinter groups. Indeed, this groups nuttiness is based on not upsetting others, antithetical to mass murdering.

There's FAR more crazy anger on the right. For every triggered democratic socialist or ANTIFA there's a dozen seething right wing white supremacists itching for a race war. Look at the numbers here, 500-1000 active democratic socialists?...how many right wing neo Nazis were in Charlottesville?

It follows to me that group murder rates come from not just the level but the type of nuttiness, number of members, uncontrolled anger/rage/hatred, group acceptance of violence, and access to weapons capable of murder. The right is miles ahead on every count besides membership. That's why, imo, there's got to be more to the equation than just nuttiness times membership.

bcglorf said:

Kinda gonna disagree with you here.

I like sorting nuts by nuttiness. I expect murder rates to follow from the combination of nuttiness and number of members. I'm not aware of murders out of the Westboro Baptists(yet at least). Plenty of murderers though have claimed generic christianity though. I still class Westboro as less tolerable than generic christianity.

Going back to the video, this crowd is pretty far over on the nutcase scale.

The Truth About the Sri Lanka Attacks

newtboy says...

Fuck this hyper Islamophobic lying nut job.
Why has Trump never said the words Right Wing Terrorism, even though they're by far the most active terrorists in America? Why doesn't he label the black church burnings as attacks on Christianity? Why does Trump stand with the neo-Nazi terrorists, calling them "good people"? You won't hear PJ ask that, will you?

Some background on this liar and provocateur....Paul Joseph Watson's career emerged through his work for liar, conspiracy theorist, disingenuous character, snake oil salesman, and radio host Alex Jones. As editor-at-large of Jones' website InfoWars.com he helped promote fake news and conspiracy theories such as the claim that 9/11 was an inside job, the chemtrail conspiracy theory, the New World Order and the Illuminati. Subsequently reaching a significant audience, both Watson and Jones altered their focus. Presently their commentary is mainly focused on criticizing feminism, Islam, and left-wing politics.Watson also contributes to Infowars' talk radio program The Alex Jones Show, where he occasionally either hosts or co-hosts. Watson has been working on Infowars.com since October 2002.
Skankhunt33 strikes again....obviously a trolling attempt.

Racist Australian Senator egged by hero kid

Honest Government Ad | Climate Change Policy

newtboy says...

Oh Bob...
2017 extremist related murder numbers are out....
71% were by right wing extremists-many neo Nazis
26% were by Islamic extremists
And those numbers should only include the murders, not the myriad of failed right wing terrorist acts like the multiple failed right wing mail bombers and caught in the nick of time right wing Coast guard terrorists.
Not sure how you plan to make a case that egg wielding left wing extremists are the real pressing danger, but I'm all ears.

In 2018, every single terroristic attacker in the U.S. had ties to right wing extremist organizations, although one had converted to Islamic extremism before attacking that doesn't mean (and there's little evidence that) they abandoned their right wing politics or philosophy.

Try to absorb that information instead of just being defensive and ignoring it....please.

bobknight33 said:

neo-nazi right wing terrorism issue.... Non existent .0000000001 % of Conservatives are nuts jobs like you describe. You side is way worse.



Send this Article to a Friend



Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients






Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists

Beggar's Canyon