White Nationalists rally - State of Emergency in Virginia

[Stravinsk]

What did you think of that weird cat talking video? The cars were different, one had a black stripe and there was a guy of the CIA in that other car, the driver looked different than the guy they arrested and he looked like he was calmly doing his job. She thought they just let a schizophrenic guy do the dirty work for em.
I don't doubt it happened, a woman got killed, they don't fake a memorial, but it was weird. And how his mother responded, so relaxed, oh I thought he was going to a Trump rally. And from above the car is red, but I guess I was the only one who noticed that.

I thought the video you linked brought up a some good points, especially in the latter half. Btw - the black guy who is supposed to have flown over the car after being hit - then just a few seconds later is kicking it on the hood by the passenger side of the car closest to the sidewalk? He had an orange hat that dramatically flew off when in that footage as he's flying over the car.

 

[Stravinsk]

You could try selling that bridge to the parents of the girl wjho got killed and perhaps tyell them how it is all a hoax

Whether someone got killed or not, and how, is not something I know. However, if given the opportunity, I'd gladly tell the parents that I thought that, based on certain video footage - certain events were staged.

That does not mean everything regarding the event was staged. That's how *your* mind works, psalms 91, not mine.

 

[Imalive]

The car doesn't go in reverse and the licence plate is different:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=eh8UUUMHAWY
First he talks a lot, last part is the video.

 

[Stravinsk]

The car doesn't go in reverse and the licence plate is different:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=eh8UUUMHAWY
First he talks a lot, last part is the video.

He's lying about seeing the crash.

Also, you've mentioned it before. I think you need to look into it further before commenting. The car shown in the clip is the burgundy van (what you might call "red" car) - that vehicle is the 3rd vehicle to supposedly have been moved from the 2 behind it. Immediately behind it, the grey car - and behind that, the car that is supposed to have mowed over a crowd before ramming the grey car.

 

[tango]

Those people may complain and be racist. They do that here too. The immigrants get the nice houses boohoo. we have nothing. they should leave. Eigenes volk erst. But the KKK on the street? They should be in jail.

Firstly, it's usually worth looking at grievances to see what, if any, merit they may actually have. It's entirely possible that someone is complaining because "they don't want no (racial slur) in their area" but it's equally possible they may have a genuine issue. How much talk about "privilege" are people expected to put up with before pushing back, especially when their life looks anything but privileged to them? How do you expect the white man living in a trailer park with little hope of building a better life for his family to react when he can't take part in affirmative action programs due to having the wrong skin color, yet is accused of "arguing from privilege" if he merely wants the same opportunities? How long does it take before he becomes resentful of the programs and, by extension, the people they benefit? (Incidentally, every single professional black person I have worked with who expressed an opinion on the topic has been opposed to affirmative action, simply because they just wanted equal treatment and didn't like the endlessly hanging question of whether they were hired because they were the best candidate or because the team needed a token black face.)

There's also a huge difference between not wanting immigrants to get anything and being concerned with the perception that immigrants (in particular illegal immigrants) are looked after while those considered more deserving (usually veterans etc) are left to live on the streets. It's easy to see why people object to seeing those who put their life on the line for their country left to live on the streets while illegal immigrants are perceived (rightly or wrongly) to be given free stuff. Of course the press is typically biased and typically skews presentation to suit the narrative they want to push so it's hardly surprising to see the left wing press wringing its hands for the poor immigrants who face having a family torn up while the right wing press wrings its hands over the money it costs to house said immigrants when that homeless veteran over there could really use a place to live.

There is no reason to put the KKK in jail unless/until they either incite violence against non-whites or actually commit acts of violence. The opinion that non-whites are lesser creatures than whites, however abhorrent it may be to the majority, isn't best addressed by attempting to censor it. Freedom of speech is worthless unless it includes the freedom to offend. The argument that non-whites are somehow lesser creatures is perhaps better addressed by highlighting the achievements of non-whites in a range of fields, be it business, scientific, athletic, whatever. It shouldn't take too much digging to find non-whites who have excelled despite the odds.

 

[tango]

Refusing to condemn it with no strings attached is support.

Does that mean every single Muslim who failed to utter a no-strings condemnation of every single attack claimed by ISIS or al-Qaeda therefore supports terrorism?

