A possible suspect in the murder, a 48 year old self-avowed Antifa reprobate, is under investigation for the fatal shooting.

On June 16, he wrote, “Every Revolution needs people that are willing and ready to fight. There are so many of us protesters that are just protesting without a clue of where that will lead. That’s just the beginning that’s that where the fight starts. If that’s as far as you can take it thank you for your participation but please stand aside and support the ones that are willing to fight. I am 100 % ANTIFA all the way! I am willing to fight for my brothers and sisters! ... We do not want violence but we will not run from it either! ... Today’s protesters and antifa are my brothers in arms.”

https://www.oregonlive.com/crime/2020/08/man-under-investigation-in-fatal-shooting-after-pro-trump-rally-allegedly-took-loaded-gun-to-earlier-portland-protest.html

In my opinion the “Trump supporters” were stupid to go to Portland. Let them stew in their own pestilence for all to see.

Someone walks up to a protester, a so-called Trump supporter, executes him, and rather than condemn the act we condemn the partisanship. Brains rotting from the inside out.

Someone executed a “Blue lives matter” protester in Portland.

The whisteblower — whose identity, rap sheet and long history working as a consultant to various campaigns were confirmed by The Post — says he not only changed ballots himself over the years, but led teams of fraudsters and mentored at least 20 operatives in New Jersey, New York and Pennsylvania — a critical 2020 swing state.

Confessions of a voter fraud: I was a master at fixing mail-in ballots

https://nypost.com/2020/08/29/political-insider-explains-voter-fraud-with-mail-in-ballots/

I‘be been missIng your insight as of late, friend.

There was no mob in the video. Just a girl saying mean words. And you're here crying about "intimidation by a mob" and "harassment" and "my poor bum it hurts so much". You've proven my point: rightwingers can dish it out, but can't take it without throwing a tantrum and crying victim.

There are more videos. I’m not right wing either.

Did I "blame the victims"? Not at all. I didn't blame the couple in the video: I said nothing that even implied as much. I just pointed out the usual double-standard, the amusing and persistent hypocrisy of rightwingers delight at accusing other people (i.e. on the left) of being "snowflakes" who get "triggered" and need their "safe spaces"... but then turn around and throw a crybaby tantrum when someone says some naughty words to them. As with poor Dotard himself, you can dish it out, but not take it (not without melting down at any rate). And similarly with free speech and "cancel-culture" (and probably plenty of other things besides): for all your whining, you're as guilty as anyone else and in many cases quite a bit more so.

I mean, I understand that you don't put any stock in things like basic logical consistency, but it would help your credibility if you would at least attempt to disguise the double-standard.

Though there might be right-wing mobs out there swarming and harassing people, I am personally not aware of any who suggest or condone doing so, especially not Trump and certainly not myself. So your claims of hypocrisy are nonsense.

It’s called harassment and you blame the victims. I’m sure you do so without hypocrisy.

Being threatened by a mob is a little different than feeling threatened by tweets and ideas.

q

How can you tell if someone who extremely dislikes the concept of white privilege is doing so for system justification/self palliative reasons or not? I'm not saying don't be critical of it, I'm saying that the very idea inspires so much vitriol in some people and pages and pages of text. Often, after the pages and pages the person who says they hate the concept of white privilege actually agrees with all of the substantive content it criticises, but feels either personally attacked by it or that (generic white person) will be turned off by it. Projecting personal discomfort onto the absent other, maybe. Regardless, they dislike the present because of the package. Complicity should never feel comfortable, and self flagellating doesn't make any difference.

I've got a personal wager that people who get super animated about it being a hard sell to some white people to begin with more often than not are duckspeaking system justification in an academic dialect. But that's neither here not there I suppose.

I think the vitriol stems from “white privilege” being a sweeping and unjust generalization upon people with lighter skin colors, in this case the projections of Peggy McIntosh upon an amorphous, abstract group of people rather than a thoughtful analysis of flesh and blood individuals. I can imagine other such generalizations made about other skin colors, and I think it is safe to say there would be some warranted vitriol, and rightly so.

For me it’s a hard sell because it’s a racialist and racist concept, and not much more than that.

Of course belligerent mobs threaten RNC attendees as they leave the event.

This is persecution. Welcome to the United States of Portland.

I’m trying to argue that it isn’t as nefarious as you make it out to be. Photos of Obama era “children in cages” were shown to great effect in order to malign the Trump administration’s reasoning, which apparently laid absent from your thought.

His brand of hard does. I recall reading that that caging children was his idea (I'll accept correction on this), and that they, presumably including him, were surprised that anyone noticed or made an issue of it(!!!).

The facilities with “cages” were set up during Obama’s term. Rather it’s the “zero tolerance” policy that led to family separation, because it sent illegals to jail while being prosecuted, thereby separating them from their children (we don’t send children to jail with their parents).

