Stormfront gloat thread

[paleologos]

My take on this:

There is a purpose to acknowledging free speech as a right.
There is a reason to protect this right.
It is the ability to exchange opinions on the way our political elites manage the affairs of our societies.
We need to be able to evaluate and debate the performance and conduct of government, otherwise democracy cannot function.

Screaming that there is a bomb in a crowded place serves none of the above, furthermore it may result in panic and physical harm, ergo it is punishable behavior.
Likewise, the enabling of haters to come together, reinforce each other's opinions and organize to act on their hatred does not warrant legal protection as "free speech".
I fail to see why it is difficult to understand that coordinating to carry out an attack against an expressor of a political belief is in every way possible different than debating against said political belief.

These are reasons enough for companies that provide hosting services to internet forums to maintain the right (privilege actually) to arbitrarily decide with what kind of clients they want to be associated with.

Other than all of the above it's what Sukiyama posted:

Idiotic way to go about it. These people should be allowed to gather, make plans, and so on. The sites and subreddits should be monitored and data mined to keep track of dangerous and derganged individuals. Additionally, the data can be used to to predict dangerous terrorism and pre-emptively stopped. Even better, it can spawn material to prosecute people with. Ideally, there should be a cyber unit infiltrating garbage like this.

I've said this before I'll say it again. Let the scum gather, talk, and wear Swastikas. It makes them easier to find.

[Himster]

I am saying the same thing in another discussion: Nazism (and neo nazism) is and was inherently violent, communism is not.

This is rather horrifying. Totalitarian apologetics, seriously?

[Ludicus]

. He's making a joke.

The funny thing is, he said the truth. Sometimes a joke is not just a joke.

[JP226]

Where I live when someone makes jokes about Christianity or "the conservative european society" there is always someone saying "you would not dare to make the same jokes with Islam!"

Can someone can tell me where is that communist web page similar in contents (promoting racism, xenophobia, homophobia) to Stormfront that should be closed but it is not because the marxist ancient aliens rule the world?

On body count alone communists own the score board, do you really need to prop up a website to make the two more compatible in evil-ness?

[Mithradates]

I am saying the same thing in another discussion: Nazism (and neo nazism) is and was inherently violent, communism is not.

Its not? Oh, than tell me, how could you ever nationalize my property without me going violent about it?

...or that would be my fault, I would be the counter-revolutionary class problem to be deported to the gulag because I would want to protect my property from thieves?

[Love Mountain]

My take on this:

There is a purpose to acknowledging free speech as a right.
There is a reason to protect this right.
It is the ability to exchange opinions on the way our political elites manage the affairs of our societies.
We need to be able to evaluate and debate the performance and conduct of government, otherwise democracy cannot function.

Epic_fa1l made a great post on this issue. Communists and Fascists existed for a long time in the United States. They were never really hunted down in a Government sponsored purge, but they never gained popularity because their ideals were unsavory. Their radicalism only served to marginalize them.

Censoring hate speech isn't necessary. It censors itself. Especially in a free society where "positive" ideas are constantly pushed by pundits and media alike. Perhaps some regulation of the public sphere is required, like in economic markets rules against monopolies and anti-competitive practices should be implemented (and in many ways they are).

[Ludicus]

no european (or noth american) communist political party advocates a violent seizure of power or retaliation against its political rivals or "counter-revolutionaries, nor threatens groups because of their religion, race or sexuality. The same cant be said regarding any single neo-nazi organization.

Communism has a lot of different variations....Some Communist branches insist that forced suppression of capitalists. Others do not. As far as I know. Fascism advocated for forced suppression of any and all opposition. There is an inherent violence to Fascist ideology.

Both of you are right.
Absolutely correct. In doubt, ask the Portuguese. Here, there is a very successful triple Left coalition, including the Communist Party. The success of our government is that Portuguese people feel respected by the Left Coalition in power. Just a few days ago, No alternative to austerity? That lie has now been nailed | Owen Jones . (Guardian)
Reinhard Naumann Lisbon representative of the Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung:"This Portuguese new model with a minority Socialist government and radical left support is only possible because the radical left made a very big step"

In fact I'm not communist, but if you want to know why is communism not as hated/view as evil as nazism,ask the Jews, or follow the link:: Re: Why do we pretend the crimes of Nazi Germany are unique?

(On a side note, thinking about it, according to Aviva Weingarten's 2008 study, of 124 people questioned by McCarthy’s Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs in 1952, 79 were Jews)

Censoring hate speech isn't necessary.

That's because Hitler did not invade the US.

[NorseThing]

My take on this:

There is a purpose to acknowledging free speech as a right.
There is a reason to protect this right.
It is the ability to exchange opinions on the way our political elites manage the affairs of our societies.
We need to be able to evaluate and debate the performance and conduct of government, otherwise democracy cannot function.

Screaming that there is a bomb in a crowded place serves none of the above, furthermore it may result in panic and physical harm, ergo it is punishable behavior.
Likewise, the enabling of haters to come together, reinforce each other's opinions and organize to act on their hatred does not warrant legal protection as "free speech".
I fail to see why it is difficult to understand that coordinating to carry out an attack against an expressor of a political belief is in every way possible different than debating against said political belief.

These are reasons enough for companies that provide hosting services to internet forums to maintain the right (privilege actually) to arbitrarily decide with what kind of clients they want to be associated with.

Other than all of the above it's what Sukiyama posted:

With due respect for your thoughts and due respect for speech I must still disagree with your concepts regarding hate speech. Does a group of hate filled Neo Nazis coming together to spout there drivel actually risk causing panic in a crowd? No. You as well as I may dislike, disapprove, or even hate what is spouted, but panic is most unlikely to ensue.

An interesting read that was recently posted on this topic:

It’s too simplistic to say that the First Amendment forbids us to punish hate speech. Yes, it’s true that the amendment says that “no law” shall abridge the freedom of speech. But no court has ever interpreted the amendment so literally. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes disposed of that notion long ago with a single sentence: “The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting ‘fire’ in a theatre and causing a panic.”

http://bangordailynews.com/2017/08/2...w-hate-speech/

[mishkin]

This is rather horrifying. Totalitarian apologetics, seriously?

Excuse me for arguing that Marx and Engels have no direct responsibility for atrocities and deaths commited years after their death in the most diverse circunstances. I apologize for also arguing that current communists have no point of comparison with neo-nazis. Shame on me.

[paleologos]

With due respect for your thoughts and due respect for speech I must still disagree with your concepts regarding hate speech. Does a group of hate filled Neo Nazis coming together to spout there drivel actually risk causing panic in a crowd? No. You as well as I may dislike, disapprove, or even hate what is spouted, but panic is most unlikely to ensue.

An interesting read that was recently posted on this topic:

http://bangordailynews.com/2017/08/2...w-hate-speech/

No disagreement there but it seems to me that you read my post in a superficial manner.
I never said that hate speech would cause panic, that was meant as an example of "free" speech being harmful.
I also posted that hate groups meet online to "...reinforce each other's opinions and organize to act on their hatred".
And "...coordinating to carry out an attack against an expressor of a political belief is in every way possible different than debating against said political belief."

If you feel that the statements in bold are in the wrong side of freedom then we can discuss that.

I also think it would be good to keep in mind that people who agree in just about everything cannot really debate their opinions.
Talking to each other about those opinions is more akin to praying than debating and hate groups are notoriously unable to tolerate opinions different to their own.
Which makes banning their fora more akin to an abridgement of worshiping their common hatred rather than an abridgement of free speech.

[ArBo]

Communism has a lot of different variations. A violent revolution is seen as inevitable, due to the context of the time that Marx lived in. But many Communist thinkers have insisted that peaceful revolution is also possible. Some Communist branches insist that forced suppression of capitalists. Others do not.

