Republican politician's neo-Nazi group charged with beating black man in restaurant

[JosephDredd]

Still haven't admitted.

Lmao #poty nomination

 

[My Spot]

Lmao #poty nomination

So much for being "done" with me.

 

[JosephDredd]

So much for being "done" with me.

Lol I never said I was done with you. Jfc you're illiterate.

 

[My Spot]

Lol I never said I was done with you. Jfc you're illiterate.

 

[BOWHUNTER]

Hey, glad to see you're still posting stupid shit after your stupid shit in that other thread.

1. Neo-Nazis were mentioned in the article. Please read an actual news article for once in your life.

2. Neo-Nazis and their ilk really seem to love the fact that they can arm themselves with anything they want for the coming civil/race/whatever war.

So can coloured folk. As long as they are not felons....

 

[JosephDredd]

So can coloured folk. As long as they are not felons....

What does that have to do with his inability to understand gun control?

 

[Madmick]

Any comparison of Australia's 10-20K per year intake of UNHCR refugees with America's southern border or the European migration crisis is idiotic.

I did not equivocate on the grounds of proportion, and I did not abide or misuse terms like "genocide". There is serious injustice going on, sometimes directed at these straggling Boers, and there is institutional support of it in some cases.

Calls to prioritize South African farmers over "regional" refugees...why do extra-national refugees who are closer to Australia get priority? If Australia is directly involved in causing neighbor's migrant floods, or risks suffering instability to them personally if they don't address it, then in those instances it makes sense, but where Australia isn't responsible for migrants seeking their refuge, what priority of entitlement do those migrants closer regionally have?

This immigrant group has skills, and at least some wealth (whatever can't be taken from them which is where most of their equity lies). Many of them speak English. They are self-sufficient. They're westernized. It's a more desirable group, easier to integrate, and their own government is oppressing them. It's not Muslims fleeing their own cultures, more likely to bring it with them, including radicalized Jihadis, all because Muslims rallied around the Arab Spring to open up a violent rebellion against a non-Muslim dictator who is their most secular leader; a rebellion that we Americans unfortunately supported because we bought into the myth of the moderate Middle Eastern Muslim, and the notion the rebellion was centered around a moderate core we could assist.

Thanks, Obama (that one ain't sarcastic...he fucked up).

The Boers aren't violently opposing their government, are they? Are they fleeing a rebellion their own national population undertook? I don't care what you Australians do, but I am keen to help these groups, as well as the Coptics and other Christians who actually are experiencing genocide, in that region and North Africa, than I am to help impoverished Muslims from Syria and the Middle East. Now, I'm not Trump. I'm all for controlled legal immigration from "shithole" countries that are the source of many of our absolute finest immigrant groups-- nay, our finest peoples-- including Muslim ones, but I don't really care to take in the mass Muslim hordes. Not my people, not my priority. That's in spite of the fact we actually played a hand in exacerbating their problem. That's why 200K seemed reasonable. No more than that, thanks.

Does that make me "Alt-Right"? Does it make me "Alt-Lite"?

As for the "alt-right" and the newer terminology, I don't care about the distinction. It's not how personally repulsive they or their beliefs are which bothers me, it's their impact. I don't care how many blogs, "news aggregators" or online shitposters spamming memes and videos about Swedish immigration or South African farmers and other refugees are White Supremacists, White Nationalists or actually goose stepping Neo Nazis, I care about their political and social effect.
In that sense there's really little to differentiate between Jared Taylor or Richard Spencer and the likes of Lauren Southern or Bannon.
Bannon was happy to use and be used by the white nationalists until it became a political liability. That's the same story that's been played out with far-right politics globally, from Marine Le Penn's "reform" of her Father's party to the likes of Pauline Hanson dropping her anti-Asian rhetoric to talk about Muslims, or the emergence of countless global imitators.
Shifting that Overton window to normalise the worst trends in identity politics and take advantage of populist discontent.

What a garbage pretense. The left openly panders to its radical base, too. They didn't shy from #antifa until the Berkeley disaste, and There were widespread #BLM protests in places like Britain, for example, if not Australia.

Here is my central concern. I want greater clarity and more responsible, sincere application of these terms.

Was Cernovich retweeting Spencer, or advocating for people to join his website, or to take part in his protests, or to read his literature? I haven't seen that. I've seen you assemble a prosecution entirely around loosely defined terms and circumstantially shared IP. If you want to convince me this man is a white supremacist, or a white nationalist, then bring me the proof. Show me the policy suggestions, not the satire. Show me the language where he espouses these ideals.

He's despicable. I despise him. Maybe you aren't aware of that from the James Gunn / Guardians of the Galaxy thread. But I separate that contempt from making accusations against him of being something he openly rejects.

 

[Ruprecht]

I did not equivocate on the grounds of proportion, and I did not abide or misuse terms like "genocide". There is serious injustice going on, sometimes directed at these straggling Boers, and there is institutional support of it in some cases.

Calls to prioritize South African farmers over "regional" refugees...why do extra-national refugees who are closer to Australia get priority? If Australia is directly involved in causing neighbor's migrant floods, or risks suffering instability to them personally if they don't address it, then in those instances it makes sense, but where Australia isn't responsible for migrants seeking their refuge, what priority of entitlement do those migrants closer regionally have?

This immigrant group has skills, and at least some wealth (whatever can't be taken from them which is where most of their equity lies). Many of them speak English. They are self-sufficient. They're westernized. It's a more desirable group, easier to integrate, and their own government is oppressing them. It's not Muslims fleeing their own cultures, more likely to bring it with them, including radicalized Jihadis, all because Muslims rallied around the Arab Spring to open up a violent rebellion against a non-Muslim dictator who is their most secular leader; a rebellion that we Americans unfortunately supported because we bought into the myth of the moderate Middle Eastern Muslim, and the notion the rebellion was centered around a moderate core we could assist.

Thanks, Obama (that one ain't sarcastic...he fucked up).

The Boers aren't violently opposing their government, are they? Are they fleeing a rebellion their own national population undertook? I don't care what you Australians do, but I am keen to help these groups, as well as the Coptics and other Christians who actually are experiencing genocide, in that region and North Africa, than I am to help impoverished Muslims from Syria and the Middle East. Now, I'm not Trump. I'm all for controlled legal immigration from "shithole" countries that are the source of many of our absolute finest immigrant groups-- nay, our finest peoples-- including Muslim ones, but I don't really care to take in the mass Muslim hordes. Not my people, not my priority. That's in spite of the fact we actually played a hand in exacerbating their problem. That's why 200K seemed reasonable. No more than that, thanks.

Does that make me "Alt-Right"? Does it make me "Alt-Lite"?

What a garbage pretense. The left openly panders to its radical base, too. They didn't shy from #antifa until the Berkeley disaste, and There were widespread #BLM protests in places like Britain, for example, if not Australia.

Here is my central concern. I want greater clarity and more responsible, sincere application of these terms.

Was Cernovich retweeting Spencer, or advocating for people to join his website, or to take part in his protests, or to read his literature? I haven't seen that. I've seen you assemble a prosecution entirely around loosely defined terms and circumstantially shared IP. If you want to convince me this man is a white supremacist, or a white nationalist, then bring me the proof. Show me the policy suggestions, not the satire. Show me the language where he espouses these ideals.

He's despicable. I despise him. Maybe you aren't aware of that from the James Gunn / Guardians of the Galaxy thread. But I separate that contempt from making accusations against him of being something he openly rejects.

The UNHCR refugees get priority because of the '51 Refugee convention and the '67 Refugee protocol (where Australia officially withdrew it's stated reservations).
In fact we are already not fulfilling our obligations by turning away boat people regardless of situation. The convention labels refugees as those, "unable or unwilling to return to their country of origin owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted". That definition of refugee explicitly referring to those that have left their homes and applied for asylum. Then there's the Dublin Regulations which some states operate on, the idea that the convention and protocol "implicitly" include some obligation to seek asylum in the first safe country arrived at (Australia doesn't apply the Dublin Regulations, but since they apply in other states it makes sense for us to prioritise local applicants).
There is an exception to this, but the current events do not qualify the Boers for the In Country Special Humanitarian Visa (typically civil war related where they need help leaving, usually less than 100 individuals per year qualify).
Dutton prioritising South African farmers is racial identity politics. Pandering. Absolute trash. They haven't even left their farms and applied for asylum (although we've had quite a few that have migrated here through the regular channels). We have plenty of applicants, including those on our own doorsteps, who have left their homes and specifically applied for asylum in Australia. Aside from proximity, prioritising according to need, taking the most persecuted minorities first (we do in fact prioritise the Syriac Christians, Yazidi and Druze from Syria, and the Hazara Ismailis from Afghanistan as part of our "emergency intake" owing to those situations), taking those least able to take care of themselves such as families and children, all makes a lot more sense. Especially when we place a hard cap on how many we'll take, and often take considerably less than that anyway.
Our immigration is tightly controlled. Refugees are less than 10 percent of our migrant intake. Precisely why the blanket application of alt-right Identity politics to our local situation is complete rubbish.
Not that far-right nationalists whinging about immigration on the basis of ethnicity is anything remotely new. The Greeks and Italians faced it. The Vietnamese and Cambodians faced it. Now the Afghans and Syrians face it. In fact it's some of the same old individuals that have latched on to the new alt-right popularity (although they no longer mention the "asians" publicly, and for most of them whinging about Greeks and Italians was before their time).
No, I'd call you a nationalist, but not someone that advocates reactionary identity politics as the basis of their nationalist agenda. That's my broad scope definition of the "Alt-Right" and it's how the term is usually used by the media here (the Australian isn't a remotely left-wing paper by the way).
They were happy to stand with the white nationalists when the numbers were helping their cause. They adopted the "alt-right" label and popularised it. They are still advocating the same identity politics, with the same narratives. So I don't care how they want to divide up their group or "revise" the origins of their own narratives and propaganda.
Call it reactionary, populist, right-wing identity politics if you prefer an even broader label. It's all alt-right with me.

 

[Madmick]

The UNHCR refugees get priority because of the '51 Refugee convention and the '67 Refugee protocol (where Australia officially withdrew it's stated reservations).

In fact we are already not fulfilling our obligations by turning away boat people regardless of situation. The convention labels refugees as those, "unable or unwilling to return to their country of origin owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted". That definition of refugee explicitly referring to those that have left their homes and applied for asylum. Then there's the Dublin Regulations which some states operate on, the idea that the convention and protocol "implicitly" include some obligation to seek asylum in the first safe country arrived at (Australia doesn't apply the Dublin Regulations, but since they apply in other states it makes sense for us to prioritise local applicants).

There is an exception to this, but the current events do not qualify the Boers for the In Country Special Humanitarian Visa (typically civil war related where they need help leaving, usually less than 100 individuals per year qualify).

Dutton prioritising South African farmers is racial identity politics. Pandering. Absolute trash. They haven't even left their farms and applied for asylum (although we've had quite a few that have migrated here through the regular channels). We have plenty of applicants, including those on our own doorsteps, who have left their homes and specifically applied for asylum in Australia. Aside from proximity, prioritising according to need, taking the most persecuted minorities first (we do in fact prioritise the Syriac Christians, Yazidi and Druze from Syria, and the Hazara Ismailis from Afghanistan as part of our "emergency intake" owing to those situations), taking those least able to take care of themselves such as families and children, all makes a lot more sense. Especially when we place a hard cap on how many we'll take, and often take considerably less than that anyway.

I have not withdrawn my stated reservations, and I despise the ineffectual and incompetent UN. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

I'm looking for an argument rooted in reason rather than law. If that argument is to be one based in a mutual international effort to more evenly spread the refugees, as managed by the U.N., then I ask you, what region is assigned to South Africa? Who is to help them? And, even with their greater paucity of requests, how many are being met? You say that Dutton's rhetoric is complete trash, and that Boers aren't applying for asylum, but one Google turned this up:
Peter Dutton's department blocked white South African farmer's asylum bid
"This week Dutton received a written request from a man in the South African community to “fast track” a quota of South Africans. It came amid reports of government MPs discussing options to take several thousand in one go, likening it to the 12,000 humanitarian visas given to Syrians fleeing the deadly civil war.

The first decision to deny a white South African farmer’s asylum bid, which was upheld by the administrative appeals tribunal in September last year, involved a man who asked for protection from the immigration department in January 2015, because he “fears harm on the basis of his race” should he return home.

The man told the immigration department he was the victim of a serious attack at his home in 1998, where his wife and another five people were murdered, and he was left with serious injuries. The claim was corroborated by media reporting.

But the immigration department knocked back his asylum request in July 2015, arguing there was little evidence of racially motivated crime against white farmers or white South Africans."


Frankly, I don't care why they're being targeted, or that this article concerns only a few cases. I'm not convinced them being targeted isn't race-based, either, or that there isn't a serious racial dimension, here, but for the Australians this may be convenient to ignore, or more difficult to prove with an unsympathetic SA government:
South Africa votes through motion that could lead to seizure of land from white farmers without compensation
They're being targeted, and their government clearly isn't interested in (or capable of) adequately protecting them. Rarely is it profitable to kill people. Perhaps they aren't applying for Australian asylum because this is how Australia treats them, and that's why they've turned to Russia; a story I believed was RT "fake news", at first, designed to continue disrupting western social politics, as it still isn't being covered in the western press, but which appears to be genuine, and even the West already knew it had a racial component.

BTW, none of this derail concerning South Africa, and your country's echo of my country's political movement, has anything to do with developing a convincing link between Cernovich and the "Alt-Right" of white supremacists and white nationalists as it exists, and as it entails those ideals. If you want to pretend the above headlines aren't deeply troubling, be my guest, but it builds nothing towards substantiating any contention that smearing specific individuals here as "White Nationalists" or "White Supremacists" via proxy code words is appropriate.

His Wiki should say, "Former Alt-Right", but it doesn't. Any reference to him should carry that courtesy. He has openly rejected that movement. Our liberal press doesn't care. The ADL and SLPC don't care. Just because Cernovich doesn't care about the truth doesn't mean it's okay for these bodies to behave the same way. It makes them no better than him or Trump.

Our immigration is tightly controlled. Refugees are less than 10 percent of our migrant intake. Precisely why the blanket application of alt-right Identity politics to our local situation is complete rubbish.

Not that far-right nationalists whinging about immigration on the basis of ethnicity is anything remotely new. The Greeks and Italians faced it. The Vietnamese and Cambodians faced it. Now the Afghans and Syrians face it. In fact it's some of the same old individuals that have latched on to the new alt-right popularity (although they no longer mention the "asians" publicly, and for most of them whinging about Greeks and Italians was before their time).

We had our own whinging about past immigrant groups that has been forgotten by many here as they've been moved to the "privileged" column.

No, I'd call you a nationalist, but not someone that advocates reactionary identity politics as the basis of their nationalist agenda. That's my broad scope definition of the "Alt-Right" and it's how the term is usually used by the media here (the Australian isn't a remotely left-wing paper by the way).
They were happy to stand with the white nationalists when the numbers were helping their cause, they are still advocating the same identity politics, with the same narratives. So I don't care how they want to divide up their group or "revise" the origins of their own narratives and propaganda.
Call it populist right-wing identity politics if you prefer and even broader label. It's all alt-right with me.

Again, it isn't compelling to assign concrete beliefs or labels to political figures by the crowds to whom they pander. Everybody is trying to win.

You are conflating your own incredulity to their sincerity with explicit self-avowed testimony. Your cynicism is well-founded. Your associative accusation (via label) is not.

