This is a great article - very deep and informative. But I don’t know how they got to the conclusion that the name Boogaloo comes from Breakin’ 2: Electric Boogaloo. It’s just a name for a...
This is a great article - very deep and informative.
But I don’t know how they got to the conclusion that the name Boogaloo comes from Breakin’ 2: Electric Boogaloo. It’s just a name for a dance...doesn’t seem specific to that movie. I feel like the connection they try to draw is tenuous at best.
“We want the American people to understand that they have the constitutional authority to defend themselves against unconstitutional oppression.”
Well guess what dipshit - you’re on the wrong side. The far right has (in the past decades in the US at least) been very closely linked to oppressing marginalized people.
They missed a step. People on the internet have been calling things <event> 2: Electric Boogaloo for a few years now because it sounds silly, and with the way things are going of course one of...
But I don’t know how they got to the conclusion that the name Boogaloo comes from Breakin’ 2: Electric Boogaloo. It’s just a name for a dance...doesn’t seem specific to that movie. I feel like the connection they try to draw is tenuous at best.
They missed a step. People on the internet have been calling things <event> 2: Electric Boogaloo for a few years now because it sounds silly, and with the way things are going of course one of those things was Civil War 2: Electric Boogaloo.
“We want the American people to understand that they have the constitutional authority to defend themselves against unconstitutional oppression.”
Well guess what dipshit - you’re on the wrong side. The far right has (in the past decades in the US at least) been very closely linked to oppressing marginalized people.
I might be too jaded to treat them in good faith at this point, but my assessment of this and a lot of other similar issues where people are perceived to be acting or voting against their interests aren't actually going against their interests. They don't show up in protest of black people being killed in the streets by the government because they're only interested in the government leaving them alone, not leaving everyone else alone. They've mostly shown up to protests this year with the intention of stirring shit up - things are tense and two of their enemies are fighting each other, so if you're that kind of person it only makes sense to go to a protest and cause trouble. They should have gotten behind the protests of Philando Castile's murder, but as far as I know (and I don't know much about it, to be fair) they were silent.
The article doesn't outright say it and I wish it did, but there's a few examples in it where they show that the Boogaloo people only really care about being able to do whatever they want and killing everyone they think is their enemies and will say and do whatever they think will let them do those things.
Each Boogaloo group takes a different form, but memes are their common language — some funny, others less so. “Victory or fire. I Will Not Burn Alone,” reads one. Posts routinely call for the shooting of pedophiles. “Save the Bees. Plant More Trees. Clean the Seas. Shoot Commies,” reads another. Fears of climate change figure into the groups’ apocalyptic worldview, but they often find themselves attaching to reactionary ideas. “It’s very simple,” one meme reads, “learn to hate or die silently.” Another: “Environmentalism and nationalism go hand in hand. It is pride in your people, pride in your nation and pride in the very soil of the land.”
If they were serious about environmentalism they wouldn't support the Bundys' repeated issues with the other BLM, the federal Bureau of Land Management. Environmentalism actually runs completely counter to their "I want to do whatever I feel like and damn the consequences", because a big component of environmentalism is deciding that people can't do certain things so that everyone can be healthy. It also runs completely counter to nationalism, because no nation can tackle climate change on its own and no nation is completely isolated from others. Nations regularly have to work with their neighbors on things like water rights, not to mention less direct issues like pollution. The environment knows no nation and no borders, and so if you take pride in the soil of your land you have to take pride in the soil of others' land too. The environment doesn't know the United States and Mexico, but it would know about the 2000-mile long wall the regime claims they want to build.
Farther down, the article talks about the recent insanity over antifa. The only justification for that insanity is that they consider antifa the enemy and it's easier for them to think the people protesting in their town are outsiders disturbing their perfect life rather than to acknowledge that the people protesting in their town are their friends and neighbors who believe something is seriously wrong with the state of things.
Ward was disheartened when communities around the country embraced the presence of armed militias in their towns. America has spent the past two decades trying to root out terrorism around the world, he told me. Surely we should recognize the tactics of a rogue paramilitary inside our own country.
All of this - other right-wing militias, the Boogaloo people, the Q bullshit - is fantasy for people who buy into it, in which their enemies are put in their rightful place, whether second-class citizens or dead. They refuse to coexist with the rest of us and so it's no surprise that they refuse to be the ones to change.
