White Nationalist Rally in Charlottesville Shut Down Due to Violence

Car rams pedestrians on city's downtown mall; many injured.


Ronald Bailey

Charlottesville, Va.—The white nationalist Unite the Right rally in my home town was dispersed after Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe declared a state of emergency in the wake of violent clashes between the neo-nazis, white supremacists, and other assorted alt-righters and Black Lives Matter, anti-fascist, and other counter-protesters. The white nationalists were attracted to Charlottesville as protest site after the city council's vote to sell memorial statues of confederate generals Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson.

Earlier this week, the city government revoked the permit for the rally to take place in the newly renamed Emancipation Park where the Lee statue stands. The city issued another permit for the rally at the larger McIntire park which is about one mile away from downtown. The rally organizers backed by the American Civil Liberties Union sued and the federal court district ruled that the rally could take place in the downtown park.

Last night, the alt-righters marched with tiki torches through the grounds of the University of Virginia reportedly shouting ""You will not replace us!," "Blood and soil!," and "Jews will not replace us!" Shouting the last slogan while standing in front of the statue of Thomas Jefferson created by Virginia Jewish scupltor and confederate VMI combatant Moses Ezekiel is a bit ironic.

Ronald Bailey

Some of the alt-righters came attired in militia regalia carrying clubs and shields. The clubs were used to bash some counter-protesters before the rally could even get started, prompting the governor's declaration that the rally had become an unlawful assembly. I was not close enough to see that fight, but I did watch as perhaps a 500 Unite the Righters carrying confederate and nazi banners dispersed from the closed park by marching down Market Street. Counter-protesters shouting for them go away let them past for the most part unmolested. White nationalist Richard Spencer with a phalanx of Proud Boys* brought up the rear, clearly reveling in the chaos the rally had caused.

After the alt-righters marched away, many apparently put down their banners and are now mingling with residents and counter-protesters around downtown. Naturally, there are rumors that the alt-righters are planning to regroup for further protests and mayhem.

Now the bad news: Apparently two people are being treated for injuries from the earlier fight and a car has hit and injured some folks on the downtown mall (where I was standing not an hour ago). I am going to head back out to see what else may be happening.

For more background, here is what I think about how confederate monuments and memorials should be handled: Old Times There Are Best Forgotten.

Update: It is very sad to report that at least one person has died from the car ramming on the downtown Mall.

Update: In televised remarks, President Donald Trump said: "We're closely following the terrible events unfolding in Charlottesville, Virginia. We condemn in the strongest possible terms this egregious display of hatred, bigotry and violence, on many sides."

It worth noting that many of the white nationalists gathered here think rightly or wrongly that Trump is on their side. Former KKKer David Duke who is in Charlottesville for the rally declared, "We are going to fulfill the promises of Donald Trump. That's what we believed in, that's why we voted for Donald Trump." In response to Trump's earlier tweet in which the president condemned "hate" and violence," Duke tweeted, "I would recommend you take a good look in the mirror & remember it was White Americans who put you in the presidency, not radical leftists."

*Correction: Apparently my observations and the inferences I made with regard to the regalia worn by the guys surrounding Spencer were wrong. Proud Boys founder Gavin McInnes informs me in colorful language that the group was not participating in the rally in any official capacity. It is nevertheless worth noting that the chief organizer of the Unite the Right rally in my town is Jason Kessler who claims to be a member of the Proud Boys. I regret any errors in my reporting with regard to the participation of Proud Boys in the Unite the Right fiasco today in Charlottesville.

NEXT: Violence in Charlottesville: Hate Speech Is Legal, Assault Is Not

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 or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. I am going to head back out to see what else may be happening.

    Keep your head on a swivel Ron, especially with all the sweaty man-titties flailing about.


    1. Yeah, I mean, that really got out of hand fast.

      1. What has this commentariat come to, when an Anchorman quote gets no response?

        Yeah, yeah, “innocents dead”, “racist terrorism”, blah, blah, blah: get your priorities straight people!

        1. “Stay Classy, Charlottesville” ommitted, 5pt penalty, complaint disregarded.

          1. I hate you, Pan-Fried Wylie Burgundy! I hate you!

    1. Forty years ago something happened huh? At least someone is standing up for the Nazis.

      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. – H. L. Mencken

    2. totaling an XKE is a crime against humanity

  2. “Jews will not replace us

    1. I don’t mind if the Jews replace us, as long as they don’t replace real Coke with that cane sugar pisswater.

  3. “White nationalist Richard Spencer with a phalanx of Proud Boys brought up the rear”

    I’m not up-to-date on my gay slang. What is a “Proud Boy” and what does it mean if a phalanx of them “bring up the rear”

    1. Richard Spencer is an overweight white supremacist, and the Proud Boys are Gavin McInnes’ group of…well…umm…they are all about self-confidence and how the west is best or something. And they like the color yellow.

    2. Truthful answer: Rednecks with guns who show up to defend the alt-right protestors against the antifa crowd.

      Snarky answer: The alt-right’s version of a white gay pride parade

      1. Those tiki torches do look awfully gay…


    3. What’s with the casual homophobia? Even the people who respnded to you did it.

        1. “Crusty Juggler|8.12.17 @ 5:28PM|#

          They did?”

          Yes, you did.

        2. I didn’t detect anything remotely homophobic in Crusty’s response. I think they misunderstood the answer.

    4. They’re slightly more manly than The Wild Boys.

  4. Hey look! More proud southerners being totally not racist and just proud of their heritage!

    Meanwhile in Charlotteville

    1. I have never understood the impulse to badger people about Confederate symbols. They make such a handy warning marker. Like an Iron Cross or a Che shirt they shout “Here is an asshole! Avoid if possible!”.

      1. You know who else liked handy warning markers….

        1. Mao?


          Pol Pot?

        2. The guys who get paid to write that stuff on the side of a pack of cigarettes?

        3. The Romans?

  5. Last night, the alt-righters marched with tiki torches through the grounds of the University of Virginia reportedly shouting “”You will not replace us!,” “Blood and soil!,”

    If Trump had a son…

    1. It’s a shame your mom did.

      1. PB’s mom had a boy at some point? Who knew?

    2. Ignatius, that is absolutely perfect.

      Pure racism when Obama uttered that phrase and pure racism when you invoke it.

  6. Trump on #Charlottesville: “No matter our color, creed, religion or political party, we are all Americans first.”

    ? CNN (@CNN) August 12, 2017


      1. I didn’t get it either. Stormy must be reacting to some ideological dog whistle reasonable people can’t hear.

        1. The “No matter our color, creed, religion, or political party” comes across as comically insincere as a response to violence at a white supremacist rally set up by his on Chief of White House Strategy.

          1. Dang! four lies in one sentence. Impressive. Soros must be hiring better educated fools.

  7. Well, the Antifa have got what they wanted; a public counter-idiocy to focus on. And a pox on ALL their houses.

    1. This is one time I side with the fascists/far-right. They have the right to assemble and protest the removal of the Confederate monument. The police deprived them of this right.

      1. Fascism is the political/economic model that allows private ownership of the means of production, but imposes government dictate on the actual production quantity and product mix. Obamacare is a perfect example of the fascist model. Hence, it is right wing only in comparison to communism.

        1. You’re full of shit.

          From Miriam Webster: Fascism

          often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition.

          Fascism is a right-wing disease and your attempt to smear “private ownership” smacks as a sad ploy of a desperate idiot Trump autocrat conservative.

          1. “Fascism is a right-wing disease ”

            I didn’t see that in the definition you posted, which you were too stupid to realize supported the person you said was full of shit.

            Your assertions are worthless. You’re a liar, with no credibility, who doesn’t pay his bets, and when challeneged on that fact, lies about it too.

            Or was Welch lying?

            I’ll make you a deal. I’ll escrow 1k to any place you want, and upon proof you paid your bet, I will release it to the charity of your choice.

            I await your excuses.

            1. The very definition of “right wing” is a “favored class, race, or ethnic group”, idiot.

              A left wing disease is equality of outcome – Marxism, socialism, or communism.

              Take Poli-Sci 101 sometime and come back.

              1. And excuses are what I got.

                By your definition Pol Pot was right wing. Idiot.

                Pay your bet and get back to me.

              2. “Definition of right wing
                : the rightist division of a group or party”

                And your preferred dictionary says you’re a liar.

              3. You do know that the essence of Progressivism, the very rallying point of SJW’s is all about favoring classes, races, and ethnic groups?

                And that every socialist/communist country that has ever existed has done that?

              4. PB thinks that the right wing is composed of the wealthy, gays, blacks, and hispanics? What an odd post

              5. Palin’s Buttplug|8.12.17 @ 6:39PM|#
                “The very definition of “right wing” is a “favored class, race, or ethnic group”, idiot.”

                Oh, look! Turd can make up new definitons for words when he’s caught lying! Again.

                1. Right-wing politics hold that certain social orders and hierarchies are inevitable, natural, normal, or desirable,[1][2][3] typically supporting this position on the basis of natural law, economics or tradition.

                  Here you go, you idiot.

                  1. Palin’s Buttplug|8.12.17 @ 9:32PM|#
                    “Right-wing politics hold that certain social orders and hierarchies are inevitable, natural, normal, or desirable,[1][2][3] typically supporting this position on the basis of natural law, economics or tradition.”

                    Oh, oh, look!
                    Turd has searched all over the net until the slimy piece of shit found some un-linked claim that kinda, sorta matches his earlier bullshit claim! (if you squint real hard)

                    “Here you go, you idiot.”
                    Go fuck your daddy, turd.

              6. You do realize how many fascists first embraced socialism, right? Socialism in its nature was just too optional. They needed something more compelled.

                Which then covers both left and right. It’s not the stated philosophy in question. It’s the method of implementation.

                Aka, stop saying that fascists are only on the right.

              7. According to those definitions, you can be both left wing and right wing simultaneously

                1. As a PoliSci minor, the Right/Left is flawed and always has been, That is particularly true of Antifa, the Fascist street gangs of the left. The few I’ve met are more about being mad/violent about something than actually educating themselves beyond screaming slogans and chants. One itty bitty girl told me it was alright and just for her to attack ‘Nazis’, but it was criminal to hit her back or even defend oneself! I also found that the protesters can’t really engage in a debate. Not just their nigh instant resort to vulgarity and name calling or their shallowness of thought and facts, but few agree on issues other than the current moment’s demon. The three at the mall coffee shop were all there to ‘support’ free-trade coffee together. within 2 minutes, I had them in a hostile argument over CRIMINAL ALIENS taking jobs from young blacks. So fun to hear a pasty white girl call an actual black ‘racist’! As long as their other idiocies, er, causes never came up, their bigotry was concealed.

          2. So, basically socialism then.

          3. Miriam Webster

            Is that the Jewess Webster sister?

          4. PB, fascism is leftist. Just like Obama and his Nazi economic policies.

        2. that exalts nation and often race above the individual

          AKA – Alt-Right Trumpism

          1. Mao says hi.

            1. Stalin and Lenin are cheering, too.

              1. And that national socialist guy.

    2. And in the other post on this topic, the ACLU is getting props for fighting to make an event happen that aligns with the left’s narrative. Of course the ACLU wants Nazis and KKKers to march — every time they do, blacks and Jews are reminded that they will die if they don’t get out and vote Democrat, and left wing outrage industry orgs like NAACP, ADL, and SPLC get much-needed donations.

      Funny, I don’t remember the ACLU helping the Tea Party fight against IRS harassment or local govts forcing them to pay exorbitant fees in order to hold rallies.

      1. Oh my god whine some more.

        1. How ironic.

        2. Talking to yourself again?

        1. Well, they weren’t very effective.

          1. Most defenses of less than popular causes are not particularly effective.

            After all, it took several decades for the ACLU to make a dent in Jim Crow laws. And the fight for gay rights is ongoing.

            On the other hand the ACLU’s defense of Illinois Nazis took less than a year.

            1. Well, gay rights now trump the right to free association. So special rights for special people?

      2. The ACLU defends an individual’s rights against an overbearing government.

        Of course conservatives hate the ACLU – which is very telling about conservatives.

        Full disclosure – I donate to the ACLU.

        1. The ACLU has a rather spotty record on defending other civil rights.

          1. No other organization is even close in defending the rights outlined in the Bill of Rights and amendments.

            It always cracks me up when I hear a conservative slathering about the US Constitution while they hate the majority of it.

            1. Yes, because the Party of Hate Speech, Gun Control, Double Jeopardy, Title IX and Social Security has so much affection for the First, Second, Fourth and Tenth Amendments…

              1. There are no fucking hate speech laws, you imbecile. I practice hate speech all the time.

                I can name 12-15 BoR/amendments conservatives openly decry from the Incorporation doctrine in the 14th to the Separation of Church/State.

                Conservatives are Taliban like – just a little more polite.

                1. There are “no fucking hate speech laws” in SPITE of the Left, not because of them, “you imbecile”. The ACLU is an outlier: strong majorities of college leftists support hate speech laws, and leftist politicians (Howard Dean, the mayor of Portland) come out in support of speech bans all the time.

                  And I was never arguing that conservatives aren’t hypocrites: the entire conservative movement has an ongoing cognitive dissonance about asset forfeiture, and the Eighth Amendment is looked upon by many with suspicion. My point is the same I make in all my comments:

                  The Right and the Left are EQUALLY EVIL.

                  1. The Right and the Left are EQUALLY EVIL.

                    No argument on that one.

                    1. It sure sounded like you were arguing that Leftists are better on the Bill of Rights than Right-wingers are. Which sounds like arguing that Leftists are more libertarian than Right-wingers are. Which is as absurd as the reverse of that statement would be.

                    2. It sure sounded like you were arguing that Leftists are better on the Bill of Rights than Right-wingers are.

                      No, I do maintain us LIBERALS are better on the BoR than conservatives – after all John Locke was the Father of Liberalism — and Jefferson and Madison were Locke fans.

                    3. I am not sure what you mean by “liberal”. “Liberal” as a colloquial term has been appropriated by the aforementioned Leftists. If you are referring to “classical” liberalism, than you’re more or less just using a synonym for conservative.

                    4. If you are referring to “classical” liberalism, than you’re more or less just using a synonym for conservative.

                      Of course I am referring to Classical Liberalism.

                      But I will remind you that Hayek looked down on the stupidity of Conservatives. Read his essay “Why I am not a Conservative” if you don’t believe me.

                      To equate Liberalism with Conservatism is ludicrous.

                    5. I suppose it depends on how you define “classical liberal”, then.

                      The classical liberals of the 18th and 19th centuries were not exactly “down” with gay marriage, abortion (I’m going to go ahead and assume), or equal rights across gender and race (even if the more forward-thinking ones could see it coming, or opposed extremes like slavery). Whereas freedom of speech, private property rights, and gun ownership were very much their “thing”.

                      And that above paragraph sounds like an American conservative to me. If you support gay marriage and abortion, I’m not inclined to think of you as a “classical” liberal, but rather a modern liberal or libertarian. Unless you’re arguing that 18th/19th century classical liberals would’ve “come around” on those things, which is fair enough, but can also never be proven.

                    6. And further, a classical liberal shouldn’t be endorsing such things suggested above so much as they should be just saying government has no fucking role in the conversation.

                      That’s where conservatives are just as much to blame. They force their morals on everyone else just as much as the left. In theory a conservative, in American lexicon, should be more classically liberal, but they are far from it.

                    7. @ FU,S(N)

                      My point was that *no one* supported gay marriage or abortion in the 18th or 19th centuries. The fact that those of us who consider ourselves the ideological descendants of the classical liberals- eg libertarians- now support those things, doesn’t mean that “classical liberalism” supports them: it can’t, because all the genuinely “classical” liberals are, by definition, *dead*.

                      That’s what I take “classical liberal” to mean: someone who believes in liberalism, *as it existed prior to the 20th century* (“classical” basically being a synonym for “old”). Which in turn would mean that a 21st century conservative, and a 19th century liberal, would pretty much agree on most things, eg be pretty much the same thing.

                      If you instead define “classical liberal” as “libertarian”, then, well, yeah, it isn’t the same thing as a conservative, because libertarian isn’t the same thing as conservative. But I would not define modern libertarianism as “classical”.

                2. Oh PB! No one is more talibanlike or Dogmatic than a progressive.

            2. A slice of the first and fourth amendments, and some invented crap supposedly implied by the 9th, are a tiny sliver of the constitution. Or has the ACLU argued for the enumerated powers doctrine or the privileges and immunities clause and I just missed it.

              1. Why don’t you form your own organization? Can’t the ACLU do what the fuck it wants?

                1. Can’t they be criticized for their behavior?

                2. Yep. Evil as they wanna be. Just like you. A vile communist.

            3. Really? I submit the National Rifle Association has done more to defend the second amendment than the ACLU.

              1. I don’t think the 2nd amendment needs more help.

                1. Which has what to do with his point?

              2. Really? I submit the National Rifle Association has done more to defend the second amendment than the ACLU.

                No doubt.

                But conservatives don’t give a fuck about the remaining 95% of the Constitution.

                1. I guess you haven’t heard about those conservatives in the Becket Fund and their defense of religious freedom of everyone from Amish to Zoroastrians.

                2. And you don’t give a fuck about 100% of it, eh comrade?

            4. “No other organization is even close in defending the rights outlined in the Bill of Rights and amendments.”

              IJ says stuff it up your ass.

            5. No other organization is even close in defending the rights outlined in the Bill of Rights and amendments.


  8. This is clearly the result of Trump’s refusal to say “Fascist Terrorism”. Sad.

      1. Why are you responding to your sockpuppet?

  9. Last night, the alt-righters marched with tiki torches through the grounds of the University of Virginia reportedly shouting “”You will not replace us!,” “Blood and soil!,” and “Jews will not replace us!”

    These asswipes are not alt-right.

    Nice to see Reason back to carrying water for the ctrl-left, though.

    1. The demo was organized by Richard Spencer among others. Spencer is the main person responsible for popularizing the term alt.right. Of course the demo was alt-right.

      1. Even if most alt-right people are against it?

        Are you saying Trump is NOT alt-right?

        1. Of course Trump is not alt-right. He never called himself alt-right. Some hyperventilating leftists have called him alt-right but they call anyone a Nazi.

          With rare exceptions people who call themselves alt-right are white nationalists.

          1. Trump is a Con Man with no discernible ideology but he took up the Alt-Right movement when he hired Bannon to shape his policies.

            1. So, when he gave Ivanka a position, he took up her leftist ideas?

              1. I thought he just wanted to bone his daughter.

                1. He might.

                  But that doesn’t answer my question.

                  1. Ivanka is a Red Herring with no influence.

                    red her?ring
                    ??red ?heriNG/Submit

                    something, especially a clue, that is or is intended to be misleading or distracting.

                    designed to fool a few female voters

                    1. “Ivanka is a Red Herring with no influence.”

                      So wait, his daughter, who he reportedly loves dearly, and according to you, wants to fuck, has no influence?

                      Forgetting of course, that you’re a nobody who has no way to know this, so your declaration is meaningless.

                      The lengths you go to to avoid admitting what you said was stupid never cease to amaze.

                    2. No influence my ass. She got George Takei fired.

                    3. He honestly ant going to be Sulu anymore? Oh, my!

                2. No asshole I want to bone his daughter.

              2. Where do you think Ivanka got her leftist ideas? Trump’s not exactly shy about expressing his leftist statism.

            2. I agree with the first part. Not entirely sure about the second part. There is a long held belief that you should get other leaders on your team that do not believe what you believe so that you are challenged. I’m not saying I would pick Bannon, mind you.

    2. So what is the alt-right? It must be whatever Richard Spencer says it is, since he coined the concept. American Naziism with a copyeditor, no?

