Charlottesville: State of emergency over US far-right rally

[Flagg]

Speaking as a formerly licensed (unarmed) security "officer" ( ), we could legally not use firearms or wear body armor

Why on earth are there laws/regulations restricting who can wear body armor?

Because criminals in situations where shooting is likely to break out won't be easily taken down. IIRC most of it stems from that LA bank robbery in 1997 where 2 robbers decked out in full body armor held off the LAPD whose pistol rounds were bouncing off and they had to requisition semi-auto long guns to take them down. In my case it was "you're unarmed security, why do you need a helmet and bulletproof vest?"

[Flagg]

Can I just suggest that saying that those people directly on the Nazi shitlist are having their 'objectivity' clouded by fear is highly insulting?

Here are some objective facts. Neo-nazis emulate and endorse a political ideology that would directly lead to my death. When in a group, neo-nazis and other fascists have about as long a history of extreme violence directed against the targets of their ideology as there can be - these are the same people as the skinhead gangs, remember? At a protest, the police are either disinterested or unable to respond swiftly to violence (we've seen that time and time again) and as a result, cannot guarantee my safety either in a timely fashion or at all, even if they're sympathetic.

So if I - one of their targets for literal extermination - am attending a protest where they're going to be, I don't think being glad that there's a bunch of dudes on my side who'll bumrush the Nazis right back if violence starts is me having my 'objectivity' clouded. I think going 'but political violence is bad, man!' is great in theory, but when you're faced with someone who'll happily beat your face in with a pipe for being a cripple on political grounds, that ship's sailed. At that point, the violence is already imminent and it's already political, and the only way to keep from losing ground to the other side is to have people willing and able to step in to fight for you. It's only where violence isn't a way to win that you can begin to reason with fascists.

Now, who's going to be more willing to have my back? A private security guard with a can of mace and a stick, who doesn't care about me on any personal or ideological level? A police officer with instructions to stay uninvolved until orders come down the chain? A private bodyguard (okay, that might work, but that's expensive)? A PMC (most of those probably aren't going to be on the radical leftist side)? None of those are especially reliable options. While antifascist street brawlers aren't the best disciplined, the best coordinated, or the best equipped, what they do have is an ideological commitment to meet the violence of fascists with defensive violence.

And this is where I'm going to suggest that even where they go on the offensive, that's actually defensive violence. Why? For the same reason that self defence laws permit you to act in anticipation of a real danger where you can't run, rather than demanding you let someone take the first swing with a tire iron at you before you can drop them. Fascism and naziism, by its very nature, is a real and present danger to its targets - so bumrushing the fascists in the crowd before they can work up the momentum is nothing more than acting in anticipation of that real and present danger.

Oh give it a rest. All those people the Nazis wanted to kill in the 1930's panicked too, and they are just fine!

[Flagg]

Why on earth are there laws/regulations restricting who can wear body armor?

Probably company policy rather than actual law. But even if it is, the reason is probably psychological: Rentacops walking around geared up like they're going into a warzone makes people nervous, and maybe a little resentful.

Yeah, it was company policy. Licensed armed security can and do wear bulletproof vests, but they are mostly armored truck guards doing cash pickups and deliveries.

[Flagg]

This wasn't a protest. It wasn't a rally. It wasn't a demonstration. This was an attack. Protesters don't show up with clubs and shields. They should round these cunts up and charge them with terrorism. At least all the ones with a shield or a club in their hand.

When my old union picketed many years ago, police examined the little 1 X 2 sticks we used to hold up our signs. Federal law prohibited anyone on a picket line from carrying anything that might be used as a weapon. That needs to be the rule law for any kind of public rally or demonstration.

Totally agree. Which is why the Charlottesville terrorist incident wasn't a rally or demonstration.

Individual cops in the US frequently(not all of them, KS works for SLC which is considered one of the most professional agencies in the country) say that their primary mission is to "get home to their families", not engage with the community, serve & protect, etc.

You'll note that in Dallas the local BLM frequently open carries firearms and the DPD doesn't really crack down on the protests, even though it's a mantra that cops will do so if the OC activists are black. I think it's more a reflection on the "I don't want to do more than the bare minimum unless I have overwhelming force" attitude so many have.

Add in that many VSP LEOs are at least mildly sympathetic to the alt-reich, I'm not hugely surprised that the VSP didn't do much until there were literal bodies on the ground thanks to a terrorist attack. There's a reason why the Guard were called in.

The NYT has video of one of Trump's "fine people" shouting "NIGGER!" and firing a pistol into the crowd -and the police only busted him yesterday.

Hardly surprising. Odds are good that they never would have without the video and just witness testimony and a spent shell casing.

When you really get down to it, Nazis believe most people shouldn't exist.

I'm not a fan of violence and normally am against, but at a certain point you have to act in self-defense. We just had a literal torch-waving mob in Charlottesville, and they fucking killed someone and they're celebrating that. At what point do you say "no more"?

I don't know why we have Nazis in this country. I don't know why we have NAMBLA. These are organizations that exist solely to promote vile actions.

Well, to be honest I lied, I do know why we have them. It's because people with lofty ideals who are far too sheltered from reality are under the mistaken impression that if you ban these organizations from existing and you ban the public promotion of their ideologies, you are somehow damaging the rights of everyone. And they are all too happy to ignore the fact that the vast majority of the democratic world has laws banning such organizations and are doing just fine.

Frankly, the hardest choices these individuals have ever made is to pick which color Che Guaverra t-shirt they are going to wear that day. And the irony is alway lost on them.

Some of it is just a kind of guttersnipe rebellion by young punks who resent the pious anti-racism/anti-homophobia/anti-anti-Semitism and think that by being openly bigoted or spewing fascist/Nazi shibboleths they're being naughty little scamps.

Maybe the ones posting about how big their dicks are on the internet. "Naughty little scamps" don't invade a town in helmets, body armor, and carrying shields and clubs (and guns) ready to bust in heads.

Seriously though, I'm old enough to remember Nazis from the ones who killed four union organizers in Greensboro, to the ones who killed Allen Berg, to Timothy McVeigh and they were a hell of a lot worse than nowadays (so far -knock on wood!). Yes, it boils my blood that an open white supremacist is in the White House, but not that much more than when a coy white supremacist like Reagan (who used the slave massa term "bucks" to describe black men) sat in the Oval Office. I'm hoping that the one tiny silver thread in a very thin lining is that Ku Klux Trump will bring the same level of disrepute to white supremacy and homegrown fascism that Fred "god hates fags" Phelps brought to queer-baiting.

I hope so too. But pointing back to the KKK murdering union picketers, the murder of Berg, and the Oklahoma City Bombing (one 40 years ago and the latest 22 years ago isn't all that relevant. I mean I can handwave all of those away by pointing to the race riots, lynchings, and KKK being a mainstream organization in the 1920s. The point here is that we're trying to make sure that it never gets that bad again.

