Proud Boys, Black Lives Matter leaders hold joint conference: We 'denounce White supremacy'

Do you believe people don't have Rights? Because that is the only way you can continually spin what I said into the bolded.

 

Unless you are carrying a rifle slung across your back you can fire it effectively in less than a second. You shouldn't go to a riot armed at all if you're not specifically designated as someone authorized to do so

 

Please explain that. I don't see how rights enter this discussion at all. We are discussing definitions

 

Don't you know a black hispanic white supremist when you see one?

Come on man!

 

In your opinion. People have a right to self defense, and they have a right to stand in defense of others.

 

We are discussing fascism/authoritarianism. Both wish to make you do things even if it violates your Rights. I have said this multiple times now. You keep changing it to "Fascism is just "anything I don't like" and/or "anyone telling me what to do". I've not once said anything like what you keep changing it to. Hence my question to you. Do you believe people have Rights?

 

Yes, I believe people have rights but I still don't see what that has to do with the definition of Fascism

And we were discussing that one definition. That is, we were discussing the definition of Fascism. Authoritarianism came into it only because it seemed we were conflating the two.

What is your definition of Fascism?

 

Technically. US Code defines the militia as all able bodied males between 18 and 45 who are or intend to become citizens. Given that no politician's career could ever survive trying to exclude women, elderly or disabled from participation, we can logically extend the militia to include pretty much all adults for all intents and purposes . Which makes the Proud Boys a part of the militia as much as you and I are.

Whether they're a 'militia group', well, thats fairly subjective, but I've never heard them refer to themselves as such, so I would say no.

 

Fascism can be displayed by any group or government that attempts to, or wants to, violate your Rights. Fascism is not limited to a government system.

 

But not racism.

Meantime, since homosexuality and religion are behaviours, not accidents of birth like race .. they have every right to be opposed to those things without condemnation. As for misogyny .. no dice. If women can have female only organisations without accusation of misandry, so can PBs have male only organisations.

 

O.M.G

Why don't you just go ahead and say it out loud. You refuse him blackness because he's not behaving.

 

The right to self-defense is the right to defend one's SELF. The right to stand in defense of others is generally only recognized when clear bodily harm to someone is imminent. The right to defend another's property becomes very problematic in most jurisdictions

Nobody asked this Rittenhouse to come down from miles away to "defend" an insured used-car lot (which was then burned down anyway, and my understanding is the riot was dying down)

I'm sorry, but this is BS. This kid saw a riot was on and thought he'd get in on it. Hell, he could've been looking for a new flat-screen for his room himself and now all the rw thinks he's a militia hero.

 

Completely irrelevant to his claim of self-defense.

 

I suspect they know that. 'Racist!' is just the only argument they have against individualism.

 

So any guy who starts a fight with you in a bar is a fascist?

 

I said group or government. Seriously...this isn't hard to understand.

 

"As the civil rights movement and dismantling of Jim Crow laws in the 1950s and 1960s visibly deepened existing racial tensions in much of the Southern United States, Republican politicians such as presidential candidate Richard Nixon and Senator Barry Goldwater developed strategies that successfully contributed to the political realignment of many white, conservative voters in the South who had traditionally supported the Democratic Party rather than the Republican Party. It also helped to push the Republican Party much more to the right.[4] The "Southern Strategy" refers primarily to "top down" narratives of the political realignment of the South which suggest that Republican leaders consciously appealed to many white Southerners' racial grievances in order to gain their support.[5] This top-down narrative of the Southern Strategy is generally believed to be the primary force that transformed Southern politics following the civil rights era"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy

"The civil rights movement, once a controversial left-wing fringe, has grown deeply embedded into the fabric of our national story. This is a salutary development, but a problematic one for conservatives, who are the direct political descendants of (and, in the case of some of the older members of the movement, the exact same people as) the strident opponents of the civil rights movement. It has thus become necessary for conservatives to craft an alternative story, one that absolves their own ideology of any guilt.

Southern white supremacy operated out of the Democratic Party beginning in the nineteenth century, but the party began attracting northern liberals, including African-Americans, into an ideologically cumbersome coalition. Over time the liberals prevailed, forcing the Democratic Party to support civil rights, and driving conservative (and especially southern) whites out, where they realigned with the Republican Party."
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2012/05/conservative-fantasy-history-of-civil-rights.html

The rest of that article is worth a read, it goes over the actual history in detail.

 

They were POPULIST Democrats and no they did flee the Democrat party to the Republican Party, the shift was over a two decades as the younger voters of the South how grew up in the Democrat segregationist governments gradually took more control. And Nixon did MORE for civil rights and equality than any previous Democrat.

