Antifa [Mod Warning on post #1 - updated 08/08/19]

biko

Real antifascist



Wanna-be antifascists blocking old people

Poor_old_gill

sid waddell wrote: »

No, antifa is not an organisation. There is no such organisation.

There have been some people that have been violent against fascists, but, then, being violent against fascists is hardly the worst thing in the world.

I mean the French resistance were violent against Nazis.

Seems a lot of people here were against the French resistance.

This thread would remind you of the yobs making Nazi salutes who went on the rampage in London recently on the pretext of "protecting the statue of Churchill".

But Churchill was antifa and very definitely anti-Nazi.

Yeah I did like the anti-fascist element to Churchill's character.

I also like the fact that he absolutely abhorred violent left wing activists - did you like that part of him aswell?

Poor_old_gill

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

You do know that Churchill was extremely anti communist don't you?

His argument seems to be based around binary positions.

sid waddell

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

Are they really stupid? Maybe they are Polish or Hungarian or are familiar with what happens under these regimes.

Not really sure what you are talking about in relation to freeze peach? Maybe I am just so stupid and far right.

Because I oppose communism? I am stupid?

Or maybe I know a tiny bit about 20th century.

You'd have to be really stupid to consider a hammer and sickle flag to be as offensive as a Nazi flag.

I mean, didn't the Soviets contribute massively to defeating the Nazis?

Maybe you'd have preferred if they hadn't defeated the Nazis on the Eastern Front, given that it seems each was equally offensive to you?

Maybe, like in Monty Python, you'd have preferred a draw?

Oh, and believe me, I'm no communist.

Poor_old_gill

sid waddell wrote: »

You'd have to be really stupid to consider a hammer and sickle flag to be as offensive as a Nazi flag.

I mean, didn't the Soviets contribute massively to defeating the Nazis?

Maybe you'd have preferred if they hadn't defeated the Nazis on the Eastern Front, given that it seems each was equally offensive to you?

Maybe, like in Monty Python, you'd have preferred a draw?

Oh, and believe me, I'm no communist.

Didnt the soviets help defeat the Nazi's evil attempts to invade other countries & oppress minorities so that they could then... invade other countries & oppress minorities ?

jam_mac_jam

sid waddell wrote: »

You'd have to be really stupid to consider a hammer and sickle flag to be as offensive as a Nazi flag.

I mean, didn't the Soviets contribute massively to defeating the Nazis?

Maybe you'd have preferred if they hadn't defeated the Nazis on the Eastern Front, given that it seems each was equally offensive to you?

Maybe, like in Monty Python, you'd have preferred a draw?

Oh, and believe me, I'm no communist.

I give up
Yeah you're right. I would have loved the Nazis to win the second world war. That was clearly my point.

sid waddell

Poor_old_gill wrote: »

His argument seems to be based around binary positions.

Fascism is a binary subject.

Isn't it?

Can you tell us why it isn't, given that that's clearly your view?

I love the idea of using Churchill as a measure... a life long imperialist whose only interest was the protection of the Empire, an empire that used many of the same techniques that fascists appreciated themselves. A man who advocated any and all measures to achieve his goals. Britain's version of democracy during Churchill's time, wasn't quite the same as what we consider democracy to mean today...

I swear the shallowness in awareness about history is rather depressing.

sid waddell

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

I give up
Yeah you're right. I would have loved the Nazis to win the second world war. That was clearly my point.

I didn't say that though. You're claiming fake victimhoood here over something I didn't say.

What you did say implies that you would have preferred a draw between the Nazis and the Soviets.

It does imply that you regret the Soviets actually winning, given that you consider them morally equivalent to the Nazis.

storker

sid waddell wrote: »

You'd have to be really stupid to consider a hammer and sickle flag to be as offensive as a Nazi flag.

I mean, didn't the Soviets contribute massively to defeating the Nazis?

Maybe you'd have preferred if they hadn't defeated the Nazis on the Eastern Front, given that it seems each was equally offensive to you?

Maybe, like in Monty Python, you'd have preferred a draw?

Oh, and believe me, I'm no communist.

No, you're a troll.

(Well someone had to say it.)

GooglePlus

sid waddell wrote: »

You'd have to be really stupid to consider a hammer and sickle flag to be as offensive as a Nazi flag.

I mean, didn't the Soviets contribute massively to defeating the Nazis?

Maybe you'd have preferred if they hadn't defeated the Nazis on the Eastern Front, given that it seems each was equally offensive to you?

Maybe, like in Monty Python, you'd have preferred a draw?

Oh, and believe me, I'm no communist.

Stalin was as bad as Hitler.

Mr Meanor

sid waddell wrote: »

You'd have to be really stupid to consider a hammer and sickle flag to be as offensive as a Nazi flag.

I mean, didn't the Soviets contribute massively to defeating the Nazis?

Maybe you'd have preferred if they hadn't defeated the Nazis on the Eastern Front, given that it seems each was equally offensive to you?

Maybe, like in Monty Python, you'd have preferred a draw?

Oh, and believe me, I'm no communist.

Hammer and Sickle represents the murder of 140 Million people

In 1994, R. J. Rummel's book Death by Government included about 110 million people, foreign and domestic, killed by communist democide from 1900 to 1987.[30] In 1993, Rummel wrote: "Even were we to have total access to all communist archives we still would not be able to calculate precisely how many the communists murdered. Consider that even in spite of the archival statistics and detailed reports of survivors, the best experts still disagree by over 40 percent on the total number of Jews killed by the Nazis. We cannot expect near this accuracy for the victims of communism. We can, however, get a probable order of magnitude and a relative approximation of these deaths within a most likely range".[17] Due to additional information about Mao's culpability in the Great Chinese Famine from the work of Jung Chang and Jon Halliday, in late 2005 Rummel revised upward his total for communist democide between 1900 and 1999 to about 148 million, using their estimate of 38 million famine deaths.[31][32

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

jam_mac_jam

sid waddell wrote: »

I didn't say that though. You're claiming fake victimhoood here over something I didn't say.

What you did say implies that you would have preferred a draw between the Nazis and the Soviets.

It does imply that you regret the Soviets actually winning, given that you consider them morally equivalent to the Nazis.

Read some history books. I'm out of explaining it to you.

sid waddell

Deleted User wrote: »

I love the idea of using Churchill as a measure... a life long imperialist who only interest was the protection of the Empire, an empire that used many of the same techniques that fascists appreciated themselves. A man who advocated any and all measures to achieve his goals. Britain's version of democracy during Churchill's time, wasn't quite the same as what we consider democracy to mean today...

I swear the shallowness in awareness about history is rather depressing.

But you're the person with little understanding of history, and zero nuance.

I'm not a particular fan of Churchill when the whole picture of his life is considered, and certainly no fan of British imperialism.

But stand against the Nazis he very much did.

And it was a very good thing that he did.

TheValeyard

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

I give up
Yeah you're right. I would have loved the Nazis to win the second world war. That was clearly my point.

The Man in the High Castle was a brilliant tv show about it

Beasty

Threads merged

sid waddell

storker wrote: »

No, you're a troll.

(Well someone had to say it.)

The problem with the far right is that they call everybody that doesn't agree with them trolls.

Or communists.

Even though the far right's online strategy is actually based on trolling and cloaking its real, abhorrent views.

It's like a sort of creepy, camp performance art.

sid waddell

sid waddell wrote: »

It does imply that you regret the Soviets actually winning, given that you consider them morally equivalent to the Nazis.

You're throwing around a lot of terms, willy-nilly. Nazi's, fascists, etc.

Nazi's -- Nationalist Socialism.
Fascism, which is far closer linked to Italy's fascism than to Germany's, since Germany's fascism was a bastard aborted child.

Communist and National Socialism had loads in common. You might want to rethink some of your understanding about this whole area. Also there's a major difference between what people said, what they did, and what the Allied propaganda (Hollywood or British movies) said...

Do some reading because you're constantly showing a lot of ignorance in your statements.

TheValeyard

Beasty wrote: »

Threads merged

FASCIST!!!!!!!




That's how this works right?

sid waddell

sid waddell wrote: »

But you're the person with little understanding of history, and zero nuance.

You're welcome to show me where I'm wrong. TBH all I've seen from you is lots of statements (no attempt to argue/debate), with the expectation that people just accept it all as fact.

I'm not a particular fan of Churchill when the whole picture of his life is considered, and certainly no fan of British imperialism.

But stand against the Nazis he very much did.

And it was a very good thing that he did.

He stood up to the enemies of the British Empire. If they had decided to join the Axis, he would have done a very good job at that too. He was a patriot.

Overheal

Being against fascism and believing black lives matter are both separable from association with Antifa or BLM activism groups. Both are disjointed movements, both with groups that wave that banner, but you're not a member the same way you would be of a clear organization like eg. Proud Boys, the idea that people want to label BLM or Antifa a hate group or a terrorist organization is prone to failure, whereas there is no "KKK Movement" and the KKK is a particular organization with established leaders and even membership cards.

joeguevara

maccored wrote: »

Act like a thirteen year old? Well, I suppose a thirteen year old would know that antifa is a collection of different groups with varying beliefs, all based around anti fascism - rather than all being one group with the same aspirations and ideals.

you don't seem to understand that.

You still cant define a group. Who said that a group cant be a collection of different group. Therein lies your problem.

sid waddell

Deleted User wrote: »

You're throwing around a lot of terms, willy-nilly. Nazi's, fascists, etc.

Nazi's -- Nationalist Socialism.
Fascism, which is far closer linked to Italy's fascism than to Germany's, since Germany's fascism was a bastard aborted child.

Communist and National Socialism had loads in common. You might want to rethink some of your understanding about this whole area. Also there's a major difference between what people said, what they did, and what the Allied propaganda (Hollywood or British movies) said...

Do some reading because you're constantly showing a lot of ignorance in your statements.

Calling the Nazis "socialist" is about as historically accurate as calling the German Democratic Republic or the Democratic People's Republic of North Korea "democratic".

It's a standard American far right cliche technique which only demonstrates the historical illiteracy of the person who uses it.

As sure as night follows day, in threads like these, a far right poster will steam in and use it.

And you did. Well done.

I'm not sure why you're implying I'm a communist. I'm not a communist.

Weak, weak, weak arguing.

sid waddell

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

Read some history books. I'm out of explaining it to you.

I have a degree in history.

sid waddell

sid waddell wrote: »

Calling the Nazis "socialist" is about as historically accurate as calling the German Democratic Republic or the Democratic People's Republic of North Korea "democratic".

Read what is written. Nationalist socialist. Are you really this ignorant of the whole topic? Why the hell did you start talking about Nazi's when you know nothing about their ideology?

It's a standard American far right cliche technique which only demonstrates the historical illiteracy of the person who uses it.

Gibberish. So.. lots of words, and no meaning. Yup. I've noticed that about your posts.

I'm not sure why you're implying I'm a communist. I'm not a communist.

Weak, weak, weak arguing.

I didn't imply that you were a communist. Hilarious... and completely delusional.

sid waddell wrote: »

I have a degree in history.

Good lord. They'll pass anyone it seems.... because you've shown a staggering amount of ignorance in a very short space of writing on the thread.

TheValeyard

sid waddell wrote: »

I have a degree in history.

From clown college or bovine university?

jam_mac_jam

sid waddell wrote: »

I have a degree in history.

Wow

sid waddell

joeguevara wrote: »

You still cant define a group. Who said that a group cant be a collection of different group. Therein lies your problem.

The problem with people who define antifa as "a group" is that they are using the same definition as calling me Johnny, Paddy and Mick going to the pub as a "group".

Me, Johnny, Paddy and Mick are all anti-fascist. Therefore we are a group of antifa, as we head for our pints (always remaining at least one metre apart, of course). But we aren't an organsation.

There is no such organisation as antifa.

nullzero

sid waddell wrote: »

I have a degree in history.

I'm afraid we're going to require some sort of proof.

I believe you of course, but others might not.
I'm off to wrap my 25 inch mickey around my leg.

Mr Meanor

sid waddell wrote: »

I have a degree in history.

Then you should know about the DSP (Deutschsozialistische Partei) in the Weimar and Hans Georg Grassinger

n the autumn of 1919, around September, Hitler appeared in the office of the publishing house to see Grassinger and offered [to] write for the paper, and to join and work for the German Socialist Party. He didn’t have any money at the time and he also asked to borrow money from Grassinger. But they [told] him that they had no use for him in the paper and that they also did not want to have him in the party.[2]

I've a degree in history as well
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Socialist_Party