There comes a point in political dissent where one might advocate for the erasure of someone else’s rights while relishing in their own. They might partition their speech as being worthy of liberal treatment. Meanwhile, they could see others as not deserving the same rights. If this sounds like a conundrum to you, you’re not alone.
To be specific about using social rights to try to erase those of others, take deplatforming on the Internet. One side uses the anonymity and liberality of the Internet to disenfranchise a group from their own (an Antifa member doxxing Nazis or vice versa, for example). One might conclude that the lack of consistency makes this unjust, but the notion is still worth looking at.
Free Speech and Violence
To start, we can analyze how deplatforming works and what it means. Antifa, a decentralized, militant organization of folks committed to ending fascism, understands how to doxx and deplatform effectively and rather stealthily. They infiltrate private groups of fascists and other far-right fringe groups, get them to reveal just enough personal information, and spread it online for all to see. They also engage in both offensive and defensive violence at rallies. Why are they doing this? What does it mean, and is it right?
The answer, as you’ll see, isn’t so clear-cut. Reading it plainly, you’ll see a double standard of who gets to talk and who doesn’t. This is expected, isn’t it? Really, any government will guarantee some compulsion in which citizens are forced to do something. It leads us to what underpins the entire argument of regulating free speech: is compulsion necessarily bad?
First of all, we could argue that compulsion is unjust because it goes against a natural sense of autonomy; the natural ability for someone to be free does not reconcile with force. Because of how natural autonomy is, it doesn’t make sense to coerce people into speaking “correctly”. After all, it will only lead to a damaged and unnatural state of mind. So, we let free speech exist absolutely.
But what about free speech existing for those who can monopolize it? For those who can use their free speech to occlude others from using theirs or do away with free speech entirely? Is seeking absolute free speech a good idea if it will end in recklessness sooner, rather than later?
Controlling Nazi Speech?
So, enters the argument for control. The people do not inherit goodness just naturally, they are molded that way. There is no natural state of autonomy because hierarchies exist naturally and we live under them. Thus, limiting free speech would create social cohesion so no group would have to question their existence in a state, thereby obstructing the government. (Note: this argument does rest on the assumption that certain people don’t know what’s good for them).
But what about eventual questionings of the state? How would governments liquidate rebel political movements from influencing public opinion? Both arguments have their pitfalls, and one must evaluate these questions not to find an answer, but just to reach another conclusion.
To move back to the real world application, two violent groups who vehemently oppose each other are playing out the argument. Sure, it’s polarization, but one must remember that it is not banal. It is violently separating one group from the community and taking their ideologies out, with a knife or a cyber attack. Is this for good reason?
It’s not this article’s place to judge that. However, one must understand the brevity of the circumstances we are in currently and make just decisions. I encourage every reader to think and see for yourself.
71 Republic is the Third Voice in media. We pride ourselves on distinctively independent journalism and editorials. Every dollar you give helps us grow our mission of providing reliable coverage. Please consider donating to our Patreon.
Fascism is a pejorative in society, but does society truly understand what it means to be a fascist? The socialists have deceived the public into believing that fascism is the most grotesque evolution of capitalism, but this simply is not the case. This article will cut through the societal definitions of the fascists, giving the true meaning of national socialism, paying attention to the philosophical, political, and economic roots of fascism. As the article lays out the totalitarian, anti-property, and subjectivist nature of fascism, it will transition into the development of a true antifascist strategy, which will include advocacy for decentralization, private property, free trade, lower taxes, the right of association and disassociation, the removal of the State from private life and the physical removal of those who would implement such an authoritarian system upon our communities.
What the Nazis have to say about Fascism
On February 24, 1920, the Nazis released their party platform. Among their 25 planks are policies such as old age pensions, the territorial expansion of the State (imperialism), universal employment (public works), the abolition of income without “labor,” the end of interest and rent, the nationalization of industry, wealth redistribution, a dedication to the common good, the provision of free higher education, and the prohibition of child labor.
