Disgraceful! Richard Spencer Sucker-Punched While Giving Interview

[varwoche]

Not a flat-out-advocate here, but FWIW:

(1)&(2)- Spencer openly advocates ethnic cleansing, denounces Jews, quotes Nazi propaganda, and once published an article on his alternativeright.com website asking if Black Genocide was something worth considering. His views violate (at least) every civil rights act in the U.S. This is protected as free speech in the states and does not 'merit assault' per se, but it could be argued that he is ideologically provoking conflict and inciting violence.

Thanks for your reply -- thoughtful but not fulfilling. I want specific goods on Spencer. I'd like to see his actual words, not a characterization. If someone advocates violence against Spencer, that's not a lot to ask.

I don't want the sort of hate speech laws like exist in Europe because I highly value free speech. Unfortunately that permits a lot of disgusting speech.

(3) If someone genuinely believes that abortion is murder, I would consider them to have some degree of moral justification in their aggression.

OK so there's a beginning of a standard. "If someone genuinely feels" followed by something that's plausibly horrific. This impresses me as a recipe for a whole bunch of vigilante justice.

But say, if you knew there were innocent people being drug off the street and murdered by citizens in a nearby building, could you in any way continue to live there? I couldn't, it would be inhuman to sip coffee while unprovoked murders happened down the road. So I question the sincerity of believing it is actually murder, making it a difficult comparison. Occupying the moral high-ground may ethically justify an action, but does not excuse it from legal consequences. Nazi-punchers are as subject to assault charges as anyone else, but as a neo-Nazi by definition holds U.S. laws and human rights in contempt, isn't it at least poetic justice to not subject them to laws which might protect them?

I mostly agree, except this. While I'm strongly pro choice, I can't dismiss the feelings of anti-abortion zealots as insincere.

 

[varwoche]

Attempting to enforce genocidal policies. As well as, you know, generally being a neo-nazi.

Please see my reply to MostlyDead.

What does it matter whether something is legal?

Are there other classes of people who deserve vigilante justice in your dystopian fantasy world?

Which point exactly about abortion being murder?

Anti-abortion zealots exacting vigilante justice on people who work at an abortion clinic, for instance.

 

[A'isha]

Thanks for your reply -- thoughtful but not fulfilling. I want specific goods on Spencer. I'd like to see his actual words, not a characterization. If someone advocates violence against Spencer, that's not a lot to ask.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/21/us/alt-right-salutes-donald-trump.html?_r=0

By the time Richard B. Spencer, the leading ideologue of the alt-right movement and the final speaker of the night, rose to address a gathering of his followers on Saturday, the crowd was restless.

In 11 hours of speeches and panel discussions in a federal building named after Ronald Reagan a few blocks from the White House, a succession of speakers had laid out a harsh vision for the future, but had denounced violence and said that Hispanic citizens and black Americans had nothing to fear. Earlier in the day, Mr. Spencer himself had urged the group to start acting less like an underground organization and more like the establishment.

But now his tone changed as he began to tell the audience of more than 200 people, mostly young men, what they had been waiting to hear. He railed against Jews and, with a smile, quoted Nazi propaganda in the original German. America, he said, belonged to white people, whom he called the “children of the sun,” a race of conquerors and creators who had been marginalized but now, in the era of President-elect Donald J. Trump, were “awakening to their own identity.”

As he finished, several audience members had their arms outstretched in a Nazi salute. Mr. Spencer called out: “Hail Trump! Hail our people!” and then, “Hail victory!” — the English translation of the Nazi exhortation “Sieg Heil!” The room shouted back.

[...]

Mr. Spencer’s after-dinner speech began with a polemic against the “mainstream media,” before he briefly paused. “Perhaps we should refer to them in the original German?” he said.

The audience immediately screamed back, “Lügenpresse,” reviving a Nazi-era word that means “lying press.”

Mr. Spencer suggested that the news media had been critical of Mr. Trump throughout the campaign in order to protect Jewish interests. He mused about the political commentators who gave Mr. Trump little chance of winning.

“One wonders if these people are people at all, or instead soulless golem,” he said, referring to a Jewish fable about the golem, a clay giant that a rabbi brings to life to protect the Jews.

[...]

“America was, until this last generation, a white country designed for ourselves and our posterity,” Mr. Spencer thundered. “It is our creation, it is our inheritance, and it belongs to us.”

But the white race, he added, is “a race that travels forever on an upward path.”

“To be white is to be a creator, an explorer, a conqueror,” he said.

More members of the audience were on their feet as Mr. Spencer described the choice facing white people as to “conquer or die.”

http://flatheadbeacon.com/2014/11/26/richard-spencer/

Spencer says he’s long held his radical views, but they began to evolve in earnest as an undergraduate at the University of Virginia and continued to shift to the right of the ideological spectrum in graduate school at the University of Chicago.