 

[Ruprecht]

I have not withdrawn my stated reservations, and I despise the ineffectual and incompetent UN. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

I'm looking for an argument rooted in reason rather than law. If that argument is to be one based in a mutual international effort to more evenly spread the refugees, as managed by the U.N., then I ask you, what region is assigned to South Africa? Who is to help them? And, even with their greater paucity of requests, how many are being met? You say that Dutton's rhetoric is complete trash, and that Boers aren't applying for asylum, but one Google turned this up:
Peter Dutton's department blocked white South African farmer's asylum bid
"This week Dutton received a written request from a man in the South African community to “fast track” a quota of South Africans. It came amid reports of government MPs discussing options to take several thousand in one go, likening it to the 12,000 humanitarian visas given to Syrians fleeing the deadly civil war.

The first decision to deny a white South African farmer’s asylum bid, which was upheld by the administrative appeals tribunal in September last year, involved a man who asked for protection from the immigration department in January 2015, because he “fears harm on the basis of his race” should he return home.

The man told the immigration department he was the victim of a serious attack at his home in 1998, where his wife and another five people were murdered, and he was left with serious injuries. The claim was corroborated by media reporting.

But the immigration department knocked back his asylum request in July 2015, arguing there was little evidence of racially motivated crime against white farmers or white South Africans."


Frankly, I don't care why they're being targeted, or that this article concerns only a few cases. I'm not convinced them being targeted isn't race-based, either, or that there isn't a serious racial dimension, here, but for the Australians this may be convenient to ignore, or more difficult to prove with an unsympathetic SA government:
South Africa votes through motion that could lead to seizure of land from white farmers without compensation
They're being targeted, and their government clearly isn't interested in (or capable of) adequately protecting them. Rarely is it profitable to kill people. Perhaps they aren't applying for Australian asylum because this is how Australia treats them, and that's why they've turned to Russia; a story I believed was RT "fake news", at first, designed to continue disrupting western social politics, as it still isn't being covered in the western press, but which appears to be genuine, and even the West already knew it had a racial component.

BTW, none of this derail concerning South Africa, and your country's echo of my country's political movement, has anything to do with developing a convincing link between Cernovich and the "Alt-Right" of white supremacists and white nationalists as it exists, and as it entails those ideals. If you want to pretend the above headlines aren't deeply troubling, be my guest, but it builds nothing towards substantiating any contention that smearing specific individuals here as "White Nationalists" or "White Supremacists" via proxy code words is appropriate.

His Wiki should say, "Former Alt-Right", but it doesn't. Any reference to him should carry that courtesy. He has openly rejected that movement. Our liberal press doesn't care. The ADL and SLPC don't care. Just because Cernovich doesn't care about the truth doesn't mean it's okay for these bodies to behave the same way. It makes them no better than him or Trump.


We had our own whinging about past immigrant groups that has been forgotten by many here as they've been moved to the "privileged" column.


Again, it isn't compelling to assign concrete beliefs or labels to political figures by the crowds to whom they pander. Everybody is trying to win.

You are conflating your own incredulity to their sincerity with explicit self-avowed testimony. Your cynicism is well-founded. Your associative accusation (via label) is not.

Yes, they have to leave their homes and apply for asylum or they won't qualify. The guy in that article had no chance of a successful application because he lived in Australia on and off for 17 years after the incident which he claims spurred his asylum application, and only applied when his existing visa expired (based on a relationship with an Australian national which he ceased to be in) and he faced deportation.
If they were recognised by the UNHCR they have a high chance of being accepted, however Australia's UNHCR says they have received precisely 0 such applications, and they simply don't meet the requirements for In Country Humanitarian Visas (almost no-one does). Of course White South African farmers aren't the most effected by violent crime in South Africa, and they have the option of moving to the much safer suburban enclaves. Humanitarian visas aren't lifestyle guarantees.
This is all besides the point though. The point is Cernovich (and the rest of that group) took the label of Alt-Right, popularised the term and pushed identical reactionary identity politics to the existing groups that went by that name. As I pointed out, Breitbart itself (Yiannopolous) accepted Spencer as "alt-right" back at the same time when Bannon said that Breitbart was a platform for the Alt-Right. Bannon said that in July 2016 and Yiannopolous wrote his piece with the Big Tent definition of Alt-Right before that in March 2016 (explicitly including Spencer). Then when overt racism became too politically damaging (after Spencer had his little rally, recycled some Nazi slogans and they were filmed giving the old "Sieg Heil!") they all decided to split and rebrand, with Cernovich going back and deleting all his "White Genocide" material. It's still the same political movement. I'm glad there's a faction that now draws the line before outright white nationalism, white supremacy and goose stepping neo-nazis. That's great, there's a gradient to how bad they are and they aren't the worst. Still, they have no reason to call foul on people using the label they gave themselves or saying they associated with the white nationalists. Because they clearly did.
Trying to broaden their political appeal by rebranding is a common tactic. Like Marine Le Pen ousting her old man for broader political appeal. One of the local crew to be popularised as part of the broader "alt-right" is Blair Cottrell who also swears he's not a neo-nazi or a facist (appeared on Alex Jones not long ago). ...which really makes you question why he used to spend so much time telling everyone to read Mein Kampf , admiring Hitler and spouting anti-semitic conspiracy theories. These days of course he just talks about immigration and Islam (with a bit of Alex Jones style "globalist" CTer in there).

 

[PainIsLIfe]

Steve Smith seems to have slipped by me; I did not know he was one of the several neo-Nazi Republicans in the game right now.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-loving-skinheads-face-charges-for-beating-black-man



Some details on the attack itself:

http://www.thecitizen.us/article/racially-motivated-attack-reported



Lately I've been getting some pushback from some people who feel my coverage leads to unfair discussions. So, in the interest of community, I thought I'd highlight these tidbits from the above article:



I thought I'd highlight this passage to make it easy for dumb shits to claim there's no racism in America. Clearly, it only exists in pockets here and there or this man would not be unfamiliar with being beaten because he's black.



I chose to highlight this passage to make it easy for you-know-who to say that it just doesn't make sense for a black man to act like a decent, optimistic human being and to have continued with his activities. Clearly, there are holes in the man's story and he was either provoking these people or was there to burglarize the restaurant.

Also, this will aid him in his deduction of the true facts:

https://pittsburgh.cbslocal.com/2018/07/17/avalon-jackman-inn-assault-ethnic-intimidation-charges/



Okay, I think I've done a pretty good job with this one. Multiple sources, presented pieces of the story that racists and anti-racists alike can enjoy. Discuss responsibly.

Unless you live in PA, I'm not sure how you'd know anything about this guy. He was elected to the committee of the republican party for his county - originally using his own write in vote and subsequently re-elected with 69 votes. It's not like he has a public office where anyone would know his name.

 

[PainIsLIfe]

This is the same stupid thing that dipshits were saying in the Arthur Jones thread. You know, the Republican politician who led the American Nazi party and called himself a Nazi?

You fell behind in your alt-right talking points. They moved on from this one pretty quickly because of how stupid it was.

Arthur Jones ran unopposed in a primary for a district that was going to be won by the democrat currently in office. The RNC repudiated the guy, the IL gop repudiated the guy and encouraged members not to vote for him in the general - not sure how much more want from republicans.

 

[JosephDredd]

Arthur Jones ran unopposed in a primary for a district that was going to be won by the democrat currently in office. The RNC repudiated the guy, the IL gop repudiated the guy and encouraged members not to vote for him in the general - not sure how much more want from republicans.

In the context of what you're referring to, stop saying he's not a Nazi when he calls himself a Nazi and recently led the American Nazi party. That is what many dumb shits here were arguing: that he's not a Nazi because Nazis haven't existed since 1945.

 

[Quipling]

In the context of what you're referring to, stop saying he's not a Nazi when he calls himself a Nazi and recently led the American Nazi party. That is what many dumb shits here were arguing: that he's not a Nazi because Nazis haven't existed since 1945.

Pretty sure that was palis and Byron carter

Edit: also bloodworth and possibly tck

 

[PainIsLIfe]

In the context of what you're referring to, stop saying he's not a Nazi when he calls himself a Nazi and recently led the American Nazi party. That is what many dumb shits here were arguing: that he's not a Nazi because Nazis haven't existed since 1945.

Ok, I get that.

I'm not familiar with that thread and thought you were just using him as a generic example of republicans.