I think Antifa are a bunch of wankers who, if they aren't paid as agents provocateur by the Nazis/Ku Kluxers, might as well be. There's a reason fascist fucktards from holocaust deniers like David Horowitz and Bradley Smith to unconvincing drag acts like Ann Coulter and Milo NAMBLA-nopolous to outright thugs like Trump's "fine people" make it a point to hold their little rallies at either liberal colleges or in neighborhoods where they know they'll get a hostile reaction (like when neo-Nazis marched in Skokie IL, a town with a large Jewish population (including survivors of the Final Solution).

Laurie Marhoefer has an interesting article making the rounds and I think she makes some good points namely, that even if lefties somehow manage to organize militias and match or beat the violence from the Nazis/KKK, the authorities and most importantly the population as a whole will side with the fascists, as happened in Germany.

The left takes the heat

In the court of public opinion, accusations of mayhem and chaos in the streets will, as a rule, tend to stick against the left, not the right.

This was true in Germany in the 1920s. It was true even when opponents of fascism acted in self-defense or tried to use relatively mild tactics, such as heckling. It is true in the United States today, where even peaceful rallies against racist violence are branded riots in the making.

Today, right extremists are going around the country staging rallies just like the one in 1927 in Wedding. According to the civil rights advocacy organization the Southern Poverty Law Center, they pick places where they know antifascists are present, like university campuses. They come spoiling for physical confrontation. Then they and their allies spin it to their advantage.

I watched this very thing happen steps from my office on the University of Washington campus. Last year, a right extremist speaker came. He was met by a counterprotest. One of his supporters shot a counterprotester. On stage, in the moments after the shooting, the right extremist speaker claimed that his opponents had sought to stop him from speaking “by killing people.” The fact that it was one of the speaker’s supporters, a right extremist and Trump backer, who engaged in what prosecutors now claim was an unprovoked and premeditated act of violence, has never made national news.

We saw this play out after Charlottesville, too. President Donald Trump said there was violence “on both sides.” It was an incredible claim. Heyer, a peaceful protester, and 19 other people were intentionally hit by a neo-Nazi driving a car. He seemed to portray Charlottesville as another example of what he has referred to elsewhere as “violence in our streets and chaos in our communities,” including, it seems, Black Lives Matter, which is a nonviolent movement against violence. He stirred up fear. Trump recently said that police are too constrained by existing law.


President Trump tried it again during the largely peaceful protests in Boston – he called the tens of thousands who gathered there to protest racism and Nazism “anti-police agitators,” though later, in a characteristic about-face, he praised them.

President Trump’s claims are hitting their mark. A CBS News poll found that a majority of Republicans thought his description of who was to blame for the violence in Charlottesville was “accurate.”

This violence, and the rhetoric about it coming from the administration, are echos – faint but nevertheless frightening echos – of a well-documented pattern, a pathway by which democracies devolve into dictatorships.

Yeah, except the media denounced Trumps claims and called on him to specifically condemn the Nazi terrorists. And the fact that a "majority of Republicans" are either pro-Nazi or knee-jerk defend President Cockroach comes as no surprise.

As for Antifa, I don't know or much care who they are.

[loomer]

Briefly, since I keep seeing it referred to like one, Antifa isn't an organization. It's a loose association and network of Anti-Fascists, so the recent rhetoric treating it as being one cohesive block of people is silly. When there aren't fascists to kick the shit out of, antifa groups tend to bicker pretty badly. There's a whole range from outright communists - even Stalinists - to full blown anarchists to relatively moderate leftists. There is no singular antifa to point fingers at or wonder who's in charge. Just a lot of individual cells that all agree that fascism blows and that meeting a steel-toed boot with a lead pipe is probably better than letting it kick someone else's teeth in.

[The Romulan Republic]

In that case, you are not disputing the merits of having anti-fascist militias. You are debating the details of policy these militias should pursue. Were you convinced these militias should exist at some point that I didn't notice?

In theory, I can see the merits of having organized defensive forces on the Left, God help me.

My concern in part is, as I've said again and again, that militias tend to attract people who are not trained, not disciplined, and are looking for a fight. Hence my "hire professional private security" attempt at a compromise.

I can see the theoretical merits to having armed organized groups on the Left in case the situation continues to degenerate (though I am not at the point of condoning offensive or retaliatory violence), but I'm weighing that against my concerns of encouraging partisan vigilantes who are likely to simply escalate the conflict without paying much attention to who ends up targeted, or as "collateral damage". I think that these are legitimate concerns, and if the burden is on me to demonstrate how we can deal with the current situation without Left-wing militias, then I also feel their is a burden on the advocates of those militias to seriously address this concern.

If you can show me a way to organize a Left-wing militia that a) has a serious chance of matching the armed force the other side can bring to bear if it comes down to that, and b) will not attract the trigger-happy types, I'd have a lot fewer objections.

There is very little or no functional difference between a political organization hiring armed security personnel willing to fight for it, and the same organization creating a band of armed volunteers willing to do the same.

Hopefully, a difference in quality of training, and greater ease in vetting who you're hiring. As well as optics, which yes, do matter in any sort of political conflict.

Again, at this point it starts to feel as though you've already conceded the core point of discussion- "if the far-right continues to mobilize and organize armed groups in an attempt to exert a chilling effect on American politics, should the left organize groups ready and willing to fight them?"

Have you?

I don't think I've ever denied that their might come a point where that is necessary.

The question is how best to go about it, are we at a point where "fighting" should be purely defensive or also entail offence/retaliation, and if the former, how can we organize while discouraging trigger happy people who are looking to start a fight.

How many suppressed votes do you think it would take in rural areas to flip an election? States routinely 'flip' by very narrow majorities, no more than a few tens of thousands of people. Having large areas of the country where if (for instance) blacks and Hispanics show up to vote "it would be advisable to go in groups" is automatically going to massively suppress turnout among those demographics... and states will flip accordingly. If that is allowed to happen, it will have a huge, disastrous effect on the fairness of the election.

This isn't a possibility you should be noting calmly. The idea that this could happen should seem like an emergency, because it means that the "red line" between democratic elections and undemocratic pseudo-elections has already been crossed.

Would you prefer that I panic?

I don't deny its a concern, but I would point out that your scenario of massive voter suppression by armed gangs is, at this point, purely speculative.

Remember the parable of the frog in the pot of boiling water? If you wait for the water to visibly boil, you have waited too long. The first hint that the pot has been set to boil is the correct time to react. Waiting until individual citizens are afraid to go to the polls for fear of being attacked by goon squads is by definition waiting too long. If you tolerate the idea that this might happen in the next election, you can be assured that the election after that will either never be held, or will be a pure exercise in triumphal showmanship by the owner of the goon squads.

My objection to this kind of thinking is that its basically a slippery slope argument, where any sign that the worst case scenario might happen at some point in the future can be used to justify extreme measures preemptively.

What people are trying to warn you of is that it doesn't necessarily take more than a few years for Nazi-like movements to escalate from incidents like Charlottesville up to "we're actively obstructing people we don't like from voting in elections in our state."

This is precisely why there must be no ambiguity in the minds of the far right that if they try to organize armed bands to coerce and intimidate the rest of the citizenry, they will be stopped, plain and simple. If they don't try that, no problem- if they do, they get stopped.