I think you'll find that many people (probably most people) condemn violence regardless of the perpetrator(s) and regardless of the victim(s). That doesn't necessarily mean every single one of them will explicitly condemn every single incidence of violence.

 

[tango]

In what often seems like little more than an attempt to rewrite history, I can't help but think of the line from George Orwell's 1984, "He who controls the past controls the future". I wonder what people are hoping to gain in their attempts to erase historical truths they find unpalatable.

 

[Imalive]

Firstly, it's usually worth looking at grievances to see what, if any, merit they may actually have. It's entirely possible that someone is complaining because "they don't want no (racial slur) in their area" but it's equally possible they may have a genuine issue. How much talk about "privilege" are people expected to put up with before pushing back, especially when their life looks anything but privileged to them? How do you expect the white man living in a trailer park with little hope of building a better life for his family to react when he can't take part in affirmative action programs due to having the wrong skin color, yet is accused of "arguing from privilege" if he merely wants the same opportunities? How long does it take before he becomes resentful of the programs and, by extension, the people they benefit? (Incidentally, every single professional black person I have worked with who expressed an opinion on the topic has been opposed to affirmative action, simply because they just wanted equal treatment and didn't like the endlessly hanging question of whether they were hired because they were the best candidate or because the team needed a token black face.)

There's also a huge difference between not wanting immigrants to get anything and being concerned with the perception that immigrants (in particular illegal immigrants) are looked after while those considered more deserving (usually veterans etc) are left to live on the streets. It's easy to see why people object to seeing those who put their life on the line for their country left to live on the streets while illegal immigrants are perceived (rightly or wrongly) to be given free stuff. Of course the press is typically biased and typically skews presentation to suit the narrative they want to push so it's hardly surprising to see the left wing press wringing its hands for the poor immigrants who face having a family torn up while the right wing press wrings its hands over the money it costs to house said immigrants when that homeless veteran over there could really use a place to live.

There is no reason to put the KKK in jail unless/until they either incite violence against non-whites or actually commit acts of violence. The opinion that non-whites are lesser creatures than whites, however abhorrent it may be to the majority, isn't best addressed by attempting to censor it. Freedom of speech is worthless unless it includes the freedom to offend. The argument that non-whites are somehow lesser creatures is perhaps better addressed by highlighting the achievements of non-whites in a range of fields, be it business, scientific, athletic, whatever. It shouldn't take too much digging to find non-whites who have excelled despite the odds.

Freedom of speech, as soon as they start to talk like the Nazi's like we're gonna kill them all, they should shut up and not hold meetings. Should be forbidden. Muslim preachers who preach hate and murder they shut up too.
They should have prevented this.
I understand a homeless American or someone who is white and lives in what is becoming a hood better than a complaining Dutch person who just want to sit on their lazy butt and get even more money from the govt and a bigger house. White and black should shut up complaining here when you live in a wellfare state. Immigrants' kids died cause they cant swim so the govt pays their swimming lessons. What do the rich white do? (cause if you're not rich the govt pays the swimming lessons for Dutch too): they complain that they don't get that extra. Just shut up. That's just like those old people in Denmark.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=GyVP4dhK5mM

 

[Lamb]

Freedom of speech, as soon as they start to talk like the Nazi's like we're gonna kill them all, they should shut up and not hold meetings. Should be forbidden. Muslim preachers who preach hate and murder they shut up too.
They should have prevented this.
I understand a homeless American or someone who is white and lives in what is becoming a hood better than a complaining Dutch person who just want to sit on their lazy butt and get even more money from the govt and a bigger house. White and black should shut up complaining here when you live in a wellfare state. Immigrants' kids died cause they cant swim so the govt pays their swimming lessons. What do the rich white do? (cause if you're not rich the govt pays the swimming lessons for Dutch too): they complain that they don't get that extra. Just shut up. That's just like those old people in Denmark.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=GyVP4dhK5mM

Freedom of speech does not override the other laws of our government which means that we can't go around saying we're going to kill someone. That's a threat that is taken seriously.

 

[Imalive]

Freedom of speech does not override the other laws of our government which means that we can't go around saying we're going to kill someone. That's a threat that is taken seriously.

Still neo nazi meetings are forbidden here just like Isis muslims recruiting people from the mosque .

https://www.google.nl/amp/amp.usatoday.com/story/573232001/
This is a time to distinguish legal rights from moral condemnation.

 

[Imalive]

And now in Barcelona. Isis and Nazi's it's just the same demons inspiring them.

 

[psalms 91]

Yes, it is demon inspired and really should not be tolorated any more than ISIS extremists should be

 

[tango]

One question regarding the status of Confederate leaders. If they are so racially offensive why are they still there after 8 years of having a black president? Did they suddenly become offensive once Trump took the presidency?

 

[Imalive]

One question regarding the status of Confederate leaders. If they are so racially offensive why are they still there after 8 years of having a black president? Did they suddenly become offensive once Trump took the presidency?

I wouldnt be surprised if its also an attack against Trump.
Some preacher said God said we should pray for him.

 

[Josiah]

One question regarding the status of Confederate leaders. If they are so racially offensive why are they still there after 8 years of having a black president? Did they suddenly become offensive once Trump took the presidency?

Good question...... Why NOW? Ah. And do you really think these protestors just HAPPENED to be in Charlottesville and just HAPPENED to hear about this group that got a permit? And do you really think all that press just happened to be having coffee at a nearby Starbucks when they heard the commotion and went to investigate? I suspect this WHOLE THING was a set up, including the timing.

And yes, the ISSUE is irrelevant (whether we must get rid of everything associated with slavery) because to the Left, issues are irrelevant: it must be cast as a RACE issue, and conservatives MUST be cast as the evil ones (most of all, Trump). Well.... no one seemed to have RACE issue with this until this week, including the 8 years when Obama was President. Me thinks there's a Leftist agenda here..... the Press is FULLY and WILLINGLY promoting it.... and Americans are swallowing the whole thing hook, line and sinker (and THAT'S the part of this that disturbs me).

I'm no fan of Trump (didn't vote for him)... I condemn all forms of racism/sexism.... I just see a lot of POLITICAL "correctness" tomfoolery, a lot of hypocrisy, a lot of powerful people USING race and gender to divide, to detour, to suggest the Left are the Good, the Smart, the Loving, the Uniting, the ones who must be trusted and docilicly followed since we are hateful, stupid, easily fooled. Well, they are right about the easily fooled part. It seems.


I think Trump "called" them on the ISSUE (but nothing was achieved since Issues are never the issue for the left): "Where does this end?" This thing no leftest (Including Obama) cared about until Trump was elected..... Do we condemn that northwestern State for being named after a president who owned hundreds of slaves and who defended slavery? Do we condemn the Republicans in Congress for allowing the nation's capitol city to be named after him? Do we remove him from our currency and stamps, from all roads and schools? What about Jefferson (the first DEMOCRAT president, btw) who was even worse, who even MORE defended slavery and insisted on allowing such in our Constitution? Do we remove half of the 13 stripes on our National Flag because they stand for slave states, replace it with black to show our horror at slavery? Why did Trump totally waste his breath even suggesting that this isn't such a simple issue? Because issues don't matter, DIVIDING does, playing the race card does.... and ANYTHING to paint a non Leftist as therefore stupid, ignorant, hate-filled, racist, sexist, divisive PIG. Again.... Obama had the "Black Lives Matter" group as his guests at the White House several times.... imagine if Trump had leaders of "White Lives Matter" as his guests to the White House..... Me thinks something is rotten in Washington. It's hurting our people and our nation. And with the Press in such absolute compliance, no one is noticing.

I think Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King was right. And it's just one reason why I'm so disturbed by The Thought Police and the Left's ploy, who for pure POLITICAL reasons, seek to keep his dream as far from reality as possible. We'd better wake up.... China's Cultural Revolution may not be far off.....


Sorry.


- Josiah

 

[hedrick]

One question regarding the status of Confederate leaders. If they are so racially offensive why are they still there after 8 years of having a black president? Did they suddenly become offensive once Trump took the presidency?

There have been ongoing controversies. However the current controversies seem to have started with Dylan Roof in 2015, which was under Obama, but late in his presidency. This isn't all directly a reaction to Roof, but the incident does seem to have started people thinking.

On controversies over the Confederate flags: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moder...#Reactions_to_2015_Charleston_church_shooting

I haven't found as good a summary on statues, but that also goes before the current president.

