Disgraceful! Richard Spencer Sucker-Punched While Giving Interview

A'isha said:
It's a particularly terrifying-looking fiberglass statue of Confederate General (and KKK founder) Nathan Bedford Forrest, off I-65 in Tennessee. I've driven by that thing many times, and it creeps the hell out of me.
Click to expand...

Yep...I figured that's who it was and found the image on the internet that confirmed my belief. And yeah...it creeps me out too, and I've never stopped to see it.

There's still a lot of people today who admire this Forrest, I don't know why. If I could have gone back in history in a Time Machine, I would have cut him from neck-to-nutsack with a dull deer antler. But that's that's just my hatred of psycopathic racists speaking.
 
Last edited:
Jules Galen said:
Yep...I figured that's who it was and found the image on the internet that confirmed my belief. And yeah...it creeps me out too, and I've never stopped to see it.

There's still a lot of people today who admire this Forrest, I don't know why. If I could have gone back in history in a Time Machine, I would have cut him from neck-to-nutsack with a dull deer antler. But that's that's just my hatred of psycopathic racists speaking.
Click to expand...

Don't worry much, it's a joke. That statue is awful...
 
Mumbles said:
Don't worry much, it's a joke. That statue is awful...
Click to expand...

I know. From what I know about you - or think I know - I figure the statue probably offends you much more than me. Sometimes I speak relatively crudely about "races", but I would never advocate the mistreatment or maltreatment of a people just because they are a different "race". Because when ya' give permission to treat someone like less of a human just because they are different, the you also license to to the most subtle and mean forms of discrimination that can be conceived. And, as a "White Person", I really believe that if you do not stand up against the likes of Richard Spencer today, then you arse is next if you are the least bit different than Richard and his Pals.

Consequently, I was really proud (as a Human Being) that it was a "White Guy" who punched Spencer. Not because the guy was "White", but because the guy understood (even as a White Guy) the greater danger and decided to try to stop it before it got infectious. Now that...is brotherhood! Amen.

Racism has been making a comeback in this country ever since that dirtbag Ronald Reagan gave his first presidential campaign speech on Mississippi that advocated "States Rights": which was the Dog Whistle that began the process of imprisoning millions of young black men: where today the United States of America - the so-called "Bastion of Freedom" and "Free Markets" - is the biggest, baddest Police State on the Planet who imprisons nearly as many people as Russia and China combined (who have nearly 5 times our population!).

Think about it.

Thanks.
 
Last edited:
Joe Random said:
But to what end? As I've said in other topics, you won't be able to convince a Stormfronter with reason. They will be impervious to any facts or rationality you throw at them - take that as a given. So then what is the point of 'conveying disagreement?'. Honest question here. I was married to a Jew for a while. To many of these people I've earned my place on the hanging tree as a race traitor. If I reach the point where reason doesn't get through to them, is it at all likely that they still need to be shown that I disagree with their world view?
Click to expand...

Good question, and a tricky one to answer. I think that a neo is taking an uncivilized position, that violates every tenet of humane coexistence, and by being publicly outspoken, they are directly challenging civilized society. That challenge cannot be met with reason or compassion, and is one of the few times I think it is acceptable to crawl down into the gutter with them. To what end? To confront vulgarity on its own level, without affording it the dignity of debate. To meet its socially unacceptable behavior in kind, and be the Hands of God (great excuse to find religion).

The entire reason there would be friction and conflict would be because I reject their twisted ideology. Would that not be clear to them if I stop short of a punch? "Oh, I didn't realize the Jew-lover who wants to help gays get married disagreed with me until he curled his hand into a fist".

If you want to say it's a matter of self-satisfaction, of not letting the bastards get away clean, then I'd understand. I'd still disagree at a moral level, but I could at least see the thought process which lead to it. But to say "They won't understand that I reject their ideology if I don't hit them" - I can't honestly say I get that PoV.
Click to expand...

Yeah, ok, maybe a little of that too.:)
But it's not about them not understanding that I reject their ideology, it's about conveying the primal depth of it, beyond words, and unworthy of civilized response. Kind of says 'you have crossed the line, and the gloves are quite literally off'. Crude hate upapologetically met with crude hate.
 
In all fairness, I doubt the attacker was concerned with Spencer's message. He was in a black hoodie and bandanna face mask...so I'm calling that dressed to raise hell, not raise poignant social commentary.
 
MostlyDead said:
In all fairness, I doubt the attacker was concerned with Spencer's message. He was in a black hoodie and bandanna face mask...so I'm calling that dressed to raise hell, not raise poignant social commentary.
Click to expand...

No. I disagree.

If you are going to commit violence and don't want to go to jail, then do it incognito (if you can) and quickly - and get the hell out ASAP! Then keep your mouth shut. Don't brag, and don't tell anyone ya' did it. This guy knew what he was doing.

Most people would be shocked by how effective this formula is. And this is why the rates for solving murder are close to 50% in the USA (even though the "Clearance Rate" is 64% - that's just the number of arrests).
 
Last edited:
Jules Galen said:
No. I disagree.

If you are going to commit violence and don't want to go to jail, then do it incognito (if you can) and quickly - and get the hell out ASAP! Then keep your mouth shut. Don't brag, and don't tell anyone ya' did it. This guy knew what he was doing.

Most people would be shocked by how effective this formula is. And this is why the rates for solving murder are close to 50% in the USA (even though the "Clearance Rate" is 64% - that's just the number of arrests).
Click to expand...

Agreed, but not sure what you are disagreeing with. A Black Bloc was out and about, and Spencer's attacker was in uniform. I think Spencer was a target, not the target. There's also a video with a bystander chasing him down, they pulled a clear still of his face with the bandanna partially dropped. He was sloppy, and will be identified.

https://www.thenation.com/article/if-you-appreciated-seeing-neo-nazi-richard-spencer-get-punched-thank-the-black-bloc/

ETA: the still https://www.informationliberation.com/?id=56149
 
Last edited:
MostlyDead said:
Agreed, but not sure what you are disagreeing with. A Black Bloc was out and about, and Spencer's attacker was in uniform. I think Spencer was a target, not the target. There's also a video with a bystander chasing him down, they pulled a clear still of his face with the bandanna partially dropped. He was sloppy, and will be identified.

https://www.thenation.com/article/if-you-appreciated-seeing-neo-nazi-richard-spencer-get-punched-thank-the-black-bloc/

ETA: the still https://www.informationliberation.com/?id=56149
Click to expand...

In other words....they got nothing.
 
One coward spews his hate for the world to see. Puts his name and face behind his hate and ignorance.
The other coward? Not so much. He couldn't even deliver an unopposed 'sneak-O' punch. He hurled his whole body behind that and folded like tissue paper.
The peole who applaud and condone this weak ambush of disgusting intent, are just as much the coward that the ineffectual attacker is.

"Oh, but he hates me!" Justify the hate. Embrace the butthurt.

Summary.

People should be physically maimed (intent) for the words they write and speak, as long as we designate them "Deplorables". Our ability to actually deliver physical injury may reflect on our ability to function in a tolerant society.

Group psychosis doesn't care which side of the political spectrum it falls on.
 
MostlyDead said:
Yet. Spencer tweeting a $3k and rising bounty. The guy was sloppy, ya got's to disappear, not pose for pics.

ETA: over $4,300 https://www.wesearchr.com/bounties/expose-the-antifa-who-sucker-punched-richard-spencer
Click to expand...


Interesting disclaimer at the end of the bounty offer:

THE POSTING, PUBLICATION OR OTHER DISSEMINATION OF ANY PARTICULAR BOUNTY IS NOT TO BE CONSTRUED AS A STATEMENT OF FACT, EITHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED. IT IS TO BE UNDERSTOOD SOLELY AS A NEWSGATHERING QUESTION THAT MAY OR MAY NOT BE ANSWERABLE AND WESEARCHR MAKES NO FACTUAL ASSERTION WITH REGARD TO THE CONTENT OF THE BOUNTY.
Click to expand...

​

Doesn't seem to stand behind much. "... no factual assertion with regard to the content of the bounty."? Does that mean it may or may not even exist?
 
PhantomWolf said:
Yes, the guy is an actual fascist, but really, is random violence the best way to deal with the situation?
Click to expand...

If he is a fascist, as you claim - then the violent attack is at least rationalized if not justified. Would you disclaim someone who sucker-punched Jos.Goebels or Hitler ? OK, organized violence might be better.

I think the case that Spencer is racist is clear (assuming he is quoted accurately). That he is fascist seems speculative and based on yellow journalism and biased sources. Has he actually said he wants to institute an authoritarian dictatorial autocratic government ?
 
MostlyDead said:
Good question, and a tricky one to answer. I think that a neo is taking an uncivilized position, that violates every tenet of humane coexistence, and by being publicly outspoken, they are directly challenging civilized society. That challenge cannot be met with reason or compassion, and is one of the few times I think it is acceptable to crawl down into the gutter with them. To what end? To confront vulgarity on its own level, without affording it the dignity of debate. To meet its socially unacceptable behavior in kind, and be the Hands of God (great excuse to find religion).



Yeah, ok, maybe a little of that too.:)
But it's not about them not understanding that I reject their ideology, it's about conveying the primal depth of it, beyond words, and unworthy of civilized response. Kind of says 'you have crossed the line, and the gloves are quite literally off'. Crude hate upapologetically met with crude hate.
Click to expand...


At the end of the day we're all just apes with cell phones and nukes, so if it really is about the visceral self-satisfaction of 'showing them whats what', I get that and have engaged in it a few times myself in different ways. I just don't think that provides a moral or philosophical justification for using physical violence in response to an ugly ideology. It might explain the actions, but it doesn't, to my mind, justify them or make them worthy of emulation. And I'd like to think the growth of civilization has been about trying to move beyond the 'primal depth' of things as much as we're able. I don't literally pound my chest at other males I encounter, and as far as I'm aware I've never flung my feces at anyone, so why would I want to let some nasty little prick of a fascist make me regress? And to repeat, I'm confining all of this to reactions to speech which falls short of incitement/threat. I'm not advocating universal pacifism here by any stretch.

Also, my objections aren't just about appeals to our own dignity ; the precedent itself is frightening. Once we establish that we have a metric we can use to measure if a person's speech alone warrants their being assaulted we've opened the door to that same standard being applied against us. You want to kill unborn babies? <smack> You reject Christ and will let your children go to hell just because you hate God so much you won't get them baptised? <slap> You want to subvert the democratic foundations of our nation and plunge us into anarchy by denying the legitimacy of the President of the United States? [I don't know what the onomatopoeia is for a truncheon hitting a protester's head]

In the end I can't prove that I'm objectively "right", or that you've failed to take into account some uncontested fact when deciding to go gloves off. So this might just be a case where we walk away disagreeing agreeably. I'd just hope that anyone outright cheerleading (not just being tacitly okay with) the actions in the OP spend some time thinking about possible unintended consequences, if nothing else.
 
quadraginta said:
Interesting disclaimer at the end of the bounty offer:



​

Doesn't seem to stand behind much. "... no factual assertion with regard to the content of the bounty."? Does that mean it may or may not even exist?
Click to expand...

Good catch. Maybe just a blanket legal disclaimer to avoid getting wrapped up in litigation resulting from inciting a bounty hunt? It's funded by donations as opposed to pledges, so the cash is likely real, but I am not familiar with bounty hunting laws.
 
Argumemnon said:
:dl:
Click to expand...

Yeah, we’ve only seen:
- Disrupted opponents rallies
- Violently attacked those that disagreed with them
- Created an apocalyptic national hysteria about an internal enemy
- Opposing viewpoints are illegitimate and must be fought rather than reasoned with

And yet the dangerous fascism is on the right?
 
Joe Random said:
At the end of the day we're all just apes with cell phones and nukes, so if it really is about the visceral self-satisfaction of 'showing them whats what', I get that and have engaged in it a few times myself in different ways. I just don't think that provides a moral or philosophical justification for using physical violence in response to an ugly ideology. It might explain the actions, but it doesn't, to my mind, justify them or make them worthy of emulation. And I'd like to think the growth of civilization has been about trying to move beyond the 'primal depth' of things as much as we're able. I don't literally pound my chest at other males I encounter, and as far as I'm aware I've never flung my feces at anyone, so why would I want to let some nasty little prick of a fascist make me regress? And to repeat, I'm confining all of this to reactions to speech which falls short of incitement/threat. I'm not advocating universal pacifism here by any stretch.
Click to expand...

Agreed, I don't assault people ever, for any reason (breaking up fights etc excepted). But if the question asked is 'is it okay to punch a Nazi?', I would have to say it may be morally justified, but still a crime that the attacker must answer to. Assault is a crime, unless in self-defense, or the reasonable belief that attack is imminent, which opens up the gray area. I see Spencer and Buzz Aldrin as dancing around the gray (from another approach), rather than simply right or wrong. Regarding the hilited, just advocating Nazi-ism is an endorsement of violence against others, isn't it? Doesn't the philosophy inherently incite threats against others? I am viewing that single punch as a crude rebuke on the Nazi's own violent terms. Not legally excused, but morally kinda-sorta justifiable. Like Buzz Aldrin's wink-and-nod self-defense claim, there are a precious few occasions when the very nature of the other party's position is so vile that IMO the primal response has moral support.

Also, my objections aren't just about appeals to our own dignity ; the precedent itself is frightening. Once we establish that we have a metric we can use to measure if a person's speech alone warrants their being assaulted we've opened the door to that same standard being applied against us. You want to kill unborn babies? <smack> You reject Christ and will let your children go to hell just because you hate God so much you won't get them baptised? <slap> You want to subvert the democratic foundations of our nation and plunge us into anarchy by denying the legitimacy of the President of the United States? [I don't know what the onomatopoeia is for a truncheon hitting a protester's head]
Click to expand...

Yes, it's a slippery slope, but I think it can be limited to positions which are pretty universally repugnant, rather than more balanced differing of belief systems. Regarding hardcore pro-lifers, IMO they have a claim to moral justification if they are sincere in their belief that it is murder. I have not met or even heard of one, though (too much of a thread drift here to elaborate, I think). Also, if I endorsed a belief that was universally revolting to the society I lived in...well, I think I actually would expect to be met with the occasional crossing-of-the-legal-line. Spencer doesn't seem exactly shocked, and describes the assault in political terms, rather than as a random attack.

In the end I can't prove that I'm objectively "right", or that you've failed to take into account some uncontested fact when deciding to go gloves off. So this might just be a case where we walk away disagreeing agreeably. I'd just hope that anyone outright cheerleading (not just being tacitly okay with) the actions in the OP spend some time thinking about possible unintended consequences, if nothing else.
Click to expand...

Fair enough :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom