He not only allows it, he endorses it with his pack of neo-nazi orthodox catholic Night Wolves. It's his idea to give the gays as a peace offering to the church. It's way sicker than you know.

This is the true Vladimir Putin: http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/03/24/article-1369485-0B4FFF9100000578-679_634x423.jpg

Tags for this video have been changed from 'gay rights, lack thereof, abuse, torture, medieval, cunts' to 'gay rights, lack thereof, abuse, torture, medieval, cunts, neo nazi, lgbt, russia' - edited by xxovercastxx

BTW, did anyone look at the youtube source?

The guy that posted it is a neo-nazi. http://www.youtube.com/user/EuropeanImperium?feature=watch

And he's using this as an example of "why multiculturalism fails". Seriously, fuck you EuropenImperium.

First feminist brave enough to comment here....

It's more a case of Statistics.... There are lies, damn lies and statistics.

Talk about cherry picking the facts to create a portrait of victimhood.

That is the funniest thing about this -- the stink of victimhood from the ruling class. Sounds like neo-Nazis, going on about how they are oppressed by people of color.

Funny how the existence of baby Xs and baby Ys are left out of all these "statistics." Homelessness for women is less than homelessness for men? I suspect it is more that homelessness for custodial parents is less than homelessness for individuals. This whole video is rife with such cherry picking.

Are there inequities in our culture? Sure. There are things to fix. Let's get to work on it, shall we?

The feminists that I admire most? They aren't just feminists. They are humanists.

If they aren't also humanists, then they are no different than "male chauvinist pigs", if I might resurrect a term from the 70s.

And humanists are heartsick at how boys are falling behind in school, for example. Our education system is broken for so many children.

Listening to this made me feel ill. Such distortion. Such victimhood. Such a budding Mein Kampf to justify further, continuing inequities against women with zero self-reflection.

I hope that anyone who listens to this and thinks that something profound has been revealed about the oppression of men by women and by society in general will take just a moment and think about the situation more deeply than this cartoon.

I'd respect him if he said "I don't want their support" this clip tells me that he is a neo-nazi and he doesn't want to admit it.

How many neo-nazi or white supremacist groups can their be in the US and are they available for systematic murder? Say Friday?

As someone put it during the 2008 campaign, America is both the best and the worst country in the world when it comes to race.

The way I interpreted that was that we're probably the only country in the world where you could get a majority of the voting population to elect an ethnic minority for their highest political office. We're also one of the only places where people in Congress would pass around a picture of him photoshopped to look like a witch doctor, and insist he wasn't really born in America.

>> ^xxovercastxx:

On the one hand, Obama's election really put a stamp on how far the US has come in overcoming racism.
On the other hand, there's been a huge resurgence ever since or, at the very least, they've been emboldened somehow. I've seen and heard more racism in the last 4 years than in my previous 29 on the planet.

>> ^gwiz665:

>> ^tymebendit:

they're gonna give socialists a bad name.


pretty sure the national socialist party already did that.

I thought she meant it ironically. I would have said it's just hard to convey sarcasm in that faux "white" voice she is using. But the name marks her as East Indian. So maybe it is stupidity.

Edit: No, she is mixed, being half black/half Indian, and a member of the Black Journalists Association, so it can't be stupidity or ignorance. In this case, I stand by the "faux voice" theory.

>> ^kir_mokum:

jennifer must be hating herself right now.

or is too stupid to care.

>> ^NetRunner:

Sure [...]


"So to unpack that, you think Sam Seder is spreading a baseless accusation, and that I deserve to be scolded for repeating it by posting the video. My response was to ask why you were directing your ire at me personally, while giving you the additional details you ostensibly wanted."

Glad you cleared that up (and there's your first—and very telling—misinterpretation).

I was making no judgment of Sam Seder's accusation, nor did I ever call it baseless; I think it remains to be seen whether or not it has merit. I was, however, making a judgment of the *presentation* of his accusation. When you accuse someone of something as serious as racism, it's best to present, along with your claim, the facts that back up your claim. Sam Seder did not do this. In reposting his video without any additional information, you did not do this. That, to me, is worthy of criticism; it suggests a certain kind of opportunism which I find unhelpful on lots of levels.


I responded to the "lack of detail" comment by providing a link which includes the actual e-mail that Anonymous found.

Yes, and I noticed a number of glaring inaccuracies and biases after the first few sentences, which I made aware to you in my next post. I suggested that the post was amateurish and, at a minimum, certainly not fact-checked. I've been waiting to find more reputable news sources reporting on this issue and as yet have found none. One of the reasons, I assume, is that they're looking to confirm some of these accusations, the confirmation of sources being a foundation of trusted journalism.


