In watching the violence, bloodshed, and death between the antfia / SJW left and white nationalist alt-right over the last few days, I have a few questions for you. This is one of those rare times where I’m not going to give you any of my opinions; I’m simply asking for yours.

Really pause and think before you answer these questions. I’m truly curious to know your real, thoughtful answers.

1. Can you name another time in the last, oh, 50 years or more when civilians from the left and right engaged in open warfare with each other in a public city street in America? Let me remind you that video clearly showed left-wing protestors starting fights with the right-wing protestors, as well as punching out several journalists and cameramen, and a right-wing protestor purposely driving his car into a crowd, injuring many and actually killing one person.

2. When communist extremists are engaged in actual, physical combat with neo-Nazi extremists on America’s streets, is this a good thing for the country, or a bad thing?

3. Do you actually take a side with either of these two groups? If so, why? Are you one of those people who say, “Well, I’m against violence and they shouldn’t have done that, but they have some really good points and I agree with them.”?

4. We all agree that the mainstream media are a bunch of biased liars. But, when you see almost all non-mainstream media (alternative media, internet media) only show video of violence done by the other side and no videos of violence done by their side, do you then still trust these media sources as valid sources of information? If so, why?

5. When you see open violence between two political sides on public streets where people actually get killed and the reaction from most people and the media is to side with one side or the other, is this a sign of a society in decline or a society on the rise?

87 thoughts on “A Few Simple Questions

  1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Revolt_of_the_Masses

    https://www.amazon.com/Revolt-Masses-Jos%C3%A9-Ortega-Gasset/dp/0393310957

    It’s all in there:

    – dehumanization of the individual;

    – seeing everybody that is different or have different ideas not as an adversary that can be respected, but as an “enemy” that needs to be eliminated;

    – the destruction of individualism and easy maneuvering of the masses;

    – the degradation of the intellectual protagonists and rise to power of the financial elites;

    “There are no longer protagonists; there is only the chorus”. It’s the rise of the mediocre man, pure and simple. People with no talent, no drive, no focus and no desire to get better at anything that join a like-minded group and go out there trying to “change the world”. At the same time they cannot do the simple task of improving their own lives.

    They just live empty lives full of frustration. When not kept in check that frustration will spill over, even to extreme violence.

    “the select man is not the petulant person who thinks himself superior to the rest, but the man who demands more of himself than the rest, even though he may not fulfill in his person those higher exigencies.”

  2. 1. Can you name another time in the last, oh, 50 years or more when civilians from the left and right engaged in open warfare with each other in a public city street in America?

    On a public street, no. But I can name you several times that this has happened recently on college campuses, thanks exclusively to Antifa.

    2. When communist extremists are engaged in actual, physical combat with neo-Nazi extremists on America’s streets, is this a good thing for the country, or a bad thing?

    Bad. When Free Speech dies, only bloodshed can take its place.

    “Those who begin by burning books will end by burning men.” – George Washington

    3. Do you actually take a side with either of these two groups?

    Yes I do. In this case, the Nazis.

    If so, why?

    I always take the side of the peaceful protesters over those which used violence to take away their human right to Free Speech. So in this case, I take the side of the Nazis. They were just peacefully protesting until the Communist terrorist organization – Antifa – charged at them with belly clubs, threw bottles filled with urine, rocks, and beat several people into unconsciousness, as well as physically assaulted journalists and cops. That is what motivated the Nazis to defend themselves, which caused this to become a two way fight, resulting in one of the Nazis murdering a peaceful protester.

    Although I do not condone murdering peaceful bystanders, as a general rule, laws against murder and other violence are only rational when Free Speech is a legal guarantee. Take away Free Speech and violent actions, including murder, cease being immoral and become the only way to express oneself.

    Antifa violated the Nazis’ human right to Free Speech, resulting in bloodshed and murder. For this, I side with the Nazis and believe that every single member of Antifa should be found by the FBI and, under the Patriot Act, tried in a military tribunal and executed. They should also be held legally responsible for any and all murders and bloodshed committed by those who would otherwise have been peaceful if it weren’t for these Anitfa thugs.      

    Are you one of those people who say, “Well, I’m against violence and they shouldn’t have done that, but they have some really good points and I agree with them.”?

    No, I’m FOR violence and murder if Free Speech ceases to be a reality. Free Speech is the only rational barrier that I can see, which justifies laws against murder and violence. Take away the First Amendment, and violence and murder become good things in the objective sense. I prefer Free Speech. Indeed, I’m a Free Speech absolutist. But if Free Speech is taken away, then unleashing the gates of hell is the only other moral option. The third option – slavery – is not acceptable and shouldn’t even be contemplated.

    And yes, the Nazis, and the alt right in general, have one good point – anti-white racism is on the rise and white people need to start demanding equal respect and equal rights. If whites are oppressed, then the white equalist and white supremacist have identical goals, thus becoming natural allies. It’s only when we’ve reached equality that the white equalist and the white supremacist part company.

    4. We all agree that the mainstream media are a bunch of biased liars. But, when you see almost all non-mainstream media (alternative media, internet media) only show video of violence done by the other side and no videos of violence done by their side, do you then still trust these media sources as valid sources of information? If so, why?

    Yes. They are only showing what the mainstream media would not. Thus, they have to compensate. There is no need to rehash that which the mainstream media has already covered ad nauseam in order to push their racist anti-white narrative.

    5. When you see open violence between two political sides on public streets where people actually get killed and the reaction from most people and the media is to side with one side or the other, is this a sign of a society in decline or a society on the rise?

    In general, in decline. But I’m also concerned about false moral equivalence. There was no such equivalence between the two groups here.

     

     

  3. There’s is no equivalency between hate groups calling themselves Nazis fighting for race-based superiority and segregation, and those standing up to overt race-based hate. You may disagree with some of the “socialist” ideas but we’re talking different ballparks.

    Anyone feeding the equivalency argument like you Caleb, are feeding segragotory race-based hate and are giving self-proclaimed Nazis more power.

    Disgusting post you can never return from Caleb. Gross.

  4. @Ryan:

    There’s is no equivalency between hate groups calling themselves Nazis fighting for race-based superiority and segregation, and those standing up to overt race-based hate.

    You’re right. Those which seek to violate their human right to Free Speech are worse!

    You may disagree with some of the “socialist” ideas but we’re talking different ballparks.

    Correct. One believes in peaceful expression. The other believes in censorship. These “socialists” are way, way worse. Whoever is against Free Speech loses the moral high ground.

    Anyone feeding the equivalency argument like you Caleb, are feeding segragotory race-based hate and are giving self-proclaimed Nazis more power.

    Anyone feeding politically correct garbage sentiments like yours is feeding an anti-Free Speech culture and giving self-proclaimed Marxists more power to dictate people’s expressions.

    Disgusting post you can never return from Caleb. Gross.

    Disgusting PC garbage post that you can never return from Ryan. Gross.

     

  5. It was not a peaceful demonstration Jack. You clearly have watched the unfolding of the last two days events with highly selective googles on. You have to ignore reality to make the points you’re making.

    I grew up in the south as part of a confederate-cheering family. They’re racist, they hate black peolle, they’re stuff butt-hurt from losing tie civil war and their hard earned slaves, and there’s very little positivity affecting their distorted world views.

    To make the statements you’re making you’re either entirely clueless, intentionally ignorant to reality, or else you yourself either indirectly feel a part of the Nazi groups, or are an outright supporter yourself.

  6. I’m on my phone, hard to type, no edits. Do not attack my spelling, grammar, or the “two days” instead of “few days.”

  7. It was not a peaceful demonstration Jack.

    What do you mean “it was not peaceful?” Yes it was (until Antifa came). What am I missing?

    You clearly have watched the unfolding of the last two days events with highly selective googles on.

    Projection.

    You have to ignore reality to make the points you’re making.

    Projection.

    I grew up in the south as part of a confederate-cheering family. They’re racist, they hate black peolle, they’re stuff butt-hurt from losing tie civil war and their hard earned slaves, and there’s very little positivity affecting their distorted world views.

    Correct. I never said they had any positivity. But they still have an inalienable human right to Free Speech. That’s why I side with them on this issue.

    To make the statements you’re making you’re either entirely clueless,

    No. I’m just your friendly neighborhood Free Speech absolutist, that’s all.

    intentionally ignorant to reality,

    Projection. You grew up in a racist environment, so you’ll even sacrifice the human right to Free Speech to silence them. Disgusting.

    or else you yourself either indirectly feel a part of the Nazi groups, or are an outright supporter yourself.

    No. Just a supporter of Free Speech for all.

    I ask again, how were they not peaceful? The only ones who disturbed the peace, and therefore, violated human rights, was Antifa, thus resulting in the Nazis defending themselves.

    The only way you can make the statements you’re making is if you’re totally clueless, intentionally ignorant of reality, or perhaps you feel a connection to anti-Free Speech, pro-censorship totalitarian scum, or might even be a supporter yourself.

     

  8. I’m pro-free speech, but do think the right thing to do is to not further antagonize those who have been historically antagonzied in the US for more than a half-millennium, most of those years a torturous horror.

    To me it’s just about defining good manners. You CAN say what you want of course, you’re legally free to, but you don’t have the right to say what you want AND have everyone leave you alone about it. You are legally free to be an overt jerk to people, but you are not free from them despising you for it.

    I don’t know who threw the first punch but the Nazis rolled up to intimidate, antagonize, and instigate. This is crystal clear.

  9. A minute ago none of my posts were here. Now two are back. Im sure that last post will seal it, I meant that to go to Caleb privately as my posts were temporarily not here and i thought only he would read it, and there’s still one post of mine missing.

  10. The irony of censorship here.

    What irony? Explain.

    I used to just think you were exceptionally lame and mediocre in how you conducted yourself and “grew” (or lack thereof) within the PU world, but you’re a straight piece of Nazi-enabling shit on the bottom of my shoe BD.

    By supporting Free Speech? If supporting a precious human right is “Nazi-enabling” than we should all be Nazis.

     

  11. Jack – posts are being selectively deleted. Two are back up now but others are missing. Funny I light of your comments. Will this one make it through?

  12. He’s selectively letting posts through Jack.

    No, that’s WordPress’s spam filter. He has no control over that. No one hates that more than me. He even said he’d ban me if I complain about it one more time.

    Don’t worry, he’ll approve your comments and post them when he gets back here. Unlike you, he actually believes in Free Speech.

     

  13. I’m pro-free speech from a legal perspective.

    My point has to do with equlivalency at a social level.

    You’re legally free to say what you want and not have any legal troubles, but you’re not free to slander people in mass with clear hateful language directed specifically at them and then have people not be bothered by it and just STFU cause “free speech.”

    You’re entirely dodging the actual issue I brought up, redirecting the conversation to be some semi-related thing that no ones arguing.

  14. My very non-inflammatory-language answers to your free speech point keep getting censored, I’m unable to answer you on free speech due to censorship (automatic or not) lol.

    Meanwhile my “test things” inflammatory post full of insulting back language went through. Wack system. .

  15. 2. When communist extremists are engaged in actual, physical combat with neo-Nazi extremists on America’s streets, is this a good thing for the country, or a bad thing?

    Actually both sides are backed by communists. Backing both sides provides a dialectic struggle for permanent revolution. The revolution is permanent until all is destroyed. Americans need to wake up and focus on the real enemy!

     

     

  16. “Well, I’m against violence and they shouldn’t have done that, but they have some really good points and I agree with them.”?

