Anarchists???

[Ronson]

To me that sounds like a pan-standard Republican view, standard states-rights conservativism, the confederacy etc.

Why would you see that as "libertarian" rather than pan-standard "conservative"?

IMO, the Republican view has shifted, which is what brought rise to libertarianism.

Republicans these days are OK with centralized/federal power so long as it serves their purpose. They talk like libertarians to get elected, and then they turn into centrist tax-compromising, warmongers once in office. Except for Trump. He's been more libertarian than any before him.

[rogue06]

To me that sounds like a pan-standard Republican view, standard states-rights conservativism, the confederacy etc.

Why would you see that as "libertarian" rather than pan-standard "conservative"?

The Confederacy was created by Democrats. The Jim Crow Laws that followed their defeat was created by Democrats. The KKK was created as the militant arm of the Democrats much like how they use BLM and antifa to do their dirty work today. The gains in Civil Rights made by blacks were all swept away under the Democrat president Woodrow Wilson.

That you get what you call knowledge about the U.S. coming from TYT videos and Hollyweird movies is obvious.

[NorrinRadd]

To me that sounds like a pan-standard Republican view, standard states-rights conservativism, the confederacy etc.

Why would you see that as "libertarian" rather than pan-standard "conservative"?

Libertarians are generally more socially liberal and anti-war than conservatives.

[Starlight]

The Confederacy was created by Democrats. The Jim Crow Laws that followed their defeat was created by Democrats. The KKK was created as the militant arm of the Democrats much like how they use BLM and antifa to do their dirty work today. The gains in Civil Rights made by blacks were all swept away under the Democrat president Woodrow Wilson.

The parties swapped their political views in the early 20th century, which is why, if you see someone today flying a confederate flag or celebrating confederate history they are far far far more likely to be a Republican voter than a Democratic one. Today the Republican party is the party of the confederacy and its "states rights" and pro-white values.

[rogue06]

The parties swapped their political views in the early 20th century, which is why, if you see someone today flying a confederate flag or celebrating confederate history they are far far far more likely to be a Republican voter than a Democratic one. Today the Republican party is the party of the confederacy and its "states rights" and pro-white values.

The general easily falsified claim was that the shift took place much later than that. Like in the 60s or even 80s. Wilson, by far the most racist president to ever occupy the White House was president during the early 20th century. The Democrats were the ones standing in the doors of schools blocking blacks from entering and beating and lynching black Civil Rights workers in the 50s and 60s. And it was Democrats who filibustered against the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act during the 60s while the overwhelming number of Republicans supported them

You can't even get your propaganda right

Then what can you expect who gets everything he "knows" about America from TYT videos and Hollyweird movies.

[Starlight]

The general easily falsified claim was that the shift took place much later than that. Like in the 60s or even 80s. Wilson, by far the most racist president to ever occupy the White House was president during the early 20th century. The Democrats were the ones standing in the doors of schools blocking blacks from entering and beating and lynching black Civil Rights workers in the 50s and 60s. And it was Democrats who filibustered against the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act during the 60s while the overwhelming number of Republicans supported them

You can't even get your propaganda right

Then what can you expect who gets everything he "knows" about America from TYT videos and Hollyweird movies.

I'm not sure whether it's sadder that you're so personally ignorant about all this, or whether you try and use your own ignorance to mislead others.

e.g. here's the percentages who voted for the Civil Rights Act broken down by party and geographical area:

CivilRights.JPG
In states that had been part of the Union, a higher percentage of Dems than Republicans voted for the Civil Rights act. And in states that had been part of the Confederacy a higher percentage of Dems than Republicans voted for the Civil Rights act. The difference is statistically significant for both parties in both houses of congress.

There's no single year that can clearly be pointed to as when the parties swapped, as it was something that happened over several decades and with significant regional variation.

But your promotion on falsehoods on the issue is deceptive and unhelpful Rogue.

Then what can you expect who gets everything he "knows" about America from TYT videos and Hollyweird movies

You've been told this is false so many times that your stating it now either means you have Alzheimer's'/dementia as bad as Diane Feinstein and can't remember being told that over and over, or you are knowingly telling a bald-faced lie? Which is it?

[Andius]

Recently on Facebook I got into a long dust up with some regional anarchists. They are the most angry, hateful people I think I ever came across on the web. A number of threats, veiled or otherwise, from being doxxed to getting punched in the face. To the hope that I would die soon.

To be honest, most modern self-described anarchists have become an utter cesspool in the arena of activism. I recognize this even when I tend to be fairly sympathetic to anarchist thought and custom (though I don't subscribe to anarchism for the record, but I respect it's thought and philosophy). They are a political dead-end 95% of the time.

I understand why Anarchists are miserable, they are trying to find meaning for their lives in a system that no one wants, but they seem incapable of displaying even the most basic form of civility. Has anyone else dealt with the people, and they seem to be all over the map concerning their beliefs. I guess there are different kinds of anarchy.

And their misery is compounded with their inability to adapt to modern circumstances, having a toxic "us versus them" mentality. I admittedly had a similar experience when I looked into communities of Dissident Right/Neo-Reactionaries online, extremely disappointed how they devolved into this intolerant ideological clique, shutting down any form of meaningful debate.

Here in Latin America and in Spain, most of the militant left had to acknowledge that in order to advance their causes, they had to have leeway and adopt "bourgeois" means, and let go of some of their orthodoxy (especially the militant part), and incorporate into the burgeoning democratic regimes that opened up during the 1990's. They at least were smart, and reorganized into parties and made use of the democratic apparatuses (elections) to gain access to the State and actually make meaningful changes in their respective countries. That is something I don't see anarchists adapting into, and it will leave them into perpetual dead-ends and frustrations.

[Andius]

Yes they are all Antifa too, what did surprise me was the absolute hatred. Not just for the right but for the left - they hate Biden too. I have been reading about Anarchism they last couple of days, and I can't really pin down what they believe, perhaps someone here has some wisdom.

The works of the old anarchists actually do make a good read. Mikhail Bakunins works are good read, and they form interesting critiques of the State itself. My personal favorite is Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, and his magnum opus, What is property makes for a good reading.

And the surprising tidbits is that many anarchists (including the two I recommended) condemn the institution of the State, but actually acknowledge the necessity of still having authority and hierarchy of some sorts in social organization, and in varying degrees (they debated a lot on this), property as indispensable to the liberty of an individual. Some of their pronouncements would be confused as contemporary American libertarianism.

[rogue06]

I'm not sure whether it's sadder that you're so personally ignorant about all this, or whether you try and use your own ignorance to mislead others.

e.g. here's the percentages who voted for the Civil Rights Act broken down by party and geographical area:

CivilRights.JPG
In states that had been part of the Union, a higher percentage of Dems than Republicans voted for the Civil Rights act. And in states that had been part of the Confederacy a higher percentage of Dems than Republicans voted for the Civil Rights act. The difference is statistically significant for both parties in both houses of congress.

There's no single year that can clearly be pointed to as when the parties swapped, as it was something that happened over several decades and with significant regional variation.

But your promotion on falsehoods on the issue is deceptive and unhelpful Rogue.

You've been told this is false so many times that your stating it now either means you have Alzheimer's'/dementia as bad as Diane Feinstein and can't remember being told that over and over, or you are knowingly telling a bald-faced lie? Which is it?

I'm not sure where you got your numbers (another TYT video?) but the fact is that a much higher percentage of Republicans than Democrats voted for both the Civil Rights Act of 1965 as well as the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

From govtrack, which was started by Congress,

CRA.jpg
The vote for the CRA in the House

CRA Sen.jpg
The vote for the CRA in the Senate

It was the Democrats that led the record Senate filibuster in opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Included among the organizers were several prominent and well-known liberal Democrat standard-bearers including Robert Byrd (Senate Majority Leader, President pro tempore of the Senate^[1] and former kleagle (recruiter) as well as an Exalted Cyclops who repeatedly lied about his KKK membership), J. William Fulbright (Arkansas Senator and mentor of Bill Clinton), Al Gore Sr. (Tennessee Senator and father of Al Gore Jr. who has been known to lie about his father’s vote^[2]), Sam Ervin (North Carolina Senator of the Watergate hearings fame) and Richard Russell (Georgia Senator and another President pro tempore). A total of 21 Democrat Senators opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The party was torn in half over the issue, with something like 40% of House Democrats voting against it. Meanwhile, across the aisle, an overwhelming majority of House and Senate Republicans voted in favor of the Act.

Similar trends occurred with the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The same Democrat standard-bearers took their normal racist stands, this time with Senator Fulbright leading the opposition effort. It took the hard work of Senate Minority Leader Everett Dirksen and Republican Whip Thomas Kuchel to pass the Civil Rights Act (Dirksen was presented a civil rights accomplishment award for the year by the head of the NAACP in recognition of his efforts). Dirksen was also responsible for breaking the Democrat filibuster of the 1957 Civil Rights Act that was signed by Republican President Dwight Eisenhower. The fact is that if it weren't for the Republican’s overwhelming support, both of these measures would have been defeated.

