Nazi Terrorism in Charlottesville; 3* dead; Update - Trump states "very nice people" w/ Nazi's

[Ku$h Parker]

Dope Read brehs

 

[JoogJoint]

Agreed. Let this evil place fall already. It was built on the slaughter of Native Americans and enslavement of black men, good riddance

Just Black Men? I could've sworn Black Women were systematically raped and enslaved as well.

 

[The axe murderer]

breh actually said "its amazing to me how hateful people can be to someone theyve never met"......breh thats exactly what your whole ideology consists of

 

[Crayola Coyote]

They act surprised that people get angry about an ideology that advocates for a white homeland, which means the removal or genocide of 33% of the non whites in the country.

They hate us because we are advocating genocide. Boo Hoo!

You can see the evil in his eyes. Not making this up.

 

[fact]

This fn guy based Alaska

"I NEED MILK.......MY EYES"

 

[tru_m.a.c]

The Idiot In This Picture Just Got What He Deserves

Yet another staunch defender of the Confederacy is learning the hard way why the Ku Klux Klan wears hoods.

Allen Armentrout, of Penescola, Florida, became a viral sensation after a reporter snapped a photograph of a woman giving him the middle finger while he stands there, dressed in a Confederate uniform and waving a traitorous flag. Social media users flocked to the image to mock Armentrout.



“Pensacola Christian College recognizes the dignity and value of all people, and we respect the history of America. We encourage individuals to exercise discernment and seek to build reconciliation, especially during a time of mourning like Charlottesville is experiencing,” the school said in an official statement.

 

[tru_m.a.c]

Heather Heyer's Cousin Just Asked A Question Every White American Should Ponder In Viral Op-Ed

Diana Ratcliff is Heather Heyer’s cousin, and her impassioned essay on CNN.com is a must-read for everyone who cares about the state of our nation today. Obviously, Ms. Ratcliff has been through an emotionally devastating experience in the last week, but her grief and anger have only served to focus her thinking and resulted in an eloquent plea to our society to look at what has happened and why.

After beginning her essay with a recap of the horrid events of last weekend, she goes on to put Heather and her family’s background and how it manifested itself in their lives:

“My family — we are not the kind of family that is targeted by hate crimes. We come from a white, Anglo-Saxon, Protestant background with Appalachian heritage. We have never had to be afraid that someone would target us or lynch us because of the color of our skin.”

“We never had to worry someone wouldn’t hire us because of the way we look. We never have to worry that our children might become victims of someone else’s prejudice. We’ve never been told we can’t live in a certain neighborhood or attend a certain school because of the color of our skin. Until last week, we had no idea what it feels like to lose someone to hate.”

She goes on to describe the experience of sitting in the crowd during the memorial service for Heather earlier this week. She listened as speaker after speaker praised her cousin as a hero fighting for social justice, but there was one speaker whose comments shot through to her core.

She then posed a question that strikes the heart of the issue that Heather was fighting for.

“Why does a white woman have to get killed for you all to become outraged?” All I could think was, “Heather is sitting in heaven right now, shaking her head in agreement.”

“Why is it that the death of a white woman at the hands of a white supremacist group has finally gotten the attention of white folk? Why have we been turning our heads the other way for so long? How many black families, Latino families, Asian families, Native-American families before us have been left broken from this ugly vein of hatred in our country? Too many. And to my non-white brothers and sisters, I am so sorry that many of us weren’t paying attention before Charlottesville.”

With the terrorist attacks in Barcelona beginning to eclipse the news from Charlottesville, Ratcliff bemoans the fact that people who have no problem calling those heinous acts in Spain “terrorism” feel uncomfortable labeling the actions of the white nationalist who killed her cousin with the same words.

“That man was fulfilling a call-to-action from white nationalists. He was committing an act of terror….”

“Yesterday, my son asked me, “Mommy, what do terrorists look like?” I answered him, “Baby, they can look and sound like you or me, they can be like any one of us here.” And that is the reality. White nationalists aren’t some uneducated backwater clowns that are going to disappear. They’re loan officers, they’re service providers, they’re professionals, they’re public servants, they’re college students, they’re everyday people. Racism isn’t dying out with an aging population. It’s found new life, and it’s going to get worse if we don’t put a stop to it now.”

Ratcliff concludes her essay with an important question and a powerful call to action that all of us would be wise to absorb and integrate into our lives.

“How did America go from a black President to white supremacist neo-Nazis marching in the street? That is the question we need to be asking ourselves. And if we take a long hard look at ourselves, we’ll find out that it’s because we went into denial. We elected a black person, we made friends with some minorities, and we patted ourselves on our backs, saying, “Well done self, we have eliminated racism.” Clearly, we have not. It’s been lurking in the shadows, waiting in the spaces of the words we say and the words we don’t say. The actions we take and the actions we don’t take.

