Kicking. Squealing.
An article I put together is up over at The Blaze. It’s on the subject of the Anti-Racist Action attack in Tinley Park and Bill Ayers’ and Bernadine Dohrn’s association with the group.
A couple of points – as I’ve discussed, I’ve got no great love for activist White Nationalism or Stormfront, but we should consider the spectrum on which these groups lie. I spoke to one man who was injured in the attack, and he told me that the group did not have violent intentions. They were meeting in order to establish an economic network for whites. It seems that the ARA members discovered the meet-up by trolling Stormfront, thought the group met its criteria for actionable anti-fascist activities, and set to work. But freedom of association is *still* protected under the Constitution.
It’s hard to give the ARA too much grief for combating neo-Nazi skinheads, which was the initial reason for the group’s development. A story from the late 1990s shows how violent neo-Nazis can be and shows why the ARA might have a beef with them. But there’s quite a big difference between fighting violent neo-Nazis and tracking down white people who like hanging out with other white people. The ARA aims to fight fascists, but they think that almost everyone are fascists. To them, Ron Paul supporters are fascists. The “mission creep” there reminds me of that taking place at the Southern Poverty Law Center.
And then there’s something else I’m quickly noticing in my travails as a “citizen journalist” (pretentious, I know, but not as pretentious as calling myself a “journalist” full stop). Those on the Left are much less willing to spill their guts than those on the Right. You can’t even get a Left-winger to respond to an email or answer the phone. Righties may not agree to being interviewed, but they’ll generally converse with you.
You see this in the Zimmerman-Martin case too. Slate’s Dave Weigel mentioned in some of his coverage in Sanford, Florida that a person in the neighborhood was somewhat threatening to him as a reporter coming around asking questions. Within the context of his piece, the man seemed to be a Trayvon supporter. I ran into something similar when I asked some questions on Facebook of one of the ARA members’ girlfriend. A few minutes later she’d changed her profile picture to a picture of a 9mm handgun. I might be paranoid, but I think that was intended for me. In the Zimmerman-Martin case it’s been nearly impossible to get any of Martin’s friends or family to speak to the media. But Zimmerman’s family and friends have generally come out of the woodwork to talk about Zimmerman. This all makes me wonder how stories in the media get told. A lot of these news stories depend on who a reporter has access to and how willing those people are to talk to the media. Makes it harder to get “dirt” on leftists. See: Barack Obama versus Mitt Romney.
Pretty good. It’s true, nearly everyone is a facsist to an ARA. It was a threat actually – probably IRL you’d have heard worse.
It’s somewhat interesting. There is the elephant in the room, the prize, the most propagandized subject in all of human history. It makes the interracial violence coverups look like the pecodilos they are.
That’s the holocaust fable. You wanna hunt the big game, there’s nothing bigger.
Ryu is correct in his closing line, but that’s a minefield you do not want to venture into.
You seem to have your hands full just trying to cypher out the various conclaves into some kind of flow chart. Hint: ARA are the foot soldiers of the SPLC. They take their marching orders from the Intelligence Report.
ARA: the new Brownshirts
That’s true – all roads lead to Rome. Follow the antifas long enough and you’ll reach the SPLC. Follow the SPLC, you’ll reach the source, the one group on Earth that no one is allowed to criticize. It’s like the Matrix, when Neo meets the Architect.
Ryu – you say “It’s like the Matrix, when Neo meets the Architect.”
Lennon sang “If you go carrying pictures of Chairman Mao, you ain’t gonna make it with anyone anyhow.”.
The problem that a smart guy like you can help deal with in your country right now is putting an end to immigration before you get (more) swamped. You aren’t going to help with that project by talking about the Holocaust.
I suspect the ARA reluctance to talk comes from the fact that they have the media and government backing them up, and don’t want to say the wrong thing to ruin it. It would be similar to how careful high level government employees are.
Neo-Nazi skiheads are far nicer people than the communist terrorists of ARA.
Ryu,
Stop being coy. If you think Jews are behind a lot of this, just say it.
Everyone knows Jews always look out for each other and their own interests. Let them. I have never wanted to be Jewish. I prefer what I am.
The holocaust is the golden door. When the biggest lie in world history falls, everything else falls easier. And it takes the most audacity and daring to question the holocaust – 10 year sentance in Germany for asking the question.
The ARA and Trayvon are small potatoes. Wait a day and we’ll get another 10 stories to add to the heap. People can hack at the branches all their lives but never find the source. It’s not about the immigrants, its about who enables it. We don’t blame water for bursting the dike – we blame the engineer.
Not really. Generally people are going to focus their energy siphoning the water and repairing the dyke rather than lynching the engineer. Also, it’s not about ‘blame’. It’s about not living in a swamp. Also it’s dyke, not dike.
Anti-racism itself has become a bait and switch. It starts from an obviously correct premise that almost everyone can agree with, that triangular trade, colonialism, etc was bad (although shouldn’t be divorced from historical context). From this post-colonial anchor anti-racism first positions itself as an idea would only be criticized by defectives that must be Derbed out of the public sphere. The idea of racism then slowly grows to include anything that doesn’t work against white people, anything that doesn’t seek to settle the post-colonial score. There is a large mismatch between the original and rhetorical racism. Racism needs to either collapse back into its original meaning or our understanding of racism needs to be brought into line with what racism has become.
The mugs:
http://tinyurl.com/7cqjpl8
The one on the top right, Dylan Sutherlin, has got perdy lips. He’ll probably be posting here once he gets out of prison.
I think we’ve found our next topic for intrepid reporter Chuck – track down David Cole, holocaust revisionist par excellence (and a high IQ jew, natch). Apparently the JPL put out a death threat on him and harassed his family, causing him to recant and then disappear.
