Atheism, Religion and related discussion


Are you seriously suggesting Nazis threats are illegitimate?

Never again.


You can be a Nazi supporter and make illegitimate threats. Most of them do it all the time.

Yes. That’s possible.

Is that not possible in your world view?

And you’re cherry picking, I clearly am talking about a genuine threat to individuals, which requires a fucking name in the threat.


The endgame of their ideology has played out in living memory, and been responsible for the deaths of millions of people. I’m saying never again. Nobody should ever wait to find out.

Because clearly, Adolf Hitler’s most famous act of organized, systemic violence was against an individual and not entire ethnic groups…


You seem to think their endgame is happening in current reality. It’s not.

Do you not see how that matters?

And did you seriously just Adolf Hitler meme me when I’m talking about individual threats?


Hitler himself said that the only way the rise of the German Nazi party could have been prevented was if its enemies had recognised it for what it was right at the start and had smashed it in its infancy with utmost force.

It happened before, in living memory, and you seem happy enough to platform those ideas despite the worst kinds of racism becoming mainstream again - So yes. It is a threat and will always be a threat as long as it exists.


I’ve been waiting for this meme since earlier today. I have heard that stupid quote before.

I can’t believe you’re taking advice from Hitler.


Yes I did, because you seem to think threats to destroy entire ethnic groups are perfectly acceptable and ultimately harmless.

Fuck that noise.

I guess this helps explain things - To you, any mention of Hitler is a “meme”. To most people, Hitler was a genocidal fascist dictator who ordered the systematic oppression and extermination of millions of people. No wonder you aren’t taking this seriously.


Strangely you have failed to provide any evidence of this or any actual understanding of how Muslims and Muslim scholars study, debate and ultimately interpret the Quran, Haddiths and related texts - probably because you keep assuming that anti-Muslim sites are completely unbiased and totally correct.

Probably, since that is what the evidence points towards when you look at how Muslim nations run (when not being terrorized for oil), what values Islam promotes (harmony, prayer, charity, etc) and that you have yet to find a significant piece of evidence to the contrary that wasn’t manufactured by someone rushing to validate their confirmation bias.

If you think it’s just an ideology then why bother discussing it? Unless people judge one another based off perception of this ideology and that can result in people being beaten, denied access to their homes, held in prison camps rather given refugee rights, or even being murdered in acts of terrorism.

Probably not.

A better idea is to perhaps look at a whole bunch of sources that disagree with each other, then try to way up how complex the issue is and what kinds of biases drive people to particular interpretations.

I am saying academia by white people that supports other white people gets more funding and promotion, because the big institutions are all funded and governed by old white men. That includes universities, media, research centers and government institutions that give out grants. I got my bachelor degree and have no interest in returning, however I have a friend who’s an actual professor of Chemistry that works in two universities (one in Australia, one in China) if that helps you in any way.

Why should it? Ben Carson’s is a neurosurgeon and that hasn’t helped him understand literally anything about the world or the actual function of the brain (he thinks he can put electrodes in your head and make you recite books you read). Since Harris hasn’t studied the brains of the people he vilifies or the actual extremists (good luck getting Daesh to agree to a scan and questionnaire) it seems unlikely this offers him any insight beyond irrelevant credentials people are likely to use to falsely inflate his authority.

Harris should never be taken seriously regardless of his demographic, but the reason he is taken seriously is he has the image of an authoritive figure and being white helps him with that. Notice Maher doesn’t have many Asian or Black critics of Islam on his show. Carol M. Swain for example. (I don’t endorse her views, I just don’t kid myself about why she’s not more widely promoted)

I see you’re still grabbing random verses out of context with the harshest possible translation. Does this mean you assume all Christians think it’s okay to offer your daughters to angry mobs to protect house guests?

Genesis 19:8

After all, that’s a direct quote from Lot, who is a hero in the Bible.

It’s like this criticism is founded in some sort of bias and received support because it’s convenient to promote negative views of Islam, thus dehumanizing the people who have their lives destroyed so that we can continue to receive cheap oil… it’s like the term “propaganda” should be used here.

Yes, see this began with you announcing that Islam is hostile, and has been twisted into peace even though the type of Islam (which is rejected by most other Muslims) that is linked to systemic violence is generally traced back to a philosophy that only appeared in the 18th century when many people decided the existing model of Islam was too passive to properly deal with the (Christian) colonialists.

That is, as far as most historians who aren’t tripping over themselves to blame Muslims the actual source and root of modern Islamic violence, a need to repel Christians who were trying to strip them of their culture.