Looking at the Nazi Party Platform, we can see that capitalism and small government has nothing to do with fascism. To partake in understatement, the free market, personal liberty, and self-ownership does not exist within a national socialist state. The Nazis believed that classical liberalism had failed the world, and that the State was the remedy to whatever illness the world could ever face. As the Nazi Platform shows, adherents to national socialism had no concern for the basic laws of economics (this article will soon show that the Nazis did not even believe in the laws of economics).
Perhaps most damaging is the Nazis’ dedication to the common good. As individuals become just a part of a whole, they become expendable. This dedication to violent, state-sponsored collectivism is exactly what allowed Hitler to demonize the Jews and other minorities so that he could commit the horrific acts of genocide within the Holocaust.
Fascism opposes Economics.
In a 1937 speech, Hitler stated the following:
I am not going to tell you That in place of these economic theories Of the others I am now going to put it a national Socialist economic theory. I would like to avoid the term theory altogether. Yes I would even like to say that what I am going to tell you today Is not intended to be a theory at all. Because if I recognize any dogma at all in the economic sector, then it is only the one dogma that there is no dogma in this sector, no theory at all.
In the statement, Hitler rejects the very concept of economics. He rejects supply and demand, the law of diminishing marginal returns, the socialist calculation problem, and every other insight economics has provided humanity.
This rejection of economics, however, is not original to Hitler. It largely originates from the German Historical School, spear-headed by Gustav von Schmoller. The German Historical School was of the persuasion that economic law was a sham. Rather than looking at economics as a set of universal propositions, advocates of the Historical School saw economics as a series of empirical incidents that will vary across time and place. To these individuals, there are no laws of economics that could hold back an omnipotent government.
In “The Historical Setting of the Austrian School of Economics,” Ludwig von Mises shows how Hitler was largely inspired by the German Historical School. It makes sense that he would be, after all. Economic law inherently limits a dictator. Hitler needed to find a way to get past the basic economic laws which confine humanity, and he found a theory that rejects these limitations in the Historical School. For more information on the German Historical School, please see Dr. David Gordon’s “The Philosphical Origins of Austrian Economics.”
In Human Action, Mises discussed this anti-capitalistic mentality that intoxicated Hitler, and still continue to intoxicate the masses today:
The issue has been obfuscated by the endeavors of governments and powerful pressure groups to disparage economics and to defame the economists. Despots and democratic majorities are drunk with power. They must reluctantly admit that they are subject to the laws of nature. But they reject the very notion of economic law. Are they not the supreme legislators? Don’t they have the power to crush every opponent? No war lord is prone to acknowledge any limits other than those imposed on him by a superior armed force. Servile scribblers are always ready to foster such complacency by expounding the appropriate doctrines. They call their garbled presumptions “historical economics.” In fact, economic history is a long record of government policies that failed because they were designed with a bold disregard for the laws of economics.
It is impossible to understand the history of economic thought if one does not pay attention to the fact that economics as such is a challenge to the conceit of those in power. An economist can never be a favorite of autocrats and demagogues. With them he is always the mischief-maker, and the more they are inwardly convinced that his objections are well founded, the more they hate him.
If one tries to refute the devastating, criticism leveled by economics against the suitability of all these interventionist schemes, one is forced to deny the very existence—not to mention the epistemological claims—of a science of economics, and of praxeology as well. This is what all the champions of authoritarianism, government omnipotence, and “welfare” policies have always done. They blame economics for being “abstract” and advocate a “visualizing” (anschaulich) mode of dealing with the problems involved. They emphasize that matters in this field are too complicated to be described in formulas and theorems. They assert that the various nations and races are so different from one another that their actions cannot be comprehended by a uniform theory; there are as many economic theories required as there are nations and races. Others add that even within the same nation or race, economic action is different in various epochs of history. These and similar objections, often incompatible with one another, are advanced in order to discredit economics as such….