As an assistant editor at Pat Buchanan’s “The American Conservative” magazine, the radical-leaning shift continued as he left the publication to become executive editor of Taki’s Magazine (the publication of Buchanan’s co-founder in The American Conservative). He continued marching right, founding the webzine AlternativeRight before taking over as chairman of the National Policy Institute in 2010 and moving to Montana.

In April 2013, Spencer spoke at the American Renaissance conference, organized by a think tank of the same name, which promotes pseudo-scientific studies and research that purport to show the inferiority of blacks to whites.

In his speech, he advocated the creation of a white ethno-state on the North American continent, calling it an attainable goal.

“In the public imagination, ‘ethnic-cleansing’ has been associated with civil war and mass murder (understandably so). But this need not be the case,” he said.

In a recent conversation with the Beacon, the threads of Spencer’s ethnocentricism were slower to emerge during a lengthy discussion that ranged from the pitfalls of public education and social programs to Christopher Nolan’s space epic “Interstellar,” and from a ski-summit confrontation with a Washington, D.C. foreign policy adviser to the “biological realities of race” and the need for a white ethno-state.

This is Spencer's National Policy Institute mentioned in the second article.

 

[varwoche]

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/21/us/alt-right-salutes-donald-trump.html?_r=0

http://flatheadbeacon.com/2014/11/26/richard-spencer/

Thank you. I'm aware of that event. There's no denying that Spencer is massively disgusting. But that's weak tea as justification for vigilante justice. Not even a call for extermination, as has been suggested.

To avoid misinterpretation, I'm in a class of people that would fare poorly if Spencer was actually exterminating. Opposing the Spencers of the world has been a significant focus of my adult life.

 

[Belz...]

Thank you. I'm aware of that event. There's no denying that Spencer is massively disgusting. But that's weak tea as justification for vigilante justice. Not even a call for extermination, as has been suggested.

How would you interpret a call for "ethnic cleansing"?

 

[A'isha]

Thank you. I'm aware of that event. There's no denying that Spencer is massively disgusting. But that's weak tea as justification for vigilante justice. Not even a call for extermination, as has been suggested.

To avoid misinterpretation, I'm in a class of people that would fare poorly if Spencer was actually exterminating. Opposing the Spencers of the world has been a significant focus of my adult life.

While Spencer himself is careful to say things like “In the public imagination, ‘ethnic-cleansing’ has been associated with civil war and mass murder (understandably so). But this need not be the case" when pressed about the details of how he'll establish his whites-only country, as pointed out above he also had zero problem publishing articles at his website titled "Is Black Genocide Right?", written by the co-founder of his site and saying things like "However, for too long now, when we consider questions of race, especially questions concerning the Black race, we have been framing things in completely the wrong way. Instead of asking how we can make reparations for slavery, colonialism, and Apartheid or how we can equalize academic scores and incomes, we should instead be asking questions like, 'Does human civilization actually need the Black race?' 'Is Black genocide right?' and, if it is, 'What would be the best and easiest way to dispose of them?'"

 

[varwoche]

How would you interpret a call for "ethnic cleansing"?

That counts. This wasn't yet in A'isha's post at the time I clicked reply.

 

[Belz...]

That counts. This wasn't yet in A'isha's post at the time I clicked reply.

Nitpick: it wasn't in her post at the time you clicked "quote".

 

[A'isha]

That counts. This wasn't yet in A'isha's post at the time I clicked reply.

Sorry about that. I meant to include the second article from the beginning, but hit post instead of preview (which I sometimes do to keep myself from timing out on the forums while writing longer posts).

 

[applecorped]

Just like Buzz Aldrin should have been arrested.

No he shouldn't he was defending himself

 

[dudalb]

Thank you. I'm aware of that event. There's no denying that Spencer is massively disgusting. But that's weak tea as justification for vigilante justice. Not even a call for extermination, as has been suggested.

To avoid misinterpretation, I'm in a class of people that would fare poorly if Spencer was actually exterminating. Opposing the Spencers of the world has been a significant focus of my adult life.

I have not seen anybody here defend Spencer's disgusting ideology. They are defending his right to free speech.
Like I said, I think his asslaint should be punished according to the law, but also think if you preach hate, don't be surprised if it comes around to bite you.

 

[dudalb]

Meanwhile, I see that are resident anartchist revolutionary has pretty much stated that destruction of other people's property is really nifty way of protest.

 

[Ziggurat]

I'm not saying that there is no difference between autocracy and democracy or between a stable democracy and a military dictatorship, so these questions don't seem relevant to what I said. I note, however, that you admit that there is a rule of law under a dictatorship.

"Rule of law" and "rule of man" are well-established terms. The former doesn't simply mean that there are laws, and the latter doesn't mean that there aren't laws. And under the meaning of these terms, no, dictatorships DO NOT have "rule of law", despite having laws. Seriously, that's made completely explicit in my first link. It's one thing if you don't like established terminology for whatever reason, but it's ridiculous to simply deny what it means.

The laws, though they may exist under a dictatorship, do not constrain the dictator. Therefore, the laws do not rule. The dictator does. Ergo, rule of man, not rule of law.

Zero is not "much".

