12

Pay Attention

Posted by khalling 3 months ago to Culture
46 comments | Share | Flag

If you spend some time digging you will find that one of the main organizers for the white nationalist protest was a democrat who worked for Obama campaign and was a lead organizer for Occupy Wallstreet. If you keep digging further you will find that a lead organizer for the BLM and Antifa protesters is openly anti-Semitic having organized anti Israel protests on college campuses. If this seems unusual to you then you need to brush up on what agitators do and how they work to manipulate public sentiment and politics. .
SOURCE URL: http://www.dailywire.com/news/19747/reports-man-behind-unite-right-was-occupy-wall-james-barrett


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by DrZarkov99 3 months ago
    The left draws a distinct line between antisemitic and anti-Israel attitudes. Israelis are depicted as evil Zionist oppressors, not good progressive Jews. As weird as that may seem, since the Jews of Israel were refugees fleeing from the Holocaust, it nonetheless is the prevailing leftist opinion. Having someone with an anti-Israel anger problem actually fits quite well into the Antifa mindset.

    I can only conclude that the Occupy freak was paid to organize the white nationalists to create a high probability hostile confrontation. Lots of Soros money poured into this and many other incidents. The Obama connection fits, as he's currently carrying out a program of sedition aimed at tearing apart the fabric of the republic.

    With the actions of Antifa and BLM now being portrayed by the media propaganda arm as a heroic movement against white oppressors, they've become the new SA (Nazi Brownshirts). The Deep state is preparing for the return of Obama, now as President for life and savior. Like Hitler, his first attempt failed, but he sees the possibility for a victorious return, just like Adolf. When will we see the new Reichstag fire?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by chad 3 months ago
    Humans frighten me. They are so easily manipulated by the circus of events, sports or irrational people saying; if only we could make someone else pay for it! Then once a mob is formed they turn on any who are not like them or even if they do not like your team.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  nickursis 3 months ago
      I am forced to say that ewv is correct in his position it is bad philosophy, Although I also add in moral phlosophy along Heinleins lines, as there is no moral structure that anyone associated with politics, social "reform" or government/legal system follow.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  blarman 3 months ago
    I think it particularly deceptive that they refer to White Supremacists as part of the "Alt Right". This is an epic slander campaign on the same level of re-branding "liberalism". Fascism and Racism have been a hallmark of the left - not the right - for centuries. The KKK was supported primarily by Democrats, including President Wilson and others. Andrew Jackson was openly racist. Dinesh D'Souza's expose on Hillary goes into the racist past of the Democratic Party including Lyndon Johnson. I would also point out that violence at rallies is also a hallmark of the left.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  Dobrien 3 months ago
    Hi khalling,
    I saw this the other day.
    The left is pounding the racist label on to the dissatisfied Americans who voted no to the establishment and the PC disease. Never have I witnessed a more concerted effort to destroy our chosen President and to incite racial tensions. We do have a clear view of the statist collectivist ceo's who have walked away from Trump.
    These intended violent protests unfortunately maybe just the early innings so to speak.
    Racist radicals or anti-Fa are insignificant wastes.
    All is an effort to further divide and funnel. It distracts from the ineptitude of congress to repeal the disastrous ACA. The attacks and lies and unfounded charges against Trump with no evidence is relentless.
    An UN Civil war.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  CBJ 3 months ago
      Re: "We do have a clear view of the statist collectivist ceo's who have walked away from Trump." Trump should never have engaged with establishment CEO's in the first place. Good riddance!
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Herb7734 3 months ago
    To me, the most important aspect of this is that if you dig really deeply, you will discover that both sides are hiring agitators. The left is better at it than the right, but if you think this has any real grass roots foundation, you are delusional. Once again, for some reason the right summons up the specter of the NAZI while the left, if the right had the balls, should summon up our old pal, the Communists.This is merely a ploy to once againn, summon up the idea that the only reason Trump won was because the Nazis and the KKK threw their weight behind him and voted him in. Let me clue you in; if every nazi and every communist in the USA voted for Trump it would have made no difference at all in the final result.A few hundred thousan out of arounf 65 million. So let's just stop dignifying the insignificant with a staus they don't deserve.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  nickursis 3 months ago
      That is true, they are a tiny minority, there are more Humong in the US that Neo Nazi and KKK together.However, they are SO very useful in sparking a riot, getting sped up for a killing, and any stupid thing you want done. Remember the dude who killed the 2 guys on the MAX in Portland? Spun up by "someone" to go prove his right to be a "warriror for the right". The agitators on both sides are using the tools that both sides have installed, hot button words, 30 second sound bites, useless moronic slogans and propaganda. It was directed at guns and gun owners, and used every minority group you could find, race, and sexual identity. Now, after Trump got elected unexpectedly, it is obvious both sides are baiting anyone to do something stupid so the lamestream media can use it and make up propaganda. Goebbles would be proud of how well it is working today. Question remains: who is running this?
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  Wgingram 3 months ago
    I knew that Osama (Obama) was a professional Commie Leftist Agitator. He practiced what his Commie Leftist Agitator "father" taught him in Kenya and Hawaii. He has NOT changed EXCEPT to become even more deceptive.
    - - and - - the LEFT believes everything he says (but does not really believe).
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Lucky 3 months ago
    I know no details of this person but conjecture as follows:
    He is not paid, nor a plant, he has not changed his mind.
    This person is an attention seeker.
    A very profitable outlet for attention seekers is to be a political activist.
    Right, wrong, good or bad have no relevance.
    There is the adrenalin from street marches with placards and raised fists and the thrill of
    making inflammatory statements and speeches in front of adulating applauding audiences.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  nickursis 3 months ago
    Khalling, agitators do not do this stuff for free, not on a professional level such as "switch sides to fit in". So, who is funding all this, who pays these guys, and who is pursuing what agenda?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by CircuitGuy 3 months ago
    It's extremely suspicious. If true, the first things that come to my mind:
    1. Is Kessler just someone who loves leading political movements without regard to what they're about?
    2. Is Kessler an example of the same phenomenon that made Bernie Sanders' praise some of then candidate Trump's ideas in a NYT article? My thought is politics may be changing to gov't intervention vs laissez faire. If Kessler, Trump, and Sanders represent the gov't-action side. Sadly, I don't see a strong laissez faire side.
    3. Is it some kind of conspiracy to make President Trump look bad?
    4. [goofiness]In the Star Trek episode Wolf in the Fold, the psychic identifies the monster as "Kesla". Maybe she was pronouncing Kessler but with the non-rhotic Mid-Atlantic accent actors used at the time.[/goofiness]
    Sorry for the bad joke.

