Donald Trump

Why Won't Trump Unequivocally Condemn the Charlottesville Nazis?

The president's inability to unequivocally condemn may be rooted in his general love of illiberal exclusionism

|

President Donald Trump showed during a press event today, ostensibly to announce some plans to ease permitting processes for infrastructure building, that he can't help himself from exhibiting sympathy with the crowds who gathered in Charlottesville this weekend to march for white supremacy.

alisdare1 via Foter.com / CC BY-SA

It is shocking, on one level, to find a U.S. president unwilling to unequivocally and with any sense that he actually believes what he's saying decry people marching under fascist emblems and shouting Nazi slogans (or in happy open alliance with those doing so, for the pedantic), one who considers it more important that you know in the same breath that he also finds fault with those who gathered in public to oppose them.

A core element of Trumpist public policy makes today's show of sympathies a little less surprising, even though they are policies that neither Trump nor most of his fans (or even enemies) likely consciously recognize as connected to his bizarre inability to not make sure you know he thinks some of those who march with Nazis were "very fine people" (apparently because he supports their ostensible "goal" of protesting the removal of a statue from public property of a general who fought for a nation dedicated to enslaving many of the people who live in the city and country the statue resides in).

As I wrote back in month one of the Trump administration, the tendency within him that marks him as unlibertarian and illiberal at the core (even if he might preside over, as in today's speech, such ostensibly state-power-shrinking policies as permit streamlining) is a bone-deep sympathy with illiberal exclusionism as a policy. The Charlottesville white supremacist marchers take that exclusionism a little farther than Trump has explicitly.

What did Trump lead with in month one of his presidency? Border walls, rabid trade protectionism, Muslim travel bans. As I summed up then:

Not yet a month into his administration, Trumpism is most surely centered on a poorly considered nationalism. His administration, with each swift and relentless bit of dumb bullying over our businesses' right to choose what to do with capital, our right to buy from abroad unmolested, other humans' ability to move peacefully into our country, acts on the principle that it's best if we don't trade with people outside our borders, that the Leader gets to decide what private businesses do with their capital and resources, and that we should beggar ourselves for the sour joys of keeping fewer people not born here from coming here (in a time when that alleged "problem" barely exists).

His brand of nationalism means exclusionism, based in Trump's case (and in that of his adviser in nationalism and former self-proclaimed leading promoter of the "alt right", Steve Bannon, the same alt-right Trump acts conveniently confused about the nature of today) on either largely pointless fear or hostility toward foreign "others," or refusal to understand or care about how dealing with people outside our borders benefits us, them, and the world at large.

Modern civilization fortunately requires that such illiberal exclusionism is usually expressed in what passes for polite policy debate as just (misunderstanding of) economics or unwillingness to tolerate the slightest hint of risk at whatever cost when that risk comes from foreign others. But something darker can ride along with that sort of "acceptable" illiberal exclusionism aimed at unambiguous foreigners.

The explicit targets of the exclusionist spirit might be different for Trump and all the "very fine people" who chose to march with Nazis over their alleged concern for the preservation of a statue in a particular place. But the hate and desire for separation at the heart of the "unite the right" side of the Charlottesville rally aimed at blacks, Jews, homosexuals, and all the other historic enemies of racists and Nazis is just a further, more obviously to most evil, manifestation of that same hate and mistrust of free-market libertarian cosmopolitanism that drives Trump's seemingly more benign trade and immigration policies.

Trump's supporters can believe that he didn't speak out sooner because he's obsessed with making sure he has all the facts straight before accusing anyone of anything, even though that's obviously not true when something is truly bothering him (and in the case of the black Central Park Five, Trump can remain sure of their guilt years after the legal system has cleared them). They can fall back on the (true) fact that Americans should be able to gather freely and express even heinous and evil ideas, as long as they are merely ideas, or that some non-Nazi may have non-defensively harmed someone that day.

But that does not relieve President Trump of the responsibility, once that incident becomes national news, of recognizing with no equivocation and no felt need to blame other people for anything that something is very seriously wrong and worth loud and consistent condemning with choosing to exercise your rights to advocate that non-whites and Jews be driven from America, which was indeed the dominant spirit of that gathering.

Why can't Donald Trump seem to understand that in his bones when he's given a microphone? It seems so strange. One reason may well be because Donald Trump is a very strong public advocate of the benefits, propriety, and necessity of a policy of national exclusionism, when it comes to immigrants, visitors, goods, and services. Thus he might have a hard time instantly recognizing that the modern alt-right takes that exclusionism he believes in to a place even he should have the nerve to unambiguously and unequivocally oppose without the need to make excuses or spread blame.

NEXT: Massive new searchable database of federal court opinions, including ones that haven't been formally published

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. I doubt Trump did it on purpose, but I do think we need to get somewhere beyond unequivocal condemnations like this. We’ve evolved more and more towards being unable to make any nuanced distinction. Every group falls into some very firm stereotype of everything. Their lives are fully defined.

    This is on both sides, seems like we just paint in broad strokes and don’t want to view people as people that are made up of many complex facets. I think we can fully condemn certain ideas, and we should in fact, but I think we should give more leeway towards people.

    I don’t really know where I’m going with this.

    1. I guess part of it is I truly feel continued condemnation of people, where we just identify them with a star and shunt them polite society, is going to be damaging in the long run. I saw someone post that we need to out them and make their lives miserable so that they might reflect on themselves and realize they are assholes. I’m not confidant it works that way, my guess is that we’re just going to drive more people into more extreme groups.

      But I also mean this in some vague moral way. What makes up a persons life is so many things. How much is enough is enough to condemn a person’s entire life? When do they have enough wrong beliefs that they are no longer worthy of being considered as a human?

      Well, I rambled for a bit. But that’s something I’ve been thinking a lot about lately.

      1. Is the question of evil even discussed by philosophers any more? I think I’ve often felt sympathy towards Ms. Arendt’s analysis. Anyone know any good topics discussing this question?

        1. For way too many people, “evil” is a 4-letter word, off limits, not to be used in polite company. It’s “too judgmental” to use that word! It is still (has been for a long time, maybe forever) a very real problem. If you want to read up on it, check out M. Scott Peck’s “The People of the Lie”, SQRLSY One

          August.15.2017 at 10:01 pm

          “People of the Lie: The Hope for Healing Human Evil “

  • Was going to respond “Will do” to your post, but your hyperlink fucked up in a weird way. So now if you click “reply to this” it takes me to amazon.

    1. Does this book attempt to discuss the question of what is evil at all?

      1. Yes, it does. My summary of M. Scott Peck would be, evil is self-deception, false pride. “I am proud to be me, just because I am me, no matter how many shitty things I do. I can systematically justify every shitty thing I do, in my own head, by building up a mental “machine” of circular logic that self-justifies whatever I want to do.”
        Run-away, rampant, undisciplined ego, selfishness, pride, is what it is. The Donald, sad to say, has more than a hefty dollop of evil in him. We all have some, but some people have more than others. The opposite of evil is love, compassion, humility… Those kinds of things… Which I don’t see much of, in The Donald.

        1. Can you give a summary of his argument as to why it is evil?

          1. Asking “why” about evil is probably way above my pay grade… I don’t recall M. Scott Peck trying to address that. My best stab at it would be, it’s just the consequence of having full, unfettered free will… Free will means we have the genuine, real choice to do and be evil.

            Good v/s evil are “value judgments”, not much amenable to strict “logic”… Logically prove that pleasure is better than pain, health is better than sickness, life is better than death? I don’t think it can be done, strictly by logic…

        2. Yeah, not certain I buy into that as love, compassion and whatnot can have a high degree of paternalism that can be downright evil (“this is for your own good” seen in abusive parents)… any virtue can be warped; any vice, sublime.

          Not to mention the most evil I’ve seen is people forsaking their own moral code in the name of some greater good (Stalinism, holy crusades of every stripe, German porn, etc.). Once you start down that rabbit hole, it is only a few skips and a jump away from people locked in cattle cars.

          The people in Charlottesville and Trump by proxy are at worst misguided, and this finger-wagging at what is seemingly desperate people does more to harden people’s positions than actually affect genuine understanding.

          http://www.thedailybeast.com/m…..ed-the-kkk

          1. I largely agree, but I’m a little perplexed — What greater good does German porn seek to promote by compromising morality?

            1. I’m not sure either. I have to go do a lot of investigative research on the subject now. Be back in five minutes. Maybe four and a half.

              1. Oh, don’t strain yourself.

                It’s not like a a 50 point IQ increase and a venn diagram from god himself would make much of a difference for you.

          2. I bought it regardless, but I was thinking I could ask you for a sneak peak.

  • Condemning someone who walks and talks like a Nazi is not, I think, condemning their entire life. It’s just making it known that you think they’re being a huge asshole.

    Which would have been considered a milquetoast response to Nazis a few years ago. Now it’s apparently so controversial it needs to be exhaustively defended.

    1. I don’t think any sane people have a problem condemning Nazis and Trump should have been more forceful in his initial criticism, but now this has become a false media narrative. All Trump did at this point was also criticize antifa and say that not everyone opposed to tearing down Civil War statues is a Nazi.

      That would have been a logical statement even a few years ago, now it demands endless virtue signaling. The president deserve some blame for that, but some people are behaving very disingenuous.

      1. My question is:

        Where were the majority of Pols on BOTH sides weeks ago when Leftist THUGS lawlessly & violently destroyed property, injured innocent people & prevented invited speakers from speaking on a college campus, while police watched & did nothing on orders from the Lefty college administrators & Lefty Govt. leaders of the town??….How come the PC Police & Virtue Bureau did not bellow & moan about how these POLS were not adequately condemning these “protesters”?…The same could be said of Ferguson & also Sacramento, etc..

        How come when lawless Lefty Thugs commit violence & injure people, they are still simply “Protesters”, but when Conservative Whites gather it is always labeled a Hate Fest?

        I’m not a big fan of Trump, but Truth be told, his comments from the outset of this incident where measured, thoughtful & quite correct!!

        1. “Conservative Whites” Some were, although I do not understand the connection between being conservative and defending statues of traitors. They were all men(those that have statues of) that had sworn to defend the Union at one point or another. Some did not even bother to officially resign their US Army Commands, but I respect their right to be stupid.

          It is the dudes with the Nazi crap that are not “Conservative Whites”, and every time they show up, they will cause issues.

          1. The war was not really over slavery, but the horrible treatment of the South by the North….Didn’t Lincoln take an oath to abide by the Constitution?…..Well, he trampled on it more than any other president in history….He was a brutal dictator who did not give a crap about blacks or slaves, and just wanted to keep the Union together by horrific & lawless force!!!

            I can bet those stupid neanderthal hateful Southern generals would not have treated Norherners as horribly & cruelly as those enlightened Union generals did to the Southerners!

  • I agree. I think the fundamental problem is that people are, more and more, motivated by identity signaling rather than any honest concern for others or the country as a whole.

    Whatever the composition of this particular rally was, there is a widespread effort on the left to pigeonhole everyone associated with grassroots conservative movements as racist and fascist, and, similarly, to paint the recent slew of ideological clashes as a pattern of white nationalist resurgence. But the real underlying pattern is a backlash against liberal domination of politics/policy and public discourse/the Overton window. Ideological opponents are to be intimidated and destroyed. Yet the reaction is to double down on some of the same corrosive partisan tactics that got us in this mess.

    It’s hard to say whether racist ideologies are now becoming more popular and not just more visible. But this backlash movement clearly took shape while there was no actual change in hate group membership or hate crime incidence. It makes sense that neonazis would want to capitalize on an anti-PC movement, and hell, the movement is driven by economic and social insecurities that can be fertile ground for racism (e.g. immigration, outsourcing, Islamic terrorism). If we accept the left’s narrative on this, we will have learned nothing and leave the root problems unaddressed.

    Now I don’t mean to lay all the blame on liberals, but this is the side of the story that people by and large aren’t getting.

    1. A very thoughtful comment. Thanks.

    2. First of all there is no liberal domination of politics by the numbers the conservatives so much of our govt. There aren’t even any great economic or social insecurities in comparison to the past. I think it was shown during the presidential campaign that Trump voters and Republicans in general are well off financially so they aren’t struggling at all. It’s all a lie, a myth created to allow people to justify their animosity very much like the myth that Germany was betrayed by liberals and Jews in WW1 which was a lie that allowed people to scraoegoat. Trump voters are not victims they are perpetrators if you want to speak in generalities.

      1. There aren’t even any great economic or social insecurities in comparison to the past

        Making a false equivalence in order to claim these things aren’t significant is a classic deflection tactic.

      2. You’re missing the forest for the trees here. First of all it is obviously only post-election that Republicans have nominal control of both elected branches (and that Trump voters’ economic confidence has soared). But that isn’t really the point here, it should be obvious if you take a bird’s eye view that liberals control the trajectory of policy as well as the boundaries of acceptable political thought.

        If you want to get into the nitty gritty of it, though, to the extent that Republicans have mounted meaningful opposition, it has been a kind of elite-centric conservatism that is ultimately centered on the same DC cocktail circuit as modern liberalism. Illustrating this point is the pathetic, neglected token efforts at job retraining programs, which should been a shining example of bipartisanship but instead looks like a jointly abandoned child. Heartland conservatism, compassionate liberalism in name only.

        There are all sorts of ways to play with statistics (and really this is only one or two of many Trump-voting clusters we’re talking about that grew to tip the scales), but the important fact here is that it is absolutely statistically true that, at the time of the election, Trump voters experienced more economic anxiety tham Clinton voters. Further, the operant clusters reported feeling a lack of opportunity and a fatalistic sense of a collapsing social fabric. This is insecurity rather than acute destitution; they realize that the world they know is at a dead end.

      3. Also I won’t properly call you out for pseudo-Godwinning because I’m baffled that you think post-WWI Germany isn’t an example of socioeconomic insecurity being fertile ground for racist politics.

  • Old-time religion said / says “Love the sinners, hate the sin”. Modern psychobabble might say, “Accept people as they are, and be gentle in challenging their ideas. Egos are easily bruised.”

    Something like that might be a good place to start… But violence (even loud screaming and shouting) in reply to simple quiet speech and sign-holding, isn’t (shouldn’t be) acceptable… And I seriously doubt that this kind of thing EVER changes anyone’s mind!

    The Donald is just a clueless, egotistical dipshit, that is all…

    1. Yes, I certainly don’t think that Donald meant any subtle philosophical points.

      But, let’s take him for instance. Imagine he wasn’t president, and he wasn’t super rich. He’d probably be a guy who was really close to his family, has self-esteem issues, and can be combative. If he was not in a position of authority would most people call this person evil? So much of what people consider about a person is based on their circumstances.

      For instances, if Obama wasn’t President, him commanding people to go out and murder people would immediately identify him in most people’s minds as evil. This is true for most presidents ever, and probably most politicians of any large scale government.

      1. Reality is that Donald Trump was taught by his father that losers are inferior beings. And he chose Roy Cohn – who was maybe not ‘evil’ but was certainly completely unethical and amoral – as his mentor. Ultimately he is exactly who he presents himself to be – a grade A asshole with no visible redeeming personal qualities. If he wasn’t rich, he would probably have died in a bar fight long ago since combative personalities who are out of shape and soft tend to come out on the losing end of fights they start.

        What is more interesting imo is how people who voted for him will view that vote over time. Americans put him where he is now and our decision reveals more about where we want things to go than Trump’s own personality issues.

        1. Obama confessed in his own book that he despised his own mother for her race. He chose Frank Marshall Davis as his mentor. Yet no one at Reason has ever described him or his actions or his intentions as evil.

          When evil just means people that you irrationally hate even though you made excuses for the exact same behavior of others it’s nothing more than a buzzword.

            1. Idiot.

              Dumbfuck.

          1. Did someone at Reason say that Trump is evil?

          2. Interesting that you bring up Obama’s ethnicity. It wasn’t his mother (or his father) who ‘defined’ Obama’s ethnicity. It was people like YOU – using a relic of slavery and Jim Crow that still exists in most American’s minds – the one-drop-rule or hypodescent. He grew up in a country where he was treated as black by whites because of hypodescent and where whites can never accept him as ‘one of us’. This attitude long predates Obama’s birth. He’s just a kid who had to learn how to deal with that – and in dealing with that he chose to identify with the community that has always had to deal with that too – and that would accept him as ‘one of us’.

            That you can even remotely call that ‘evil’ says nothing about him – and everything about you.

            1. Just as further confirmation of the pervasiveness of the one-drop-rule and hypodescent still.

              I doubt there is a single 2008 voter – regardless of how anyone voted – who thinks of Obama as the 44th consecutive white man elected President. If we had hyperdescent (anyone born of even one parent of dominant culture is classed as dominant culture), that view would be pervasive. The number of people who really view him as ‘mixed race’ is miniscule – and most who say they do are lying to themselves.

              Rather virtually everyone of any race views him as the 1st black man elected President. No amount of ‘passing’ on his part would have changed that mindset in the slightest. His choice of politics would also be irrelevant to that mindset. This mindset applies to birthers and those who congratulated themselves on their vote and those who saw the outcome as the beginning of something ‘post-racial’. IOW the very mindset here is a result of slavery and Jim Crow. And if we want to know who perpetuates this, the only place to look is in the mirror – NOT at Obama.

  • Rabid nationalism is for people who think culture matters.

    1. Or they just don’t think.

  • I DO think Trump did it on purpose.

    I think he continues doing it on purpose.

    Because it is one of our most pressing issues.

    We decry the totalitarian, authoritarian regime that we fought against that took 6 million lives.

    And we celebrate the totalitarian, authoritarian regime we fought against that took 100 million lives–and counting.

    We have accepted the idea that fighting back against someone attacking you is bad–if some outside authority decrees such to be true.

    We have been manipulated into a place where one side can never be at fault, one side can never be wrong.

    People(myself included) brought up the fact that someone on that side killed 5 people and wounded 12 more a little over a year ago–just months ago a person on that side opened fire on a group of Republican Congressmen.

    We don’t even talk about either of these things anymore–and when the media did–it was to absolve and distance their side from the extremely obvious fact that their side has escalated this into a shooting war.

    And only the unite the right people are at fault? The Republicans are at fault? Trump is at fault? Are you fucking insane?

    We NEED to make the evil people who ARE killing and hurting people, who ARE burning and smashing our cities, who ARE using any means necessary to silence all opposition pay for what they’re doing.

    1. We decry the totalitarian, authoritarian regime that we fought against that took 6 million lives.

      Nazis killed a whole lot more people than that. That’s just the approximate number of Jews murdered in the Holocaust.

      And we celebrate the totalitarian, authoritarian regime we fought against that took 100 million lives–and counting.

      We do?

      1. Yes. Sadly. We do.

        We do because the hammer and sickle is not the source of instant revulsion that the swastika is.

        We do because the principles of the murderous philosophy are not just taught in our schools–but are demanded from our politicians.

        We do because the first fucking thing you went to was ‘well the Nazis killed’ blah blah blah. Yes, it’s the commonly used number. Duh. It’s still not a hundred million, is it?

        We do because you nitpicked that number and ignored the fact that the leftist/antifa/BLM axis is ALREADY shooting. That they started shooting over a year ago.

        .

      2. The NYT has been printing rabidly pro-USSR articles for some time now.

  • When is Reason going to stop spreading this absurd lie?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hoXThCb8EZA

  • President Donald Trump showed during a press event today, ostensibly to announce some plans to ease permitting processes for infrastructure building, that he can’t help himself from exhibiting sympathy with the crowds who gathered in Charlottesville this weekend to march for white supremacy.

    Hrm.

    TRUMP: Those people ? all of those people, excuse me ? I’ve condemned neo-Nazis. I’ve condemned many different groups, but not all of those people were neo-Nazis, believe me. Not all of those people were white supremacists by any stretch.

    So saying he sympathisized with the elements that were not white supremacists counts as sympathizing with white supremacists?

    Perhaps this was the sympathy part? where he specifically denies he sympathizes with white nationalists…

    REPORTER: I just didn’t understand what you were saying. You were saying the press has treated white nationalists unfairly?

    TRUMP: No, no. There were people in that rally, and I looked the night before. If you look, they were people protesting very quietly, the taking down the statue of Robert E. Lee. …

    1. And they were protesting the removal of the statue because why? They’re park design enthusiasts who thought it would throw off the balance?

      1. It’s all hate speech and not covered by the 1A. Right, Tony?

      2. Definitely either that or neonazis

      3. Maybe because Robert E Lee’s views on slavery were identical to Abraham Lincoln’s, he would have fought for the Union if Virginia hadn’t seceded, and because he was the most brilliant general of the late 19th century?

        1. I like people who weren’t defeated.

          1. You find nothing worth admiring in a man who repeatedly went up against armies twice or three times his size, with vastly better equipment and logistics, and won?

            1. And a man who, when his army was defeated, actively discouraged continuing the conflict on a guerilla warfare basis.

                1. Oh, so you *were* referencing the Trump-McCain thing?

                  I did wonder, but I wasn’t sure.

                  1. Admittedly, that would have been easier if Lee had been captured.

                    1. I think he was, though, technically. So it would actually have worked.

              1. According to something I just read on Facebook (posted by a descendant of Lee, no less), he went further than that… he denounced the Confederate battle flag (aka the “rebel flag”) as a symbol of treason, requested not to be buried in his Confederacy uniform and forbade anyone from attending his funeral wearing a similar uniform. Something to think about for those wanting to wipe Lee’s name off of everything.

        2. Guess again!

          1. I don’t know what the people at the various protests have thought.

            But *I* would see his statue stand, because he was a brilliant tactician, an honorable warrior, and a good man who personally detested slavery and only fought for the South because he couldn’t stand the thought of drawing his sword against his home state.

            You go right ahead and keep thinking that everyone who disagrees with you is a closeted Calhounist, though. I know you will anyway.

            1. For all his tactical brilliance he made a terrible choice to gamble his life and lives of the people he claimed to love by going to war. You’re not seeing the big picture here. In a better world Lee and all those who choose war would be cautionary tales of what happens when pride blinds reason. The continued veneration of that war is more of the same stupidity. It was a dumb war. It ruined the south.

              1. Wait, you think LEE had ANY choice about going to war?

                It was going to happen anyway.

                Why are you commenting on something you are so clearly ignorant about.

              2. @ Memory Hole

                I was in no way suggesting the war should be venerated, although I do think the Union’s victory should be celebrated, albeit soberly. You don’t have to like the Second World War in order to appreciate the honor of Erwin Rommel or Isoroku Yamamoto, either. I classify Lee in the same category as them.

                Anyway, it would have been considered cowardice for an officer of Lee’s standing to not take a side in a conflict that so intimately involved his home state. Societally speaking, none of the military men of that period had any choice at all, save which side to fight for.

          2. Oh, I know this one! It’s that you’re a stupid fucking historically illiterate faggot, right? What do I win?

            1. A mouth full of soap, little boy.

            2. You get to repeat 6th grade until you mature emotionally?

        3. he would have fought for the Union if Virginia hadn’t seceded,

          That’s quite the counterfactual. The only way Virginia wouldn’t have seceded is if the Union let the Confederacy go, in which case there wouldn’t have been a war to fight in the first place.

          During his invasion of Pennsylvania, Lee rounded up all the free blacks he could find and sent them south under guard to be sold into slavery. Fuck him with a rusty shovel.

          1. I seem to recall Virginia waffling a bit, inasmuch as it knew it would be the main battlefield in any conflict. The natural choice for the capital of the Confederacy would have been Atlanta, but Richmond was selected instead as a gesture to show the importance of Virginia to the Confederacy, and the commitment to its defense. I don’t think it’s out of the question that Virginia could have remained a Union “border state”. Whether the combination of that that and Lee as a Union General may actually have ended the war sooner, and without a decisive abolition of slavery, is another matter.

          2. @ Liberty/Equality

            It is in no way a counterfactual. Whether the war would have occurred, is irrelevant to whether or not Virginia was the reason for his defection from the Union army (in which he held a prominent rank the day before the war began).

            He very specifically stated, at the time of secession, that he “could not bear to draw his sword against Virginia”. He opposed secession, and said he would “see all the 4 millions of slaves in the South handed to the North” if he could in order to preserve the Union.

            And as to the round-ups under his command during his time in the North: would you apply this same standard of morality to George Washington? He too sent out raiding parties to bring back runaway slaves from his plantation, and saw them whipped as punishment. I gather this disqualifies him from admiration as a person as well? All I ask is consistency.

            The truth is that you must judge a man by his time. Lincoln believed that black people should go back to Africa, and tried to send some to live on a desolate island as a test. Something tells me that if Trump did that, no monument would be built for him. The same applies to Lee. He did terrible things, for an evil nation, but he did not do them happily, and his personal cause was the defense of his home, and nothing more.

            1. Fuck you with your moronic “evil nation” nonsense. It’s hyperbolic morons like you feeding this violence.

              1. Wait, you’re attacking me for *not* being pro-confederate?

                Bwah-ha-ha! I officially can’t win, and it is hilarious.

              2. A nation that exists as a separate entity because they want to preserve slavery is kind of evil.

      4. Because it’s Lee, not Forrest; Tony, you ignorant slut.

  • Hey, remember when Reason obsessed for four days over Obama’s statement regarding the BLM inspired killing of five cops?

    1. I wish I could remember a time when Reason was not dominated by sjw’s. Perhaps the time when I was still naive, when I discovered them while in my freshman year of college.

      1. At least the alt-right has that going for it – it’ll never have a Reason magazine co-opting it into being into another satrapy of the uniparty, like libertarianism has become. That’s territory where the hipsters dare not to tread. Never will there be an alt-right Nick Gillespie – and that’s gotta be worth something!

        1. That’s territory where the hipsters dare not to tread. Never will there be an alt-right Nick Gillespie

          *gets swastika tattoo*

      2. If you’re so unhappy with Reason’s coverage, please leave. No one will miss you.

    2. Well they were just asking for it wearing those outfits.

  • You have to understand that a big reason for the shit in C-ville is that progressives have succeeding in splitting us into ever smaller groups with various grievances against whites. This is the reason Trump is president now too-so of course he doesn’t want to condemn the white nationalists/neo-nazis too strongly. The progs answer to this is to dish out more of the same “if you’re not tearing down confederate statues and beating up the other side, you must be one of them.” It will not end well.

    1. So Nazis, neoconfederates, and other right-wing racist assholes are now the fault of progressives too.

      Brought to you by the party of personal responsibility and Carl’s Jr.

      1. Well the first two are socialists so you should like them.

        1. None of this has to do with economic theory as you should well know. Actually you shouldn’t, because you’re a fucking moron.

          1. And you’re a Nazi faggot.

            Nazi faggot! Nazi faggot! Nazi faggot! Nazi faggot! Nazi faggot! Nazi faggot! Nazi faggot! Nazi faggot! Nazi faggot! Nazi faggot! Nazi faggot! Nazi faggot! Nazi faggot! Nazi faggot! Nazi faggot! Nazi faggot! Nazi faggot! Nazi faggot! Nazi faggot! Nazi faggot! Nazi faggot! Nazi faggot! Nazi faggot! Nazi faggot! Nazi faggot! Nazi faggot! Nazi faggot! Nazi faggot! Nazi faggot! Nazi faggot! Nazi faggot! Nazi faggot! Nazi faggot! Nazi faggot! Nazi faggot!

            Man, that’s a lot easier than thinking. I can see why you do it.

            1. DC Hardcore was the best punk scene.

          2. I wish you were capable of understanding how funny this is.

            Like when my little cousin called her dad to complain that another of the children called her a tattletale.

      2. Progressives have practiced identity politics and acted obnoxiously aggrieved for decades. They have gotten fawning media coverage as a result. Did they think their targets would never catch on?

      3. So Nazis, neoconfederates, and other right-wing racist assholes are now the fault of progressives too.

        Yes, you fucking moron, they are.

        They are, quite literally, the fathers of every side of this.

        They are the party of slavery, the party of white superiority, the party of eugenics, the party of the KKK, the party od socialism–in all it’s despicable forms, the party of Jim Crow, the party of racism.

        Don’t you get it? There is no type of racism in America that cannot be laid firmly at the feet of the Democrats and the left. None.

        The crap they try to foist on the right as racist is ONLY considered racist because leftists have redefined the term–people in favor of loaning to people that they’re sure can pay back are racist because some black people have economic instability and find it hard to get loans. People who support the drug war are racist because arrests for drug crime have a ‘disparate impact’ on black people.

        Wanting to get paid back isn’t racist. Not wanting to be surrounded by methbillies isn’t racist.

        1. So the reason black people vote nearly unanimously for Democrats is what? Be specific.

          1. Because LBJ was president when “The Civil Rights Act of 1964” passed. But, the black Americans were never taught/told in school that the Democrats blocked the civil rights bill in 1957. Eisenhower pushed civil rights he was instrumental in desegregating the US military.

      4. You really don’t see how stupid that statement is, do you?

    2. It’s not progressives. It’s technology. Benedict Anderson famously argued that modern nationalism emerged out of the unifying effects of print capitalism in early modern Europe, which led to the standardization of modern languages and the emergence of “imagined communities.” If he’s right, then it should also follow that as media became more diverse in the post-1990s world — cable news, internet, social media, etc. — then people would have increasing difficulty imagining themselves to be part of the same community. Our media has become tribal, and so have we.

    3. One thing I’ve noticed since the election is how much the Right is increasingly blaming all their actions on an external locus of control. Nothing they do, no matter how reprehensible, can ever be evidence of internal corruption. No, it’s everything they do is because those tricksy liberals are MAKING them do it.

      1. I would love for you to expound on this.

  • Have you ever had an argument (i.e. with SO or maybe your parents when you were a teenager) where it devolves into everyone being a bitter troll who is offended by everything, including the way the other person breathes. I feel like that’s the way the culture is now on a daily basis, there is nothing to do but wait for at least one side to grow the f up

  • Trump’s Inability to Unequivocally Condemn Charlottesville Nazis May Be Rooted in His General Love of Illiberal Exclusionism

    I believe he did condemn the Charlottesville Nazi’s (whether they be Antifa nazi’s, BAMN nazi’s or white-supremacist nazi’s) when he condemned violence, in general, in his first and remarkably measured statement on the matter.

    It is shocking, on one level, to find a U.S. president unwilling to unequivocally and with any sense that he actually believes what he’s saying decry people marching under fascist emblems

    That it is, but enough about Barry & BLM…

  • It is shocking, on one level, to find a U.S. president unwilling to unequivocally and with any sense that he actually believes what he’s saying decry people marching under fascist emblems and shouting Nazi slogans (or in happy open alliance with those doing so, for the pedantic)

    Wait were people actually marching underneath the swastika? I missed most of the hysteria, but I trust nothing I see anymore from media.

    1. According to Trump, ugly marching occurred the second day. Too late for the people Trump was defending to change their minds about showing up (and getting victimized) the first day. He says the protest was advertised and registered specifically to protest the statue removal by groups that were not overtly calling themselves nazis anyway. As the history-purge shit is a pretty big issue these days, it seems likely that Trump was right about other people showing up (and that the “largest gathering of neo-nazis in generations” or whatever spin the left is going with, is more likely a game of mislabeling a broader group).

      Doherty thinks that Trump should let the left decide who gets called nazis and racists. Or at least be willing to concede every issue to the left where neo-nazis have taken a side. Sort of like how the left dare not hold marches on minimum wage and immigration or else they tacitly agree to be defined as sympathizing with the communists who always join those marches and fly anarchist or commie flags.

      1. Donald J. Trump is your source of information for what happened this weekend?

        1. Well they are my source of information regarding what Trump thinks, which is the topic.

          And I used the “According to Trump” and “he says” qualifiers specifically to be clear I was not presuming it was objective truth. Then I opined on probabilities regarding whether he was right or wrong in his conclusion.

          But whatever. Let’s go with Trump the news source. Seems like an ok summary. It was corroborated by the videos linked here, at least regarding the misbehavior of the “alt-left”. Why don’t you help educate us better than Trump.

          1. None of the counterprotesters murdered anyone for one thing.

            1. This time.

              1. They almost did in Berkley (or someplace in the People’s Republic of Cali.). Remember the masked Poli Sci prof that hit somebody with a bike lock? If they hadn’t gotten immediate medical attention they would’ve died.

            2. Whereas opinions are likely divided on which side had better costumes. Why are we listing “things”?

              Trump News did cover that item too by the way:

              TRUMP: I think the driver of the car is a disgrace to himself, his family and this country. And that is ? you can call it terrorism, you can call it murder. You can call it whatever you want. I would just call it as the fastest one to come up with a good verdict. That’s what I’d call it. And there is a question. Is it murder? Is it terrorism? Then you get into legal semantics. The driver of the car is a murderer, and what he did was a horrible, horrible, inexcusable thing.

            3. Imagine bragging that your team merely brains people with locks and throws human piss and shit.

            4. Not for want of trying, if you put any stock in Pax Dickinson’s account.

            5. Not last weekend.

              But their supporters did a year and a bit ago.

              And they gave it a good try a few months ago as well.

              Or do those 5 dead and dozens wounded not count for some reason?

          2. The topic is, in part, whether Trump’s characterization is accurate.

            As Trump said there were good people trying to quietly protest, it seems much easier for him to provide evidence verifying that, than expecting others to falsify it. The marching that happened the first night certainly looked loud and rowdy, and the whole thing was the “Unite the Right” rally bringing people in from across the country, advertised with Nazi and Confederate iconography that as far I’ve seen made no mention of a statue. It was not some protest by local concerned citizens worrying about their dear park.

            1. advertised with Nazi … iconography

              really?

                1. Wow, that’s really fucking stupid.

                  1. The poor statue! Just because it was erected specifically to celebrate the oppression of black people doesn’t mean it isn’t history too!

                    And that’s what that was. A march of historians and park preservationists. With swastikas.

            2. But we can agree the MSM is misrepresenting the event regarding the violent leftists? So the argument is now reduced to saying the overt mischaracterization of the media is doing, is at least truthful when describing the other side?

              I don’t see a confederate “icon” as proving anything sinister. I bet there were american flags too. What that represents is also very much in the eye of the beholder. I didn’t see nazi flags in the videos I saw, though I wasn’t scanning carefully for them I suppose.

              What would constitute acceptable proof? Someone claiming to not be a white supremacist? Don’t they all claim that?

              1. As I said above, pics or gtfo

                If you can find a picture of a person with an American flag, go ahead and post it.

                If you or a Trump person can find a person “very quietly” protesting the removal of the statue on Friday night, and not shouting about the white race and the threat of Jews, go ahead and post it.

                Or don’t, who gives a fuck.

                1. “As I said above, pics or gtfo”

                  Wait you were serious about that?

                  What good would a picture of an american flag do?

                  For that matter wouldn’t it be trivially easy to find one person claiming anything? The only trick is avoiding ending up on a watchlist over your google searches.

                  Someone linked that Dickenson guy’s article above. He was interviewed here about being destroyed by SJW’s a while back, claiming to be a libertarian or something. Apparently he was one of the speakers the other day. I googled him and the label of white supremacist doesn’t appear to immediately fit. Se let’s start by considering that one.

                  1. Apparently he was one of the speakers the other day. I googled him and the label of white supremacist doesn’t appear to immediately fit. Se let’s start by considering that one.

                    I wouldn’t call Pax a white supremacist, but he’s definitely alt-right. I think he started some sort of business with that goofy ginger Chuck Johnson.

              2. I didn’t see nazi flags in the videos I saw,

                There was definitely at least one group carrying nazi flags.

                1. I’m not surprised if there were some there, even Trump referred to them. Especially later in the events. But enough that every attendee would feel they were marching “under a nazi flag” or whatever?

                  1. But enough that every attendee would feel they were marching “under a nazi flag” or whatever?

                    I think it was just the one group plus a few randos.

                    I googled him and the label of white supremacist doesn’t appear to immediately fit.

                    White supremacist (and racist, sexist, etc) are epithets, not clinical terms with real definitions.

                  2. As luck would have it, I was just listening to Pax talk about this thing and the topic of Nazis came up. https://youtu.be/SfDGOAofE7k?t=29m23s

                    TL; DW Everyone knew there’d be Nazis. Roman salutes were successfully shut down at the Friday thing. Some people disobeyed ‘no swastika’ orders Saturday. Pax: “You’re supposed to be National Socialists, not individualists. Do what’s best for the movement.” lulz

                    1. Yeah he sounds way too accommodating to nazis for my taste. Though he does say they must not use the symbols because it would alienate many more attendees than it appeals to.

              3. There certainly was a contingent of (I assume) leftists who came ready for a fight. I really have no idea to what extent they instigated everything. And I despair of finding any news source that is really making a completely honest assessment of the situation.

                1. I watched several livestreams–primarily one from ‘ruptly’ as it was just film, no one talking. But I watched at least two ‘alt right and two leftist streams as well. One was actually Baked Alaska. I also hit several even smaller videos made and uploaded during the event.

                  Based on everything I watched, while there was a lot of screaming across the lines, the first volley appears to have been a bottle hurled by the counterprotesters.

                  This is not really surprising. It appears to be the standard format. The leftists, frustrated that the rightists are maintaining a line, toss something. Often, it’s clearly not even intended to hit the line and is, instead thrown over the line to hopefully(?) hit someone further back. Things tend to escalate quickly from that point–particularly if it manages to hit someone.

                  The sad thing is how one sided all this is.

                  You don’t get crowds of right wing people attacking leftist marches trying to shut them up by any means. You might get some counterprotesters, but they’re never trying to shut anyone up, they’re just having their say.

  • one who considers it more important that you know in the same breath that he also finds fault with those who gathered in public to oppose them.

    He’s not opposing those who showed up to interfere with first amendment rights with weapons? Just those who “gathered to oppose them”? This is the sort of slimy shit Reasoners would be all over if some random liberal or conservative wrote it. This is really pathetic.

  • ISIS also loves destroying statues.

    Humanity doesn’t know its own origins because of “HATE FOR THE ENEMY”

    Yet, Mr. Doherty seems ready to embrace RIGHTEOUSNESS.

    1. Re: Half-virtue, half-vice,

      — ISIS also loves destroying statues. —

      Just not those defended by white supremacists and Nazis…

      1. Certainly there’s no connection between Islam and Nazism.

        Way to break down those stupid Mexican stereotypes.

    2. Thought you were Hihn with the all caps there.

      1. Just fuckin’ hammered.

  • something is very seriously wrong … with choosing to exercise your rights to advocate that non-whites and Jews be driven from America

    Emphasis added. Would someone *kindly* explain Brian’s point?

    1. He’s just flat wrong.

      There is something seriously wrong with advocating that non-whites and Jews be driven from America. Full stop.

      There is nothing seriously wrong with choosing to exercise your rights to espouse your views. That’s a great thing.

      What we have unlearned over the last 20 years is that the way to defeat the skinheads, nazis and Klan types is to allow them to speak their piece. They invariably expose themselves as moderately retarded and worthy of pity along with the contempt. And then they shrink away to nothing.

      But suddenly we’ve decided that the right thing to do is to have the state oppose them by denying them the ability to speak in public, or to hear speakers that they find agreement with. And we’ve decided that part of that opposition should be the use of violent confrontation, both as a means of justifying state censorship and as a catharsis.

      And now we have had the first real racist gathering in twenty years or more. Nice job!

      Of course, if I were a cynical type who mistrusts the media and the political class, I’d suspect that there were those who missed having actual racists to act as foils for the race-baiting. And I’d suspect that maybe those folks were not so upset that these groups are getting attention again.

      1. “But suddenly we’ve decided that the right thing to do is to have the state oppose them by denying them the ability to speak in public, or to hear speakers that they find agreement with. And we’ve decided that part of that opposition should be the use of violent confrontation, both as a means of justifying state censorship and as a catharsis.”

        We haven’t unlearned it, what happened is we created a generation of loud adult children who never learned that:

        a. people aren’t going to agree with you all the time and that’s okay.
        b. shitty people exist, and much of the time it’s better for society to just let shitty people be shitty as long as they’re not really hurting anyone.

        I don’t know what they expect to accomplish. I certainly don’t think they realize the endpoint if they don’t figure out how to moderate their response down a little is civil war.

      2. The problem now is that the moderately retarded are elected to high office.

        1. Having listened to him years ago on The Apprentice, I’d lose the “moderately” modifier.

        2. What do you mean ‘now’? Where the hell have you been?

      3. But worse we’ve added the fact (their fact, not mine) that other major assholes, Antifa, that stand in opposition to the skinheads should not also be called out for their thuggery, violence, and reticence to uphold the 1A.

        I just don’t follow the problem with calling out everyone that acted out of line with what is acceptable. What here is really the issue? We hate one more than the other so we can only mention the one more hated is what’s being promulgated. This grants Antifa unjustly derived legitimacy.

        The entire problem with the article is the premise. The point Brian fails to relay, likely purposefully, is whether Antifa fails to meet the standards of whether they deserve derision by all. No effort was given to this point which in an honest article would have been deeply researched and discussed.

        All of that to say, Brian, your narrative driven SJW is showing. Remember this when I don’t donate again.

  • I dunno, is it really a good thing that a president should say people should not be free to express their beliefs?

    That’s the whole point of the 1st amendment. It applies to everyone, even to dumbasses.

    What’s wrong is violence.

    1. That should have been trumps response.

      1. It was: “Both sides did it.”

        And there were some good people there defending the racist statue.

        A 70 year old 4chan douchefuck.

    2. Is violence all that bad? To me, it looked like a bunch of sister-fuckers dressed up in sheets, tangling with the Swarthmore chapter of SDS. What’s not to like? What we need to do is stick all these folks in the octagon together and sell tickets. Until that dude decided to drive down the sidewalk, I thought it was pretty benign. I think folks need to take/give each other a good beating once in awhile. As long as nobody brings the heat or drives through a crowd, it’s just good clean fun. Hell, when I was a kid, large scale fights like this happened all the time. Good way to blow off steam.

      1. I gotta say I agree.

  • When will the book burnings start? That’s a nazi thing, right?

    1. Re: Don’t look at me.,

      When will the book burnings start? That’s a nazi thing, right?

      Once Trump decides to make another statement where he claims that reading is like being raped, you can grab that issue by the p…sy.

      1. Won’t really be a problem for illiterate Mexican pig fuckers like you, so don’t worry.

  • Trump on the falling confederate statues:

    I wonder, is it George Washington next week? And is it Thomas Jefferson the week after. You know, you really do have to ask yourself, where does it stop?

    Trump is white man who speak truth. Sometimes. Other white men talk buffalo dung all the time.

    Can you even fucking imagine Jeb Bush, John McCain, or their ilk saying something like that?

    1. He also said “we must all respect each other, ideally we should all love each other”.

      The left hates this kinda talk, because it sounds reasonable if not enlightened, and negates their shallow grievance industry cultivation.

  • Just tear all the statues down and burn the books too. It’s not like we’re learning anything anymore

    1. This was not a march put on by the Historical Society of Charlottesville.

      1. If it were I’m sure you’d stand by it and not just make a retarded appeal to some other authority like the cocksucking groveling piece of subhuman inanimate shit that you are.

  • CNN is in full propaganda mode. My wife is drawn to it like a moth to a flame.

    They have been running panel after panel of black activists and democrat operatives condemning Trump as a racist and a Nazi. One guy a few minutes ago said that what Trump said in his press conference is worse than what happened at Charlottesville.

    I have no idea what he said that is worse than running someone over. But it was worse. All heads nodded, so he must have been right.

    I didn’t watch the presser. I avoid Trump when possible.

    But I will note that CNN was running the video of the antifa attacking the Nazis within minutes of it happening, and nobody on the air seemed to know who the actors were. I wasn’t listening closely, and the video is nowhere to be found now, but I never heard them utter the word antifa or anarchist. They called them counter-protesters or some variant of that.

    Tonight, Anderson Cooper was the propaganda headliner. In ridiculing the condemning of violence from the antifa, he pronounced it an-tifa, rather than anti-fa. I don’t know how they pronounce it, but it seems pretty obvious that anti-fascist is abbreviated to anti-fa. Anyway, not knowing anything about these groups would certainly lead you to believe that a bunch of anti-racists peacefully protesting a bunch of violent racists is an obvious story.

    Having followed this for a couple of years, I know that violently opposing speech is kinda their thing. But CNN didn’t seem to know that.

    1. They have been running panel after panel of black activists and democrat operatives condemning Trump as a racist and a Nazi.

      What? The man who assured us more than half of all immigrants from Mexico were drug dealers, criminals and rapists? Cheeto-man?

      Naaaah! I. Don’t. Think. Soooo!

      1. Trump said “They’re not sending us their best” in context to the news of an illegal Mexican alien with a long criminal history fatally shooting an American citizen on the San Francisco wharf. Her name was Kate Steinle, a real American woman on vacation.

        Keeping with the spirit of your post I will assume that you think that’s A-OK.

        I actually thought Trump fumbled the ball there, but I’ll go with your assessment, if you like.

        1. Don’t mind him, just another illiterate Mexican who can’t read English and relies on someone else to do his thinking.

    2. Has there been a time in the past year when CNN wasn’t in full propaganda mode?

      1. Past year? Methinks it’s been a bit longer than that!

  • Jesus fucking Christ this place.

    You fucktards are not more enlightened than the rest of the goddamn universe because you find nuance in Trump’s Nazi defense.

    1. Using nuanced arguments to defend accused witches is exactly the kind of thing other witches would do.

      1. Trump didn’t have to defend the Nazis you know.

        1. Wait, is that what all the fuss is about? Did Trump defend the Nazis at today’s press conference? Holy crap! No wonder everyone is losing their minds.

          I don’t want to have sit through that idiot talking, so save me the pain. What did he say?

          1. He didn’t. Tony’s just upset when he’s forced to look in the mirror.

        2. He didn’t need to make them the whipping boy, either, given that the videos I’ve seen indicate the violence was initiated by the antifa, the nutcase with the car notwithstanding. Let’s not forget, the violence started a long time before matters came to that.

          1. We wouldn’t want to make Nazis the whipping boy.

            1. Other than liking black cock up your faggot ass, you don’t have a single position that is distinguishable from the Nazi Party. Not one.

              1. You say that like it’s a bad thing.

      2. How do you know she’s a witch?

        Antifa: “She looks like one!”

        Witch:”They dressed me up like this.”

    2. You’re just pissed that Trump said what everyone was thinking.

      You are afraid of men with a pair, I see.

      1. No, we like your tits.

      2. By everyone you of course mean every one of those weird-looking “master race” representatives with clear signs of inbreeding and likely dicks that average the size of a mini-corn.

        1. Inbred with little dicks is your best effort?

          Sad.

        2. Ignoring the fact that one group was legally registered to exercise their 1A rights and the other was not, and the one that was not was intentionally there to create violence does nothing except empower the use of violence against constitutionally guaranteed speech.

          Why is that so fucking hard to understand?

          I don’t agree with the alt-right or alt-left, but they have a fucking constitutional right to saw whatever the fuck they want without violent reprisal.

          But you’re okay with this, it seems.

          1. one group was legally registered to exercise their 1A rights and the other was not, and the one that was not

            Damn illegals.

          2. They’re Nazis who murdered a person. But at least they were permitted!

            Libertarianism 2017.

            1. @ Tony

              *A* Nazi murdered someone. Singular. There is no evidence I’m aware of, that any of the other Alt-Righters present were aware that the attack would occur or supported it.

              Unless you are suggesting that simply organizing a Neo-Nazi rally is an act of violence, non-metaphorically, itself. In which case collectivism has truly consumed you.

              But if you believe that, you should just know that after they’ve come for the Nazis and the conservatives and the libertarians… There’ll be no one left to speak for you.

            2. You keep raising the bar on how stupid you can be. When exactly does a group become entirely responsible for the actions of isolated idiots with violent tendencies? Is it different for different groups? By your logic all Muslims are terrorists. Libertarians might take umbrage with that.

              Libertarianism 20… Always

    3. Fucktard?

      That’s not a very nice word for a progressive to use. You really should watch that, kid. Some other Commie is going to take your little hammer & sickle away from you, and then where will you be?

  • I forget who, but a few weeks ago someone here asked (tongue in cheek, I think) what would happen to Stone Mountain if it was insisted that *all* Confederate monuments need to be taken down.

    Well, guess what?

    http://politics.blog.ajc.com/2…..-mountain/

      1. The Veitnam memorial isn’t exactly celebrating the war. Though I’m sure some idiot wants to destroy it.

        If people start insisting that memorials to Confederate soldiers killed in the war, that’s pretty fucked. I can quite understand the desire to remove monuments to the Confederacy and it’s heroes, though. But it should be up to the local communities where they are (unless they are on private or federal property).

        1. In Decatur, GA, there is a call to remove the “Lost Cause” monument to the solders and sailors of the Confederacy.

          1. How long then before we remove the 9/11 memorials. If we get in on the pool now there should be lots of good spaces open. I’ve got 30 years.

    1. This is THE YEAR ZERO. The iconoclasts shall rule and and the new human shall rise from the dust, Everything before shall be destroyed.

    2. Why stop with the civil war? Even Teddy Roosevelt is fair game.

  • LOL at all this shit tier Freudianism.

    (and in that of his adviser in nationalism and former self-proclaimed leading promoter of the “alt right”, Steve Bannon, the same alt-right Trump acts conveniently confused about the nature of today)

    Possible explanations:

    – Bannon was looking to cash in on the literally thousands of neo Nazis, therefore Trump is AKSHUALLY really knowledgeable about the Traditionalist Workers Party and American Vanguard,

    – “Alt right” had a run as a popular catchall for dissident, particularly populist, rightists.

  • Commas and semi-colons, Mr. Doherty. They’re your friends.

    1. Shush, he may become an accomplished writer.

  • Most US soldiers thought German National Socialists had been a good thing before 1939. This is reported by George Orwell shortly after the war ended: [Note 2 As late as the autumn of 1945, a Gallup poll taken among the American troops in Germany showed that 51 percent “thought Hitler did much good before 1939”.
    Non-christian socialists and christian socialists initiate force against each other. This has little to do with Robert E. Lee or Lord Dunmore.

  • Did Reason ever call the left ‘evil’ for their own racist and grotesque rhetoric and violent behavior? Nor do I recall Obama ever being called ‘illiberal’.

    Which is precisely what a progressive like him is: Illiberal.

    1. Illiberal for the right reasons we’re told. Or… Something something racist.

  • What is this shit?

    Was reason looking to go peak-cuck and Doherty drew the short straw?

    1. Aww, you’re just jealous… Oh, wait, you wrote “to go peak-cuck”. I thought you wrote “to go beak cock” and were expressing your irritation that they didn’t call you first.

      1. So he could give them your mother’s number?

        1. You can just cut the jealousy in this thread with a knife.

          1. Damn right I’m jealous. I saw your mom first.

            1. I knew I shouldn’t have gotten her the transparent burqa. I was just so worried about her getting enough Vitamin D…

  • Trump’s Inability to Unequivocally Condemn Charlottesville Nazis May Be Rooted in His General Love of Illiberal Exclusionism

    If you really think about it, exclusion is the ultimate expression of inclusion.

  • Some of the wiser analysis suggested Trump did this after his Monday PC groveling was met with derision.

    Maybe they’re right but I still think it was Durham

    I’m kinda amazed how blind so many people are to exactly what happened there. I don’t think Trump’s base is cool with desecration even if they live outside the south or weren’t even born in the USA.

  • In typical progressive protectionism, Doherty’s sentiments sound profoundly nationalist

  • Trump doesn’t say what he says even when he says it.

    1. That makes more sense than the the wanderings in the article.
      I need more coffee.

  • So yet another Reason contributor comes out in favor of the state shutting down speech and assembly rights of those it doesn’t like, taking advantage of the mob to do so.

    You can consider White Supremacy to be a hateful ideology, but as long as they keep themselves to assembling and speechifying, they should still have the right to do so. And the rest of us should ignore them since they seem to be just a handful of malcontents. If they get to more than a handful, we can move on to our own speechifying and assembling to oppose them. That’s not what happened here. They had a valid permit to assemble, court ordered over the objection of the local authoritarians, and then between the police, the mayor, and the governor, they not only made sure the rally could not take place but that the rally-goers would have to go face to face with the mob there to shut them down.

    It’s odd for one “libertarian” writer after another to ignore the actual liberty interest that was under assault here. White supremacists have been a less and less significant bunch over the last fifty years, and there is no non-cherry-picked evidence that that’s changed. Hate them all you like, but when you ignore the trampling of their constitutional rights, it doesn’t increase the safety of this rights for the rest of us.

    1. “Reason” dot com is MSM. tReason I’d call them.
      Hating intolerant communists and islamists all of them.

    2. “I Disapprove of What You Say, But I Will Defend to the Death Your Right to Say It”

      When was the last time you heard that libertarian principle around here?

    1. They shut down the Nazi parade before it started and the Nazis still managed to kill someone. That’s some real Nazi shit. Ten million more murders and the people you’re defending will be as impressive as their forebears!

      1. What would you have done if that murderous jagoff had decided against driving into the crowd? Or if that poor woman hadn’t died? Then it would have just been another story about leftists violently suppressing speech they disagree with.

        You leftists really caught a break there. Though imagine how much more hay you’d be able to make if there had been more dead bodies to exploit. Carpe diem man.

        1. No doubt the president of the united states would have even more robust a defense.

          Of Nazis.

          You sick fucking weirdos.

          1. Tony’s just mad because Trump didn’t give equal time to the Commies. He feels so excluded! Quick, someone give little Tony a big hug! He’s had a rough day of pissing himself in fear of the 300 Nazis in the country!

            1. I’m not hugging that horrible pile of shit.

          2. Tony, some magnesium citrate will fix that for you.

      2. If American Nazis rack up a couple of dozen more kills this year they will be in spitting distance of BLM and Antifa. I’m sure all 200 of them that showed up for their biggest national convention in 30 years will be up to the task.

      3. Believe it or not, we are smart enough to be able to condemn more than one thing at a time.

        1. Actually you’re not smart at all.

          1. Tony is the expert on being “not smart at all”, so maybe we should listen to him for a change… 😀

        2. I wish someone thought of that before! Wait. Trump did?

          Shit. I hate when I have to defend him.

      4. 90 million more and they’ll catch up with the Communists.

  • Please break the third paragraph into about eight sentences. 🙂

  • You know who else didn’t unequivocally condemn Nazis…

    1. Emperor Nero?

      King Richard I?

      Kublai Khan?

      Darius II?

      Sargon?

    2. Eisenhower?

    3. Hitler?

    4. Neville chamberlain?

  • Trump Charlottesville Immigration Nazis Free Trade

    If you asked me a week ago to make up a story that linked these topics, I don’t think I could have.

  • Remember when Reason called out Obama as evil for failing to condemn Nidal Hassan and instead giving a shout out to Joe Medicine Crow?

    Remember when Reason called out Obama as evil for failing to condemn BLM racist violence after the Dallas police shooting and instead inviting BLM leaders to the white house?

    Remember when Reason called out Obama as evil for failing to condemn Floyd Lee Corkins for shooting up the Family Research Center?

    Remember when Reason called out Obama as evil for failing to condemn Aaron Alexis and instead delivering a speech against Republicans?

  • Reason’s Inability to Unequivocally Condemn BLM Cop Killers May Be Rooted in Their General Love of Illiberal Exclusionism

    Reason’s Inability to Unequivocally Condemn Islamic Terrorism May Be Rooted in Their General Love of Illiberal Exclusionism

    Reason’s Inability to Unequivocally Condemn Antifa Terrorism May Be Rooted in Their General Love of Illiberal Exclusionism

    Reason’s Inability to Unequivocally Condemn Female Genital Mutilation May Be Rooted in Their General Love of Illiberal Exclusionism

    Reason’s Inability to Unequivocally Condemn The Knockout Game May Be Rooted in Their General Love of Illiberal Exclusionism

    Hey, this is fun!

    1. Yep. How sad that there is a 1500 character limit – – – –

  • “Why can’t Donald Trump seem to understand that in his bones when he’s given a microphone?”

    Could it be that he is actually more libertarian than you Doherty?

    That when someone is given a permit to march and state their view, it is irrelevant whether you think they are the good guys or the bad guys?

    That when someone attacks another for their thoughts and words, to physically shut them up (or shut them down), that the attacker is in the wrong, period.

    It is shocking to find a supposedly libertarian writer unwilling to unequivocally and with any sense that he actually believes what he’s saying defend the single most important right humans have, and unable to decry people (actual terrorists) attacking them.

    1. That is only shocking if you haven’t been paying attention to Reason the last few years.

      I hope David Koch and other deep-pocketed donors are paying attention.

    2. “Could it be that he is actually more libertarian than you Doherty?”

      Lulz! You need to lay off the shrooms a bit, Tom!

      1. Well, it is a low bar, but ok, no shrooms the rest of the week.

      2. Doherty is one of Khrushchev’s useful idiots.

  • It could also be the reality that the antifa movement has been exceptionally violent for months and Democrat “rhetoric” led to a Bernie volunteer trying to flip the House thru assassinations.

    …but that is not supposed to be noticed. “Republicans” don’t seem to care.

  • Funny to laugh at the clown communists strolling around here on what is ironically called “Reason”!

    The president told it as it was. Only left over communists wish that he instead held a speech on whatever happened in Germany 75 years ago. People don’t care about that anymore. Trump is transitioning MSM from the one-sided old Stalinist propaganda we all have grown up with, to something new. Maybe even pre-wwII journalism can be rediscovered? Do you remember, back in the days when movies and even comic books like Tintin were centered on a journalist doing serious investigations?

    1. How many NAZI uniforms do you own?

      1. Mr. Team Blue,

        Oh, I’m sorry, Mr. purist of pure libertarians can’t bring himself to defend free speech rights if the speech is uncomfortable.

        1. Hey. He hates Republicans just as much as libertarians. Probably more. Totally makes him libertarian. Right!?

  • Did these white supremacists actually do anything illegal? I don’t get what the problem is here. Maybe I don’t know the whole story but if it was a peaceful assembly then it’s just an exercise of free speech, no?

    1. Only in your dreams.
      The group following the law thinks things democrats do not like. While not against the law, it cannot be allowed as long a democrats control the police.

    2. You mean other than the one guy who allegedly drove his car into a crowd of antifa protesters?

  • One group followed the laws, unconstitutional laws by the way, and got permits to do what the constitution protects.
    Other groups, acting in concert, (read acting as a conspiracy to obstruct civil rights), to deny the first group their constitutional rights, showed up without permits, and with a history of violence.
    The government instructed the lawful authorities detailed to protect all citizens to not act to protect the group following the laws.
    So which group is Trump condemned for not condemning?
    Whiskey
    Tango
    Foxtrot
    The constitution should protect us all, not just the left wing of the political spectrum.
    Regardless of their views, any group with a permit to express a political point peacefully, should be protected by the police and allowed to speak.
    Who knows, it might even save lives.

    1. Shreek will be along soon to explain why you’re wrong using his pure libertarian creds and not parroting Team Blue talking points I’m sure.

      1. Who needs shriek when you’ve got the entire staff of reason magazine to do it for him?

        Gods above, who would ever have seen the day when the editorial stance at reason was Shrike and Tony’s POV? That the vanguard of libertarian thought is represented best by two retarded leftist trolls?

    2. One can still condemn racist statists even if they did do the paperwork

      1. Stipulated. One can also condemn violent antifas, even when they don’t do the paperwork.

  • I cannot believe that Brian Doherty carries the title of “senior editor”. He badly needs one. His run-on sentences are practically unintelligible. If you’re looking to hire I would love to work at Reason, and the quality of your articles will benefit greatly.

    1. Yes. Failure at both content and form.

    2. It’s a blog post, not a magazine article.

      1. No, its constipation.

    3. Muh grammar!

  • Well seems that the “don’t judge an entire group because of the action of one” does not work anymore?

    1. Thoose people just want to make the Reich great again, and invade Poland, who the fuck care about Poland ?

    2. It’s only the case if Reason really doesn’t dislike your views.

      If they don’t like you, then you’re responsible for the actions of somebody you have no ties to at all.

  • to advocate that non-whites and Jews be driven from America, which was indeed the dominant spirit of that gathering.

    The people at the ‘Unite the Right’ rally said a lot of stupid things, and carried some pretty stupid banners, but kicking out whites and jews was not the dominant spirit of the gathering.

    “You will not replace us”

    That was the dominant spirit of the gathering. From feared ‘white genocide’ to the steady replacement of anything good done by western civilization with a story of endless evil and oppression, to the spread of authoritarian, totalitarian and inconsistent social justice dictates, they fear being forced to become extras in the play they wrote. With endless articles praising the coming end of the ‘white majority’ in America, with place names and issues being suddenly declared ‘oppressive’, with the glee with which the MSM derides them for even caring about any of this, can anyone blame them?

    Yes, apparently they can. And laugh at them. And chant and celebrate how they want them dead. And actually shoot them without fear that anyone will connect their endless calls to ACTUALLY kill, and their endless calls for ACTUAL violent revolution with members of their movement ACTUALLY killing and shooting people.

    Scared people do stupid, desperate things.

  • Well since one of organizers of the alt-rights Unite the Right and the alt- lefts Occupy Movement are the same person maybe we have a pressing issue like who is trying to divide this country and for what purpose.

    http://thefreethoughtproject.c…..ice-state/

  • So now even Reason is giving the Antifa carte blanch authority to attack anyone they feel is not correct. the Antifa is far more dangerous to American rights than a couple of wimpy nazis.

  • Good morning. Are 3/4ths of you still defending Nazis and Donald Trump?

    It’s the libertarian century!

    1. You know, Tony, we Reason readers dislike conservative Trump trolls just as much as lefty trolls.

    2. “I Disapprove of What You Say, But I Will Defend to the Death Your Right to Say It”

      What do you feel about these sentiments, Tony?

      1. A red herring?

      2. Puh leeze… Tony’s got Nazis to punch… except of course, that he isn’t actually man enough to punch anyone, and it’d mean getting out of his mom’s basement and actually finding one of 300 people in a country of 320 million. Oh, that’s just too much work for Tony!

  • Reason continues it’s descent into proggy emoting.

    On one hand, we have a small group of morons legally exercising their right to climb on the soapbox and proclaim their offensive, yet legal, political viewpoint.

    On the other hand, we have a group of thugs who illegally assemble to physically disrupt the first groups legal assembly. The authorities, who gave the permission to the first group to assemble in the first place, do nothing to interdict the clearly illegal actions of the second group. Violence follows, leading to a tragic ending.

    But yet, Reason expects the POTUS to single out the first group for condemnation, instead of the “everyone sucked” statement from the POTUS. What part of Libertarian philosophy does that follow, Brian?

    Or can you just not help the “I hate Nazis like any right-thinking person” virtue signaling?

    1. “Violence follows, leading to a tragic ending.”

      Expand on this. Whose violence? What tragic ending? Who was injured/killed, by whom?

      Your deliberately-vague “mistakes were made” mentality is the lifeblood of the false equivalency narrative surrounding the events in Charlottesville.

  • President Trump is (even further) driving home the fact that he is neither conservative or a liberal. He does not support the fundamental tenets of liberalism that our Constitution exemplifies. He does not respect the coequal branches that comprise our republican government. He does not respect the importance or the limitations of his office.

    His self-obsession can only be (briefly) satisfied by the blind adoration of the cult of ethno-nationalists he has carefully cultivated, with the help of Steve Bannon and the Mercer/Breitbart disinformation machine.

    Nazis and white supremacists have the right, like all Americans, to assemble and speak their views. But let’s not beat around the bush about what these views truly are. This is a group of people who view white racial purity as the cornerstone of their nation’s identity, and who express willingness to maintain that purity through violence.

    And yet, when one of these Nazis ran over a crowd of counter-protestors in a fit of rage, killing 1 and injuring 19, the President responded by being unwilling or unable to discern or state any moral difference between the two groups in that situation.

    Of course groups like Antifa should also be condemned when they engage in violence. But on Saturday, only one person was murdered, and it was by a Nazi. The false moral equivalency about this situation espoused by the President is harmful, shameful, and like so many of his actions, unbecoming of the office he represents.

    1. In many cases in law, if a death happens during the commission of a crime, it is charged to the person or people who set the chain of events leading up to that death in motion–i.e.–to the person who was committing the crime.

      Antifa had no permit. Antifa committed the initial crime.

      Antifa attacked first. Antifa committed the initial assault.

      The ‘unite the right’ march was over when the girl was murdered. It had been over for a while–it was shut down almost before it started by the repeated assaults by antifa causing the event to be declared unlawful.

      Long after the ‘unite the right’ people were gone, antifa continued to block streets and assault people. It was during this time that the girl was murdered.

      1. – Please provide a reference to even one of these cases. I want to see a court case where the victims of murder/assault were charged with their own murder/assault.

        – Permits to protest? You’re a reader of Reason and you think protest permits are an appropriate use of government? The US is a free-speech zone.

        – Regardless of whether or not the march was officially over, it was still a Nazi behind the wheel running over a crowd of counter-protestors.

        – I also condemn Antifa violence. But on the 12th, Antifa didn’t murder anyone.

        – Would your views on this situation be identical if the situation were reversed? (i.e. if Antifa held a protest with a permit, some white supremacists showed up, and an Antifa member ran over a crowd of them).

        1. But on the 12th, Antifa didn’t murder anyone.

          Yeah, but they did start the fight, deliberately, with premeditation and with malice aforethought.

  • The pattern is pretty clear – Trump only insults people who (in his mind) have wronged or insulted him. If David Duke called Trump a poopy pants I guarantee there would be a 4am tweet storm

  • The pattern is pretty clear – Trump only insults people who (in his mind) have wronged or insulted him. If David Duke called Trump a poopy pants I guarantee there would be a 4am tweet storm

  • I wonder, is it George Washington next week? And is it Thomas Jefferson the week after. You know, you really do have to ask yourself, where does it stop?

    If any other politician had the guts to say something like this so openly. reason and libertarians, and right thinking people the world over would be celebrating.

    It is the thing that has needed to be said for so long. The thing that will leave them standing there, naked, their lust for totalitarian control exposed for all to see—because THAT is “when it stops” and all right thinking people know that.

    But it was Trump and is thus, the newest ‘worst thing ever’.

    Trump has done so many things now, that reason was advocating right up until election day. Then they started to fall away, until, now, reason advocates for the right of the left to violently shut anyone up because they disagree. Reason advocates for the left to get to decide just exactly who escapes the label of ‘racist’ and ‘nazi’ and ‘fascist’

    Reason has shown, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that they, too, were wearing a mask.

  • The President has already condemned the right-wing violence three times. Apparently you were too busy typing this post to hear him.

  • Because he continues to try to point out that there’s nothing good about antifa, either. There were two groups of differently-evil people at that event, along with a bunch of decent-minded people who simply wanted to counter the morally bankrupt supremacists’ speech.

    How about:

    Let there be no equivocation (or as Pres. Obama would “Let me be perfectly clear…”):The views of the neo-Nazis, KKK, and other white-supremacists are vile, repugnant, and completely un-American and I reject them and urge all my supporters to do the same, indeed I urge all Americans to reject these views. As President, I specifically denounce the person who attacked others with a car.

    Having said that, this is America, and our Constitution provides, no, demands, that even their despicable speech is free speech. We cannot, as Americans, deny them their right to make mouth their odious words in public without damaging the foundations of this country.

    At the same time, we must reflect on the actions of the so-called Anti-Fascist protesters at this event and other events around the country, where they have violently assaulted speakers, have used threats of violence to shut down peaceful events, and participated in riots, setting fires and attacking police. These actions have no part in American civil discourse, and I call upon the media and progressives to similarly reject these “antifa” antics.

    1. I love you, man.

  • Imagine a progressive future, where gun ownership has been long ago banned and gun ownership is seen through the same negative lens that 150-year-ago slave ownership is today.

    Then recall that Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King owned guns, even applied for and was denied a carry permit by racist cops. William Worthy, a journalist who covered the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, reported that once, during a visit to King’s parsonage, he went to sit down on an armchair in the living room and, to his surprise, almost sat on a loaded gun. Glenn Smiley, an adviser to King, described King’s home as “an arsenal.”

    Will these future people be tearing down MLK statues and taking his name off of roads, etc. because he once owned guns?

  • Why? Because it’s cheap theatrics, like condemning child rape and cannibalism. Although corporate execs excel at meaningless gestures it doesn’t change that they’re meaningless.

  • “Why won’t Trump unequivocally condemn Charlotville Nazis?” Duh, he DID Bozo. Why can’t Reason stop trashing the Pres?

  • Trump did unequivocally condemn the Charlottesville Nazis and what is bothering the media he also condemned the Islamo-communist thugs. The Mayor who declared that Charlottesville was the capital of the Resistance is directly responsible for the violence and death resulting from the Democrat organized riot.

    The Mayor and Council could have quietly removed the statue but that didn’t support their purpose. They wanted to create a volatile violent situation that they could use to attack President Trump. This exercise in “community organizing” was planned, organized, and executed by the Obama Alt-White House with the help and connivance of Governor McAuliffe, and Mayor Signer along with the help of State and City police officials. This is all part of a slow motion Soros/Obama financed coup being perpetrated on the American people with the connivance of the Main Stream Media. Forget the “Russian collusion scam” and start investigating the coup plotters and traitors. These criminals deserve their day in court.

  • Or, maybe he actually is a racist. That’s not a term I casually toss around. Anybody could be called racist, depending on your criteria. I tend to define the term very narrowly. You’re a racist if you just don’t like people who are different, based on skin color, etc, and your prejudice can lead to harm to others. This does not include a white male who wouldn’t date a black woman…that could mean, I only like Irish redheads for dating purposes. Nothing wrong with that.

    As a personal disclosure, my wife was born in Mexico. We’ve had arguments over Donald Trump and not because I like him. I just don’t like the term ‘racist’ being tossed around indiscriminately, given the moral character association.

    At this point, I don’t care what’s in Trump’s heart. After his bizarre responses to the event in Charlottesville, if there’s a personal silver lining, my wife and I will never bicker about Trump and race again. His words (spoken and unspoken) and actions (taken and untaken) have the effect of the worst form of racism.

  • Watcher1984 has it right.

    One thing no one has commented on is that Jason Kessler, the organizer of the (so-called) Unite the Right march is undoubtedly a shill/plant. According to the SPLC he was an Occupy Wall Street organizer, and a CNN assignment editor that has publicly posted that he relished being a provocateur. Who from an actual right wing background invites National **Socialists** to their party?!?!

    Let us not forget what Director of Central Intelligence William Colby said publicly at the Church Committee hearings regarding Operation Mockingbird, that the CIA controls “everyone of any importance” in the news media WORLDWIDE, and that the CIA spends upwards of 40% (!?!?) of its budget on this endeavor. Given the consolidation of the the media since then, Deep State control of the media can only have increased. Deep State, with Soros’ funding and help, controls the far left – Antifa, BLM, etc. Divide and conquer is the stratagem. It knows where Trump’s support comes from, (the deplorables) and these organizations are the shock troops used for sacrifice and then use their injuries to demonize the deplorables. Feed the fire of hate. Thesis, antithesis, synthesis. Never let a good race war, er, crisis go to waste.

    1. Trump’s campaigning for a more non-interventionist foreign policy ensured this response. The media has been as monolithic on this issue as never before. Never have I seen such uniformity across all networks and platforms. They even copy each other’s blatant lies.

      Identitarian politics, left or right, white or brown skinned, are repugnant to a free people. If you see someone that claims to be on the “right” and they start talking this bullshit, run away. They may think that they’re defending Western Civilization, but they’re just feeding the Deep State’s Divide and Rule game. ( And, yes, I’m saying that this whole thing was a Deep State psyop Kessler probably gets a check from Soros like the rest of the Antifas)

    2. Bill Colby, a national hero that inexplicably had hard on for the unscrupulous FDR.

  • Damn… He condemned racism a million times. You people are worse than a dog with his favorite bone. Stop the garbage.

  • Funny here how so many seem to come to the conclusion that if one is properly exercising his/her free speech rights, then no moral judgment may be cast upon the content of that speech.

  • It went from “Trump is a Russian” to “Trump is a Nazi” LOL

    1. Trump is a Russian Nazi!

  • Our last President was equally guilty of exclusive illiberalism. Which leads me to wonder why we would expect anything different from the duopoly in the ruling class? This article might as well be about the sky being blue or Ms. Lippi’s car being green.

  • Why did Obama take half a decade to call Fort Hood “not work place violence”? We could go on and on down the list of past presidents and their failures…The big issue is the media’s big hard on for suddenly acting like a “hard hitting/truth to power” press, when in fact they’re nothing but Pavlovian SJW hound, or more accurately One Trick Ponies.

  • Once again ‘reason’ is showing they are all too unreasonable. How many different ways must someone condemn bad behavior for folks like this author to finally be satisfied? Give it a ^$%^$ rest and stop acting like a damn liberal whineypants! This is supposed to be a publication about ‘Reason’ – act like it!

  • one who considers it more important that you know in the same breath that he also finds fault with those who gathered in public to oppose them

    Yeah, I mean…how could anyone who calls themselves a libertarian *possibly* find fault with a group that showed up for the express purpose of using force to prevent another group from exercising their civil rights, as they have similarly done numerous times already? I mean, the very thought!!!

  • This writer of the above article uses the words ostensibly and ostensible. Those words are often used to suggest (while evading the speaker’s duty to supply evidence for the suggestion) that someone’s reason or someone’s goal is other than the someone says it is.

    Most likely, though, the reason for the alt-right’s rally was to protest the removal of the statue of General Lee, just as they said it was.

    Most likely, announcing plans to ease permitting processes for building infrastructure was the reason for Trump’s press conference. The shift to events at Charlottesville was probably initiated by one of the leftist reporters who continue to hound the president for an unequivocal (and false) condemnation of the alt-right.

    Watch those fancy words, like ostensible. They’ve been used in propaganda for a long time, and their deceptive use is something that people nowadays are wise to.

    1. Trump is quite correctly defending the freedom of speech for everybody, including people the Jews don’t like. Including people the leftists don’t like. No matter what your political opinions are, they never by themselves strip someone of their right to speak freely of them. In some countries, that might be the case. But in America, even Nazis and KKK members may apply for a protest permit, and if they are denied, they can sue in federal court and get that permit anyway. Because every court from the US Supreme Court all the way down to the lowest district court have ruled that the issuance of a speech permit cannot be made to depend on the expected political or ideological content of the speech.

      Heck, even the ACLU knows that.

      Trump is also condemning what should be condemned, namely: the instigation of violence. Make no mistake: the leftists of Antifa and BLM instigated the violence in Charlottesville on 12 August 2017. They instigated it by hitting people with different political views with baseball bats, by pelting them with feces, by spraying them with mace or pepper spray. The violence began because the leftists began it. If the alt-right rally attendees had been left alone, they would have made their speeches and had their torch-light parade, and then they all would have gone home. Nothing bad would have happened.

      1. Evidently, Donald Trump knows this. He is not making a mistake when he declines to set all the blame on the right. he knows that he’d be lying if he did. Nor is Trump mistaken to blame the left for “some” of the violence, though really he could even more rightly say that the left owns the blame for MOST of it.

  • “(and in the case of the black Central Park Five, Trump can remain sure of their guilt years after the legal system has cleared them).”

    The legal system never cleared the Central Park Five. Trump is right?they remain guilty as hell. Not only did they repeatedly confess to their heinous crimes, without being coerced, but some of them bragged about those crimes.

    “One reason may well be because Donald Trump is a very strong public advocate of the benefits, propriety, and necessity of a policy of national exclusionism, when it comes to immigrants, visitors, goods, and services.”

    Do you mean immigrants, or illegal aliens?

    And you wouldn’t pull a stunt like taking one statement Steve Bannon made one time without understanding the key term he used, and falsely make him the ally of Nazis, would you? Nah. You couldn’t be that cheap. 1/2

  • “Why Won’t Trump Unequivocally Condemn the Charlottesville Nazis?”

    Why do you condemn Trump for refusing to exclusively blame the Nazis in his first and third statements on Charlottesville? It must be because the Nazis never applied for and got a rally permit, or got a federal judge to issue an injunction on their behalf, against the criminal act of Charlottesville Mayor Signer. Oops!

    And it must be because the Communists didn’t go to Charlottesville as part of a criminal conspiracy to violate the Nazis’ civil rights, and repeatedly, violently assault them. Oops!

    And it must be because the Nazis have murdered over 100 million civilians over the past 100 years. Oops!

    I don’t know how I stumbled onto this blog. I was looking for a libertarian blog, but accidentally landed on a Communist one. 2/2

  • I must have missed all the Reason articles asking

    Why Won’t _______ Unequivocally Condemn Marxists?

    Please provide links.

  • Trump blamed the Bolsheviks equally. Actually, it was the Bolsheviks who were 100% responsible for the violence. That’s the fact. Deal with it.

  • Please to post comments

    Comments are closed.