Alt-Right

Heather Heyer, Charlottesville, and the Awful Trajectory of Political Violence

Ultimately, individuals are responsible for their actions, no matter how heated the socialistic us-versus-them political rhetoric becomes.

|

Michael Nigro/Pacific Press/Newscom

Heather Heyer, a 32-year-old paralegal, has been identified as the woman killed Saturday when a car slammed into another vehicle and a group of pedestrians on streets crowded with protesters in Charlottesville, Virginia.

According to police, at least 20 people were injured in Saturday's attack, which appeared to be directed at a group of counter-protesters marching against the white supremacists, white nationalists, and Nazis gathered in Charlottesville over the weekend.

Video of the attack shows a silver Dodge Challenger being driven at high speed down a crowded street, sending pedestrians jumping out of the way. The car slammed into the rear of two other vehicles, sending cars and bodies flying. The driver of the car quickly reversed course, driving backwards up the same street. Police later found the car abandoned and arrested James Alex Fields, a 20-year-old Ohio man who attended the alt-right rally and appeared to march with a fascist group.

"The crash impact left Heyer lying on the pavement alongside another bloodied victim who was wearing a black shirt emblazoned with words of protest," the New York Daily News reported Sunday morning. The paper confirmed Heyer as the lone victim of the attack (two police officers died Saturday in a helicopter crash near Charlottesville that appears to be only tangentially related to the protests and violence), citing friends and relatives who identified her in-person and via social media, though police have yet to officially release her name. Friends have set-up a Go Fund Me account in Heyer's name to collect donations for her family.

It is fortunate there were not more casualties, but that does not lessen the tragedy of Heyer's death. Though there have been numerous clashes between pro-Trump, white nationalist forces and anti-Trump, anti-fascists in recent months, this is the first time someone has died during one of those (mostly peaceful) protests. It is a shocking event, but sadly not a wholly unexpected one, given the spiraling levels of dehumanizing rhetoric and political violence on display between the far right and far left, with each escalation being used to justify additional ones.

To be clear, Fields—or whomever was driving the car that careened down Charlottesville's Fourth Street on Saturday afternoon—is singularly responsible for the carnage he caused, and he should be held criminally accountable. He was charged with second degree murder, according to multiple media reports, and other charges are likely to follow.

Still, Charlottesville fits into a disturbing cycle. Beginning with protests at Donald Trump's campaign rallies last year, continuing through and beyond the inauguration the far left has met the violent rhetoric of the alt-right by glorifying political violence. The reaction has only reaffirmed and escalated the very fascist tendencies the left supposedly opposes.

As Robby Soave wrote shortly after alt-right ringleader Richard Spencer was punched in the face on Inauguration Day, "Striking Spencer isn't just morally wrong—it's tactically foolish."

Punching Nazis in the public square might make you feel good but it puts you a half-step closer to accepting that it's all right to run down the Nazi-punchers in the public square. What happened Saturday was not inevitable. I hope Heyer's death will generate a massive backlash against the alt-right. I hope it will cause the far-left to reconsider how they engage with fascists, white nationalists, and other enemies of freedom.

Maybe this is the event that brings an end to the rage and give both sides reason to explore the more effective option of non-violent civil resistance.

But I fear that isn't the case. I worry there will be violent reprisals and further escalation. If 2017 has taught us anything, it is that things can always get worse.

Reacting to events Saturday, Jeffrey Tucker concludes that the alt-right/anti-fascist conflict is really socialist-on-socialist violence. Both sides see their identities as collectives, rather than as individuals. That makes it easier, perhaps, for members to justify ever-increasing levels of violence against their opponents.

Ultimately, though, individuals are responsible for their actions. Saturday's tragedy should be a reminder to each of us to reconsider the dark places socialism—on the right and the left—can take us.

NEXT: Trump's 'Fire and Fury' Wouldn't Be the First for North Korea

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.

  1. My guess is that this will only allow antifa types of justify violence themselves. Which in turn will cause the alt-righters to rationalize it more. I certainly don’t expect this to be the end.

    1. I agree

    2. The masked, black wearing, mob violence embracing, fascists do not need to justify violence. They just use it.
      And oddly enough, don’t get arrested, because the cops shown in the same video with the mob somehow can’t figure out who did it.
      But then, even today’s Virginia is far away from California.

      1. Well put!

      2. Fine. It will further spur them towards it.

    3. Wish they’d all just stay home and O.D. on prescription painkillers.

      1. Are you putting a rosy spin on the opioid epidemic?

        1. If they aren’t driving cars while on opioids, why not?

          1. I agree. The whole opioid pants-shitting is theater. Those are damn good pain killers and a lot of people need them.

            1. Personally, I prefer ear plugs.

            2. Plus, the seemingly clear fact that a lot of the deadliness if opoids is related to the inability of people to legally get clean product. Though I still support sending them to a hole to get raped in order to save them.

    4. Wow, the comments at fee.org to Tucker’s article show me that libertarianism has a serious problem. Tucker’s article is a thoughtful analysis and an alarm call to the dangers of right-wing socialism, and he gets called “Cucker” for that in the comments. All I can say is I sure hope these are not the regular Fee readers, but were brought there from some alt-right cesspool. I do not want to be associated with these people. What to do? Should I start calling myself a left-libertarian (ugh)? A cosmo? Or eschew such labels all-together, and just call myself an individualist?

      1. “I do not want to be associated with these people.”

        Why would anyone care? I’m sure the feeling is mutual, though.

        “What to do?”

        Whine like a bitch? Rend your garments?

        Oh I know. Don’t associate with them.

        But I think your complaining is indicative of a desire other than “not be associated” with those people.

      2. Re: Chipper Morning, Now #1,

        All I can say is I sure hope these are not the regular Fee readers

        No, they’re not. The FEE Facebook page is visited quite frequently by Fascists and Trumpistas, mostly spending words accusing libertarians or FEE of becoming “liberals” or of shilling for corporations and globalists. They do the same thing to CATO.

        While I don’t agree with Tucker’s squishy version of libertarianism (which calls for active condemnation of collectivist ideas such as racism and whatnot) because libertarians should not burden themselves with such a responsibility, his ideas are not contradictory to libertarian philosophy and thus deserves not the attacks. Something happened since the election of Trump and that is that certain people’s views on trade and immigration, they felt, were validated at last, even when they’re based on bad economics and downright jealousy. I found many of these future Trumpistas (all of them right-wing socialists, as described by Hoppe) in the comments section of Townhall dot com during a time I visited the website, and were as virulently anti-immigrants back when the economy was doing well, as they’re today.

        1. I think libertarianism attracts a certain type because the idea of the value of the individual is rather easily twisted into anoyhet strong man philosophy.

      3. Or eschew such labels all-together, and just call myself an individualist?

        Works for me.

      4. I think it is important that those of us on the right call the alt-right and their white supremacist brethren what they are: nationalist/socialists. They are not right wing in any respect. To achieve their utopia, they would require a socialist or communist totalitarian government. That is not in any way related to the right side of the political spectrum. Their ideology does not appeal to the majority of white people who would have be forced to think and behave “correctly”. Nazi Germany was a perfect example of the type of government required to achieve an all-white state. So instead of calling yourself something else, we on the right, whether we are libertarians or conservatives, need to refer to the alt-right, neo-Nazis, KKK, and whatever other white supremacist group is out there as leftists.

