Right-wing & BLM protesters face off in London, police intervene (VIDEOS)

submitted by magnora7 from rt.com

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]magnora7[S] 6 insightful - 4 fun6 insightful - 3 fun7 insightful - 4 fun -  (19 children)

One side wants freedom from tyranny. And the other side wants freedom from tyranny. So what do the tyrants do? Make the two sides fight each other over trivial bullshit they don't control anyway.

Tell each side the other side hates them, via each of their biased media.

Are people going to wake up? Or are we just going to fall for the divide and conquer mindset and be subjugated for another few hundred years to authoritarian powers that steal from the middle class to enrich billionaires? To a corrupt police system that kills 1000 Americans a year extrajudicially?

[–]comments 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (18 children)

Yeah on a smaller scale this is called "triangulation"

It's pretty clear people are being played. There's no reason any of this needed to be at all violent. Lots of people have lots of goodwill towards each other and it could have been organized peacefully.

I don't really think the two sides can be equated though. The "left-wing" side is invaders trying to destroy a people refusing them all compassion, understanding, and genuine inclusion in their own home, and the "scary right-wing" side is just trying to keep their own home against hostile foreign invaders who have the entire system on their side. The invaders ARE the tyrants, they have been all along. This is very clearly not about police brutality.

[–]magnora7[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (17 children)

The "left-wing" side is invaders trying to destroy a people refusing them all compassion, understanding, and genuine inclusion in their own home, and the "scary right-wing" side is just trying to keep their own home against hostile foreign invaders who have the entire system on their side.

So you've fallen for the right-wing media bait then.

You realize the left-wing media is saying the same about the right-wing, right? The people on the left believe almost verbatim what you've said, except about the right instead of the left.

Now why would that be? Because neither side is the problem, the real problem is the elites who own both sides. That's how divide-and-conquer works!

[–]comments 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (16 children)

elite vs. "common people" is also D'n'C. Elites and "commoners" of the same ethnic group are supposed to help and support each other. elites are supposed to be a people's heroes, not their villains. (and it's disturbing how much blatant demonization of "elites" is on this site that ostensibly is meant to be against hateful extremists)

the native populations of europe and the us are very obviously being displaced, and the leftist mob exists to attack that. that's why they attack the men, the police, the government -- those are the parts of the society that most act as its protectors. it's just subversion. sure, a lot of the stuff they bring up to demonize people is real or at least partially true, but that's what happens.. you dig up whatever you can to smear people.

the left does not believe verbatim what I said but reverse, they believe they're justified because racist white men are bad and did bad things in the past colonialism slavery red-lining.

if I've fallen for something it's in falling for the way they want me to be approaching the conflict, being un-informed, indulging in hostility instead of productively handling the situation (these political groups rarely actually do anything, it frustrates me but it seems like a clear indication people are trying to use me for their own aims not trying to fix the situation.) So I think that's a bad thing, but I don't think the two sides can be equated like that. the right-wing is pretty clearly not hostile foreign invaders and are also pretty clearly in their own home their own people built for them.

[–]magnora7[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (15 children)

elites are supposed to be a people's heroes, not their villains.

Yes they're supposed to be. But they're not. They're power hungry people who use others to gain power. That's how they got there.

The more power someone has, the less they should be trusted, generally speaking. Venerating the powerful is just what the propaganda of the powerful tells us to do...

[–]comments 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (14 children)

How is this any different from "all blacks are criminals"? No evidence here, just smearing claims. I get that this is popular in some circles but I don't think it's right to talk about people this way. The problem should be people doing bad things, not people having nice things or having influence.

I think we should be doing a lot more to support the best of us. I think we do too much reflexive tearing down of successful powerful people, and it just serves to create a class divide that shouldn't be there.

[–]magnora7[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (13 children)

I think we should be doing a lot more to support the best of us.

I agree. But the "best of us" are not the people who have all the power. Quite the opposite, usually.

[–]comments 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (12 children)

I think we should support the wealthiest, most successful, most savvy, most powerful of us. If they're a criminal, we should treat them as a criminal like any other criminal. If they're not, then we shouldn't treat them like one just for having power. I think it's wrong to demonize success like this, it makes people feel bad for having power or money or success or any other connection to "elite"ness when they haven't done anything wrong, and have usually done something right to get there. It's better to be more powerful, ceterus paribus. It feels like demonizing success, and I think it's wrong. I don't think we would accept it for any other group, and I think it's used to DnC ethnic groups that could/should be sticking together supporting each other across class.

[–]magnora7[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

I don't demonize success. I demonize people who steal from others to benefit themselves, and impoverish entire nations to become billionaires. I care more about the middle class than lining a billionaire's pockets. If the billionaires work with the middle class and help them, great. Instead 90% of them are essentially stealing the labor of those they're gaining their fortunes from.

That's why all these companies use 3rd world labor.

[–]comments 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

It's just that you here (and many others elsewhere) tend to talk about "elites," "rich," etc. Not "exploiters," "criminals," "abusers," "scammers," etc. (who come in all wealth brackets). It seems like you are asserting that all billionaires are bad people just because they're currently billionaires. It doesn't seem right. And it does seem like what people mean when they talk about demonization. Black men in the US commit a hugely disproportionate amount of the time and genuinely do cause problems for other people in aggregate, yet you removed subs dedicated to exposing that part of reality. How is the way you (and others) talk about "elites" or "rich" any different? It doesn't seem like it to me.

If you're genuinely against exploiters it might help to use language that refers to that and that alone, rather than language that references wealth or influence and implies necessary exploitation associated with that.