In fact, FWIU, of 26 major civil rights votes from 1933 through the 1960's civil rights era shows that Republicans favored civil rights in approximately 96% of the votes (whereas the Democrats opposed them in 80% of the votes).



Btw, LBJ, vehemently opposed any and all civil rights legislation when he was in the Senate. He even fought against anti-lynching legislation. But eventually he had a sort of epiphany. He realized that he could exploit the situation. As he infamously boasted to two governors on Air Force One after signing the CRA, "I'll have those [n-word] voting Democratic for the next 200 years."

The fact is that LBJ only saw civil rights legislation as a tool to be exploited in order to get blacks onto the Democratic plantation. This attitude again be seen in his nomination of Thurgood Marshall to the SCOTUS. So while he was being praised by liberals for his appointment of Marshall, behind closed doors LBJ's cynical brand of "identity politics" became crystal clear. According to presidential historian Robert Dallek, while talking to a staff member (someone he didn't need support from) who wondered why he had nominated Marshall to the Supreme Court rather than a black judge less identified with the civil rights cause, Johnson explained, "Son, when I appoint a [n-word] to the court, I want everyone to know he's a [n-word]."

LBJ was easily the most racist president we had since Woodrow Wilson




1. Third in the line of succession to the presidency behind the Vice President and Speaker of the House

2. In a speech on civil rights Al Gore claimed that,

"My commitment to civil rights is a deeply personal one. I watched my father when he was, a U.S. Senator from Tennessee, take courageous stands for civil rights. He opposed the poll tax in the '40s, and supported civil rights in the '50s, he supported voting rights in 1963, and was one of two Southern Senators to refuse to sign the hateful Southern Manifesto opposing integration in our schools. He lost his Senate seat because his [sic] stands."

Apparently, Al Gores memory is a bit fuzzy. His father's civil rights record is a tad less glorious than Al relates. Al Gore Sr. voted AGAINST the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Al Gore Sr. participated in a 74-day filibuster to delay and weaken the legislation. Al Gore Sr. proposed an amendment to the Civil Rights Act that would have kept federal funds flowing to schools that defied court desegregation orders. The measure was defeated by a vote of 74 to 25 with only one Republican voted for it.

[rogue06]

Libertarians are generally more socially liberal and anti-war than conservatives.

Yup. Basically fiscally conservative and socially liberal. With me, I may not approve of or even disapprove of what people choose to do, but as long as it doesn't directly harm other people, I don't think it is the government's business to dictate behavior. I tend to default toward freedom when in doubt.

[Starlight]

Statistics can be difficult Rogue, and I've seen you make this exact same mathematical error on the issue of gun deaths. When there is a bigger effect from another variable, you need to account for that before looking at the less significant variable.

On civil rights, the primary effect was from geographical location: The "South" vs elsewhere. The secondary effect was party affiliation. So you need to factor out the effect that geographical location had on the voting before you look at what effect party affiliation had on it.

When you do, you find that someone in a given area with Democratic affiliation was more likely to support civil rights during that period than someone with Republican affiliation. That is something pretty much everybody knew then and knows now - during the time MLK Jr commented on it, and today an overwhelming percentage of Black people vote Democratic.

Tricking yourself with numbers and then trying to fool others because you can't do math, isn't helpful. As I noted, I've seen you make exactly the same form of statistical error to trick yourself into believing falsehoods on gun issues. Maybe stop trying to do what's clearly well above your abilities?

[CivilDiscourse]

The Republican Party of Arizona wants the faithful to give their life for the cause?

Are you going to volunteer?

didn't you complain to me about an incoherent response that didn't address the thread topic?

[CivilDiscourse]

Statistics can be difficult Rogue, and I've seen you make this exact same mathematical error on the issue of gun deaths. When there is a bigger effect from another variable, you need to account for that before looking at the less significant variable.

On civil rights, the primary effect was from geographical location: The "South" vs elsewhere. The secondary effect was party affiliation. So you need to factor out the effect that geographical location had on the voting before you look at what effect party affiliation had on it.

When you do, you find that someone in a given area with Democratic affiliation was more likely to support civil rights during that period than someone with Republican affiliation. That is something pretty much everybody knew then and knows now - during the time MLK Jr commented on it, and today an overwhelming percentage of Black people vote Democratic.

Tricking yourself with numbers and then trying to fool others because you can't do math, isn't helpful. As I noted, I've seen you make exactly the same form of statistical error to trick yourself into believing falsehoods on gun issues. Maybe stop trying to do what's clearly well above your abilities?

