In 2017 American Nazis invaded Charlottesville, VA, which is a major U.S. city in case you didn't know. Maybe you remember this. They called themselves "Unite the Right." They wanted what Nazis want, and did what Nazis do, which was to kill.
They also wore polo shirts and held tiki torches, and chanted Nazi chants; about blood and soil, and others predicated on the idea that the white race was being replaced by races that Nazis view as inferior.
Probably it is worth talking about what 'the white race" means.
"The white race" is a pretend thing that certain people made up in order to consolidate social and political power and wealth by organizing the application of brutality and violence.
Anyway the Nazis believed they were white, and this was very important to them.
And they believed they were being replaced in a conspiracy orchestrated by Jewish people. It's a vile conspiratorial lie called "replacement theory," and Nazis believe it justifies their framing as self-defense the violence they enact and the violence they intend.
Many Nazis consider themselves Christian, which means that the bigotry in their hearts and the violence that they intend is the thing they worship as their God, which whatever you might think about Christian tenets isn't a Christian tenet.
... I can't help but notice that a frightening number of Christian practitioners don't do much to differentiate themselves from Nazis, at least not in the way they use their religion as a rationale for their bigotry and for the traditional form of violence known as supremacy.
Anyway, after the Nazi invasion the white Christian president (by which I mean to say the president who exclusively represents the interests of white supremacists and Christian supremacists) defended those invading Nazis as "very fine people."
I should mention: some will tell you that the white Christian president was only defending the non-Nazis who marched with the Nazis, with mostly the same objectives for doing so as the Nazis.
When those people tell you that, they will expect you to find it to be a meaningful distinction.
These days, mainstream elected members of the white Christian party and mainstream figureheads within its vast and popular media disinformation and propaganda superstructure will talk about this Nazi theory of replacement as a given fact, and a rationale for murdering people.
Like Nazis, they frame this as self-defense, encouraging others to see the existence of certain types of mostly not white and mostly not Christian people as an existential threat of deliberate replacement by shadowy conspiratorial figures. (They don't usually say "Jews," though.)
They also encourage their respective constituents and audience to defend themselves from this threat, and they make sure that massacre weapons are plentiful and easy to attain, so I guess the Nazis really did manage to Unite the Right after all.
I'm reminded today that the Nazis were defending statues erected in public spaces to honor leaders of the Confederacy, a traitorous gang of insurrectionists who back in the 1860s waged a war against their own country, and murdered hundreds of thousands of their fellow citizens.
They did this in order to preserve and expand their practice of enriching themselves by enslaving Black people. The practice of enslaving Black people was one big reason people who wanted to consolidate power and wealth invented the idea of the white race, incidentally.
I suppose we ought not be surprised to find that Nazis would defend the public signs and signals of ongoing support and reverence for men who so recently in human history murdered so many in order to preserve whiteness and the right of whiteness to own and enslave others.
It should be no surprise to find Nazis defending the practice of using those that can be used until their owners have no more use for them, or to kill them if their owners deem they have not earned life, or if they pose a threat, or for any other reason, or for no reason.
Nor were the Nazis who invaded Charlottesville content to only honor the supremacist murderers of the past. They got in on the act. One of them, and may his name be forgotten forever, struck a bunch of peaceful protesters with an automobile, killing a woman named Heather Heyer.
It was murder. Not incidentally, it's a form of murder that many Americans want to make legal. Ask around. They'll tell you. You don't even have to ask them. They'll tell everyone, often while passing laws in Iowa and Florida and Oklahoma and proposing them in many other states.
These are laws designed to legalize any future murders of any future Heather Heyers for any Nazis who happen to be interested in murdering their fellow citizens, by which I mean all Nazis.
And, if you are a fan of nuance and distinctions, these laws are also popular with many non-Nazis that are not Nazis but want the exact same thing as Nazis and so make common cause with Nazis in the matter of running over protesters with cars, and many other matters, too.
For example, let's talk about the white supremacist Senator from the state of Arkansas. The way I'd describe this guy is he's long and thin like an unpainted pencil, and is not so much pale as paleness; he looks like something that was extruded to be put inside a sausage casing.
This long and pallid chappie is actually named "Tom Cotton," which given who and what he is seems either a lazy placeholder for a hack writer or a punchline in search of a setup.
And sure enough, Tom Cotton provided that setup last week. He took to the old social media place to talk about protestors who were blocking a road, as protesters tend to do when they are tired of murder and exploitation and corruption and would like less of it.
Tom Cotton, who is a sitting U.S. Senator if I hadn't already mentioned it, told his social media audience that these protesters were terrorists and criminals, that anyone encountering them should "take matters into their own hands" to remove them from the roads.
In case that wasn't clear enough, he subsequently went onto TV and told his interviewer (along with any people who still watch TV) that he thought the protesters ought to be treated like political agitators for justice tend to get treated in the state of Arkansas.
In case you're not familiar with the history of the recent struggle for civil rights, political agitators for justice in the state of Arkansas tend to be brutalized and/or murdered.
And just so there could be no doubt Cotton specified that he thought they ought to be thrown off of bridges and have their skin torn off and so forth.
Cotton has what you might call a zest for the murder of US citizens. For example, he wrote an op-ed in our increasingly fascist-friendly paper of record, The New York Times, calling for summary public military execution of the thousands of protesters against police brutality.
I would like to make it clear that that Tom Cotton, while perhaps distinguished by his enthusiasm and forthrightness, is in no way alone in his murderous desires.
U.S. citizens who want to kill U.S. citizens are everywhere, if we look.
Add comment