SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The "Daily Stormer", a neo-Nazi website that has been having trouble staying online since Charlottesville, has once again been shutdown.
According to The Verge:
The neo-Nazi site Daily Stormer briefly returned to the web today, using a new URL and a string of new hosts to dodge the bans that took it off the internet last week. The site reappeared this morning at the address Punished-stormer.com, apparently using Dreamhost as both a host and DNS provider.
[note: url modified]
Shortly after the new site became public, Anonymous groups began a denial-of-service attack against it, targeting the Dreamhost DNS infrastructure that makes the site accessible to the rest of the web. The result was nearly two hours of intermittent downtime for the countless sites using Dreamhost's DNS infrastructure.
In WWII, things like this were called "collateral damage", where innocent casualties were necessary in order to get at the Nazis themselves. But is this sort of action legitimate on the internet? Especially by non-governmental organizations?
Also reported at https://www.wordfence.com/blog/2017/08/dreamhost-ddos-attack/
Related story: https://www.theverge.com/2017/8/21/16180614/charlottesville-daily-stormer-alt-right-internet-domain
(Score: 1, Troll) by VLM on Saturday August 26 2017, @11:29PM (7 children)
My interpretation would be the alt-right has won the war of ideas; the legacy left is rejected; the only way for the left to oppose the right is violence in the streets.
You don't need to "punch a nazi" if their ideas are wrong, laughed at, or obsolete. If your side is wrong, laughed at, or obsolete, your only remaining option is street violence and intimidation. The left is intellectually barren at this time, all they have is violence and censorship to defend their crazy cause.
Its the fake Mahatma Gandhi quote in action.
“first they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you (in the streets and DDOS), then you win”
Good times up ahead, good times.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 27 2017, @01:17AM (2 children)
Using 1-dimensional terms to describe someone's political leaning is bound to be inaccurate.
When the term used isn't even correct, it's even more lame.
If you asked the "alt-right" if they had gathered in support of Capitalism, I'm pretty sure they'd look at you like you were nuts.
(A proper name for that particular bunch might be Alt-Reich.)
If you asked the group that you are calling leftists if they had gathered in support of Anti-Capitalism, I'm pretty sure you'd also get a lot of blank stares.
Appropriate names for the groups to which you are referring are Reactionaries/Authoritarians and Anti-Authoritarians.
"Right" and "Left" (being economic terms) are NOT accurate in this context--completely different axis. [politicalcompass.org]
N.B. Neither Kucinich nor Nader are about the collective ownership of the means of production by the workers, so that chart is inaccurately skewed to the left; a typical USAian votes Right-Wing or VERY Right-Wing, with some significant degree of Authoritarianism in the mix.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 27 2017, @11:25AM (1 child)
The problem with your labels is that calling communists (aka Antifa) "anti-authoritarian" is laughably inaccurate at best, if not an outright malicious lie.
Socialism, fascism, communism, and mercantilism (what we have in the USA today and often incorrectly deemed as capitalism) are all products of collectivism, where the individual is quashed "for the greater good". The alternatives include individualism, which holds each individual as no lesser and no greater than any other. Needless to say, the USA today is defacto collectivist, with the "nazis" and "antifa" both screaming for more collectivism and higher-intensity war against the idea of individual parity and equality.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 27 2017, @09:19PM
You have bad sources of information.
Socialism [...] communism [...] collectivism
You appear to be using some Cold War (propaganda) definition of those terms.
Now, if by "socialism", you mean welfare for megacorporations, there is that.
That, however, is nothing like Socialism.
Here's Socialism:
The collective ownership of the means of production by THE WORKERS
N.B. When -you- own something, -you- get to say what happens with that something; USAian workplaces are rarely like that.
If Communism is defined as Socialism extended to gov't, then the closest thing USA has is The Alaska Permanent Fund.
...which isn't especially close.
...and let's note here that the Trump Administration is preparing to sell off/privatize public holdings.
Fundamentally, your claim fails the smell test.
The alternatives include individualism
That's more of philosophical term, not a term typically used in these discussions.
...and the opposite of collective ownership is concentrated ownership.
That's Capitalism.
...with Capitalism leading to Oligarchy.
...as Prof. Thomas Piketty's recent 696-page analysis of 250 years of Capitalism concludes.
fascism
Yeah, since WWII (or even before), USA has been working toward that.
Vice President Henry Wallace (1944) [googleusercontent.com] (orig) [thomhartmann.com]
(USA had a bunch of admirers/enablers of Hitler.[1]) [google.com]
USA also refused to even sell weapons to the anti-Franco/anti-Fascist forces in Spain, much less actually get involved.
Rinse and repeat for Fascists in Latin America.
Oh, wait. USA -was- involved in those--on the side of the Fascists..
[1] Yes, that Bush is the GHW Bush's daddy and grandpa of Dubya and Jeb.
mercantilism
When I think of that term, [google.com] I think of -foreign- trade.
I connect the term with Imperialism and Neo-Colonialism.
When I think of USA's Mercantilism, I think "gunboat diplomacy".
I don't think of "in[side] the USA" when I think of USA's Mercantilism.
incorrectly deemed as capitalism
Concentrated ownership, mainly by The Rich; investors making money by exploiting the labor of others while performing none of the labor themselves.
It's very much Capitalism.
(Oligarchy has already been mentioned.)
Now, add in Nationalism, decreasing civil liberties, lots of generals in gov't where there used to be civilians, increasing Theocracy, etc. [ratical.org] and what you have is Fascism.
Now, if what you are trying to say is that there is a dearth of **Democracy** (e.g. 3rd parties locked out of political debates), then we are in agreement.
...and, BTW, Socialism, as defined by people who grok Socialism, is DEMOCRACY EVERYWHERE.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 27 2017, @11:21AM (3 children)
What if their ideas are wrong but yet not globally laughed at? Nazis won the public vote in 1930s, remember that.
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Sunday August 27 2017, @01:40PM (2 children)
Now go read a history book and figure out WHY the Nazis won that election and achieve enlightenment. That election was basically a Kobayashi Maru test in a country going to Hell.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 27 2017, @07:25PM
Nazis achieved enlightenment? Are you sure that's what you want to say there?
(Score: 2) by dry on Monday August 28 2017, @12:38AM
They had the best street thugs? They made left wing promises about the coal miners getting jobs? They came up with a bogey man/group to blame all the problems on? They were authoritarians who cherry picked from both the right and the left to get elected?