There is no such thing as racism. “Racism” has always meant what it means now and it has never meant anything else. Being “racist” is synonymous with being an evil-doer according to the purveyors of the ideology. Right-wingers that have successfully absorbed that message and don’t want to be “evil” but simultaneously can’t absorb the rest of the ideology magically transmute “racism” into meaning something completely different (into something that is both racist but they believe to be inherently not racist).
It’s the exact same phenomena as the Bible or Constitution magically meaning whatever the fuck anyone wants it to mean so long as the interpretation supports their side. It magically meant something for 200 or 2000 years variously that it no longer means today and people have just been inexplicably misreading or misapplying it’s edicts incorrectly for untold generations. Certainly Jesus wanted you to take the lessons of Pharisiacal Jews to heart and let them be the moral compass of society and George Washington would think that your gay son’s big black cock fetish is completely ‘kosher’ because freedom.
“Racism” and so many other things the so-called right-wing is against are not right-wing creeds at all and are fundamentally incompatible with being right-wing. The left-wing pillars of all denominations mainstream “conservatism” do nothing but breed the worst kind of cognitive dissonance; where the ‘conservative’ in question speaks in the language of his enemies and thinks that he is communicating but in fact is incapable of teasing out the true meanings of the words he’s using and there is no more prime an example than “racism”.
The “Civil Rights Movement” was never about ‘civil rights’ for blacks that were being denied ‘rights’ from its’ very onset in the 50s. It was about special license for blacks at the expense of restricting the rights of white people.
Here are early pictures of “Civil Rights” victory in action:
http://i719.photobucket.com/albums/ww193/ThisDayInHistory14/ForcedIntegrationatBayonetPoint003.jpg
http://i719.photobucket.com/albums/ww193/ThisDayInHistory14/ForcedIntegrationatBayonetPoint001.jpg
Looks so much like increased ‘freedom’ to me! Of course ‘freedom’ is another one of those words that conservatives think means something completely different than it does.
It’s like the old joke in the South: “I’m a moderate on Civil Rights for blacks. I don’t think niggers should be hanged or put back into slavery.” Which is literally and truly in the most concise language possible the actual position of mainstream conservatives. They want blacks to be ‘free’. Free to go fuck themselves, starve to death in an gutter, or whatever; who really gives a fuck right?
That’s been at least the position of the Goldwaterish, Reaganesque libertarian-lite variety of conservatism since the dawn of the ‘Civil Rights’ movement. That is what ‘Civil Rights’ was fighting against. Being ‘non-racist’ in conservative terms is in reality to be absurdly fucking racist. Conservatives want to pretend that their commitment to ‘individualism’ makes them non-racist, when it literally makes them complete and total racists. There is no ‘mission creep’ taking place here. It’s not like Nazis invaded the South and instituted Jim Crow against the wishes of the people that lived there.
Conservatives are literally buying into a frame where the government that the people choose is invalid if it doesn’t level the playing field by sacrificing the well-being of the (vast, overwhelming) majority to bring statistical performance parity between the under-performing minority. That it’s necessary to rescind that groups rights to form communities, institutions and governments of their own volition for the sake of ‘freedom’. Few right-wingers would ever put it that way, and if they actually thought about it would go through a bout of cognitive dissonance (easily solved by the goto crimestop of calling me a name like “bigot” or “racist”.)
The argument for integration was that blacks were being harmed by being kept away from the superior environment of white people. That the integration would be better for blacks, but necessarily worse for whites was patently acknowledged, but it was a social cost “we” would just have to bear. Right-wingers are incapable of seeing pernicious ‘socialism’ when there isn’t a literal dollar sign attached, or it doesn’t come in the language of transfer payments. That things have costs despite some bean-counter having yet to do the math completely evades them. “Civil Rights” is socialism in its’ truest form, and it is a transfer of communal well-being from whites to blacks for the purposes of creating statistical parity in outcomes and it has been from day one. Anyone that opposes that has been racist from day one despite whatever pretzel logic that conservatives use to arrive at a different conclusion where they can hold the mutually exclusive positions of “I’m not racist” and “let niggers rot”.
Well said Kyle. The entire comment is worth reading. “Civil Rights” being in essence an intolerable imposition on whites for the sake of an unearned uplift of blacks is the reality of the founding principles of post-60s America.
In other words, every liberal victory since 1954 has not been a step toward justice, as liberals (and most conservatives) frame it. Each liberal victory has been a step away from liberty, away from justice, and toward tyranny.
Speaking of rights, a truly outstanding article was posted yesterday at In Mala Fide, titled “Ten Years Gone.” It framed the concept of rights as follows:
“If there is such a thing as morality, it proceeds not from rights, but from the differentiated duties within our family network which are necessary for survival.”
The whole piece is worth reading. Good stuff by Jerry in the comments as bonus, heh.
Mark my words – at least 3 of these ARA loonies will certainly win an “Amanda Kijera award” after being prison raped by a noble savage who doesn’t care about their work to relieve the worldwide oppression suffered by the black man….
Mark my words – at least 3 of these ARA loonies will certainly win an “Amanda Kijera award” after being prison raped by a noble savage who doesn’t care about their work to relieve the worldwide oppression suffered by the black man….—-
Justice served.
I’m sure the activities of this ‘noxious’ group will be investigated by Mr Holder as a top priority. They are probably being interrogated in their hospital beds as we speak… Oh you thought I meant the ARA?
@Kyle: dyke/dike. It’s both. I think most people assign dike to the dam, and dyke to the beaver.