Here again we see the establishment Left racing to totalitarianism. First came the spurious claim that opposing jihad terror, and speaking accurately about its motivating ideology, was “hate” and “far-right extremism,” on par with the KKK and neo-Nazis. Now come the demands to close off all platforms to “far-right extremists,” and that initiative is proceeding apace now.
Meanwhile, the claim that “of the 85 deadly terrorist attacks in the United States since 2001, 73 per cent were committed by far-right extremists, compared to 27 per cent by Islamist extremists” is, as you might expect, flatly false.
“Social networks should treat far-right extremists like Islamic State,” by Stephanie MacLellan, Globe and Mail, August 19, 2017:
Stephanie MacLellan is a research associate with the Centre for International Governance Innovation, specializing in Internet governance and cybersecurity.
In the aftermath of last weekend’s deadly protests in Charlottesville, tech companies have been blocking far-right extremist groups from their services. This has led to a debate over freedom of expression on the Internet, and the role of companies such as Facebook, Twitter and Google in limiting it.
But if it was a different violent extremist group – say, the so-called Islamic State – there would be no debate. In fact, tech giants have been booting off IS supporters for more than a year and disrupting their networks on social media, and there has been no serious outcry.
Why should one group of violent extremists be treated differently than another?
Far-right domestic terrorists – including white supremacists, neo-Nazis and self-declared sovereign citizens who don’t recognize government authority, among others – pose at least as much of a threat in North America as Islamic State terrorists. Of the 85 deadly terrorist attacks in the United States since 2001, 73 per cent were committed by far-right extremists, compared to 27 per cent by Islamist extremists. But it took the tragedy in Charlottesville, where one person was killed and several more injured after a car plowed into a crowd of counter-protesters, to thrust the threat of far-right violent extremists into the spotlight…
pumbar says
All of you in the US, sign this and pass it on;
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/formally-recognize-antifa-terrorist-organization-0
Keys says
Done. Thanks, pumbar.
Anti-jihad says
That’s the best petition I’ve seen. Now there just needs to be one like it for BLM and Islam, too.
Ronny says
That’s right, I signed the aforementioned, now blm needs to be muzzled and restrained permanently. No msm mention of the blm member (Moorish muslim cultmember) cop killer in Kissimmee FL.
endislam says
Thanks, done and passed on.
Santa Voorhees says
Can I sign if I live outside the US?
J_not_a says
I’d like to know too, because I have close family in San Francisco.
gravenimage says
I didn’t know you had family here, J_not_a. Do you ever visit?
mari says
“Hatred should be rejected on both sides…Under Barack Obama, we had Antifa. We had the radical, far-left, evil organization Black Lives Matter, who are worse than the KKK…Why is it so easy to denounce hatred on the right, but not hatred on the left? They’re both wrong…Evil is evil.” and now we have Islam who hate us all …pick your side TODAY not about Yesterday IT IS ALL OF US TODAY,,,I hate this ideology….it does not belong with us..who care for others?? and is welcoming them and giving so much to these Refugees?? What do they DO!? or give us???NOTHING they hates us ….never mind the past fix the FUTURE >>>NO MORE HATE ALLOWED…..Demons have consumed many recognize it…fight for good stand for LOVE not Hate and EVIL…..Peace
Steve says
Who decides what is far right?
gravenimage says
Good question. Many of us–including myself, who is liberal on many issues–are considered “far right” merely for opposing violent Jihad.
Phil Copson says
“Who decides what is far right?”
The far left. And the further left they get, then from their perspective, normal everyday middle-of-the-road behaviour with no political aspect to it whatsoever, is seen as “far right”.
You wish to marry a person of the same race as yourself, of the opposite sex, and bring up your own children ? To most people that is standard human behaviour world-wide and entirely apolitical.To a Left-wing social engineer however, who is (A) opposed to marriage on the grounds that it is outdated, oppressive, patriarchal – (other than “same-sex” marriage, of course, in which case marriage is suddenly very, very important and something entirely necessary to the mental well-being of homosexuals) – and who (B) accuses people of racial prejudice if they aren’t attracted to someone of a different race, or of bigotry if they wouldn’t countenance having sexual relations with someone of the same sex who has had themselves chemically and surgically altered into an approximate facsimile of the opposite sex, and who (C) believes that children are the property of the state, and should be taken away from parents* with the “wrong” political views, then, yes – you are a right-winger.
You don’t see any good reason for playing “Musical Chairs” with the world population, especially the dangerous ones ? Then you are a xenophobe, and so on.
(Some 650,000 children are referred to social services in the UK each year, and nearly 10,000 are taken “into care”. Doubtless most are justified , but there are too many disturbing accounts of why they are taken into care, how they are taken into care (by secret courts that obstruct the parents and child’s wishes, and accept plainly untruthful “evidence” from social workers, paid witnesses, and some very dodgy “professionals”) and about what happens to them when in care, for anyone to have full confidence in the British child-care system.)
*Would-be foster-parents/adoptive parents have been rejected if it is found that they support UKIP, on the grounds that wishing to leave the EU must mean that they are racists. (There was even a case of a policeman taking down UKIP posters, claiming that UKIP was “illegal”.)
Today, the Director of Public Prosecutions in the UK has issued a nice new shiny list of hate-crimes to be prosecuted; I didn’t hear any mention of calling for the murder of Jews and homosexuals under a religious pretext being mentioned, or the removal of civil rights from non-approved groups, but “Bi-phobic hate-crime” (!) is right up there. And what is the definition of a “hate-crime”, you ask ? Well, anything really – even if the person concerned doesn’t think that they have been the subject of one, then a third party can take action over it anyway. Quote: “Hate crime is any criminal offence “which is perceived by the victim or any other person to be motivated by a hostility or prejudice”.” Apart from the obvious grammatical point that there is no such thing as “a hostility”, this is just conviction on demand: “I say you’re guilty, therefore you are.” – the same “trial by prejudice” approach that got Tim Burton of Liberty GB imprisoned, a six-month (suspended) sentence for Michael Sturzenburger, and UK travel bans for Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer.
J_not_a says
Seems it’s the hard left and the enemedia that does. They’ve taken it upon themselvees to be the arbiter of what everyone is allowed to see, hear, think and believe. Or else be pummelled, throttled, silenced or worse. And it appears the governments and so-called law enforcement lets them do just that without interference.
Terry says
Many years ago (early 1990’s), a young girl (pre-puberty) got a vaginal infection (in school) and went to the school nurse.
Now, this type of vaginal infection ((I am Not AN EXPERT ON THIS TOPIC) could be caused by several different things. One was sexual intercourse; another was sitting on a filthy toilet. The girl was a virgin. She said that she was fine when she left home, went to the bathroom in school, and the itching started shortly thereafter.
HRS/CPS TRIED to take the girl. Her father (parents divorced, mother remarried, saw the girl and ex and new husband often-lived near each other) testified that no way would step father try and have sex with her. Wife and step father said same. GIRL SAID SAME. CPS TRIED TO GET GIRL TO SAY STEPFATHER SEXUALLY ABUSED HER. FAMILY GOT LAWYER, CPS STEPPED AWAY.
BUT FRIGHTENING. (By the way, went to family doctor- was caused by sitting on a filthy toilet seat- seems type of germs or whatever are identifiable- if one tries to).
This was in the Fort Lauderdale, FL area. Around 1990-1992 or so.
Right wing views, like sexual abuse-sometimes in the eyes of the beholder
Omi-san says
“Social networks should treat far-right extremists like Islamic State”
So social networks should be indifferent or celebrates the far-right then!
Santa Voorhees says
Exactly what I was thinking.
They are using their own logic against themselves. This is how ridiculous the Left is becoming….
Terry Gain says
Or how about “the far right has nothing to do with the far right”.
gravenimage says
Yes–I was thinking just the same thing.
Terry says
As has been said before: FREE SPEECH FOR ME BUT NOT FOR THEE.
I can say what I want; if you disagree, you must shut up.
Like the Nazis and Antifa
John A. Marre says
Obviously they classify this site as “far-right extremist.” They are doing all they can to eliminate sites that defend the truth. This is serious.
Phil Copson says
“….Of the 85 deadly terrorist attacks in the United States since 2001, 73 per cent were committed by far-right extremists….. it took the tragedy in Charlottesville, where one person was killed and several more injured after a car plowed into a crowd of counter-protesters, to thrust the threat of far-right violent extremists into the spotlight…”
Has anyone got a copy of the stats on which they base this outlandish claim ? Even if only one person were killed in each of the 85 so-called “deadly terrorist attacks”, that would mean that “far-right extremists” have killed at least 62 people. What are they categorising as “terrorist attacks” in order to come up with this outlandish figure ?
Phil Copson says
…plus of course – how could “far-right extremists” have killed at least 62 people without it already having attracted attention ?
Santa Voorhees says
I bet they took in account only the number of events and not the actual death toll.
They can easily throw in 9/11 and they’ll still claim right wingers are a bigger threat.
Terry says
What 62 events ( that turned violent, even if no deaths) were right wing extremists?
A Xmas party by (if this organization still exists-it did when i went to college) Y.A.F. (Young Americans for Freedom), and some college students got drunk? And, maybe, urinated in a snow bank at 3 AM?
Is that it?
As Mr. Copson says-leaving off the killing- jsut the last part of his sentence- “without it already having attracted attention?”.
gravenimage says
Yes, Phil–this claim is just absurd.
Westman says
Why the media has so many math flunkies is worthy of a government-funded study.
Event statistics for groups mean nothing unless they are apportioned to the size of the groups. So lets use these questionable statistics the lefties throw about and see what they really mean. First the media apportionment has no basis, they do not know how many people are in the radical right, nor do they know how many jihadis are among the US Muslim population. That makes their “likelyhood” analysis immediately invalid.
They do, however, have a handle on the size of groups from which radical Muslims and radical non-Muslims arise The Muslim population is somewhere between 1% and 2%. We’ll take the higher number which may lower the expected violence rate from Muslims by as much as one-half. So now the two groups, Muslims and non-Muslims are in the proportion of 2:98, or, 1:49
Now, the lefty pubs say 27% of terrorist incidents since 2001 were committed by Muslims in the US and 73% were committed by non-Muslims, all violent radicals being components of these populations. The ratio of crimes 28/73 is approximately .37:1 or .37 Muslim terrorist acts for every non-Muslim terrorist act. However the relative sizes of these two populations is 1 to 49.
Multiplying .37 Muslim terrorists/non-Muslim terrorists X 49 = 18 is the rate of Muslim terrorism compared to a baseline of 1 for US non-Muslims. That is, Muslims committed terrorism in the US since 2001 at a rate 18 times greater than non-Muslims. If we assume a 2% Muslim population that is 36 times more per capita!
This is what the Lefty media is stupidly trumpeting: Muslims in the US committed terrorism at a rate 18 to 36 times greater, per capita, since 2001, than the non-Muslim population.
Westman says
Typo: assume a 1% Muslim population replaces –> assume a 2% Muslim population
Phil Copson says
“…..Now, the lefty pubs say 27% of terrorist incidents since 2001 were committed by Muslims in the US and 73% were committed by non-Muslims, all violent radicals being components of these populations. The ratio of crimes 28/73 is approximately .37:1 or .37 Muslim terrorist acts for every non-Muslim terrorist act. However the relative sizes of these two populations is 1 to 49…..” etc
Westman – thank you for having gone to so much trouble to calculate the likely perpetrators of terrorist incidents in relation to the size of the population, and I don’t doubt which community is more likely to launch terrorist attacks on a per capita basis, but where your calculation falls down is in generously assuming that the original figures quoted for the number of “deadly terrorist incidents” have any basis whatsoever in fact.
The claim is that there have been 85 “deadly terrorist attacks” in the USA in the past 16 years, of which 73% were carried out by “right-wing extremists”. I don’t believe that any Western country has suffered 85 “deadly attacks”, and if you put Stephanie MacLellan on the spot and asked her to name just ten of that 73% off the top of her head, I’ll bet she couldn’t.
Even if the dead amounted to just one person in each claimed attack, then 73% of 85 deadly attacks would mean that “right-wing extremists” have killed a minimum of 62 people in 62 attacks – all without anyone apparently noticing. Unless and until her ludicrously-named “Centre for International Governance Innovation” produces a list of these 62 deadly right-wing terrorist attacks, containing the names of at least 62 dead people, and this list has been examined by someone on at least nodding terms with the truth, then I refuse to believe that any such terrorist attacks have ever happened.
Far more likely, is that she and her colleagues have been hunting out any murders carried out by people with unpleasant political views and have then described them as “terrorism”. I don’t know much about American groups who imagine themselves to be Nazis etc, but it is quite believable that anyone drawn to Nazism, the KKK etc is far more likely to be involved in a violent confrontation than the rest of us. The same goes for anyone involved with the Hells Angels, Antifa or BLM of course. But it doesn’t mean that any murder committed by a thug obsessed with Harleys, Hitler or Hillary Clinton is political.
Getting back to statistics, if the number of attacks carried out by members of what was assumed to be 1% of the population turns out to have been carried out by members of 2% of the population, then the likelihood of any individual person within that group being a terrorist is halved, not doubled, surely ?
Donald R Laster Jr says
The simple fact is no “right-wing extremists” would engage in a terrorist act and I have yet to have read about an “right-wing extremist” attack anywhere. For a “right-wing extremists” to do such would mean that they are actually part of the “Left”. Basic definitions undermine the “Left” agenda all the time. Self-defense is not terrorism. All the people and groups the “Left” claims as being on the “Right” are part of the “Left”. They just tend to be more honest that most of the “Left” and so the “Left” tries to disown them by calling them “right-wing”.
Westman says
I agree with both of you. My point was that if we accept the false narrative it still makes Islam appear unusually dangerous; so the Globe’s trumpeting the fraudulent statistic is a bad idea.
Terry says
But, Mr. Copson,
I have a question- regarding KKK, Neo Nazis, left/right etc.
Let us go back to the Columbine H. S. (colorado) shootings.
the two perps were INTO NAZISM, NEO-NAZISM, etc.
YET, they and their parents (all 4 of the parents- 2 per punk) WERE LEFTY PROGRESSIVES.
So, where would they fit in?
OK, not Muslims, but while admirers of Nazis, were not by any stretch right wingers. Had they been old enough to vote ( and lived) they would have been Obama/HRC supporters. So, are Obama/HRC supporters all right wingers? (I think both of them would choke to death-not, in my view, a bad thing- if that were ever said to them).
So, it could get confusing.
With Muslims, it is easy. AS PER THE LSM (LAME STREAM MEDIA) AND LEFTIES, IT IS ALWAYS LONE WOLF, OR ONE OR TWO PEOPLE, nothing to do with Islam and Muslims.
(Incidentally, the Ct school shootings, where the killer wanted to kill his mother- both mother and son were registered and liberal Democrats. Would that have counted as right wing extremism?)
Donald R Laster Jr says
The National Socialist are a variant of the “Left”. Remember, the “Left” is about “Supremacy of the State and Supremacy of those in control of the State”. Or different sides of the same coin. When one looks at the basic philosophy one can tell if a person or group is part of the “Left” or “Right”.
