Kaitlin Bennett almost 100,000 subscribers back in, Sargons has nearly a million subscribers. Id you don't think Sargon was mainstream your delusional. I didn't even white nationalists like Steve Bannon or Stephen Miller actually being in the white house.
100,000 followers is not significant. A million is a bit better, but still not what I'd call "mainstream", for comparison Steven Crowder has about that many. He can get interviews with prominent figures every once in a while, but he's still largely following the wider right wing movement, not guiding it. And Crowder is explicitly a political figures, Carl's more of a generic right wing cultural commentator, and we've seen how well those numbers translate into real world power when Carl ran for office and got crushed immediately. He certainly has fans, but that fandom does not translate into real world power.
As for Miller and Bannon, they're not white nationalists.
As far as Spencer I support CNN's platforming him. As I said I am broadly against platforming and he needs to be more well known especially given that he was the key figure in organizing and establishing the alt-right and set the agenda. Someone public visibility is not indicative of their influence on public discourse.
I seriously question the idea that you can shape public opinion while being largely unknown to the public. The closest I can think off are people like Rupert Murdoch and other media owners, but I think it's a stretch to say that Tucker Carlson's bosses bosses bosses boss has more influence than Tucker himself.
While there are some individuals on the right who do both condemn and disagree with Spencer this is not mainstream. They "denounce" Richard Spencer while promoting his agenda and ideology. It wasn't until Ben Shaperio pushed back that the mainstream right began to distance itself from the alt-right. And that wasn't until Nick Fuentes targeted Ben Shaperio and TPUSA.
That sounds a lot more like they ignored and refused to engage with the alt-right until Fuentes started picking a fight with them, whereupon they told them to take a hike.
If you know how the Overton window works you watch the edges and track the memetic flow between the general population and the edges which allows you to predict future trends. This is why many of us predicted the ultimate conclusion of the alt-right which reached its peak with the murder of Heather Heyer. It was that murder which influenced social media sites to begin looking at ways to curtail stochastic terrorism. The fact that the right spreads misinformation and implicitly and explicitly promotes hate based on intrinsic qualities is why the right keeps getting penalized and removed from social media platforms. If you don't want to get banned don't break TOS. While YouTube is better than Twitch about not banning people it's better it doesn't mean I think it's good.
I personally think YouTube's TOS is harmful to discourse as it prevents individuals from stating their true positions and causes them to rely heavily on dogwhistles which has a negative impact on discourse. The other problem is that Neo-Nazi's are liars as both Destiny and Vaush have demonstrated repeatedly. When Vaush outed Sargon of Akkad as a white nationalist it was a beautiful day indeed.
Let's be clear though. YouTube does not deplatform or ban White Nationalists for being white nationalists. They ban them because white nationalists cannot help but go full mask off.
The right does not have a monopoly on being a bad actor online or on spreading misinformation (
for example), and stochastic terrorism does not exist. The only proponents of the term are people like you and not, say, actual law enforcement policy makers or counter terrorism experts, and if this was a real thing it seems odd that the people tasked with fighting terrorism are entirely unaware of it's existence, but makes perfect sense if it's a disingenuous bit of rhetoric some guy coined on his blog so he could pin every single bad thing someone did on Fox News.
As for your other points, I have no idea who any of those people are other than Sargon and I have no idea what you're talking about. If you're claiming Vaush has proven Carl's actually a white nationalist, link it, I have better things to do that dig through all his clickbaiting garbage to find whatever you're talking about.
The difference is that they are not tolerated on the left and are ostracized and excised from discourse. We don't tolerate black nationalists any more than we tolerate white nationalists. We out bad actors from political office.
That's funny, leading figures on the left seem awfully chummy with the likes of Louis Farrakhan and Jesse Jackson despite the two of them being bad actors and in one case an actual black nationalist per the SPLC (and while I don't beleive the SPLC one bit, the people hamming it up with Farrakhan do).
And this is exactly the bullshit I wont tolerate.
