what is the alt right?

[Pogo]

MORE?? What's this -- dessert??

OK OK I'll make room....

But....as the eternal optimist, I'll provide it once again.

1. Liberal historian Eric Foner writes that the Klan was “…a military force serving the interests of the Democratic Party…” Foner, “Reconstruction: America’s Unfinished Revolution, 1863-1877,” p. 425

---- which ("serving the interest of") does not make them "Democrats" --- and more to the point you've deliberately and dishonestly cut off the quote, which, to flesh out more of its context, reads:

"In effect, the Klan was a military force serving the interests of the Democratic party, the planter class, and all those who desired the restoration of white supremacy. It aimed to destroy the Republican party’s infrastructure, undermine the Reconstruction state, reestablish control of the black labor force, and restore racial subordination in every aspect of Southern life. To that end they worked to curb the education, economic advancement, voting rights, and right to keep and bear arms of blacks."​

Note the bolded key words, and note why you left them out. "In effect" means indirect, and he writes here specifically of the Democratic Party of the South -- the same one that in 1860 could not abide the DP's Presidential candidate Douglas and ran its own (Breckinridge), resulting in the Democrat being entirely shut out of the South in the election and coming in fourth nationally, winning a total of one state (in effect before it seceded from the Union the South had already seceded from the Democratic Party, and certainly not the last time it would do that).

This was a cultural movement, specific to the defeated Confederacy and a military one of what we today call "insurgents" resisting (what they saw as) an occupying foreign force --- that's why the Klan (and various other groups that were not revived in 1915 with big PR campaigns) were founded by Confederate soldiers -- insurgency.

For more on this question of "who were they" we go to Foner's historian colleague Elaine Franz Parsons: [Parsons p 816]: {EDIT -- old link is dead, quoted and more background here}

"Lifting the Klan mask revealed a chaotic multitude of antiblack vigilante groups, disgruntled poor white farmers, wartime guerrilla bands, displaced Democratic politicians, illegal whiskey distillers, coercive moral reformers, bored young men, sadists, rapists, white workmen fearful of black competition, employers trying to enforce labor discipline, common thieves, neighbors with decades-old grudges, and even a few freedmen and white Republicans who allied with Democratic whites or had criminal agendas of their own. Indeed, all they had in common, besides being overwhelmingly white, southern, and Democratic, was that they called themselves, or were called, Klansmen."​

If that's supposed to be a political movement ... it's anarchy. If it's supposed to be a cultural one --- Bingo. Bob's your uncle.

Thank me later.

2. . "The night riders move through the darkness, white against the black road....they go about their business, their horsed draped, guns and bullwhips banging dully against saddles.

They did indeed, and they were doing so before the Klan and before the Civil War as well. This was an already-existing perverted activity that was part of the entire reason for the Abolitionists to form the Republican Party, that and the necessity of the Underground Railroad (cf. Harriet Tubman), and the cacophony of legislation that for decades tried to dance around the issues of who owned or had to return escaped slaves, what new territories would practice it, and the entire power structure of the United States.

But we digress. These "night riders" a/k/a "slave patrols" were already the opposition to the Underground Railroad, and were, as Parsons notes above, vigilantes -- as were the Klan. When the latter was formed as an idle joke in 1865, said night riders took over its name and regalia and began its reign of terror. It even tried to legitimize itself above vigilantism in April 1867 by hiring noted general Nathan Bedford Forrest as a CEO figurehead. When Forrest issued his first and only General Order less than two years later disbanding the Klan and ordering its robes and other paraphernalia destroyed the disparate elements went back to decentralized vigilantism until they were wiped out as an organization within four years.

Of course this did not stop the activities of terrorism -- lynching if anything increased over the next half-century. Mobs require neither an organization nor a political party. They just mob.

....this is the South Carolina of the 1870s, not of the turn of a new millennium, and the night riders are the terror of these times. they roam upcountry, visiting their version of justice on poor blacks and the Republicans that support them,

It's also the South Carolina (Virginia, Alabama etc) of the 1850s before it, as outlined above. Context is crucial.

And nothing has changed....the most popular Democrat and former President has an unbroken record of racism throughout his entire political life.

That could mean anybody.

 

[Pogo]

Not even close. In Lincoln's time the alt-right was the Klan

*DO NOT* edit my posts, Zippy. I clearly said "after he died", the Klan being founded eight months after Lincoln's assassination. I cited the two movements closest to his political life. You chopped up my post to imply something it didn't say, and is being reported.

Again, from the top:

Lincoln would be leading the alt-right if he were alive today.

Not even close. In Lincoln's time the alt-right was the Klan just after he died, and just before, during his active life, it was the Know Nothing nativist party. Clearly he would have been opposite both of them.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Oboy! Low hangin' fruit, my favorite!!

Let's proceed to show how simple it is to destroy a Liberal liar (is that redundant?)

Some of the Left's lies are so transparent that it is hard to imagine any but the most committed simpletons believing them.

Already shoots itself in the foot. Poster doesn't know the difference between "Liberal" (in the first line) and "the Left" (in the second)

Already disqualified on basis of abject ignorance. But let's go on and bury the corpse anyway.