    My guess is it's a mixture of #1 and #2. #3 is intriguing, but I lean away from the "great person" view of history. It's hard for me to see how with all the money and savvy in the world, conspirators could have hired someone to make these protests happen or make them not happen. Conditions had to be ripe for it. I can't rule it out, though. A great agitator could tip the scales.

    I find it odder how President Trump appears to shoot himself in the foot on this issue. I thought it was bad that someone who usually is keen to pound is chest at the bad guys failed to do it immediately to the Nazis at the protest. Eventually he did. His critics carried on in the way President Obama's critics carried on saying he wasn't denouncing religious extremists hard enough, even after he repeatedly called ISIS "a vicious brutal death cult". They just wouldn't be satisfied. President Trump's critics were doing the same thing, trying to keep this minor issue of his slow response alive. It was really a non-issue. If he went back to his job and they kept harping on him, it worked in his favor. Then he brings the issue back to life again. It's like he wants attention and he doesn't care what it's for. Even if a conspiracy instigated the protests to goad President Trump into saying something stupid, Trump totally took the bait.

    My impression is President Trump craves attention so badly he'll do anything to get it. Usually it's things with high outrage-to-importance ratios. I'm very concerned he'll accidentally do something important and destructive in the course of his attention-seeking.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  WilliamShipley 3 months ago
      I've read a number of accounts and it's unclear that the Nazi's started the fight. They had a permit for their gathering the anti-fa counter protesters came to protest them and certainly have been involved in violence before.

      While I have no love for the Nazi's whatsoever that doesn't mean that the immediate reaction to the mayhem should be to blame them and only them. I think Trumps initial statement was correct. He decried bigotry, racism and violence on all sides. There is nothing wrong with that.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by 3 months ago
        the point of the post is that an Obama shill got the permit, months ago. Finally, the ACLU supported him in court. I support the 1st Amendment. AGITATORS. watch in the coming months. anarchy foments
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by CircuitGuy 3 months ago
          "watch in the coming months. anarchy foments"
          I haven't seen any explanation of how a conspiracy would work, but I"ll try to make one up.
          1. President Trump's critics come up with a plan to undermine him.
          My thought: When it comes to his job and actions as president, President Trump is nothing extraordinary, so I can't see people singling him out for a conspiracy any more than Obama, W Bush, Clinton, or Bush. But I accept at that level there's always an incentive for political shenanigans.
          2. The conspirators hire agitators to rile up extremists: racists and communists.
          My thought: If the conspirators and agitators pull this off, there had to be a good number of extremists present already. The conspirators would not have the power to radicalize large numbers of people under the radar. They could only tip the scales a little.
          3. The plan would be to undermine President Trump in these ways:
          a) Any time racist idiots do anything, some of President Trump's critics are quick to blame it on Trump. The president always takes some heat for stuff that happens on his watch. Trump takes even more heat because open racists support him and he doesn't decisively disavow them.
          b) The conspirators knew that President Trump would mishandle the response.
          c) Even if none of this works, just having a crisis opens opportunities for change. So people who want new gun laws, more surveillance, more police powers might get them if there are frequent riots.
          My thought: I see A, but none of the rest. Regarding B, President Trump might have delivered that standard message he gave this past weekend. His critics would have harped on it no matter what, but even a humdrum message condemning violence and expressing sympathy for people hurt might have been a win for him. And there was a chance he would have turned on some of his locked-and-loaded bravado and it would have resonated and strengthened him. Regarding C, a crisis can open opportunities, but there's no guarantee they'll be what the conspirators want. Crises come along naturally frequently enough that the conspirators could just wait for the next one and focus on their plan to exploit it rather than fomenting the crisis itself.

          Maybe the difference between me and people who see a conspiracy is that I find his comments on Monday reprehensible and stupid. I say stupid b/c he could have let the issue die, focused on other things, and his critics would be left trying to milk everything they can out of a tragedy. I think they're reprehensible because it sounded like he was defending Nazis. If the comments weren't really offensive and the media presentation of them tainted my view, then the conspiracy is totally working on me because I find him patently offensive. It's working on a lot of people. If the media have this much power of manipulation, why did they even need to agitate racists?
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by CircuitGuy 3 months ago
        "He decried bigotry, racism and violence on all sides."
        In my view of it there are not sides. Sides would be if it were a dispute over taking down the statue or not that turned violent. I don't consider people marching under the banner of the swastika a side. President Trump pointed out that the Nazi's "side" wasn't the only side committing crimes, without condemning the Nazi cause. This, along with his history of making unequivocal snap condemnations of things he thinks are wrong, makes him appear an apologist for Nazi's, racists, etc.

        As I said, I think this is a minor issue. He eventually condemned the Nazis. I can imagine him saying to an adviser, "Really!? Because of "optics" and the rules of politics I have to proclaim repeatedly that Nazis are evil, as if I maybe I think Nazis are good?" I could imagine President Obama saying the same thing about Islamist militants.

        The major issue is why he brought it up again. His critics could have kept the issue of him not condemning Nazis fast enough alive while he went on to other things. It seems he can't resist attention. I'm afraid his attention-seeking activities will eventually have real consequences.

        I suspect he's thinking up something outrageous right now. I used to think he confined it to things that didn't matter. Maybe he does. I don't know. I wonder if he had an opportunity to stoke a conflict and work things out such that he was first president to deploy a low-yield tactical nuke if he wouldn't jump at the opportunity to have something related to him on the front page for weeks. I think he's dangerous.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by scojohnson 3 months ago
          He seems to insist on having the last word all the time, his weird comment over the weekend had almost died out, then he had to stir it up again.

          I think we are witnessing the unelected media and the DC swamp taking down a lawfully elected president.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • -1
            Posted by CircuitGuy 3 months ago
            "I think we are witnessing the unelected media and the DC swamp taking down a lawfully elected president."
            He's doing it to himself. After he made the statement condemning extremists, he could have just let it go. The only thing President Trump had done wrong at that time was be slow to condemn extremists. I wrote a comment to the NYT saying that Trump's critics just won't let this minor thing go and are intent on carrying on talking about his slow response. It reminded me of President Obama's critics never being satisfied with his condemnation of religious extremists.

