a promise, a threat, and a proportional response

[solarbird]

I feel like I should talk about why declaring yourself a Nazi is very specifically different to declaring yourself almost anything else seen as political. Because there is a difference, and it’s really important, and I don’t think people get that, and it has real-world ramifications.

Walk with me.

There are a lot of terrible things you can declare yourself, politically and otherwise. But we’ll stick to politics for the moment.

You can declare yourself as Stalinist, for example. That’s real fuckin’ bad, bad to the point that a lot of people would say that there’s no difference between declaring yourself a Stalinist and declaring yourself a Nazi.

And I can see why they say that. The death counts are pretty similar, historically. The oppression and evil are both truly remarkable. The misery, as well.

But even between these, there is a real difference that sets Nazism apart.

Stalin murdered millions, just like Hitler, but that was never the theory. The idea. The goal. The goal was a material paradise for everyone, at least on paper. The real goal was an economically powerful industrial society, but even that was in service to the idea of a society of abundance. It may’ve been “if people would just” writ monstrous, but it was there.

Nazism kinda promises that… but only for some. And not many. Just members of the Master Race. For everyone else, Nazism promises either slavery or genocide. Explicitly. It says so, right on that label, right on the tin.

And that’s what makes Nazism distinct. It’s not the only political movement which makes that promise – White Nationalism, I see you drooling in the corner, pissing yourself – but it’s the most famous, the best known of them.

(There are reasons so many White Nationalists are fond of Hitler. It’s because the core idea – enslave and murder millions of people – overlaps.)

Are there other ideas besides genocide in Nazism, and in the other fascism variants? Sure. They have names, too – names which aren’t “fascist” or “Nazi.”

For example, there are people who have interest in the economic theories of the Italian fascists. If you’re into that, you can call yourself a Syndicalist in clear conscience. Mussolini followed a branch of syndicalism, which actually predates fascism entirely. The Italian version was intended to solve class struggle. It doesn’t, but as goals go, there are worse.

And modern followers of these ideas don’t call themselves Nazis, because they aren’t interested in the thing which sets Nazis specifically apart, which isn’t even just a threat of violence against entire peoples, it’s a promise of murder against entire peoples. It’s an explicit and specific statement:

If we take power, we will kill you and everyone like you solely for the crime of your existence. Your original sin was being born, your criminality is existing at all. And there is nothing you can do to change that other than die.

We will kill you when and if we can.

We have laws against that, you know. You threaten someone with violence – particularly murder – and you mean it? That’s called terroristic threatening, and it’s a crime. You don’t have to be specific about when, or where, or how, or anything like that – it just has to be credible. It’s not real easy to get convictions, but it is an undisputed crime.

If someone calls themselves a Nazi, if they specifically invoke Nazi symbolism, if they specifically parrot the Nazi salute, Elon, if they’re out there saying Hitler had some good ideas, they are making not just a threat but a promise of mass murder.

Their targets are both specific and clear, and they’re doing it on purpose.

They don’t have to label themselves a “Nazi” to support syndicalism. They don’t have to label themselves a “fascist” even to be a nationalist or even an outright imperialist. They don’t have to praise Hitler to hate people. None of that’s necessary. At all.

So when someone does do that that, they are making a choice. They are choosing to make a promise of mass violence and mass death.

And what’s the point of all this, you might ask?

Because that promise is what makes it okay to punch Nazis.

I still see people having qualms about punching Nazis. I don’t. Not at all. Not even just because of all of the above, but also because we – as a society – have decided that people have a right to self-defence. In some states, that applies even a right to use potentially lethal force against perceived credible threat to property or life.

If you are any of their targets, they have promised to murder you. They have said if they can, they will. They have – by donning that uniform, by taking on that label, by throwing that salute – threatened your life with a violent and brutal end at their hands.

History shows that their threats are entirely credible. They will do it, if they can. They promised to kill you; they meant it; it’s only a matter of time and opportunity.

And what’s that do?

It makes punching Nazis into reasonable and proportional self-defence.

Yeah. It does. Maybe not from a legal standpoint, no. I’m not arguing that. You won’t have the law on your side.

But from an ethical and moral standpoint?

A punch to the face in response to an explicit, repeated, and credible threat of murder?

Yeah. That seems fine.

Hell, as far as I’m concerned… that’s getting off light.

Posted via Solarbird{y|z|yz}, Collected.

Comments

[drcocoacalico]

absofuckinglutely

[melchar]

You have stated your point SO well and concisely that I am copying this so I can refer back to it / quote it when I need to later. And you just KNOW there will be a 'later'.

[solarbird]

I've always thought this, but I've spent a fair amount of time lately working on refining down to something like this. Hope it helps.