Month: January 2017

Is It Okay to Punch a Nazi in the Face?

~ austinwiltshire ~ Leave a comment

Yes.

Let’s get this out of the way first – I actually doubt that there’s a real debate about this. Given that 1/3rd of red caps are bots, and another large minority of twitter followers of Trump are Russian paid trolls who know how to get certain things trending, I have a feeling that this debate is little more than a means to get people divided.

People appear to be afraid of losing the moral high ground, sinking to their level, losing an opportunity for them to learn or beginning a cycle of violence

Losing the Moral High Ground

First, the problem with hitting a Nazi is the Nazi already believes they have the moral high ground because of their heritage. So, like, you really can’t get much worse in their eyes. Hitting them is going to change their opinion about as much as not hitting them, in terms of how sacred you are as a being and all that.

Sinking to their Level

Secondly, we worry about sinking to their level. We worry that the movement is going to lose credibility amongst Trump voters that can be turned if there’s no clear good guys and bad guys. This assumes that Trump voters are actually watching the same camera feeds as you. Keep in mind, we’re in an era where propaganda is rife – the difference in the world where the Nazi is punched and the world where he isn’t is that in the world where he isn’t, the reports on Breitbart about the violence is a little more fake.

Red caps don’t actually have access to unbiased facts anymore – they shut them out. So trying to make sure that progressives look like the good guys on camera isn’t going to convince anyone, cause red caps aren’t going to see those reports.

This is a tough one to ride out, though, because you’ll see these stupid arguments on Facebook about it afterward. It’s easy to come away with the impression that if not for the guy who hit a Nazi, some folks on Facebook would be more open minded to your concerns about Comrade Trump.

But let me refresh you – if the anarchist didn’t hit the Nazi, your facebook feed would not be filled with rational dialogue. It’d be filled with how we’re sure that there are children in that Pizza Parlour and we need to go free them.

These people are close minded nuts. They’re going to think you’re the antichrist whether you hit the Nazi or not.

They’ll use it against you – they’ll talk about the Nazi being punched and use it is propaganda against you making you doubt your own cause. It’s a propaganda counterattack, not a legitimate plea for understanding. Ignore it.

Trolls know how to hit you where it hurts – at your credibility. But remember, you never had any credibility with them to begin with.

“Reaching Them”

Third, people feel like maybe they could reach the Nazi through some clever and persuasive argument, and now they’ve lost that opportunity because some anarchist showed the Nazi that progressives really are just a bunch of thugs. But wait… we seem to acknowledge that the Nazi sees all progressives as the same, i.e., we acknowledge that an anarchist hitting a Nazi damages the Nazi’s view of progressives all around. In other words, we acknowledge that the Nazi is a fucking Nazi. But we also seem to believe we can reach him?

Let’s get one thing straight – this guy is somewhat intelligent, somewhat educated. He doesn’t believe what he believes because he’s somehow mistaken in the facts. He believes what he believes because he freely chose to be an agent of evil. This isn’t some poor sod who never got his chance in life due to circumstances beyond his control. This is a sociopath. Remember, he’s literally a Nazi.

I think this argument annoys me the most because it projects so much of the progressive dream on to someone who by definition rejects it. An open-minded, gracious progressive will try and hear someone out. They’ll try and take their point of view. Their mind might even change on some issues. So they assume that a Nazi works similarly. But… he’s a Nazi. He’s the absolute opposite of a progressive.

Cycle of Violence

Finally, people are afraid of beginning a cycle of violence. Now, if two reasonable people on the street were talking and one struck the other, that’s terrible. But let’s remember – he’s a fucking Nazi. That means he literally subscribes to a philosophy of State mandated violence upon groups he deems as unworthy. The only reason he’s not hitting you first is because he doesn’t have enough goons with him.

He strongly believes he should have a right to hit you, on the spot, even kill you. That’s what Nazi means.

So in terms of the cycle of violence, hitting the Nazi isn’t going to make the Nazi any more violent to you. He already defined himself on his belief that he ought to be violent to you, if and when he gets a chance. 

So, Why Should you Hit a Nazi?

Because it is Nazi philosophy to strike first, strike hard, and use state power to eradicate groups he finds unsavory. The only reason Nazi’s stay in the shadows is because they believe they’ll get persecuted for their beliefs. If enough pop up their bald little heads and realize they can start doing some harm, that’s what they’ll do.

They’re Nazis. Their belief structure is to do harm to people once there is enough other Nazis.

They’re cancer. And you beat back cancer with harsh chemotherapy.

You hit a Nazi because the one thing a Nazi believes that you can actually change is that progressives will go quietly. That progressives are wimps. That they’ll crumble because they don’t have real conviction. The only way to prove to a Nazi that you won’t go quietly is to make it painfully clear you’ll protect yourself and the rest of us.

Nazis believe they have a monopoly on force and power – you hit a Nazi because it’s the only thing you can do to convince them they might be wrong.

 

Trump, Putin and the Hidden History of How Russia Interfered in the U.S. Presidential Election

~ austinwiltshire ~ Leave a comment

http://www.newsweek.com/trump-putin-russia-cia-clinton-2016-presidential-election-hacking-541302

This article is interesting because it is actually an amended article from before the election. They republished it with more up to date information, alluding to the idea that the dossier they released is just one of their sources, and there are others to back up wider claims of propaganda (“fake news”) coordinated with Wikileaks from Moscow.