I would say I shared this concern, but have been under the understanding that there were indications Miller, and others, likely Bannon, had exacerbated/exploited identity politics as you appear concerned with.


In any case, what strikes me as odd is the concern with racism qua "the path of Biden's identity politics" but not a concern with any of the indications of racism we already have with varying circles of Trump supporters.

I would agree that the American identity has been exploited, but that identity is welcome to all races and creeds.

As for racism in varying circles of Trump supporters, I cannot find any connection, ideological or otherwise, to Trump’s agenda, and I think that’s the reason many of the racist activist types are disillusioned with Trump. In the end they’ve been duped by the Dems and their media wing.

Perhaps Plato would agree :-)... but I'm not so sure, I think to be a successful politician you need good instincts as to what speaks to people in the first place. Maybe you need some philosophy to be a 'good' one, but then you probably won't be a successful one.

It’s true, a fair amount of demagoguery and sophistry goes into political campaigning, which is we know is antithetical to some philosophers. But in their defense, I think going over the heads of intellectuals in order to appeal to the masses is an important skill. For me, the problem of an ideology is not whether it is put forth in an emotional manner, but whether or not the ideology is correct.

A “sense of justice” is found in chimps, who will protest if they learn others receive more for the same work. Whether you call it nature, God, or what have you, justice is primary to any formal declarations.

I’m not sure they are at odds with each other since a great deal of philosophy goes into forging ideology. But perhaps one should begin with philosophy before venturing into politics.

My understanding was that in the case of Miller, we have someone more than externally endorsing someone but present within Trump's circle.

So in this case, do you feel this is insignificant/not worth considering, a difference not worth considering, or otherwise find other parallels in Dem or left candidates?

You do not think there are reasons to suppose a higher support of Trump among alt right and racists or a significant difference of support?

Do you find the alt right element to be negligible now, negligible before any supposed "turn" or both?

Miller is definitely a hardliner on immigration, but I’m not sure that makes him a racist. However, I am welcome to learning about any racist statements he has made or policies he has written.

I am not concerned with who racists support or what they think. Identity politics, however, seems to be something Biden wants to institutionalize at the highest levels of government. That is a clear path to racism.

I was never concerned about the alt-right. I was more concerned about the free press they and other such groups were given.

No, I do not think one man’s views can be said to be shared by any majority of people. I do not follow or care much about alr-right figures, but I think Trump has largely lost their support according to some reports (example). Spenser supported Yang, now Biden. David Duke endorsed Gabbard. I’m sure some support Trump. I do think there are racists who support every candidate.

He was the alt-right poster boy for the media in the previous election, and was used to great effect to convince pliant minds of guilt by association. I wager he finally figured out that Trump wasn’t the great racist white hope the media made him out to be.

Personally I don’t judge a candidate by who supports them.

If you want to play that game, how about Richard Spencer?

Do you not view racism as a factor in Trump's base?

I do not.

The identity politics, the government bailouts, the tax-raising, the “diversity and inclusion” (racism), the free tuition, the “enforcement mechanism” to achieve net-zero emissions...mostly the overall inclination towards increasing political power at the expense of social power strike me as particularity disconcerting.

Not on board with any inquiry into truth. I guess if the Donald says it, that's all we need to know, yes?

An “inquiry into truth”? Is that the euphemism we’re using these days?

https://joebiden.com/

I’m not on board with that. More taxpayer dollars wasted on frivolous conspiracy theories. Have you read Biden’s policies?

Right off the top of the dome. I got more where that came from.

That’s a lie, I have said plenty on all of the above topics. Unfortunately you’re blinded by your hatred, as are most, and you all will tear down this country to defeat the folk devils you yourself have invented. You can break free of this, Tim. It involves thinking for yourself.

That's right, nos4, that's all it is, and that's all we are. Right?

I hate to generalize, but yes, pretty much. I have seen little that isn’t gossip, conspiracy theory, or political correctness, all of it compounded by simple election propaganda and celebrity endorsement.

The thread does not refer to Marxists, but specifically to Marx.

True, the term Marxist, like almost all political terms, is quite ambiguous. But when someone claims to be a Christian, it's quite rare for him to be inspired by the Koran, isn't it? And communists who defend capitalism is a contradiction in terms. These are pretty obvious things. But conservative politicians want to put all communists in the same boat and attribute to them all the barbarities of some. This is very typical of political propaganda. This should be avoided in a serious discussion.

Not the same barbarities, just the same bad ideas. Besides, capitalists shouldn’t defend communists lest they lose ther capitalism membership, right?

Why? I don't care if you are conservative or liberal. After all, I'm not going out for a drink with you.

Fair enough. I’ll assume you are.

The RNC was a huge disappointment because, unlike the DNC, it didn’t have great performances like Billy Porter.

There is a point that trade and capital have been a part of the human experience since prehistoric times.

