FRIHOSTFORUMSSEARCHFAQTOSBLOGSCOMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Left-wing “Occupiers” Unleash Their Bigotry





jmi256
I had a feeling the fringe Left would eventually become so unhinged that they would be unable to control themselves and let their beliefs and hatred show. It was just a matter of time.

It’s sad that those who are not in line with this left-wing hatred and nonsense have been tainted by their affiliation with the bigots that seem to have taken hold at the various “Occupy” protests.

Their attacks on “Jews” are just one small glimpse into what motivates these people.


Quote:
More Anti-Semitism at Occupy Los Angeles

While there have been intense arguments in the media recently about hints of anti-Semitism which have erupted at New York’s Occupy Wall Street protest, very little attention has been paid to similar problems cropping up at other “Occupy” events around the country.

Below you will find some photographs and a video taken at the Occupy Los Angeles encampment which reveal how there is a growing encroachment of anti-Semitic “Jewish bankers” conspiracy theories becoming more and more evident at these events. Obviously not everyone at the “Occupy” protests is an anti-Semite, but the fact that these statements and views fit so neatly into the whole anti-banker milieu, and often go completely unchallenged by fellow protesters, should give everyone cause for concern about where this whole movement is heading.

The first four pictures show the signs close up. The second four pictures show the same signs in context as they appeared at the Occupy Los Angeles protest, to prove beyond any doubt that these are authentic. Below them is a video of an Occupy Los Angeles speaker spinning more conspiracy theories.

All Los Angeles photos and video here were taken by Ringo, and will appear in future reports at Ringo’s Pictures. This is the first time any of them have been shown online.

(Below the Los Angeles images there is a gallery of videos [many already well-known] of anti-Semitic protesters at the New York Occupation, along with transcriptions.)

First, at Occupy Los Angeles:


“End the Fed. Turn off the spigot!!!”, with an illustration showing Stars of David (containing the word “Zion”), missiles, and dollar signs, implying either that Jewish influence in the Federal government is what causes war funding, or that Jews pressure the government to send military aid to Israel, or both.



“Bizarre and incredible as it sounds, humanity has been colonized by a satanic cult called the ILLUMINATI…This cult represents Masonic and Jewish bankers who finagled a monopoly over government credit which allows them to charge interest on funds they create out of nothing. Thus, the people who control our purse strings are conspiring against us…They have orchestrated TWO WORLD WARS and are planning a THIRD.”

This ancient stereotype of the evil and greedy “Jewish bankers” is the precursor to the “greedy Wall Street bankers” so hated by the Occupiers.



“It’s Yom Kippur: Banks should atone!” Hmmmm…why would the banks and bankers engage in a Jewish ritual practice (atonement on Yom Kippur) if they weren’t Jewish? Again, we return to the “Jewish bankers” theme.

UPDATE: Turns out this particular sign is being held by a Jewish protester, so its intent was probably not meant to be anti-Semitic — though it could easily be misinterpreted, and as such was very ill-considered. The sign-holder is in no way visible in the photo, so their gender/age/religion/name was unknown to me. I did not identify the sign-holder in the caption nor depict them in a photo, and out of respect will continue refraining from doing so.



“Humanity vs. the Rothschlds” [sic -- he means "Rothschilds.]

In earlier centuries up through WWII, anti-Semitic “Jewish banker” conspiracy theories frequently focused on the Rothschilds, a prominent European Jewish family which owned many financial institutions.

Speaking of the Rothschilds conspiracy theories, and the belief that the Jews “funded WWII,” this video by Ringo of a speaker at the Occupy L.A. protest shows that the anti-Semitism is creeping into standard anti-capitalist speeches:



Here’s a transcript of what she said starting at 0:39 into the video:
Quote:
Occupy L.A. speaker: “How many people know that the wars, in WWII, both sides, were funded by the Rothschilds? Those are the bankers. So banking and war is very intertwined.”



UPDATE: This additional video of an Occupy Los Angeles protester was taken a few days later by Reason TV:


Quote:
Interviewer: “Name and affiliation?”

Occupy Los Angeles protester: “Patricia McAllister, I’m here representing myself but I do work for the Los Angeles Unified School District. I think that the Zionist Jews who are running these big banks and our Federal Reserve — which is not run by the federal government — they need to be run out of this country.”


And in case anyone wants proof that the top four signs were indeed at the Occupy Los Angeles protest, here are photos of them in context, with the Occupation encampment around them:









Just to be complete, here is a gallery of videos taken at the New York Occupy Wall Street protest.

First up is the now-infamous “Lotion Man,” arguing with a Jewish passerby:


Quote:
Lotion Man: “I got a job, Mo. I do have a job. You’re a bum, Jew. Man, I’m a Jew. Why are you fighting with us? You got the money, that’s why you’re fighting, you Jewish man. My father worked 40 years, and we have a foreclosed house, my mother’s dead, she had a heart attack from stress. You tell the corporations to stop calling my mother.”

Jewish passerby: “What?”

Lotion Man: “What? [Mocking] Uh? Uh? Duhduhduhduhduh. You can’t even speak English? Are you Israeli? Go back to Israel. Israel. Go back to Shalom Israel. … I have a job. I’m a college graduate. I’m in the Local 1 Plumbers’ Union. Who are you to tell me I need a job? Look at you, you short little man. Go away. I don’t wanna argue. Bye! Keep it moving. Occupy Wall Street, Occupy Wall Street.”


Also note that the person who took the video said (about Lotion Man’s statement that he too is Jewish) “By the way, during the course of his performance, he told me that he was white, Puerto Rican, Jewish, and African-American.”

Next up is a guy who’s been standing at the protest for weeks, holding up blatantly anti-Semitic signs and ranting about Jews, to the consternation of Jews in the vicinity:

Quote:
“Blame the Jews.”

That’s the message one Wall Street protester was trying to spread in Lower Manhattan to anyone that would listen.

A new video posted to YouTube shows the protester loudly and aggressively proclaiming “the Jews control Wall Street.”

In the nearly 6-minute video, the man is seen standing in Zuccotti Park ranting against Israel and Jews while holding a sign reading “Hitler’s Bankers – Wall St.”

The protestor, who would not give his name to those gathered around him, is also seen arguing with members of the public who took offense to his choice of words.

