If we want to stop being called Nazis, we must support the rights of Nazis

Many on the right (including libertarians who are usually considered right) believe that free speech should not be limited, except for direct incitement for unlawful action. The US supreme court agrees unanimously. This is practically about racist or sexist speech, because – go figure – no one wants to limit left-wing extremist speech. If you walk around with a hammer and sickle flag demanding the execution of the capitalists, people just find you stupid but no one wants to punch you.

However I’m not here to protect Nazi speech because of principle, but for strategic reasons. I believe that the moderate right (all of it, including libertarians) are doomed without Nazis freely spouting their idiocy which was tested in the 1930-45 period with horrible results (which kind of leave me puzzled how can anyone be still a Nazi). My stance is the direct opposite of what current moderate right does: clear condemnation of Nazis and looking the other way when their rights are violated. The best example of the status quo is the reply of Mitt Romney to President Trump when he condemned both Nazis and Antifa for the deadly riots in Charlottesville. He said that “Our allies around the world are stunned and our enemies celebrate; America’s ability to help secure a peaceful and prosperous world is diminished. And who would want to come to the aid of a country they perceive as racist if ever the need were to arise … State forcefully and unequivocally that racists are 100% to blame for the murder and violence in Charlottesville.”

Why can we be sure that Mitt Romney is wrong? Because we know that he is a racist himself, no better than those who marched with their torches in Charlottesville. How? Well, from the media of course:

The list could go on endlessly, but hopefully you got the picture. Calling Romney racist was so widespread that after Trump won, liberals openly questioned if it was a good strategy to “cry wolf” on Romney because it immunized voters against the “racism” of Trump.

Well, after you finished lynching Romney to save “America’s ability to help secure a peaceful and prosperous world”, you should consider what the above means. It’s clear that Romney is no racist, otherwise he wouldn’t push the “apologize and condemn” party line when he is not even running. But it didn’t help him a bit. When he was running, he was called a racist anyway. Why? Because it works and because it costs nothing. “Is a racist” is not objectively observable, so you can form opinions all day about the racism of anyone. There is no way to disprove the claim. Even a life without a single episode of racism doesn’t help, because whenever you have any kind of conflict with people who happen to be of a different race, you can be labeled racist. If I ever called a black WoW player moron and slacker without having a slightest clue about his race, I’m officially a racist, since I surely knew and this “low DPS” is just a dog whistle. Tobold labeled me a racist for not supporting illegal immigration.

However, there is a counter to this strategy: protecting the rights of the real racists, white supremacists and arm-saluting Nazis. It works two ways: at first it provides a frame of reference. While anyone can be labeled racist or Nazi via some long chain of logic stemming from a harmless comment or a colorblind conflict with a colored person, the difference between such insinuation and a skinhead shouting Sieg Heil is obvious. Compared to a real Nazi, an ordinary person with a bad remark or personal conflict is obviously not looking bad. That of course needs people to see actual Nazis and hear their disgusting demands.

The other reason is to make the term itself less harmful. People should see these Nazi clowns with their obvious low status and see how their rhetoric does not turn into meaningful violence. While there are Nazi terror attacks, you still have more chance to be killed by an angry cow than by a white supremacist. The “he is secretly racist” is only effective if racists are considered a powerful conspiracy instead of a bunch of losers who blame others for their failed lives. The reason why leftist violence isn’t causing hysteria on the right is that a fat purple hair feminist isn’t scary even if (s?)he has a baseball bat and a mask.

As long as the moderate right is strongly condemning Nazis, they will be called Nazis. It will only stop if the real Nazis are free to express their filth. I hope the decision of President Trump to condemn both sides for the violence and repeatedly calling “An-tee-fa” out for their criminality is a step towards this direction.

Author: Gevlon

My blog: https://greedygoblinblog.wordpress.com/

18 thoughts on “If we want to stop being called Nazis, we must support the rights of Nazis”

  1. @S Riojas: that’s a moral argument. It’s fine and “noble”, but people won’t follow it because it appears to be against interest.

    My point is that it’s our interest to stand up for the freedom of speech of everyone.


  2. Its called enlightened self-interest. And the saying is quite applicable to your point. You yourself do not agree with Nazis, but you believe they should have the right to express themselves.

    But words are merely words without action to support them. You can say people’s speech will be protected, but what will you do to protect it? Self-interest would ensure you shut up and ignore people whose freedoms are being violated. Enlightened Self-Interest would mean you stand up and, at the risk of harm yourself, defend them, even if you do not agree with them.

    Why? Because you recognize that the person being persecuted may be you someday.

    A quote of Niemöller:
    “First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
    Because I was not a Socialist.

    Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
    Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

    Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
    Because I was not a Jew.

    Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.”


