ATS describes itself thus:
AboveTopSecret.com is the Internet's largest and most popular discussion board community dedicated to the intelligent exchange of ideas and debate on a wide range of "alternative topics" such as conspiracies, UFO's, paranormal, secret societies, political scandals, new world order, terrorism, and dozens of related topics with a diverse mix of users from all over the world.Loughner was posting there as "erad3" - DARE backwards, his longtime pseudonym at the online game, Earth Empires.
I haven't yet had time to go through his posts at ATS, and doubtless it's going to be a dreary task to do so. (Can I be bothered?) Still, whilst ATS are doing a fair job ATM suggesting there's no connection between their site and Loughner's actions, this does prove a direct connection between paranoid goof-ball conspiracism and Loughner. ATS is a central clearing house for conspiracism, it is everywhere, and all the goofball ideas can be found there.
Of most interest to me atm is how much far-right influence there is operating at ATS. Searching for Stormfront links to ATS I immediately came across this thread at ATS:
Over the course of the past year, the intensely hateful political environment of the U.S. has been a breeding ground for a rise in subtly phrased racism as well as fiercely overt bigotry. We all know why and we all know the cause, there's no reason to spend time reviewing such.Interestingly I was following a link to Stormfront, but an ATS message appeared, saying that Stormfront had linked to ATS, that ATS didn't like it, and took a strong position against it. That was the context of the above quote. Clearly, ATS is conscious of having had "issues" with racism, and also the entryism of Stormfront's interest in (anti-semitic) conspiracism.
SOURCE
This post appears in the thread mentioned:
Jews and Muslims are routinely bashed on this board, I've seen Muslims members of ATS mocked and insulted for defending moderate Muslims and their religion.Hmmm. Well, there we go. A member of ATS says it themselves. [This speaks of exactly the processes I found myself amongst conspiracism and of which I have been warning these last 5 years - the entryism of the far-right into conspiracism. It is questionable whether there is any conspiracism without anti-semitism - at the very least, Nazi anti-semitism is essentially a conspiracist worldview. Conspiracists should take careful note of their shared methodology with Nazism, but seemingly never do.]
In my opinion, extreme as it may seem, ATS is dead. As I've said before, this site will be listed as a hate site soon, her soul has been corrupted and killed by an ugly force.
Some more quotes from that ATS thread:
I have seen people on ATS be blatantly racist and I have seen people on ATS be ignorant to the point of being racist.Maybe because conspiracism innately provides a vehicle for expression of racism under the cover of vague euphemism, as exemplified by Alex Jones and his use of classic anti-semitic tropes? Leftwing circles do *not* suffer this euphemistic racism, though they are susceptible to anti-semitism on the grounds of supposed anti-imperialism. ATS again:
I find it interestingly [sic] that for the last 8 years we have had this "War on Terror" I have seen on ATS tons of racist posts directed at Muslims, Arabs, Jews, and pretty much anyone from or near the middle east. No one on the staff seemed to care very much. You saw little action other than a few random warnings against the people who were obviously calling for genocide and other big no-no's.Tons of racist posts at ATS according to this poster. In reply, a mod states that:
We did make efforts to stem the tide of hatred:So, an "overwhleming number" of instances of such behaviour at ATS. Thanks for making my case for me......
Political Baiting and Sniping on ATS
also:
The END of Hate Speech, subtle or otherwise, on ATS
Use the search titles feature with the word "hatred" to find MANY more discussions about it.
The problem is not with the management of this site it's with the membership and the overwhelming number and instances of this kind of behaviour being posted on the boards.
The second link from that last quote leads to an ATS thread titled - "", which opens with this:
It has become apparent that our beloved ATS has either become the target for or an easy mark for those who would seek to spew their demented hatred for their fellow man based on nothing more than religion, ethnicity or personal preferences...Uh huh. I'd never have guessed a conspiracy site could be subject to such an outrage. Sure. The post continues:
We have seen an increase in hate speech couched in "news articles", subtle innuendo hidden behind professed disagreement with government policies and blatant, outright ignorance spewed forth for all to see.Gee, I'm really shocked, honestly.
The catalyst has been the sad, and horrid conflict happening on the Gaza Strip.
Well, I am pleased to see some efforts by the Moderators at ATS to address the rise of the far-right and their racism at ATS. However, their need to do so simply affirms my general point about conspiracism being an attractive vector for the propagation of racism and the far-right, anti-semitism in particular. What the ATS mods seem to miss is that Nazi anti-semitism is essentially conspiratorial, a product of conspiracism: how could it exist without the conspiracist element?
Furthermore, I do think conspiracism has a greater connection to Nazism than is commonly understood - it breeds populism (us and them); it simplifies all problems down to one of identification (us or them) whilst ignoring underlying structural components; it's paranoid; it's mythical; it's syncretic..... Ack - I need to be a smarter cookie to put this together properly.
Stormfront seems down atm, so I can't continue. Anyway - type this into google "site:stormfront.org abovetopsecret.com" and find some interesting crossover posts at Nazi Stormfront to ATS. No wonder ATS felt a need to 'take a stand'.
----
ETA - Having now read much of (what is said to be) Loughner's posts at ATS, there's one inescapable conclusion imo. But I'm not a psychiatrist so how to say it? Loughner seems somewhat deranged. Delusional. He shows obvious difficulty communicating and thinking (even though he appears to believe himself to be accomplished at it). He seems mostly to be absolutely devoid of any passion for politics. I don't get any sense of a seething Red, no inclination of a deep malevolent Nazism. Nothing, really. I find it hard to imagine he could actually think about 'politics' as his thinking is so sort of rigid and....just peculiar. I don't think 'politics' was his concern at all, rather he seems to just bump into it in the course of his peculiar interests. It all seems fractured and barely connected. Indeed, he seems barely functional. I can't help thinking it must have been somewhat obvious to the people around him that he had...issues. He seems really quite ill. And he had access to guns. To a degree the whole community is implicated: how can you be so ill, and yet be abandoned to such an illness whilst granted the right to acquire guns? It isn't fair on sick people, and it isn't fair on the community. But of course, mental healthcare and community support is expensive and who wants to pay for it? If you aren't sick yourself, one doesn't wish to pay. And if you are sick, you can't pay. So it just gets left until something like Arizona - it's cheaper?
It seems striking that Loughner's school would only allow him readmittal if he had psychiatric evaluation. But that's where the medical/psychiatric story ends, it seems. He doesn't go back to school, and so nobody else has any obligation or interest in pursuing the boy's illness. And so off he drifts.
I struggle to believe people didn't know this boy was ill. They surely must have, and yet with no support at hand, and nobody interested, what could be done? If true that's a very sad indictment of the entire community, USA wide, I suspect. [Because looking after Loughner would require 'stealing the income from others' aka socialism, right Sarah?]
Even if Loughner was entirely unswayed by any 'politics', of left or right, I think it's no bad thing he be a catalyst for some self-contemplation. At least some good might come out of that.
The conspiracists and far-right responded to this shooting by treating the 'fact' Loughner and his family 'were Jewish' as if it were the primary fact. Also that his mother attended the local synagogue (along with Gifford) and that the congregation and entire world media had covered it up. Jamie Kelso's WhiteNews story about Loughner 'being Jewish' has quickly propagated right across the Patriot Movement and conspiracist cricles. Google is flooded with it.
47 comments:
So believing in conspiracies makes you dangerous? Your buddy Socrates believes in the JFK conspiracy. I guess he was involved in the Loughner shooting right?
You're a boob
The point is people who are fixated on conspiracy theories like you Larry are potentially more dangerous than the everyday, common slob.
You were taken to the woodshed a long time ago, and it's no longer necessary to debate anything with your gutter breath mouth. You prominently link to Rense, Illuminati this and that, and tons of other crap.
Conspiracy as a word is legit. Conspiracy as in how people like you sound like nutjobs is not.
From what I briefly read, TLNL, it appears Loughner was one of those NASA fakes Moon and Mars landings. I'm not sure.
I do know that one picture of him as a skinhead says plenty. Sure there are some good skinheads, as in people who like to shave their heads and aren't racist.
Maybe Larry and his ilk stick up for that kind of guy because they are almost looking into the mirror of their own thinking processes.
Someone made a good point on another forum. Loughner wasn't a lefty. He was more of the gold nut types coming out of Rivero and Alex Jones with a spice of Above Top Secret.
It's not that there aren't crazies on the left too. It's just obvious wgere the violent trends are being pushed, which is on the right, as you have a keen awareness of.