Whatever needs to happen to bring about that outcome, needs to happen.

A person who cares about Americans having a democracy, would be wise to not stand in the way of letting that happen. And to not jump up and down saying "I don't condone this" when others try to ensure that it happens. If you condemn the necessary means to achieve an end hard enough, the effect is the same as condemning the end.

So now we're back to "You agree with us or you're no different than a collaborator"?

The fact that people keep falling back on this line of argument simply demonstrates that my concerns about increasing radicalization and an ever-broadening definition of who the enemy is are not unfounded. Though history has already proven that point time and again.

I mean, how many times have we had this argument, in different forms? There's a threat, it could destroy us, and so we have to do anything, no matter how extreme, to protect ourselves. Don't stop to think how far is too far- you're either with us or against us!

That is how democracies die too.

We agree, absolutely, that anything that is necessary to preserve democracy in the face of Neo-Nazi aggression is justified. The question is, what is necessary? As opposed to a heavy-handed response that will make the situation worse?

Are you capable of understanding, and acknowledging, that even if we disagree, its not because I'm a collaborator, or because I don't care, but because I honestly think that giving unconditional support to Antifa and like groups to engage in vigilantism is not likely to be an effective tactic?

I think your metaphor is more apt than you realize. Mix enough water into the gas tank of a car, and the car dies.

And sometimes, if you take your foot off the break and hit the gas, you go into a wall and die.

I'd like to try to place this in historical context, but it would be a waste of a LOT of words unless you're willing to hear me out on the subject. Are you interested in what I have to say?

I'm always willing to listen, but I can't promise that I'll agree.

If you want to convince me, you are going to have to demonstrate that:

a) We are at a point where non-violent methods can no longer be reasonably expected to succeed.

b) That vigilantism by groups like Antifa is the most effective course of action, or else that Left-wing militias can be organized in such a way that they will act as defensive groups only, not offensive or retaliatory groups.

c) That such a course of action stands a reasonable chance of actually accomplishing anything other than starting a fight we won't win.

d) That urging a certain amount of restrain is likely to undermine the chances of success.

[Bernkastel]

I'll add, since its too late to edit that post, that I also believe have discussed alternative approaches to backing Left-wing militias or vigilantes, both here and elsewhere. In brief:

-Act through the legal system and the police where possible (small town police forces should coordinate more with other police departments and state forces to ensure they are not overwhelmed, as reportedly happened in Charlottsville).

-Try to keep a lid on the situation as much as possible until we can get the current enabling cabal out of power in Washington.

-Mobilize all our efforts to win in 2018 and 2020, and to impeach and convict Trump and his chief lackies (while avoiding divisive actions that could make that harder).

-Consider hiring additional private security where possible.

-Individuals can carry arms as permitted by law and exercise their right to self-defence as necessary, but should be discouraged from crossing the line to offense or retaliation.

If anyone is interested in debating my actual position and arguments, as laid out in this and the preceding post, without attempting to derail the thread into attacks on my personality, character, or supposed motives, I would much appreciate it, and will make every possible effort to conduct such a discussion civilly.

First, before I make my own remark in regards to this which I admit will be limited because Simon has already covered a lot of what I'd say, there's some stuff I want to put forward. I personally have no problem believing you care. But I assume you want to have some effect of those you converse with and I really doubt it's to anger anger them. Yes, the security course is going to result in casualties. There are going to be casualties, no matter what, while we wait for the time when something can be actually done about the problem (2020). All you can do is try to influence the possibility that particular people won't die. Naturally, those who are targets the fascists find desirable want to ensure they don't die, in the absence of police they can rely on or the kind of private security they can't get. It is, as loomer has pointed out, very rational for them to want Antifa. They can rely on Antifa, unlike the police, to keep them alive and they want to maximise the chances that they'll stay alive, which is a very rational desire.

Yes, in the broader view of things, there are serious problems with this. You are perfectly right. But no one is going to be convinced to side against something they feel they need to be safe, especially when there's some evidence that Antifa does save people like them and you've admitted that your own solution won't be as reliable and what's been pointed out here indicates a significant decrease in reliability. It's certainly something I'd expect potential victims to be very hostile to. Unless you can offer something that convinces them they do not need Antifa for their safety and that any solution you offer would not be inferior in regards to keeping them alive, you are going to get nowhere. I'll end this by saying I hope you manage to think of something. I do agree with you that reliance of Antifa is concerning, but I also could never ask an endangered person to give up something that's absence could significantly increase the chances of their death.

I'll point out that the DNC has been having serious problems with funding and debt. So, while the Democratic Party is in theory an organisation that could help with private security, I really do not see it doing so, even ignoring the matter of whether it would be even willing to do so. Perhaps there's some organisation that could help, but I don't know of it. Sorry.

Now, in regards to the upcoming elections, I've put 2020 as the point at which it would be possible to start action because the most I envision before then is the replacement of Trump with another republican and preparations for victory in 2020 by the dems. The first would likely soften the problem, but wouldn't eliminate the need for people to consider doing what they can themselves to ensure fascists don't get more victims in the meantime. In the long term, 2020 is absolutely vital. It's the only real solution. But there's still the time between then and now.

[The Romulan Republic]

Well, I certainly regret any undue offence my posts caused.

Presuming that your concern is preventing the loss of democracy, and the loss of lives, rather than violence for the sake of retribution or advancing an agenda, then our goals are ultimately the same. And of course I can't blame anyone for looking for ways to protect the safety of themselves and the people they care about. Our disagreement is one of which tactic we feel will best serve that cause. So how about we all try to stop casting aspersions on one anothers' motives and character, and recognize that this is primarily a disagreement about methods, not goals?

I still have grave doubts that something like Antifa, or similar vigilante/militia approaches, are likely to prove effective overall rather than making the situation worse, as they are likely lacking in training and discipline, are likely to attract the sort of people who are itching for a fight and/or want to use violence to advance their personal agenda, and if things degenerated to the point where street battles become commonplace and where law enforcement is either totally ineffectual or, worse, siding with the Nazis, such an organization probably wouldn't have the strength to actually win that fight. Hence why I've tried to suggest various alternatives. I am also considered, not unreasonably, with alienating support we need and dividing opposition to Trump and his allies by appearing (fairly or not) to be too extreme. I am not the only person on the Left who has no love for Nazis, but will baulk at an escalation in political violence. Centrists, probably even more so.

You are probably correct, sadly, that their will be more casualties. But I hope we can agree that we should do all we can to keep that number as low as possible. And that in the process of trying to protect ourselves, we don't contribute to further unravelling the fabric of American democracy and the rule of law.

As to your contention that I have admitted that my own solution would be less reliable, I do not recall making any such concession. I acknowledged that it was not perfect, that no one approach would work in every situation. I will acknowledge that Antifa may have done some good in specific situations, but I don't think that this is a problem they can ultimately solve, and they may very well inadvertently make some aspects of it worse.

