We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.

Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]

Thoughts about what happened in Virginia this weekend

“It’s becoming so clear now why the war of words between SJWs and the new white nationalists is so intense. It isn’t because they have huge ideological differences — it’s because they have so much in common. Both are obsessed with race, SJWs demanding white shame, the alt-right responding with white pride. Both view everyday life and culture through a highly racialised filter. SJWs can’t even watch a movie without counting how many lines the black actor has in comparison with the white actor so that they can rush home and tumblr about the injustice of it all. Both have a seemingly boundless capacity for self-pity. Both are convinced they’re under siege, whether by patriarchy, transphobia and the Daily Mail (SJWs) or by pinkos and blacks (white nationalists). Both have a deep censorious strain. And both crave recognition of their victimhood and flattery of their feelings. This is really what they’re fighting over — not principles or visions but who should get the coveted title of the most hard-done-by identity. They’re auditioning for social pity. “My life matters! My pain matters! I matter!” The increasing bitterness and even violence of their feud is not evidence of its substance, but the opposite: it’s the narcissism of small differences.”

Brendan O’Neill, as seen on his Facebook page. He is writing about the violence in Virginia at the weekend.

I think he is broadly right, and if we are trying to work out where the rot of identity politics comes from (the libertarian scholar Tom G Palmer actually calls it “identitarianism”) I would wager that post-modernism, and the idea that there are no objective standards of truth and value, has something to do with it. Of all the books I have read in the past decade, Prof. Stephen Hicks’ short masterpiece, Explaining Postmodernism, gets as close as I can see to putting a finger on today’s nonsense.

Speaking for myself, I had a glimpse of this retreat from reason last week when, in an online chat with a friend about the Google sacking of James Danmore, a woman jumped in to state that no matter what arguments or logic I could use to object to the firing of this man, that her “lived experience” (ie, the fact that she knows Google female employees who are upset) would outweigh it. Not logic, reason or evidence, but “lived experience”. What this person failed to realise, perhaps, was she had committed a classic stolen concept error: the very attempt to deploy “lived experience” as a sort of “I win!” itself implies that there is some sort of logic against which one can test it. If there is no logic against which one can test and evaluate one “lived experience” against another, all one has left is that the gang of those with “lived experience” A beats those with “lived experience” B. This is known as Might is Right, or the power of the mob.

And in a world where logic and reason are dethroned because of hurt feelings, the results are very unpleasant. As we are seeing now almost daily.

Update: great editorial by the Wall Street Journal. ($)

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on TumblrShare on RedditShare on Google+Share on VKEmail this to someone

134 comments to Thoughts about what happened in Virginia this weekend

  • Under Obama (and Hillary too I would suppose), the entire weight of the Presidency would have been brought down on the “racist” white right, but what do we get with President Trump?

    He quite openly and quite correctly condemns both sides for the violence.

    Far too often it is the violent thugs of the so-called “Anti-Fascist” or Antifa brigades that are the ones to initiate the violence.

    These are the ones that come up dressed in hats & hoodies, handkerchiefs covering their faces and sunglasses to prevent identification, since they know they will be videotaped and are quite keen to avoid / evade arrest, as demonstrated by college Professor Eric Clanton (since dismissed from his employment), who is currently being prosecuted for four counts of assault with a deadly weapon arising from the recent Berkeley protests.

    Preliminary hearing for Eric Clanton, charged with Berkeley bike lock assault, pushed to September

    In my view, Trump is correct to condemn both sides and insist that police prosecute violence on both sides.

    I fully support the right of protest, but it should be done openly, not by mask wearing rabble rousers who are clearly only going there to start a fight and are dressed to avoid arrest.

  • Johnathan Pearce (London)

    John Galt, Trump initially erred in my view by not explicitly condemning the extreme right nature of this gathering (this is what they are, let’s not dance about the issue), in clear terms. Heck, his “I condemn violence on all sides” line sounds a bit like Jeremy Corbyn trying to dodge the Venezuela issue. That wasn’t good enough, although his subsequent remarks have made the issue explicit.

  • Alisa

    He quite openly and quite correctly condemns both sides for the violence.

    My understanding is that the “white nationalist” group had a permit for their protest. The “Antifa” types are said to have arrived for a counter-protest without a permit, and attacked the lawful protesters. If anyone knows otherwise, I’ll be happy to be corrected.

  • Alisa

    This is not ‘extreme right’ or even ‘right’ at all – it’s just a differently-colored left.

  • Johnathan Pearce (London)

    Alisa, semantics. These are different flavours of ultra-collectivism and tribalism. “Blood and soil”, and all that.

    The fact that they had a permit is irrelevant to the moral vileness of what they are saying and trying to do. And it does not hurt for the POTUS to point that out.

  • John K

    What we have here is a culture war.

    The cause of the protest was a move by the left liberal establishment to remove the statue of Robert E. Lee from Lee Park, and to rename the park Emancipation Park.

    It was, in effect, a giant “fuck you” from the left liberal elite to the poor white trash, who responded with a lawful protest, which was, inevitably, attacked by “Antifa” type communists.

    I am sorry that one of the poor white trash took it into his tiny brain to run over some communists, killing one, but President Trump was absolutely correct to condemn the violence from all sides. The faux criticism he is now receiving from the left liberal elite is entirely predictable, and utterly false. He could invent a cure for cancer and they would attack him for something.

    The lesson to the communist agitators should be that if you start a culture war, the casualties will not all be on the other side.

  • Lee Moore

    What this person failed to realise, perhaps, was she had committed a classic stolen concept error: the very attempt to deploy “lived experience” as a sort of “I win!” itself implies that there is some sort of logic against which one can test it. If there is no logic against which one can test and evaluate one “lived experience” against another, all one has left is that the gang of those with “lived experience” A beats those with “lived experience” B. This is known as Might is Right, or the power of the mob.

    It’s quite possible for “lived experience A” to trump “lived experience B” as a matter of principle, without there being any practical mechanism for establishing the As’ right of precedence. Indeed that would be exactly the position in those unenlightened lands where employers might choose to stand by their Damores rather than by their female employees. The fact that A’s moral precedence over B is immune to logical tests and evaluations simply means that is an ex cathedra rule, not a rule derived by deduction from other principles. But whatever kind of rule it is – whether it can be enforced is a different question.

  • Alisa

    Not semantics Jonathan, history – specifically, history of the US Progressive movement.

    Re permits, there is a reason why I left two separate comments: each deals with two separate issues, and are addressed to two different commenters – so there is no reason to conflate them.

  • Lee Moore

    The fact that they had a permit is irrelevant to the moral vileness of what they are saying and trying to do. And it does not hurt for the POTUS to point that out.

    I think it’s good for the POTUS to condemn anyone who is committing unlawful violence, even if they are demonstrating in favour of kindness to puppies. The duty of the President is to condemn violent lawbreaking, wherever it comes from.

    I agree it would be nice if the POTUS condemned morally vile things, even when they’re advocated lawfully. But that would be a big job, and maybe the POTUS needs to preserve his firepower. And since few would rate this particular POTUS as a judicious moral arbiter, maybe it’s not a big thing for him to do.

    Politically, though, I think it would be wise for him for condemn vileness in folk who he is alleged to be supported by (as his son did.) But again, wisdom is not necessarily his thing.

  • John K

    Having just watched a clip of the incident, it seems that, not for the first time, I had got quite the wrong impression from the MSM.

    The car was not driven at speed at the communist demonstrators, it was in fact being driven very slowly as if the driver was trying to navigate his way through the crowd and out of the city. It looks as if a man then hits the car with a baseball bat, at which point the car accelerates. One might therefore assume the driver panicked after his car was attacked, which puts a different light on the incident.

    Of course, it may be that President Trump was wielding the baseball bat, I shall have to keep tuned to the BBC to find out.

  • Johnathan Pearce (London)

    Alisa writes: This is not ‘extreme right’ or even ‘right’ at all – it’s just a differently-colored left.

    Perhaps it would be better to junk the words “left” and “right” completely then, since the seating arrangements in the old French parliament don’t really get to the guts of what people think these days.

  • Cristina

    Of course, it may be that President Trump was wielding the baseball bat, I shall have to keep tuned to the BBC to find out.

    LOL

  • Cristina

    [..] the seating arrangements in the old French parliament don’t really get to the guts of what people think these days.

    They don’t, Jonathan. The right died a long time ago.

  • Alisa

    Perhaps it would be better to junk the words “left” and “right” completely then, since the seating arrangements in the old French parliament don’t really get to the guts of what people think these days.

    Personally, I almost never use the term ‘right’ in political context, and only use the term ‘left’ when speaking of various collectivists, no matter if the color they are flying is red or brown.

    But I have a better suggestion: how about referring to anyone who agrees with me as Right, and to the rest of them as Wrong?

  • But I have a better suggestion: how about referring to anyone who agrees with me as Right, and to the rest of them as Wrong?

    Because calling people “Right” or “Wrong” is both vague and subjective. Whereas “Stupid Idiots” pretty accurately describes both all sides involved.

    Maybe they should have some kind of flag…

  • Włodek P.

    WSJ article is paywalled, anyone have the text?

  • tomsmith

    Johnathan Pearce:

    John Galt, Trump initially erred in my view by not explicitly condemning the extreme right nature of this gathering (this is what they are, let’s not dance about the issue), in clear terms. Heck, his “I condemn violence on all sides” line sounds a bit like Jeremy Corbyn trying to dodge the Venezuela issue

    No, I think you are wrong. Trump did exactly the right thing in this case. There was violence from both sides which he condemned. We are so used to hearing that “far right”, white, western violence is the worst kind of violence that we expect it to be put on a pedestal of ultimate evil and it seems shocking that Trump condemned all of the violence equally.

    People who support white nationalism are perfectly entitled to protest, and it could be argued that they are justifiably aggrieved by what they see as an attempt by the government to erase what they hold dear from history. If Trump had not equally condemned violence from both sides then he would have been implicitly supporting the violence of the “anti fascist” protestors, which is what politicians mostly do, some might feel because those particular violent thugs are supporting what it seems the government wants to do in terms of policy.

    Trump played this well, but it needs backed up strongly in editorials and blog comments, rather than having people balking at the challenge and turning away to virtue signal instead.