On these grounds I would argue that trade and capital has never been systematized, and that “capitalism” was always an expression of human nature rather than a system someone invented and convinced people to act out.

That’s fair if it was sarcastic. The word “socialism” is often used wrong in the US. This is not only true of anti-socialists, but of self-proclaimed socialists who point to the Nordic model as socialism, like Bernie Sanders for instance. I suppose then that “socialism” is either a term of abuse or praise (depending on whom it’s coming from) in the United States rather than an economic system. And it’s true, the US is a massive welfare state with astronomical levels of government spending.

Talking about white privilege is required in order to understand the effects/affects of racism. The removal of white privilege would effectively be and/or signal the end of racism. That does not require taking anything away from white people. It requires cultivating a society where white privilege no longer exists because no one suffers the effects/affects and/or injuries stemming from racism.

The irony is the only way to “remove white privilege” is to believe the same as the racist, except to discriminate “positively”. First you must believe that your skin color offers you some sort of advantage, that a dark skin color offers disadvantage, then treat people accordingly. All this talk about how whites are better off and have an upper hand because they are white reeks to me of white supremacy. It’s no wonder that people reject it out of hand.

This is true, but tragically his fallacious and emotional approach to this topic is probably the approach of most people, at least in America. I understand the position of the intellectual who sees himself above it, there is truth to it, but it is also a form of arrogance. The Left has been obliterated precisely because its repose to people like NOS4A2, has simply been to declare them ignorant. And no doubt they are, but the error, even though it is incredibly juvenile, must be refuted. Simply dismissing people like him leaves them with with the impression that they have a powerful argument that cannot be refuted. Tragic, and fallacious as it is, it leaves them with the impression that their negative stance is both comprehensive and true. It is simply not good enough for intellectuals to use an ad hominem, believing it gives them an excuse to evade their responsibility of refutation. No doubt, there is a time to walk away and leave ignorance to itself, precisely because it wastes time, but in this case, the very likely fact that NOS4A2's position is common, provides good grounds to refute it.

Yet you said the “the greatest socialist country that has ever existed on the face of the earth”, which is the biggest load of shite anyone has ever written In this thread. You have refuted nothing, unfortunately, and have only solidified my belief in that I am reading pure wind.

If they defend capitalism, they can't be Marxists. It would be contradictory to everything Marx wrote and predicted. Whether or not they benefit from it is another matter. We're discussing whether Marx was right, not whether he was honest. Don't get off topic.

I denied that those parties that call themselves communist a) are communist (that is, to defend the communist revolution); b) have the slightest power to do so.

Trying to draw a circle around who is or isn’t a Marxist or communist is a fools errand. If people call themselves Marxists or communists, however, it is a good indication that they are or are at least trying to be.

I thought the topic was Marx’s “The Nationalization of the Land”, which I said has been tried and failed to result in anything Marx predicted in that piece.

Why do you want to know? Would anything happen if I was? I think you should know from what I've written. There are some things I think Marx was right about and some things I don't. Does that make me a Marxist?

I was asking because I didn’t want to assume that you were.

Even if he's not I can assure you that you are a socialist, and would never pack up your goods and move to a purely capitalist country. American is actually the greatest socialist country that has ever existed on the face of the earth. This is not my opinion, this is an empirical fact. America redistributed 4.5 Trillion dollars into the stock market. And the Pentagon cannot account for a whopping 21 Trillion dollars! But you know, a medical system for your aging grandmother is too expensive, it could end up costing 1 Trillion dollars! America has engaged in more wealth redistribution than all the Marxist and Socialist countries combined!

It’s just not true that the US is a socialist country. The vast bulk of the means of production is privately owned.

Trump dismisses secret audio of sister calling him ‘cruel': ‘Who cares?’

“Every day it’s something else, who cares?” President Trump said in a statement, according to the Washington Post. “I miss my brother, and I’ll continue to work hard for the American people. Not everyone agrees, but the results are obvious. Our country will soon be stronger than ever before!”

Gossip-mongers and their readers care, but that’s about it.

For God's sake! Apart from the Communist-Capitalist parties that are as Marxist as my aunt - well my aunt is quite a bit more than they are - the rest are just unimportant residues that fade away on their own. The world is capitalist, man. If you were afraid, you can relax.

That’s nonsense. They may benefit from the current economic hegemony, like Marx and everyone here, but they spread the gospel of Marx wherever they go. Are you a Marxist?

And one wonders:
Why is the scarecrow of communism still being used when there are virtually no communists today? Why does it keep coming back to a 19th century thinker who's already quite old-fashioned?

I can think of only two possibilities:
1. To throw a smokescreen over the problems of capitalism.
2. Because Marx was right about a few basic points about capitalism.

They are not exclusive. There may be others I can't think of now, of course.

There are plenty of communists.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_communist_parties

The history speaks for itself. So why would we shy away from criticism?