Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Racism in The Left - Civil War to the present
Radio Station - Dirk Thompson : WTVN 610 AM ^ | 4/24/2011 | Dirk Thompson

Posted on 04/24/2011 5:45:23 PM PDT by tang-soo

Dirk Thompson of 610 Am in Columbus, Ohio posted the following links today as just some of the evidence supporting the racist agenda of The Left.

KKK Democrats

Janeane Garofalo - Racial Attack Against Michael Steele

KKK Democrats Lynching Killing Black & White 'Radical Republicans'

Libtalk Host And Wife Use Racism To Attack Governor Bobby Jindal

Biden the Racist - Old democrat

Tea Party Racism Rev Perryman Says Enough

White Corporate Liberal racist elite Barbara Boxer EXPOSED

RACIST TEA-PARTIERS, THE LIBERAL LIE EXPOSED! Latin's, Blacks & Whites, UNITE!

Progressive Ralliers Call for Lynching of Clarence Thomas



TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: blackcaucus; blackpanthers; boxer; ericholder; hispaniccaucus; laraza; left; racism; teaparty
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-26 last
To: TheBigIf

Okay. The problem here is that we’re discussing three totally different organizations that just happened to use the same name in different periods.

The post Civil War KKK.

The 1920s KKK.

The 1950s/60s KKK.

The first was by definition reactionary, not progressive. Its goal was to return blacks to semi-servitude, keep them in their place. While the organization itself was pretty well crushed by 1872 or so, their goals were reached with the ascendancy of Jim Crow, through the efforts of other groups with the same ideology.

The 20s KKK had zero continuity with its predecessor and was indeed Progressive, or rather many of its members were and thought it was. The organization itself was pretty much a money-making scam for the organizers, and as such did not really have much of an ideology. It collapsed very quickly once the criminal nature of the organizers became apparent.

The 50s/60s KKK was again a reactionary movement, trying to keep change from occurring. Its members would have utterly rejected any notion they were Progressive, and those who considered themselves Progressives at the time were utterly opposed to the KKK.


21 posted on 04/25/2011 8:00:57 AM PDT by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan

It is not a problem that we are having but simply a problem of you having an agenda to deny the facts and cling to any nuance you can find in order to defend the democrat party. There was plenty of continuity from the Confederate democrats (KKK) and their successors the Progressive democrat (KKK). Woodrow Wilson won the Confederate southern states in a landslide. There was celebration among Confederates in the South. The Confederates had their own populist and socialist style movements as well with some that eventually merged with the democrat party and fully endorsed the progressive movement.

Your fixation about splitting things between internationalist and nationalist is also a delusion of yours. The Soviet Union certainly never sought international support when militarily taking over other nations thus not much different at all then the Nazis. You are simply tied up in certain philosophical propaganda without looking at what these systems have actually represented throughout history. There also was no true capitalism in Nazi Germany as you claim, all was state controlled and just the appearance of capitalism was there.


22 posted on 04/25/2011 8:31:13 AM PDT by TheBigIf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: TheBigIf
Woodrow Wilson won the Confederate southern states in a landslide.

He was a Democrat. The Democrats won the Confederate southern states in a landslide every election. That's why they called it the Solid South.

The Democrats were not the Progressives of their day, although they certainly had Progressive elements.

The Progressives had been far more numerous in the GOP, especially under TR. In fact, Woodrow Wilson won his election only because TR came roaring back with the closest anybody has ever come to pulling off a true third-party run for president. He ran as the head of the Progressive Party. Sound familiar?

There is no doubt at all he pulled more votes from Taft than from Wilson. The Progressives of the time, IOW, were found in both parties, but were more numerous in the GOP.

When the Progressive Party wore out, its members almost all rejoined the Republicans, not the Democrats.

But there is no point in attempting to have a discussion with someone with no interest in actual facts. Y'all have a nice day.

23 posted on 04/25/2011 9:32:40 AM PDT by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan

Again you cling to nuance. We still have progressive republicans today as well but it is the democrat party that has championed the progressive movement and Woodrow Wilson is considered the grand-father of this democrat party movement. Wilson won the south by a landslide due to his support from other populist socialist type movements in the Confederate south and he continued to also champion the Confederate KKK. The KKK is a left-wing democrat party terrorist group.

It is you who have no interest in facts but instead you are just trying to muddy the waters with any little nuance of an argument that you can find and cling to.


24 posted on 04/25/2011 9:44:27 AM PDT by TheBigIf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: TheBigIf

Democrats won by large margins in the South in every presidential election from 1876 to 1948 except for 1928, when Al Smith, a Catholic and a New Yorker, ran on the Democratic ticket; even in that election, the divided South provided Smith with nearly three-fourths of his electoral votes.

Please point out how Wilson’s showing in the South was some sort of anomaly specifically related to his status as a Progressive rather than as a Democrat.

BTW, I have no doubt the South was enthusiastic in its support for Wilson, who was kinda sorta a southerner, and whose election was almost as much a victory for southerners as Obama’s was for blacks. But this reason for his support was tribal in nature, not ideological.


25 posted on 04/25/2011 10:04:39 AM PDT by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan

Read some biography work on Wilson. Sure the split in the republican vote helped him win but he won the south in large part due to the endorsement of the People’s populist party which shortly after merged with the democrat party. This was a left-wing movement (very similar to progressivism and similar to the rhetoric of democrats today still) that was very popular in the south (it started with the Confederate’s Farmers Alliance). – Wilson at the time of his candidacy was at times considered a northerner though he regularly spoke at meeting of Confederate groups located in the north and was able to get the support of these left-wing Confederate political movements.


26 posted on 04/25/2011 10:21:13 AM PDT by TheBigIf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-26 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson