Violence

Anti-Fascists 'Very Proud' of White Nationalist Counter-Protest That Led to Multiple Stabbing Victims

"Beat the fascists. Beat them."

|

@ABC10Frances/Twitter

At least five people were stabbed in a statehouse skirmish between members of the white-nationalist Traditionalist Workers Party (TWP) and "anti-fascist" activists from a group called By Any Means Necessary (BAMN). The white-power group had gotten a permit and was demonstrating in front of the California capitol. BAMN members came brandishing wooden bats and shouting "fuck fascists. Beat the fascists. Beat them." One member Yvette Felarca told CNN she was "very, very proud" of the counter-protest that had produced such violence. 

"We've got to build a movement in this nation," said Felarca, noting that her group was full of people of many races and sexual orientations "standing together saying we will not accept or allow racist, genocide organizing to take place on the front steps of the capitol of California. And we would do it again." 

According to the Sacramento Fire Department, five people were hospitalized with stab wounds and several more suffered cuts and bruises that didn't warrant hospitalization. "It was quite a bit of a melee," Chris Harvey, the department's public information officer, told CNN. He did not know which of the groups stabbing victims were from.

Matthew Heimbach, a chairman of the Traditionalist Worker Party who helped organized but did not attend the statehouse rally, said that one of his people had been stabbed in the artery, "but we got six of them." Heimbach blamed "leftist radicals" for instigating at a non-violent demonstration and said TWP members had been acting in self defense. 

Meanwhile, the anti-facists "came ready to fight," as California Assemblyman Jim Cooper (D-Elk Grove) put it. They arrived wearing plastic shields and carrying wooden batons. They got physical with reporters that had come to cover the white nationalist rally. 

"The Nazis are dangerous, and that's why we need to take them on directly," a bandage-wearing Felarca told reporters. "Take them on head-on."

Sunday's statehouse rally, according to TWP's website, was designed "to protest against globalization and in defense of the right to free expression." The group bills itself as anti-globalist, but its ideology is old-fashioned white supremacy. Yet while the group's views may be racist and reactionary, it doesn't—at least in writing—advocate violence or destruction. The group's mission, according to its website, is to defend America against "economic exploitation, federal tyranny, and anti-Christian degeneracy." It encourages members to lobby lawmakers and go canvassing in their communities. It get permits for statehouse demonstrations. 

I'm not suggesting each and every member is a paragon of propriety in their personal interactions with people of color, but there's no evidence TWP members were in any way threatening the lives, livelihoods, or property of those whom they disdain. They were just standing around the statehouse wearing Nazi-themed t-shirts. 

Moral considerations aside, initiating violence against people protesting peacefully—no matter how odious their ideas—will never be a winning step strategically. And especially not in this case. It becomes clear in about five minutes of perusing the TWP website that what these "race realists" want more than anything is to be taken seriously—not just in the realm of politics but also (perhaps more so) in the realm of ideas. They want people to see what their view as common-sense Christian/conservative traditionalism, rooted in science—not promoters of violence or a fringe, hate ideology. And we live in a time where that's increasingly plausible. As one white-nationalist leader put it, "For many, many years, when I would say [certain 'racialist'] things, other white people would call me names: 'Oh, you're a hatemonger, you're a Nazi, you're like Hitler. Now they come in and say, 'Oh, you're like Donald Trump.'"

What white supremacists and the "alt-right" thrive on is is portraying their cause as a righteous and necessary response to moral degeneracy and/or "social justice warrior" illiberalism. They pine for credibility, culturally and intellectually. I'm not some sort of crusader for "civility" or purely passive resistence, but behaving like these sorts of groups merit this much attention and counter-action certainly doesn't work against them or their ideas. It doesn't actually benefit the cause of anti-fascism, racism, or bigotry. 

Even if BAMN is a fringe group itself, not condoned by most on the broad-spectrum U.S. left, its own ideology and tactics seem only shades, not substantive principles, away from the bizarre authoritarian bent in progressive activism on college campuses today. And even if initiating physical threats and violence to stop some perceived rhetorical "violence" could be ethically justified (I don't think it can), reacting this way only gives the white-identity-politics brigade what they want: a legitimate claim to victimhood and an excuse for escalation, whether that means actually physically attacking back or using this toward political and public-relations agendas. 

"We knew we were outnumbered. We stood our ground," said Traditionalist Workers Party chairman Heimbach said after the incident. "We will be back." 

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

365 responses to “Anti-Fascists 'Very Proud' of White Nationalist Counter-Protest That Led to Multiple Stabbing Victims

  1. You know who else had fascist parades?

    1. Illinois Nazis?

      1. My Co-Worker’s step-sister made $13285 the previous week. She gets paid on the laptop and moved in a $557000 condo. All she did was get blessed and apply the guide leaked on this web site. Browse this site….
        This is what I do________ http://www.Trends88.com

    2. Hillary’s village?

    3. Philip II of Macedon?

    4. Macy’s?

    5. Johnny Fuckerfaster?

    6. The League of Extraordinary Armadillos?

  2. Do words mean anything anymore?

    If everyone is at this rally is a fascist, how do they tell themselves apart?

    1. +1 People’s Liberation Front

      1. “Oh, I thought we were the Popular Front.”

        1. No No No, we are the Liberated Front of Peoples.

          1. I heard to join your group one has to really hate the Romans

    2. The only official definition of Fascism comes from Benito Mussolini, the founder of fascism, in which he outlines three principles of a fascist philosophy.

      1.”Everything in the state”. The Government is supreme and the country is all-encompasing, and all within it must conform to the ruling body, often a dictator.
      2.”Nothing outside the state”. The country must grow and the implied goal of any fascist nation is to rule the world, and have every human submit to the government.
      3.”Nothing against the state”. Any type of questioning the government is not to be tolerated. If you do not see things our way, you are wrong. If you do not agree with the government, you cannot be allowed to live and taint the minds of the rest of the good citizens.

      So, given this definition by it’s founder, which of the groups described above are the fascists?

      1. the reporters?

  3. I bet the press will cover which people got stabbed only if they were the anti-fascist “protesters”

    1. I bet the press will cover which people got stabbed only if they were the anti-fascist “protesters”

      So 6 out of the 7?

  4. I hear the far-right is now referring to Trump as “Hair Furor”.

    1. Your supply always dries up by Sunday.

      I could set my watch to this shit.

    2. I hear Hillary is Cunt in Chief.

        1. What a shit stopper.

  5. Social justice warriors have their fear personified and you expect them to retreat to their safe space? Well, yeah, normally, but for some this is just too good to be true. Getting to initiate violence and be self-righteous about it on social media? Oh, baby, let’s get some muscle over here!

  6. It’s gonna be a long year.

    1. Year? Someone’s bring optimistic

  7. common-sense Christian/conservative traditionalism, rooted in science

    No such thing. Their bullshit is thick.

    1. Only because the bullshit plug knows where it is.

    2. You always can tell thick bullshit from the runny kind, can’t you?

  8. Even if BAMN is a fringe group itself, not condoned by most on the broad-spectrum U.S. left,

    ::checks Twitter and Facebook::

    Yeah, it’s pretty well condoned on the broad-spectrum US left.

    1. Yep, you had to know that such a vague, overly broad denial from ENB wasn’t going to be worth the pixels displaying it.

  9. Fascists attacking Fascists?

  10. “Wow, we found some actual racists, with neo-nazi imagery and everything! So what can we do to make them into free-expression martyrs and get them mainstream media coverage?”

    1. As with protesters waving Mexican flags, will this increase support for Trump? I look forward to hearing Hillary’s take tomorrow when she wakes up around 10 a.m.

    2. Mainstream media coverage for white supremacists is what the left wants more than anything. They are critical evidence that “proves” the left’s narrative about the entire right wing, via confirmation bias.

  11. Since I’m not seeing protestations to the contrary, I have to assume that ENB agrees with the Traditional Worker Party and their fight for white justice. Spread the word!

    1. Well, how else is she going to find a husband?

      1. I hope he lets her keep working after the wedding.

        1. Having white babies is a lot of work.

              1. “not the notepad!!!”