Like this: "Well...yeah, everyone knows that early Democrats were the party of slavers...but then...around the 1960s the two parties flip-flopped their positions on slavery, segregation and black people....and it is the Republicans who decided to become the racists!!!

Yup.....that's it!"

(I left out all the 'duh's' that would be appropriate for said dialogue.)

Sure would, and you left out the strawman illustration too.
The actual reality of course is that:

(a) slavery by a long shot preceded ANY political parties;

(b) the early Democrats, like most of the parties of that era save, finally, the Republicans, took no consistent position on the elephant-in-the-room question, playing both sides without a backbone;

(c) if there was a two-party flip-flop it would be at the turn of the 19th to 20th century when the RP took on the interests of the élite (corporations/the wealthy) and the DP took on the Populist movement, thereby setting up the slavery-cum-civil rights stances that would come later -- which neither party was yet willing to take on in that hyper-racist time; and..

(d) the "Republicans did not decide to become racists" but rather the other way 'round -- the Republicans as an institution solicited the racists -- as has been articulated by the party's own officials, and as the Democrats had previously, again showing no backbone trying to play both sides of the fence, until LBJ said "fuck it" in 1964.

History lesson in brief. Go forth and flesh it out.

Since their acolytes cannot deny that that the inception of the Republican Party was motivated by a hatred of slavery and segregation, while the Democrats were the party of Jim Crow laws and the KKK,

(a) is true; the RP was born (in its time) of Abolitionists and that segment of Whigs who favoured Abolition (e.g. Lincoln), that indecision on the part of the latter being the main reason for the party's demise;

(b1) actually it was the Democrats in the South --- by which we mean the whites in the South, association with the Party of Lincoln being unthinkable for 99 years -- that pushed Jim Crow, again demonstrating the same schism that split the party geographically... and (b2) the Klan has never had a political party association, in fact it went out of its way to avoid such an association, and was founded not by political activists but by young veteran Confederate soldiers and taken over by already-existing "night patrols" (in the first iteration) and by hyper-religious Know Nothing ideological descendants (in the second one).

That's enough low-hangin' fruit for now. I'm 'bout full. :: burp::

"Already shoots itself in the foot. Poster doesn't know the difference between "Liberal" (in the first line) and "the Left" (in the second)"

There is no difference between "Liberal" and "the Left."


"That's enough low-hangin' fruit for now. I'm 'bout full."

You're "full," all right.

And you can bet I'll continue to prove it.

 

[PoliticalChic]

MORE?? What's this -- dessert??

OK OK I'll make room....

But....as the eternal optimist, I'll provide it once again.

1. Liberal historian Eric Foner writes that the Klan was “…a military force serving the interests of the Democratic Party…” Foner, “Reconstruction: America’s Unfinished Revolution, 1863-1877,” p. 425

---- which ("serving the interest of") does not make them "Democrats" --- and more to the point you've deliberately and dishonestly cut off the quote, which, to flesh out more of its context, reads:

"In effect, the Klan was a military force serving the interests of the Democratic party, the planter class, and all those who desired the restoration of white supremacy. It aimed to destroy the Republican party’s infrastructure, undermine the Reconstruction state, reestablish control of the black labor force, and restore racial subordination in every aspect of Southern life. To that end they worked to curb the education, economic advancement, voting rights, and right to keep and bear arms of blacks."​

Note the bolded key words, and note why you left them out. "In effect" means indirect, and he writes here specifically of the Democratic Party of the South -- the same one that in 1860 could not abide the DP's Presidential candidate Douglas and ran its own (Breckinridge), resulting in the Democrat being entirely shut out of the South in the election and coming in fourth nationally, winning a total of one state (in effect before it seceded from the Union the South had already seceded from the Democratic Party, and certainly not the last time it would do that).

This was a cultural movement, specific to the defeated Confederacy and a military one of what we today call "insurgents" resisting (what they saw as) an occupying foreign force --- that's why the Klan (and various other groups that were not revived in 1915 with big PR campaigns) were founded by Confederate soldiers -- insurgency.

For more on this question of "who were they" we go to Foner's historian colleague Elaine Franz Parsons: [Parsons p 816]: {EDIT -- old link is dead, quoted and more background here}

"Lifting the Klan mask revealed a chaotic multitude of antiblack vigilante groups, disgruntled poor white farmers, wartime guerrilla bands, displaced Democratic politicians, illegal whiskey distillers, coercive moral reformers, bored young men, sadists, rapists, white workmen fearful of black competition, employers trying to enforce labor discipline, common thieves, neighbors with decades-old grudges, and even a few freedmen and white Republicans who allied with Democratic whites or had criminal agendas of their own. Indeed, all they had in common, besides being overwhelmingly white, southern, and Democratic, was that they called themselves, or were called, Klansmen."​

If that's supposed to be a political movement ... it's anarchy. If it's supposed to be a cultural one --- Bingo. Bob's your uncle.

Thank me later.

2. . "The night riders move through the darkness, white against the black road....they go about their business, their horsed draped, guns and bullwhips banging dully against saddles.

They did indeed, and they were doing so before the Klan and before the Civil War as well. This was an already-existing perverted activity that was part of the entire reason for the Abolitionists to form the Republican Party, that and the necessity of the Underground Railroad (cf. Harriet Tubman), and the cacophony of legislation that for decades tried to dance around the issues of who owned or had to return escaped slaves, what new territories would practice it, and the entire power structure of the United States.

But we digress. These "night riders" a/k/a "slave patrols" were already the opposition to the Underground Railroad, and were, as Parsons notes above, vigilantes -- as were the Klan. When the latter was formed as an idle joke in 1865, said night riders took over its name and regalia and began its reign of terror. It even tried to legitimize itself above vigilantism in April 1867 by hiring noted general Nathan Bedford Forrest as a CEO figurehead. When Forrest issued his first and only General Order less than two years later disbanding the Klan and ordering its robes and other paraphernalia destroyed the disparate elements went back to decentralized vigilantism until they were wiped out as an organization within four years.

Of course this did not stop the activities of terrorism -- lynching if anything increased over the next half-century. Mobs require neither an organization nor a political party. They just mob.

....this is the South Carolina of the 1870s, not of the turn of a new millennium, and the night riders are the terror of these times. they roam upcountry, visiting their version of justice on poor blacks and the Republicans that support them,

It's also the South Carolina (Virginia, Alabama etc) of the 1850s before it, as outlined above. Context is crucial.

And nothing has changed....the most popular Democrat and former President has an unbroken record of racism throughout his entire political life.

That could mean anybody.

1. Liberal historian Eric Foner writes that the Klan was “…a military force serving the interests of the Democratic Party…” Foner, “Reconstruction: America’s Unfinished Revolution, 1863-1877,” p. 425

---- which ("serving the interest of") does not make them "Democrats" ---


A distinction without a difference.
As much Democrats as any Hillary political pac is.

The Democrats have always been the party of slavery, segregation, and second class citizenship.

This is clear and evident, as the most popular Democrat is the rapist and former President Bill Clinton.

He has an unbroken record of racism throughout his entire political life.


Why are you unable to dispute that?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Liars like the poster that I just eviscerated are supported by the lies of the Liberals/Leftist/Democrat media.

1. Here’s what we’re up against: the Washington Post lies outright, describing Senator William Fulbright as “a progressive on racial issues.”
Democrat Fulbright was a full-bore segregationist, voting against the 1957, 1960, 1964, and 1965 civil rights bills.


2. And another lie from the Liberal Leftist press: "In a category by itself is the Nineteenth Amendment backing women’s suffrage, voted by Congress in 1919, a move Wilson and others promoted."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...hat-can-obama-expect-from-his-last-congress/]

Democrat/Liberal/Progressive/racist Woodrow Wilson fought against women's suffrage.
His Democrats even filibustered against it.
It was Republicans who promoted women's suffrage, and Democrats who filibustered against same.

 

[HUGGY]

Alternative right, a blend of white supremacists, nationalists, Nazi lovers, nativists, xenophobes, misogynists, homophobes, and the extreme right wing.

Americans pretend there is no racism and yet the democrats have lost the white vote since civil rights. Coincidence. Trump's Mexican and immigration policies appeal to white Americans today. Reasons abound, see video at bottom. See this too, read it. Dog Whistle Politics

For the Record: For Trump, everything’s going to be alt-right

"Kritzer’s observation speaks volumes about the incoherence of the reactionary politics that are driving the Puppy campaign — and, in national politics, the Trump campaign. Despite all the claims to make America “great,” the actual behavior looks quite a bit like kneecapping the aspirations of women, people of color, and queer people so that straight white male mediocrities don’t have to deal with the competition." The alt-right attacks sci-fi: How the Hugo Awards got hijacked by Trumpian-style culture warriors

Has Hillary helped the GOP? http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/08/hillary_clinton_offers_the_gop_a_lifeboat_off_of_t rump_s_sinking_ship.html

www.youtube.com/watch?v=4eE_iFHqR3c

"There was a market for white resentment": Tim Wise on Trump, David Duke and the bigotry that’s risen from the shadows

Read or listen: Interview with Tim Wise about what the Trump phenomenon portends for the future of U.S. politics
“There was a market for white resentment”: Tim Wise on Trump, David Duke and the bigotry that’s risen from the shadows

There is no racism because the democrats have lost.

The rest of the story is 180 degrees from the reality, as to be expected.

Norman, you are a dishonest person. Telling part of the story and leaving out the dates in your little "history lesson" says a lot about you....maybe everything.

 

[Siete]

alt right was designed to fuck with RW's tiny little brain.

mission accomplished.

 

[ptbw forever]

Let's remind all that every presidential assassin in the history of the nation has been a liberal- or has not been associated with a political outlook- none were right-wingers.

John Wilkes Booth. First one.

How many times must I teach you this same lesson???

Take notes this time:

1. John Wilkes Booth was opposed to President Lincoln’s Republican war policies. His letter to is family explained he was furious with Lincoln for having brought war to the South! THE MURDERER OF MR. LINCOLN.; Extraordinary Letter of John Wilkes Booth Proof that He Meditated His Crime Months Ago His Excuses for the Contemplated Act His Participation in the Execution of John Brown. Commissioners of Public Charities and Correction. Fires. The Seventh Ward Fire Note from Chief Engineer Decker.