As far as I know. Fascism advocated for forced suppression of any and all opposition. There is an inherent violence to Fascist ideology.

I won't bother to refute this; the fact that you admit that a part of the Communist movement is inherently violent is enough to keep my point standing. Do keep in mind that oppression of contrasting beliefs, without direct violence, is just as bad. You use this point later in your post actually, by saying fascists and white supremacists either directly call for violence, or advocate for thinly-veiled oppression.

Expand on this.

Collectivism teaches not to focus on an individual or his abilities, but instead on the (racial, sexual, societal...) group he/she belongs to, or to otherwise disregard differences between people that are relevant in the matter. Identity politics nowadays are a big part of this. Whether it be affirmative action or the KKK, the drive on the extremes on both sides of the political spectrum to categorise people by sex/race/"gender"/class instead of by who they are and what they have to offer, is economically counter-productive, ethically unjust and has no apparent logic but to prioritise some partition of the people above others.

The constant battle for tit-for-tat betrays these notions you spout. The insistence on trying to constantly find an equivalency between radical leftists and radical right wingers is disingenuous. This is most exemplified by constant attempts of right-wingers to label Black Lives Matter as an extremist leftist group that's violent. Quite frankly, that's not true. BLM aspires to achieve equality through affirmative action, something I disagree with. But in general their cause does not call for violence nor is it inherently dangerous. The fact that violence was committed by BLM members does not make them a hate group. Right-wing groups that promote white supremacy and fascism are the exact opposite. They either directly call for violence, or advocate for thinly-veiled oppression.

The attempt to constantly find some sort of equivalency between the two is what's pissing me off. There is no "balance" when one side is clearly worse than the other side. And for that matter, the USA is in a much greater threat from the radical right, as they have managed to elect an megalomaniac into the office, than it ever was from becoming some kind of an authoritarian communist state. RIght-wing rhetoric regarding many issues is absurd.

I'm not trying to count evil points, and see which side exactly is worse. To do so you would need to agree with the notion that both the extreme left and the extreme right are ideologically homogenous, a notion that is frankly just dumb. What I'm saying is:
- The radical left is bad
- The radical right is bad
- Both the radical left and the radical right are collectivist in nature and have caused millions of deaths during the past centuries.
I think this is something most people on this thread can still agree with.

On your point about BLM, if you consider affirmative action racist to the core (as do I) I don't see how it's better than the alt-right for example. You don't think BLM is to be blamed for violence by their members? Don't blame the alt-right for the violence commited by its members, they don't call for it.

[Menelik_I]

Following the demise of Der Stormer, Stormfront has now been defenestrated from the net following a civil rights campaign. At last it has begun to sink in, in the past five years alone, Stormfront members have murdered close to 100 people. Thats putting aside terrorist plotting and incitement to racial hatred and violence. Unbelievably it's taken up till now for its host to recognise infractions of the its usage policy. The catalyst no doubt was that terrorist attack in Charlottesville, which has shone a beam of light on their actions.

The will be those who say that these sad people should not be denied a voice ( or car keys)(sadface) . Well I say bollocks to that.The era of harassment and incitement to assault, murder and genocide dressed up as "free speech" is over



https://www.theguardian.com/technolo...-rights-action


There will be people who perhaps think that the First Amendment should allow such people an outlet, notwithstanding the odds that at some point one of its members will go on to do carry out their fantasies in lethal manner. Is there a convincing argument? And what should be done about Reddit?

Not sure if you are trolling or serious, but in more than 10 years of stormfront, they have not done as much property damage and violance than antifa in 1 year.

I can get behind Nazi wesbites getting banned when Communists websites are banned on account of inflicit and material support for the genocide of over 100 millions people across 4 continents, and the funny thing is that people who actually took part in Communists regimes are not in stupid internet forums talking the Aryan Race but are running major country and control billions and nuclear arsenals.

