To join or not to join

[T.Lex]

Speaking of which.... anyone know if the bridge-flag people have voted in this poll?

 

[HoughMade]

We all know what you call someone who's under the bridge...so what do you call someone who's on top of the bridge?

 

[printcraft]

We all know what you call someone who's under the bridge...so what do you call someone who's on top of the bridge?

Are they walking in the road?

 

[HoughMade]

Are they walking in the road?

Not for long.

 

[1DOWN4UP]

I would stay home because none of this racist/anarchist crap has anything to do with me and mine.I would then go on INGO,and go to the link and listen to the really Smart guys bait ,and prejudge everyone who does not tow their line.

 

[jamil]

Must be Latin Pride day on INGO.

Wait.


Maybe that doesn't mean what I think it means.

But, more seriously, not really Wiki's fault that "White Pride" has been co-opted by White Supremacists.

Kinda like "Unite the Right" - which seems practical and friendly enough until you see the guest list.

What I have against "unite the right" is that it assumes that the principles of identity are compatible across the right. They're not. At least not to right leaning individualists. Identitarian is fundamentally a collectivist mindset. I ain't down with that at all.

 

[sheepdog697]

I didn't counter protest BLM and I wouldn't protest the "Alt-Right", neither group is deserving of my time or attention as neither serves to improve anything. Acknowledging them gives them the legitimacy they crave, ignore them and they'll go away. If they choose to allow their gathering to turn violent or involve destruction of property lock them up and allow the courts to deal with them.

Perfectly said.

 

[JTScribe]

Guess if you have a red ball cap, you've joined.

View attachment 58191

 

[JAL]

So, under the current framework, municipalities are forced to allow them to gather, subject to "reasonable" time, place and manner restrictions.

Time, Place, and Manner Restrictions legal definition of Time, Place, and Manner Restrictions

Cities don't have the luxury of ignoring them.

That's why a judge ordered Charlottesville to allow the initial gathering.

Yup. Can restrict it within specific narrow limitations to protect public and property, but can't stop 'em. Those of us olde enough remember Skokie, Illinois, a city that did everything legally possible to stop the NSPA gathering and march there and couldn't. That bounced around, up to the SCOTUS and back down to the Illinois courts like a pinball machine. NSPA won, but marched in Chicago instead. The Blues Brothers movie scene is a fantasy of what many would have liked to have done.

John

 

[JAL]

Unite the Right == Usurp the Right.

 

[jamil]

Unite the Right == Usurp the Right.

Yes. Essentially that. The "right" is a lot bigger and more diverse than the protestors. They effectively gave the left the gift of justifying the name calling over the past few years as racists and fascists.

 

[JAL]

. . . tow their line.

Proper usage: "toe their line." (Google is your friend.)

I see this idiom misused much too many times. You may continue with the thread now.

John

 

[femurphy77]

So, let's say your local municipality was chosen by certain groups for a "Unite the Right" (UTR) gathering. Neo-nazis, white supremacists, identity types (but not sovereign citizens, because they don't need to gather, and Article 4, section 69 says so), will be gathering to protest "diversity" and "genocide."

Naturally, a counter-protest is also being planned.

Just wondering if there's an INGO consensus on what individuals would do.

Ignore them. Demonstrators ain't **** without an audience.

 

[hopper68]

Stay home. Go elsewhere as far away as possible.

I stay home as well. I'm no where near anyplace that anything like that would happen, and I like it that way.

I didn't counter protest BLM and I wouldn't protest the "Alt-Right", neither group is deserving of my time or attention as neither serves to improve anything. Acknowledging them gives them the legitimacy they crave, ignore them and they'll go away. If they choose to allow their gathering to turn violent or involve destruction of property lock them up and allow the courts to deal with them.

I'll do what I normally do with this ****. I will go about my business doing what I normally do (armed) and read about it later on INGO.

Sounds like a plan to me.

 

[JAL]

Just as the KKK and the several neo-Nazi groups are attempting to usurp the right, there are those who have have usurped the original BLM cause for their own ends to serve their own agendas. This is nothing original.

Adolf Hitler usurped the DAP (Deutsche Arbeiter Partei) and morphed it into the NSDAP. The DAP was founded by Anton Drexler in 1919 out of an organization he formed in 1918 with German, many former military military, who were disillusioned at the Kaiser's abdication, and abandoning them and the nation to humiliation with the Treaty of Versailles. The DAP was already anti-semitic and nationalist. He joined as an infiltrator working for German Army Intelligence and soon became their chief spokesman and propagandist with his oratory skills that attracted thousands. To appeal to a broader demographic, the name was changed to NSDAP in 1920. While on a trip to Berlin, there was a fracture in the party. Upon his return, he resigned and would not rejoin unless he replaced Drexler as the party's leader. Fearing his departure would be the end of the now NSDAP (and it likely would have), the central committee ousted Drexler, declaring Hitler their new leader in 1921. The 1923 Beer Hall Putsch that landed Hitler and others in prison also resulted in the party being outlawed. Hitler reconstituted the NSDAP in 1925. Those who claim far left Socialists are neo-Nazi Fascists have no concept of what Fascist national socialism is, very incorrectly parsing "socialism" from "national". Yet another method of some in the extreme far right to convince themselves and others that political leftists are Fascists, which is about as far from the truth as you can get. Socialism and National Socialism are two, extremely different social and economic concepts.

Much more recently:
Bernie Sanders snubbed the Democratic Party as an Independent for 3-1/2 decades, doing absolutely nothing for them in fund raising or campaigning for other candidates. He joined the party in 2015 in an attempt to usurp it for his Progressive agenda, raising an army of Bernie-Boyz and Bernie-Girlz, many of them in the 18-25 demographic the Democratic Party had ignored. He wooed them with gov't handout promises targeting their demographic, such as universal free college education. After losing the primary to Clinton, he promptly left it in 2016, declaring himself Independent again. He was very nearly successful.

The KKK:
It's in its third iteration. Current membership, spread primarily across seven national or regional groups independent of each other, is estimated to be well under 10,000. David Duke founded the KKKK (as if three K's weren't enough). He left it a few years later with his main follower, Thomas Robb, who has his church and KKKK headquarters in Arkansas. It's currently thought to be the largest of the seven, with the mild-mannered and soft-spoken Robb donning a suit and tie, and creating online video "broadcasts". There are cross burnings with hoods and robes, but they're private ceremonies attended by only a few. What most think of regarding the KKK is actually the second iteration that arose in 1915, mostly inspired by the D.W. Griffith silent epic, The Birth of a Nation, which was based on a trilogy of novels written circa 1905, glorifying the very short-lived Reconstruction Era KKK that lasted from 1867 to approximately 1871 or 1872. The burning cross was an artifact of the novels and movie, put in by the author for dramatic effect and used by D.W. Griffith for very dramatic visual effect. This second iteration of the KKK rose quickly in membership into the millions, but had plummeted by the end of the 1920's with two significant scandals, one of which was the 1925 Oberholzer murder in Indiana. It persisted with small membership numbers until 1944, when an IRS lien for back taxes bankrupted the national organization into liquidation. The local organizations either collapsed or were splintered into the third iteration that arose in the 1950's in opposition to the Civil Right movement during which their small numbers became quite violent. Their heyday was during the 1960's and 1970's, all but dying out by the 1980's. They're a splintered organization that's mostly all dressed up with no place to go, other than rallies and marches like this Unite the Right, but they leave the robes and hoods at home.

The groups to keep watchful eyes on are the white supremacists, who often espouse a combination of the tenets from both the Nazis and the KKK. They distance themselves from those organization names to avoid the extremely negative public badwill they will receive from the name alone. The goal is running under the RADAR for what they really are. It's similar to Thomas Robb and his church in Arkansas. You don't know what he really is until you take a good, long look.

John

 

[BigBoxaJunk]

The usual thing I ask myself before I consider going somewhere:

Will there be people there?

If yes,..........then no.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Proper usage: "toe their line." (Google is your friend.)

I see this idiom misused much too many times. You may continue with the thread now.

John

If youre in a boat towing a little dingy, then tow line would be correct.

 

[BigBoxaJunk]

If youre in a boat towing a little dingy, then tow line would be correct.

When you've heard it that way so many times, you tend to take it for granite.

 

[2A_Tom]

I believe in the right to speak. I believe in the right to PEACABLY assemble.

No one has the right to be heard. I won't be there.

Last weekend was a failure on the part of those who control law inforcement. I feel for you guys if you work for progressives. They will get yiu killed.

 

[Que]

My thoughts have evolved on this, even over the weekend.

Initially, I was sympathetic to the counter-protesters. I could totally see myself joining in that. Philosophically, it reflects much of what I stand for personally.

But, going to Kut's point, that puts many variables outside my control, including what groups might join in that I *don't* agree with.

And, for that matter, a generic "Unite the Right" event meant as a Republican outreach would be something I'd think about attending.

Right now, it just isn't that simple. We should all be careful about who purports to represent "us."

I believe in civil and lawful protest. It is a way to demonstrate to the government how a group of like-minded people feel about their policies or direction. I don't agree with anti-protesting, because they are not necessarily communicating with the government, but the side they oppose. Even when anti protests were used during the major civil rights struggle, it was a form of intimidation. Even today, it's the same thing, even if people don't want to admit it. Why not wait until the next day and have your own protest?