For example, when someone says, “All lives matter,” what they think they’re saying is, “All lives are equally as important.” However, they’re failing to acknowledge that racism is still a real problem in America. “Black lives matter” isn’t saying that police lives don’t matter. No one is saying that white lives don’t matter. Black folks are simply saying they are tired of being treated like their lives don’t matter.

If there is one positive I have taken away from the loss of Heather, it is that it isn’t the length of your life that is important, it’s what you do with your life that matters. If you truly believe all lives are equally important, then make your life matter.

Heather Heyer's Cousin Just Asked A Question Every White American Should Ponder In Viral Op-Ed

 

[tru_m.a.c]

A Texas Cop Just Urged His Followers To Kill Anyone Removing Confederate Statues


A Texas Cop Just Urged His Followers To Kill Anyone Removing Confederate Statues

To be clear, this is a police officer, sworn to protect and serve, that is advocating for “legal” homicide for damaging a piece of carved rock. Judging by the slew of “libtard” reference littering his now-private Facebook page, it seems that he clearly puts his political ideologies before human life. Hopefully a democrat in his jurisdiction doesn’t need police assistance.

In case there was any ambiguity, Ryan finishes his “PSA” with a concise summation, complete with a kitschy “tip” at the end.

Bottom line, if someone is destroying a monument or statue that isn’t theirs, you can defend it by force during the day with deadly force at night.

Just a little tip, from your Uncle Phil…

 

[tru_m.a.c]

A White Supremacist Writer Just Said Nazis Were Socialists And Got Owned By A Historian

A White Supremacist Writer Just Said Nazis Were Socialists And Got Owned By A Historian

One of the biggest misconceptions among ignorant Americans – and one of the more pernicious mistruths propagated by the right-wing – is the conflation of “Nazis” with “socialists” because the Nazi Party is officially named “the National Socialist German Worker’s Party.”

Anyone with a cursory knowledge of the Nazi Germany knows that the Nazis sent Communists to the death camps and knew that socialism was the biggest threat to their regime – so they tried to co-opt the language and labels of socialism.



Ian Miles Cheong, an alt-right “journalist” for the Daily Caller who spends his days complaining about why feminism is bad and about “ethics” in video games journalism, recently declared that Nazism was in fact socialism even though as he should know better, having once proclaimed that Hitler was his “fukking idol.”

History buff and educator Mike Stuchbery made a name for himself by using history to silence InfoWars editor Paul Joseph “Prison Planet” Watson over his ridiculous assertion that Roman-era Britannia was not ethnically diverse. Stuchbery took to Twitter once again to set the record straight and give Cheong the owning he deserves.

 

[sporticus]

Hillary is too weak. I should've voted green for Jill Stein.

GTFOH You call Hillary weak and then talk about Jill Stein, the hippy candidate hahaha. The literal definition of weak

 

[fact]

A White Supremacist Writer Just Said Nazis Were Socialists And Got Owned By A Historian

A White Supremacist Writer Just Said Nazis Were Socialists And Got Owned By A Historian

One of the biggest misconceptions among ignorant Americans – and one of the more pernicious mistruths propagated by the right-wing – is the conflation of “Nazis” with “socialists” because the Nazi Party is officially named “the National Socialist German Worker’s Party.”

Anyone with a cursory knowledge of the Nazi Germany knows that the Nazis sent Communists to the death camps and knew that socialism was the biggest threat to their regime – so they tried to co-opt the language and labels of socialism.



Ian Miles Cheong, an alt-right “journalist” for the Daily Caller who spends his days complaining about why feminism is bad and about “ethics” in video games journalism, recently declared that Nazism was in fact socialism even though as he should know better, having once proclaimed that Hitler was his “fukking idol.”

History buff and educator Mike Stuchbery made a name for himself by using history to silence InfoWars editor Paul Joseph “Prison Planet” Watson over his ridiculous assertion that Roman-era Britannia was not ethnically diverse. Stuchbery took to Twitter once again to set the record straight and give Cheong the owning he deserves.

My man dragged that piece of shyt. How the fukk is Tucker Carlson's Daily Caller not considered a "hate site", which, at this point, it clearly is?

 

[tru_m.a.c]

My man dragged that piece of shyt. How the fukk is Tucker Carlson's Daily Caller not considered a "hate site", which, at this point, it clearly is?

I avoid it, but it's probably because no one from the Daily Caller had a senior position at the WH. Bannon and Breitbart are only being called out because they had such a prominent role in government - not necessarily because of the hate they endorsed.

 

[88m3]

3 Senators Push For Answers On Sebastian Gorka Citizenship Probe

 

[tru_m.a.c]

The hilarious thing about all this, is the hypocrisy. For example, in britain, (not sure about the US) families that owned slaves were compensated for setting them free.

YES. SLAVEOWNERS GOT REPARATIONS!

Let that sink in for a minute.

Slaveowners got reparations. Yet they laugh at us when we ask for the same thing.

I hope I'm responding to this quote in the right thread.

I think I already stated that Maryland was the last state in the country to abolish end slavery. This was the compromise for keeping them in the union to help fight the confederates. Folks always misunderstand the abolition of slavery because they don't understand the abolitionist movement, emancipation, and manumission.

Manumission of slavery means to implement the gradual emancipation of enslaved people to status of freedmen. It's a transitional plan, more specifically a contract with terms and restrictions set forth by the slaveowner onto the enslaved. Different states had different manumission laws. So in one state, a manumission law could say that a slaveowner can free their slaves as long as the slaveowner paid for the freeman to leave the state. Or in NY, you could set up manumission contracts where a slaveowner freed his slaves, as long as the slave performed x amount of work, for y amount of years, with 0 disciplinary actions. So imagine being a slave granted manumission if you worked well for 10 years, but in your 8th year you slipped up. Or slave owners could set up a manumission contract where the slave was free upon the slave owners death, as long as the slave paid x% of his income to the slaveowners widow for x amount of years. By the way, it was not uncommon to have widows and offspring void manumission contracts. In some counties a slave could not be set freed unless the slaveowner provided for welfare funds (since freedslaves often had no choice but to leave for poor houses).

Abolitionist were opposed to manumission. They sought the immediate emancipation of slaves and abolition of slavery. Because even if you free slaves today, if you don't abolish the act and make it a crime, there is nothing stopping you from importing a new group of slaves from africa or stealing others from a free state.

So why do I say all that:
In the United States, the regulation of slavery was predominantly a state function. Northern states followed a course of gradual emancipation. During the Civil War, in 1861, President Lincoln drafted an act to be introduced before the legislature of Delaware, one of the four non-free states that remained loyal,[2] for compensated emancipation. However this was narrowly defeated. Lincoln also was behind national legislation towards the same end, but the southern states, now in full rebellion, ignored the proposals.[3][4]

Only in the District of Columbia, which fell under direct Federal auspices, was compensated emancipation enacted. On April 16, 1862, President Lincoln signed the District of Columbia Compensated Emancipation Act. This law prohibited slavery in the District, forcing its 900-odd slaveholders to free their slaves, with the government paying owners an average of about $300 for each. In 1863 state legislation towards compensated emancipation in Maryland failed to pass, as did an attempt to include it in a newly written Missouri constitution.[1][5][6][7]

For more info read the following:
Isaac D. Jones of Somerset County, a bastion of slaveholders, said he recognized that the majority of the delegates would vote to abolish slavery. So he tried a different argument, urging his fellow delegates to move slowly to emancipate slaves for the good of the slaves themselves. “Winter will be approaching,” he said. “If those slaves now comfortably housed, clothed and fed themselves . . . I suggest to those who are unacquainted with the condition of this unfortunate class of people what will be approaching winter with the present high prices of food, the present high prices of clothing? Where will they find a home?”

The delegates eventually approved abolition and put the new constitution to a referendum by popular vote, where the pro-slavery forces were ahead — until the absentee ballots of Union soldiers were counted.

For Maryland, it was the culmination of a move toward greater liberties that Lincoln had been nudging along, mostly behind the scenes.

“Before the Emancipation Proclamation, he says to leaders of border states such as Maryland, ‘Look, guys, it is over. I will support compensated emancipation. You can get paid off,’ ” said Berlin.
The not-quite-Free State: Maryland dragged its feet on emancipation during Civil War

Lincoln’s position was less callous than it may appear. Maryland was exempt from the Emancipation Proclamation. Instead, the president eagerly hoped that the state might voluntarily emancipate its slaves. So he tried to cultivate Maryland’s governor, Augustus Bradford, a “Conservative Unionist” who pretended to favor gradual emancipation with compensation to slaveholders, but who had long been pro-slavery. Lincoln also had to take into account the politically powerful Francis Preston Blair family – one of whom, Montgomery Blair, was a member of Lincoln’s cabinet who wanted freed blacks colonized overseas. Making Maryland a free state, Lincoln judged, meant keeping Bradford and the Blairs happy.
Holding the Line in Maryland

In a law passed in 1867 the General Assembly complained that "under the Military of the United States, a large number of slaves owing service to loyal citizens of Maryland, were induced to leave their owners and enlist in the military service of the United States." The lawmakers pointed out that Marylanders had received "no compensation for their inconveniences, public and private" (1867 Laws of Maryland Chapter 189). Hoping that the federal government would repay the state's loyalty and compensate its citizens for the chattels lost, the General Assembly ordered that a listing be made of all slave owners and their slaves as of November 1, 1864.

The federal government never compensated the owners, but these records, called Slave Statistics, are the only evidence available of slaves and owners at the time of state emancipation. Besides the names of owners and slaves, the lists include the age, sex, physical condition and term of servitude for each slave. The schedules also indicate those slaves who enlisted in the Union Army, and sometimes give the regiment in which the slave enlisted.
Volume 812 Index - Montgomery County Slave Statistics, 1867-1868

 

[tru_m.a.c]