The issues with the DNC's funding and debt I was not aware of, though I do acknowledge that the DNC tends to drag its feet in general. That's not to say that there's no headway that can be made their, but relying entirely on the DNC for protection is obviously not a promising solution. Its not their role to provide protection for every rally and activist group in the country even if they could do it.

I did however suggest that other groups might try such a private security approach too. Hell, crowd fund it if you have to (disclaimer: I am not a lawyer and am not sure if their are any legal limitations on this). If you can't get a sizeable number of people to donate a bit of money, you're not going to be able to get a sizeable number of people willing to take up arms and risk their lives. Or donate to organizations like the ACLU who provide legal assistance to those who's civil rights are violated. Politics is, regrettably, often driven by money, and if Bernie Sander's campaign, defeated though it was, showed us anything, its that you can raise a lot of money from numerous motivated small donors.

2020... Honestly, we need to focus on 2018 first, rather than accept that we can't do anything but participate in a cycle of political violence until 2020. 2018 is not irrelevant (and one of the great errors of the Left in America is a tendency to ignore/not turn out for midterms, while the far Right does). Winning in 2018 could be necessary for impeaching Trump, or at least expedite the process, which would not end the threat of Neo-Nazis and other Right-wing extremists, but would remove the issue of them being directly sanctioned and supported from the White House. Even reclaiming one branch of Congress would accomplish a lot. Taking control of more state and local governments might also allow us to address some of the previously discussed issues with local law enforcement.

It could also turn into a flashpoint which results in major domestic political violence.

So let's focus our energy on accomplishing the former, and averting the latter. Above all, we (meaning everyone who opposes Trump and his allies, and considers a country based on democracy, equality, and the rule of law desirable) must not be divided. I recognize that I have needlessly contributed to said divisiveness at times, for which I apologize.

I would also suggest, as a general guideline, that any point or proposal which cannot command the support of a clear majority of the the Left and Centre should, as much as possible, be put aside until Trump and his cabal are out of office.

[Elfdart]

Yeah, except the media denounced Trumps claims and called on him to specifically condemn the Nazi terrorists. And the fact that a "majority of Republicans" are either pro-Nazi or knee-jerk defend President Cockroach comes as no surprise.

The media can denounce all they want -it's the voters who decide elections and human herd mentality doesn't concern itself with justice, it wants quiet.

As for Antifa, I don't know or much care who they are.

I know a few old-timers who took part in anti-Vietnam, anti-Jim Crow and other demonstrations and they all said the same thing: You knew who the agent provocateur was because he was always the one talking about wanting to fight with cops, always wanted to bring weapons. Even in cases where the one agitating for violence wasn't an infiltrator for the police, they did the same job: They gave the police, FBI and other authorities a ready-made excuse to drop the anvil on the demonstrators.

[Elfdart]

Here's the link to the video:

NYT

[Flagg]

Yeah, except the media denounced Trumps claims and called on him to specifically condemn the Nazi terrorists. And the fact that a "majority of Republicans" are either pro-Nazi or knee-jerk defend President Cockroach comes as no surprise.

The media can denounce all they want -it's the voters who decide elections and human herd mentality doesn't concern itself with justice, it wants quiet.

Yeah, but action has been taken as well. We've seen Confederate traitor statues getting pulled down (in some cases by crowds just showing up and ripping them apart) across the country and especially in the south. Employers are firing Nazi shitheads as well. I'm not saying that's the end of Nazis or President Cockroach, just that there has been a massive nationwide pushback against this bullshit.

Hopefully idiots who chose to vote Trumpzi by not voting or voting for a third party will decide that maybe the lesser of 2 evils (compared to Trumpzi that's going to be a pretty fucking wide gap) is better after all. But then again the stupid shits are still fighting the 2016 Democratic primary as if it's still relevant.

As for Antifa, I don't know or much care who they are.

I know a few old-timers who took part in anti-Vietnam, anti-Jim Crow and other demonstrations and they all said the same thing: You knew who the agent provocateur was because he was always the one talking about wanting to fight with cops, always wanted to bring weapons. Even in cases where the one agitating for violence wasn't an infiltrator for the police, they did the same job: They gave the police, FBI and other authorities a ready-made excuse to drop the anvil on the demonstrators.

Yeah, I know the practice. When the avionics company I was contracted out to as a security guard in FL had a big push to unionize I would occasionally see people who I knew from other security gigs in the picket lines come on to company property at which time the cops were called and the security guard would disappear. Then we started getting orders to take down any pro-union literature on bulletin boards or pamphlets left on tables and replace them with anti-union bullshit. I chose to ignore that order. Of course they didn't get the votes required to unionize because Floriduh.

But I'm more supportive of counter-protests like Charlottesville rather than organized anti-Nazi groups like this Antifa. Precisely because they are too easy for anyone (not just law enforcement) to infiltrate.

[Flagg]

Here's the link to the video:

NYT

But don't you understand? The police doing something could have resulted in one of them getting hurt.

I bet if it had been a black guy he'd have been filled with so much lead they'd have needed to use a forklift to get him to the morgue.

[Thanas]

This wasn't a protest. It wasn't a rally. It wasn't a demonstration. This was an attack. Protesters don't show up with clubs and shields. They should round these cunts up and charge them with terrorism. At least all the ones with a shield or a club in their hand.

When my old union picketed many years ago, police examined the little 1 X 2 sticks we used to hold up our signs. Federal law prohibited anyone on a picket line from carrying anything that might be used as a weapon. That needs to be the rule law for any kind of public rally or demonstration.

Totally agree. Which is why the Charlottesville terrorist incident wasn't a rally or demonstration.

It is also the law in germany for any Nazi rally. Oh and we also require that they not only remove weapons but also cover up tattoos and offensive sign. It is fun seeing nazis trying to be tough when they have three rows of black duct tape across their chest.

[Simon_Jester]

In theory, I can see the merits of having organized defensive forces on the Left, God help me.

My concern in part is, as I've said again and again, that militias tend to attract people who are not trained, not disciplined, and are looking for a fight. Hence my "hire professional private security" attempt at a compromise.

Professional private security is not the same as "hire mercenaries willing to fight for you." They do no, as a rule, do crowd control. Especially not rowdy, riotous crowds or premeditated brute squads. Furthermore, financing such things on the left is difficult and securing the resources to do it is difficult. Especially since some of the demographics most likely to be targeted for brutality by neo-Nazis (minorities, gays) are poor.

Having nothing to say about the problems faced by people who don't have hundred thousand dollar security budgets for every rally, to defend themselves against unpaid volunteer goon squads who see nothing wrong with brutalizing them... Well, I had nothing to say about that group's problems, or if I wasn't prepared to acknowledge those problems as one that require some solution that will actually work... Then I would not have much to say about this issue at all.

There is very little or no functional difference between a political organization hiring armed security personnel willing to fight for it, and the same organization creating a band of armed volunteers willing to do the same.

Hopefully, a difference in quality of training, and greater ease in vetting who you're hiring. As well as optics, which yes, do matter in any sort of political conflict.

Do you really think that "some of the counterprotestors were armed" is going to have reliably better optics than "they brought in hired guns to disrupt our protest!"