  • llamas

    Jeff Goldstein makes largely-similar points (linked by our friends at Instapundit) – that both sides in this clash are driven (in the end) by ‘blood essentialism’. Money quote as follows:

    “You should reject this archaic collectivism from whatever group espouses it, because in the end it is simply anti-individualism dressed in mob attire to bolster cowardice and bigotry in numbers.”

    llater,

    llamas

  • Alisa

    Philosophically and politically, pox on both their houses. However, both should have a right to protest in public, provided they do it lawfully – i.e. without A) excessive disturbance to others and B) outright violence. My point about permits is related directly to point A; as to point B, in my mind the question in such situations is ‘who started it’. Trump should have released a statement saying that he was awaiting police investigation into the matter, before condemning the violence on either side. What he did instead in this case (to his defense, like virtually all his predecessors), is possibly chastising not only the schoolyard bully, but also his victim for defending himself.

    As to condemnations of various ideologies, I’m with others here: it’s not his place – that job is reserved for clergy and parents of young children.

  • Mr Ed

    A President Paul might have said:

    “This is a State matter as it did not amount to an insurrection against the United States.”

  • Johnathan Pearce (London)

    tomsmith writes: There was violence from both sides which he condemned. We are so used to hearing that “far right”, white, western violence is the worst kind of violence that we expect it to be put on a pedestal of ultimate evil and it seems shocking that Trump condemned all of the violence equally.

    Indeed but it is worth to point out what was the original cause; the original cause was a march by people sporting Nazi-style insigna, and all the rest of it. I know the old moan of “he started it first!” can be irritating but sometimes it is important to get the cause/effect issue right. Details like this matter.

  • jamesg

    There’s also a good Youtube video -Stephen Hicks Nieztsche forecasts the postmodern left. That also linked me to a Jordan Peterson clip – how Hitler was even more evil than you think. And then you’ve got Jonah Goldberg’s work Liberal Fascism.

    What’s fascinating is that if you try to argue with a leftwinger that fascism came from the left you are met with a complete wall of unacceptance. Nazism is simply the exact opposite of everything they believe in and they simply will not engage in any of these points.

  • Laird

    I agree with Alisa’s last comment (1:02 PM): a pox on both their houses.

    That said, most of the blame here falls squarely on the BLM/Antifa counter-protesters. They are the ones who actually initiated the violence, although clearly that Alt-right people provoked it. Decades ago, in the Skokie, IL, Nazi case, the Supreme Court solidified the absolute right of people to demonstrate peaceably, however abhorrent you might consider their views. Their opponents also have a right to express their views, but not through violence. 99% of the blame falls there (the other 1% being reserved for the white supremacist provocateurs.

    No one in Charlottesville Saturday was there out of good motives; all were looking for trouble, and they found it. But as is always the case, while the “right” (loosely used) may bluster and posture, the “left” initiates violence. It is just their way.

  • Alisa

    the original cause was a march by people sporting Nazi-style insigna, and all the rest of it.

    Which, as has been pointed out several times, was non-violent.

  • Alisa

    They are the ones who actually initiated the violence, although clearly that Alt-right people provoked it.

    Who, in turn, were provoked by the removal of Lee’s statue and the renaming of the Lee Park. Come on, there is never an end to the provocation blame game. The who-first principle I was referring to was actual physical violence, and my impression is the same as yours, Laird: it was initiated by the Reds rather than the Browns, as has been the case for many years now (although clearly this has not always been the case).

  • Mr Ed

    J P:

    Trump initially erred in my view by not explicitly condemning the extreme right nature of this gathering (this is what they are, let’s not dance about the issue), in clear terms. Heck, his “I condemn violence on all sides” line sounds a bit like Jeremy Corbyn trying to dodge the Venezuela issue. That wasn’t good enough, although his subsequent remarks have made the issue explicit.

    How is a ‘gathering’ something to condemn?

    He could have said

    Wannabe and real Communists and wannabe and real Nazis or Fascists fighting is what this is all about. There is no place in this great constitutional Republic the United States for violence. No one is entitled to usurp the United States Constitution or to hold themselves above the law. This violence is political, and it has been organised, and paid for. Whoever has gone looking for a fight shall face the full consequences of their actions, according to law. If you have participated in this violence, and broken US law, the US government will come after you, likewise, if you have funded any of this violence, we will come after you. If any State officials have been complicit in violence or unlawful acts, we will go after them. Where there is a case to answer, all will face a jury.”

  • JS

    John K
    Do you have a link? Not doubting you at all, it’s just that the videos I’ve seen so far start during the period when people are being knocked down.
    I’m sure most people with cameras only focused on the car when it became of obvious interest, but I suspect that some might be deliberately omitting the initial cause of the car accelerating.
    Thanks.

  • Bupo

    The most succinct comment I’ve seen was to call the original demonstrators Alt – Reich.

  • The who-first principle I was referring to was actual physical violence, and my impression is the same as yours, Laird: it was initiated by the Reds rather than the Browns, as has been the case for many years now (although clearly this has not always been the case).

    Indeed, and much as I don’t want to hold a tiki candle for the brownshirts, it pains me to point out, especially here of all places, that if someone responds to violence in the moment with violence they are exercising their natural right to defend themselves* whatever colour shirt they happen to be wearing.

    * running people over with a car who are not actively attacking you obviously does not fall under this category.

  • Alisa

    running people over with a car who are not actively attacking you obviously does not fall under this category.

    It has been said that they were actively attacking that vehicle, although I haven’t had the chance to watch the video yet.

  • Johnathan Pearce (London)

    How is a ‘gathering’ something to condemn?

    Pretty easy, actually, if it is co-ordinated, and a bunch of people, sharing common vile views, choose to meet up and then walk about, shouting their slogans etc, knowing full well it is meant to offend and intimidate. It may be legal, of course, but I can still slag off those involved.

  • Mr Ed

    J P

    But you did not say ‘shouting slogans’ etc. you said ‘gathering‘, a right protected under the First Amendment. President Trump would be rightly condemned if he had commented on a gathering other than to observe the scope of the First Amendment which he is sworn to uphold.

    Acts of ‘shouting slogans’ etc. and intimidation are matters for State law, not the President, unless it somehow stretches to Federal law (e.g. civil rights violations, which may well be of questionable constitutionality).

    So you criticised Mr Trump for not acting in a manner inconsistent with the First Amendment.

  • Alisa

    I agree Jonathan, when regular folks are concerned. However, if the President says that, it takes on a wholly different meaning, and can be easily construed as a statement against freedom of expression. So I stand by my position that Trump should have expressed no opinion whatsoever.

    I know that Trump is tainted by his supposed association with the “alt-right” (whatever that is), but I doubt that at this point he can dispel that notion – if he ever even could, seeing as it has been tirelessly promulgated by the left – no matter what he says on whatever occasion. So I think he might just as well get on with his business of doing the work he was elected to be doing. To me, as flawed as he is, the man is clearly not a racist nor an antisemite, and that’s all there is to it.

  • Alisa

    Ed beat me to it.

  • Johnathan Pearce (London)

    Mr Ed, oh come on. If thousands of people with Nazi-looking insignia gather/march/amble around a bunch of public and private buildings, with their banners and slogans, of course under the First Amendment they say what they like, just as I am able to condemn them for their vile views aired at such a gathering. As I am doing and will continue to do.

    I criticised Mr Trump because in the first instance, he gave a Corbynite “I condemn violence in all its forms” type comment which avoided having to name the persons concerned or talk about their motives. Not good enough. Had Trump really cared about the First Amendment (not sure he does, given his desire to widen the net of US libel laws), he would have said that however disgusting are the views of the likes of Richard Spencer and the Alt-Right, they have a right to assemble and speak so long as that’s all they do. But he didn’t, did he? (By the way, in his inaugural address, Trump made NO REFERENCE to individual rights under the US constitutional system. None.)

  • All these people proudly claiming they are Left, and Better Than Me, definitely are pushing me away. I’ve hardly gone to extremes, but there are a number of otherwise-friendly groups I’ve had to leave once they find I vote Republican in some elections. I’m old. I’m tired. I haven’t got time for this stuff.

    But the soi-disant Left has been pushing for a long time. Lee’s statue was the proximate cause of this particular riot, but it merely was the final straw for quite a few people. They protested. The anti-protesters came to shout at them, knowing they’d eventually start beating them up. (Protests of the Left these days always end in violence, or at least the ones the papers publicize do.)

    I was nowhere near that demonstration. If I’d known it was going to happen, I’d have headed in the opposite direction. And despite the riots, that’s what most people would do. These idiots are on the FRINGE. Avoid them all. There aren’t that many of them.

  • Mr Ed

    J P,

    I am contrasting what you as a private individual may do and what is proper for the President of the United States. I fear that you are getting sucked along in the smearing of Mr Trump that we see on the BBC “

    Hours after the violence erupted, Mr Trump said he condemned “in the strongest possible terms this egregious display of hatred, bigotry, and violence on many sides”.
    “The hate and the division must stop right now,” he told reporters in New Jersey, where he is on a working holiday. “We have to come together as Americans with love for our nation.”
    But his comments did not explicitly condemn the white extremist groups involved in the rally, an omission that was strongly criticised by Republicans and Democrats alike.

    All just smear by insinuation. Whereas Mr Corbyn is a supporter of the Venezuelan socialists, Mr Trump is not a supporter of the original demonstrators, so the analogy falls down on its face.

  • Alisa

    By the way, in his inaugural address, Trump made NO REFERENCE to individual rights under the US constitutional system. None.

    That actually means that he chose not to lie – unlike most of his predecessors I can think of, none of whom gave a damn about individual rights.

  • Johnathan Pearce (London)

    This is becoming even worse.

    That actually means that he chose not to lie . Oh how jolly encouraging. Trump doesn’t care a whit about individual rights, the Consititution, so he decides not to mention these things. So that is refreshingly honest of him! We can forget his being concerned about protecting the First Amendment, then.

    Mr Ed, no, the analogy does not fail The likes of David Duke have, several times, lauded Trump; quite a few of those at the rally have applauded him. So he can and should have made it emphatic from the start that he condemned what was going on. And he could have done that AND condemned others involved; heck, he could have written as I have about how a lot of this stuff has been building for years. He could (bearing in mind his son-in-law) have come down like a ton of bricks from the start on the anti-semitism of some of these louts.

  • Alisa

    So that is refreshingly honest of him!

    Indeed it is. Show me a PotUS you remember who did care about individual rights, and I’ll reconsider.

