Neo-Nazi speech shows they wanted violence

[marc]

Charlottesville was probably meant to turn violent

The locals are suing the nazis for conspiracy to intimidate, and commit acts of violence. A leaked video of one of the Nazi leaders speech is certainly not going to help their defense.

 

[Vork]

I noticed something from one of the counter-protest side, (presumably leftie), where they admitted they wanted to block the path of their opponents-- turning up to block the path of people on a planned event is an act of violence. Of course what will happen in response is the other side will try to break through the human blockade, (perfectly legitimate), and that risks making things even worse.

And of course it's part of the "anti fascist" ideology to use violence.

As for the speech given in the article, it isn't an explicit call for violence that I can see, even if it's aggressive sounding. Edit: although actually calling for the death of people may put you over the line in what you should be able to say, even if it doesn't explicitly call for violence at a particular time and remains vague in exact intention.

As for them anticipating and planning for violence, that depends on whether the evidence points to them wanting to attack innocent people, or whether they expected counter-protesters to turn up to fight them, and they were planning tactics of dealing with them. You can't blame people for aggression if they were expecting to be attacked.

I assume that some people on both sides were looking for violence, and they should be prosecuted for it. Don't hold a counter-protest at the same time and same place, and then it's clear who wants to behave and who doesn't.

 

[Vork]

If you talk about the left-wing violence, you may get people making a fuss over inappropriate "moral equivalency".

Couple of points:

The use of violence is a distinct issue from the ideology on either side. To say that (perhaps) both sides were equally responsible for the violence, is not the same thing as saying that both sides have equally terrible ideology. That is just a different question altogether. You don't overlook violence because you think one side has a really bad ideology. (Of course there was probably a spectrum of beliefs on both sides.)

Second point, is that if you don't deal with the violence on the left-wing side, is that you are giving an easy excuse to the right-wing side. Right-wingers turned up with weapons?-- well why shouldn't they turn up with weapons with "antifa" around? It's entirely sensible that they should be planning for violence in that kind of scenario. So it justs hands the right-wing side a reasonable excuse to be planning for violence.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entr...tesville-violence_us_5a8ca5dce4b00a30a250606c

“My brothers,” Ray began, looking at his phone in the dark room. “A day is quickly coming when it is we who will be digging graves.” The neo-Nazis howled their approval. For them, the “Unite the Right” rally had always been more than a protest against the removal of a statue of Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee. It was, as Ray and Anglin put it on the Daily Stormer, a “battle cry” for white nationalism.


“This is our war!” Ray yelled in the safe house. “This has always been our war. And I wouldn’t want it any other way. Death to traitors! Death to the enemies of the white race! Hail victory!”



------------

These clowns are toast. They left an open trail of evidence that will hang them.

 

[bilby]

If you talk about the left-wing violence, you may get people making a fuss over inappropriate "moral equivalency".

Couple of points:

The use of violence is a distinct issue from the ideology on either side. To say that (perhaps) both sides were equally responsible for the violence, is not the same thing as saying that both sides have equally terrible ideology. That is just a different question altogether. You don't overlook violence because you think one side has a really bad ideology. (Of course there was probably a spectrum of beliefs on both sides.)

Second point, is that if you don't deal with the violence on the left-wing side, is that you are giving an easy excuse to the right-wing side. Right-wingers turned up with weapons?-- well why shouldn't they turn up with weapons with "antifa" around? It's entirely sensible that they should be planning for violence in that kind of scenario. So it justs hands the right-wing side a reasonable excuse to be planning for violence.

The 'right wing side' doesn't need nor care for a "reasonable excuse"; Nazism is an explicitly violent ideology, and the two cannot be separated. Initiation of physical conflict is perfectly acceptable and even encouraged in Nazism, and to a Nazi, the only immorality associated with assault and battery derives from failure to beat your opponent.

The fundamental tenet of racial supremacy is that the superior race can and should defeat its inferiors in combat, and that might therefore defines right - a Nazi has a duty to be violent against anyone who is not his ideological equal, and that is defined to include anyone who is not also a Nazi.

It's the doctrine of the bully and the thug, and until the allies showed up the fact that mere will and racial purity are insufficient for world domination, it didn't pretend to be anything else.

It's not reasonable to tolerate intolerance. Nazis want violence, because they believe that their opponents will resile from it, and that as a result, they can ride roughshod over any opposition.

Fuck that. Nazis deserve and need to be violently put down; because they believe that this is the way their opponents should be treated. Nazi ideology is fundamentally a violent attack, and violence is justified in defending society against it.

Nazism is not just right wing politics taken a tiny bit further. Even though it suits the Nazis to pretend that it is.

