(Video) Milo Yiannopoulos At A Bar With White Supremacists Doing Nazi Salute While He Sings For Them

Was he singing love songs?

 

You know me from before the Trump election, before Trump was on anyones radar and before it was mainstream to talk about White Supremacists/Nazis. I have been sounding the alarm for this well before any liberals, not just "me" of course but all far-leftists saw this coming a mile away but nobody listened to us, now that its right in everyones face NOW they are finally talking about it, but again, we on the far-left were saying this for decades. Liberals are only talking about Nazis right now because its politically expedient, not because they actually care to defeat them. Liberals will prop Nazis up if they think it will help them gain more support, as they did by propping Trump up thinking it will galvanize their base, and in a way they were right.

I dont agree with all the Russia hysteria, but they are not looking for Russian citizens to demonize as far as im concerned, its about the Russian government not Russian-Americans, I havent heard a single word about Russia-Americans until you brought it up now. Even the Cold War wasnt neccesarrily "fear of Russians!" it was fear of Communism, an American Communist was a million times worse than a Russian Capitalist in the eyes of the Cold Warriors.

First of all, im not a liberal and I dont think liberals can even "strengthen" their ideals, they believe in Capitalism and that is what caused the rise of the Nazis (i.e. the Great Depression, caused by the collapse of Capitalist society). Right now Capitalism is failing and the Nazis are rising once again, "Fascism is the decay of Capitalism" - Lenin.


FDR's claim to fame was that he "saved Capitalism", but really what he did was kick the can down the road and now we are dealing with the consequences today. You think Fascists will never rise again? Under what circumstance do you think they would rise again? Also you never answered my question, you seem comfortable saying there is only a few hundred, maybe a few thousand actual Nazis in America, but you wont say how many Nazi sympathizers you think there are in America? How many right wingers do you think are more on the side of the Nazis than the people protesting the Nazis? Do you at least admit that the right wing is much more on the side of Nazis than those who protest them? Surely you have to acknowledge this obvious fact?

Nationalist love songs, yes. Love of country, rather than love of People.

 

Nobody said he did.
How stupid

 

I think that almost all right-wingers believe that Nazis are irrelevant.

I fear the rise of fascism, though. Antifa being the most dangerous. Their ideology seems to have more traction with today's youth than I like. Our education system has failed to execute in their responsibility of producing good citizens.

 

Let's start off by acknowledging one basic fact: There's 327 million people in the country. We can agree to that, yes? Of them, we're talking maybe less than 20,000 people MAX. I think our army's at least 5-6 times the size of the Neo-Nazis in America. I think it's less than 0.3% of the US Population. With all of that said, can you tell me which office they'll win?

Right....None. I don't even see them as political parties(they're not), but more like criminal gangs. By giving them a political association, you are giving them legitimacy that otherwise doesn't exist.

And as far as the Nazi sympathizer crap, that's the same thing that was pedaled by a professor who wrote on CNN for the Charlottesville attack. Suffice to say: I do not concur. To even portray that to be accurate, is the same thing as saying GOP=Nazis. No, they're not. The GOP is politically absent, and that political absence is what led to Trump.

Furthermore, very few people are actually associated with these groups. But what you're basically saying is "We don't care, they still are!" It's like that saying "The absence of evidence isn't the evidence of absence." Well, I'm sorry but I disagree: The absence of evidence in this case IS the evidence of absence.

I mean, if a few people want to look under their closets. That's on them. But we have health care issues, infrastructure issues, etc. And those so-called Nazis want something done, instead of the belated moaning and complaining which seems to be what most people in the country/government are good for these days.

 

You know even in the 1930's they thought the Nazis were a tiny irrelevant party? I think some underestimate them, but I think most are simply trying to give them cover by pretending they dont exist anymore in any serious number that way they can be shielded from criticism or discussion.