                (runs, locks self in closet)

      2. She could marry Robby.

    2. Since I’m not seeing protestations to the contrary, I have to assume that ENB agrees with the Traditional Worker Party and their fight for white justice

      You never heard of Free Speech as a constitutional right?

      1. Oh, great… Another clueless lecture from Grandpa Oldballs.

        1. It’s a Tulpa sock impersonating the genuine article. LACKS INSANE USAGE OF BOLD TAGS and wildly comical accusations of bullying. (walks away laughing)

          1. Or Hihn is finally taking his medication.

            1. I’m on the fence. What does it taste like when it’s mashed in with applesauce?

              1. Like risperidone mixed with applesauce.

          2. It’s a Tulpa sock impersonating the genuine article. LACKS INSANE USAGE OF BOLD TAGS and wildly comical accusations of bullying

            That’s aggression and you suffer severe denial. (snicker)

        2. And I thought Hihn was dead.

        3. Oh, great… Another clueless lecture from Grandpa Oldballs.

          (laughing) All cyber-bullies hate Free Speech, for obvious reasons. Thuggery is their only passion. And they travel in packs, like wild dogs. CONFORM, DAMMIT!

          Is this why Cato reports the libertarian brand rejected by 91% of libertarians?

          (My tone is in defense of aggression by a known repeater)

      2. ^^^This guy gets it. A real people person who can connect!!!

        1. Are there any other haters of the Constitution here?

          1. Nine personal attacks. Not a single word on the issue. But they’re not thugs and bullies

            McCarthyism in the 21st century. “Conform or die.”
            On an issue of free speech!!!!!

            1. You’re not dead? How did that happen?

              1. I’m not a thug and bully who shits on our Constitution or indulges in pesronal attacks totally devoid of any substance.

                Anything else?

                1. You must have been busy (drunk, insane, hospitalized, working, hibernating) to bother with H&R.

                  1. I’m not a thug and bully who shits on our Constitution or indulges in personal attacks totally devoid of any substance.

                    You must have been busy (drunk, insane, hospitalized, working, hibernating) to bother with H&R.

                    THAT is what I’m too mature to do.

                    (boldface used in defense of repeated aggression by a cyber-bully)

      3. Whoa there’s a lot of hate coming your way, for no particular reason as far as I can tell.

        I for one appreciate your civility, and your refusal to engage in ad-hom antics. We could use more of that around here.

  12. The fact is that people at H&R, ie, people with at least a facsimile of sanity who know what words mean, get to call these racists and neo-nazis what they are.

    But what about the poor leftists who have already used up their vocabulary of “fascist” and “racist” on Donald Trump, people who say “on the other hand,” and people who think the ladies’ room is for ladies?

    What will they say when a *real* racist or fascist shows up? “Forget all those times we said someone else was a fascist, this time it’s different, we’re serious!”

    And what happens if they actually manage to persuade lots of people that waving a nazi flag and advocating white supremacy is just the same as voting for Trump or keeping men out of the ladies’ room? Well, you’ll get more people waving nazi flags and advocating white supremacy!

    1. They don’t care if they conflate the two, in fact it’s part of their tactics.

    2. + ’64 moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue

    3. Trump’s positions are all rooted in racism/bigotry. Otherwise he is raising taxes and cutting taxes, cutting health care and adding statist healthcare, etc.

      He really isn’t running on anything else other than he can do “awesome deals” that he can’t point to having done in the past.

      Trump says what stupid people want to hear.

      1. I want to hear more about what you think about everything.

        1. You’d like to subscribe?

      2. Trump’s positions are all rooted in racism/bigotry.

        No one ever bothers to actually make an argument to this effect.

        They just shriek “racist”.

        And to be fair, it has always worked before. But it didn’t work with Brexit. Could be it never works again. You may want to find a new tactic.

    4. The racists who cry racism.
      The fascists who cry fascism.

      When I hear the media call someone “far right racist fascists”, I just assume they’re the good guys. Works 9 times out of 10.

  13. *sigh*

    Nazis do not have the right to free speech.

    1. *sigh*
      Nazis do not have the right to free speech.

      The ABSOLUTE funniest satire on the page!
      So far,

      1. You sir, consider yourself bullied.

        1. Either Hihn is mocking me or agreeing with me. Either way, I lose.

          1. What if he’s loving you. After all, it’s easy cause you’re beautiful. Doo-n-doo-n-fooLpRoof.

            1. Ok, wow. Bizarre autocorrect that is far superior to what I intended to write. Kindle Fire is the monolith to my ape at the opening of 2001: A Space Odyssey.

              1. Anyone else ignorant of the Constitution? Or that the right is INTENDED for unpopular speech?
                Even if it intrudes on Pompey’s Safe Zone? And/or any other progressives here.

          2. Mocking you idjit. Your ignorance of the Constitution. Or is it bigotry?

        2. Pompey
          You sir, consider yourself bullied.

          Umm, just defending the Constitution. (gasp)

    2. They have to charge admission?

      1. I’m up to 23 attacks because I defended Free Speech. We liberty lovers are never scared off by aggressions from cyber-bullies. It’s called Moral Superiority. Ours.
        (that should inflame the goobers)

  14. WHERE WERE THE COPS?

  15. So all the anti-protesters will be held on charges that result in jail time right? They showed up armed without a permit and loudly announced their goal to assault people. Surely that’s warranting jail time for anyone they can get a picture of.

    1. Another report that I read noted that there weren’t arrests. So the “counter-protestors” were allowed to break up a legal rally (however odious the message) and stab/bash folks with whom they disagreed without any comeuppance!

      1. Democrats have a long track record of using mob violence, unpunished by authorities, to suppress political activity of repressed minority groups, it’s why the love gun control so much.

        1. The initiation of force is a crime.
          The Left is a criminal enterprise.

      2. Arrests? This was a recruitment opportunity.

    2. So all the anti-protesters thugs who used violence to stop a peaceful protest

      FTFY

    3. ” They showed up armed without a permit and loudly announced their goal to assault people.”

      That sort of behavior got the Aryan Nation sued into bankruptcy.

    1. It’s almost like they want to crater the economy.

  16. re: “Anti-Fascists vs. White Nationalists”…

    do both these groups call *themselves* this?

    or is just just journalistic license based on the fashion-choices of each respective groups of Uber-Douchebags?

    signed
    Gilmore
    President of the American Society of Charming & Well-Endowed Ninjas

    1. The Ninjas may be well-endowed but [the remainder of this joke has been deleted on grounds of taste]

      1. yeah, they’re an afrobeat band full of jewish NYU kids

        1. A good point and sorely needed context is that for almost 30 years there has been a musical sub-genre(s), Rock Against Racism, Skinheads Against Racial Prejudice, etc. that has been explicitly anti-Neo Nazi, etc. Especially in Europe, the “antifa” punk movement has always been as radical as their racist/nationalist punk counterparts in its rhetoric, if not actions, against its opposition.

            1. Speaking of Daptone, waiting for Charles Bradley’s latest album to arrive in the mail.

        1. I’m not even going to ask how you knew where to find that.

          1. Oh, that’s easy, just google “ninja pornography” and click on all the links.

            Then get a new computer.

            1. Yeah, with a bigger hard drive.

              1. Always trying to upgrade, eh?

          2. Bing image search is a blessing.

        2. That isn’t a photo of Joe Armstrong.

  17. Holy *#&$@

    Did you watch the video linked in the tweet there?

    @0:12, this dude who started off just laying on the ground in pain, is struggling to his feet, and as he does so, one of these bandanna faced “anti-fascists” comes around behind him and brains him with a 2×4.

    its in the center of the screen so just watch the guy on the ground during the melee

    1. Shortly after that another dude breaks a board over a guy in a white shirt directly behind that. It’s like Where’s Waldo meets a G20 meeting.

      1. Yeah, but the thing @ 12 seconds is =

        “a guy being hit from behind while already still dazed, giving the attacker opportunity to play Human T-Ball with his skull, and hitting him squarely in the skull without any awareness it was coming”

        Anyone who’s been cold-cocked from behind knows that’s concussion-material.

        Its one thing to get into fights with peopl you hate; its another thing to brain dudes with clubs who are basically already out of the fight and are struggling to even stand.

        1. Pretty much. It appears that unconscious longhair gets dragged off. I also notice the club guy has the standard black face bandanna for extra chickenshit flair.

          1. standard black face bandanna

            Its white actually. You can decode the meaning of that here

    2. It’s OK though, because Nazis or something.

      If violence against Nazis is fine, and leftist scum frequently call libertarians fascists, how long before they attack us too?

      1. Any libertarian that goes unarmed to a gathering like this is just asking for it.

      2. We own guns and we’re not really joiners.

        1. “Radical loner extremist shoots community activist”

          “He lived alone next to me for year. I never really knew him well, but I can’t say I’m surprised. He had something like twenty copies of Atlas Shrugged.”

    3. Trump sure has a lot to answer for.

  18. Oh. Violent leftists. How surprising.

    1. Lenin claims surprise! As do Stalin and Hitler.
      Didn’t see it coming at all.

  19. Sunday Night Nazi Thread!!!

    *grabs popcorn and unzips

    1. Even TMZ thinks that’s TMI.

    2. The fake butter makes for great lube

      1. Been watching Brando’s greatest hits, I see.

    3. Unrelated, but I actually do want popcorn right now.

  20. I really don’t see violence as being the worst possible outcome of any and every situation.

    In my day, scuffles with Nazi skinheads were pretty common at shows, etc.

    We certainly shouldn’t conflate individuals indulging in violence with government suppression of free speech.

    Those are two separate issues.

    Sometimes violence can be the answer. Just understand that if you’re a Nazi, and you want to demonstrate at the state capitol, some people think kicking you in the teeth and 90 days in jail is an even split. And I have a certain amount of respect for people who are willing to stand up for what they believe in that way. I’d hate to think totalitarian shitheads of whatever persuasion could come in and take over the place just because too many Americans were so afraid of violence that they couldn’t even imagine standing up for themselves.

    The government shouldn’t interfere with a Nazi’s right to free speech, but sometimes when an individual follows his conscience, it really can lead him or her to punch someone in the face. And if you don’t want to get punched in the face by some conscientious individual for standing on the capitol steps dressed up like a Nazi, then there’s a really easy way to avoid that. Can you guess what it is?

    1. I really don’t see violence as being the worst possible outcome of any and every situation.

      Neither do i.

      I think the “rationalizations for violence” are what should concern people.

    2. Private individuals should respect each other’s rights just as much as government should.

      1. It’s sort of like in basketball, where there “fouls to give”.

        Once there’s a rule against something, it’s part of the game.

        There should be penalties for fouls, of course. But just because there are laws against me sticking up for myself in various ways, doesn’t necessarily mean it can’t be in both my and society’s interests for me to . . . give a foul and take the penalty.

        1. The heck with that, it’s not a game, rights don’t simply apply against government officials, they are good as against the whole world.

          1. Violating people’s rights should be punished.

            I’m not saying they shouldn’t be.

            But there are higher laws than the government, and sometimes the government gets in the way of people’s conscience.

            If I were the juror in a trial against a kid who punched some Nazis in parade as they were going by the house of his grandmother who survived the holocaust, I might vote to convict the kid.

            Even if I voted to convict, I’d have a ton of respect for what he did. Maybe his grandmother saw what happened when nobody did anything. Maybe he decided she’s never going to see that again. I’m not saying he shouldn’t be tried. Maybe he should be convicted.

            I still got a ton of respect for people who stand up for themselves.

            1. OK, but there ought to be lawful channels for standing up for yourself, like you and your friends standing guard, with guns, in front of grandma’s house, in case of trouble. And if they don’t mess with you, you don’t mess with them. Doesn’t make you a wimp. Or an enemy of the rule of law.

              1. Yeah, maybe they’ll just leave us alone time, Grandma?

                I don’t necessarily hold it against people if they’re a little more proactive in that situation.

                1. Soon it will be July 12 in Belfast, we get to see how some of these principles apply in practice.

                  1. Um, britons don’t have rights, because they are not people. Irish are completely within their rights to murder any occupying brit on sight.

                    1. A fascist voice gives us … diversity!

                2. Except in this hypothetical, they aren’t coming for grandma, they are walking down the street. The kid isn’t defending his grandmother, he’s satisfying an urge to kick the assess of the bad guys. Which is totally understandable but not how we usually recommend people deal with those with whom they disagree

                  1. So what you’re saying is no one wants to be defeated, showin’ how funky or strong is your fight; it doesn’t matter who’s wrong or who’s right?

                    1. Crusty, are you ok?

                      Are you are ok, Crusty?

                    2. You’ve been struck by

                      Ooh, my favorite Alien Ant Farm song!

                    3. Now I have a hankering to listen to some Adam Ant. What in the pluperfect hell?

                    4. You don’t drink, don’t smoke?

                    5. I’m an idiot. However, Adam Ant happened. This happened. The 80s, man.

                    6. Stand and Deliver makes up for that, though.

                    7. When people will still trying to figure out how music videos worked.

                  2. That’s what happened in Skokie, right?

                    Frank Collin, the leader of National Socialist Party of America, announced the party’s intention to march through Skokie, Illinois. In the predominantly Jewish community, one in six residents was a Holocaust survivor or was directly related to one.[2]

                    http://tinyurl.com/jxxw9ad

                    “First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out?
                    Because I was not a Socialist.

                    Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out?
                    Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

                    Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out?
                    Because I was not a Jew.

                    Then they came for me?and there was no one left to speak for me.”

                    At some point in that progression, somebody may have thought to pick up a gun and fight the Nazis. Presumably, there must have been some point between speaking out and shooting where punching someone in the face was the right thing to do.

                    Illegal? Yeah, and rightly so–but maybe also the right thing to do.

                    So, where was that point? I wouldn’t want the Nazis to speak out and just think that no one cares. We should remind them periodically, at least, that they are unappreciated.

                    1. “Coming for the socialists/communists” meant dissolving their parties, beating them up, killing them, putting them in concentration camps, the whole bit.

                      “Coming for them” doesn’t mean criticizing socialists – under that definition you could beat up Bastiat.

                    2. “First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out….”

                      This isn’t about speaking out.

                    3. “This isn’t about speaking out.”

                      Did you read the rest of what I wrote?

                      “At some point in that progression, somebody may have thought to pick up a gun and fight the Nazis. Presumably, there must have been some point between speaking out and shooting where punching someone in the face was the right thing to do.”

              2. Bring back dueling!

            2. Ug. And some have mass respect for killing in the name of Islam’s law, or burning children with Napalm in the name of imperialism. People like you, and there are many, find a way to not only justify the initiation of violence, but respect it. That’s just sad, barbaric, and not something to admire.

              1. Violence isn’t necessarily evil or wrong–especially when it’s used for a just cause.

                Violence should be generally avoided. No doubt about that. Unless it’s purely recreational.

                But sometimes violence is necessary.

                Thank God for the Second Amendment, right?

                1. Defending and attacking are two very different things. Nobody has a right to be an attacker, to be the aggressor, nor is that ever right or just.

                  1. Maybe in fucking hippieland.

                    Retributive violence is often right and just.

                    1. Like throwing men off 10 story buildings while blindfolded… for being gay.
                      Or equally as ‘right and just’ violent retribution, stoning women for adultery. Right?
                      Seems you, like others, easily find righteousness in initiating violence for your beliefs.

                    2. Are you suggesting that because some acts of violence are unjustified, that means all acts of violence are unjustified?

                      Because the logic thingy doesn’t work that way.

                    3. First, I never said violence isn’t justified. I stated INITIATING it is. Defending yourself (violence) from aggressors is indeed justified.
                      As for my point, it’s clear. Don’t think for a second others initiating violence via the acts I’ve listed for the reasons I’ve listed don’t believe they aren’t justified. They do, just as you’ve convinced yourself initiating violence for your ‘just’ beliefs is right.

        2. If you feel that compelled to follow your conscience, then you certainly *can* do so. But don’t expect me to condone it.

          Violence certainly can be an appropriate response, but generally speaking, only in response to other acts of violence.

          1. Well, part of being a libertarian is understanding the difference between what’s moral and what’s legal.

            Sometimes things that are immoral should be legal.

            Sometimes things that are illegal really are immoral.

            Sometimes things are illegal that are moral.

            And sometimes just because it should be illegal and is illegal doesn’t mean no one should do it.

            It’s like Evel Knievel beating his ex-publicist senseless with a baseball bat for falsely accusing him of being a drug addict and a wife-beater in a tell-all book. Once the publisher realized it was all lies, they didn’t publish it, but Evel Knievel needed something more for his publicist’s betrayal than that. So he beat the shit out of his ex-publicist with an aluminum bat.

            At the arraignment, Evel Knievel plead guilty. The judge released him on his own recognizance pending sentencing. On the way out of court, a reporter asked him why he plead guilty. Evel Knievel replied, “Because I did it”. He went on to sentencing and did his time.

            The government isn’t always great at exacting justice.

            1. Well, part of being a libertarian is understanding the difference between what’s moral and what’s legal.

              Being a libertarian means knowing the difference between the *initiation* of force and force used in self defense.

              But thanks for playing.

              1. Actually, you’re not in charge of what defines libertarianism. It’s certainly not merely your preferred philosophical formulation–just because you say so.

                There are, however, certain things that most every libertarian buys into.

                If you’re a small state libertarian, chances are you believe that if the existence of government has any legitimate justification at all, it’s there to protect our rights. I don’t really see how you get around that one.

                Also, if you’re a libertarian, chances are you recognize the difference between morality and the law. It may be immoral to cheat on your spouse, but that doesn’t mean the government needs to prosecute people for adultery. Meanwhile, just because it’s legal for the government to imprison adults for possessing cannabis, doesn’t mean it’s moral for the government to do so.

                I can see how some libertarians might justify acting aggressively in defense of their freedom in certain situations, but I don’t see how anybody can be a libertarian and think that there isn’t an important difference between morality and the law.

                On the other hand, anybody who thinks individuals shouldn’t stand up for themselves as they see fit–independent of government–isn’t being much of an anarchist. I’m not an anarchist either, but I can do a pretty good job of taking care of myself without much help from the government.

                1. First you define what being a libertarian is to someone…then when someone else defines what a libertarian is you say “You’re not in charge of what defines libertarianism”.

                  What a self-righteous hypocritical joke you are.

                  1. I know libertarians who believe that government has no legitimate purpose. So how could the idea that the legitimate purpose of government is to protect our rights be the definition of libertarianism?

                    Likewise, the observation that there’s a difference between morality and law isn’t the definition of libertarianism either. I just showed that it’s a libertarian idea regardless of whether one believes in NAP.

                    Showing people that there are libertarian principles apart from the NAP, in response to being told that an idea isn’t lbertarian unless it superficially complies with NAP, is not defining libertarianism any more than debunking one bad argument is necessarily insisting on another bad argument.

                    I.e., you say A is not B therefore it is not libertarian.

                    I point out that C is not B but is libertarian, that D is not B but is libertarian, . . .

                    Therefore there are libertarian things that are not B.

                    That doesn’t mean C and D are the real definition of libertarianism. It just means that the real definition of libertarianism is not B.

    3. I don’t know, think who you’re empowering with talk like that?

      Once you’ve said that there are people whose views are so bad that they morally deserve an ass-kicking, who’s going to take up your invitation and administer the ass-kickings?

      Not people for whom 90 days in jail would be shameful and would endanger their job. In other words, respectable people aren’t going to say, “eh, 90 days in jail, sure, that’s a price I want to pay!”

      It’s people with little or nothing to lose – bums, liberal-arts students, professional activists, and the like – who will be in the position to take that “conscientious” choice.

      And bums, liberal-arts students and professional activists will attack anyone they *think* is a nazi, which of course would include anti-feminist speakers, Trump supporters, etc. This isn’t hypothetical.

      1. “In other words, respectable people aren’t going to say, “eh, 90 days in jail, sure, that’s a price I want to pay!”

        I got to a certain age and a certain level of accomplishment, and I definitely started caring more about that than I used to.

        1. So you’re effectively farming out all that ass-kicking to people who aren’t going to make the fine distinctions you make.

          1. And since this whole thread simply invites Godwinning, yes, Hitler *did* come for the Commies first.

            1. They rarely start with the strongest target, they go for the people who are considered unsympathetic, then work up from there.

          2. I don’t run into Nazi skinheads all the time like I used to.

            I can’t remember the last time I saw one.

            It wouldn’t be an instant fight like it used to be. But I’ve got respect for people who will stand up against that sort of thing.

            I’m not willing to automatically assume that violence is worse than cowardice, and I think Nazis (and others) prey on the fact that a lot of people do think violence is worse than cowardice.

            1. Might I ask that you be more specific about what the skinheads were doing?

              1. What Nazi skinhead gangs were doing at shows back in the ’80s?

                They were beating the shit out of anyone that got in their range, and they were forming bash crews to cruise various places after the show to beat the shit out of people they caught on the street that they didn’t like. You know what Nazi skinhead gangs used to do.

                They were looking for trouble. We were looking for trouble.

                1. OK, sounds like their behavior was actually, indisputably illegal and aggressive.

                  I’m not so sure about the guys with the permit in California. Maybe it will turn out they did something aggressive, too, I’m not ruling it out, but so far I haven’t heard of anything like what those guys you’re talking about did.

            2. “I’m not willing to automatically assume that violence is worse than cowardice”

              Pretty sure there’s quite a bit of geography between those two poles.

            3. Not resorting to violence is not the same thing as cowardice, though.

              1. Here’s a great example of righteous violence:

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

                That the Dropkick Murphys covering TNT by AC/DC, an old skinhead anthem. The Dropkick Murphys used to be/still are a skinhead band–but not Nazi at all.

                They had a bunch of fans with them on stage, and one the guys (left side of the stage) starts throwing Nazi salutes instead of pumping his fist like a Trojan skin. The Dropkick Murphys really, really didn’t appreciate being associated with Nazis by anybody in the crowd who didn’t understand the difference–so they beat the shit out of the Nazi in front of everybody and announced that Nazis weren’t welcome at their shows.

                If you don’t want the Dropkick Murphys to beat the shit out of you for jumping up on stage with them and throwing Nazi salutes, there’s an easy way to avoid that. Can you guess what it is?

                1. *googles*

                  Huh. And I thought they were Aussies.

                2. Ken,
                  Yeah, someone busting into your performance is *exactly* like someone holding a protest meeting in a public space.
                  Don’t do that.

                  1. It was just one example of violence that while illegal was probably also righteous (for want of a better word).

                    I didn’t mean to suggest that situation was exactly equivalent to anything else–it was just meant as an example to show that violence is sometimes both as illegal as it should be and also called for.

                    1. Ken Shultz|6.26.16 @ 11:22PM|#
                      “It was just one example of violence that while illegal was probably also righteous (for want of a better word)”

                      So were the nukes to end WWII, but I wouldn’t bother mentioning them WRT this bunch of thugs.
                      Your effort look like, to me and others, and attempt to justify the Red Guard here; don’t bother.

                3. Nazi skinheads were a nuisance at punk shows across the nation from the mid-80’s into the early 90’s. The way they were rooted out of the scene was through violence. Justified violence. Punks fighting nazi skins. It worked.

                  Since it’s Reason, I didn’t bother to rtfa, so I don’t know if this violence was justified. But in my experience, what Ken Shultz is saying about nazi punk bullshit is correct.

                4. “Can you guess what it is?”

                  Don’t trespass on the venue’s property?

                  Obey event security when they ask you to leave?

                  1. If you don’t want the Dropkick Murphys to kick your ass for jumping up on stage with them and throwing Nazi salutes, you can avoid that by not jumping up on stage with them and throwing Nazi salutes.

                    1. I haven’t looked it up, but I somehow don’t think someone who jumps on stage with the performers is acting within his legal rights, and that he can be forcibly removed, and if he resists being forcibly removed he can get beaten up to the extent necessary to overcome his resistance.

                      In other words, he didn’t get a permit to parade on public property, he was doing some other shit entirely.

                      I think you’re citing cases where the neo-nazis were the aggressors and conflating them with cases where the at least appear to be complying with legal requirements regarding parades.

                    2. “I haven’t looked it up, but I somehow don’t think someone who jumps on stage with the performers is acting within his legal rights”

                      1) You keep looking for legal justifications when none are intended.

                      They beat the crap out of the Nazi for their own reasons. I happen to think they had good reasons. Those reasons have nothing to do with the law or the Constitution. The Dropkick Murphys aren’t the government. They’re not responsible for protecting anyone’s free speech rights. They’re just obligated to respect them. They threw that obligation away in this case.

                      I think they had good reasons. I think they broke the law. I think they violated that Nazi’s rights, and I applaud them for doing so. If they were tried for beating up that Nazi and I were on the jury, I might vote to convict them. And I would still applaud them for what they did.

                      Sometimes doing the wrong thing is the right thing to do.

                      I remember when Osama bin Laden was killed. Jacob Sullum wrote a column about all the Constitutional problems with the operation and how it was carried out. So many laws broken.

                      I’m glad. I’m glad they killed him–even if it was illegal and unconstitutional. If the brave soldiers who killed him are brought up on charges for breaking the law, they should be punished in accordance with the law. Even if they violated the Constitution, they should be punished severely and given a hero’s parade.

                    3. 2) We’re not talking about legal rights. The government isn’t involved here. We’re talking about individuals and how they justify their own actions, but they don’t necessarily need to justify them to anyone else but themselves.

                      If I walk up to a Nazi and kick him in the ass, that’s my business. You can arrest me for it, and maybe I’ll plead guilty. But it isn’t about the law. It isn’t about legal rights. Maybe I take the penalty and commit the foul. Society’s gotta do its job. I know that. The government has to do its job in protecting the rights of Nazis from getting kicked in the ass by people like me, too. But this isn’t about the government. It’s about me.

                      Sometimes, it may be necessary for me to stand up and defend myself. Sometimes, I may need to go on the offensive, too. George Orwell thought it was necessary to go to Spain, take up arms, and shoot fascists. Generally speaking, shooting people violates their rights. Whether Orwell was legally justified in shooting people for being Nazis is an absurd question. The interesting question is whether Orwell felt justified himself.

                    4. And talking and debating and gentle persuasion does not work on these assclowns. They were there to disrupt, disturb, divide, and destroy the Dropkick Murphys show.

                      It was an odd tactic the nazi skins took. There was a concentrated effort to disrupt and ruin shows. Was the nihilism of national socialism supposed to appeal to punks? Were they hoping violence against skins would create martyrs, thus inspiring other white kids? It never made much sense to me.

                    5. I’m saying it’s cool to throw them out when they disrupt shows, but not cool to beat on them simply because they have a parade permit and are saying stuff you don’t like.

                    6. Re: Fusionist@ 11:40

                      You are correct.

            4. What always interested me was how often ‘Nazi skinhead’ referred to the out group. The people who weren’t part of the in crowd. The freaks among the freaks.

              What was always obvious is that there were only ‘instant’ fights when the uncool kids were vastly outnumbered. When the ‘antifa’ or ‘Sharp’ crowd knew they could do what they wanted without fear of getting hurt.

              Saw WAY too many instances at shows where the ‘anti-fascist’/’Sharp’ skins singled some guy out at a show who was just standing there, watching the band, to be their punching bag for the night.

              Who are the antifa/sharp groups today? SJW assholes, still looking for innocents to hurt–leftists attacking Jews(as always) and claiming that ‘nazis’ as still some kinda threat to throw people off.

              Fuck you, Ken–as soon as your crowd infected a scene the clock started ticking towards death–you fuckers even killed CBGBs.

              1. I wasn’t a sharp or a skinhead–ever.

                So, up yours!

    4. The government shouldn’t interfere with a Nazi’s right to free speech, but sometimes when an individual follows his conscience, it really can lead him or her to punch someone in the face. And if you don’t want to get punched in the face by some conscientious individual for standing on the capitol steps dressed up like a Nazi, then there’s a really easy way to avoid that. Can you guess what it is?

      If I follow my conscience by getting a permit and engaging in an act to which I have as much a right as anyone, then brandishing a gun I legally own seems to be both an easy and legal way to avoid getting punched in the face by someone who can’t handle hearing what I might have to say.

      1. Or if not brandishing, then merely openly carrying a firearm will probably keep any face-punchers at bay.

        1. And now, Grasshopper, you understand why some people want to “control” guns.

          1. Like, perhaps, the ‘anti-fascists’ in the story?

              1. So “Red Guards” isn’t far off the mark. Thugs…

              2. In response to the monitoring of BAMN and other nonviolent groups

                Well now.

                  1. Well, sand they get a watch, too, right Alex?

              3. The initiation of force is crime.
                The Left is organized crime.

    5. some people think kicking you in the teeth and 90 days in jail is an even split.

      How many arrests? I haven’t heard of any.

    6. I’m guessing punch idiots like you in the face first so you don’t punch me because you’ve decided your disagreement with me justifies you punching me.
      Aggressive self-defense as it were.

      Is that the correct answer?
      Or is your demand that you be permitted to initiate violence without legal or justifiable cause; but nobody else should be permitted to do that same?

      So the moral high ground of “It’s only good when I do it’?
      Yeah. How could I possibly have guessed?

      For teh record; your plan leads to everyone going with my solution.
      If your goal is to have a lot more violence (including directed at you and yours specifically); congratulations.
      If your goal wasn’t to have a lot more violence…
      Then maybe quit calling for more violence.

    7. I scuffled with plenty of nazi skins at plenty of shows. I fought friggin Hammerskins, because they’re based in my city. I was a Redskin SHARP for many years. I also protested with ARANet many times against KKK and other racist groups.

      You send exactly like every poseur I ever heard who bragged about this stuff and never did it themselves. Always a few kids like you talking big talk at shows and never there in the fight. Kids sporting laces and braces with shiny new doc martins they’re afraid to get scuffed in a fight. Yeah, reading your posts below that sounds exactly like who you were “back in your day”.

  21. I’m reminded of Hayek’s insight that communists and fascists hate each other so much because they are fighting for the same ideological ground.

    1. Street violence doesn’t necessarily need a rationale.

      Some people like to duke it out just because it’s fun and exciting.

      1. And yet they seemed to have had a pretty clear rationale in this case

      2. And yet they seemed to have had a pretty clear rationale in this case

      3. “Street violence doesn’t necessarily need a rationale.
        Some people like to duke it out just because it’s fun and exciting.”

        True enough, but when you’ve planned the mob to support a rationale and you’re claiming the rationale while you’re in the process of beating the crap out of someone, I think a rationale can be presumed.

  22. OT:
    Bremains really like democracy, unless it goes the other way:

    “Scotland’s leader declared the Scottish parliament might try to block Britain’s exit from the European Union and lawmakers in the opposition Labor Party revolted against their chief for his lackluster efforts to persuade British voters to stay in the bloc.
    […]
    Sturgeon said she believes Scotland’s consent is required for the move but conceded the British government would probably take “a very different view.”
    http://www.sfgate.com/world/ar…..326117.php (or your fave AP reseller)

    So Scotland could have bailed from GB and wisely decided to stay, ’cause free shit. Now, Scotland wants to bail from GB, ’cause free shit:
    “Scotland Europa is a membership-based organisation that promotes Scotland’s interests across the institutions of the European Union and to the representatives of Europe’s regions and Member States.
    We help Scottish organisations foster successful European relationships, providing guidance on European policies and funding.”
    https://www.scotlandeuropa.com/

    That’s “funding” you see right there.

    1. I weep for modern Scotland. Such a wonderful Enlightenment history; all discarded in the name of freedom free shit.

      I’ve also seen these various, umm, explanations of why Brexit wasn’t really democratic:

      – This kind of historical decision needs at least a 2/3 majority;

      – Most of the Remain people stayed home, so really only a minority of Brits actually voted;

      – Referendums aren’t really democracy; and

      – Ignorant votes shouldn’t count.