      1. Did you guys check with Theodore Roosevelt before using the term “progressive”, Thomas Jefferson before using “democrat”, and Voltaire before using “liberal”?

        1. I’ll go along with Jefferson and Voltaire but from a libertarian POV TR was a nasty piece of work.

          He basically wanted a national Health Plan so that rich people wouldn’t have to worry about catching dread diseases from the help.

          Sure, he killed lots of wild animals but he didn’t really want the “lower orders” owning guns.

          1. Agreed, but TR would not have been happy with what so-called progressives are doing today either.

            My point was that labels escape control of their creators/popularizers given enough time. And these days that can happen extremely quickly.

            1. My big argument with today’s “progressives” is their stance that yesterday’s “progressives” stood for “diversity”.

              The late 19th and early 20th century Progressives asserted that conformity to the notion that adherence to the norms of Western European civilization, Protestant Evangelical Christianity and the Protestant work ethic was the definition of “progress”.*

              All races and cultures that did not conform to any of the above had to be eliminated.

              Hence the drive to “teach the Geechee”, “teach the Indian/savage”, “teach the Papism” and “teach the cracker/hillbilly” out of the various nonconforming races and cultures that obsessed the educational establishment from the Civil War until the 1960s.

              The last thing that historical Progressives wanted was “diversity”.

              *ie: acting like white people. Hence the accusation that “Progressives” were racists. In many ways the Alt-right are the intellectual heirs to historical Progressives.

              1. Progressivism has always been about the white man’s burden. Smug, self-righteous condescension, the soft bigotry of lowered expectations. It’s always been about uplifting, enlightening, educating the lower orders. What the hell do you think “woke” is? The constant harping on false consciousness and fretting about people voting against their own self-interest? The white-knighting? The “giving a voice to the voiceless” and “speaking truth to power” bullshit? There’s your progressive, a know-it-all who thinks he’s just naturally fit to order everybody else around.

                1. For their own good, of course.

              2. “In many ways the Alt-right are the intellectual heirs to historical Progressives.”
                Good point.

            2. OK, but how can you know what TR would be happy w today? A century of life can change someone a lot. I’ve no idea what a century of death can do to people’s ideas.

        2. I have a brilliant idea. Let’s us libertarians start calling outselves “fascists”. I mean, I know the term is already in use and means something totally different than libertarianism, and there are actually other people who think really offensive stuff calling themselves fascists, but hey, everyone has a right to use whatever word they want, right? I think it would be really smart and edgy to start labelling ourselves by a word that lots of other people associate with some really evil shit. And then we can pretend like it doesn’t mean that and get all offended when people think that we actually believe the stuff the word is associated with. Isn’t this a GREAT IDEA?

          1. I was hoping for something cooler. What would Frank Zappa name something?

            *I’m off to listen to a few albums.

    3. Before you decide to start identifying yourself with a label, you ought to research what that label stands for and who invented it.
      It wasn’t “the left” that associated the term “alt-right” with white nationalists.

  10. The fake news media is identifying the assault vehicle a “Charger”. It is safe to assume all reporters are lying, misinformed and/or incompetent. Well, all the Millennial journalists for sure.

    1. The Dodge Challenger is known to be popular with pro-slavery, anti-government Virginians

      1. Pro-slavery, anti-government Virginians have been known to chew the legs off of evil redcoats, using nothing but their wooden teeth… Did you know THAT?!?!

        Well, now ya know!

      2. The Challenger in question has Ohio plates.

        1. The plate number indicates that it’s a rental.

          1. Gosh, I hope this doesn’t affect their return check.

            1. Insurance usually doesn’t cover damage from civil disorder.

              1. Yea, but since rental car companies charge any damage to the renter’s credit card that guy is fucked. 🙂

                1. The rental companies don’t charge your credit card if you get their shitty supplemental insurance.

                  I get it when driving in snow or on business since it’s a business expense.

                  When you have someone hit you, you tell the insurance and they give you looks but cannot do anything since you bought their crappy insurance.

                  Actively committing a crime by running people over is doubtfully covered but “the brakes didn’t work” or “the crowd was trying to kill me” would be good excuses to use.

              2. Those are some alternate facts right there. Riot/civil commotion is typically not excluded. Intentional acts are normally excluded, however.

              3. “Insurance usually doesn’t cover damage from civil disorder.”


  11. If Trump can’t call fascist terrorism what it is then he’s truly hopeless. But we all know that his real concern about the violence is that it makes him look bad.

    1. He doesn’t want to alienate his core supporters.

    2. This isn’t terrorism. Stop watering down the definition.

      1. So driving into crowds isn’t terrorism?

        1. No particular act is terrorism. Terrorism is basically entirely defined by intentions. It’s one of the reasons it’s such a bullshit term.

          Anyway, we should limit usage of the term anyway, as every time it is applied to a tragedy 10 new laws form.

          1. “Murder” is also defined by intentions, does that make it a bullshit term?

            1. I often wonder about that. And I do think that perhaps the distinction between murder and manslaughter is one of our weirdest ones. Certainly we can say that the term is also weird in bullshit in how heavily divided and disputed it is.

              1. And thinking more about it, it’s weirder still from murder. Our degrees of murder are considered with whether they meant to perform the crime or not. While terrorism as a term implies that they sought a specific outcome from the crime itself. That is, it was done to cause terror.

                Does murder make that distinction? A man murders his wife for reason X versus reason Y, does this change the crime taking place? I ask this for real as I do not know. If not, what crimes other than terrorism have this stipulation?

        2. Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn’t. Depends on the aim of the perpetrator. It’s only terrorism if the primary aim is to make a larger population change their behavior out of fear.

          1. It’s only terrorism if the primary aim is to make a larger population change their behavior out of fear.

            Not sure why you include “larger population”. If someone uses violence to intimidate a minority group in an attempt to intimidate them into changing their behavior, that’s still terrorism.

            1. By “larger population” I meant an identifiable group consisting of a larger number of people than to the number of victims of the attack.

              If a person hates a specific group of 100 people for something they do, gathers them into a building and blows it up, that’s not terrorism. Mass murder and a horrible crime of course, but not terrorism because there’s no aim of scaring other people into changing their behavior.

              On the other hand, if a person hates a group of 1,000,000 people for something they do, and blows 100 of those people up to try to intimidate the others to stop doing that thing, that would be terrorism.

        3. So driving into crowds isn’t terrorism?

          Were YOU terrorized by the car running into people and did it attempt to achieve a political goal?

          No? Then its a crime only.

          Terrorism is designed to influence many people who are part of the target group but who were not party to the crime. For example, cutting off an American’s head is designed to terrorize Americans into agreeing to a particular political result and less about murder. Terrorists flying planes into the Trade Towers caused America to curtail civil rights and other American ideals.

          In other words, terrorism is designed to be violence that has more far reaching psychological effects besides the victims of any crimes perpetrated. Terrorism is pretty much war but primarily against civilians.

          1. Exactly. People are confusing attacks against large numbers of people with terrorism.

            Part of that confusion arises from the lack of a precise definition of terrorism. Of course every attempt to coherently define terrorism in the law runs into the fact that it would apply to some of our own government’s activities, at which point the effort is quietly dropped. You know what they say about the difference between a general and a terrorist.

      2. Terrorism is overused. But to be consistent with how it’s generally been used when Muslims are involved, than it’s absolutely accurate to call this terrorism.

        1. Explain the “consistent” definition you’re using.

          Yes, the term has been abused in the past to essentially mean “when a Muslim commits violence against non-Muslims”, but that doesn’t justify our misuse of it.

  12. “And a pox on ALL their houses” says C. S. P. Schofield above… I agree for the most part…

    I have a LOT of sympathy for the BLM movement… But then again I try and imagine what reaction you’d get to “ALM” for ALL Lives Matter, let alone “WLM” for “White Lives Matter”… And my urge to get involved subsides.

    Besides, I am way too old and tired, outrage glands worn out, to go and protest, let alone yell, scream, and threaten violence!!!

    Hey, me and mine plan to drive a few hundred miles and go and see the eclipse… There’s not much chance that I’ll get beat up or killed by anti-eclipse protesters, is there?!?! IS THERE!?!?!

    1. I had a pox on my house once. Didn’t mind it until it found a hole in the shingles and started pissing through it.

    2. Where are you planning to go? We’re heading to Carbondale, but I used to live there and am staying with old friends.

      1. I was thinking of riding up the road a few hours to see the eclipse but then I realized I can look out the window every night and see a terrestrial eclipse – are lunar eclipses much different?

        1. The moon doesn’t have a Corona.

          1. I’d rather drink good beer.

      2. Loiusville, Missouri, tad south of there, I have had too many drinks tonight to recall the precise name of the small town… OK, here it is: “St. Clair”

    3. When the moon moves betwen the earth the sun, that’s a solar eclipse.

      When the earth moves between the moon and the sun, that’s a lunar eclipse.

      But what do you call it when the sun moves between the earth and the moon?

      1. Velikovsky was right!

      2. It’s called, “We’re fried and scortched”!!!!

      3. “The End”

  13. Trump condemns violence in general in the strongest possible terms.

    1. Had it been confirmed *at the time of his tweet* that the driver was Alt-Right and the victims were anti-racists?

      Because it would’ve been kinda stupid if he’d tweeted “bad, naughty Right-wingers!”, only for it turn out to be another James Hodgkinson driving into the Whi-Nat crowd.

      1. We wouldn’t want the president to unfairly condemn neonazis. Especially not one with such a reputation for a lack of bluster.

        1. You’re right, we *wouldn’t* want the president to blame neo-Nazis for something they (in this theoretical situation) hadn’t done. Because blaming Right-wingers for Leftist crimes just encourages the Leftist narrative that the Alt-Right is “more evil” than the Antifa, when the truth is that Nazi and Soviet are equally evil, as usual.

          You will note that I specifically wrote *at the time of his tweet*. Now that there is actual confirmation it was a Right-wing attacker, there is, indeed, no excuse on his part.

          1. I’m not the first to observe that Trump’s own doctrine is that the way to defeat terrorism is to name it correctly.

            1. And the best way to do that, is to wait for the facts to come in.

              Which is, I will grant you, not what he does in the event of an Islamist attack. And yes, it is revealing that he decides to be quiet or circumspect only when there is a White Supremacist attack. Doesn’t change the fact that he should seek to be quiet and circumspect *in both situations*, not *jump to conclusions in both*.

              1. Are you suggesting Trump should blame it all on a Youtube video?

        2. So, we want him to unfairly condemn neonazis?

          That seem like a pretty stupid thing to do, as it would give them a legitimate grievance.

          Do you even think about what you’re posting?

          1. It’s always fair to condemn neo-Nazis.

            1. Um, no. They have rights like everyone else.

              1. By the way, did you forget to switch socks?

              2. Sure, but there’s no right not to be condemned…

                1. No one said there was.

                  Someone did say, however, that it’s always ok to condemn them.

                  Which, frankly, is idiotic.

                  1. No one said there was.

                    Mmmmmm|8.12.17 @ 6:01PM|#

                    Um, no. They have rights like everyone else.

                    1. Liberty =>

                    2. “It’s always fair to condemn neo-Nazis”

                      “Um, no. They have rights like everyone else.”

                      “Sure, but there’s no right not to be condemned…”

                      “No one said there was”

                      That’s the entire converstion. Just point out where I said they have a right not to be condemned, you disingenuous piece of trash.

            2. But it is never a good idea to make them feel like martyrs. Recruiters for any ideology LOVE martyrs.

              Not to mention the Left should never be shielded from its own crime, in the event they actually committed it. Which may not have been confirmed at the time of the tweet.

              1. I really don’t care how Neo Nazis feel. They’re clearly messed up in the head to begin with.

                1. He’s not talking about how the neo-nazis feel.

                  Do you know what “martyr” means?

                  1. But it is never a good idea to make them feel like martyrs.

                    1. Where does it say neo-Nazis?

                      That’s twice you’ve tried to pull that shit.

                    2. @ Liberty =>

                    3. Dammit! What is wrong with your handle?

                      @ Liberty/Equality: you should worry about how they feel, because giving them legitimate examples of false accusations helps them recruit new members: by portraying themselves as “martyrs”. Just like every other extremist group.

        3. Take your own advice above and stop whining.

      2. Multiple confirmations the crowd that was hit were the anti-right protestors (and not antifa either, i don’t see anyone in black or with masks in the videos).

        Identity of the driver is less clear. Some have floated the idea that he was being surrounded and attacked before the incident and was panicked, unclear if this is based on witness accounts or just disinformation, seems to be contradicted by video showing car accelerating in the direction of the crowd.

        1. “Multiple confirmations the crowd that was hit were the anti-right protestors”

          At the time of the tweet?

          Legitimately asking.

    2. ESPECIALLY violence (and threats of violence) against North Korea!!!

      1. I foresee a day (coming soon to a theater near you!) when Kim Ill Dung-Face will do an about-face, and try to make Himself look better, in the pubic eye, than The Donald is looking, right now, vis-?-vis the current hissy fits? Threats of violence will be superseded by threats of non-violence!

        I haz, as a pubic service, pre-written a response for The Donald?

        “Don’t be threatening ME with yer non-violence, dammit!!!!

