scott crow VS Tucker Carlson on Fox *News*

  • Posted on: 3 September 2018
  • By: thecollective

scott crow debated Tucker Carlson on his Fox *News* program about antifa, free speech and hate speech on Aug. 29, 2018. Tucker defends fascists and somehow still 'can't/ won't understand that anti-fascism is an idea not an organization. More at www.scottcrow.org

category: 

Comments

scott crow was not prepared for this, especially at 5:20 - he comes across as disorganized and hyperactive.

You can't really take these guys down on their show. They hold all the cards. I don't see what can be accomplished by being on one of these shows. Unless maybe they're paying him to appear?

Yeah … I mean, it's been done. I think Lee Camp and John Stewart both did a decent job of just going on the show just to nuke to it but you're right. I'm a little baffled by why Scott would even agree to this interview.

Tucker Carlson is THE ENEMY. As in, mock, ignore or attack.

I'm assuming Mark Bray politely declined Tucker's invite! Hyuk hyuk

Seriously though, get so much rectal cancer Tucker!
HOPE THERE'S SO MANY COLOSTOMY BAGS IN YOUR FUTURE, YOU SCUM SUCKING REPTILE

Tucker was actually good, classic laughing stock to me, especially for his non-verbal reactions to Crow's statements. What a clown!

It's not like Germany Italy or Greece where it's flawed(because of who is umbrellad in) but at least more concrete in context in that there are violent paramilitary groups that need to be defended and reprised against to some degree(though I don't think an 'anti' elective is warranted).

Anti-fascism in a US context is basically a sort of left wing Marcusean value enforcement political mechanism. The targets they go after are CLEARLY not on the level of something like Casa Pound and will likely never become them. Some people on the fence probably go that route because of antifas value enforcing excesses along with the incongruent fact that communists(you know the one's with a bigger body count then fascists) are involved.

Crow's failure here is part of that incongruence.

I don't give a shit about what kind of political analysis people project onto antifa, as long as they are cracking alt-right skulls. And as long as they are doing that, the US will thankfully never reach the level of a Casa Pound. US fascism has to be nipped in the bud. Let's make sure fascism never grows beyond what it is now.

Antifa: thank you for your service.

Right? In other words Euro Antifa as well as things like hate laws DO NOT STOP groups like that from coming into existence. If anything it's this entrenched Schmidtian elective political enemy binary warfare logic that HELPS to give rise to it. If you're reason for doing this is a precautionary principle then it has FAILED FUCKING MISERABLY!

And you should care about the political tendencies that are attracted to that leftist umbrella gang. Alt-righters for the most part are no more dangerous then out of power commies.

No thanks.

The way you frame your thoughts is NOT the exclusive cause of social phenomena in the external world. You will continue to fail to understand much of what's happening in the world while labouring under this delusion.

Then again, I don't think you've ever been talking about this stuff in good faith.

It's down right Adam Sandler Billy Maddison level silly that comes no where near addressing my points.

Who is talking about fascist groups "coming into existence"? They already exist. So you need to contain them and make sure they don't grow. Which is EXACTLY the current situation in the US. How has this failed? Even Casa Pound has less than 2% support in Italy. And the alt-right is in tatters in the US.

"Alt-righters for the most part are no more dangerous then out of power commies."

Seriously? Wow, what a sick, ignorant fuck. The alt-right has murdered more than 130 people in the US since 2001: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_terrorism

And those examples are from actual fascistic paramilitary groups not surface level political groups like the alt-right which is not all fascist just as not all of the new left was anarchist or communist and violent. Those types of murders that you listed are maybe tied to a sub 10 percent element of the alt-right.

What your not acknowledging is that groups like ara from back in the day had the same containment logic back when it was people like Bill White and Christian Piccioloni back iin the genX days when these guys were nothing. You obviously did not stop the rise to the current level because these rises and falls are beyond your control. In due time the alt-right will decline just like the new left did. Casa Pound is limited because it's ideology is limited not because of some societal defending antifa tendency.

Haha no fuck you, troll. You clearly don't know too much about them, or are, as you do usually with fascists, downplaying them as some fringe group.

