Identifying Hate Groups and What They Are Doing

[Dr Rock]

DR ROCK, that was pretty immature for a 25 year old

yep; that's me

If you're so adament about me not hijacking this thread, why do you keep bringing up the argument in the thread, when I am trying to avoid that.

uh, i never said anything about you "hijacking" the thread. i couldn't care less. if you don't wanna sustain a discussion, it's probably not a great idea to start it in the first place - and it's certainly pretty dumb to keep checking back and posting in it after protesting that you didn't want to.

 

[DC_DEEP]

I find it pretty odd that hate groups would register on something like that. It just seems like they wouldn't want to make that too public.

Most of the hate groups don't register on a site like that... they are outed there. The ones that would register on a site like that are very simply attempting a smokescreen, so that to the general public, they sound innocuous or even beneficient - that's why so many of them choose names that sound like well-meaning groups (like American Family Council, or Remnant Outreach Ministries, or Lord's Work, Church of Jesus Christ, or Creativity Movement, or National Alliance, or American Front, or Institute for Historical Review, or Fundamentalist Latter Day Saints, or Center for Perpetual Diversity.) They only put the rosiest information out there in plain view, but behind the scenes, their work and their goals are mind-numbingly sinister.

 

[IntactMale]

I never said i wanted to end the conversation, I said I didn't think it was necessary to have it in this forum at the request of Freddie53. Why don't you grow up and appreciate his request since he started the thread.

I have no problem continuing this conversation, especially with you since you haven't made any relevant points anyways.

But I have made actual contributions to this thread, what have you done? Instead of debating a topic you have made personal attacks on me. If you don't want to hear what people say on a public forum, then get the fuck out.

 

[Dr Rock]

Why don't you grow up

cos i prefer to keep my self-respect

and appreciate his request

his request was to you; you derailed the thread to indulge in some pedantry and drama. and you're still posting.

But I have made actual contributions to this thread

no that's just your definition of "relevant", go look it up in a dictionary :biggrin1:

Instead of debating a topic you have made personal attacks on me.

i already said everything i wanted to on the topic at hand. i'm making "personal" attacks on you for my own "personal" entertainment.

If you don't want to hear what people say on a public forum, then get the fuck out.

waaah waaah. who was the one who demanded that everyone send him private messages instead of discussing the topic publicly? i haven't requested that anyone stop posting or change the subject; in fact you might have noticed that i'm presently amusing myself at your expense. if you weren't so fixated on whoring for attention, you would've realized by now that nobody cares.

 

[Shelby]

How about those 'New Black Panthers'?
​

 

[Lex]

How about those 'New Black Panthers'?
​

I heard you were a member. Changing it from within or something like that.

 

[Freddie53]

Most of the hate groups don't register on a site like that... they are outed there. The ones that would register on a site like that are very simply attempting a smokescreen, so that to the general public, they sound innocuous or even beneficient - that's why so many of them choose names that sound like well-meaning groups (like American Family Council, or Remnant Outreach Ministries, or Lord's Work, Church of Jesus Christ, or Creativity Movement, or National Alliance, or American Front, or Institute for Historical Review, or Fundamentalist Latter Day Saints, or Center for Perpetual Diversity.) They only put the rosiest information out there in plain view, but behind the scenes, their work and their goals are mind-numbingly sinister.

This is the kind of information that I was refering to. With some of those names, little old women will give money to groups that the women don't approve of.

 

[invisibleman]

I can't find any listing of hate groups for my state, but I don't think there really are very many in Massachusetts.

Doesn't mean that they aren't there though. Hate groups have sleeper cells or covert operations.

 

[DC_DEEP]

I tried to edit this in, but the time limit ran out.

I found this site, it say's there aren't any in M.A.

http://www.splcenter.org/intel/map/hate.jsp

It's a pretty good site though, it has listing for hate crimes and hate groups for every state.