      1. And reading between the lines, most of the Bremains are smart people, so they should win even if they lose!

      2. 2/3 majority is majick democracy, you see.

      3. Their negotiation tactic: “seriously, we make Scotch.”

        1. Who needs tape?

            1. “Hmmm, I got a Scotch in one hand, my remote in the other, now my balls itch. What do I do?”

              1. Good scotch ale in a can is proof that the world is awesome. USA USA USA

    2. And you’ll note that there is “DISARRAY!”, probably something approximating the disarray after the D’s had to get their asses off the floor after no one bothered listening to them

  23. I first thought was that the leaders of the two organization no one ever heard of before staged the whole thing to get publicity.

  24. Wait, we fight the Brownshirts by acting like Brownshirts?

    1. Well, the “Red Guards” wasn’t seen as a really popular moniker.

    2. You’re gonna have to turn a few tricks before you can work as a vice cop

  25. “the bizarre authoritarian bent in progressive activism”

    What’s so bizarre about it?

    1. Yeah, it’s pretty much a prerequisite.

  26. Update =

    The guy i noted above @12 seconds in the video?

    He’s one of the “White Nationalists”.

    e.g.
    Image from the video
    Tweet from the leader of the Reich-du-jour

    I’m going to guess he’s the guy standing third from the right based on height, hat color, etc.

    1. Nice find. You’re a bona fide hard boiled Dick, Gilmore.

      1. i don’t have a hanky for that, so no thank you.

  27. and we move one step closer to the fatality everyone knows is coming. By the way, how often is it that a group makes the neo-Nazis look like the good guys?

    1. The Mencken quote comes to mind.

      1. This one?

        “An idealist is one who, on noticing that a rose smells better than a cabbage, concludes that it will also make better soup.”

        1. “The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one’s time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all.”

          1. “To die for an idea; it is unquestionably noble. But how much nobler it would be if men died for ideas that were true!”

            1. “Every normal must, at times, be tempted to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag and begin slitting throats.”

              That’s my final answer.

  28. Bratfart talks the evils of free trade and how Trump protectionists are on the right side of history:

    http://www.breitbart.com/2016-…..ump-trade/

    1. Bratfart? I laughed. You have a gift. Please, share moore.

      1. On par with “Block Yomama,” eh?

        1. I did not think that it would be possible to sink lower than Block Yomama, but I was sorely mistaken.

          1. Hush your tender supple lips, nothing beats Block Yomomma a.k.a. Threadwinner.

          2. Calm down. He’s the guy you want to keep around to feel better about yourself.

      2. Breitbart has degenerated into gibbering idiots knob-gobbling Trump.

        I think Andrew Breitbart would be embarrassed by what his eponymous website has turned into.

      3. share moore

        Did you mean Shemar Moore?

        1. I clicked that expecting a chick.

          Fuck you.

          May as well have been rickrolled.

          1. Dude, never click a .jpeg link addressed to Crusty.

            1. Salient point. My mistake.

              1. Haha. Finally clicked this. Shemar Moore really blew it by not being a total fuck up. He could have had a reality show on E!.

  29. This article should have been. “War Profiteers. Who Gives A Flying Fuck IF A Bunch Of Assholes Kill Each Other?”

    If a bunch of Statist Fucks want to kill each other than I am more than willing to sell them the tools to do it.

    1. one group showed up to exercise a constitutional right, the other group showed up to prevent that exercise through violence. These groups are not the same.

      1. I don’t care. Buy my products, and murder each other.

        1. If you want an end to “Guns” then stop using state sanctioned violence against people. “Gun Control” is easy as that.

          1. when did I mention wanting “an end to guns”?

            1. OMG, Look!! wareagle wants to take our guns away!

              1. *raises a wooden bat menacingly at wareagle*

                1. *raises aBlind-sides See Double You with a wooden bat menacingly at wareagle*

      2. one group showed up to exercise a constitutional right, the other group showed up to prevent that exercise through violence. These groups are not the same.

        from everything i’ve seen, it looks like they both “came to fight“. the most vicious attack witnessed in the above video was one of the charmers with the pitchfork-T-shirt

        1. one talked about attacking the other, blatantly it seems. Good to see the cops being so vigilant. Maybe if either group had brought along a dog or two. Either way, there is going to be a fatality before the last vote is cast this season .

          1. Did you mean “the *first* vote”?

            1. maybe that’s the over/under. With each violent protest in which cops seemingly do nothing, those willing to be violent will push the envelope a bit further. Eventually, they’ll go the whole way and everyone will pretend to be outraged and appalled.

        2. it looks like they both “came to fight”.

          You can’t fool me, Gilmore, that’s a picture of a Vampire LARP group playing as modern Brujah.

  30. Plus, of course, the right of Free Speech.

      1. The right you attacked above, like your fellow progs.

  31. The problem is not ‘hate’. The problem is these groups are just looking to provide each other with excuses for violence. Which is the end goal of both sides (their politics are confused and inconsistent). That’s the problem when you breed entire classes of people as workers and warriors.

  32. Way to light up the Trumptard bat signal, Reason.

    1. What does it say when an article about white nationalists beckons the Trump supporters to come in…

    2. The Reason Commenters should always stay the same, and never deviate decade, to decade.
      /Hazel
      GET OFF MY LAWN !!!!!

      1. How exactly is Trumpism supposed to be appealing to libertarians?

        If it’s not appealing, why do you expect Reason commenters to be effuse in praise?

        1. How is being a shrinking violet helpful ?

        2. you’re the one bringing up Trumpism. The story here seems that of one group happy to use violence against those it does not agree with.

          1. Yes, you are right. Sorry I am just a bit touchy by all the Trumpbots insisting that anyone who is broadly right-of-center have some moral imperative to vote for Trump because HILLARY IS JUST THAT BAD. Yes she is bad but that doesn’t require a vote for Trump, and I am just sick of people demanding that I get on the Trump Train based on some right-wing narrative that Hillary would represent THE END OF THE REPUBLIC.

            1. Why don’t you want to make America great again, jeff?

              1. Yeah, you caught me. I don’t support Trump therefore I hate America.

                1. I don’t support Trump therefore I hate America.

                  and Japan.

            2. all the Trumpbots insisting that anyone who is broadly right-of-center have some moral imperative to vote for Trump …. I am just sick of people demanding that I get on the Trump Train

              what?

              1. Not here, elsewhere on the dextrosphere.

                1. ah.

                  but where are all the trump-supporters that you mentioned above, drawn here like moths to any mention of their White Nationalist Heroes?

                  You don’t mean Eddie do you? He’s *constitutionalist party*, which supports Dave Chappelle for president.

                  1. Hardy har har.

                    I don’t care if your skin is white so long as your robe, hood and mask *aren’t.*

                    I don’t care if your skin is brown so long as your shirt *isn’t.*

                    1. I meant no disrespect. I am a huge fan of Dave Chappelle, i just question his leadership qualifications.

                  2. Maybe nowhere. I don’t know. I’m still PO’ed at them.

                2. Get on the Trump Train

                  Last one aboard is a cuckatarian

                  1. LOL evidently so.

                  2. Last one aboard is a cuckatarian

                    Nothing is more amusing than the way Trumptards fear the black cock.

            3. Holy crap!!

              People who support a candidate suggesting that other people support their candidate too or the world will end–why that’s never been done before!!1..!!……//! what?

              Trump’s eeevvviiilll genius at work.

            4. Hillary is inevitable. Your vote doesn’t matter, so cast it for someone you actually support.
              If it were close, I might vote for Hillary just to stop Trump, but it’s not going to be close.

        3. How exactly is Trumpism supposed to be appealing to libertarians?

          He appeals to many of the anti-gummint libertarians, playing to the same hatred as a Ron Paul. Pro-liberty libertarians see Trump as a sign of liberty’s collapse — in a so-called libertarian moment.

  33. Oh, Messi… you’ve chosen an unusual way to make this game all about you, don’t you think.

  34. OT =

    Tommen, Rickon = No Game…. at All

    I think its a subtle dig at the impotence of modern youth.