2. Lincoln was assassinated by John Wilkes Booth, “…an angry Copperhead, a.k.a., ‘peace democrat,’ (when that meant pro-slavery, of course.) John Wilkes Booth - Liberapedia
John Wilkes Booth

Exactly. "Right wing".

You need me to draw it out in stick figures?

Or are you so far gone that you think Lincoln was on the right?

Name 2 modern Democrat stances that Lincoln would be for....

Lincoln would be leading the alt-right if he were alive today.

Not even close. In Lincoln's time the alt-right was the Klan just after he died, and just before, during his active life, it was the Know Nothing nativist party. Clearly he would have been opposite both of them.

Lincoln was against integration and for repatriation. Your image of a "progressive" Lincoln that would allow his kids to have black friends and spouses is a false one. There weren't even that many integrationists in America when Lincoln was president.

The Klan hated Lincoln because he got rid of slavery , the only way they saw to be able to keep blacks "under control".

Maybe if you actually knew what the alt-right and their affiliates stand for, then maybe you would able to read a history book and understand how close the alt-right is to past American society and figures.

 

[ptbw forever]

Alternative right, a blend of white supremacists, nationalists, Nazi lovers, nativists, xenophobes, misogynists, homophobes, and the extreme right wing.

Americans pretend there is no racism and yet the democrats have lost the white vote since civil rights. Coincidence. Trump's Mexican and immigration policies appeal to white Americans today. Reasons abound, see video at bottom. See this too, read it. Dog Whistle Politics

For the Record: For Trump, everything’s going to be alt-right

"Kritzer’s observation speaks volumes about the incoherence of the reactionary politics that are driving the Puppy campaign — and, in national politics, the Trump campaign. Despite all the claims to make America “great,” the actual behavior looks quite a bit like kneecapping the aspirations of women, people of color, and queer people so that straight white male mediocrities don’t have to deal with the competition." The alt-right attacks sci-fi: How the Hugo Awards got hijacked by Trumpian-style culture warriors

Has Hillary helped the GOP? http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/08/hillary_clinton_offers_the_gop_a_lifeboat_off_of_t rump_s_sinking_ship.html

www.youtube.com/watch?v=4eE_iFHqR3c

"There was a market for white resentment": Tim Wise on Trump, David Duke and the bigotry that’s risen from the shadows

Read or listen: Interview with Tim Wise about what the Trump phenomenon portends for the future of U.S. politics
“There was a market for white resentment”: Tim Wise on Trump, David Duke and the bigotry that’s risen from the shadows

There is no racism because the democrats have lost.

The rest of the story is 180 degrees from the reality, as to be expected.

All 3 were from a time that both parties were directly 180 degrees different from today. Due to FDR and congress of the time, there was an exchange of people between parties from both sides. It was happening during Eisenhower who also backed what those amendments stood for. As did Kennedy and Johnson. After 8 years of Democrats controlling Washington during Kennedy and Johnson and the decade of FDRs control, the Republican party was hijacked by some very unsavory people that had more in common with the failed Dixiecrats than the old republicans. The GOP never has been the same since.

Today, Teddy, Lincoln and Eisenhower have more in common with the Democratic Party than the GOP. Trump isn't the problem, he's just a symptom.

Lincoln had nothing in common with today's Democratic Party, literally nothing.

He was a heavily religious, heavily patriotic, heavily racial white man.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Alternative right, a blend of white supremacists, nationalists, Nazi lovers, nativists, xenophobes, misogynists, homophobes, and the extreme right wing.

Americans pretend there is no racism and yet the democrats have lost the white vote since civil rights. Coincidence. Trump's Mexican and immigration policies appeal to white Americans today. Reasons abound, see video at bottom. See this too, read it. Dog Whistle Politics

For the Record: For Trump, everything’s going to be alt-right

"Kritzer’s observation speaks volumes about the incoherence of the reactionary politics that are driving the Puppy campaign — and, in national politics, the Trump campaign. Despite all the claims to make America “great,” the actual behavior looks quite a bit like kneecapping the aspirations of women, people of color, and queer people so that straight white male mediocrities don’t have to deal with the competition." The alt-right attacks sci-fi: How the Hugo Awards got hijacked by Trumpian-style culture warriors

Has Hillary helped the GOP? http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/08/hillary_clinton_offers_the_gop_a_lifeboat_off_of_t rump_s_sinking_ship.html

www.youtube.com/watch?v=4eE_iFHqR3c

"There was a market for white resentment": Tim Wise on Trump, David Duke and the bigotry that’s risen from the shadows

Read or listen: Interview with Tim Wise about what the Trump phenomenon portends for the future of U.S. politics
“There was a market for white resentment”: Tim Wise on Trump, David Duke and the bigotry that’s risen from the shadows

There is no racism because the democrats have lost.

The rest of the story is 180 degrees from the reality, as to be expected.

All 3 were from a time that both parties were directly 180 degrees different from today. Due to FDR and congress of the time, there was an exchange of people between parties from both sides. It was happening during Eisenhower who also backed what those amendments stood for. As did Kennedy and Johnson. After 8 years of Democrats controlling Washington during Kennedy and Johnson and the decade of FDRs control, the Republican party was hijacked by some very unsavory people that had more in common with the failed Dixiecrats than the old republicans. The GOP never has been the same since.