To summarize Mises, it is the ego of a dictator and a democratic mass that endangers the public. Their blatant disregard for economic law sets a society on a path to destruction and ruin, and the history of government resoundingly proves this. Hitler’s deliberate ignorance of economics only adds to the anti-human nature of national socialism.
National Socialism Needs a Centrally Planned Economy
Hitler, when addressing the concept of economic freedom versus state planning, made the following statement:
If Germany intends to live, then it must run its whole economy in a manner that is clear and planned. We cannot manage without a plan. If we were to let things run on according to the principle that everyone may do as he likes, then in a very short time this freedom would end upIn a terrible famine. No, we have to conduct our business and run our economy according to plan. Therefore the National Socialist government cannot be dependent on any individual interests. It cannot be dependent on the city or the country, not on workers and not on employers. It cannot be dependent on industry, on the crafts, on trade or on finance. It can only accept one obligation…. The nation alone is our master, and we serve this nation to the best of our knowledge and belief.
What the following statement demonstrates is that Hitler did not see the market as the means to prosperity. Rather, he believed that the State can plan a society to create prosperity. If it was economic, Hitler believed the government could do it better than the maket could. Simply put, Hitler did not believe in economic freedom. He believed in the State.
The National Socialists Reject Honest Money
In 1939, Hitler gave his position on the gold standard:
Today we smile about a time when our political economists actually did believe that the value of a currency depended on the amount of gold and foreign currency reserves piled up in the safes of the state banks, and that it was guaranteed by these. We have learned instead of of the value of a currency lies in the production capacity of a nation, that increasing production is what holds up a currency, even revalues it under certain circumstances, whereas any declining production results must sooner or later lead to an automatic devaluation of the currency. And at a time when the financial and economic theologists in the other countries prophesied our collapse every 3 to 6 months, the National Socialist state stabilized the value of its currency by increasing production most extraordinarily. An actual relationship was created between increasing German production and the currency in circulation.
Hitler saw fiat currency as an incredible moral virtue. Such a currency would give the State massive influence over the population, which is the true defining characteristic of National Socialism. It is with all this in mind that we can see that Hitler and the Nazis clearly rejected capitalism. They did not see the free market, private property, or self-ownership as a path to prosperity. They only valued omnipotent government.
Fascism: The State Above All Else
While one may simply dismiss Hitler and the Nazis’ economic ignorance as the ramblings of a mad man, but it makes sense when you understand the philosophical aim of fascism: the State having complete and total control. Fascism placed the power of the State above all else, which explains their disregard for economic law, their admiration for central planning, and their dedication to fiat currency.
But the national socialists did not just place the State above economics. They placed the State above you.
Fascism is another Color of Socialism
In Omnipotent Government, Mises pointed out that fascism was a “third way” between capitalism and communism. While the national socialists were not communists, they were socialists. Mises expounds on German National socialism in the following:
The German pattern differs from the Russian one in that it (seemingly and nominally) manintains private ownership of the means of production and keeps the appearance of ordinary prices, wages, and markets. There are, however, no longer entrepreneurs but only shop managers (Betriebsfuhrer). These shop managers do the buying and selling, pay the workers, the contract debts, and pay interest and amortization. There is no labor market; wages and salaries are fixed by the government. The government tells the shop managers what and how to produce, at what prices and from whom to buy, at what prices and to whom to sell.
So, while the people owned private property according to German Law, the ownership of private property was in name and in name only.
Fascist Rejection of Private Property
Mises was not the only person to identify the lack of private property in Nazi Germany. In fact, the Nazis openly embraced this, and it crippled German Business. Hitler elaborated upon his views on private property here:
Our socialism reaches much deeper. It does not change the external order of things. It orders solely the relationship of man to the state. Then what does property and income count for? Why should we need to socialize the banks and the factories? We are socializing the people.