Lydia says
The agenda all along has been to come after us as ‘extremists.’
EYESOPEN says
Yep. You got it in one.
Lydia says
This was just all the cobble stone road to get there.
somehistory says
She, and others like her, don’t really do *research.* They are lazy and gullible and believe what they wish to believe as opposed to looking for and believing the truth of a matter.
Again and again, these people print claims that the *far right* have caused more terror and killed more people than have moslums, but they never list the attacks nor the victims of such attacks.
They can’t list them because they didn’t happen.
Take a book on terrorism, read it from cover to cover. If it is well-written and textbook worthy, it will list the different terror groups, active and those that are gone, and what attacks and when the attacks took place.
islum has been busy for decades. They morph in names, and where they are located, but they all have the same ideology and goals.
Other groups…she mentioned the “Sovereign Citizens”…are so much smaller and some of them don’t commit terror attacks. Sovereign Citizens want, for the most part, to be left alone. They don’t want the government to tell them what to do, but they are not out to kill anyone and everyone who disagrees with them.
Making the claim, as she has…”pose at least as much of a threat in North America as Islamic State terrorists”… is trouble-mongering, because it is a lie.
She should be forced to prove her claims. She should be made to list the attacks and by whom and when and how many were killed /injured, etc. She should be made to prove it or apologize and write a disclaimer that she wrote things that are untrue.
Donald R Laster Jr says
The “Left” never can do that since they would be listing their own supporters and people. And remember, Islam has been waging war against the non-Islamic for 1400 years. All of the violence is from the “Left”. Groups like the NAZIs, and the KKK are simply different sides of the same coin from the Communist and AntIFA. All are part of the “Left” and are promoters of “Supremacy of the State and Supremacy of those in control of the State”. Which is the opposite of the “Right” – be it “Far” or “Close” which promotes “Supremacy of the People and the State serves the People”.
J_not_a says
These imbeciles are so lazy, they always throw sh! t (like these bogus “stats”) at the wall hoping desperately some of it will stick.
Fortunately for us who see the truth, we pay close attention to our b.s. meters. Mine just registered a twelve out of ten on this farce of a claim.
Donald R Laster Jr says
There are three kinds of lies: Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics.
— Disraeli
EYESOPEN says
What was that old saying? Oh, that’s right: “Figures don’t lie; but liars can figure.”
Ishvaldez says
How about the adults among us just give this “social media’ silliness a rest altogether?
marc says
we end up in an echo chamber which does no one any good
gravenimage says
Agreed, Marc.
somehistory says
What is more: The death is Va probably would not have happened if: the *counter-protesters,* who, unlike the groups protesting the removal of the statue, didn’t have a permit to gather there, had stayed home.
Furthermore, she said that the attacks by these *far-right* groups were more than by moslums…but no one noticed until what happened in VA.
If terror attacks are happening, and there are so many by *far-right* groups, then it would not take what happened in VA to “thrust it into the spotlight.” People like her would be shouting it and the *far-left* would be “protesting” them…just as they were protesting the gathering in VA and the later one in Boston. They protest any action by those who wish to have a say, or just wish to be able to say…as in “free speech”….so they would jump on any and all chances to protest actual terror attacks.
She should retract her claims. But, no breath-holding, waiting for the honesty that will never come.
Yohanan says
somehistory – a couple points to correct-
1) the Charlottesville counterprotesters on left indeed had demonstration permit. They also have the rights of freedoms of assembly, speech and self defense.
2) there are police statistics on violent hate crimes and incidents. e.g. the on fbi and links to tables
https://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2015-hate-crime-statistics-released
somehistory says
Yo,
Don’t you mean *couple of*/
And, if you read articles on FrontPage, it has been stated that the counter-protesters did not have a permit.
The guys protesting the taking down of the statues applied and were refused a permit, but applied again, obtaining it.