IMPORTANT: NetRunner, you're doing it again. "Disparage the poster"? "Attacking the messenger"? Suggesting that I called you "dishonest" and "slanderous"? I never accused you of dishonesty, nor did I accuse you of slander, nor have I "attacked" you. And I certainly don't think my comments were disparaging.


It's hard to deal with people saying nasty things about your hero, but this whole strategy of attacking the messenger doesn't change anything.

Who said Ron Paul is my "hero"? I certainly haven't. This from one of my replies to dystopianfuturetoday:

"Ron Paul doesn't have me in some trance-like state of manipulation. I didn't vote for him in the last election, and I don't plan to vote for him this time around. There are *lots* of things about his platform that I outright disagree with, and there are a handful of things that I disagree with so fundamentally (his positions on abortion, climate change, evolution, his religiosity, among others) that I often question why I even bother keeping up with his politics. (The reason: because there are lots of his positions that I *do* agree with, in particular positions that no one else seems even to address.) But this whole racism thing really just peeves me. I mean, for magical Christ's sake, if he's a racist, and if he's in cahoots with white supremacists and Neo-Nazis, then I, more than anyone else, want to read some credible, vetted news stories on the matter, so I can put the issue to bed once and for all. But instead, I keep seeing videos like this one which purport, rather dramatically, so "expose" him in all his shameful glory ... only to be disappointed by the content of the video."

Hardly sounds like hero-worship to me.


Have you read the e-mail yet? Do you have an opinion on the evidence Anonymous uncovered?

I read some of them. In short, I'm skeptical when I see attribution tags like "Here Are Some Emails From Kelso Regarding Racists Working For Ron Paul’s Campaign" and "Here Is An Email From Someone In Ron Paul’s Campaign To Kelso." Who are these supposed campaign workers? How are they connected to Ron Paul? Are they low-level campaigners who work independently of him? Are they his trusted advisors? All of these things matter in the interpretation of this situation. As of now, I've seen no articles that provide enough context to the e-mails, or enough detail about the senders and recipients of the e-mails, to make a judgment one way or the other.

Yikes. As Ron Paul said to Rick Santorum a few weeks ago: I think you're a little "overly sensitive!"

I haven't "lashed out" at anyone, and I certainly haven't demanded information of anyone. (Where are those accusations coming from?) I called you out for posting an uninformative video (uninformative in the sense that, in an attempt to share a story about Anonymous' "exposure" of Ron Paul, you put up a one-minute clip of Sam Seder making generalized statements without any specific evidence—and note that other people in this comments section share my opinion on this), and I took issue with @dystopianfuturetoday's overly simplified discussion of states' rights.

The issue of states' rights is obviously something of a complicated one (this part of my response if for @Boise_Lib, too). I'm aware of the historical weight of the term, but I'm also aware that there's no inherent link between states' rights and racism. There are lots of people on the Sift who care about states' rights and who appreciate our federal system of government, one that allots certain rights to the federal government and certain rights to the states, and yet I've never seen ONE comment on the Sift that showed any sort of overt racism. (I haven't been around as long as many of you, so it's possible that there have been some; it's just that I've never personally seen one.) That should be a good example, in and of itself, of the fact that states' rights, for many people, do NOT go hand in hand with white supremacy. For dystopianfuturetoday to make that suggestion in the context of a Sift discussion on the issue *is* insulting to many of us.

And for the record, @dystopianfuturetoday, Ron Paul doesn't have me in some trance-like state of manipulation. I didn't vote for him in the last election, and I don't plan to vote for him this time around. There are *lots* of things about his platform that I outright disagree with, and there are a handful of things that I disagree with so fundamentally (his positions on abortion, climate change, evolution, his religiosity, among others) that I often question why I even bother keeping up with his politics. (The reason: because there are lots of his positions that I *do* agree with, in particular positions that no one else seems even to address.) But this whole racism thing really just peeves me. I mean, for magical Christ's sake, if he's a racist, and if he's in cahoots with white supremacists and Neo-Nazis, then I, more than anyone else, want to read some credible, vetted news stories on the matter, so I can put the issue to bed once and for all. But instead, I keep seeing videos like this one which purport, rather dramatically, so "expose" him in all his shameful glory ... only to be disappointed by the content of the video.

