CanucksCorner.com Forums

Reefer2 wrote:sooooooo we cant call a spade a spade.....

not without being clubbed in the heart and having your diamonds scattered in the hood like so many fatherless children

CNN "Anarchists Are Good" brainwashing tactics are not working so well these days!

CNN ratings are through the floor.

Nazis and Anarchists are evil, no?

I think the Anarchists are more of a legit threat right now going by their numbers+violent tendencies.

So Doc you still think the worse president in the history of the USA is still doing a good job?

.

Y'know, the phrase "white supremacist" gets thrown around a lot these days but...

http://www.theroot.com/charles-barkley- ... 1798149722

Charles Barkley Is a Great Example of a Black White Supremacist

"I’m not gonna waste my time thinking about these Confederate statues. That’s wasted energy. You know what I’m gonna do? I’m gonna keep doing great things. I’m gonna keep trying to make a difference, number one in the black community, because I’m black, but I’m also gonna try to do good things in the world.

"I’m not gonna waste my time screaming at a neo-Nazi who’s gonna hate me no matter what, and I’m not gonna waste my time ... worrying about these statues they got all over the country.

"What we as black people need to do, we need to worry about getting our education. We need to stop killing each other. We need to try to find a way to have more economic opportunity and things like that. Those things are important and significant."

- Charles Barkley


To be clear, these aren’t solutions for or by white people. Instead, they are the imaginings of black people who are white supremacists. Black white supremacists believe that the only correct way to do things is how they envision the white man would do it. A black white supremacist could never find anything wrong with a white man’s methodology, so he or she continually contorts him- or herself to end up on the Caucasian side of the argument.

And this is the difference between independent thinkers and black white supremacists. Most independent thinkers sometimes have legitimate disagreements with the accepted opinions of black America, but black white supremacists never find fault with white America, which means that everything ailing black people is black people’s fault. For them, nothing—not even the monuments of white supremacy—is the fault of racism. We’re just doing it wrong...

Charles Barkley is a white supremacist.

- Michael Harriot

So wait... which one is the racist?

Just when you thought things couldn't get more fucked up...

Lol - the Sunday funnies without pictures.

I guess everyone needs their 30 seconds of fame.

Strangelove wrote:
Nazis and Anarchists are evil, no?

Yeah... no.

There were a number of high profile assassinations and a handful of terrorist attacks by anarchists in the late 19th / early 20th Century, sure.

But anarchists are a mixed lot, united only by their disdain for central government. This means that a large part of the right wing in American politics basically are anarchists, albeit they prefer to call themselves libertarians. Yet I'm pretty sure they belong to the subset of anarchism known as anarcho-capitalism; ie minimal government and laissez faire capitalism as the foundation of society.
Today the majority of anarchists subscribe to what is known as anarcho-pacifism, which has it's roots in the works of Henry David Thoreau and Leo Tolstoy. They oppose the idea of central government, but prefer non violent methods, in the spirit of Martin Luther King, Ghandi or Mandela.

That being said, there is still a subgroup of anarchists that do believe in the violent overthrowing of the government, but this is a small rather insignificant group, and their disdain for central leadership tends to cripple their effectiveness. This group often tags along at different protests and cause troubles for the other protesters who are law-abiding.

Either way, there is nothing fundamentally evil in the theories behind anarchism. They just oppose central governments, as they insist that these always grow corrupt, and instead they favour stronger local government with direct democracy as the main guiding principle. The evil part that could occur is when some anarchists decide that the goals may justify the means and resort to violence.

Nazism, on the other hand, is inherently evil. It is based on the idea that not all people are created equal. They consider some people inferior, and have no qualms about doing away with them through genocide.

So, even if both anarchists and nazis may resort to street fighting, there is no way you could consider them peas in a pod.

Anarchists are a bunch of naive dreamers who think the world would be better if we had no hierarchies. Good luck with that.

Nazis want to get rid of everyone who does not belong to the master race. Possibly by deportations, but preferrably by annihilation. Otherwise they may return. And it's not just about race. The first people to be rounded up and killed by the nazis in Germany were the disabled and mentally handicapped.

People who are marching and shouting "Jews will not replace us," could never be considered fine people.*

*Well, possibly if they are Palestinians who are being evicted from their ancestral homes that will be bulldozed and replaced by a new Israeli settlement, but even then it is questionable.

.

Thanks for the history lesson Per, but I was referring to Nazis/Anarchists in the USA today.

(did you watch the video?)

These Anarchists ("Antifa") are violent and their leaders in fact promote violence.

These Anarchists are leftists.

These Nazis are not calling for genocide although they are steeped in hatred.

So these particular Anarchists are worse than those in your history lesson

... and these particular Nazis are not as bad.

Again, I say both groups are evil.

BTW your "non violent" Mandela was a hardcore terrorist for most of his life...

Strangelove wrote:These Anarchists ("Antifa") are violent and their leaders in fact promote violence.
These Anarchists are leftists.

Right, Antifa, founded in 1932 in Germany to combat the SA thugs of the Nazi Party. The SA were roaming the streets and beating people up. Antifa took it as their purpose to take the fight to the nazis and beat them up. The strategy spread and was also used in Italy, against Mussolini's fascists, in Spain against Franco's falangistas and in Britain against Mosley's motley crew of fascists/nationalists.

As neonazis started to rear their ugly skinhead faces in the 1980's, the Antifa movement was revived throughout Europe and in the USA. If they are a movement. Some people argue that they lack real leadership as well as ideology, and that Antifa is more of an umbrella name for a strategy rather than a real movement. The people identifying as Antifa are often communist, socialist or anarchist, but basically anyone who wants to bash in nazi heads is welcome.

They don't really have an ideology or a programme other than that wherever fascists or nazis gather, Antifa pops up to take the fight with them. The real anarchists criticise Antifa for being a reactive rather than proactive group, whose only purpose or goal is to fight with the nazis/fascists and lack interest in trying to change society.

I don't agree with the methods Antifa use, but they are hardly a threat to society. Their only beef is with the fascists and nazis, but at times they end up fighting the police as well, when they feel the police are protecting the nazis. And sometimes the police are; if the nazis have done their paperwork and obtained permission for whatever march or meeting they have planned, the police basically have to defend their right of free speech/assembly. Like the honey badger, the Antifa don't give a shit though. They will always take the fight to where the nazis are, regardless of whether they have done their paperwork or not.

I personally think their methods are counter-productive, as they allow the nazi/fascist apologists to use the argument (that we've been hearing ever since the street fights in Germany in the 1930's) that both sides are equally bad. This is not true. Nazism and fascism reject liberal democracy and human rights. They are intrinsicly evil. In the former case the ideology is also based on racism, and even if they may try to gloss it over, their end goal is an ethnically cleansed society. The Antifa, on the other hand, do not have an agenda apart from combatting fascism/nazism (Well, as a group, that is. The individual members may.).

Strangelove wrote:These Nazis are not calling for genocide although they are steeped in hatred.

Yeah, right. Chamberlain thought Hitler seemed reasonable too.
Genocide is at the core of their ideology. They don't need to call for it.
It is understood.

What do you think they mean by "blood and soil" or "Jews will not replace us"?

Strangelove wrote:BTW your "non violent" Mandela was a hardcore terrorist for most of his life...

No, he wasn't. At least no way near as much as Menachem Begin or Yitzhak Shamir.

He was a lawyer who would represent black people in court for free or at low costs. He joined ANC in 1942, when it was a non-violent organisation. Following the Sharpeville massacte in 1960, which btw lead to a UN security council declaration stating that South Africa must abandon apartheid, the ANC filed hundreds of lawsuits against the nationalist government. They responded by passing an indemnity law, which cleared all those involved in the shooting of any wrong-doing and by banning the ANC, which then went underground. Only in 1961 did the ANC decide to take arms against the government, and we are talking about a government that had been condemned by the UN security council for their overt and institutionalised racism. In 1962 Mandela was named leader of the armed branch of the ANC, a branch which they modelled after the Israeli Irgun (of which Begin and Shamir were leaders), which is why several of the leaders were actually Jewish. (Or if it was the other way around, that because of the Jewish leaders they decided to model themselves after Irgun...)
He was arrested in August that same year and charged with organising a general strike, four counts of sabotage and treason. He admitted to the sabotage and strike charges, but not treason.
After that he was incarcerated till 1990. So, less than one year of armed resistance in a life spanning more than 90 years, and it is questionable if that even qualifies as terrorism.

The South African government of course declared the ANC a terrorist organisation, but eventhough the US and France followed suit, most European countries did not, and considered the ANC a fully legitimate resistance movement against the evils of racism.

Don't bother Per, Doc has his own interpretation of history.

I beg to differ. Keep on doing what you're doing Per. It's a pleasure to have you on this board.

Per wrote: They don't really have an ideology or a programme other than that wherever fascists or nazis gather, Antifa pops up to take the fight with them

... and at President Inaugurations to burn vehicles and smash storefronts.

Were those vehicles and storefronts fascists or nazis?

Per wrote: I don't agree with the methods Antifa use, but they are hardly a threat to society.

Perhaps not, but no doubt moreso than the few and far-between actual "NeoNazis" in America today.

(Antifa by comparison is massive in number)

Per wrote: Their only beef is with the fascists and nazis

... and with every single person who voted-for/support President Trump.

Per wrote: but at times they end up fighting the police as well, when they feel the police are protecting the nazis. And sometimes the police are; if the nazis have done their paperwork and obtained permission for whatever march or meeting they have planned, the police basically have to defend their right of free speech/assembly. Like the honey badger, the Antifa don't give a shit though. They will always take the fight to where the nazis are, regardless of whether they have done their paperwork or not.

You make the Antifa sound so heroic.

I'll remind you again that these Antifa are unlike the Euro Antifa from way back that you keep mentioning.

The fact the police must protect these Nazis should tell you these do not promote genocide.

(genocide = hate speech = not allowed)

So again, these Nazis are not as bad as the Nazis in your history lesson.

And again, these Anarchists are worse than those in your history lesson.

You didn't watch the video did you..

Per wrote: I personally think their methods are counter-productive, as they allow the nazi/fascist apologists to use the argument (that we've been hearing ever since the street fights in Germany in the 1930's) that both sides are equally bad. This is not true. Nazism and fascism reject liberal democracy and human rights.

What about the human right of "free speech"?

Antifa shut down a speech by Milo Yiannopoulos at UC Berkeley by setting fires and blocking entrances.

They threatened violence in order to shut down an Ann Coulter speech at the same venue.

Likewise Heather MacDonald at another college in California.

They falsely labelled all of them "fascists".

Just as they falsely labelled President Trump and his tens of millions of supporters "fascists".

Do you see the problem here?

If they were confronting the true fascists of your history lessons, no problem.

In fact, bully for them!

But these Antifa folk have gone completely mad

... half of the people in America are fascists in their minds!

Anyway, hilarious and not surprising that you consider anarchists to be good for society...

Per wrote: The Antifa, on the other hand, do not have an agenda apart from combatting fascism/nazism

The problem is, to the greater extent, they are combating a non-existent fascism.

If half of America were fascist (as they claim) well Antifa would have been wiped out a long time ago!

They are quite mad, I assure you...

Per wrote:

Strangelove wrote:BTW your "non violent" Mandela was a hardcore terrorist for most of his life...

No, he wasn't. At least no way near as much as Menachem Begin or Yitzhak Shamir.

In 1962 Mandela was named leader of the armed branch of the ANC, a branch which they modelled after the Israeli Irgun (of which Begin and Shamir were leaders)

Now how did I know you were going to bring up Begin and Shamir!

Maybe because of all the times have you called them terrorists over the years?

Yes, Mandela founded and ran the Umkhonto we Sizwe (armed branch of the ANC).

The Umkhonto we Sizwe was a terrorist group (targeted and murdered innocent civilians).

Per wrote: He was arrested in August that same year and charged with organising a general strike, four counts of sabotage and treason. He admitted to the sabotage and strike charges, but not treason.
After that he was incarcerated till 1990. So, less than one year of armed resistance...

Ahh but it wasn't "armed resistance"... these cowards slaughtered innocents.

Hundreds of murders, 193 acts of sabotage, innumerable counts of crop burning...

And everyone knows Mandela continued to run the Umkhonto we Sizwe from prison.

In fact, the SA government negotiated with UwS-leader Mandela while he was in prison.

Negotiations resulted in dissolution of the UwS and the release of Mandela, on the same day.

Now after that point, true to his word, Mandela did a lot toward bringing peace to SA.

And for that he deserves accolades.

But you were wrong in saying he used "non violent methods" to achieve his goals.

Per wrote: The South African government of course declared the ANC a terrorist organisation, but eventhough the US and France followed suit, most European countries did not, and considered the ANC a fully legitimate resistance movement against the evils of racism.

There's a big difference between the ANC and the UwS (armed branch of the ANC).

One was a political party, one was the evil armed branch.

No way did "most European countries consider the UwS a fully legitimate resistance movement".

Organized anarchists.

Strangelove wrote: ...

So, to summarize your post:

1) It is wrong to fight nazis.

2) Nazis are misunderstood. Many of them are really fine people.

3) Fascists can never number in the millions.

4) It was wrong to fight against apartheid.



So, I guess when you watch Inglorious Basterds, you root for the Germans, eh?

---

And I did watch the video. Not much to see. A lame reporter and a clueless focus group not agreeing on much.

What I took away from it was that there were nazis with torches marching in Charlotteville shouting "Blood and soil!" and "Jews will not replace us!" Scary shit! The 1930's all over again.

Strangelove wrote:
Just as they falsely labelled President Trump and his tens of millions of supporters "fascists".

Easy mistake to make.

The 14 Defining Characteristics Of Fascism
Free Inquiry, Spring 2003, 5-11-3

Dr. Lawrence Britt has examined the fascist regimes of Hitler (Germany), Mussolini (Italy), Franco (Spain), Suharto (Indonesia) and several Latin American regimes. Britt found 14 defining characteristics common to each:

1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism - Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays. CHECK!

2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights - Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of "need." The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc. CHECK! (He wants to reintroduce torture of prisoners and has praised President Duterte's rounding up and killing of drug addicts.)

3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause - The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial , ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc. CHECK! (immigrants, etc)

4. Supremacy of the Military - Even when there are widespread domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized. CHECK! (Well, partially. The first half. He has badmouthed veterans and gold star families, so not perfect.)


5. Rampant Sexism - The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Divorce, abortion and homosexuality are suppressed and the state is represented as the ultimate guardian of the family institution. CHECK!
(eg pussy-grabbing, no trannies in the military, etc)

6. Controlled Mass Media - Sometimes to media is directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is very common. (Well, he's trying.)

7. Obsession with National Security - Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses. CHECK!

8. Religion and Government are Intertwined - Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed to the government's policies or actions. (Well... not his strongest forte, but somehow the evangelicals are still on board... Maybe because he is badmouthing other religions?)

9. Corporate Power is Protected - The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite. CHECK!

10. Labor Power is Suppressed - Because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed. CHECK!

11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts - Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts and letters is openly attacked. CHECK!

12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment - Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations. CHECK! (see Arpaio)

13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption - Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions and use governmental power and authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders. CHECK!

14. Fraudulent Elections - Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear campaigns against or even assassination of opposition candidates, use of legislation to control voting numbers or political district boundaries, and manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections. CHECK!

http://www.rense.com/general37/fascism.htm

I give him 12 out of 14.

Not perfect, but with his short attention span you can't expect him to nail it, can you?

Topper wrote:Organized anarchists.

Yeah, I know.

Whwn I was studying at the University of Valencia, one of the Professors joked that "Sweden is a country where even the anarchists are well organised."

I laughed at the time, but then when I moved to Gävle I realized that the local Syndicalists (a type of anarchism flavoured trade unionish group) are running a museum (Joe Hill's birthplace)...