If the counter people, whose side was already represented by taking down the statue had stayed home, the woman who went there to protest the protest, would still be alive…at least she would not have been killed there and then.
The counterprotesters are all over the place, making sure they are heard. it’s the others who are being shouted down, whose rights are being trampled upon. Such as in Boston with the rally for Free Speech.
And, *hate crimes* and terror attacks are not the same thing. Hate crimes are, by definition, skewed. Who decides when a crime is a “hate” crime? When a White person is killed by one of another race, it usually is not considered a “hate” crime.
Once more, “hate” crimes and “terror attacks” are not the same. Allow me to refer you to a dictionary.
billybob says
“New to the 2015 Hate Crime Statistics report is the inclusion of seven additional religious anti-bias categories (anti-Buddhist, anti-Eastern Orthodox, anti-Hindu, anti-Jehovah’s Witness, anti-Mormon, anti-other Christian, and anti-Sikh), as well as an anti-Arab bias motivation.”
So “Arab” is a religion now?
Referring to that report, the majority of perpetrators of “hate crimes” were non-white. Interesting. Doesn’t go along with the established narrative that all our problems are due to white supremacists..
gravenimage says
Somehistory–with all respect–I don’t care if the counter protesters had a permit or not–there was no excuse for this thug running his car into a crowd of them.
But this was a *single* incident, and conservatives have not condoned this murder.
Would that this were true of Muslims re the 31,000+ Jihad terror attacks since 9/11.
billybob says
Not only that, but it is reported that he was a schizophrenic – on medication.
somehistory says
g,
With respect to your respect: You don’t understand my point of view. Those people who wish to destroy the *culture*, history, whatever you wish to call it, are everywhere shutting down everyone else.
Those same people were in Boston, interfering with the rally for FREE SPEECH.
The neo nazis, old nazis, kkk, whatever they wish to call themselves, also have the right of FREE SPEECH.
They were made to get a permit. They were refused, and finally, given a permit.
Those who are already getting their way…having the statues torn down…broke the law to protest.
Whether or not you care whether or not, is not the point I was making.
Had they been willing to allow the *other side* to have a say about the statue, the woman would not be dead.
I’m not a nazi…old or new. I’m not a skin head, not a white supremacist. But they have as much right to speak their mind as anyone else. No right to run over someone in a car. No right to murder or break property. But, the right of free speech, they do have.
I don’t even consider myself a *conservative.* as I advocate for ONE only and I don’t happen to agree with everything else most *conservatives* say or do.
The woman who wrote the article is less than honest. I have taken a whole boat load of university courses on the subject of terrorism and related study. She’s wrong.
gravenimage says
Hi, Somehistory–thanks for your reply. You wrote:
g,
With respect to your respect: You don’t understand my point of view. Those people who wish to destroy the *culture*, history, whatever you wish to call it, are everywhere shutting down everyone else.
Those same people were in Boston, interfering with the rally for FREE SPEECH.
……………………………..
Agreed. I oppose this and find it increasingly alarming.
More:
The neo nazis, old nazis, kkk, whatever they wish to call themselves, also have the right of FREE SPEECH.
……………………………..
Also agreed. I hate these creeps– but they *definitely* deserve the right to freedom of speech, like everyone else.
More:
They were made to get a permit. They were refused, and finally, given a permit.
Those who are already getting their way…having the statues torn down…broke the law to protest.
Whether or not you care whether or not, is not the point I was making.
……………………………..
I should not have phrased this the way I did–I just meant that whether the protesters had a permit or not, it is no excuse for ramming a car into a crowd of people.
More:
Had they been willing to allow the *other side* to have a say about the statue, the woman would not be dead.
……………………………..
I still consider their to be no excuse for this murder.
More:
I’m not a nazi…old or new. I’m not a skin head, not a white supremacist. But they have as much right to speak their mind as anyone else. No right to run over someone in a car. No right to murder or break property. But, the right of free speech, they do have.