So, the businesses can have property by decree, but it doesn’t matter. The people are owned by the State in a National Socialist economy. In truth, Hitler’s socialism runs deeper than the socialism of the Soviet Union. It doesn’t matter if you own “private property” in a fascist state (or a state in general), for the State owns you.
Doing Business under Fascism
If the socialist lie that fascism is late stage capitalism was true, then the ease of doing business must certainly be irrefutable. This, however, is not the case. In The Vampire Economy, Gunter Reimann described what it was like to do business under the Nazis. To put it shortly, business owners did not own their businesses. Workers did not own their bargaining rights. No one but the State owned anything.
Things became so bad for the businessman in Nazi Germany, that they were described as “white Jews” in a letter Reimann retrieved from a German businessman. In that same letter, the businessman laments the lack of price flexibility, the increase in regulations, the increase in taxation, the confiscation of private property, and the complete revocation of the right to use your profit as you see fit.
Matters weren’t any better for the German worker either. Whereas the Nazis demanded a “fair wage,” the workers’ hours drastically increased. The workers who worked just six hours per day were forced to work anywhere from eleven to twelve hours per week. The Nazis would also force women and children into employment to make family income look even better.
Just like all socialists, fascists reject private property.
As alluded to before, the fascist’s reverence for the State led to the destruction of private property. Reimann points this out by telling the story of a German landowner known as Herr V, who was forced to even quarter German troops in his home. After having enough, Herr V decided to go to a bank to invest his funds in something the State cannot touch by purchasing a farm in West Africa. The banker informed him that the State will not allow you to leave with your property. One can “own” property in Nazi Germany, but we all know the State is the true owner under fascism.
With businesses, it was just as bad. The State had the authority to go through the books of businesses. Any errors would lead to a fine of millions of Marks. These regulations were just another means of expropriating private property from the people. In fact, the Nazi regime repealed the right to private property on February 28, 1933, with the abolition of article 153 of the Weimar Constitution.
The business owners were replaced with Betriebsführer, or business managers. Since you did not truly own your property, you were just a tenant of this “fiat” property. In other words, in order to keep “your” property, you must not only follow the law. You must be completely servile to the State. In fascism, the State owns you.
The Reality of Fascism in America
This article would seem irrelevant if we believed the only fascist regimes were those of Nazi Germany, Mussolini’s Italy, and Franco’s Spain. But that simply is not the case. We must accept the reality that the United States has become a fascist government.
The US has been a fascist country since FDR ushered in the administrative state through the New Deal. Under Roosevelt’s policies, businesses were directed to produce for “the common good” instead of individual profit. The welfare state grew exponentially to compel dependence upon the State from the people.
Economic law has been entirely rejected. The central banks and the bureaucracy have the authority to regulate as they see fit. Private property is a sham. The government taxes and regulated everything. On top of the welfare state is a massive warfare state. The private sector has been cartelized, production has been heavily subsidized. The people revere the police state as the source of peace. Our rights are denied in the name of security.
Another indicator is the US’s worship of its leaders. Paul Craig Roberts identified this by saying, “Like Brownshirts, the new conservatives take personally any criticism of their leader and his policies. To be a critic is to be an enemy.” the Left has adopted this as well. Any criticism of Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton is seen as treason. If the people are sensitive of criticisms of Trump and Obama, they are intolerable to criticisms of individuals such as Lincoln or FDR. But if this isn’t enough, consider John Flynn’s Eight Marks of Fascist Policy.
Government is totalitarian because it acknowledges no restraint on its power.
Government is a de facto dictatorship based on the Leadership Principle.
Government administers a “capitalist” system with an immense bureaucracy.
Producers are organized into cartels in the way of syndicalism.
Economic planning based on the principle of Autarky.
Government sustains economic life by spending and borrowing.
Militarism is a mainstay of government spending.
The military has imperialist aims.
Toward an Antifascist Alliance
As Lew Rockwell points out in Fascism vs. Capitalism, the federal government has turned the US into a fascist nation, and therefore we must fight fascism in America. Rockwell did give us a brief word on anti-fascist strategy. In essence, we must be capitalists to fight fascism.
“I can think of no greater priority today than a serious and effective antifascist alliance. In many ways, one is already forming. It is not a formal alliance. It is made up of those who protest the Fed, those who refuse to go along with mainstream fascist politics, those who seek decentralization, those who demand lower taxes and free trade, those who seek the right to associate with anyone they want and buy and sell on terms of their own choosing, those who insist they can educate their children on their own, the investors and savers who make economic growth possible, those who do not want to be felt up at airports, and those who have become expatriates.
It is also made of the millions of independent entrepreneurs who are discovering that the number one threat to their ability to serve others through the commercial marketplace is the institution that claims to be our biggest benefactor: the government.” Lew Rockwell, Fascism vs. Capitalism.
In other words, to fight against fascism, we must fight for freedom. One of the top flaws of fascism is its reactionary nature. It was built to stop communism but ultimately became just as bad, with an even deeper socialism in which the people become socialized. We cannot continue with negative activism. We must have a positive goal. Being in favor of freedom first inherently makes one against communism, fascism, and all other forms of statism. This is how to fight American fascism.
Every dictator throughout history has cast himself and his supporters as victims. Oppressors aren’t sympathetic figures, but the oppressed are. So are saviors.
For Hitler, it was the Jews and others that failed to live up to the Nazi regime’s manufactured Aryan ideal. For Lenin, Stalin, and their successors it was the somewhat vaguely defined bourgeoisie that led the parade of enemies of the state invented by Soviet leaders. If we reach back to the rise of the Caesars we find wealthy and powerful men like Julius and Augustus Caesar portraying themselves as victims, as the common man struggles against a corrupt elite that wishes to hold them down.
Occasionally there might be some small slice of truth to the grievances that those grasping for power exploit to win popular support. But even legitimate complaints become exaggerated examples of oppression in the end. Regardless, having gained complete or near complete power, one would think these strongmen would be able to impose stability rather than perpetually calling out that they are victims. But true resolution eliminates the possibility of keeping an enemy handy that they can readily blame. For strongmen avoiding accountability is paramount.
Donald Trump, for all his authoritarian tendencies, is not Adolf Hitler. Even Vladimir Putin, a man who has been known to both assassinate and imprison his opponents, does not come close to that scale. That said, these men are no lovers of democracy and are skilled at manufacturing victims and threats of both the exaggerated and fake variety.
Authoritarians are not interested in making the trains run on time. Authoritarians derail the trains, blame the derailment on some group or another that they know a significant portion of the population is already suspicious of or despises, paint themselves as victims, then take credit for fixing the problem after workers have repaired the tracks and restored things to the way they were before the derailment. We actually saw this pattern in Trump’s dealings with North Korea, and will likely see it attempted again at some point soon in the case of immigration and border security. Indeed, Trump has set himself up beautifully to use this technique on a variety of issues in the coming months.
The case of North Korea is worth going into in some detail in order to demonstrate just how authoritarians go about manufacturing a problem in order to “solve” it. The so-called crisis on the Korean Peninsula has been slowly unfolding for generations. Had there been anything like an easy solution for it, it would have been solved decades ago.
But the fact of the matter is that even before North Korea acquired nuclear weapons it had thousands of conventional artillery pieces aimed at the heart of Seoul. Any effort to deal with the situation militarily would have, even under the best-case scenario, ended up with hundreds of thousands of dead and wounded on both sides of the 38th parallel, followed shortly thereafter by a massive humanitarian crisis. It was for this reason that sanctions were widely considered the safest way to apply pressure. Obviously, sanctions didn’t prevent North Korea from eventually developing nuclear weapons. But that doesn’t mean we should have sent in the army or dropped a bunch of nukes on them ourselves while we still had the chance. Some problems just don’t have good or obvious solutions.