    Yes, both sides have good points, and yes, violence is always bad. Anything that results in a the loss of a human is a terrible thing. But the fact that someone recurs to violence doesn’t mean his/her point is automatically wrong.

    do you then still trust these media sources as valid sources of information? If so, why?

    How do you define “valid”? I do trust any source 100% because I know EVERYBODY has some bias. But if I went to the extreme and assumed every media source was lying I would never be able to distinguish true facts from false facts.

    Ideally one should read both sides in order to reach a conclusion, and understand each side has its own bias.

    Americans need to wake up and focus on the real enemy!

    Who would you say is the real enemy DC?

  17. My very non-inflammatory-language answers to your free speech point keep getting censored, I’m unable to answer you on free speech due to censorship (automatic or not) lol.

    Just wait. Don’t post anymore until he pushes them through. They will appear when he comes back here and gets around to it.

    Meanwhile my “test things” inflammatory post full of insulting back language went through. Wack system.

    This is yet another symptom of the anti-Free Speech legacy that you seem to support. WordPress censors politically incorrect code words. I’m glad that frustrates you, since it will hopefully cause you to reevaluate your stance on the PC problem.

     

  18. I do trust any source 100%

    I meant to say “I do not trust”

    BTW the edit function is not working for me. I edited my post and the edit didn’t show up.

  19. This Weimar style street political violence (the factions fly the same flags too! ha) is only get wayyy worse when the next economic crash comes..

    I wonder if there are resources out there analyzing the individuals (and their actions) that thrived during The Great Depression and WWII

     

  20. Jack – how about you stop putting words into my mouth and then attacking me for them until you can actually read my point.

    I’ll try again: I’m 100% pro free speech from a legal perspective (zero legal consequences to saying whatever you want), but from a social perspective it seems people are fighting for the right to use historic slurs and then not have people call them out for it. Free speech runs both ways. Chant some wack nonsense (free speech) -> get shunned for it by decent people (free speech.). Two way street bud.

  21. Ryan – I don’t censor posts here unless one of the Five Rules are violated. WordPress has a strong spam filter that I have no control over. If you make a comment and then it vanishes, please be patient; I will restore it when I have time.

    I have restored all of your comments, but I deleted the one where you called me a piece of shit. Please read the Five Simple Rules for this blog right here. If you make one more ad hominem attack against me or anyone else on this blog, you will be permanently banned from all my blogs. This is your first and last warning. Try to keep a cool head and discuss these issues like an adult, or else go somewhere else. Thanks.

    I will respond to your points (and everyone else’s) in the comments below.

  22. Cheers Caleb. Since that wasn’t active censorship as I originally believed, the drive-by comment isn’t meant anyway. I thought that wouldn’t post public and your censoring self would be the only one who read it, glad that’s not at all the case.

  23. Do you actually take a side with either of these two groups?

    Yes I do. In this case, the Nazis.

    I always take the side of the peaceful protesters over those which used violence to take away their human right to Free Speech. So in this case, I take the side of the Nazis.

    I did not mean a side in the conflict. I meant a side with their political views. Of course I support their right to free speech. I meant, do you agree with their views?

    No, I’m FOR violence and murder if Free Speech ceases to be a reality.

    You believe murder is justified if someone infringes upon your freedom of speech? Really?

    Jesus.

    I’m also concerned about false moral equivalence. There was no such equivalence between the two groups here.

    The equivalence I’m drawing is between two groups who were violent to others for reasons that were purely political.

    There’s is no equivalency between hate groups calling themselves Nazis fighting for race-based superiority and segregation, and those standing up to overt race-based hate. You may disagree with some of the “socialist” ideas but we’re talking different ballparks.

    Again, like I said to Jack, the equivalence I’m drawing is between two groups of people who committed violence against each other, not because of self-defense, but because of anger over political disagreements.

    Is there a way to subscribe to comments without having to post one?

    No.

    He’s selectively letting posts through Jack.

    No I wasn’t. WordPress was doing that. I’ve never “selectively let posts through” on any blog I own. I am a free speech absolutist, as I stated here.

    I am not “for” the Nazis. I am against the Nazis and everything they stand for. My son is black for Christ’s sake. If you seriously believe I’m defending these racist losers, you’re welcome to that insane belief even if it’s wrong.

    Actually both sides are backed by communists.

    Both sides are backed by big-government statists. As usual, both the left and the right are wrong, and do not really want freedom.

    This Weimar style street political violence (the factions fly the same flags too! ha) is only get wayyy worse when the next economic crash comes..

    Exactly. The USA is truly becoming the Weimar Republic, with the brown shirts (fascists) against the red shirts (communists). That’s literally what I was seeing this weekend.

    Is it 2025 yet?

    I wonder if there are resources out there analyzing the individuals (and their actions) that thrived during The Great Depression and WWII

    Sure there are, just go do some searching.

    They stayed heavily invested in cash and bought up everything when things were at their lowest. I plan on doing that myself in the next stock market crash.

  24. 1. Can you name another time in the last, oh, 50 years or more when civilians from the left and right engaged in open warfare with each other in a public city street in America?

    A friend mentioned a few years ago that in the 80s/early 90s his crew used to get in fights with other teens/tweens about the same thing. “Nazi skinheads/punks” vs “anti-nazi skinheads/punks”. I don’t think they called themselves anti-nazi but I can’t think of the name. It wasn’t such a big amount of people and I don’t think anyone got killed, it was more of a rumble type thing.

    And there’s been plenty of civilian/police type riots and looting throughout American history, so street violence isn’t something new but obviously don’t know about civilian-civilian violence.

    From what I understand, I wouldn’t call what happened in Charlottesville warfare, more like a skirmish. Not that I condone that either.

    2. When communist extremists are engaged in actual, physical combat with neo-Nazi extremists on America’s streets, is this a good thing for the country, or a bad thing?

    Ultimately, people who fall into the fascist and communist “camps” both have records of major brutality and human rights violations.  But so do many religious groups, as well as capitalists.

    Is it the ideology and/or the person? Is it the gun and/or the gun owner?

    “There was an old man who had a beautiful horse. This horse was not only his family’s pride and joy, but it was also a means to an income for the family.

    One day, the horse ran away. Fellow villagers visited the old man to give their condolences for such a stroke of bad luck, as the loss of his horse represented a staggering financial blow that would be hard to recover from.

    “Good luck, bad luck: Who can tell?” replied the old man. “It is as it is. My horse is gone.”

    Perplexed at the man’s nonchalance towards the apparent tragedy, the villagers went about their business.

    A few days later, the horse returned with a pack of 12 wild horses in tow. Again the villagers gathered, this time to offer their congratulations at such a stroke of good luck. Now he had 12 more horses with which to make 12 times the income! What a godsend, they said.

    “Good luck, bad luck: Who can tell?” replied the old man again. “All I see is that 12 more horses have appeared.”

    The next week, while breaking in one of the wild horses, the old man’s son fell and both his legs were broken. What bad luck! The villagers exclaimed. Your son has broken both of his legs. That’s terrible. How will you get your work done? You are too old to do it yourself.

    “Good luck, bad luck: Who can tell?” was the (now predictable and equally frustrating) answer of the old man. “My son has broken his legs. That is all I know.”

    Shortly thereafter, the government forcibly removed all the able-bodied men from the village, as the country had gone to war. The old man’s son, however, was spared since his legs were broken.

    Good luck, bad luck: Who can tell?”

    3. Do you actually take a side with either of these two groups?

    I currently don’t understand their positions well enough. Did people at the Charlottesville “situation/event” even have strong written positions or are just acting from knee-jerk emotional reflexes.

    Truth, love and power : I think true positive change happens when aligning with all three.  The protesters may think they know the truth, but were they acting in a loving way towards other humans?

    I’m about 99.9% pro-free speech and peaceful demonstrations. I am pro-individual freedom and creativity/abundance and therefore anti-slavery and also anti-facism.  I’m also pro-personal-self-defense, in the martial arts sense of the word (prevent/avoid situations, seek to maim not kill, …. ).

    My basic socioeconomic understanding of slavery in the US: “elites” enslaved people from Africa to increase profits. “Poor southern whites” therefore were economically undercut by the “elites”. But the “elites” purposely created tension between “poor southern whites” and “blacks” as a diversionary tactic. What do people think? Is this mostly true?

    I think that getting rid of statues of politicians can sometimes have merit. But at the same time, does that mean statues of politicians and historical figures that remain are more moral? In terms of the American Civil War, was it in part an actual slavery/anti-slavery war and/or was/is that just propaganda?

    Should we have statues of politicians from other nations/””rebel”” groups? And are the number of those statues balanced with statues that represent other significant American political/world views? For example, where’s the statue for Abe Lincoln, Harriet Tubman, Nat Turner, John Brown, Fredrick Douglass, Malcolm X, MLK, etc. Are they as big/well-located as the statues for Confederate elites, say for example in Richmond, Va or even in Charlottesville? Is the process for erecting/removing a statue just?

    Do people who fly the Confederate/US/etc flag have legitimate points of view, grievances and arguments? Are some just being small-minded and mean? Are they being manipulated by nefarious groups? What’s the history of flying the Confederate (battle flag, I think, right?)?  Isn’t all this land just stolen/conquered from the American Indians, anyways?

    I am also pro-checks and balances and don’t think either industry, nor religion, nor government, nor the “wealthy elite” nor the “masses” nor political view should have all the concentrated power.

    4. We all agree that the mainstream media are a bunch of biased liars. But, when you see almost all non-mainstream media (alternative media, internet media) only show video of violence done by the other side and no videos of violence done by their side, do you then still trust these media sources as valid sources of information? If so, why?

    I don’t know if the MSM is necessarily 100% a bunch of biased liars. Technically, I’m not sure completely who is the MSM and who isn’t.  And have they become more untruthful or maintained a steady-state of truth/untruth over the past 10, 100, 1000 years?

    And who thinks anyone is unbiased anyways? It’s pretty much human nature to be biased. Very few people can truly be unbiased.  Check out the cognitive biases for more info.

    I like to consider many perspectives and assign a percentage possibility to what may and may not be true.

    It’s better to get media information from a variety of sources, understand their biases and be able to sort through what may be mostly true, mostly untrue and maybe just another perspective to learn from.  Of course, it is 95%+ proven fact that many individuals and organizations have engaged in manipulation of media.

    On a side note, how many people have individually proven that the earth is spherical?  I don’t think many people can actually prove it. In other words, how many people have done the necessary scientific testing to prove that the earth is a sphere? Nor can many people prove the earth is flat.  In summation, most people don’t really know that much, nor lack the skills to prove what they think they know. Most things are based on trust in others’ work and teachings. And most things don’t affect one’s day-to-day life, so in the short-term most knowledge is “impractical.”

    The same goes for the news. Most people don’t know what happened down the block, let alone 100 or 1000 miles away.  The only way to truly know is 1st or trusted 2nd hand information.  Once you start working with more people, it starts to be a game of telephone.  You can account for signal-loss, etc. but you’re still going to have additional challenges. Any sort of media is probably at least 4th or 5th-hand info. Unless, you see/hear/read the original, unedited footage, which would be 2nd hand.

    5. When you see open violence between two political sides on public streets where people actually get killed and the reaction from most people and the media is to side with one side or the other, is this a sign of a society in decline or a society on the rise?

    Good question. The only way to know for sure would be to do a historical study of other cases of riots and street violence with media coverage and attempt to correlate it to what was going on at that time in history.

    Is it a “normal” steam valve that society has or is it something new? It certainly suggests a change in society.  But things are always changing. What manifests still remains to be seen.  Of course, it’s always good to hedge one’s bets and consider risk/reward profiles, etc.

    If you read info from a variety of sources, then you’ll have different perspective.  The tragic events in Charlottesville would be an example of this.

    And what happened to the helicopter anyways?

  25. I’d call that equivalency a dodge.

    One group is fighting for a return to racial superiority and segregation, the other for equality, which, regardless of how you feel about the ways in which they’re going about it, DOES exist. Almost no one, if they could choose ahead of time how they were born, would pick “black man in America.” That’s a guaranteed harder life unless you’re part of the 1% or less of black men who luck out. They’ve inarguably gotten the short stick throughout US history and continue to do so to this day.

    Trying to find an “equivalent” angle in superiority vs equality is a willful spin of the issue. One bucks fundamental American values at their core.

    Outside the “free speech” dodging of the issue there is no real defense, there is no equivalent.

  26. And there’s been plenty of civilian/police type riots and looting throughout American history, so street violence isn’t something new but obviously don’t know about civilian-civilian violence.

    Exactly; it’s specifically civilian on civilian violence I’m talking about. That’s new.

    I’m about 99.9% pro-free speech and peaceful demonstrations. I am pro-individual freedom and creativity/abundance and therefore anti-slavery and also anti-facism.  I’m also pro-personal-self-defense, in the martial arts sense of the word (prevent/avoid situations, seek to maim not kill, …. ).

    When the Nazis were defending themselves against the antifa’s attacks, that was self-defense, and antifa was in the wrong there. But the problem with these Nazis is that the dude didn’t drive into a crowd at 50 mph because he was defending anyone. He did it because he was angry. It wasn’t a case of self-defense; it was the initiation of force, which is wrong, period.

    I’d call that equivalency a dodge.

    It’s my opinion, not a dodge. I don’t defend anything the Nazis did and I oppose their views.

    One group is fighting for a return to racial superiority and segregation, the other for equality

    For the third time, and I’m not repeating myself again, I wasn’t talking about their views when I was asking about whether or not my readers supported them in my article. I was asking about their initiation of violence against others. (Perhaps I should have been more clear.)

    I don’t side with either side. You seem to side with antifa, Jack seems to side with the Nazis. In both cases, you’re both casually glossing over the fact that both sides, yours included, initiated violence against people who weren’t engaged in violence themselves. I think that’s wrong, period. I also think that undermines any political points if you had them to begin with.

    If you think the initiation of violence justified, then we strongly disagree and we’ll have to leave it at that. If you keep changing the subject to not talk about the fact those communists initiated force against those Nazis, then that’s a strong indication that you think initiation violence is justified.

  27. Violence is never acceptable. Agreed.

    Framing the protesters as “communists” is compete and total BS. Turning this into “Nazis vs commies” is a willful deception and spin.

    “Communist” in general is misleading. A group of super lefties wanting more social welfare doesn’t equal a Stalin-esque “fuck the people, abuse the system for my own gain” dictatorship wrapped up in an ideological economic system term.

    Reducing this to “two political views” isn’t fair in this case. They’re not arguing 15% tax vs 50% tax, it’s white supremacy vs equality.

    Your whole framing willfully spins and misrepresents what’s going on in this new uprising of angry white supremacists who are being handed power by these lines of thinking you (following Trump’s lead) are throwing out.

  28. Trump’s election is the catalyst of these events. They occurred due to the deep-rooted sicknesses of American society, which have been quietly festering under the watchful eyes of previous presidents. Whether America becomes resurrected or buried is anyone’s guess. Regardless, it’s interesting to see the prison and the mechanics of Social Programming in turmoil. They say you can see glass best when it is moving. That’s what I think our society is like – a prison that suggests both freedom and security, yet easily broken through internal or external force.

    I don’t really find these political posts helpful; nobody changes their mind because the curious have already Googled it. I’m currently in my last year of college as a CS major. Could you provide more of your old content, specifically your Sublime your Time advice. I am wondering how the Alpha Male 2.0 business model is applied to high-tech startups, or whether low-tech is the way to go.

  29. Reducing this to “two political views” isn’t fair in this case. They’re not arguing 15% tax vs 50% tax, it’s white supremacy vs equality.
    Your whole framing willfully spins and misrepresents what’s going on

    Yeah… I don’t really want to join the discussion but “white supremacy vs equality”, come on Ryan, who’s framing things in a totally biased way here ?

  30. Err. . . These are self proclaimed white supremacist Nazis. No spin, that’s what they call themselves. Vs anti-Nazis, normal people like Heather Heyer who are out to show support for the historically downtrodden who were actively being shat upon. Am I spinning that part? Maybe a little (bad seeds on that side too), but the root of this whole weekend comes down to an ongoing ideological battle between supremacy vs equality.

    Watch the Vice documentary on the weekend if you’d like to learn more about what actually happened and who is behind the protest.

  31. Alright, first Caleb, then Ryan. And then I’m going to bed.

    @Caleb:

    I did not mean a side in the conflict. I meant a side with their political views. Of course I support their right to free speech. I meant, do you agree with their views?

    Partially, yes. The alt right Nazis at that rally had 4 views which I support:

    1. Anti-white racism is going mainstream and must be completely stamped out.

    2. Our borders must be rigidly enforced, all illegals deported, all international treaties broken, and all international organizations the U.S. must completely pull out of in order for us to become a fully sovereign and nationalist nation once again (or as the left calls it, “rogue nation”).

    3. All political correctness within our culture must be smashed.

    4. Islam is a plague upon humanity and the U.S. Government must make its domestic, foreign, and immigration policies with this in mind.

    All other Nazi views I reject and denounce.

    All views held by Antifa I reject and denounce, without exception.

    You believe murder is justified if someone infringes upon your freedom of speech? Really?

    Jesus.

    If you violate my human rights, I should have the legal right to kill you, yes. Just like if I violate your human rights, you should have the legal right to kill me. A human rights violation is an act of aggression. Thus, me killing you (or you killing me) would NOT violate the non-aggression principle.

    I give my opponents a choice always: Free Speech or violence. Gut my human right to Free Speech and I get to gut you. Or do you not believe in self-defense against an aggressive bully who’s violating your human rights, Caleb? I’m pretty sure the Founding Fathers are on my side here.

    “Give me liberty or give me death.” – Patrick Henry

    “From time to time, the tree of liberty must be watered with the blood of tyrants.” – Thomas Jefferson

    The equivalence I’m drawing is between two groups who were violent to others for reasons that were purely political.

    All the members of Antifa who violated the Nazis’ human right to Free Speech should be executed.

    The one Nazi who murdered a peaceful protester should be executed as well.

    But that is where the equivalence ends for me.

     

     

  32. Hey Caleb, just curious – did this event make you change your timeframe on when you’re planning to leave the US?

    And do you think that there’s any possibility of political tensions in the US de-escalating?

    If there’s another bad economic crash soon, I can only imagine that this will get worse. All over my social media, I’m not seeing any middle-of-the-road posts with people condemning the violence in general, all I’m seeing are people entirely on one side or the other.

    When Trump said that both sides were to blame, all of my left-leaning friends (even the mildly left-leaning ones) went completely bonkers and started posting about how he was now a full-on Nazi and must be immediately impeached. Judging from the insane, over the top reactions I’ve seen from 90% of people on both sides of the political spectrum, I’m guessing they’re not going to get any saner in the coming years.

    And if this is just the beginning, then I’m imagining things will get much worse in the USA, much sooner than most were thinking.

  33. @Ryan: I’ll break this down into a few posts.

    I’m pro-free speech, but do think the right thing to do is to not further antagonize those who have been historically antagonzied in the US for more than a half-millennium, most of those years a torturous horror.

    I agree. I’m not in favor of antagonizing anyone based on race.

    To me it’s just about defining good manners. You CAN say what you want of course, you’re legally free to, but you don’t have the right to say what you want AND have everyone leave you alone about it.

    That depends on what you mean by “leave you alone.” Freedom of Speech means freedom from two types of consequences:

    1. Government consequences

    2. Illegal consequences

    During the rally, Antifa was guilty of the second. Yes, I do have a right to Free Speech while, at the same time, getting to enjoy the right to not be murdered and not be physically aggressed against. What Antifa did was against the law.

    You are legally free to be an overt jerk to people, but you are not free from them despising you for it.

    Correct. But no one is talking about people despising other people. We are talking about Antifa’s actual violation of human rights via physical violence.

    I don’t know who threw the first punch

    Yes you do. We all do. Didn’t you watch those countless youtube videos? The Nazis were peacefully marching. Antifa illegally stood in their way. So the Nazis either had to stop marching or plow through. They tried to plow through and Antifa became violent and began throwing urine filled bottles at them and then beating them with belly clubs.

    but the Nazis rolled up to intimidate, antagonize, and instigate. This is crystal clear.

    They have every right to intimidate and antagonize without any illegal consequences. That’s Free Speech. As for “instigating?” No. Antifa instigated by physically standing in their way.

     

     

  34. I’m imagining things will get much worse in the USA, much sooner than most were thinking.

    Oh they are. Is it any coincidence that a documentary on Scientology holding its ex-members hostage was aired a couple of days after? And don’t you think that both sides are paying VERY careful attention to what the scientologists are doing and how they are doing it? Do you think that both the white nationalists as well as AntiFA are going to use the same tactics as the scientologists have been using?

    Collectivism will, much sooner than later, be replacing religion. We will be going back to 1500s Spain. Collectivists on either side will be leading an Inquisition. And you if you aren’t on the right side (the right side being ANY side), prepare to be a heretic who will be hunted.

    This hasn’t spread out to Southeast Asia yet, thankfully.

  35. Alright, let’s continue:

    I’m pro-free speech from a legal perspective.

    Great!

    You’re legally free to say what you want and not have any legal troubles, but you’re not free to slander people in mass

    No one was slandering anybody. Slander is a legal term that has to do with lying about objective facts. The Nazis were giving their opinions and nothing else. Opinions are not vulnerable to concepts like slander, which is a concept that is limited only to facts. There was no slander here. At all.

    with clear hateful language directed specifically at them and then have people not be bothered by it and just STFU cause “free speech.”

    What are you talking about? I NEVER said that people have no right to be bothered by it. What I did say is that people have no right to violate other people’s right to Free Speech just because they are bothered. I’m bothered by what you have to say. Does that mean I should have the right to silence you?

    You’re entirely dodging the actual issue I brought up, redirecting the conversation to be some semi-related thing that no ones arguing.

    I’m not dodging anything. Morally speaking, the Nazis are despicable creatures. But take away their human rights with violence and I’ll stand with them against you, just like I would stand with you against them if they were to try to take away your human rights.

    from a social perspective it seems people are fighting for the right to use historic slurs and then not have people call them out for it.

    Wrong. They are fighting for the right to use historic slurs and not have people censor them for it. Calling them out is fine. Censoring them with physical violence is not. See the difference?

    Free speech runs both ways.

    Absolutely. So which part of Free Speech is “beating a man up with a club and throwing rocks at his head?” I must have been sick that day when I was attending law school.

    Chant some wack nonsense (free speech) -> get shunned for it by decent people (free speech.). Two way street bud.

    Do you truly not understand the difference between “getting shunned” and “being the victim of violence?” Seriously?

     

     

  36. Okay, last post for tonight:

    One group is fighting for a return to racial superiority and segregation, the other for equality,

    Are you shitting me? Equality? Antifa does NOT believe in equality. At all! They are a Marxist terrorist organization who believe in racism against whites, that whites deserve punishment for the crimes of other whites, and the entire “check your privilege” narrative. Antifa believes in SEVERE social and legal restrictions against white people due to “historic grievances” that all white people apparently have to pay for because they were born in the wrong bodies.

    No, that’s not racial equality. That’s racism! Come on, dude! You’re better than this!

    Almost no one, if they could choose ahead of time how they were born, would pick “black man in America.” That’s a guaranteed harder life unless you’re part of the 1% or less of black men who luck out. They’ve inarguably gotten the short stick throughout US history and continue to do so to this day.

    Nothing that you just said justifies racism against white people (which Antifa supports), black supremacy (which Antifa supports), or physically violent censorship (which Antifa supports).

    Trying to find an “equivalent” angle in superiority vs equality is a willful spin of the issue. One bucks fundamental American values at their core.

    Except this isn’t “superiority vs. equality.” This is “white superiority (Nazis)” vs. “black superiority (Antifa).” Both are equally wrong, except Antifa is worse because they believe in censorship in addition to their anti-white racist hate.

    Outside the “free speech” dodging of the issue there is no real defense, there is no equivalent.

    It seems your entire argument is based on the false premise that Antifa isn’t racist (it is). But you believe Antifa wants racial equality (it doesn’t).

    Violence is never acceptable. Agreed.

    Good. Then denounce Antifa. And stick up for the Nazis’ right to Free Speech.

    Framing the protesters as “communists” is compete and total BS.

    No it’s not. Antifa members are self admitted and self-identified Communists, just like the alt right protesters are self-admitted and self-identified Nazis.

    Turning this into “Nazis vs commies” is a willful deception and spin.

    How so?

    “Communist” in general is misleading. A group of super lefties wanting more social welfare doesn’t equal a Stalin-esque “fuck the people, abuse the system for my own gain” dictatorship wrapped up in an ideological economic system term.

    Um, have you read Antifa’s platform? They are anarcho-Communists who believe in the physically violent overthrow of the U.S. Government and its replacement with a “Communist utopia.”

    Reducing this to “two political views” isn’t fair in this case. They’re not arguing 15% tax vs 50% tax,

    You’re right. They’re arguing in favor of the destruction of all private property.

    it’s white supremacy vs equality.

    LOL! This is an insane belief! If you tell Antifa that you believe white people should be equal, they will put you in the hospital.

    Your whole framing willfully spins and misrepresents what’s going on

    No, that’s what you’re doing.

    in this new uprising of angry white supremacists who are being handed power by these lines of thinking you (following Trump’s lead) are throwing out.

    No one is handing power to white supremacists. The only thing they have on their side is Free Speech (which they should), which Antifa and that other Marxist terrorist group BAMN (By Any Means Necessary) is trying to take away from them. By contrast, Marxist terrorist groups like Antifa, BAMN, and BLM are precisely being handed power and influence by the mainstream media and numerous other mainstream institutions. That’s why they are the bigger threat than a handful of angry white virgins. Perspective is key.

    Err. . . These are self proclaimed white supremacist Nazis. No spin, that’s what they call themselves.

    Good. Now call Antifa what they call themselves too. I’ll wait.

    Vs anti-Nazis,

    Facepalm! For fuck sake dude!

    normal people like Heather Heyer who are out to show support for the historically downtrodden who were actively being shat upon. Am I spinning that part?

    Yes you are. Even the peaceful protesters who were against the Nazis were there without a permit, whereas the Nazis obtained the proper permits from City Hall to hold an organized protest.

    Maybe a little (bad seeds on that side too), but the root of this whole weekend comes down to an ongoing ideological battle between supremacy vs equality.

    This belief of yours is truly insane. It reeks of PC garbage! It’s not supremacy vs. equality. It’s supremacy vs. supremacy. Antifa doesn’t hate the Nazis because the Nazis are racists. Antifa hates the Nazis because the Nazis, in Antifa’s mind, have chosen the wrong race to be racist against. Get that right!

    Goodnight everybody!

     

     

     

  37. Framing the protesters as “communists” is compete and total BS. Turning this into “Nazis vs commies” is a willful deception and spin.

    Incorrect. These left-wing thugs are indeed communists. The would love government to redistribute all wealth and completely dispose of the free market capitalistic system.

    “Communist” in general is misleading. A group of super lefties wanting more social welfare doesn’t equal a Stalin-esque “fuck the people, abuse the system for my own gain” dictatorship wrapped up in an ideological economic system term.

    I said they’re communists, not Stalinists. Two different things. Don’t twist my words.

    Reducing this to “two political views” isn’t fair in this case. They’re not arguing 15% tax vs 50% tax, it’s white supremacy vs equality.

    Incorrect again.

    1. They are not for equality at all. They don’t consider the views of straight white men as equal to a black woman, for example.

    2. Black Lives Matter, whom these people are either a part of or sympathize with, are racists.

    3. Explain how people who punch out reporters and knock them to the ground are for “equality.”

    Your whole framing willfully spins and misrepresents what’s going on in this new uprising of angry white supremacists who are being handed power by these lines of thinking you (following Trump’s lead) are throwing out.

    I don’t see how. I’ve said before that there is an uprising of fringe, extreme right-wingers as a reaction to our new left-wing culture, and how this will likely get worse with time. Though I’ve also said that right-wingers have lost the culture war a very long time ago and are on the wrong side of history. You, the left, have already one the war. Regardless of these incidents, you have nothing to fear in the long-term. You’ve already won, trust me.

    I don’t really find these political posts helpful;

    Yet you posted on one.

    nobody changes their mind

    Correct. I’ve said that many times.

    Could you provide more of your old content, specifically your Sublime your Time advice.

    All of my post are still there:

    http://www.sublimeyourtime.com

    I am wondering how the Alpha Male 2.0 business model is applied to high-tech startups, or whether low-tech is the way to go.

    High-tech startups of the Silicon Valley type are not Alpha 2.0 compatible since they require lots of employees, and often require investors who own more than 50% of your company. In terms of high-tech or low-tech as a general trait, either can be Alpha 2.0 compatible, though high-tech is much easier for obvious reasons.

    If you violate my human rights, I should have the legal right to kill you, yes. Just like if I violate your human rights, you should have the legal right to kill me. A human rights violation is an act of aggression. Thus, me killing you (or you killing me) would NOT violate the non-aggression principle.

    You’re not addressing the issue of proportionality. If you try to kill me, of course I have the right to kill you in self-defense. But if you speak at a rally, and someone uses a blowhorn a few times to make it harder for you to talk, are you saying it’s perfectly acceptable to whip out a shotgun and blow that person’s head off?

    All the members of Antifa who violated the Nazis’ human right to Free Speech should be executed.

    I disagree completely for what are obvious reasons to any rational-thinking person. Punished of course, but not killed.

    With all these kinds of big-daddy government views, do you still seriously call yourself a libertarian?

    The one Nazi who murdered a peaceful protester should be executed as well.

    I’m against the death penalty on general principle, since I don’t want the state to have that kind of power over individuals, but at least on that one point I understand.

    Hey Caleb, just curious – did this event make you change your timeframe on when you’re planning to leave the US?

    No. These kinds of things are more of a trend than a singular event.

    If anything tempted me to up the time table, it was the Trump/Hillary election, Trump’s escalation of the wars he said he would end, and his travel ban affecting green card holders.

    And do you think that there’s any possibility of political tensions in the US de-escalating?

    Sure, anything is possible, but what is more likely is that the fringe right will engage in more conflict with the fringe left, and this will continue to grow until the right goes away, which they will since the entire culture is moving left and true right-wingers are vastly outnumbered and out-funded by left-wingers.

    This will take a long time though; perhaps another 20 years. I’ll be long gone by then. I really don’t care anymore.

    All over my social media, I’m not seeing any middle-of-the-road posts with people condemning the violence in general, all I’m seeing are people entirely on one side or the other.

    Precisely, and I see the same everywhere (thus my questions). You see it in this very thread with Ryan and Jack, both of whom have chosen sides purely because of the anger they feel. Feelings rule the day now.

    And if this is just the beginning, then I’m imagining things will get much worse in the USA, much sooner than most were thinking.

    Things will get much worse, that’s guaranteed. As to when, we can only speculate.

    You’re absolutely right; Americans, on all sides, have lost any sense of rationality they once had, and they’ve all lost their minds. America, both as a nation and a culture, is fucked.

  38. 1. Can you name another time in the last, oh, 50 years or more when civilians from the left and right engaged in open warfare with each other in a public city street in America? Let me remind you that video clearly showed left-wing protestors starting fights with the right-wing protestors, as well as punching out several journalists and cameramen, and a right-wing protestor purposely driving his car into a crowd, injuring many and actually killing one person.

    Nope

    2. When communist extremists are engaged in actual, physical combat with neo-Nazi extremists on America’s streets, is this a good thing for the country, or a bad thing?

    its Horrible , people all over the world are laughing at us… unless we form a strong centrist movement like a bunch of libertarians who lift/do mma/ strong willed maybe some fireman/ex military etc .. to form a militia to fuck both the neo nazi and communists in the ass 🙂

    3. Do you actually take a side with either of these two groups? If so, why? Are you one of those people who say, “Well, I’m against violence and they shouldn’t have done that, but they have some really good points and I agree with them.”? 

    Hell no, fiscally communism or socialism is my worst fear I love entrepreneurship and freedom like you caleb, so economically no way … but socially the neo nazis would hate me because im a punjabi brown dude american who mainly dates pretty white girls so these undersexed cucks would get mad hahaha .. I think trump is doing a good job at blaming both sides and hes got the media in check

    4. We all agree that the mainstream media are a bunch of biased liars. But, when you see almost all non-mainstream media (alternative media, internet media) only show video of violence done by the other side and no videos of violence done by their side, do you then still trust these media sources as valid sources of information? If so, why?

    Alot of media sources like crowder, rebel media, infowars and my favorite MIKE cernovich! covered it all honestly by saying both sides are dumb and wrong etc.. they are my go to sources for libertarian slightly more right news

    5. When you see open violence between two political sides on public streets where people actually get killed and the reaction from most people and the media is to side with one side or the other, is this a sign of a society in decline or a society on the rise?

    It looks declining but this might ever get greater or stop and go away atleast the violence part, im curious to see how it goes.. If anything this might unite the sane right and the sane left together as a team to disavow both sides but who knows

    next post Caleb i wanna see your thoughts 😀

  39. Yet you posted on one.

    Yes, politics is fun to read and occasionally talk about. I also knew that Sublime Your Time is still up. However, I feel that you are neglecting other topics, as you wrote more often about them in the past. I would like to see more of those upbeat and mind-blowing posts again. They are cool, and will not fall onto deaf ears.

  40. @Randy,

    The other reason you don’t see too many middle-of-the-road posts on social media is that people who have those opinions have learned that posting about them on social media is a great way to get reamed by both sides. Most of us aren’t interested in trying to fight on two fronts, so we just shut up and don’t get involved.

  41. Jack – no one knows who Antifa is. That’s the error in your and Caleb’s “Commie” thinking. It’s spin if you pick one tiny sub-set of thinking that hardly anyone is aware of, and blast their values onto everyone, and then attack everyone for those values that aren’t there’s. That’s illogical intentionally misleading spin and BS.

    I guarantee you the vast majority of protesters were just normal people who felt strongly enough about a bunch of angry hateful Nazi rolling through town to protest, as has happened at every KKK type ralley in history.

    This isn’t “Nazis vs commies”, that’s a framing that implies Hitler vs Stalin. The hitler aspect is def 100% there on one side, but the Stalin aspect is there only a tiny percentage on the other side, with the rest being normal people who aren’t down with Nazi ideas. Its a small college town, nearly everyone in town is going to be out at the ralley/protest, it wasn’t an organization of Stalin commies lol. BS equivalency and you know it.

  42. Caleb –
    “I said they’re communists, not Stalinists. Two different things. Don’t twist my words.”
    I’m not trying to twist your words, but you’re using loaded words full of 100s years worth of pre-conceived meanings and associations that you’re then not trying to mean, while still using the word.   Does that make sense lol?   Its misleading to simply say “they’re commies because they want socialized health care,” when “commies” to most people in the US means spies and cold wars and nuclear arms races, not slightly higher tax rates or more social welfare.  (Which I’m not down with personally, I’m just trying to actually maintain a realistic un-spun view of things.)
    When you use a term like “commies” you can’t escape the 100 years of implied meaning that comes along with it.    Its a deceptive word the way you’re using it in a “commie vs nazi” framing here, no??

  43. Alot of media sources like crowder, rebel media, infowars and my favorite MIKE cernovich! covered it all honestly by saying both sides are dumb and wrong etc

    Incorrect, and that isn’t what I said. I was talking about how they only showed video of the other side being violent and not their side. I don’t care what they said, I care about what they showed. Many of the sources you just listed are guilty of this. But as I suspected in my article, that doesn’t seem to bother you very much.

    If anything this might unite the sane right and the sane left together as a team to disavow both sides but who knows next post Caleb i wanna see your thoughts

    That will literally never happen.

    Yes, politics is fun to read and occasionally talk about. I also knew that Sublime Your Time is still up. However, I feel that you are neglecting other topics, as you wrote more often about them in the past. I would like to see more of those upbeat and mind-blowing posts again. They are cool, and will not fall onto deaf ears.

    Correct. I’m doing that on purpose, for these three reasons:

    1. Business advice, unlike all other advice and commentary, has a monetary value attached to it, thus I don’t want to give too much of it away for free. I’d rather sell it.

    2. As you may have noticed, my political posts get far more traffic and engagement, and my business posts get the least amount less traffic and engagement by far (my moving out of the country and lifestyle posts are usually somewhere in the middle). If I want to grow this blog, and I do, I need to throw out some red meat every once in a while in order to build the audience, or else very few people will ever see the business posts when I post them.

    3. Read this article here. In it, I state that my political posts are indeed helpful because it shows all the reasons why you should create an Alpha 2.0 lifestyle structure in order to protect you against the collapsing West. Unlike just about everyone else in the universe, I don’t post about politics in order to bitch and moan, take a side, or achieve any sort of cultural change. I post about them for one reason: in order to help you, even if it may not feel like that sometimes.

    no one knows who Antifa is.

    Yes they do. It’s one of the most common terms thrown around in the political side of the internet. What a silly statement.

    I guarantee you the vast majority of protesters were just normal people who felt strongly enough about a bunch of angry hateful Nazi rolling through town to protest, as has happened at every KKK type ralley in history.

    I don’t think it’s the “vast majority,” but I’m sure it’s a large percentage, yes. But that doesn’t excuse the violent communists on that side who started the fight in the first place.

    Its misleading to simply say “they’re commies because they want socialized health care,” when “commies” to most people in the US means spies and cold wars and nuclear arms races, not slightly higher tax rates or more social welfare.

    Great, but now you’re not reading my comments, or you have something wrong with your reading comprehension. I’m not calling them communists because they want socialized heath care. I’m calling them communists because they’re for the utopian communism many (though not all) left-wingers are for, not because they want to duplicate the Soviet Union.

    If you want communism, you are a communist. If you don’t like that word, tough shit, since I don’t know what other word you want me to use.

  44. I didn’t know what Antifa was until this week, and I read CNN, Fox, USAToday, and BBC every day (the scope of mainstream news sites like most, most do not go into the dredges of the internet.)  And if i were in a boring college town on a Saturday where Nazi’s were marching I’d probably be out checking it out.  Most don’t know that word, most protesting Nazi’s aren’t standing for something particular themselves, they’re just anti-Nazi.   There isn’t actually a “verses” among two particular groups going on in the way that you’re imagining.

    I get what you mean by communist but 1. that’s not most left wingers (i don’t know anyone at all that’s ever said anything along those lines, living in California where almost everyone hates Trump.  The left is mostly upset about the long term effects of “trickle up economics” that have created an unnatural income disparity, and how we can go about creating a more level playing field in the same way that “trickle up” was conceptualized and then put into action in the 80s, which is a far cry from promoting a communist utopia.) and 2. if you’re not out to mislead people you have to be aware of the meaning that word carries to the majority of people.  “Communist” means something in popular culture ENTIRELY DIFFERENT than what you’re meaning by it.  By framing things certain ways with that word you can easily be misleading, while also having a “thats not what i meant” defense to fall back on when people naturally assume the popularized meaning of the word.   Depends on if you actually want to put a clear message out there, or you’re into spinning debate where you’ve got a fallback net.  I’m a fan of getting an actual message out, you may be more into appealing to a base demographic you’re targeting for profit.

  45. I’ll summarize my point as succinctly as possible and be done:

    This event is the result of 100% bad apples vs 5-10% bad apples and a bunch of typical college town community folks showing support for each other (many of whom are the direct target of violence-threatening Nazis) against Nazis.

    Any framing of these events that doesn’t make that clear skews reality and ultimately serves the purpose of enabling and empowering Nazis.  
     

  46. Ryan, I believe that you are really out of touch with the leftist groups. I went to UC San Diego and graduated in 2004. Back then, I worked at a communist collective bookstore and was completely programmed to be a radical anarcho-communist by my studies and the left there. Mind you, the radicals were not the majority of the leftists on campus. There were weekly if not monthly meetings held by the Muslim Student Union (I spoke with some of them as we are on a united front so to speak, and the men were radical back then and couple of them went to Egypt because in their own words, “The Egyptian Brotherhood is Down for the cause”, old school communist/Marxist groups like the Workers Vanguard, and then you of course had the Black Bloc anarchists, the Chicano nationalists, Black Nationalists, just a huge hodge podge of people decrying capitalism and demanding socialism for all and they shared that common interest. These groups still exist today. Antifa is essentially a more mainstream and inclusive group than the Black Bloc was. Caleb should recall this as the Black Bloc’s presence in Pac NW was huge in the 90s and early 00’s. Either way, this is a small segment of the left, but a very radical and violent one who believes in socialism or anarchism by any means necessary. Make no doubt these people exist because they do. And there were some of them in Charlottesville. They just get the party started and then herd mentality takes over.

    Of note, I learned a lot about that college experience. Collectives don’t work as the store was always in debt and these socialists rejected rules and stole from the register at all times. “feelings” had to be discussed at endless meetings where consensus had to be achieved in order to do anything. Just a bunch of freeloaders/freeriders taking advantage of the two or three people holding the whole business together. It was insane and definitely nothing I want this country to be heading toward.

    I also learned that protesting anything and arguing politics, etc. is a huge fucking waste of my time.

     

  47. I should also point out that the bookstore was a student ran and actually on the campus. We didn’t have to pay rent either. So these student co-ops were a big hit apparently in the 70s and are still lingering around today.

  48. What do you think the odds are of ever bringing the people funding this violence, and possible future race war ( Soros, etc.) out of the shadows to face some sort of prosecution? How many people do you think are even aware of it?

    I agree with you that this event raised the bar to open warfare. Especially considering that a Woman was murdered. Do you think that this will eventually lead to a civil war type of scenario in the US?

    Do you think that this will be confined to the just the US? I’m seeing racial problems everywhere in the world now including Canada. A country that has traditionally looked down on the US and others, for not getting along with everyone as well as we supposedly do. The  ultra Left Wing Trudeau government even passed an Orwellian “non-binding, Islamophobia motion” called M103. How fucking scary is that?

    If this is indeed going to be a worldwide issue, can you really move to another country where being white ( or a westerner) would make you a minority?

  49. Ryan – You’re repeating yourself now so I’m done discussing this with you. You’re free to keep posting and others can respond if they wish. I wish you all the best, but with all due respect, people like you (on both sides) are part of the problem. You come on to internet sites and post very angry, impassioned, antagonistic views while you clearly don’t have all the facts and haven’t done even basic research on the views you’re espousing (beyond listening to mainstream news, which only gives you about 20% of the picture). This is very dangerous to the health of the nation (not that I care) and hurts discourse for everyone.

    Honestly, I think Jack’s views are just as insane as I think yours are, if not more so, but at least Jack has taken the time to research the facts from all sources and draw some informed conclusions. If you don’t even know what antifa is, you haven’t done this. This makes you unqualified for opinions as strong as you have, at least in my view.

    Caleb should recall this as the Black Bloc’s presence in Pac NW was huge in the 90s and early 00’s.

    I do. One of my sisters used to hang out with some of those guys back in the day. Pretty disturbing stuff.

    (Though to be fair, the pacific northwest was (and still is) home to a lot of skinheads too.)

    When a bunch of communists try to burn down college campuses just because a right-wing speaker goes there to do a speech, it’s clear that equality is the last thing these people want.

    What do you think the odds are of ever bringing the people funding this violence, and possible future race war ( Soros, etc.) out of the shadows to face some sort of prosecution?

    Zero. The law, and consequences, never apply to the elites (unless they piss off other elites, which is what Trump is currently doing; he’s in trouble if he keeps doing that). Soros on the left and the Koch brothers on the right can do literally whatever they want. They (and people like them) run the country.

    How many people do you think are even aware of it?

    I’d say about 20%. But if was 80% it still wouldn’t matter. Remember, people re-elected Obama while unemployment was high and while he was bombing the shit out of civilians in the mideast. People don’t care about that stuff anymore. They just want to “win” politically, even if the country burns down around them.

    Do you think that this will eventually lead to a civil war type of scenario in the US?

    No. I’ve been asked that question many times and my answer is always no. Americans are angry, but they’ve also grown fat, lazy, submissive, needy, and passive. They also still have a very high standard of living as compared to most of the rest of the world. None of this is a recipe for civil warriors.

    We are no longer the rugged, armed frontiersmen we were in the 19th century. We’re not even close anymore.

    Do you think that this will be confined to the just the US?

    It already isn’t. You see this kind of thing in Europe already. It will happen to Canada too. The entire West is collapsing, not just the US.

    If this is indeed going to be a worldwide issue, can you really move to another country where being white ( or a westerner) would make you a minority?

    Of course. In many places in Asia (for example), white minorities are treated better than normal Asian citizens there. Sometimes being the minority is a good thing, not a bad thing. And even if you want to be in city with lots of white people, then people in New Zealand or Buenos Aries aren’t going to give you any hassle.

  50. Of course. In many places in Asia (for example), white minorities are treated betterthan normal Asian citizens there. Sometimes being the minority is a good thing, not a bad thing. And even if you want to be in city with lots of white people, then people in New Zealand or Buenos Aries aren’t going to give you any hassle.

    When the global economic crisis hits – that means resource constraint and hardships – people tend to become very tribalistic and blame everything on minorities. As the west crumbles, the social status of white people will go down the drain. What’s your plan to stay safe in Asia, especially as a wealthy white man?

  51. When the global economic crisis hits – that means resource constraint and hardships – people tend to become very tribalistic and blame everything on minorities.

    I’m not anticipating a global economic crisis, just a Western economic crisis. I realize that when the West goes under Asia will suffer too, but that’s apples and oranges.

    As the west crumbles, the social status of white people will go down the drain.

    If that ever happens, it will be in a very, very long time. Many decades, if ever. I’m not concerned.

    What’s your plan to stay safe in Asia, especially as a wealthy white man?

    I’m not moving to Asia. I’m (probably) moving to New Zealand or Argentina. I will be doing business in Asia and visiting regularly though.

  52. @Caleb:

    if you speak at a rally, and someone uses a blowhorn a few times to make it harder for you to talk, are you saying it’s perfectly acceptable to whip out a shotgun and blow that person’s head off?

    Ah, the Bugs Bunny reaction!

    Yes, if two conditions are met first:

    1. This is government property

    2. I’m killing him as a last resort.

    On government property:

    I would first demand the police arrest him immediately and charge him with heckler’s veto (which is a crime on government property), or at least forcefully escort him out. But if the police refuse to do their job or if security is nowhere to be found, I believe I should have every right to take literally whatever steps are necessary to restore my human right to Free Speech, up to and including murder. But honestly, it wouldn’t come to that. Mostly, just a strong punch to the teeth would make the social justice jackass cry and run to his safe space!

    Look, we’re either a society of laws or we’re not. If we are, then the heckler must be arrested or removed from the venue. But if we’re not and the police fail to do their job, then whipping out a shotgun and blowing his head off, Bugs Bunny style (as a last resort) should be acceptable if he’s in the process of violating one of my human rights, thus committing a crime against me.

    You can’t deny that if laws aren’t being enforced, then citizens will (and should) take matters into their own hands. You disagree?

    I wouldn’t do this today, of course, because it’s against the law and I don’t break laws, but I think I should have the legal right (even though I know that I currently don’t) to kill him if there is no other way to take back my human right to speak.

    On private property:

    The law against heckler’s veto doesn’t apply to private property, so in that case, if I’m the owner of the property, I would call the police and have him arrested for trespassing. If I’m not the owner, I’d appeal to the owner and demand that he call the police so they can arrest the heckler for trespassing. But if the owner were to refuse, or if he’s too much of a pussy to call the cops, then he (the owner) has given the heckler implicit permission to censor me (indirectly through his weakness). In that case, I’d leave the property and never set foot on it again, while showing contempt for the cowardly owner.

    I disagree completely for what are obvious reasons to any rational-thinking person. Punished of course, but not killed.

    Antifa are terrorists, not hecklers. If my human right to Free Speech is violated by terrorists using physical violence against me, of course they should be killed! I’d prefer the government kill them with drone strikes or at least disappear them under the Patriot Act.

    At the Nazi rally, physically violent and politically motivated terrorists – acting under the anacho-Communist banner – physically assaulted and censored a group of peaceful (albeit Nazi) protesters. Under the Patriot Act, they might face legal execution if the government were to officially designate Antifa as a terrorist organization (Note: The state of New Jersey already has). They may also face life in prison under the RICO statute.

    But setting aside both RICO and the Patriot Act, I believe that our law against heckler’s veto isn’t enough. A new law should be passed against “obstructing speech.” The penalty should be severe. And if a person is actually physically violent with the goal of speech obstruction or suppression, I believe the penalty should be death.

    With all these kinds of big-daddy government views, do you still seriously call yourself a libertarian?

    Yes, because I believe everything should be legal, except human rights violations.

    I’m against the death penalty on general principle, since I don’t want the state to have that kind of power over individuals, but at least on that one point I understand.

    Disagree. Human rights violations (especially the human right to life and speech) should be met with the deadliest force. The right to life and speech are our two most precious guarantees to freedom. Take them away, or allow their violators to get off lightly, and we no longer have a free society. Freedom must be zealously defended from tyrants. If that’s not libertarian, I don’t know what is!

     

  53. @Jack Outside the Box

    The right to free speech does not outweight the implicit right to stay alive.

    You’re only right to kill someone if you have a legitimate fear that the person is placing your life in danger AND if you weren’t instigating the situation.  The circumstances depend on the state, look up various conceal carry laws and talk to a lawyer for clarification.

  54. came here checking to see if there was a Friday post then saw the 50+ comments!

    here’s mine.

    1. Can you name another time in the last, oh, 50 years or more when civilians from the left and right engaged in open warfare with each other in a public city street in America? Let me remind you that video clearly showed left-wing protestors starting fights with the right-wing protestors, as well as punching out several journalists and cameramen, and a right-wing protestor purposely driving his car into a crowd, injuring many and actually killing one person.

    nope, I barely keep up with the news at this point if I ever did. it’s hard enough to just meet the goals I’m aiming for. I remember 9-11, the d.c. sniper, and whatever that recent event two years ago that showed baltimoreans raiding stores in national tv etc…i just heard about this through here, and one other podcast. sounds pretty bad though.

    2. When communist extremists are engaged in actual, physical combat with neo-Nazi extremists on America’s streets, is this a good thing for the country, or a bad thing?

    bad…

    3. Do you actually take a side with either of these two groups? If so, why? Are you one of those people who say, “Well, I’m against violence and they shouldn’t have done that, but they have some really good points and I agree with them.”?

    stopped paying attention to the point I barely understand it and the nuances. makes me sad if I’m seeing a cute girl and she’s getting sucked into this crap. just want to get out of debt and make music really.

    4. We all agree that the mainstream media are a bunch of biased liars. But, when you see almost all non-mainstream media (alternative media, internet media) only show video of violence done by the other side and no videos of violence done by their side, do you then still trust these media sources as valid sources of information? If so, why?

    again. this was the first place I heard about this. it’s very bizarre to say the least. like…you were born in America and there’s still crap to get fussed about? I’m having enough time taken up retraining my brain to focus and not be so lazy etc

    5. When you see open violence between two political sides on public streets where people actually get killed and the reaction from most people and the media is to side with one side or the other, is this a sign of a society in decline or a society on the rise?

    decline. the black and white perspective of everything might be one of the things that drives me the most up the wall when I notice it within myself, and others. I’ll be lucky enough to bite the bullet and beat this crash.

  55. 1. Can you name another time in the last, oh, 50 years or more when civilians from the left and right engaged in open warfare with each other in a public city street in America? Let me remind you that video clearly showed left-wing protestors starting fights with the right-wing protestors, as well as punching out several journalists and cameramen, and a right-wing protestor purposely driving his car into a crowd, injuring many and actually killing one person.

    Its happened quite a bit, but hasn’t been reported as much and it was on a much smaller scale. Usually it involved some psycho asshole murdering people he or she didn’t like. Also, I look at pretty much ALL acts of protest as aggression, as every time a protest or a march happens, it represents an attack on the individual. Only difference is back then both sides were seen as assholes. Now only the white nationalists are being seen as assholes.

    2. When communist extremists are engaged in actual, physical combat with neo-Nazi extremists on America’s streets, is this a good thing for the country, or a bad thing?

    If you are a collectivist who is ready to take a side in what I am now affectionately calling the “21st century collectivist inquisition,” its a good thing, because you know you’ll be safe. If you are an individualist anarcho-capitalist like myself who looks at things on a case-by-case basis and will be a target for the collectivists then its very, very bad. Bad enough to where moving out of the west should be your first priority if you value your life.

    3. Do you actually take a side with either of these two groups? If so, why? Are you one of those people who say, “Well, I’m against violence and they shouldn’t have done that, but they have some really good points and I agree with them.”?

    No. They are both committing the existential murder of the individual. I’ve held this belief of collectivists for nearly 20 years, since high school.

    4. We all agree that the mainstream media are a bunch of biased liars. But, when you see almost all non-mainstream media (alternative media, internet media) only show video of violence done by the other side and no videos of violence done by their side, do you then still trust these media sources as valid sources of information? If so, why?

    Neither were truthful in the first place. For the last several millennia, truth has been a function of consensus. And as Bad Religion sings, consensus is not a fact based exercise.

    5. When you see open violence between two political sides on public streets where people actually get killedandthe reaction from most people and the media is to side with one side or the other, is this a sign of a society in decline or a society on the rise?

    If you are part of the collective and are ready to fight for your side, like Jack and Ryan are, then its a sign of society on the rise. For individualist anarcho-capitalists like myself, its not only a society on the decline, but a society that is beyond 6 feet under.
    *Goes back to reading Atlas Shrugged, knowing that by the 2020s, collectivists are going to be hunting me down for it*

  56. I’ve repeated myself because my point was never addressed.   Jack went off into the “free speech” direction which I agree with, and Caleb continued to frame thing as “two political views” and would not explore the nuances and differences between sides which are massive, and instead went for the personal attack and dismissal.

    Fair enough though.  Tap out.  Just know that these lines of thinking feed the white supremacy fire, which is the root cause of the racial tensions in America, while remaining an inaccurate depiction of what’s going on.

     

  57. Shayme:

     Make no doubt these people exist because they do. And there were some of them in Charlottesville. They just get the party started and then herd mentality takes over.

     

    I agree entirely man.   These people exist for sure, there’s radical groups of everything imaginable in the US.

    My point is the same as yours. . . in last weekend’s events this was a small percentage of the people protesting.    Lumping everyone protesting Nazi’s screaming “the Jews will not replace us” (NOT “leave up the statues” which was their guise) into this group of extremists isn’t in line with reality.   Whereas ALL of the white supremacists were. . . white supremacists.

    Meaning this is not a x=y equation.   And applying this equation to these events empowers the white supremacists.

    Focusing on the first punch is an error too (again it’ll be impossible to actually know).  When a group of guys shows up amp’d up and armed to the teeth, they’re looking for a brawl.   That was their purpose, this is a group of people who actively want a race war, that’s one of their core purposes of existing as a group.  The “they threw the first punch” excuse is a transparent cop-out that gives sympathizers ammunition to carry on nonsensical threads of thought like you see here.

     

  58. 2. I’m killing him as a last resort.

    What exactly does that mean?

    Freedom must be zealously defended from tyrants. If that’s not libertarian, I don’t know what is!

    That’s why we have this thing called “prison.” Killing them via state power is not required. And no, being for killing people if they violate your free speech at a rally is not libertarian. But I’m not getting into one of those dumb “what is a libertarian” debates. If you really think you’re a libertarian with your big-government views, then go right ahead.

  59. I’m not getting into one of those dumb “what is a libertarian” debates.

    You should. There are a lot of faux White Nationalists like JOTB and faux Cultural Marxists like Ryan who say that they are libertarian, but are clearly not.

    The “What is a Libertarian” debate is one that many libertarians (and even Anarcho-Capitalists) like myself refuse to have, because a very big majority of them know that they will be snuffed out.

    That’s how far Collectivism has gone: It has even reached the Libertarians where in decades past, pretty much all libertarians agreed that collectivism was a direct violation of the Non Aggression Principle.

    The “they threw the first punch” excuse is a transparent cop-out that gives sympathizers ammunition to carry on nonsensical threads of thought like you see here.

    Any collectivist who demonstrates, for any cause, “throws the first punch.” This punch is aimed at the face of individualism and the Non Aggression Principle. Groups with agendas telling others how to live and which group of person is better than the other is an ACTUAL microaggression, to steal a term from the progressives. And what is the microaggression against? The Non Aggression Principle.

    There is LITERALLY no difference between either of these two groups and Scientologists who will keep you in their group for life and do everything they can to make sure you are there for life.

    AntiFA = Stormfront. Both collectivist, both are committed to violating the individual right to think for him or herself.

