The Political Thread

[TordelBack]

Forcibly opposing them yourself isn't the answer, looking to governments to oppose them isn't the answer... So assuming that letting Nazis get on with their plans for gathering enough support to commit their various genocides isn't what anyone here wants, what to do? Chat and a cup of tea and appeal to their better natures? (You can see in that Vice video I linked to what you'd have to deal with, and Lara Croft there was a prime Aryan specimen herself which had to confer an advantage).

Stand quietly at the side of the road looking disapproving and hope no-one tries to run you over?

Ignore them until they go away?

Appease them?

[Modern Panther]

Stand quietly at the side of the road looking disapproving and hope no-one tries to run you over?

Ignore them until they go away?

Appease them?

Ahem...

Look, its simple...once we live in a world without "government", after we've cleared away the corpses, people will just be nice to each other, 'cos the "government" won't be making them break the illegal "laws" the "government" writes with its "pens". Its natural law, or common law, or something, and easily explained with a (usually transport or vehicle based) metaphor.  Also, its not my job to come up with solution, gov'nor, its for everyone to solve the problem on their own.

[Prodigal2]

No.  How is it hypocritical to support punching a Nazi?  That would require that the act in some way goes against someone's stated beliefs or position on punching people.  It's entirely consistent with my belief that Nazi ideology should never again be allowed expression, and that anyone aligning themselves with Nazis deserves a good punch.  So whatever else it is, it ain't hypocrisy.

This is not an open discussion of conflicting views, this a demonstrable evil that does not deserve a hint of recognition. With Nazis we've already moved on from what is quite obviously 'the first best solution' (unfortunate resonances for that phrase) of engaging in reason and talk.  We're 80 years beyond that.

Again, I respect Prodigal's particular experience in this area, and his always-reasonable approach, and Sharky's determination to examine everything from first principles without being guided by the 'wisdom' of the herd, but I've thought long and hard about this and I believe the visual semantics of these utter c*nts being driven from their podiums is a positive thing in this world.

TB I genuinely appreciate where you are coming from but one question that springs to mind is when do you stop punching? Do you restrict it to card carrying Nazi's or export it to any ideology that supports political violence? I have worked with loyalists and republicans who have killed many times. Should I have considered punching them? I worked with Serbian nationalists during the 90's-should I have considered punching them?

What is the punching criteria?

Sorry if that sounds facetious-it's a genuine question.

[Jim_Campbell]

Following the car attack that took the life of one of the protesters, 31-year-old Heather Heyer, and injured 19 others, Cantwell showed no regret, much less remorse.  "I'd say it was worth it," Cantwell says. "The fact that nobody on our side died, I'd go ahead and call that points for us."

Let's all sit down and have a nice chat about it, eh? These people are not playing by our rules.

[Prodigal2]

BTW your Cable Street reference was in my mind all day yesterday as the chief counter-argument to any position on my part.

[Prodigal2]

Following the car attack that took the life of one of the protesters, 31-year-old Heather Heyer, and injured 19 others, Cantwell showed no regret, much less remorse.  "I'd say it was worth it," Cantwell says. "The fact that nobody on our side died, I'd go ahead and call that points for us."

Let's all sit down and have a nice chat about it, eh? These people are not playing by our rules.

Any prerequisite to contentious dialogue requires voluntary engagement which admittedly might be a pipe dream where nazis are concerned. That having been said I spent 20 years facilitating discussion often with very unlikely chatting partners in Northern Ireland and some further a-field.

Sometimes seemingly mad things are possible. Sometimes. Maybe not here.

[Hawkmumbler]

Following the car attack that took the life of one of the protesters, 31-year-old Heather Heyer, and injured 19 others, Cantwell showed no regret, much less remorse.  "I'd say it was worth it," Cantwell says. "The fact that nobody on our side died, I'd go ahead and call that points for us."

Let's all sit down and have a nice chat about it, eh? These people are not playing by our rules.

These are not reasonable human beings, they care not for why they hate only that they may be allowed to. By going over and over the pointless 'system' farce again y'all are just ignoring the blatent issue that these jokers, these absolute monsters, care none for your reasoned debate.

[TordelBack]

I know you have far greater direct experience of this whole area Prodigal, and I know I should probably defer to you on it.  But I can't, so I'll try to give you answer.

Love 'em or hate 'em (mainly the latter) most extremist groups are fighting and killing for their corner. Our own local examples, Loyalists and Republicans, tick loads of boxes: intimidation, murder, criminality, racism and sectarianism, indoctrination etc. See many other nationalist groups. Their 'causes' may be twisted and their methods horrific, but usually at the root there's fear and self-preservation, a sense of self-worth, empowerment and an unhealthy dose of ignorance. And yet many have come back from that, sometimes the most unlikely folk turned out 'good'. And often there are shades of grey in there that permit that, legitimate grievances,  the possibility of acknowledgement of each opposing group's fears and misapprehensions and commonalities and mutual suffering, irrespective of political claims.

The difference for me with self-identifying Nazis is that they know exactly what they are subscribing to: it's there in black and white, an undeniable torrent of evidence. There can be no excuse: it's not an understandable response to ANY grievance, because its course has been explicitly charted.  When one of those neatly dressed gobshites gets in front of a microphone or megaphone, there's no mystery in what he's advocating: and a valid response to that is to drive him from his public platform without discussion or remorse. Make it clear that the world will not tolerate this specific ideology to find expression again.