So far your evidence of this is that you can find a bunch of web sites that agree with you and you feel they should be treated as sound sources even though it takes only casual examination to find they have alternative agendas and are prone to misrepresenting information (and outright lying).

The problem here becomes largely that while this is fine in principle, historically it’s done a very bad job of protecting people targeted by people like Richard Spencer - who directly promotes violence while claiming it’s non-violent (literally just adding the word “non-violent” to his statements).

But Spencer’s supporters have done many violent in things in the US. They are, by far, much more violent than any of the demographics they advocate for the deportation (violent relocation), sterlization (violent denial of human rights) or refusal to grant refugee status to (which is the violent denial of human rights and the violent support of alternative violence). And that’s without factoring in those acting as part of the system.

Clearly the system in place has failed to prevent violence by these people and also failed to prevent them using the government itself as an instrument of violence against marginalized people. At what point then does it become acceptable for those people to strike back without being equated to those murdering them?

Shouldn’t that society’s failure to protect it’s citizens from systemic violence from within and outside of the system be a higher priority than worrying about a guy getting popped in the face due his participation in the overall machine?


Well, you’re offerimg up some info but your stance is still a bit hazy on the whole Nazi face-punching thing. Are you saying you think it’s okay to punch Nazi’s in the face?

Lawfully, clearly it’s wrong, at least here. Morally, it’s in a bit of a grey area for me. I mean I certainly undersand someone doing it. I empathize, perhas even sympathize with someone who punches a Nazi for their hate speech and honestly, I’m not sure how restrained I would be if I were standing next to one spewing it. But is it morally right? I think that answer is subjective and tied to the individual’s own morals.


I can’t speak for Jarbinger, but I don’t think it is ever a random act - Or at least it shouldn’t be. I wouldn’t want it to be legal either, because then Nazis could argue that they were being systemically oppressed, and thus justify their own violence as a form of self defense - A violent reaction to violent oppression.

My final word in this subject is that violence against Nazis is not as abhorrent as violence against opressed groups. I will not condemn them both as equally as bad as each other. That may offend some people, but it is as you said:

This whole antifascist movement in the USA serms to be relatively new, but in Europe (which was ravaged by fascism) there is a much bigger and more entrenched presence.


uh no, their endgoal is pretty clear: to make america a white nation. there is no way that they are going to complete that goal peacefully.


You’re right, the word “random” does not really fit in this context so I’ll remove that from my post.


I feel that punching Nazis in the face is, in the USA, a very minor issue compared with say spree shootings, judges who oppose police corruption being found dead in rivers, towns being essentially under hostile occupation due to police corruption, etc. I also feel it’s exceptionally disingenous to say it’s fine for Nazis to advocate genocide but not for others to advocate punching Nazis in the face.

Particularly since the crowd that endorsed punching the Nazi in the face are generally opposed to war, vigilantism, lassez faire gun ownership, etc thus them endorsing punching a Nazi in the face becomes more a warning sign and people trying to argue “even Nazis don’t deserve to be punched in the face” is, as one of my friends put it, trying to put the coal mine’s canary on life support in the belief that so long as the canary stays alive the miners will be fine.

For decades the promise has been that everyone will get their freedom of speech, no matter how vile, because it will be limited to freedom of speech. It was promised that nothing would come of Klansmen, the Nazis, etc all announcing their hatred of groups and instead what has happened is a rise in terrorism and normalization of violence against marginalized people enabled by failures in the system - largely due to the system being filled with the people who support this.

The system has failed to deliver on it’s promises of safety and opportunity to the marginalized, failed to provide wide spread opportunity for all that would have prevented the disenfranchised whites from feeling cheated, failed to prevent the outright misinformation that led them to blame marginalized people instead of the oligarchs, failed to prevent violence by the white supremacist/nationalist crowd and only really enabled them to legitimize their violence through corruption of the system and dehumanization of everyone who is not cis white straight and obedient to white supremacy.

That’s why, for example, there’s more fuss over the idea of punching a Nazi (who would need to self-identify in order to get punch) than say advocating shooting ANTIFA protestors in the head - and shootings of protestors on that side have already happened (and the victim was the one who wanted dialog instead of more violence)

Consequently, people have given up on excepting the system to do it’s job and are now advocating punching Nazis in the face in order to bring accountability to people like Spencer and other cowards who are hiding behind their mobs of disenfranchised, letting others go out and commit acts of terror acting on their words - then claiming they’re a lone bad actor (despite dozens of similar events).