North Korea’s long history of provocative words and actions have always been greeted by presidents from both political parties with either stern but diplomatic rebukes – sometimes followed by additional sanctions – or silence. Trump broke this pattern when he began responding with bellicose rhetoric of his own. As both sides began exchanging more and more heated words, a previously unthinkable US military response suddenly appeared thinkable. At that point, Trump had his crisis. All that remained was to extinguish the fuse that he had lit.
So, Trump signaled a willingness to talk and eventually agreed to a summit. In Singapore and in comments he has made since the president has practically embraced Kim Jong Un. The North Korean dictator has effectively been welcomed, at least for now, into Trump’s club of respected dictators. The president has declared complete denuclearization to be only a matter of time and claimed that thanks to his talent as a dealmaker the nuclear threat has passed. The fact that not a single nuclear weapon has been given up or that Kim Jong Un has so far refused to even disclose how many weapons he has hasn’t in the least diminished Trump’s assessment of the North Korean dictator or his conviction that he’s reached a peaceful resolution to the “crisis.” Problem solved.
By describing every problem as an emergency, authoritarians are able to create and maintain the siege mentality so vital to their efforts to hold onto sufficient public support. The policy of every authoritarian government is to create disruption, paint themselves as victims, and blame it upon a group that people can readily identify as outsiders. For this reason, those of us opposing the rise of authoritarianism must remain clear and consistent when it comes to the language we use to describe the manufactured crises men like Trump and Putin will continue to generate as they pursue their quest for greater power.
Families fleeing extreme poverty and violence in Central America do not represent either an economic or existential threat to the United States. Any differences we have with our NATO allies are small and do not justify the efforts currently underway to destabilize the alliance. Automation has historically had a far greater negative impact on manufacturing jobs than trade agreements. Burdening the world economy with tariffs because the president argues that even a slight trade imbalance with another country is an indication America has been “taken advantage of” will not only fail to change that reality but will ultimately make the problem worse.
There’s a reason that every problem wasn’t a grave emergency under previous presidents. None of them were primarily in the business of marketing fear. If America really is “the home of the brave”, instead of hitting the panic button every time Donald Trump says there’s a crisis we should be telling him to give it a rest.
We all need to ask ourselves the question Sarah Huckabee Sanders refuses to answer
Shortly after Schindler’s List came out in 1993, my wife and I got a babysitter and went to the theater to see it. I managed to keep it together until the scene depicting the cleansing of the Warsaw Ghetto.
If you’ve seen the movie, you know the film is done in black and white. But in the Warsaw Ghetto scene, there’s a small girl trying to escape the madness and suffering that has suddenly broken out all around her. Steven Spielberg made that small girl stand out by giving her a pink coat.
She was about my daughter’s age, and she looked very much like her too. I recall her crawling under a bed, and I remember Schindler looking down from a hill seeing her dash down the street uncertain where she might go to escape the machine gun fire, rape, and chaos that marked the Ghetto’s final hours. Later in the movie, we learn her fate. I don’t think I’ve ever wept so openly in a theater before or since. That could be my daughter I thought over and over again.
Yesterday, I was reminded again that this could be my family. As I watched White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders dodge the question yelled at her by Brian Karem, a reporter with Playboy Magazine, I saw the face of someone — the face of an administration — that simply could not imagine their children and grandchildren in anything other than the comfortable circumstances they already enjoyed.
“Come on, Sarah, you’re a parent,” Karem shouted at Sanders. “Don’t you have any empathy for what these people are going through?” No, she doesn’t. Besides, as she had already told CNN’s Jim Acosta, taking away the children of immigrants crossing the border is the law, and the Bible tells us to follow the law. It isn’t the law, but to these people the rule of law has always been seen as a rather quaint concept.
