Why Is The "White Supremacist" Movement So Strong?

[RedStar]

If that's true, then why did the document they wrote ensure those rights for everyone irrespective of class?

Rights as ideals are one thing, but political power is another. People did not have political power irrespective of class.

I'm sure. What does that have to do with anything?

It means people need to stop worshiping them.

There ya go. Wasn't so hard, was it?

I never claimed the ideals didn't have merit.

[quadraphonics]

Can you point out a country in the world that has real free speech?

I can point out quite a few wherein the state is not allowed to persecute people because of their words or political associations.

I can also recognize an evasive tactic and dishonest qualifier when I see one. Which is to say that I read your response as a concession of the point.

Balerion, I don't argue with people who think I'm a "forum-trolling communist".

That is the exactly opposite of what he said. Although he'd have been perfectly accurate to describe you as such, and I note that you expend a great deal of energy arguing with me despite my having repeatedly characterized you in equivalent terms. Which is to say, again: you're just blustering. It's obvious that you come here for exactly that reason.

[quadraphonics]

I do. Your point is irrelevant. They did not even intend their "ideas" for the masses. Individualism was thought to be the individualism of the elite, among the intellectuals and property-owners. Some of the "Founding Fathers" supported some rather reactionary proposals.

Do some of their ideas have merit? Yes. But even then, so what? Ideals don't run the real world. Material forces do.

Well, the course of the forces of the material world ended up extending the right to vote, and speak, and associate freely, to all classes, genders and races, regardless of what the Founders thought or intended about that. So your own reasoning there argues against your point. Good job.

[quadraphonics]

Rights as ideals are one thing, but political power is another. People did not have political power irrespective of class.

Let's recall that your entire complaint here is based on the fact that low-class people - such as the white supremacists in question - do indeed have the rights enshrined in the Constitution, in theory as well as fact, regardless of what the Founders might have intended.

It means people need to stop worshiping them.

In the specific sense of abolishing freedom of speech and association, you mean.

I never claimed the ideals didn't have merit.

Yes you did.

Aren't people entitled to their opinions, even if you don't like them?

Nah.

The Constitution was written by slave-owning aristocrats nearly 250 years ago. Why should we care?

[Balerion]

Rights as ideals are one thing, but political power is another. People did not have political power irrespective of class.

They do now. No one ever said the Framers were perfect, or that their original ideas could not be improved upon.

It means people need to stop worshiping them.

Who worships them? Do you ever stay on-topic?

I never claimed the ideals didn't have merit.

Sure you did. Just a few posts ago you said: "The Constitution was written by slave-owning aristocrats nearly 250 years ago. Why should we care?" You dismissed their ideals out of hand based on an overly-simplistic interpretation of their collective character (with no regard whatsoever to who they were as individuals, of course; if they were a people unto themselves you would be guilty of bigotry).

[RedStar]

I can point out quite a few wherein the state is not allowed to persecute people because of their words or political associations.

Please do so. I imagine the United States will not be among them, considering that it is illegal to be a communist in the United States, and I'll not have to remind you of Joseph McCarthy's wonderful legacy.

I can also recognize an evasive tactic and dishonest qualifier when I see one. Which is to say that I read your response as a concession of the point.

No, it's more like a recognition that political ideals rarely manifest themselves in the real world.

Well, the course of the forces of the material world ended up extending the right to vote, and speak, and associate freely, to all classes, genders and races, regardless of what the Founders thought or intended about that. So your own reasoning there argues against your point. Good job.

That's true, but it also means there are forces which oppose the emancipation of the masses. Hence, class struggle. We are not given our "rights", we take them by force.

In the specific sense of abolishing freedom of speech and association, you mean.

It doesn't exist in the first place. And no, in the sense of suppressing racist and backwards organizations like white supremacist groups. For Pete's sake, at the very least, deal with the Aryan Brotherhood (confirmed criminal organization).

They do now. No one ever said the Framers were perfect, or that their original ideas could not be improved upon.

They can, but that doesn't mean all their ideas were good ideas.

Sure you did. Just a few posts ago you said: "The Constitution was written by slave-owning aristocrats nearly 250 years ago. Why should we care?" You dismissed their ideals out of hand based on an overly-simplistic interpretation of their collective character (with no regard whatsoever to who they were as individuals, of course; if they were a people unto themselves you would be guilty of bigotry).