A number of others also ask the protester if Fox News had paid him to stand and display his sign to which he responded: “[expletive] Fox News, that’s [expletive]. [Expletive] Jew made that up.”


Here’s the video:


The Occupiers, completely unable to accept that their arguments have attracted kooks with similar and overlapping beliefs, begin to formulate their own ridiculous conspiracy theory that he is an agent hired by Fox News — as you will see in this transcript, starting at 1:30:

Quote:
Anti-Semitic Occupy Wall Street protester: “The Jews control Wall Street! These are the Jews! The Jews control Wall Street. Google it! Google Wall Street Jews. Wall Street Jews! Their names are Jewish — do the homework, do the research. The Jews control Wall Street!”

[bBystander:[/b] “Hey, didn’t I see you getting out of that Fox News truck parked over there by the corner?”

[Later, starting at 3:24]

Blogger: “Tell me something: Know what? People are saying that Fox News gave you $50. Did you get paid $50 to hold that sign?”

Anti-Semitic Occupy Wall Street protester: “****** Fox News and that bullshit.”

Blogger: “Did anyone pay you to hold that sign?”

Anti-Semitic Occupy Wall Street protester: “No! A ****** Jew made that up.”

Blogger: “No one paid you to hold that sign?”

Anti-Semitic Occupy Wall Street protester: “No.”


Here’s another video of the same guy, with a transcript starting at 1:14:


Quote:
Anti-Semitic Occupy Wall Street protester: “Google ‘Jews control Wall Street.’ Google “Jewish billionaires.’ Google ‘Jews and the Federal Reserve Bank.’ The small ethnic Jewish population in the country, they have a firm grip on America’s media, finances, and other areas of production.”

Interviewer: “So what would you say to people who say you’re anti-Semitic or don’t like Jews?”

Anti-Semitic Occupy Wall Street protester: “I would tell them that Jesus in the Gospel according to St. John, Jesus referred to certain elements in the Jewish community as ‘children of the devil,’ Chapter 8 I believe. But, having said that, the fact of the matter is that there is clear, the fingerprints of these Jewish billionaires and hedge fund managers and bankers is clear and convincing.”

Interviewer: “So are you against all Jews, or just…?”

Anti-Semitic Occupy Wall Street protester: “I’m against the Jews who are robbing America, or who are silent about their brethren robbing America. Google ‘Jewish billionaires.’ Half the billionaires in this country are Jewish. Jews represent 2% of the population, but they are that 1% that seems to control America. And you can also Google ‘Jews control America.’ There’s a lot of research that’s been done to prove that there appears to be some kind of ethnic grip on the American economy.”

…etc.

The interviewer wrote an article on The Blaze to accompany these videos, in which he also includes an interview with a “non-leader” of the Occupy Wall Street group saying the the anti-Semite doesn’t represent the rest of the protesters.

Here is yet another video of the same guy, with a transcript starting at 0:33:


Quote:
Anti-Semitic Occupy Wall Street protester: “I have to say that Jews have usurped the authority of the majority of the people of this country. And they’re doing it in a conspiratorial manner. And everyone is afraid, everyone is shaking in their boots to admit that one ethnic group is dominating America.”


This article in the Chabad Lubavitch Headquarters News discusses how some observant Jews at the New York Occupy Wall Street protest are becoming increasingly upset at the incipient anti-Semitism in the protest messages, and are trying to counter it:
Quote:
Daniel Sieradski, a new media activist and participant in the protests, says he is reaching out to Jewish participants at the protest.

Sieradski has also found a small, fringe element that has “chosen to co-opt the protests as an opportunity” to spread hatred and anti-Semitic rhetoric, among participants, and hopes to dispel negative Jewish stereotypes and to “fight those using Jew-hatred,” by his presence there.


Leftists at the protest are hyper-senstitive to accusations of anti-Semitism, and have struck back with counterattacks.

This article in New Voices, the National Jewish Student Magazine, downplays the sign-holder as “the entire anti-Semite community of the Occupy Wall Street protest,” claiming there are no other anti-Semites there.

And the left-leaning pro-Occupy PoliticsUSA site published articles entitled Nazi Obsessed Fox News Attacks Occupy Wall Street As Anti-Semitic and A Terrified Rush Limbaugh Mines the Gutter Of Anti-Semitism To Attack the 99% which go to great lengths to dismiss the charges of anti-Semitism.

But with the emergence of the new evidence from Los Angeles presented above, the charges are getting harder to ignore.


Source = http://pajamasmedia.com/tatler/2011/10/13/more-anti-semitism-at-occupy-los-angeles/
deanhills
I get a feeling of the Tea Party all over again. Something that was really good initially turning into chaos and no sane person wants to identify with. Both initiatives had a really good cause. I wonder whether those who have a vested interest in the failure of these protest marches are deliberately paying hooligans to gatecrash good intentions?
jmi256
deanhills wrote:
I wonder whether those who have a vested interest in the failure of these protest marches are deliberately paying hooligans to gatecrash good intentions?

You mean the left-wing “rent-a-mobs”?



Quote:
Occupy Wall Street’s ACORN Rent-A-Mobs
Evidence suggests that ACORN, the Left’s premiere astro-turfing organization, has been paying people to participate in the Occupy Wall Street protests.
Astro-turfing campaigns can generate big money, and ACORN’s lucrative protest-for-profit program is nothing new. As I note in my book, Subversion Inc.: How Obama’s ACORN Red Shirts are Still Terrorizing and Ripping Off American Taxpayers, ACORN has acquired great expertise in manufacturing so-called grassroots protests.
Left-wing loan sharks Herb and Marion Sandler, the founders of World Savings Bank, gave ACORN affiliates close to $11 million to manufacture mobs to protest their competition in subprime mortgage lending. The United Federation of Teachers paid ACORN $500,000 to create a spontaneous uprising against charter schools in Manhattan.
The sleazy, SEIU-funded Working Families Party, a front group for ACORN, placed a want ad on the Craig’s List website dated Sept. 26. The ad indicates that WFP was recruiting activists to carry out “direct action,” leftist argot for a variety of activities aimed at forcing sociopolitical change. The line between direct action and violent terrorism can become blurry. Extreme forms of direct action can lead to bodily injury and sometimes death. The labor movement is no stranger to assault and killings. Left-wing activists David Gilbert and Kathy Boudin participated in an attack on an armored car that left two police officers and a security guard dead. Two anarchists tried to disrupt the 2008 GOP convention with Molotov cocktails. The eco-terrorist Sea Shepherd Conservation Society admits both to attacking whaling ships with acid and sinking them.
WFP’s ad is titled, “FIGHT TO HOLD WALLSTREET ACCOUNTABLE NOW! MAKE A DIFFERENCE GET PAID!” It states:
Quote:
The WFP is seeking immediate hires.
You must be an energetic communicator, with a passion for social and economic justice.
Only outgoing, articulate dedicated, determined candidates will be considered for the positions.
For those candidates that qualify WFP offers substantial paid-training provided by senior leadership, on varied issues such as: advocacy, public speaking, mobilizing, fundraising, networking and organizing. We invest in passionate people with excellent communication skills and a full benefits package is offered to those candidates that qualify. In addition, there is opportunity for advancement and travel to our satellite chapters and out of state affiliates.
This is not a policy job! Through direct action you will be shaping NY state politics for the next 20 years.” [emphasis added]