I went to that website, and according to the map that pops up, Massachussetts has 10 hate groups... 4 neo-nazi, 3 black seperatist, 2 "other," and one klan.

 

[D_Humper E Bogart]

How much respect do you have for the Klan?

The point is not to hate them, but to counteract their influence on politics and public opinion. This is what MLK did without using hate. The hate groups' speech is protected from government interference, but that doesn't mean you should not write letters to the editor or campaign against their politics. Nothing unAmerican about that.

As I recall, the entire Civil Rights movement is dead and buried and it's up to white politicians to decide to "throw equality" in the general direction of the masses, pessimistic but heck...

Also, since we all politically disagree with Al-qaeda, would you make a peaceful protest if you saw them marching down the street waving placards of "Sharia rule RULES?"

The line between tolerance and hatred is pretty much how dangerous they are to "You" as an individual. Being peaceful did nothing when the Nazis came to power or when certain "groups" that people didn't like started getting angsty, heck, I wasn't alive when the BNP riots were around.

The best we can do is rob these people of their powerbase which is the brainless masses they control. Oddly enough, that is a semi-quote.

 

[Freddie53]

The best we can do is rob these people of their powerbase which is the brainless masses they control. Oddly enough, that is a semi-quote.

Now that is the understanding I was looking for. Take away the powerbase of these groups which often have a public front name and fake motive for being public to hide their real secret activities.

 

[JustAsking]

Orca,
I'm not sure if you are agreeing with me or not. The point I was making was that the First Amendment is not there to instruct you and I to respect all forms of speech. It is aimed at the government, not private citizens. Whereas, you and I should be speaking out, campaigning, and even demonstrating vehemently against those we disagree with. It is how our system works. Were you advocating something else?

 

[DC_DEEP]

... The point I was making was that the First Amendment is not there to instruct you and I to respect all forms of speech. It is aimed at the government, not private citizens...

<gasp> Somebody actually knows and understands this? We do yet have hope! JustAsking has it right, folks. The Constitution (and its amendments) was designed for one purpose, and one purpose only - to outline a framework for our governmental structure, and to limit the powers that said government has over its citizens. Period. (I think we all remember the lesson presented when Congress tried to use it as a means of the government limiting the peoples' rights; prohibition was an abysmal failure.) And as the document itself proclaims, the fact that several specific rights are mentioned, that the government absolutely may not molest, that does not mean that others are not also retained by the citizens. What it boils down to is this: Each and every citizen has the same rights as every other citizen; every citizen (theoretically) has every right, as long as it does not abridge the rights of another. The Constitution and the laws are very different in scope and in purpose, and (almost) always have been, and always should be.

Unfortunately, by definition, these hate groups are hellbent upon stripping rights from other citizens whom they have randomly chosen to hate and oppress.

 

[D_Humper E Bogart]

Sorry for the confusion, JustAsking. I'm along the line of thought that its amazing that if a certain group of people want to 'wipe out' a certain group of people, they're legal, but if they want to wipe out indiscriminately, they're terrorists.

Although I'm not American, I do find the actions of people in what we claim are "modern socities" deeply disturbing and saddening.

The British National Party, for example are a constant 'annoyance' in British politics, with a strong 'Anglo-centric-anti-immigration" attitude. I do wonder how black and mixed race individuals can support their policies. Especially when they are the people that would be on the wall FIRST.

Sometimes the worst evils are caused when the people believe they're doing it for their own good?

 

[JustAsking]

Sorry for the confusion, JustAsking. I'm along the line of thought that its amazing that if a certain group of people want to 'wipe out' a certain group of people, they're legal, but if they want to wipe out indiscriminately, they're terrorists.

ORCA,
Now I see what you are getting at. The apparent inconsistency comes from confusing "speech" with "action", at least in terms of the US Constitution.

For example, in the US we have the Neo-Nazi party who openly produce literature and publicly demonstrate against the Jews and other groups that they hate. But let's suppose they were targeting only the Jews so as to fulfull your definition of one group targeting another group. The US Constitution guarantees them the same rights of free speech as any other individual or organization. They are free to publish literature, demonstrate peacefully, create a cable tv channel or whatever.

Now suppose they get a bit too passionate in their demonstrations and deface a synagogue. Now they have broken the law, and are subject to ordinary laws such as vandalism and probably special "hate crime" laws would also be invoked. The reason is that "actions" are not considered a form of expression, especially if they violate another law or impinge upon the rights of another. These days, their actions might also be labelled as terrorism, much as the actions of the Klu Klux Klan would have been so labelled if they were burning crosses on someones lawn these days.

The same Constitutional protection would cover a group of Islamic American Citizens who wanted to publish literature and demonstrate against US actions in the Middle East. It would be illegal to not allow them to march in a Memorial Day parade, for example, unless a good case could be made that the ensuing reaction from the bystanders might cause people to get hurt. You can bet that the ACLU would be in there getting "all lawyered up" (no sarcasm intended, I just like that phrase) if the town hall selectively and arbitrarily denied the Islamic group the right to march.

Either way, if the Islamic group, the Neo-Nazi party, or even the local Rotary Club (a benign civic organization of local businessmen) crosses the line from "speech" to certain offensive actions, their actions would be judged criminal and in some cases (and this is a new and ambiguous classification in America) they would be deemed terrorists.

 

[SpeedoGuy]

Sometimes the worst evils are caused when the people believe they're doing it for their own good?

It exists here too. For some inexplicable reason there's an openly gay group in the U.S. called the "Log Cabin Republicans" who claim to support conservative policies championed primarily by the the U.S. Republican party. Why they continue to self-destructively support a political party whose mission is to make gays disappear from the political landscape is beyond me. Battered spouse syndrome is the best anology I can think of.

 

[DC_DEEP]

ORCA,
Now I see what you are getting at. The apparent inconsistency comes from confusing "speech" with "action", at least in terms of the US Constitution...

Funny you should mention that, because I have posted that same sentiment about 6 times per thread in several threads, and no one seems to understand what I mean.

 

[JustAsking]

Funny you should mention that, because I have posted that same sentiment about 6 times per thread in several threads, and no one seems to understand what I mean.

Yes you certainly did. I reiterated it because ORCABOMBER is from the UK. However, I am beginning to think he probably knows more about our Constitution than the typical American man on the street. Why do we do such a bad job of it in our Civics classes? Our Constitution is in more danger from American ignorance than it is from any foreign threat. If we don't understand it and appreciate it, we will happily vote away all our civil liberties without realizing it. We are so willing to send our children off to fight for our civil liberties, but we don't seem to be willing to spend a moment to understand them, understand what a miracle they are, and understand how fragile they are.

By the way, I am not speaking particularly about the people here on this forum. I am just worried about people in general. At least here, people are interested in talking about it. Thats what keeps me coming back here.

 

[DC_DEEP]

... Why do we do such a bad job of it in our Civics classes? Our Constitution is in more danger from American ignorance than it is from any foreign threat...

Notice the age group we are in, JA. I don't think most schools in the US have been requiring Civics classes in quite a few years. There is cursory coverage in the two semesters of American History required for graduation, but no real instruction in American Government. The kids think "it's booooorrrrrriiiiiinnnnnngggg" and the administrators are too concerned with focusing on achievement tests in Math and Science and Language Skills to comply with "No Child Left Behind."

 

[SpeedoGuy]

The kids think "it's booooorrrrrriiiiiinnnnnngggg" and the administrators are too concerned with focusing on achievement tests in Math and Science and Language Skills to comply with "No Child Left Behind."

Sad but oh-so-true. These same kids have trouble finding Canada and Mexico on unmarked maps. And why should they? Its much more fun to spend time obsessing over "American Idol" or "Survivor" than fuss with a bunch of silly old maps.