Rightwing Hero James Fields To Be Sentenced Monday Thread - Page 28 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Talk about what you've seen in the news today.

Moderator: PoFo Today's News Mods

#14973113
Victoribus Spolia wrote:Of course this is the part you would find most captivating, its the part most confirming of your own biases. :lol:

Thing is, blaming and hating the rich, which are often more near-at-hand than you would think, is equally dehumanizing, resentful, bitter, and hopeless.

If I were a communist, I would've hated the same rich Jewish neighbor, only instead of hating him for being part of a worldwide Jewish conspiracy, I would have hated him for being part of a worldwide greedy capitalist elite who didn't pay me or my family members our fair share as his employees.

How is that any better? Its not.

Its the same thing and my point is that we we always blame society's problems on others instead of ourselves and our own in-group for its contributions to our world's degradation.

If you can't blame yourself and your own group for its problems in life, then you are no better than a Nazi in my opinion, for you live by a philosophy of fear.

Instead of fearing Jewish hollywood mogols, inner-city black gangs, MS13, or demographic displacement, you instead fear people who have more than you, religious people, entrepreneurs, and alienation. Its a mirror-image philosophy.

Indeed, contrary to popular belief, rich people are still people too and my rich Jewish neighbor was still a relatively good and decent man for offering us work, irrespective of the pay he offered relative to his own wealth and irrespective of his race.

If I resent him, its because of something in me, not him; contrary to nazism and marxism.


I will accept your analysis that individuals seem to lay blame onto others instead of their own failings, but how is that not irrational if the blame should actually be put onto ourselves and not others? Or is it you accept that humanity can be irrational but you are highlighting the Marxist contradiction with the resentment of wealth to that of the rich man? If that is the case perhaps you have highlighted a contradiction with reasoning but the conditions are different in both cases and as such one is rational and the other isn't.

To highlight my point we need to look at both conditions. Racism in the form of Nazism is based on entitlement from previous conditions of the state - whether that be an perceived erosion of Christian values from society as you pointed out or the belief that one race is superior to others. A resentment on wealth is a resentment on class bias. You are born into a social class and what class you are born into is purely by chance. So while Nazisms reasoning of thought is based solely on a belief of what you should have is based on the colour of your skin (a factor you cannot change), Marxism is a belief that we should get out of society what you put into it (a factor of contribution). In other words one wants to discriminate on a random factor such as race and the other wants the Capitalists to not benefit of the labor of others because they were born lucky.
#14973114
My posts are cool and good so sure why not.

I know you are really mad that a nazi murderer got convicted but, again, I did not turn him into the one true representation of all conservative thought. He did. You can either like or dislike this fact but complaining to me won't change anything!
#14973115
SpecialOlympian wrote:My posts are cool and good so sure why not.

I know you are really mad that a nazi murderer got convicted but, again, I did not turn him into the one true representation of all conservative thought. He did. You can either like or dislike this fact but complaining to me won't change anything!


It might. I believe in butterfly wings. :)
#14973146
B0ycey wrote:I will accept your analysis that individuals seem to lay blame onto others instead of their own failings, but how is that not irrational if the blame should actually be put onto ourselves and not others?


That part is irrational, I agree; however, that is the "fear" dimension of it that you bring up and has little to do with any of the intellectual aspects of far-right thought that do have some credence. Indeed, in reference to this irrational fear, its a fear that we project on others instead of realizing that what we are actually afraid of conditions that we ourselves created, which changes everything.

For instance, I am not afraid of a leaky pipe or damage to my house that I caused by my own mistakes and stupidity, rather I get mad at myself and then become motivated to correct the errors I have made. By contrast, if there were some nefarious force causing my pipes to leak and doing damage to my house then I would (understandably) become given over to fear and begin to search out for a hero to come and save me from the one who is victimizing me (likely the government). The Far-Right and Far-Left follow this same sort of psychology of victimization coupled with a hero-complex.


B0ycey wrote: Or is it you accept that humanity can be irrational but you are highlighting the Marxist contradiction with the resentment of wealth to that of the rich man? If that is the case perhaps you have highlighted a contradiction with reasoning but the conditions are different in both cases and as such one is rational and the other isn't.


I don't think Marxism is itself irrational in this regards, but that such an ideology generates an irrational fear in its proponents is a completely different matter altogether.

Think of it like phobias.

Phobias are typically irrational fears with some basis in reality. It is perfectly rational to accept the very real dangers of heights, but having an irrational fear of them even in circumstances of assured safety is not rational at all. Thus, a "generally" rational theory (marxism, nationalism, etc) with its critique of certain groups (Jews, Capitalists, etc); can lead to a "phobia," or an irrational fear. The connection is not a necessary one, but it is a common one.

So, from the perspective of its own worldview, Marxism is correct to paint the "problem class" as the "capital class;" however, this ideology leads to individuals, quite predictably, becoming fearful, resentful, and even paranoid regarding rich people. This eventually leads to a process of dehumanization which, if ever coupled with state-control, can lead to the genocide of an entire classes of people, as it did under the Soviet Union.

Similarly, from the perspective of its own worldview, Ethno-Nationalism is correct to identify that the overwhelming majority of culture-informing globalists are secularized Jews, they are quite consistent to see that such a group has disproportionately contributed to the creation of media and monetary policies that are harmful to the nation state and traditional values; however, this ideaology leads to individuals, quite predictably, becoming fearful, resentful, and even paranoid regarding Jewish people. This eventually leads to a process of dehumanization which, if ever coupled with state-control, can lead to the genocide of entire race of people, as it did under Nazi Germany.

B0ycey wrote: In other words one wants to discriminate on a random factor such as race and the other wants the Capitalists to not benefit of the labor of others because they were born lucky.


Well, not all capitalists are born rich, and if they ever leave the "labor-class" they are ipso-facto the enemy of the proletariat. That is, if you were a union welder up until the day of the revolution at which point you became the owner of your own welding business, that first day as an owner of a welding business marks you as an enemy of the revolution, even if you have been a proletariat welder up until that time over the span of 40 years.

Interestingly though, both of your examples involving hating a group based on how they were born, the former being born a certain color and the latter being born with a certain degree of wealth. Both are still evil in my opinion.

But I digress,

as to your point; a better analogy would be that the former wants people (as a collective) to have the right of self-determination to decide whom they want to associate with or don't want to associate with in the goal of persevering their own cultural heritage (ethno-nationalists) and the other does not want the capitalist class to benefit from productive labor (marxists) because the means of production should be controlled by labor. (this is the positive take of both sides)

However, the negative take (but still accurate) is that the Marxists want to abolish an entire class of people; while Nazis generally wish for their race to have their own homeland to be left alone. Even the most radical of 1488 Nazis just want for white people to have their own ethno-state, they don't want to kill anyone, ever, if possible; whereas, Marxists want the rich capitalist to either have their wealth confiscated, be killed, or both. Nazis are only ever embracing of such genocidal tendencies towards the one group they believe is actively out to see white people exterminated; namely, the Jews and only ever as an act of self-defense or revenge for a perceived millennia of grievances.

Make no mistake, the reason that Nazis deny the holocaust in the first place is because they are actually, generally-speaking, morally opposed to genocide and can't believe that the "blessed Hitler" would ever have tried to systematically kill anyone, he just wanted Germany preserved for the German people and German values.

That is what actual Nazis believe.

Personally, I think we should give white nationalists an Island homeland somewhere and be done with it. Problem solved. Everyone is happy. :lol:
#14973156
I think we are on similar lines of thinking here. But I would like to address a few points for clarity.

Victoribus Spolia wrote:The Far-Right and Far-Left follow this same sort of psychology of victimization coupled with a hero-complex.


Well I agree. Progressives to me are exactly the same as the far-right in terms of political narrative and strategy but on opposite sides of the political spectrum. But let's not confuse people who fight for equality in protest as the same people who shouts down arguments on the Internet because to them anyone who disagrees with their liberal viewpoint is a Nazi. Conservatives are not Nazis and most liberal thinkers understand that when they disagree with conservative viewpoints. But do you know what? Liberals are not progressives and that is an important distinction also.

Well, not all capitalists are born rich, and if they ever leave the "labor-class" they are ipso-facto the enemy of the proletariat. That is, if you were a union welder up until the day of the revolution at which point you became the owner of your own welding business, that first day as an owner of a welding business marks you as an enemy of the revolution, even if you have been a proletariat welder up until that time over the span of 40 years.


Let's be clear, I am not a Marxist. Although I would like to hope the Marxists on here would not discriminate against the bourgeois welder for being wealthy but see his labor as a contributor to society for which his fruits of labor can be shared within society as a whole. I suspect the grievance with the Marxist is not so much with personal wealth but surplus labor and the fact the bourgeois profit from someone else's work. In other words, not the individual but the system.

However, the negative take (but still accurate) is that the Marxists want to abolish an entire class of people; while Nazis generally wish for their race to have their own homeland to be left alone.


I agree. But I think this is an important distinction that makes one opinion rational and the other irrational. To abolish class reduces bias and improves equality. Bias by race creates inequality. Two view points with very distinct outcomes and as such should not be conflated.

Personally, I think we should give white nationalists an Island homeland somewhere and be done with it. Problem solved. Everyone is happy. :lol:


Amen to that brother. :up:
#14973157
B0ycey wrote:The reason choosing to be a Nazi is not rational is because to be one is based on irrational fear.

The Nazis weren't known for being fearful. If anything, they were known for a lack of fear in prosecuting their interests and instilling fear in others.

B0ycey wrote:The female protester isn't going to steal your rights or take away your job.

I am not afraid of overweight socialist female protesters. I work in high tech. For the most part, it's Asian women who compete in our business.

One Degree wrote:You don’t think fear of Nazis in the US is an irrational fear? You use Nazis and Confederates to justify leftwing violence when neither actually exist as a realistic threat to anyone. The entire ‘political correct’ ideology is based upon irrational fear being sensationalized.

That's a very good point. There are not any elected Nazi politicians anywhere in the United States as far as I know.

B0ycey wrote:What? Fearing a group that is actively against you? No One Degree, that is rational fear and historically been proven to be so.

Since most of these Antifa people are anti-capitalist, do capitalists have a rational fear of Antifa as well?

B0ycey wrote:I don't support any violence. I support the right to protest. Big difference.

Do you support the right of Nazis to protest without being violently attacked by Antifa while the police watch and do nothing, because the Mayor told them to do nothing to protect the Nazis?

Heisenberg wrote:In One Degree's world, a protest march on a street that causes minor inconvenience to the flow of traffic is "violence", while accelerating a car into a crowd of unarmed people with intent to kill and maim is "protest".

I'm curious. You seem to have chosen as your moniker the name of Werner Heisenberg. He was a principal scientist for the Nazi nuclear weapons program. Why do you name yourself for a principal scientists in the Nazi nuclear weapons program?

At any rate, an illegal protest on a street is a riot and is illegal. The protesters on that street were armed with baseball bats at a very minimum.

SpecialOlympian wrote:Bigotry against nazis is good hope that helps.

Should we encourage Heisenberg to change his moniker from the name of one of Nazi Germany's principal scientists for building nuclear weapons?

SpecialOlympian wrote:James Fields became the living avatar of conservative beliefs.

He wasn't a conservative, so that's an hallucinatory stretch. He was mentally ill, so I don't think he was considered virtuous by anyone except those who think that the mentally ill should roam free.

One Degree wrote:I suppose it doesn’t matter to you it was liberals who decided he was the living avatar and not Nazis?

Well, that's why they turned a criminal trial into something more like ritual human sacrifice other than their inability to call for the death penalty.

SpecialOlympian wrote:I know you are really mad that a nazi murderer got convicted but, again, I did not turn him into the one true representation of all conservative thought.

Nazis are not conservatives. They are socialists.
#14973167
I am pretty sure that this is the most prophetic OP I've seen on any forum, anywhere.

Good job, SO.

I never imagined seeing page after page of apologetics on this, day in and day out, from the resident PoFo contingent of the rightwing fringe.

Well played. You exposed plenty of people there.

I was holding on to a thread of hope that One Degree was a slightly decent person, but that thread is broken now. Maz? Well, you exposed him a long time ago. Hindsite? I'm still not convinced he isn't a cleverly written computer program. The rest aren't worth the effort to type their names; the former get a call out because they are the first for me to recall. Verv, for example, is one more for the wall. The rest are all on record here.

Hat's off, SO.
Last edited by Crantag on 17 Dec 2018 20:25, edited 1 time in total.
#14973169
B0ycey wrote:Well I agree. Progressives to me are exactly the same as the far-right in terms of political narrative and strategy but on opposite sides of the political spectrum. But let's not confuse people who fight for equality in protest as the same people who shouts down arguments on the Internet because to them anyone who disagrees with their liberal viewpoint is a Nazi. Conservatives are not Nazis and most liberal thinkers understand that when they disagree with conservative viewpoints. But do you know what? Liberals are not progressives and that is an important distinction also.


Agreed.

B0ycey wrote:Let's be clear, I am not a Marxist. Although I would like to hope the Marxists on here would not discriminate against the bourgeois welder for being wealthy but see his labor as a contributor to society for which his fruits of labor can be shared within society as a whole. I suspect the grievance with the Marxist is not so much with personal wealth but surplus labor and the fact the bourgeois profit from someone else's work. In other words, not the individual but the system.


Correct, but the welding-business-owner (former union-welder) would regard it as a negative development if the business he saved up for 40 years to start was confiscated or handed over to his workers on day two of him owning it, and that if he resisted such, he would likely be executed for the sake of the Revolution or sent off to the Gulag for reeducation.

B0ycey wrote: To abolish class reduces bias and improves equality. Bias by race creates inequality. Two view points with very distinct outcomes and as such should not be conflated.


You are here assuming that equality is a net positive (desirable) and/or rational. I obviously would disagree with this and so would the far-right.

But that misses the point any way and is a separate topic, the question is whether someone is irrational for joining the national-socialists if his desire prior to joining was to see his culture preserved? No, that is a rational choice and the national-socialists will give him more intellectual ammo for debating that view; HOWEVER, they will also, slowly, instill in him an irrational fear and paranoia of others that can become violent; likewise, someone who believes that economic inequality is a global evil, would be rational to join his local Marxist club and they will give him greater intellectual ammo for debating; HOWEVER, they will also, over time, instill in him an irrational fear and paranoia of wealthy people and business owners that can become violent.

B0ycey wrote:Amen to that brother.


Oddly enough, you have just said that you agree with giving the white nationalists their one and only real desire and goal.

:lol:

If White nationalists were given an island by the UN in a manner commensurate to the Jews getting their own ethno-state in Israel, white nationalism would end over night and their claim that such has been being prevented by a global Jewish conspiracy would be finally put to rest.

See, was that so hard?
#14973170
Crantag wrote:I am pretty sure that this is the most prophetic OP I've seen on any forum, anywhere.

Good job, SO.

I never imagined seeing page after page of apologetics on this, day in and day out, from the resident PoFo contingent of the rightwing fringe.

Well played. You exposed plenty of people there.

I was holding on to a thread of hope that One Degree was a slightly decent person, but that thread is broken now. Maz? Well, you exposed him a long time ago. Hindsite? I'm still not convinced he isn't a cleverly written computer program.

Hat's off, SO.


Image

Actual picture of SO with Crantag
#14973174
Crantag wrote:I exclude you, VS, even though I don't agree with you on almost anything.

Although, I skipped through a lot of posts, so I can't say for certain if you should be excluded.

SO did a job on these fools.

You are a fool, but not an utter fool.


:lol:

I'm touched.
#14973176
Crantag wrote:I exclude you, VS, even though I don't agree with you on almost anything.

Although, I skipped through a lot of posts, so I can't say for certain if you should be excluded.

SO did a job on these fools.

You are a fool, but not an utter fool.


Right back atcha. I thought you were trying to be an objective debater, but this is not the first time that you have demonstrated you refuse to acknowledge any argument that doesn’t measure up to the right level of acceptance of your own bigotry. Your post offered nothing except insults. It is obvious your belief in your own tolerance is just a facade when you are actually looking for any excuse to put someone on your enemy’s list. Total bigotry hidden from yourself. Lol.
#14973189
Victoribus Spolia wrote:Correct, but the welding-business-owner (former union-welder) would regard it as a negative development if the business he saved up for 40 years to start was confiscated or handed over to his workers on day two of him owning it, and that if he resisted such, he would likely be executed for the sake of the Revolution or sent off to the Gulag for reeducation.


Perhaps in the Soviet system. Does revolution require execution? That is a debate from another thread I guess. And maybe the welder might feel aggrieved. But if the state provided for him and he accepted the system I suspect his skills would result in him profiting in some form regardless.

You are here assuming that equality is a net positive (desirable) and/or rational. I obviously would disagree with this and so would the far-right.

But that misses the point any way and is a separate topic, the question is whether someone is irrational for joining the national-socialists if his desire prior to joining was to see his culture preserved? No, that is a rational choice and the national-socialists will give him more intellectual ammo for debating that view; HOWEVER, they will also, slowly, instill in him an irrational fear and paranoia of others that can become violent;


Perhaps you are right that someone who desires their culture to be preserved over someone elses should consider becoming a Nazi. But really that way not my point. It is irrational to believe that the only way to preserve your culture is to suppress someone elses and to believe such a thing is based on irrational fear. Although I would suspect that the reason why most people become Nazis is a belief that their race is superior to that of others and not a loss of culture.

Oddly enough, you have just said that you agree with giving the white nationalists their one and only real desire and goal.

:lol:

If White nationalists were given an island by the UN in a manner commensurate to the Jews getting their own ethno-state in Israel, white nationalism would end over night and their claim that such has been being prevented by a global Jewish conspiracy would be finally put to rest.

See, was that so hard?


America is a country created by migrants of different cultures. Its culture is not white supremacy but of many different cultures from numeral races and creeds. I have no problem with white supremacists finding a desert island in the middle of the ocean somewhere to live if they are adamant to seperate themselves from other races rather than have them dictate their own culture on a country that historically does not have a distinct one.
#14973198
B0ycey wrote: Does revolution require execution?


They call it liquidation and orthodox marxism teaches that it is necessary.

B0ycey wrote:And maybe the welder might feel aggrieved. But if the state provided for him and he accepted the system I suspect his skills would result in him profiting in some form regardless.


I don't know if thats the point, but I understand what you mean.

B0ycey wrote:It is irrational to believe that the only way to preserve your culture is to suppress someone elses and to believe such a thing is based on irrational fear.


This isn't what ethno-nationalists want though, nor would anything I said suggest such.

B0ycey wrote:Although I would suspect that the reason why most people become Nazis is a belief that their race is superior to that of others and not a loss of culture.


Such is not mutually exclusive. When I was a white nationalist in the alt. right, I believed that history bore out that European Christendom was superior to all other human civilizations in history, a belief that I techically still hold to, the difference is that white nationalists believe that western civilization was superior BECAUSE of something genetic or natural to white peoples. I believe western civilization is superior because of a combination of factors, but mostly because of Christianity.

That being said, National-Socialists are proud of being white and believe their race is superior to others; however, they are anti-imperialists overall, they don't want to rule other races, they just want their own space.

This was one of the reasons why I first left (among several others), I didn't think they went far enough (this was when I became an Imperialist, which is what I was when I joined POFO).

B0ycey wrote:America is a country created by migrants of different cultures. Its culture is not white supremacy but of many different cultures from numeral races and creeds.


Agreed.

B0ycey wrote:I have no problem with white supremacists finding a desert island in the middle of the ocean somewhere to live if they are adamant to seperate themselves from other races rather than have them dictate their own culture on a land that historically does not have a distinct one.


So lets give it to them and be done with it, hell they might even be prosperous like other homogeneous and racist nations, like Japan.

I for one would wish them the best, but I would not want to live there permanently in spite of having many common conservative values, because though I agree with them on many conservative values (opposition to egalitarianism and hedonism), I would fundamentally oppose their reliance on a powerful state to accomplish these goals as such is an affront to liberty and only creates a condition of traditional hierarchy by either the threat of force or by tax-funded bribery. I am an ANCAP after all, i prefer my traditional hierarchies all natural.

But see @B0ycey how constructive dialogue can be regarding even Nazis when we take a moment to step back and see them as real people with actual desires and concerns of a rational nature? Its helps us to make more accurate critiques and even reach areas of compromise.

This was a great conversation to come out a generally shitty thread. Thanks.
#14973277
Pants-of-dog wrote:Then you should focus on the facts rather than on the opinions and feelings of your opponents.

How do you think we feel watching you guys defend a racist murderer whose ideology threatened the entire free world within living memory?


But that last part here is largely irrelevant.

Do you honestly think that the Nazis are on a verge of a massive success here? Do you even care about the nuances in the right concerning ideological differences..?

I don't really get why you bring this emotional baggage with you everywhere. Why not just be calm and look at the objective facts without making whinging about "Nazis" the main plot, as if it is the thirties and all this is relevant.
#14973280
Verv wrote:But that last part here is largely irrelevant.

Do you honestly think that the Nazis are on a verge of a massive success here? Do you even care about the nuances in the right concerning ideological differences..?

I don't really get why you bring this emotional baggage with you everywhere. Why not just be calm and look at the objective facts without making whinging about "Nazis" the main plot, as if it is the thirties and all this is relevant.


You have spent several pages ignoring the facts whenever I challenged you on them.

I am glad that you agree that these emotional judgements are irrelevant. I hope you stop making them.

Now, let us look back at the facts:

1. He was not hit with a bat before he rammed into the crowd.
2. The crowd was not a mob, nor was it acting threatening to the racist murderer before he attacked the crowd with his car.
3. He did not start slowing down until after he plowed into the crowd.
#14973294
Now you are actually being very obtuse. I've gone head to head, fact to fact, page after page with you, and have kept on insisting on how I believe the events transpired.

Indeed, I hunted down videos to provide here. I quoted sources. I quoted sources that tried to provide objective analysis and were critical of the claims that I made (that Jacksonville website).

I think you also do not understand how the burden of proof works in America: you have to prove your assertions far more than I have to prove mine. I only have to provide a basis for reasonable doubt.

I am honestly dumbfounded that you want to keep pursuing these same angles of discussion in spite of the fact that we have been pretty thoroughly through them.

I am not sure how long I can engage the same material, over and over, especially when it is just assertions without a proven basis.
#14973324
Verv wrote:Do you honestly think that the Nazis are on a verge of a massive success here?


No. Charlottesville was a gigantic disaster for them. It was the largest single gathering they had managed to plan and it killed their hopes of organizing as a cogent, if minor, political force. The next protest after Chartlottesville was something like a dozen dipshits and several thousand counter protesters.

Crantag wrote:I am pretty sure that this is the most prophetic OP I've seen on any forum, anywhere.

Good job, SO.

I never imagined seeing page after page of apologetics on this, day in and day out, from the resident PoFo contingent of the rightwing fringe.

Well played. You exposed plenty of people there.

I was holding on to a thread of hope that One Degree was a slightly decent person, but that thread is broken now. Maz? Well, you exposed him a long time ago. Hindsite? I'm still not convinced he isn't a cleverly written computer program. The rest aren't worth the effort to type their names; the former get a call out because they are the first for me to recall. Verv, for example, is one more for the wall. The rest are all on record here.

Hat's off, SO.


It was so, so easy lmfao.
#14973327
@Verv

That entire post was devoid of any argument and evidence.

Please note that I asked you three times to provide evidence for your claim that the crowd was a mob that was threatening the racist murderer. You did not provide it.

Now, we looked at the evidence for the claim that the car was hit by a bat before the fatal incident. It was weak, and not corroborated by any objective source. Moreover, the description of the police videotape does not mention anyone striking the car with a bat.

So, I think we can say that the claim is wrong and the car was never struck by a bat.

To be honest, I think I have addressed every single factual claim made by you or anyone else who is defending the racist murderer.

At this point, there can be no reasonable doubt about the guilt if the racist murderer.
  • 1
  • 26
  • 27
  • 28
  • 29
  • 30
  • 41
Russia-Ukraine War 2022

Yale course on Ukrainian history: https://www.yout[…]

He is still under checks and balances while other[…]

So the evidence shows that it was almost certainly[…]

Israel-Palestinian War 2023

The claim is a conditional statement. This is one[…]