  60. There is LITERALLY no difference between either of these two groups and Scientologists who will keep you in their group for life and do everything they can to make sure you are there for life.
    AntiFA = Stormfront. Both collectivist, both are committed to violating the individual right to think for him or herself.

    Agreed.   My only point is that on the protester side this was a small percentage of the people, plus a lot of good decent “church going” people protesting the idea of racial supremacy, plus a lot of people who were simply out because its a small town and a big event was going on.   Where on the other side it was 100% white supremacists.
    100% crazy vs 10% crazy + 90% decent.
    Trying to shove ALL of the protesters into the same box as a fringe group is where the error, that gives power to supremacists, takes place.

  61. Trying to shove ALL of the protesters into the same box as a fringe group is where the error, that gives power to supremacists, takes place.

    I’m not trying to shove all the protesters, I’m actually doing it. Its what us Anarcho-Capitalists do; we disavow any and all collectivism, because we know that collectivism is a clear violation of the Non Aggression Principle. So it isn’t this 10% psycho 90% decent like you are saying, its 100% psycho, no matter who no matter what.

    I have no issue with that at all, really. After all, Collectivists are just expressing concern for their own kind. Its when they want to express that concern at the expense of the individual, that’s when I get upset. It wasn’t like this years before. Now it is. And soon (I’d say, early 2020s), you won’t have a choice. You’ll either have to side with progressives, or stormfronters. If you don’t, you’ll be an enemy of both, and you’ll be seen in the same light as a heretic during the spanish inquisition.

    So you’ve pretty much admitted that you have joined the collective? Because that’s all I’m getting out of your response. At least JOTB admits this.

    Here’s hoping the collective you have joined at least takes care of you. But they won’t let you leave. And in five or so years, when they are planning everything out for you and you become uncomfortable, you’ll say to yourself “someone warned me about this five years ago, I just can’t remember who…”

    Don’t say I didn’t warn you.

  62. All the members of Antifa who violated the Nazis’ human right to Free Speech should be executed.

    Dude WTF, I hope you are joking.

    You should not say that kind of things in the internet, even if you are hiding behind a million proxies. This is the kind of comment that could put you in a NSA watchlist.

    And no, the left has not won and will not win. The ALT-Right will win. The Alt-Right as defined by these principles: http://voxday.blogspot.de/2016/08/what-alt-right-is.html

  63. @Caleb:

    What exactly does that mean?

    Did you read the rest of my comment where I explained what this means? I don’t know how else to explain it.

    Every peaceful method to stop the heckler must be attempted first. But if security refuses to do their job and the police also refuse to do their job, then the burden to restore human rights falls on the victim of the violation. Verbal warnings may be given first, then threats of force, then actual force. But if none of this is working to stop the heckler, then, and only then, deadly force should be attempted. And I’m calling for the laws to change to make that legal.

    I don’t know how to make it clearer.

    That’s why we have this thing called “prison.”

    Correct. If the police do their job, I’m satisfied. I was saying that if the police refuse to protect my human rights, then I must protect them myself and take whatever steps are necessary so that I can speak (even murder as a last resort).

    Killing them via state power is not required.

    Assuming we’re talking about physically violent, speech suppressing terrorists, not hecklers, I disagree. Physically assaulting someone with the political motive of violating their human right to Free Speech should, in my opinion, be punished with the death penalty. But I am aware of the fact that the Supreme Court ruled that the death penalty for anything other than murder or treason violates the 8th Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishments (albeit in civilian courts, not military tribunals). I just disagree with the Court.

    In any case, obstructing Free Speech using violence should be recognized as an act of terrorism, which should therefore render the perpetrator vulnerable to being tried in a military court, and thus legally executed under the Patriot Act.

    And no, being for killing people if they violate your free speech at a rally is not libertarian.

    1. If they violate my Free Speech with physical violence, killing them is already legal, since it’s self-defense (assuming the police don’t protect me).

    2. If they violate my Free Speech using heckling or disruption, they should be arrested and sent to prison for heckler’s veto. I only said that it should be legal to kill them (even though I know it’s currently not, which is why I don’t endorse it in reality – I’m only advocating for the laws to change) as a last resort if there is no other way to restore my human right to speak because the cops won’t do their job!

    But I’m not getting into one of those dumb “what is a libertarian” debates.

    No need. For me, the quintessential libertarian definition is believing that, as it pertains to adults interacting with other adults, the only thing that should be criminal are human rights violations. I’ve always been faithful to that definition, with few rare or unusual exceptions. That’s why I call myself a libertarian.

    If you really think you’re a libertarian with your big-government views, then go right ahead.

    Demanding that the government crack down on human rights violators (which is the government’s only job) isn’t anti-libertarian. But we can agree to disagree.

     

  64. @Walter:

    Dude WTF, I hope you are joking.

    No, I’m not.

    You should not say that kind of things in the internet,

    Haha! That’s cute. I’ll say anything I please. This is America, not Canada or Europe.

    even if you are hiding behind a million proxies.

    I’m not hiding behind anything.

    This is the kind of comment that could put you in a NSA watchlist.

    Calling for the legal execution of members of a terrorist group is somehow a controversial statement? In what parallel universe?

    I used the word “executed” for a reason dude! I’m NOT calling for private citizens to commit murder. I’m calling for the government to arrest all of these Antifa terrorists, give them a trial in front of a military court (as per the Patriot Act) and execute them as enemy combatants!

    I would think the NSA would be proud of me! Or are you saying that my speech might put me on a watch list, but Antifa’s terroristic actions won’t? I think you’re living in “upside-down world.”

    Also, what do you imagine the negative consequences would be of me being put on the NSA’s “watch-list?” They won’t find anything. Let them dig. Hi NSA! 🙂

    DEATH TO ANTIFA!

    DEATH TO BAMN

    DEATH TO BLM

    And no, the left has not won and will not win.

    “The price of liberty is eternal vigilance.” – Thomas Jefferson

    The ALT-Right will win.

    Fuck the Alt-Right! No, the Alt-Right won’t win. They are a cancer which us libertarians will have to deal with eventually, but not yet. Today, the social justice trash and the cultural authoritarians on the left are a much bigger threat.

    As a Christian extremist yourself, I’m not surprised that you would support filth like the Alt Right, but, I assure you, you and these Alt Right pukes will lose! Just because us libertarians are going after the cultural authoritarians on the left first, don’t think that the cultural authoritarians on the right have gone unnoticed by us.

     

     

  65. @Joelsuf:

    Also, I look at pretty much ALL acts of protest as aggression, as every time a protest or a march happens, it represents an attack on the individual.

    You think speech is aggression now? Wow! So you agree with the social justice crowd then! Thank you for finally showing your true colors! Unbelievable!

    No. They are both committing the existential murder of the individual.

    Spare us the SJW poetry! It’s anti-Free Speech garbage!

    As an anarchist yourself, I thought you were a Free Speech absolutist like me. But if you reject the notion that there should be a strict wall between the psychological and the physical and are now defining the verbal in physical terms (just like an SJW), it means you’re anti-Free Speech and could see yourself committing violence in self-defense against words. Do you need a safe space dude? Pathetic nonsense!

    There are a lot of faux White Nationalists like JOTB

    Pardon me? Care to run that by us again? I’m a white nationalist now? And……when did I ever show any bias towards the white race (or any race)? Explain how someone like me who believes in racial equality can be a “white nationalist.” This should be good.

    I am indeed a civic nationalist, which means that I believe that the Declaration of Independence is violated every time America signs on to any “international organization” like the UN, NATO, the IMF, the WTO, the World Bank, and so on. I believe that America needs to bow out of all international institutions, treaties, and agreements and become a rogue nation (read: real nation) again, but what does this have to do with being biased towards white people?

    I am also an economic nationalist, which means I believe that all international free trade agreements like NAFTA, GATT, and TPP need to be erased, and capitalism returned to protectionism, but what does this have to do with being biased towards white people?

    I also support the Nazi, KKK, Alt-Right, and white nationalist right to Free Speech, but what does defending their human rights have to do with being biased towards white people?

    That’s how far Collectivism has gone: It has even reached the Libertarians where in decades past, pretty much all libertarians agreed that collectivism was a direct violation of the Non Aggression Principle.

    No. Only aggression is a violation of the non-aggression principle. Speech, even collectivist speech, is not aggression. It’s speech. You start defining speech as aggression and you cease to be a Free Speech absolutist and start becoming pro-censorship, which is what you are.

    Any collectivist who demonstrates, for any cause, “throws the first punch.”

    What? So peaceful speech is aggression now? Do you then believe that you have a right to physically assault people who are “aggressing against you” with their words? If so, how are you better than Antifa?

    This punch is aimed at the face of individualism and the Non Aggression Principle.

    More social justice poetry. Next you’ll be whining about us “invalidating your humanity.” Ha!

    Groups with agendas telling others how to live and which group of person is better than the other is an ACTUAL microaggression, to steal a term from the progressives.

    My god! Well, you’ve done it! You’re an anti-speech, pro-censorship SJW now! Wow!

    And what is the microaggression against? The Non Aggression Principle.

    So if I am “micro-aggressing” (my god, that still kills me) against the non-aggression principle, in your eyes, with my words, do you think it’s right for you to physically aggress against me with your fists?  

    AntiFA = Stormfront. Both collectivist, both are committed to violating the individual right to think for him or herself.

    Don’t forget yourself as well. You also believe that speech is aggression, which implies that you can kill me in self defense against words. Antifa agrees with you. Doesn’t that embarrass you?

     

     

  66. More wackiness from Joelsuf:

    Its when they want to express that concern at the expense of the individual, that’s when I get upset.

    How is peaceful speech at anyone’s expense? What expense is it? Feelings?

    It wasn’t like this years before. Now it is. And soon (I’d say, early 2020s), you won’t have a choice. You’ll either have to side with progressives, or stormfronters.

    Bullshit! I denounce both! But I will side with peaceful protesters (no matter who they are) against violent thugs (no matter who they are).

    So you’ve pretty much admitted that you have joined the collective? Because that’s all I’m getting out of your response. At least JOTB admits this.

    Really? Which collective have I joined? You think defending the Nazis’ right to Free Speech means I’ve joined them? That’s insane.

     

     

  67. Haha! That’s cute. I’ll say anything I please. This is America, not Canada or Europe.

    Is sending someone a death threat illegal in America? Because saying someone should get killed because of something they support is almost like sending a death threat.

    Calling for the legal execution of members of a terrorist group is somehow a controversial statement? In what parallel universe?

    What makes you say they are a terrorist group? Calling for a legal execution is controversial in all the universes.  Every statement can be considered a controversial statement. Even the most obvious ones. For example, a basic postulate of Euclidean Geometry (a straight line segment can be drawn joining any two points) is controversial in non-Euclidean Geometry.

    I’m calling for the government to arrest all of these Antifa terrorists, give them a trial in front of a military court (as per the Patriot Act) and execute them as enemy combatants!

    What is the point of a trial if you already decided they should be executed?

    I think you’re living in “upside-down world.”

    And you are living in Jack’s Strange world 😉 Ever saw that movie, The Nightmare Before Christmas?

    Fuck the Alt-Right! No, the Alt-Right won’t win. 

    It won the day Trump got elected.

  68. Is sending someone a death threat illegal in America?

    Yes. But I’m not threatening anyone. Don’t be obtuse.

    Because saying someone should get killed

    There are many different types of “killed.” I said they should be legally executed by the government, not illegally murdered. The legal difference between those two very different statements is breathtaking, according to every lawyer in the country. Stop being obtuse.

    because of something they support

    What? No, not because of “something they support.” Because they are a bunch of violent criminals who committed multiple felonies. Stop being obtuse.

     is almost like sending a death threat.

