A hundred organized men on violent rampage in Stockholm.

[Wombaticus Rex]

Belated appeal for calm; lamentations about the futility of personal insults; pop culture joke.



Thank you for participating in this automated moderation intervention. Stop cussing at each other, now.

[bks]

So much for "probably." Sorry. Won't happen again in the short run.

And to be fair: I think I was the only one cussing, at tabispo. He didn't cuss at me. Maybe someone else did I forgot/didn't see. But in the interest of fairness I just wanted to point that out.

[Joe Hillshoist]

Its your choice... you could have accept the criticism, illustrated why it was wrong but you tried to avoid it instead.

Your criticism wasn't wrong though, and I described this here:

Yes, that was stated a bit too crudely in attempt to relate to the title I was more thinking of my experience with the development of the BNP.

In reality, I can't really think of any incidents that relate to the title of this thread, so it's hard to find a pattern. In the past we had small scale stuff that was personal and fairly brief (and poorly planned) and the other end of the scale was more or less demo scale stuff where the only real violence was between the fascists and the antis.

This incident seems to occupy some middle ground, and is harder to link with either individuals or organisations. Possibly some new model along the lines that you describe is needed.

Seems you have a neat way of ending this sort of discussion though. 'No platform', or that other, creepier, interpretation

That isn't what happened tho is it. You invented stuff to avoid dealing with the implications of being called a flog.

Instead of piss farting about with words that seem to diffuse and dilute your message in a way that essentially says nothing but sounds intelligent you could be blunter, use plainer english and speak like you're explaining things to a child. It makes us easier for those of us who aren't quite as erudite and whose brains don't as well as they did before all those concussions.

[jakell]

I don't really mind being called stuff, it's only really effective initially when I don't know the person and am expecting something more personable.

I don't think I'm particularly erudite, especially relative to this environment. a lot of what I say is clumsy and crude, and is that way because I'm trying to join a conversion, ie there are time constrictions. Producing polished material means you lose the flow (the usual dodge is to use copypasta)

Anyway, 'crude' brings us back to the substantive matter:

Obviously, it is only my opinion that this sort of incident is hard to classify, it may be different in your part of the world. This doesn't mean that it should simply forced into either box. The world is changing and newish incidents tend to produce a cognitive dissonance, and we are initially going to get a poor (crude) grasp of them, which is why I suggested that your model is worth looking at.

[jakell]

^^^"Obviously, it is only my opinion that this sort of incident is hard to classify, it may be different in your part of the world. This doesn't mean that it should simply forced into either box. The world is changing and newish incidents tend to produce a cognitive dissonance, and we are initially going to get a poor (crude) grasp of them, which is why I suggested that your model is worth looking at."


Actually, there is one very thin precedent for the 'hundred organised men' thing (HOM). It's pretty tenuous though.

The EDL sort of took us by surprise with their mobilisation model. It rested strongly upon the rather unique fact that at a certain time every Saturday, the streets start to fill up rapidly, and with little prior arrangement, with large numbers of exciteable white (mostly) males, and even though the spectre of football hooliganism, with it's attendant racism (etc), is well past its heydey, the memory still remains and it's probably not too hard to revive it in limited instances.

I mention this because it does seem to exist in the void between political organisation and small scale violence and intimidation. It's a flash mob of sorts and, although not much like the HOM thing, is the only real precedent I can think of, which is better than nothing IMO in trying to understand these things.

This sort of thing is not necessarily about ideological motivation though, I'm thinking of the widespread and (apparently) spontaneous UK riots in 2011 which spread quickly via social media from the very small beginnings of one particular funeral to become something almost nationwide.

[Sounder]

This sort of thing is not necessarily about ideological motivation though, I'm thinking of the widespread and (apparently) spontaneous UK riots in 2011 which spread quickly via social media from the very small beginnings of one particular funeral to become something almost nationwide.

Insecurity is an excellent breeding medium for hate. Ideology is probably not the main culprit here or in many of the coming events.

So yeah sure, we can pay the bankers debts, austerity times ten, lets see how that works out.

[jakell]

When growing up, I was aware of some folks who were angry and aggressive (as would most of us), and I noticed that, as we grew older, they were channelling this into ready made forms of hatred (eg racism), but it occurred to me that racism was not at the bottom of this at all. This was also seen in football hooliganism, it was an outlet for unfocussed aggression.

This sort of thing seemed apparent in those 2011 riots. No doubt that rage could have been tightly focussed into one expression or another (as it happens it wasn't) but it could be said that a lot of those taking part were tools.
This is not hard to argue with, but if you look at some antifa material, the main clear assumption is that these people are already fascists, and once that has been decided upon, come in for the full rage and condemnation that that term implies (to them). There is very little nuance there.