halalbarbie:

halalbarbie:

if someone says “degenerate” there is a 93% chance they are a neo-nazi 

neo-nazi buzzwords:

• referring to minorities as a dehumanised collective (i.e “the blacks” instead of “black people”, “the jews” instead of “jewish people”, “the gays”, “the illegals” etc. etc.)
  
• “cuck” “normie” “liberal snowflake”
  
• “deus vult my friends”
  
• “Is he /our guy/ ?” or any variation of the /our guy/ meme
• “red-pill” or “alt-right” (in regards to someone’s political stance)
  
• holocaust denial in any way shape or form (from flat out it didn’t happen to any kind of attempt to minimise/normalise the crimes of the nazis through spreading false facts or making jokes about it)
• using the concept of triggers in a comedic way  
• talking about “alpha” and “beta” males
• “anti-racism = anti-white” / “this is anti-white propaganda” / “white pride worldwide” 
  
• “multiculturalism = white genocide”
• “islamization of america/europe”, “eurabia”
  
• glorious (when applied to a political figure or nation)
  
• 14/88, “the 14 words”, or any variation of them
  
• symbols: the celtic cross, the two lightning bolts side to side, obviously the swastika and all of its variations (here is a link to the anti-defamation league’s comprehensive guide to identifying hate symbols)
• “im a race realist”
  
• talking about cultural marxism as if it’s an actual thing 
• “preserving the future for white children” (anything that evokes images of white children being in need of saving from the imagined threat of white genocide)
  
• “why are only white countries asked to be multi-cultural” ignoring the overwhelming presence of white people in the americas, oceania and south africa 
• citing false statistics about difference in IQ amongst ethnic groups

neo-nazis are currently on a campaign to rebrand and repackage themselves to win over more mainstream support. this has resulted in the emergence of the “alt-right” as a legitimate political body, to push back against neo-nazism we have to identify it where we see it. if you see someone online using any of the terminology listed above there is a good chance that they are part of the burgeoning group of white supremacist who are using online platforms and cloaked language to disperse their hatred to a wider audience. be aware and be vigilant. 

side note: incase the neo-nazis on this site co-opt this post and turn it into a “tag urself” of some sort im gonna pre-emptively say, with all my heart, i hope you choke 

defyaugury:

traceexcalibur:

aint-no-cure-for-society:

traceexcalibur:

in an effort to understand Richard Spencer’s ideologies I went and did some searching on him

he’s been quoted as saying he wants a “peaceful ethnic cleansing” in America and he wants to create a “European ethno-state”. most of the articles I’ve found are vague on his exact goals, but near as I can tell, he wants to form an all-white country in which non-white people aren’t allowed, and kick out any non-white people already living there

now think about the logistics of that.

let’s say he gets his wish, and carves out a big chunk of America to become the new “white ethno-state”. let’s say he somehow manages to get an official, government law passed to do it, because he supposedly supports democracy

this would mean deporting every non-white person currently living there, which in most areas of America, would mean a WHOLE LOT OF PEOPLE. and you can bet they’re not going to want to go willingly. being forced to pack your bags, leave your home and job behind, all your financial security, your neighbours, everything? where would you go? what would you do if you couldn’t find a new job and a new home? does Richard Spencer care? I’d bet anything he doesn’t.

THAT’S VIOLENCE RIGHT THERE. forcing people to leave their home behind so you can build a new, all-white state, is VIOLENT. there’s no way around that. ripping away their livelihood like that is violent even IF the people leave willingly, and let me assure you, they WON’T leave willingly.

and this is a pretty far-fetched thing to try and achieve, but you can see the same ideas being implemented in smaller form. take Trump and the Republican’s attempts to gut the ACA. think of how many people would be harmed by the loss of their health insurance. how many people could die. how many people would lose any hope of escaping poverty because they now have huge medical bills to pay. that is VIOLENCE. it’s not as explicit as punching someone in the face, but it’s far-reaching, and life-ruining. it’s VIOLENCE.

take the way Flint and many other communities have had their water quality absolutely ruined, turned into a health hazard, for the sake of making money. take the absolute lack of sympathy for the people suffering there. THAT’S VIOLENCE.

and it’s violence cloaked in politics and bureaucracy. violence that comes from passing bills for the sake of saving money, cutting taxes, stopping people from being “leeches” on government funds or whatever the fuck else their reasoning is

and now when people throw protests or riots, or punch Richard Spencer in the face, or threaten neo-nazis, those people will respond with “why are you being violent? I’m being peaceful! I’m being democratic! you’re hypocrites!”

that’s a goddamn lie. these people are being far, far more violent. they’re just dressing their violence up nice and fancy so they can pretend it doesn’t exist and they’re the only victims here.

Well having beliefs isn’t violence though. It’s only violence of one carries it out. So he hasn’t been violent. Thoughts don’t equal violence and the guy who sucker punched him is still a coward.

thoughts may not equal violence, but they lead to violence. like at what point are we allowed to say, okay, now we can punch this guy? AFTER he implements his policies? when he’s partway through? why do we have to wait until AFTER he hurts someone when he’s made it explicitly clear that he WANTS to hurt people, WILL hurt people if given the chance, and is trying to gain enough power and sway to do so?

if we don’t make it clear right here right now that his beliefs are violent, unethical, and completely unacceptable in a moral society, it only gets him closer to accomplishing his goals. that can’t be allowed to happen.

and don’t get me wrong, I don’t LIKE the thought of violence being necessary here, but if the only way to get him to shut up is to clock him in the jaw then I say we go ahead and clock him

Here’s some notes I made way back in August when people were talking about violence and fascism. Just my train of thought, but I think defining “violence” is important here. It’s long but it’s stuff that took me a lot of time to articulate, so I hope you all give it a look.

~~~

THE QUESTION: is nazism/fascism, and ascribing to it, violent by definition, even if an individual has not committed a violent act?

ANSWER: YES. because

-The ideology involves violence (could probably be argued against academically but probably no actual nazi would tell me that)

-by supporting it, a person condones and encourages violence by others

-we can acknowledge that violence can exist outside of physical harm such as assault. there is violence against the psyche (living in an atmosphere of threat). Any country frequently overflown by drones, minority communities in certain areas: all case studies.

-nazis want their presence to be disturbing and hurtful to others, especially the Other they define.

-their idea of superiority over other groups of people enables violence against them as it dehumanizes them (this is common to pretty much any form of racism/bigotry and could fall under the second dash in this list)

NEXT QUESTION: does this give me the right to physically engage fascists/nazis?

ANSWER: PROBABLY.

the hypothetical situation 1: I am walking in the street as my self, going about my business. there are some nazis being openly nazi in the street. THEIR PRESENCE MAKES ME AFRAID because Fascism is by nature violent. Are they doing sufficient violence to me, that it merits a response? What kind of response?

I am only situationally empowered to verbally engage with them. I would not feel comfortable yelling at them were I alone. In a group of friends, we might feel secure as a group. Why am I not comfortable verbally engaging? Because Fascism MEANS physical threat.

However were I to physically strike one of these people, then I would be committing assault, as well as provoking a violent response. I must rely on the authorities and powers to protect me from fascists in my street.

However the authorities and powers say that they are just standing around and they have free speech.

There may be other situations of encountering fascists and nazis, but their danger is as groups, in terms of enacting immediate physical violence or having effect on social structure (including laws and government). Whether or not the “alt-right” of twitter and the internet are dangerous depends on who sees their stuff? Memes are shit, and so on, but they are seen, and the thought is the thing, and the thing is violent. People will either agree or be harmed, by the ideas themselves.

It is dangerous to stop or restrict ideas, but ideas that have harm inherent in them? if they cannot be stopped in order to maintain a free society, THEY MUST BE DISAVOWED CONSTANTLY. Fascists have a desire to control, usurp, or destroy the political process. They will try to work within by mobilizing their “silent majority” and through populism and control of information, but they will be willing to tear the system down. We cannot be afraid to stop them! We must go against them not with our words alone but protesting in the streets. This is scary, we do not want to go out in such a negative way, to stand against something that may be the tide of history rolling towards us. Doing this is a stand for democracy, whether a person is a communist looking for revolution or a capitalist wanting to preserve the status quo (I am not here to debate about capitalism and communism and what if any violence they bring). We cannot be bystanders to hate because hate is violence and becomes violence and begets violence.

this is why people say “kick the shit out of nazis wherever you find them” because they can recognize that the existence of nazis is violent and violence.