Lets look at it like this, you know North Korea calls itself a "Democratic Peoples Republic", right? And we agree they are full of ****? Great, but who else calls themselves a "Republic"? Republicans...lol, just because they claim to believe in a Republic doesnt mean anything, what you name your party doesnt mean anything, what matters is what the people in your party believe and what they do in action. The "CCC" is essentially the KKK but because they dont have exactly the same name they get to plead innocence and idiots will buy it. Lets take a look at the Republican Party, not the name, the name is UTTERLY irrelevant (as I pointed out with the DPRK as an example), what does the Republican Party stand for? What do its supporters stand for, not just those in office with fancy suits and slogans? Well the supporters, and the fancy suits in office, believe in never-ending war and nobody can deny this. War against whom and for what? Well, the suits are in favor of the war because they are doing the bidding of their donors (again, undeniable), but the party members who are not in power, the ordinary Joe, why does he want war? Well, they want to destroy Islam and they equate Islam with Arabs, and for some reason nobody ever points this out but the Arabs ARE semites, so being racist against Arabs is literally anti-semetism. Hating Judaism and the Jewish people is essentially the same as hating Islam and hating Arabs. Hating Islam is fine, but hating Arabs is NOT. Hating Judaism is fine, hating Jews is NOT. Republicans dont simply hate Islam, they hate Arabs and they give zero ****s about lighting the entire middle east on fire and outright banning Arabs from travelling here. They didnt ban Muslims from coming, they were banning Arab countries because we all know people associate Arabs with Islam, thats where the racial element comes into play.

Republicans also love Police, the first thing the Nazis did was take control of the Police forces across the country so they can start arresting their opposition, which happened to be Marxists such as myself. The Nazis didnt go after the Jews first, they went after the Socialists first and foremost.
"First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me." -
MARTIN NIEMÖLLER

Republicans also love Christianity, as did the Nazis, at the very least they used it for political gain much the same way Trump uses Christianity for political gain even though we all know he doesnt really give a **** about Jesus, he uses it as a tool, just like the Nazis did. The Republican Party is no doubt a very very white Party, and it is no doubt the Party that racists join. Tell me, you think a racist is more likely to join a Party that defends Islam and BLM or join a Party that openly calls for war against both groups? Lets not play dumb here, we all know the racists join the Republican Party, not the Democrat Party. Dont get me wrong, I dont think Liberals really give a **** about minorities and they use them as a political football, no doubt about that, but at least they PRETEND to care about minorities, Republicans are indifferent at best, but usually openly hostile.

Back to Police, when cops murder unarmed black people on camera and its in broad daylight the Republicans openly support the murder EVERY single time, no matter how obvious it is that the person was not a threat, they will support the murder. It doesnt even have to necessarily be a black guy being killed by a white guy, as long as its a cop doing the murder they are ok with it because they absolutely love the police and love the military, as do Nazis. Yes its true to say any of these things by themselves wouldnt mean the person/group is Nazi, sure I agree with that, but when you are in line with Nazis on EVERY single issue? Come the **** on. Btw, Dinesh D'Souza has a book out about the Democrat roots of the Nazi party, and hes right the Nazis did get many of their ideas and strategies directly from the Democrat Party, but that was during a time when Democrats were in the South and were predominately conservative, and Republicans were in the North and predominately liberal. So the idea of Nazis having strong connections with American political parties is simply a matter of fact, not opinion.

If a group/party says they think workers should own the means of production and private property should be banned but they called themselves the "Capitalist Party", would you call them Capitalists? Or would you call them what they are, Communists? They deny they are Communist and you point out for example, "but you agree with them on this and that?", and they reply "yeah they drink water we drink water so what", thats exactly the defense Republicans use when compared to Nazis, "Hey, we drink water, they drink water, that doesnt mean anything!!" Im not even exaggerating, that is literally their number one defense when being compared to Nazis. Its hilariously stupid.

 

I'm sorry, I'm not going to crap my pants over 0.3% of the population. In fact, it's right to point out that the Nazis in Germany never actually won a legitimate share of the votes, I think until Hitler became chancellor. They just cracked away with higher and higher(but still minority) votes that if they were in our first-past-the-vote system, they'd NEVER in fact have gotten anywhere.

We have BIGGER problems right now, than Richard Spencer. We have bigger problems right now than David Duke. We have roads that are sometimes 10 years in need of a repair. We have parks that have declined. Our arts/sciences have gone down. The health care thing, etc. We have this unhealthy division and anti-American propaganda.

There are SO many things that attract my attention. Richard Spencer, Milo and the group of maybe a few thousand idiots do not attract my attention. Maybe, if they were political, actually attempted to win 50+1, and proposed solid changes for the American system, I'd give a damn.

But they aren't, so they don't have my attention. They shouldn't have yours either. Your attention on them, is stopping the far-left from crafting a platform to win elections. It's free advice from me, to the Left: You want to reclaim the WH, you want to move it in a progressive direction? Try convincing voters that the direction is the way to go. Offer solid, concrete plans and steps forward.

 

What happened to free will? If someone isnt a responsible "good" citizen, isnt it 100% their own fault and no one elses? Why blame society? Why blame the school? Why not solely blame the individuals? Isnt everyone a unique special little snowflake? Or are we molded by our education system? I didnt know special little snowflakes can be molded to look the same...If you do that, they are no longer special little snowflakes!

 

The majority of Republicans love Milo, you cant brush him off as irrelevant. Fighting against racism is an economic battle, the reason our country is falling apart economically is because instead of going after the rich elite (as we should), we are instead worrying about Islam and BLM, or "Mexican rapists" and stupid **** like that. In order to fix our economic situation we have to figure out what the issue is first, right? We have two competing thoughts on what the issue is for our economic issues. The Left says the reason for our economic problems are the greedy rich. The Right says the reason for our economic troubles is lazy black people and illegal Mexicans getting free stuff from the government. Dont deny this, dont play dumb, we both know this is the reality of the way the Right Wing thinks. So, how would a Leftist go about fixing our economic issues? Two things, fighting the rich and fighting racists, they are two sides of the same coin. The rich use race as a way to divide and conquer the poor, so the rich are directly responsible for the racism. Racism impedes our economic progress for reasons I already stated. We cannot fix economic issues without first defeating racism because its directly in the way.

 

The Socialist French Government of 2012 tried raising taxes up to 60%. Suffice to say, it didn't work. In fact, the failed socialist policies led to Marine Le Pen's run being much more than people expected. Raising taxes does not generate private sector growth, it just gives government a big fat cushion check. But the government is already raking in revenues! We need to increase domestic production here at home.

And I don't think the hate crime laws, etc have ever helped to increase domestic production. Though the separate lines we see in Germany keeps the radical extremists away from each other. Here's the real truth: Neither the Left nor right, have any idea or clue about how to fix the economy and at this point: Both sides have given up trying.

 

Actually, it is the narrative of the left that a gay jew can't be racist. "Systems of oppression" and whatnot.

 

Thats the narrative of partisan liberals, not "the left". If you think Hillary is part of the left even though you can see the corporate logos embedded into her very essence then you dont know what "the left" even means, not even remotely. Liberals are centrists at best, and thats being very kind to them. There is no love for corporations on the Left, Hillary on the other hand has nothing but love for corporations.

You dont seem to be addressing my specific points at all, but fine. We go back to labels. "French Socialist Government", "DPRK", means NOTHING, what did they do? As you say, they tried to raise taxes on the rich to 60%, you really think thats Socialism? That Social Democracy, not Democratic Socialism. Do you know the difference? Social Democracy believes in Social Liberal policies, a free market with a few regulations here and there and some nice pretty balloons everywhere to distract people, but its still Capitalism, not Socialism. Democratic Socialism however is normal Socialism, workers owning the means of production, but instead of doing it through revolution its done Democratically, thats the only difference. Any "Socialist" calling for raising taxes on the rich instead of eliminating the rich all together is a Social Democrat, not a Socialist. They have intentionally hijacked the word, much like "liberals" have hijacked the word liberal. People lie on a massive scale, welcome to the real world buddy.

 

Strange fixation you have there. I never mentioned Hillary at all.

 

You said the narrative of the left is that a gay jew cant be racist, but thats not the narrative of the left, thats the narrative of people like Hillary Clinton and her supporters (liberals). Dont act like you dont know this.

 

I don't think you could eliminate wealth, and therefore the rich without getting rid of the currency system itself. And if we got rid of the currency system then what? Would we return to a system of trading cattle, etc?

 

It seems as though definitions are giving you a hard time. Might need to spend some time thinking about what all these things actually mean.

 

It isn't just Hillary and her supporters who say that. Don't act like you don't know this.
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Prejudice_plus_power

Plus, I believe you are using the word liberal incorrectly.

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/liberal
Clearly, most on the left do not fall under this definition, especially Hillary and her followers.

 

"Wealth" can mean just about anything, so of course you cant eliminate "wealth". As for the currency system, there are many different ideas, one of which being labor vouchers. There was a time when the Roman Empire, under Dioclecian if im not mistaken, where their entire economy collapsed due to inflation and they resorted to a very well designed barter system, for example, "One pound of wheat = 2 pigs" sort of thing, if you cant pay taxes in wheat you pay in pigs, if not in pigs then in wheat etc. They would also take into account rot/storage, I listened to a long college lecture about the details, many of which are escaping me now but many of the questions you would have about this, they had solutions, very intelligent solutions just as almost all Roman solutions were very intelligent and well thought out.

 

I was reading the wikipedia article and I found someone who explains this perfectly,
"David Pilgrim, curator of the Jim Crow Museum of Racist Memorabilia, has this to say on the conflicting definitions of racism:[26]

Can blacks be racist? The answer, of course, will depend on how you define racism. If you define it as "prejudice against or hatred toward another race," then the answer is yes. If you define racism as "the belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race," the answer is yes. And if you define racism as "prejudice and discrimination rooted in race-based loathing," then the answer is, again, yes. However, if you define racism as "a system of group privilege by those who have a disproportionate share of society’s power, prestige, property, and privilege," then the answer is no. In the end, it is my opinion that individual blacks can be and sometimes are racists. However, collectively, blacks are neither the primary creators nor beneficiaries of the racism that permeates society today."

Just as with the word "liberal", it all boils down to how we are defining the words. For a single word there can be multiple definitions, sometimes contradictory. You can play semantics and intentionally use the definition of a word nobody ever uses, as you are doing with the word "liberal" and you are technically correct, but thats just playing a game and not getting anyone anywhere.

 

proof that Obama was a nazi

 

Hi nobody!

 

Was he literally hanging out with other verified Nazis who were also doing the Nazi salute? No? Exactly.

 

We he was great friends with Robert Byrd.

 

I was talking about the guy next to Milo, go back and read the full context

And he replies,

You see, he is talking about Milo just "standing next to a person raising their arm", no, Milo isnt "standing next to a person raising their arm", hes standing next to someone doing the ****ing Nazi salute, which is what I said. I was talking about the guy standing next to Milo in reference to this guys comment trying to excuse ALL of it, not just Milo, he was trying to excuse even Richard Spencer. And of course, thats when I replied with this

In context, its undeniable I was talking about the guy standing next to Milo, not Milo himself.

 

Is Byrd still a Klansmen? Richard Spencer is still a Nazi and hes friends with Milo, but is Byrd still a klansmen but friends with A BLACK GUY? I thought since Milo is a gay Jew married to a black guy it means he by definition can never be racist/fascist? So if Byrd is friends with a black guy, doesnt that mean by definition Byrd cant be racist?

Milo is married to a black guy = Cant possibly be racist
Byrd has a black friend = Cant possibly be racist