Have You Heard About the new Ku Ku Klan?

[Spare_change]

Does anyone know what Ku Klux Klan stands for? What an odd name. Pogo?

15 second global search says it comes from the Greek word kuklos - which means "circle"

 

[Pogo]

Some historians count three or even four Klans. I resist that since officially, in terms of organizations that had finite beginnings and endings, there were two (1865-1869 and 1915-1944). Activity beyond those periods has been unofficial copycats playing dress-up but not in any way a coordinated structure.

There was a guy in 1949 named Samuel Green who started to make noises about re-starting another Klan but he got mired in legal tangles about whether or not he was restarting the previous one (which would have made him liable for that back tax bill) and happily he dropped dead of a heart attack.

So what we see know is actually the remnants of the 1944 ending Klan, same as what was in the 60's?

Yes exactly. There have been peaks and valleys of Klanlike activity such as the "Civil Rights Era" counted by some historians as a "third" or "fourth" Klan, but there have always been peaks and valleys depending mostly on on its public image at the time, and we don't count those waves as beginnings and endings, so that's my standard.

I don't see 4 Klans, but I do think the uptick in their activities in the 60's and 70's bears differentiation. It wasn't one group, but there was coordination between them.

There was certainly uptick in the 1920s over the teens -- followed by a plunge after 1925 ---- but they were of the same Klan. I can't count those as separate entities just based on rising or falling activity. We can certainly mark those upticks but that's not the same as declaring that a group reorganized.

The 1960s one was a social reaction --- on the part of extremists, but a reaction nonetheless --- to a perceived rising of civil rights, certainly not the first time that happened, but that's not the same thing as saying "a whole new Klan rose up".

To me the current wave of white power is more neo-nazi based, with the Klan playing second fiddle. This goes back to the 80's.

Agree. They're both fascistic elements so they have that sensibility in common. And in a sense it recalls how the original Klan was taken for a ride by the pre-existing vigilante and "night rider" elements who saw a paradigm they could use to their terroristic advantage.

Wow, an actual academic argument, as opposed to opinionated mud slinging. What the hell is going on?

Maybe because the OP has me on Ignore and is "not reading" this?....

The one from the 60's though lacked the lodge-like structure and the attempted mainstreaming you saw with the 1920's Klan. They tried to sell themselves as basically White Protestant Pride Knights of Columbus/Masons.

Yes the 60's Klan was reactionary, but it had a much different (diffuse) structure and the 20's Klan which was a national organization.

To me the Neo-nazi types had much more of a draw for the angry types. It was more militaristic and related to the punk/skin movements from the late 70's early 80's.

Yes, but that --- the diffuse non-national organization --- is exactly why I consider them ad hoc actors playing dress-up and not a separate Klan. There was never a moment when some klown declared "let's start a new one".

The 1915 Klan (a few years into its existence, 1919 if memory serves) hired an advertising firm to sell it nationwide, which established most of what our image is ever since. And it tailored its marketing to specific targets in specific areas. In Maine, which had the largest chapter in the US outside the South, the target would be "Catholics". If an area was experiencing alcoholism problems, well the Klan was the advocate of Prohibition. If your area was beset by new immigrant workers and labor unions, the Klan highlighted that angle. But just the fact that that Klan enrolled so many millions from literally coast to coast laid the foundation for these later upticks of a known motif. All it takes is a bedsheet, a pair of scissors and a self-description.

 

[Pogo]

Does anyone know what Ku Klux Klan stands for? What an odd name. Pogo?

15 second global search says it comes from the Greek word kuklos - which means "circle"

Already done, post 11, yesterday.

 

[westwall]

There are a very few who actually care about humanity, and how they can help it, but they are very rare indeed. They still have an authoritarian mentality don't ever forget that, but they would at least be benevolent tyrants. Unlike the others.

Those guys are pikers compared to the ones I know, and am talking about. Gekko would be a bit player allowed to play in the sandbox compared to the truly wealthy in the world, and his methods laughed at.

 

[westwall]

Is this "unofficial" bunch of Klan wannabe's still lynching people, beating people up and burning down homes and churches? Does anyone know? I never hear about them claiming responsibility for an action, or getting charged as Klan members.

A good friend of mine used to be the head of the ATF office in Bakersfield CA back in the 1970's and they had a huuuuge problem with the kkk. They had a mercenary come back from the wars in Zimbabwe (Rhodesia at the time) and he had been a member of the Rhodesian Light Infantry which was a pretty elite unit. He had a tattoo from the unit and everything. He actually was the real deal.

So, they sent him into the kkk meeting. That first meeting he was made Sgt At Arms. The second meeting they elected him to be the head of the group. He didn't attend the third meeting because in the intervening time the ATF discovered two things. The only people who were actually paying dues were the undercover agents from the local sheriffs dept, the FBI, and the CA Dept. of Justice.

They were also the only guys actually talking about doing anything. The real kkk members were basically a bunch of loudmouths who sat around swilling beer, complaining about how bad their lives sucked. But they didn't care to do anything about it.

 

[martybegan]

So what we see know is actually the remnants of the 1944 ending Klan, same as what was in the 60's?

Yes exactly. There have been peaks and valleys of Klanlike activity such as the "Civil Rights Era" counted by some historians as a "third" or "fourth" Klan, but there have always been peaks and valleys depending mostly on on its public image at the time, and we don't count those waves as beginnings and endings, so that's my standard.

I don't see 4 Klans, but I do think the uptick in their activities in the 60's and 70's bears differentiation. It wasn't one group, but there was coordination between them.

There was certainly uptick in the 1920s over the teens -- followed by a plunge after 1925 ---- but they were of the same Klan. I can't count those as separate entities just based on rising or falling activity. We can certainly mark those upticks but that's not the same as declaring that a group reorganized.

The 1960s one was a social reaction --- on the part of extremists, but a reaction nonetheless --- to a perceived rising of civil rights, certainly not the first time that happened, but that's not the same thing as saying "a whole new Klan rose up".

To me the current wave of white power is more neo-nazi based, with the Klan playing second fiddle. This goes back to the 80's.

Agree. They're both fascistic elements so they have that sensibility in common. And in a sense it recalls how the original Klan was taken for a ride by the pre-existing vigilante and "night rider" elements who saw a paradigm they could use to their terroristic advantage.

Wow, an actual academic argument, as opposed to opinionated mud slinging. What the hell is going on?

Maybe because the OP has me on Ignore and is "not reading" this?....

The one from the 60's though lacked the lodge-like structure and the attempted mainstreaming you saw with the 1920's Klan. They tried to sell themselves as basically White Protestant Pride Knights of Columbus/Masons.

Yes the 60's Klan was reactionary, but it had a much different (diffuse) structure and the 20's Klan which was a national organization.

To me the Neo-nazi types had much more of a draw for the angry types. It was more militaristic and related to the punk/skin movements from the late 70's early 80's.

Yes, but that --- the diffuse non-national organization --- is exactly why I consider them ad hoc actors playing dress-up and not a separate Klan. There was never a moment when some klown declared "let's start a new one".

The 1915 Klan (a few years into its existence, 1919 if memory serves) hired an advertising firm to sell it nationwide, which established most of what our image is ever since. And it tailored its marketing to specific targets in specific areas. In Maine, which had the largest chapter in the US outside the South, the target would be "Catholics". If an area was experiencing alcoholism problems, well the Klan was the advocate of Prohibition. If your area was beset by new immigrant workers and labor unions, the Klan highlighted that angle. But just the fact that that Klan enrolled so many millions from literally coast to coast laid the foundation for these later upticks of a known motif. All it takes is a bedsheet, a pair of scissors and a self-description.

They can still be considered a distinct form, even if ad-hoc. That they have been surpassed by White Identity groups and neo-nazi militias just makes them less visible. To me that's why even If I consider the 60's and 70's Klan to be a "new round" of the Klan, I don't consider the current one that rode the White Power wave in the 80's and 90's as a new one.

The fact these nimrods can't sustain a national movement is probably the only reason they are not a bigger threat then they actually are. It's ironic that the one thing that could congeal them is a viable opposition, which Anti-fa is trying to give them.

 

[Pogo]

Is this "unofficial" bunch of Klan wannabe's still lynching people, beating people up and burning down homes and churches? Does anyone know? I never hear about them claiming responsibility for an action, or getting charged as Klan members.

A good friend of mine used to be the head of the ATF office in Bakersfield CA back in the 1970's and they had a huuuuge problem with the kkk. They had a mercenary come back from the wars in Zimbabwe (Rhodesia at the time) and he had been a member of the Rhodesian Light Infantry which was a pretty elite unit. He had a tattoo from the unit and everything. He actually was the real deal.

So, they sent him into the kkk meeting. That first meeting he was made Sgt At Arms. The second meeting they elected him to be the head of the group. He didn't attend the third meeting because in the intervening time the ATF discovered two things. The only people who were actually paying dues were the undercover agents from the local sheriffs dept, the FBI, and the CA Dept. of Justice.

They were also the only guys actually talking about doing anything. The real kkk members were basically a bunch of loudmouths who sat around swilling beer, complaining about how bad their lives sucked. But they didn't care to do anything about it.

Klan infiltration has been going on since at least the 1940s when Stetson Kennedy joined his local chapter to ferret out info only to find some of the members were also some of the local police, and that when he took info to the FBI, a subsequent meeting would see the klavern head saying, "so I got a call from the FBI yesterday"....

--- so he put his experiences into an exposé book, and later worked with the writers of the wildly popular broadcast, the radio show Superman, writing scripts that exposed Klan rituals and structures for their abject silliness and hypocrisy and shamed hordes of Klanners into giving it up lest they be found out and embarrassed.

 

[Pogo]

Yes exactly. There have been peaks and valleys of Klanlike activity such as the "Civil Rights Era" counted by some historians as a "third" or "fourth" Klan, but there have always been peaks and valleys depending mostly on on its public image at the time, and we don't count those waves as beginnings and endings, so that's my standard.

I don't see 4 Klans, but I do think the uptick in their activities in the 60's and 70's bears differentiation. It wasn't one group, but there was coordination between them.

There was certainly uptick in the 1920s over the teens -- followed by a plunge after 1925 ---- but they were of the same Klan. I can't count those as separate entities just based on rising or falling activity. We can certainly mark those upticks but that's not the same as declaring that a group reorganized.

The 1960s one was a social reaction --- on the part of extremists, but a reaction nonetheless --- to a perceived rising of civil rights, certainly not the first time that happened, but that's not the same thing as saying "a whole new Klan rose up".

To me the current wave of white power is more neo-nazi based, with the Klan playing second fiddle. This goes back to the 80's.

Agree. They're both fascistic elements so they have that sensibility in common. And in a sense it recalls how the original Klan was taken for a ride by the pre-existing vigilante and "night rider" elements who saw a paradigm they could use to their terroristic advantage.

Wow, an actual academic argument, as opposed to opinionated mud slinging. What the hell is going on?

Maybe because the OP has me on Ignore and is "not reading" this?....

The one from the 60's though lacked the lodge-like structure and the attempted mainstreaming you saw with the 1920's Klan. They tried to sell themselves as basically White Protestant Pride Knights of Columbus/Masons.

Yes the 60's Klan was reactionary, but it had a much different (diffuse) structure and the 20's Klan which was a national organization.

To me the Neo-nazi types had much more of a draw for the angry types. It was more militaristic and related to the punk/skin movements from the late 70's early 80's.

Yes, but that --- the diffuse non-national organization --- is exactly why I consider them ad hoc actors playing dress-up and not a separate Klan. There was never a moment when some klown declared "let's start a new one".

The 1915 Klan (a few years into its existence, 1919 if memory serves) hired an advertising firm to sell it nationwide, which established most of what our image is ever since. And it tailored its marketing to specific targets in specific areas. In Maine, which had the largest chapter in the US outside the South, the target would be "Catholics". If an area was experiencing alcoholism problems, well the Klan was the advocate of Prohibition. If your area was beset by new immigrant workers and labor unions, the Klan highlighted that angle. But just the fact that that Klan enrolled so many millions from literally coast to coast laid the foundation for these later upticks of a known motif. All it takes is a bedsheet, a pair of scissors and a self-description.

They can still be considered a distinct form, even if ad-hoc. That they have been surpassed by White Identity groups and neo-nazi militias just makes them less visible. To me that's why even If I consider the 60's and 70's Klan to be a "new round" of the Klan, I don't consider the current one that rode the White Power wave in the 80's and 90's as a new one.

The fact these nimrods can't sustain a national movement is probably the only reason they are not a bigger threat then they actually are. It's ironic that the one thing that could congeal them is a viable opposition, which Anti-fa is trying to give them.

I believe "distinct form" and "ad hoc" are mutually exclusive. You're either an organized entity, or you're not. That's how I look at it. If we count every ebb and flow we can come up with ten Klans.

 

[martybegan]

I don't see 4 Klans, but I do think the uptick in their activities in the 60's and 70's bears differentiation. It wasn't one group, but there was coordination between them.

There was certainly uptick in the 1920s over the teens -- followed by a plunge after 1925 ---- but they were of the same Klan. I can't count those as separate entities just based on rising or falling activity. We can certainly mark those upticks but that's not the same as declaring that a group reorganized.

The 1960s one was a social reaction --- on the part of extremists, but a reaction nonetheless --- to a perceived rising of civil rights, certainly not the first time that happened, but that's not the same thing as saying "a whole new Klan rose up".

To me the current wave of white power is more neo-nazi based, with the Klan playing second fiddle. This goes back to the 80's.

Agree. They're both fascistic elements so they have that sensibility in common. And in a sense it recalls how the original Klan was taken for a ride by the pre-existing vigilante and "night rider" elements who saw a paradigm they could use to their terroristic advantage.

Wow, an actual academic argument, as opposed to opinionated mud slinging. What the hell is going on?

Maybe because the OP has me on Ignore and is "not reading" this?....

The one from the 60's though lacked the lodge-like structure and the attempted mainstreaming you saw with the 1920's Klan. They tried to sell themselves as basically White Protestant Pride Knights of Columbus/Masons.

Yes the 60's Klan was reactionary, but it had a much different (diffuse) structure and the 20's Klan which was a national organization.

To me the Neo-nazi types had much more of a draw for the angry types. It was more militaristic and related to the punk/skin movements from the late 70's early 80's.

Yes, but that --- the diffuse non-national organization --- is exactly why I consider them ad hoc actors playing dress-up and not a separate Klan. There was never a moment when some klown declared "let's start a new one".

The 1915 Klan (a few years into its existence, 1919 if memory serves) hired an advertising firm to sell it nationwide, which established most of what our image is ever since. And it tailored its marketing to specific targets in specific areas. In Maine, which had the largest chapter in the US outside the South, the target would be "Catholics". If an area was experiencing alcoholism problems, well the Klan was the advocate of Prohibition. If your area was beset by new immigrant workers and labor unions, the Klan highlighted that angle. But just the fact that that Klan enrolled so many millions from literally coast to coast laid the foundation for these later upticks of a known motif. All it takes is a bedsheet, a pair of scissors and a self-description.

They can still be considered a distinct form, even if ad-hoc. That they have been surpassed by White Identity groups and neo-nazi militias just makes them less visible. To me that's why even If I consider the 60's and 70's Klan to be a "new round" of the Klan, I don't consider the current one that rode the White Power wave in the 80's and 90's as a new one.

The fact these nimrods can't sustain a national movement is probably the only reason they are not a bigger threat then they actually are. It's ironic that the one thing that could congeal them is a viable opposition, which Anti-fa is trying to give them.

I believe "distinct form" and "ad hoc" are mutually exclusive. You're either an organized entity, or you're not. That's how I look at it. If we count every ebb and flow we can come up with ten Klans.

yes, but i am just counting one big ebb as a "new" Klan.

One other thought I have, how does the Aryan Brotherhood fit into all this? Even though they really are a Prison gang, they probably have the best organizational strength of any of the other white power groups.

 

[Pogo]

There was certainly uptick in the 1920s over the teens -- followed by a plunge after 1925 ---- but they were of the same Klan. I can't count those as separate entities just based on rising or falling activity. We can certainly mark those upticks but that's not the same as declaring that a group reorganized.

The 1960s one was a social reaction --- on the part of extremists, but a reaction nonetheless --- to a perceived rising of civil rights, certainly not the first time that happened, but that's not the same thing as saying "a whole new Klan rose up".


Agree. They're both fascistic elements so they have that sensibility in common. And in a sense it recalls how the original Klan was taken for a ride by the pre-existing vigilante and "night rider" elements who saw a paradigm they could use to their terroristic advantage.


Maybe because the OP has me on Ignore and is "not reading" this?....

The one from the 60's though lacked the lodge-like structure and the attempted mainstreaming you saw with the 1920's Klan. They tried to sell themselves as basically White Protestant Pride Knights of Columbus/Masons.

Yes the 60's Klan was reactionary, but it had a much different (diffuse) structure and the 20's Klan which was a national organization.

To me the Neo-nazi types had much more of a draw for the angry types. It was more militaristic and related to the punk/skin movements from the late 70's early 80's.

Yes, but that --- the diffuse non-national organization --- is exactly why I consider them ad hoc actors playing dress-up and not a separate Klan. There was never a moment when some klown declared "let's start a new one".

The 1915 Klan (a few years into its existence, 1919 if memory serves) hired an advertising firm to sell it nationwide, which established most of what our image is ever since. And it tailored its marketing to specific targets in specific areas. In Maine, which had the largest chapter in the US outside the South, the target would be "Catholics". If an area was experiencing alcoholism problems, well the Klan was the advocate of Prohibition. If your area was beset by new immigrant workers and labor unions, the Klan highlighted that angle. But just the fact that that Klan enrolled so many millions from literally coast to coast laid the foundation for these later upticks of a known motif. All it takes is a bedsheet, a pair of scissors and a self-description.

They can still be considered a distinct form, even if ad-hoc. That they have been surpassed by White Identity groups and neo-nazi militias just makes them less visible. To me that's why even If I consider the 60's and 70's Klan to be a "new round" of the Klan, I don't consider the current one that rode the White Power wave in the 80's and 90's as a new one.

The fact these nimrods can't sustain a national movement is probably the only reason they are not a bigger threat then they actually are. It's ironic that the one thing that could congeal them is a viable opposition, which Anti-fa is trying to give them.

I believe "distinct form" and "ad hoc" are mutually exclusive. You're either an organized entity, or you're not. That's how I look at it. If we count every ebb and flow we can come up with ten Klans.

yes, but i am just counting one big ebb as a "new" Klan.

One other thought I have, how does the Aryan Brotherhood fit into all this? Even though they really are a Prison gang, they probably have the best organizational strength of any of the other white power groups.

Don't know much about that, that's out of my field.
Perhaps Steve McRacist can endarken us.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Those guys are pikers compared to the ones I know, and am talking about. Gekko would be a bit player allowed to play in the sandbox compared to the truly wealthy in the world, and his methods laughed at.

Investors talk strategy; Oligarchs talk about what politicians they own.

 

[westwall]

Those guys are pikers compared to the ones I know, and am talking about. Gekko would be a bit player allowed to play in the sandbox compared to the truly wealthy in the world, and his methods laughed at.

Investors talk strategy; Oligarchs talk about what politicians they own.

The ones I know own entire countries.

 

[JimBowie1958]

He didn't attend the third meeting because in the intervening time the ATF discovered two things. The only people who were actually paying dues were the undercover agents from the local sheriffs dept, the FBI, and the CA Dept. of Justice.

They were also the only guys actually talking about doing anything. The real kkk members were basically a bunch of loudmouths who sat around swilling beer, complaining about how bad their lives sucked. But they didn't care to do anything about it.

Hence the expression that the KKK is nine Federali informants and one fool that trusted them.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Those guys are pikers compared to the ones I know, and am talking about. Gekko would be a bit player allowed to play in the sandbox compared to the truly wealthy in the world, and his methods laughed at.

Investors talk strategy; Oligarchs talk about what politicians they own.

The ones I know own entire countries.

Its really not that hard for an Oligarch to own a third world country like the Dominican Republic or Costa Rica.

 

[westwall]

Those guys are pikers compared to the ones I know, and am talking about. Gekko would be a bit player allowed to play in the sandbox compared to the truly wealthy in the world, and his methods laughed at.

Investors talk strategy; Oligarchs talk about what politicians they own.

The ones I know own entire countries.

Its really not that hard for an Oligarch to own a third world country like the Dominican Republic or Costa Rica.

Trust me, they own first world countries too.

 

[usmbguest5318]

you are being a sucker if you help to empower these racist filth to make war against you and your loved ones.

In the U.S., the only group(s) that can actually do that is/are white. (Click the link to understand why I wrote that.)

Lol, that is simply not true. that is like arguing that the Bolsheviks could not take over Russia because they were a minority of the people.

Group discipline and leadership overcomes lack of numbers in these kinds of situations. FACT.

Lol, that is simply not true. that is like arguing that the Bolsheviks could not take over Russia because they were a minority of the people.

Group discipline and leadership overcomes lack of numbers in these kinds of situations. FACT.

Earlier I replied very briefly to that comment by saying:

No, it's not at all like saying that. Superficially, sure, one could say that. In substance, hell no, and most especially not like me saying that. (Did you read the first major section (there were two, IIRC) of the content at the hyperlink in the sentence that inspired you to make the remark above?)

I will come back to explain why not, but I'm tired right now.

One, and most especially, I, cannot and is ill advised to attempt legitimately arguing that "just as the Bolsheviks took over Russia, blacks can take over the U.S., even though blacks are a minority of the populace." One should not undertake such a line because, although superficially it may seem there is enough similarity, the reality is that there is not nearly enough.

• Lack of Leadership -- In 1917, the Russian head of state, Czar Nicholas abdicated for himself and his son, and his sibling, Grand Duke Michael, refused to reign. Czar Nicholas abdicated for personal reasons and political ones. Nicholas didn't want to be emperor, had no preparation for it when he became emperor, and, quite frankly, failed to rise to the occasion of his eminence.
  Nicholas' lack of training and will, thus their impacts, were made most manifest to him through hindsight he gained in the wake of his horribly prosecuted Russo-Japanese war, the calamity of which led to the 1905 Russian Revolution that resulted in his being forced to sign a decree that established an absurdly unwieldy representative government [1] -- he established some 2500 soviets, jurisdictions/councils that each sent a representative to the Duma -- and granted civil liberties, concessions the Tsar in short order retracted and/or disregarded. Well, you know what that wrought....pissed off people at all levels of the polity.
  
  Nicholas' paucity of proclivity and prodigy produced an politically existential leadership vacuum, both in form and substance. The Bolsheviks availed themselves of the lacuna.
  
  Donald Trump's insipidity notwithstanding, no such profound leadership/power vacuum exists in the U.S.; thus no one, black or otherwise, may exploit such a shortcoming to effect an overthrow.
• Political discontent -- Russia's people, on the whole and having for over a decade endured disaffection with the Tsar's ineptitude, something derived partly from his lack of training and partly from his disinterest for ruling, and were thus "chomping at the bit" for alternative leadership, and anyone willing and seemingly able to assume its mantle was worth a shot. [2] The polity's winters of discontent produced an opportunity for enterprising and previously subsumed malcontents, the Bolsheviks, to garner widespread approbation and see elevated to primacy their political ambition.
  
  Democrats on the whole may support the themes that animate organized groups like BLM and the highly disorganized Antifa, but mainstream Democrats have neither the will to no forbearance for "in your face" agitation as have the two aforementioned groups. Some 20 years back we observed the "Million Man March;" however, no similar quantity of blacks, enthusiastic liberal activists, or Democrats have expressed both solidarity of purpose combined with overwhelming discontent on such a scale. Even blacks, lo Democrats, solicit for cultural change regarding race relations and their treatment on individual and segmental levels [3] of society, overthrowing the nation, revolting, which is what the Bolsheviks sought, isn't at all what they seek. Blacks simply object to being "pigeon-holed" as "this or that" on the basis of their blackness, and they're not shy and retiring about saying so. Quite frankly, whites also don't care to be so boxed, but insofar as whites comprise the majority of individuals in the U.S., we by and large aren't. [4]
  
  I'm sure I can identify white individuals who've "gotten the short-shrift," but what I cannot identify is whites, as a segment of society, routinely having that experience such that a random survey would be harder pressed to find a white who has not had such an experience than to find one who has not. The opposite is the case for blacks, yet they still are not so ticked off as were the Bolsheviks. American blacks want to enjoy parity in the U.S., not sunder the U.S., which is exactly what would happen were blacks/minorities to become "empowered racists" having dominion over whites.
• Schism within a political party -- When the socialists took over power from the tsars, the Bolsheviks and Mensheviks were very similar; parties divided “not so much by slogans as by a different conception of their inner meaning.” In a provisional government where both were initially minorities, distinguishing one group of newly formed socialists from another based on seemingly minor ideological differences was difficult for the general public. However, the more politically savvy Bolsheviks gradually realized they could increase their power by positioning themselves as the only acceptable, legitimate alternative to the Provisional Government. Most importantly, the Mensheviks were ideologically bound by their interpretation of Marxist theory to follow the status quo, even if it was unstable and depended on a weak, nascent government. Worst of all was the fact that the Mensheviks’ Marxist theories were incomprehensible and irritating to the masses, which had just barely tasted the blessing of free political development.
  
  Looking at the Democratic party, one finds no such schism. More evident, though not yet risen to the level of the Bolshevik-Menshevik discord, is the dichotomy among factions in the GOP. Even as I can't say Democrats currently have a unified theme and objective set, they are clearly not as ideologically cacophonous as are Republicans today be.
• Emasculation in general of the Russian Army -- The Russian imperial army and navy, together with other imperial institutions of tsarist Russia, disintegrated after the outbreak of the Russian Revolution of 1917. The subsequent issuance of “Order Number One” gave the Soviet ultimate authority over the armed forces and started a period of dual power between the Provisional Government and the Soviet. "Number One" also proved to be a huge boon to the newly minted Petrograd soviet's effort to consolidate and protect its power. However, “dual power” created an unstable situation as the Socialists attempted to hold power without actually seizing it because the Mensheviks interpreted Marxism as forbidding them from interfering with what was seen as an ongoing capitalist phase leading up to the inevitable socialist revolution.
  
  Despite a string of "optically" damaging and unsuccessful Bolshevik riots in April and July 1917 -- Trotsky describes their support base as having “dwindled by half” -- the the Provisional Government sufficiently abrogated the Bolsheviks' detriment by making repeated polarizing blunders of its own. Pro-Bolshevik writer Alexandra Kollontai later wrote, “In July the reactionary trend in the policy of the bourgeoisie was becoming increasingly obvious. The workers press was banned, Bolsheviks were arrested, and the death penalty was reintroduced for soldiers.”
  
  The U.S. military is by no measure impotent.
• Support of the Russian Army -- Responding to policies enacted by Alexander Kerensky, the head of the provisional government, a group of dissident soldiers led by rogue general Lavr Kornilov attempted to overthrow the Provisional Government in late August 1917. By August 27th, Kornilov had ordered his troops to advance on Petrograd, and Kerensky had no choice but to ask the Petrograd Soviet for help. The Soviet used its influence over the railway workers and many propagandists to halt the advance and foil the coup, which, in turn, augured for a Bolshevik revival. No doubt ruefully, the Menshevik opposition realized it every bit as much as did Bolsheviks: Nikolai Sukhanov, an important member of the Petrograd soviet, said in his account of the revolution that “after the Kornilov Revolt Bolshevism began blossoming luxuriantly and put forth deep roots throughout the country” for it “revealed the fact that [the Provisional Government] had no forces of their own to back them.” Another consequence of the Kornilov affair was that Bolshevik factions were able to gain control of weapons, which had been handed out to the Bolsheviks by a panicked Provisional Government. These weapons would prove useful during the October Revolution.
  
  The U.S. military has nary the faintest notion of backing any band would-be revolutionaries, black, white or otherwise.

The five elements above are not the sole material ones that militated for the Bolsheviks' assuming primacy in the course of the Russian Revolutions and their antecedents. Accordingly, my assertion, and accompanying explication, that "in the U.S., the only group(s) that can actually do that is/are white" is like "arguing that the Bolsheviks could not take over Russia because they were a minority of the people" only insofar as one can indeed utter such a baseless and preposterous claim.


Notes:

1. We are reminded of John Lackland. LOL Clearly, Nicholas was not. It's hard for leaders to stand amongst "trees" and see the "forest" of their circumstances, yet that is exactly what they, or their advisors, must do aptly, for adroitly doing so is what distinguishes great and capable leaders from all the rest.
2. See "The Causes of the Russian Revolution" (attached) -- Through the perfect lens of historical ocularity, one is prodded profoundly to perceive from the Russian peasantry's popularly-opined procrustean clamor for alternates that pathos is a perfidious ally that at best provides prodigiously poor political underpinnings.
3. Segmental level --> An example is blacks' desiring that they not be subject to excess police scrutiny on account of being black and merely present "somewhere," and especially in a variety of places such as Neiman Marcus, business districts, suburbia, or neighborhoods like mine in D.C. (not the suburbs). Indeed, in several D.C. area neighborhoods similar to mine, a "normal looking" black person walking down the street will almost certainly be approached by a passing cop, if only to be asked what they're doing or where they're going, etc.. and the cop has no intention of giving the person a ride all or part-way to their destination, yet a white person looking similarly "normal" attracts no such attention.
   
   There is also the "other side of the coin" whereby, for example, even as the security guards at at a retail store pay extra attention to blacks, the sales staff pay them less regard. Both problems could be resolved by either the security guard or salesperson in a timely manner simply saying, "Hi. How may we help you today?" But that too often isn't what happens. The security guard hovers almost obsequiously yet says nothing, and the salesperson seemingly can't put enough distance between themselves and a potential black customer.
   
   Below is an anecdote that illustrates the sort of thing that has never happened to me, that no white friend of mine has ever indicated happened to them, and that is the type of experience that every black person I know well has had. That they all have has to be more than serendipitous because every black I know "that well" is, like me, polished, well-off and looks it, calmly comported, of "regal bearing," etc., yet their experiences match those of blacks who don't outwardly appear so innocuous.
   • Five or six years ago, I and another partner threw a party for the local office's partners, managers and senior managers, three of whom in attendance were black. One black colleague, a partner, and his wife arrived early and parked in the driveway. The other black couple arrived by car service.
     
     The third black employee and her husband arrived late (as expected) and were walking from their car to the party which was held in one of Northern VA's "McMansion" neighborhoods. There was snow and ice/slush on the ground and street. (The neighborhood doesn't have sidewalks.) It was a calm but cold night.
     
     Outwardly, one could see the woman wore a fur coat, nice "stones," boots, gloves, and carried a "posh" bag (it held her heels), and her spouse had on a cloth coat, gloves, and rubber overshoes.
     
     The homeowner and I were in the vestibule talking when the couple arrived. Our employee's husband jokingly (sort of) asked the host if they'd hired security for the party. That remark piqued my interest, because I knew we/he had not. The host, looked puzzed and answered "no," and asked what the man meant. At that point he and our colleague shared that they'd been approached by a passing cop and queried about why they were in the neighborhood and so on. The cop actually had asked about how our colleague came by her fur coat and jewelry! (Seriously?!?)
     
     The couple had had to park "down the street and around the corner" because by the time they'd arrived, there was no closer place to park. The couple was dressed like the sort of "well off" folks one'd expect to see in "McMansion land." There were parked cars "everywhere;" thus that somebody was hosting an event was obvious.
4. Not caring for it, one'd think whites would eschew doing it to non-whites, thus not do it, yet many don't. Some white individuals may on occasion suffer the distasteful experience of being judged solely on the basis of their whiteness, but insofar as there are so many more whites in the U.S. population, the incidence of that is far lower than that which blacks endure.
   
5. Key Reference Document for the remarks above: The Hunt for True October -- this is a "Cliff Notes" description of the interpretations given to the conflagration of key events, trends, themes and personages that fomented and participated in the Russian Revolution. It's worth reading, not to choose a side, but rather to have a decent high-level understanding of all of them. It's also a good (but not at all the only one) meta-analysis tool.

Aside:

Yesterday when I had your "that's like arguing" remark on the computer screen, my cat meowed at it and was so overcome that she proceeded to fall from the top of the bookcase wherefrom she "read" that statement. My cat-speak skills have been improving; thus in combination with her unplanned descent, I am certain her meow meant, "WTH? Surely he doesn't mean that?" LOL​

 

[Lucy Hamilton]

Google image search....go figure, it's a De Blasio aide photo

De Blasio Aide Posts Picture Of Sister With 'F*** Whiteness' Sign

^^^^ This is him, Lincoln Restler, maybe he should you know....gas himself.

This ilk are always so ugly and all have yellow teeth. Defective DNA circling the drain.

And gas his sister and his parents before he gasses himself.

 

[Lucy Hamilton]

White Uncle Tom's.

They do not consider themselves as White people though, but they do Historically hate actual White Christian people.

 

[Lucy Hamilton]

Google image search....go figure, it's a De Blasio aide photo

De Blasio Aide Posts Picture Of Sister With 'F*** Whiteness' Sign

 

[JimBowie1958]

Google image search....go figure, it's a De Blasio aide photo

De Blasio Aide Posts Picture Of Sister With 'F*** Whiteness' Sign

DeBlasio is a fucking commie.