Hate crimes

I Testified Before Congress About Hate Crimes and the Alt-Right. Here's What Happened.

A hearing on white nationalism produced some agreement that the FBI's hate crime statistics don't reveal strong evidence of a surge.

|

On Wednesday, I testified at a Congressional hearing on the purported rise of hate crimes and white nationalism in recent years. I was formally invited by Rep. Jamie Raskin (D–MD), the chair of the House of Representatives' subcommittee on civil rights and civil liberties, at the request of the ranking Republican member, Rep. Chip Roy (R–TX).

I was joined by five other experts, including Susan Bro, president of the Heather Heyer Foundation. Bro is the mother of Heather Heyer, who was murdered by a white nationalist at the 2017 Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville. The setup of the hearing was such that Bro and the other panelists were expected to offer testimony that hate crimes were increasing, while I was there to caution against alarmism.

But our prepared remarks and answers to the questions posed by both Republican and Democratic subcommittee members—Reps. Rashida Tlaib (D–Mich.) and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D–NY) among them—quickly revealed areas of agreement between the other panelists and myself. Several of them essentially conceded that the FBI's hate crime statistics do not, in fact, provide reliable evidence of a significant spike in hate crimes. Bro—who was credible, well-informed, and extremely friendly—pushed back on one representative's suggestion that perhaps local municipalities should be compelled by the federal government to report hate crime data. In general, the panelists seemed to understand that not all white nationalist activity can be properly considered something for the authorities to handle, given First Amendment protections for hateful speech.

In my remarks, I tried to get across the point that the alt-right is a small fringe group, and that white nationalists are responsible for a relatively small number of murders relative to the overall violent crime rate.

Nevertheless, Andy Campbell, a writer for The Huffington Post contends that I was a "bad faith witness" who "derailed" the hearing by denying that "hate and white supremacy pose a threat at all." This is a profound misunderstanding of my own comments. I literally said that "it is an indisputable fact that white nationalism and white supremacy are pernicious ideologies with a long history of terrorizing communities of color."

You can judge for yourself. Here is a transcript of my opening remarks:

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Roy, and subcommittee members, for inviting me to speak, and thank you for convening a hearing on such an important subject. I am humbled by this opportunity, not just to testify, but to learn from my fellow panelists.

My name is Robby Soave. I am an editor at Reason magazine and a member of the DC Advisory Committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. I am also the author of a book titled "Panic Attack: Young Radicals in the Age of Trump," which is the culmination of years of research on the tactics and goals of the relatively new political activist groups that have emerged on the left and the right, and includes a chapter about the rise of the white nationalist fringe group known as the alt-right. As part of my research, I interviewed alt-right activists and thought leaders, including their nominal leader, Richard Spencer, as part of an attempt to better understand where these ideas come from, and how to combat them.

It is an indisputable fact that white nationalism and white supremacy are pernicious ideologies with a long history of terrorizing communities of color in the United States, and their current manifestation in the form of the alt-right should be confronted and condemned.

However, as we begin our discussion today, I would urge us not to over-estimate the current threat posed by white nationalism. It is all-too easy to give them more attention than they deserve, because the sentiments they express are so abhorrent. But these violent extremists constitute a fringe group. While they are loud online, they are not numerous. Their events are sparsely attended, and when they do organize, they are often vastly outnumbered by counter protesters. Their visibility has decreased since the events in Charlottesville. Indeed, when I interviewed Richard Spencer for my book, he admitted that he didn't think anything like the Unite the Right Rally would happen again in the foreseeable future.

While it's important to be aware that there is still hate and violence in this country, some policy makers and media figures have seized on the idea that hate crimes are actually rising. The FBI reported 7,175 crimes in 2017 vs. 6,121 crimes in 2016, which represents a 17 percent increase. But it's important to note that nearly a thousand additional municipalities submitted data to the federal government in 2017. This means the perceived increase in hate could partly be explained by the fact that we simply have more data. As the agencies involved in submitting data become more concerned with hate crimes, and more responsible about tallying them, the numbers will appear to be going up.

Bear in mind that the total number of hate crimes tallied by the FBI in 1996 was 8,759, from 11,000 agencies. In 2017, with 16,000 agencies reporting, the total was actually lower by 1,600. The overwhelming majority of municipalities reported zero hate crimes. Most incidents were classified as anti-black or anti-Jewish. Anti-Semitism is a foundational belief of white nationalists and the alt-right, and a recent uptick in anti-Jewish hate would not be surprising. But even here, the numbers do not necessarily support the idea of a full-blown crisis; a survey by the Anti-Defamation League, for instance, noted a 57 percent spike into anti-Semitic incidents in 2017, but this was partly due to a series of bomb threats made against Jewish institutions by a single troubled teenager who lived in Israel. Anti-Semitic violence had in fact declined by 47 percent. And while the following year included truly despicable acts of anti-Semitic violence—specifically the horrifying Tree of Life shooting, in which a white nationalist murdered 11 Jewish worshippers—the total number of anti-Semitic incidents in 2018 was 5 percent lower than 2017, according to the ADL.

Although violent acts disproportionately draw our attention, in reality the alt-right's most prevalent and widespread form of abuse is online harassment, primarily on social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter. Hateful speech, disturbing thought it may be, is in most circumstances protected by the First Amendment, and thus it is not the government's role to police this behavior, but rather a decision that rests with the social media companies themselves. Law enforcement can and should take action against threats of violence, and of course, violent acts such as those we witnessed at the alt-right gathering in Charlottesville on August 12, 2017.

My goal in bringing a degree of nuance to these facts and figures is not to minimize the real harm extremists have caused, but to discourage the kind of alarmism that can prompt overreaction on the part of authorities. Law enforcement should receive the resources they need to combat violence, threats, and property defacement, whether or not these crimes are motivated by hate, or impugn a specific group.

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.

Please to post comments

237 responses to “I Testified Before Congress About Hate Crimes and the Alt-Right. Here's What Happened.

  1. Get to the important part, Robby – did AOC hate you because your hair is nicer than hers?

    1. Dang it, of course the first post was about this. Snooze you lose, I guess.

    2. The secret to Robby’s luxurious coif is an elaborate nightly licking ritual from his two Yorkies, Milton and Friedrich.

    3. Did you ask her out?

      1. Accidental flag. Sorry.

        1. Bestiality should always be flagged.

    4. Well done, Mr Soave. Please keep up such good work.
      Lloyd Clucas

  2. Nevertheless, Andy Campbell, a writer for The Huffington Post contends that I was a “bad faith witness” who “derailed” the hearing by denying that “hate and white supremacy pose a threat at all.”

    Sounds like you got Fake News’d.

    1. Those dirty, dirty smear merchants.

      Also, nice job Robby.

      1. +1

    2. Fuck you Andy Cambell. Nobody smears Rico but us.

    3. Soave dared to question the premise with a dispassionate recitation of facts, did he not know that the results were supposed to be a foregone conclusion?

      1. Spoiled the narrative, and got dished by the HuffPo for it.

        I suppose that should be a badge of honor.

        1. Law enforcement should receive the resources they need to combat violence, threats, and property defacement, whether or not these crimes are motivated by hate, or impugn a specific group.

          This is probably the line that set Campbell off. The little twat’s actually gaslighting Soave as a “hate crime denier.”

          Remind me again why we should accept leftists as human beings?

    4. That’s what the PuffHo does.

    5. Anytime a writer from Huff and puff Po disses you it is a good day. My concern was the focus on the Alt Right and White Supremacists. I realize the Reason’s editor wrote a book on it and this was the focus of the hearing but in all fairness ANTIFA is far more prolific and dangerous than the small number of nitwits out there advocating hate crimes in the ALT-right community (which BTW is hardly well defined) There is no doubt that the left needs to exaggerate hate crimes against Blacks, Muslims, Gays in order to continue the charade that helps divide this Country. Anti-Semantic (anti-Jewish) hate crimes offers a conundrum for most progressives 1. Because of Israel’s so-called occupation of Palestine. 2. Most of the hate and violence directed at Jews is perpetrated by Muslims which are a protected class in this country. Again it comes down to what defines a hate crime and how it is misused by the left. Reporting a hate crime does not make it a hate crime. Big difference in a reported hate crime and one where a conviction was obtained as a hate crime. This is the inherent problem with this whole legislation. I do appreciate that fact that Reason stood up to the over exaggeration of the White Supremacist threat. I believe that there should always be a balance however. We cannot succeed as a Republic if we deny the truth. Muslims have committed far more hate crimes in this country in the last 20 years than White Supremacists or the ALT right. Evidenced by the fact the left keeps bringing up the Church Shooting, the woman run over and the Synagogue murders.

    6. But are Andy’s claims credible?

      1. Andy’s claims have no credibility that I can see. He is basically whining that the Progressive propaganda keeps being derailed by basic facts in Congressional hearings.

    7. I’d wager the biggest concern in that chamber was how many votes anti-Dem hate can swing, compared to anti-GOP hate. Both of those parties worship the initiation of force, so I’d watch for a bipartison effort to declare all disparagement or criticism of the initiation of force a “hate crime.” Any campaigning reminding folks of the Buffalo party and the LP planks of 1972 would likely qualify as “Haight crimes” or “pandering to the hippie vote.”

  3. Nevertheless, Andy Campbell, a writer for The Huffington Post contends that I was a “bad faith witness” who “derailed” the hearing by denying that “hate and white supremacy pose a threat at all.”

    Bad faith is to Huffington Post as…

    1. This is a profound misunderstanding of my own comments.

      I’m not familiar with the guy, but from his article it seems profound and deliberate.

    2. A HuffPo writer lying about what someone said who’s not a neo-Bolshevik? Well, I never.

  4. Good job Robby!

    1. Nope. Shitty job Robby.

      1. Nah, Robby did fine, and provided a nice counterpoint to AOC and Tlaib’s exceptionalism.

  5. Anti-Semitism is a foundational belief of white nationalists and the alt-right, and a recent uptick in anti-Jewish hate would not be surprising.

    Congresswoman Tlaib was relieved to hear this was an alt-right problem.

    1. “Anti-Semitism is a foundational belief of white nationalists, *cough* Muslims *cough*, and the alt-right,

      1. Is the upsurge of attacks on Hasidic Jews in Crown heights an indication that White Nationalists have instituted an affirmative action policy?

    2. Israel has hypnotized the world, except for those tricksy White Nationalists. I guess the wildly rich and influential international Jewish cabal is no match for a handful of racist rural crackers

    3. It’s a foundational belief on the left, too, which makes the politics of secular Jews particularly ironic.

      All totalitarianisms converge and look the same in the end, and antisemitism is one of the things they converge on.

      1. Ironically, this is one instance where Soave will not go “both sides are equal”.

        1. Duly noted, “to be sure…”

        2. Good people on both sides.

      2. It may be a common thing on the left, but hardly a foundational belief. Collectivist economics works just as well (or badly) with or without Jews. Ethnic or racial nationalism on the other hand is based on bias for or against certain ethnic and racial groups.

    4. Why is this uptick centered in blue areas such as NYC?

  6. “…Andy Campbell, a writer for The Huffington Post contends that I was a “bad faith witness” who “derailed” the hearing…”

    And that about sums up the results of trying to conciliate the progs.

    They’re just not that into you.

    Come to the dark side, rico. They have cocktails. Well, maybe not the religious right, but I bet they have a nice glass of orange juice for you.

    1. Bourbon.
      Time for Robby to man up

      1. Knob Creek I believe or is that just a Matt Welch thing?

        1. Knob Creek sounds like a clandestine meeting place for teh gays.

          1. Perhaps you mean Knob Butte.

    1. Hate crimes include saying Nirvana was wildly overrated.

      1. have seen a head explode at mere suggestion.

        1. A bunch muppets in flannel who ripped off The Pixies.

      2. ’90s survivors: who’s the most over-rated band, Nirvana or REM?

        1. REM. Hands down.

          1. Agreed. Nirvana, IMHO, is simply uninteresting, and let’s face it – they really only had the one album.

            Anytime I hear REM from later than about 1985 I want to drive nails into my eardrums.

            1. Nirvana was a one-trick pony. I am willing to admit that they influenced music at a level they couldn’t have reached personally. REM didn’t have the same influence.

              1. I am willing to admit that they influenced music at a level they couldn’t have reached personally.

                I suppose in the sense that they mainstreamed a sound that had already been around a while. Sort of the way the Bee Gees were really influential in the late ’70s.

                But yeah, I can’t really think of anyone about whom I would say “they clearly were super into REM.” Other than 10,000 Maniacs, of course, who sucked even worse than REM.

                1. In My Tribe was great. After that, you’re right.

                  1. And I’ve heard that Natalie Merchant is an insufferable bitch.

                    1. I’ve heard that Natalie Merchant is an insufferable bitch.

                      She conveys that in her singing pretty well.

                    2. Female version of Don McLean.

                    3. I heard that too!

        2. REM got superlame but Green and Document were good. Exhuming McCarthy.

          1. And their first 5 albums and first LP are all stone cold classics.

            1. their first 5 4 albums

              ^ this is the correct opinion. Once Stipe stopped mumbling, it was all downhill, steep and fast.

            2. indeed.

          2. Green was good. I still listen to Orange Crush now and then.

            However, Shiny Happy People negates their entire catalog.

            1. >>>Shiny Happy People negates their entire catalog.

              it almost does. i have a really nice 1989 show i listen to maybe once a year to remind me of the time before

              1. Everyone around, love them, love them
                Put it in your hands, take it, take it
                There’s no time to cry, happy, happy
                Put it in your heart where tomorrow shines
                Gold and silver shine
                Shiny happy people holding hands
                Shiny happy people holding hands
                Shiny happy people laughing

                1. I think it’s a hate crime for you to get that song stuck in my head. Add that to the current statistics.

                  1. At least I didn’t say

                    We’re no strangers to love
                    You know the rules and so do I

          3. I don’t begrudge people their taste, but for me Document was when they started going downhill. There’s good stuff on that album, but that’s about when Stipe starts getting unbearably pretentious and preachy.

            I like some stuff on Green, too, in the sense that their attempts to be satirically “poppy” (i.e. “Pop Song 89” and “Stand”) are two of their best post-Life’s Rich Pageant songs.

            But even though I like some of their early stuff, I agree with UB that Out of Time completely negated any good things any of them may have done previously in their lives, musical or not.

            1. Radio Free Europe sucked and Chronic Town was no better. Murmur was worse and it was all downhill from there.

              Some of the Buck and Berry side projects over the years were at least interesting and listenable

          1. Pearl Jam

            Fair enough. I can at least remember a few songs by both Nirvana and REM. I can’t seem to call anything by Pearl Jam to mind, despite what a Big Deal they supposedly were.

          2. literally the hitler of seattle music

          3. Pearl Jam is definitely the most boring of big 90s bands.

            1. Pearl Jam. Is that the one with the ground-breaking “lockjaw singing” style? Coz that was unforgivable.

        3. REM easily. At least Nirvana songs didn’t sound like ground up dog shit being squeezed through teeth.

          1. I’ll grant that with Nirvana you get more consistency. If you like that sort of thing, you’re probably pretty much going to like all of it. If your “meh” towards it, same. I’ve never heard anything by Nirvana I like as much as some REM, but I’ve never heard anything by Nirvana I hate as much as some REM.

            1. Nirvana, whatever one thinks of them, indisputably killed hair metal. Quickly, completely, and with nary a whiff of a Warrant reunion tour (until they got old and fat.)

              If nothing else, this make Kurt Cobain one of the most important people in the history of the world.

              1. Nirvana, whatever one thinks of them, indisputably killed hair metal.

                That’s an interesting take I hadn’t considered. I might even be persuaded to support a Cobain memorial on the corner of Hollywood & Vine.

                I think you have definitively answered the initial query.

                *gives JonBlack small prize*

              2. I’d credit Nirvana with killing Rock and Roll in the same way Miles Davis killed jazz. Both released great records that marked (likely spawned) a rapid,precipitous decline in their respective genres.

              3. @JonBlack Nope, Nirvana sucked, hair metal rules. Here is the thing, these bands that were dismissed by the suck face, hipster, leftist critics are having band reunions, shows, and movies made about them not to mention there is still 1980’s metal festivals all over, haven’t heard that about boring, sad sack grunge. People can only be depressed for so long, I know and remember it, I listened to grunge and got burned out on it very quick, went back to my Judas Priest, Iron Maiden, Motley Crue and Twisted Sister albums really fast. Don’t get me wrong grunge bands like Mudhoney, Green River, Tad, Alice in Chains and Soundgarden killed it.

          2. This guy gets it. Nirvana had good, and even great, songs from at least Negative Creep to the MTV acoustic recordings.

          3. I saw them at Central Tavern and thought they sucked. Kinda like the Dead when they started. That Golden Gate Park Concert comes to mind.

        4. Just about every band from the early-mid-90s grunge era was overrated. They only got the attention they did, Nirvana in particular, because they were the Brand New Thing For The Sensitive 90s that put the final stake in hair metal’s heart.

          1. Alice in Chains is the winner.

        5. ’90s survivors: who’s the most over-rated band, Nirvana or REM?

          The correct answer is Hansen. After that, they all win equally terrible awards and that none of it matters:

          Nirvana – Most culturally relevant band in a culture almost-wholly defined by flannel, tattered jeans, and long hair
          REM – They sang some songs
          Perl Jam – Most likely to have been sent back from an SJW-controlled future

          Peace.

    2. An interesting article that unintentionally pokes a lot holes in the entire “hate crimes” mythology. The most remarkable line was “Most crimes involve encounters between strangers, so a victim may not be able to identify or locate the offender. Further, victims of hate crimes may be reluctant to participate in investigation and prosecution efforts because of the trauma they experienced from the incident.” It sounds amazingly like the story of a now unemployed actor walking home from a subway shop on a particularly frigid night in Chicago.

      1. to paraphrase “If an individual is a victim of a hate crime but can’t produce evidence, identify or locate the perp did it happen?” I think Berkeley’s response would be no.

    3. Comrades, we are hearing lies, damned lies, and hate crime statistics based on shifting interpretations of glossolalia. (Pounds shoe on table)

    4. Quoth the article: “A rise in reported hate crimes does not necessarily mean there are more of these crimes occurring,” the study says.

      Changes since 2012 in definition of “Hate Crime”, willingness to report incidents as hate crimes, incentives to report incidents as hate crimes, etc. could make those statistics worthless as data.

  7. I am also the author of a book titled “Panic Attack: Young Radicals in the Age of Trump…”

    Mr. Soave has convinced me of his rightness based solely on his use of titled instead of entitled.

    1. He doesn’t have to say “entitled”. Being a millennial, it’s a given.

  8. white. nationalists.

    >>>white nationalism and white supremacy are pernicious ideologies with a long history of terrorizing communities of color

    ideologies terrorize?

    1. ideologies terrorize?

      By their very existence.

      1. Ideologies make me feel unsafe.

    2. Ideologies don’t terrorize, anacoluthon terrorizes!

      1. Or possibly metonymy.

      2. while laughing, coffee spilled

    3. Yes there is a real problem with little Robby’s ideology about pernicious ideologies

      1. yes. terrifying.

  9. A left wing outlet not engaging in a fair summary and reasoned analysis?

    Knock me over with wet noodles, or a feather, or whatever the saying is.

  10. When politicians in the Democrat controlled House hold a public hearing on white nationalism, it isn’t because they’re looking for the truth, and when progressive journalists at The Huffington Post cover such hearings, it isn’t because they want to convey the truth to their readers either.

    The truth is that white nationalism is serious and rising threat to civil society, especially in the age of Trump. And who are you to let facts and logic get in the way of the truth?

    1. always a doubletake when you do OBL

    2. thank you

  11. Robby was far kinder than this knucklehead deserved:

    “Congrats to the Oversight Committee for ruining yet another congressional hearing on white supremacy by inviting a lying dingus — in this case Robby Soave — to argue that hate crime isn’t a problem.”

    1. He’s getting Jordan Peterson’d. It means he’s truly arrived.

      1. “So what you’re saying is, the Holocaust was a hoax pulled off by the Rothschilds.”

  12. Nevertheless, Andy Campbell, a writer for The Huffington Post contends that I was a “bad faith witness” who “derailed” the hearing by denying that “hate and white supremacy pose a threat at all.” This is a profound misunderstanding of my own comments.

    Welcome to the mosh pit. You’re now in good company with a lot of conservative snowflakes.

    1. This,

      Or, as Pleather Jacket would frame it, some journalist was mean to Robby on the internet.

  13. Andy Campbell, a writer for The Huffington Post contends that I was a “bad faith witness” who “derailed” the hearing by denying that “hate and white supremacy pose a threat at all.”

    It is an indisputable fact that white nationalism and white supremacy are pernicious ideologies with a long history of terrorizing communities of color in the United States, and their current manifestation in the form of the alt-right should be confronted and condemned.

    “See, both sides!” – Andy ‘Moves Like Stalin’ Campbell

  14. I was joined by five other experts, including Susan Bro

    Democratic subcommittee members—Reps. Rashida Tlaib (D–Mich.) and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D–NY) among them

    Just another case of Bro before Ho’s.

    1. You officially win today’s Internet.

    2. My God. The perfect comment.

  15. I literally said that…
    If I could snap the Infinity Gauntlet, I’d erase that fucking word from all of existence.

    1. Are you just saying that, or would you literally erase it?

      1. I have a feeling he wouldn’t figuratively erase it.

        1. Can you literally erase a figure of speech?

          Seems more like a figurative erasure, even if he does mean it literally.

    2. Don’t worry you’ll be dead soon enough like the rest of us.

  16. I don’t think it’s fair to compare murders committed by white nationalists to the everyday variety of murder. You should compare the murders motivated by white nationalism with murder motivated by left wing ideology and when you do you find that the right wing is disproportionately more violent and dangerous. Alot of the violence committed by rightwing is done under the color of law as well. For instance the Nixon drug war was a rightwing terror project.

    1. “Harlem’s Drug Warriors

      “Was the drug war imposed on black America, or did black America demand it?”

      https://reason.com/2015/12/20/harlems-drug-warriors/

      1. There’s is a strong vein of violence and authoritarianism tied to religion in black culture that probably has something to do with the way their ancestors were brutalized and brainwashed during slavery. There were laws that required a master to beat his slaves and a slave could be confiscated if the master was too friendly. There is no doubt this culture of violence seeped into these families and reverberates to this day. It’s not just blacks though it’s a human thing. If a dad is violent there’s a good chance the behavior will be ingrained in the children and so on. And politics is psychology as much as anything else. Do you have empathy? Does violent come easy? Is the impulse to punish strong? Depending on how you answer these questions generally determines your politics. It’s not a perfect match and there are exceptions.

        1. You didn’t miss a beat…however, you seem to forget that the proposition you were originally defending was

          “…the Nixon drug war was a rightwing terror project.”

          1. I laughed at that, pretty good Eddy.

        2. Do you have empathy?

          Absolutely. When we did something wrong Dad used to make us choose our own switch out of an apple tree. Now that I have sons of my own, I find myself empathizing with him more and more every day. When I tell my kids that they can correct their behavior themselves or that I can correct if for them and they turn from unruly or defiant to afraid or apologetic, I can empathize with that.

        3. I can find no reference to any law requiring the beating of slaves. I did find some laws that allowed for it, but even then, there were also laws in many states that forbid or severely curtailed it as early as 1740 in South Carolina.
          Can you provide a citation for this rather extraordinary claim? It would seem that if it were common or even existed that it would be easy for me to find.

    2. You should compare the murders motivated by white nationalism with murder motivated by left wing ideology and when you do you find that the right wing is disproportionately more violent and dangerous.

      Holy crap, you really said that??? 100,000,000 dead left-wing victims and the millions still in camps in Cuba, North Korea, China and Venezuela would like a word with you.

      1. Stalin was conservative…it’s Science!

        “The researchers conceded cases of left-wing ideologues, such as Stalin, Khrushchev or Castro, who, once in power, steadfastly resisted change, allegedly in the name of egalitarianism.

        “Yet, they noted that some of these figures might be considered politically conservative in the context of the systems that they defended. The researchers noted that Stalin, for example, was concerned about defending and preserving the existing Soviet system.”

        https://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2003/07/22_politics.shtml

        1. It’s amazing how easy a post communist Russian society slipped into what we understand to be fascism, i.e. distrust of foreigners, intolerance of anything that goes against “traditional family values”, social conservatism, hero worship of strong men, chauvinism, bigotry towards gays.

          1. Stalin’s regime, in contrast, was defined by unhesitating trust of everyone, especially foreigners, plus letting different lifestyles flourish, and downplaying of hero-worship.

          2. As opposed to the communist Russian society, what with its distrust of foreigners, intolerance of anything that goes against communism, social conservatism, hero worship of strong men, and ethnic bigotry… Totes different.

          3. “what we understand to be fascism, i.e. distrust of foreigners, intolerance of anything that goes against “traditional family values”, social conservatism, hero worship of strong men, chauvinism, bigotry towards gays.”
            Nobody other than posturing idiots thinks those things are indicative of Fascism, because they apply to every single fucking society on the planet from the dawn of the Levantine Neolithic to the Post War West.

            But I wonder who actually does line up with Fascists:
            Nazis – Aktion T4 Ordinary Monster – Selective Abortion, Infanticide, Euthanasia
            Nazis – Corporatism Ordinary Monster – Keynesian economics
            Nazis – Sturmabteilung and Röhm Ordinary Monster – GLAAD, Bake the fucking cake
            Nazis – Kirchenkampf Ordinary Monster – Kirchenkampf

            Oh golly, is it you?

          4. @Ordinary Person Another leftard trying to disavow their politics from murderous thugs by trying to twist words and bend their meanings. No you fucking asshole, those people you listed don’t have one conservative bone in their bodies, they kept their industries nationalized, planned their countries from the top down, smashed individualism etc. Quit fucking lying and being dishonest, jerk off.

        2. In a way, that actually makes sense in context.

          As the late, unlamented Hihn was prone to pointing out between seizures, the left/right scale is nonsense. Left=right=authoritarian or something like that.

          1. You put a certain psychological profile in power and you will have violence.
            It can be violence to protect the environment, to protect the homeland whatever crazy idea. Everyone thinks they are the good guys and it’s that type of thinking tha leads to atrocity. I find myself slipping into the hate sometimes and at those times I realize just how much I resemble the thing I claim to despise. I try not to hold hard beliefs and try to keep my mind open and put myself into the shoes of others to understand them better. It’s why I come here to read to read the articles and comments.

            1. That sounds fair.

            2. “If you think you have unique access to the truth, why wouldn’t you be intolerant of those who reject that truth?”

              Keeping that caveat in mind helps avoid coming across as a provocative troll.

    3. For instance the Nixon drug war was a rightwing terror project.

      Nixon popularized the phrase “War on Drugs.” The movement itself was very much a bi-partisan affair, and had started in earnest under Johnson.

      1. But they all shared a common psychological profile, these people within whom the impulse to punish is strong.

        1. To punish what, exactly?

          To punish a generic “nonconformity”? Or “antisocial/bigoted behavior”?

          Or to punish things like murder, burglary, rape and armed robbery?

          Don’t these distinctions matter?

          1. You have to be on guard at all times against the impulse because the impulse doesn’t reserve itself for the special cases. When punishment comes easy to you as it does for things like murder and rape it will come easier in other cases. It’s more of a psychological condition. Something to guard against.

            1. I raise the question because of the idea that advocating lenient sentences for murder, rape, etc, is the sign of being a good and virtuous person, while advocating harsh sentences is the sign of being a Bad Person.

              But what about empathy for the victim of violent crime, and for future potential victims who might receive the criminal’s attentions if he’s let out too early?

        2. “But they all shared a common psychological profile, these people within whom the impulse to punish is strong.”

          Nixon certainly was a progressive

      2. Nixon popularized the phrase “War on Drugs.” The movement itself was very much a bi-partisan affair, and had started in earnest under Johnson.

        Wilson

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrison_Narcotics_Tax_Act#Effect

    4. The WoDs has always been a progressive project irrespective of the partisan pedigree of its perpetrators.

      1. That’s some damn fine alliteration!

        Also, correct.
        Well put

        1. +1 I always admire alliteration in any aspect.

    5. you find that the right wing is disproportionately more violent and dangerous.

      Do you? Doesn’t seem obvious.

    6. “You should compare the murders motivated by white nationalism with murder motivated by left wing ideology…”

      How about we just add them all to the list of murderous totalitarian ideology?

      IOW, go fuck yourself.

    7. Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot, Castro etc… Yes let’s compare dipshit.

    8. “You should compare the murders motivated by white nationalism with murder motivated by left wing ideology and when you do you find that the right wing is disproportionately more violent and dangerous.” OK asshat, fucktard I’ll play your game, I bet you won’t take into consideration the VIOLENCE your buddies in “anti fa” cause, all the property destruction and the people they put in the hospital, I bet you won’t take into consideration all the mass fucking murder the LEFTIST commie regimes perpetuated against their own people and others. I bet you’ll also ignore all the full on violence of left wing terrorist groups. Your just a stupid dumb fuck spouting a bunch of Alinsky talking points bull shit. Go fuck yourself asshole.

  17. Congress is a hate organization.

    1. Well I certainly hate them. That makes them a hate group, right?

      1. Well I certainly hate them. That makes them a hate group, right?

        That is my understanding of the rules, yes.

        1. OMG! Everyone is a hate group! They really are everywhere!

        2. Yes, those are the rules per Central Committee.

  18. “The lying dyngus ate my baby” Andy Campbell

    1. A dope like Andy Campbell would never get that.

  19. I gotta say, I am really impressed, Robby. You struck a good balance by not minimizing the individual instances of racism while also pointing out that, based on the hard data (science!), this is not a national crisis and this abhorrent behavior is probably less prevalent today then it was in the past. Good stuff, my opinion of you just improved.

  20. OT – Jill Filipovic totally OWNS the patriarchy:

    “Pregnancy and childbirth cause serious and permanent changes to many women’s bodies. Require that a quarter inch be cut off of a man’s penis for every pregnancy he creates and see how quick we are to force women to indelibly risk and chance their bodies.”

    https://twitter.com/JillFilipovic/status/1128887637559971841

    1. Did not stop John Bobbitt from doing porn after the knife.

    2. That sort of rational approach is exactly how you win arguments.

  21. Your speech was literally genocide. Seriously though, HuffPo? Who cares?

  22. Mr. Austin around 1:39:00 claims hate crimes are egregiously bad, but around 1:41:00 recommends (in his third out of eleven suggestions) to treat all crimes the same regardless of the perpetrator and victim. I’m not sure if he was saying “No extra punishment for hate crimes” or that we react less harshly to those committed by white supremacists. So confused.

  23. Congrats Robby on earning a Huffpo hit-piece. It means you’re telling the truth. They hate that over there.

    1. Agree: American Pravda

  24. May be the FBI should also require all police units to report all crimes by the following: 1) citizenship 2) national origin 3) religion 4) race 5) gender 6) sexual orientation Just to name a few. There are others statistic that also would be valuable in determining what group(s) committee the most crimes and the types of crimes.

    1. And basketball ability. In case of a heartwarming redemption story.

  25. Robby is not an expert in anything.

    Him testifying for Congress is proof psotitve of that. Congress does not sommun experts testify. They call partisan hacks to testify.

    1. Robby firmly believes that white supremacists are conservatives (alt-right) and not Socialists.

      White supremacists want to use government to own and control the means of production and use a racial standard for who is in control. Just like the fucking Nazis who were Socialists.

      1. And Robbie left out all the anti-semitism from openly left wingers, like Tlaib and Farrakhan.

      2. He used the terms that are generally used to refer to the groups he was talking about. What a monster.

        1. What a monster.

          Exactly. When you call on someone as an ‘expert’, they’re supposed to demonstrate their expertise–not prattle off comforting recitations of one’s personal biases in language that perpetuates prevailing incorrect ‘wisdom’.

  26. Did OBL get 86’d?

    1. Like Crusty he seems to vanish from time to time, before somehow being resurrected.

      I suppose they have lives outside of this blog….as hard to imagine as that might be.

  27. The 3+ hour video seems to start at the 47 minute, in case anyone tries watching it.
    Then the meeting has video monitor snafus typical of some middle management office powwow so skip to about the 50 minute mark — or skip watching it all together and watch Autumn Falls getting banged hard video instead.

  28. Rico doesn’t show up until 1:42 if you’re looking for him, loveconstitution1999. 😀

  29. Who the hell is that ‘Mrs. Miller’?? She talks like she’s teaching Sunday school: “Remember, when you point a finger at someone you have four fingers pointing back at you.”
    [goes back to watching Autumn Falls getting mouth fucked]

    1. In physics class I learned the right way to point at somebody, so that doesn’t happen. Right hand rule!

  30. Your Charlie Callas sound effect gag of getting struck by an arrow kind of weakened your overall sound testimony, Rico.

  31. Debbie Does Wasserman Schultz at 2 : 15. It’s a parade of big shots!
    She makes a good point on Sikhs getting hassled by rubes who mistake them for Muslims. Sikhs have knives — I wouldn’t mess with them…..

  32. 2:38 – 3:05 is recess.
    Good God – the Feds can’t come up some chump change to hire a video editor?
    I’m going to bed.
    Nice job, Rico.

  33. […] Reason post summarized the state of White Nationalism in America and Congress’s concern over the matter. It pointed out that First Amendment rights protect most of the activity of White Nationalists and […]

  34. Question – are white nationalist the only group that can commit a hate crime in the U.S.? For the discussion it certainly seems so.

    Though, I think “hate crime” is crap, we already have laws against the violence, we don’t need more.

    1. When people of color beat up a white man while screaming “cracker”, all good regressives will deny it was a hate crime.

      1. Saying a minority could commit a hate crime is itself a hate crime.

  35. “profound misunderstanding ”

    He didn’t misunderstand you Robbie, he just fucking lied. Leftards do that.

    -jcr

  36. Nice commenty, Robby. I appreciate your reasoned perspective adding balance to the nutjob Left wingers.

    I think it would have been appropriate as well to point out the far greater threat of black-on-black (black on anybody for that matter) violence which is an epidemic today. Just throw out the numbers. I think there were about 8000 such homicides in the most recent year while there were only one or two killed by white racists. That might give them some perspective. Maybe they might actually address the real problems in society today but I doubt it.

  37. […] published an article detailing his experience. “In my remarks,” he writes, “I tried to get across the […]

  38. ” But these violent extremists constitute a fringe group. While they are loud online, they are not numerous. Their events are sparsely attended, and when they do organize, they are often vastly outnumbered by counter protesters. Their visibility has decreased since the events in Charlottesville.”

    A decreased visibility among violent extremists is not necessarily something to celebrate. Having given up on mass rallies they may turn to more effective actions. Assassinating leaders of leftist movements has always been popular with violent extremists on the right,

    1. Archduke Franz Ferdinand in Sarajevo on 28th June 1914

      1. A victim of assassination.

    2. It has been 2 years in Charlottesville. Do you have any assassination attempts that you can report? I don’t recall any.

  39. Nice to see one of the good guys getting called, and being given a chance to make clear statement.

    Good job!

  40. This is a profound misunderstanding of my own comments.

    Oh, I doubt the problem was “misunderstanding.”

  41. “it is an indisputable fact that white nationalism and white supremacy are pernicious ideologies with a long history of terrorizing communities of color.”

    Except that this isn’t indisputable (inconceivable!). What isn’t as easily disputed is that nationalism of all kinds formalizes acceptable forms of violence, fosters or develops pernicioius ideologies, and has a long(er) history of terrorizing everyone.

    But, of course, saying that in front of Congress would take some testicles and it sounds like Robby would have to borrow a pair from Susan Bro.

    1. “What isn’t as easily disputed is that nationalism of all kinds formalizes acceptable forms of violence, fosters or develops pernicioius ideologies, and has a long(er) history of terrorizing everyone. ”

      It’s probably true that nationalism leads to war and war to atrocities, but I have some sympathy for nationalism as a way to strengthen the resolve of a people under unwelcome foreign domination. Examples include Greeks, Russians, Vietnamese and Palestinians.

  42. You cannot logic with commies. To them it’s all about playground-level manipulation. You’re coming off like the guy who says, “Some idiots say that the earth is flat.” And then the bully says, “Hey, Robby just said the Earth is flat!” (which you technically did, verbatim, just not to claim that it was so). And you’re reating like, “Did NO-OT! Geez, you guys, why are you always so mean to me?”

    They are incapable of reason. Force is the only thing they understand.

    1. “Force is the only thing they understand.”

      After the utter failure of the Charlottesville rally, I expect the violent extremists to ramp up their violent extremism. Targeted assassinations are the obvious choice. The right have been enamored of the death squad as an instrument of public persuasion for years now, long enough for even the blindest observer to see their efficacy.

      1. You think Nazis aren’t commies just because they’re racists or something?

        1. Nazis aren’t commies coz Hitler wasn’t commie. In a totalitarian state, follow the leader is the first lesson you learn.

        2. “The major difference between fascists and communists is that the former is nationalistic and the latter, internationalistic.”

          I think the biggest failing of communists is that they aren’t internationalistic enough. Had they showed a little more courage and a lot more internationalistic spirit we could have avoided WWI, one of capitalism’s more deadly gifts to the 20th century.

          Anyhow the idea that Hitler was some Leftist is ludicrous. He recognized private property and large industries operated and profited as they saw fit. He returned banks and factories to private hands that the liberal Wiemar republic had nationalized.

      2. I think there is a higher chance of some nut trying to assassinate Trump. The base odds based on number of haters is grossly larger.

        1. “I think there is a higher chance of some nut trying to assassinate Trump.”

          The folks who held their torch lit rally at Charlottesville are more likely to burn down a church with unarmed sunday worshippers than attempt to shoot a man who’s surrounded by armed guards.

  43. Several of them essentially conceded that the FBI’s hate crime statistics do not, in fact, provide reliable evidence of a significant spike in hate crimes. Bro—who was credible, well-informed, and extremely friendly—pushed back on one representative’s suggestion that perhaps local municipalities should be compelled by the federal government to report hate crime data. In general, the panelists seemed to understand that not all white nationalist activity can be properly considered something for the authorities to handle, given First Amendment protections for hateful speech. In my remarks, I tried to get across the point that the alt-right is a small fringe group, and that white nationalists are responsible for a relatively small number of murders relative to the overall violent crime rate.

    That doesn’t make any sense. If available statistics are not reliable, then how can anyone rationally conclude (1) there is no significant increase in in hate crimes, (2) white nationalists are responsible for a relatively small number of murders relative to the overall violent crime rate, or (3) even if white nationalists are responsible for a relatively small number of murders, the social effects are of hate white nationalist crimes short of murder are not exerting outsized bad effects on society, e.g., attracting right wing authoritarians into a broader anti-democratic, anti-personal freedom political movement? Reliable data is absolutely necessary.

    Second, simply gathering data does not in any way implicate or burden any First Amendment protections for hateful speech. Also incoherent is the assertion that white nationalist activity can not be properly considered something for the authorities to handle. If not the authorities, then who? A business? Which one, Trump Inc.?

    While Mr. Soave clearly and undeniably did not say that hate and white supremacy pose no threat at all, he clearly is trying to downplay the need for a serious, data-based analysis of the phenomenon and its social effects, good, bad or ambiguous. His position is reasonably seen as unfounded, irrational and political, not data-driven.

    1. Also incoherent is the assertion that white nationalist activity can not be properly considered something for the authorities to handle.

      Last I checked, it’s not illegal to be a white nationalist. So why is it any of the authorities business at all? And why does it need to be “handled”?

  44. […] Soave writes at Reason[10], in rehashing this testimony, that “the FBI’s hate crime statistics don’t, in […]

  45. […] Soave writes at Reason, in rehashing this testimony, that “the FBI’s hate crime statistics do not, in fact, provide […]

  46. 7K hate crimes in a nation of almost 330 million people is not exactly an epidemic which is why the number rarely appears in print. Usually one sees ‘a 25% rise..’ or something like that.

  47. Have they scheduled the hearings on Black ethno-nationalism yet?
    #WakandaForever

  48. Here’s the deal: PROSPERITY is the one thing that affords these jackasses the opportunity to cry, whine and scream about ANYTHING they find offensive. A 40-year DROUGHT of prosperity will put an end to this foolishness. There will, however, be much blood and trash to clean up.

  49. Hey, those molehills don’t make mountains out of themselves.

  50. […] published an article detailing his experience. “In my remarks,” he writes, “I tried to get across the point that […]

  51. 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,

  52. The Alt-Right is Not Right – It’s Left…..The alt-right is myth
    One of the pillars of conservatism is “The Golden Rule,” which automatically precludes white nationalism or racial supremacy of any kind.
    According to McPaper, the white nationalist/supremacist Richard Spencer coined the term in 2008. If he uses the term alt-right to identify himself and his fellow believers – President Lyndon Johnson and the late Democrat Senator Robert Byrd.
    Margaret Sanger founded Planned Parenthood to halt the spread of the black race. I’d call that white supremacism.
    ‘Alt-right’ leader Richard Spencer has voted for Democrats in the past, including John Kerry | Elections | Dallas News
    https://www.dallasnews.com/news/elections/2017/10/19/alt-rightleader-richard-spencer-wild-votingbut-backed-democrat-kerry-trump

    1. The KKK was the enforcers of the white supremacist Southern Democrat Party, the Dixiecrats.
      Alt-right demonstrators hit the streets adorned with Nazi paraphernalia and Confederate flags.
      Neither of those symbols represents American conservatism.
      In fact, the rise of Hitler and the Nazi Party, which these nuts appear to be so fond of, was a tale of combat between two competing leftist ideologies – fascism and communism.
      Neither faction incidentally resembled conservatism or what we’ve come to know as “the right.”
      The German KPD was the largest communist party outside the Soviet Union during the 1920s.
      It was the Trotsky-inspired KPD or German Communist Party vs. the Hitler led fascist “National Socialist German Workers Party” (Nazis).
      There were no “right-wingers” involved at all.
      And did I see the word socialist?
      By cracky, I did.

      1. I don’t know of anyone who would confuse conservatism with socialism.
        The alt-right is myth.
        It’s a name crafted to confuse the public into thinking these loons were spawned out of the conservative movement.
        It should actually be relabeled, or labeled properly as the National Socialist American Party, because they are in fact fascists – not of the right and certainly not conservative.
        But because of our woefully inept education system in this country, most believe fascism and Hitler were right wing.
        They couldn’t be more wrong.
        The fascists were leftists who had/have a lot more in common with communists than with free market conservative capitalists.
        The major difference between fascists and communists is that the former is nationalistic and the latter, internationalistic.
        http://freedomoutpost.com /alt-right-not-right-left/

        1. “The major difference between fascists and communists is that the former is nationalistic and the latter, internationalistic.”

          I think the biggest failing of communists is that they aren’t internationalistic enough. Had they showed a little more courage and a lot more internationalistic spirit we could have avoided WWI, one of capitalism’s more deadly gifts to the 20th century.

          Anyhow the idea that Hitler was some Leftist is ludicrous. He recognized private property and large industries operated and profited as they saw fit. He returned banks and factories to private hands that the liberal Wiemar republic had nationalized.

          1. left=right=totalitarianism

            1. left=right=totalitarianism

              = doubleplus ungood.

  53. I just sent a “correction” to HuffPo about Campbell’s smear, pointing out that the words he quoted from Robby’s testimony contradict Campbell’s accusation. And also that he left out the words, “and their current manifestation in the form of the alt-right should be confronted and condemned,” and “the sentiments they express are so abhorrent.” I also pointed out that said Campbell was a bad-faith reporter.

    1. Sorry. Like that’s going to help.

      You’re just feeding their fire.

      This from a California resident where our newspapers and, most of their customers, are solidly in Mr. Campbell’s camp.

  54. The white separatists or white nationalists I’m friendly with aren’t particularly violent, they just want to get away from the blacks.

    1. “they just want to get away from the blacks.”

      Really, in that case they chose a strange choice of country to live in.

  55. […] Google News alert for White Nationalism brought to my attention a post at Reason Magazine by Robby Soave, about his testimony to the House subcommittee on civil rights and civil liberties. He was called […]

  56. Hmmm… Divide and conqueror ring a bell to these leftist tactics? I wonder what the popularized wedge will be — oh yeah, probably racism, sexism, and every other tool they can dream up and splatter all over mainstream media.

  57. […] published an article detailing his experience. “In my remarks,” he writes, “I tried to get across the point that […]

  58. The idea of a hate crime is useful for policing people’s thoughts, but not for protecting anyone’s rights. “Hate crime” is another political tool, a tool to be used to prosecute and persecute people because of what they believe or think. That is a nasty and harmful idea.
    A crime, on the other hand, is an intentional or reckless act that [typically] violently violates someone else’s rights. The act is wrong because of its effect, not because of the views held by the perpetrator.

    1. No, a hate crime is a tool used to prosecute people for what they DO. A person is allowed to, for example, hate the Jews in the privacy of his own mind, but if he shoots up a synagogue, he has just committed a crime that goes beyond shooting another man for sleeping with his girlfriend. The synagogue shooting is not something he did in a moment of poor judgement; he meant for it to happen to fit his ideology.

  59. “Andy Campbell, a writer for The Huffington Post” which translates retard with crayons on a short bus with one crooked wheel and three flats. The left has to keep racial fear, and division alive to keep themselves in power, so they’ll outright deny or downplay the statistics showing there isn’t a Nazi around every corner. Fuck these two faced, control freak, hypocrites.

    1. So what actual proof is there that there hasn’t been a surge in hate crimes? Because the FBI is a pretty reliable source for that kind of thing, and they said hate crimes went up by 17%.

      1. _ There was a spike of 17% in reported hate crimes the year the FBI added ~1,000 agencies to its sample of LE agencies reporting hate crimes. (The news media say that was because Trump, not because the sample was larger. Sure.)
        _ News media claimed Anti Defamation League figures showed hate crimes against Jews rose 57% in 2017 the first year of the Trump Administration; the stat they selected (threats) reflected multiple bomb threats by one deranged foreign teenager. Not an American [perjorative of the moment like alt-right].
        _ ADL reported a 47% decline in actual violent incident reports. Incidents should count more than threats, since multiple threats may be made with no actual harmful acts.

  60. Well, the incels are certainly out in force commenting on this one. It must be the picture of AOC at the top that got them all hot and bothered. They insist she’s not important, but they sure as hell can’t shut up about her!

    Getting to the main point, however, I do find Soave’s reasoning to be a bit dubious. He says that the 17% surge in FBI-reported hate crimes between 2016 and 2017 comes because of 1000 extra municipalities reporting hate crimes between those two years. Then he asserts the bizarre notion that this could be proof that there actually was NOT a surge. Well gee, Robby, do you think maybe these 1000 municipalities were ones that didn’t experience hate crimes in 2016 but then did in 2017?

    Then he mentions the rate of hate crimes in 1996 to make it look like hate crimes are going down, but he doesn’t mention whether the definition of “hate crime” has changed between then and now, and how those 1996 “hate crimes” might be classified today. Would some hate crimes of 1996 be classified as, say, terrorism in 2017? I would imagine they would be, and without more information this statistic is useless.

    This is the same sort of “logic” used by holocaust deniers: Draw a conclusion based on what we don’t know, then say that conclusion is the only valid one. Then take information out of context so it fits your narrative, and don’t bother to give any background. I think they were right about Soave being a bad faith witness.

    1. The pool of agencies reporting to the FBI jumped, and the standards of reporting by agencies that had been reporting all along also changed.

      Yanqi Xu, “Explaining the numbers behind the rise in reported hate crimes”, PolitiFact, 3 Apr 2019.”

      Brian Levin, Director of Center for the Study of Hate & Extremism at California State University, explained that “some of the increase, especially in cities with very low numbers before, was the result of the more rigorous reporting.

      “Emeritus professor at Carnegie Mellon University Alfred Blumstein said with the increasing national attention, people could be more ready to report hate crimes to the police and are better equipped to decide if an offense is a hate crime when targeted to members of a special group.”

      “The analyses of victimization numbers done by Barbara Oudekerk, a statistician at BJS, indicate that reported incidents, which are often reflected in the FBI data, have increased, while unreported incidents decreased by 40 percent from 2014 to 2017.”

      FBI stats are based on crime reports by agencies. BJS stats are derived from the National Crime Victimization Survey. BJS hate crime stats project a higher total than FBI reports, but essentially recently a flat total year to year. With more people actively looking for hate crimes there will be more reports.

  61. […] even with 11,000 agencies reporting in 1996 vs. 16,000 agencies reporting now, according to Reason’s Robby […]

  62. […] published an article detailing his experience. “In my remarks,” he writes, “I tried to get across the point that […]

  63. […] I came across this piece in Reason magazine that shoots all kinds of holes in that spin: […]

  64. To avoid looking like an Argentine politician again, Robby might consider recording his remarks then reciting the recording with head raised and back straight, looking around the room. A tiny earbud works as a prompter and all you have to do is press Play and repeat your own voice.

  65. So, to condense your statement to the committee: “Blah-blah-blah… so, in conclusion, Mr Chairman, I would urge, as I always do, that this government, and society in general, take _no_ action to help or defend someone else”.

    Later, in the not-news, we report on the sun rising in the east, and, after a word from our sponsors, Atlas sees the plight of others and shrugs.

  66. […] Reason’s Robby Soave notes in his recent testimony before the House Oversight Committee on white supremacy and hate crimes, reporting on hate crimes […]

  67. […] editor Robby Soave’s testimony on the same topic in May had the same why do we even need to bother with this […]

Comments are closed.