I'm burned out from blogging. It seems like an utter waste of time. It doesn't even seem that fun as a hobby any more. But if I get a new entry up, I am going to touch on this Loughner story. Not much, because it's already been done to the hilt. I found another story of death by internet, maybe one of the first. The guy was on the left after changing from the Republican side of things. The point is, these events transcend politics in that the individuals are not in control of their faculties. Yet they don't transcend politics in that it's easily shown where they have been getting the gumption to go crazy with violence. That comes from the right.
from Larry incase it posts as anonymous:
"Someone made a good point on another forum. Loughner wasn't a lefty. He was more of the gold nut types coming out of Rivero and Alex Jones with a spice of Above Top Secret."
So, would Thomas Jefferson or James Madison have shot Giffords? They believed in the gold standard too---thats why they included it in the Constitution, you dickweed!
"I do know that one picture of him as a skinhead says plenty. Sure there are some good skinheads, as in people who like to shave their heads and aren't racist."
Your point is? Or do you just like hearing yourself talk?
"You were taken to the woodshed a long time ago, and it's no longer necessary to debate anything with your gutter breath mouth."
Oh really, I was??? When was I "taken to the woodshed"??? Care to enlighten me on that? "no longer necessary to debate"----lol. Translation: Because I have taken YOU and the last asshole left to the woodshed! Look at my story about Andy Ostroy on my blog. Proof the "LEFT" indulge in hate rhetoric as well! TLNL has AVOIDED my story.
"Maybe Larry and his ilk stick up for that kind of guy because they are almost looking into the mirror of their own thinking processes."
WHEN did I stick up for him?? Im listening. Because we support his right to have a gun because the 2nd amendment does too????? Youre INSANE.
"The point is people who are fixated on conspiracy theories like you Larry are potentially more dangerous than the everyday, common slob."
Proof of that?? Of course you dont! The 9-11 inside job belief is a FAR-LEFT view [considered far left]. Funny how you say its RIGHT wing when almost all 9-11 truth people HATE Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice and every other right wing person in his administration. And I constantly write stories condemning these assholes----but dont let THAT deter you from calling me RIGHT wing!
Most 9-11 truth people consider CHENEY behind it all---but according to you, they are RIGHT wing...LOL.
Hi Socrates. Thought you might be dead or something. I guess the hiatus ain't so serious as that? ;)
L: "Look at my story about Andy Ostroy on my blog. Proof the "LEFT" indulge in hate rhetoric as well!"
-----
HAHA. Ostroy's almost up there with Marx, right?
You're kinda funny Larry, but ok, you have a point - the Left isn't absent cause for criticism.
But then again, nobody said they were.
So what's your point, other than to prove you have no measure on the topic?
There's no left or right in your view.....yet you're determined to make the two equivalent.....on the basis of a single stupid thing Ostroy said.
I mean, who the fuck is Ostroy? Is he a descendant of Marx or something? His spiritual heir?
I don't see what your point is, beyond proving that you do actually accept there's a real difference between left and right despite your insistence otherwise.
I mean, how can you persist with this notion that there is some sort of equivalence between hateful rhetoric of left and right when you don't even believe there is a difference between left and right?
Obviously you do see a difference between left and right, or else you wouldn't be bothered in the least by suposed "left" hypocrisy over Palin vs Ostroy.
IF you really didn't believe there was left/right you wouldn't differentiate criticism of Ostroy versus criticism of Palin.
It's YOU that insists Ostroy is left, remember?
And it's YOU that is failing to criticise Palin and the right, right?
If you really didn't believe there was a left/right, you wouldn't distinguish and you would denounce people on merit....not just Ostroy.
So of course you distinguish.....and of course you have your own notion of what is left or right.
Else your contribution makes no sense whatsoever.
Not that it makes much sense anyway, because your examples of supposed "leftist" hateful rhetoric are severely limited - to Ostroy and Kos. Oh wow - the leading lights of the left, huh?
And those two examples of single instances are supposed to stand as equivalent to all the rightist bullshit? (Even though there's no such thing as left/right?)
If you have a point, Larry, and Ostroy and Kos are Lefties at fault for employing hateful rhetoric, then your claims about there being no difference between left and right are bullshit.
Else how would you distinguish?
The fact of the matter is, you can distinguish, and do.....even if in a flawed manner eg saying 'Marx and Hitler were both socialists'.
If there was no left/right then you wouldn't hold such hostility to socialism.....and nor would Alex Jones.
Indeed, if there was no left/right as you and Alex Jones claim, there wouldn't be a division between, say, Ron Paul and socialism. If there was no division you'd hold the two as equivalent, identical even. You wouldn't distinguish between Palin and Ostroy, you COULDN'T.
Clearly that isn't the case.
Clearly you can distinguish - when it suits you.
As I have said previously - the only people whom say there is no difference are rightwingers.
Riddle me this - why did Palin put gunsights on several states if there's no difference between left and right? How did she distinguish?
And how does Larry distinguish between Ostroy and Palin? How does Larry condemn the one and not the other?
S: "Maybe Larry and his ilk stick up for that kind of guy because they are almost looking into the mirror of their own thinking processes."
------------
Well, yes. Loughner took it to its logical conclusion - the logical conclusion of all that those freaks believe. That's the danger: conspiracism unhinges people, it lifts them off the usual paradigms and into ..... hmmmm.
It really doesn't take much to see the connection between gun culture and rightist twats unhinging people. Telling people they're subject to a secret conspiracy and they need to protect themselves and society with guns (as is their right and duty) really isn't going to go anywhere other than the obvious. Is it?
L: The 9-11 inside job belief is a FAR-LEFT view [considered far left].
--------------------
Man, you know nothing.
911 as inside-job is not leftwing. Quite the contrary.
It isn't impossible that a leftie can believe it - some do. However conspiracism is antithetical to the left in so far as leftism is a structural critique, whilst conspiracism rests on notions of "evil" - conspiracism is about identifying "perps", individuals responsible for a degenerate capitalism which absent such degeneracy would work 'just fine'. Hitler thought the perps were Jews, as do most conspiracists. Whereas lefties, a la Marx, see the perps (and Jews) as products of the structure - not "evil", not degenerate, not the problem.
"I mean, how can you persist with this notion that there is some sort of equivalence between hateful rhetoric of left and right when you don't even believe there is a difference between left and right?"
Hey.....ASSHOLE. Ive told you 100 times. You dont have to believe that the paradigm exists to acknowledge that others acknowledge it and try to SAY it exists. Do I have to believe in Bigfoot to acknowledge that OTHERS believe he's real?
"911 as inside-job is not leftwing. Quite the contrary."
LOVE how you ignored THIS:
"Proof of that?? Of course you dont! The 9-11 inside job belief is a FAR-LEFT view [considered far left]. Funny how you say its RIGHT wing when almost all 9-11 truth people HATE Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice and every other right wing person in his administration. And I constantly write stories condemning these assholes----but dont let THAT deter you from calling me RIGHT wing!
Most 9-11 truth people consider CHENEY behind it all---but according to you, they are RIGHT wing...LOL."
L:Do I have to believe in Bigfoot to acknowledge that OTHERS believe he's real?
-------------------
But you are saying "it isn't only "BigFoot" that's violent, space-aliens are too."
If you don't believe in something, like the distinction between left or right, what are you doing employing such a distinction in your POV?
--------
On the subject of ignoring things, Mr Larry, you never deign to address anything.
For example, you ignored all this:
why did Palin put gunsights on several states if there's no difference between left and right? How did she distinguish?
And how does Larry distinguish between Ostroy and Palin? How does Larry condemn the one and not the other?
Also, you haven't yet attempted to stand-up your claims that Marx and Hitler are both "National Socialists".
Why ignore all that Larry?
-------
"L: The 9-11 inside job belief is a FAR-LEFT view"
--
No it isn't. What is "far-left" about it? There's absolutely nothing intriniscally leftwing about such a view. Rather the reverse, as I already said.
I mean, are we to now believe Larry the anti-socialist is leftwing? Simply because he believes in 911 was "an inside job" or somesuch?
You really are very confused?
The far-right hates Cheney, Bush and Fox. You can't understand that, can you?
And listen, *one* more of your pathetic little vitriolic insults and your post will be removed.
This is about the 5th warning in a few days....it is up to you to refrain should you wish to continue posting here. That's fair warning. If you refuse then it can be considered to be your own attempt to escape dialogue. Simple.
"If you don't believe in something, like the distinction between left or right, what are you doing employing such a distinction in your POV?"
Well, to anyone with 1/3 of a brain would KNOW that I am pointing out the absurdity of blaming one "side" when in fact the reason Loughner killed people is because he's fucking NUTS. As I said before, many in the truth movement HATE Cheney and Bush---has anyone tried killing either one?
"And listen, *one* more of your pathetic little vitriolic insults and your post will be removed."
Ahhh, I love it. You can call me and others "cunts" on your blog but ONLY I am vitriolic, right? You ARENT, right?
Socrates is allowed to believe in at least ONE conspiracy, and he's still perfectly normal. But if I believe in 5 or 6, Im "nuts" right?
You are a pathetic asshat.
Get my point NOW?
I believe in three topics which would be considered conspiracy theory. JFK Assassination, Chemtrails, and that there are fake posts being put all over the internet for various, insidious objectives.
There's a big difference between myself and Larry's form of conspiracy thinking. Anyone can check out my chemtrail board and see where I'm coming from, what arguments and whatnot I have presented. They can see I tried to be logical and back things up with proof.
The JFK Assassination is definitely not an off the wall conspiracy theory.
It has also been shown that Air Force intelligence and others are into posting on the net. They say they will be upfront when they do so, but who knows.
There's Netvocates, the Rendon Group, Advantage Consultants, and a number of other firms who have been exposed astroturfing. Some of their clients are military and government.
Larry on the other hand is a raging lunatic when it comes to conspiracy theory postulating.
With such a gutter mouth to go with his naivety, he doesn't realise that most people don't bother reading such unhinged rubbish.
TLNL, I'm just totally bored with blogging at this point.
Most blogs and guests are too stupid. Good people got driven off the major boards. There are too many trolls and stupid posts. I know you don't like the word troll, but I can't think of a better one.
"I believe in three topics which would be considered conspiracy theory. JFK Assassination, Chemtrails, and that there are fake posts being put all over the internet for various, insidious objectives."
so, if the next shooter believes in chemtrails, can we blame YOU Socrates??
"Larry on the other hand is a raging lunatic when it comes to conspiracy theory postulating."
Ahhh yes, but NO PROOF whatsoever for that statement. I have denunked EVERYTHING you cumturds have said....everything! This is why TLNL has IGNORED all of my stories on Loughner---he cant defend who I condemn in my stories.
Cumturds? And you're not a latent homosexual? Dickweed, cum, faggots, you sure do post a lot of homosexual imagery. Studies show you are a closeted homosexual. You basically hate yourself.
You are the poster child for why certain people should not be on the internet. You're completely fucked up.
I don't discuss anything with foul-mouthed scum like yourself. It's not because you're uneducated. It's because you're anti-social and deranged.
In my new blog entry I just wrote that thankfully you don't seem to be someone who will commit violence. Now I'm not so sure.
Don't even bother responding to it when it finally gets posted. I don't understand why TLNL let's you shit on his blog. I mean I do. He's into free speech or something. But even he has had to delete your posts because they got too toxic.
Seek some mental health help, Larry. I think when you come to terms with being a homosexual, you'll be much more relaxed and maybe even find your true love afterall. I pity any woman who ends up your wife. Jerk.
I missed what got deleted. Larry, why can't you write your nonsense without sounding like a juvenile delinquent on crack cocaine? You're just proving the point that your brain operates in a very similar manner to the Loughners of the world. You should chill out. There's nothing wrong with being gay. Get some counseling. Good luck with that.
This is a choice example of what got deleted, a post by 'anonymous':
well its over, larry has destroyed last cock in mouth queenie fraud name left again.
---
Larry talking to himself? Or one of his fans? Pathetic, huh??
Does anybody seriously think that adults find such stuff 'hurtful'? It's just pathetic, anonymous aka Larry. It's like being insulted by a particularly foul-mouthed 8 year old. Oh, it hurts, make it stop! Pathetic.
I just deleted the same post at DFQ2. That's not Larry. There's no reason a person like that should ever be published. If that makes me anti-free speech, then fine, there it is. Moderating is a tough racket.
Youre wrong TLNL, NO post is mine unless it is headed wth "Larry" or "Real Truth Online", so I dont care about the deleted comments. When I post, I actually WANT you to know its ME.
I saw the last deleted post. I don't understand why that person won't leave me alone. In the last day it's left about ten strange posts on my blog which I glanced at and then deleted.
I also agree people throwing out strange ad hominems and whatnot don't realise their words are not unsettling. They're just strange and reflect more about the anonymous person than anything else.
I suggest it seek a medical health expert.
larry wins again.
Larry says he isn't dangerous. Well lookie here, hat tip to TLNL.
Larry: we need another Revolution---and no, I dont mean that symbolically----i mean that LITERALLY-----with real people, real guns and real action to overthrow the government...."V" style.
link
Let me ask you a question socrates. Were the Southerners in the Civil War terrorists? Yes or no. Were the colonists during the Revolution of 1775 terrorists? Yes or no. The Revolution was a WAR. When it's war, it' not considered terrorism or murder, correct? Dont give me long bullshit responses. Just say yes or no.
hell never just say yes or no to you larry, hes a giant fraud. hell use some long bullshit answer that says nothing and say he answered it. or hell say rubbish or bullocks or just ignore it.
No they weren't.
But you advocate for a revolution now with real people, guns, and whatnot to use against the current government.
You might want to recant that statement or expect a visit from Mr. Homeland Security.
Loughner took up arms against a politican. Hmmm. Yet you're upset to be compared to him.
I'm not saying you will take up arms. But it'd be nice to hear you admit it was a foolish thing you posted.
Please tell us what this so-called revolution of yours would look like.
I answered your question yes or no. Sure I added more. But this isn't a court room, you're no lawyer, and I was under no obligation to answer your question. But I did.
GREAT FRICKEN FIND TLNL!
Oops. I do think the southerners in the Civil War were terrorists but not the colonists for fought for independence in 1776. I read that post too quickly. Now watch as Larry turns this into a debate over the Civl War and sidesteps his call for violence against the current US government. Be careful Larry. You can't yell fire in a crowded building if there isn't one. You can't call for violence against the US govt. and not expect repercussions.
If you were British, it appears you have broken the law. You might be ok in America because you didn't name specific targets. I think that's what got Hal Turner arrested.
In a way, I'm trying to help you take that foot out of your mouth.
Reporting hate, extremism and terrorism online
What you wrote might be protected as free speech, but I'm not sure what the deal is with the Patriot Act or Homeland Security.
Gitlow v. New York
(excerpts)
Benjamin Gitlow was a member of the left‐wing section of the Socialist party. He was convicted for violating the New York Criminal Anarchy Law of 1902, which made it a crime to advocate the violent overthrow of the government....
[Justice Edward T. Sanford] nonetheless sustained the New York law and upheld Gitlow's conviction. “[A] state may punish utterances endangering the foundations of organized government and threatening its overthrow by unlawful means,” Sanford wrote (p. 667). Gitlow's pamphlet, while not immediately inciting criminal action, could be viewed as a “revolutionary spark” that might at some later time burst into “sweeping and destructive conflagration” (p. 669).
Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote a famous dissent in which Justice Louis D. Brandeis concurred. He disagreed with the majority's ruling that words separated from action could be punished. Holmes declared, “The only difference between the expression of an opinion and an incitement in the narrower sense is the speaker's enthusiasm for the result. Eloquence may set fire to reason. But whatever may be thought of the redundant discourse before us, it had no chance of starting a present conflagration” ....
Significance
This case was the foundation for the incorporation of the 1st Amendment under the due process clause of the 14th Amendment in order to limit the states' power to restrict the free speech and press rights of individuals. The incorporation doctrine has been used gradually to apply most of the federal Bill of Rights to the states. Furthermore, beginning in the 1960s the Court rejected the narrow interpretation of free speech expressed by Justice Sanford in this case. The broader interpretation of free speech, expressed by Justice Holmes in dissent, has become the prevailing position of the Court. Thus the Gitlow case is important because it provided a foundation for the future expansion of free speech and press rights of individuals.
I never watched V for Vendetta or knew anything about it except for the mask thingie. A quick glance at the wikipedia info says V was killing government officials. How can you advocate that? Are you nuts?
Hey TLNL, I posted a good one concerning the Supreme Court's history of dealing with the debate over whether the advocating of violence against the government is criminal or protected free speech. Now it's gone. Wtf? A glitch? Did you erase it by accident? Maybe it ended up in the spam bin?
Y, it was in the spam box. :D
It's published now.
Larry's committing sedition, not treason. Still, a big naughty thing to do.
I think the most relevant law is as wiki has it (under sedition):
In 1940, the Alien Registration Act, or "Smith Act", was passed, which made it a federal crime to advocate or to teach the desirability of overthrowing the United States Government, or to be a member of any organization which does the same. It was often used against Communist Party organizations. This Act was invoked in three major cases, one of which against the Socialist Worker's Party in Minneapolis in 1941, resulting in 23 convictions, and again in what became known as the Great Sedition Trial of 1944 in which a number of pro-Nazi figures were indicted but released when the prosecution ended in a mistrial. Also, a series of trials of 140 leaders of the Communist Party USA also relied upon the terms of the "Smith Act" -- beginning in 1949 -- and lasting until 1957.
Although the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the convictions of 11 CPUSA leaders in 1951 in Dennis v. United States , that same Court reversed itself in 1957 in the case of Yates v. United States, by ruling that teaching an ideal, no matter how harmful it may seem, does not equal advocating or planning its implementation. Although unused since at least 1961, the "Smith Act" remains a Federal law.
---
But that applies to advocating communism. That's a bit different to clearly advocating violent overthrow of the government? Git yer guns!!
Here's Leonard Suskind:
-----
As I describe it in my book, Blood and Politics: The History of the White Nationalist Movement from the Margins to the Mainstream (pp. 144 - 171), the federal government has never won a sedition case against militia-types, white supremacists, or neo-Nazis. Since World War One, they have won numerous seditious conspiracy cases against Puerto Rican independentistas, communists and others on the left. But no one on the radical right has ever been convicted of plotting to overthrow by force of arms the government of the United State of America.
Not that federal prosecutors haven't tried.
During World War Two, two sets of indictments were brought against as many as thirty people with sympathies for the Axis powers. The first one was dropped shortly after it was made. A second set of charges were thrown out of court in 1943. Finally, in 1944, 28 leaders from the Silvershirts, the German-American Bund, the Defenders of the Christian Faith and other National Socialist types were brought to trial in Washington D.C. on charges of sedition. The trial ended after eight months, however, when the judge died. Neither the Roosevelt nor Truman administration re-tried the case.
A second attempt occurred in 1988, when fourteen members of The Order, Aryan Nations, Posse Comitatus and the Covenant Sword and Arm of the Lord faced a mélange of charges -- including seditious conspiracy. The three month trial in Ft. Smith, Arkansas ended in acquittals all around. Simply put, the federals had unbelievable witnesses, a jury with more sympathy for the white supremacists than the prosecutor, and an inept case from start to end.
More significant for the militia case at hand, in order for the prosecution to prove a case of seditious conspiracy they need something more than wild talk and gun charges. They need to be able to prove that these conspiracy-besotted gun nuts had imminent plans to cross the line from speech to sedition.
Now the federal government had less than that when they won convictions of labor militants after World War One and Communist Party members in the 1950s. And the independentistas simply aimed to get the United States government out of their island nation of Puerto Rico, not overthrow it entirely.
Perhaps the government will win the seditious conspiracy case in Michigan, after all. If so, it will be a first.
----
"No they weren't."
Unfortunately for you, those words was all I was interested in. A "revolution" is a WAR, and in a war setting is the only thing I would advocate. Sorry if this kills your perception of me.
"Oops. I do think the southerners in the Civil War were terrorists but not the colonists for fought for independence in 1776."
First of all, tell me the difference in the two wars. They were both wars of secesssion...and the constitution permits secession. 2nd--why did no one use the term "terrorist" in the Civil war days? Surely, there would be a plethora of quotes from all kinds of people saying the southerners were terrorists, right? But there were none. In fact, a giant portion of Northerners SUPPORTED the south's secession!
"What you wrote might be protected as free speech, but I'm not sure what the deal is with the Patriot Act or Homeland Security."
Both of which are unconstitutional.
Tell me something goons, is the Declaration of Independence terroristic document? Yes or no?
Thanks TLNL. And thanks for the added info. It looks like Larry is protected by free speech rights but most certainly is asking to be watched or even confronted by a branch of intelligence or law enforcement.
And just like I predicted he now wants to debate the Civil War again.
His post called for the assassination of US politicians, unless he wants to recant or clarify. I read that the character V from that movie killed politicians. Larry says we need real people with real guns in a V styled revolution.
Well, maybe he is somewhat healing. This time he only called us goons rather than cumturds or ass munchers. I don't even know what a cumturd is. It sounds like another homophobic image. Studies show that people who talk like him are most likely latent homosexuals. That seems to be Larry's biggest problem. He needs to come to terms with his sexual orientation.
The revolution talk is just him being a conspiracy theory freak who reads a lot of illuminati Rense.com garbage and listens to Alex Jones. Now who does that sound like? Jared Loughner? Not that I'm saying they have similar thinking processes. I wouldn't want to upset Larry. He's in a very fragile state. Maybe his family could do some kind of intervention and get him the help it sounds like he needs.
I see you couldnt tell me the difference between the 2 wars. As I thought.
told you larry he couldnt answer yes or no. he gave some bullcrap answer and still didnt answer the question. hes a complete fraud. larry wins again.
"His post called for the assassination of US politicians, unless he wants to recant or clarify. I read that the character V from that movie killed politicians."
V killed a dictator and his Nazi-like administration---unless you are now in support of Nazi's and dictators?? Didnt the United States go after Hitler and want him dead? Hmmmmm???? What's the difference in the government wanting a dictator dead as opposed to anyone else?
So, tell me Socrates, was Thomas Jefferson a terrorist? Yes or no.
Larry provides a good example of how easily honorable words can substitute for a much darker shadow:
L: "V killed a dictator and his Nazi-like administration---unless you are now in support of Nazi's and dictators?? Didnt the United States go after Hitler and want him dead? Hmmmmm???? What's the difference in the government wanting a dictator dead as opposed to anyone else?"
---
Obama as Hitler.
American democracy as dictatorship.
solution = armed resistance/insurrection
So says the movement?
So says Loughner?
Maynard?
Von Brunn?
Poplawski?
-----
It occurs to me that much of world opinion is convinced of America's violent militarism. And yet its own people are scared their government doesn't love guns as much as they do.
You call for a V styled revolution. You should be taken in for an indefinite, mental health evaluation. You sound like a security threat. And why don't you use apostrophes? Are you one of those anti-grammar nuts like Jared Loughner?
"Obama as Hitler.
American democracy as dictatorship."
Many compared Bush to Hitler too, what's your point??
"You call for a V styled revolution. You should be taken in for an indefinite, mental health evaluation. You sound like a security threat. And why don't you use apostrophes? Are you one of those anti-grammar nuts like Jared Loughner?"
You believe in the JFK conspiracy. That means YOU think the government is evil. Maybe YOU are the security threat.
By the way TLNL, you didnt answer my questions [no shock there]:
"unless you are now in support of Nazi's and dictators?? Didnt the United States go after Hitler and want him dead? Hmmmmm???? What's the difference in the government wanting a dictator dead as opposed to anyone else?"
Socrates IGNORED my question as well [again, no shock]:
"So, tell me Socrates, was Thomas Jefferson a terrorist? Yes or no."
So what if I think there was a conspiracy behind the killing of JFK? That doesn't mean I think politicians were behind it. Does he really think Cheney and Bush were behind 9/11? That's beyond nuts. It's get the straight jacket ready time.
Maybe rogue CIA, maybe mafia did in JFK. I don't know. I said there is good proof the fatal shot came from the grassy knoll. So focking what you unhinged spammer.
Larry calls for a V styled revolution against the US government with real guna and people. Someone should drop a dime about him to the FBI, Homeland Security, and both local and state police from where this unhinged person comes from.
By the way Lars, you can stop posting now to DFQ2. One thing I don't like is spam, and that's what you're famous for along with eliding apostrophes like a 4th grader.
Was Thomas Jefferson a terrorist? I think he was a latent homosexual like you.
no larry jefferson was a pedaphile like socrates. and he still didnt answer your question like the fraud he is. larry you own these guys.
"So focking what you unhinged spammer."
it's "fucking". Seems you have a grammar problem buddy! lol
"Larry calls for a V styled revolution against the US government with real guna and people."
The word is "guns". Use grammar much, asshole?
"One thing I don't like is spam, and that's what you're famous for along with eliding apostrophes like a 4th grader."
A comma belongs after the word "for". Jesus, you have 4th grade grammar skills! LOL
"Was Thomas Jefferson a terrorist? I think he was a latent homosexual like you."
The choices for responses were "YES" or NO". Seems you have reading comprehension difficulties as well!
larry has won again. he owns this site, get over it.
Post a Comment