Today, Teddy, Lincoln and Eisenhower have more in common with the Democratic Party than the GOP. Trump isn't the problem, he's just a symptom.

Lincoln had nothing in common with today's Democratic Party, literally nothing.

He was a heavily religious, heavily patriotic, heavily racial white man.

"Lincoln had nothing in common with today's Democratic Party, literally nothing."

How about this?

"Plaque on Public University’s Campus Identifying Abraham Lincoln as a ‘Democrat’ Ignites Controversy
The plaque was installed outside the Frank Lloyd Wright Building at Northeastern Illinois University in 1905, according to university officials."
Plaque on Public University’s Campus Identifying Abraham Lincoln as a ‘Democrat’ Ignites Controversy



Hard to imagine more lying low-lives than Liberals.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Not even close. In Lincoln's time the alt-right was the Klan

*DO NOT* edit my posts, Zippy.

I merely post the pertinent parts to which I am responding.

 

[MaryL]

The alt-right thing is disappearing faster than a rain puddle in the desert. It was a fantastic conglomeration of any right leaning extremist weirdos by elitist liberals meant to paint ALL conservatives with the same broad brush. That really says more about liberals than anything else.

 

[Pogo]

The alt-right thing is disappearing faster than a rain puddle in the desert. It was a fantastic conglomeration of any right leaning extremist weirdos by elitist liberals meant to paint ALL conservatives with the same broad brush.

Link?

 

[Pogo]

Alternative right, a blend of white supremacists, nationalists, Nazi lovers, nativists, xenophobes, misogynists, homophobes, and the extreme right wing.

Americans pretend there is no racism and yet the democrats have lost the white vote since civil rights. Coincidence. Trump's Mexican and immigration policies appeal to white Americans today. Reasons abound, see video at bottom. See this too, read it. Dog Whistle Politics

For the Record: For Trump, everything’s going to be alt-right

"Kritzer’s observation speaks volumes about the incoherence of the reactionary politics that are driving the Puppy campaign — and, in national politics, the Trump campaign. Despite all the claims to make America “great,” the actual behavior looks quite a bit like kneecapping the aspirations of women, people of color, and queer people so that straight white male mediocrities don’t have to deal with the competition." The alt-right attacks sci-fi: How the Hugo Awards got hijacked by Trumpian-style culture warriors

Has Hillary helped the GOP? http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/08/hillary_clinton_offers_the_gop_a_lifeboat_off_of_t rump_s_sinking_ship.html

www.youtube.com/watch?v=4eE_iFHqR3c

"There was a market for white resentment": Tim Wise on Trump, David Duke and the bigotry that’s risen from the shadows

Read or listen: Interview with Tim Wise about what the Trump phenomenon portends for the future of U.S. politics
“There was a market for white resentment”: Tim Wise on Trump, David Duke and the bigotry that’s risen from the shadows

There is no racism because the democrats have lost.

The rest of the story is 180 degrees from the reality, as to be expected.

All 3 were from a time that both parties were directly 180 degrees different from today. Due to FDR and congress of the time, there was an exchange of people between parties from both sides. It was happening during Eisenhower who also backed what those amendments stood for. As did Kennedy and Johnson. After 8 years of Democrats controlling Washington during Kennedy and Johnson and the decade of FDRs control, the Republican party was hijacked by some very unsavory people that had more in common with the failed Dixiecrats than the old republicans. The GOP never has been the same since.

Today, Teddy, Lincoln and Eisenhower have more in common with the Democratic Party than the GOP. Trump isn't the problem, he's just a symptom.

Lincoln had nothing in common with today's Democratic Party, literally nothing.

He was a heavily religious, heavily patriotic, heavily racial white man.

Actually he was an atheist, but as with the rest of this laundry list, it's irrelevant.

 

[Pogo]

Lincoln was against integration and for repatriation. Your image of a "progressive" Lincoln that would allow his kids to have black friends and spouses is a false one.

It's also a nonexistent one. I made no such speculation, nor do I traffic in such.

Prove me wrong.

The Klan hated Lincoln because he got rid of slavery ,

Lincoln was already dead before there ever was a Klan, but the entire (ex-)Confederacy hated Lincoln because he had vanquished and humiliated them in a war they had expected to win. That's why associating with the "party of Lincoln" was unthinkable for exactly 99 years thereafter.

Maybe if you actually knew what the alt-right and their affiliates stand for, then maybe you would able to read a history book and understand how close the alt-right is to past American society and figures.

Indeed I already posted about that --- the Know Nothings and the "slave patrols".

 

[Pogo]

MORE?? What's this -- dessert??

OK OK I'll make room....

But....as the eternal optimist, I'll provide it once again.

1. Liberal historian Eric Foner writes that the Klan was “…a military force serving the interests of the Democratic Party…” Foner, “Reconstruction: America’s Unfinished Revolution, 1863-1877,” p. 425

---- which ("serving the interest of") does not make them "Democrats" --- and more to the point you've deliberately and dishonestly cut off the quote, which, to flesh out more of its context, reads:

"In effect, the Klan was a military force serving the interests of the Democratic party, the planter class, and all those who desired the restoration of white supremacy. It aimed to destroy the Republican party’s infrastructure, undermine the Reconstruction state, reestablish control of the black labor force, and restore racial subordination in every aspect of Southern life. To that end they worked to curb the education, economic advancement, voting rights, and right to keep and bear arms of blacks."​

Note the bolded key words, and note why you left them out. "In effect" means indirect, and he writes here specifically of the Democratic Party of the South -- the same one that in 1860 could not abide the DP's Presidential candidate Douglas and ran its own (Breckinridge), resulting in the Democrat being entirely shut out of the South in the election and coming in fourth nationally, winning a total of one state (in effect before it seceded from the Union the South had already seceded from the Democratic Party, and certainly not the last time it would do that).

This was a cultural movement, specific to the defeated Confederacy and a military one of what we today call "insurgents" resisting (what they saw as) an occupying foreign force --- that's why the Klan (and various other groups that were not revived in 1915 with big PR campaigns) were founded by Confederate soldiers -- insurgency.

For more on this question of "who were they" we go to Foner's historian colleague Elaine Franz Parsons: [Parsons p 816]: {EDIT -- old link is dead, quoted and more background here}

"Lifting the Klan mask revealed a chaotic multitude of antiblack vigilante groups, disgruntled poor white farmers, wartime guerrilla bands, displaced Democratic politicians, illegal whiskey distillers, coercive moral reformers, bored young men, sadists, rapists, white workmen fearful of black competition, employers trying to enforce labor discipline, common thieves, neighbors with decades-old grudges, and even a few freedmen and white Republicans who allied with Democratic whites or had criminal agendas of their own. Indeed, all they had in common, besides being overwhelmingly white, southern, and Democratic, was that they called themselves, or were called, Klansmen."​

If that's supposed to be a political movement ... it's anarchy. If it's supposed to be a cultural one --- Bingo. Bob's your uncle.

Thank me later.

2. . "The night riders move through the darkness, white against the black road....they go about their business, their horsed draped, guns and bullwhips banging dully against saddles.

They did indeed, and they were doing so before the Klan and before the Civil War as well. This was an already-existing perverted activity that was part of the entire reason for the Abolitionists to form the Republican Party, that and the necessity of the Underground Railroad (cf. Harriet Tubman), and the cacophony of legislation that for decades tried to dance around the issues of who owned or had to return escaped slaves, what new territories would practice it, and the entire power structure of the United States.

But we digress. These "night riders" a/k/a "slave patrols" were already the opposition to the Underground Railroad, and were, as Parsons notes above, vigilantes -- as were the Klan. When the latter was formed as an idle joke in 1865, said night riders took over its name and regalia and began its reign of terror. It even tried to legitimize itself above vigilantism in April 1867 by hiring noted general Nathan Bedford Forrest as a CEO figurehead. When Forrest issued his first and only General Order less than two years later disbanding the Klan and ordering its robes and other paraphernalia destroyed the disparate elements went back to decentralized vigilantism until they were wiped out as an organization within four years.

Of course this did not stop the activities of terrorism -- lynching if anything increased over the next half-century. Mobs require neither an organization nor a political party. They just mob.

....this is the South Carolina of the 1870s, not of the turn of a new millennium, and the night riders are the terror of these times. they roam upcountry, visiting their version of justice on poor blacks and the Republicans that support them,

It's also the South Carolina (Virginia, Alabama etc) of the 1850s before it, as outlined above. Context is crucial.

And nothing has changed....the most popular Democrat and former President has an unbroken record of racism throughout his entire political life.

That could mean anybody.

1. Liberal historian Eric Foner writes that the Klan was “…a military force serving the interests of the Democratic Party…” Foner, “Reconstruction: America’s Unfinished Revolution, 1863-1877,” p. 425

---- which ("serving the interest of") does not make them "Democrats" ---


A distinction without a difference.
As much Democrats as any Hillary political pac is.

The Democrats have always been the party of slavery, segregation, and second class citizenship.

This is clear and evident, as the most popular Democrat is the rapist and former President Bill Clinton.

He has an unbroken record of racism throughout his entire political life.


Why are you unable to dispute that?

You've made no case to "dispute". You didn't even specify who the fuck you were talking about.

I have no doubt the conversations inside your own head are fascinating but unless you actually specify your subject, you've made no point to "dispute". Nor have you made your case even if you've identified this mystery figure.

 

[Pogo]

Liars like the poster that I just eviscerated are supported by the lies of the Liberals/Leftist/Democrat media.

1. Here’s what we’re up against: the Washington Post lies outright, describing Senator William Fulbright as “a progressive on racial issues.”
Democrat Fulbright was a full-bore segregationist, voting against the 1957, 1960, 1964, and 1965 civil rights bills.


2. And another lie from the Liberal Leftist press: "In a category by itself is the Nineteenth Amendment backing women’s suffrage, voted by Congress in 1919, a move Wilson and others promoted."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...hat-can-obama-expect-from-his-last-congress/]

Democrat/Liberal/Progressive/racist Woodrow Wilson fought against women's suffrage.
His Democrats even filibustered against it.
It was Republicans who promoted women's suffrage, and Democrats who filibustered against same.

