It's hard to find the Klan online if you use Google. Google is ranking the Southern Poverty Law Center first and the Klan's sites are not on the first page. Bing is more useful:
http://kkk.com/
http://www.theuka.us/
Stormfront is back: "https://www.stormfront.org". They transferred their ___domain from Network Solutions to Tucows. Stormfront is just a forum system now. It was originally David Duke's support organization, but he's out of Congress and the Klan, and not doing much with it.
The people posting there aren't evil. They're scared. Read "The destruction of white America from the perspective of a rural white man."[1] His town and life were ruined when the factories closed, unable to compete with cheap imports. "The small town that I grew up in would be radically altered and I would experience much change in my personal life as a result of these globalist policies. The company for which my mother worked would move south of the border to Mexico. The company for which my father worked would see its doors close permanently. My reasonably prosperous family in rural America would eventually fall into destitution and dissolve. My parents would split up (in part due to these financial struggles) and I would move in with my grandmother."
> "The small town that I grew up in would be radically altered and I would experience much change in my personal life as a result of these globalist policies. The company for which my mother worked would move south of the border to Mexico."
I can see the impetus for anti-globalism there, but it baffles me when, for example, people use "all the jobs went to Mexico" as a justification to hate Mexicans. Wouldn't it make more sense to hate the white American managers and bureaucrats who decided to move the factories?
I see the same thing in housing protests. Gentrification sucks, but why blame yuppies just looking for a decent home rather than the landlords who are actually raising the rent?
> Gentrification sucks, but why blame yuppies just looking for a decent home
Because they're gladly paying a higher rent because they personally can afford it. That's what makes raising rents (to an unreasonable degree) possible. I think it's fine for rich people to want to move into "cool" neighborhoods, just have some solidarity and tact. There's plenty of ways to spend money, and the richer you are the better you'll be able to cope to have an okay flat for a normal rent, instead of accepting something that was half-heartedly modernized just to raise rent a lot.
> rather than the landlords who are actually raising the rent?
You can can only blame the party paying the rent for paying the rent, and only the party trying to raise the rent for trying to raise the rent. Can you show me anyone holding greedy landlords blameless while blaming the yuppies for enabling them? You said you "see" this thing, after all. Where?
> The people posting there aren't evil. They're scared.
One can be both evil and scared.
You can always argue we're all what circumstances make us. You, me, MLK, Mother Theresa, that ISIS fighter and 9/11 hijackers. However, some people end up in the ranks of evil, while others, even facing enormous adversity in their lives, don't. So we can pick onto finer ontological distinctions, or agree to more crude yet practically significant behaviouristic description.
Labelling anyone evil immediately shuts down debate given its connotations. "Evil" is frankly a less than useless term. It simultaneously includes everyone and no one.
That's a huge assumption. E.g. I reckon Dr. Mengele is evil, and I would not have any dialogue about it. That's not the point. We have a word for 'blue', 'wet', 'stupid', 'awesome'. We have one for evil too.
And for certain things, saying 'morally wrong' is downplaying it. It puts casino cheaters and Auswitz guards into the same conceptual spot.
Not with a well-defined meaning. Go ahead and try to nail down a specific definition of evil that includes only "heinous" moral crimes while excluding "non-heinous" transgressions. I guarantee I'll be able to drive 15 trucks through the holes in your definition.
And without a rigourous definition, people are way too cavalier in labeling others "evil", which is simply not conducive to progress.
> And for certain things, saying 'morally wrong' is downplaying it. It puts casino cheaters and Auswitz guards into the same conceptual spot.
No more than the word "fall" places sky diving and tripping into the same conceptual spot. The differences in degree aren't so nuanced that people will struggle to grasp them.
This person's life sounds like it has been hard. They have some justification to feel scared and angry at the world. However, I would say that channeling that anger into racist terrorism does in fact make them evil. They had alternatives. In fact, most people in the world have hard lives but do not join organizations committed to racist terrorism.
It's just a matter of definition. You could label any violent movement against any white colonial power as racist terrorism if you wanted.
Of course you'll say that it doesn't count for whatever reason. But try to flip perspectives for a minute and understand that to the man in the quotation, he feels like an American aboriginal watching whites disembark by the thousands from ships stretching to the horizon.
He's watching his whole way of life and his family be permanently annihilated by foreigners who hate him (and this includes both rich white liberals and immigrants). There's a good chance you are such a foreigner who hates him, too; that you'd really like to see his culture and religion and social structure destroyed. "Real 'Murican"-hating is a funny pastime to American liberals who will happily shout about the evils of Christianity and how it should be erased, to anyone who will listen.
These situations are far more symmetrical that almost anyone is willing to understand.
That's an eloquent expression of the views of the KKK.
The KKK is, however, 100% wrong to think that their violence is justified by imaginary oppression of white people.
>Of course you'll say that it doesn't count for whatever reason.
It doesn't count for the very simple and very obvious reason that colonialism was based on an ideology of white supremacy, whereas anti-colonialism was not based on an ideology of black/brown supremacy. In other words, the British thought that their superiority to the Indians entitled them to run India. The Indians didn't think that their superiority to the British entitled them to run Britain.
With you until the last sentence. Klansmen and/or Nazis do not make up nearly the demographic to move even a single electoral vote, certainly not in any state that wouldn't have voted Republican in any case.
I found the SSC article 'You Are Still Crying Wolf' particularly good reading on this topic [1].
The people posting there aren't evil. They're scared. Read "The destruction of white America from the perspective of a rural white man."[1] His town and life were ruined when the factories closed, unable to compete with cheap imports. "The small town that I grew up in would be radically altered and I would experience much change in my personal life as a result of these globalist policies. The company for which my mother worked would move south of the border to Mexico. The company for which my father worked would see its doors close permanently. My reasonably prosperous family in rural America would eventually fall into destitution and dissolve. My parents would split up (in part due to these financial struggles) and I would move in with my grandmother."
This is how Trump was elected.
[1] https://altright.com/2017/09/21/the-destruction-of-white-ame...