Despite the President's Pandering, White Nationalists Are Still Losing

As Trump learned this week, pandering to white nationalists means alienating most other Americans.


Zach D Roberts/ZUMA Press/Newscom

The birth of a child is a happy occasion that inspires joy and celebration. So momentous is the day that the person born and those around him or her will commemorate it annually for a lifetime. But birth itself is an arduous, bloody, and sometimes fatal event. No new life comes into being without terror, pain, and struggle.

The United States was born of such struggles on a mass scale. When Americans formed a nation and claimed their independence, they met with ferocious opposition from their rulers, who were willing to kill thousands of people to foil the change. The British king and Parliament did not quietly accede to reason. That is rarely how the evils of this world are undone.

In 1783, Thomas Jefferson, hoping that his home state of Virginia would hold a special convention to approve a new state constitution, took it on himself to draft one. It included a provision gradually but explicitly abolishing slavery. Anyone born after Dec. 31, 1800, it said, is "hereby declared free."

His scheme wasn't adopted, and the sage of Monticello failed in other attempts to curb slavery—even while owning slaves. No one knew better than Jefferson the grotesque contradiction between the promises of the new republic and the inferior status it assigned to black people. No one knew better than he the anguish, strife, and violence that would accompany any progress in overcoming that original sin.

Two hundred thirty-four years later, events in his hometown provided a reminder of how far we have to go in that task—and how far we have come. The vicious collection of white racists who gathered there on Saturday were the heirs of Virginians who could have peacefully phased out human bondage. Instead, those early Americans clung to the peculiar institution—only to be forcibly deprived of it by a war that drenched the state in gore.

What Jefferson hoped to end by the voluntary choice of white men, Abraham Lincoln found could be uprooted only with relentless, overwhelming force. It might be God's will, he said in his second inaugural address, that slavery survive "until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword."

The hatred and havoc that erupted just miles from Jefferson's Monticello were a reminder that every push toward enlightenment elicits spasms of reaction. The white nationalists who gathered to protest the removal of a statue of Robert E. Lee from a public park were aggrieved that they no longer enjoy being members of the ruling race.

That status carried great privileges. It's no surprise that these modern misfits bitterly resent the changes that undid it—or that they are willing to resort to intimidation and brutality to restore it.

They are fantasizing to think they can succeed. But their loss of power and popular support has not made them more open to unwanted changes. If anything, the more they are outnumbered the more visceral their fear and the more desperately they cling to any vestige of the beloved past.

They lost the Civil War. They lost the institution of black bondage. They lost the exclusivity of citizenship. They lost the principle of white supremacy. They lost the battles against integration of the military, swimming pools, restaurants, schools, and marriage. They saw a black man elected twice to the presidency.

But Donald Trump exploited their resentments for his own gain and led them to believe that they could resurrect a distant era before they lost so much ground—that he would "make America great again." As he learned this week, though, his pandering to them means alienating most other Americans.

By inciting the racist right to mobilize, he has awakened its vastly more numerous opponents. He has also made it much harder for his more moderate white supporters to overlook his darkest impulses.

Those impulses were blindingly evident in his Tuesday news conference, where he seemed far more concerned about protecting Confederate statues than protecting African-Americans and other minorities from discrimination and violence.

His coarse sentiments heartened David Duke and his allies, who feel empowered by Trump. Among blacks and other minorities, there is legitimate fear that the mayhem in Charlottesville was just the beginning of a broader backlash against equality and inclusion.

That turmoil may look like the beginning of something big for the cause of white nationalism. But those were not birth pangs. They were death throes.


NEXT: School to Former Students: Shut Up About James Alex Fields' Nazi Past

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

  1. Please.

    There are hardly enough ‘white nationalists’ in America to fill up a mid-sized conference center. They’re hardly a threat to anything except comments-sections on youtube.

    This sort of self-congratulatory melodrama is absurd.

    You’re not talking about battling some existential threat to democratic society. You’re talking about commie college-kids and yokels LARPing in the streets every few months, acting out a manichean drama because they’re both too stupid to carry on a proper debate.

    And the ones that aren’t too-stupid to carry on a proper debate have often been prevented from doing so by Universities. And while Reason has devoted resources to covering campus trends, they have hardly done much to actually encourage or enable more dialogue, mostly echoing the left’s rhetorical demonization of people like Milo, while softly bemoaning the illiberal tactics used to silence them.

    In short, you’re not helping. Chapman least of all.

    1. There is a marked difference in tone when Reason writes about Leftists rioting to silence anybody they disagree with.

      And an even MORE marked difference when one compares the Scalise shooting and this.

      1. Why do you insist on blaming everyone but the fucking Nazis?

        1. How were “Nazis” involved in the Scalise shooting, exactly?

          Speaking of “Nazis”, the few hundred yokel racists who appeared in Charlottesville hardly seem poised to invade Poland.

          Calling people “Nazis” willy-nilly is a sign you’re operating from a posture of delusion to begin with. Its like accusing a potluck dinner of being “communist”

        2. Why do you insist on blaming everyone but the fucking Nazis?

          Bernie Bros are Nazis now?

          I had no idea.

        3. Don’t worry, you get plenty of blame.

          Oh, that isn’t what you meant, is it faggot?

        4. Tony – I oppose communism, fascism and socialism.

          Do you too Tony oppose communism, fascism and socialism?

    2. New A.M. Links brought to you by Gilmore, who agrees with the author that the the “white nationalists” movement is dying but thinks that Reason shouldn’t state it in an article.

      1. Gilmore, who agrees with the author that the the “white nationalists” movement is dying but thinks that Reason shouldn’t state it in an article

        What i actually said was that he completely misstates its significance in order to melodramatically pretend the left is slaying dragons.

        And I don’t even think ‘white nationalism’ is “dying”; its a tiny subculture that thrives on this sort of exaggerated conflict that overstates their importance. If anything, it will grow due to the undue attention it receives.

        I’m amazed i wrote something so brief and yet you’ve still managed to misunderstand every bit of it.

        1. They’re so insubstantial and powerless that I wonder why people feel the need to organize counter-protests. They’ve lost so thoroughly that even people who agree with them are scared to actually admit it and it’s only the most insane wackos who will show up at events like Charlottesville. The amount of ink spilled over talking about white supremacists and white nationalists is greatly disproportionate to their actual importance.

          Additionally, they’re so irrationally tied to their beliefs that they cannot be reasoned with. So trying to address them with articles or speeches or tweets is just a waste of time. We don’t need authority figures to tell us violence and murder are wrong, not after we’ve made it through kindergarten.

          1. They’re so insubstantial and powerless that I wonder why people feel the need to organize counter-protests.

            Because its self-aggrandizing to pretend you’re fighting a moral crusade. They NEED dragons to fight to justify their hysterics.

            See: all the idiots talking gleefully about “punching Nazis” on Twitter… when literally there’s only 1 person that barely qualifies for the term (Richard Spenser) and someone already sucker-punched him. Not a whole lot left on the “Punching Nazis” to-do list, you’d think? but no.

            It also forces otherwise disinterested political opponents to object to their violent over-reaction… and in the process, find themselves “defending racists”.

            Its a form of political wedge = pretend there are only 2 sides, and force your opponents into siding with the ‘morally distasteful’ one (defending the speech of racists, defending the monuments of confederates, etc)

            Because these people are clearly the morally-superior ones. See, they call themselves “anti-racists”, and that somehow magically excuses everything.

            1. The white supremacist movement is alive as the parrot is in Monty Python’s dead parrot sketch.

              1. He’s not dead, merely sleeping.

                1. Pretty sure he’s pining for the fjords.

    3. I wish Chapman were right, but I see more anti-semitism and more overt racism than ever online. The internet is a powerful tool for recruiting and organizing radicals. Of course the leftists will smear anyone they disagree with by assigning them to the “alt-right” and implying they all share the same repugnant beliefs.

      1. I wish Chapman were right, but I see more anti-semitism and more overt racism than ever online.

        Isn’t this where we want the overt racism and antisemitism? I mean, given Fredrick Douglass’s box model of freedom, isn’t the Soap/Internet Box where we want the racism and antisemitism occurring?

      2. I see more anti-semitism and more overt racism than ever online.

        Most of it coming from the Saudi-funded left-wing Islam apologist BDS movement. But I’m sure you were talking about those whole 200 “alt-righters”, weren’t you?

      3. I don’t know where all the Jew haters are but I have lived in Virginia all my life and NEVER hear anyone talk bad about Jews. Is that a Northern thing?

  2. “Racism is evil”.

    How is that equivocating?

    I’m not actually being rhetorical. What is the argument that this amounts to equivocation? I gather there are many.

    1. “And so is Communism”

      I think that is the part they freak on.

    2. “But, they have the freedom to assemble and speak.”

      The other equivocation Chapman and other leftists hate.

  3. It this now the Washington fucken Post?
    Emotional B.S. arguments willfully ignoring half the fucken problem.

    Blind devotion to ideological red shirt blue shirt bullshit will drag us all into oblivion.

  4. “They lost the Civil War. They lost the institution of black bondage. They lost the exclusivity of citizenship. They lost the principle of white supremacy. They lost the battles against integration of the military, swimming pools, restaurants, schools, and marriage. “
    The Democrats sure did lose.

    Party of slavery.

    1. Yes, the key part that gets whitewashed is that the Democrats are the ones who erected all these statues in the first place. The past crimes of Democrats are put on the shoulders of all white people today so that the party can escape responsibility for its legacy.

      1. Pretty much all of those Democrats are dead and gone. The party bears no responsibility for its legacy. Saying it does is just as ridiculous as saying that someone whose great-great- grandfather owned slaves bears responsibility for slavery. Or that all Catholics need to answer for the Spanish Inquisition.
        I am in no way a supporter of the Democratic party, but it’s because of what they stand for today, not their history.

        1. I agree that current Democrats aren’t responsible for slavery and segregation. I wish they wouldn’t try to pass the responsibility onto current residents of the South.

        2. You know what? When the Democrats step up and say ‘No–it wasn’t the Republicans who were the party of racism, it was the Democrats. The Republicans started as an abolitionist party and have never favored racial segregation, intimidation of any of that racist stuff. That was us. And we are deeply sorry for all the troubles we’ve caused and all the horrors we unleashed across the nation.’–THEN I’ll be more forgiving.

          Right now what they say is ‘All the racists joined the anti-racist party! They’re the racists not us! Support black only housing!’

          1. Collective guilt because the big Southern racists of the past happened to be members of something called the Democratic party is not only anti-individualist, it’s fucking warmed-over horseshit everyone has heard and anyone with half a brain rejects.

            If the Democrats remain the party of anti-black racists, why do blacks vote for them nearly unanimously? Try and answer that without racism.

            1. You fuckers WALLOW in collective guilt–this ENTIRE issue is you casting collective guilt.

              But you will never admit that.

            2. If the Democrats remain the party of anti-black racists, why do blacks vote for them nearly unanimously? Try and answer that without racism

              Interesting that you put it that way.

              But the answer is simple. The Democrats shriek endlessly that any action of their political opponents is motivated by racism. This message is amplified by the media, codified into our children’s heads by academia, and popularized in our entertainment industry.

              Even the people who’ve managed to see through it are so thoroughly conditioned that they subconsciously hold many of it’s precepts–it’s why people on the right have this tendancy to try to justify themselves all the time–because their conditioning is telling them that they’re doing something wrong.

              Look! No racism.

              1. So black people are particularly susceptible to being duped to vote against a party that is explicitly anti-black according to you? What makes black people nearly universally so must stupider than everyone else?

                1. I don’t know why people think black people are so stupid. It’s like, some people think blacks aren’t smart enough obtain a photo ID that 99% of them already have.

                  The democrat party learned to play hardcore identity politics, which appeals a great number of blacks mired in victimhood mentality. Dems runs big cities and the poverty stricken ethnic enclaves.

                  Have you heard of Venezuela? People vote for political leadership that leads them STRAIGHT to ruin – like all the time.

          2. You know what? When the Democrats step up and say ‘No–it wasn’t the Republicans who were the party of racism, it was the Democrats.

            Not just that, but generally granting moral obligation and individual rights to a political party seems odd. Certainly an individual doesn’t bear responsibility for actions it didn’t partake in and should be able to live and trade generally in spite of any reputation, but the political party pretty much exists on reputation alone.

            Acting like the party can whimsically change and that’s okay is accepting the whitewashing. Want the personal liberty aspects of the Democratic Party without the moral contradictions and fiscal irresponsibility? Join the LP. This is precisely the sort of thing that should kill a political party and nobody should have any qualms about its death.

          3. Nixon’s southern strategy. Republicans did absorb most of the racists eventually although the Dixiecrats were definitely first.

        3. Yeah, it was all sooooo long ago….. like Al Gore Sr. who voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that would not have passed without Republican support because of the racist Demonrats. The same demonrats that sabotaged black people’s family structure with the welfare state by undercutting the black man’s role in the family. That was the ultimate in lynching and the destruction continues to this day aided and abetted by the demonrats who created a sense of entitlement to the welfare state.

          No comparison. Woodrow Wilson and LBJ loved black people.

        4. Saying it does is just as ridiculous as saying that someone whose great-great- grandfather owned slaves bears responsibility for slavery. Or that all Catholics need to answer for the Spanish Inquisition.

          Gee, you mean like Obama did?

  5. By inciting the racist right to mobilize, [Trump] has awakened its vastly more numerous opponents. He has also made it much harder for his more moderate white supporters to overlook his darkest impulses.


  6. Whoa, whoa. No fighting during Infrastructure Week!

  7. “But Donald Trump exploited their resentments ”
    “By inciting the racist right to mobilize,” What ?

    No specific example provided by any of these.

    I suspect we are back to the ignorant view that the president should have criticized citizens for exercising their civil right to freedom of belief by denouncing the belief of racism and the belief of fascism specifically for all citizens- regardless. Not even bothering to minimize it to a fascist state or a racist state or racist or fascist actions (whatever those may be).

    I wonder if Reason Staff has a list of appropriate beliefs it is OK for the president to critique and the logic it used to makeup this list.

    Reason’s and the LP’s reaction the to current events has been very disgusting to me as a libertarian.

    They have fallen into the trap of taking a specific incident as a rationale to criticize everyone who might be considered of similar beliefs. – probably just what the left wanted.

    And as for the title of this aricle – Reason never told us what this pandering was they are referring to . The fact Trump didn’t criticize all people who might believe in racism or fascism ?

    When people decide to approve of the president criticizing some beliefs (NOT ACTIONS) then I find it hard how they can expect that president to support our civil right to freedom of belief.

    Reason and the LP seem far more wrapped up in criticizing Trump than standing for what they claim to be their own libertarian beliefs

    1. Libertarians never criticize people who believe in fascism or other things, it’s true. Good point mate.

    2. Reason and the LP seem far more wrapped up in criticizing Trump than standing for what they claim to be their own libertarian beliefs

      Nah, mate.

      They’re just showing you what their beliefs REALLY are. Libertarian philosophy is bullshit to Reason.

    3. Chapman isn’t a libertarian.

      1. Which is why he is published at Reason, which also isn’t libertarian.

    4. I am beginning to think the Huff Post bought Reason.

  8. Actual tweet by Marco Rubio:

    “When entire movement built on anger & hatred towards people different than you,it justifies & ultimately leads to violence against them”


    1. Great logic. Despite the fact that we are a nation of laws, the media and pols are now claiming violence is justified against white supremacists, racists, et al. With that mindset, it won’t be a surprise when racists resort to violence.

      Also, Marco may have just crawled out of a cave, so someone should tell him that the left has accused the past 4-5 GOP presidential candidates of racism. Therefore, violence against them would be justifiable.

      1. The Scalise shooting was self defense, clearly. Thanks Marco for advising us.

        1. Many on the left actually tweeted similar thoughts. The media didn’t shame them, there was no campaign to screen cap tge tweets and send it to employers.

          1. Well, a lot of them were media, no? 🙂

            Conservatives have seen what playing along with the Left does. It doesn’t do much. I fully get why the feeling is that it is time to be far less playful.

            1. Gabby Giffords shooting was the result of Sarah Palin’s target map. The NYT STILL asserted that after the Scalise shooting.

              Despite many on the left openly celebrating or joking about it, the Scalise shooting has nothing to do with left wing rhetoric.

              Must be nice to set the rules of the game.

              1. Even nicer to be able to change them mid-game.

    2. When did Marco Rubio join Antifa?

      I feel like I woke up in an alternate universe this week.

      1. Yup. My children are more logical than our entire polity and media.

        If there is no place for hate in our country, and violence is an appropriate response to it, shouldn’t we just round up white supremacists and imprison/execute them? Isn’t that the logical end game to this idiotic thought process?

        Of course, there’s the whole other question of who determines who is a racist/supremacist/etc.

      2. He’s not saying “nazis hate minorities, so it’s okay to get violent toward nazis”. He’s saying “nazis hate minorities, which eventually leads to the nazis getting violent toward minorities”. Admittedly it’s not the most artfully written sentence, but it’s not that hard to figure out.

        Of course, terrible reading comprehension is par for the course here in the H&R comments section. Especially before noon, since Rush hasn’t been able to tell them what their talking points for the day are yet.

        1. Oh, so preemptive violence over thoughtcrime is ok. Thanks for the clarification.

        2. Looks like it could be read either way to me.

          And your smug righteousness can be left at the door, thanks. I have never listened to the Rush show in my life.

          1. So given two possible meanings for a sentence, you choose the one that by your own admission seems completely out of character for the author?

            1. Past the author, plenty of the antifa, lefty commenters, media members etc see it as perfecty fine to preemptively punch a Nazi.

              Its that mindset, the vigilantism, violence is justified by the cause, I’m speaking about. Rubio’s mangled tweet was the jumping off point.

            2. No, I chose the one that a reader of properly-written English would arrive at first.

              1. Stormy’s interpretation of the tweet is probably correct.

                I’m not arguing that these groups opinions/views aren’t abhorrent. The fact that they have unpopular opinions shouldn’t justify violence against them.

              2. Well, I don’t know what the rules for Rhywunlish say, but for real English your interpretation is wrong.

                1. You got me – I’m a knuckle-dragging white supremecist. That’s the only possible way I could have arrived at that interpretation.

        3. He literally says “justifies.” Does that word not mean what it used to?

          1. The hate justifies the violence in the mind of the nazis.

            1. And the hate of white supremacists justifies violence against them in the minds of antifa.

              No problems could possibly arise from that mindset

              1. In fact there is a middle school teacher on trial now for punching a white supremacist during one of the pre-election confrontations. Her defense is that they are white supremacists so it’s ok.

        4. Lets see, shall we?

          “When (AN) entire movement (IS) built on anger & hatred towards people different than you,

          That’s pretty clear.

          it justifies & ultimately leads to violence against them

          That’s pretty clear too. No mention of Nazis getting violent towards minorities whatsoever.

          Only a justification of the violence against people for their beliefs.

          Some of us don’t want leftist idiots to spin simple concepts into appropriately left-fellating sycophancy for us–we prefer truth.

          1. Generic You

            In English grammar and in particular in casual English, generic you, impersonal you, or indefinite you is the pronoun you in its use in referring to an unspecified person, as opposed to its use as the second person pronoun.

            1. Even if it’s an unspecified you, I’m not sure how you reconcile that with him saying “them” instead of “you”.

              “When (an) entire movement (is) built on anger & hatred towards people different than them, it justifies & ultimately leads to violence against you.” That would have been the correct way to say what you are saying he meant.

              In conclusion, twitter sucks ass.

              1. Even if it’s an unspecified you, I’m not sure how you reconcile that with him saying “them” instead of “you”.

                You have to run it through the psychotic left wing SJW compulsive liar filter and then it all makes sense.

        5. For some people “reading comprehension” doesn’t mean cherrypicking whatever meaning you want to find in spite of the actual words used. But since you’re a lying piece of shit SJW it comes second nature to you. Some people don’t compulsively lie so it’s tougher for them.

    3. I’m pretty sure “them” in this case refers to “people different than you” not “[an] entire movement”

      1. That does make sense. Though it is ambiguous. Marco needs a Twitter proof-reader.

        1. One of the downsides of Twitter is that it encourages crap writing.

        2. And from a purely grammatical standpoint, it’s not ambiguous at all. “Them” can’t refer to “entire movement”, because a movement isn’t a “them”, it is an “it”.

          Admittedly, people often mess up noun-pronoun agreement when talking about collectives, so it can create an impression of ambiguity even when it’s not.

          1. Wrong. A movement most certainly can be “them”. These rules aren’t as set in stone as you think.

            1. Have I ever mentioned I like John Stossel… and Rhywun?

    4. So, beating the dogshit out of coastal liberals, BLM, and Antifa is fully justified then, yes?

      1. Screw the beatings. Let’s go straight to the bullet through the brain.

        It’s what Che did. And every college kid knows Che was, like, super cool and hip to all things.

  9. Where am I? Is this Salon? Oops, must have clicked the wrong bookmark.

  10. By inciting the racist right to mobilize, he has awakened its vastly more numerous opponents. He has also made it much harder for his more moderate white supporters to overlook his darkest impulses.

    But, apparently, it was not the Democrat rhetoric that led to a Bernie volunteer making an attempt to flip the Congress thru assassination just 2 months ago wasn’t caused by rhetoric. It, apparently, wasn’t Progressive rhetoric that led to Murray having a speech cancelled and a professor harmed It wasn’t Progressive rhetoric that led to Berkeley riots and innocents being assaulted because Milo was possibly going to speak (I note that Reason was big on the whole “Well, he kinda had it coming” belief with that).

    Only Trump saying “Racism is evil” is going to empower racists to kill.

    When people don’t see any “reasonable” way to express their dissatisfaction, they will seek less reasonable ways to do so. And this double standard that Reason is engaging in is not going to help anything. Hell, Reason STILL equivocates on the whole “Campus rape show trial” issue with the constant “Well, I’m not sure it’s not ALL bad” — in spite of tons of evidence that it very much is really bad.

    1. It wasn’t BLM rhetoric that led to five cops being killed in Dallas.

      1. Of course it wasn’t. Funny, only Trump rhetoric has any impact.

        1. It wasn’t radical islamic rhetoric that led to the Orlando night club shooting.

          1. Of course not. Only Trump rhetoric causes violence. We should be glad to have somebody with so much power over everybody on the side of the USA.

    2. Only Trump saying “Racism is evil” is going to empower racists to kill.

      Gotta laugh at the people who spent the last 8 years bitching about Obama like the words “Islamic Terrorism” were the incantation for some sort of circle of warding spell complaining about it happening to their guy.

      1. Gotta laugh at the folks who, when their guy was in office, argued against warding spells are now demanding warding spells.

        1. Obama never made a big deal about what Bush said in his speeches. Trump did and now, the hypocrite keeps not doing what he wants others to do (like not golfing, labels on the enemy, etc).

          1. Obama did call Bush un-American due to deficits than increased them.

            He has that.

            And Trump has condemned neo-Nazis et al repeatedly. The Left is just pissy that he ALSO condemned antifa. As he should.

            1. Obama also complained about the GOP blocking his SCOTUS pick. Of course, as a senator, Obama tried to block Alito’s nomination.

  11. Remember the Tea Party? Wanted to cut government. We’re called racists and lunatics by the press and eGOP (McCain hated them). They got fed up with the BS and basically splintered.

    We then had the “alt-right”…a far less pleasant group. Same thing happened.

    What do you think comes next? People are expressing dissatisfaction and being ignored being reasonable.

  12. Leave it to Chapman to come up with the most unhinged take to date. Congratulations.

    1. And the summary seemed so reasonable.

    2. He’s got priors.

    3. Gotta go bigger if you want to pile on.

      Otherwise it just gets repetitive.

      And nobody pays for that.

  13. “That turmoil may look like the beginning of something big for the cause of white nationalism. But those were not birth pangs. They were death throes.”

    Despite Hihn’s demented claims, that has been the consensus here for the last however many days.

    Everybody knows the “White Superiority” movement is a feeble bunch of losers. Literally, they are such a minority as to be approaching zero.
    The argument here has consistently been, even creepy minorities get to speak, in fact, ESPECIALLY, creepy minorities get to speak. It makes all of our rights far more secure should we ever be classified as part of a creepy minority.

    1. I should have finished: If you are a libertarian, you are already a member of a creepy minority, and probably always will be. Besides the fundamental principles at play here, that has very much been on my mind as I have defended the “whiteys” with regards to their civil liberties. It would behoove the socialists out there to note how strongly they (whiteys) have been defended by the ACLU. Believe you/me/us, it isn’t because the ACLU loves their ideology.

      1. Indeed. The belief that the mob will stop with THIS “bad” speech is laughable.

        I want to protect the neo-Nazis free speech because they are morons and their speech disproves their theory given how idiotic it is.

        The Left wants to make it verboten, which has ALWAYS worked out well. Pretending shit doesn’t exist is always the most healthy way to handle things. The same people that constantly mention how the war on drugs was self-defeating thinks THIS is a good idea.

        Because allowing them to speak for decades only left neo-Nazis/white supremacists/et al as a coalition so small that the members are outnumbered by the boogers they eat in their meetings.

        Note to guys like Hihn: I’m talking negative about those morons. Because they are morons and their beliefs are asinine. You seem unable to do the same in regards to antifa.

        If one cannot handle the concept that WHAT they say means jack shit and my concern is that they CAN say it, then I am unable to even feign respect.

        Just remember: Everybody who wants to silence these bad thoughts — would you be loving life if I got to choose what thoughts were allowed to be expressed?

        It’s a power you might want to keep out of anybody’s hands.

        1. Well said, Dami.

          I will print again, for about the 8th time in two days, the most beautiful libertarian words I’ve ever read. I must have read this the first time when I was just tyke, surely, pre-teen, and they hit me like a ton of bricks.

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

  14. Come writers and critics
    Who prophesize with your pen
    And keep your eyes wide
    The chance won’t come again
    And don’t speak too soon
    For the wheel’s still in spin
    And there’s no tellin’ who
    That it’s namin’
    For the loser now
    Will be later to win
    For the times they are a-changin’.

    –Bob Dylan

    1. The most overrated folkie of them all, with the possible exception of Pete Seegar.


      1. But still wonderfully useful for taunting old hippies!

  15. Watched 2.5 hrs of footage. Best things I found were HBO VICE, Faith Goldy/Rebel Media videos(rocks, bottles, being thrown-antifa/blm/thug crowds descending on small groups) and of the white guys beating the black guy in the parking garage.
    1 Freedom of speech protesters appeared to be little more than the typical racists/white supremacists with the jew hatred/superior race stuff acting like 1-2 amendment crusaders.
    2 The white power guys were severely outnumbered and a mob descended on them with no police protection. No way to tell who started the fights but violence was equal on both sides. Appears the racists were hit harder than blm/antifa just by mob power. With exception of the psycho who killed the girl, I found the antifa/blm mob to be as scary or more because racists knew they had to be passive.
    3 Goldy certainly seemed to lean towards the white nationalist side on the 1-2 amend side, but she ignored the ridiculous views they took. That said she has serious guts-walked into both crowds. Incoherence of the antifa/blm rherotic is just as ignorant, stupid, and frustrating as white power rednecks.
    4 Police indeed let this escalate-there was a double standard with respect to dispersing racists with permit but letting opponent mob march in with no control.
    It is a lie to say that antifa/blm was not extremely violent and an instigator. Both sides deserve blame as savage mob/ignorant scumbags- murderer deserves a life behind bars.

    1. Both side may deserve blame for fistfights. But only one side deserved blame for murder. And other than one or two incidents, none of those fights were more serious than your average bar fight. Imagine if a democratic leader said “both sides are to blame” when the guy shot that republican in the baseball field.

      1. The murder was committed by an individual, not an entire group.

        1. It seems like a fantasy not that rare among white right wingers based on a couple of other incidents and what right wingers seem to pass on to other friends. Just drive into a “mob’ of the other side. Well, muslims are doing that stuff too.

          1. So, thoughtcrime plus guilt by association?

            1. Apparently it’s the Reason way.

          2. BLM has murdered well over a dozen people. Seems it’s a lot less rare on that side than the right.

        2. Both sides are to blame for being savage mobs of scum. That is all I said.

          I agree that the murderer should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

          You have to remove your blinders in order to have a rational conversation. This not a discussion about who is right. Both sides are indeed very wrong in that racists are narrow minded, ignorant and usually very fringe morons.
          Antifa is a Marxists horde of ill-educated, brainwashed thugs that only get worse. Marxism is a soft sell via class warfare. Be careful when you think your mob is benevolent.
          Racism is stupidity that is taught from birth. Neither are right and both are prone to violence and the opposite of liberty and freedom. If they are only exercised as thought and words, then fine. Once both sides start beating on each other and murdering each other, then they are animal scum at that point.
          Marxists are famous for killing millions of people remember. The point is to recognize their path to hell as well.

      2. Seems to me that one individual deserves blame for murder. Or, you can post the video that shows the whitey organization or even any of its representatives there egging the murderer on.

        1. If James Fields had stayed home this week, and this conflict had been just your run of the mill gang on gang rumble. I wonder how the media coverage would have played out.
          That single murder by a single person has fried some synapases in whatever part of the brain handles logic.

          1. Lets be real honest. The majority of the outrage has been over Trump’s words, not the fact that a young woman was killed.

            1. You and Tom are both correct. The scum in Washington and the media have just been elated that someone was killed.

              if someone was not killed and trump was not such a horrible stupid and stubborn orator, the media coverage would have been simply that the benevolent antifa/blm came out to peacefully protest the racist pigs. he may be a racists. I don’t know. But he is right to denounce both sides as rioting scum.

              This is the very first time that the left mobs have been called out publically for being scum savage mobs as well.

            2. “Lets be real honest. ”

              Yes, let’s. I’ll go first. From my viewing, Pretty much every rant against Trump has used as its main zinger, “Trump is defending murderers”.

              That viewing experience is why I pondered the hypothetical. I have not seen Trump’s critics just compare side A against side B in the basic context of Permits, Protests, Counter-Protests, Attacks, Violence, etc. which is 99% of what went down in C’ville.

              1. I agree on your second point. Where’s the investigative journalism on what went down in regards to the violence?

                The zinger is actually “Trump is defending white supremacists” since he clearly denounced Fields.

                Accurately pointing out that the protest violence came from both sides is somehow a moral disgrace/outrage.

      3. Actually, Clyburn did.

        “I think that the president contributed to this significantly,” said Rep. James Clyburn of South Carolina, the No. 3 House Democrat. Clyburn charged that Trump “is allowed to hide behind political correctness to say all kinds of things about people, and I’m a little bit sick and tired of people saying anything they want to say about anyone they want to say it about.”

        1. Sorry, can you provide context?

          “the president contributed to this significantly”

          What is the “this” he’s referring to?
          Is the “this” something he said after C’ville or just a general complaint about Trump’s battle with Tourette?

          1. This was a reply to Praveen above who said this about the Scalise shooting:

            “Imagine if a democratic leader said “both sides are to blame” when the guy shot that republican in the baseball field.”

            I provided Clyburn’s quote in which he indeed blames Trump for the Scalise shooting. One doesn’t have to imagine something that actually happened.

            1. Then Clyburn is an idiot for saying that.

              1. Great. Where were all the shit-your-pants demands for denunciations then?

                1. Ratchet only works in one direction. And the Praveen’s of the world are but cogs in that machine.

      4. “And other than one or two incidents, none of those fights were more serious than your average bar fight. ”

        You know this how?

  16. Here’s the funny thing about FOX NEWS and Trump. Trump made these statements that he waits until all the facts before he comments on something(Which is bullshit as we know form his off the cuff tweets the last few years). Funny thing, what makes this even funnier is when he made this latest funny claim, he also said only one side of protestors had permits. Well, it looks like even Antifa had permits too. So much for the idiot in chief’s claim that he waits till all the facts are in . Even FOX NEWS was repeating this lie.

    1. Interesting. Antifa had permits for what exactly? Some sort of citation or link would be helpful.

      If what you say is true, Sounds downright criminal that the city of Charlottesville would permit two blood enemies to hold a march at the same time at the same place.

      I’m not calling bullshit on you, I’m just standing in the corner mumbling “bullshit”, pay no heed. good luck with that link.

      1. Well, I went looking and found some info.

        The Confederates had a permit for Emancipation Park
        The Antifas had permits to stage events at McGuffey Park and Justice Park.

        Despite having their own venue, the Antifas went looking for trouble at Emancipation Park.

        So, yes, the Antifas had permits too. You left out some helpful information didn’t you?

        1. And both sides were present at both sets of areas where the other side had a permit. Plus you forget that just because one side has a permit for an organized march, thre is nothing preventing an individual citizen to show up at the march of a permitted group and show protest.

          no one was hiding any info. Trump said only one side had permits. Well, yes, only if you include Emancipation park. The lady got run over in an area next to Justice Park.

          1. She got run over by one asshole in a car. The confederates did not march across town to find the antifas and attack them.
            Or did they? I don’t know, wasn’t there. Do you know?
            Where was the big clash when the two sides were basically forced against each other by the fucked up police?

            1. I’ll answer then, at Emancipation Park.

              Having said all of the above, I will stipulate that there were violent thugs on both sides, yes both sides.

              It seems the biggest catalyst was when the rally was declared “unlawful”, the Park was shut down and the Confederates and anti-Confederates were “forced” to confront each other. It might have eventually happened anyway, or maybe not, but the agents of Law and Order failed miserably.

              I’ve read many accounts now from persons of either “side” and possibly neutral, and the most glaring agreement is that the police made no effort to prevent violence.

    2. I have heard, recently, that permits may have been issued to several groups of counterprotesters, though I do not know if this is true–and I also do not trust that such permits as might exist were not created now and backdated–because the left has been in full lie mode since this whole thing began.

      But, even more interesting considering this chunk of stale verbal feces–

      Funny thing, what makes this even funnier is when he made this latest funny claim, he also said only one side of protestors had permits. Well, it looks like even Antifa had permits too. So much for the idiot in chief’s claim that he waits till all the facts are in . Even FOX NEWS was repeating this lie.

      Repeatedly during Trumps attempted infrastructure speech, he says he likes to have all the facts (hihning for emphasis in the face of leftist idiocy) AND WE STILL DON’T HAVE ALL THE FACTS.

      Did you get that? We still don’t have all the facts. He said that. More than once. What the fuck is wrong with you people?

      Is there a fucking transcript of that news conference yet? Or are we going to have to deal with their selective editing forever?

      1. please see my comment just above yours and a few minutes later. I looked into Praveen’s claims.

      2. Its all the more entertaining that demands were issued that Trump make a statement immediately.

  17. Chapman is correct that these are death throes. The entire alt-right is the death throes of white dominance of American culture. That ranges from the extreme white nationalist types, to the average working class white guy who is freaking out that white men don’t seem to be on the top of the status heap the way they used to be. That’s why there is so much emphasis on how America’s inherent essence is tied to race or something. “We can’t let white people not be on top! That will ruin everything great about America! Brown people are inherently socialist!” The extreme danger to them is that America won’t be as white as it used to be. Thus all the rhetoric about cuckolding – the foreign cock is coming to fuck their women, figuratively speaking – the next generation of Americans is going to be less white, maybe not even majority white, and they think that’s abhorrent, the equivalent of being cuckolded.

    1. Are you shocked that after decades of identity politics in this country, whites decided to join in?

      1. whites decided to “join” in after decades??? Who started the first identity politics? For more than a few decades, whites had monopoly of that shit in this country.

        1. Fine. After a few decades in the background, white identity politics are back. Are you surprised?

    2. What is your position on “affirmative action”? Keep it or toss it? Not all of whitey’s grievances are about foreign cock.

      1. My position is always 69%.

      2. Private entities can do whatever they want, but the government should not be promoting any policy on race, one way or another.
        I do think private entities should make an effort to be racially unbiased, which might involve bending over backwards to be very fair to minority applicants.

        1. If someone “bends over backwards” to be “very fair” (is that like double secret fair?) to one group, is that not biased against the other group who doesn’t get the “very fair” treatment?

          1. White people will probably be OK.

            1. But what about the precious faggots?

        2. “which might involve bending over backwards to be very fair to minority applicants.”

          Being very fair always requires standing upright.

          1. Yes, but it’s very difficult to fuck someone in the ass who’s standing upright, so that obviously just won’t do.

    3. The only person obsessed with brown cock seems to be you. This isn’t 1905 anymore. You can fuck all the brown boys you want, and society will even pay for your single motherhood afterwards. Just be careful. A big old brown cock in your twat might cause brain damage.

  18. I thought Trump liked only winners. Why is he lamenting the removal of statues of “losers” who lost the war?

    1. That one is actually pretty good.

  19. What is this stupid shit? Are you fuckers trying to be Huffpo?

    1. In Reason’s defense, they gave not one but two Chapman warnings this time.

      Funny thing though, usually Chapman kinda stands out as pretty extreme left for this site. But he fits right in with the last week’s posts.

      1. Agreed. Gillespie out-Chapman’d Chapman this week. Sky is falling. Ok, not really. But I am getting to where I can’t even with this place. Robbie got canned, and I had hope the milieu would improve. But no. We get Chapman.

        At least there hasn’t been much Shikha. Maybe she finally moved to Frogland.

  20. What are the odds of the guy in the picture is employed?

    1. I’m pretty sure that’s Chris Tucker.

      “You got knocked the fuck out!”

      1. Daaaaaaammmmmnnn!

    2. Just because he has no shirt and a tattoo and looks angry and black?

      1. Don’t-look-at-me might be a troll. He is not familiar around these parts. Seems a glib, racist snark and then *poof*.

        1. Hit – then run.

        2. NPR is racist too. It’s racist to notice things.

  21. “But they are fantasizing to think they can succeed, argues Chapman.”

    Yeah no shit Chapman. It’s called a fringe group. Their little shared fantasy is the whole fucking point.

    By the way, libertarians are different. We’re starting a mass movement imminently. Because the truth is on our side!

  22. I know (comparatively) little compared to most on this site about this series of incidents.

    This I know: Steve Chapman didn’t even try to prove his point. He had an axe to grind, and did his best, and it was pretty pathetic.

    Can we get authors here who understand how debate and arguing or proving your point works?

    1. Modern debate works backwards from conclusion to dogshit premise. And no, the authors will not change.

      1. From what I have seen lately, modern debate is a festival of fallacies. If you’re not begging the question and throwing out ad hominems, you’re going to lose. That’s just how it is.

        1. Hey, look at the cousin-fucker.

          /just practicing

          1. “Toke-a-lid! Smoke-a-lid! Pop the mescalino!
            Stash the hash! Gonna crash! Make mine methedrino!
            Hop a hill! Pop a pill! For Old Tim Benzedrino!”

            1. +1 Bored of the Rings

            2. Sarcasmic, that was fucking badass.

              1. It’s an excerpt from a parody novel called ‘Bored of the Rings’.

                I’m sure Sarcasmic is taking a siesta or he’d give credit where due.

  23. All this derpitude is taking its toll on me. Even the WaPo documented violence by the counterprotestors/AntiFa with photos, as did several reporters and clearly that woman’s death was avoidable if the police had blocked off the streets so everyone could leave in an orderly manner after it was cancelled. Had this happened, we would be talking about something else and the white nats wouldn’t be basking in this attention. They want a race war and their getting one it seems.

  24. Is someone who called a former high ranking member of the KKK a mentor, a racist? (most would say yes)

    Would you change your mind if that someone is Hillary Clinton?

    People who voted for Hillary have no right to call out the racism of others until they look in the mirror first. To me, the sad thing is all this brewhaha is that it isn’t about an honest discussion of racism, it’s about partisan politics. And partisan politics is more important than racism to many. The ends of the current racism conversation isn’t about trying to end racism. It’s about attacking Trump.

    1. Well said, Vic.
      Note also HRC’s use of the word “superpredator” to describe young African Americans.
      Her husband’s eagerness to execute a brain-damaged African American man, and signing into law that the star on the Arkansas flag stands for the Confederacy…Yet somehow, he was deemed the “first Black President” by the adoring media.

      Also, Va gov Terry McAuliffe’s close ties to the Clintons-I’m sure there were some phone calls with them and their DNC pals for the best way to turn what happened in C-ville to their advantage.

      1. I would love for this country to have an honest discussion about racism. We need it. But I’m not seeing it. I’m seeing partisan politics trying to be disguised as a discussion about racism. This path only servers to keep racism alive.

  25. “They lost the Civil War. They lost the institution of black bondage. They lost the exclusivity of citizenship. They lost the principle of white supremacy. They lost the battles against integration of the military, swimming pools, restaurants, schools, and marriage. ”

    OK, this is just kind of weird.

    All these theys are different people.

    What I also find weird is that this tiny fringe group of nutters is given so much attention. If the press and the antifas don’t show up, then these idiots would wave their little flags and tiki-torches, then go back to their trailer parks. They have no power or say in society. In fact, I suspect it’s because of their feelings of personal powerlessness and inefficacy that they gravitate to these crazy groups.

    Why are we pretending that they have real numbers and are a significant threat to anything?

    Instead, tomorrow’s successful book burners, censors, thought police, and segregationists will look, sound, and act nothing like the ones of the past. They certainly won’t resemble these yahoos.

    We’re always on the lookout for the new Hitler, as if he’s going to be just like the old Hitler. That’s just as dumb as these rednecks waving their Nazi flags. When the next Hitler arrives, everyone will be too busy signaling their outrage at stupid rednecks to notice him/her coming.

    1. “When fascism comes to America, it will not be in brown and black shirts, it will not be with jackboots, it will be Nike sneakers and smiley shirts. Smiley smiley.”

      -George Carlin

    2. When the next Hitler arrives, everyone will be too busy signaling their outrage at stupid rednecks to notice him/her coming.

      Well, since everyone is already doing that, I think he (or “it”) is already here. I don’t mean Trump, I mean the derp state: the political parties, media, and multinational corporations and organizations that are really in charge.

    3. They’re not stupid rednecks though, they’re fairly educated people who’ve been radicalized on the internet. It’s the kind of thing that can get out of hand–especially when the leader of the country endorses them.

      1. Educated doesn’t equal not stupid.

        1. But enough about engineers.

      2. But enough about Muslims and Obama.

  26. Can’t we all at least just agree that when the national socialists and the international socialists fight each other, we’re all winners?

    1. Yup. Less socialists.

    2. Amen. Sad that someone’s cannon fodder died. Entirely expected though, if not this time then eventually.

      Had it been one of the other side dead, with his brains spilled all over an antifa axe handle, would we still be having this discussion?

  27. The really sad part is this comments board, as fucking ridiculous and defensive of goddamn Nazis as it is, is about 1/10th as depressing as anything on this subject linked by Drudge, whose followers pretty unanimously think things like we should simply commit genocide against black people. And half of them will say it out loud.

    But you morons are still pretty fucking sad responding to this utterly noncontroversial opinion by Chapman.

    White supremacists are sad little dickless inbred fucktards. They started this. They’re the ones whining about park design. And the president is defending them. And all you guys can talk about are the fucking proggies like obsessive compulsive little brainwashed morons.

    1. “”obsessive compulsive little brainwashed morons.””

      As much as I can’t stand Trump. This is a great description of the Trump haters.

      Brainwashed to think Hillary can do no wrong no matter how much wrong she does. Can’t admit that making your own Email server (it’s about hardware, not emails) and grossly mishandling classified information should have to go to trial. Brainwashed to not consider that someone who will lie about something as simple as a friggin cough will lie to you about everything else. Brainwashed enough to not thing she’s a racist when she calls a former member of the KKK a mentor.

      1. Not to mention that failing to recognize how crappy Clinton was as a person and candidate is what brought you President Trump.

        If you want to see collusion in the election process, take a look at the DNC and the primary. But of course, Hillary fans don’t want to go there.

      2. Oh my God you said “But what about the emails!” and you weren’t making a joke. Like, you said it in seriousness.

        Dude it’s not that Hillary can’t do any wrong, it’s that she might as well be Jesus plus Gandhi compared to the Nazi-defending grapefruit who actually occupies the Oval Office.

        You’re still talking about Hillary Clinton when nobody brought her up, as if she’s relevant to anything going on right now, and I’m the brainwashed one. Uh huh. The thing is I watch FOX News so I know what your stupid little deflections and talking points are going to be as soon as you do.

        1. “”Oh my God you said “But what about the emails!” and you weren’t making a joke””

          Damn dude you are so stupid you can’t acknowledge I said it wasn’t about emails. But about hardware.

          And thanks for making my point about partisan politics. Some how it’s wrong to bring up Hillary when talking about racism.

          1. Anyone bringing up Hillary at all is not only defending Trump by default but behaving like him as well.

            1. “”Anyone bringing up Hillary at all is not only defending Trump by default but behaving like him as well.””

              Congrats on winning the stupid statement of the year award.

              Maybe one of these days you will learn the world in not binary.

              1. Oh, I’m sorry. Do I need to define the word binary to you?

              2. Oh, I’m sorry. Do I need to define the word binary to you?

        2. The only person who has defended Nazis is you. You defend violence to suppress speech. Trump never has. You are the fascist. You are the Nazi.

    2. I hate that my house is not designed in a way as to also encompass my neighbor’s house.

    3. Anyone supporting violence to suppress speech is a FASCIST. Period.

      You have earned that title yourself. WEAR IT!

    4. I support the right of the leftists to say whatever nonsense they like as well. But there appears to be no concerted effort to silence them. I would prefer that they not burn cars and dumpsters and assault people, but they can say whatever they like as far as I am concerned.

  28. So now condemning white nationalists and Nazis is defined as ‘pandering’ to them. No wonder Libertarians only get 5% of the vote– you don’t even defend the liberty of those you disagree with.

    1. Chapman isn’t a libertarian by any definition of the word. He is a fucking pinko leftard.

  29. Off the grid for a week and this is the big news….some looney fringe groups killing each other? I’m going back to the mtns if that is the case. Let me know when they have removed themselves the gene pool.

    1. Only the Nazis killed anyone. Naturally the people here must take time out of their day to make sure we know that the Nazis aren’t in fact the bad guys.

      1. Did someone here say the Nazi’s aren’t the bad guys?

        1. But… the leftists!

          1. But… the non sequiturs!

      2. Tony Logic:

        Trump thinks Nazis are evil.

        Trump thinks Antifa are evil.

        Ergo, Trump doesn’t think Nazis are evil.

        1. Do you seriously think equating the two sides is the correct position?

          1. They are each horrible in their own way, and often in the same way.
            I’m not sure they are equal. Similar, maybe?

          2. Are you saying they’re not both evil?

            Cuz that’s my position, and the position of the overwhelmingly vast majority of conservatives.

          3. In addition, I would say Antifa and BLM are a FAR greater threat to free speech and Democracy than the KKK.

            White supremacists are a footnote. They’re so tinyva fraction of the population, it’s almost not even worth mentioning. NO SERIOUS PERSON subscribes to their viewpoint.

            The same cannot be said of Antifa.

            1. I never even heard of Antifa until the Ann Coulter thing or whatever. Nazis, I’ve heard of those. They killed 10 million people and started the bloodiest war in world history.

              1. Don’t be obtuse.

                Antifa is just the same militant arm of progressivism that has existed for decades.

                I never heard of the “alt-right” either until a few months ago.

                Do you honestly think Naziism is a political threat?


              2. Antifa is a radical communist group. You remember communists, right, faggot? They killed 100 million people in the largest mass genocide in human history.

          4. Considering they are both socialist that want to control every minute detail of your life, yes they are fucking equal.

          5. They are both across the moral line marked ‘Evil.’ Having crossed that Rubicon no further comparisons are necessary.

            Because they are fucking evil.

          6. Do you seriously think equating the two sides is the correct position?

            No, not at all. One side has dozens of murders under its belt. The other side has one. We should obviously give stronger condemnation to the side with the higher body count.

          7. They are not equal, at all.
            One side was there to exercise their Constitutional right to petition the government for a redress of
            their grievance.
            The other side was there to prevent them from exercising their Constitutional right.
            Which side was in the right, from the point of view of a Constitutional republic?
            If the First Amendment doesn’t protect abhorrent/hateful speech, why have it?

      3. Only the Nazis killed anyone.

        On that particular day in Charlottesville. BLM and Antifa have killed dozens of people. It would take every white supremacist at that rally going on a killing spree to even up the score. You’re the fascist little faggot with that delicious, slippery blood on your hands.

  30. If this had been a confrontation between Crips and Bloods, and Trump afterwards said he condemned the violence on both sides, I’m sure the left would be telling America that only a Crip would suggest that there was violence on both sides.


    1. Nobody is endorsing violence. People are saying that FUCKING NAZIS are worse than people protesting against them. Also the Nazis are the ones who killed someone.

      1. You’ve said that about 8 times.

        Actually, A Nazi killed someone.

        If Antifa is systematically (nationwide) suppressing free speech of anyone THEY determine is HATEFFUL, and they are doing it through riots, violent attacks against persons and property, and if they are attacking and undermining the fundamental basis of Liberty, then yes, they ARE WORSE than these pathetic morons and miscreants who call themselves Nazis and claim some kind of superiority.

        Well, they are not superior. They are inept. They could take a lesson or three from Antifa.

        1. If you’re bitching about Antifa but not the Nazis, you are by definition a Nazi sympathizer.

          And I don’t want to ever be called a commie or whatever the fuck again.

          1. No. Saying “The Nazis aren’t so bad.” is being a sympathizer.

            Saying, both of these groups are fucking evil and deserve to be thrown in the ashbin of history is NOT sympathizing. I’m sure your tiny little brain won’t comprehend this though and just call me a Nazi.

            As a side note, only one side had been actively going after innocent people (both physically and through doxxing). I eagerly await you denouncing these fucksticks for trying to destroy that college professors or the guy that is in Hawaii’s life.

          2. Why should anyone waste his time obsessing about American neo-Nazis? They’re pimples on the ass of American society. They’re nothing, pathetic nobodies who exert no influence on anyone but themselves. Why do they loom so large in your philosophy?

          3. If you’re bitching about one white supremacist and ignoring the dozens of murders committed by antifa and BLM over the last year, you are by definition a fascist. Own it, faggot. Wear that fascism as proud as a rainbow flag.

      2. And I would say that if the people protesting the Nazis are using violence and/or the imminent threat of it, then they don’t get to be held up as heroes no matter how loudly they scream “BUT THOSE OTHER GUYS ARE WORSE!”

        1. The very presence of a Nazi march is a threat of violence (genocide actually), even though we generously give it constitutional protection.

          Stop sympathizing with Nazis. It’s making me feel like I’m on some other planet.

          1. “The very presence of a Nazi march is a threat of violence (genocide actually)”

            Lol, shut up, you asshole

          2. The very presence of a Nazi march is a threat of violence (genocide actually)

            Really? They marched the night before the violent confrontations with antifa. How many jews did they kill? None. Okay, how many black people did the white supremacists lynch? Also none. How many people were assaulted? None. Some threat.

            It was just a couple hundred idiots being idiots and the media recording them being idiots, and the vast majority of humanity reaffirming that they idiots were, in fact, idiots.

            THAT’S how you defeat these idiots, but calling them idiots and moving on with your life. If the antifa idiots had instead had their counter-protest in the parks at which they were permitted to demonstrate. the Unite the Right idiots would have just spent another day chanting moronic shit until they got bored and/or tired and went home.

          3. What happened when the Nazis finally got to march in Skokie? Nothing, that’s what. They marched in mostly empty streets and were summarily ignored by the good people of that largely Jewish community. We might consider taking a leaf from their book.

            1. But where’s the Unearned Moral Superiority (TM) in that?

              1. True.

  31. Stating that both groups are violent abysmal human debris is not “pandering”. Stop that shit, Mr. Chapman.

  32. He’s not pandering to White Nationalists, you ignorant ahole, he’s against using violence to suppress speech that you hate. You know, what FASCISTS do!

    ” I don’t agree with what you say but I will fight to the death to defend your right to say it”
    Said NO Lefty in the past 30 years.

  33. I think this is the first time I have read an article on Reason Magazine and got the impression that “This is complete garbage and an utter waste of my time”. The author tries to wax poetic about Jefferson not being so bad but how Trump is. Question, who was a slave owner, who is it believed raped women claiming them do be his property?

    The title reads Trump “pandered” to white supremacist. If you are going to make an assertion IN THE TITLE at least provide support for the assertion in the body of the article because rhythmic words are not going to suffice.

    Trump is doing stupid things all his own. Stop making false narrative so when he does something stupid you can call him out for it and not have your integrity questioned.

    1. ” who is it believed raped women”

      We know Jefferson bore a child with at least one of his slaves. We also know those slaves had no choice in such matters. So, by current standards (and it appears we are attempting to hold all of history to current standards) he did rape at least one of his slaves. Any ‘permission’ of hers not withstanding.

    2. Let’s see: Jefferson wanted there to be a law passed, that freed the slaves. It didn’t pass.
      Did he show his virtue by freeing his? Oh, no.
      But he is to be celebrated for trying get everyone to do something that he wouldn’t do voluntarily, himself?
      Doesn’t this sound like the rich people, who say they want taxes raised, but won’t voluntarily send more money, to the government, than they are required to? Some of them being in big-time arrears on what they do owe?

  34. I don’t know what drugs this idiot is taking but he really needs to switch his meds. The Civil War wasn’t fought to free slaves. In fact, thousands of blacks fought freely for the south. Removing statues to rewrite history is worth protesting – it has nothing to do with white privilege or racism. Everyone should be protesting the rewriting of history. Spreading stupid should never be encouraged let alone tolerated. Trump’s supporters aren’t all white so I have no idea why this idiot is trying to claim that either. I guess when you’re a moron and you’re too stupid to succeed in life – have other morons create a delusion you can live with.

  35. Please define “nationalist,” Mr. Chapman. Does the word take on a different connotation when the adjective “white” is applied? I’m white. I subscribe to the idea of national sovereignty, that nations are entitled to self-determination without outside interference. I support defined borders and policies that govern immigration. I believe there is an American culture largely influenced by western civilization and Christian-Judeo tenets. What do you believe this reveals about me? That I in all likelihood opposed integration of the military, swimming pools, restaurants, schools, and marriage? That I should take my place among the supremacists, neo-Nazis and the Klan?

  36. Vanessa Williamson goes nuts in Fortune:

    As of this writing, only 15 of 292 Republicans in Congress have called out the president by name for his explicit defense of white supremacists.

    Lady, you either need to learn the meaning of the word “explicit”, or produce a damn tape, because you are full of shit. And once a-fucking-gain, condemning all the human debris committing violence is not “equivocation” (which is itself the opposite of “explicit”, make up your alleged mind), but a reasonable response.

  37. Why Was This ‘Crowd Hire’ Company Recruiting $25 An Hour ‘Political Activists’ In Charlotte Last Week?
    Now, the discovery of a craigslist ad posted last Monday, almost a full week before the Charlottesville protests, is raising new questions over whether paid protesters were sourced by a Los Angeles based “public relations firm specializing in innovative events” to serve as agitators in counterprotests.
    The ad was posted by a company called “Crowds on Demand” and offered $25 per hour to “actors and photographers” to participate in events in the “Charlotte, NC area.” While the ad didn’t explicitly define a role to be filled by its crowd of “actors and photographers” it did ask applicants to comment on whether they were “ok with participating in peaceful protests.” Here is the text from the ad:

      1. Charlotte, NC and Charlottesville, VA are almost 300 miles apart.

        Sure, it’s possible they also hired buses to transport people but I kinda doubt it. Logistics alone says there are larger and/or closer metro areas to recruit from. Richmond and the tidewater area having far more left leaning residents than Charlotte.

  38. Video – Leftist violence goes mainstream in America,,
    WASHINGTON ? Leftists claim they are fighting hate and violence, and they cite the deadly protest in Charlottesville, Virginia, as a prime example.
    But the evidence indicates the left is actually spreading hate and violence.
    Those are the conclusions of writers for two prominent left-leaning news outlets, the BBC and the Atlantic.
    Their articles describe in detail how the taste for violence is seeping from the fringe left into its mainstream.…..n-america/

  39. Tucker Carlson Questions Why Slave Owner Statues Are Being Destroyed

  40. White Nationalist term is a media created term bringing up thoughts of the KKK..
    White Nationalist: the term itself, as in anything with the word White before it is a racist term bringing up thoughts of the KKK. how about his, American nationalist? the media would also call this a cover name for the KKK… and the thought process, if you are white, voted for Trump, support a Constitutional Rep then you are by that alone a KKK supporter, racist, and of course privileged,
    I checked out the White Nationalist site. They are not White Supremacy or the KKK. Unfortunately, they allowed the KKK and Neo-Nazi’s to their rally. Huge mistake on their part.

  41. Premise One: “It’s OK to assault and silence racists”
    Premise Two: “All non-progressives are racists”

    What is the obvious conclusion?

    1. Louis Farrakan is in grave danger?

  42. The president’s remarks are not pandering to white nationalists. If you had bothered to listen to police reports, you would know that when the two sides intersected, violence occurred from both sides. Both came spoiling for a fight.
    Here is a police interview:

  43. Is the ACLU also guilty of incitement? Sure, their condemnation of the neo nazis was unambiguous, but they helped them reacquire a permit that was previously revoked, and Trumps fans and haters alike retweeted the heck out of their report that police stood down during the violence.

    Once upon a time, Reason laughed at the notion that video games can turn people violent. Chapman is entitled to his opinion, but his argument strikes me as deeply unlibertarian. We can all agree that “hate speech is legal, assault isn’t”, and if Trump only made THAT remark, he would still be assailed for empowering white supremacists.

    It’s beyond any dispute that at least the fringe of the left (1) doesn’t believe hate speech is free speech (2) It’s ok to use violence against hate groups in the name of eliminating hate. This forms the basis of their outrage on Trump’s “many sides” comment. The notion that anarchists attacking hate groups have to held to the same standard or vilified as their target is galling to them. One side is unequivocally evil and an immediate threat to society, and to even suggest it’s wrong to violently oppose is to make excuses for them.

    Painting good and evil in absolute, moral terms is supposed to be a conservative thing. If it is, then I guess libs have learned some bad habits from their political foes.

  44. Doesn’t this writer think that Donald Trump knows he is taking a risk by not caving in to the media’s pressure and carrying their lies about the violence in Charlottesville?

    The violence was instigated by the leftist Antifa and BLM, who hit rally-goers with baseball bats. Antifa started nearly all of the fights by throwing feces and bricks.

    There was, apparently, some coordinating organization behind Antifa/BLM. Those leftist radicals didn’t do all of this on their own.

  45. He was NOT pandering, there were violent people on both sides. GEEZE!!!! Is this site now a subsidiary of the Huff Post?

  46. Depends on whether the white nationalists are just a particular clique out of a larger group of thugs, because the thugs are winning regardless of whether they wear white hoods, pink balaclavas, or nothing apart from ill-fitting pants.

  47. Remember the Tea Party? Wanted to cut government. We’re called racists and lunatics by the press and eGOP (McCain hated them). They got fed up with the BS and basically splintered.

    We then had the “alt-right”…a far less pleasant group. Same thing happened.

    What do you think comes next? People are expressing dissatisfaction and being ignored being reasonable.
    My recent post: SociOffer Review
    My recent post: Productivity Mastery Review

  48. Nazi’s are the strawman of choice for the left. They are a vanishingly small part of the American people.
    Enlighten me, how many police officers have been assassinated by the Alt Right?
    And how did Trump pander to them? I can’t seem to recall the denunciations of the left and BLM after five police were murdered during the last administration, where were the calls attacking Obama for his pandering to a terrorist group?

  49. Yes, Chapman, if Trump doesn’t not follow the MSM’s dictates, many media will try to destroy him. Chapman, this makes you look like just another cowerer in fear of the Brown Shirts.

  50. Nationalists are simply the opposite of globalists. Nationalists respect the Constitution, US sovereignty, and law, and Globalists respect decisions made by unelected international committees. Most of the people you know are nationalists. Reason and others are trying to paint everyone Nazi with a broad stroke. This will likely go down as well with the electorate as calling everyone deplorable.

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

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.