Woodrow Wilson was in no way a "Liberal". He was a racist asshole.

Oh wait --- you're the historically challenged wag who thinks "Liberal", "Democrat" and "Leftist" all mean the same thing, because the complexities of distinction are over your head.

 

[PoliticalChic]

MORE?? What's this -- dessert??

OK OK I'll make room....

But....as the eternal optimist, I'll provide it once again.

1. Liberal historian Eric Foner writes that the Klan was “…a military force serving the interests of the Democratic Party…” Foner, “Reconstruction: America’s Unfinished Revolution, 1863-1877,” p. 425

---- which ("serving the interest of") does not make them "Democrats" --- and more to the point you've deliberately and dishonestly cut off the quote, which, to flesh out more of its context, reads:

"In effect, the Klan was a military force serving the interests of the Democratic party, the planter class, and all those who desired the restoration of white supremacy. It aimed to destroy the Republican party’s infrastructure, undermine the Reconstruction state, reestablish control of the black labor force, and restore racial subordination in every aspect of Southern life. To that end they worked to curb the education, economic advancement, voting rights, and right to keep and bear arms of blacks."​

Note the bolded key words, and note why you left them out. "In effect" means indirect, and he writes here specifically of the Democratic Party of the South -- the same one that in 1860 could not abide the DP's Presidential candidate Douglas and ran its own (Breckinridge), resulting in the Democrat being entirely shut out of the South in the election and coming in fourth nationally, winning a total of one state (in effect before it seceded from the Union the South had already seceded from the Democratic Party, and certainly not the last time it would do that).

This was a cultural movement, specific to the defeated Confederacy and a military one of what we today call "insurgents" resisting (what they saw as) an occupying foreign force --- that's why the Klan (and various other groups that were not revived in 1915 with big PR campaigns) were founded by Confederate soldiers -- insurgency.

For more on this question of "who were they" we go to Foner's historian colleague Elaine Franz Parsons: [Parsons p 816]: {EDIT -- old link is dead, quoted and more background here}

"Lifting the Klan mask revealed a chaotic multitude of antiblack vigilante groups, disgruntled poor white farmers, wartime guerrilla bands, displaced Democratic politicians, illegal whiskey distillers, coercive moral reformers, bored young men, sadists, rapists, white workmen fearful of black competition, employers trying to enforce labor discipline, common thieves, neighbors with decades-old grudges, and even a few freedmen and white Republicans who allied with Democratic whites or had criminal agendas of their own. Indeed, all they had in common, besides being overwhelmingly white, southern, and Democratic, was that they called themselves, or were called, Klansmen."​

If that's supposed to be a political movement ... it's anarchy. If it's supposed to be a cultural one --- Bingo. Bob's your uncle.

Thank me later.

2. . "The night riders move through the darkness, white against the black road....they go about their business, their horsed draped, guns and bullwhips banging dully against saddles.

They did indeed, and they were doing so before the Klan and before the Civil War as well. This was an already-existing perverted activity that was part of the entire reason for the Abolitionists to form the Republican Party, that and the necessity of the Underground Railroad (cf. Harriet Tubman), and the cacophony of legislation that for decades tried to dance around the issues of who owned or had to return escaped slaves, what new territories would practice it, and the entire power structure of the United States.

But we digress. These "night riders" a/k/a "slave patrols" were already the opposition to the Underground Railroad, and were, as Parsons notes above, vigilantes -- as were the Klan. When the latter was formed as an idle joke in 1865, said night riders took over its name and regalia and began its reign of terror. It even tried to legitimize itself above vigilantism in April 1867 by hiring noted general Nathan Bedford Forrest as a CEO figurehead. When Forrest issued his first and only General Order less than two years later disbanding the Klan and ordering its robes and other paraphernalia destroyed the disparate elements went back to decentralized vigilantism until they were wiped out as an organization within four years.

Of course this did not stop the activities of terrorism -- lynching if anything increased over the next half-century. Mobs require neither an organization nor a political party. They just mob.

....this is the South Carolina of the 1870s, not of the turn of a new millennium, and the night riders are the terror of these times. they roam upcountry, visiting their version of justice on poor blacks and the Republicans that support them,

It's also the South Carolina (Virginia, Alabama etc) of the 1850s before it, as outlined above. Context is crucial.

And nothing has changed....the most popular Democrat and former President has an unbroken record of racism throughout his entire political life.

That could mean anybody.

1. Liberal historian Eric Foner writes that the Klan was “…a military force serving the interests of the Democratic Party…” Foner, “Reconstruction: America’s Unfinished Revolution, 1863-1877,” p. 425

---- which ("serving the interest of") does not make them "Democrats" ---


A distinction without a difference.
As much Democrats as any Hillary political pac is.

The Democrats have always been the party of slavery, segregation, and second class citizenship.

This is clear and evident, as the most popular Democrat is the rapist and former President Bill Clinton.

He has an unbroken record of racism throughout his entire political life.


Why are you unable to dispute that?

You've made no case to "dispute". You didn't even specify who the fuck you were talking about.

I have no doubt the conversations inside your own head are fascinating but unless you actually specify your subject, you've made no point to "dispute". Nor have you made your case even if you've identified this mystery figure.

I love how I reduce you to vulgarity.