        To me, an extreme right winger is a libertarian fighting to legalize drugs, the right to carry a fully automatic Glock with a hundred round magazine, and do away with taxes. In other words, less government and more freedom. These nuts “protesting” in Cville are not lovers of individual liberty.

        1. Why not divorce yourself from the right/left spectrum and just decide issues on their own merit? Why are you so determined to be on the right wing and not on the right side of each issue? Right/left wing and parties are all forms of collectivism.

  2. You mean, of course, “the violent rhetoric of the far left” – because that group of assholes has been calling for blood for quite some time.

    1. Both far left and far right have fringe members willing to use violence. And as that violence is used, the less fringe elements will find justification in joining them.

      We all should seek to marginalize them.

      1. I don’t know why people feel they have to be with one side or the other. both left and right have embraced violence and they should both be condemned for it. Neither the extreme right with their white supremacy shit or the extreme left with their “let’s be the Soviet Union” shit are anything to admire or sympathize with . Fuck all of them.

        1. Thank you. Fully agreed.

        2. The antifas don’t seem to be “extreme left”. They seem to be widely accepted, enabled, and justified in the mainstream left.

        3. Well put. Totally agree. Both sides are a bunch of assholes.

          1. Now y’all are speaking my language.

  3. My libertarianism just got checked—I am seeing an opening for prior-restraint on the Right to Assemble, particularly when there are routine documented cases from a protest group for property destruction, injury and death. Particularly when the violation of others’ rights is not just a near certainty, but guaranteed to happen.

    The Right to Assemble has limitations and tests from the Supreme Court. I believe both the far-left and far-right groups have surpassed those limitations.

    I definitely see a case being made for prior-restraint should a local government want to go that route and flatly block permitted protests and extricate people off the street (forced removals). If anything, simply sending all the protestors off into the expensive Federal court system would be enough to defuse this hot steaming garbage.

    1. I think I’m most cases protesters are not allowed to block streets but they often ignore that restriction.

    2. So you’re in favor of the heckler’s veto.

      I saw a woman on TV making much the same argument, pointing out that Charlottesville had revoked the permit for the Nazis, making it clear that these people were considered troublemakers and not wanted in Charlottesville and therefore by forcing themselves on everybody they were the ones initiating violence. Odd thing was that this was an older black lady, one apparently who had never heard of Selma where a group of troublemakers who weren’t wanted in Selma provoked violence by insisting they had a right to march where they weren’t wanted.

      Of course, most all the TV news I’ve seen condemns the violence – but they make it clear they’re condemning the white nationalists for the violence. Obviously, it doesn’t matter who threw the first punch, the violence was all on the white nationalists for merely existing. Which ties in with the calls for Trump to condemn the white nationalists with a statement that there’s no place for them here and they’re not to be tolerated. If there’s no place for them and they’re not to be tolerated, it’s perfectly ok to beat the shit out of them, right? This way, the anti-protestors are automatically deemed to be defending themselves even when they’re the ones who start the physical violence.

      1. If the heckler actually causes blood to spill, posits death threats, has a track record of actually carrying out violence, then I would like to see both groups assert their right to assemble in court and I see the opening that municipal governments can drive a truck through to argue for prior restraint.

        This is a legal question, not an esoteric one.

        Let’s see this debate happen in a place where adults are, not the children on the streets.

    3. Kind of sounds like repression being proposed. I am so not a fan of KKK, but the National Socialists took Germany because of the use of repression. On the other hand, David Duke ran for POTUS decades ago. Protecting his [vile in my opinion] Free Speech/ 1st Amendment rights is why he has enjoyed less and less support.

      It’s easy to support what is good & just to you. Protecting the rights of those you find atrocious is where true morals start.

      There’s no excuse for violence against people for mere words. None. Not by Dems, Anti-Fa – nor armed Officers. The far Right is reacting to the actions of the Far Left.

      1. I’m sure we can BOTH agree that the Right to Assemble does not extend to say, a flash mob.

        Therefore, does a flash mob that destroys a street of businesses get sudden immunity if the group starts mumbling political messages upon arrest?

        How is this any different than anarchists who set Berkeley on fire? Is that not also a flash mob? Are they not committing crimes? Have they not telegraphed before-hand that they threatened to do what they did? Have they not repeatedly demonstrated that a peaceful demonstration which is what the Right to Assemble protects from restraint–is something they cannot, will not, ever do?

        I do not mind municipal governments repressing both groups and forcing both of them to go to court here. One can make all these thin analogies to Nazi Germany; but in actual Nazi Germany you wouldn’t get this option at all. You would get jail or if it was bad enough, the police would simply open fire directly into the crowd until no more human movement was visible.

        1. 1st Amendment does protect flash mob assembly. As long as nonviolent.

          It protects calls for violence. As long as not imminent.

          The Law is not Judicial Orwellian double speech.

          You can try to impose new definition & history / founding documents of the U.S. social contract rewrites at will, but that doesn’t make it good, moral, ethical, legal or lawful.

          Statists call for suppressing & repressing those that hurt their delicate feelings.

          I have seen many statist governments all over Europe, Asia, Caribbean, Africa, South America… they are not pretty or nice, no matter how anyone “feels”.

        2. Also, National Socialists in Germany had that after Weimar Republic. Free speech repression went Fullbore about time of Beer Hall Putch. It was all the Socialists in Weimar Germany & National Socialists Germany that led to that. Once NAZI takeover, that was total end of Free Speech. Not the beginnings. That was ‘Common Sense Gun Control’ and ‘State run Healthcare’ to end Free Speech, which had been attacked enough by Weimar to put Mengle, et al, in their positions.

    4. Fuck off, slaver…

  4. 1. KKK’s had a legal permit to demonstrate.
    2. Antifas have a proven track record of violence and violating the rights of others to speak or move or assemble.
    3. Antifas came literally armed and ready to fight.

    There was probably violence initiated on both sides, but I have no doubt who arrived in Charlottesville with exactly that intention.

    1. Poor KKK. Why can’t those aweful negros simply leave them to their peaceful ways?
      *wipes away tear*

      1. I will weap the same tears for you when you are denied basic civil rights through violence. Have you never heard of protecting speech you disagree with?

        1. Did the the city deny them a permit? No? Then what are you complaining about?

          1. Antifa. Pretty clear in my first comment.

            1. Are you arguing that the constraints placed upon the government by the 1A should also apply to the citizenry?

              1. No, Antifa regularly violates plenty of civil rights.

              2. 10th Amendment: The People [Citizenry] have all Authority not specified allowed by Government, Eric. So, no, Citizens do not have the restrictions that Government does, you Statist!

          2. Eric, the city tried to deny them a permit to use the park they wanted, the park where the Lee statue that is to be removed is at.

            A federal judge prevented the city from doing that.

            1. So the system is working???

              1. Why are you obsessing on the “system”?

                1. Why are you conflating antifa and the government?

                  1. This entire subthread is about Antifa.
                    Stay on subject or start your own.

                    1. You’re using verbiage discussing civil rights violations to conflate the actions of antifa and the government ( who traditionally would be the violator). I get it. Words matter. I’m sure we’ll be hearing the whole right-wing echo chamber parroting this over the next week.

                      That said. I have precious little simpathy for the KKK, especially when it comes to “civil rights” violations. They done much more than violate civil rights for over 100 years. And when it’s convenient they crawl out of their shitholes and hide behind police protection and the 1A.

                    2. The right to free speech is a natural right.
                      The reason it is explicitly stated as it is in the 1A is because the Constitution is the government’s rule book.
                      That does not mean that the right to free speech doesn’t exist in other relationships.

                      There has been no conflating except by you.

                      I do have sympathy for the KKK (or rather any individuals who are KKK members) with regards to free speech, even while I despise their philosophy.

                      That fact that you don’t says everything about you.

                    3. Where have I said I don’t support their right to speech?

                    4. ” I have precious little simpathy for the KKK, especially when it comes to “civil rights” violations. “

                  2. “Why are you conflating antifa and the government?”

                    If the government were doing its job, much of antifa would be in jail.

                    I think it’s fair to say, in many cases, the governement is enabling them.

                  3. Because the government in Charlottesville supports antifa.

                    1. Or the govt in Charlotte opposes the KKK.

                    2. ^Charlottesville

                    3. And I guess your true colors show if you think the government should be complicit in stifling any person.

                    4. You said it, not me.

              2. So the system is working???

                ARE THOSE GOALPOSTS HEAVY????????

                1. Did the alt-right get the permit or not?

                  1. How many times are you going to change the question?

                    1. My point: The government did not violate anyone’s civil rights. The rest is irellevant from a rights perspective. I don’t give two shits if Antifa (or any other NGO) violated the rights of the KKK.
                      If you have evidence (from a reputable source) that the government deliberately violated anyone’s rights, present it.

                    2. My point: The government did not violate anyone’s civil rights. The rest is irellevant from a rights perspective.

                      Oh, is it irrelevant? You don’t think that the government should have a role in preventing one group of people from violating the civil rights of another group? Clearly not, especially if you disagree with the politics of the second group.

                    3. And again, dipshit, the local government tried to violate the KKK’s rights and were prevented from doing so by someone higher up the chain. Got any words of condemnation for the city of Charlottesville in that regard, mendacious fuckwit?

                    4. Where’s your evidence that the government allowed one group to attack the other? Show me that you fucking twit. Otherwise fuck off.

                    5. I made no such claim, you fucking dullard. How much of your mental capacity does it take for you to remember to breathe?

                    6. “My point: The government did not violate anyone’s civil rights. The rest is irellevant from a rights perspective. I don’t give two shits if Antifa (or any other NGO) violated the rights of the KKK.”

                      Just wow. You are hung up on a false premise that an individual’s civil rights can only be violated by the government.

                      Under your “don’t give two shits” political theory, you wouldn’t give two shits if somebody raped and murdered your mother. As long as it wasn’t a government official.

                    7. Who is Eric’s ruling to be a ‘credible source’? Who is allowed the 1st Amendment Right to Record in his Progressive Police Stae?

                    8. Credible Source != Partisan Blogger, this guy you know, or Opinion Article.
                      In days past journalists needed two sources in addition to fact-checking.

                    9. The cops were told to stand down.

                      By the government.

                      Yes, the government violated people’s rights.

                    10. Whoa! Eric is referring to Anti-Fa as an NGO? Wtf?!

                  2. Keep talking, Eric. Not everyone caught the ignorance the first 5 times.

                    1. {munches popcorn}

          3. It’s pretty clear the cops stood down and let the antifa charge the alt-right protesters, and the used the resulting violence as a justification for declaring the event an unlawful assembly. The cops then pushed the protesters into the crowd of antifa. It’s doubtful the cops made that decision themselves.

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZVyOJ9NOmjc

            1. The story I heard is that the Dem Governor declared a state of emergency minutes before the demonstration and thumbed his nose at the federal judge by ordering the police to clear the park, forcing them into the anitfa. At that point, hilarity ensued.

              Saw one photo on facebook of an antifa using a spray can as a makeshift flamethrower.

  5. The human animal is not a creature of reason. It is a creature of emotion. Hence, expect the spiral of violence on both sides to escalate.

    1. This. All will be stunned when the national guard opens fire.

    2. The human animal is a creature of both. This is self-evident.

      It’s why the enlightenment happened, which provided a starting point for liberal democracy. Individual liberty is a resistance from primitive tribalism and its reflexive symptoms, which includes reflexively trying to shut down speech and marginalize those who conflict with the tribalist’s worldview.

      Humans are capable of both reason and emotional reaction.

      1. The emotional is a core of our reason as well. Our morals can be reasoned over, but the basis of it all comes from our emotions.

    3. A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it.

  6. The far left instigating violence, with Dem politicians & police assistance, now has a body count.

    Shame on this writer calling for higher backlash against the hateful – but legal! – words of the far right.

    Violence is actions not words, dummy. This REACTION to the unfully disclosed groups of Violent Left is not justifiable; BUT wholly expected.

    Shut down BLM, Anti-Fa fascists, DNC, LGBTQ violence against people for mere words 1st. They obviously lack the capacity to counter the other sides rhetoric, so they brought weapons & politicians & police encouraged them to beat, mace, etc. the legal, if vile, rally.

    1. Ishmael. Your mom’s calling from upstairs. Your mac and cheese is done.

      1. If you want to compare experience, degrees, intelligence and reason to being someone living in their Moms house, you obviously lack capacity for converation, Eric. Stop acting like a petulant child, please. The snowflake/ name calling/ type attitude is what has driven this situation being discussed- by others here. Not snarky comments.

        1. Extremist rants are much more grown up, right?

          1. What extremists? What rants? Don’t confuse a call for rule of law for all as extremist. By the way you are babbling, you seem to be fully calling for ‘all animals are equal, but some more than others, and pigs most equal’ Orwellian society.

            I wonder if in fact the Mom comment is based on your actual domicile..

            How many Communist countries have you been to? How many theocratic?

            Do you have any education? Have you read The Constitution?

            The Progressives fueling the violence of the Left have been rewriting many things, Eric. Big right now is Netflix redux of The Handmaiden. The story is actually based on Iran. One of the many places I have been. It was Sharia Law – not Christianity; but that’s not the way the U.S. masses are being indicted.

            These are actual tactics used to topple equality for millennia. If you are educated you know this, which would means you are being disingenuous and trying the Dem method of shouting down others. If you are not educated, please become so before commenting on what you don’t know, Eric.

          2. What extremists? What rants? Don’t confuse a call for rule of law for all as extremist. By the way you are babbling, you seem to be fully calling for ‘all animals are equal, but some more than others, and pigs most equal’ Orwellian society.

            I wonder if in fact the Mom comment is based on your actual domicile..

            How many Communist countries have you been to? How many theocratic?

            Do you have any education? Have you read The Constitution?

            The Progressives fueling the violence of the Left have been rewriting many things, Eric. Big right now is Netflix redux of The Handmaiden. The story is actually based on Iran. One of the many places I have been. It was Sharia Law – not Christianity; but that’s not the way the U.S. masses are being indicted.

            These are actual tactics used to topple equality for millennia. If you are educated you know this, which would means you are being disingenuous and trying the Dem method of shouting down others. If you are not educated, please become so before commenting on what you don’t know, Eric.

          3. What extremists? What rants? Don’t confuse a call for rule of law for all as extremist. By the way you are babbling, you seem to be fully calling for ‘all animals are equal, but some more than others, and pigs most equal’ Orwellian society.

            I wonder if in fact the Mom comment is based on your actual domicile..

            How many Communist countries have you been to? How many theocratic?

            Do you have any education? Have you read The Constitution?

            The Progressives fueling the violence of the Left have been rewriting many things, Eric. Big right now is Netflix redux of The Handmaiden. The story is actually based on Iran. One of the many places I have been. It was Sharia Law – not Christianity; but that’s not the way the U.S. masses are being indicted.

            These are actual tactics used to topple equality for millennia. If you are educated you know this, which would means you are being disingenuous and trying the Dem method of shouting down others. If you are not educated, please become so before commenting on what you don’t know, Eric.

          4. What extremists? What rants? Don’t confuse a call for rule of law for all as extremist. By the way you are babbling, you seem to be fully calling for ‘all animals are equal, but some more than others, and pigs most equal’ Orwellian society.

            I wonder if in fact the Mom comment is based on your actual domicile..

            How many Communist countries have you been to? How many theocratic?

            Do you have any education? Have you read The Constitution?

            The Progressives fueling the violence of the Left have been rewriting many things, Eric. Big right now is Netflix redux of The Handmaiden. The story is actually based on Iran. One of the many places I have been. It was Sharia Law – not Christianity; but that’s not the way the U.S. masses are being indicted.

            These are actual tactics used to topple equality for millennia. If you are educated you know this, which would means you are being disingenuous and trying the Dem method of shouting down others. If you are not educated, please become so before commenting on what you don’t know, Eric.

            1. You’ve obviously “educated” yourself. Now it’s time for multiple perspectives.

              1. I am open to perspectives, Eric. Not silencing or random off topic comment.

                You trolling this site for Anti-Fa, or Dems, by the way?

                1. Contrary to popular misconceptions around here, not alll libertarians are right-wing conservatives. But I’m regularly called a troll when I don’t follow the group think.

                  1. This is you from above:

                    “That said. I have precious little simpathy for the KKK, especially when it comes to “civil rights” violations.”

                    There is nothing libertarian about that. But please don’t stop talking.

                    1. Bullshit TB. I can have little sympathy for them. I can wish they’d all die of hemmroids. I can personally think the KKK deserves any and all horrible treatment by anyone and anything (and laugh heartily when it happens) However, as undeserving of this country’s rights as they are…the government must treat them equally under the law. And unlike many preening assholes I put my principles before principals. What’s unlibertarian about that?

                    2. Now for your evolving argument about how the police in Charlottesville let the counter protestors attack the permitted protestors (which I agree would be wrong): I’ve not seen evidence for this from any reputable organisation. But like Ish above, I’m sure you can find some right wing echo chamber on the web to fully form your world view.

                    3. I have not posited that argument. I haven’t seen evidence on what “went down”. Others have argued that scenario.
                      What I have posited is that the Antifas consistently and historically show up with the intent to commit violence to suppress speech and to instigate violence and have it blamed on those they oppose.
                      They are fascists both in principle and in action.

                    4. You don’t even fucking know what a fascist is dude. There we’re true fascists at that rally, but not on the side you think.

                    5. “any and all horrible treatment by anyone and anything (and laugh heartily when it happens) ”

                      Once again. Keep going. That hole isn’t going to dig itself.

                    6. If one individual attacks a klansman and beats the shit out of him for no other reason than being a klansman. I wouldn’t shed a tear. I’ll also insist that the attacker deserves to be charged with assault and battery. And if I were on the jury would hesitate to convict.

                      Do you have a problem with that?

                    7. ^wouldn’t hesitate to convict

                    8. There was a really good article on this topic in Mother Jones a couple/few months ago; here’s the link: http://www.motherjones.com/pol…..park-five/

                    9. Libertarian is supporting equal justice for all.

                      I am in the unenviable position of supporting the basic rights of the Far Right groups like the KKK, as I do not support the ideals of them; but, I have to support their Civil Right to express it.

                      All my Oaths of Office were to protect and defend The U.S. Constitution. That includes all Civil Rights – for everyone.

                      If that wasn’t clear above, hopefully it is now.

                      Equality, Justice and Liberty are actual Libertarian ideals.

                    10. Then we can absolutely agree on something Ish.

      2. Eric, repeating the words he hears from his mommy every early afternoon. (What a dipshit.)

    2. Yeah, I liked that “I hope Heyer’s death will generate a massive backlash against the alt-right”. You mean there’s not one already, with the “alt-right” being defined as anybody to the right of Bernie Sanders?

      1. This. The bully boys of the left (aka antifa, aka black bloc, aka anarchists) have been picking fights with anyone not to their liking for quite some time, and ramped up their provocations after Trump was elected. The mainstream left has been asked to disown them, but never has.

        So now another extremist element has taken the bait. The stupidest part of which is it is exactly what the left wants.

        That this element gets immediately disowned by pretty much everyone on the mainstream right does not matter.

        That it is the red banner of communism vs. the red banner of fascism doesn’t matter either. At least not to the people who try to tell us what to think.

        I think it terrible that someone was murdered yesterday.

        I also think it terribly likely that anyone who, in the future, decides to go to one of these ‘protests,’ or ‘counter protests’ is placing themselves at similar risk. So my advice to everyone is: Don’t go.

        And if you do go, know that you are assuming great risk.

        1. Well put!

        2. “The mainstream left has been asked to disown them, but never has.”

          Very much like the mainstream Muslims have been asked to disown jihadists, but never has (*). It’s at least partly because a significant portion of the “mainstream” secretly–or not so secretly–agrees with the extremists in their midst.

          (*) Sure, some various Muslims have spoken out against jihadists. But in poll after poll and study after study, large chunks seem to think the actions of jihadists are just fine.

        3. My guess is it will encourage people to go. You say they assume great risk, I say that statistically the risk is still quite low.

          How many people were there? My guess is most people were completely fine, that unfortunate woman just won the lottery. For everyone else there is a feeling of escalation. Most of the Antifa that I’ve seen (I don’t know much alt-right, so I cannot give even my anecdotal opinion there.) Are kids who want to be a part of something. They want to say they were there doing something important. My guess is the rising tensions increases this in their minds. They view it as even more important.

      2. Who hired this clown and why is he still here?

        1. Who hired this clown

          The same website that doxxed you to the feds.

    3. The body count here is on the far right (or at least the far right individual involved). That is not a defense of violent leftists, but it’s annoying to constantly see right-wingers online deflecting in reaction to this. For many of them, everything has to be the fault of the left one way or another.

      1. The ‘Counter Protest Rally’ Left started violence here, and everywhere else of late. A complete piece of worthless on Far Right was behind the wheel.

        I am not ‘Right’ or ‘Left’. I have a brain and dislike being wrong 95% of time [Left] or even 85% of time [Right].

        The Left was 100% instigating all violence I saw. A loser from the Right killed the lady – in reaction to The Left.

        Calling for a “massive backlash against the Right” is calling for more Leftist based violence and death, so is shameful to me.

        Yes, it is The Left’s fault that all their violence ended up with that reaction. Which is the way they want it!

        1. If the guy driving the car was right-wing, then the left by definition did not instigate 100% of the violence. The people on the left would claim they’re just reacting to the right, for some reason people on both sides want that to only go one way.

      2. “The body count here is on the far right (or at least the far right individual involved)”

        The “Death by Charger” body count is on the individual. End of story.

        1. If all this is is actions by “individuals” why are you griping about Antifa? Seems you really just want everything to fit your narrative.

          1. Why are you trolling other threads in support of Anti-Fa, Eric? As Tom stated, start your own.

            1. Mis-informed simpleton comes to wrong conclusion. News at 11.

              1. Yes, you have, again Eric. Obviously you need another 70 IQ points to keep up on here.

                1. He needs 70 IQ points just to get his above zero.

              2. Idiot fuckwit named Eric trolls Reason, regulars sigh.

        2. Fair enough, but if you argue that, then you can’t blame the left as a whole, or even groups such as antifa, when individuals from those groups kill or hurt people.

          1. I can when they explicity preach violence, and those preaching it aren’t immediately excommunicated.

            Which I am not claiming is happening. But it obviously is an example where one can blame a group instead of indivuduls.

            By the way, you always have the most long winded, banal observations. You’re Ken’s boring leftist brother or something.

            1. And my point is you have to be consistent about that – I don’t think it’s unfair to blame antifa generally for antifa attacks when the ideology supports that. I also don’t think it’s unfair to blame nazis in general when nazis commit violence in line with the ideology.

              And who the hell are you exactly? Someone’s alt who doesn’t want to stand behind their comment on their regular username?

            2. And is disliking Donald Trump the only thing you need to qualify as a leftist? Or being to the left of Franco?

  7. Sticks and stones can break my bones, but words can incite vehicular homicide.

    Something like that – – – –

  8. “To be clear, Fields?or whomever was driving the car that careened down Charlottesville’s Fourth Street on Saturday afternoon?is singularly responsible for the carnage he caused, and he should be held criminally accountable.”

    ” I hope Heyer’s death will generate a massive backlash against the alt-right.”

    If Fields is singularly responsible, why do you hope his actions will generate a massive backlash against some group?

    1. We are expected to hate the “other guys”. Blindly.

    2. Again well put. I appreciate the fact you want to have even speech disagreed with being defended in your posts, sir.

      I also appreciate your trying to call for the Anti-Fa trolls on here to either keep to the issue or start their own thread.

      1. If you’re nice enough to them the resident righties will invite you to their parties Ish.

        1. Just because I support Liberty and Justice for all, that doesn’t make me ‘nice’. It means I live by ethics & reason – not emotions. I don’t want to be liked. I don’t want to be invited to any party that is so idealogically intolerant it makes Jim Jones look like a better party. So, no, I won’t braid your hair; NOR shave mine to be ‘liked’.

  9. I think antifa should just be allowed to continue to act like bullies.

    https://youtu.be/cvAMkDGKelQ

  10. Politics is always about violence. The government doesn’t govern through polite suggestions.

    We shouldn’t be surprised when people keep running with the theme.

    1. Law is terrorism.

      1. Memory Hole is retarded.

  11. Most of those who feel compelled to identify with a particular group do so because they lack any personal achievements or contributions. Nothing more futile than marching and fighting in the streets over political opinions.

    1. Conceding that point, the question still remains, does freedom of speech exist in the USA or not, futile or not?

      1. No it doesn’t, so shut up or I’ll compare you to Hitler.

        1. That’s Martin Luther Hitler, Jr. to you.

          1. Betcha half of you wants to kill the other half.

            1. +1 Abradolf Lincler

      2. Far more can be accomplished with carefully crafted writing than shouting slogans and throwing punches.

        1. Normally, I’d agree, however, have you ever read or heard an Antifa screed? Carefully crafted does not come to mind.

        2. Correction. Carefully crafted tweets. OK, maybe not so cleverly crafted. Then again, maybe an X rated selfie would be better.

    2. It wouldn’t surprise me that unemployable clods and aspiring actors both like to engage in street theater…and that they would be at each other’s throats.

    3. I don’t think what you’re seeing here is “marching and fighting in the streets over political opinions”, it’s marching and fighting in the streets over political *actions*. There’s a large group who have an opinion that they’re entitled to force their opinions on others through violence, and they’re using violence to force that opinion on others. There’s a difference between saying that Jews capitalists are evil and should be eliminated and actually going out and eliminating Jews capitalists. You don’t get to say that attacking Jews capitalists is just expressing a political opinion.

      1. Well, there’s violence, there’s threats, and there’s innuendo. Love flies out the door when money flies in yer window, but it happens so often that there’s no point in breaking out the violins and putting on your old threads every time it happens.

      2. So well put!

  12. Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent.

    Politics is the next to last refuge of the incompetent.

    1. Nah, politics is violence.

    2. I believe the Founding Fathers would disagree with you.

  13. …and now the violent tussle over the possession of the bloody shirt begins….

    1. A bloody Che’ shirt? Priceless.
      Normally it could be converted into lots of free pussy.
      Unfortunately, any male wearing it has so much estrogen coursing through his bloodstream, it’s a moot t-shirt.

      1. Hell hath no fury like an ironic metrosexual hipster scorned. Until the police show up with batons.

  14. “Maybe this is the event that brings an end to the rage and give both sides reason to explore the more effective option of non-violent civil resistance.”

    Don’t see it.
    Note Tony here still whining 10 months after the election about how it was ‘stolen’ in spite of the fact there is as yet not a single shred of evidence to that effect.
    The left is not about to yield that fantasy, which will continue to generate the sort of crap we’ve seen against Milo, et al, which will in turn generate the sort of crap we saw yesterday.

    1. Man, I ahdnt really thought about it. 10 months… Feels like yesterday.

    2. Didn’t you know? Every election that Democrats lose is “stolen”.

  15. How will this “massive backlash” play out, hypothetically, in the author’s mind?

    1. Berkeley come to mind?

    2. It will end up like it has in the past, think Kent State.

      1. It’s a weird dynamic. Back in the day, the hippies were fighting against “the man”.
        Now, in many locations, the Antifa are “the man”, or at least are enabled by “the man”

      2. Ugh. Just when we thought that the hippies were all in the nursing homes and the Bull Connors were dead.

  16. Marching in opposition to racists and facists doesn’t mean you’re “far-left” or a socialist. That girl who was killed was a local paralegal who showed for reasons that had nothing to do with sociallism. You’re off base painting these counter protesting as far left or extreme.

    1. Indeed, very reasonable comment. On one side, we saw garden variety neo-nazis, Klan supporters, white supremacists and white nationalists. On the other, we saw anarchists, socialists, civil libertarians and liberals.

      And everything in between. I suppose it’s easier for people to make sense of it all by placing everyone there in one of two boxes.

    2. Marching in opposition to racists and facists doesn’t mean you’re “far-left” or a socialist.”

      You are absolutely right. Even more to the point, it does not matter if she was “far-left” or “socialist”. It doesn’t matter about any label that might fit anyone in Charlottesville.
      What matters in Charlottesville is the initiation of violence.

    3. The Anti-Fa, et al, had a problem with the Rally’s “White Male Privilege”… you know, their race?!

      So The Left’s Bigotry and Racist and Sexist Marching, etc, is OK?!

      Are you serious? Grow up!

  17. “Both sides see their identities as collectives, rather than as individuals. That makes it easier, perhaps, for members to justify ever-increasing levels of violence against their opponents.” – Well put.

  18. Unfortunately, the alt-right would prefer a society where violence is systematically employed against non-whites by the government. They want to use the state to enforce a white-dominated status quo – and they are already somewhat doing it, because their candidate, Trump, won the election.
    Now I don’t think Trump is “alt-right” himself. I think he’s a garden variety crony-capitalist, nationalist and populist. But I don’t think he’s particularly racist (at least no more than the Republican average). But politics being what it is, he has to answer to the people that are going to vote for him (or not).
    So, when they are standing there advocating policies that ultimately involve guys with guns being used to enforce a white-dominated society, it’s something that is worth taking seriously. They aren’t just a bunch of marginalized losers who can be safely ignored.

    So we shouldn’t be under the illusion that they’re in any way actually “peaceful”. They’re standing there advocating violence against many of the people who make up those protestors. And they have enough power to make those threats meaningful. That some protestors might take them seriously and respond as if they were being threatened with violence shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone.

    1. Take your Midol meds, Hazel

      1. SIV,

        I disagree with a great many implications in HazelMeade’s post.

        Why not provide us with an argument against what was posted here?

        1. “Unfortunately, the alt-right would prefer a society where violence is systematically employed against non-whites by the government”

          Because that claim doesn’t even deserve being treated seriously.

          1. Because that claim doesn’t even deserve being treated seriously.

            I recall a United States Senator (in a “town hall meeting”) being asked a question by a citizen of the United States, and that citizen, being a constituent of the Senator’s own state, asked why that Senator proposed and supported legislation that funded, trained, and advanced terrorist activities. The citizen mentioned details and challenged the Senator, pointing out (if I recall correctly that) during the Senator’s term in office the term “terrorist” was in full accordance with the Senator’s own definitions and now she or he was being supportive of the very individuals and groups previously denounced and said to be enemies of the the United States.

            And with that irony, this Senator refused to respond to his or her constituent, stating that he didn’t need to respond because such a citizen of his state “doesn’t even deserve being treated seriously”, as you put it.

            1. And I’m not that senator discussing that subject.

              1. I did not think that the two of you are the same individual. I doubt that any reader here thought that you and the Senator to whom I referenced are the same individual.

          2. WHat do you consider arresting and deporting people because they lack the correct government permission slips other than the systematic employment of violence?

            And what do you expect to happen in a society in which discrimination against people on the basis of race is legal and socially tolerated, which is what the alt-right desires?
            Do you think blacks would sit there and quietly accept being treated like social inferiors by a significant percentage of whites? And when they don’t what do you think will happen? Would YOU accept being treated like a second class citizen on a routine basis by other people in society? What would YOU do in that situation? How do you think a government run along alt-right principles would respond?
            Does the thought of living in a society in which black neighborhoods were occupied by militarized police and/or national guard troops to prevent them from raising an armed insurrection make you happy? Do you imagine that’s NOT what would happen if the alt-right got it’s way?

            1. And what do you expect to happen in a society in which discrimination against people on the basis of race is legal and socially tolerated, which is what the alt-right desires?

              HazelMeade, you favor affirmative action, you favor discrimination against people based on the color of their skin. You’re a repugnant racist. And scum like you should be driven from the polite society before it’s too late.

              1. Until leftists own up to their own racism, they will continue to be violent clods.

            2. While I am for increased immigration and against the ideas that trump has for illegal immigrants, enforcing immigration law is not “discrimination against people on the basis of race” if that is what you were getting at.

              It is enforcing a law on someone based on their actions, which is overstaying a visa.

              You are painting a fantasy world that turns political disagreement into a civil war. This sort of exaggeration is entirely what is prevelant in the public discourse and it what fuels all this political violence.

              It would be much more productive inflame the discussion by painting sides as evil and keep the discussion on the issues.

    2. You are just a cowardly bitch of the “let’s you and him fight.” Variety

      1. Tmgb,

        I am uncertain in this regard, yet it is my unsubstantiated impression that the person you are addressing is not cowardly. I have read unambiguous statements from HazelMeade which do not allow for cowardice. My impression of you (derived solely from these unhallowed threads, mind you) is that you are not cowardly either. Why not engage other H&R commentators (and commentators elsewhere) on the merits of their arguments rather than do what I think you just did?

        1. Hi Hazel’s obvious sockpuppet!

          1. I think that you are more capable than that.

            1. Shut the fuck up Hazel.

    3. So you really seem to hate the White Race, Hazel. You also are opposed to ending the real bigoted hatred: Progressive / Liberal tasks to attack Whites and Males; but do seem to have a problem with them not liking it… you a faithful subscriber to The Nation & have your NPR totebag, too? You might consider checking your Racism before pointing fingers.

      1. I don’t hate the white race. I hate people who think that America is the collective property of the white race.

        1. You’re a repugnant racist.

        2. A difference that makes no difference is no difference, racist.

  19. Unfortunately, the alt-right would prefer a society where violence is systematically employed against non-whites by the government. They want to use the state to enforce a white-dominated status quo – and they are already somewhat doing it, because their candidate, Trump, won the election.

    You and your fellow progressives would be saying this if any other GOP nominee had beaten Hillary.

    So we shouldn’t be under the illusion that they’re in any way actually “peaceful”. They’re standing there advocating violence against many of the people who make up those protestors. And they have enough power to make those threats meaningful.

    Bullshit.

    According to Wikipedia on KKK membership:

    As of 2016, the Anti-Defamation League puts total Klan membership nationwide at around 3,000, while the Southern Poverty Law Center puts it at 6,000 members total

    The KKK is really small. They could all stay in the same hotel with a bunch of free rooms left over. Or put another way: the entire membership of the KKK is less than the daily readership of this blog.

    1. well, wikipedia

    2. I’m not a progressive. I’m an anti-racist libertarian.
      I wish that was a redundant statement.

      1. You’re no libertarian. You only want the groups you favor to have freedom, which every political group under the Sun thinks about their own members. You’re no anti-racist either, by your very words and actions.

        In other words, you’re just a garden-variety liar.

  20. At a concert in New Orleans there was the Westboro Baptist rally outside with their vile, but legal, rhetoric last Halloween. They used no violence. Just hateful speech.

    Just after Valentine’s Day in Minneapolis, at a fine food and libations tasting, their were Progressive SJWs. They were continously being violent against anyone not looking like they weren’t a part of their tribal ideals. Including against myself who was simply there to eat and drink with a young doctor I was dating.

    I am not a person to identify with either group. Not Left. Not Right.

    I have tried to introduce the “Reason” / Logic that everyone’s Civil Rights need to be upheld; but calling for Continued Far Left Violence against Right Extremists has resulted in one of the triple K Klub minions using a car to kill people. But, this isn’t the 1st terrorism via vehicles. In last year there have been a lot of Sharia based examples, including in U.S.

    The Right now has a body count in reaction.to the Left’s lawless, extremely violent actions.

    Give me a pro being bashed in face with bike lock, pro-Anti-Fa argument, that’s fact based, and not the ‘perspective of feeling’ that any actions by the Left are justified by the opportunity to speak & listen at Berkeley. Or, find a site like Sesame Street where your over developed sense of Social Justice & pro-Anti-Fa will get all the attention that your feelings are seeking…

  21. “I don’t know why people feel they have to be with one side or the other. ”

    Because history has a way of making you choose a side. Think the Spanish Civil War.

    So before you can get that awesome dialectic out of your mouth regarding the moral superiority of the non-aggression principle or your pithy response to being labeled or collectivised, you’ll be fucking dead.

    1. Riiiight. So I guess you’re with the nazis, huh? Yeah, good luck with that, LOL.

      1. Which side is the Nazis again?

        1. They’re the violent socialists…. Wait… Crap!

    2. as the guy who wrote that 400 yards up thread, I’ll tell you that I did think of that. In the coming Civil War I’ll have to do something.

      But my point is that now I don’t feel the need to latch onto either left or right and argue for against either side. For now, I can leave my own opinion to the right has a right to march, the left has a right to call them motherfuckers and the asshole who drove his car into a woman can pay for it on his own, not as a martyr for his cause.

      1. 400 yards? Feet maybe, we’ve not had a 400 yarder for nearly a year in these parts. The schism assured that outcome.

  22. “the alt-right would prefer a society where violence is systematically employed against non-whites by the government. ”

    Liar

    1. The Dem Politicians who supported the Lib / Left Violence openly stated they didn’t like ‘White Pride’. But all other races can hate “White Males”?

      I keep asking for a reasonable answer to how Left can attack, verbally & physically, “White Men” and not be not just racist / sexist, but BIGOTED?!

      Oh, that’s right! Only BLM! All the time. Because White Males being attacked is never racist or sexist, huh?

      How about some equality, people?

      Actual Equality! Not the “Animal Farm” version the Violent Left apologizers / supporters here are promoting!

      What next, drink Victory Gin and strangle Prols?

    2. The state IS violence. Anything the state does is violence. They want to use the state to enforce a white-dominated America. By necessity, that would entail systematic violence against non-whites. Just because it might not involve concentration camps and gas chambers (at least not right away), doesn’t mean it wouldn’t involve policies backed by force that are harmful to non-whites.

      1. State is violence. Yes. That’s why the ‘White Dominance’ of Paine refered to it in U.S. as a necessary evil, at best.

        Don’t get why your comment need to race based, Hazel.

        My concerns about the need for vigorous, but honest and well thought out speech here, is that socio-economic demagoguery started this mess.

        My children are from a mixed, multiple ways, marriage. Some of both families gets into this kind of race & other demographic based pimping / baiting and declare they aren’t ‘pure enough’ to be “this race”, that religion. It is stupid and devisive. Then ‘Public’ Teachers and Professors try that, too. Then other, would be, “Authorities” in their lives.

        Please. Seriously. Check the race baiting, Hazel.

      2. Check your closest mental healthcare professional. You display all symptoms of being batshit crazy.

  23. OK, let’s be clear here. A bunch of idiots who the press is pleased to identify as ‘Right Wing White Supremacists’ held a rally. At the rally a bunch of idiots who the press is pleased to identify as ‘Antifascists’ help a counter-rally, and a man who is said to have belonged to the first bunch of morons ran a car into them at high speed, killing one.

    Let us assume for a moment that the first bunch of imbeciles was composed largely of white supremacist bigots. It seems likely enough, damn it. The second bunch of morons, who self-describe as antifascists, are strongly similar to other morons who have attacked speakers they didn’t like, and jabbered about hitting fascists…which frankly makes THEM fascists in my book. So, we have two bunches of thugs.

    There are no anti-fascists on this landscape. There are pro-Trump fascists and anti-Trump fascists.

    I’m sorry the woman was killed. The rest of them can rot.

    1. Marxists are anti-Fascist, just as Fascists are anti-Marxist.

      Don’t confuse “fascist” as being a synonym for “anyone who advocates tyranny”. Fascism specifically refers to tyranny motivated by racism or nationalism: Blood and Soil. The open elevation of one race over another. A tyranny based in Inequality created by violence.

      Marxists (Antifa), by contrast, are internationalist, and while their views are “racist” in the sense that they involve discrimination (eg Affirmative Action), their *stated goal* is always racial, and economic, equality; to create equal racial and economic outcomes by force. A tyranny of Equality.

      And yes: the end result of Marxism is always Inequality too. The point is that a Marxist genuinely convinces themselves that they are fighting for Equality, whereas a Fascist openly, honestly and boastfully seeks to create Inequality for its own sake.

      So, the Antifa are indeed Anti-Fascist. And that doesn’t subtract from their thuggishness in the slightest: because Fascism is a *flavor* of Tyranny, not a *synonym* for Tyranny.

      1. Original Fascist? Mussolini. Marxist – admired, and even revered, by Lenin & Trotsky!! – turned Italian dictator. They are the same. It’s like the old joke: Authoritarian? No! Totalitarian? Yes, please!

        While some subtle differences in messaging, they are the same thing.

        1. Fascism and Marxism are twins from the same womb, and they started at the same ideological place. However, they did not stay there.

          Mussolini barely qualifies as a “Fascist” by the *modern* definition that the term has acquired: he wasn’t particularly racist (eg: racist, but no more than anyone else was at the time), and he only rounded up Jews because Hitler nagged him to.

          Fascist used to just be the Italian word for Statist (which is not inherently Right- or Left-wing), but it has evolved into a synonym for Nazi, applied to versions of Nazism outside of Germany: a tyranny based on Blood and Soil Nationalism. By contrast, Marxism has become a synonym for One World Internationalism.

          Like I said: the result of both is the same, but the propaganda is not.

          1. Fascism and Nazism I do believe are different. I generally agree with many of your premises to include the openly boastful push for inequality on the part of Fascists and the supposed good intentioned internationalism of Marxists, but the racial point I believe underlies Nazism more deeply than the Italian version of Fascism.

            In any event I do believe they all share the same general desire for a totalitarian leader to demolish the old system or they all lead that way, whether it is for the great leader to lead the people towards a glorious future where they rule over their weak neighbors in a fascist state or for the dictatorship of the proletariat (spearheaded by the vanguard party members) to shepherd everyone towards the great socialist paradise in our future in a Marxist state.

    2. Both sides are collectivist assholes who want to shove their idiocy down other people’s throats, by force if necessary. The whole they are worse cause “they” started “it” excuse making for either bunch is fucking moronic. Yet that is exactly what mouthpieces for both tribes have been doing.

      Left and right are both fucking Losers and anyone licking their nuts is as well.

  24. Antifa types clash with hate groups all the time. They’ll confront anyone opposite of their ideology. They fought with a Trump fans at Orange County at pro Trump rally.

    Minus the apparent act of domestic terrorism, this sorry little episode was just that – bunch of anarchists at the end of the ideological spectrum scuffling with each other. Only the usual hyperventilating loons will see this as the new rise of white supremacy. A Muslim executed 50 people last year and the left lectured everyone that “if you blame Islam for this you’re an Islamophobe” but that’s a distant memory.

    It’s this kind of double standard and a sense of being targeted that will give rise to the alt-right and feed the sense of resentment brewing among (half) the white population. “Pick your battles” is a good advice in life, including fighting racism. If you rail against a white supremacist rally, people will be on your side. If you tell white faculty to leave due to”white privilege” or form a mob against white people with black hair style, you’ll go nowhere. You do that 24/7 and eventually people will get angry and “The hell with PC” candidates like Trump becomes president.

    When I heard about the car hit I was already mentally searching for the name of the guy who shot up the baseball game in anticipation of “Trump is at fault, you guys are racist” response. It’s not how things should be, but that’s the state of the country at the moment.

    1. Anti-Fa is a hate group. The rest is a well written primer for the folks who don’t get that Far Left Violence causes all social ills noted & gives rise to Trump, and others.

  25. A comment in a YouTube video on the topic suggested watching “Ukraine on Fire”. I found a free copy with Amazon Prime if you have Prime already. I could not find an English version on YouTube.

    The IMDB reviews toggle between 10 for “fantastic” and 1 for “complete lies” with an average of 6.1.

    It seems relevant to me. It isn’t so much if the movie is fact or fiction but the concepts that people are so very easily swayed. It is another example of how Edward Bernays work and others that have followed is probably more powerful than nuclear weapons. Of course, it was Joseph Goebbels’ favorite book.

    What we need is a method of counter-acting the effects of well staged and planned propaganda machines. Of course, Nick vehemently believes that such machines don’t exist. But, if we pretend that they do, and we figure out a way to counter act them, not only would it bring an end to many of the ‘isms in the world but it would have a profound effect on marketing and sales. Because that is basically what the politicians are doing: selling their war.

    I’ll leave you with one my greatest hopes. A quote from Carl Sandburg:
    “Someday they’ll give a war and nobody will come.”

  26. I’m confused about which group of Nazi Brownshirts we are supposed to #resist. The alt-right (whose even was cancelled twice unconstitutionally by the city) or the Antifa thugs in black body armor and carrying shield and clubs who didn’t bother to register their event, just showed up and started punching people (including a reporter.)

    1. Fuck the lot of them with a rusty chain saw. Morons all.

      1. Ditto that.

    2. The white supremacists came with automatic weapon militias. Not saying that the antifa weren’t violent morons too.

  27. The “left” is “glorifying political violence”?

    Who has spent the past eight years talking about “watering the tree of liberty”, “second amendment solutions” and “taking back our country”?

    And sure, only one person may be *criminally* responsible, but if you think this isn’t a consequence of rhetoric, demagogues, and political speech, then you don’t have a good grasp on history and human behavior.

  28. I’d rather have chaos than bad law. If a few people have to die, that’s acceptable, to me,.

  29. Eyewitnesses: James Fields’ Car Was ‘Attacked,’ Police Set Up Rally-Goers To Be Assaulted..
    Some cops reportedly believed that Fields struck the counter-protesters by accident while trying to escape violent attackers.
    Charlottesville police forced Unite the Right rally-goers to walk directly through mobs of un-patrolled Black Lives Matter and Antifa rioters, sparking the violence that led to mayhem and destruction in the streets of Charlottesville Saturday. The police then stood down and allowed the violence to happen. Some of the protesters on the Left were paid agitators.
    “Car that hit those people drove right by us 3 mins after. Was beat all to f*ck. Big rectangular square holes in rear windshield in addition to all the damage you see done to it in the photos,” the eyewitness said.
    “Anyway several police officers at the station here think the guy running people down wasn’t malicious. They said the driver was scared,” The Hill reporter Taylor Lorenz tweeted as the case was developing. That tweet is now deleted.
    Obviously, there can be no challenge to the official media narrative pushed by Virginia governor Terry McAuliffe and Democrats and establishment Republicans, which claims that Fields intentionally ran over counter-protesters in a deliberate terrorist act.

    1. It is unclear exactly what a second Civil War would look like in this country in 2017, and what form it would take. But it’s perfectly clear, based on the events in Charlottesville and the mainstream globalist media’s round-the-clock attack on Trump and his supporters, that a cold Civil War is already underway.

      http://bigleaguepolitics.com/e…..assaulted/

  30. Heather Heyer wasn’t murdered. She was an accident victim. The driver of a Dodge Charger, James Alex Fields, was driving down a street in Charlottesville, Virginia, going too fast for conditions. His car was moving at about 25 miles per hour, when he should have been going no faster than 10 mph, due to large numbers of people lining both sides of the road.

    The people, however, were Antifa activists, armed with baseball bats, which they had brought with them to use as weapons. It’s likely that Fields was going faster than he should because he wanted to get through the area with as little damage to his car as possible.

    As Fields was going past the Antifa activists, one of them smashed his car with a baseball bat. Distracted by the bat’s impact, Fields turned his head to look backward at exactly the wrong moment. During the few seconds when he was not looking where he was going, he rear-ended a slower moving car on the street ahead of him. That car was bumped into a third car in front of it, which in turn was pushed into a fatal collision with Heather Heyer, age 31, occupation paralegal.

    Had Fields not been distracted, he would probably have noticed traffic ahead in time to put on his breaks and avoid the collision. And Heather Heyer would still be alive.

    Here is a video of the car crash and subsequent backing up that contains scenes that the media routinely censor.

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

    1. After the collision, about a dozen Antifa members swarmed and attacked Fields’ car, breaking out windows and apparently trying to get to Fields in order to kill him. In a panic, Fields put his car into reverse to make an escape from his attackers.

      This is actually a reasonable thing to do. I’ve seen videos prepared by US government agencies as advisories to US diplomatic personnel about what to do if you are in a vehicle that has been trapped by a hostile mob, suggesting a similar tactical course of action. Also, there is this:

      “During my long career I have been in such situations numerous times and the threat of being set-up, ambushed etc. is always present but that goes with the turf. I am sure it was clear to the teenage gangbanger who was sitting next to me that if things went bad he would be the first to be gut shot; if I was going to suffer, so was he! I am fairly certain I was the only white guy for a few miles around and the odds of me making it out would have been slim? such is life, I chose to be there. Having served in Northern Ireland with the British Army in the late 80’s and early 90’s the murders of Corporals Howes and Wood(s) in Belfast, 1988 emphasized how vulnerable a vehicle is when trapped by a violent mob and how your reaction must be fast and aggressive.” ?Orlando Wilson, “Driving in Hostile Areas,” published in THE CIRCUIT: The Magazine for Security Professionals.

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

      1. Too often a judgment about whether someone in a bad situation did rightly or wrongly in extricating himself from danger depends on political considerations. Let’s not be hypocrites. Let us have one moral standard for everybody.

        James Alex Fields isn’t innocent. He drove in a reckless manner, and his recklessness resulted in a negligent manslaughter, with the mitigating factor that he was distracted by an Antifa hitting his car with a baseball bat. But he is certainly neither a terrorist nor a murderer. Most of the accusations against him assign to him more guilt than he deserves.

        Antifa has created a contra-factual ideology that holds that white nationalist speech is “hate speech” (which, mostly, it isn’t) and that “hate speech” is not “free speech” (though, mostly, it is ? just ask the federal judge who reinstated Unite the Right’s rally permit). They use their self-serving ideology as a justification for using threats, intimidation, and violence to prevent groups that they don’t like from using their own freedom of speech.

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

        1. If Antifa and Black Lives Matter hadn’t imposed themselves upon Charlottesville, the white nationalists of Unite the Right would have had their torchlight rally and then dispersed back to their homes. Nothing bad would have happened.

          The media have concocted a narrative that mixes truth with lies, abuses emphasis, and makes inexcusable omissions of important facts. That is, the media are presently trying to do to Unite-the-Right what they tried to do to George Zimmerman during the days leading up to his trial over the Trayvon Martin shooting in 2012. Let’s hope that these incorrigible deceivers fail this time, too.

          There is, at least for now, a video that shows parts of the James Alex Fields’ collision with another car, and his subsequent escape from Antifa attackers, that the media routinely censor from their own videos. If you want to see it, go here:

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

  31. White nationalist speech is not hate speech? They do not believe in racial equality. They think intermarriage should be illegal. I don’t know what you define as hate speech but those are hateful ideas. They have every right to say those things but it’s pretty awful stuff.

    1. White nationalists aren’t racists. I have no idea where you get your information from but you really should not trust it. Look up white nationalism and DO NOT use any MSM sites as your sources – they’re full of shit and pushing a dangerous narrative. Oh, and PS – I’m not a white nationalist. I’m just someone who likes to research all sides of a subject matter BEFORE developing an opinion or belief.

  32. “this is the first time someone has died during one of those (mostly peaceful) protests” Holy F*ck! LMAO Mostly peaceful. That’s hilarious.

  33. very nice post. I like it. Thanks for sharing this information.
    Tinder is the best online chatting application. Try it.
    http://www.tinder-pc-download.com/ tinder for pc
    http://www.tinder-pc-download.com/ tinder download

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.