You speaking about Nazi as if they are an imminent threat ... are you serious ?

[Menelik_I]

One last thing I don't like about shutting down stormfront is that it is a move to stop controversial questions.

Yes white genocide and racial superiority is dumb, but there are real questions to be asked about violence against Boers in south Africa and legitimate objection to accepting millions of refugees from third world countries indefinitely because "DIVERSITY" ... And sometimes you need racists to keep raising these questions, because a broken clock can be right at least twice a day.

Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk

[Love Mountain]

I won't bother to refute this; the fact that you admit that a part of the Communist movement is inherently violent is enough to keep my point standing. Do keep in mind that oppression of contrasting beliefs, without direct violence, is just as bad. You use this point later in your post actually, by saying fascists and white supremacists either directly call for violence, or advocate for thinly-veiled oppression.

If you're not gonna engage in a debate that you're not educated in then you forfeit it. There is a worthy debate as to whether Communism is viable or not. There is no debate when it comes to whether Communism is ideologically oppressive. It's not.

Collectivism teaches not to focus on an individual or his abilities, but instead on the (racial, sexual, societal...) group he/she belongs to, or to otherwise disregard differences between people that are relevant in the matter. Identity politics nowadays are a big part of this. Whether it be affirmative action or the KKK, the drive on the extremes on both sides of the political spectrum to categorise people by sex/race/"gender"/class instead of by who they are and what they have to offer, is economically counter-productive, ethically unjust and has no apparent logic but to prioritise some partition of the people above others.

What? No, it's the exact opposite. Collectivism seeks to ignore outlying individual factors in favor of one societal identity. I.e. one cultural identity with a set of values superseding individual identity. On the contrary, it is right-wing individualism which insists that individuality is more important than communal identity.

Today, left-wing thought especially in America, states that all men and women have an equal right to citizenship if they abide by American values and norms. And to ensure that these opportunities are "equal", left-wing activists have often advocated for affirmative action for various groups that are disadvantaged. These groups are many, Blacks, poor, young, sick, disabled, etc. On the contrary, right-wing rhetoric regarding the "American identity" argues that White Americans have been marginalized despite being the core demographic group in their country. That despite being the most "American" they are the ones being left behind.

Thus the insinuation that Collectivist ideology is responsible for pushing identity politics is absurd. As are most allegations peddled by right-wing rhetoric. Such as Fake News, Shillary, Coastal Elite, and Identity Politics. The aim to cloak the Democratic party under a cloak of elitism and conspiracy is sickening and reflects the mudpit tactics employed by insane right-wing pundits and Republican opponents.

I'm not trying to count evil points, and see which side exactly is worse. To do so you would need to agree with the notion that both the extreme left and the extreme right are ideologically homogenous, a notion that is frankly just dumb. What I'm saying is:

No it doesn't. Moral equivalency does not imply that there is ideological homogeneity.

- The radical left is bad
- The radical right is bad
- Both the radical left and the radical right are collectivist in nature and have caused millions of deaths during the past centuries.
I think this is something most people on this thread can still agree with.

No. Completely disagree. Centralized authoritarian power is what has killed dozens of millions of people in the 20th century alone. An attempt to assign blame to the ideology simply because people were killed under the regime that called itself Communist is lazy and anti-intellectual. The merits of each ideology has to be assigned based on what it actually advocates, which requires careful and thorough examination of texts and history. Communism isn't bad because Stalin killed millions. Communism is bad because it has repeatedly failed in practice despite the pretty words it has written on paper. In the same vein, Fascism isn't bad because Hitler killed Jews. Fascism is bad because it literally calls for expulsion or oppression of anyone who is not a member of your race. It is Nationalism taken to the Nth degree with a mean, explicit Authoritarian streak.

Accusations that Communism is inherently Authoritarian is flawed. Yes, the argument can be made, and Leninism for example, directly calls for a one party state and a powerful central state composed of an intellectual Technocracy (in reality Oligarchy). But other forms of Communism are far softer. In other words, there is a lot of nuance to Communism. There are none with Fascism which is an extreme form of Nationalism.