As previously reported, WFP has been involved in organizing the Occupy Wall Street protests since the beginning.
As radical journalist Laura Flanders reported, WFP organizer Nelini Stamp has “been here since day one and she is part of the organizing team and the outreach team that has managed to bridge the distance between that first day and this day and between the grassroots folks here and the labor movement.” Stamp said the protests are aimed at “trying to change the capitalist system” and bringing “revolutionary changes to the states.”
WFP organizer Matthew Cain also acknowledged the party’s involvement Oct. 5 and helpfully provided a photograph of party staffers bearing a blue and white WFP banner during a march in lower Manhattan. Across from Foley Square,
Quote:
several WFP field staff were standing on the steps. For some of the staffers, it was their first time at the square, but for many others they had already spent nights sleeping in the park. Even those who have been there for two weeks or more have not seen their spirits diminished – they’re every bit as committed as they were when they first showed up.

Of course WFP executive director Dan Cantor, a longtime ACORN operative, is pleased with Occupy Wall Street so far. Cantor told supporters in an email that “the spirit of Wisconsin and Tahrir Square is alive and well in New York City.”

Source = http://frontpagemag.com/2011/10/13/occupy-wall-street%E2%80%99s-acorn-rent-a-mobs/
deanhills
jmi256 wrote:
deanhills wrote:
I wonder whether those who have a vested interest in the failure of these protest marches are deliberately paying hooligans to gatecrash good intentions?

You mean the left-wing “rent-a-mobs”?
Aha .... so it IS real? Thanks for the article ....

Ha ACORN at it again .... those guys just don't learn do they!!!!
Ankhanu
Gross. Those signs almost look like right-wingers'.
deanhills
Ankhanu wrote:
Gross. Those signs almost look like right-wingers'.
Sometimes it is quite difficult to distinguish the two from one another. Maybe the only difference is a little more intelligence per square inch of grey matter among the leftists?
Ankhanu
Well, in the vocal ones, perhaps. I doubt there's really much difference in intelligence overall, but I couldn't say for sure.
Hello_World
Funny introduction.

Quote:
unable to control themselves and let their beliefs and hatred show.


Funny. Because if you are racist, you are pretty much not left-wing. It is those darn pesky right-wingers that have had a historical problem with coping with people from other races.

Us crazy left-wingers are all for equality.

It is sad that right-wingers are turning up at anti-capitalist protests, but then again maybe this is all part of the process for those annoying right-wingers to begin to learn what is really the problem with society. The sad thing is that outsiders who aren't aware of politics think that they are representative of left-wing views. The whole 'Jewish people control everything' conspiracy isn't a left-wing view.

Do you think that people who are at a protest have the right to examine everybody's views and stop some people from being there and expressing their view? People at protests are generally supportive of a freedom of expression right. And even if they wish to, do you think they could?

Some of your examples are obviously anti-semetic, I agree. Others...

I can't pretend to know much about the Rothschild thing, but I looked at this quote:
Quote:
Occupy L.A. speaker: “How many people know that the wars, in WWII, both sides, were funded by the Rothschilds? Those are the bankers. So banking and war is very intertwined.”

and I don't see anything anti-semetic about this. I think that it is really trying to point out that money/banks/the rich are willing to do anything to make more money, even have wars, even support a side which is committing genocide against your own people... and that is reading between the lines... she didn't even mention Jewish people in the speech, meanwhile she did mention support for people of colour.

Quote:
The Occupiers, completely unable to accept that their arguments have attracted kooks with similar and overlapping beliefs,


Actually, it would be rather silly to suggest that everyone there has identical views, or that there is some kind of body who can possibly ensure that people with certain views don't go... I'm sure that kooks were attracted to the tea party protests too - oh wait - they were all kooky...

To re-iterate, there is nothing left-leaning about racism.
Quote:

You mean the left-wing “rent-a-mobs”?

lololol I've just been waiting for the day someone ould approach me willing to pay to go to a protest... lolol...

The people who get paid to protest for real are people who work for logging companies and other environmentally destructive companies when their business is under threat, they get paid to go and counter environmental protests...
jmi256
deanhills wrote:
Ankhanu wrote:
Gross. Those signs almost look like right-wingers'.
Sometimes it is quite difficult to distinguish the two from one another. Maybe the only difference is a little more intelligence per square inch of grey matter among the leftists?

If these guys represent the left-wing intelligencia elite, the world is worse off than I thought.

Hello_World wrote:
Funny. Because if you are racist, you are pretty much not left-wing. It is those darn pesky right-wingers that have had a historical problem with coping with people from other races.

Us crazy left-wingers are all for equality.

Really? You should brush up on your history before you attempt to defend racists and bigots. I guess you conveniently forgot who create the KKK, who pits races against others and the rest of history. The left-wing mantra of “we’re all equal, but some are more equal than others” has been exposed as rubbish long ago.




Hello_World wrote:
It is sad that right-wingers are turning up at anti-capitalist protests, but then again maybe this is all part of the process for those annoying right-wingers to begin to learn what is really the problem with society. The sad thing is that outsiders who aren't aware of politics think that they are representative of left-wing views. The whole 'Jewish people control everything' conspiracy isn't a left-wing view.

You make that claim, yet you have left-wingers spewing their anti-Semitic tirades once again. Never mind the evidence, I’m sure you’re right and it’s all in our imaginations.



Hello_World wrote:
Do you think that people who are at a protest have the right to examine everybody's views and stop some people from being there and expressing their view? People at protests are generally supportive of a freedom of expression right. And even if they wish to, do you think they could?

Hello_World wrote:
Actually, it would be rather silly to suggest that everyone there has identical views, or that there is some kind of body who can possibly ensure that people with certain views don't go... I'm sure that kooks were attracted to the tea party protests too - oh wait - they were all kooky...

Funny, I don’t recall you defending the Tea Party protesters when a handful of idiots with signs were used to disparage an entire movement. But they have a word for that… hypocrisy.


Hello_World wrote:
To re-iterate, there is nothing left-leaning about racism.

Once again, evidence and history blows a hole in that argument.
Hello_World
Quote:
You make that claim, yet you have left-wingers spewing their anti-Semitic tirades once again. Never mind the evidence, I’m sure you’re right and it’s all in our imaginations.


That is the point. They are not left-wingers. They are 'gatecrashers' if you like.

Quote:
Funny, I don’t recall you defending the Tea Party protesters when a handful of idiots with signs were used to disparage an entire movement. But they have a word for that… hypocrisy.


Do you remember me disparaging it for that? Funny, you don't need to, they disparage themselves easily enough.

Quote:
I guess you conveniently forgot who create the KKK


Actually, I don't know much about the KKK except they run around burning crosses and killing African Americans. But then again, they aren't from my country. Illuminate me.

Wikipeadia quote:
Quote:
Ku Klux Klan, often abbreviated KKK and informally known as the Klan, is the name of three distinct past and present far-right[6][7][8][9] organizations in the United States, which have advocated extremist reactionary currents such as white supremacy, white nationalism, and anti-immigration, historically expressed through terrorism.[10][11]


Quote:
The left-wing mantra of “we’re all equal, but some are more equal than others” has been exposed as rubbish long ago.


What left-winger says that?

Quote:
You should brush up on your history before you attempt to defend racists and bigots.


Ummm... I haven't defended any racists and bigots. I am distancing myself from them.
ocalhoun
To think that racism is limited to a specific political bloc... well, that's just naive.

The left does generally favor equality and suppress racism, but there are, of course, exceptions.
And, of course, not all right-wingers are racists either... and that doesn't even begin to consider the people who don't fall into a right-left spectrum at all, like anarchists and fascists.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

More on topic, this seems to be classic cherry-picking. While racist elements may be involved, such a focus on them to the exclusion of all else is a transparent attempt to paint the movement as a whole as racist.
A movement this disorganized cannot be characterized by only a few examples.
Hello_World
Off topic a bit... but...

Quote:
and that doesn't even begin to consider the people who don't fall into a right-left spectrum at all, like anarchists and fascists.


I would have always considered anarchists to fall on the left, except pro-capitalist anarchists whom would fall on the far right... as in, anarchists as a whole can't be 'classified' into a left-right spectrum but their economic sympathies can be...

Quote:
More on topic, this seems to be classic cherry-picking. While racist elements may be involved, such a focus on them to the exclusion of all else is a transparent attempt to paint the movement as a whole as racist.
A movement this disorganized cannot be characterized by only a few examples.


An attempt to not just discredit the movement, but it also gives those racist views airtime meanwhile hiding the actual arguments of the movement.
ocalhoun
Hello_World wrote:
Off topic a bit... but...

Quote:
and that doesn't even begin to consider the people who don't fall into a right-left spectrum at all, like anarchists and fascists.


I would have always considered anarchists to fall on the left, except pro-capitalist anarchists whom would fall on the far right... as in, anarchists as a whole can't be 'classified' into a left-right spectrum but their economic sympathies can be...

True, you can classify them by economic system, but politically, they're simply not on the left-right spectrum.
(And to be fair, some anarchist theories invalidate the 'economic security vs. economic freedom' spectrum by insisting that both can coexist, such as through eliminating the concept of property ownership.)
*time to break out the chart again*

Trying to classify people as simply left or right ignores the other complexities of the situation.
...
To get slightly more on-topic, trying to point out one single region of that graph and saying 'that's where the racists are' is quite overly simplistic. It's taking a group and assigning a stereotype to that group, when that stereotype may often be inaccurate... in other words, the same thing the racists do.
(And that doesn't even begin to get into the 'soft racism' where 'they're inferior, so we should suppress them' becomes 'they're inferior, so we need to help them'.)
deanhills
Ocalhoun. Kudos for the chart. I've noticed you making modifications from the first one, and this one is the best one yet! Or maybe it's the same one .... anyway, it really looks good. Except, still difficult to think of Stalin as a centrist. I'd have regarded him a lefty.
ocalhoun
deanhills wrote:
Or maybe it's the same one ....

Yeah... It's the same one... and I didn't make it myself... each time I use it, I have to find it with a google image search.


As for the exact placement of any individual on the chart... that is of course limited in accuracy and often open for debate. (Historical figures are on the chart more for the purposes of explaining the chart and how to use it.)
It can be difficult to exactly define the political beliefs of any single person... they may not be well defined, and they may change over time. And, of course, it becomes even more difficult when the person is dead, so you can only go by historical accounts, which may be biased or otherwise inaccurate. (And of course, most groups are even harder to define, since positions of different members may vary... To accurately map a group on that chart, you would have to designate an area on it, rather than a point.)
Hello_World
Quote:
To think that racism is limited to a specific political bloc... well, that's just naive.

The left does generally favor equality and suppress racism, but there are, of course, exceptions.


Hmmm...

Okay. I'm not saying that all left-wing people are pure from racism nor all right-wing people are full of racism.

However, racism is not something considered okay by left-wing people, especially considering left-wing people spend a great deal of time trying to combat it meanwhile right-wing radio stations are always carrying on about immigrants and Muslims wanting to bring Sharia law here etc etc and their followers cheer for them...

Right-wing ideals appear to me to be happy to point the finger of blame anywhere but the economic system and/or its institutions, including racism of all types.

Racism is opposed to vaguely left-wing politics. Belief in equality and leveling playing fields and all those ideals do not make a good match with racism, they are logically inconsistant.

Please, challenge me if I am wrong but I know of no left-wing person who considers racism at all okay but plenty of right-wingers who do.

I don't think that is so naive, although perhaps so.
Bikerman
All you have to do is look at the basic starting points.
Left-wing - collectivism, redistribution, shared-ownership
Right-wing - individualist, keep what you 'earn', private ownership.