        In more detail? WHY do I find your non-violence to be threatening?! Because you challenge my self-esteem! As one who relishes violence (conducted by others, who serve the State) on behalf of me and my selfish interests, your non-violence hurts my baby feelings. Bad things are bad. Bad feelings are bad. You cause my bad feelings, so therefor it is obvious that you are just plain BAD! And I who am hurt by your badness, must be wrapped in pure victimized goodness!”

        (See, moral superiority jujitsu is not all that hard).

  14. Supposedly the driver of the car was an anti Trump guy and he might have targeted the wrong crowd. I’m not sure I believe it, but I wouldn’t be surprised if this was confirmed.

    I don’t know, if bunch of shield and stick yielding white supremacists marched around my house, I’d be scared because I’m ACTUALLY not white. But even before the facts come in, I can assume the violence committed here can be split 50/50. The antifa crowd is more likey to torch a small business owned by an immigrant in the name of civil disobedience.

    1. The fact that it was so shitty that it’s being cancelled should have stopped them.

      1. I’m pretty sure that’s the same excuse people make for why they don’t buy a lot of Marvel’s comics.

        “I, uh, was gonna buy Hellcat but, uh, Trump.

      2. Maybe it was on clearance?

        1. Free shit is still shit.

          1. And still free.

  15. This smells like Greensboro North Carolina circa 1979.

    Like then, if this is the commies vs the klanners, then let them go at it unabated.

    Popcorn please.

    1. This is most assuredly not a hill for libertarians to take a stand and die on.

      1. Fuck no. This is like watching two crackheads fighting over a stale bagel behind a dumpster. Steer clear, people.

        1. You have to be kidding. The leftists are going to identify libertarians with the supremacist/neonazis

          1. We should of course condemn the racists. Racism is the antithesis of libertarian ideals. The left should have let these morons march without giving them any attention. Now they got what they wanted most: attention.

          2. Do people even take us that seriously? I for one welcome such attribution. It’ll be nice to be recognized. Of course, the downside is some of the alt-right assholes might believe them and try to invade or small part.

    2. This is very reminiscent of the Nazi-Communist shootout in Greensboro.

      For those who don’t remember, there was a protest/counter-protest that ended in a shootout. The national news got to report about how the Klan and the Nazis were shooting it out in that racist city of Greensboro. (They tended to miss the Communist party in their reporting at the time)

      When the dust settled, none of the people involved were from Greensboro. I don’t think they were even from North Carolina. The white supremacists were from north Georgia… I’m not sure where the communists came from.

      But exactly similar to the new violence, there had been a building war of words and threats of violence between the two groups over many months leading up to the violence. They all came prepared for a violent confrontation and shockingly, there was a violent confrontation.

  16. From the reports I’m reading the guy driving the car was a leftist. He was looking for a parking space and got lost. So he turns the corner where the antifa were protesting, they see his fancy sports car and white skin and decide to attack him. He panics and ends mowing over his own team.

    On the whole, I’d call the day a win for Team Nationalist.

    1. The National Guard doesn’t get called out over small potatoes. They established they had the numbers, sufficient to have the authorities shitting their pants. I think they have graduated from “fringe movement”.

    2. The matter was significant enough to demand a statement from the President. President makes statement, but declines to make the nationalists the whipping boy. As well he shouldn’t have.

    3. Antifa scores own-goal, leaving one dead and several injured.

    Despite having their rally shutdown, I’d say they had a profitable day.

    1. Did you read that on


      1. Actually I’m following the twitter feeds of journalists at the scene. Nice try, though.

        1. Just because the alt-right nuts you fall on twitter like to call themselves journalists doesn’t mean they are.

      2. I don’t really understand what you think you’re doing with this post.

        1. That the driver was a “lefty” is fake news – the specialty of the Alt-Right.

            1. Well, the guy the alt-right doxxed is actively posting about it, so he’s obviously not the driver, who is in jail.

    2. I’ve accidentally hit the gas in a sheer moment of panic in the past. I hit the brakes almost instantly.

      This was intentional, it had to be. Maybe the guy was threatened, but that’s not evident in the video.

      1. “I’ve accidentally hit the gas in a sheer moment of panic in the past. I hit the brakes almost instantly.

        This was intentional,”

        My wife, who is in insurance, recently dealt with a woman who accidentally hit the gas, and responded to jumping the curb by…standing on the gas harder.

        You’re making a pretty lazy assumption based on essentially nothing.

        1. The witnesses said the car actually backed up a bit before hitting them. Others heard instructions.

          There was a swarm of people ahead of the guy. Just going by what I saw on the video, it looked intentional.

          1. So, first it was,what you do, and NOW it’s what you sws based on what is probably very reliable witnesses.

            Save it, you’re a clown bro.

              1. Dude, I’m just trying to make sense of a tragedy. The witnesses insist that the act of intentional. Some cops told a Hill reporter that what happened might be unintentional, but they weren’t at the scene.

      2. The most important thing in a tragedy like this is to pledge allegiance to a narrative before the facts are in and then torture that narrative until it produces an opinion and then run with that opinion until you hit a brick wall.

        1. Agreed.

    3. From the reports I’m reading, he was also pro-choice, anti-HFCS, and favored the “under” side of the toilet paper debate.

      1. We need to wait for all the details to come in before slandering him that hard.

      2. It’s not him (internet sleuths pointed to one Joel Vangheluwe). He was at a wedding most of the day.

        1. They know it’s not him. But that’s their narrative now, so they’re going to keep saying it was him no matter what happens.

        2. And I bet he flipped over all the fucking toilet paper rolls, didn’t he?

    4. From the reports I’m reading the guy driving the car was a leftist.

      Sure, if registered Republicans are “leftists” in Ohio.

      1. They elected Kasich…

  17. The progressive, SJW, left have made such a big deal about their signaling; it really shouldn’t surprise them when somebody makes a big deal about one of their meaningless gestures.

    And when the progressives want to do something about black rights, do they look at the drug war, school choice, or reigning in the police unions?

    No, of course not–those are all run by their buddies–so they take down a statue of Robert E. Lee.

    Their hand-waving is meant to distract us.

  18. The clubs were used to bash some counter-protesters before the rally could even get started

  19. It doesn’t matter what David Duke says about anything.

  20. Condolences to the family of the young woman killed today, and best regards to all of those injured, in Charlottesville, Virginia. So sad!

    ? Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 12, 2017

    Jesus Christ, will someone please sit Trump down and tell him that “so sad” verbal tick makes him sound like a fucking moron?

    1. Are you saying he shouldn’t be sad?

      1. I think what Stormy’s going for is that someone should be only “so sad!” about stepping on your daisies, forgetting an anniversary or, at worst, a cat dying. A sitting US President consoling a grieving family should probably toss in a bit more effort.

        1. No he shouldn’t. It’s not the president’s job to console anyone.

          1. And I don’t mean that he shouldn’t express concern, just that he isn’t a grief counselor. He just has to acknowledge that it is sad and get on with his day.

            1. Well, yes, he shouldn’t have to, but if he’s going to anyway he shouldn’t sound like he’s consoling someone who just lost a disc in their Gunsmoke Blu-Ray set.

  21. In all I’ve heard about this story, I am most impressed that the ACLU defended the Nazi right to free speech. I thought they (ACLU) had long ago given up principles for principals.

    Pleasant surprise.

    Also, the Nazis should take note that their strongest allies in this case a likely a bunch of Jew lawyers.

    1. Sweet irony.

      You know who also hated jewish lawyers?

      1. Palestinian terror suspects?

      2. Their mother-in-law?

    2. ACLU loves it when Nazis / KKK march. Scares Jews and blacks into voting Dem, and gives their comrades among the left’s outrage industry (SPLC, ADL, NAACP, etc.) material to scare donations out of their donors.

      If conservatives had a brain, they would encourage the SJWs and antifa to do their thing for the same reason.

  22. OT but just a thought. Even though I dislike Trump and the Cuntkateer Club he’s brought in with him (I went GayJay, figuring that a Whiskey-Priest Libertarian was the least worse choice and isn’t that just SO SAD!1?) I do like that he tweets. It takes a lot away from the exalted status the office was getting to. Hopefully, knowing what someone with access to nuclear launch codes is thinking on a minute-by-minute basis with deter anyone, left, right or “other”, from vesting so much power and significance to the presidency.

    1. I see where you’re going, but I think your premise is wrong. If anything, I think people will double down on stupid leaders.

      Kid Rock for governor.
      The Rock for Prez.

      People? Dumb as Rocks.

  23. This is the kind of escalation in the culture wars – like the anti-tranny purge in the military – that I hope will save us from more dangerous wars overs. The more civil strife on American streets, the safer the streets of downtown Iran and North Korea. I’m sure the brothers are hip to Trump’s jive ass rap, even if the alt right adore him.

    1. ^ What a steaming pile of crap.

      1. “What a steaming pile of crap.”

        Are you ready to dig in?

        1. mtrueman|8.12.17 @ 11:50PM|#
          “Are you ready to dig in?”

          I don’t need compost, shitbag.

          1. I thought maybe you were hungry.

            1. mtrueman|8.13.17 @ 12:10AM|#
              “I thought maybe you were hungry.”

              I know you are an ignoramus. STFU.

    2. Looks to me like some Nazi-wannabees pieces of shit were peacefully walking down the street and fascist lefties punched at the guys with shields. Some chick got punched hard by some guy and then pissed with her return punch.

      The irony of all this is that Nazis were socialists and hated minorities and lefties are mostly Democrats who are socialists and also have and want to subjugate black people.

        1. “Your idiocy is noted.”

          Pot, please meet kettle. Kettle, this is pot. I’m sure you guys have a lot in common to discuss.

      1. “The irony of all this is that Nazis were socialists ”

        They were national socialists. They opposed communists, socialists, leftists and Jews. They appreciated good music though, and if you showed up at the front desk of the concentration camp with a violin, you had a better chance of survival than your tone deaf companions. And to think that blacks are so rhythmical and all. It’s so ironic.

        1. mtrueman|8.13.17 @ 12:09AM|#
          “They were national socialists. They opposed communists, socialists, leftists and Jews.”

          You’re an ignoramus. STFU.

        2. Islamists primarily kill Muslims therefore they are not Muslims.

          1. Men primarily kill men therefore they are not men.

  24. Last night, the alt-righters marched with tiki torches through the grounds of the University of Virginia…

    Are the grounds of the UVA campus always open to the public? At night?

    1. How many college campuses do you know of that have walls and gates around them?

      1. John Hopkins. It’s one reason I find it so delightful, because right outside is all the cracked out splendor of Baltimore.

    2. Yes, yes they are. And it’s not “the grounds of the UVA campus.” It’s “the Grounds.”

      1. AKA the raping grounds. Or so I read.

        1. Every grounds is the raping grounds if you’re motivated.

        2. The fraternity house identified in the Rolling Stone article is off-Grounds.

  25. ACLU of Virginia says cops on site were given stand down orders. One of them apparently said “We won’t intervene unless given orders”. Meaning a handful of kunckleheads from both sides probably exchanged punches and damaged property undisturbed – annoying and somewhat dangerous for those involved, but something less than a horrific Nazi invasion.

    The hate group (aided by the ACLU) had a permit to protest at a location. If the opposition breaching the line and fighting with the other side was enough to declare “unlawful assembly” (with the cops nothing to stop it in the first place) what’s the point of obtaining a permit?

    If hate speech is legal but assault isn’t, we probably need the police to make that distinction on the field.

    1. “If hate speech is legal but assault isn’t, we probably need the police to make that distinction on the field.”

      Well, since “hate speech” is totally irrelevant, I’m pretty sure the cops have the authority to decide assault is occurring.
      Did you have a point?

      1. Um, my point is that cops should (ideally) defend the rights of people expressing hateful views.

        Hate speech – legal
        Violence against those who legally express hate views – illegal.

        1. OK, so “hate speech” is irrelevant and can be ignored as any sort of comparison to “assault”.

          1. I’m not….. comparing the two.

            Hate speech is legal. Assault isn’t. In a situation where both are present and possibly at odds at each other, the cops can help make that distinction.

            1. I only saw the looped clip they were playing on the news. There was a group dressed in all black with lots “riot gear” – helmets, clubs, shields, etc. They had logos painted on everything. They had this giant shield thingie made of two sheets of plywood painted all black with some writing on it.

              There was another group wearing mostly T-shirts with a couple of fat dudes at the front looking extra goofy with too-small bullet proof vests, kneepads and army helmets and gloves that looked like maybe MMA gloves.

              The guys in black certainly looked more organized. They unquestionably had come to initiate a violent confrontation. The reporters talking over the video were talking about white supremacists attacking counter-protesters, so I assumed the guys in black were a bunch of Nazis – they were kinda dressed like Nazis… sorta.

              The guys in black used their plywood shield to drive into the T-shirt crowd and initiated a violent confrontation. They pushed hard as a group behind the shield and were met with flagpole sticks, fists and pepper spray. Both sides landed violent blows with long sticks like 2x2s. There was blood. After the assault was repelled, the guys in black spit at the fat guy in a bullet proof vest (among others).

              Police were nowhere to be found. This wasn’t protest-counter protest. It was a planned out violent assault. They clearly came prepared to plow into the crowd and assault people. The police blew it by not stopping them.