I don't feel strongly. i can understand both sides. On "this is history," it's interesting to note that the monuments mostly don't date back to the 19th Cent. They were mostly in the early 20th Cent during controversies over "Jim Crow" laws, and during the civil rights movement around 1960. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/aug/16/confederate-monuments-civil-war-history-trump. But if they're rallying points for white natinoalism, that makes me a lot more sympathetic with getting rid of them.

But this is to some extent an example of how a single incident can create a series of reactions. Think of the number of "N's law" in response to a couple of incidents. (Most laws named after a victim are bad, in my opinion.) It doesn't seem to be a conservative / liberal issue, but "let's be seen to be doing something." But I do agree that there are bad associations for many people with these statues. We should at least consider the idea of moving most of them to storage for a century or so.

 

[tango]

Freedom of speech, as soon as they start to talk like the Nazi's like we're gonna kill them all, they should shut up and not hold meetings. Should be forbidden. Muslim preachers who preach hate and murder they shut up too.
They should have prevented this.

If people start inciting violence they need to be reined in. Someone who says "(Race A) is superior to (Race B)" should be free to say their piece, explain why they think the way they do, and do so free from interference. If they start calling for violence against (race B) they need to be reined in.

I understand a homeless American or someone who is white and lives in what is becoming a hood better than a complaining Dutch person who just want to sit on their lazy butt and get even more money from the govt and a bigger house. White and black should shut up complaining here when you live in a wellfare state. Immigrants' kids died cause they cant swim so the govt pays their swimming lessons. What do the rich white do? (cause if you're not rich the govt pays the swimming lessons for Dutch too): they complain that they don't get that extra. Just shut up. That's just like those old people in Denmark.

I'm not entirely sure what you're saying here - if people are living on welfare and complaining that someone else is living on welfare they do rather lose the right to complain. It's easy to see why people who pay taxes grow weary of ever-more generous welfare provision. I always think of the couple I know who both work, who have three children and live in a two-bedroom apartment. They live in that apartment because it's what they can afford, while they are paying taxes so someone who doesn't work with three kids can live in a four bedroom house. It always seems to me there's something wrong when people are taxed to give someone else the things they can't afford for themselves. When the recipients of such state-enforced generosity are immigrants it's easy to see why people start to turn against immigrants.

Of course another part of the problem is that "immigrants" is such a broad brush. It's pointless to pretend that one person is just like another person because they share a gender/race/sexual orientation/whatever, and it's equally pointless to say that all immigrants are the same. Some are little more than benefit tourists, some are criminals looking to exploit wherever they can, others seek to work hard and make a contribution to their new host nation. Sadly, as with any other group, it doesn't take very many bad experiences with members of a group before people naturally start to associate the experience with the group rather than the specific individuals.

 

[tango]

There have been ongoing controversies. However the current controversies seem to have started with Dylan Roof in 2015, which was under Obama, but late in his presidency. This isn't all directly a reaction to Roof, but the incident does seem to have started people thinking.

On controversies over the Confederate flags: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moder...#Reactions_to_2015_Charleston_church_shooting

I haven't found as good a summary on statues, but that also goes before the current president.

I still wonder why statues that have been there for decades are suddenly such a flash point. It's almost as if it's just the latest target that the loudest howlers are targeting.

I don't feel strongly. i can understand both sides. On "this is history," it's interesting to note that the monuments mostly don't date back to the 19th Cent. They were mostly in the early 20th Cent during controversies over "Jim Crow" laws, and during the civil rights movement around 1960. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/aug/16/confederate-monuments-civil-war-history-trump. But if they're rallying points for white natinoalism, that makes me a lot more sympathetic with getting rid of them.

I'd be concerned about things that turn into little more than attempts to rewrite history. I really struggle to see how people can feel oppressed by a statue of someone who has been dead for decades - to me it comes back to the issue of slavery boiling down to "I never owned any slaves, you never picked any cotton, how long does this have to be dragged out before we can move on?"

Taking things away because they are rallying points does little more than turn life into a game of who can bluff and feign the most. Just like the language of political correctness seems to be eternally evolving in ways that do little more than decide what is going to offend some group of people today (when many members of that group don't really care anyway), so an attempt to remove rallying points for undesirable movements will end up with ever-more pointless censorship as they move from one target to another to another.

