Revealed: US neo-Nazi terror group aims to revive activities ahead of election

[fooferdoggie]

perfect for trump.

While far-right extremists from all corners of the internet are targeting vice-president Kamala Harris as she takes the reins of the Democratic ticket, one of the longer standing US-based neo-Nazi terror groups is also attempting to continue its covert activities as the presidential election season begins in earnest.

Rinaldo Nazzaro, 51, a former Pentagon contractor and analyst at the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) turned founder of the Base, wrote on his personal Telegram account that he’s seeking a stateside leader for his organization and is willing to pay them a salary of up to $1,200 a month.


The Russia-based leader, who is the subject of an FBI investigation and once called a Department of Justice “matter” by a US government official, is not known to have set foot in the US in years. With the recent surge in racially motivated riots in the United Kingdom, authorities across the west have become increasingly concerned with Russian sponsorship of far-right extremists.


The Base was considered a domestic terrorism threat in the lead up to the 2020 presidential election campaign. The group adheres to the principles of accelerationism; a hyper violent political doctrine calling on followers to hasten the collapse of society through acts of terrorism.

Revealed: US neo-Nazi terror group aims to revive activities ahead of election

The Russia-based leader of the Base, which adheres to principles of accelerationism, seeks ‘A-team leader’ in US

www.theguardian.com

 

[Yoused]

"The Base" – hmm, I wonder what the word for that is in Arabic …

 

[GermanSuplex]

The press is egregious in their neglect to force Trump to answer the question - “For the fiftieth time in nine years, can you unequivocally and without projecting, deflecting or lying your ass off - condemn white supremacy, the KKK and other racist hate groups?”

If he says anything other than some form of a definitive yes or no, I’d cut him off and ask him again, and force him to admit he’s one of them or condemn them, or walk off stage or end the interview while pouting.

FFS, even racist politicians used to be able to condemn these racists. That Trump won’t is all the proof you need he’s a racist himself.

 

[Chew Toy McCoy]

The press is egregious in their neglect to force Trump to answer the question - “For the fiftieth time in nine years, can you unequivocally and without projecting, deflecting or lying your ass off - condemn white supremacy, the KKK and other racist hate groups?”

If he says anything other than some form of a definitive yes or no, I’d cut him off and ask him again, and force him to admit he’s one of them or condemn them, or walk off stage or end the interview while pouting.

FFS, even racist politicians used to be able to condemn these racists. That Trump won’t is all the proof you need he’s a racist himself.

He’d probably lose more people than he’d gain by doing that. He can’t antagonize racists that are MAGA bread and butter, and nobody on the fence is going to go “Well, he’s officially not racist. So he gets my vote now.”

 

[GermanSuplex]

He’d probably lose more people than he’d gain by doing that. He can’t antagonize racists that are MAGA bread and butter, and nobody on the fence is going to go “Well, he’s officially not racist. So he gets my vote now.”

I’d press him for a definitive answer either way, not to let him duck, dodge and meander over and over with no resolution. He’s going to do that, but I’d keep hammering for an answer. I’d let him go on for a bit, then ask “so, since you didn’t condemn them, does that mean you support white nationalists, the KKK and other racist groups?”

Then I’d let him meander and ask him the full question again.

“So, since you yet again didn’t answer or condemn them, does that mean you support white nationalists, the KKK and other racist groups?”

Then I’d point out all the criticism he’s lobbed at BLM, I’d point out how he’s called tons of black people racists - then ask him why he can’t call actual racists racist, or condemn them. The right would call it an “attack”, but all it would be is pointing out the obvious and wanting an answer, not a dodge. Because all he’s done for nine years is dodge that question.

 

[fooferdoggie]

I’d press him for a definitive answer either way, not to let him duck, dodge and meander over and over with no resolution. He’s going to do that, but I’d keep hammering for an answer. I’d let him go on for a bit, then ask “so, since you didn’t condemn them, does that mean you support white nationalists, the KKK and other racist groups?”

Then I’d let him meander and ask him the full question again.

you know he will never have an unrigged interview again.

 

[Chew Toy McCoy]

I’d press him for a definitive answer either way, not to let him duck, dodge and meander over and over with no resolution. He’s going to do that, but I’d keep hammering for an answer. I’d let him go on for a bit, then ask “so, since you didn’t condemn them, does that mean you support white nationalists, the KKK and other racist groups?”

Then I’d let him meander and ask him the full question again.

“So, since you yet again didn’t answer or condemn them, does that mean you support white nationalists, the KKK and other racist groups?”

Then I’d point out all the criticism he’s lobbed at BLM, I’d point out how he’s called tons of black people racists - then ask him why he can’t call actual racists racist, or condemn them. The right would call it an “attack”, but all it would be is pointing out the obvious and wanting an answer, not a dodge. Because all he’s done for nine years is dodge that question.

I know it’s frustrating, but his silence and dodging is the response. I don’t know what you hope to get out of a direct response. Most of what comes out of his mouth is white supremacy in one form or another. I can’t imagine there are many people out there going “I won’t believe it until he says it directly.” He doesn’t condemn certain things because he doesn’t believe they should be condemned, period. There's your answer.

I sometimes get a good chuckle when I a politician makes some “that’s not who we are!” speech. Yes it is. Not all of us, but enough of us. Racism. Sexism. Violence. Greed. Entitlement without merit. It’s all part of our fabric. You can’t put your head in the dirt and “I don’t like it!” out of existence with a speech. If you want to blame something, blame the inherent inequality and scapegoating of capitalism. Good luck trying to move the needle of capitalism worship in this country, but without that this horse shit is going to continue down the same predictable narrow path.

