Richard Spencer is a blogger, a person who coined (or claims to own) the term alt right. As if you can own the weather. He is a nationalist: arguing against the right genocide. He has made a pile of unforced errors. As such, Cernovich and others have disavowed him.

But the process since then is worth analysis. For the first thing the narrative tried to do is isolate him. Call him a Nazi; say he preaches genocide. And therefore let king punching him be justified and righteous.

A viral video of a masked protester socking white supremacist and anti-Semite Richard Spencer in the jaw as he was being interviewed about protests at the presidential inauguration prompted an increasingly common question: when it is acceptable to use non-lethal violence against those who advocate ethnic cleansing?

It’s difficult for many to say out loud, but the violent attack against Spencer does not deserve condemnation.
…

For his part, Spencer told The New York Times the attack made him fearful to even go out to dinner. While no one should be deprived of a good meal, if this ordeal gives him second thoughts about leaving the house with the purpose of organizing white nationalists, then Jews and other minorities are going to be a little safer. And if the video of Spencer’s throttling means one of his followers decides not to spray paint a swastika on a synagogue for fear of retribution, it benefits enlightened democratic society.

This bring us to the uncomfortable realization that the American obsession with nonviolent resistance is arguably dangerous. Nonviolent forms of protest have often been useful, because the image of peaceful protests against state violence enables a movement—such as the Civil Rights struggle—to hold the moral high ground. But this falsely implies that violence can never be moral even if it prevents more catastrophic violence. The defeat of the South African Apartheid, for instance, government involved the use of force as well as peaceful protests.

While our Founding Fathers didn’t wear balaclavas and throw bricks at Starbucks like today’s anarchists, they did don costumes and engage in property destruction in Boston Harbor. And it would be a little hypocritical for one to say Israeli military action is necessary to protect Jews and bruising up someone like Spencer isn’t.

There is a problem here. By the measure you use you will be measured. The methods used by you will be used against you. It is not merely the leaders who are being hit, it is anyone who counter protests: we have moved from yelling and setting off fire alarms (so 2016) to physically attacking anyone who disagrees. Note that this attack is not Richard Spenser.

Graphic footage of Antifa attacking me from behind w/ flagpole. DC cop watches as I ID suspect and chooses to make no arrest. #TolerantLeft pic.twitter.com/0rPhB7iqM1

— James Allsup (@realJamesAllsup) January 25, 2017

The use of Nazi is rhetoric. The NSDAP died in a Berlin Bunker in 1945. It is designed to bypass reason, and engage disgust. To remove reason. As a rhetorical meme, it can be effective. But over used and it dies.

Spenser should have not used the Roman salute (the Nazis stole it from the Fascisti). He is not a fascist: he is a nationalist. It was stupid, as Scott notes.

But he is the one bleeding. I am not seeing brownshirts. Yet.

I’m not defending him. He’s just not a “Nazi.” Spencer is (or was) the American equivalent to Britain Firsts Paul Golding–who is also not a Nazi. These idiots at this conference thought they were being cute and looked ridiculous. This incident caused a rift within the immigration patriot intellegensia and now they are on the out. (Peter Brimlow, John Derbyshire, Jared Taylor, Steve Sailer, Paul Ramsey and that crowd have distanced themselves from Spencer over this). Because even if those guys “got” the joke, it is considered “over the line” and a hot potato that no one is ever allowed to touch (Hitler jokes). He is totally discredited now so even if they had a point, the salute thing ruined their chances to be heard. Even several Jews like David Cole and Dennis Prager have pointed out that it was a stupid joke from the “they are going to call us racist anyway” philosophy that went over like a lead balloon and not evidence that they want to start building prison camps.

I said yet. Because the tactics of unpersoning and personal violence can and will be used by both sides. And this leads to a division within society.

This is just the dawn of open identity-driven violence. Today, the hypocritical Left believes violence is justified so long as the target can be accused of being a Nazi, which includes everyone from Tomorrow, it will believe violence is justified so long as the target appears white.

And that’s when the responsive violence begins, and the Saxon begins to hate. This is why the rise of the Alt-Right is inevitable. Neither conservatives nor the Alt-Lite have any conceptual means of even beginning to deal with this inevitable situation. Their entire strategy, such as it is, relies upon hoping that what always happens in multiethnic states doesn’t happen here, because Melting Pot, Constitution, and Magic Dirt.

I said a couple of days ago David Hines is correct. You do not want to see white people riot. The Antifa is… white. They are precise, driven, and relying on ambush tactics. This will not end well.

Pray that there is unity and peace. But get fit. And be where the crowds are not.