Neo-Nazis Spread the Love (Whites Only)
Sandy Rose | Nov 09, 2009 | Comments 7
Late October brought a few of your friendly neighborhood white supremacists to Riverside. The National Socialist Movement and Neo-Nazis in general are apparently on the rise — with protest member numbers in California climbing to twenty!
In all fairness, their fight for “white civil rights” does seem to have gained at least a bit of traction recently as the National Socialist Movement has been able to throw together back to back rallies in California, Missouri and, just this past Saturday, Arizona.
While NSM’s 35th anniversary celebration in Missouri brought out roughly 100 members, anti-immigrant rallies in California brought out only about 20. Comparing that with around 600 counter protestors, it’s no wonder they’re generally ineffective.
Nazism is one system of beliefs that begs the question: where does free speech end and hate speech begin?
Personally, I don’t think that Nazism should really be sanctioned as a belief system, per se. Neo-Nazism isn’t a religion, and it’s certainly not a club. In the broadest definition of the word, I suppose you could call it an “interest” group based on ethnicity and a mutual hatred for anything “other.”
This “interest” group mirrors several others who base their criterion for entry on race and a willingness to fight for superiority. The Los Angeles-based Crips maintains a predominantly African American membership, identifying with the color blue and utilizing hand signals for identification. The Latin Kings uphold their Hispanic heritage and use five or three point crowns. And, finally, for Neo-Nazis, it’s white supremacy, swastikas and chanting “sieg heil” to their hearts’ content.
If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck…it’s a gang.
Put simply, a gang is a group of people who share a common identity. They’ll have identifying marks, signs, symbols or signals that represent the gang they’re affiliated with.
The only difference between Neo Nazism and other gangs is that their behavior was once-upon-a-time considered acceptable by mainstream society and now they’re allowed to hide their violent streaks and nestle themselves among the rest of us under the guise of freedom of speech.
On that note, I will whole-heartedly defend pretty much anyone when it comes to free speech. If Neo Nazis want to run around promoting their ever-dwindling Aryan Brotherhood, fine. And they can Heil Hitler all day long for all I care. But the second they start openly lacing that speech with violence and frightening innocent people, they lose me on the free-speech argument.
As Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. put it: “The right to swing my fist ends where the other man’s nose begins.” Arguably, I’d have to allow these guys to say exactly how they feel, right up until the fist meets the nose — or until they start inflicting some serious violence on other people.
That said, it’s not just the violence itself we should be worrying about. It’s well known that one person’s highly suggestive, or even explicit speech can incite others to enact violence or go through with hate crimes.
We don’t sanction the promotion of gang violence, so why are we protecting people whose speech incites hate crimes?
Sandy Rose is fourth-year English major. She can be reached at srose@uci.edu.
Popularity: unranked [?]
Filed Under: Opinion
I mean “she”, not “he”. Sorry.
I see.
Other sites don’t approve my similar posts on other places, though. Good to see this blogger -even if he is wrong-, he approves not only the pro-comments, but the criticism too.
It awaits moderation to prevent robots from spamming the comments section. Nothing about censoring free speech, man.
“Your comment is awaiting moderation.”
And you DID write about free speech. Don’t you feel shame sometimes?
Another article full of lies. Sure, a 35th anniversary Party day means more people, then a local event. What a shock. You forgot to mention about 100 people showed up in Arizona too. Or you just didn’t want to tell that fact.
Free speech and hate speech, Actually there is only freedom of speech. But hey, we all know the liberals call hate speech all the facts they don’t like to hear. Afroamericans ruined New Orleans and Detroit? Hate speech! Los Angeles is full of Mexican gang members? Hate speech! The government is serving Israel? Hate speech. These are fact though. But some people don’t want to hear these facts.
“If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck…it’s a gang.”
What gang hand signs? There is no hand sign. There is only a poltiical hand sing. Just like some people show up the “V” sign as victory. “Winston Churchill popularised its use as a “Victory” sign”. I guess he was also a “gang member”, right?
The swastika is also a political symbol, not a gang symbol. Just like the donkey or the elephant. Or you think the Democrats and the Republicans are also gangs?
“they’re allowed to hide their violent streaks”
What violent streaks? Don’t get me wrong, but the police arrests the anti-NSM protesters, not the NSM members. Always. So who are the violent ones?
“Put simply, a gang is a group of people who share a common identity.”
Can I have a question? Do you think the same about those anarchist, communist guys, with their Anarchy symbol, the red stars, the hammer and sickle? They had black uniform. What about the Mexican Brown Beret guys? They have brown uniforms and they attacked people in California.
“But the second they start openly lacing that speech with violence and frightening innocent people, they lose me on the free-speech argument.”
Really? Did you see a single person, who was scared there? I did see few videos, I did see crazy mob, the anarchists yelled “death to the nazis” and such things, they threw stones and soda cans at the anti-illegal protesters. The words are just words, but it’s strange how do you hear the “bad words” from the nazis, and how do you ignore the worse words from the anarchists, communists, homosexuals and other groups.
“They’ll have identifying marks, signs, symbols or signals that represent the gang they’re affiliated with.”
No, those are Party symbols, a movement’s symbols. If you have no idea what do you talking about, why do you write articles?
“Arguably, I’d have to allow these guys to say exactly how they feel, right up until the fist meets the nose”
Well, my friend, the Brown Berets attacked the NSM in California. This means they are the violent ones, they tried to hit somebody’s nose. That means you want to BAN their group, and if they show up somewhere you go to protest against them. Right? Why I have the funny feeling you DON’T? Because you don’t. Because you are a hypocrite.
“It’s well known that one person’s highly suggestive, or even explicit speech can incite others to enact violence or go through with hate crimes.”
You forgot to mention, they never have speeches about killing or beating up people. This means you say something, what is not true. But hey, Bush and Obama did lead this country to several wars, why don’t you speak up against them? They actually killing people. Really. Not only in your fantasy.
“We don’t sanction the promotion of gang violence, so why are we protecting people whose speech incites hate crimes?”
Because they have no pro-hate crime speeches. But why do you worry about 100 peaceful protesters, when the United States has 1.000.000 ! criminal (murders, drugs, prostitution, robbery, theft, and so on) gang members, like the Bloods, Crips, MS13. (The last one has “kill whites” spraypaints too on walls, but I guess that’s not a hatecrime to you.)
The media and the press should be in good people’s hands. Not in the hands of hypocrite liars.
I hope my opinion is not hurting your feelings and you don’t call my opinion a “hate speech”.
The right to swing my fist doesn’t end where the other person’s nose begins, because they feel threatened much sooner than that.
The problem is that these groups already have some political power (disproportionate to average people) and their subterranean numbers are much greater than what they appear to be and growing. Since the financial crisis began, there has been an explosion of militia and neo-Nazi groups as reported by the Southern Poverty Law Center.
While their words now may not be violent, they’re merely constructing the stage for violence later on. Social Democratic Germany, Republican Spain, and pre-fascist Italy all permitted Nazis and Nationalists to recruit openly without checking them; when these groups were significantly large, these regimes granted them concessions (even without a demand in most cases); then finally handed over the government without even so much as a threat of violence, often (especially in the case of Spain) disarming the anti-fascist militias.
They are also using “illegal immigration” as a hook issue to bring people into their front groups, where they can warm them up to Nazism. This is not something to be taken lightly, as even “free speech” is much more dangerous than is readily apparent.