 

[Edd]

“Doesn’t play by the rules” is indeed Trump’s whole identity. He gets away with lying, stealing, attempted rape, actual rape, racism, insurrection, treason, and they love him for it.

 

[Roller]

I know it’s frustrating, but his silence and dodging is the response. I don’t know what you hope to get out of a direct response. Most of what comes out of his mouth is white supremacy in one form or another. I can’t imagine there are many people out there going “I won’t believe it until he says it directly.” He doesn’t condemn certain things because he doesn’t believe they should be condemned, period. There's your answer.

I sometimes get a good chuckle when I a politician makes some “that’s not who we are!” speech. Yes it is. Not all of us, but enough of us. Racism. Sexism. Violence. Greed. Entitlement without merit. It’s all part of our fabric. You can’t put your head in the dirt and “I don’t like it!” out of existence with a speech. If you want to blame something, blame the inherent inequality and scapegoating of capitalism. Good luck trying to move the needle of capitalism worship in this country, but without that this horse shit is going to continue down the same predictable narrow path.

Trump will never give a straight answer, so ask Vance: "Do you condemn white supremacists?" And if he answers affirmatively, follow up with "Why does your running mate, Donald Trump, refuse to condemn them?"

 

[GermanSuplex]

Trump will never give a straight answer, so ask Vance: "Do you condemn white supremacists?" And if he answers affirmatively, follow up with "Why does your running mate, Donald Trump, refuse to condemn them?"

Vance blamed attacks on his wife on white supremacists. I’d ask him why some people he supports claim white supremacy doesn’t even exist.

I still wouldn’t let Trump dodge. He called the person “fake news and a nasty person”. I’d immediately ask “why can’t you condemn Nazis once in nine years, but it took you about six seconds to condemn me?”

 

[Roller]

Vance blamed attacks on his wife on white supremacists. I’d ask him why some people he supports claim white supremacy doesn’t even exist.

I still wouldn’t let Trump dodge. He called the person “fake news and a nasty person”. I’d immediately ask “why can’t you condemn Nazis once in nine years, but it took you about six seconds to condemn me?”

The best setting to not let Trump dodge will be the debate, assuming he shows up. There were ample opportunities for that in the first debate, but Tapper and Bash repeatedly let him get away with it, and Biden wasn't able to pounce. If the ABC moderators don't take their responsibility seriously, Harris will jump on it every time Trump sidesteps a question, lies, or spouts nonsense.

 

[Chew Toy McCoy]

Trump will never give a straight answer, so ask Vance: "Do you condemn white supremacists?" And if he answers affirmatively, follow up with "Why does your running mate, Donald Trump, refuse to condemn them?"

I hope on the debate stage Walz gets Vance to explain his decision to be #2 to “America’s Hitler.”

I predict he’ll use the laziest deflection in the Republican playbook – making humorless straight face statements they clearly believe in and when called on it later they say they were joking.

 

[Yoused]

Trump will never give a straight answer, so ask Vance: "Do you condemn white supremacists?"

Ultimately, that is the wrong question. You do not want to ask any politician "Do you condemn (this group of people)?" It is fun to put politicians in difficult positions, but it ends up being counter-productive. Instead of asking him if he condemns those people, one should ask him if he repudiates their ideals and ethos. That is a much more effective question that puts him in a position to give a reasonable answer. If he cannot do that, FH.

 

[dada_dave]

Ultimately, that is the wrong question. You do not want to ask any politician "Do you condemn (this group of people)?" It is fun to put politicians in difficult positions, but it ends up being counter-productive. Instead of asking him if he condemns those people, one should ask him if he repudiates their ideals and ethos. That is a much more effective question that puts him in a position to give a reasonable answer. If he cannot do that, FH.

Even better: what have you done in your life that repudiates those ideals and ethos? I originally wrote or plan to do in office but that is too open. Actually focus on actions they’ve undertaken. Words are important, but actions matter most.

 

[GermanSuplex]

Well, it wasn’t that long ago even a racist could publicly condemn Nazis, the KKK or white supremacy. So not being able to ask that question outright is a problem, to say the least. Condemning those folks while adopting their world view is the old-fashioned way, that Trump can’t even pretend to condemn them while enacting policies and using rhetoric that winks and nods to them says it all.

 

[Yoused]

My point is that nazis are people as well. We, all people, have our merits and our shortcomings. That one grand dragon did a fine job wiring my house, so he is not 100% bad. That is why you do not condemn people, you condemn what they stand for. Condemning people just leads to othering, and that is not our thing, that is their thing.

 

[GermanSuplex]

My point is that nazis are people as well. We, all people, have our merits and our shortcomings. That one grand dragon did a fine job wiring my house, so he is not 100% bad. That is why you do not condemn people, you condemn what they stand for. Condemning people just leads to othering, and that is not our thing, that is their thing.

Normally I’d agree, but the defect is sort of in the name. Like condemning a murderer - I wouldn’t feel compelled to not call them that.

 

[rdrr]

Normally I’d agree, but the defect is sort of in the name. Like condemning a murderer - I wouldn’t feel compelled to not call them that.

Agreed, and unless they denounce Nazism, I will hate both the crime and the person.