Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Choose Sides? You Bet. But Antifa and Fascism Are the Same Side.

Advocates of liberal society are a side in themselves, and the left- and right-wing thugs battling in the streets are rival siblings from an illiberal family.

"We condemn in the strongest possible terms this egregious display of hatred, bigotry and violence, on many sides, President Trump commented August 12 after bloody and lethal violence in Charlottesville, Virginia. "On many sides."

He got a public tongue-lashing for his words. That's because Trump has lost the moral authority to lay into thugs of all types. But the rest of us can do better.

The problem many Americans had with Trump's weasel words was that Heather Heyer was dead, and many other people injured, in Charlottesville, allegedly at the hands of James Alex Fields, Jr., a neo-Nazi who drove his car into a crowd in an act of political terrorism. And Fields was in Charlottesville to attend a rally featuring a dollar-store version of a Leni Riefenstahl torch-lit parade, chants of "Jews will not replace us," and racist speakers like Richard Spencer, who openly support Trump. A little specificity in placing blame would seem to be in order, but was prominent by its absence in Trump's comments.

"One has to take sides," Shuja Haider wrote at Jacobin, echoing other voices on the left. "There is a side that asserts our common humanity and fights fascism, racism, and hate. It was represented in Charlottesville by the leftist groups who took to the streets to confront the far right. The other side is the one that took innocent lives on those same streets."

Take a side? You bet. But Haider and company are trying to force a false choice. They'd have you believe that advocates of free speech, open society, tolerance, and peaceful political change have to pick between fascists with tiki torches and masked "anti-fascists" clashing with them in the streets. But advocates of a free, open, and liberal society are a side—the correct side—and the left-wing and right-wing thugs battling in the streets are nothing more than rival siblings from a dysfunctional illiberal family.

In June, James Hodgkinson opened fire on Republican members of Congress gathered for a baseball practice. That the supporter of Occupy Wall Street and former Bernie Sanders volunteer sent six people, including Rep. Steve Scalise (R-LA), to the hospital instead of the morgue was a consequence not of better intentions than his soulmate, Fields, but rather a result of fortunately bad aim.

Before that, left-wing protesters violently shut down a Middlebury College speech by Charles Murray, injuring Professor Alison Stanger in the process, rioted over a speech by professional provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos, and forced the cancellation of a Republican parade in Portland, Oregon, with promises that "the police cannot stop us from shutting down roads." They boast of their contempt for free speech.

Right-wing and left-wing mobs seem to have a few preferred Thunderdome venues where they set up regular fight-club dates. "For reasons political and geographic, Berkeley has become a particularly common battleground," reports the Los Angeles Times. "They will glom themselves onto a tax day rally, a Trump rally, but there is a subgroup of extremists on both sides who are angling for a street battle," said criminal sociologist Brian Levin, director of the Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism at Cal State San Bernardino.

Fight-club dates? Yes. This is an old and unoriginal kabuki theater of political violence, echoing another period when demoralized advocates of liberal democracy were urged to pick between competing brands of illiberalism as if their own set of principles didn't represent a side in itself.

"Antifa traces its roots to the 1920s and '30s, when militant leftists battled fascists in the streets of Germany, Italy, and Spain," notes Peter Beinart in The Atlantic.

Partisans of "pick a side" insist that every mention of violence by both right-wing and left-wing thugs is an exercise in "whataboutism." That is, an attempt to deflect from one's own sins by invoking the misdeeds of the opposition. In the case of Donald Trump's hemming and hawing over Charlottesville, that's likely true. Asked to comment on a terrorist act by a neo-Nazi at a rally of racists and neo-Nazis who have vocally lent the sitting president their support, an invocation of "many sides" sounds an awful lot like whataboutism intended to shift blame from his friends.

But for those of us already calling out the violent bigots flaunting Nazi imagery, it's not whataboutism to point out that an alleged alternative isn't actually an alternative at all—it's just another version of the same thing. As New York Times reporter Sheryl Gay Stolberg tweeted from Charlottesville, "The hard left seemed as hate-filled as alt-right. I saw club-wielding 'antifa' beating white nationalists being led out of the park." She later, understandably, changed "hate-filled" to "violent," since actions are clearer and more important than motivations. And CNN's Jake Tapper commented that "At least two journalists in Charlottesville were assaulted by people protesting the Klan/Nazi/alt-right rally."

But is it fair to compare the violent far left in our streets to the violent far right opposing them? The left-wing antifa activists claim to be opposing the powers-that-be.

It's certainly true that the violent right generally supports President Trump. Given that support, his hesitancy about criticizing even the most extreme Nazi imagery and lethal violence (he did call out "racist violence" two days later, then walked it back) creates the impression that, if he isn't explicitly sympathetic to the marching morons at Charlottesville, he at least enjoys basking in the scented glow of tiki torches. If we're balancing dangers on the great scale of suckage, that connection to the White House would seem to make the fascist right the more immediate threat.

But that doesn't mean we have to pick a competing brand of ideological awfulness as a viable alternative to fascism. The thugs on the left have already proved themselves to be violent and intolerant. There's no reason to favor one illiberal force over another when our country has a long history based on much different, and much better, political principles.

"Sooner or later... one has to take sides—if one is to remain human," Haider writes, quoting a character from Graham Greene's The Quiet American. "The liberal center has to heed the same warning," Haider adds. "In order to reject Trump's equivocations about 'many sides,' we have to take one."

But the character Haider quotes is a member of Vietnam's Communist party—which killed "probably about 1,040,000" people in the post-Vietnam War period, after it came to power over the united country, as estimated by the late Prof. R. J. Rummel of the University of Hawaii. What about that? That's an unpalatable side to pick in any situation.

We do have to pick a side. But we already have one. Despite our many differences over specific policies, most Americans have traditionally supported the side of liberty, tolerance, free speech, and peaceful political change, within broad parameters. That side is in opposition to the violent, authoritarian thugs of the right and of the left. If we regain our faith in what we already have, there's no reason to choose between rival siblings competing to rule over the ruins of everything that's worthwhile on behalf of their illiberal family.

Photo Credit: Geoff Livingston/flickr

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.

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    Aside from being criminals and vandals and thugs, Nazis are too damned scarce and pathetic for me to waste much anxiety on. The hypocrisy which bothers me more than Antifa-good Nazi-bad is the invisibility of Marxists in all this. They murdered ten times as many people as Nazis in the last century, they continue to do so today long after Nazis have been reduced to a few pathetic clowns, and they infest universities at taxpayer expense. Where are the Nazi counterparts to Cuba, North Korea, China, and soon-to-be Venezuela? China is making progress but is still a Communist dictatorship killing thousands of people every year, and Venezuela and Cuba are applauded by Hollywood and the media.

    There's far more long term crime committed by their Marxist supporters here and around the world than from a bunch of skinheads rioting over statues.

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    Eh, forgot Vietnam. What the heck, their record is pretty puny compared to the others, even to the Nazis. But they are still yet another Communist dictatprship murdering people, and still applauded by Hollywood, the media, and university professors world wide.

    Probably forgot some other petty Communist dictatorship too.

    And of course there are the usual thugs like Mugabe and Duarte. But they have no friends in Hollywood, the media, and universities.

  • Sebawlm||

    This analysis is so terribly simplistic it beggars belief -- Cuba was a fascist dictatorship before it became a "communist" one, and conflating Cuba with China or Nazi Germany is so laughably devoid of context it bears no further remark. But hey, why not. Counterpart to China? Try Indonesia. Counterpart to Cuba and Venezuela? Try Pinochet's Chile and Armas's Guatemala.

    This is the problem with the public discourse now. Even the most fundamental truisms devolve into whataboutery which throws shade at "the other side". Tyranny is tyranny is tyranny is tyranny. "Marxism" is no more "left" than Nazism and fascism are "right". The left-right spectrum is only relevant and meaningful when we presuppose the absence of totalitarianism. When there's a jackboot on the neck of all who hold a love for liberty, "left" and "right" ought to be one and the same (or else they lose; see also: German federal elections, 1932).

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Nazis are lefties. They are socialists who use race hatred to control the means of production and people within their sphere.

  • Eric||

    Nazis are also nationalists. Are nationalists also leftist. If so, how?

  • sasob||

    I'm not sure Eric, but I know that North Korea is both communist - or leftist - and nationalistic. So was the old Soviet Union.

  • Eric||

    My point is that cherry picking aspects of fascism to smear your opponents while ignoring the parts that apply to your side is disingenuous.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    ""My point is that cherry picking aspects of fascism to smear your opponents while ignoring the parts that apply to your side is disingenuous.""

    Change the word "fascism" to "anything" and it is the core of partisan politics.

  • Bubba Jones||

    The conflict is between international socialism and national socialism. The farmers vs the factory workers.

    So, what do you call Vietnam? Isn't that a national socialism of farmers? I am not sure. They don't like China, but maybe their relationship with Russia makes them part of the Comintern. I dunno.

  • Paul E||

    Just because one group of communists doesn't like another group of communists doesn't make one of them not communist.
    If you recall from Pre-WWII Germany Hilter's Nazi Party was constantly battling with the Communist Party. They are both political parties of the Left but that doesn't mean they are friends.

  • dexter||

    "Nazis were rrightwing"

    So acording to you, the main difference beetween national socialism and international socialism is... socialism ! And Operation Barbarosa was launched to defend the Austrian school of economics.

    Mmmm, let's see where the Nazys came from.

    https://en.wikipedia.org /wiki/Sturmabteilung

    "The DAP (Deutsche Arbeiterpartei or German Workers' Party) was formed in Munich in January 1919 and Adolf Hitler joined it in September of that year. His talents for speaking, publicity and propaganda were quickly recognized,[3] and by early 1920 he had gained authority in the party, which changed its name to the NSDAP (Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei or National Socialist German Workers' Party) in February 1920."

    And what was the programme of the NSDAP ?

    https://en.wikipedia.org /wiki/National_Socialist_Program

    Can you find anything related to socialism in "The 25-point Program of the NSDAP" ?

    Nazy were just socialists who hated jews. (And that's why Hitler attacked USSR, because bolchevik's was seen as a jew conspiracy).

  • Zeb||

    Too many people want left/right to have absolute meanings. But it never really has. Left and right are opposing political sides within a political system. It's foolish for libertarians and individualists to give a shit about how those labels are used. We just don't fit into any binary political divisions.

    I say let the collectivists own left and right. Left can be the universalist collectivists and right the exclusivist collectivists. Or understand it as a Nolan chart sort of thing where both left and right can have individualist and authoritarian parts.

  • jelabarre||

    And why are *we* still falling into the "right-vs-left" trap? We have the "Nolan chart" as an alternative, and it even has it's own "totalitarian/authoritarian" quadrant that readily fits the most offensive governments around. This is what should be our talking points; how all the thugs readily fit in the naughty corner.

    OTOH, I find the XKCD variant of the Nolan chart amusing in it's own sense. https://xkcd.com/868/

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Marx's version of communism are just Communists without Borders. Aside from national identity principles its still the same all powerful leftist state with no concept of individual rights. If you want extreme right, look for the anarcho-capitalists.

  • Zeb||

    In the US that sort of makes sense. In the rest of the world, the right wing is no more friendly to individual liberty than the left. And if you are talking about communists and fascists, neither of whom have ever had much power in the US, you need to take a broader view.

  • Ecoli||

    What is wrong with being a nationalist?

    Is it wrong to want America to be prosperous?

    Is it wrong to insist that our leaders always consider what is best for America, as their first priority?

    Is it wrong to condemn American leaders who decisions and take actions that are detrimental to American prosperity?

    Nationalists are not Nazis, any more than liberals are communists.

  • Nuwanda||

    "Nazis are also nationalists. Are nationalists also leftist. If so, how?"

    Yes. Why not? Nazis are race socialists, communists are class socialists. The drop in term for socialism is collectivism, the subordination of all private and business interests to the state. The semantics hardly matter when the goal for both sides is the destruction of individual liberty.

  • sharmota4zeb||

    Yes, the left are Nationalists. That is why this Obama campaign advertisement from 2012 criticized Mitt Romney for outsourcing jobs to India. This Obama campaign advertisement criticized Mitt Romney for investing overseas.

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    I don't think you read the post you replied to.

  • ThomasD||

    He just thinks that the nationalism somehow outweighs, or cancels out the socialism.

    As if.

    Fascism = National socialism
    Marxism = International socialism

    The two fight about the only difference that matters to them.

  • Zeb||

    So, is it necessarily wrong to call one right wing socialism and another left wing socialism?

    In the US, the right has (in some ways) often been less collectivist/authoritarian. But that's really the oddball situation. In most societies, the conservative position is not one of individual liberty or anything remotely like it. Around the world, left and right are for the most part authoritarians of different varieties.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    There is no 'right wing socialism'. It doesn't exist.

  • Zeb||

    So you are the ultimate arbiter of what words mean?

    I've made an argument for why it's not a contradiction and your response is essentially "nuh-uh".

  • Paul E||

    It is wrong, socialism of any kind is in direct opposition to everything the "Right" stands for, personal liberty. Nazis and Communists are both parties of the left.

    There are NO right wing authoritarian governments, there can't be. It would like being say there are anarchist governments, the two terms are contradictory.