I suppose that frustration at being continually disappointed by these racist "exposures" is all wrapped up in my original reaction to the video (and its title). In any event, though, I'm interested to see how this new issue plays out. As I said in my second post, I want to know the truth about his relationship to these white supremacists; if it's damning, then let's see some good journalism exposing it as such.>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^aurens:
(And sorry if I came off as combative; it wasn't my intention.)
Yes, yes, you've been the model of poise and restraint. You've lashed out at me, Sam Seder, the site who's reported on this, and have demanded some sort of full investigative report be delivered to you, because you refuse to even try to answer your own questions with your own research.
Never mind that the link I gave you included a link to the full document dump of the e-mail recovered by Anonymous, you think it's "amateurish" because you didn't understand what they were talking about, or didn't like their tone, or some BS like that.
Now you're trying to castigate DFT for not contributing to "the conversation"? Dude, you've been doing your best to make sure there won't be anything like a sane and rational conversation on this video from your very first comment.
Take some deep breaths. Go google "Ron Paul anonymous american third position" and read some links until you have an idea of what's going on. Then come back when you're ready to have a measured conversation about the topic.

I'm calling you out because you posted an uninformative video with a spurious and sensationalistic title. (See @Grimm's comment above.) If Ron Paul is inappropriately connected to white supremacists, then by all means: expose him! This video certainly doesn't do the trick.>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^aurens:
Man, great video @NetRunner. That Sam Seder fellow really describes those "numerous connections" in convincing detail.

I'm not sure why you're calling me out. More details are available on teh internets if you want them.
For example, there's this: http://newsone.com/nation/casey-gane-
mccalla/anonymous-reveals-close-ties-between-ron-paul-and-neo-nazis/

>> ^aurens:

Man, great video @NetRunner. That Sam Seder fellow really describes those "numerous connections" in convincing detail.


I'm not sure why you're calling me out. More details are available on teh internets if you want them.

For example, there's this: http://newsone.com/nation/casey-gane-mccalla/anonymous-reveals-close-ties-between-ron-paul-and-neo-nazis/

Could you kindly describe the specific way in which a Neo-Nazi's $500 donation would exert an influence over a candidate like Ron Paul? It seems like an absurd generalization to me. (Besides, Don Black—the Neo-Nazi in question—has said publicly that his support of Ron Paul has nothing to do with endorsing white supremacy: "Black said he supports Paul's stance on ending the war in Iraq, securing U.S. borders and his opposition to amnesty for illegal immigrants. 'We know that he's not a white nationalist. He says he isn't and we believe him, but on the issues, there's only one choice,' Black said.")

On a tangential note, you seem to be taking an odd stance with your comment about "murders" and "child rapists." Are you suggesting that certain criminals ought not be allowed to make contributions to political campaigns? If so, where would you draw the line?>> ^longde:

The fact remains that when people give you money, they exert influence over you.
Even if you're just taking advantage of some suckers, the appearance of impropriety should be avoided. A reasonable person would wonder why doesn't he give back the money. Is he: a) too needy to return the donation, in which case the nazi's would have some influence; or b) too unprincipled to give back the money from violent hatemongers. It also begs the question: just who won't such a man take money from? Murderers? Child rapists? Would Paul's below explanation be acceptable in those cases?
>> ^aurens:
Well, you linked to an article from 2007, so it would be more accurate to say "Neo-Nazis helped bankroll Ron Paul's last campaign."
In any event, I remember when this came up. Certain people were insisting that Ron Paul return the campaign contributions, which he refused to do (as far as I can remember). I thought his rationale was remarkably astute: If racist, bigoted people want to undermine their own efforts by giving money to a campaign based on liberty, mistakenly thinking that they'll be influencing the message of the campaign, then let them do so. In the end, we'll end up with (1) more liberty and (2) less money in the hands of the bigots.
More generally, though, this issue reminds me of a certain argument flung by religious folk, namely the condemnation of atheism based on the fact that "atheists" like Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot (forget the fact that Hitler wasn't an atheist) perpetrated some of the last century's worst atrocities. (Richard Dawkins, in an interview with Bill O'Reilly, illustrated the fallacy quite simply: "Stalin did not do bad things because he was an atheist. I mean Hitler and Stalin both had mustaches, but we don't say it was their mustaches that made them evil.")
The generalized point is that the value of an idea is not determined by the value of the person advocating for that idea. A fool may very well endorse an intelligent belief; it doesn't make the belief any less intelligent.>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
Nazis are literally bankrolling Ron Paul's campaign: http://digitaljournal.com/article/246244