  3. The law is already protecting their free speech. Not in many EU countries, we shall sign petitions to change that, but I think it’ll change soon enough because of Google and its censorship.

    The problem is that when their rights are violated, THEY are condemned. Like Romney saying they are 100% responsible for … marching peacefully with a permit and being attacked by armed, masked thugs. It’s enough to condemn that violence and say that they have the right to speak and march and watch the fireworks as liberal heads explode.


  4. You always talk about morons and slackers as if they were the same kind of people. I don’t see slackers as low life suckers, but on the contrary as well adapted humans to this era. And I can’t stop seeing the morons as victims of our education systems. Aren’t you underestimating the struggle to get accurate and job-providing education ? Do you think everyone is able to get a scientific diploma and the one who don’t are morons ?


  5. @guldur: I never argued against the slackers. I argued against the socials who carry them.

    No, I don’t think everyone can get a scientific diploma. I do think that everyone can get a tradeskill and a honest job that pays his food, rent, health care and scientific diploma in time (maybe too late and it will be his kids’ diploma)


  6. @gevlon: Is this scheme applicable to women ? You seem to thing that everyone can buy stuff, move around and sell this stuff to others (tradeskill) and get a life with it. How come this is not what’s happening ? Do you think poor workers are stupid ? If not, do you think it is there fault ? If not, do you not think luck has all to do with it ? Where do you see yourself in this ?


  7. ” “Is a racist” is not objectively observable”

    Objectively racist actions can be very observable. The problem is socials using it as a carte blanche insult without evidence, thus weakening the use of the term when it is applied correctly.
    The same applies to almost every categorisation. Nazi or fascist gets used whenever someone feels oppressed. Liberal is the insult thrown at every left-winger that gets preachy (most frequently when acting illiberally). Anyone offering argument gets called racist. It is a linguistic Tragedy of the Commons. Why moderate language when you can damage them more my using demonising language? Populists frequently cry wolf and fire their linquistic nukes as often as possible to get an biggest immediate impact. More traditional politicians traditionally only use the more toxic terms in clear-cut cases to avoid watering down its effectiveness.


  8. as if identity politics isn’t racist at all. let segregate black from whites again because some SJW idiots find this a great idea. Also pointing the fascism and totalitarian bullshit out of this kind of thinking gets one marked by antifascist as fascist. the irony *sigh*

    they are so blind in their anti-discriminating crap and think they are a saint by blindly pushing PC and SJW doctrine. deeply rooted in some shady philosopher tantrums from hegel, engels, marx. I like to ask those idiots: why fall in love? it is the ultimate discrimination.

    They want words and thought to be the equivalent of real action. going back to the middle-ages burning witches at the stake

    guldur scientific diploma
    better send your kids to trade school, college and uni does more harm than good.


  9. This whole “All of you are racist!” from the liberals is getting out of hand. By their measure, anyone who doesn’t agree with them is evil since their viewpoint is based on fairness and is therefore perfect and morally unassailable. And so, evil people must be racist, right? The argument is so circular it rolls on it’s own power.

    The white supremacists are essentially harmless in that there are so few of them and they know full well how fast it will go south (no pun intended.) for them if they stir up any actual shit. I live in redneck country, you know, that total racist zone Tobold was talking about? And I’ve never even met an actual, swear to god, “white supremacist.” Heck, I’m not even sure if anyone I know is actually racist. They might be? But they keep it to themselves really well if they are.


  10. @guldur: it’s not happening because … they are morons and slackers. This is where it all started in World of Warcraft, 10 years ago. I realized that while in WoW literally everyone can get 1 gold by going out and farming mobs or doing quests, some people have no gold and beg for gold. Others have no gear or horribly misfit gear, despite in WoW literally everyone can get gear, as there is no scarcity.

    While not every poor person is M&S and not every M&S is poor, there is a very good correlation. Being M&S means believing to be entitled for rewards without skill and effort, devaluing skill and effort, disrespecting people who have skill and make effort. Call it culture of poverty if you please.


  11. @Smokeman
    Heck, I’m not even sure if anyone I know is actually racist. They might be? But they keep it to themselves really well if they are.

    I was vacationing with family a few weeks ago, and it wasn’t until Day 5 when my sister’s boyfriend revealed during a dinner conversation that 9/11 was obviously an inside job (“jet fuel can’t melt steel beams”), and that the role of the US government is to steal as many resources as possible from other countries, before Peak Oil.

    It’s possible everyone around you is an enlightened egalitarian. It’s also possible that the topic of black people (etc) has just never been particularly relevant if there aren’t any black people around in your (red)neck of the woods. Odds are good though, that bringing up welfare, Affirmative Action, or some other cultural touchpoint will give them the opportunity to show you who they are.

    Liked by 2 people

  12. @Azuriel: and did you link him http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/metal-temperature-strength-d_1353.html or did you just call him a conspiracy theorist?

    Also, did you consider the facts that: Osama and the Afghan Mudjahedin got awful lot of money from the CIA against the Soviets during the ’70-es, ’80-es? I’m of course not saying that the CIA wanted or planned 9/11, but they bear responsibility in empowering Islamist groups for the purpose of committing terrorist attacks against the enemies of the CIA. If I give a gun to a known madman and tell him to kill Adam but he kills Betty instead, am I not responsible for the death of Betty? Isn’t Betty’s family somewhat right to call her death “inside job”?

    Also, are you implying that opposing welfare or Affirmative action makes one racist?


  13. Azuriel:

    No, I don’t think everyone around me is an enlightened egalitarian. Hell, I don’t even think I’m an enlightened egalitarian. But there is a far cry from someone who might be “uncomfortable” around people of other races and an actual racist. You have to set the bar for “racist” at the level of being willing to actually commit a crime to support your racist beliefs.

    It is ludicrous to expect humans to have no preconceived notions about others, and it is equally ludicrous to assign “thought crime” to someone for their thoughts. By the left’s current standard, virtually everyone is a “racist” to the point where the word has no meaning. It’s like those feminists who think all men are “rapists” because they like women and want to have sex with them. You’re not an actual rapist until you actually commit a crime in that context.


  14. @Gevlon

    No, I did not engage with him on the topic – all five of us awkwardly completed our meal in silence and split up afterward. I was not mentally prepared to reason with crazy, and certainly not on vacation. Had it been an exchange online, where we could trade links and sources, then perhaps. But I can tell you now that he felt it was an Inside Job with capital letters, not the incidental blame from CIA doing dumb things in the 70s and 80s.

    It’s not the opposition to welfare/AA that says something, it’s why.

    You have to set the bar for “racist” at the level of being willing to actually commit a crime to support your racist beliefs.

    No, that’s the bar for a hate crime.

    You can have the (hopefully unbidden) thoughts about a person based on their race. That’s fine; ideally you would want to work on deprogramming that part of your monkey brain. But when you translate that thought into action – denying their application, calling them a racial slur, whatever – that’s when it becomes racism. Not all such incidences are technically illegal, especially if you find the loopholes. Or, you know, in social situations generally.


  15. @Azuriel: by not engaging, you choose to reinforce his beliefs and maybe the hidden beliefs of others of the present people who heard him and heard no counterarguments. The main problem with these things is no one is willing to engage and they go further and further. This is how “CIA supported terrorists to commit war crimes against Russians and terrorists are untrustworthy and used their CIA weapons and training against Americans” into “CIA planned wanted to kill Americans”

    Which is strongly related to the topic: we shouldn’t silence these people but engage them whenever we can.


  16. @Gevlon, I do not think you are understanding that we are taking about the same thing. Law is irrelevant when the attitude of a populace does not support Free Speech.


  17. Everyone is racist. Everyone. That’s kind of it’s thing. Now it’s to varying degrees, but everyone still is. The world is too damn complex to make a fully informed call about every ethnic group and their customs. So we all shorthand on half understood information. We may not think they are bad people, but our perception is still pretty divorced from reality. Racism as a condemnation sorta loses it’s impact when everyone does it. Example, up till about a decade ago the japanese were the most racist people on earth, but they were low key about it, it was a polite racism. A subtle sneering down on others who weren’t fortunate enough to be born japanese, no marches or chants, they just felt sorry for everyone else. Now they’re starting to be not so subtle….

    Anyway. I’m not so sure America can deal being nice about free speech for nazis or white supremacists. There’s something that makes it different. There’s a large intersection of them and the gun rights activists who take the idea that the 2nd amendment exists to overthrow a totalitarian government seriously. We don’t see other groups march down the street in a formation with people openly carrying assault rifles while chanting death to jews. The threat of violence is implicit.

    Another group did that during the civil rights era, The Black Panthers, and we came down hard on them. Everyone understood the position and place of MLK’s side doing their peaceful protest thing, an extremely racist America hassled them and a couple extremists decided to take the law into their own hands. The Black Panthers though, they got a completely different level of treatment. The US Government & Law Enforcement killed them. In droves. So we’ve dealt with this before, and the message has always been, “Say whatever you want, protest however you want, but leave the guns at home or the heavens will open up and rain down upon you.”. Sooner or later that’s going to happen here, and considering how many of them were carrying in Charlottesville it’s going to be almost all the neo-nazis and white supremacists that get stomped on. It’ll stop being a speech issue.

    It’s just a matter of time till one person does something stupid, someone always does something stupid.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s