I’ve seen a lot of morons on social media celebrating and encouraging political violence against people like Richard Spencer. The consensus among them seems to be something along the lines of “We can’t let this happen again. You saw what happened last time when we stood by as fascists rose to power. We can’t allow these people to have a public platform. They must be relentlessly attacked.” It isn’t surprising that they think this is some innovative or amped up approach, given how superficial most people’s knowledge of history is (Edward Gibbon spent decades of his life studying the fall of the Roman Empire in order to get a complete picture of just that one historical event.) I myself spent a couple of years obsessed with the Vietnam War, reading everything I could get my hands on that covered the subject, and I still feel like I only scratched the surface (maybe I’ll write more about this sometime.)
In any event, far from being an innovative or effective approach, the people encouraging violence are retracing the same steps and ironically are facilitating the expedited rise of nationalism. You always hear people talk about the Brownshirts and the Blackshirts as being these villainous thugs and bullies, jackbooted, Clockwork Orange level sadist gangs in uniform roaming the streets, terrorizing innocent people. Though they were made up mostly of normal working class people, 70 years of relentless post-war propaganda has mythologized them into monstrous legions of evil bogeymen. Yet you rarely hear people talk about why these groups were created. The reason why groups like the Blackshirts were formed in the first place was because nationalists were being heckled and attacked at their rallies. It was determined that protective groups had to be formed to prevent the rallies from being violently disrupted. Watch the 1967 interview below with Oswald Mosley, and tell me we’re not watching history repeat itself before our very eyes:
I doubt most of the people celebrating the gutless sucker punch on Richard Spencer have any clue what historical forces they’re re-unleashing. I doubt most of them would even know who Oswald Mosley was if they heard his name. The framework of most Americans’ understanding of WW2 history appears to be primarily shaped by Indiana (((Jones))) movies and a few weeks of hearing about the holocaust in school.
To get an idea of what we’re possibly headed toward, David Hines recently offered up an excellent Tweetstorm on the potentiality and form of future political violence in the United States. The only issue I would take is that he slightly overemphasizes the left/right paradigm in my opinion. Most major corporations endorsed Hillary. Democrat and Republican have become dated labels and are in the process of being redefined. Identity politics has proven to supersede mere class concerns. Wealthy CEOs who send jobs overseas and outsource are championed by the left so long as they promote non-whites into high positions in their companies and donate to social justice causes. Meanwhile, poor or middle class whites are vilified and now apparently even considered fair game targets for violence if they have they hold the “wrong” opinions on race, gender or just happen to be wearing a Trump hat in public. The divides seem to be more accurately pro-white vs anti-white, globalism vs nationalism or even pro-west vs anti-west. These three separate divides are intertwining to condense confused battle lines. It would seem that any white person who favors restricting immigration and promotes a protectionist trade policy will simply be categorized as far right from now on, no matter what their positions are on other issues.
Just to wrap things up, I support Richard Spencer, and I’m doing my part to move away from all the “factioning,” infighting and signaling, in order to better assist those that are out there taking the heat from people who hate all of us.