  35. The fun is only just beginning

  36. New AP hand-wringing, pants-shitting, forelock-pulling, undie-twisting, OMFGTWIET!”
    “British political turmoil deepens after EU referendum”
    […]
    “Britain’s shocking decision to remove itself from the European Union brought more political turmoil Sunday as Scotland’s leader threatened to block the move and the opposition Labour Party’s leader faced a coup attempt from his own legislators….”
    Number 5 will shock you! Scotland voted for free shit from GB a couple of years back, now they are threatened with losing the free shit from the EU; oh, the HORROR of choosing one free shit from the other!

    “The sense of unease spread…”
    Yep, that was measured by sampling the populations of…….
    The Brussels ‘crats who are terrified that others might find them wortheless and so, they are very ‘uneased’ and trying to make this as difficult as possible. Remember how a 2% tax cut means you don’t get parks, a fire department and cops? Why do you hate the children?
    Spam allowed; long comments denied; part 1

    1. Part 2:
      “The leaders of the successful campaign to leave the EU stayed largely out of the public eye, as opponents accused them of lacking a plan to calm the crisis the result has triggered.”
      Uh, except…
      “In his first statement since Friday morning, “leave” leader and former London Mayor Boris Johnson used his column in the Daily Telegraph newspaper to urge unity and say “the negative consequences (of the vote) are being wildly overdone.”
      http://www.sfgate.com/news/wor…..325630.php

      The ‘media’ and the bureaucrats who feed them stories they don’t have to write are more than willing to shovel that pile of BS.

      1. But you want to know what the most noteworthy thing is about this whole Brexit thing?

        There was a referendum, it was a nonbinding referendum, and nevertheless, everyone is reacting *seriously* to the result, as if it had been binding. The Prime Minister fucking resigned because of it. I cannot even fathom something similar happening here.

        1. Non binding…. But the left is wedded to the idea of democracy. And per democracy, this is binding. Don’t you love democracy?

        2. The Prime Minister fucking resigned because of it.

          Politics is about creating the perception of legitimacy

          Once you’ve lost that, unless you step aside, you risk also bringing down the legitimacy of the process.

          I cannot even fathom something similar happening here.

          Similar things happen here all the time. Hell, someone like Trump or Clinton might actually become president.

          1. “Politics is about creating the perception of legitimacy

            Once you’ve lost that, unless you step aside, you risk also bringing down the legitimacy of the process.”

            The asshats that we have in charge now, I think they take it all for granted.

            “Similar things happen here all the time. Hell, someone like Trump or Clinton might actually become president.”

            What if, for instance, Texas had a referendum for seceding, and it passed. Can you see anyone in charge anywhere resigning over it? Do you think Obama would resign? Anyone? No they would just berate Texans for being stupid.

            1. The asshats that we have in charge now, I think they take it all for granted.

              If you recall, the last time we had a “crisis of legitimacy”, it was when Bush II won the election vs. Al Gore.

              They don’t forget stuff like that.

            2. Hi chemjeff

              Non binding…. But the left is wedded to the idea of democracy. And per democracy, this is binding. Don’t you love democracy?

          2. Or not even Obama resigning. Can you see any governor or senator or anyone even doing anything if the people voted against what they thought was the “correct” choice of action?

            1. Democracy. Do what even the slightest majority of people say or reap their wrath. Or whatever.

          3. “Politics is about creating the perception of legitimacy”

            In SF we have a proggie POS who, courtesy of district elections, managed to end up on the BoS by a 100-vote margin or something similar.
            His name is Arron Peskin; he is a true lefty econ-ignoramus. We have rent control for buildings older than ’75, and he immediately, upon being seated, demanded rent control on all construction.
            Not long afterward, in a discussion with one of the Chron columnists, he saw no problem, as Peskin had made no regulation.
            I asked if was his millions of dollars it costs to ‘pass muster’ and build in SF, would he do so if all it took was one more proggy BoS vote with Peskin to deny him a profit? It seemed to regster.

            1. I just saw a headline about rent going from 1800/month to 8000/month. How fucked is SF real estate?

      2. The predictable stories about financial companies leaving London, London positioning to leave the UK, regular citizens being generically scared, etc, are… predictable. The big difference is currency and border controls, I guess. Currency issues are hilarious to me because all currencies are worthless. Unless a country is deciding to open up currency to competition or peg it to a commodity, then what is the worry? Border stuff is a worry, only if you think the currency will appreciate(how much has changed in the western world in 20 yrs?) or if you identify with some other country as your homeland that has rules you think are better than the country you live in or something.

    2. This isn’t that complicated. If you threaten to leave a club and the members of the club try to stop you from leaving or are angry about you leaving, then the club needed you more than you needed to Club.

  37. This is why we need guns.

  38. Sorry, Ken, but envision the following scenario:

    Someone – let’s call him Adolf – is explaining to you that there are some people who are so absolutely evil that it’s OK to beat and stomp on them and kick their teeth in. And maybe it’s technically illegal to do this, but there’s a higher law of righteousness which justifies such violence.

    Would you trust Adolf to define who deserves to have righteous, extralegal violence inflicted on them?

    I know you wouldn’t trust him, because at heart you’re a good person, you simply encountered some actual nazis and you’re rightly angry at them.

    But don’t make me quote Robert Bolt at you.

    1. Not sure what Ken comment you are replying to. The tanglements of what ifs are too much. But, I agree with you here Eddie.

      1. Nevermind, I know what comment. If Nazis jump on stage at a concert, there’s surely a no jumping on stage policy. So maybe you are both right?

        1. Hopefully, we’re saying the same thing in different ways.

          1. It’s just that I’ve encountered people who, based on what I will charitably call overactive imaginations, have concluded that I am an evil disgusting person – if those people thought that had a license for “righteous” violence against me they would probably have tried it, and they would have thought they were being holy and just.

            So naturally I get nervous when someone says “evil people, *as defined by me,* deserve to get physically attacked and beaten.”

          2. I think we are. I just look at this violence as simple human psychology. The violent left wants to prove that the right is violent. To prove this, they attack the right(trump supporters). If the right doesn’t retaliate, there is still the police, who are told they are racist if the protect the right. The hope is that the right eventually capitulates and fights back. Or the police fight back. Ipso facto, the right is violent against the left. It works both ways, but where we are today, it is left being the aggressors. I’m not saying all left, just the faction that believes in violence as a valid tactic. Show me evidence of trump supporters in bandanas and throwing rocks at police at Sanders rallies and I’ll recant.

            1. To hear leftists tell it, they’re just skipping along the road, picking daisies, when WHAM, some rightists or cops start beating on them.

              1. If there’s video which disproves the daisy-picking hypothesis, then that means the other side was “overreacting.”

                1. Or if the video evidence shows them being *really* violent, then it’s time for the friendly media to report that “violence breaks out at Trump rally.”

                  1. Tonight, ABC news was very clear that it was the white supremacist protestors vs the anti-protestors.

            2. how me evidence of trump supporters in bandanas and throwing rocks at police at Sanders rallies and I’ll recant.

              So you sanction the vicious violence by Trump supporters because (a) they were not wearing banana and (b< assault is okay if the victims are merely humans (not police officers)

    2. Ken thinks that Hillary Clinton is so absolutely evil that it’s OK to vote for Donald Trump. Who promises to actually round people up and force them to register in national databases.

      I don’t trust any politician, or group of people who claims that I HAVE TO vote for a mentally ill fascist in order to stop the “other side” (in this case, Hillary Clinton).

      1. Wha? If you think there’s a difference between Trump and Clinton besides the party affiliation, you’re delusional. Different words, same goals, same methods.

      2. Who promises to actually round people up and force them to register in national databases.

        Like Hawaiian gun owners?

  39. OK, I have no idea if a Bing maps link works, but I was looking at France for a connection to a place wife and I had visited and found this:
    And it doesn’t work
    Suffice to say that the EU subsidies have obvious incentives to keep French farmers ‘small’, and with the French opting for Germanic romanticism, why, that’s just what the EU supports. Germans have yet to discover that moving people off dirt is a gain also.
    I was going to compare the Bing map image to the US but you’re all capable of doing so; we waste our taxes supporting larger operations!

  40. ENB, since it seems like you’re trying here, I’ll assume these were simply mistakes and oversights. But really, you should consciously try to remove leftist propaganda from your articles.

    Anti-Fascists “Anti-Fascists” ‘Very Proud’…
    BAMN members came brandishing wooden bats and shouting “fuck fascists. Beat the fascists. Beat them.” One member Yvette Felarca told CNN she was “very, very proud” of the counter-protest assault that had produced such violence.
    … Meanwhile, the anti-facists “anti-facists”
    …The group bills itself as anti-globalist, but its ideology is old-fashioned white supremacy.
    note there is no equivalent statement about the racism, fascism, and totalitarianism of BAMN

    initiating violence against people protesting peacefully?no matter how odious their ideas?will never be a winning step strategically.

    It doesn’t actually benefit the cause of anti-fascism, racism, or bigotry.
    accepting the premise that they are against fascism, racism, and bigotry

    You spend the whole back end of the article treating racist, totalitarian thugs who *initiated violence* to stop a political protest as if *they* were just good hearted souls fighting for justice with bad “strategy”.

    Why is BAMN’s racism, bigotry, and totalitariansim given a pass, while their victims are maligned?

    This is why Liberty dies – the sanction of the victim.

  41. I never thought I’d have to defend nazi scum, but if people had just ignored these 50 skinhead fucks there would be no news. This violence is cowardly bullshit. BAMN is a terrorist group, fucking commies, and the antics of these little shits will only ever cause harm to liberty. Liberty means skinhead fucks can freely assemble without another group of fucks showing up to start a melee brawl. I choose liberty and I still believe in this country. Fuck everything, especially hippies.

    1. Exactly, and fuck the commies for putting me in a position where I defend the rights of nazis.

    2. cowardly bullshit

      This is how you provoke a violent response to prove the racism, etc against your side. It’s simple human psychology.

  42. The important thing is that the right people got knifed.

  43. Watched the national news tonight. FD spokesman was quoted as saying it was a rally by “the KKK and other right wing extremists”, and a vague description of violence and how the FD declared a mass casualty event to put hospitals on alert for handling patients. Absolutely no mention that one side showed up with the intention of violence.

  44. Yet while the group’s views may be racist and reactionary, it doesn’t?at least in writing?advocate violence or destruction. The group’s mission, according to its website, is to defend America against “economic exploitation, federal tyranny, and anti-Christian degeneracy.

    How is that not advocating violence? Does it not count as violence if the people suppressing the “anti-Chrisian degenerates” have shiny government badges on while they carry out the progrom?

    1. I see what you are saying. But, is there proof that their rally today was a violent one?

      1. The weren’t being violent, they were just advocating it. Which is still legal given the lack of immediacy.

        But they were still advocating violence.

        1. Quote what you are suggesting constitutes “inciting others to commit violent acts”

          1. I would like to see what the group was saying today. It would clarify alot. I wonder if they were speculating about the use of woodchippers.

            1. Vote Woodchipper 2016!

              1. Is someone positing on the Woodchipper running in 2016?

    2. The nice thing about BAMN, is they don’t advocate for violence, they totally cut out the middle man.

      “A KCRA-TV reporter and his cameraman were caught in an altercation with protesters who shouted “no cameras” as they tried to grab their equipment and shove them away from the crowd.”

      1. protesters who shouted “no cameras” as they tried to grab their equipment and shove them away from the crowd.

        So they’re just like cops?

  45. Step 1: Label people Skinheads
    Step 2: Beat the fuck out of them
    Step 3: ???
    Step 4 Profit!!!

    1. Isn’t it:

      Step 1: Label people Skinheads
      Step 2: Beat the fuck out of them
      Step 3: ???Label people Skinheads
      Step 4 Profit!!!

  46. Yvette Felarca, a member of the counter-protest group By Any Means Necessary, told CNN she came to prevent the spread of hate.

    Um, if your plan to “prevent the spread of hate” is to beat and possibly kill anyone who disagrees with you…
    Well, you can do that.
    You just need to kill approximately half of the world’s population first so nobody is left who will disagree with you.

    So if killing 3.5 Billion people to “prevent the spread of hate” sounds like a good plan to you; keep going as you’ve started.
    Personally I can’t think of a stupider and more counterproductive plan myself.

  47. One extremist group beating another extremist group. News? Couldn’t care less. Of course that’s not how the media plays it but that’s what I have come to expect. If you are a libertarian or anything right of that feel the brush stroke over your face as they paint you as the same as one of the “fascist” numb nuts.

  48. Hey what’s wrong with a melee?

    All I can say if folks want to fight, go for it!

    (this is assuming both parties agree)

    It is safe to say that anyone who throws a punch also agrees to receive one back.

  49. Two totalitarian gangs fighting over control of the streetcorner.

    Shades of Germany in the ’30s.

    1. Only one of those gangs thinks “we’re” members of the other

  50. When I saw the headline, I assumed this happened somewhere in Europe. I guess the proggies are getting their wish: we’re becoming more and more like Europe. Congratulations, assholes.

  51. The only official definition of Fascism comes from Benito Mussolini, the founder of fascism, in which he outlines three principles of a fascist philosophy.

    1.”Everything in the state”. The Government is supreme and the country is all-encompasing, and all within it must conform to the ruling body, often a dictator.
    2.”Nothing outside the state”. The country must grow and the implied goal of any fascist nation is to rule the world, and have every human submit to the government.
    3.”Nothing against the state”. Any type of questioning the government is not to be tolerated. If you do not see things our way, you are wrong. If you do not agree with the government, you cannot be allowed to live and taint the minds of the rest of the good citizens.

    So, given this definition by it’s founder, which of the groups described above are the fascists?

    1. All these proggies I see on Facebook and Twitter throwign around “Fascist” who don’t even know what it means.

      Also, gathering all the pillars of society around a national narrative. Today we have multiple ones – black lives matter, climate change, war on women…everything that proves that Progressives must rule the state that rules the world.

    2. There’s probably a sampler with that quote stitched into it at the McCuckerman household.

  52. While driving to work this morning, I heard this incident reported on NPR’s top of the hour news segment.

    It was reported in a manner that completely obscured the fact that it was the “anti-fascist” protesters who came armed and ready to instigate the violence and deliberately did so. Par for the course for NPR.

  53. The only thing leftists have against Bull Connor is that he wasn’t working for their side.

    1. ummm……..yes, he was.

      Bull Connor was a Democrat in good standing.

      The left has always been for racism.

      1. Connor was a lifelong member of the DNC.

  54. “First they came for the neo-nazis and the racists, and I did not speak out?
    Because those people deserve what they get

    Then they came for the misogynists, the homo/transphobes and the microagressors, and I did not speak out?
    Because sometimes what is legal isn’t moral

    Then they came for the creationists and climate deniers, and I did not speak out?
    Because I fucking love science

    Then they came for the gun owners and I did not speak out?
    Because sensible regulation doesn’t mean gun grabbing..

    Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out?
    Because they always come for the Jews, sooner or later

    Then they came for the Libertarians, the Republicans, the right, and I did not speak out?
    Because by this time, I was one of them

    Then they came for the impure, the heterodox, the thinking, and I did not speak out?
    Because I no longer could.

    Then they came again, and again, for more and more and they always keep coming–as long as there’s
    the faintest spark of hope–of something they don’t control–or haven’t destroyed, they will keep coming.

    Until liberty is dead.

  55. I’m outlining a dystopian novel, set around 2024 (the 8th year of Hillary’s presidency.) I’m imagining ways society could have gone wrong, but then I only have to come here and read the news.

    Brown shirts attacking the free speech of anti-government types with lethal force (and not guns)? Check.

  56. RE: Anti-Fascists ‘Very Proud’ of White Nationalist Counter-Protest That Led to Multiple Stabbing Victims
    “Beat the fascists. Beat them.”

    How many times does it have to be said.
    Amerika cannot tolerate free speech.
    What next, a free press?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.