Which of these ideologies is more likely to give rise to racism?
It is a no-brainer, surely?
jmi256
Bikerman wrote:
All you have to do is look at the basic starting points.
Left-wing - collectivism, redistribution, shared-ownership
Right-wing - individualist, keep what you 'earn', private ownership.

Which of these ideologies is more likely to give rise to racism?
It is a no-brainer, surely?

Even using the definitions you lay out, it is clear that Left-wing ideology, which infringes on individual rights of liberty and freedom in favor of collectivism and oppression to forward the concept of “the greater good”, is more prone to racism and group vs. group ideology. It is no stretch for a Left-winger to claim that since the oppression of one group (you can pick any group: blacks, Jews, business people, “bankers”, taxpayers, etc) is necessary for “the greater collective” to prosper, then oppression is a necessary evil in their eyes. Of course they are wrong. In addition to the bigotry we are seeing the Left-wingers spew in the “Occupy” mobs, history shows this to be the case.

However, if you espouse the ideals of individual rights over the “rights” of the collective or the Orwellian “common good”, then racism is clearly not a part of that ideology. I would argue that each person has inalienable rights that no “collective”, whether it be an organization, a government, or even just a loose group of individuals, hase the right to infringe upon. Individuals are free to succeed on their own merit and effort, not on the merit and effort of others (or fail, which is why I was always against the “too big to fail” argument that the Left-wingers on this board have embraced and defended). What we earn is based on our own effort, so Left-wingers who call for confiscating the earnings of others, just because they think they “need” it, amounts to theft and is a form of economic slavery.

Rightful compensation is what is negotiated by two parties, and it should not be imposed by an outside influence. It all starts with individual rights, which as you point out is not part of Left-wing ideology and is in fact counter to Left-wing ideology. If I decide to work for someone, I should be able to demand my wage, and if the other is not willing to pay it, I should not be obligated to accept less and he should not be obligated to pay more than he is willing. Why should one man/woman toil without rightful compensation to the benefit of another? They shouldn’t, and making someone toil without rightful compensation because it “helps” someone else, whether it be the plantation owner, some generic hyphenated group, or some other group du jour the Left-winger have identified, is a form of slavery.
catscratches
jmi256 wrote:
Individuals are free to succeed on their own merit and effort, not on the merit and effort of others
Unless you're seperated from the rest of mankind at birth, there is no way to do that. (And if you were seperated from all other humans at birth, you'd be dead.)
jmi256
catscratches wrote:
jmi256 wrote:
Individuals are free to succeed on their own merit and effort, not on the merit and effort of others
Unless you're seperated from the rest of mankind at birth, there is no way to do that. (And if you were seperated from all other humans at birth, you'd be dead.)

Not true. It is quite possible to succeed through your own hard work rather than exploiting others, no matter what the Left-wingers have drilled in your head.
Bikerman
jmi256 wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
All you have to do is look at the basic starting points.
Left-wing - collectivism, redistribution, shared-ownership
Right-wing - individualist, keep what you 'earn', private ownership.

Which of these ideologies is more likely to give rise to racism?
It is a no-brainer, surely?

Even using the definitions you lay out, it is clear that Left-wing ideology, which infringes on individual rights of liberty and freedom in favor of collectivism and oppression to forward the concept of “the greater good”, is more prone to racism and group vs. group ideology. It is no stretch for a Left-winger to claim that since the oppression of one group (you can pick any group: blacks, Jews, business people, “bankers”, taxpayers, etc) is necessary for “the greater collective” to prosper, then oppression is a necessary evil in their eyes.

No, this is simply wrong.The whole notion of collectivism is based on the principle of equality - that no person is inherently superior to another. Racism is a contradiction of this - the racist holds that some people ARE inherently inferior to others.
If a 'left-winger' DID hold that the 'opression' of a group was necessary for the 'greater good' then it woud have to be on pragmatic, not principled grounds. Saying that 'blacks' should be oppressed for the 'greater good' is completely antithetical to socialist thought, since it involves the root assumption that 'blacks' are not inherently equal. Certainly it would be consistent to 'oppress' bankers, since bankers are defined by what they do, not their skin colour or other inherent characteristic. That is a completely different thing.
jmi256
Bikerman wrote:
No, this is simply wrong.The whole notion of collectivism is based on the principle of equality - that no person is inherently superior to another.

You are wrong using your own definitions. Left-wing ideology has to do with collectives and pitting groups against group, which is necessary for racism. Right-wing ideology is individualistic, pitting the abilities of an individual against other individuals. Racism, which is a stupid exercise of defining another group (i.e. another collective) as inferior or superior is clearly an outcome of Left-wing identity politics. It may be idiotic and irrational, but no one accused the Left wing of being anything but.


Bikerman wrote:
Racism is a contradiction of this - the racist holds that some people ARE inherently inferior to others.

Yes, groups/collectives of people, as Left-wing ideology dictates.


Bikerman wrote:
If a 'left-winger' DID hold that the 'opression' of a group was necessary for the 'greater good' then it woud have to be on pragmatic, not principled grounds. Saying that 'blacks' should be oppressed for the 'greater good' is completely antithetical to socialist thought, since it involves the root assumption that 'blacks' are not inherently equal.

So racism is ok if it is “pragmatic” according to Left-wing ideology? It seems the Left-wing attack on any group can be claimed to be “pragmatic” if you talk yourself into it. That is the problem with one of the main tenets of Left-wing ideology: If you say it is true, it is true. You just have to look at the Left-wing’s bigoted attacks on “Jews” cited above to see that the Left wing is quite capable of displaying their hatred.


Bikerman wrote:
Certainly it would be consistent to 'oppress' bankers, since bankers are defined by what they do, not their skin colour or other inherent characteristic. That is a completely different thing.

I would define anyone by what they do; the Left wing defines everyone by what they “are”, whatever they say they are. It is the Left wing that attempts to play the identity politics game and blame Jews, blacks, bankers, the target of the day. The bigoted Left-wingers above are also “defined by what they do, not their skin colour or other inherent characteristic”, which is an example of their bigotry.
Bikerman
jmi256 wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
No, this is simply wrong.The whole notion of collectivism is based on the principle of equality - that no person is inherently superior to another.