The simple semiotics of a punch conveys that message.

[Prodigal2]

I know you have far greater direct experience of this whole area Prodigal, and I know I should probably defer to you on it.  But I can't, so I'll try to give you answer.

Love 'em or hate 'em (mainly the latter) most extremist groups are fighting and killing for their corner. Our own local examples, Loyalists and Republicans, tick loads of boxes: intimidation, murder, criminality, racism and sectarianism, indoctrination etc. See many other nationalist groups. Their 'causes' may be twisted and their methods horrific, but usually at the root there's fear and self-preservation, a sense of self-worth, empowerment and an unhealthy dose of ignorance. And yet many have come back from that, sometimes the most unlikely folk turned out 'good'. And often there are shades of grey in there that permit that, legitimate grievances,  the possibility of acknowledgement of each opposing group's fears and misapprehensions and commonalities and mutual suffering, irrespective of political claims.

The difference for me with self-identifying Nazis is that they know exactly what they are subscribing to: it's there in black and white, an undeniable torrent of evidence. There can be no excuse: it's not an understandable response to ANY grievance, because its course has been explicitly charted.  When one of those neatly dressed gobshites gets in front of a microphone or megaphone, there's no mystery in what he's advocating: and a valid response to that is to drive him from his public platform without discussion or remorse. Make it clear that the world will not tolerate this specific ideology to find expression again.

The simple semiotics of a punch conveys that message.

I mightn't agree with every last detail of that Tb but its a damn fine answer and gives me a lot to chew over.

Thank you.

[Jim_Campbell]

The difference for me with self-identifying Nazis is that they know exactly what they are subscribing to: it's there in black and white, an undeniable torrent of evidence. There can be no excuse: it's not an understandable response to ANY grievance, because its course has been explicitly charted.

It's not just that, what puts Nazi/neo-Nazi/far-right extremists into a different category is that most groups, like the Loyalists and the Republicans, have a belief (mistaken or not) that they have been treated badly. At its root is usually something you can engage with.

The far right's grievance is that they have been treated badly only in so far that they have been denied their right to treat others badly, or that their position of privilege has been eroded by efforts to ensure that the Other is no longer treated badly. Their position explicitly requires that they be afforded superior status over other groups.

There's no room for negotiation in that, because it's an absolutist position. Any movement towards their position automatically validates theirs, and invalidates yours:

"OK... let's say that hanging black people and beating Jewish people to death is a red line. What's the minimum amount of prejudice you want to be allowed to express against non-white, non-straight, non-abled-bodied people?

"Non-lethal violence? Mmmm. No, I'm not sure we can agree to that. How about public verbal abuse? Would that be enough?"

"No? Tell you what, let's split the difference and go for segregation, then!"

Compromise! Everybody wins!

[JamesC]

I think we're all agreed that the Nazi ideology is despicable.
The question for me is how far some of these people are entrenched in that ideology and whether they can be pulled out of it. I think that if it is possible to pull people out of it or change their minds then that's preferable to violence.
If it's not possible the I guess violence is the only way. But it feels like failure.

Oh, and getting back to education - my history lessons didn't even touch on this stuff. What I know is from documentaries, films and books.
In fact we were never taught politics at all - not even how our own parliament works!

[The Legendary Shark]

This idea that a government which is barred from instigating violence does not equate to a weak pacifist stance.

Violence in defence is always valid and of course if you feel you need a government then its First Duty must be the protection of the people.

It is the prevention of governments from instigating violence in pursuit of its own interests that I advocate. Nazis are undoubtedly nasty, but they're not the only nasty people in the world. Take away the "right" of governments to instigate violence, except in defence of the lives, rights and property of the people, and we take away the danger of future Hitlers who, whilst they may still conceivably get themselves elected, will find themselves powerless to attack anybody with "legitimate" government power.

If one supports the idea that governments can use whatever force they want, against whomever they like for whatever purpose they think fit, one is leaving the opportunity for Holocaust-level abuse wide open.  That door must be closed, not as a single panacea but as part of a wider approach covering as many areas of society as possible.

You can ban Nazis if you like but they will only re-emerge under a different name. Libertarianism allows for the fact that there will always be bad people in the world and strives to take away the tools which allow them to commit atrocities. Statists take the hand-waving position that, so long as we make sure we always give the correct people the power of life and death over us, everything will be fine.

[Dandontdare]

I base my attitude to how we should treat Nazis on the fine example of Cable Street and the reaction of the Blues Brothers to Illinois nazis (almost posted a link to clip but decided it may be a bit tasteless after the events of the weekend.)

[Proudhuff]

Violence in defence is always valid

Isn't that what they think they are doing?

[Leigh S]

Isn't the problem that as far as your Nazi or Religious extremist is concerned, "life, rights and property" clause can easily be extended to cover whatever genocide you fancy?  "We have to use violence on these people becausue they want to take away our "right" to practice our Fundamentalist religion" or "these foreigners want to take/destroy our property/lives"

edit: What Proudhuff said