Everything you said here is wrong, sometimes hilariously so. Rather than letting this bloat even farther out of control, I'm going to cut it down to the core points, if you feel I cut something important feel free to bring it up later.
The counter protesters were protesting individuals who wanted forced deportation and genocide and who denied the holocaust. When know for a fact where those groups always end up when they are in power and we know from historical president that if they are not opposed they grow out of hand and end up getting into power. This has happened numerous times all over the world not just in Nazi Germany. Germany just happens to be the most well known example.
The Nazis faced intensely violent resistance in germany, largely from communist affiliated groups but there were other factions. As in "people shooting and killing each other in the streets and blowing stuff up" level violent resistance. It worked not even a little bit, the nazis just used the promise that if given power, they would curb the fighting as another lie to con people into supporting them.
Cycling this back to reality, did Antifa's little temper tantrums have any success in detering nazis from gathering....no, no it didn't. It did the opposite, they got bigger and got more people to show up, because now they had a chance to physically assault the people they hated and get away with it by, quite truthfully, claiming self defense, and they could paint themselves as poor innocent people engaging in constitutionally protected protest that the violent evil lefties who don't respect this country and it's history attacked.
Granting you the false premise that the protesters were provoking violence the only thing the were doing was encouraging the mask to slip ahead of schedule.
This is not a false premise, people in antifa have admitted to throwing the first punch and the ideology itself is fundamentally offensive minded, nor did anyone believe that guys running around with swastikas were good people. Antifa, if anything, made things worse, because antifa's definition of "nazi" is basically "anyone that doesn't agree with me" (for example, the phrase "scratch a centrist and a facist bleeds" comes up a lot in antifa aligned spaces).
But lets take this a step further. Using violence against someone who is soft peddling violence and who is growing a movement who's objective is to exercise a campaign of extermination is a defensive act not an offensive act.
Society disagrees, and to a large point antifa knows that and accepts it, hence why they mask up to avoid being arrested for starting fights. Society has overwhelming agreed that assaulting people because you disagree with them is wrong. All your rabbling about fighting bullies cannot countenance that fact, because what you are describing and what is actually happening are worlds apart. Neo-nazi and white supremacist groups are under an intense amount of law enforcement scrutiny, thier actions are heavily monitored and the groups themselves are heavily infiltrated, and if one's membership in such a group comes to light that person's personal and professional life are effectively over. If you actually cared one bit about breaking those groups or protecting people from them, most police departments have openings, and the cops have an actual record of successful shutting down far right groups, unlike antifa.
The adults did listen to you, the problem is you're a spoiled child who doesn't want the bully stopped, you want to live in a world where you never have to hear or see anything you disagree with, and the adults told you to take a hike.
You do not wait for stochastic terrorism to grow to a point where the white nationalists seize political power through intimidation and fear. Something which is often over looked is that Antifa which predates the alt-right is like the alt-right in one aspect. It's not a movement it's a set of political practices with a single goal. Do what it takes to oppose the rise of fascism. Since the 70's this has entailed almost exclusively peaceful demonstrations and getting involved in politics. When the fascists began making snide promises of violence people took them seriously. For decades White Nationalists have preformed the overwhelming amount of political violence in the United States. These were for the most part lone wolf actions. To allow these wolves to gather openly in numbers that haven't been seen since the 80's where they would plan larger even more violent acts of terrorism would have been irresponsible.
The "overwhelming amount" of violence is like 80 people by the highest and most dubious estimates, and there's no data to suggest the 80s were far worse. I don't think society is so terrified by this that they are mere step away from handing power to neo-nazis to end the threat they pose. If you'll recall the distant, long lost days of 2015, most neo nazi rallies consisted of little more than a handful of losers surrounded by a ring of cops...who were facing outward, because the vastly more numerous counterprotesters were so terrified of the nazis that there was a risk they might surge forward and tear them limb for limb. You weren't the only ones smart enough to take their snide promises seriously, you were the only stupid enough to believe their delusional claims about how any day now, the wider world would wake and realize the nazis were right and sweep them into power and also everyone would get a pony.