    Mind you, Trump is nothing like a Good Guy – if I had a daughter…perish the thought. But as Bad Guys go, he is by far not the worst. But hey, some Nazis voted for him – so he must do nothing else but try to atone for that sin.

  • Mr Ed

    The likes of David Duke have, several times, lauded Trump; quite a few of those at the rally have applauded him. So he can and should have made it emphatic from the start that he condemned what was going on.

    So if someone praises Mr Trump, that makes Mr Trump a supporter of the person who praises him? If that is not your case, how so?

    Does that make Hitler a Keynesian as Keynes had some good words to say about the Third Reich in his 1936 General Theory?

    This is a cart.

    This is a horse.

    Which way around?

    I’m sorry, but isn’t this just following the Leftist media’s general narrative that somehow Mr Trump is tainted not by association, but by the fact that he is not a Leftist, so we’ll call him names and then call him out for not condemning his ‘supporters’ who he doesn’t actually support, and hope that the mud sticks?

  • RRS

    Charlottesville is a special place for me.

    I have interred my Wife’s ashes, and those of her noble Russian parents on the slopes of Monticello, where mine should soon go.

    I first experienced Tha University, as it was know in my youth in 1939,’40 & ’41; matriculated briefly in 1942 into spring ’43, before going on active duty until 1946; to return in 1948.

    During the period of ’48-’53 I had occasion to remind the then “Administration” which suspended the student paper (for its errors):

    “This institution will be based on the illimitable freedom of the human mind. For here we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor to tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it.”

    —Thomas Jefferson, 1820, in a letter to William Roscoe

    In 1955 I was practicing Tax and Corporate Law in Charlottesville in the lead firm in “Massive Resistance” to Brown II (347 U.S. 294).

    The “Resistance” was to judicial control of the school systems (pl.); though it has been otherwise characterized.

    The disruptions of the means of changes in the social norms were not “left/right” matters. And the objections had broad white electoral support. There was no violence.

    All that has changed in 62 years.
    Provocations of errors now elict violence, not reason, to combat them.

    Where has “Reason” gone? Why do provocations “work”?

  • Mr Ed, no, the analogy does not fail The likes of David Duke have, several times, lauded Trump; quite a few of those at the rally have applauded him.

    My gut instinct is to enjoy President Trump, not for what he’s done (since he’s done very little), but for the screaming and frothing from the mouth that it brings out in the Left, who are my enemies.

    I can enjoy President Trump without liking the incorrigible old bastard. He’s a 71 year old billionaire with a fixation for attractive Eastern European women. There’s not a lot I have in common with him, certainly not politically as he is a populist who enjoys playing to the crowd and that doesn’t make him very ideologically sound about anything.

    He’s fun to watch from a distance though. Although it must be admitted that several thousand miles is pretty much the minimum safe distance.

    Trump is still about a thousand times better than Hillary.

  • Johnathan Pearce (London)

    Mr Ed, has it occurred to you why all these lowlifes back Trump? Of course a POTUS candidate cannot choose who wants to praise him (I remember the same argument around the time the likes of Stormfront gave money to Ron Paul). A politician can, however, make it crystal clear he/she wants nothing to do with such people, and disagrees with what they say.

    “Still a thousand times better than Hillary.”

    That’s not setting the bar very high.

    Alisa: I can think of a few, even if they were inconsistent: Jefferson, Adams, Coolidge, Reagan, etc. All imperfect, but they cared or acted rightly in the case of some. The only sigh that Trump takes rights at all seriously is that he put a decent chap on the Supreme Court.

  • Alisa

    I have interred my Wife’s ashes, and those of her noble Russian parents on the slopes of Monticello, where mine should soon go.

    I hope you stick around for a long while, RRS.

  • RRS

    It is difficult to determine from the pictures available, but it does seem that the driver whose actions caused a crash resulting in a fatality, did not directly strike people with his vehicle, but instead struck other vehicles, driving those vehicles into contact with pedestrians.

    There may be some question as to whether the “crash” was the sole cause of the acceleration of the vehicle which struck the people.

    Take several close looks.

  • Mr Ed

    JG,

    Mr Trump has surprised me, generally positively. By not being ideological, he does not on principle do what is vile, so he can do some good. And if he is like garlic to vampires, that doesn’t mean I like garlic bread, but better to have it at the dinner table than a vampire, which was the alternative.

    I simply feel the need to point out that those who attack him in the media over the demonstration and violence of the Communists are being dishonest, deliberately so.

    J P

    As for “A politician can, however, make it crystal clear he/she wants nothing to do with such people, and disagrees with what they say.” That is the trap, “Trump ‘disowns’ the Far Right, ergo he is of the Far Right” is the plan. He sees that, not all do. Get the smear out, and let the truth die.

  • That’s not setting the bar very high.

    Let’s not forget that she nearly won and that a lot of us supported Trump from afar for his greatest attribute of “Not being Hillary“.

    Mr Trump has surprised me, generally positively. By not being ideological, he does not on principle do what is vile, so he can do some good.

    While I like the idea of President Trump doing good things, I will settle for him not doing evil things. If he ends his Presidency without dropping the bomb or initiating a war (since the Norks seem keen on starting one on their own), I will be happy enough. I’m quite easygoing that way.

    Although turning Pyongyang into a radioactive crater is deliciously tempting, some temptations have to be avoided for the sake of the innocent.

  • Maximo Macaroni

    The alt-right just wants to be left alone, to form their own nations. The left, in all its forms, wants only to tell everyone what they should do.

  • Alisa

    All imperfect, but they cared or acted rightly in the case of some. The only sigh that Trump takes rights at all seriously is that he put a decent chap on the Supreme Court.

    You are seriously comparing long-gone Presidents some of whom served 2 terms, and for which the term ‘imperfect’ does not begin to describe any of them, with a guy who only assumed office not even 8 months ago?

    Speaking of imperfections, if Jefferson failed to set his slaves free, we must understand that ‘those were different times’, and the same with Reagan when he declared the War on Drugs, and so on, and so forth. But they all could speak well, so it must mean they cared.

  • Alisa

    I actually regret not voting for the guy.

  • Johnathan Pearce (London)

    The alt-right just wants to be left alone, to form their own nations.

    FFS. So do those who happen to live in the areas where these thugs live have a choice to move? Do they get at least 24 hours to pack?

    Mr Ed, no, I don’t think disowning people is a trap, although no doubt people will try the damned if you do, damned if you don’t gambit. But again, and I know you don’t like the parallel, but consider how mealy-mouthed Corbyn and his cronies are on all kinds of dodgy people he has broken bread with. I reckon that has harmed him with some sections of the electorate (I hope so!)

    We have veered off topic anyway. My post was about the fact that the Alt-Right and the Far Left drink from the same postmodernist sauce, and that they aren’t as different as they think. Which is all the more reason why those of us in the libertarian/conservative side of the spectrum need to make this point loud and clear. Because we are in danger of getting smeared ourselves. And that does happen.

  • Lee Moore

    Take several close looks.

    Indeed. The latest video which seems to show a very slowly moving car being hit on the driver’s side, by a person wielding a baseball bat, and then sharply accelerating into the car in front, isn’t particularly clear. Other videos seem to show it’s the car in front that hits the antifas. But the latest video seems to provide a rather different picture from the established narrative. However, as I understand it the guy has been charged with murder, so the police who have presumably seen all the footage, obviously don’t think it’s exonerating.

  • The alt-right just wants to be left alone, to form their own nations.

    What was it that ex-KKK Leader David Duke said? Something along the lines of “I’m not anti-black, just pro-white!“.

    While that might sound acceptable on the face of it, it’s because it only sounds acceptable.

    The reality is that while most on the Right simply oppose the left, there are a small collection of thugs and idiots that genuinely ARE enamored of Corporal Schicklgruber and his band of criminals. Who actually do have racist and anti-semitic attitudes and would like to create those “white societies” by purging them of not only black people, but everyone else they don’t like and it’s a long damn list (from Anarchists to Zionists)

    The best way to expose these bigots is to let them march, waving their silly flags and spouting their ridiculous bile, then people will have no illusions about who they are or what they believe.

  • Cristina

    Apparently, the leader of Unite the Right, that Jason Kessler person, was an Occupy participant and Obama supporter until Nov 2016. A low-life through and through.

    Jason Kessler

  • Sam Duncan

    “Personally, I almost never use the term ‘right’ in political context, and only use the term ‘left’ when speaking of various collectivists, no matter if the color they are flying is red or brown.”

    My rule has always been “right” (“right-wing”, “far-right”…) in quotes – because it’s so loosely defined as to be meaningless other than as a catch-all term for anyone who isn’t of the Left – and Left capitalized, denoting a particular collectivist worldview that labels itself with that word.

    It’s almost exactly analagous to Christian and “heathen”. You could argue that the latter is a perfectly acceptable word, but I don’t think anyone would look particularly askance at a non-Christian putting it in quotes. Especially if it were being widely used by one particular group against Christian heretics, in the way “far-right” is to describe national socialists.

    “I’m sorry, but isn’t this just following the Leftist media’s general narrative that somehow Mr Trump is tainted not by association, but by the fact that he is not a Leftist, so we’ll call him names and then call him out for not condemning his ‘supporters’ who he doesn’t actually support, and hope that the mud sticks?”

    Exactly. It’s what I’m talking about above. They’re “far-right”, he’s “far-right”, ergo they’re the same. (As, by the way, if you follow the “logic”, are we.)

    The media, the Left, the “deep state”, the “establishment”, call them what you will, are desperate to pin something, anything, on him because he threatens their cozy little gravy train. They thought they had him with the “misogynist” remarks they had on tape. Didn’t work. They thought they had him with the “Russia scandal”. Still nothing. Now…

    Well, the people happiest right now aren’t the Nazi sadcases, pleased at taking out one of their enemies. No, the people grinning with glee behind closed doors are the Left, because they’ve finally, after almost two years, got a dead body they think they can pin on Trump.

    It’s sickening.

    “There may be some question as to whether the “crash” was the sole cause of the acceleration of the vehicle which struck the people.”

    There’s some suggestion, and I won’t put it any more strongly than that since there’s so much claim and counter-claim flying around, that it wasn’t a deliberate act, but a result of panic. (This is not inconsistent with a charge of murder, but it may come up in mitigation.) Many of the “alt-right” crowd were trying to escape the Antifa mob, and the police were doing precious little to protect either side.