On your point about BLM, if you consider affirmative action racist to the core (as do I) I don't see how it's better than the alt-right for example. You don't think BLM is to be blamed for violence by their members? Don't blame the alt-right for the violence commited by its members, they don't call for it.

Affirmative action is not racist. The issue with institutionalized racism is that it is by nature implicit, thus hard to prove. I for example, can completely understand the unintended consequences of affirmative action, which is why I'm against affirmative action. It is not by nature racist.

BLM creed does not call for violence, they seek equality and want to bring attention to the issues regarding African Americans and law enforcement. That there are young and angry black men is understandable.

Right-wing groups like Vanguard America believe that America is a White Nation and oppose multiculturalism strictly for that reason. The ideology they spout directly points blame at other races and encourages conflict. That young and angry men do stupid in these groups is expected due to the hateful ideology they espouse.

Not sure if you are trolling or serious, but in more than 10 years of stormfront, they have not done as much property damage and violance than antifa in 1 year.

I can get behind Nazi wesbites getting banned when Communists websites are banned on account of inflicit and material support for the genocide of over 100 millions people across 4 continents, and the funny thing is that people who actually took part in Communists regimes are not in stupid internet forums talking the Aryan Race but are running major country and control billions and nuclear arsenals.

What I find comical, is that you absolve Stormfront of any wrong-doing, yet you directly attribute Communist websites for deaths of a 100 million people. In an attempt to point hypocrisy you... well, you get the idea.

You speaking about Nazi as if they are an imminent threat ... are you serious ?

They're not a threat. They're just not something many people tolerate, and with good reason.

One last thing I don't like about shutting down stormfront is that it is a move to stop controversial questions.

Yes white genocide and racial superiority is dumb, but there are real questions to be asked about violence against Boers in south Africa and legitimate objection to accepting millions of refugees from third world countries indefinitely because "DIVERSITY" ... And sometimes you need racists to keep raising these questions, because a broken clock can be right at least twice a day.

Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk

I agree that censoring tactics do more harm than good, especially when Western society is ideally trying to promote freedom of speech. However, the tidbit about accepting millions of refugees because "Diversity" is a lie. That's not why, and trying to boil it down to that single concept is silly.

[IronBrig4]

Right-wing groups like Vanguard America believe that America is a White Nation and oppose multiculturalism strictly for that reason. The ideology they spout directly points blame at other races and encourages conflict. That young and angry men do stupid in these groups is expected due to the hateful ideology they espouse.

It's also because Stormfront members tend to be failed individuals. They never got the university degree, never got the good job, never got the girl. That's why they spend hours posting conspiracy theories about Soros, globalists, and race-mixing; they literally have nothing better to do with their time. They put up Facebook pictures of Knights Templar and Vikings because they want to feel like they're part of a grand tradition. They cling to a notion of a white Europe no matter how many times historians shoot them down. http://www.themedievalacademyblog.or...arlottesville/

They're sad, resentful, frightened rabbits who feel as if they've been cheated.



Edit: And before I forget, a black man went undercover on Stormfront and posed as a white supremacist. It's a good article. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.db26f9ffcc5d

[phylosopher stoned]

First they came for the "Nazi", but I did not speak out because I was not a "Nazi,
Then they came for the "Libertarians" but I did not speak out because I was not a "Libertarians",
Then they came for the "Conservatives" but I did not speak out because I was not a "Conservative"
Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak up for me.

It's a slippery slope people, denying anyone a platform sets precedent for anyone in power to censor their opposition. It's un-American and completely against the ideal of free speech. It is also telling that I've been called a Nazi just for believing the same things my grandfather, who fought the Nazi's, believed.