---

I can see the theoretical merits to having armed organized groups on the Left in case the situation continues to degenerate (though I am not at the point of condoning offensive or retaliatory violence), but I'm weighing that against my concerns of encouraging partisan vigilantes who are likely to simply escalate the conflict without paying much attention to who ends up targeted, or as "collateral damage". I think that these are legitimate concerns, and if the burden is on me to demonstrate how we can deal with the current situation without Left-wing militias, then I also feel their is a burden on the advocates of those militias to seriously address this concern.

The simplest answer is "Make sure that these militias are not the sole province of crazy idiots. Accept that reasonable people with levelheaded political views can and should join and work with these groups, for the collective defense."

In a society where all the 'levelheaded' people are busy deploring it until it's about to reach down their throat and grab them by the tonsils... Yes, at that point, the only people able to defend you against violence will be the crazies. Because they're the only ones who were willing to consider it.

If you can show me a way to organize a Left-wing militia that a) has a serious chance of matching the armed force the other side can bring to bear if it comes down to that, and b) will not attract the trigger-happy types, I'd have a lot fewer objections.

The first step is to encourage, rather than dis-courage, participation in this militia by decent people who don't relish violence but refuse to be intimidated. Denigrating a group like this is a good way to ensure that it either never materializes, or never meets your needs.

Can you accept that?

Again, at this point it starts to feel as though you've already conceded the core point of discussion- "if the far-right continues to mobilize and organize armed groups in an attempt to exert a chilling effect on American politics, should the left organize groups ready and willing to fight them?"

Have you?

I don't think I've ever denied that their might come a point where that is necessary.

The question is how best to go about it, are we at a point where "fighting" should be purely defensive or also entail offence/retaliation, and if the former, how can we organize while discouraging trigger happy people who are looking to start a fight.

In all honesty, you really are coming across as quibbling over these issues to the point where the effective result is "these militias should not exist." Even if you're not saying that in so many words, the sentiment is pretty strongly conveyed by the cumulative effect of all your words.

If you look your gift horses in the mouth carefully enough, and act ambivalent enough about whether you need a horse or not, people will stop giving you horses.

---

How many suppressed votes do you think it would take in rural areas to flip an election? States routinely 'flip' by very narrow majorities, no more than a few tens of thousands of people. Having large areas of the country where if (for instance) blacks and Hispanics show up to vote "it would be advisable to go in groups" is automatically going to massively suppress turnout among those demographics... and states will flip accordingly. If that is allowed to happen, it will have a huge, disastrous effect on the fairness of the election.

This isn't a possibility you should be noting calmly. The idea that this could happen should seem like an emergency, because it means that the "red line" between democratic elections and undemocratic pseudo-elections has already been crossed.

Would you prefer that I panic?

I don't deny its a concern, but I would point out that your scenario of massive voter suppression by armed gangs is, at this point, purely speculative.

What I would prefer is the recognition that there are stances you can take that reside at a midpoint between "Hy-Brasil isn't sinking, why would you say that?" and "Run for cover! The sky is falling!"

In any unfolding crisis, there comes a point at which sticking to the old patterns that work in times of total safety is no longer meaningful. The problem has escalated to a level at which extraordinary solutions are required. Following the normal modes of thought and behavior will merely make you more vulnerable. When Hy-Brasil is sinking, it is not the time to form a committee or make blustering poltiical speeches, even if those strategies normally serve you well. No, it is time to calmly, soberly, go find a boat.

You do not have to panic, in order to recognize that there are strong precedents for right-wing militias to do things like try to suppress voters by threat of force, or to try to forcibly silence protests against their favorite politicians. These things have happened in many times and places around the world, with the rise of the Nazi Party (which started as early as 1920) being only one example.

You do not have to panic, in order to simply say:

"Okay, priority number one? Stop the right-wing brute squads. Priority number two? Stop them in a fashion that causes as little bad press as possible."

As long as one has clear priorities on this matter, discussion is possible. If one denies or disclaims or minimizes the importance of the first priority, while focusing on the second, one's words and actions are liable to be counterproductive.

Remember the parable of the frog in the pot of boiling water? If you wait for the water to visibly boil, you have waited too long. The first hint that the pot has been set to boil is the correct time to react. Waiting until individual citizens are afraid to go to the polls for fear of being attacked by goon squads is by definition waiting too long. If you tolerate the idea that this might happen in the next election, you can be assured that the election after that will either never be held, or will be a pure exercise in triumphal showmanship by the owner of the goon squads.

My objection to this kind of thinking is that its basically a slippery slope argument, where any sign that the worst case scenario might happen at some point in the future can be used to justify extreme measures preemptively.

The slippery slope fallacy is not the same as the slippery slope argument.

Some slopes truly are slippery. For example, even one spark of fire in your home could cause a massive fire that burns the whole building down. This is not denialism or delusion, it is fact.

Other slopes truly are NOT slippery- or the step being proposed isn't even a step on the slope in the first place. For example, it is objectively not the case that allowing gays to marry will lead to legalized pedophile marriages between adults and children. People have claimed this in the past, but it's not the case, and it's easy to prove that it's not the case.

When a slope truly is slippery, recognizing that fact is absolutely essential. If in your home you accidentally upset a candle, or strike a spark that ignites a piece of paper, or otherwise start a small uncontrolled fire, you are already on a slippery slope with "your home burns down" at the bottom. Immediate action is required. The fire needs to be put out, simple as that. Obviously this action should be as sensible and efficient as appropriate, you should not cause a greater disaster in the process of putting out the fire if you can avoid it. But once a fire starts, other priorities immediately have to fall behind "put out that fire" on the list of importance. That is not to say they should be ignored entirely, simply to say that fixating on them at the expense of actually putting out the fire is deeply counterproductive.

And if you have someone in your home saying "but is putting out the fire really important enough to risk soaking my stuff with a bucket of water" or "blasting stuff in your house with an extinguisher never solved anything before," it is easy to lose patience with them. Even if they are in no sense consciously pro-fire, the effect of their words is to increase the probability that fire consumes your home.

What people are trying to warn you of is that it doesn't necessarily take more than a few years for Nazi-like movements to escalate from incidents like Charlottesville up to "we're actively obstructing people we don't like from voting in elections in our state."

This is precisely why there must be no ambiguity in the minds of the far right that if they try to organize armed bands to coerce and intimidate the rest of the citizenry, they will be stopped, plain and simple. If they don't try that, no problem- if they do, they get stopped.

Whatever needs to happen to bring about that outcome, needs to happen.

A person who cares about Americans having a democracy, would be wise to not stand in the way of letting that happen. And to not jump up and down saying "I don't condone this" when others try to ensure that it happens. If you condemn the necessary means to achieve an end hard enough, the effect is the same as condemning the end.

So now we're back to "You agree with us or you're no different than a collaborator"?

You know how people keep accusing you of mistaking criticism for exaggerated personal attacks, then responding by acting as though you've been insulted or as though your debating opponent is unreasonable?

This is why.

I did not say "you're no different than a collaborator."

I said "the effect of condemning the necessary means hard enough is the same as the effect of condemning the end." I said "it would be wise not to stand in the way of preventing right-wing goon squads from trying to use the threat of force to deter people from participating in elections (or, by extension, protests)."

There is a difference.

The fact that people keep falling back on this line of argument simply demonstrates that my concerns about increasing radicalization and an ever-broadening definition of who the enemy is are not unfounded. Though history has already proven that point time and again.

I mean, how many times have we had this argument, in different forms? There's a threat, it could destroy us, and so we have to do anything, no matter how extreme, to protect ourselves. Don't stop to think how far is too far- you're either with us or against us!

God damn it I didn't say that!

---

We agree, absolutely, that anything that is necessary to preserve democracy in the face of Neo-Nazi aggression is justified. The question is, what is necessary? As opposed to a heavy-handed response that will make the situation worse?

Now see, I feel like I had to twist your arm really really fucking hard to get you to acknowledge that. And immediately you launch from here into...:

Are you capable of understanding, and acknowledging, that even if we disagree, its not because I'm a collaborator, or because I don't care, but because I honestly think that giving unconditional support to Antifa and like groups to engage in vigilantism is not likely to be an effective tactic?

It's like... is it that much of a problem to just stop at "I acknowledge that preventing neo-Nazi violence from overtaking American politics is important and turning away potential allies this early in the process, before they've even done anything significant to be upset about, is premature?"

Do you think your e-penis will fall off if for once you just admit something like "okay, I still think we need to be careful, but you have a point that this is a serious crisis of safety for the left?"

Is it that important to take time out for implying that my position is "we should give unconditional support for groups to engage in vigilantism?"

Because that is exactly why people are looking at what you say and wondering if you care. Because when you talk enough about how important it is to be careful, and you strawman how indifferent other people are to the need to be careful, and you talk hardly at all about problem that needs a solution in the first place, you come across as opposed to the solution of the problem.

This isn't rocket science.

I'd like to try to place this in historical context, but it would be a waste of a LOT of words unless you're willing to hear me out on the subject. Are you interested in what I have to say?

I'm always willing to listen, but I can't promise that I'll agree.

If you want to convince me, you are going to have to demonstrate that:

a) We are at a point where non-violent methods can no longer be reasonably expected to succeed.

b) That vigilantism by groups like Antifa is the most effective course of action, or else that Left-wing militias can be organized in such a way that they will act as defensive groups only, not offensive or retaliatory groups.

c) That such a course of action stands a reasonable chance of actually accomplishing anything other than starting a fight we won't win.

d) That urging a certain amount of restrain is likely to undermine the chances of success.

Never mind, I've given up trying to explain until I believe you won't just engage in goalpost-shifting tango every time I prove a point.

[loomer]

In what world is hiring PMCs a sane option? Because, TRR, that's more or less the only non-criminal (at least on paper) group you could hire who'll do what you're proposing. Private security firms? 'Stand in front of a line of screaming nazis and hope you don't get your ass beat because you aren't allowed to carry real weapons, let alone act as riot cops' is completely out of their mandate. Private bodyguards? They don't do crowd control, and their response to 'this is getting ugly' is 'grab the VIP and get the fuck out', not 'BRING IT, NAZIS'.

Hiring Blackwater and their cousins is basically all that's left, unless you can show us a viable alternative group to hire. And last time I checked, most PMCs aren't exactly left-leaning in their politics.

[The Romulan Republic]

Professional private security is not the same as "hire mercenaries willing to fight for you."

No. I'm not trying to suggest how to create a Left-wing army.

I'm trying to suggest how we might create some sort of deterence, even an imperfect one, without creating a partisan army.

They do no, as a rule, do crowd control. Especially not rowdy, riotous crowds or premeditated brute squads. Furthermore, financing such things on the left is difficult and securing the resources to do it is difficult. Especially since some of the demographics most likely to be targeted for brutality by neo-Nazis (minorities, gays) are poor.

Having nothing to say about the problems faced by people who don't have hundred thousand dollar security budgets for every rally, to defend themselves against unpaid volunteer goon squads who see nothing wrong with brutalizing them... Well, I had nothing to say about that group's problems, or if I wasn't prepared to acknowledge those problems as one that require some solution that will actually work... Then I would not have much to say about this issue at all.

So in other words, you're telling me to sit down and shut up because you find my answers unsatisfactory?

What I would like to do is have an honest exchange of ideas, so that both of us can address the flaws in the approach we have suggested. That doesn't work if you are a) unwilling to seriously consider any point of view but your own, or b) unwilling or unable to look past your negative opinion of me personally.

Do you really think that "some of the counterprotestors were armed" is going to have reliably better optics than "they brought in hired guns to disrupt our protest!"

Um... I don't think I said that? I think one of us is misunderstanding the other here, but I'm not sure whom.

I'm saying that I think that having professional security will be seen as less radical and provocative by the mainstream who's support we need than allying with vigilantes. Among many other issues.

The simplest answer is "Make sure that these militias are not the sole province of crazy idiots. Accept that reasonable people with levelheaded political views can and should join and work with these groups, for the collective defense."

In a society where all the 'levelheaded' people are busy deploring it until it's about to reach down their throat and grab them by the tonsils... Yes, at that point, the only people able to defend you against violence will be the crazies. Because they're the only ones who were willing to consider it.

The problem is that militias by their nature tend to attract the crazy and trigger-happy, and also (I suspect), tend to radicalize previously moderate people who join them. Their are examples of this throughout history.

If you can provide counter-examples to suggest that this is a viable approach, by all means, do so.

Can you also clarify weather you see these "level-headed" militias as purely defensive, or as also engaging in "necessary" preemptive or retaliatory violence?

The first step is to encourage, rather than dis-courage, participation in this militia by decent people who don't relish violence but refuse to be intimidated. Denigrating a group like this is a good way to ensure that it either never materializes, or never meets your needs.

Can you accept that?

In theory, it sounds like a reasonable idea. In practice, I have severe doubts as to weather it would work out that way, and you've done little or nothing to convince me otherwise.

Again, at this point it starts to feel as though you've already conceded the core point of discussion- "if the far-right continues to mobilize and organize armed groups in an attempt to exert a chilling effect on American politics, should the left organize groups ready and willing to fight them?"

Have you?

I don't think I've ever denied that their might come a point where that is necessary.

The question is how best to go about it, are we at a point where "fighting" should be purely defensive or also entail offence/retaliation, and if the former, how can we organize while discouraging trigger happy people who are looking to start a fight.[/quote]In all honesty, you really are coming across as quibbling over these issues to the point where the effective result is "these militias should not exist." Even if you're not saying that in so many words, the sentiment is pretty strongly conveyed by the cumulative effect of all your words.

If you look your gift horses in the mouth carefully enough, and act ambivalent enough about whether you need a horse or not, people will stop giving you horses.[/quote]

Sigh...

Its really very simple.

I can see the argument for them in theory. I'm not convinced that they will be effective in practice, rather than make things worse, or that we have yet reached the point where such measures are necessary. No contradiction.