              1. The loop kept playing as the reporters were talking about racists and the Klan.

                I noticed a Trump t-shirt among the T-shirt crowd.

                Wait, who are these guys? I tried to read the banner-shield the guys in black were carrying, but it was hard to make out.

                As the loop played around again, you could see the shield said something about God. So those must be the Nazi guys, right? So why is the guy in the counter-protest wearing a Trump shirt. Showing that Trump supporters don’t condone racism? Wait… is that a confederate flag in the t-shirt crowd?

                The loop comes around again. The guys in black are carrying shields with some sort of skull logo, kinda like “the Punisher”. Gotta be the Nazis….. what does that shield say??

                something… “there is no God”…. Huh?

                And something in red at the bottom….. an anarchy symbol…..

                Oh! The guys in black are the anarchists.

                Now it makes more sense. The rabble on the left in a bunch of t-shirts are the white supremacists and the guys in black are the antifa guys.

                So this group shows up to a permitted protest dressed and equipped for a violent clash, forms up in front of the permitted protest and proceeds to plow into the protest and initiate a violent conflict. And the police don’t intervene??

                What the hell do we have police for?

                1. If instead of a bunch of Nazis, Klansmen, (or #BLM people for that matter), this had been a pro Clinton rally, or an “end global warming” rally, or maybe a “save our children – support educational vouchers” rally, would the police have just stood by and allowed an outside group dressed for a riot just form up in front of the march and plow into them?

                  I certainly hope not. And somehow I doubt it.

                  I’m not sure what the laws would be in that situation though. This group is protesting a protest march. They sure look like they came to commit a violent crime. Can you arrest them before they assault anyone?

                  Well, that part aside, you sure as hell could have moved in when they attempted to block the protest. And no question they should have moved in and arrested them when they began to initiate contact.

                  But I don’t think anyone got arrested.

                  This was a massive fail by police.

                  Just because the group having a march is a bunch of knuckleheads doesn’t mean you get to let a riot break out.

                  1. Also, what is up with Anarchists? Every time you see that logo, they are vandalizing stuff or assaulting people for exercising their right to speak.

                    Isn’t that somewhat anathema to the anarchist philosophy? They act more like a bunch of Nazis than a bunch of political anarchists – trying to enforce their political views through violence.

    2. “ACLU of Virginia says cops on site were given stand down orders.”

      Does “stand down” mean anything other than “don’t do your jobs”?

  26. The clubs were used to bash some counter-protesters before the rally could even get started
    My recent post: Xinemax Video Templates Review
    My recent post: List Masteree Review

  27. “It worth noting that many of the white nationalists gathered here think rightly or wrongly that Trump is on their side.”

    Are you sure that is really worth noting? Is it also worth noting that the ACLU defends and indeed fights for their right to march and do speeches hatefully? Suppose they professed to be big fans of the ACLU, would that matter somehow? Should we all look at the ACLU with suspicion if so?

  28. I’m sure David Duke wishes he were responsible for Trump’s election, and I’m sure the Democrats wish that were true as well, but he didn’t make the Democrats nominate Hillary Clinton. That’s all on them.


  29. So I went looking for that video clip to share. I can’t find it anywhere.

    I was working in the yard yesterday and came in to find the wife watching the news. CNN I think. The talking heads were explaining what everything means for how racist we all are over a looped clip of the antifa clashing with a bunch of white nationalist rednecks. It was on for about a half an hour as I moved in and out of the room. (this was before the car assault)

    Not anywhere to be found. Maybe it was NBC. She usually watches NBC – but I couldn’t find it there either.

    A search on “anarchists Charlottesville” turned up ananarchists reddit where a lot of people were planning to travel to Virginia. I thought I might find the video there, but no luck. The people there use language just like the white supremacists. They are wishing their “comrade” who died “Rest in Power”. Subcultures are strange.

    Weird that their flagship video for the initial coverage would just evaporate like that.

    1. It seemed from the videos I’ve seen that the antifa-nazi clash was the first violence. Everyone was formed up in large groups, and the rally was disbursed before it began. The other clashes seemed to be when things were more spread out and people were all amped up and milling about. The commentators were saying that in their experience the violent clashes happen when the police disburse crowds and everyone goes in various directions, which results in little pockets of people running into each other. So that sounds like they were describing the current violence as well as past experience.

      It would be nice to have an accurate timeline of events, because I’m going to assume that the antifa guys intended to disrupt the event with violence (that’s their thing and they were dressed for it). Also, the Nazi types have been looking for fights with the antifa types for at least 6 months, per news reports and per the anarchist reddit. So they both were spoiling for a fight with each other.

      Today’s narrative is that the white nationalists tried to get together and have a rally but they are so racist and violent that they couldn’t even get started before they just started attacking everyone around them. That doesn’t make a lot of sense. But then again…. white nationalists, Nazis and KKK. I suppose they don’t have to make a lot of sense, since they are a bunch of idiots.

      1. Here’s an interesting video of Richard Spencer’s confrontation with the riot police.

  30. If people had just ignored these goofballs, then they would have gotten no attention, and there would have been no violence.

    But no, people love conflict, so now the goofballs have lots of attention, and people have been injured and killed.

    1. “You know I love you baby, but you just keep provoking me, and that’s why I hit you. Why can’t you just be quiet?”

      1. Not an apt analogy. This problem was solved 40 years ago. People quit paying attention and the white power idiots went away. Slowly, but they went away. By the early 90’s they couldn’t get 18 people to march in their annual march on Atlanta. Counter-protesters didn’t confront them, they turned their backs. A much better protest.

  31. It is nevertheless worth noting that the chief organizer of the Unite the Right rally in my town is Jason Kessler who claims to be a member of the Proud Boys.

    I remember how back in the Obama administration, there used to be this “nobody is really in the Tea Party” game, where every time someone affiliated with the Tea Party did something really stupid in the news, all the tea party types would start solemnly inform us that they were never really in the Tea Party, no matter what evidence existed to suggest they were.

    That’s apparently now turning into “Nobody is really in the Proud Boys”, “Nobody is really in Vanguard America”, etc.

    1. At least you are consistent when a armed leftist with close connections to the Bernie Sanders campaign tried to commit mass murder on tens of republican congressmen you selflessly pointed out how responsible the violent rhetoric of your beloved leftism was for the attempted slaughter.

      Just lie when a blood thirsty BLM support slaughtered 5 cops in cold blood you acknowledged how your own unhinged rhetoric probally contributed to the environment of hatred that would spawn such a heinous act.

      Oh wait no you did the absolute opposite. Big Chief Soros pound the war drums Stormy Dragon dance funny war dance .

  32. very nice post. I like it. Thanks for sharing this information.
    Tinder is the best online chatting application. Try it. tinder for pc tinder download

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.