You are wrong using your own definitions. Left-wing ideology has to do with collectives and pitting groups against group, which is necessary for racism. Right-wing ideology is individualistic, pitting the abilities of an individual against other individuals. Racism, which is a stupid exercise of defining another group (i.e. another collective) as inferior or superior is clearly an outcome of Left-wing identity politics. It may be idiotic and irrational, but no one accused the Left wing of being anything but.

No, my definition was clear and it isn't 'wrong'.
Socialism is the advocacy of a form of social organization based on co-operative relations, equal power-relations and the reduction or elimination of hierarchy.
Note the 'equal power relations'.

Neither can racism be pragmatic. The view that people's abilities are defined by skin colour is a 'principled' viewpoint - ie it is based on 'theory' not pragatism. Any examination of the view shows it is false.

As for the 'anti semitism above', the interview is quite revealing. The protester doesn't mention any left-wing beliefs. He makes a point of stating that his anti-semitic views are based on Christianity.
Quote:
“I would tell them that Jesus in the Gospel according to St. John, Jesus referred to certain elements in the Jewish community as ‘children of the devil,’ Chapter 8 I believe. But, having said that, the fact of the matter is that there is clear, the fingerprints of these Jewish billionaires and hedge fund managers and bankers is clear and convincing.”
jmi256
Bikerman wrote:
No, my definition was clear and it isn't 'wrong'.

You definition is fine. Using/according to your own definition, however, you are wrong, as I pointed out.


Bikerman wrote:
Neither can racism be pragmatic. The view that people's abilities are defined by skin colour is a 'principled' viewpoint - ie it is based on 'theory' not pragatism. Any examination of the view shows it is false.

You contradict yourself again.



Bikerman wrote:
As for the 'anti semitism' above, the interview is quite revealing.

Yes, it is quite revealing. It shows that the Occupy mobs are populated by Left wing bigots whose attack on “bankers” is a thinly veiled attack on Jews. But that is nothing new.


EDIT: Just to make another related point, the other Occupy mob members seem quite comfortable being aligned with these bigots.
deanhills
I'm completely in agreement with your statements below, and well said:
jmi256 wrote:
Left-wing ideology, which infringes on individual rights of liberty and freedom in favor of collectivism and oppression to forward the concept of “the greater good”, is more prone to racism and group vs. group ideology. It is no stretch for a Left-winger to claim that since the oppression of one group (you can pick any group: blacks, Jews, business people, “bankers”, taxpayers, etc) is necessary for “the greater collective” to prosper, then oppression is a necessary evil in their eyes. Of course they are wrong. In addition to the bigotry we are seeing the Left-wingers spew in the “Occupy” mobs, history shows this to be the case.

and
jmi256 wrote:
Left-wing ideology has to do with collectives and pitting groups against group, which is necessary for racism. Right-wing ideology is individualistic, pitting the abilities of an individual against other individuals. Racism, which is a stupid exercise of defining another group (i.e. another collective) as inferior or superior is clearly an outcome of Left-wing identity politics. It may be idiotic and irrational, but no one accused the Left wing of being anything but.

From a practical point of view, I've often found that those groups of people to the left of the political spectrum who jump up and down on their soap boxes about racism, are inclined to be racists themselves in reverse. For example, they may think that there is a group of people in Kenya for example who are discriminating against Blacks, so automatically all White settlers in Kenya would be regarded racists. That is racism in reverse. In most cases overemphasis on racism, particularly when it involves finger pointing, is a form of reverse racism.
jmi256
deanhills wrote:
I'm completely in agreement with your statements below, and well said:
jmi256 wrote:
Left-wing ideology, which infringes on individual rights of liberty and freedom in favor of collectivism and oppression to forward the concept of “the greater good”, is more prone to racism and group vs. group ideology. It is no stretch for a Left-winger to claim that since the oppression of one group (you can pick any group: blacks, Jews, business people, “bankers”, taxpayers, etc) is necessary for “the greater collective” to prosper, then oppression is a necessary evil in their eyes. Of course they are wrong. In addition to the bigotry we are seeing the Left-wingers spew in the “Occupy” mobs, history shows this to be the case.

and
jmi256 wrote:
Left-wing ideology has to do with collectives and pitting groups against group, which is necessary for racism. Right-wing ideology is individualistic, pitting the abilities of an individual against other individuals. Racism, which is a stupid exercise of defining another group (i.e. another collective) as inferior or superior is clearly an outcome of Left-wing identity politics. It may be idiotic and irrational, but no one accused the Left wing of being anything but.

From a practical point of view, I've often found that those groups of people to the left of the political spectrum who jump up and down on their soap boxes about racism, are inclined to be racists themselves in reverse. For example, they may think that there is a group of people in Kenya for example who are discriminating against Blacks, so automatically all White settlers in Kenya would be regarded racists. That is racism in reverse. In most cases overemphasis on racism, particularly when it involves finger pointing, is a form of reverse racism.

I don't really agree with the term "reverse racism." Racism is racism, and it is wrong.
Bikerman
jmi256 wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
As for the 'anti semitism' above, the interview is quite revealing.
Yes, it is quite revealing. It shows that the Occupy mobs are populated by Left wing bigots whose attack on “bankers” is a thinly veiled attack on Jews. But that is nothing new.
No, it shows nothing of the kind. The person interviewed espouses no left-wing views at all. They quote Christian scripture, not Marx.
catscratches
jmi256 wrote:
catscratches wrote:
jmi256 wrote:
Individuals are free to succeed on their own merit and effort, not on the merit and effort of others
Unless you're seperated from the rest of mankind at birth, there is no way to do that. (And if you were seperated from all other humans at birth, you'd be dead.)

Not true. It is quite possible to succeed through your own hard work rather than exploiting others, no matter what the Left-wingers have drilled in your head.
Name one person who has succeeded without relying, in any way, on the work of other people. One person, any person from the entire history of mankind.
jmi256
catscratches wrote:
jmi256 wrote:
catscratches wrote:
jmi256 wrote:
Individuals are free to succeed on their own merit and effort, not on the merit and effort of others
Unless you're seperated from the rest of mankind at birth, there is no way to do that. (And if you were seperated from all other humans at birth, you'd be dead.)

Not true. It is quite possible to succeed through your own hard work rather than exploiting others, no matter what the Left-wingers have drilled in your head.
Name one person who has succeeded without relying, in any way, on the work of other people. One person, any person from the entire history of mankind.

You seem to be confused between the idea of exploiting and trading. Trading value for value is what capitalism is based upon. Exploiting others, including both individuals and groups of people, “for the collective good” is not.
Bikerman
Err...no it isn't
Trading is common to all systems of government/political ideology and is not a specific characteristic of capitalism.
Capitalism is characterised by the private ownership of the means of production, which are used to generate profit.
As such it is inherently exploitative because it requires workers to operate those means of production, and the worker can never receive the true value of what he/she creates, because of the need to generate profit for the owner. This is done in capitalist systems by creating a labour market where the rate of remuneration is controlled by supply and demand.
ocalhoun
Hello_World wrote:

Please, challenge me if I am wrong but I know of no left-wing person who considers racism at all okay but plenty of right-wingers who do.

It is true, most of the people who espouse blatant racism are right-wing affiliated.

In the US, at least, though, the left-wing (such as it is in the US) does sometimes engage in soft racism* and/or reverse racism.**


*Soft racism being when instead of oppressing the 'inferior', they strive to give the 'inferior' special help... but still view them as needing help because they're inferior. While this may not seem as damaging as ordinary racism, it can discourage and insult those groups, and cause an unhealthy dependency upon that help. It is also more difficult to combat than ordinary racism because the 'oppressed' are less likely to fight it, and because of the dependencies on it that often form.

**Reverse racism is simply taking ordinary racism, and over-correcting to the point where it simply becomes racism against the group that is/was usually the oppressors. In the US, this shows up in how rural whites are often the only race/ethnicity that is politically correct to make fun of, or in the outrage when a 'whites only scholarship' is offered (despite the fact that all other races have numerous scholarships that can only be awarded to that race).
Hello_World
I wrote a rather long-winded post which I have somewhat abandoned to reconsider since oculhouns post.

But quickly,

Whether or not the left is guilty of any form of racism, this theory - 'the Jewish people control everything' conspiracy - is not new and is NOT a left wing theory. Those people are NOT leftwing.

Quote:
Just to make another related point, the other Occupy mob members seem quite comfortable being aligned with these bigots.


Where is the evidence of that? I think they would be disgusted to be aligned with people whose views are so counter to their own.

Quote:
It is no stretch for a Left-winger to claim that since the oppression of one group (you can pick any group: blacks, Jews, business people, “bankers”, taxpayers, etc) is necessary for “the greater collective” to prosper, then oppression is a necessary evil in their eyes.


It is a stretch, actually, because you lump groups together that don't belong. In the eyes of the left-wing, you have haves vs have-nots. Blacks and Jews are not groups for which this divide runs. On the other hand, yes, business people, bankers, taxpayers etc are economic groups.
jmi256
Hello_World wrote:
I wrote a rather long-winded post which I have somewhat abandoned to reconsider since oculhouns post.

But quickly,

Whether or not the left is guilty of any form of racism, this theory - 'the Jewish people control everything' conspiracy - is not new and is NOT a left wing theory. Those people are NOT leftwing.

It looks like you have a form of the “no true Scotsman fallacy” on your hands. The Left-wingers making up the Occupy mobs would disagree with you.

Hello_World wrote:
Quote:
Just to make another related point, the other Occupy mob members seem quite comfortable being aligned with these bigots.


Where is the evidence of that? I think they would be disgusted to be aligned with people whose views are so counter to their own.

It’s in the videos. The Left-wingers are more than happy to include these bigots among their mobs.

Hello_World wrote:
Quote:
It is no stretch for a Left-winger to claim that since the oppression of one group (you can pick any group: blacks, Jews, business people, “bankers”, taxpayers, etc) is necessary for “the greater collective” to prosper, then oppression is a necessary evil in their eyes.


It is a stretch, actually, because you lump groups together that don't belong. In the eyes of the left-wing, you have haves vs have-nots. Blacks and Jews are not groups for which this divide runs. On the other hand, yes, business people, bankers, taxpayers etc are economic groups.

Again, the actions of the Left-wingers show your argument to be incorrect. They clearly blame “the Jews.” Of course it is a bigoted stance to take, but I don’t think anyone can truly be surprised that these Left-wing cockroaches have come out in the light.


Hello_World wrote:
In the eyes of the left-wing, you have haves vs have-nots. Blacks and Jews are not groups for which this divide runs.

This line is so preposterous I just had to single it out. Are you seriously arguing that the Left-wing hasn’t tried to play identity politics with blacks for the last half century? I suggest you read a newspaper every now and then.
Hello_World
In response to both Oculhoun and jmi256:

On racism. I can accept that there has been times that the left has perhaps engaged in racism in the form of over-compensating, or reverse racism...

I am not against trying to change the unfair balance through methods of 'positive discrimination', but I agree that it has gone too far sometimes.

What the left does not do, with regard to racism, is be racist because they think a race is superior or inferior, like the right are known to do sometimes.

When the left can be accused of racism, their heart is in the right place, they are not trying to be racist but are instead trying to stop racism essentially.

I'm not saying that is okay, just that it is different from straightforward out and out racism.

And I maintain that these anti-semetic bigots are not left wing. They are right wing people trying to squeeze their ideas into public discourse by posing as left-wingers.

There are no videos I can see that are evidence that left-wingers are comfortable with these bigots. All I see are videos that prove these bigots exist and have placed themselves there.

Quote:
It is a stretch, actually, because you lump groups together that don't belong. In the eyes of the left-wing, you have haves vs have-nots. Blacks and Jews are not groups for which this divide runs. On the other hand, yes, business people, bankers, taxpayers etc are economic groups.


Quote:
Are you seriously arguing that the Left-wing hasn’t tried to play identity politics with blacks for the last half century?


Ok, yeah. Where we the lefties think that where groups of people have been systematically oppressed, yeah, we do identify with them. We do try to push their various causes.

But to say that lefties are going to pick a group of people based on race to oppress in order for the greater collective to prosper is rubbish. The real concern is that people have been oppressed, (somtimes in identifiable groups) and the whole point is to stop oppression.
gandalfthegrey
Generalizing an entire group by a couple of nut bars (or saboteurs) is the same kind of logic as racism - it is ignorant and wrong.

This kind of immature behaviour in order to score political points will only end up in alienating individuals from politics, and have people not support you or your other positions politically.
jmi256
Hello_World wrote:
In response to both Oculhoun and jmi256:

On racism. I can accept that there has been times that the left has perhaps engaged in racism in the form of over-compensating, or reverse racism...

I am not against trying to change the unfair balance through methods of 'positive discrimination', but I agree that it has gone too far sometimes.

What the left does not do, with regard to racism, is be racist because they think a race is superior or inferior, like the right are known to do sometimes.

When the left can be accused of racism, their heart is in the right place, they are not trying to be racist but are instead trying to stop racism essentially.

I'm not saying that is okay, just that it is different from straightforward out and out racism.


So the Left’s racism, discrimination and bigotry are “okay” because you think their heart is in the right place? I have to call b#llshit on that one. Racism is racism, discrimination is discrimination, and bigotry is bigotry, pure and simple, regardless of the race/ethnicity/religion it is inflicted upon.
gandalfthegrey
jmi256 is a troll who sees the world in one-dimensional terms.

His thinking can be summed up like this:
Oh look! I caught some left-wing wackos being racist against jews. It proves those of the left have hidden prejudices against jews and don't stand up to this.


What jmi256 fails to realize is that...
1. Many of those who participate in Occupy cannot merely fit into the left-wing/right-wing spectrum label.

Many are tea partiers. Many are conspiracists. Many are paleo-conservatives. Many are Zeitgeisters. Many are new agers. Many are simply mentally ill and uneducated.

2. There is no saying who in this group is holding up these signs. There is no context to whether fellow Occupiers stood up and confronted their ignorance (which is a common occurrence at protests - here is an example from the Slutwalk in New York: http://crunkfeministcollective.wordpress.com/2011/10/06/i-saw-the-sign-but-did-we-really-need-a-sign-slutwalk-and-racism/)

3. When a collective/group of people gather together, there is not much one can do to control others. Further, government or any individual can act as an agent provocateur and start shit with a racist or ignorant sign.

4. What about all the instance of the tea party movement and its racism? To make the issue of racism politically partisan in order to score political points shows your agenda and weakens any argument you may have had.
deanhills
gandalfthegrey wrote:
jmi256 is a troll who sees the world in one-dimensional terms.

His thinking can be summed up like this:
Oh look! I caught some left-wing wackos being racist against jews. It proves those of the left have hidden prejudices against jews and don't stand up to this.
This is one-dimensional? Shocked
jmi256 wrote:
Racism is racism, discrimination is discrimination, and bigotry is bigotry, pure and simple, regardless of the race/ethnicity/religion it is inflicted upon.
I completely agree with this statement. You'll find all of the above every where. And particularly by those who seem to be protesting the loudest against it too. That to me is a form of discrimination as well.

Ocalhoun completely nailed this for me with the statements below and particularly the bottom one:
Quote:
*Soft racism being when instead of oppressing the 'inferior', they strive to give the 'inferior' special help... but still view them as needing help because they're inferior. While this may not seem as damaging as ordinary racism, it can discourage and insult those groups, and cause an unhealthy dependency upon that help. It is also more difficult to combat than ordinary racism because the 'oppressed' are less likely to fight it, and because of the dependencies on it that often form.

**Reverse racism is simply taking ordinary racism, and over-correcting to the point where it simply becomes racism against the group that is/was usually the oppressors. In the US, this shows up in how rural whites are often the only race/ethnicity that is politically correct to make fun of, or in the outrage when a 'whites only scholarship' is offered (despite the fact that all other races have numerous scholarships that can only be awarded to that race).
handfleisch
gandalfthegrey wrote:
jmi256 is a troll who sees the world in one-dimensional terms.

.
It's about time someone else noticed.
busman
gandalfthegrey wrote:
Generalizing an entire group by a couple of nut bars (or saboteurs) is the same kind of logic as racism - it is ignorant and wrong.

This kind of immature behaviour in order to score political points will only end up in alienating individuals from politics, and have people not support you or your other positions politically.


Probably the best qoute i've read in this entire thread so far.

First off racism, JMI, is prevelant in any EXTREME version of a government whether or not it be right wing OR left wing. It is not because either ideology espouses such beliefs, it's simply because the effect of polarizing a subject so deeply ingrained as race is far easier in a authoritarion government setting thus giving that government a single cause that the people can unite behind ,either right wing or left wing, it doesn't matter.

Now to define a whole group by the rantings of a minority is always wrong and is the exact equivelant of a political racism. You can ONLY SEE LEFTIE not the human being behind it, and when any person allocates themselves to a group even if the are not indicitive of the group as a whole, you naturally assume that the whole group must be espouse such views because THEY ARE ALL LEFTIE! That view point is just as stupid, selfish and prejudical as the persons holding the sign (hate based off of non-judgement of the actual objective facts)
Hello_World
@Deanhills the accusation of jmi being one-dimensional relates to the fact that basically anything he or she writes is to demonstrate how the left is evil and the right is superior.

@jmi

This is what I said:
Quote:
I'm not saying that is okay, just that it is different from straightforward out and out racism.


and the very next line by jmi reads:

Quote:
So the Left’s racism, discrimination and bigotry are “okay” because you think their heart is in the right place? I have to call b#llshit on that one.


WTF didn't I JUST say it wasn't okay????

I just acknowledge that it exists. Are you suggesting that it does not exist in right-wing politics???? Seriously!?! Racism is RAMPANT in the right, and it is the right that is guilty of MEANING it as well as soft racism.
deanhills
Hello_World wrote:
@Deanhills the accusation of jmi being one-dimensional relates to the fact that basically anything he or she writes is to demonstrate how the left is evil and the right is superior.
I did not get a sense that jmi was supporting your typical rightist racists. His focus was more on the accusers of the right not being as innocent as they make themselves out to be. I agree with that to a certain extent and thought Ocalhoun put it very well.
Related topics
God a superstition?
The Left Wing Blues
right or left?
What is Philosophy to you?
Left-Wing Extremist Media
Things only a Republican could believe
Black Tea Party Protesters
The left flunks Econ 101
Wingnut Deputy Att. General fired for anti-protester comment
Left-wing Nut Shoots up Discovery Channel Offices
Another “Occupier” makes terroristic threats
Left-wing Occupiers Attack SoCal Street Vendors
Occupiers Tell Homeless to Eat Cake
Occupy’s Serial Rapist Protected by Mob’s Code of Silence
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Politics

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.