"Punching Nazis is Not Punching Nazis", by Jacob Weizman Punching Nazis is fun - but before we continue on this thought, before you agree with me, perhaps you should understand what it is I mean by "punching Nazis". When I say "Punch Nazis", I do not literally mean committing assault or battery. I do not advocate running up to someone and sucker-punching them, as amusing as it was to see it happen to Richard Spencer. The person who punched him should be brought up on battery charges, because what he did is a crime. Let's get something straight: If you commit a crime, you should be appropriately punished by the justice system for it. That can mean fines, it can mean jail time. The foundation of freedom is responsibility of your own actions and accepting the consequences. This is part of the core point of civil disobedience - intentionally breaking an unjust law and accepting the consequences for it. "He was jailed for WHAT?" is a powerful tool to protest a law. But in this case, I don't advocate committing assault or battery on Nazis. I would even suggest that some weaker forms of assault by Nazis - and by that I mean threats of bodily harm coupled with an apparent, present ability to cause the harm - be allowed to stand without matching threats. But not matching response. "Punch Nazis" is not advocating of violence, but advocating of determined confrontation and opposition. It is a call to arms, yes - but one that says "Let us show the solidarity of the opposition to the ideals of hate, exclusion, and white supremacist." It is not a call to riot, but a call to protest and counter-protest. It is a call for sunlight to be the best disinfectant. "Punch a Nazi" is a phrase that does not mean literally punching Nazis. I would never advocate throwing the first punch, even as the chants of "Blood and soil" and "Jews will not replace us!" have the intended effect of bringing up memories of Nazi Germany. Instead, I advocate being ready to throw the second punch. Of showing up ready to do so. Of looking these preachers of hate in the eye - those that spout the rhetoric of exclusion, intolerance, destruction, and genocide - and say "We outnumber you. You do not speak for the majority. Try us. We dare you." Nazism is a threat to our society that should be eliminated, not empowered. But those who are willing to take the fight to the Nazis must always be aware of the biggest issues Dr. Martin Luther King Jr felt he faced in the march to civil rights, as he wrote in his Letter from Birmingham Jail: "I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in the stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Council-er or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I can't agree with your methods of direct action;" who paternalistically feels he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by the myth of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait until a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of goodwill is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection." The biggest threat to the cause of Anti-Fascism is that by our own actions and threat to order, we alienate those who are not paying attention. That we upset those who don't see the issue with gravity it deserves. We might make noises appropriate to the relatively quiet offences being made by the AltRight, the White Supremacist, and the Nazi - but those who wish to simply go on with their lives undisturbed will be more inclined to blame those who are making the greatest noise as the source of their troubles. This reaction from the majority is further encouraged by the muddied waters, of using the shield of "Freedom of Speech" to defend racist viewpoints, of "It's just what the data shows" to defend lying with statistics, of playing with definitions and interpretations of rules and laws to pervert the spirit of justice. People don't have time to figure this out, so they go to the simplest solution: The person causing the ruckus is the one causing the problem. After all, people have been calling "People we don't like" Nazis for years, this just must be the same difference of opinion, and they're actually saying they want to go punch Nazis. Simple solution to a simple problem. It can be hard not to see these people as the enemy, especially as they are literally siding with Nazis, Fascists, and White Supremacist. It can also be easily frustrating to see people go "Both sides are bad" in an dishonest attempt at being balanced or a smug sense of "I get to feel superior to both sides". It is these people who are the spiritual inheritors of the "Moderate White" that Dr. King spoke of, and upon the face of it, their arguments do have a bit of validity. "Both sides want to exclude and be intolerant!" Except a closer examination of the issue would show critical differences. Nazism, Fascism, and White Supremacist hate people different from their ideal, and wish to exclude all others. They have no tolerance for other ideas or groups except for where they can be used for the benefit of the Nazi, and will be excluded once the usefulness is at an end. They are united in their foundational beliefs, differing mainly on how to implement them. Whereas the Anti-Fascists share only one common opinion: That Racism, Fascism, Hate, and Intolerance are negative ideas not compatible with the society we strive for, and those who espouse them should not feel welcome. Capitalists, Socialists, Communists, Liberals, Conservatives, Authoritarians, Anarchists, Christians, Muslims, Jews, Atheists, Gays, Straights, Bisexuals, Asexuals, Trans and Cis Genders, and all races and ethnicities are all welcomed to the side of Anti-Fascism. One group is united by hate and wishes to exclude everyone that disagrees with them. The other is united solely by their opposition to hate, and wishes to exclude those who do hate. Both sides cannot be made the same except through intellectually dishonest false equivalence. This analysis requires more time and effort than most people are willing to put forth. We are a busy people, with even our time for leisure rushed and hurried. We have little time to entertain notions outside our expectations, and I feel our society is worse off for it. But as lazy as this rush to put a band-aid on a deep wound, as infuriating as it is to be told "These people should be allowed to spit their vitriol", it is important that we Anti-Fascists do not lose our temper or our patience. For every person that speaks directly for Nazism, or acts to defend Nazis, it is important to remember there are ten who watch but do not speak. It is important to remember that there are those who are - frustratingly and sometimes infuriatingly - still on the fence who can still be persuaded either way, who watch our actions. I've always disagreed with it, but our society has long held that "He Who Gets Mad First, Loses The Argument". It doesn't matter that we could bring up fact after citation after reference, if we get mad that the pigeon is shitting on the board, the pigeon wins the argument. So do not allow your words to get heated, for you will fall into the trap of being painted the bad guy by those who benefit from muddied waters. You can get angry. You can get upset. You can get frustrated, but do not allow it to cloud your judgement and guide your actions, even as Nazis and their enablers engage in dishonest discourse. Consider this quote from Jean-Paul Sartre: "Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert." Does this sound familiar? It should. This is the behavior of trolls, of people who post "different opinions" they do not hold specifically to upset, enrage, or disrupt. It is a favorite argument tactic of the AltRight, of the Fascist, of the Nazi. "Punching Nazis" is not advocating assault and battery on those who have a different opinion. It is a philosophy of counter-protest, of confrontation, of solidarity against those whose opinion is that ethnic cleansing is a good idea, opposition to those who think that some races are inferior to others, and resistance to those who espouse that anyone other than the normal they wish to impose should be removed or eliminated. It does not necessarily mean going out and punching Nazis. It does not mean starting a fight. It does, however, mean going in with the expectation there may be a fight and having the resolve to end it on your terms rather than theirs. Perhaps we Anti-Fascists should consider another phrase, but I can think of nothing more iconic than Indiana Jones, Superman, or Captain America fighting Nazis, of various anti-Nazi World War 2 posters, of how NeoNazis were kicked out of the Punk scene, or of the Wolfenstein games. We need to oppose Nazis and Nazism. We need to tell racists who march changing "Blood And Soil" that they are opposed by more than who support them. We cannot start the fights, as much as we need to go in prepared to win them. We cannot actually go out and punch Nazis. "Punch Nazis" is a slogan, and is no more a threat than "Second Amendment Solutions" or "We Came Unarmed This Time". ----- There, Jacob thought to himself, reviewing the opinion article he'd just finished writing. The mouse's white face was illuminated solely by his computer screen, his office otherwise dark at the late hour. He took a breath, suppressing it from turning it into a yawn, and stretched. Hopefully this would help people deal better with the growing threat of the Silver Dawn. His thoughts were interrupted by the sound of the front door being broken down. Acting on partial instinct, he quickly saved the article to a cloud file-share only a few people had access to and shut off his computer. Jacob reached under his desk for his gun, but the mouse fell to the floor as the door to his office exploded inward, pinning him down. Dazed and unfocused, Jacob look to see a tall black cat sneering down at him. "The Leader doesn't like what you have to say." The feline cocked his fist, energy crackling around it, "And he's decided that you don't get to say any more." Before he could react, the cat let loose the energy. Jacob felt a brief moment of pain, then nothing. ----- The death of the fairly popular chief editor of the Hopkins Post made the front page of every other paper. Blame was assigned to the Silver Dawn, but there was no evidence. The Leader of the Silver Dawn released a statement "I shed no tears over his death, and condemn those who seek to use Weizman's death to falsely attack us." Uriel glared at the image of the smug bastard. "Liar", he thought to himself. The skunk picked up the phone and dialed. "Yeah, Daniel. See the news? Yeah. I told you I'd think about your offer, yeah?" The skunk turned again to look at the paused newscast, the overly-bred hound in the sharply tailored uniform and armband of the Silver Dawn looking smugly into the camera. Uriel's crystal blue eyes focused with icy determination. "I'll rejoin Alphateam."