……………………………..
I absolutely agree. And of course I never thought you were a nazi, Somehistory–nor would anyone else who knows your history here.
More:
I don’t even consider myself a *conservative.* as I advocate for ONE only and I don’t happen to agree with everything else most *conservatives* say or do.
……………………………..
Same with me.
More:
The woman who wrote the article is less than honest. I have taken a whole boat load of university courses on the subject of terrorism and related study. She’s wrong.
……………………………..
Like so many hard leftist thugs trying to shut down freedom of speech for anyone she disagrees with, Stephanie MacLellan is being entirely dishonest.
somehistory says
g.
Ty for your reply.
I was not *excusing* the man who rammed his car into the counter protesters. There is no excuse for murder. Self-defense, defense of another are legal reasons that the Courts accept as valid. “Fighting words” is sometimes used in a provoked attack.
My point was: these thugs that showed up…some people reported they had bats and clubs…to keep the ones who opposed the statue removal from speaking freely, bear some responsibility for what happened. They were not *innocent bystanders* in the death.
They also were breaking the law just by showing up and demonstrating without a permit.
BTW, did you see the news report about obama having a hand in what happened? An Idaho senator says it is not impossible that o and g soros were behind the illegal gathering.
gravenimage says
somehistory wrote:
g.
Ty for your reply.
I was not *excusing* the man who rammed his car into the counter protesters. There is no excuse for murder. Self-defense, defense of another are legal reasons that the Courts accept as valid. “Fighting words” is sometimes used in a provoked attack.
My point was: these thugs that showed up…some people reported they had bats and clubs…to keep the ones who opposed the statue removal from speaking freely, bear some responsibility for what happened. They were not *innocent bystanders* in the death.
They also were breaking the law just by showing up and demonstrating without a permit.
…………………..
Somehistory, I am making *no* excuse for the thugs–on either side–who showed up with bats and clubs. And this has happened before, where the supposed “anti-fascists” have actually been the ones physically attacking people they disagree with.
More:
BTW, did you see the news report about obama having a hand in what happened? An Idaho senator says it is not impossible that o and g soros were behind the illegal gathering.
…………………..
I had not heard that–but it would not completely surprise me.
There is apparently teargas at the event in Phoenix right now, and the date in Berkeley is coming right up. I’m sure there will be more of this crazyness. I just hope there are no serious injuries.
I think I’ll leave our exchange here if it is OK with you, Somehistory–I don’t think we are really all that much in disagreement. As always, I support freedom of speech.
mousey says
several months back there was an article on jihadwatch from a computer guy who was going to write a follow up article; did he? I’m wondering because since rebelmedia was just taken down, i’m worried about jihadwatch too. What is the plan?
gravenimage says
Globe and Mail: “Social networks should treat far-right extremists like Islamic State”
………………………..
Even though there is no comparison. What dishonest crap.
Anti-jihad says
I personally don’t think that the far Left extremists, like BLM and Antifa, should be treated any better than the far Right extremists, like KKK or Neo-Nazis. Extremists are all either Fascist or Socialist or Communist. Not one of them operates on Democratic principles. So why does the far Left extremist get a pass and the far Right extremist doesn’t? Aren’t they all terrorists like ISIS?
Also, with certain groups like Antifa, they think anyone to the right of Marx is a “far Right extremist”. To them, if you’re a Conservative or a Republican, you’re a “far Right extremist” and if you disagree with them, they’ll use violence to silence you. Since when is using violence to silence dissent ever o.k. with anyone other than ISIS?
Thought_Weaver says
Great read, thanks for the link RCH.
Baucent says
130 people killed in Vehicle Jihad attacks in Europe in the last 13 months. Not one by the “Far Right”. A FACT that rather puts things into perspective.