But this is to some extent an example of how a single incident can create a series of reactions. Think of the number of "N's law" in response to a couple of incidents. (Most laws named after a victim are bad, in my opinion.) It doesn't seem to be a conservative / liberal issue, but "let's be seen to be doing something." But I do agree that there are bad associations for many people with these statues. We should at least consider the idea of moving most of them to storage for a century or so.

I agree that when governments feel the need to Be Seen To Be Doing Something the chances are the things they do just make things worse. Just look at the increasing aggravation involved in getting on a flight and all the things that aren't allowed on board because they are considered weapons, only for the cabin staff to hand out things that can easily be turned into weapons. In the UK some years ago there was a spate of street crime involving thefts of mobile phones, so the government passed a law that mobile phone theft carried something like an automatic 18 months in jail. Sadly it didn't have the desired effect, as it meant the street thugs who were more interested in stealing wallets and handbags would still kick someone to the ground and steal their money and cards, they'd just rifle through the spoils and throw the mobile phone down by the victim.

Where the statues are concerned I can't help think they are part of the history of the country. Whether the person looking at the statue is the kind of person who truly believes life would be better if the (insult) (racial slur) types knew their place, or a minority whose ancestors were traded as slaves and is pleased that they can live however they choose, or someone who looks at how far we've come and sees opportunity to grow further, they represent the past. Trying to deny that the things of the past ever took place doesn't seem helpful - in many ways it would be akin to the Jews pretending they were never persecuted. And speaking of the Jews, given how far the Jews have come despite the horrors inflicted upon their people within the last 100 years there must be a question of how many affirmative action programs are necessary before the horrors of slavery can be left in the past.

 

[Imalive]

If people start inciting violence they need to be reined in. Someone who says "(Race A) is superior to (Race B)" should be free to say their piece, explain why they think the way they do, and do so free from interference. If they start calling for violence against (race B) they need to be reined in.



I'm not entirely sure what you're saying here - if people are living on welfare and complaining that someone else is living on welfare they do rather lose the right to complain. It's easy to see why people who pay taxes grow weary of ever-more generous welfare provision. I always think of the couple I know who both work, who have three children and live in a two-bedroom apartment. They live in that apartment because it's what they can afford, while they are paying taxes so someone who doesn't work with three kids can live in a four bedroom house. It always seems to me there's something wrong when people are taxed to give someone else the things they can't afford for themselves. When the recipients of such state-enforced generosity are immigrants it's easy to see why people start to turn against immigrants.

Of course another part of the problem is that "immigrants" is such a broad brush. It's pointless to pretend that one person is just like another person because they share a gender/race/sexual orientation/whatever, and it's equally pointless to say that all immigrants are the same. Some are little more than benefit tourists, some are criminals looking to exploit wherever they can, others seek to work hard and make a contribution to their new host nation. Sadly, as with any other group, it doesn't take very many bad experiences with members of a group before people naturally start to associate the experience with the group rather than the specific individuals.

The ones who complain are the ones on welfare cause the country got more right and people are used to be taken care of by the govt and now they have to share w people who come from a war country. The rich don't complain much about em. It doesn't cost em anything extra and they still live in a nice house. Thing is, the govt is unfair. A person who's too lazy to work and on pot gets a nice cheap big house and car and I work, have 3 kids and live in a 1 bedroom apt w 3 and a complaining neighbour who wants the kids to be quiet. It has nothing to do with the refugees. The country just isn't rich enough anymore to let everyone live in luxury. In the seventies you could just sit on your butt if you were too lazy to work and have a nice income. Ppl didnt want to do the dirty jobs, so they let the Moroccans come over to do the clean up jobs and now the Moroccans think: hey you just sit back and get paid, that's easy, why shouldn't I do that? And now some want those jobless problem making Moroccans out. If they hadn't been lazy in the first place they wouldn't even have come. Same w slaves. Lazy white people let the blacks do their dirty jobs and now the descendants complain about em. Their grand grandparents created the problem.

 

[Imalive]

I just saw Schwarzenegger on youtube, I thought hey great message and then i saw this:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8ZhaiA237e8

https://www.infowars.com/nazi-lover-schwarzenegger-make-me-president-of-european-union/