I'm responding to your statement about the Constitution being "in the way" of my "ideas", as if we must continue to care about old colonial documents. My position is that there is no reason to care. That is all. That's all I said.

[quadraphonics]

Please do so. I imagine the United States will not be among them, considering that it is illegal to be a communist in the United States,

That's not true. Where do you get this nonsense?

and I'll not have to remind you of Joseph McCarthy's wonderful legacy.

McCarthy is considered a villain in the modern American public consciousness. To be compared to him or his tactics carries strongly negative connotations.

No, it's more like a recognition that political ideals rarely manifest themselves in the real world.

That's great. Meanwhile, back in topic-land, your complaint is exactly that the ideals of the right to free speech and association are, in fact, extended to various low-class types that you'd prefer to repress.

That's true, but it also means there are forces which oppose the emancipation of the masses. Hence, class struggle. We are not given our "rights", we take them by force.

That's great and all, but back here in topic-land you're in the middle of arguing for the forceful removal of the First Amendment rights to free speech and association. Remember?

It doesn't exist in the first place.

Then why are you complaining that white supremacists in the USA have the rights of free speech and association, demanding that such be stripped from them, and attacking the validity of the Constitution which prevents that? Do you even keep track of your own position, or do you just fire off whatever bit of self-congratulation and accusation springs to mind at any given moment?

And no, in the sense of suppressing racist and backwards organizations like white supremacist groups.

The right to free speech and association is meaningless unless it applies to everyone, most emphatically people who you virulently disagree with.

For Pete's sake, at the very least, deal with the Aryan Brotherhood (confirmed criminal organization).

What would you have us do? The state already investigates and prosecutes their criminal activities, all the time.

They can, but that doesn't mean all their ideas were good ideas.

Specifically, you think that the freedoms of speech and association are bad ideas.

I'm responding to your statement about the Constitution being "in the way" of my "ideas", as if we must continue to care about old colonial documents. My position is that there is no reason to care. That is all. That's all I said.

The Constitution is a living document, not some "colonial" relic. It has been amended and reinterpretted repeatedly. It is the central, underlying legal basis of the entire US state and system of governance. Your dismissal of it as some irrelevant relic is, frankly, bizarre.

[Edward M. Grant]

Please do so. I imagine the United States will not be among them, considering that it is illegal to be a communist in the United States,

Illegal to be a communist in the United States? That'll be news to the US Communist Party.

I'll not have to remind you of Joseph McCarthy's wonderful legacy.

McCarthy said the US government had been infiltrated by communists. After the fall of the USSR we discovered that it had been infiltrated much more widely by communists than even McCarthy claimed.

His tactics were stupid, but he underestimated the size of the problem.

[Tiassa]

Illegal to be a communist in the United States? That'll be news to the US Communist Party.

Indeed, but the mistake usually comes from recalling a law that bars communists from working for the federal government.

After the fall of the USSR we discovered that it had been infiltrated much more widely by communists than even McCarthy claimed.

In truth, that's the first time I've heard that claim. I wouldn't be surprised if it was true, but to what evidence are you referring?

[Edward M. Grant]

Indeed, but the mistake usually comes from recalling a law that bars communists from working for the federal government.

Sounds good to me. If you don't support the US Constitution, you shouldn't be working for the US government.

In truth, that's the first time I've heard that claim. I wouldn't be surprised if it was true, but to what evidence are you referring?

A lot of documents were declassified and released at the end of the cold war. I couldn't point you to specifics off the top of my head, but there were a number of news stories in the years after the USSR collapsed when we gained access to KGB records and the Western intelligence agencies released some of what they had collected as secrecy was no longer considered important.

[RedStar]

That's not true. Where do you get this nonsense?

I took the trouble of tracking down the particular code. This is the basis of the suppression of communists during the Cold War.

50 U.S.C § 841

The Congress finds and declares that the Communist Party of the United States, although purportedly a political party, is in fact an instrumentality of a conspiracy to overthrow the Government of the United States. It constitutes an authoritarian dictatorship within a republic, demanding for itself the rights and privileges accorded to political parties, but denying to all others the liberties guaranteed by the Constitution...
...
Therefore, the Communist Party should be outlawed.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/841

This is but one of several similar laws, and this doesn't include state laws.

McCarthy is considered a villain in the modern American public consciousness. To be compared to him or his tactics carries strongly negative connotations.