But here’s what’s on the horizon. Just as branding your political enemies “racists” has long been a favorite tactic of the Left, now I suspect the “Nazi” tag will be used against anyone they don’t like. Such as “Pro Life” anti-abortion activists. Certain church groups could be another.
gravenimage says
Grimly true, Baucent.
Donald R Laster Jr says
The problem with all of these sites is their refusal to recognize that what they call “Far-right domestic terrorists” groups are part of the “Left”. The KKK, neo-NAZIs, and AntiFA are part of the “Left”. A person on the “Far Right” believes in individual freedoms, free speech, and minimal government. The “Left” in all its variations promotes and works hard to force people to conform to what the leader says is acceptable. This is the idea of “Supremacy of the State and Supremacy of those in control of the State”. The organizations are siding with the “Left” and working hard to suppress freedom and people’s ability to express themselves.
The “Left” has worked hard to call the NAZIs “Right-Wing” because the NAZIs, or rather National Socialist, were much more honest about their intentions. And that makes it harder for the “Left” to impose it dictatorship and control. And the “Left” has constantly used violence to justify their actions of suppression of freedom – and they are the one’s who are orchestrating the violence. People need to look past the Labels. This is one reason people need to read “Rules for Radicals”. The “Left” is following it.
Bad Juju says
@Robert Spencer,
Please get in contact with Andrew Anglin at Daily Stormer.
Andrew and Weev can help you put JIHADWATCH on the Dark Web.
They are also talking about developing FREE SPEECH internet resources like DoS protection for when you get kicked off of CLOUDFLARE or whatever service you are currently using, and VIDEO SERVER resources for when you get kicked off of YOUTUBE, and INTERNET REGISTRARS that really believe in free speech and who won’t drop JihadWatch when the Communists start to lean on them. Weev and Andrew have already developed one of the best BLOG and COMMENT PLATFORMS on the internet. Plus they can explain how to fund JihadWatch through BITCOIN. They’ve already been through a lot of the things that you will soon be going through. They have a lot to offer.
gravenimage says
The aptly named Bad Juju wrote:
@Robert Spencer,
Please get in contact with Andrew Anglin at Daily Stormer.
Andrew and Weev can help you put JIHADWATCH on the Dark Web…
……………………………
Jihad Watch has *nothing* in common with the racist, antisemitic creeps at the Daily Stormer.
And while I cannot speak for Robert Spencer, I doubt very much that he has any interest in being on the “dark web”. The purpose of Jihad Watch is to educate the public on the threat of Jihad–not to lurk around with criminals and Jihadists.
Bad Juju says
@Robert Spencer
Andrew Anglin is speaking directly to you here.
Unperson Andrew Anglin Reporting In
https://dstormer6em3i4km.onion.cab/unperson-andrew-anglin-reporting-in-where-we-are-now-here-in-stormtown/
“Strangely, neither Alex Jones or Stefan Molyneux have contacted me to talk about this while my website was down and I had no voice.
No one did.
When I was in the hole, and all over the national media, not a single supposed free speech advocate with a reasonably-sized audience reached out to me and offered me a chance to tell my story.”
…
“For the record, as long as I am online, I will host the content of any known voice who is silenced in the way that I have been silenced – even if it’s someone I disagree with. Before the DS shutdown, I had recently made the point that when Sargon of Akkad gets kicked off of YouTube (and he will, eventually), that I’ll host him – even while I disagree with a lot of what he says.”
UNCLE VLADDI says
it’s called LIBEL and people should SUE THEM for it NOW!
Michael Casmer says
Treat them like the Islamic State? Okay. Give them special consideration, slap their wrists. “Don’t do that again” you bad boy.
David H says
If you haven’t already done so, I suggest you read 1984 by George Orwell, it resonates very well with what’s happening now in many, disturbing ways.
c matt says
Social networks should treat far-right extremists like Islamic State
By hosting their videos and hurling some fauxbia against anyone who complains?
c matt says
So is that a picture of Antifa or ISIS, and is there a difference?