Songs by pre-conversion Prussian Blue?
5 Likes
The KKK also killed tens of thousands of African-Americans over the years, and made the âlynch mobâ a constant threat for anybody who went outside the KKKâs views on acceptable behavior for black people. And even if a white woman associating with a black man wasnât physically attacked, he might be killed, or a white man defending the rights of black people might be attacked, so it was also to terrorize the whites into staying in line as well.
Is buying a house in a neighborhood where you look different from your neighbors political? It shouldnât be, but often it was. Is marrying somebody from an âunacceptableâ group political? Again, it shouldnât be, but it not only was, in much of America it still is, with the unacceptable group being your own gender rather than a different race or caste or social class or whatever.
I forget who said it, but somebody said that one of Martin Luther Kingâs biggest accomplishments was freeing black Americans from the constant terror of life in the South; before the Civil Rights Movement, white people might just attack you at any time, for no good reason.
7 Likes
Speaking as a veteran.
I am deeply offended by your comment. In my experience the military, as an organization, is about as politically correct as they come. Unlike the civilian population, a service member is heavily restricted in his affiliations and his freedom of speech. While it is easy to criticize âThe Militaryâ we must understand that a soldier is obligated by law and penalty of death to obey the lawful orders of his commanders.
The military has a long history of being at the forefront on issues that include desegregation, emancipation, and affirmative action. They have adopted a system of promotion that is blind to race, gender and sexual orientation. A soldier is not given a choice as to who he works for, who he shares a bunk with, or whom he goes to war with.
The soldier(s) responsible for these flyers, will be prosecuted under a system of law, the UCMJ, that is fairer, clearer and harsher in punishment than that which is afforded to his civilian counterparts. If he is found guilty he will most likely be dishonorably discharged or jailed. There is no tolerance for this type of behavior in the military at all. There is a clear and anonymous system by which a soldier is obligated under military law to report all issues or instances of discrimination. It is military policy that all soldiers receive quarterly training on both the subject of discrimination and the means by which they are obligated to report it.
âLittle brown people.â
This gross oversimplification of US foreign policy is insulting to all Americans. We, as a society, have decided to commercialize the pathways by which we receive our information. This has incentivised sensationalism, and allowed for the the over representation of our outliers. While some americans might identify themselves as racist, markedly less do so then ever before, and among those who do, the vast majority are among the older generations, and their time is soon to pass.
I am a liberal through and through.
I believe the government should stay out of my bedroom.
I believe the government should stay out of my cell phone.
I believe and am willing to pay taxes in an effort to increase the quality of life and oppourtunity of every american.
I believe that corporations exist, solely by means of scale, in a state that is destructive to our economy and detrimental to an individual citizens opportunity to innovate and build.
I believe we should socialize medicine.
I live in the greatest country in the history of the world. Name another country that even comes close.
Germany? Not if your Turkish(experiencing hate crimes), or Jewish(the majority of which report rising antisemitism), or a woman(who hold less than 10% of MIDDLE management positions or above)
Norway? 5 million people, and property prices are so high that my generation is leaving in droves, I was stationed in afghanistan with a baseful of them.
Japan? High suicide rates, declining birth rates, government deficit that is twice GDP.
The rest of Europe is in default, I wouldnât trade my freedoms for China or the middle east. We wont even talk about Africa. Qatar and the UAE practice blatant and outright economic slavery that would make you sick.
Everyone, including Americans, hates on America.
Just my two cents. Keep up the good work Boing Boing, but please, just to balance things out, occasionaly credit our country with something. America did, without a doubt, almost single handily change the world for the better.
3 Likes
Hi, all! As I remarked on another topic, rather than a general definition, I think itâs usually best to provide the actual verbiage of a legal code when youâre trying to decide if an act is, or is not, legally âsomethingâ. In the case of terrorism, U.S. white supremacists would fall under the federal legal definition of âdomestic terroristsâ. Hereâs the code:
18 U.S.C. § 2331 defines âinternational terrorismâ and âdomestic terrorismâ for purposes of Chapter 113B of the Code, entitled "Terrorismâ:
âDomestic terrorismâ means activities with the following three characteristics:
⢠Involve acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law;
⢠Appear intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination. or kidnapping; and
⢠Occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S.
Since American white supremacists do perform dangerous acts that may harm others (many can be found in prison), seek â(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian populationâ, and operate within the U.S. they are, by legal definition, domestic terrorists.
So, thatâs the answer. Legally speaking, they are intimidating a population for racial reasons which is against public policy, and thatâs what qualifies them as terrorists.
8 Likes
No he isnât, he was just responding to your earlier claim:
He took you at your word and looked at a random book, specifically a dictionary.
But, maybe you object because the OAD in question was edited after 9/11. Well, conveniently I have a copy of the Concise OED which was published in 1990, which Iâve kept for sentimental reasons. Letâs seeâŚ
terrorist n. a person who uses of favours violent and intimidating methods of coercing a government or community.
terrorism n. terroristic adj. terroristically adv. [F terroriste (as TERROR)]
Seems to me white supremacists use violent and intimidating methods to coerce communities, so they are terrorists as per the everyday 1990 definition.
Just in case you object to a British dictionary, Iâve also got a copy of Websterâs New World Dictionary, Third College Edition, dated 1986:
**ter¡ror¡ism n. **[Fr terrorisme] 1 the act of terrorizing; use of force or threats to demoralize, intimidate, and subjugate, esp. such use as a political weapon or policy 2 the demoralization and intimidation produced in this way â terâror¡ist n., adj. â terâror¡isâtic adj.
So, seems to me that the KKK met the everyday definition of the word âterrorismâ, as recorded in dictionaries in the 1980s and 1990s. If youâd like to argue for a more restricted definition of the term, I think itâs up to you to come up with some justification at this point.
Perhaps youâre unaware that the IRA, who you cite as real terrorists, engaged in violent and intimidating methods to coerce communities, as per the Concise OED definition.
âTypically the group, which served as de facto law enforcement in lawless Northern Ireland for several decades, doled out kneecappings to young hoods who had failed to heed earlier warnings against robbery and theft, men who were having affairs with wives of IRA men in prison, those who opposed the IRA or its politics and pretty much anyone who ran afoul of the group.â
[source]
Terrorism isnât all bombs, you know.
9 Likes
I had the same reaction to the quote. For a second I read and and thought âWell⌠yeah⌠but this seems out of placeâ and then I realized it was supposed to upset me because I believe it to be untrue.
2 Likes
I donât understand how calling for white citizens to remove themselves from the country and create their own state by taking over a part of the US is not political and not anti-government. Please tell me how declaring war (and that is what it would mean to take over a State from the US and secede from the Union) on the US Government is not political and not anti-government?
Because I really donât get where or how the very things described in the photographed document donât fit.
7 Likes
Glitch said: You canât simply call anyone who âterrorizesâ a terrorist
Michael_R_Smith said: Why not?
Compulsive, obsessive pedantry, thatâs why not. You might as well ask a fisherman to stop fishing.
2 Likes
Well said.
Has Portlandia covered this? This is the only aspect of the Pacific Northwest I truly loathe. Luckily, if birth and immigration rates continue as projected, the white majority which encourages this bullshit will disappear. Instead, more bilingualism and panaderias, which is really a win for everyone (go ask for a palmera/oreja if you donât agree).
And a side note: if you see a blue, white, and green flag like that, but it has a tree in the middle, it is NOT affiliated with these assholes. Itâs either a. fans of the Portland Timbers, or b. proponents of âCascadia,â which is sometimes a Northwest separatist movement and sometimes not. Itâs based on environmental politics, mostly, and attracts people who like to sing âRoll On, Columbia, Roll On.â Not a racist thing.
1 Like
Not to mention that no matter how one feels about the police or military, it should be noted that plenty of non-white people are in the police force or in the military meaning that white supremacists in the military is a problem for the military.
I think that to suggest that by serving in the military non-whites are tacitly advancing a white supremacist agenda, one has to accept that all patriots are nationalists and all nationalists are ethnic nationalists. A Venn Diagram might be helpful here.
Iâm not sure this generalization would be so well accepted if it were applied to other things. For instance, white supremacist groups are also full of: potheads, libertarians, people with tattoos.
2 Likes
@Glitch You know, if Iâm feeling terror as a result of a person or group threatening violence or death --theyâre a fucking terrorist. The dictionary definition is beyond my concern. Because, terror (though a dictionary and wildly good luck might stop a bullet or piece of shrapnelâŚ)
I donât approve of how broad the âterroristâ brush has grown of late. But calling supremacist groups terrorists isnât a stretch --certainly not for the people unlucky enough to have a skin color they donât like.
