the alt-right

trying to reconcile this tweet

Fact check: true. https://t.co/94ti7BwFLJ

— Richard ☝🏻Spencer (@RichardBSpencer) August 12, 2017

with this one, about 12 hours later

We came in peace. It was the government and antifa that used force against peaceful, lawful demonstrators. https://t.co/6oDkncSFna

— Richard ☝🏻Spencer (@RichardBSpencer) August 12, 2017

oh, the embedded tweet in that first one didn't show up. but it was someone saying "They surrounded us at the statue

They wouldn't let us out" after friday night's disturbing tiki torch shit at the jefferson statue.

I think I found the one tweet that sums it all up about this whole crew

Liberals, this is from a SOCIAL EXPERIMENT by @JoeySalads showing Trump supporters VEHEMENTLY rejecting Nazism & Bigotry. #Charlottesville pic.twitter.com/VGucwxWqqO

— Democrats for Trump (@YoungDems4Trump) August 13, 2017

maybe he should have gone to the Nazi-friendly Trump rally and not the relatively normal people one where they’re just regular racists

it’s as if there are different groups politicians cater to, with language that implies association in speech and action. hmm.

With all the IDs coming out it's interesting how many of these dudes are "outside agitators" from other parts of the country and how few seem to be from VA let alone the area.

Vaguely appalled that people dare to suggest Joey fucking Salads as in some way a neutral source.

Some of them are turning on the Paul Jpseph Watson guy - "controlled opposition" accusations. For something called Unite the Right it may have done the opposite. The comfy niches some of them have may be coming difficult to maintain (they'd have been pushing false flag narratives a lot harder not so long ago)

Okay THIS takes the cake.

Peter Cvjetanovic says, "I’m not the angry racist they see in that photo"https://t.co/TpZDsRQPX4 pic.twitter.com/coW26QHXOv

— emptywheel (@emptywheel) August 13, 2017

'i'm usually a pretty chill racist, they just caught me at an unfortunate moment during this otherwise totally normal torchlit celebration of white supremacy'

This weird distinction white nationalists make between white nationalism and racism
...

I

I am not a racist, I just believe the heritage of Robert E Lee and what he stood for should be preserved that's all. You're welcome to your own beliefs.

How dare you say I lost my temper.

Mods, please rename thread.

there were white women at that march too -- where are the pictures of them screaming?
in some ways they are the most insidious racists
i've had to fight back the urge to call my friends' Trump-voting parents and give them a Sunday morning sermon about their racism

best day to do it

i offered my services

I've slept on it, sobered up and still considering signing up to be a black bloc antifa if it means I get to light Richard Spencer on fire.

yeah given the opportunity and after carefully weighing my chances in a given scenario i've got no prob fucking one of these dudes up

Just want to clarify, in response to Z S, I wasn't exactly endorsing violence against white supremacists. I was claiming that bigoted speech contains the seed of social violence within it, and violence seems inevitable to me at an event like that in Charlottesville.

Social violence meaning bigger than any one individual's rage or will to act.

In an unequal society, bigoted speech always has that potential.

It's why we don't condemn the black kid who punches the white kid who calls him "n-----" for example. Social violence.

I dont have any problem w punching nazis but dont do the crime if u cant do the time.

By "we" I mean reasonable people, not US law enforcement.

Also disappointed at leftists going after the ACLU for defending Nazis right to march cuz duh this is what the ACLU has always done and they are correct "hate speech" short of specific incitement to violence is 100% legal

White supremacists pleased with Trump's comments on Charlottesville:

Daily Stormer: "We are now at war" & "Trump comments were good...no condemnation at all" https://t.co/Avl6RSvOR1 pic.twitter.com/A0LpGZEHTE

— Garance Franke-Ruta (@thegarance) August 13, 2017

“Non-violence doesn’t work for everything,” Cobb says. “You use self-defense with the Klan." Even while noting her respect for King, playwright and activist Lorraine Hansberry wrote too about embracing “every single means of struggle,” arguing that the Movement had to “harass, debate, petition, give money to court struggles, sit-in, lie-down, strike, boycott, sing hymns, pray on steps, and shoot from their windows when the racists come cruising through their communities.” It’s a good description of a diversity of tactics, and of the Movement in practice."

https://psmag.com/news/tactical-lessons-from-the-civil-rights-movement

Non-violence only works when you're appealing to a populace/power base that is capable of shame (ie the British, Rockefeller Republicans etc)

Even under the terms of the first amendment/free speech, I still don't get why hate groups are allowed to march/assemble. I mean, they're innately violent, aren't they? Aren't they the human equivalent of yelling fire in a crowded theatre? I just don't see how even an argument can be made that they are peaceful, or even *can* be peaceful, especially since they attract counter-protestors, which inevitably leads to violence. Public safety concerns alone should put the kibosh on them.

Non-violence only works when you're appealing to a populace/power base that is capable of shame (ie the British, Rockefeller Republicans etc)

― Οὖτις

so what is the political application of violence? i see two possible ends to violence: one, to compel people to sit down at the table and talk with you on mutually agreeable terms, or two, to compel acquiescence to your beliefs. any form of political violence that doesn't further those ends is stupid and counterproductive.

Well, not for political groups who consider violence an end unto itself, like white supremacists do. For those who want fewer types of other people, violence is totally productive.

Aren't they the human equivalent of yelling fire in a crowded theatre?

FYI, this phrase comes from a Supreme Court case that criminalized putting anti-draft leaflets in people's mailboxes - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States

so what is the political application of violence

Lol u left out self-defense.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/346360-lexington-mayor-announces-removal-of-confederate-statues-in

^ What u all make of this - seems like a fitting punishment

Well like - obviously not punishment enough for the ones who kill people by driving into them, but I mean as a civic response

Lol u left out self-defense.

― Οὖτις

i don't think when you hit back somebody who hits you that's primarily a political act.

That's an odd take. Black Panthers would disagree.

well there are a lot of things i don't necessarily agree with the black panthers about.

but ok, i'll modify my initial statement to refer specifically to the _strategic_ political application of violence. even if one views all violence as primarily political in nature, we can classify some forms of political violence as tactical and some forms of political violence as strategic, no?

Some violence is primarily situational anger, infused with all kind of political motivations, real or bullshitted.

Ok sure
Xp

Already seeing shit on FB about how the driver was "really a lefty" and how "Liberals are the really violent ones".

Come Nuclear Bomb, Come.

the narrative that we ran over one of our own originated w/ in the Nazi group organizing the protest, but even they recently backed away from it when the person was IDed

something i've never understood is how these assholes rationalize that the daughter of their god emperor is jewish

These militia people are freaks. I don't think the left needs to use violence against them to defeat them. Their ideology holds little mass appeal and their aesthetic even less. I know people mock the "go high" rhetoric but in their case that's the thing to do.

They are a minority of Trump supporters who are a minority of the country. History is not on their side.

If they attack you or whatever fight back but no one should seek out a fight with degenerates.

Antifa stunts will just draw more of them out and strengthen them. They thrive on hatred.

a minority of the country whose population still is in the millions, sure

they don't thrive on hatred, they thrive on any incident they can spin into proving the other side is just as bad, if not worse. they also thrive on "not being resisted"

Protest them nonviolently in overwhelming numbers. Also focus not on them but on defeating Republicans and pushing Demorats left.

i don't remember who it was back in January (oh, more innocent times) that said alt-right/nazi groups might fear organizing more if they felt like they might get clocked in the face, and while I am generally a pacifist there is some truth to that.

neo-nazi groups are not going to starve for members regardless of what antifa do or don't do.

xpost sure, then alt-righters when frustrated that nobody is taking their bait then run down one of the protesters with a car and say an antifa did it

Antifa stunts will just draw more of them out and strengthen them. They thrive on hatred.

Oh, bullshit. We've had Klan rallies and Neo-Nazi rallies for a century - they don't need counter-protesters to be themselves.

I disagree. I think they want to brawl in the streets because they are barbarians. The left wants something else -- a better world.