[TheDarkKnight]

They are simply telling them that their platform and beliefs are not welcome for the business that hosts them. They are free to move elsewhere, and if those people want them, great. If not, that is their right as well. And on, and on, and on...

This isn't a freedom of speech issue because the government is not involved.

[Menelik_I]

However, the tidbit about accepting millions of refugees because "Diversity" is a lie. That's not why, and trying to boil it down to that single concept is silly.

Diversity is the short Propaganda reason, but I can give you a few below:

1- Because third world labour is cheap, and big companies want more of it.
2- Because importation of immigrants provides some parties such has UK Labour and US Democrat to increase their share of the vote.3
3- Because it will make the US or Europe less white, and this is somehow a good thing, because "Racism and colonialism"
4- Because it makes westerners feel good about themselves.
5- Because Diversity is a positive value in the modern culture.


There is ZERO reason that immigration is needed for demographically or economically, sure a shrinking population would cause a economic crisis, but adjustments will be made a few years or decades later.

Also you cannot simples absorb millions of people each year in a country without consequence, especially when the native culture is undermided by its own elite, at one point the people you bring will refute to be diluted and will assert their original identity.

[NorseThing]

There is ZERO reason that immigration is needed for demographically or economically, sure a shrinking population would cause a economic crisis, but adjustments will be made a few years or decades later.

Also you cannot simples absorb millions of people each year in a country without consequence, especially when the native culture is undermided by its own elite, at one point the people you bring will refute to be diluted and will assert their original identity.

Your reasons are debatable , but this snippet is right on target.

[Love Mountain]

Diversity is the short Propaganda reason, but I can give you a few below:

1- Because third world labour is cheap, and big companies want more of it.
2- Because importation of immigrants provides some parties such has UK Labour and US Democrat to increase their share of the vote.3
3- Because it will make the US or Europe less white, and this is somehow a good thing, because "Racism and colonialism"
4- Because it makes westerners feel good about themselves.
5- Because Diversity is a positive value in the modern culture.

1. Undocumented workers increasing and coinciding with corporate interests does not invalidate the need for immigration.
2. Undocumented migrants can't vote. Only citizens can. Refugees have to apply for permanent residence in the united states, which takes time, years even. Application for US citizenship can only happen after 5 years of permanent residency. Becoming a UK citizen as a refugee is similarly challenging. In other words, it'll take many years to increase their share of the vote. Unpopular policies like open borders are likely to harm their voting base much more rapidly. This critique is hyperbolic and smells of conspiracy, even if it is mildly plausible.
3. This insinuates that there is an anti-White agenda which is ridiculous. The vast majority of Europeans are White and I struggle to imagine that half of the voting base hates themselves for their skin color or is economically inclined to put themselves at a disadvantage.
4. That's not a real reason.
5. Promoting a diverse society does not mean disrespecting tradition. Nobody is stopping you from saying Grace at your dinner table. Nor is there any kind of negative connotation for not being "foreign".

There is ZERO reason that immigration is needed for demographically or economically, sure a shrinking population would cause a economic crisis, but adjustments will be made a few years or decades later.

There is ZERO reason that immigration will hurt the country demographically or economically, sure immigrants stealing our jobs will cause economic hardship, but adjustments will be made a few years or decades later. See how ridiculous your statement is? You can rework this sentence to make any problem look like a non-issue.

Immigration offsetting a shrinking population is not even a deliberate solution. It's merely an observation of a phenomena. There is no intentional immigration effect by the central authorities to offset a shrinking population. This isn't the Snowpiercer movie.

Also you cannot simples absorb millions of people each year in a country without consequence, especially when the native culture is undermided by its own elite, at one point the people you bring will refute to be diluted and will assert their original identity.

The vast majority of European nations aren't absorbing millions of people each year. Only Germany is the one working with a million or more people, and even then, that's how many people entered, not how many stayed. The Elite aren't undermining your culture, unless you think that the German Gov. being hyper sensitive to any Nazi merchandise is unreasonable considering their history.