I hope this was useful, I know I kind of went on a tangent.
Edit: The article did touch on this a bit more the more I read it, so I'm not necessarily saying a whole lot of new stuff.
Okay, that makes sense. They left that part out, which seems like a key portion of the logic behind the name...
They missed a step. People on the internet have been calling things <event> 2: Electric Boogaloo for a few years now because it sounds silly, and with the way things are going of course one of those things was Civil War 2: Electric Boogaloo
Okay, that makes sense. They left that part out, which seems like a key portion of the logic behind the name...
Yeah, but everyone knows that real root of oppression is public shame and since systemic issues don't embarrass and demean me online, they can't be all bad.
oppressing marginalized people
Yeah, but everyone knows that real root of oppression is public shame and since systemic issues don't embarrass and demean me online, they can't be all bad.
As always, Libertarianism proves to be the most cynical ideology in existence. Sure, they say it's about revolution against tyranny for all, but in fact their definition of what tyranny is is very...
As always, Libertarianism proves to be the most cynical ideology in existence. Sure, they say it's about revolution against tyranny for all, but in fact their definition of what tyranny is is very much biased. All those libertarian folks who marched in Portland for years fell deaf and mute when the federal government bashed the skulls of BLM protestors.
Libertarianism by definition is the ideology of the "haves" against that of the "have not"s. In a country that is plagued by systematic inequality delineated very much across racial lines, saying we refuse to have a government dedicated to helping, defending and supporting the needy IS racist.
Individuals can have their own opinions, yes. But they're members of a group that is part of a movement of right wing extremism that is very clearly based in racist ideas. It's a core tenant of...
Individuals can have their own opinions, yes. But they're members of a group that is part of a movement of right wing extremism that is very clearly based in racist ideas. It's a core tenant of these groups, one of its defining traits.
At some point, you'd think people would leave because they disagree with the group's fundamental beliefs.
To be part of this group and claim you're for equal rights for everyone is like claiming to be a Christian and not believing in Christ.
I 100% understand what you're saying (and didn't take any of what you said as defending them). I think we just fundamentally disagree on whether or not they're a racist group. But at what point...
I 100% understand what you're saying (and didn't take any of what you said as defending them). I think we just fundamentally disagree on whether or not they're a racist group.
They have very clearly attracted the white supremacist types, and I obviously don't agree with violent revolution, but racism is not in any way shape or form part of the credo.
But at what point does a group that's composed of a large number white supremecists become racist by the very fact that it's composed of a lot of racists...
The entire thing is steeped in one simple idea: The government is tyrannical, there needs to a violent revolution/civil war against this tyrannical government to re-establish ""liberty"".
Then why aren't they out there protecting the protesters who are protesting the tyrannical actions of the police officers (who are part of the very government they dislike)? They only want liberty for themselves. If others are harmed by a tyrannical government, they could care less.
How would you even know? Do you think they're just going to identify themselves or something? "Hey guys, look at me, a Boogaloo boy! I'm protesting! as a Boogaloo boy!" Have you done any research...
Then why aren't they out there protecting the protesters who are protesting the tyrannical actions of the police officers (who are part of the very government they dislike)? They only want liberty for themselves. If others are harmed by a tyrannical government, they could care less.
How would you even know? Do you think they're just going to identify themselves or something? "Hey guys, look at me, a Boogaloo boy! I'm protesting! as a Boogaloo boy!" Have you done any research to verify this is the case?
They tend to make themselves known when they attend rallies. This Wall Street Journal article makes it pretty clear that when they show up to these rallies, they are not on the same side as...
They’ve appeared, sometimes carrying assault rifles, at protests in Minneapolis, Salt Lake City, Dallas, Atlanta, Philadelphia and dozens of other cities, often wearing Hawaiian shirts — a seemingly goofy uniform that, within the ranks of their movement, signals adherence to a violent, divisive, anti-government ideology.
Not directly to me point, but proof that they are not on the same side as the protesters:
Some far-right groups have purposefully sown confusion by impersonating left-wing activists, adding chaos to already turbulent days of protests in which local officials have blamed unnamed outsiders and left-wing groups for the mayhem.
and
On Wednesday, federal prosecutors in Nevada charged three men with terrorism offenses, saying they plotted to use Molotov cocktails and explosives to spark violence at protests over Floyd’s death. Prosecutors said the three — Stephen T. Parshall, 35, Andrew Lynam, 23, and William L. Loomis, 40 — were members of the “Boogaloo” movement.
Interesting how they fail to mention how these generic "white nationalist" and "far-right" groups are supposed to be affiliated with the Boogaloo movement, although they seem to imply that they...
Some far-right groups have purposefully sown confusion by impersonating left-wing activists, adding chaos to already turbulent days of protests in which local officials have blamed unnamed outsiders and left-wing groups for the mayhem.
Late Monday, Twitter announced that it had suspended an account for a purported radical left-wing group, @ANTIFA_US. Those behind the recently created account, which had been suspended after tweeting calls for violence during the protests, had ties to a white nationalist group, Twitter said. The company also suspended another fake Antifa account, after a far-right group claimed it had created it to infiltrate the movement.
Interesting how they fail to mention how these generic "white nationalist" and "far-right" groups are supposed to be affiliated with the Boogaloo movement, although they seem to imply that they are. Your second example is meaningless as well. How does them planning to "spark violence" prove that they are against the protesters? Knowing what we know (that the Boogaloo movement is primarily characterized by anti-government/police sentiment), it seems more likely that they intended to attack government forces? Also, I would not trust the Washington Post to provide unbiased reporting on such matters. The owner (Jeff Bezos) has a vested interest in suppressing those threatening the status quo. I read the rest of the article and I see a lot of speculation but very little hard evidence. Notice how they go on a completely irrelevant tangent on QAnon?
The report found evidence of rising militarism among followers of QAnon, which once spoke cryptically of shadowy forces within the federal government. Now many adherents describe themselves as part of a “Qarmy,” a term whose use doubled on Twitter in 10 days recently, according to the Network Contagion Research Institute. The researchers also found an explosion in the use of military badges and revolutionary flags online and in real-world protests.
They clearly are trying to connect the two, which makes absolutely no sense if you think about it even a little bit. Honestly it seems a lot like those "ANTIFA is planning to burn down the suburbs!!!!" articles that get passed around but for liberals.
Would you disagree with this article's history of the Boogaloo movement? If not, what would you suggest as a source to learn about the origins of the movement to decide if they have racist or...
This is a great article - very deep and informative.
But I don’t know how they got to the conclusion that the name Boogaloo comes from Breakin’ 2: Electric Boogaloo. It’s just a name for a dance...doesn’t seem specific to that movie. I feel like the connection they try to draw is tenuous at best.
Well guess what dipshit - you’re on the wrong side. The far right has (in the past decades in the US at least) been very closely linked to oppressing marginalized people.
They aren't reaching with the Breakin' 2 reference--that has been an extremely popular internet meme for years.
I get the reference, but the article left out the key link between the group naming itself Boogaloo and the meme.
They missed a step. People on the internet have been calling things <event> 2: Electric Boogaloo for a few years now because it sounds silly, and with the way things are going of course one of those things was Civil War 2: Electric Boogaloo.
I might be too jaded to treat them in good faith at this point, but my assessment of this and a lot of other similar issues where people are perceived to be acting or voting against their interests aren't actually going against their interests. They don't show up in protest of black people being killed in the streets by the government because they're only interested in the government leaving them alone, not leaving everyone else alone. They've mostly shown up to protests this year with the intention of stirring shit up - things are tense and two of their enemies are fighting each other, so if you're that kind of person it only makes sense to go to a protest and cause trouble. They should have gotten behind the protests of Philando Castile's murder, but as far as I know (and I don't know much about it, to be fair) they were silent.
The article doesn't outright say it and I wish it did, but there's a few examples in it where they show that the Boogaloo people only really care about being able to do whatever they want and killing everyone they think is their enemies and will say and do whatever they think will let them do those things.
If they were serious about environmentalism they wouldn't support the Bundys' repeated issues with the other BLM, the federal Bureau of Land Management. Environmentalism actually runs completely counter to their "I want to do whatever I feel like and damn the consequences", because a big component of environmentalism is deciding that people can't do certain things so that everyone can be healthy. It also runs completely counter to nationalism, because no nation can tackle climate change on its own and no nation is completely isolated from others. Nations regularly have to work with their neighbors on things like water rights, not to mention less direct issues like pollution. The environment knows no nation and no borders, and so if you take pride in the soil of your land you have to take pride in the soil of others' land too. The environment doesn't know the United States and Mexico, but it would know about the 2000-mile long wall the regime claims they want to build.
Farther down, the article talks about the recent insanity over antifa. The only justification for that insanity is that they consider antifa the enemy and it's easier for them to think the people protesting in their town are outsiders disturbing their perfect life rather than to acknowledge that the people protesting in their town are their friends and neighbors who believe something is seriously wrong with the state of things.
All of this - other right-wing militias, the Boogaloo people, the Q bullshit - is fantasy for people who buy into it, in which their enemies are put in their rightful place, whether second-class citizens or dead. They refuse to coexist with the rest of us and so it's no surprise that they refuse to be the ones to change.
I hope this was useful, I know I kind of went on a tangent.
Edit: The article did touch on this a bit more the more I read it, so I'm not necessarily saying a whole lot of new stuff.
Okay, that makes sense. They left that part out, which seems like a key portion of the logic behind the name...
It absolutely is key to making sense of it and I'm not sure how they missed it.
Yeah, but everyone knows that real root of oppression is public shame and since systemic issues don't embarrass and demean me online, they can't be all bad.
As always, Libertarianism proves to be the most cynical ideology in existence. Sure, they say it's about revolution against tyranny for all, but in fact their definition of what tyranny is is very much biased. All those libertarian folks who marched in Portland for years fell deaf and mute when the federal government bashed the skulls of BLM protestors.
Libertarianism by definition is the ideology of the "haves" against that of the "have not"s. In a country that is plagued by systematic inequality delineated very much across racial lines, saying we refuse to have a government dedicated to helping, defending and supporting the needy IS racist.
They can claim they’re for “everyone”, but they are very clearly not - despite whatever grandstanding they do.
Individuals can have their own opinions, yes. But they're members of a group that is part of a movement of right wing extremism that is very clearly based in racist ideas. It's a core tenant of these groups, one of its defining traits.
At some point, you'd think people would leave because they disagree with the group's fundamental beliefs.
To be part of this group and claim you're for equal rights for everyone is like claiming to be a Christian and not believing in Christ.
I 100% understand what you're saying (and didn't take any of what you said as defending them). I think we just fundamentally disagree on whether or not they're a racist group.
But at what point does a group that's composed of a large number white supremecists become racist by the very fact that it's composed of a lot of racists...
Then why aren't they out there protecting the protesters who are protesting the tyrannical actions of the police officers (who are part of the very government they dislike)? They only want liberty for themselves. If others are harmed by a tyrannical government, they could care less.
I'd like to echo what @elcuello said:
How would you even know? Do you think they're just going to identify themselves or something? "Hey guys, look at me, a Boogaloo boy! I'm protesting! as a Boogaloo boy!" Have you done any research to verify this is the case?
They tend to make themselves known when they attend rallies.
This Wall Street Journal article makes it pretty clear that when they show up to these rallies, they are not on the same side as protesters.
Your link does not seem to support the quoted claim.
From the Wall Street Journal article I linked:
Not directly to me point, but proof that they are not on the same side as the protesters:
and
Interesting how they fail to mention how these generic "white nationalist" and "far-right" groups are supposed to be affiliated with the Boogaloo movement, although they seem to imply that they are. Your second example is meaningless as well. How does them planning to "spark violence" prove that they are against the protesters? Knowing what we know (that the Boogaloo movement is primarily characterized by anti-government/police sentiment), it seems more likely that they intended to attack government forces? Also, I would not trust the Washington Post to provide unbiased reporting on such matters. The owner (Jeff Bezos) has a vested interest in suppressing those threatening the status quo. I read the rest of the article and I see a lot of speculation but very little hard evidence. Notice how they go on a completely irrelevant tangent on QAnon?
They clearly are trying to connect the two, which makes absolutely no sense if you think about it even a little bit. Honestly it seems a lot like those "ANTIFA is planning to burn down the suburbs!!!!" articles that get passed around but for liberals.
Would you disagree with this article's history of the Boogaloo movement? If not, what would you suggest as a source to learn about the origins of the movement to decide if they have racist or non-racist roots? https://web.archive.org/web/20200606233048/https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2020/06/05/boogaloo-started-racist-meme
The problem here is that you apply logic to understand these people and their beliefs. I'm not being sarcastic.