And how is discussing weather violence should be purely defensive or not, and discussing how to discourage the trigger-happy types, "quibbling"? Those seem to me pretty fundamental questions to this discussion.

What I would prefer is the recognition that there are stances you can take that reside at a midpoint between "Hy-Brasil isn't sinking, why would you say that?" and "Run for cover! The sky is falling!"

Pretty sure that's what I was doing. I acknowledged its a potential problem, but noted that the scenario you describe is still speculative.

In any case, that was partly just me snarking at the common portrayal of my positions as panicky or hyperbolic, and then being told basically "You're not worried enough".

I mean, a year or two ago, if I had argued that it was necessary to form violent Left-wing militias to prevent the rise of Nazism in America, I probably would have been roundly attacked for it.

In any unfolding crisis, there comes a point at which sticking to the old patterns that work in times of total safety is no longer meaningful. The problem has escalated to a level at which extraordinary solutions are required. Following the normal modes of thought and behavior will merely make you more vulnerable. When Hy-Brasil is sinking, it is not the time to form a committee or make blustering poltiical speeches, even if those strategies normally serve you well. No, it is time to calmly, soberly, go find a boat.

You do not have to panic, in order to recognize that there are strong precedents for right-wing militias to do things like try to suppress voters by threat of force, or to try to forcibly silence protests against their favorite politicians. These things have happened in many times and places around the world, with the rise of the Nazi Party (which started as early as 1920) being only one example.

You do not have to panic, in order to simply say:

"Okay, priority number one? Stop the right-wing brute squads. Priority number two? Stop them in a fashion that causes as little bad press as possible."

As long as one has clear priorities on this matter, discussion is possible. If one denies or disclaims or minimizes the importance of the first priority, while focusing on the second, one's words and actions are liable to be counterproductive.

The thing is, I don't think you've clearly articulated how you feel the second priority should be addressed. You are, and others, are focussing heavily on priority one to the exclusion of priority two. And their are also numerous historical precedents for militias being ineffective gangs of brutal thugs, or for the legitimizations of political violence leading to purges targeting anyone who isn't on "the right" side.

I might find your arguments more persuasive if you were willing to seriously and thoroughly address the dangers inherent in your own position.

he slippery slope fallacy is not the same as the slippery slope argument.

Some slopes truly are slippery. For example, even one spark of fire in your home could cause a massive fire that burns the whole building down. This is not denialism or delusion, it is fact.

Other slopes truly are NOT slippery- or the step being proposed isn't even a step on the slope in the first place. For example, it is objectively not the case that allowing gays to marry will lead to legalized pedophile marriages between adults and children. People have claimed this in the past, but it's not the case, and it's easy to prove that it's not the case.

When a slope truly is slippery, recognizing that fact is absolutely essential. If in your home you accidentally upset a candle, or strike a spark that ignites a piece of paper, or otherwise start a small uncontrolled fire, you are already on a slippery slope with "your home burns down" at the bottom. Immediate action is required. The fire needs to be put out, simple as that. Obviously this action should be as sensible and efficient as appropriate, you should not cause a greater disaster in the process of putting out the fire if you can avoid it. But once a fire starts, other priorities immediately have to fall behind "put out that fire" on the list of importance. That is not to say they should be ignored entirely, simply to say that fixating on them at the expense of actually putting out the fire is deeply counterproductive.

And if you have someone in your home saying "but is putting out the fire really important enough to risk soaking my stuff with a bucket of water" or "blasting stuff in your house with an extinguisher never solved anything before," it is easy to lose patience with them. Even if they are in no sense consciously pro-fire, the effect of their words is to increase the probability that fire consumes your home.

I don't disagree with this in and of itself (though I find the implied characterization of my position ridiculous), but I am wary of an argument that makes it easy to justify preemptive political violence as a precautionary measure against possible future threats. Because if that becomes the predominant way of thinking, any functional political system is impossible.

You know how people keep accusing you of mistaking criticism for exaggerated personal attacks, then responding by acting as though you've been insulted or as though your debating opponent is unreasonable?

This is why.

I did not say "you're no different than a collaborator."

Fair enough, and I apologize for the mischaracterization of your position.

You did, however, if I am understanding you correctly, suggest that the effects of the position I advocate would be no different from the effects of being a collaborator.

And considering that this argument has been very blatantly used to defame me in this thread, I am, understandably I think, rather sensitive on this point at the moment.

I said "the effect of condemning the necessary means hard enough is the same as the effect of condemning the end." I said "it would be wise not to stand in the way of preventing right-wing goon squads from trying to use the threat of force to deter people from participating in elections (or, by extension, protests)."

There is a difference.

The question, then, is weather the means you espouse are actually necessary, as opposed to counterproductive.

God damn it I didn't say that!

Not in those exact words, but that sort of thinking is a logical consequence of condemning and attacking people for suggesting that maybe the "necessary" measures you are advocating aren't actually necessary, and suggesting that my critiques are the same as opposing a solution.

Now see, I feel like I had to twist your arm really really fucking hard to get you to acknowledge that. And immediately you launch from here into...:

Are you capable of understanding, and acknowledging, that even if we disagree, its not because I'm a collaborator, or because I don't care, but because I honestly think that giving unconditional support to Antifa and like groups to engage in vigilantism is not likely to be an effective tactic?

It's like... is it that much of a problem to just stop at "I acknowledge that preventing neo-Nazi violence from overtaking American politics is important and turning away potential allies this early in the process, before they've even done anything significant to be upset about, is premature?"

Do you think your e-penis will fall off if for once you just admit something like "okay, I still think we need to be careful, but you have a point that this is a serious crisis of safety for the left?"

Is it that important to take time out for implying that my position is "we should give unconditional support for groups to engage in vigilantism?"

Because that is exactly why people are looking at what you say and wondering if you care. Because when you talk enough about how important it is to be careful, and you strawman how indifferent other people are to the need to be careful, and you talk hardly at all about problem that needs a solution in the first place, you come across as opposed to the solution of the problem.

This isn't rocket science.

Excuse me?

I have never denied the problem. I've been talking about the threat of Right-wing violence and extremism on this board for years. You know this. I know this. To say that I "talk hardly at all about problem that needs a solution in the first place" is a lie.

Disagreeing with your solution is not the same as ignoring or denying the problem, or not wanting to solve it (and accusing me of being opposed to solving the problem does imply "sympathizer" or "collaborator").

I previously expressed my hope that we could recognize that our goals are basically the same, and that our disagreement is one of methodology, not goals. Instead, you have basically replied: "NO, fuck you, if you don't agree with our methods its because you don't care/don't want to solve the problem."

Shit like this is why I bring up the "You're with us or you're with the terrorists" comparison. Though really, in this case, I think that this is driven more by personal hostility than ideology.

INever mind, I've given up trying to explain until I believe you won't just engage in goalpost-shifting tango every time I prove a point.

So in other words, no, you won't try to back up your arguments, just substitute an attack on me for an actual argument and then walk away.

You suggested that you would only bother defending your arguments if I would listen to them. I replied that I would be willing to listen, and stated the points that I felt you needed to prove in this discussion. You then throw out a petulant insult and walk away.

Edits: I particularly love how you mock me because I didn't "just stop at" agreeing completely with what you said. Jesus fucking Christ. And you know, you're one to talk about "turning away potential allies". Because apparently you aren't interested in the views of anyone who doesn't embrace Antifa. They just must not be interested in solving the problem.

As I said, I'll respond to anyone who is willing to discuss the issues, rather than attacking me personally. That clearly isn't you. So, since you've effectively quit the debate, unless someone else wants to pick up the ball, I'll withdraw from this discussion as well, as its clear that there is too much personal animosity here to have a productive discussion.

[The Romulan Republic]

Actually, I think it would be for the best if I withdrew from this thread altogether. Regardless of whose to blame, there's too much hostility, on both sides, for a productive discussion, and at this point its just distracting from any discussion of the actual issue.

If I haven't managed to explain my position yet, another post is unlikely to accomplish it. My argument will have to stand or fall as it is. If you want to take that as a concession, so be it.

[loomer]

I don't know, I'm not especially hostile. I feel like we could discuss the actual issue, if you'd actually responded to me.

[Simon_Jester]

I didn't start feeling hostile until I saw things I'd said being overgeneralized and misconstrued as "oh, you think I'm an X!" personal insults. If that behavior stops, I'll stop feeling hostile.

[Flagg]

I didn't start feeling hostile until I saw things I'd said being overgeneralized and misconstrued as "oh, you think I'm an X!" personal insults. If that behavior stops, I'll stop feeling hostile.

I'm pretty hostile since JounShit_Lord still has made no effort to address the fact that the 2 incidents he used to prove that "both sides are just as bad" prove nothing of the sort. Ruby Ridge taking place during the Bush I Administration and the Waco Branch Davidian standoff started about a month into the Clinton Administration and ended in the murder-suicide of the crazy cult led by a pedophile when they set their own compound on fire.

[Zaune]

Meanwhile in Oklahoma...

An Oklahoma police chief plans to resign after being accused of links to neo-Nazi websites.

Reserve officer Bart Alsbrook was appointed temporary police chief in the town of Colbert near the Texan border Tuesday.

Texas-based broadcast news network KXII channel 12 had probed local racist groups identified in a hate map by the non-profit civil rights group the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC).

White supremacist organizations in the U.S. have come under renewed scrutiny in recent weeks following the deadly Charlottesville rally, in which an anti-racism protester was killed.

The network found that Alsbrook’s name was on ownership records for two neo-Nazi websites: ISD Records and NS88 Videos.

The groups sell Nazi and confederate memorabilia, and neo-Nazi music by bands including The Klansmen with album titles including Hitler was Right.

The network reported that both websites were taken offline after Alsbrook was questioned about his links to them.

Speaking to news website Tulsa World Saturday, Alsbrook denied involvement with the websites, and said his name had been linked to them by local skinhead groups in a bid to smear him.

“Someone has been using my name for years on the internet in regards to racist topics. It’s not me, rather someone who has hijacked my name due to my combativeness and rejection to white power skinheads who were always coming to the heavy metal shows, starting fights and messing up our scene,” he said, as quoted by the website.

Alsbrook said neo-Nazis in Dallas have been using his name since the mid-90s.

“We hate each other,” he said. “They use my name in all sorts of things.”

The SPLC had previously identified Alsbrook as Texas coordinator of racist skinhead group Blood and Honor and NS88 chief.

According to the SPLC, Blood and Honor emerged in the racist skinhead music scene in the U.K. in the 1980s, subsequently spread to the U.S., and advocates race war.

When asked if he planned to sue those who he alleged smeared his name, Alsbrook told Tulsa World “wish I could.” He later said reports on his ties to racist groups placed his family in danger.

There's no way short of going to his Internet Service Provider with a search warrant to confirm or deny his claim that the local Aryan Metal scene are putting his name down on the paperwork to screw with him, but if he isn't telling the truth then it raises serious questions about whether the citizens of that town can depend on their local PD if another one of these marches happens. Hell, it raises serious questions about whether any non-white people on the force can depend on their colleagues.

[Flagg]

Meanwhile in Oklahoma...

An Oklahoma police chief plans to resign after being accused of links to neo-Nazi websites.

Reserve officer Bart Alsbrook was appointed temporary police chief in the town of Colbert near the Texan border Tuesday.

Texas-based broadcast news network KXII channel 12 had probed local racist groups identified in a hate map by the non-profit civil rights group the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC).

White supremacist organizations in the U.S. have come under renewed scrutiny in recent weeks following the deadly Charlottesville rally, in which an anti-racism protester was killed.

The network found that Alsbrook’s name was on ownership records for two neo-Nazi websites: ISD Records and NS88 Videos.

The groups sell Nazi and confederate memorabilia, and neo-Nazi music by bands including The Klansmen with album titles including Hitler was Right.

The network reported that both websites were taken offline after Alsbrook was questioned about his links to them.

Speaking to news website Tulsa World Saturday, Alsbrook denied involvement with the websites, and said his name had been linked to them by local skinhead groups in a bid to smear him.

“Someone has been using my name for years on the internet in regards to racist topics. It’s not me, rather someone who has hijacked my name due to my combativeness and rejection to white power skinheads who were always coming to the heavy metal shows, starting fights and messing up our scene,” he said, as quoted by the website.

Alsbrook said neo-Nazis in Dallas have been using his name since the mid-90s.

“We hate each other,” he said. “They use my name in all sorts of things.”

The SPLC had previously identified Alsbrook as Texas coordinator of racist skinhead group Blood and Honor and NS88 chief.

According to the SPLC, Blood and Honor emerged in the racist skinhead music scene in the U.K. in the 1980s, subsequently spread to the U.S., and advocates race war.

When asked if he planned to sue those who he alleged smeared his name, Alsbrook told Tulsa World “wish I could.” He later said reports on his ties to racist groups placed his family in danger.

There's no way short of going to his Internet Service Provider with a search warrant to confirm or deny his claim that the local Aryan Metal scene are putting his name down on the paperwork to screw with him, but if he isn't telling the truth then it raises serious questions about whether the citizens of that town can depend on their local PD if another one of these marches happens. Hell, it raises serious questions about whether any non-white people on the force can depend on their colleagues.

This is the classic "My little brother did it!" defense trolls have been using since the internet became public. What a pathetic twat. Oh, and if they were using his name to own and host these sites against his wishes he could totally sue them since it's caused him financial damage by "forcing" him to resign. But of course he can't sue them because he totally did it himself.

[Zaune]

Maybe, maybe not. I can see how a reasonable person would be wary of lawyering up against these people; it's hard to collect on the damages if your head is impaled on your own picket fence the morning after the other party is served papers.

[Flagg]

Maybe, maybe not. I can see how a reasonable person would be wary of lawyering up against these people; it's hard to collect on the damages if your head is impaled on your own picket fence the morning after the other party is served papers.

Sorry, I don't buy it. It's too cute by half.

[Zaune]

I don't really buy it either, but he's still innocent until proven guilty.