I gave you two links. That's not zero.

I actually thought you'd tell me the distinction you see

I did. You just aren't satisfied with what I've said. But again, these are well-established terms. You need not rely on me to learn what they mean, and I need not spend any more effort educating you on such remedial concepts of government.

How do you determine that he has the high ground if you disagree with him to begin with? That makes no sense.

Because you're trying to make it confusing, even though it's quite simple. I didn't form my opinion and then claim it's the moral high ground. I figured out what the moral high ground was, and then chose that as my opinion BECAUSE it was the moral high ground. I did not, as you suggest, simply declare that the position I already held was the moral high ground.

 

[Ziggurat]

Meanwhile, I see that are resident anartchist revolutionary has pretty much stated that destruction of other people's property is really nifty way of protest.

I have the sense that destruction of other people's property is pretty much the only thing that anarchists actually do.

 

[Belz...]

"Rule of law" and "rule of man" are well-established terms. The former doesn't simply mean that there are laws, and the latter doesn't mean that there aren't laws. And under the meaning of these terms, no, dictatorships DO NOT have "rule of law", despite having laws.

I understand the distinction, and have already addressed it: the distinction is pretty slim, given that the laws you have in the US were established following as rebellion against the legitimate government of the colonies. You have rule of law because you were strong enough to push them out by force of arms, not because there were provisions in the then-existing laws to allow for such a transition. It _became_ the rule of law because the people in power made new laws and they've remained the law of the land since then.

The laws, though they may exist under a dictatorship, do not constrain the dictator. Therefore, the laws do not rule. The dictator does. Ergo, rule of man, not rule of law.

As I said, I understand the distinction.

I did.

You did _now_.

I figured out what the moral high ground was, and then chose that as my opinion BECAUSE it was the moral high ground.

How did you figure this out, Zig? Try an answer, please.

 

[Ziggurat]

This is protected as free speech in the states and does not 'merit assault' per se, but it could be argued that he is ideologically provoking conflict and inciting violence.

That argument would be self-contradictory and wrong. There is a legal standard for what constitutes inciting violence. Language which incites criminal action (violent or otherwise) is not protected speech. Since you state that his speech is legally protected, it cannot be incitement.

Nazi-punchers are as subject to assault charges as anyone else, but as a neo-Nazi by definition holds U.S. laws and human rights in contempt, isn't it at least poetic justice to not subject them to laws which might protect them?

No. Regardless of the contempt one might feel for the law, the principle has always, always been that anyone who obeys the law deserves its full protection, and Spencer has (to the best of anyone's knowledge) obeyed the law. To apply the law any other way is to punish thought crimes, and there's really nothing poetic or just about doing that.

 

[Ziggurat]

I understand the distinction, and have already addressed it: the distinction is pretty slim, given that the laws you have in the US were established following as rebellion against the legitimate government of the colonies.

The past is the past, and has no bearing on my argument, which only concerns the present. And no, the distinction is not slim.

As I said, I understand the distinction.

Clearly not, or you wouldn't have tried to argue that dictatorships have rule of law.

How did you figure this out, Zig? Try an answer, please.

By considering what kind of behavior is moral and what is not moral. Are you incapable of doing this yourself? If so, then try it. If not, then I am sorry for your handicap.

 

[Belz...]

The past is the past, and has no bearing on my argument, which only concerns the present.

That's an interesting way of ignoring events that don't quite fit with your view.

Clearly not, or you wouldn't have tried to argue that dictatorships have rule of law.

I said that the distinction is irrelevant.

By considering what kind of behavior is moral and what is not moral.

Yeah I know that, I'm asking you how you do that? You said that it wasn't because what he said agreed with you. How, exactly, do you determine what is moral if not through your own values? Since you'd be the first human to ever do this, I'm anxious to hear of your method.

Are you incapable of doing this yourself? If so, then try it. If not, then I am sorry for your handicap.

See, you always do this. Can you ever actually respond to what I say and ask without turning things into a personal pissing match?

 

[Ziggurat]

That's an interesting way of ignoring events that don't quite fit with your view.

You imagine a conflict when there is none. But it's still irrelevant.

I said that the distinction is irrelevant.

And you are wrong. Completely, utterly wrong. Which should come as no surprise, since (again) you fundamentally misunderstood what the distinction is. And there's no uncertainty about that either, nor is that simply my opinion: you claimed that dictatorships had the rule of law, when dictatorships are the prototypical example of the LACK of the rule of law.

Again: it's one thing to not like some terminology, it's another to simply be wrong about what that terminology is, as you clearly were.

See, you always do this. Can you ever actually respond to what I say and ask without turning things into a personal pissing match?

Not with you, no. I give you standard terminology, and not only were you not previously familiar with it (which is sort of surprising), you failed spectacularly to learn what it meant, and in fact even denied what it meant. Do you really expect me to take your posts seriously under these conditions? Because I can't. I just can't. You aren't worth taking seriously.

 

[fuelair]

Lugentrumpf!!!!!!!!!