The myth of Nixon’s ‘Southern Strategy’

"Nixon barely campaigned in the Deep South. His strategy, as outlined by Kevin Phillips in his classic work, “The Emerging Republican Majority,” was to target the Sunbelt, the vast swath of territory stretching from Florida to Nixon’s native California. This included what Phillips terms the Outer or Peripheral South.

Nixon recognized the South was changing. It was becoming more industrialized, with many northerners moving to the Sunbelt. Nixon’s focus, Phillips writes, was on the non-racist, upwardly-mobile, largely urban voters of the Outer or Peripheral South. Nixon won these voters, and he lost the Deep South, which went to Democratic segregationist George Wallace.

And how many racist Dixiecrats did Nixon win for the GOP? Turns out, virtually none. Among the racist Dixiecrats, Strom Thurmond of South Carolina was the sole senator to defect to the Republicans — and he did this long before Nixon’s time. Only one Dixiecrat congressman, Albert Watson of South Carolina, switched to the GOP. The rest, more than 200 Dixiecrat senators, congressmen, governors and high elected officials, all stayed in the Democratic Party.

The progressive notion of a Dixiecrat switch is a myth. Yet it is myth that continues to be promoted, using dubious case examples. Though the late Sens. Jesse Helms of North Carolina and John Tower of Texas and former Mississippi Sen. Trent Lott all switched from the Democratic Party to the GOP, none of these men was a Dixiecrat. "
https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/402754-the-myth-of-nixons-southern-strategy



Barry Goldwater was also a SUPPORTER of desegregation and helped to lead his city of Phoenix and then state out of it.

"One of the most prominently held urban legends of our time is that Senator Barry Goldwater, the GOP candidate for president in 1964, was against civil rights because he voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This vote of Goldwater marked the start of when “the GOP began to go against civil rights” according to CNN’s Roland Martin’s version of the legend.....

....As a matter of fact, as one of the six voting against the 1964 Civil rights act, Senator Goldwater, on principle, disagreed with the idea of Federal government intervention regarding this matter. “His stance was based on his view that the act was an intrusion of the federal government into the affairs of states and, second, that the Act interfered with the rights of private persons to do business, or not, with whomever they chose.”[3]

More specifically, Goldwater had problems with title II and Title VII of the 1964 bill. He felt that constitutionally the federal government had no legal right to interfere in who people hired, fired; or to whom they sold their products, goods, and services. He felt that “power” laid in the various states, and with the people. He was a strong advocate of the tenth amendment. Goldwater’s constitutional stance did not mean he agreed with the segregation and racial discrimination practiced in the South. To the contrary, he fought against these kinds of racial divides in his own state of Arizona. He supported the integration of the Arizona National Guard and Phoenix public schools.[4] Goldwater was, also, a member of the NAACP and the Urban League.[5]

His personal feelings about discrimination are enshrined in the congressional record where he states, “I am unalterably opposed to discrimination or segregation on the basis of race, color, or creed or on any other basis; not only my words, but more importantly my actions through years have repeatedly demonstrated the sincerity of my feeling in this regard…”[6]. And, he would continue to hold fast to his strongly felt convictions that constitutionally the federal government was limited in what it could do, believing that the amoral actions of those perpetuating discrimination and segregation would have to be judged by those in that community. Eventually, the state’s government and local communities would come to pressure people to change their minds. Goldwater’s view was that the civil disobedience by private citizens against those business establishments was preferable than intervention by the feds. He, optimistically, believed that racial intolerance would soon buckle under the economic and societal pressure."
https://freedomsjournalinstitute.org/uncategorized/urban-legend-goldwater-against-civil-rights/

"These cruel charges deeply hurt Goldwater. He was half-Jewish and as a private citizen and U.S. senator had fought discrimination time and again. He led the way in desegregating the Arizona Air National Guard in 1946, two years before President Truman desegregated the armed forces. He was an early member of the Phoenix chapters of the NAACP and the Urban League, even making up the latter’s operating deficit when it was getting started. He desegregated the Senate cafeteria in early 1953, demanding that his black legislative assistant be served along with every other Senate employee, after learning she had been denied service."
https://www.miamiherald.com/latest-news/article1973798.html

 

Dinesh D’Souza... is a nut. He's an old school variety of nut that stumbled into a way to make good money peddling crap.

In any case, I like Kevin Phillips and have read several of his books, and watched several of his lectures. He goes over this far better than I could. His lectures are a better choice, he has a journalistic style of writing that is incomprehensible if you didn't live through the period he's writing about.

None of which matters in the slightest.

Republicans have the racists now, and you're welcome to them.