    Saying the government should do its job isn’t a death threat. Stop being obtuse.

    What makes you say they are a terrorist group?

    I will not dignify such a retarded question with a response.

    Calling for a legal execution is controversial in all the universes.

    Not in America. Legal executions happen all the time here. Your personal sensibilities on the matter don’t interest me.

    What is the point of a trial if you already decided they should be executed?

    A trial is necessary to determine their guilt in an official capacity, which is required in any civilization. Stop being obtuse.

    It won the day Trump got elected.

    HAHA! I think Caleb had the right idea when he stopped responding to you. I think I’ll follow his example. This is my last post addressed to you ever!

     

  69. @FiveSix:

    You’re only right to kill someone if you have a legitimate fear that the person is placing your life in danger AND if you weren’t instigating the situation.

    What? So if my life is legitimately in danger, you’re saying some Antifa scum can say that I didn’t have a right to kill him in self-defense because I instigated the situation with my words? Bullshit! Unless I’m making threats or encouraging physical violence, no one has the right to physically attack me due to my words. If they try, I have every right to kill them in self-defense. The legal concept of “fighting words” has to do with making threats, encouraging or inciting violence, insulting someone in a way that is designed to both degrade them AND end the debate, or verbally abusing someone who is a captive audience. None of this applies in any situation I’m thinking of.

    The circumstances depend on the state, look up various conceal carry laws and talk to a lawyer for clarification.

    I am a lawyer. Or at least I was. And I just clarified it for you.

     

     

  70. Not in America. Legal executions happen all the time here. Your personal sensibilities on the matter don’t interest me.

    I disagree with it, therefore it is controversial.

  71. @Jack

    Unless I’m making threats or encouraging physical violence, no one has the right to physically attack me due to my words

    Heh, this is what I was imagining, so that’s what I meant by “instigating” (encouraging physical violence).

    The legal concept of “fighting words” has to do with making threats, encouraging or inciting violence, insulting someone in a way that is designed to both degrade them AND end the debate, or verbally abusing someone who is a captive audience. None of this applies in any situation I’m thinking of.

    Uhh, I thought would apply.

    I’m thinking of this scenario:

    You’re at a Nazi vs. “Antifa” protest (antifa is pro-fascism in my eyes)
    You see/hear some fighting going on
    You stick around, even though have a safe opportunity to leave
    You say some fighting words intending to make the special snowflakes angry (inciting violence)
    Someone starts attacking you, and you shoot/kill them

    So if my life is legitimately in danger, you’re saying some Antifa scum can say that I didn’t have a right to kill him in self-defense because I instigated the situation with my words?

    My money would be on a Judge or Jury convicting you of manslaughter (or something like that) since you had the option of leaving, but instead you stuck around and contributed to the escalation until your only option was self-defense.
    Does the scenario you’re thinking match mine?

  72. There were a tiny amount of people at this event who consider themselves nazis.  There are only like 5,000 in the whole world.  There was a much larger amount of people who just wanted to show white pride, which shouldnt be viewed differently than black, latino, asian, or jewish pride.  If Ryan above or anyone sees a problem with that, then this whole conversation is going nowhere because we get into special treatment based on history, etc.  ( I think special treatment is racially condescending personally).   I would never attend any nazi or white pride rally.  As an italian american (they might not accept me) and i definitly attend all italian support events I hear about.  So I can kind of relate to people wanting their own groups. It would suck to be called an italian supremacist because i go to an italian march. Now To give my opinion on the questions:

     

    1.  No, maybe some smaller scale stuff in the 60s.  But since Soros is paying BLM and Antifa, the term civilian might be innaccurate.  What do you call a group of people paid to take a bus from surrounding towns, wear masks and spray pepper spray at other civilians?

     

    2.  Bad, but I disagree that it was communists vs nazis.  There were so many other relatively normal people just supporting white pride.  The real problem is the new witch hunt for nazis.  Everyone will be called nazi who they disagree with.  Meanwhile, real crime rates in chicago, detroit, etc are rivaling third world countries.  So sad.

     

    3.  Totally anti violence here!  Theres no excuse.  I dont believe white pride is white supremacy.  Everyone should be proud.  So i will never agree this was a giant racist group of white people against non-racists.  Even if it WAS, it would break no laws for a bunch of racists to hang out and say dumb shit in a park.  Churches do it all the time!

     

    4.  Of course i dont trust the media.  I search youtube and other red pill sites to compare the bullshit snowflake headlines popping up in my news feed.  Even my dad is watching alex jones, and hes 65!   Heres what this means…

     

    5.  Its unrelated to society’s decline in my opinion.  Its a result of elites funding crime for political gain, collaborating with the in-cahoots media, and cognitive dissonance within the viewers who only see leftist news, as they wonder why the pendulum is swinging back to the right, as Scott Adams says.  I just read Milos book, and there is def a culture war happening.  Either the media gets broken up and overtaken by small independent journalists, Trump or other conservative politicians rise up for a few terms to protect freedom of speech, free market, and stop the pandering, or they win and pampered millenials vote in a socialist dictatorship.

     

    Thanks for having a level-headed approach Caleb and not virtue signalling at all in your article.

  73. Every peaceful method to stop the heckler must be attempted first. But if security refuses to do their job and the police also refuse to do their job, then the burden to restore human rights falls on the victim of the violation. Verbal warnings may be given first, then threats of force, then actual force. But if none of this is working to stop the heckler, then, and only then, deadly force should be attempted. And I’m calling for the laws to change to make that legal.

    You believe it should be legal to murder a heckler as long as peaceful methods to silence him/her fail and the police aren’t available. Ok. You’re a tyrant and an extremist. (But at least you’re honest, gotta give you that.)

    Bad, but I disagree that it was communists vs nazis.  There were so many other relatively normal people just supporting white pride.

    I get your point about white pride. White pride and nothing else is one thing. Wanting laws to oppress / silence / kick out non-whites or jews is something very different, and I’m quite confident that if you did a poll of all those right-wing guys at the march over the weekend, the vast majority would be for such laws. Thus, they are nazis (in my view).

    Its unrelated to society’s decline in my opinion.  Its a result of elites funding crime for political gain, collaborating with the in-cahoots media, and cognitive dissonance within the viewers who only see leftist news, as they wonder why the pendulum is swinging back to the right, as Scott Adams says.

    The pendulum is not swinging back to the right, as I proved here and many other places.

    Thanks for having a level-headed approach Caleb and not virtue signalling at all in your article.

    Thank you. I always try to be as level-headed and objective as possible.

  74. Oh hai JOTB.

    As an anarchist yourself, I thought you were a Free Speech absolutist like me.

    I am. But I also believe in consequences for said free speech. So if someone says something I don’t like, I have the right to do something about it, like disallow them. I personally would never do anything about it (I was raised Jewish and I think that the Jew jokes most of the edgelords on the alt-right make are pretty funny), but that doesn’t mean other people cannot. But yes everyone has the right to tell someone who they don’t like to go somewhere else no matter what.

    How is peaceful speech at anyone’s expense? What expense is it? Feelings?

    I said it as clear as day: Collectivism is practiced at the expense of individual thought and actions. It will eventually create a cult mentality where if you do not join any group, you will be targeted by both. Hey look, even CJ mentioned this! And it was three damn years ago, here and two years after that here.

    I’m just exploring the narratives a little more. And your response proved it that it is taking effect. I said something you didn’t like, and then you came at me with insults and nonsensical arguments, calling me something that I am clearly not. Which is fine if done online, because talking trash online is fun and very much harmless. When it spreads out into an offline arena, its not good (but it is very good for collectivists). The events of last weekend proved that this transition is taking place and is not avoidable (unless you do what CJ is doing and moving out of the west).

    Bullshit! I denounce both!

    Then you will be targeted by both. I strongly suggest you read about the Spanish Inquisition of the 1500s, do some research about the race wars in the middle east (and why it is orchestrated the way it is, it could end tomorrow but both sides want to continue it) and then read about Scientology and other cults (ESPECIALLY Scientology). Eerily enough, both the alt-right and progressive collectivists are getting information and utilizing tactics from all three. They weren’t doing this until the 2010s. I wonder why? Is it because there are more Anarcho-Capitalists popping up now than ever before? Hmm………

    Don’t forget yourself as well. You also believe that speech is aggression, which implies that you can kill me in self defense against words.

    No it does not. I can’t kill in self defense no matter what. Maybe if someone is trying to kill me, maybe. That’s what the non-aggression principle is all about. I was being metaphysical when I said that collectivism is aggression. Which it is. A large group telling one individual how to think and act is an act of aggression against individualism. But it is nothing I wish to protect against, as it would indeed make me a hypocrite.

    And yes, I will admit that this is exactly why there will never be Anarcho-Capitalism. People who uphold Individualism as a personal law and who denounce Collectivism in any form would have to sacrifice said principles to achieve what they want. They would need to become what they hate: Collectivists who want to save the world. Its unfortunate, but at least I am aware of it.

    It is fun triggering nearly every collectivist in the history of ever however. Which I do on the regular 😉

  75. I’m not trying to shove all the protesters, I’m actually doing it. Its what us Anarcho-Capitalists do; we disavow any and all collectivism, because we know that collectivism is a clear violation of the Non Aggression Principle. So it isn’t this 10% psycho 90% decent like you are saying, its 100% psycho, no matter who no matter what.

    This isn’t just lacking in nuance, its a frame/ideology that promotes conscientious ignorance.   Definitely the laziest political view I’ve yet to see, the “anarcho-capitalist” lol.

  76. This isn’t just lacking in nuance, its a frame/ideology that promotes conscientious ignorance.

    Of course it does. It directly clashes with your collectivist agenda. I don’t agree with what you stand for, and because of that I’m “ignorant.” Next.

    Definitely the laziest political view I’ve yet to see, the “anarcho-capitalist” lol.

    Oh man, lemme tell ya about how much I love wasting energy talking trash about other collectivists who don’t like me, and spending years and years trying to “fix” their behavior!

    If that’s lazy, then I’ll be a political couch potato all day.

  77. Of course it does. It directly clashes with your collectivist agenda. I don’t agree with what you stand for, and because of that I’m “ignorant.” Next.

    Its ignorant because it intentionally ignores (the word behind “ignorant”)  information to draw a faster and neater and easier conclusion, that is ultimately out of line with reality, because most people who are against white supremacists, nazi’s, and the KKK are not extremists themselves, they’re just people who are turned off by nastiness.

  78. Caleb, how are Black Lives Matter racists? Genuinely asking.

    1. BLM regularly commits violence against whites. I’ve never seen them commit violence against blacks. Physically assaulting only one race is racist.

    2. BLM folks chant things like “black power” in their marches. If a bunch of whites were chanting “white power,” in a march, what would you say about them? That they were racist. And you’d probably be right.

    3. BLM regularly blames whites for all the problems blacks experience, when it’s objectively obvious from the data that most of the reasons why blacks are where they are is because of their own choices.

    A video with more data on this (though there are many more than just this):

Leave a Reply

To leave a comment, enter your comment below. PLEASE make sure to read the commenting rules before commenting, since failure to follow these rules means your comment may be deleted. Also please do not use the username “Anonymous” or “Anon” or any variation thereof (makes things too confusing).

Off-topic comments are allowed, but Caleb will ignore those.

Caleb responds to comments in person, but he only does so on the two most current blog articles.

Related Posts

Begin typing your search term above and press enter to search.

Back To Top