Yes I quite agree it does undermine it. Had I been that black guy I would have made sure to have someone there to record the entire event on a phone and then goaded them into action and if not them some other group of white nationalists. If someone were to take a swing at a white nationalist first it should have been some black little old granny. The fact however that you see the two as morally equivalent is what is wrong with you.
White Nationalists have a proven track record of offensive violence. True or false.
White Nationalist have a proven track record of forced deportation. True or false.
White Nationalists have a proven track record of mass killings. true or false.
White Nationalism inherently leads to extermination plans not of ideologies which people can change but of people themselves. True or false.
White Nationalism has a proven track record of oppression. True or false?
When a group with a proven track record of being a wolf in sheep's clothing begins to organize with the closeted intent of genocide you stop them. True or false?
It is not acceptable to violently assault people merely because they hold repugnant beliefs, not even if they are trying to spread those beliefs. If you genuinely believe that people are so easily duped by nazis that the only way to prevent nazis from reaching power is to prevent them from ever voicing their opinions because nazis are so convincing that they average person cannot help but be swayed into joining them, seek professional help because your beliefs are so radically out of step with observed reality and history that I can only conclude you have some form of mental illness.
The logical conclusion of an ethno-state when the hegemonic dominant group will no longer be dominate within the next 20 (now 15) years in a multi-cultural society is miscegenation, apartheid, and genocide. True or false?
False premise, the united states is not an ethnostate.
Defensive violence does not mean you strike second, it means preventing suffering force or violence through a sufficient level of countering force or violence. True or false?
Normalization of dehumanizing or degrading language towards minorities leads to normalization of violence towards those minorities? True or false?
Legitimizing the idea that you can "defensively" strike first because you believe the other person supports something that might lead to a harmful end would destroy the very notion of civil society. If things worked by this logic and the two of us ever happened to run into each other, I would be entirely justified shooting you in the face the second we meet. After all, you believe in using violent force against white nationalists, and you appear to have concluded that I am a white nationalist or at least dangerously sympathetic to white nationalists, therefor you are advocating ideas that threaten me with harm and it is entirely justified to take action to prevent you from advancing that cause.
This is not a hypothetical case, there have been societies where this kind of "do unto others as you think they would do unto you" mindset has been acceptable, and it was a bad idea. It lead to untold destruction and chaos as people moved to "defensively" eliminate anyone that opposed them or posed a risk to them.
By your logic the RSRG was as bad as the brownshirts who's job it was to helped bring Hitler to power because they used violence to oppose the rise of a fascist dictator and his supporters who used violence and political terrorism against those who opposed him. To equate fascist white nationalist redhats with anti-fascists because they both use violence is to ignore the moral distinction between offensive and defensive violence. It makes you no better than the LibTard fuckwads who institute zero tolerance polices in schools.
I have no idea who the RSRG was and google isn't helping, so explain your terms. Given the number of factions in germany who's platform boiled down "no, you shouldn't support that wannabe authoritarian dictator, you should back
this wannabe authoritarian dictator", I would posit that yes, the RSRG was probably just as bad as the people they fought. After all, it's not like anyone at the time knew what Hitler and the nazi party higher ups would go on to do, you can't claim to be morally righteous if you try to kill a man as part of some petty feud and it turns out he's actually a wanted murderer.
My evidence is the persistent and steady growth of white nationalism and the migration of it's memetic influence on the mainstream right. StoneToss meme comics for example were everywhere. Stefen Molynuex a White Nationalist was making his way into mainstream discourse. Richard Spencer was doing a college tour. Milo did college tours. It's called Social Normalization, which is the process of taking a fringe idea, movement, or ideology and making it a part of the normal discourse.
That's not evidence, that's a gut feeling that you have no way to verify. I know that because I tried to verify it, and can't. There are no reliable numbers on how many white nationalists there are in the US. I have no figures on how well known StoneToss is, but I don't think you do either. And colleges hosting controversial guests and speakers is nothing new.
The fact that you are acting in bad faith by pretending that redhats were somehow 'just exercising their constitutional rights' is not only disingenuous but ignores the facts.
That is exactly what they were doing.
The fact that you are downplaying the social and political influence of "Some chick with a blog" who was on FoxNews after touring the White House to promote her channel and talk about "those mean college liberals who were just so mean for no reason what soever and all she was doing was just asking questions" is a bullshit move on your part. No it's not a weak move because unlike you I am familiar with history. I know how smaller movements than the alt-right can quickly turn into fascist dictatorships. The DAP had less than 60 member's when it began, ten months later Hitler had joined the party and was number 555, by January of 1923 the Nazi party exploded to 20,000 members and we know the rest.
I'm not "Downplaying" Bennett's influence, I just said I've never heard of her, and given your subsequent attempt to hype her up as a major influence was that she had a mere 100,000 subscribers (and that she toured the white house, which anyone can do), I'm inclined to stand by that assessment that she's a nobody, Fox News interview or not.
As for being "familiar with history", the fact that you seem to be entirely unaware of how ineffective violence was at stopping the nazis from reaching power casts doubt on that claim.
The one argument which those who support deplatforming have going for them is the evidence that deplatforming redhats has has decreased white supremacy violence and activity.
And this evidence would be....?
But here is what I find truly fascinating "Someday we will win, no matter what it takes.". So your objection to black flag groups seems to be a pragmatic opposition not one of principle. Which is interesting because I actually disagree with the antifa use of violence during the protests. It was morally and ethically justified but I think it was counter productive and bad optics. Never give the enemy what they want and all that.
Maybe do a bit of googling before you start reading into things. The quote is there because I like Halo, not because I think the white race will inevitably win out or whatever you think it means.
My problem with antifa is entirely based in principle, specifically that their actions are a violation of the legal and philosophical principles this country was founded on, and the logic they use to justify those actions is a direct attack on the foundations of civil society.
See there is a false equivalency here. There is nothing inherent in socialism that necessitates genocide. And as for your "no one is saying" your a lying piece of shit. I saw that trump commercial "Bernie Sanders is a socialist." Beyond this the Sanders socialist question was on every single news channel for a while. People were openly talking about it. It got brought up on the debate stage. But a correction Bernie is not a communist he is a socialist. There is a meaningful distinction. And the point I was making is that it's not just about "there is some such and such saying bad stuff" my point is on the left we call out people on our won side and meaningfully distance ourselves from then when they advocate for bad things or have ill intent. See the thing about socialism is I can say "not all socialist are violent authoritarians" and it's true (there are socialists who are pacifists for example. See MLK jr.). You cannot be a white nationalist and be a pacifist. Violence is inherent to White Nationalism/Nazism. It's why we object to the very existence of White Nationalists.
I'm assuming you meant to say that the Trump commercial called Sanders a communist when he's actually a socialist. First off, that's missing the point, the point was that they attacked the democrats based on the actions of major figures with the democratic party, not some random nobody who got interviewed by CNN one time or something. Secondly, it's entirely possibly to conclude that Bernie is a communist trying to distance himself from the ideologies failures by calling himself a socialist.
As for the left casting out bad actors, no, no you don't. Aside from the examples I cited above, the entire mainstream gun control movement is fundamentally dishonest and every claim they put out is at best a distortion of the truth and more typically an outright fabrication (this is not to say all gun control arguments are lies, but the ones you hear from mainstream gun control groups are). I have yet to see a single person on the left be called out for that by their own side or the mainstream media. There is a non-zero chance Joe Biden sexually assault a women, and the reaction was to bury the story as deep as they could, until the voices condemning them for their transparent hypocrisy forced them to address the issue.
Um... The leaks are not flimsy evidence for starters. Second I don't believe she is a Nazi because of the leaks, I believe she is a nazi because I follow out and proud Nazi's and I also follow Kaitlin Bennet's channel and other media. I first began suspecting she is a Nazi when she was dumb enough to post the (((JQ))) on her facebook group. She has all the dogwhistles down pat which told me she was a Nazi before the leaks. I knew she was a Nazi for the same reason I knew Richard Spencer was a Nazi before his leak. The same way I knew Congressman Steve King was a Nazi before his debacle. When he joined the tea party caucus back in 2010 and the tea party started getting cozy with the Libertarian Party I left both. Canary in the coal mine and all that. What I have seen since then has only justified my decision to leave.
Groups develop certain linguistic patterns following these trends in relevant groups is a hobby of mine. When I start hearing Richard Spencer or Nick Fuentes or Kaitlin Bennett saying certain things and then a couple of weeks to a month later I start hearing the same language being used on FoxNews. Well there is obviously a gas leak. Just like I know when certain things begin appearing in Leftist circles and then weeks or a month later it starts cropping up on larger programs or occasionally MSDNC I know that there's been a shift in the liberals.
I have no idea what "leaks" you're referring to, particularly not in Spencer's case because as far as I know his white supremacist stuff has been said quite openly. Couched in weasel words like "maybe we should just, like, have a white ethnostate but make it peacefully, by having everyone else just....go somewhere else?", but still openly said. As for your linguistic pattern tracking powers, I have no faith in your reasoning ability based on what you've said thus far, I see no reason to think that this is the one spot where you're actually as smart as you think they are/
No power? So I guess stochastic terrorism isn't a thing? We can all pack up our bags White Supremacy has been defeated we can all go home. I mean blacks got the vote right? racism is over. Suppression of black voters has ended a State didn't recently attempt to gerrymander it's districts on racial lines and did such a poor job at hiding the attempt that the supreme court overturned it.
No, stochastic terrorism is not a thing. As for vote supression, I'm inclined to think that while it exists, it is not nearly as widespread as people like you think it is, because if it was, fighting it would be a prominent element of the democratic platform, and other left leaning and sympathetic organizations would do so as well. North Carolina passed a bill about trans kids using the bathroom or whatever it was and it became a massive deal, the NBA got involved and suspended games or something, etc, there was massive pressure involved to make it stop. Same state tries to strip the right to vote from black people and....nothing.
Vote suppression is an issue the way voter fraud is an issue, in that it happens on an insignificant scale but is a useful myth to feed the base so they can explain away defeats by blaming them on the other party rather than doing any self-reflection.
Also, this bit "a State didn't recently attempt to gerrymander it's districts on racial lines and did such a poor job at hiding the attempt that the supreme court overturned it."? I get that was supposed to be sarcasm, but that's actually true, that did not get overturned by the supreme court. The supreme court explicitly ruled that gerrymandering is not within thier purview, they did not rule against partisan political gerrymandering.
Nah. It's just them niggers being uppity. There aren't 14 reasons why someone ought to be concerned. Americans support Traditional Family Values. (((No))) reason to worry. It's not like the day of the rope is coming. You and your 88 friends are just going to sit around and eat some cookie maybe drink some milk. Don't you know the fireworks start in Compton at 13:53PM. A OK my friend. Maybe you might paint a blue? I hear a pit-bull might need to be put down. Or maybe you might go see the happy merchant. TROLLFACE , anti-racist is code for anti-white 100%. Don't they know it's okay to be white? Six Gorillian percent the goyim know shut it down.
Let me end by asking this. Is 18 your lucky number?
And now we've just lost the plot completely. I'm going to repeat that question, because you apparently didn't read it the first time.
"So what should we be doing? The people you're fearmongering about have no power, no authority, no influence on the mainstream, and no prospect of getting any of that, and no one is suggesting that we cease excluding them from the mainstream or that they and thier followers represent anything significant. What do you think people should do that they're not? "
Note that's "so what are thinking people should do" and not "please recite every single stupid meme you saw on 4chan". Because all I got from this was "there are racist people on the internet", which as it happens I already know.