  • Brandybuck||

    Fascism is not national socialism. The Nazis were primarily national socialists (hence the name), but they were not primarily fascists. The Left has conflated the two because the Left wants to own the word "socialist", but they two are not the same.

    Socialism is about the state ownership of the means of production. Fascism allow the private ownership of production, so long as the production is in service to the state. As a practical matter there's not to much difference between the two. National socialism owns the trains and makes them run on time. Fascism does not own the trains, but still makes them run on time. The key difference is the underlying philosophies of property and state.

    As a practical matter, the Nazis did allow much private ownership. Sort of how like socialist Bernie Sanders would have allowed private ownership had he come to power. But that does not mean the Nazis believed in Mussolini's economic corporatism.

  • ||

    They're all ILLIBERAL. None are 'right-wing'.

    Yes, the left seem to interchange between Nazi and Fascist when applied to Trump.

    Which says a lot about their illiteracy.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    NAZI's are Far Right (like all fascists), you idiot.

    You can't change 50 years of political history and philosophy.

    Right-wing politics hold that certain social orders and hierarchies are inevitable, natural, normal, or desirable,[1][2][3] typically supporting this position on the basis of natural law, economics or tradition.[4](p693, 721)[5][6][7][8][9][page needed] Hierarchy and inequality may be viewed as natural results of traditional social differences[10][11] or the competition in market economies.[12][13] The term right-wing can generally refer to "the conservative or reactionary section of a political party or system"

    Nothing says FAR RIGHT as much as Aryan supremacy.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Keep telling yourself that shitbird. Just another leftist lie to avoid accountability for all the blood on your hands. Nazis are leftist, you stupid, stupid piece of shit.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Nothing says FAR RIGHT as much as Aryan supremacy.

    Of course millions of academics, historians, and students know that fascism is a Right Wing disease just as Neo-Nazis are conservative/right wing TRUMP SUPPORTERS here in the USA.

    But YOU and a few other conservative idiots here know otherwise??

    Good luck with your re-write of history.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    So the democrats were far right before they were left?

    The longest serving US senator was a democrat and KKK member.

  • Tony||

    Yeah he served so long he was from a time when Southern racists were Democrats. Long enough to go from anti-civil rights conservative to anti-Iraq War liberal.

    I don't know what's more ridiculous, the thought that you actually believe that the existence of Sen. Byrd erases the last half-century of Republican racism, or that you know you're regurgitating stupid bullshit hoping someone will buy it.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    It doesn't erase anything.

    And what I said is fact.

    Dems are trying to erase their racism by pointing to Repub racism.

  • Tony||

    Dems worked to erase their racism by neatly purging themselves of its racists, which they achieved by passing civil rights legislation under LBJ.

    In the subsequent decades the GOP used backlash against those laws to their advantage in something known as the "Southern Strategy." The South, you know where all those racist Democrats used to be?

    You're trying to say the problem is Democrats when the problem is racists.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    ""You're trying to say the problem is Democrats when the problem is racists.""

    I'm not saying that at all. I can't help it if there are a couple of inconvenient facts regarding dems and racism.

    I do find it funny that many of the people call Trump a racist will not acknowledge the fact that they voted for someone who called a former member of the KKK a mentor. Which definitely makes you a racist by current liberal standards. If you voted to put a racist in office, you have no right to complain about a racist getting in office, albeit not the racist you voted for.

    You are right that the problem with racism is racist. We will not solve the racism problem by ignoring racism for convenience, identity politics, or political posturing.

  • Tony||

    Except let's just ignore the fact that the entire CURRENT Republican party is based almost entirely on appealing to racism and other bigotries for votes. You do know Orrin Hatch is the current attorney general, and Donald Trump the current president, yes?

    This Byrd stuff is evidence that your head is way too far up some rightwing website's ass.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    Well I guess by your standards, right wing websites is where the truth is.

    The Byrd stuff is true. The only reason it's relevant today is because some people voted for someone who called him a mentor, and those people are pointing fingers without looking at themselves first.

  • Netizen_James||

    Jeff Sessions may be ideologically similar to Orrin Hatch, but Orrin Hatch is NOT the AG.
    Yes, Orin is another old school racist, just like Jeff is. But they are not the same person!

  • Mickey Rat||

    Democrats are still racists. They are just patronising racists rather than seperationist racists.

  • Paul E||

    Yeah, those racist Republicans who freed the slaves, ended jim crow and fought for civil rights against the Democrats and their militant KKK. Strange how the left keeps conveniently forgetting they have been on the wrong side of freedom since uh... well since there were Democrats.

  • Finrod||

    Nothing says "massive dumbass" like PB here.

  • Mickey Rat||

    It is years of Soviet propaganda that you do not want overturned.

  • ||

    They're off shoots of socialism. Not classical liberalism or conservatism.

    You stupid jerk off.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    There is nothing SOCIALISTIC (to each according to his need) about killing Jews/blacks and non-Aryans, you imbecile.

    Nothing.

  • Finrod||

    There is nothing intelligent about anything you post, dumbass.

  • Incomprehensible Bitching||

    No true socialist would be a national socialist.

  • Bra Ket||

    "There is nothing SOCIALISTIC (to each according to his need) about killing Jews/blacks and non-Aryans, you imbecile."

    Yeah the eugenics part was more left-wing progressivism.

    Antisemitism was just a broad European thing. Marx and the other commies certainly embraced it.

  • sharmota4zeb||

    True. The idea that certain races would replace other races was a core belief of the Progressive movement in its early decades.

  • sharmota4zeb||

    Genocide becomes more popular when you promise the majority that they will get to keep the wealth of the minority you are killing. Socialism and genocide often come as a package.

  • Nuwanda||

    NAZI = Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei = National Socialist German Workers' Party.

    So, they kind of named themselves, didn't they?

  • John C. Randolph||

    NAZI's are Far Right

    Wishing doesn't make it so, you dolt.

    Hitler was not only a leftard, he was acknowledged as such by all the other leftards right up to the day he attacked Russia.

    There was a right wing in Weimar germany, and the Nazis had nothing to do with it. They were the ones who wanted to restore the Kaiser to power.

    -jcr

  • Netizen_James||

    Bullshit. The nazis CALLED themselves socialists -but they were liars.

    Socialists LIKE labor unions. Those advocating labor unions here in the US were called 'pinkos' and 'reds', prior to being brutally murdered by Pinkerton thugs, so clearly labor unions are 'socialistic'. (Like public parks and public roads and public libraries are 'socialistic').

    The first thing Hitler did when he took power was to prohibit independent labor unions (in May of 1933). This was before the 'night of the long knives' during which Hitler and his SS murdered Röhm and his SA because they were making anti-capitalist noise that bothered Hitler's industrialist backers. Check out this actual history: http://www.historyplace.com/wo...../roehm.htm

    Yes, some of the propaganda spread by the nazis in the early days pretended to give a flying fuck about the common working man. But all that got thrown out as soon as Hitler had the reins of power in his hands. As is typically the case. "The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again: but already it was impossible to say which was which."

    So clearly, the idea that nazis are socialists, or any sort of leftists, is simply bullshit of the worst sort. You may as well believe that North Korea is a 'democracy' because they've named themselves 'Democratic People's Republic of Korea'.

  • Incomprehensible Bitching||

    No true socialist would be a National Socialist.

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    Not to disagree too much with your point here, but... You may want to look up what Castro and Lenin/Stalin did to labor unions when they gained power.

    The State is jealous of any organization that seeks to organize people outside of its own auspices. It does not matter whether that State is calling itself "Fascist" or "Marxist" that particular day.

    "Man to pig, pig to man", indeed.

  • Azathoth!!||

    The first thing Hitler did when he took power was to prohibit independent labor unions (in May of 1933).

    The key word is 'independent'

    It really makes all the difference.

  • MarkLastname||

    Actually, socialist regimes routinely suppress labor unions. Unions trying to indepently bargain for wage changes interferes with central planning. People who tried to set up I dependent unions in the Soviet Union were sent to gulags.

    'Nothing outside the state' describes socialism and fascism alike.

  • losmazeman||

    Thanks for the link ~history place~

  • damikesc||

    Counterpart to Cuba and Venezuela? Try Pinochet's Chile and Armas's Guatemala.

    As bad as Pinochet was --- and he was plenty bad --- he did leave office peacefully (not willingly, mind you, but he did it). We've seen how Venezuela is handling that's situation.

  • SKR||

    And Chile is doing pretty good now.

  • Harry A. Ness||

    We get our left/right from the French revolution and the period following it, depending on where people sat in the legislature. The people with socialist beliefs sat on the left. Since Marxism was a type of socialism, it properly belongs on the left.

    Cuba, China, and Nazi Germany had a common philosophical thread, which was socialist beliefs. It was not a coincidence that they descended into repression. It certainly bears further remark.

    Nazism was more of a union of the left (socialists) and the right (nationalists). But it's important to point out that they evolved from socialist thinking. As someone once said, the fascists were simply disappointed socialists.

  • Paloma||

    Pinochet's Chile people could still eat.

  • DarrenM||

    Don't confuse fascists with simple dictatorships that don't happen to be Communist, or is that your definition of "fascist"?

  • damikesc||

    So you launch a pathetic crock of shit equating the VICTIMS with Maoists!

    Mao only killed, what, 60M people? Nothing to concern oneself there/

  • Ship of Theseus||

    OMG!

    I missed a Hihnekin retard session?

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    You again, again with nothing intelligible.

    I said nothing about victims and Nazis. I said Marxists are a present and current evil far worse than Nazis, because Marxists are in power around the world today, carrying on the Marxist tradition of murdering. The Nazis also have a tradition of state murder, but at one tenth the rate, and there are no Nazi governments today; the few Nazis in real life today are pathetic shadows of the regime which died out 72 years ago. Common petty thugs are more of a danger.

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    "I said Marxists are a present and current evil far worse than Nazis"

    Yeah, I think that's what he was criticizing. You're evidently equating all Marxists -- including libertarian ones, peaceful ones, humanitarians, teachers -- with one of the most murderous dictators in human history. And you're also making Trump's argument for him, which is perhaps a little insensitive given recent events.

    This isn't an attack. This is an explanation for why you're getting so much criticism for your painting with a broad brush remarks.

  • ThomasD||

    There are no libertarian Marxists any more than there are classically liberal Marxists. It's an oxymoron.

    The most murderous dictators in modern history were Marxists.

    The difference between Marxism and Fascism is made with a fine brush.

  • Harry A. Ness||

    Libertarian Marxists often hold rallies with black white nationalists, and Jewish Nazis. Its a fun, but very confusing event.

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    Of course there are libertarian Marxists.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_Marxism

  • Cyto||

    That article is amazing. Truly a must read.

    The Bordigists and the SPGB championed a super-Marxian intransigence in theoretical matters. Other socialists made a return 'behind Marx' to the anti-positivist programme of German idealism.

    I had forgotten just how jargon-dense political philosophy writing can get.

    Super-Marxian intransigence. LOL
    Anti-positivist. LOL.

  • Woodchippin' 4 Jesus||

    Show me a peaceful Marxist. Show me a libertarian Marxist. Go ahead - I'll wait.

    You're conflating socialism with Marxism.

  • Woodchippin' 4 Jesus||

    Your words are incredibly vicious and aggressive. I never attacked you personally, Mr. Hiln. I asked a very direct question and you viciously and aggressively attacked me.

    You, however, have violated your own standards of what the non-aggressive principle means.

    You have violated the non-aggression principle.

    You owe me an apology.

    Go ahead. Admit you were aggressive and as such, violated NAP.

    I'll wait.

  • John C. Randolph||

    all Marxists -- including libertarian ones,

    There is no such thing as a Libertarian Marxist.

    -jcr

  • Red Rocks Baiting n Inciting||

    There were no Marxists at Charlottesville.

    Sure, Soviet flags are just an indication of nostalgia for the greatness of the national hockey team.

  • Red Rocks Baiting n Inciting||

    Consider how eager you folks ate to be brainwashed .., I'm not surprised you BELEEB that photo is from Charlottesville .
    ... in a tweet by a nobody
    ..,on a Twitter feed with NINE followers

    The Twitter account is run by a left-winger if you actually bothered to read the feed, you dumbass. Here's a tweet from the exact same account on the exact same day, explicitly identifying the Nazi regalia of the right-wing demonstrators in front of the Lee statue.

    Are you seriously going to argue that this one is fake but not the one I linked earlier? Careful, Hihnsano, you just might identify yourself as a tribalist!

    Anyone who makes the argument that these photos aren't legitimate just because of the number of followers and the account-holder uses an anonymous handle is straight-up retarded.

    These photos are provided for independent, non-tribal minds
    ::Ignores photo that shows his claim that there were no Marxists at Charlottesville was a false one::

    (chortle)

  • Red Rocks Baiting n Inciting||

    They could, both be fake!!

    Oh, the irony! Captain Hihnsano adopts alt-right language, denies what's in front of his face, and dissembles on the evidence because he was shown to be a lying dumbfuck. (twirls away laughing)

  • Red Rocks Baiting n Inciting||

    Captain Hihnsano burbling his nonsense again. Poor thing can't help nurturing that victim complex. Sad!

  • Cyto||

    The Antifa are out and proud anarcho-communists. Their Reddit is replete with Marxist references.

    But I am sure their individual politics run all over the place... Anarchhists are like that.