2 Likes
On the upside: The Commandant of the Marine Corps gave orders to stop it, issued an
apology, and ordered an investigation into the prevalence of this practice.
On the downside: A Marine official was quoted as saying that their leadership believed
that the Marines did not understand the logoâs significance.
3 Likes
Your words say this, but your actions say this:
5 Likes
I agree entirely.
I think itâs more important to note, that while service members are argumentatively equally represented across demographics.
They tend to vote conservative. Calm down for a second, these arenât super conservative crazies. Republicans vote for military funding to buy equipment that stops bullets and whatnot. and gun rights and yada yada.
Servicemen are better educated than the average american. 99% of enlisted members have a high school education, 96% of their officers are college educated with most claiming the top third (Better if you give the military academyâs their due, with choice placement based upon GPA ranking, most require a congressman or senators recommendation) of universities.
The hardest argument to make on the internet is that someone above us is controling us. I know it sounds crazy. Please suspend disbelief for just a second.
The Koch brothers recently raised 300 million dollars to fight against environmental organizations. At some point it became financially advantageous to spend an incredibly large sum of money to oppose regulation on just this one issue.
I believe it comes down to a simple equation.
Bengazi + evolution + black president + social security + climate change + pipeline + terrorism = Just enough voters to elect just enough people to make me more money.
We, as a country need to stop fighting each other on things that we wouldnât bring up over dinner, because it only benefits people who wouldnât have dinner with us.
3 Likes
There are 2.2 million US service members. Believe me, they all have cameras. It doesnât take a statistician to realize that sometimes a picture might be taken that makes them look like a@@holes.
On a related note, if you put that logo on an action figure and told 2.2 million parents that it meant super soldier and that it was their kids favorite toy, do you think you might find 10 to buy it in a row?
Iâll link you an article from the marine corps times. In it a marine corps general basically called them dumb, stating that these marines believed the symbol denoted Scout Sniper. Which is literally what they are. It explains both the beards and sniper rifles they are carrying.
BTW. All kidding aside, someone actually fought against germany in WW2. Actual marines fought in WW2. They didnât just disapear because Jews (like me) prayed really hard.
84% of Americanâs, in a recent study, couldnât find Ukraine on a map. Iâm guessing itâs close to 99% of enlisted marines. Iâm not saying marines are inherintly dumb, but well⌠If your a Marine and offended by what I am saying, I apologize. But really brother, go ask like 10 marines if they know enough about WW2 history to either identify that logo or Ukraine.
People are dumb; I admit it. what you are claiming is that people are mean. That 10 marines stationed in Afghanistan together (randomly) all have a deep hatred for jews, and are willing to take a picture to that effect and post it online. Is that really your argument?
I think the point Glitch is trying to make is that for white supremacists, violence (ultimately genocide or absolute removal of non-whites) is the end, not the means. They arenât trying to convince black people to convert to whiteness; they donât want blacks to merely acquiesce to be dominated; white supremacists just want blacks to be gone, and in becoming gone, serve as a lesson and on-the-oven-training to other whites, against whom any incidental terror is actually aimed at.
The incidental political means of white supremacist terror is directed against dissent among whites. So in that sense both yaâall are rong.
1 Like
Today I learned that an institute of the US military has officially recognized the existence of white, male, heterosexual, and Christian privilege. Thatâs pretty damn awesome. Thanks for bringing it to my attention and brightening my day.
2 Likes
that picture isnât making them look like arseholes. That picture is documenting them being arseholes.
logo on an action figure
Action figures arenât a key component of foreign policy.
someone actually fought against germany in WW2. Actual marines fought in WW2.
The Marines didnât do a lick of fighting against Germany in WWII.
go ask like 10 marines if they know enough about WW2 history to either identify that logo
Your devotion to your reality is touching.
2 Likes
You seem to be tarring all of these guys with the same brush - kinda like how some people think all Muslims must be Ayl Kyda? I think there must be a spectrum of white nationalism, the same as you get with any political group. They seem to be white separatists from the flyer, rather than supremacists, but they could be toning down the rhetoric to get more converts.