Your right, statistics can be difficult:
8 of 91 vs 0 of 11 has a z-score of 1.02, and a p-value of .3077.
1 of 21 vs 0 of 1 has a z-score of .22 and a p-value of .82588.

In other words, statistics say the difference you are highlighting is not statistically significant.

[shunyadragon]

didn't you complain to me about an incoherent response that didn't address the thread topic?

Very relevant, because it demonstrates Republicans advocating anarchist behavior.

[shunyadragon]

I'm not sure where you got your numbers (another TYT video?) but the fact is that a much higher percentage of Republicans than Democrats voted for both the Civil Rights Act of 1965 as well as the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

From govtrack, which was started by Congress,

CRA.jpg
The vote for the CRA in the House

CRA Sen.jpg
The vote for the CRA in the Senate

It was the Democrats that led the record Senate filibuster in opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Included among the organizers were several prominent and well-known liberal Democrat standard-bearers including Robert Byrd (Senate Majority Leader, President pro tempore of the Senate^[1] and former kleagle (recruiter) as well as an Exalted Cyclops who repeatedly lied about his KKK membership), J. William Fulbright (Arkansas Senator and mentor of Bill Clinton), Al Gore Sr. (Tennessee Senator and father of Al Gore Jr. who has been known to lie about his father’s vote^[2]), Sam Ervin (North Carolina Senator of the Watergate hearings fame) and Richard Russell (Georgia Senator and another President pro tempore). A total of 21 Democrat Senators opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The party was torn in half over the issue, with something like 40% of House Democrats voting against it. Meanwhile, across the aisle, an overwhelming majority of House and Senate Republicans voted in favor of the Act.

Similar trends occurred with the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The same Democrat standard-bearers took their normal racist stands, this time with Senator Fulbright leading the opposition effort. It took the hard work of Senate Minority Leader Everett Dirksen and Republican Whip Thomas Kuchel to pass the Civil Rights Act (Dirksen was presented a civil rights accomplishment award for the year by the head of the NAACP in recognition of his efforts). Dirksen was also responsible for breaking the Democrat filibuster of the 1957 Civil Rights Act that was signed by Republican President Dwight Eisenhower. The fact is that if it weren't for the Republican’s overwhelming support, both of these measures would have been defeated.

In fact, FWIU, of 26 major civil rights votes from 1933 through the 1960's civil rights era shows that Republicans favored civil rights in approximately 96% of the votes (whereas the Democrats opposed them in 80% of the votes).



Btw, LBJ, vehemently opposed any and all civil rights legislation when he was in the Senate. He even fought against anti-lynching legislation. But eventually he had a sort of epiphany. He realized that he could exploit the situation. As he infamously boasted to two governors on Air Force One after signing the CRA, "I'll have those [n-word] voting Democratic for the next 200 years."

The fact is that LBJ only saw civil rights legislation as a tool to be exploited in order to get blacks onto the Democratic plantation. This attitude again be seen in his nomination of Thurgood Marshall to the SCOTUS. So while he was being praised by liberals for his appointment of Marshall, behind closed doors LBJ's cynical brand of "identity politics" became crystal clear. According to presidential historian Robert Dallek, while talking to a staff member (someone he didn't need support from) who wondered why he had nominated Marshall to the Supreme Court rather than a black judge less identified with the civil rights cause, Johnson explained, "Son, when I appoint a [n-word] to the court, I want everyone to know he's a [n-word]."

LBJ was easily the most racist president we had since Woodrow Wilson




1. Third in the line of succession to the presidency behind the Vice President and Speaker of the House

2. In a speech on civil rights Al Gore claimed that,

"My commitment to civil rights is a deeply personal one. I watched my father when he was, a U.S. Senator from Tennessee, take courageous stands for civil rights. He opposed the poll tax in the '40s, and supported civil rights in the '50s, he supported voting rights in 1963, and was one of two Southern Senators to refuse to sign the hateful Southern Manifesto opposing integration in our schools. He lost his Senate seat because his [sic] stands."

Apparently, Al Gores memory is a bit fuzzy. His father's civil rights record is a tad less glorious than Al relates. Al Gore Sr. voted AGAINST the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Al Gore Sr. participated in a 74-day filibuster to delay and weaken the legislation. Al Gore Sr. proposed an amendment to the Civil Rights Act that would have kept federal funds flowing to schools that defied court desegregation orders. The measure was defeated by a vote of 74 to 25 with only one Republican voted for it.

Incomplete, because you have not revealed the details of the regional opposition to the Civil Rights Acts. It was the South that tried to block and stall the Civil Rights Acts.