            Then on Monday President Trump made comments that sounded to me like defending Nazis. Why? My guess is he naturally seeks attention, and doesn't care if it's for something good or bad. That's why I think he's dangerous.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by scojohnson 3 months ago
              The slow thing didn't bother me either, I thought it better to get the facts and get it right than Obama's rash hugging of thugs and the media putting out the photos of the thug when they were 8 years old, rather than the 25 year old they were or whatever.
              His second then just got weird. I actually agree with him on the both sides thing, I live in California and the violent left has successfully squelched free conservative thought here (through violence or threat of violence)... but then he just couldn't stop.

              Cohn looked like he wanted to resign and walk away.

              Much of Trump's policies are dead-on, particularly with how to handle the short fat kid in NOKO, but his weird personality trait of pushing something he is wrong about until looking like an idiot is going to doom himself. He needs a handler, no other way to put it.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by CircuitGuy 3 months ago
                "I actually agree with him on the both sides thing,"
                I agree with your post, except to me calling it sides is just wrong. If you had people with banners admiring Hitler fighting in the street with people admiring Stalin, it would not be two sides. Consider if there had been gangs of thugs fighting for territory where they control the drug trade and street prostitution. We wouldn't say there crimes committed by both sides. It legitimates criminals engaged in street fighting and murder.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by mccannon01 3 months ago
                  Actually, CG, there isn't a much better way to express it in the vernacular. Using your example, a Mafia war broke out in my home town in my late teens and early twenties and the press certainly reported crimes as being committed by both sides. Just what "sides" do you think the press referenced? When Trump condemned violence by ALL SIDES, it was quite clear to me what he was talking about. For the left stream media to spin it any other way was just the usual "we hate Trump" no matter what he does or says narrative. The only mistake Trump made, IMHO, was he caved to the Communist News Network demands and then they fried him for not being more quick about it!

                  Edit add: Actually, the left stream media wanted to create the scenario where they could force Trump to condemn ONLY the neo-Nazis and let their thuggish "side" (Antifa) off the hook. Since Trump caved, their plan worked.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • -2
                    Posted by CircuitGuy 3 months ago
                    I hear what you are saying, but completely disagree. I find the way President Trump handled in on Monday (not in any of his early comments) appalling. I think the corporate-owned media may have a right-wing bias at times, but I don't think it came into play in any way because this isn't a left/right issue. I think President Trump shot himself in the foot for attention-seeking reasons or reasons I do not understand.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by scojohnson 3 months ago
                  Yeah, that is essentially the same thing I'm saying. I wouldn't want to listen to 10 seconds of whatever the skinheads had to say, but their right to say it (on public property) is absolute. The same First Amendment that the media holds so dear, gives those creeps the same right to assemble and speak/whatever. They also had a permit to do so, the Antifa group(s) did not, and I think the better thing to do would have been for the police to just block the streets and shut down all access, etc., but hindsight is 20/20.

                  Both groups were looking for a rumble so to speak, they all came well-equipped it seemed like. If you don't want a fight, it's very possible to just walk away. For that reason, I think all of them were in the wrong.

                  Our free speech in the US is part of what facilitates the smooth transition of power from one elected leader to the next, something that is very rare in the world.

                  We need a broad reset, with all rights as "absolutes".
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by CircuitGuy 3 months ago
                    "We need a broad reset, with all rights as "absolutes"."
                    I agree. They're guaranteed in the Constitution for the unusual situations, e.g. Nazi protests or someone shooing up a school, when reasonable people might vote for the gov't to take away people's rights. The Constitution is for these abnormal situations, making the gov't respect rights regardless of what the majority thinks. I agree we need a reset and to start respecting them absolutely.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by  $  WilliamShipley 2 months, 2 weeks ago
          When you have two lines of people facing each other with shields and clubs -- you have "sides".

          I was walking through a plaza in Chicago in the mid 70's lost in thought and suddenly noticed that the guy next to me was in a classic brown shirt with a red arm band with a swastica on it. then I notice a couple dozen people around me similary dressed. I had wandered into a Nazi gathering. I scurried out past the line of police surrounding them. I felt chilled but not in danger.

          I wonder if the same would be true if I accidentally wandered into an antifa gathering.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo