Why aren't hate groups banned in the U.S.?

[EnglishPete]

So many normal countries (like Canada and Germany) ban hate groups. Why hasn't the U.S. banned them?

Who decides what's a 'hate group'?

[EnglishPete]

Germany and Austria outlaw hate groups because of the great harm that those groups have done in the past. The Allies chose to outlaw Nazism in every possible manifestation from the the Hitler salute to the swastika and stock Nazi phrases.  Of course Nazis did murder six million Jews, among others. Contemporary Germans find Nazism an embarrassment.

Germany is not remotely a free country.

[EnglishPete]

Germany and Austria outlaw hate groups because of the great harm that those groups have done in the past. The Allies chose to outlaw Nazism in every possible manifestation from the the Hitler salute to the swastika and stock Nazi phrases.  Of course Nazis did murder six million Jews, among others. Contemporary Germans find Nazism an embarrassment.

Germany is not remotely a free country.

Germans (excluding klarxet) would disagree, but because it has refugees it much unfree.

No its not because of having refugees. Its because of the lack of free speech. The German government (like the UK government and other European governments) suppress free speech of right wing dissidents in various ways but law enforcement is used in two ways. Firstly there is the direct application of 'hate speech' laws, with the definition of 'hate speech' growing ever broader over time.

Then there is the use of licensed violence, threats and abuse against right wing dissident groups by so called 'antifa' or 'anti-fascist' groups who are permitted to carry out these behaviours against dissident groups without serious legal repercussions in a way that would not be tolerated by the state if it were directed at a non dissident political group. For example see the way that the dissident AfD gets treated by these groups and consider whether the German state would tolerate for a second the non dissident FPD or CDU getting the same treatment.

Using these kind of 'license' for political violence is a way of the German state directing political violence against dissidents whilst giving the appearance of not being responsible. Since these 'anti-fascist' type groups (just like dissident groups they attack) will in all cases be heavily infiltrated by state assets and in most cases be run by them this fiction of the government not being responsible for the anti-dissident violence has not even an element of truth to it.

Its the same in Britain, France, Canada, Netherlands, Belgium, Canada, Australia etc etc. This tactic of authorities 'licensing' and using state sponsored and state controlled violence has also been on full display recently in parts of the US both during and since the election. In particular it has been seen in Chicago and the state of California (San Jose, Berkeley etc)

The hilarious part is that most of the state controlled robots taking part in this anti-dissident violence, harassments and threats in all these places will usually think of themselves as opponents of the establishment.

[EnglishPete]

Germany and Austria outlaw hate groups because of the great harm that those groups have done in the past. The Allies chose to outlaw Nazism in every possible manifestation from the the Hitler salute to the swastika and stock Nazi phrases.  Of course Nazis did murder six million Jews, among others. Contemporary Germans find Nazism an embarrassment.

Germany is not remotely a free country.

Germans (excluding klarxet) would disagree, but because it has refugees it much unfree.

No its not because of having refugees. Its because of the lack of free speech. The German government (like the UK government and other European governments) suppress free speech of right wing dissidents in various ways but law enforcement is used in two ways. Firstly there is the direct application of 'hate speech' laws, with the definition of 'hate speech' growing ever broader over time.

Then there is the use of licensed violence, threats and abuse against right wing dissident groups by so called 'antifa' or 'anti-fascist' groups who are permitted to carry out these behaviours against dissident groups without serious legal repercussions in a way that would not be tolerated by the state if it were directed at a non dissident political group. For example see the way that the dissident AfD gets treated by these groups and consider whether the German state would tolerate for a second the non dissident FPD or CDU getting the same treatment.

Using these kind of 'license' for political violence is a way of the German state directing political violence against dissidents whilst giving the appearance of not being responsible. Since these 'anti-fascist' type groups (just like dissident groups they attack) will in all cases be heavily infiltrated by state assets and in most cases be run by them this fiction of the government not being responsible for the anti-dissident violence has not even an element of truth to it.

Its the same in Britain, France, Canada, Netherlands, Belgium, Canada, Australia etc etc. This tactic of authorities 'licensing' and using state sponsored and state controlled violence has also been on full display recently in parts of the US both during and since the election. In particular it has been seen in Chicago and the state of California (San Jose, Berkeley etc)

The hilarious part is that most of the state controlled robots taking part in this anti-dissident violence, harassments and threats in all these places will usually think of themselves as opponents of the establishment.

     While I agree that the limitations on speech are a big problem in Germany, I'm not sure about this notion that these governments are encouraging violence to suppress dissident movements. Being quite close to what happened in Berkeley, I haven't seen evidence that they supported the violent outburst. I have however seen the university repeatedly condemn left-wing intimidation tactics. Now that might all be a smokescreen for a secret plan to let anarchists violently suppress conservatives, but such an allegation requires direct evidence for me to entertain.

Directly and openly advocating such violence would defeat the object. The idea is to use violence, threats and harassment to discourage dissident groups whilst being able to say to them "Hey, its not us directing this violence at you, its just that you're not very popular, maybe that's your fault and you should consider giving up"

The method usually used. Hostile rhetoric aimed at the dissidents. Police given stand down orders to not interfere with anti-dissident violence and threats (whilst still being firm on any violence and harassment coming from dissidents). Afterwards statements defending the 'free speech' of the 'protestors' whilst blaming the dissidents for any violence or threats they were victims of.

If you're dealing with this problem you need to be aware of what's going on.

[EnglishPete]

Germany and Austria outlaw hate groups because of the great harm that those groups have done in the past. The Allies chose to outlaw Nazism in every possible manifestation from the the Hitler salute to the swastika and stock Nazi phrases.  Of course Nazis did murder six million Jews, among others. Contemporary Germans find Nazism an embarrassment.

Germany is not remotely a free country.

Germans (excluding klarxet) would disagree, but because it has refugees it much unfree.

No its not because of having refugees. Its because of the lack of free speech. The German government (like the UK government and other European governments) suppress free speech of right wing dissidents in various ways but law enforcement is used in two ways. Firstly there is the direct application of 'hate speech' laws, with the definition of 'hate speech' growing ever broader over time.

Then there is the use of licensed violence, threats and abuse against right wing dissident groups by so called 'antifa' or 'anti-fascist' groups who are permitted to carry out these behaviours against dissident groups without serious legal repercussions in a way that would not be tolerated by the state if it were directed at a non dissident political group. For example see the way that the dissident AfD gets treated by these groups and consider whether the German state would tolerate for a second the non dissident FPD or CDU getting the same treatment.

Using these kind of 'license' for political violence is a way of the German state directing political violence against dissidents whilst giving the appearance of not being responsible. Since these 'anti-fascist' type groups (just like dissident groups they attack) will in all cases be heavily infiltrated by state assets and in most cases be run by them this fiction of the government not being responsible for the anti-dissident violence has not even an element of truth to it.

Its the same in Britain, France, Canada, Netherlands, Belgium, Canada, Australia etc etc. This tactic of authorities 'licensing' and using state sponsored and state controlled violence has also been on full display recently in parts of the US both during and since the election. In particular it has been seen in Chicago and the state of California (San Jose, Berkeley etc)

The hilarious part is that most of the state controlled robots taking part in this anti-dissident violence, harassments and threats in all these places will usually think of themselves as opponents of the establishment.

     While I agree that the limitations on speech are a big problem in Germany, I'm not sure about this notion that these governments are encouraging violence to suppress dissident movements. Being quite close to what happened in Berkeley, I haven't seen evidence that they supported the violent outburst. I have however seen the university repeatedly condemn left-wing intimidation tactics. Now that might all be a smokescreen for a secret plan to let anarchists violently suppress conservatives, but such an allegation requires direct evidence for me to entertain.

What happened in Berkeley was a perfect example of the above mentioned tactic. The mayor of the town attacked the dissidents and blamed them for the violence against them

You must be logged in to read this quote.

whilst at the same time the police were given stand down orders in order to let the violence go on unimpeded

You must be logged in to read this quote.

https://ww2.kqed.org/news/2017/02/03/berkeley-mayor-uc-police-union-criticize-campus-over-plans-for-milo-yiannopolous-protest/

So what we saw in Berkeley was government violence directed at dissidents by Democratic political bosses. The fact that the City of Berkeley outsourced this violence to left wing 'activist' groups and the fact that the majority of those involved in carrying out the violence (i.e. the ones who aren't government informers) are useful idiots unaware of the nature of their role does not alter the fact that this is government political violence against dissidents.

The outsourcing of the violence in this way has two major benefits to the authorities. Firstly it gives them a form of plausible deniability in a situation where direct political repression is illegal.

Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, it enables them to say to those they're attacking "Hey look, its not us attacking you, you're getting attacked because you're so very unpopular and its all really your fault. You should give up". If people accept the premise of this line then its much more effective as propaganda for the authorities in question to demoralise the dissidents than if they said directly "We don't like your dissident opinions so we're sending round our goon squads to attack you".

If you are in a situation where come under this kind of attack (as a California Republican) then you should remember that the first statement in the previous paragraph is a fiction whilst the latter statement describes the reality of this type of situation. Hopefully that will make you immune to the kind of deliberately demoralising propaganda that will come in the form of statement like the first statement.