We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender.

This is how civilised people respond to Nazis.

 

[laughing dog]

If you talk about the left-wing violence, you may get people making a fuss over inappropriate "moral equivalency".

Couple of points:

The use of violence is a distinct issue from the ideology on either side. To say that (perhaps) both sides were equally responsible for the violence, is not the same thing as saying that both sides have equally terrible ideology. That is just a different question altogether. You don't overlook violence because you think one side has a really bad ideology. (Of course there was probably a spectrum of beliefs on both sides.)

Second point, is that if you don't deal with the violence on the left-wing side, is that you are giving an easy excuse to the right-wing side. Right-wingers turned up with weapons?-- well why shouldn't they turn up with weapons with "antifa" around? It's entirely sensible that they should be planning for violence in that kind of scenario. So it justs hands the right-wing side a reasonable excuse to be planning for violence.

Nazis do not need an excuse - as the OP indicated. Hence your entire response not only missed the point of the OP, but fails as a right wing apologia.

 

[marc]

pretty laughable double standard. Getting in the way is an act of 'violence' (so does that mean sit-ins, one of the most non-violent forms of protests were actually acts of mass violence? ) at the same time "Death to traitors, death to enemies of the white race", and "wash ourselves in n***** blood" is not in any way violent or promoting violence.

Is it just me, or have the right-wing nutcases gotten so blatant, and so bad at lying about it, that they are entering Baghdad Bob territory? Like in the whole Trump-Russia investigation, in the beginning there could have been some legitimate skepticism of the accusations, but now we are at Baghdad Bob's "there are no tanks in Baghdad" level of bs.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

pretty laughable double standard. Getting in the way is an act of 'violence' (so does that mean sit-ins, one of the most non-violent forms of protests were actually acts of mass violence? ) at the same time "Death to traitors, death to enemies of the white race", and "wash ourselves in n***** blood" is not in any way violent or promoting violence.

Is it just me, or have the right-wing nutcases gotten so blatant, and so bad at lying about it, that they are entering Baghdad Bob territory? Like in the whole Trump-Russia investigation, in the beginning there could have been some legitimate skepticism of the accusations, but now we are at Baghdad Bob's "there are no tanks in Baghdad" level of bs.

I find it a little funny... all this big talk... and the Nazis get into a scuffle with protesters. Gonna be a war... digging graves, n-word blood... and nothing. For the master race, I'll give them one thing... they know that they'd get their asses handed to them in a "race" war, so all they do is talk and march here or there with tiki torches.

Dylan Roof slaughters a number of people, and still the Nazis keep waiting. Bunch of cowards... master race my ass.

 

[dismal]

Why, if only there were some existing case law that spoke to what sort of advocacy of violence was covered under free speech protections and stuff.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Its a curious phenomenon. At what point will those pushing identity politics realize that they are encouraging these neo-nazis? How far will this spiral go before the blinders come off?

First we had massive pushes for minority identity politics and differing treatment based on race, then we saw it take over schools ("you're a white male!"), then we saw people like Richard Spencer get propped up as identity politics in the other direction strengthening calls for white nationalism and arguing that white people and minorities can't and shouldn't try to live together, then we had him punched and people equating him to a nazi and saying its ok to punch nazis (encouraging violence: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/21/us/politics/richard-spencer-punched-attack.html), now we have more actual nazis calling for the blood of minorities hyperbolically. This is spiraling more and more out of control, and neither side of it sees themselves as instigators or sees their similarity to the other side.

 

[LordKiran]

Its a curious phenomenon. At what point will those pushing identity politics realize that they are encouraging these neo-nazis? How far will this spiral go before the blinders come off?

First we had massive pushes for minority identity politics and differing treatment based on race, then we saw it take over schools ("you're a white male!"), then we saw people like Richard Spencer get propped up as identity politics in the other direction strengthening calls for white nationalism and arguing that white people and minorities can't and shouldn't try to live together, then we had him punched and people equating him to a nazi and saying its ok to punch nazis (encouraging violence: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/21/us/politics/richard-spencer-punched-attack.html), now we have more actual nazis calling for the blood of minorities hyperbolically. This is spiraling more and more out of control, and neither side of it sees themselves as instigators or sees their similarity to the other side.

So your solution to stopping neo-nazi violence is to quiet their opposition? Poor solution. People who believe that "Might makes right" will only ever respect the authority of the sword since it's the only authority they acknowledge as legitimate. So as far as I'm concerned, let them have it...Of course if you do that then you've acknowledged that the state has the authority to put down competing ideologies which ultimately proves Spencer's point even as it would destroy him.

You need a two tone approach.

You need to offer one hand but arm the other. You need to offer these angry disaffected white men (The majority of Spencer's crowd unsurprisingly) an alternative to fighting; a life worth living....BUT...You must also make it perfectly clear that you will not suffer existential challenges to our social order such as it is and that you take such challenges deadly serious. We didn't tolerate overt nazi or communist ideologies 60-80 years ago so why start now?

 

[dismal]

Its a curious phenomenon. At what point will those pushing identity politics realize that they are encouraging these neo-nazis? How far will this spiral go before the blinders come off?

First we had massive pushes for minority identity politics and differing treatment based on race, then we saw it take over schools ("you're a white male!"), then we saw people like Richard Spencer get propped up as identity politics in the other direction strengthening calls for white nationalism and arguing that white people and minorities can't and shouldn't try to live together, then we had him punched and people equating him to a nazi and saying its ok to punch nazis (encouraging violence: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/21/us/politics/richard-spencer-punched-attack.html), now we have more actual nazis calling for the blood of minorities hyperbolically. This is spiraling more and more out of control, and neither side of it sees themselves as instigators or sees their similarity to the other side.

So your solution to stopping neo-nazi violence is to quiet their opposition? Poor solution. People who believe that "Might makes right" will only ever respect the authority of the sword since it's the only authority they acknowledge as legitimate. So as far as I'm concerned, let them have it.

Where exactly does "neo-nazi violence" rank on our grand list of societal problems?

Bigger than muslim violence?

 

[SimpleDon]

If you talk about the left-wing violence, you may get people making a fuss over inappropriate "moral equivalency".

Couple of points:

The use of violence is a distinct issue from the ideology on either side. To say that (perhaps) both sides were equally responsible for the violence, is not the same thing as saying that both sides have equally terrible ideology. That is just a different question altogether. You don't overlook violence because you think one side has a really bad ideology. (Of course there was probably a spectrum of beliefs on both sides.)

Second point, is that if you don't deal with the violence on the left-wing side, is that you are giving an easy excuse to the right-wing side. Right-wingers turned up with weapons?-- well why shouldn't they turn up with weapons with "antifa" around? It's entirely sensible that they should be planning for violence in that kind of scenario. So it justs hands the right-wing side a reasonable excuse to be planning for violence.

The 'right wing side' doesn't need nor care for a "reasonable excuse"; Nazism is an explicitly violent ideology, and the two cannot be separated. Initiation of physical conflict is perfectly acceptable and even encouraged in Nazism, and to a Nazi, the only immorality associated with assault and battery derives from failure to beat your opponent.

The fundamental tenet of racial supremacy is that the superior race can and should defeat its inferiors in combat, and that might therefore defines right - a Nazi has a duty to be violent against anyone who is not his ideological equal, and that is defined to include anyone who is not also a Nazi.

It's the doctrine of the bully and the thug, and until the allies showed up the fact that mere will and racial purity are insufficient for world domination, it didn't pretend to be anything else.

It's not reasonable to tolerate intolerance. Nazis want violence, because they believe that their opponents will resile from it, and that as a result, they can ride roughshod over any opposition.

Fuck that. Nazis deserve and need to be violently put down; because they believe that this is the way their opponents should be treated. Nazi ideology is fundamentally a violent attack, and violence is justified in defending society against it.

Nazism is not just right wing politics taken a tiny bit further. Even though it suits the Nazis to pretend that it is.

We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender.

This is how civilised people respond to Nazis.

I am a sucker for a post that uses the word "resile" correctly - or for that matter, at all.

I second it. If there is violence on both sides we have to look into the underlying ideologies to determine who is initiating the violence and who is responding to the violence. I dare say that it is kind of obvious in this case. Would the anti-fascists exist if there weren't any fascists?

 

[LordKiran]

Its a curious phenomenon. At what point will those pushing identity politics realize that they are encouraging these neo-nazis? How far will this spiral go before the blinders come off?

First we had massive pushes for minority identity politics and differing treatment based on race, then we saw it take over schools ("you're a white male!"), then we saw people like Richard Spencer get propped up as identity politics in the other direction strengthening calls for white nationalism and arguing that white people and minorities can't and shouldn't try to live together, then we had him punched and people equating him to a nazi and saying its ok to punch nazis (encouraging violence: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/21/us/politics/richard-spencer-punched-attack.html), now we have more actual nazis calling for the blood of minorities hyperbolically. This is spiraling more and more out of control, and neither side of it sees themselves as instigators or sees their similarity to the other side.

So your solution to stopping neo-nazi violence is to quiet their opposition? Poor solution. People who believe that "Might makes right" will only ever respect the authority of the sword since it's the only authority they acknowledge as legitimate. So as far as I'm concerned, let them have it.

Where exactly does "neo-nazi violence" rank on our grand list of societal problems?

Bigger than muslim violence?

Tbh they're equally unimportant next to things like poverty, food;water;and housing shortages, police violence, inaccessible healthcare, gun violence, the opioid epidemic ect.

I think if you took the average member of the alt right and gave them a prosperous life worth living you'd solve the problem overnight. So solving all of the above problems would go a long way in resolving the alt right.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Its a curious phenomenon. At what point will those pushing identity politics realize that they are encouraging these neo-nazis?

Odd, because this whole "identity politics" is something they claim is being pushed by the left.

First we had massive pushes for minority identity politics and differing treatment based on race...

Specifics? Or is that a bunch of words for Affirmative Action?

...then we saw it take over schools ("you're a white male!"),

Specifics that it 'took over schools'?

then we saw people like Richard Spencer get propped up as identity politics in the other direction strengthening calls for white nationalism and arguing that white people and minorities can't and shouldn't try to live together,

Odd, because the KKK dates back a while.

then we had him punched and people equating him to a nazi and saying its ok to punch nazis (encouraging violence: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/21/us/politics/richard-spencer-punched-attack.html), now we have more actual nazis calling for the blood of minorities hyperbolically. This is spiraling more and more out of control, and neither side of it sees themselves as instigators or sees their similarity to the other side.

And only false equivalence or improper juxtaposition will save us.

 

[Elixir]

Bunch of cowards... master race my ass.

You have to admit, though - they ARE master baiters. They managed to bait enough antifa zealots into just enough violence that it became okay for Nazis to drive a vehicle through a crowd to cause mayhem and murder, and allow their orange idol to proclaim that the "sides" were equivalent.

 

[ronburgundy]

Why, if only there were some existing case law that spoke to what sort of advocacy of violence was covered under free speech protections and stuff.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio

IF only criminal statutes had anything to do with whether a party can be found liable for damages in a civil case.

 

[laughing dog]

Its a curious phenomenon. At what point will those pushing identity politics realize that they are encouraging these neo-nazis? How far will this spiral go before the blinders come off?

First we had massive pushes for minority identity politics and differing treatment based on race, then we saw it take over schools ("you're a white male!"), then we saw people like Richard Spencer get propped up as identity politics in the other direction strengthening calls for white nationalism and arguing that white people and minorities can't and shouldn't try to live together, then we had him punched and people equating him to a nazi and saying its ok to punch nazis (encouraging violence: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/21/us/politics/richard-spencer-punched-attack.html), now we have more actual nazis calling for the blood of minorities hyperbolically. This is spiraling more and more out of control, and neither side of it sees themselves as instigators or sees their similarity to the other side.

. Blaming nazi violence on the rise of identity politics takes a special kind of blatant ignorance - nazism is the epitome of identity politics. Nazis practiced identity politics before that was even a term. Actual nazis have always cried for the blood of minorities. In fact, actual Nazis have killed minorities. White supremacists in the USA have been arguing that the races should not live together for DECADES. The KKK and other white supremacists engaged in actual lynchings for DECADES in the USA.

This "oh, the ______ is just as bad" is a horseshit argument and it encourages and enables these POS more than any practicitioner of "minority identity politics" ever could.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Its a curious phenomenon. At what point will those pushing identity politics realize that they are encouraging these neo-nazis? How far will this spiral go before the blinders come off?

First we had massive pushes for minority identity politics and differing treatment based on race, then we saw it take over schools ("you're a white male!"), then we saw people like Richard Spencer get propped up as identity politics in the other direction strengthening calls for white nationalism and arguing that white people and minorities can't and shouldn't try to live together, then we had him punched and people equating him to a nazi and saying its ok to punch nazis (encouraging violence: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/21/us/politics/richard-spencer-punched-attack.html), now we have more actual nazis calling for the blood of minorities hyperbolically. This is spiraling more and more out of control, and neither side of it sees themselves as instigators or sees their similarity to the other side.

So your solution to stopping neo-nazi violence is to quiet their opposition?

Did I say that? No. I didn't. Pushing minority identity politics isn't the same as opposing neo-nazi violence. I am curious if you can grasp my actual point if you re-read what I actually wrote. Hint: Richard Spencer calls himself an identitarian.

 

[dismal]

Why, if only there were some existing case law that spoke to what sort of advocacy of violence was covered under free speech protections and stuff.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio

IF only criminal statutes had anything to do with whether a party can be found liable for damages in a civil case.

You can sue anybody for anything, but suing someone for engaging in Constitutionally protected speech is not likely to succeed.