It's always a sure sign that you know you've lost.




Let's remind all....Liberals are no more than a spin-off of communism: they both work toward the same goals.



The Democrat/Liberal Party is and has always been the party of slavery, segregation, and second class citizenship.

Proof....I gave you several opportunities to deny that the icon of said party is and has always been a racist.
Bill 'the rapist' Clinton....inveterate racist and personification of the Democrat Party.




I can't decide which is more on display....your ignorance or your embarrassment.


Let's do this again....k;?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Liars like the poster that I just eviscerated are supported by the lies of the Liberals/Leftist/Democrat media.

1. Here’s what we’re up against: the Washington Post lies outright, describing Senator William Fulbright as “a progressive on racial issues.”
Democrat Fulbright was a full-bore segregationist, voting against the 1957, 1960, 1964, and 1965 civil rights bills.


2. And another lie from the Liberal Leftist press: "In a category by itself is the Nineteenth Amendment backing women’s suffrage, voted by Congress in 1919, a move Wilson and others promoted."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...hat-can-obama-expect-from-his-last-congress/]

Democrat/Liberal/Progressive/racist Woodrow Wilson fought against women's suffrage.
His Democrats even filibustered against it.
It was Republicans who promoted women's suffrage, and Democrats who filibustered against same.

Woodrow Wilson was in no way a "Liberal". He was a racist asshole.

Oh wait --- you're the historically challenged wag who thinks "Liberal", "Democrat" and "Leftist" all mean the same thing, because the complexities of distinction are over your head.

" Woodrow Wilson was in no way a "Liberal". He was a racist asshole."

Time to explore your dishonesty again.....so soon????


"Woodrow Wilson: Godfather of Liberalism
It has become fashionable today for those who once called themselves “liberals” to refer to themselves instead as “progressives.” This is a phenomenon evident both among our politicians and among our intellectual class.

In the 2008 presidential primary campaign, Hillary Clinton was asked whether she was a “liberal”; she distanced herself from that term (which still seems toxic to much of the electorate) and described herself instead as a “progressive.” When pressed, she made clear that she meant by this term to connect herself to the original Progressives from the turn of the 20th century. Similarly, what is arguably the most prominent think tank on the Left today is called the Center for American Progress, which has an entire project dedicated to preserving and protecting the legacy of America’s original Progressive Movement."
Woodrow Wilson: Godfather of Liberalism


You're quite the dunce, aren't you.


Or.....a pathological liar.


Which is it?





And....as a racist, he certainly was in the right party.

 

[Pogo]

Liars like the poster that I just eviscerated are supported by the lies of the Liberals/Leftist/Democrat media.

1. Here’s what we’re up against: the Washington Post lies outright, describing Senator William Fulbright as “a progressive on racial issues.”
Democrat Fulbright was a full-bore segregationist, voting against the 1957, 1960, 1964, and 1965 civil rights bills.


2. And another lie from the Liberal Leftist press: "In a category by itself is the Nineteenth Amendment backing women’s suffrage, voted by Congress in 1919, a move Wilson and others promoted."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...hat-can-obama-expect-from-his-last-congress/]

Democrat/Liberal/Progressive/racist Woodrow Wilson fought against women's suffrage.
His Democrats even filibustered against it.
It was Republicans who promoted women's suffrage, and Democrats who filibustered against same.

Woodrow Wilson was in no way a "Liberal". He was a racist asshole.

Oh wait --- you're the historically challenged wag who thinks "Liberal", "Democrat" and "Leftist" all mean the same thing, because the complexities of distinction are over your head.

" Woodrow Wilson was in no way a "Liberal". He was a racist asshole."

Time to explore your dishonesty again.....so soon????


"Woodrow Wilson: Godfather of Liberalism
It has become fashionable today for those who once called themselves “liberals” to refer to themselves instead as “progressives.” This is a phenomenon evident both among our politicians and among our intellectual class.

In the 2008 presidential primary campaign, Hillary Clinton was asked whether she was a “liberal”; she distanced herself from that term (which still seems toxic to much of the electorate) and described herself instead as a “progressive.” When pressed, she made clear that she meant by this term to connect herself to the original Progressives from the turn of the 20th century. Similarly, what is arguably the most prominent think tank on the Left today is called the Center for American Progress, which has an entire project dedicated to preserving and protecting the legacy of America’s original Progressive Movement."
Woodrow Wilson: Godfather of Liberalism

You're quite the dunce, aren't you.

Or.....a pathological liar.

Which is it?

And....as a racist, he certainly was in the right party.

This is what I just said --- a racist asshole. That makes "Liberal" impossible. You can't be a racist and Liberal at the same time. They're mutually exclusive.

Let's remind all....Liberals are no more than a spin-off of communism: they both work toward the same goals.

Liberalism arose and created a country -- this one -- before Karl Marx was a twinkle in his daddy's eye. You're not entitled to your own version of linear time either.

Proof....I gave you several opportunities to deny that the icon of said party is and has always been a racist.

You never even presented a case.

Bill 'the rapist' Clinton....inveterate racist and personification of the Democrat Party.

There's no such thing. Never has been.
Prove me wrong.

You know you can't snow me. You've known that as long as I've been on this site.