If the system worked as it promised to when it demanded that Nazis have freedom of speech - FOX News would have been shut down long ago for spreading misinformation with the intent on creating harm for others; the FBI would have spent it’s resources in the 60s & 70s in shutting down Neo Nazis, the KKK and arresting corrupt officials rather than monitoring activist groups and trying to destroy Martin Luther King; police and judges in areas that have disproportionate high arrests and tickets for marginalized demographics would be publicly investigated and held accountable; and so many other things.

It’s not working, so rather than screaming that people shouldn’t support punching Nazis in the face - there be work being put towards correcting the course and creating the kind of society and system where there is no need to punch Nazis in the face because the Nazis will have no actual power other than to speak (and ideally will not exist because the demographics from which they draw their disposable soldiers will no longer feel like being a puppet for nationalism is their best career option)

The major kind of dehumanization of Nazis that creates problems is when people go “Oh they’re Nazis, they’re just like that - nothing we can do!” as those these people do not have motivations, free will and accountability like everyone else.



The FBI did target white supremacist organizations under COINTELPRO—e.g., the KKK, the National States’ Rights Party—in addition to every conceivable left-wing group regarded as subversive.

COINTELPRO White Hate Groups:

“Effective immediately, the Bureau is instituting a coordinated Counterintelligence Program (Cointelpro) directed against Klan-type and hate organizations.”

“The purpose of this program is to expose, disrupt and otherwise neutralize the activities of the various Klans and hate organizations, their leadership and adherents.”


The problem is that this program literally ran from 1964 (four years before Dr Martin Luther King was assassinated), limited this operation to 26 specific groups (17 of which were specific chapters of the Ku Klux Klan) and gave up in 1971 (bringing the total length of this operation to seven years) - the overall COINTELPRO program begin in 1956, which means that for eight years (longer than the entire anti-KKK program) the FBI decided it was fine for white supremacists to be burning churches and murdering brown people. In fact the white Supremacist groups were the last priority - the first was the Black Panther Group.

Furthermore the goal of this program was not to secure arrests, provide information on how to end injustice and eliminate corruption - it was to “expose, disrupt and otherwise neutralize” which is why they didn’t have a lot big arrests of say judges and sheriffs who were Klan members, etc. This would have been relatively easy given that the Klan was literally participating in radio talk shows:

Instead of doing any actual investigation, they just pretty much just transcribed his entire diatribe that went out over the radio and called it a night. In a rare instance where the FBI did great a problem for the Klan, the Klan were so confident that nothing bad would happen to them the lodged a complaint to the FBI requesting an investigation.

Meanwhile the Black Panthers were having the grocery stores where they put up their fliers investigated for funding contributions and had to avoid talking with authorities of any sort. Where as the NRA was just pressured to please stop sending the Klan massive amounts of money to support their criminal efforts.

They didn’t target the white supremecist organizations with the goal of obtaining justice or ending their terrorism, they targeted them with the intent on mitigating their influence so that they would never become serious political contenders. It was, after all, Hoover who was in charge of this rodeo.


I’ve never read anything about the National Rifle Association providing monetary support to the KKK.


Let me double check, oh my bad - I misread that since it was in a list of issues where the FBI had been reporting their success in subverting Klan funding (widow’s fund, legal defense, etc). In this case it wasn’t anything to do with money (90% of the rest of the memo is all about money). It was they just wanted to stop the NRA from letting the Klan open up their own chapter of the NRA in Belmont, NC:

No further investigation into how it got that far, who was supporting the idea, etc.

The item right after it is the FBI got the great idea to publicize Klan violence in Charlotte… rather than prosecute it. Almost like they weren’t really that concerned about which individuals were helping them or how many laws they were breaking. Just so long as they didn’t get the clout to actually swing any election results.

(Edit: reading through the rest of that to see if they ever followed up… can’t find any evidence they did, it becomes pretty clear the FBI new that all they had to do to end the chapter was actually just arrest them since the Klan’s legal fund wouldn’t have been able to sustain defense of arresting even like 5% of the chapter - instead they decided to send out fake letters)


That didn’t seem to be a response to you, rather general musing on the subject. Who’d have thought ethical questions would generate long and detailed answers??


He didn’t imply you were saying that though. He was saying he feels it is “exceptionally disingenous to say it’s fine for Nazis to advocate genocide but not for others to advocate punching Nazis in the face.”

Generalized statement, not aimed at you.