The point is, free speech didn't and doesn't exist in the United States. And the other Western counties are even worse, because unlike the U.S., there is no formal declaration or "bill of rights" in the United Kingdom and Canada (not sure about Australia, but it is a part of the Commonwealth, so I wouldn't be surprised if it was similar). The U.K. has no formal "constitution", and it is technically legal for the governments of Canada or the United Kingdom to issue a notice restricting your free speech.

And what about Germany, Austria, and several other European countries? Holocaust denial and advocacy of Nazism or related ideologies is strictly forbidden.

Freedom of speech!

That's great. Meanwhile, back in topic-land, your complaint is exactly that the ideals of the right to free speech and association are, in fact, extended to various low-class types that you'd prefer to repress.

This has nothing to do with class. It has to do with racist organizations. Several E.U. states ban neo-Nazi organizations, and they are just fine.

The right to free speech and association is meaningless unless it applies to everyone, most emphatically people who you virulently disagree with.

See above

What would you have us do? The state already investigates and prosecutes their criminal activities, all the time.

Criminalize membership in the organization.

Specifically, you think that the freedoms of speech and association are bad ideas.

They aren't bad ideas. They are just ideas. They don't actually exist, as I've pointed out.

Illegal to be a communist in the United States? That'll be news to the US Communist Party.

See above where I point out the code. Also, the CP USA is hardly a "communist" party. After World War II, they became a mild reformist party and even endorsed Barack Obama.

[madanthonywayne]

In truth, that's the first time I've heard that claim. I wouldn't be surprised if it was true, but to what evidence are you referring?

Really? The Rosenburgs, Alger Hiss, and hundreds of others were all Soviet agents as revealed by the Venona Intercepts.

[youreyes]

Really? The Rosenburgs, Alger Hiss, and hundreds of others were all Soviet agents as revealed by the Venona Intercepts.

way less spies than the West used on Soviet Union/Russia. And not just the ones that got caught like Gary Powers, but many CIA infiltrated Russians like Shevchenko and Ogorodnik. A dollar goes further than a heart.

[madanthonywayne]

way less spies than the West used on Soviet Union/Russia. And not just the ones that got caught like Gary Powers, but many CIA infiltrated Russians like Shevchenko and Ogorodnik. A dollar goes further than a heart.

And what is your source for that? As far as I know, the one area in which the Soviets kicked our ass was espionage.

[youreyes]

And what is your source for that? As far as I know, the one area in which the Soviets kicked our ass was espionage.

what's my source on that? The Fall of Soviet Union is my source on that. The mastermind behind Pinochet's revolution in Chile, Milton Friedman's ideas had been carried unto the governing party members of Soviet Union mainly Mr. Gorbachev who just didn't have enough time to fully break the country apart, sadly to the West.

[Read-Only]

[QUOTE=RedStar;2967305]I took the trouble of tracking down the particular code. This is the basis of the suppression of communists during the Cold War.

50 U.S.C § 841



http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/841

That was some worthless information. That law was repealed long before you were even born. <shrug>

[RedStar]

That was some worthless information. That law was repealed long before you were even born. <shrug>

Maybe so, but it was still in effect at some point, which demonstrates that "free speech" doesn't really exist anywhere. And you don't know when I was born, so don't pretend like you do.

[Balerion]

They can, but that doesn't mean all their ideas were good ideas.

I never said they were.

I'm responding to your statement about the Constitution being "in the way" of my "ideas", as if we must continue to care about old colonial documents. My position is that there is no reason to care. That is all. That's all I said.

That's not all you said. You implied that their ideas had no merit because of who they were...

[Read-Only]

Maybe so, but it was still in effect at some point, which demonstrates that "free speech" doesn't really exist anywhere. And you don't know when I was born, so don't pretend like you do.

There's NO maybe about it. Just a quick serach on the repeal of it got me MANY hits. Here's just one: http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/50C23.txt

As to your age, you've given away far more than you realize. You're no more than 25 and 18 is pretty likely.

[RedStar]

There's NO maybe about it. Just a quick serach on the repeal of it got me MANY hits.

Again, it doesn't diminish my point. I used the word "maybe" needlessly, I'll admit.

As to your age, you've given away far more than you realize. You're no more than 25 and 18 is pretty likely.

The only thing I've revealed is that I was born in the U.S.S.R but I am too young to have any meaningful memories, so I suppose you are right.You're close: I'm 24 =)