You realize I was acknowledging what the other poster said about being frozen at 2 percent right?

"You obviously did not stop the rise to the current level because these rises and falls are beyond your control. In due time the alt-right will decline just like the new left did."

Largely agree, but I'd say that as climatalogical effects become more damaging and erratic, migration will be exacerbated, and there will be a general trend toward a what leftists are calling the "fascists". And there is probably nothing that anyone will be able to do to stop it.

@14:36

bro, come on, get that weak stuff out of here - that's a list of right-wing attacks, not alt-right attacks, and it gives the total of 73 dead, not 130. Many of them are also abortion-related murders with people who, if they had any affiliation, were connected with groups like Operation Save America which, as fuzzy as the term "alt right" is, wouldn't be considered in that ballpark. Same goes for groups like the Aryan Nation and the many flavors of good old American racism and xenophobia.

Sorry, bud. You need to learn to read. All, if not most, of those are alt-right attacks. And if you go into the talk section, there are more listed. The wiki editor is only counting the murders documented by the New America Foundation. The Parkland school shooting, for instance, is not listed, and we know the culprit Nicholas Cruz had alt-right connections. Neither is the Quebec mosque shooting. There are all kinds of murders by the alt-right not counted in that wiki entry. I added up the wiki list and others a while ago and came to over 130, albeit some were a little blurry on motivation.

'Alt-right' isn't fuzzy, it's a well understood term, even if you pretend not to understand it.

"I came up with a figure that's only somewhat related to this link that I gave you using a definition that's totally different from what the authors of the link gave" - oh okay, why didn't you say so in the first place?

so you're saying that "all if not most" murders labeled as right-wing in the US since 2001 are alt-right - how? what definition are you working from that you're lumping in individuals and organizations acting far before anyone was using this term for themselves or other people? Care to explain how people like Scott Roeder or groups like the Aryan Brotherhood are alt-right?

You are doign the usual routine with fascists of drawing steep distinctions whe there aren't, or aren't sigfnificant enough. If you care providing with a clear distinction between "Alt-Right" and "Far-Right", then your question might be answered. On my part, I don't see any major ontological rift between these two.

Is that you want to flesh out things like marginal extreme tendencies as well as properly matching discourses. There was a far left before the new left for instance and(again)not all of the New Left were anarchists, communist or violent. I know you antifa idiots like to dilute these things because you need to inflate your elective enemies and be the leftist mirror of Schmidtian as part of your leftist value enforcement but these are the facts.

19:04 Oh for fuck sake....

https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/ideology/alt-right

https://www.adl.org/resources/backgrounders/alt-right-a-primer-about-the...

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/alt-right

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alt-right

https://www.theatlantic.com/video/index/510533/rebranding-white-national...

https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/03/29/an-establishment-conservatives...

See any common patterns here? The alt-right is concerned with white identity, a white culture (whatever that is), white nationalism, a white ethno-state, white supremacy, anti-immigration, anti-Muslim bigotry, anti-Semitism, and the glorification of western european culture (or what they consider western european culture), along with a nod (and a wink) to Nazi Germany.

I thought everyone knew this by now. Why do we keep having to define alt-right when it's fairly well understood and defined by people who themselves identify as part of the alt-right? Then when you call someone alt-right--going by their own definition, they deny it !!!

So you can stop pretending you don't know how I am defining it. Either you're trolling me, or you are a complete ignorant fuckwad.

The Aryan Brotherhood, also known as the Brand or the AB, is a white supremacist and Neo-Nazi prison gang and organized crime syndicate in the United States with an estimated 15,000–20,000 members in and out of prison. According to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Aryan Brotherhood makes up an extremely low percentage of the entire US prison population but is responsible for a disproportionately large number of prison murders. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aryan_Brotherhood
This fits with all the definitions of alt-right above.

Even within those links are distinctions. Of course there are patterns but there were also patterns between new left thought and anarchism and communism yet know one would be silly enough to say that all the former consists of the latter.

The real issue was whether the ideological rank and file of the alt-right automatically means someone who will carry out Atomwaffen type killing or violence, that's clearly not the case just as it was not the case that every SDS member wanted an anarchist or communist revolution or violent action against the bourgeois.

SE 06:21. If you are incapable of understanding that those definitions cluster around a core ideological theme which I already spelled out, then I can't help you. Any distinctions within the alt-right are not differences that make any difference, and you know it. It makes me wonder why you want to endlessly split hairs, or deflect to a comparison with anarchism and communism..

If the US government decided to round up all 11 million undocumented immigrants, kick out all Muslims, segregate or exterminate all black people, Hispanics and Jews and other minorities, everyone within the alt-right would be ecstatic and in full agreement. That's all you need to know. Everything else is window dressing.

Alt-Right is only a kind of rebranding of the already well-existent and alive Far Right, with maybe an added layer of Right libertarianism, which in no way alien or new to the old Confederate deep-south morals. Again, ball's in the troll's camp to perovide with a solid distinction between the two ontologies, beyond just the branding or the context (social media) where it arisen from.

In the same way that the new left was a rebranding of the established far left. Not all the far left consists of communists or anarchists which is analogous to Nazis and Fascists. There's a structural continuum obviously but that is not the same thing is being one and the same.

Think Tom Hayden and Milo Yiannopoulos respectively who represent the baseline of both ideologies.

why use the term "alt-right" at all if it's "only a rebranding"? by that logic aren't you just promoting this rebranding effort by adopting that kind of language? why not just use the term "far right" if there's so little that distinguishes what calls itself the "alt right" from things that supposedly preceded it?

I think the context you're talking about is actually very important - social media, efforts by sites like Stormfront to shift online discourse in places like /pol/ to a further right consensus and the people who emerged out of those places, etc. Yes, the initial ploy was an attempt to rebrand far right politics in the US, but it was also a power play by people like Richard Spencer to try and redefine what being a conservative meant, taking it away from "moderates" who maintain the status quo and center it around white supremacy, narratives about the decline of the West, etc. The "alt-right" also saw lots of people come out of the woodwork who weren't traditional political players, people that weren't part of white supremacist prison gangs or anti-abortion zealots but looked and acted more like frat boys or trolls who thought enjoying the novelty of standing around wearing fatigues with meme patches and waving deus vult or 4chan flags - the kind of behavior you really hadn't seen since the big anonymous anti-scientology protests and somewhat during occupy.

I think in the same way you'd refer to Nazis and Neo-Nazis as separate entities, it's appropriate to not just call everything that's a white supremacist "alt right" - even if there are similarities, they each refer to different historical phenomena.

Different commenter … nobody is arguing against distinctions. Larger, conglomerated political tendencies need descriptors to save time. The "anarchist movement" is vague and hosts a huge variety of tendencies but it's widely regarded as a thing too.

Anyway, this discussion moved on a long time ago and left a few of you in the dust, apparently. "Alt-right" is clearly defined enough and not supposed to be an exact definition so much as a broad term for various tendencies that are/were trying to group up.

And like him I don't see the things you do. What I see is ole US zenophobia and racism(which predates the alt-right) combined with spree killings that are tied to mental health issues as opposed to pure ideological motivations. No one denies that marginal far right language is a part of it, but these are not existential threats taking the form of something like Casa Pound.

Try again.

SE 19:07. The families of more than 130 murdered people would disagree with you that the US alt-right doesn't represent an existential threat.

try again.

They usually have a general weight to them. Terrorist threats generally don't carry this weight especially small potato ones like right wing terrorism. This isn't to down play the personal cost of lost lives that you describe.

An existential threat is a threat to one's existence, or to the existence of a community or humanity in general.

Join us tomorrow when we explore the meaning of 'national security'.

Terrorism in general is not seen as an existential threat to the average everyday person.

It is if the person is a minority and the threat is from the alt-right. Lol....you're really reaching now.

Even minorities are not facing an existential threat though they are obviously more likely to be attacked if you looked at things from a statistical perspective. Fact is 130 people dying within a year is not an existential threat in the everyday sense. There is nothing structural about it.

Ziggy can't or won't make the abstract connections necessary to understand this stuff as part of a whole. He prefers to think in very different terms, some of which is occasionally interesting but seems to make pattern recognition impossible. Everything is the "danger of elective positions" to him, safely abstracted and far away, toward which he can feel superior and above it all.

Fair enough ziggy, maybe you're right to utterly refuse to get swept up but a refusal to shift perspective limits your understanding too.

As far as Webster's dictionary goes, an existential threat is when an existentialist is given a gun or bomb, plain and simple. A threat to existence is when an ordinary person is given a gun or bomb.

Many people on the sane side of analysis maintain that terrorism as such is usually not an existential threat to a given person's life who is not specifically targeted.

Except terrorism is usually used in the context of relatively random violence. If someone is specifically murdered, for instance, that's usually just called murder, unless it's proven that there were political motivations. Yet even so, it still might be just called murder, depending on the details and the jurisdiction.

If a minority group is being targeted, then individuals within that group will likely feel an existential threat.

It all come down to whose side you're on, one side's hero is the other side's villian, its all to do with binary warfare dood.

Yeah sure, Sartre, Kafka and Camus were the most terrifying people in the history of Western culture, just for the thoughts they harboured!

You forgot the Mighty Max for the most dangerous thinking which threatens hierarchical power and authoritarian politics and their beliefs. He's a terrorist of all societies!

A non white person is likely not bugged about a group that kills a 100 a year or so any more then someone in a geopolitical targeted city is threatened by a terrorist. The sheer likelihood of you NOT getting killed is what doesn't make it an existential threat in the common way it's understood.

I like how this reasoning displays your total ignorance of the subject of "terrorism" in general.

How so? When a knife attack happens does every non-muslim or moderate feel under existential threat? I seriously do not think so.

The whole point of "terrorism" is the media and the police state fool everyone in to vastly overestimating the threat while ignoring all the much more dangerous things totally normalized by society.

When will anarchists learn? When? Nothing good can ever come from going on Fox.

Anarchists are so stupid.

NA Antifa mainly target the likes of social media freedom of speech, DNApolitics, realist vs myth type reductionists like the @news commenter Post-Biceps rather than full faith Nazis or Fascists.

What's going on in that guy's mind? Talking to the big media is the same as talking to the FBI, except that your interrogation room has got millions of viewers behind the mirror glass.

I don't have too much problems with people like Scott Crow makign themselves spokesperson of some position, but like he missed one big hit, which is to take down these absurd spooks thrown in by the host, like Antifa being an organization, and the fact that he never used the word "antifascist". Word-for-word deconstruction of rhetoric is part of what media stooges are the most afraid of. Why? Because their job consists in putting viewers into cheap, one-size-fits-all ontological boxes. From there, bullshit spectacular mainstream politics are allowed to take root and grow in their heads. Should I care, should we care?

I dunno. But one thing we couild care about that when going after the big guys, you need the big guns.

worse than that, is he’s freer in a debate from his own pulpit because he’s playing a character (as different from the one in this setting: https://youtu.be/ykjlRft4JO4 ).

people would do well reading ‘amusing ourselves to death,’ and seeing how the media presents a world of random facts to us in such a distanced and displacing way it makes it importent as to how to act on anything effectively.

People who still don't get that these guys are just crappy comedians don't many other things neither. Carlson is at best a fluffy Hollywood B-list celebrity, and makes me fond of the Entertainment Tonight show, lol. (what kind of weird crossover is this?)

Expect him in 20 years doing infomercials with his botox face. All in all he ain't important.. What matters here is Scott Crow's mental processes, and how it affects the credibility of this much-promoted "anarchist theory". Like what's worth with all these pages of writings and discussion if one of our " intelligentsia" happens to be doing this kind of weird, highly-questionable PR?

This was trash. No wonder those people are so fucking stoopid. How does anybody watch this?

'Doesn't even pretend to disavow violence.' Because in america that's what's important!

Add new comment

Filtered HTML

  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <blockquote> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
CAPTCHA
Human?
K
i
f
f
H
D
e
Enter the code without spaces.