  • Microaggressor||

    There were no Marxists at Charlottesville.


    Guys, we shouldn't make so much fun of Michael. What he just posted is unequivocal proof of brain damage. He deserves as much sympathy as John McCain.

  • Jerryskids||

    I'm sure what he meant is that there were no *true* Marxists at Charlottesville. True Marxists are like true Muslims, adherents of a religion of peace, so if you ever see any being violent or nasty, you know they're not real ones.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    ""a religion of peace""

    Most religions are not a religion of peace. What makes the followers peaceful is ignoring the parts of their religious text that says kill the non-believers.

  • Woodchippin' 4 Jesus||

    Didn't he violate his own definition of the NAP?

    He's coming across as very aggressive with his profanity, put-downs and snarkiness.

    Plus, he's shouting by typing in all caps. Shouting on a comments blog is very aggressive.

  • Red Rocks Baiting n Inciting||

    The response to aggression is decided by victims, not by aggressors

    Fragile Mikey thinks not parroting his talking points is aggression.

  • Red Rocks Baiting n Inciting||

    Psycho Mikey's cancer-addled puss is accelerating his senility at exponential rates. Poor thing can't tell the difference between a handgun and an automatic weapon, and now believes that Soviet flags displayed in Charlottesville can't be real because he initially claimed there were no Marxists there. The Donald Trump of Libertarianism in all his glory!

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    I agree. The Nazi brand is pretty much heavily damaged goods throughout most of the world. I don't see them getting much traction anywhere. These antics people are backed by the likes of Soros, and are widespread enough to be a real threat too our freedoms.

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    Well, there is Putin.

    Now, don't everybody jump me: I'm not implying anything about his connections, or absence thereof, to Trump.

    BUT, he is an ethno-centric, crony-capitalist, military-industialist, strongly Orthodox Christian, gay-hating, Muslim-bashing, heavily nationalistic strongman who has spent a considerable amount of time conquering or trying to conquer smaller nations in his near abroad, using minority same-ethnicity populations as his excuse...

    ... And if that there isn't the only definition of "fascist" that everyone can agree on, then I don't know what is.

  • Azathoth!!||

    Well, it's nice to see someone who can admit that they don't know what fascism means.

    But it would probably be better to do it before calling someone a fascist.

  • Eric||

    Fascism is a mixture of multiple forms of authoritarianism that can be attributed to both the modern right and left. That's why both sides can throw it about so easily. But most who have studied it seem to agree that it is more of a rightist form of authoritarianism. Stalinism is a better example of left authoritarianism.

  • ThomasD||

    Fascism descended directly from Marxism. The only 'right' it descended from is Continental right - that of the Right Hegelians. Which is a thing far removed from the American right, and light years apart from libertarianism, which often gets lumped on the right by committed leftists.

    In US history the people most sympathetic to fascism - before it went all genocide all the time - were the progressives (of both major parties.)

  • Eric||

    Fascism was a direct reaction to, and a repudiation of Socialism. They (the fascists/Nazis) used the term "Socialist" to associate with their policies to coopt the movement and draw support. (Just like the German Democratic Republic, or Democratic People's Republic of Korea.). However, in practice their economic systems were actually corporatist.

    Note: I'm not defending socialism. But people should understand the actual history before spouting off simply to fit their current political narrative.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    No it was a variant of it. So ehat did the national socialist DAP advocate?

    "the program championed the right to employment, and called for the institution of profit sharing, confiscation of war profits, prosecution of userers and profiteers, nationalization of trusts, communalization of department stores extension of the old-age pension system, creation of a national education program of all classes, prohibition of child labour, and an end to the dominance of investment capital."
  • Eric||

    You're cherry picking to prove your point. Socialism was a new ideology that was gaining popularity at the time and the European Right (for lack of a better term) coopted the more popular aspects to gain traction with the masses (who favors child labor?). In in practice fascism promoted a corporatism and cronyism.

  • Eric||

    As an addendum. You're pointing to the DAP's stated goals as if that somehow equates to their actions. Would you do the same today? Does the Republican Party platform actually mirror their efforts and results?

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    And every socialist state actually implements plenty of cronyism. I'm not cherry picking anything. There is a small sliver of daylight between different variants of socialism but the fascists most decidedly practised their version of it.

  • Eric||

    "There is a small sliver of daylight between different variants of socialism but the fascists most decidedly practised their version of it."

    Socialism is a term so overgeneralized as to render it meaningless to everyone except to the person using it. You may as well say ""There is a small sliver of daylight between different variants of HUMAN but the fascists most decidedly practised their version of it."

  • Harry A. Ness||

    I'm not sure repudiation would be the right word, as that makes it sound like they rejected socialism and went in the opposite direction. They were more of an evolution of socialism, so the comment that they descended directly from Marxism has some merit. They both rejected individualism. They would have Fascists wanted a society with central economic planning, but rejected the class struggle part of socialism. In other words, collectivist thinking is good, but you socialists did it wrong. At least that's sort of what I got out of Mussolini's doctrine of Fascism:

    "Fascism is therefore opposed to Socialism to which unity within the State (which amalgamates classes into a single economic and ethical reality) is unknown, and which sees in history nothing but the class struggle. Fascism is likewise opposed to trade unionism as a class weapon. But when brought within the orbit of the State, Fascism recognizes the real needs which gave rise to socialism and trade unionism, giving them due weight in the guild or corporative system in which divergent interests are coordinated and harmonized in the unity of the State"

  • Bra Ket||

    "But most who have studied it seem to agree that it is more of a rightist form of authoritarianism."

    Yes it's the consensus view among a field of academics that identifies overwhelmingly as left-wing themselves. In the humanities the D/R split is more than ten to one. I wouldn't be surprised if political science is at the extreme end there even, given how attractive a pursuit would be to progressive mindsets and how far removed it is from practicality and making money (unlike say law or economics).

    In the 30s the right wing were the conservatives. The left were the communists. The fascists entered in the middle, calling themselves centrists and offering a combination of ideas from both sides. Things have not changed so much either, we still have conservatives on the right and a continuum of socialism going left.

  • Bra Ket||

    If you agree with me (which isn't quite clear by the choice of pronouns..) then what's so amusing?

    And all you did there was parrot the one-dimensional political science compass pushed by the left.

  • Bra Ket||

    Examples are not proofs Michael. I criticize the left because they are objectively worthy of criticism. The left's view of themselves is based on layers of revisionism; they define themselves as all that is holy and good, simultaneously making their compass with the often contradictory principles of equality and liberalism on the same axis. Then they violate everything they claim to stand for.

    I criticize that one-dimensional political compass because I prefer at least the two-dimensional version pushed by libertarians, which has authoritarianism on another axis. Of course all such reductionist is still ultimately games of half-truths, but we can at least have intelligent discussions about how well they fit. At least some of us can...

    The right is just the establishment resisting the agenda for govt-mandated "social progress" that defines the left. That includes structures like aristocracy and indeed a Kaiser in 1930s Germany (in exile at the time, and I'd note, not allowed to return by Hitler).

  • DarrenM||

    I believe Hitler and others called it a "third way". Not Socialism, not Liberalism. It was certainly statist in every way and had much more in common with one than the other.

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    I await your alternative definition of fascism.

    Because last I checked:
    -Hitler was ethno-centric
    -he was crony-capitalist
    -he used the Church to appeal to social conservatives (even though he was only using them as a pawn, whereas in fairness I think Putin really is a believer)
    -he was a military industrialist
    -his state exterminated gays (even if it's possible that he was gay himself)
    -he was heavily nationalistic
    -he was a strongman
    -and he conquered border nations using ethnic German populations as an excuse

    The only variable is that he said *teh Joos* were the ones plotting to tear down Western Civilization from within, instead of *teh Muzluhms*. And I'm sure he would have adapted to that pretty quickly, if he were out and about today.

  • MarkLastname||

    You yourself go around accusing people of being 'right wing anti-government goobers.'

    Well, anti-government anarcho-capitalism and fascism cannot both be right wing, because they are diametrically opposed.

    I don't care what fucking definition or spectrum you or anyone else uses; it has to at least be consistent.

    This where leftists are perhaps most absurd: they want to call the Koch brothers and others who favor less government in all respects right wing, and they want to call statist nationalists right wing. These are two opposite ideologies; they cannot both be right wing. If fascists are right wing, then stop calling proponents of less government right wing.

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    Anarcho-Capitalism *isn't* Right-wing.

    An-Caps are true north on the Nolan Chart, whereas Fascism/Nazism are far south and a little to the east. Communism is far south, and a little to the west.

    Although it should be noted that An-Cap is a concept that seems to have been appropriated by some Alt-Righters, so the term may be taking on a Right-wing context...

  • Let freedom ring||

    Yea, right. Is this litany of Putin's attitudes meant as a joke? I will defer only to the gay hating part, although he denies he hates gays who are not pederasts. But etho-centric and Muslim bashing? Please! Russia is 15% Muslim, has the largest mosque outside of Saudi Arabia, and considers Islam one of the four great Russian religions (Christianity, Islam, Judaic, Buddhist. As for conquering the near abroad, you don't have to descend to what-about-ism (Honduras, Chile, Panama) to understand the Crimea begged for re-annexation after the neo nazis beat and murdered busloads of Crimeans returning from the coup in Kiev. Virtually everyone except the US concedes Georgia started the 2008 conflict as well. Really? Really?

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    I gather, LFR, that you're unaware that the Sudetanland was filled with pro-German separatists.

    Going after sympathetic ethnic minorities in bordering states is ALWAYS how they start.

    It is NEVER how they end.

  • Azathoth!!||

    The hypocrisy which bothers me more than Antifa-good Nazi-bad is the invisibility of Marxists in all this.

    This is something that needs to be commented on more.

    They're in the background of BLM, of the various feminist movements, of the various Mexican rights movements, of the LGBT movements, of the climate change movements, of the entire IFL science crew, of a whole swathe of the atheist and skeptic communities, of unions, of academia.

    And when I say 'in the background', I don't mean hiding. I mean you can find them backing all these things, putting forth the idea that the solution to all problems is to accept Marx

    And no one seems to mind this at all.

    Even as we watch those nations that have accepted Marx murdering, starving and failing, no one seems to think twice about letting them run roughshod over everything.

    Instead, we shriek at the pitiful dregs who still give credence to the failed spinoff of Marx.

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    "And no one seems to mind this at all."

    Why should we? It's actually adding discourse and context to the debate. It's refreshing to hear a Marxist respond to our assertions of Mises economics than to hear a typical American voter respond with "Yeah, but JOBS!" or some other equally useless response. You're generally going to get a well thought out response from a Marxist, simply because they've thought about economics, social justice, and philosophy. Even if they ARE wrong. :)

    When we start painting other philosophies as "evil", we're doing EXACTLY the same thing wrong that oppressive governments and ignorant people have done and continue to do. Marxists should be engaged, not denounced.

  • Harry A. Ness||

    Some of the finest economists to ever come out of journalism school have been Marxists.

  • juris imprudent||

    [golf claps]

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    You're generally going to get a well thought out response from a Marxist, simply because they've thought about economics, social justice, and philosophy.

    Citation needed.

    Marxists should be engaged, not denounced.

    Sounds like another one of those false choices. Denouncement is engagement.

  • BearOdinson||

    Say what you want about the tenets of National Socialism. It least its an ethos!

  • BearOdinson||

    Except that by me denouncing Marxism, I am not part of the oppressive government. No one here is arguing that laws should be enacted outlawing the advocating of Marxism. But I get the same freedom to say what I think about Marxism, which is that it is complete bullocks from top to bottom.

    Should American Nazi party members be engaged? Should those who support Islamism be engaged? Should Farrakhan's party be engaged?

    Feel free to engage with them. You have every right to. And I have every right to give them all the intellectual time they deserve: NONE.

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    Thanks. I never implied that you should be prohibited from calling Marxists evil. I simply said that labeling people as "evil" without engaging them is a useless approach historically reserved for people (or governments) who prefer to stick their heads in the sand. It should be easy for you to make your point to Marxists that Marxism is a bad idea. We call it discourse.

  • Ship of Theseus||

    I'd go with highfalutin cunt.

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    My apologies. Really. I just never thought I'd have to defend discourse over violence on this site. That discourse is so reviled here has me second guessing what this site is about.

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    Replace "Marxism" with "Fascism" in all your comments, and you'll see where people were having a problem with your comments.

    Libertarians consider Marxism to be as evil as Fascism, to the extent that the two can actually be delineated from each other, and the idea of "engaging" with the former, is as absurd as "engaging" with the latter.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    "When we start painting other philosophies as "evil", we're doing EXACTLY the same thing wrong that oppressive governments and ignorant people have done and continue to do. Marxists should be engaged, not denounced."

    Marxism is an existential threat to individual freedoms, and our constitution. Marxists don't need to be engaged, they need to be destroyed as decisively and quickly as possible. Your argument is essentially that when people come to burn your house down and put you in shackles that they should be 'engaged'. I agree, to the extent that the engagement in question be shooting them all dead before they make it halfway up my driveway.

  • MarkLastname||

    Why is this not also the case for fascists? Shouldnt we engage fascist thinkers like Carl Schmitt as well?

    Why should one mass murdering totalitarian ideology be socially acceptable and the other not?

    Also, you're absolutely out of your mind if you think Marxists are thoughtful. The entirety of 20th century Marxist philosophy has been coming up with new obscurantist ways to avoid having to engage its critics. The labor theory of value was refuted before Marx had even died.

    Marxists are to economics what creationists are to biology.

  • DarrenM||

    Creationists don't really affect you, though. What does it really matter how the Earth was made? Either way, it's in the past. Marxism hurts people now.

  • ||

    Two reasons A) FDR lied to the American people to have them accept Soviet Russia and B) they are the "right" kind of collectivist, you only get two train route options and that's it, and they're headed to the same place.

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    It's hard to make sense of your post. You rightly condemn Marxist dictators and their murderous history, but then make some sort of connection between them and university students/faculty? Marxism is not inherently violent, just like capitalism is not inherently violent. Sure, when governments have tried to implement Marxism (or capitalism), they've tended to go down the road of violence, but to suggest that people who advocate Marxism (or capitalism) are cut from the same cloth as Mao, for example, then I think you're being intellectually dishonest.

    It's also important to note that many libertarians and anarchists have been proponents of certain elements of socialism (see the left libertarian movement, Proudhon's mutualism, etc). We, as libertarians, probably have more in common with the radical left groups than we do with the populist political movements. I think it's obvious that we should denounce violent means to disseminate these messages, but we should also be careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    The fact that every self-described marxist government has descended into tyranny is purely a coincidence. It really no different than capitalism.

    They're good people!

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    Many self-proclaimed capitalist governments have as well. For example, I can think of one government that is widely considered capitalist (but probably isn't), that imprisons its own people at historically high rates, that invaded countries and murdered millions of civilians, that routinely engaged in terrorism following the development of weapons of mass destruction, and that usurps property at unprecedented rates. But I don't think that government necessarily represents capitalism just because they call themselves "capitalist."

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Hmmm privately held wealth in the US is what 60TT? 70TT? That's a pretty creative definition of unprecedented property confiscation. Or perhaps you were refering to taxation to support the welfare state (completely unlike your marxist utopias)? Well I can't argue with you there.

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    Yes, I was mostly referring to taxation. So I'll take you at your word that you can't argue with me there, and that you acknowledge that capitalism has bred tyrannical governments in the same way that socialism has.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    But you advocate for left libertarianism with its support of the welfare state. That isn't capitalism, that is socialism/marxism. So the only thing you actually demonstrated is no argument at all.

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    You don't know what I advocate. I haven't supported the welfare state anywhere on this site, and neither do most left libertarians.

    I made the point that capitalist governments have historically devolved into some degree of tyranny. You appeared to have acknowledged that point in your previous response... "Or perhaps you were refering to taxation to support the welfare state? Well I can't argue with you there."

    If you can't argue with me there, then don't.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    So if I go to bleeding heart libertarians or niskanen I won't find a case for the welfare state? I won't see an argument for the UBI?

    It's really a bit sad that you can't seem to understand that your whole "argument" about a false equivalency between capitalism and socialism is that when we stop practicing capitalism and start practicing socialism we get, um, socialism. That's not an argument in favor of socialism..

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    I'm not advocating socialism either. You're trying to lash out at somebody, but you're so far off the mark that you end up all over the map.

    Anyway, I don't think you grasped my point at all. My point was that so-called capitalist governments have historically been tyrannical. Some would argue (including me) that these capitalist governments weren't actually capitalist, and that people who advocate capitalism are not necessarily supportive of those governments' policies. This is completely analogous to the fact that many people who advocate socialism don't necessarily support the policies of, say, the USSR. Just because you call something "socialist" doesn't make it socialist. When capitalists say "look at the oppression of the USSR, see?? Socialism doesn't work." or when socialists say "look at the wealth disparity in the US, see?? Capitalism doesn't work.", it's really an attempt to change the narrative because you are failing to directly address their point.

    Those of us who advocate the free market face this issue all the time. Opponents of the free market frequently point to highly regulated systems, erroneously call them free market, and then attack those systems. It's obfuscation. And you're engaging in it whenever you equate modern socialism with Maoism.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Because you haven't made the point.

    Wealth inequality is a feature of capitalism not a bug. There is nothing to address. The only way to address it is through forced redistribution of wealth which is intrinsic to socialism. Note the use of the word "force." No society of any scale that practices socialism even in its partial form of the welfare state gets aroind the need for force. I don't care if the socialists or you don't want to acknowledge that fact.

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    I haven't made the point? Then explain what you meant by "Well I can't argue with you there." Sounds like you conceded the point.

    Also, forced wealth redistribution is not intrinsic to socialism. See mutualism, for example.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    ""Also, forced wealth redistribution is not intrinsic to socialism""

    Some one needs to tell the socialist that. Wealth redistribution by law is forced redistribution.

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    Interesting that you cropped out the "See mutualism, for example" part of my statement. It's incompatible with your point about wealth redistribution as a law.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Now you're being willfully obtuse. I've already explained what I meant by that, i.e. when you practise socialism you get socialism! You don't get to claim that it's something else simply because you don't like the outcome. The method is what matters.

    You seem fixated on the fact that I said "self-declared" as if that's what matters. The point being that marxists states always descend into tyranny and they don't even PRETEND to call themselves something else.

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    But self-declared IS what matters! What you're calling socialist governments aren't the set of policies that (most) socialists are advocating! That's the part that you don't seem to grasp. Even though they pull the same tactic against you.

  • BearOdinson||

    Those who advocate socialism either don't understand it, or are essentially fellow travelers with the USSR, China, etc.

    What is the definition of socialism? It is isn't hippy communes. Why? Because those people are free to leave any time they want. Socialism isn't people voluntarily joining their wealth together for a common goal. Because in a free market society, guess what? YOU CAN DO THAT ANYTIME YOU WANT TO!!!!
    Socialism is the state controlling the means of production. THE STATE or "the collective" or "the people" if you prefer other words, but they all mean the same thing. You don't actually own anything, because someone else at any time can legally take it away from you. Either by fiat, committee or popular vote. It is all somebody forcing someone else.

    A free market doesn't force anyone to do anything. If you want to band together with a bunch of other people, fine go for it. Socialism FORCES people to do this. It doesn't matter what the mechanism is to institute it. Whether it is 1 dictator, the central committee, or 50% of the people plus 1.

  • SKR||

    "Socialism is the state controlling the means of production. "

    State socialism is Marxist-Leninism. There are other types of socialism.

    "THE STATE or "the collective" or "the people" if you prefer other words, but they all mean the same thing."

    No they don't mean the same thing. The state is a vertically organized system. Collectives and 'the people' within socialist philosophy are horizontally organized. That is a huge difference.

    " You don't actually own anything, because someone else at any time can legally take it away from you. Either by fiat, committee or popular vote. It is all somebody forcing someone else."

    Not at all. Socialist philosophy allows for personal property like cars, iPods, and clothing. What is socialized is real property like land, factories, and farms.

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    There is no such thing as "horizontally organized collectivism".

    That may be what they WANT. But what they will GET, is a village council... or "soviet", if you will... and the decisions of that council will be *vertical*.

    What you are describing is Anarchism, Mutualism, or Anarcho-Syndicalism, and it is a pipe dream.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    Exactly

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    Also, the members of the council will get special privileges. Those who rule always think they are superior to the ruled and deserving of the best of everything while throwing scraps down to the masses.

  • DarrenM||

    I don't think a government can be capitalist. Capitalism is not a governing ideology or system. A society can be capitalistic and government can either support an environment with appropriate legislation that fosters it or, more likely, throw up roadblocks to discourage it.

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    Are you the *actual* David Nolan?

    Because I've always thought that your chart isn't quite right. Right-wingers can engage in economic tyranny (Steve Bannon is NOT a leftist), and Left-wingers can very definitively engage in social tyranny (Antifa is NOT right-wing.

    I personally think that Equality vs. Inequality would be a better metric (True Leftists want collective, eg theoretically equal, ownership of material and intellectual property, whereas Rightists want private, eg unequal, ownership of both; Leftists use discrimination to create artificial equality in schools and culture, whereas the old Right did the opposite; etc.).

    Of course, you probably either aren't him, or are already gone. Oh well.

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    I HAVE seen "your" chart (whoever you are), and the fact that Right-wingers *can* engage in economic tyranny on it, doesn't change the fact that "your" chart classifies ideology as more economically free, the more Rightist it gets. To the point that the Rightmost point of the chart is 0% social freedom and 100% economic freedom.

    But Steven Bannon is FAR Right, and yet he is very tyrannical on economic matters. Because he has to be, because it is *impossible* to be culturally tyrannical and not economically tyrannical at the same time: Abortion? Protectionism? Free Speech? Gun Control? Socialized Medicine? ALL both economical and cultural, to equal degree. The only difference is not "cultural" vs. "economic"- a tyranny of one is a tyranny of the other- but whether they artificially create Equality or Inequality.

    I really hope you're actually some random troll. Because I have heard it said that a man may be judged by how he treats those he considers his inferiors, and your arrogance, dismissiveness, and coldness reveals you, whoever you are, to be a man with no inferiors at all.

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    Definitive example:

    Drug Prohibition:

    Tyranny of what one can put in one's body, and how can one express one's self? Check. Thus, cultural tyranny.

    Tyranny of what one can purchase, and heavy regulation, prohibition, or even destruction of vendors and producers? Check. Thus, economic tyranny.

    Your "cultural vs. economic" contrast is blatantly imaginary.

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    Well, Mr. Nolan, you were right. I DO think poorly.

    Because I wasn't smart enough to look up whether you are STILL ALIVE before writing those diatribes above!

    And for that, I apologize... To David Nolan. The dead one, I mean.

    Let's see now... "Christian Taliban", eh? Buttplug, is that you? Or is that one of mtrueman's lines? By the Nine, have I been trolled!

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    That's all very fascinating. Except for the part where I was never particularly disagreeing with any of it. Just trying to figure out which troll you are.

    So, seriously: Palin's Buttplug? Mtrueman? Robespierre Josef Stalin?

    I'm guessing PB. Randomly inserting references to the evils of religion in unrelated threads is one of his "things", if I recall correctly. So, Nolan's Buttplug, then?

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    Oh, BTW, the rights to vote, get married (eg form a contract), and seek employment were all monopolized by government *before* being denied to those identity groups, sooo... NAP most definitely violated, and still very much adequate to the libertarian worldview by itself.

  • Bubba Jones||

    I think we can all agree that the US can be a real asshole without dumbing down the definition of Tyranny to the point of having no meaning.

  • Red Rocks Baiting n Inciting||

    Marxism is not inherently violent

    What? The whole philosophy is based off of a romantic notion of economic apocalypticism. If he actually believed that advocating for revolution would be a bloodless affair, he was far more naïve than we every imagined.

  • ||

    So much this.

    Go back and reread your Marx, Junky.

  • Eric||

    "Marxism is not inherently violent, just like capitalism is not inherently violent."

    We interchange a lot of words here. Marxism is all about class-struggle and advocates violence to throw off one's oppressors. If you had said "socialism" is not inherently violent, that would hold some water. Although, from a hard core libertarian perspective taxation is theft and a form of violence.

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    Eric, you're correct that I basically conflated Marxism and socialism. I did this intentionally, given that the article did the same, and given that my discussion with NotAnotherSkippy used Marxism and socialism completely interchangeably. But yes, you are correct that my sentence at face value is incorrect.

  • Eek Barba Durkle||

    Marxism is not inherently violent, just like capitalism is not inherently violent.

    Marxism is inherently hostile to the idea of individual civil liberties, and is inherently repressive of individual autonomy.

    As such, Marxism is ABSOLUTELY inherently violent.

    And evil. Marxism has to be the only belief system that can drop a quarter billion dead innocents in one century, and not be automatically castigated as the refuge of the evil and their sockpuppets.

  • Eric||

    Just as JunkScience conflated Marxism with Socialism, you've done the same with Marxism and Stalinism. There was nothing inherently Marxist about Stalin's tactics to gain and maintain power. That's a human condition that transcends political ideology.

  • Incomprehensible Bitching||

    "No true Scotsman" is so hot right now.

  • MarkLastname||

    Marxism necessitates totalitarian dictatorship. Marx admitted as much in discussions on the Paris Commune; hence the term 'dictatorship of the proletariat.'

    Arguing that Stalinism or Maoism weren't really Marxist is as facile as arguing that jumping off of a roof won't cause you to die; rather the fall will. But when one necessitates the other, it's a trivial distinction.

    Marxism requires extensive coercion, and that coercion can only be enforced by violence. Marxism is indeed inherently violent, just as much as fascism.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Marxism is absolutely inherently violent. Any comparison to capitalism is spurious at best. Marxism requires the absolute submission of the individual to the state. That is oppressive and inherently violent.

  • Mickey Rat||

    Marxism inhetrently seeks to perfect human nature. Therefore, Marxism cannot tolerate dissent, cannot leave people to their own devices. Sooner or later, it comes to violence, to force, in order to make the New Man out of the old.

  • Azathoth!!||

    Marxism IS inherently violent.

    It is an unnatural unworkable philosophy.

    Whenever idiots attempt it they find themselves having to apply force to get people to comply with what Marxism says should be happening. The longer it goes on, the more force is applied. We have seen this with every attempt at Marxist organization--be it on a national, communal, or academic level. Every time it is tried it eventually reduces to shrieking Marxist platitudes and demanding that reality be ignored.

    You are not a libertarian. Of any stripe. You probably have a whole lot in common with the radical left, being a leftist and all. But libertarians do not.

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    Nonsense. Stop worrying about the 'invisibility' of Marxists, amd start worrying about their prominence; the 'Antifa' are Marxists. Oh, there may be (highly) theorietical differences, but in general, Marxists = Fascists = Nazis = Maoists = Antifa = KKK. All are violent thugs, lead by socialpaths, amd when they achieve control of a country or region the result is ineviatbly mass murder and widespread misery.

  • Sebawlm||

    I'm a leftist libertarian and I couldn't agree more. Antifa are mostly a bunch of privileged, rich white kids who like to beat people up and reason that nobody could possibly object to them punching Nazis. Except we all should, because even Nazis have rights and liberties. That's how you marginalize them. As Chomsky says, when political discourse devolves into a slugging match, the toughest and most brutal are the ones who win -- and we know who holds that mantle.

    However, I think the events in Charlottesville bring up a really potent example of the underlying contradiction between the currently-popular interpretations of the First and Second Amendments. When someone marches with a torch in hand and an assault rifle slung over their shoulder, chanting their slogans about getting rid of Jews and deporting Mexicans, how is that *not* implicitly threatening, and thereby in itself a suppression of free speech? "We want power so that we can kill you, and here's my M-16" seems like a pretty egregious violation of the freedom from coercion which makes free speech possible.

    Try to imagine a group of black men marching through town packing that sort of firepower while shouting about how they want "dead cops" (I seem to remember states rolling back their open carry laws when the New Black Panthers did things like this). A judge and jury would probably uphold the ensuing massacre as a Constitutional use of force. Yet when neo-Nazis do basically the same thing, crickets.

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    Carrying a gun is not an act of aggression. Only aiming it at someone, or directly threatening to use it on (someone), is.

    Any restriction on carrying guns at rallies will quickly become an excuse to ban carrying at any time the local gov feels threatened (read: all the time).

    To say nothing of the fact that it is actually a social good in and of itself, for the government to be reminded, visually, that they aren't the only ones who hold power in a Free State.

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    "Carrying a gun is not an act of aggression. Only aiming it at someone, or directly threatening to use it on (someone), is"

    Gray area. It's all about context. If you're arguing with someone and you have a gun on your belt, and you move your shirt aside to show that person the gun, I think most people would consider that a threat. All you've done is reveal that you have a gun. You've never said anything to the effect of "I'm going to shoot you". The only action you've performed is calling to attention that you have a gun, and in the context of the moment, this constitutes a threat.

    Likewise, if you're at a rally where the point is to advocate violence against a group of people, and violence is expected to break out at this rally, and you're arguing with a group on the other side, then it's perfectly reasonable to consider it a threat when somebody advertises the fact that they've brought a gun to this inappropriate venue.

  • ThomasD||

    No, it's not a gray area, there are well accepted legal standards.

    Same as there are standards for speech - either it contains all the requisite and specific elements and therefore is threat, or it does not.

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    We don't want to go down the "legal standards" road, because advocates of the 2nd amendment are already going to lose that battle.

  • Cyto||

    Nah, he has a point.

    Carrying an AR-15 over your shoulder while marching through a gay neighborhood under a banner that says "kill all fags" has a lot more of a direct threat feel to it.

  • ||

    Is this what was done? Fuck! Didn't anybody think to ban unmarked Dodge Challengers along the parade route?

  • colorblindkid||

    There have been plenty of black 2A marches and the New Black Panther Party has often marched with rifles. Do we want police to shut that down? No. They have the right to do that.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    ""Gray area. It's all about context. If you're arguing with someone and you have a gun on your belt, and you move your shirt aside to show that person the gun, I think most people would consider that a threat. All you've done is reveal that you have a gun""

    I agree with that. Because the weapon was hidden, then shown as a threat. It was hidden, then reveal.
    What that does not represent is open carry where the weapon is in plain view the whole time.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    What I find interesting is how just the mere thought that someone having a weapon is a threat is the same line of thinking a cop used to shoot and kill Philano Castile.

    Is it wrong to think that way or not?

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    It's wrong to think that the mere ownership of a gun is a threat. You are correct.

    Context. Castile calmly and politely stated that he had a gun and a permit for that gun. He wasn't waving the gun around, he wasn't standing outside a bank that had just been robbed, he didn't show up to a gang fight with the gun.

    Burning wood isn't a threat either. Neither is hammering the wood into a cross and setting it on fire. But when you do it on a black guy's front lawn while wearing sheets, it's a threat. Clearly the mere act of wearing sheets is not a violent threat, but the actions when all considered together constitute a clear threat.

    Let's not be so deconstructionist that we ignore context.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    The context I'm referring to is whether or not the threat is determined by the actions of the person legally carrying the firearm, or by the imagination of the person who feels threatened.

  • DesigNate||

    Apparently to Junky, it's the imagination of the person, if that person belongs to a historically disadvantaged group.

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    Quoting from the original post I was responding to:

    "When someone marches with a torch in hand and an assault rifle slung over their shoulder, chanting their slogans about getting rid of Jews and deporting Mexicans, how is that *not* implicitly threatening, and thereby in itself a suppression of free speech?"

    Sebawim explicitly states that an assault rifle "slung over the shoulder" can be a threat, based on the heatedness of the rifleman's rhetoric, and their choice of political associate.

    I disagree. Carrying a weapon slung on your shoulder is not an implicit threat. Stating that it is, means assuming you know what the rifle-bearer's intentions are, specifically assuming that they are to open fire unprovoked.

    I would call this the Precautionary Principle. And it is always the excuse of gun controllers.

  • Brian||

    "(I seem to remember states rolling back their open carry laws when the New Black Panthers did things like this)."

    I seem to remember the modern gun control movement getting started when the old Black Panthers did things like this.

  • Azathoth!!||

    Try to imagine a group of black men marching through town packing that sort of firepower while shouting about how they want "dead cops"

    Why imagine? It happened in Texas. Without a rollback of open carry laws. And no one was 'massacred'

  • Ron||

    except for the five cops in Dallas but otherwise

  • DesigNate||

    And yet, those cops were killed by a coward ass sniper, not the people open carrying in the march. Weak sauce Ron.

  • Azathoth!!||

    Ron, he means the cops would massacre the uppity black folks.

    Black people shooting cops is a whole different story.

  • Unlabelable MJGreen||

    Do you think there's a reasonable threat that one of those people will turn their M16 towards you, simply because you're speaking at them? Is it a common enough occurrence such that any armed marcher should be presumed threatening?

    (I seem to remember states rolling back their open carry laws when the New Black Panthers did things like this). A judge and jury would probably uphold the ensuing massacre as a Constitutional use of force.

    So where were the massacres when the Black Panthers did it?

  • Cyto||

    You can look elsewhere for examples. Ireland has a long history of Protestant and Catholic marches that were more threats of mob violence than peaceful expressions of political beliefs.

  • Unlabelable MJGreen||

    Why would I look to other countries for what to reasonably expect in the US? A group open carrying rifles in Mogadishu also has different connotations than a group of Texans open carrying while they head to Starbucks.

  • Cyto||

    The argument is about context mattering. Carrying on a coffee run is not a threat... Or even speech. Carrying in a 2nd amendment rally is speech, and not a threat. Carrying in a "death to cops" rally might legitimately be considered a direct threat.

  • ||

    The argument is about context mattering.

    Your damned right context matters. Broad daylight, surrounded by police with a banner overhead, and permit holders on record set a pretty firm context that they aren't there to just blaze away from the street at any shadow in any given window.

    The most recent 'parade shooter' was, arguably, and unvetted or concealed outsider (or otherwise not auspiciously marching under the banner) and the killer in Charlottesville was driving a car adjacent to or after the 'parade' had finished. There's plenty of footage of 'armed' and/or paramilitary people standing adjacent to antifa banners (opposite NN/WS groups) in Charlottesville.

    You're deliberately distorting facts and/or message(s). It's not clear if your intent is against guns or against a given race, group, or organization (or in favor of their opposition), but you're clearly willing to lie to achieve your purpose.

  • Unlabelable MJGreen||

    But what makes that consideration legitimate? Is one's gut feeling enough, or should there be some reference to recent experience? Shouldn't this context extend beyond what is being chanted by the marchers, to include the marchers' history or the society's history of peaceable or rowdy assemblies?

    It can be a direct threat, but a presumption that the entire act is inherently a threat is too far to me.

  • Azathoth!!||

    "Carrying in a "death to cops" rally might legitimately be considered a direct threat."

    But it wasn't. This happened. And no one died.

  • ||

    Try to imagine a group of black men marching through town packing that sort of firepower while shouting about how they want "dead cops" (I seem to remember states rolling back their open carry laws when the New Black Panthers did things like this). A judge and jury would probably uphold the ensuing massacre as a Constitutional use of force. Yet when neo-Nazis do basically the same thing, crickets.

    WHAT"S THAT? TRY TO IMAGINE A GROUP OF BLACK MEN OPENLY BRANDISHING FIREARMS IN PUBLIC *YET* AGAIN YOU SAY? NEO-NAZIS ARE KILLING PEOPLE AT THEIR RALLIES WITHOUT GUNS YOU SAY? YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO SPEAK UP, I CAN'T HEAR YOU OVER ALL THE DISINGENUOUS ANTI-GUN, ANTI-MINORITY, PRO-LEFT BULLSHIT CRICKETS!

  • MarioLanza||

    Hey Reason, how about saying it? Trump is correct. There were bad people on both sides.

    In fact, I worry far more about the antifa thugs. There have always been the racist KKK-ers. Their puny marches brought universal condemnation. But people allowed them to make a fool of themselves. Free speech was never threatened, now it is under attack - not by the KKK-ers but by the left and their violent antifa brown shirt thugs.

    What is different? 8 years of race baiting has lead worst every race relations in decades. Now, the idiots "whites are superior" marches led by very much inferior Caucasians were allowed to escalate into a violent race battle. Thanks for the stand down order, Governor.

    There are already laws on the books that one can't rampage around in a mask. You come out in public in a mask...you get arrested and you spend the night in the county jail. Problem solved.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    You're wack Hihn.

    Get back on your meds....STAT.

  • Eric||

    "In fact, I worry far more about the antifa thugs. There have always been the racist KKK-ers."

    When antifa starts piling up a body count even a fraction of the size of the KKK your worries will sound reasonable.

  • Ron||

    just because Antifa has failed to kill anyone its not for a lack of trying and even suggesting it.

  • Eric||

    Until evidence presents itself to back your claim, attempts to equate the two are a bit premature at this point.

  • Zeb||

    You think they couldn't kill people if they actually tried to kill people?

    I really don't think the KKK is after killing people these days. But they do have that history.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    How many KKK members are there anymore? It can't be that many. Whereas antics appears to have a large membership backed by Soros. They need to be taken down. Sessions needs to quit circle jerking over drugs, and start putting these communists away.

  • Zeb||

    I more or less agree. I was jut quibbling with Ron's apparent assertion that Antifa has been trying to kill people. If they had been trying in any serious way, they would have succeeded.

  • ||

    If they had been trying in any serious way, they would have succeeded.

    The scarier part about Antifa, IMO, is that there's a decent chance that you wouldn't know or that you would know and nobody would care. This, IMO, is precisely what made the Klan scary in its day and makes it a shell of it's former ghoul. We're maybe not explicitly there yet with regard to Antifa, but they seem to be more means, motive, and opportunity capable of this than the current vestiges of the KKK. If the Klan showed up and burned down parts of Berkeley or whatever the Klan equivalent of Berkeley is (LSU? Alabama?), you'd better believe heads would roll. The fact that Berkeley (among others) tolerate Antifa the way they do indicates pretty strongly which way the balance is tipped.

  • Red Rocks Baiting n Inciting||

    The fact that Berkeley (among others) tolerate Antifa the way they do indicates pretty strongly which way the balance is tipped.

    Once politicians begin openly identifying themselves with Antifa, the way many of them did with the KKK at the state level in the 1920s in order to win elections even outside the South, for example, then we'll know how deep their influence actually runs. We're not quite there yet, though.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    That is a large part of the antifa threat. A lot of communities are tolerant of them, as much of the south and other places where toward the klan back i the day. And like the klan, they have money people backing them. They are quickly evolving into the KKK of the 21st century.

  • Eric||

    "Sessions needs to quit circle jerking over drugs, and start putting these communists away."

    Ladies and Gentlemen. I present to you a sample of Fascist thought.

  • MarkLastname||

    Communist: "let's start putting these fascists away!"

    Eric's probable response: "now remember kids, that's not really communism, which is peaceful."

  • Azathoth!!||

    The people at the Unite the Right rally are being called 'nazis' and 'KKK'.

    Fine, then let's call antifa who they really are, too--communists.

    Who's got the bigger body count Eric?

  • DarrenM||

    How many people has the KKK killed in the last 30 years?

  • MasterThief||

    Why has it taken a Reason writer this long to give a take that isn't full of virtue signalling? It's been annoying to read the exact same take on things here that you can find at huffpo and vox.
    Go figure, Trump said something right even if he is still a terrible communicator. I struggle to see how so many were offended by his comments and view it as him defending nazis.

  • Rat on a train||

    Look at the flak the ACLU has received. Defending rights is no longer acceptable. If you aren't defending the correct tribe you are wrong.

  • Cyto||

    The ACLU has always been criticized when they defend the KKK. It is one of their proudest moments. Nothing says defender of liberty more than martyring yourself by taking sides with the most abhorrent members of society.

    They are one of the few groups left that actually has a real set of principles.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Get back on your meds immediately Hihn.

  • Memory Hole||

    The man offered evidence to support his assertion that the violence at this rally was initiated by the right-wingers and all you offered was a personal attack.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    All Hihn does is offer personal attacks. There is no rational thought nor support for any argument in that jumble of nonsense.

  • Azathoth!!||

    He didn't, actually.

    He has chosen three clips, out of hours of video, to be his clubs.

    The first is a random clash DURING the event--not at the beginning where it could actually show a possible 'start' of the hostilities. He has been pounding this at people as proof that he is correct for days now. And he has been told, repeatedly, that this is not actually proof of anything he's asserting.

    The second is drone footage that shows an occluded view of the incident. The actual most interesting part about THIS snippet of video is that it clearly shows that the first car was being blocked by the counterprotesters, that they were beating on it(as ground view video showing beaten in side panels on the first car seem to indicate). You can't really see the dodge hit the second car because of the angle.

    The third is the piece that shows the car zooming through an intersection a block up from the stopped car and the one behind it. The car drives through everyone on the street and into the back of the second car, driving it into the first and injuring more people. The dodge then reverses back the way it came, bumper torn and scraping the ground.

  • Azathoth!!||

    The second and the third pose troubling questions.

    They are of the attack, but they show other things. They show, without doubt, that this took place AFTER the neo-nazis were routed.

    They show that counterprotesters were STILL blocking streets.

    And they show that none of this took place on a pedestrian thoroughfare.

    They make it very plain, that if the counterprotesters weren't blocking streets this couldn't have happened. The people in the first two cars weren't part of a protest--they were people trying to get to their destinations. They weren't antifa or any of that. They were people trapped by antifa

    They also make it very plain that we don't see what happened before the dodge zoomed through that first intersection. We have several video streams that show the blocked second intersection from before and after the attack, but we don't have anything from further up the street that the dodge came down. That would be good video to have.

  • Azathoth!!||

    As you can see, Michael has failed to make any actual argument here. He does his usual semi-random bolding and then agrees--while bolding that he's not agreeing-- with what I've pointed out.

    I can't figure out what's wrong with Michael. I suspect this is all just a source of venal pleasure for him in his dotage.

  • Philadelphia Collins||

    White Indian has spoken.

  • DesigNate||

    Oh. My. God.

    It all makes so much sense now...

  • Jordan||

    All the violence was initiated by the Nazis/Racists/Jew-Haters.

    Yeah that journalist who the antifa thugs sent to the hospital was coming right for them!

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Trump is picking a side. He's trying to stay out of the nonsense that is lefty media, lefty fascist antifa, lefty neo-nazis, and just old fashion socialism.

    These groups are all lefty socialists. They are just bickering as to who gets to carry the tikki torches to fight Libertarians, conservatives, and defenders of the Constitution.

  • ||

    What they always willfully fail to see is that these two collectivist groups are like Protestants and Catholics, Shiites and Sunnis, sure they have very slight differences but they all are Christians/Muslims, in this case they all bask in the glory of their collectivist god.

  • Peter Verkooijen||

    Yes, Trump is picking a side; he supports the alt-right, white nationalists, neo-confederates. That is NOT the side of liberty, the Constitution, conservatism and certainly not libertarianism.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    By not speaking out against the "alt-right", white nationalists, and neo-confederates you are supporting them?

    Alt-right are actually neo-nazi types and Nazis are socialists (lefties). "White nationalists" are white people who want to control US national identity. They tend to be racists and will use revolution to usurp the Constitution (lefties). Neo-confederates, are people who think Southern Nationalism is the right choice and will revolution to usurp the Constitution rather than just seceding (lefty Democrats).

    Trump's not a socialist, Nazi, neo-Nazi, neo-confederate, racist, nor white nationalist. He does not want government to control the means of production, he was not born in the South nor advocates for the Confederate State of America, and he's married to a Slovenian national who was naturalized in 2006.

    If there is one thing socialist, Nazi, neo-confederate, white nationalists do is: shrink government, live in NY and party with Yankees, marry Slavic persons, and then get them naturalized to mix with white Americans.

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    "and he's married to a Slovenian national who was naturalized in 2006."

    That's like saying "Some of my best friends are black!"

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Or that marxists are good people with well reasoned ideas.

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    Go on. Have your boogeymen.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    I'm not the one clenching my blanket and calling for suppression of speech.

  • Zeb||

    It's Marxists' premises that are faulty. You can have well reasoned arguments based on faulty premises. Your results will be wrong, but the reasoning can still be sound.

    Not everyone who is a Marxist is stupid. Many are quite smart. You can't always just dismiss wrong ideas as founded on stupidity. Every political philosophy is based on assumptions. If you want to change anyone's mind, you need to show why those assumptions are bad, not simply dismiss it as idiocy.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    When one rejects a century of empirical data, yes that's idiocy.

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    This is EXACTLY the argument that socialists make when they criticize the historical implementation of Austrian economics. It's even happened in the comment section of Reason. You're making the same mistake they make. Which is why we constantly go in circles.

  • Eric||

    "Not everyone who is a Marxist is stupid. Many are quite smart."

    A lot of it also depends upon one's perspective. The industrial revolution created some horrible outcomes for the peasant classes. I can't fault them for clinging on to an ideology that might change their lot.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    ""and he's married to a Slovenian national who was naturalized in 2006."

    That's like saying "Some of my best friends are black!""

    No, it fucking isn't. Marrying someone isn't the same as hanging out with a few racially different people, FFS.

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    Marrying someone does not eliminate the possibility that you're a xenophobe and does not change your motivation to move against an entire group of people. The fact that he married one person from one country does not demonstrate that he embraces all people from all other countries. Please draw a Venn diagram.

    Along those same lines, you can also politically oppose sending jobs to other countries while still having your own company manufacture neckties in Mexico, for example.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    And now you're moving the goalpost. Anyway, there is zero evidence Trump is a racist. Goddamn, stop playing into the whole progtard identity politics playbook. You should redirect your efforts into destroying progressives where you find them. At least if you have any sense of self preservation.

  • damikesc||

    In what way is he "supporting" them?

    By condemning them.

    Repeatedly.

    For years.

    Spencer supporting Trump isn't mutual. As Reagan once said when asked why he accepted donations from the Log Cabin Republicans, "Their endorsement of me does not equal me endorsing them". You can disagree with somebody who supports you.

    After all, criminals tend to be quite pro-Democrat...

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    That's the funny thing. Trump has been a democrat all of his life until he decided to run for office. He donate a lot of money to dems and their causes over the years. He's is/was friends with the Clintons.

    If you want to see what an elite rich democrat looks like in the presidency. We are looking at one.

  • Rhywun||

    Trump was also a Republican between 87 and 99. My guess is it fluctuated according to the mood of NYC politics and whichever would benefit him more. But no matter how Democrat you find some of his policies, he is in no way typical of NYC Democratic policticians, who are screeching antifa types to a "T".

  • Mark22||

    Yes, Trump is picking a side; he supports the alt-right, white nationalists, neo-confederates.

    Bullshit. Trump simply refuses to join in the left-wing fiction that socialists and progressives are anti-fascists, when, in fact, socialists, progressives, and fascists are all just variants of the same ideology.

    That is NOT the side of liberty, the Constitution, conservatism and certainly not libertarianism.

    You're trying to manipulate the argument with a false dichotomy, as if there were only two sides: those of totalitarianism and those of liberty, and by arguing that you're not part of one, you must be part of the other.

    No, Trump is not a conservative or a libertarian, so what? He also isn't a totalitarian prick like fascists, socialists, or progressives.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    The fallacy is that he must be supporting them, because they are supporting him.

    Besides, it's not like he called a former high ranking member of the KKK a mentor. But for some reason we are not calling that person a racist.

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    "They are just bickering as to who gets to carry the tikki torches to fight Libertarians, conservatives, and defenders of the Constitution."

    This is a very interesting sentence, and I think you've accidentally revealed the problem. You lumped three groups together that don't inherently belong together. Libertarians are not necessarily defenders of the Constitution (in fact, many prominent libertarians have been highly critical of the Constitution). And conservatives are also very frequently harsh critics of libertarians.

    So when you put those three groups together, you're giving me some insight into what KIND of libertarian you're referring to when he's marching with conservatives and defenders of the constitution.

    Likewise, when so-called conservatives and advocates of free speech are marching alongside white supremacists, you're giving me some insight into what KIND of conservative it is. Because it's not commonplace for a run of the mill conservative to find enough common ground with a Nazi to share a movement with him. You can obviously be a nationalist without advocating white supremacy. But if you're a nationalist that happens to be marching with white supremacists, it's fair for people to draw certain conclusions.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    And when you claim that the constitution is not s libertarian document and qualify the value of free speech based upon whom is speaking (whatever happened to we must engage with marxists and not denounce them?), the you tell me exactly what kind of libertarian you are as well.

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    I certainly hope it does.

    If you've just now realized that many libertarians DON'T consider the US Constitution a libertarian document, including one very prominent libertarian who just published a book describing how the Constitution represents the main opposition to libertarianism in the 18th century, then you're welcome. I think your brand of conservatism is directly in opposition to libertarianism, but I never once suggested that you don't have the right to share your views or that free speech isn't absolute.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    And yet that document remains the only constitution yet securing the right to speech. The fact that you find so much fault with it certainly implies an awful lot about your commitment to that right.

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    That document doesn't protect free speech any more than it protects the right to keep and bear arms or the right to privacy. It's a facade. Free speech will go away when the populace wants it to go away, and it will be based on some elaborate legal argument that says that the words don't mean what they say -- just like gun rights and privacy rights went away.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    If that documemt doesn't protect free speech and doesn't have any power at all, then how can it have been the biggest opposition to libertarians in the 18th century?

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    Because it marked the loss of the battle for liberty. The opponents to libertarianism got their way and drafted that document, which set the wheels in motion for an authoritarian government. The government that the Cato Institute, for example, ranked #23 in the world in terms of freedom. (hint: that's not a very good ranking)

    "But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain --- that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist." Lysander Spooner

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    That's rich. So it's kinda like the penaltax. It's got power when you want it to have power and its just a bunch of words when you don't. ZOMG Cato ranked the US 23!! Cato also ranks the UK with its massive welfare state and lack of 1A AND 2A protections above the US. Hint: there's a slight pro-pot bias to the rankings.

    And how much of that ranking is due to the constitution versus the welfare state that has metastasized upon it? Tell me again about "modern" socialism.

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    Well, regardless of whether you revere the constitution with magical powers or whatever brand of theology you want to use, it's incorrect to call it a libertarian document when there are tomes written BY prominent libertarians declaring that it was at direct odds with the libertarian movements of the 18th century. You are burying your head in the sand by ignoring all these very prominent figures, and the fact that there is a huge faction of libertarians who reject the constitution as a representative of libertarian ideals.

  • MarkLastname||

    Figures! Tomes! Intellectuals!

    Here's a thought: instead of assuring us that arguments were made by some, make the actual fucking argument!.

  • Enjoy Every Sandwich||

    The old saying that the Right and the Left are just the two wings of the same bird of prey applies here.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Because what is called the "alt-right" is actually the left. The right on the political spectrum in the USA are conservatives who value slow change. They are social conservatives and not revolutionaries.

  • Azathoth!!||

    Because what is called the "alt-right" is actually the left. The right on the political spectrum in the USA are conservatives who value slow change. They are conservatives and not revolutionaries.

    FTFY.

    Took out 'social'. Social conservatives are theocratic progressives. What they want is just as bad as anything any other leftist wants--they just want it in church, too.

  • ||

    I don't roll my eyes often, but when I do it's usually when people bring up definitions of socialism/fascism/communism that try to differentiate one from the other with great philosophical gymnastics.
    You end up being like Jim showing Michael the reverse pyramid scheme he's a part of.

  • Mark22||

    It's certainly true that the violent right generally supports President Trump. Given that support, his hesitancy about criticizing even the most extreme Nazi imagery and lethal violence (he did call out "racist violence" two days later, then walked it back) creates the impression that, if he isn't explicitly sympathetic to the marching morons at Charlottesville, he at least enjoys basking in the scented glow of tiki torches. If we're balancing dangers on the great scale of suckage, that connection to the White House would seem to make the fascist right the more immediate threat.

    I disapprove of both the extreme left and the extreme right, and believe that they are largely interchangeable. However, in practice, I can't think of any situation in which the extreme right has been a threat to me, if not for any other reason because there are so few of them, while there have been plenty of situations where the extreme left has been a threat to me. So, I don't follow.

  • mtrueman||

    "while there have been plenty of situations where the extreme left has been a threat to me. So, I don't follow."

    It's not that hard. You belong with the Nazis.

  • MarkLastname||

    So, by virtue of being negatively impacted by leftists, one becomes a Nazi?

    You are truly a fountain of inanity.

  • MarkLastname||

    So, by virtue of being negatively impacted by leftists, one becomes a Nazi?

    You are truly a fountain of inanity.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Of what 'violent right' do you speak? No one clashing in Charlottesville was on the right. just two groups of leftist scumbags.

  • SKR||

    Let me guess, you're white?

  • MarkLastname||

    Are you acknowledging white people have a right to care more about their own interests than those of others?

  • Mark22||

    ^ first paragraph is a quote from the article

  • MikeP2||

    "We do have to pick a side. But we already have one....That side is in opposition to the violent, authoritarian thugs of the right and of the left."

    So...you're saying you agree with Trump? Because frankly, what you describe as "weasel words" was simply a blanket condemnation of the fiasco in Charlottesville that passed blame around to all. Which, to anyone not steeped in partisan lunacy, is absolutely right. Stupid Nazis, stupid BLM, stupid antifa, and most of all, stupid local civic leadership that allowed the fiasco to happen.

  • JuanQPublic||

    The "white nationalists" and "antifa" are certainly illiberal, but they aren't the threat, as they are a drop in the bucket in regards to numbers and political sway.

    The real threat are the mainline party centrists who have been actively musing about "hate speech's legality", in ways reminiscent of their musings after 9/11 about giving up constitutionally-protected privacy. This kind of kneejerk reaction to fear among "non-extremists" is the actual threat, because they do have political sway.

    The "what do you have to hide" mentality after 9/11 is cut from the same cloth as "some expression of ideas should be illegal".

  • Brian||

    Nazis and Antifa: two groups of assholes, fighting for Asshole Square.

  • mtrueman||

    That's just not enough. I'd like to see an escalation of the culture wars. The more this crumbling empire is embroiled in these interminable domestic disputes, the less likely they are to lash out and cause serious trouble elsewhere. If lash out it must, then Afghanistan is a fine place. Bleeding the elephant white is an Afghan specialty.

  • Brian||

    You're absolutely right: all periods of domestic strife in modern US history are known as times of peace for our nation's military.

    Just look at the civil rights movement.

  • mtrueman||

    " all periods of domestic strife in modern US history "

    There's always been domestic strife in the US. I'm saying there's not enough to prevent a serious lashing out.

    I think rather than the civil rights movement, the anti-war movement deserves more credit for ending the Vietnam war. "Bring the war home" was the slogan of the noblest and most militant of them, the Weatherpersons. "Chickens coming home to roost" was how America's greatest and most revered black Muslim, Mister X, put it.

  • Brian||

    Let's hope the civil strife in the United States escalates beyond the civil rights movement any day now, so that we can have no lashing out, just like that time we are all familiar with when that happened.

  • mtrueman||

    "Let's hope the civil strife in the United States escalates beyond the civil rights movement any day now,"

    That's our best bet for a safer world, I'm afraid. More guys shooting baseball playing legislators, more purges of trannies, more cops shooting unarmed African Americans, more troops getting their balls blown off in Afghanistan.

    "just like that time we are all familiar with when that happened."

    You're not familiar with the crumbling of the American empire. Stick around, though, and you'll get your fill.

  • Brian||

    Your opinions about American imperialism sound so refreshing, new, and progressive. I can honestly say that I am aware of no person ever speaking such opinions for the last century or so. I would like to subscribe to your manifesto.

  • mtrueman||

    I'm against imperialism, even American imperialism. Nothing so fancy as a manifesto is necessary.

  • Brian||

    That's cool. Me too.

    I'm also against communist retard assholes. Mainly, that comes from spending time with them.

  • mtrueman||

    "I'm also against communist retard assholes. "

    It's the secret muslim communists that bug me.

  • Brian||

    You had me at "communist."

  • MarkLastname||

    Actually you missed the point: the Vietnam War was escalated during a period of massive internal strife; WW2 was as well. Indeed, internal strife, if anything, gives an added incentive to look for war abroad in order to instill unity against a common enemy.

  • Rockabilly||

    Fuckin' A

  • Irishman12||

    'an invocation of "many sides" sounds an awful lot like whataboutism intended to shift blame from his friends.'

    what pabulum...Trump correctly stated that both 'sides' in the C-Ville fiasco were engaging in violent behavior...this is eminently clear merely by observation...

  • damikesc||

    It's always great to see Reason treating antifa like the fucking "good guys". Sure, they want to stifle all speech and will violently attack anybody they disagree with --- but at least they aren't Nazis, right?

    The Nazis have literally zero influence. Nobody cares about them.

    Antifa has GOVERNMENTS doing their bidding. They have police refusing to stop them from instigating violence. They never get punished for stifling other people's rights.

    And the only-slightly-more-relevant-than-the-Whigs neo-Nazis are the fucking cause-celebre?

    I don't want to ever see this site mention how "rare" immigrant crime is. Because you know what's more rare than immigrant crime?

    Fucking Nazis.

  • Microaggressor||

    The Neomarxists' most effective tactic has been to invert the perception of power to the opposite of reality. Their worldview insists on claiming the mantle of the Oppressed, even when they have to frequently use their imagination. They actually have significant cultural influence. They just can't come to terms with the fact that they are "the Man", and that hasn't changed just because The Donald got elected.

  • Atillahn||

    Good Germans. Now you bad old nazis and KKK with guns and helmets and body armor singing praise to the 1000 year Trump and Sessions world, please stop and be reasonable. I'm sure we can all get along and you can do and say whatever you want, cause free speech and we won't do anything, cause free speech and reason.

    Good luck with that. Be careful turning on that shower.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Needs more totenkopf strawmen.

    I give it 1 star out of 5.

  • Crusty Juggler||

    This is an educational thread.

  • Unlabelable MJGreen||

    I won't be satisfied until shreek and Mike get involved.

  • Zeb||

    I thought it might be an interesting thread. But no, it's all Hihn and bullshit.

  • PurityDiluting||

    "We condemn in the strongest possible terms" ... is what politicians say when they are too lazy to take the time to explain why they are condemning something. It's self evident, so why bother to be detailed, and what could be a stronger denouncement than using the strongest possible words? Maybe Trump should have used more words to make people feel better, but he already used the strongest possible ones.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Yeah, the question of whether something is or isn't authoritarian gets lost behind the question of whether someone is or isn't racist.

    Never mind if Stalin murdered millions of his own people or Che Guevara ordered and oversaw the execution of political prisoners, the real question is whether they were racists?

    Same thing with antifa and fascists. The question is whether they violate people's rights and espouse an ideology that would violate people's rights. The distinction between racist and non-racists on the issue of authoritarianism is simply a qualitative preference. The distinction is evil to the extent that it make authoritarianism palatable.

    There is not an objective distinction between those who would torture Al Qaeda members and those who approve of violating the rights of racists. Our personal disdain for the people whose rights antifa would violate is just a red herring. We stand up for the Fifth Amendment rights of arsonists, rapists, and murderers--not the arsonists themselves. Denigrating our rights because the people we don't like are asserting them is and always will be an ad hominem fallacy--just like racism.

  • Cyto||

    Racist!

  • mtrueman||

    "Yeah, the question of whether something is or isn't authoritarian gets lost behind the question of whether someone is or isn't racist."

    On social questions, of course. Inside every American, there's a racist struggling to get out. So issues like immigration, health care and policing are couched in racial terms. It's as American as apple pie. On other issues, racism is not important. I don't think that the authoritarians who favour nuclear power have any particular feelings about race that plays into their choice. Here it's just garden variety authoritarianism that guides them, deference to authority and established ways etc.

  • Brian||

    I hear that making biased generations against groups of people is bad... but only in some cases.

  • Finrod||

    Inside every mtrueman post, there's bullshit struggling to get out.

  • mtrueman||

    The bullshit should be clear for all to see. It's the truth that many have trouble with.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    The problem is, of course, everyone knows what the nazis are. They're not subtle about it, and their condemnation is basically universal. Antifa, on the other hand, is only overt in its members' actions, not so much their words. That's why people think they need to point it out, not so much with the racists.

  • Cyto||

    They have to be ecstatic that the statue issue has given them actual racists to oppose. Getting a crowd to show up in a violent froth about the racism and homophobia of a gay man with a black boyfriend was hard work.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    When I say they're overt in actions and not words, I mean they say they are anti-fascist but those paying attention to what they're actually doing can see the opposite is true.

  • Cyto||

    Which is why it is convenient that some actual Nazis finally showed up. Prior to that they had to explain how everyone who wasn't an anarcho-communist is a fascist, and that just gets to be a lot of work. Much easier to point at the swastika and be done with it.

  • Zeb||

    Good article, Tucille. That's the right middle road to take. They are all our enemies. And we should not look for a moral leader in a president.

  • Citizen X - #6||

    Yeah. Moral leaders don't head up continent-spanning organizations that claim a monopoly on violence.

  • MacDaddy81||

    Stop replying to Hihn. Don't feed the trolls, people.

  • Zeb||

    I think he's more just a senile asshole.

  • Citizen X - #6||

    BULLY!

  • Zeb||

    Am I a fascist yet?

  • Citizen X - #6||

    Not until Hihn adds you to his list.

  • Rebel Scum||

    Fascism is essentially socialism controlled by race supremacists that oppress lessor classes. It is on the left part of the spectrum. Consider: modern 'liberals' are on the left and generally want more government. Modern 'conservatives' (speaking to voters, not the so-called conservative party...) generally want less government. If you keep going down the less government side, how is it that you could all the sudden have a fascist total state? Logically, you can't. That 'Antifa' has the nerve to call anyone but themselves 'fascist' is mind boggling to me.

  • Eric||

    "It is on the left part of the spectrum."

    If you're trying to attribute fascism to the modern American political spectrum, you can't as it doesn't fit with either the right nor left here. Using the Nolan Chart helps and allows you to place it in the "Authoritarian" quadrant. People can argue endlessly as to whether or not it should fit on the right side or left side of the quadrant. But these arguments rely square peg/round hole assumptions.

    From a modern American perspective it's useless to attribute it to either the Dems or Reps. Neither are fascists, but both have some constituencies that display fascist tendencies (I'm looking at the Security-Staters on the Right, and the SJW-Socialists on the Left). But really, fascism was a reactionary movement from against the mainstream forms of 1930's socialism. It doesn't have a modern simulcrum in mainstream thought today.

  • Azathoth!!||

    The collectivism, statism, and authoritarianism place fascism and national socialism squarely on the left side of the chart.

    Even the racism that you people like to claim makes them 'right wing' is actually a form of collectivism and doesn't make it on the right side of the chart at all.

    Nice try though, commie.

  • Rhywun||

    Great, a fresh new post with tons of comments!

    Oh, f--k.

  • Citizen X - #6||

    My reaction as well.

    2chili deserves better.

  • Butler T. Reynolds||

    Whom should I believe? Tucille or Shika?

  • DesigNate||

    That's not even a dilemma.

  • ||

    Abbiamo perduto anche Tuccille? Dimmi non!

    Sorry JD. The immediate threat is the Antifa left and all its cohorts and allies. Their entire moral and intellectual outlook (as incoherent and degenerate as it is rooted in identity politics) does have support within the DNC ranks. Run by me again how many times prominent people and politicians have called for the assassination of Trump again? It's very easy to see Warren and Sanders and even Obama are intellectual kindreds to Antifa. It's also been well-documented the violence Anitfa have committed that dwarfs anything a ragtime bunch of 'white supremacists' can muster. Once again, the left are just projecting. That they're Marxist racists means the GOP are KKK racists. And just in case you're uncertain about the sort of cowards infesting the left, I point to you to that low life Berkeley professor who smashed someone's head with a bike lock as he attended to someone injured on the ground. He now claims the 'evil right' outed him and it's all unfair. This left-wing loon probably thinks people who note the license plate number of someone who committed a hit and run as enemies and far right.

    Until Trump invites the KKK to the White House like Obama did BLM, consider me unmoved with this equivalency.

    The left pose the bigger threat to liberty (and sanity). Full stop.

    Our job as libertarians is to maintain this moral and intellectual clarity.

  • Rebel Scum||

    does have support within the DNC ranks

    And full cover from the mainstream media.

    Once again, the left are just projecting.

    It's really all they have.

  • ||

    It's also worth noting, and I'm just putting it out there, Nazis had 30-35% support of the German population.

    In this event, people are overreacting to an event that really was about protesting the removal of a statue that morphed into a neo-Nazi rally according to a narrative with the usual faux self-righteous moral outrage. They just yell and scream like unhinged idiots for its own sake because they think in their stupid little ignorant heads that 200 people at a rally are a metaphor for what America really thinks.

    Let's see if neo-Nazis get public support and then react. My guess is to stop pretending there are Nazis under your beds.

    Libertarians can barely pull, what 5-7% of the national vote, and we're to think Neo-Nazis have access to Trump and poised to take over?

    It's retarded beyond belief.

  • Zeb||

    That is absolutely true. People have lost their goddamn minds. A few racist assholes have decided that Trump is their guy, based on very little. That may embolden them a little bit, but in no way indicates that they are in ascendancy.

  • Zeb||

    The immediate threat is the Antifa left and all its cohorts and allies.

    I agree that that is the more immediate threat at this point. And the KKK and neo-nazis or whatever they are are pretty insignificant.

    But I think that Tucille's article is right on. The false choice presented is maddening and totally wrong.

  • ||

    Yeh, the 'either your with us or them' angle is a logical fallacy because there are other options.

    That I sure as hell don't side with Antifa doesn't automatically make me a 'neo-Nazi' or Trump supporter.

    It's just means I have good tastes and can spot bull shit. Figli di puttana!

  • Mickey Rat||

    I find the writer getting into igh dudgeon about tsking sides writes for an outfit calling itself "The Jacobin". Proudly associating yourself with the authors of The Terror while decrying hate and appealing to common humanity is ironic. Was "Bolshevik" a bit too on the nose for the people running that place?

  • SKR||

    Lol, my wife's coworker posted some shit to FB about the creative class. She thought that a bunch of her dipshit co-workers would eat that stuff up and wanted my take on it. I took one look. It was from The Jacobin. I was like,"you have got to be fucking kidding me? The Jacobin is pure Marxist drivel." They are just the fucking worst.

  • mtrueman||

    The Jacobins were the extremists of the French revolution like Saint Just and M Robespierre. The Jacobites were supporters of the Catholic 'Bonny' Prince Charlie, contender for the Scottish throne a few years earlier.

  • Mickey Rat||

    Who brought up "Jacobites"?

  • MarkLastname||

    And Jeff Jacoby is a columnist for the Boston Globe.

    And the Knights of Malta were originally based in Rhodes.

    And the Pythagorean theorem may have been postulated first by Egyptians.

    Do I win trivia night?

  • Jerryskids||

    I'm trying to imagine a dystopian zombie apocalypse sort of thing where a roaming band of subhuman predators driven mad with hunger make their way to a Planned Parenthood clinic and fall upon a dumpster full of aborted fetuses and begin devouring the contents. Still not as disgusting a picture as a thread full of ........... Hiiiiihn!. Sorry, that was the sound of me retching. Hiiiiiihn!

  • Old Mexican's Speedos||

    Let's stop beating around the bush and just come out and say it:

    ALL forms of socialism are BAD. Equally BAD.

    Now, get off my lawn!

  • Zeb||

    Spoken like a true Cynic.

  • Brian||

    What's the difference between Nazis and a Communists:

    Nazis throw you in a work camp because you don't support the master race.

    Communists throw you in a work camp because that's utopia.

  • JeremyR||

    What, you have one of your most liked writers hiding because "Reason Staff"?

  • Netizen_James||

    pure and utter BS.
    The nazi and kkk nutters seek to harm, oppress, and tyrannize those who are a different color, have a different ethnic background, or worship a different deity than they do.

    The 'anti-fa' people are seeking to STOP the nazi and kkk nutters from harming, oppressing, or tyrannizing anyone.

    The difference is night and day.
    These two groups are NOT on the same side, no matter what rhetorical and logical fallacies you use to conclude an untruth.

    No, tolerance does not mean that we must tolerate intolerance. The preservation of tolerance necessarily implies that we MUST NOT tolerate intolerance. The scientist/philosopher Karl Popper taught us that, if the Nazis didn't.

    If the nazi and kkk nutters were sitting peacefully in a circle singing 'Dixie', and were violently attacked without provocation by the 'anti-fa' folks, then you MIGHT have a point. But that's not how it went down, and you know it.

    N_J

  • Incomprehensible Bitching||

    It's important to note that hate can't be not hate. That is, hate and not hate are not equivalent. If you're supporting hate, then you're against not hate. And then, you must hate the hate. You can't love hate. Karl Popper taught us that.

    If the Nazi's weren't hating when the Antifas hated them, then that might be hate. But it's not hate. It's love. Because love hates hate. Duh.

    Get with the program.

  • Procyon Rotor||

    Karl Popper didn't even say what the left-wing nutters think he said. He never would have supported using violence to shut up neo-Nazis.

  • Finrod||

    Your delusions are cute. Mind if I cite them in my next research paper? It's on Internet Fuckwits.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    If they are doing such a noble task. Why do they need to hide their faces with masks?

  • MikeP2||

    Same reason Kylo Ren wore the mask in The Force Awakens. Because without it, he's just a whiny douchebag.

  • Red Rocks Baiting n Inciting||

    You really ought to try making an argument that isn't parroted from whatever left-wing website you bobbleheads get your talking points from. The Karl Popper reference gave that one away instantly.

  • Red Rocks Baiting n Inciting||

    See Mikey claim interracial sex is disgusting here:
    http://reason.com/archives/201.....nt_6941091

  • Red Rocks Baiting n Inciting||

    Oh, and Jim? Lay off the soy and try lifting a weight that's heavier than your mis-shapen melon head, you stupid fucking Limey.

  • Red Rocks Baiting n Inciting||

    Racist Mikey thinks interracial sex is something to be embarrassed about--projecting his insecurities again!

    http://reason.com/archives/201.....nt_6941091

  • Vesavius||

    The fact is that punches are responded to with punches. You use violence, it will be used in return. This escalates until someone dies. Now someone has. Everyone that condones political violence is responsible for that girl's death.

  • Vesavius||

    Antifa need to be publicly named as the violent Anarcho Comunists that they are dominated by. Let the people choose a side between 'nazis' and violence instigating communists. Let it also be known that Ancoms hate hate hate stateists, and that probably means most of the useful idiots supporting them.

  • Red Rocks Baiting n Inciting||

    That's the most intelligent thing you've ever posted, dipshit.

  • Red Rocks Baiting n Inciting||

    Psycho Mikey apparently believes mixed-race sex is something to despise, using it as an insult. Cancer-addled AND projects his racism--hormonal!

  • Bearded Spock||

    This kinda makes up for Shikha's latest column.

  • Eman||

    I forget who said the fascists of the future calling themselves antifascists thing, but it always seemed a little too trite to be true to me. It was actually incredibly strangely prescient, looks like.

  • Bra Ket||

    "Trump was right but for the wrong reasons".

  • simplybe||

    If Antifa leaders were smart enough to google Fascism they probably would change their name.

  • Red Rocks Baiting n Inciting||

    Looking in the mirror again?

  • Red Rocks Baiting n Inciting||

    Psycho Mikey ook-ook-screeeeeeees again!

  • Alex Jones, Infowars.com||

    YES. Stand up to that bully, Hihn. Strongly, so that nobody clicks his link.
    Shout them down. Free expression leads to a dictatorship of the progtocracy
    The same people who deny Obummer's Kenyan heritage and Muslim soul.
    Restore white supremacy,

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    I have decided that the idiots who were injured deserve no sympathy, not even the girl whowas killed. You went through a protest, expcting to confront a bunch of Nazis and KKKooks, armed or in the company of armed fools. If in conswequence, tpyou get the shit stomped out of you, or even killed, how did you not expect that?

    Not,saying the jerk who drove into the crowd doesn't deserve to stand trial, amd be convicted of manslaughter at the least. Jurs saying, these antifa twits have been duluding themselves if they thought that the fascists they claim to oppose weren't going to fight back.

  • Alex Jones, Infowars.com||

    I have decided that the idiots who were injured deserve no sympathy, not even the girl who was killed.

    He didn't kill enough of them.

    You went through a protest, expcting to confront a bunch of Nazis and KKKooks, armed or in the company of armed fools. If in conswequence, tpyou get the shit stomped out of you, or even killed, how did you not expect that?

    FINALLY somebody dares to speak the truth!

    Nazi can allow nobody to stand in their way. The people do have a constitutional right to peaceably assemble ... but NOT to abridge the right of free travel by defenders of The Master Race.

    Sing the anthem here at Infowars. "Whiteland. Whiteland Uber Alles!"

  • patskelley||

    The left-wing antifa activists claim to be opposing the powers-that-be." Seems to me they have effectively demonstrated that under their 'rule' I and my loved ones now have the increased opportunity to be beaten down should we oppose their power-what-be. Where is choice in that?

  • Alex Jones, Infowars.com||

    Thanks. We must all stand together for the eternal glory of the white race, and restore The Fatherland!

  • XM||

    In the French revolution the mob who removed the king were against oppression, so we should have just picked their side. All the innocent people they ended up killing in their reign of terror, well we can just ignore that. Did you also know that Saddam Hussein gassed thousands of people to death?

    No one says "there is no such thing as one side" more than the left. I mean, literally. Whether it's gender identity, crime, terrorism, education, it doesn't matter. When Chris Dorner went on a state wide killing spree, they've instantly reasoned "It's racism from LAPD". Campus kangaroo courts facilitate false rape accusations on innocent male students, and whose side do feminists take? Future rape victims, because due process might discourage them from speaking out.

    This isn't really about picking sides or fighting racism, this is ultimately about team games. Snowflakes demanding white faculty to leave and Jihadists blowing synagogues are all racists - why isn't the left emotionally triggered by that? The antifas would treat Bill Maher or Milo differently than your run of the mill Neo Nazis? Please.

  • KevSanders||

    "That side is in opposition to the violent, authoritarian thugs of the right and of the left."

    So Trump was right.

    Again.

  • Liberty Lover||

    Right wing or left wing? If you go far enough right, or far enough left, you get the same thing, single party dictatorship.

  • Azathoth!!||

    Right wing or left wing? If you go far enough right, or far enough left, you get the same thing, single party dictatorship

    No, you don't. There is no path to 'single party dictatorship' in the precepts of what's called the 'right'

    The idea that both sides lead to the same place was created by people who realized that the endpoint of the 'left', unless expressed in the most disguisingly vague terms, was not anything anyone could ever want.

    The endpoint of the 'left' is a single state wherein everyone works for the good of the state, taking no more than one needs from the state, and receiving precisely what the state has decided is best from the state. The 'government' withers away here as societal structures clarify and become perfected. Eventually the state works because it is not possible for it not to.

    The endpoint of the 'right' is what amounts to a 'state' for each person. It is individuality writ large. Each person is able to provide for all their own needs, wants, and desires rendering any multiperson 'society' completely a creation of the moment that relies solely on completely voluntary interaction. The government withers away here as functions migrate into the hands of individuals.

    The end stage for the left is something like the Borg. The end stage for the right is something like Q

    They are not the same.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    True. I would rather live in 1950's America than 1950's Russia.

  • GILMORE™||

    "Tony is an ignorant liar" version 2938412939

    Tony|8.22.17 @ 2:06PM|#

    Dems worked to erase their racism by neatly purging themselves of its racists, which they achieved by passing civil rights legislation under LBJ.

    In the subsequent decades the GOP used backlash against those laws to their advantage in something known as the "Southern Strategy." The South, you know where all those racist Democrats used to be?

    Democrats never stopped being racist. The "southern strategy" was entirely about presidential elections, and splitting the racists southern dems away from the yankee dems and fragmenting their base.

    Democrats weren't responsible for passing the CRA. You can argue LBJ was, but the democrat congress was more opposed to it than the GOP at the time, and voted in lower % in favor of it. The racist dems had to be strongarmed into voting yes on it.

    People like Strom Thurmond and Robert Byrd remained prominent members of democrat leadership through the 80s. This idea that the Democrats magically shed their racist past and turned into 100% good guys because LBJ passed literally has zero facts to actually support, yet morons like Tony will parrot it over and over again because they *want* to believe.

  • submandave||

    "That's because Trump has lost the moral authority to lay into thugs of all types"

    According to whom, and exactly how? I was a reluctant Trump voter, but in the last year and a half I've learned to question criticism or analysis of him from anyone without the original source material. No doubt Trump often lacks eloquence, poise, and specificity, but he is also the most intentionally misquoted, partially quoted, and purposefully misconstrued person I've seen in my forty years of paying attention to national politics.

    "The problem many Americans had with Trump's weasel words ..." was not anything you mention, as much as the repeated unfounded general assumption that Trump has racist sympathies and characterization of his remarks as "weasel words." If the Nazis had rallied, made speeches, and gone home, you might have a point, but the real issue was the violence. As such, I believe Trump was spot on in condemning those who were violent, regardless of what "side" they were on.

    I like Nazis no better than the vast majority of Americans, but I like even less the idea of a society in which any group of people can beat up any other group because they disagree with them and that this violence would be excused or encouraged by the press or people, and certainly not one in which, as I believe happened in Charlottesville, violence against politically unpopular speech is even abetted by local and state government.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    The thing to remember about Trump is that the good in his evil is stronger than the evil in his good. And that's important.

  • mysmartstuffs||

    Psycho Mikey's cancer-addled puss is accelerating his senility at exponential rates. Poor thing can't tell the difference between a handgun and an automatic weapon, and now believes that Soviet flags displayed in Charlottesville can't be real because he initially claimed there were no Marxists there. The Donald Trump of Libertarianism in all his glory!
    My recent post: OptinChat Review

  • mysmartstuffs||

    Two reasons A) FDR lied to the American people to have them accept Soviet Russia and B) they are the "right" kind of collectivist, you only get two train route options and that's it, and they're headed to the same place.
    My recent post: Media Caster Live Review
    My recent post: WP Bonus Machine Review

  • Sanjuro Tsubaki||

    Tell that to the antifa and the white nationalists. The choir is sick of getting preached to.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    'The 'anti-fa' people are seeking to STOP the nazi and kkk nutters from harming, oppressing, or tyrannizing anyone.'

    No. They just don't want competition for their own form of socialist oppression. They also differ on the form of racism they employ. This is more like Thanos and Darkseid duking it out over who get dibs on conquering earth and subjugating the populace. One fighting the other does not somehow make either one of them good guys.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online