“The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread.”
― Anatole France
There are certainly plenty of verses that justify slavery, misogyny, and genocide in the Bible. Most of them are in the Old Testament, however. Though I’m hardly a religious man, I am well aware there are a number of other verses that focus on love and recommend forgiveness. Regardless, Jesus was supposedly not a man overly attached to the law, and he paid a price for it.
But if we’re inclined to turn to the Bible in situations like these, the verses we turn to say far more about us than they do Judeo-Christian ethics. Those willing to face Brian Karem and accept his challenge to imagine our children or grandchildren ripped from our arms don’t need a Bible verse to tell us that what’s happening on the Mexican border right now is evil.
That there are supposedly only a couple of thousand children so far does not mean we are as far from Auschwitz as we would like to think. Numbers are about scale. Evil is about how we treat others. Whether our betrayal of human rights affects one, a thousand, or a million people we are tarnished just the same.
But the numbers will not remain a couple of thousand. Those taking a quantitative view of evil must tell us at what number we should be troubled that our country is tearing families apart, traumatizing children, and condemning people to live in warehouses and (soon) tent cities. They must explain why quantity matters when it comes to human rights abuses, but not when it comes to treating people as though they have inherent dignity and worth.
I’ve had enough of walls. I’ve already seen more hate in my native country than I ever thought I would. If we can answer the question Sarah Huckabee Sanders could or would not, we must oppose this government with every fiber of our being. The global community must not engage in appeasement. If America’s noble aspirations are to be salvaged, the current US government must be peacefully but forcefully resisted on every front. If successful, we’ll never know how far America would have descended without our resistance, but that’s not something we want to find out.
On Sunday, opposing groups of idiots took to the lawless streets of Portland, Oregon, and beat each other’s skulls in. Neither side deserves your support or pity. To pick a side in this pathetic dogfight is exactly what the corporate media wants you to do. Instead, let’s relish at the site of entitled hipsters duking it out to “oppose nazism” or “support free speech” or whatever.
WATCH: Man gets cornered by Patriot Prayer and Proud Boys and is hit a few times before being led to police. pic.twitter.com/4PMst1iydB
At this point, I fully support the police standing down while they battle it out like the pathetic children they are. How can any American watch this thuggery and support our tax dollars going to the monitoring of such juvenile behavior? Here’s some more gold:
Who are the Nazis again? They all just look like petty, white, college-educated thugs with too much time on their hands. Who won? Nobody won. Nobody ever wins. These lunatics slink back into the darkness of their social media glory holes to celebrate with their niche groups of bourgeoisie activists. Want to see some more crybaby adults threatening normal citizens? I got you!
Video from earlier: Passing bicyclist comes to someone’s defense after he says he saw someone from th Patriot Prayer/ Proud Boys group hit someone pic.twitter.com/595LRUb9us
So what was all of this pathetic fighting about? A well-known leader of Patriot Prayer (a pro-free speech or neo-Nazi clan depending on your political bent) is leaving town. Time to fight! After all, can’t let those alt-right incels/Marxist thugs “win”.
If you think I sound done with watching permitted groups descend into pathetic chaos in the streets of a major American city, you’re right! These displays of amped testosterone are about as boring and pointless as they look. With no clear goal in sight, both sides look, sound, and act like playground bullies who need to blow off some blowhard steam on a hot summer day.
The more I watch these exercises in general futility, the more I believe it’s all a giant false flag to divide our country into easier prey for the technocratic gilded age. Automation & AI are mere years away from threatening everyone’s economic way of life, and we’ve been reduced to barbarism and bolshevism in our own streets.
It’s hard to imagine now, but there was a time in this country when people actually attempted to hear the other side out. We are so devoid of empathy and so pumped up with hatred for each other that it seems the only solution is to drape your face in a black or all-American bandana and kick and scream a bunch to make a “point.”