    “Apparently, the leader of Unite the Right, that Jason Kessler person, was an Occupy participant and Obama supporter until Nov 2016. A low-life through and through.”

    Sounds it. Also suspicious, if you’re inclined towards conspiracy theories.

  • Alisa

    Sam said it all.

  • ragingnick

    the moral equivalence in the original article is bulls**t, as far as I can see the alt-righters gathered for a peaceful and disciplined protest against the lefts attempt to destroy a symbol of their heritage.
    they were attacked by violent anifa/communists and someone was killed in the resultant mayhem. But make no mistake the violence was in this and every other similar case instigated by the left.

  • Fraser Orr

    @Lee Moore
    > so the police who have presumably seen all the footage, obviously don’t think it’s exonerating.

    I have not looked at the video carefully enough to form a useful opinion. However, I am not at all sure that “evidence” will be all that important in this particular case.

  • Fraser Orr

    @ragingnick
    > the alt-righters gathered for a peaceful and disciplined protest against the lefts attempt to destroy a symbol of their heritage.

    FWIW, I think it is a huge mistake to call these people “alt right”. Not that anyone really knows what “alt right” means, but I don’t imagine Milo would have been all that comfortable in that group. Why can’t we just call them Nazi thugs?

    To call them “right” is plain laughable.

    Oh, and for what it is worth, the right way to deal with these people is to let them march and them mock them mercilessly. I mean these people are absolutely ridiculous. Let them talk, it is the best way to allow them to make a mockery of themselves.

  • bobby b

    In many respects, y’all are missing what’s really a new paradigm in racial politics.

    When the taboo against racial advocacy is only enforced against one race – white – it should be expected that whites would decide to ignore it, too.

    There were a dismaying number of purely racist actors in the VA crowd. Supremacists are ugly, and so of course get top press billing in any such gathering.

    But the crowd in VA contained more people who were not there for racist motivations – but for racial ones. Many, if not most, of the people, were there in a reaction to watching government favor everyone but whites over the past decade, and most strongly in recent years.

    When you watch your own prospects dim, and you can see your own government pushing you down as it serves every other race (except maybe Asians), you build heavy resentment, and the threatened removal of a statue honoring someone you still deem worthy of honor as a service to those other races can be enough of a spark to awaken a lot of smoldering anger.

    If we fail to understand this movement – if we continue to speak only of the overt racism of the Stormfront types while ignoring a major new political movement that elected Trump and helped to power Brexit – we miss the point.

  • Johnathan Pearce

    Ragingnick: I love the way you try to blur the moral responsibility for a person being run over as if it was a tragic accident.

    They were protecting a symbol? You mean Robert E Lee, one of the more honourable generals in the civil war but, and it is a big but, fought in a bad side. I personally can live with a confederate general statue and agree there are more important issues, but let’s also be clear: judging by the rhetoric of some of these morons, they’d be glad to see the whole panapoly of Jim
    Crow restored tomorrow. (Actually I think Lee would have been appalled at these people).

  • Laird

    @ JP: “My post was about the fact that the Alt-Right and the Far Left drink from the same postmodernist sauce, and that they aren’t as different as they think.” Well, even though I don’t see anything in your OP which actually says that, at least it’s a comment with which I agree. Otherwise, I disagree with most of what you have posted here.

    In a better world, I would agree with Alisa that Trump should have kept out of this entirely and remained above the fray, but realistically that would have been impossible in the current political environment. We don’t view our president as the CEO of the country, but as Big Daddy to us all; he’s expected to have an opinion on everything. And given that, I think he was absolutely right to condemn all sides in this matter, and not to single out just one for criticism. Neo-Nazis and white supremacists are reprehensible morons; BLM are outright racist thugs; and Antifa (despite the irony in their name) are disgusting neo-fascists spoiling for a fight and then pretending to be victims when they get one. There are no “good guys” here. None. All are deserving of criticism, and if any is more deserving it is those on the left who initiated the violence. But since Trump would have come under even worse attack had he dared to name BLM or criticize anything they did, his only option was a generic “we deplore all violence” type of comment. (And as to attributing to Trump support of white supremacist groups merely because David Duke supported him, that is simply ludicrous. Obama invited BLM leaders to the White House literally dozens of times, and openly celebrated them. Where was the claim that he agreed with their violent tactics? He was far more deserving of a charge of racism than is Trump, but it never came.)

    And Sam, if the truth is, as has been suggested by some, that the cause of the car crash which killed that woman was the driver’s panic after being attacked by a mob wielding baseball bats, that most certainly is “inconsistent with a charge of murder.” Murder requires mens rea, and if those are truly the facts there is none here. Manslaughter at worst (plus leaving the scene and possibly some other lesser included offenses). That the police must surely have seen the videos doesn’t matter; more than anything this is a political crime, and there is no possible way they could have failed to bring charges other than having clear proof that they simply had the wrong man.

  • Laird

    bobby b, good point.

    JP, we don’t have all the facts yet; it might truly have been a “tragic accident”. Or, more specifically, a tragic accident the proximate cause of which was the actions of people on her own side. Some day we might actually find out.

  • Fraser Orr

    OH, btw something else that bothers me about this is the description “terrorist”. This is part of an ongoing plan to de-muslimize terrorism by attaching it more and more to things that, while being vile, are not in anyway terrorist.

    “Terrorism” is performing an act to produce terror or fear in your enemies. However, it seems to have morphed into meaning “very bad” or “bad and unPC at the same time.” This dreadful violence was motivated by anger and hatred and was reactionary, not to provoke terror. Burning crosses and lynching uppity blacks certainly is terrorism, but this is not that at all.

    While of course, I agree the whole thing is the vilest of behaviors.

  • Sam Duncan

    Laird, what I meant is that I don’t think it’s inconsistent with the guy being charged with murder by the police, given the environment and atmosphere. They’re almost certainly wrong to do so if these are the facts, but that’s far from impossible.

  • Bilwick

    I would have loved it if Trump had quoted Ayn Rand: “Racism is the most primitive form of collectivism.” Not only would it have made the “liberals” howl, but it would have brought forth the inevitable knee-jerk reaction from the Stupid Left (where the Dumbest Generation meets Saul Alinsky): “Ayn Rand liked serial killers.” (This from the kind of people who wear Che t-shirts or sport Mao posters in their dorms.)

  • Paul Marks

    I have written two posts – one short and specifically on this matter, the other long and on the philosophical background, so I will not write a long post on this (as my two posts will appear in due time).

    However, yes this post is correct.

    The Nazis (for that is what they are) marching at night through the University of Virginia with lighted torches and chanting “Blood and Soil” (the only way they could have made it more obvious would be for them to sing the Horst Wessel Lied) and the Marxist (Frankfurt School) “anti Fascists” do indeed have a lot in common.

    They both want government racial politics – they just disagree about which race is to be favoured.

    The philosophy of the Bill of Rights (of limited government) is alien to BOTH of these sides – so the correct response is “a plague on both your houses”.

    The people who gave Donald Trump the Republican nomination last year against Ted Cruz are (mostly) not as bad as these Nazis – but they are not good either.

    They are NOT Republicans – they openly said “we are what the Democrats used to be” and they are.

    Democrats like Governor Bilbo of Mississippi a century ago – not quite Nazis, but not good either. Very far from good.

    The sort of Democrats who hated “the rich” (apart from certain rich people – who railed against other rich people) and “Big Business” (the “Jewish capitalists” – even though the capitalists mostly were NOT Jewish) and made up thebackbone of the KKK – an organisation of millions of people back in the day (and NOT just in the South – the KKK were in the North to).

    That is the choice that modern politics is heading for – the modern version of the KKK versus Frankfurt School “Diversity” Marxists.

    Horror and decline of civilisation – either way.

    If you doubt me – ask either one of the Nazis or one of the “Anti Fascists” what they think of the Koch Brothers of Republican Kansas.

  • Cristina

    Sam, it is the Southern Poverty Law Center website who mentions those details about this opportunistic attention-seeker.

  • bobby b

    Paul Marks
    August 14, 2017 at 7:43 pm

    “They both want government racial politics – they just disagree about which race is to be favoured.”

    Paul, isn’t it possible that many on the alt-R simply want an end to racial favoritism? I know some of these people – through my rural sojourns – and there are no more true racists in that crowd than you’ll find on any university campus or NYC party-block. But they watch as their federal government turns overtly racist itself, and they are about out of patience.

    When every other race is allowed – nay, encouraged – to fight for race-based preference, is it outrageous for some whites to say “enough”, or even join the fight on their own behalf?

  • 1) The statue of Lee is better left in place. He was an interesting individual, and in some ways personally admirable (though I’m glad the cause for which he fought lost). Historical monuments should not be erased save under stronger reasons than Lee’s history gives. It’s just a park.

    There might be locations from which such a statue could be moved to a park. For example, I’d be happy enough to see Cromwell moved from his present prestigious location outside parliament to some park 🙂 (preferably replaced with a statue of Burke outside parliament). I have more personal liking for Lee than for Cromwell, but a more complex attitude to the cause for which the latter fought, though I am glad it too was in the end defeated at the restoration.

    2) Trump would be perfectly legitimate to condemn violence, and to condemn more the first initiators of violence if known (it would seem both sides came prepared for violence). Condemning doctrines non-violently-presented is separate – and it is OK to do only the former at a given time. The decision to get rid of the statue was, of course, provoking and meant to provoke. The decision of certain groups to stage a protest against it in the way they did was, of course, provoking and meant to provoke. But since when did antifa need to be provoked?

    3) The car incident seems unclear so far. Glenn Reynolds, last year, stressed the legitimacy of using the car as a weapon in a self-defence situation when fleeing attacking rioters. By contrast, intentionally using a car to raise the situation from non-lethal violence started by one group to lethal violence started by the other group would have a different moral meaning. Laird (August 14, 2017 at 7:06 pm) rightly points out that the arrest may not diagnostic;. The case of Zimmerman in 2012 is all the evidence needed (but there’s plenty more) that when the relevant authorities are SJWs, an arrest may be propaganda.

    Just my 0.02p FWIW.

  • Sam Duncan

    “Sam, it is the Southern Poverty Law Center website who mentions those details about this opportunistic attention-seeker.”

    Yes, I noticed that after I commented. Not sure what to make of it now. He still sounds like a nasty piece of work.

  • bobby b

    This might be of interest – it’s an account developed from participants, found here:

    “The sources as a whole indicate this:

    1. The rally was pre-organized and a permit applied for and granted. The plan was for those protesting against the taking down of the Confederate statue of Robert E. Lee to drive in and park, assembling at an agreed point and marching to the statue just before 12 noon.

    2. As the rally was now well known, someone contacted the funder of Antifa and busloads, amounting to hundreds of Antifa were bussed in and were in place at the statue well before the time. Police were also deployed, some in helicopters.

    3. Antifa were organized and arragned in two masses or phalanxes, such that any Unite the Right would have to go up the centre and run the baseball bat gauntlet. They had not applied for any permit, they’re just allowed to be where they want. Baseball bats are not confiscated.

    4. McAuliffe, the Obama governor, directed police not to intervene between the two groups but police forced the Unite the Right to run a gauntlet between two walls of Antifa armed with metal baseball bats and urine bombs.

    5. The result was selectively filmed.

    6. At 12 noon, McAuliffe ordered Unite the Right to leave the area as they were illegally there. No similar order was issued to Antifa. They had no choice but to leave, again running that gauntlet, with the police providing no separation.

    7. The result continued to be selectively filmed.

    8. In adjoining streets, Antifa, still being bussed in and all over the place, attacked one man’s car with baseball bats. He took off in his car, knocking down an Antifa woman and killing her.

    9. The composition of the Unite the Right was mainly alt-right [millennials] but Duke neo-nazis had also joined in – they were the ones with the nazi flags.

    10. The MSM then went away and composed their slanted reports as we’ve all seen, with their pundits poised to shhet anything to Trump.

    I note that the blogger here is a wackjob of sorts, but this account corresponds to what I’ve heard from people I know who were involved.

  • Cristina

    I agree with you, Sam.
    Bobby b is completely right about the racial/political tensions in America.

  • Alisa

    I’m with Bobby and others here on the “far-right” nonsense: of course there are racists, antisemites and Nazis in the US (and elsewhere), but they are so few and far in between, that anyone who imagines they constitute a serious wide-spread threat really has no idea what he’s talking about (and that includes Paul, unfortunately). That said, there are a lot of Americans who view foreigners (or anyone with dark complexion and an accent for that matter, such as yours truly) with suspicion. In most cases, this has nothing to do with race or racism, but it has everything to do with politics and economics (thank you, Obama; and to some extent, thank you Bush II).

    As to violence and provocations we have been witnessing for the past 8 years or so, all of it has been initiated by the left of the red variety. Again, anyone who does not know this, has not been paying attention. The Nazis don’t control universities, they don’t control entire departments in Federal and State governments, as well as entire cities, and they don’t control the teachers’ unions. So please, enough with the alt-right hysteria, at least until the next Weimar-style economic collapse.

  • Andy

    This will make the alt-right much stronger.

    Now people are googling it.

    They can see who fights.

  • Fraser Orr

    The description that bobby b referenced seems really a rather one side pov. I read this one though, and to me it very much sounds like a fair representation of the facts as they actually happened.

    https://www.buzzfeed.com/blakemontgomery/heres-what-really-happened-in-charlottesville?utm_term=.rw68oxpJ6K#.muWoBMGAWJ

    Reading this, President Trump’s initial response sounds like the only adult voice in the whole matter.

  • bobby b

    Fraser, are you honestly looking to Buzzfeed for a more accurate depiction of what happened?

    “The right-wing protesters were relatively homogenous — in ideology and appearance — and largely ready for violence. They ranged from old-line racists like the Ku Klux Klan to the ones who wear polo shirts instead of hoods who try to brand themselves “alt-right.” There was no ambiguity about their cause — they demand the nation become whiter . . .”

    Sorry, but I call bullshit. I know some of the people who were there, and none of them have ever demanded “the nation become whiter . . .” Yes, the white supremacists get the most attention, but they were NOT the bulk of the crowd.

  • I went to bobby b’s reference, and indeed it said the things bobby b had quoted. It then went on to discuss what Donald knew, and when he knew it, and continued,

    The neo-con agenda is pretty clear – the FEMA camps are in place, it only needs a certain amount more of the violence for the call to come from middle-America for him to do something … meaning martial law.

    That one sentence completely ruins the article for me. James Higham (the writer) is every bit as credible as the New York Times. When bobby b warned us the guy was a wackjob, he was right.

  • bobby b

    “When bobby b warned us the guy was a wackjob, he was right.”

    Yep. But my point was, this account matches what I’ve heard over the telephone from several who were down there who have given me cause to trust them in the past.

  • ragingnick

    Sorry, but I call bullshit. I know some of the people who were there, and none of them have ever demanded “the nation become whiter . . .” Yes, the white supremacists get the most attention, but they were NOT the bulk of the crowd.

    Most of the unite the right crowd were probably decent people who have simply had enough of being spat and looked down upon by the leftist political and cultural elites. Of course their may have been a few more objectionable individuals among them, and they will be the ones the bolshevik media present as representative of the whole.

  • Martin

    The left being the left, they won’t stop with Confederate statues. They can’t help themselves. Soon enough it will be statues of Washington, Jefferson, Jackson, Teddy Roosevelt, and so on as well.

    Then things will get very interesting!

    ‘Have we started the fire?’

    ‘Yes the fire rises.’

  • Eric

    so the police who have presumably seen all the footage, obviously don’t think it’s exonerating.

    Oh yes. The Police. The police who at best did nothing and at worst broke up the original protest and steered the protesters into the (illegal) counterprotesters.

    I can’t remember his exact words, but the state AG said while the car attack didn’t fall under hate crimes statutes he would make sure they threw the book at the driver.

    It all seems so evenhanded.

  • Lee Moore

    I agree with bobby b that, as an even handed account of the facts, Fraser’s link is BS. I’ll just pick out three obvious points from the heaping pile of manure :

    The day got bloodier and more dangerous until 1:45 p.m., when a young man identified by police as James Alex Fields, 20, drove his Dodge Challenger into a crowd of anti-racist counterdemonstrators, and peeled away in reverse.

    No he didn’t – as all the videos show clearly. He drove his car into the back of a white car, which then hit a red car which was propelled into the crowd at the intersection. There’s no video evidence as yet that his own car hit anyone. If he drove his car into another car intending to propel it into the intersection so that it would hit pedestrians, then that’s equally morally, and probably legally, culpable. But whether that’s what he intended or not, it shows that the Buzzfeed account is factually wrong. On an obvious, easily provable point.

    He allegedly injured 19 people and killed one, Heather Heyer, in the act of terrorism.

    Note that “alleged” qualifies the number of people injured and killed, not the “act of terrorism.” In fact, as terrorists attacks go, this would be a method of fantastic inefficency – a snooker approach to murder by car. No other murder by car terrorist attacks have used the snooker approach. They’ve all used the much more direct aim-your-car-at-humans approach. Note that from the videos there are plenty of actual humans he could have aimed at, in the street he was accelerating up before he hit the white car. In fact if he’d been trying he could have hit lots of people while he was reversing away at speed. Now this guy could be a prize doofus, but the stupidity of car snooker as a method of terrorist attack seems to me to make it rather unlikely that terrorism was the motive.But again, whether it was or not, simply to state that it was an act of terrorism at this early stage is hardly sticking to the facts.

    The day after the rally, Kessler attempted to hold a press conference but was run off by protesters.

    A child of five could see (a) what this really means and (b) why it is worded this way. Some folk that the writer does not wish to criticise attempted violently (and successfully) to shut down the guy’s press conference. And the writer doesn’t wish to say in terms that in this case the violence came 100% from the side he doesn’t want to criticise.

    So, yes, a plague on both their houses. But not a plague on the facts, please.

  • Tomsmith

    Jonathan Pearce:

    Indeed but it is worth to point out what was the original cause; the original cause was a march by people sporting Nazi-style insigna, and all the rest of it. I know the old moan of “he started it first!” can be irritating but sometimes it is important to get the cause/effect issue right. Details like this matter.

    I don’t see how peacefully protesting anything can be a cause of violence? Violence is usually a cause of more violence however. I have no idea which side kicked off the violence..so you?

    It does seem as if the police didn’t do a very good job of keeping two sides apart however. Why were the anti fascist fascists even there for example?

  • Tomsmith

    Johnathan Pearce:

    Indeed but it is worth to point out what was the original cause; the original cause was a march by people sporting Nazi-style insigna, and all the rest of it. I know the old moan of “he started it first!” can be irritating but sometimes it is important to get the cause/effect issue right. Details like this matter.

    I don’t consider a peaceful march to be a potential cause of violence. I do think that violence begets more violence, but then I also don’t know who threw the first blow..do you?

    What I do know is that the police did a poor job of keeping the two sides apart (why were the anti fascist fascists even there?), and that there appears to be an unwritten rule in the media that violence by minority groups and the left is acceptable (politically correct violence if you will) while that from white people and the ‘far right’ is the evil of all evils. Just something i noticed.

    Trump was correct with his initial statement. He should have followed up by naming both groups rather than just the far right, but I guess his advisors flinched and he is now being booted around by the media, dancing to their tune. It is best never to do what you are supposed to do in cases of political correctness- it is a battle the left will always win because they define the terms.

  • Paul Marks

    bobby b.

    People who march at night with lighted touches chanting “Blood and Soil” – are Nazis, and one must call them Nazis. They do not want a colour blind society with no racial preferences.

    One can not “unite” with these scum – no apology for the harsh language.

    President Trump himself is NOT one of them – but he accepted their support last year, that is how he beat Ted Cruz last year in the Primaries.

    Personally Governor Lester Maddox of Georgia and Governor Wallace of Alabama (both BIG SPENDING Democrats) were NOT KKK – but they both accepted the support of the KKK (and other such) and they would not have won their elections in the 1960s without that support, that was the “rap” against Maddox and Wallace.

    True President Trump has now denounced racialism in the strongest possible terms (indeed he has denounced it before) – but last year is not such a long time ago, and some people from last year (such as Steve Bannon with his Populist “millionaires tax” as if the problem with American taxation is that it is not “Progressive” enough) are still in the Administration.

    And if the message of the Administration is NOT White Nationalism what is the message of the Administration? That (almost seven months into the Trump Presidency) has still to be worked out.

    President Trump still talks in generalities, he was a “terrific” healthcare system, and a “great” tax system.

    Where are his detailed Bills to presented to Congress? He should have had them ready on January 20th – and he is still waiting for Congress to do these things itself (it will not – Congress does nothing without detailed policy proposals from the President, it never has done).

    Almost as if Donald Trump is a New York property developer and television star – who had no idea that he was going to be elected President and had (and still has) no clear and DETAILED plans for what to do.

  • Mr Ed

    My take from all this. The United States is a country where Communist mobs can organise and terrorise at will, with the tacit approval of the police.

  • Paul Marks

    RRS – as you know there is a vast difference between a “Bourbon” Democrat and a Populist one.

    There is a vast difference between a Southern Gentleman (such as General Lee) who may (or may NOT) believe in slavery or segregation in a theoretical way – but would never whip a slave or have a slave whipped. And a Populist KKK type who wants to nail the sexual organs of a “n…..” to the floor of a barn, then set fire to the barn leaving the “n…..” an axe.

    The later sort of racialist existed in the 1950s – but they were not the sort of person who would have dared speak to a lawyer such as yourself. Virginia was still a class society – and the lower class whites generally respected (and obeyed) their betters.

    What has happened is that the Southern Gentleman (and the northern Gentlemen to) have lost control – the “white trash” no longer follow the lead of white Gentleman, and there are a lot more “trash” (as a proportion of the white population) than there used to be – with the breakdown of traditional society.

    If Governor Bilbo of Mississippi or “Pitchfork” Tillman of South Carolina (of a century ago) had appeared before that crowd – they would have been cheered to the skies.

    “But not in Virginia Paul – NEVER in Virginia”.

    I agree with you RRS – Virginia was always the State of Cavaliers (of Gentleman) if the mob (the “White Trash”) had behaved in such a way in front of General Lee – he would have had the ring leaders hanged.

    But the left is getting rid of the statures of General Lee and so on – which is ironic as it was such people who kept the mob (the “White Trash”) under civilised control.

    Just as it is the LEFT who have undermined such cultural institutions as the family and churches – which also kept such people (generally – most of the time) within civilised limits.

    Ironically fears of “biological replacement” and “white genocide” are fuelled by the collapse of the white birthrate – which is (in turn) caused by the collapse of traditional society.

    People with nothing to really be proud of – not family men and church goers, proud of their productive jobs actually making things, end up being proud of their skin colour “white pride”.

    Because they have nothing else to be proud of and know, deep down they know, that they are “trash”.

  • Paul Marks

    Well they are local police forces Mr Ed.

    And the “Alt Right” were coming in from out of town – they were not part of the local community.

    And did you miss the touch light night march chanting “Blood and Soil”?

    Were they students? No they were not.

    What were they doing marching through the University of Virginia?

    And the University of Virginia is not a Communist university.

    Yes the Communists organised the riots.

    But the Nazis (and they are Nazis) played right into their hands.

    Almost as if the Nazi (“Alt Right”) leadership are really working for the Communist cause.

    After all the conservative movement in the United States has taken incredibly bad damage over the last year – and it is not the Communists who are causing the damage. It is the Alt Right who have caused the damage – they have made American Conservatism seem evil, utterly evil. It was not regarded so before.

    Unless the Nazis are condemned (no “ifs” no “buts” – the “Alt Right” must be condemned without qualification) the Conservative movement is finished.

    Years ago Glenn Beck warned against the American Right (based upon freedom) being replaced by a European Right (based upon race) – this must be prevented.

    It is Conservatives (not Communist mobs or local police forces) who must destroy the “Alt Right” the “alternative” that is seeking to replace pro freedom Conservatives – and they must be seen to be the people who destroy it.

  • Paul Marks (August 15, 2017 at 8:19 am): “There is a vast difference between a Southern Gentleman (such as General Lee) who may (or may NOT) believe in slavery or segregation in a theoretical way – but would never whip a slave or have a slave whipped …”

    Some remarks just FYI.

    1) Lee exercised a stern discipline over his white soldiers – sterner than union armies. Northerners in areas he invaded noted both their better behaviour and the discipline that caused it. (See e.g. “The Gleam of Bayonets” which has extensive quotation of northern civilians and soldiers, etc., and gives in full Lee’s letter to president Davis about military discipline law which includes the line “more certainty of punishment is needed”.) So while Lee was indeed high-minded for his time towards his slaves, the idea of his never allowing a whipping even if the slave did something Lee’s moral sense thought wrong is debatable.

    (It is also worth reading e.g. Huckleberry Finn to appreciate how ordinary a whipping for white or slave was regarded in those days.)

    2) Lee called slavery “an unmitigated evil” in his private diary. In a letter to the Confederate president, he urged Jefferson Davis to adopt “a well-digested plan of gradual and general emancipation.” Thus there is indeed a “may NOT”.

    Lee knew Davis’ touchy character very well from being his military secretary for some months early in the war, so he ‘managed’ all their interactions to avoid triggering Davis. He kept private the verbal conversations when he “often and early in the war” urged Davis to emancipate the slaves (“but the president would never listen”). In the letter to Davis I quote above, he wrote a paragraph of abstract praise for southern slave-owning society before nevertheless justifying wholesale emancipation on prudential grounds. Both these choices reflect his understanding that the in-any-case incredibly difficult task of persuading the president to act on this would become even more impossible if Davis thought it a challenge to his authority. Some have used these facts to question how much “may NOT” there was.

    Lee went with his state when his state seceded and he fought for the Confederacy, so his actions had great risk of prolonging the life of slavery. There is an SF story in which time-travelling KKKers give Lee weapons to defeat Grant. Returning to the present, they are much surprised to find that Lee’s first act when elected president of the Confederacy after the war was to kick off a plan of emancipation, so that things today are not nearly as different as they’d hoped. But while that’s a fun story, the probability must be that military triumph of an outnumbered westernised slave-owning society over its anti-slavery enemy would have taught a very undesirable lesson to western culture.

  • Mr Black

    These kinds of threads are wonderful for the way they illuminate the complete uselessness of libertarianism as a political philosophy. There is no built-in defence mechanism at all, it is like institutionalised cowardice, the entire thing falls over when put to the test because the only response is always “our enemies who are trying to enslave us deserve their right to try”. Umm, no. Fuck them and anyone who thinks that way. I don’t believe that these marchers are Nazis (that is the lefts label, and you should be ashamed for adopting it). Nor do I believe they had anything to do with the violence (you should also be ashamed for adopting the lefts talking points). They responded to being ambushed and beaten and that response was always measured and not used as a provocation for more general attacks. I have watched many videos taken from all sides, the only violence I see on any of them is leftists assaulting the marchers and then suffering (sometimes) limited retaliation. Of all the people who have committed millions of useless, empty words to their screen over this incident, I bet not a single one has had the thought to put themselves in the line of danger against these Antifa thugs. Other people fight, you criticize their purity. Some of you here have a grounded sense of reality, most of you are talking about principles as if the deep state didn’t just organise a domestic terror event against their own people. At what point do you call the fucking enemy, the enemy?

  • John K

    John K
    Do you have a link? Not doubting you at all, it’s just that the videos I’ve seen so far start during the period when people are being knocked down.
    I’m sure most people with cameras only focused on the car when it became of obvious interest, but I suspect that some might be deliberately omitting the initial cause of the car accelerating.
    Thanks.

    JS:

    I watched the video clip at this site:

    http://gatesofvienna.net/

    However, it seems that, for some strange reason, the left wingers who run YouTube are busy taking video of this incident down. I think the reason for this was that, as far as I can see, the driver of the car did not plough into the crowd, but was driving slowly until his car was attacked, and then seemed to have panicked and crashed.

    If you have ever seen footage of crowds dragging people from cars and beating them to death, you will appreciate why he panicked.

    His arrest and murder charge are part of a political show trial, but whether he can get justice in Virginia remains to be seen.

  • Cristina

    The United States is a country where Communist mobs can organise and terrorise at will, with the tacit approval of the police.

    The United States is a communist country governed by mobs that terrorise at will with the active participation of the police.

    FIFY, Mr Ed. 😉

  • Jacob

    It seems we ALL agree that both sides need to be condemned, both sides are despicable collectivists. Namely: the KKK-Nazi-Racist side and the Antifa-leftist-fascist side.

    The debate is which side is more dangerous. Paul and JP think the KKK-Nazi-Racist side is the more dangerous, while Alisa, bobby b and many others think the Antifa-leftist side is more dangerous and more in need of condemnation.

    As to the facts of the incident an who is to blame – they seem clear enough: the “rightists” (not all of whom are KKK-Nazis) had an apparently legitimate grievance: the removal of the Lee statue, and they planned the protest in advance and got a permit. Nobody can claim in good faith that a protest against the removal of the Lee statue is illegitimate and should be forbidden.

    The Antifa-leftist red gangs did not come to protest for their cause (whatever it is) – they came specifically to disrupt the other protest, to pick a fight, to provoke, to cause trouble.

  • Paul Marks

    Well Niall – General Lee did not own slaves (although his wife did) and neither, I believe did “Stonewall” Jackson – but I accept your point that I was overdoing things in my defence of General Lee (although I continue to wish he had accepted the command of the United States army and ended the rebellion – the command was offered to him).

    How would General Lee have reacted to a bunch of scum marching up to the statue of Thomas Jefferson in the University of Virginia with lighted touches and chanting “Blood and Soil” – the slogan of the ENEMY of the United States in World War II.

    I think General Lee would have politely asked these “Alt Right” creatures to leave – and if they had left at once nothing more would have been said.

    Of course if they had not left – then things would have turned ugly, very fast.

    I think people fail to grasp the enormity of what was done – they (the Alt Right) entered the University of Virginia (founded by Thomas Jefferson) and marched right up to the stature of Thomas Jefferson chanting their Nazi slogans.

    There was no way that could be left unanswered.

  • EdMJ

    @bobby b, from what I’ve read there was a permit granted for the rally which was then cancelled, only to be reinstated after the ACLU sued the city and a federal judge agreed. But then the Charlottesville officials issued a “stand-down order” to the police instead, seemingly in order to allow something to happen so they could clear the area on grounds of an emergency. So seems to tie somewhat into the account you linked to.

    The deputy mayor sounds like a nasty piece of work: http://freedomdaily.com/racist-charlottesville-deputy-mayors-statement-whites-cops-stand-down-riot/

  • Tomsmith

    Paul Marks:

    I think people fail to grasp the enormity of what was done – they (the Alt Right) entered the University of Virginia (founded by Thomas Jefferson) and marched right up to the stature of Thomas Jefferson chanting their Nazi slogans.

    There was no way that could be left unanswered.

    Wow. A peaceful demo is a peaceful demo, no matter what you might think of it. It is not ok for anyone (even on the side of those you support) to disrupt a peaceful protest with violence.

    My conclusion from this is that white people censor themselves to a much greater extent than anyone else. White nationalism is utterly taboo, to the point that violence against it is tacitly accepted even by many white people.

    I find it hard to believe that a self loathing of this magnitude has existed before in the history of the world.

  • Tomsmith

    Good comment Mr Black.

  • bobby b

    Paul Marks
    August 15, 2017 at 1:40 pm

    “There was no way that could be left unanswered.”

    Paul, I can think of no phrase more responsible for war and death than this one.

    One of the great acts of forbearance occurred almost half a century ago when the Constitutional guarantee of free speech was acknowledged in Skokie, Illinois, and the Nazis were allowed to march through a community made up of many concentration camp survivors (which was exactly why they picked Skokie.)

    There was no way such an act could be left unanswered – except that it was, and as a consequence, the Nazi movement was left deflated and unimportant for decades.

    It’s almost as if you’ve descended to Johnathan Pearce’s ultimate leftist argument – that societal permission to speak ought to be predicated upon who we decide are “vile” and who we decide are acceptable. Had the Nazis in Virginia simply been allowed to march and chant and go home – had they been unanswered – this would all be over. As it stands, they’ve been immeasurably empowered. I’ll bet they triple their membership out of this episode, with the many new people not wanting the Antifa’s crimes to be “left unanswered.”

  • Jacob

    “I think people fail to grasp the enormity of what was done – they (the Alt Right) entered the University of Virginia (founded by Thomas Jefferson) and marched right up to the stature of Thomas Jefferson chanting their Nazi slogans.”

    I fail to grasp the “enormity” of this.
    Some crazy people went up to Jefferson’s STATUE and chanted vile slogans. Wow!
    Did they destroy or vandalize the statue? Did they beat up people?
    No. They chanted!
    Yes, they are vile people and chanted vile slogans. I wish they all see the light and mend their vile ways. No more chanting of Nazi slogans…

  • Tomsmith

    I guess Paul Marks thinks that punishment beatings are in order for all involved? I am at a loss to explain the above comments in any other way??

  • Philip Scott Thomas

    …the narcissism of small differences.

    Jeez Louise, that is bloody brilliant. A good example of why I enjoy reading O’Neill as much as I do.

    Also, it would be a great name for a rock band. Or a novel. 😆

  • Mila s

    the narcissism of small differences.

    Jeez Louise, that is bloody brilliant. A good example of why I enjoy reading O’Neill as much as I do.

    Also, it would be a great name for a rock band. Or a novel

    . 😆

    ‘the narcissism of small differences’ is a quotation of Freud.

  • Laird

    “‘the narcissism of small differences’ is a quotation of Freud.” That’s what makes this blog so much fun; you learn neat new things all the time!

    Some interesting information is coming out about Kessler (the mouthpiece of the white supremacists at this event). It seems that he was a rabid Obama supporter in 2008 and 2012, and a Hillary supporter in 2016. Yet somehow, just days before Trump’s inauguration in January 2017, he turned into a white supremacist. Really? And no one else in that “movement” (such as it is) seems to know much about him; he just popped up seemingly out of nowhere. Does anyone else here suspect a false flag operation? A setup designed to elicit precisely what occurred on Saturday?

  • I’m with bobby b (August 15, 2017 at 2:55 pm): if you believe in free speech, you will sometimes have to defend its exercise by those you dislike, but doing so can also empower them less than not doing so. This is especially so if Alisa (August 14, 2017 at 10:48 am) is correct in her understanding of events.

    I share Laird’s (August 15, 2017 at 7:06 pm) caution about current coverage of this story. Hopefully, disputed points will become clear sooner rather than later.

    Paul (August 15, 2017 at 1:40 pm), I was not seeking to criticise Lee (whom I admire as a man, with the qualifications above noted) but just to describe him accurately. Further to that point, it is not correct to say Lee never owned slaves. He inherited an estate in 1857, with slaves and the requirement to free them within 5 years (the time delay related to debts the estate had to pay off). By coincidence, this meant that Lee freed all his slaves between Lincoln’s announcement of the emancipation proclamation in 1862 and the date it was due to take effect (start of 1863). There is some correspondence in which Lee rejects a suggestion of his youngest son that he make some public statement about this. (From context, I would guess the son advised Lee to deny the accidental appearance of acting on the proclamation, but Lee preferred merely to act as he intended and ignore any publicity.)

  • Philip Scott Thomas

    That’s what makes this blog so much fun; you learn neat new things all the time[.]

    What Laird said. Damn straight.

  • NickM

    ctrl, alt, del.

    Someone had to say it.

  • Shlomo Maistre

    Mr Black,

    These kinds of threads are wonderful for the way they illuminate the complete uselessness of libertarianism as a political philosophy. There is no built-in defence mechanism at all, it is like institutionalised cowardice, the entire thing falls over when put to the test because the only response is always “our enemies who are trying to enslave us deserve their right to try”. Umm, no. Fuck them and anyone who thinks that way. I don’t believe that these marchers are Nazis (that is the lefts label, and you should be ashamed for adopting it). Nor do I believe they had anything to do with the violence (you should also be ashamed for adopting the lefts talking points). They responded to being ambushed and beaten and that response was always measured and not used as a provocation for more general attacks. I have watched many videos taken from all sides, the only violence I see on any of them is leftists assaulting the marchers and then suffering (sometimes) limited retaliation. Of all the people who have committed millions of useless, empty words to their screen over this incident, I bet not a single one has had the thought to put themselves in the line of danger against these Antifa thugs. Other people fight, you criticize their purity. Some of you here have a grounded sense of reality, most of you are talking about principles as if the deep state didn’t just organise a domestic terror event against their own people. At what point do you call the fucking enemy, the enemy?

    Absolutely, 100% correct. Excellent comment.

  • Phil Ossiferz Stone

    I’ll just leave this here for the benefit of all you ‘pox on both their houses’ people need to .
    http://i.4cdn.org/pol/1502667845886.webm
    http://i.4cdn.org/pol/1502666291103.webm
    https://twitter.com/barnes_law/status/896520500339331076

    The driver was ambushed and then pursued in a city where the cops were deliberately told to stand down, and where people had been threatening to kill him all weekend. Read it, watch all of this slowly, and take it fully on board.

    Now, by way of contrast: Antifa just raised their flag in front of the Hennepin County courthouse in Minneapolis, MN.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R3HyBtHcklY

    Then they burnt the state flag, along with some sort of Nazi effigy, on the courthouse steps.

    https://twitter.com/haut3damn/status/897245193241587712/photo/1

    The fire department eventually showed up. But no cops. As in Charlottesville, as in Portland, as in Berkeley, as all throughout our wounded and bewildered Republic, they are protected. You can commit arson on government property in broad daylight with impunity — but only if your cause is one that the local Democrat power structure smiles upon.

  • RRS

    The following comment was posted to a WSJ article detailing the continuing destruction and defacement of Confederate memorials:

    What are these destroyers and desecrators expressing?

    What next:

    Disinter the remains of all CSA dead, plough over their cemeteries, plant kudzu, graze goats and – above all – chant, chant, chant.

    Each chant will be met with cant, cant, cant from academia, publicity conscious “executives,” and the recycled and recycled drivel in print and audio posing as “information.”

    And when it is all done the same moral vacuum that seeks such filling will remain and show to those their “accomplishments” simply prove how banal is evil.

  • Lee Moore

    I think I ought to walk back my earlier comment about car snooker. On reflection the following thoughts occur :

    1. In order to accelerate rapidly the grey car must have had some space in front of it, not occupied by other cars
    2. Since it was initially going very slowly, it seems most likely that there was car free space in front of it because there were humans between it and the car in front (the white car)
    3. Hence when it did accelerate, it may well have hit humans directly, and this may be when the death and injuries were inflicted
    4. And the vidoes of it smashing into the back of the white car, may be showing what happened after that
    5. And thus the original overhead shots of the red car being shunted into the intersection and hitting pedestrians may be a red herring. It’s possible that some could have been killed by the red car, if knocked over and squished, but it seems more likely that a car travelling fast (the grey one) and hitting someone directly would be more lethal.

    No doubt we’ll find out eventually. Not from media investigation, obviously, but from the trial in due course.

  • Julie near Chicago

    After reading various reports and seeing quite a few not-terribly-clear-or-helpful clips on UT, I have the distinct impression that the dead woman was caught between the second and third cars when the third car rammed into the back of the second.

    If so, then the discussions about whether the driver of the third car was accelerating, and if so whether he panicked or did it on purpose — and if the latter, whether hitting the woman was also done on purpose — make sense.

    In fact in the last one I watched, I thought I saw a glimpse of a bloody body on the pavement behind the second car after the third car had backed up. But I certainly am not sure.

    .

    One also has quite a difficult time trying to figure out which videos, if any, have been “edited,” or even are just plain fictional.

    .

    There are apparently some who think that Soros stage-managed the entire thing: the “Unite the Right” rally and the thugs who attacked them.

    One certainly wouldn’t put such a thing past him, or various other operators of the “Antifa”-BLM-&c. types. Somebody, here or elsewhere, has said that the Kessler person was an Obama supporter and voted for Shrill last year, and only came to the “Right” a few months ago.

    But again, further deponent sayeth not. Lotsa rumor and speculation (but certainly no intentional misleading by Mainstream or New Media), but not a lot of certain fact.

  • John K

    If you check out the video here:

    https://www.therebel.media/raw_car_mows_down_antifa_blm_at_unite_the_right_charlottesville

    It looks as if the car driven by the driver who had just been attacked by an Antifa thug hit the back of another car, and this car ran over the victim.

    The initial reports gave the impression that neo-nazis were drving cars at protesters to kill them, whereas this seems like a road accident caused by a panicked driver. The true criminal is the thug who attacked his car, and I would suggest that this is the person who should be charged with murder.

  • Johnathan Pearce

    Laird: “Well, even though I don’t see anything in your OP which actually says that”.

    Given that my OP included a big quote from Brendan O’Neill pointing to the common origins of the Alt-Right and the hard Left, and that I clearly posted it approvingly, I find that comment bizarre.

    Mr Black, go get some better spectacles:

    I don’t believe that these marchers are Nazis (that is the lefts label, and you should be ashamed for adopting it). Nor do I believe they had anything to do with the violence (you should also be ashamed for adopting the lefts talking points). They responded to being ambushed and beaten and that response was always measured and not used as a provocation for more general attacks. I have watched many videos taken from all sides, the only violence I see on any of them is leftists assaulting the marchers and then suffering (sometimes) limited retaliation. Of all the people who have committed millions of useless, empty words to their screen over this incident, I bet not a single one has had the thought to put themselves in the line of danger against these Antifa thugs. Other people fight, you criticize their purity. Some of you here have a grounded sense of reality, most of you are talking about principles as if the deep state didn’t just organise a domestic terror event against their own people. At what point do you call the fucking enemy, the enemy?

    You don’t believe the marchers are Nazis. I’ll be generous, and assume that what you meant to write is that not all of them were. I looked at the photos, at the torch-lit parade, some of the slogans, the flags and so on, and it looked pretty Nazi-like to me. Maybe most of them were fine young people who just wanted a bit of a fun night out with some low-key protest. (Forgive my sarcasm, it is hard to resist.)

    If you want to go on such parades, sporting such emblems, and get into a fight with the far left to prove what you think is your manhood, be my guest. Come to that, if you fancy yourself as such a hardnut, what are you doing here?

    John K: a “road accident”. A car killed one person and sent a bunch of others flying in the air. Well, let’s leave it to a judge and jury.

  • Laird

    Johnathan, I stand corrected. When you made the comment to which mine was addressed I went back and re-read what you wrote, but not what O’Neill wrote. Mea culpa.

    As to the “road accident” point, though, from the videos there seems to be sufficient evidence to suggest that the driver was attempting to escape from murderous attackers, so in fact the woman’s death was an accident rather than a deliberate attack on anyone. But, as you say, let’s leave it to a judge and jury.

  • Mr Black

    Jonathan, I’ll wager most of the people representing as Nazis are just LARPers. They are nothing, nobodies. Treating them as some actual attempt at reviving the third reich is just taking the left’s talking points at face value. They hate jews and blacks, so obviously “Nazi” is the best fit descriptor. Just how people opposed to affirmative action are Nazis. They are an irrelevant fringe even to the fringe and jumping on the leftist condemnation bandwagen when actual, real terrorim was organised against them by the fucking government just demonstrates how rediculous most people’s focus is. When these “Nazis” do something more than chant on a march, I’ll consider reevaluating their status.

  • Alisa

    I must agree with Mr. Black’s last comment here – that’s the gist of the entire Nazi matter right there.

  • Johnathan Pearce

    Laird, no worries sir. Thanks for your graceful response.

    On the other hand, here’s the apologist, Mr Black: “Jonathan, I’ll wager most of the people representing as Nazis are just LARPers. They are nothing, nobodies. Treating them as some actual attempt at reviving the third reich is just taking the left’s talking points at face value. They hate jews and blacks, so obviously “Nazi” is the best fit descriptor. Just how people opposed to affirmative action are Nazis. They are an irrelevant fringe even to the fringe and jumping on the leftist condemnation bandwagen when actual, real terrorim was organised against them by the fucking government just demonstrates how rediculous most people’s focus is. When these “Nazis” do something more than chant on a march, I’ll consider reevaluating their status.”

    They chose to protest the removal of a statue of a defeated general for a morally dodgy cause and judging by the photos, the torch-lit schtick, the garb, flags, etc, the far-right nature of the gathering, and of many there, cannot be denied. You are trying to deny it, because you are seeking to excuse it. Those who went there, who responded to some of the imflamatory literature going around, deserve no quarter from anyone with a few braincells to rub together as to what they were getting involved with.

    I would bet that had, say, such people been at a rally inspired by Islamists, you would not be going on about how the vast majority of them were just there for a fun night out. Oh no, I suspect you would use much harsher language. But the logic cuts both ways.

  • Shlomo Maistre

    They chose to protest the removal of a statue of a defeated general for a morally dodgy cause and judging by the photos, the torch-lit schtick, the garb, flags, etc, the far-right nature of the gathering, and of many there, cannot be denied.

    Translation: I support freedom of speech/assembly except when the garb, flags, torches, and photos hurt my precious feelings.

    Mr Black is the thread winner.

  • Laird

    “But the logic cuts both ways.”

    That is a fair point. I could answer it by averring that the neo-Nazis, while reprehensible, almost never resort to actual violence (99% of what they do is mere bluster, bravado, attention-seeking and role-playing) whereas Islamists actually do commit horrendous acts of violence; and I believe all that to be true. But that isn’t a real answer to your charge, which in essence is that I am not a free-speech absolutist, and thus am a hypocrite. And I accept that there is merit to your charge. I have never claimed to be perfect, let alone perfectly consistent. I have a special antipathy to Islam, which I believe to be anti-West, anti-liberal (in the classic sense), indeed anti-mind, and represent an existential threat to our entire culture and value system. So I do not accord Islamists the same deference as I do any other group with which I might disagree. I would condone just about anything which keeps them at bay, and removes that cancer from our society. You might consider that to be a moral blind spot. So be it.

    But leaving Islamists aside, if we were talking about a peaceful, lawful rally by, say, black-supremacists (of which there are many such groups, BLM being merely the most prominent at the moment), or hispanic-advocacy groups seeking the legitimization of illegals, or communists, with all of whom I strongly disagree, I would of course accord them the same First Amendment rights as everyone else, and would be arguing for their protection from attack by opposing groups. (Need I quote Voltaire here?) And that is a fair description of what happened in Charlotte (from the opposite side, of course). I make no brief for white supremacists, neo-Nazis and their ilk; they are despicible. But so are BLM, Antifa, and such leftist groups, and by all accounts they are the one who resorted to violence. The skinheads paraded around with their swastikas, uniforms, torches, etc., intending to provoke a response. They succeeded. But at least they had the proper permit, followed police orders, and in all respects acted legally. None of that can be said of the leftists who attacked them. So while I do not support the cause of the white supremacists, I do support their right to peacefully rally for it, and I absolutely condemn those who resorted to violence as their only counter.

    “You are trying to deny it, because you are seeking to excuse it.” I neither deny nor excuse anything. I simply stand for the right of all people (Islamists excepted; see above) to peacefully assemble to express their views, however odious those views might be, and to be afforded the police protection to which they are legally entitled while doing so. That is the law of the land, and clearly has been since National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie, 432 U.S. 43 (1977). Indeed, in that case (also involving Nazis) the Supreme Court considered the right to be so obvious that it required merely a 2-paragraph per curiam opinion to confirm it.

    The “Alt-right” (for want of a better label) in Charlotte were provocative and offensive, but they were legally so. Antifa and their ilk were not. It’s really as simple as that. 100% of the blame for the violence there belongs to the left, but because of media bias, political correctness, etc., they are being given a pass. And that is simply wrong.

  • They teach identity politics in the schools, except of course, they tell whites they can’t do it.
    And the schools got a lot worse. The white kids had to put up with even more.

    Some of them tried libertarianism, but if you’ve ever had to discuss something with a low IQ person, you see the problem- they don’t get it and in the end they will just vote for more leftist stuff. Immigrants vote left, and when they get populous enough, they vote for their own leftists. Everything gets subverted.

  • mila

    Laird wrote:

    That is a fair point. I could answer it by averring that the neo-Nazis, while reprehensible, almost never resort to actual violence (99% of what they do is mere bluster, bravado, attention-seeking and role-playing) whereas Islamists actually do commit horrendous acts of violence; and I believe all that to be true.

    White supremacists have been responsible for nearly twice the number of deaths in the U.S. as jihadist attacks since 9/11, so your comment is completely misinformed.

  • Laird

    @ mila: (1) Source? (2) Clever of you to exclude from your “count” the single greatest Islamic atrocity in US history so you can utterly distort the truth. Clever, but unavailing. (3) Irrelevant to the main point of my post.

  • Philip Scott Thomas

    I reckon Jake and Elwood* would have dealt with the Charlottesville nazis with considerably more cool than Antifa did. 😉

    * FWIW, the ‘Illinois Nazis’ line is a reference to Skokie, mentioned by bobby b above.

  • Johnathan Pearce (London)

    PST: any sort of outcome featuring the late John Belushi and Dan Ackroyd is an improvement on where the world is right now.

  • Alisa

    It’s not belligerent white trash — yes there is that, sure, if you look for it — but bourgeois, striving “normies” who are tired of scorn and abuse. Americans of all backgrounds would like black America to succeed, but if it can’t, and if it makes their own lives miserable, they won’t take the blame much longer. They’ll find a way of avoiding danger and disorder. It’s that simple.

  • Julie near Chicago

    Correction to Alisa’s link: https://spectator.org/the-revolt-against-diversitys-inquisitors/

    .

    Just scanned the first few paras of the article. Followed the first link there. Both look like good bets for worthwhile reading.

    Gotta scoot, “Edit” time almost up.

    Thanks for the link, Alisa. :>)

  • Alisa

    Thanks for the correction, Julie – and it is a good and not a long read.

  • Julie near Chicago

    UPDATE. The first link in the Spectator piece is to another op-ed which begins with a link to a piece in the Philadelphia Inquirer by Amy Wax, professor at the U. of Pennsylvania Law School, and Larry Alexander, distinguished professor at the U. of San Diego School of Law. It goes on to explain that the reactionary points are Simply Unacceptable and are based on cherry-picked history or some such.

    The very first comment in the comment stream is worthwhile…the op-ed not so much.

    But in their piece at the Inquirer, Profs. Wax and Alexander simply point out that the cultural norms of the ’50s and early ’60s made, on the whole, for better lives than does our current acceptance of unfortunate tenets and behaviors. Not to deny problems a half-century and more ago, but to point out that the social climate is not as helpful as the one that prevailed then.

    It may make us anti-authoritarian contrarians squirm, but I think they’re right.

    http://www.philly.com/philly/opinion/commentary/paying-the-price-for-breakdown-of-the-countrys-bourgeois-culture-20170809.html

  • Alisa

    Excellent^