On When Speech Becomes Threatening and Incites Violence

     Maybe the Berkeley riots and fires of 2017 – called “leftists destroying their own communities”, even though only a small area was burned - were in response to people who are known to routinely dox people, demanding the right to surreptitiously out vulnerable people to mobs of angry xenophobia-trendies.

     Milo Yiannopoulos's speech was blockaded by anti-Alt-Right and anti-fascist protesters because Yiannopoulos had become infamous for speaking ill of transgender people, undocumented immigrants, and others. In late 2016 in Milwaukee, Yiannopoulos publicly named a transgender individual, and publicly mocked that person for filing a Title IX complaint about discriminatory bathroom access rules at the University of Wisconsin at Milwaukee. According to The Independent (UK), protesters at Berkeley argued that Yiannopoulos had threatened to out undocumented immigrants.

     Yiannopoulos denied those claims. But whether that accusation is true or not, outing transgender people or undocumented immigrants, and spreading personal information about them, does potentially threaten their safety, especially if done in a mocking way. This behavior not only hints that such people should be targeted; it creates every element of a realistic, credible, and possibly even imminent risk of violence, by giving potential attackers virtually all of the information they will need to successfully target the vulnerable person who has been outed.

     I am not totally convinced of ideas like "fighting words", "suicide by cop", nor even necessarily "hate speech". But I do firmly believe that only speech which does not advocate harm against others should be protected.

     And telling a crowd of people the location and previous name of a transgender person, or telling a crowd of students that an undocumented immigrant attends their school and giving out their name and address, would look like deliberate attempts to provoke and incite people to commit acts of violence to me.

     While Yiannopoulos, Richard Spencer, and others in the Alt-Right have not exactly done that, they have helped to create an environment in which speech that incites violence is being increasingly accepted, and arguably even normalized, and thought of as part of our freedom of speech, and thus deserving of protection by the authorities.

     All of this demonstrates the purposes of the 4^th and 9^th Amendments to the Constitution perfectly; that we are supposed to remain secure in our persons, houses, papers, and effects; that our rights do not come from a piece of paper; that we have the right to live without constantly having to show our papers to the authorities; and that we ought not have the obligation to reveal things about our identity which could endanger us. Especially when we are just trying to use the restroom.


Post-Script:
     Please click the link below to watch Milo Yiannopoulos dox a transgender student in late 2016 in Milwaukee:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CulQgP8JZKs&feature=youtu.be
    Click this link to read about reactions:
   http://www.thecut.com/2016/12/milo-yiannopoulos-harassed-a-trans-student-at-uw-milwaukee.html
    Click this link to watch the full video (the relevant part of the video begins at the 49:52 mark):
     http://youtu.be/-t1ufzttyUM

Originally Written on August 24th, 2018

Edited, and Post-Script Added, on February 15th, 2019

The Alt-Right, and Nietzsche's "Slave and Master Morality"

     Nietzsche described Christianity as having a "slave morality"; essentially because it lionizes a murder victim as a god, reveres martyrs, and rewards those who submit. Christianity asserts "Christ conquered death"; that our god did not die, and transcended death. The Alt-Right and neo-Nazis fall victim to the same "slave morality" for which Nietzsche criticized Christians for falling, however.

     The Alt-Right see Nazi sympathizers and white nationalists as victims, and characterize anyone and everyone in conflict with them as "the real fascists". Including by pointing to their tactics, which they baselessly use as evidence to connote ideological agreement between the two groups. The use of violence alone does not make one a Nazi.

     The Alt-Right gives in to the "slave morality" concept, by endorsing its swapping of the positions of master and slave. They are every bit as willing to look like the victim, as are the "leftists" and "social justice warriors" whom they criticize. And they do this while claiming that the real victimizers are the people who admit that some people have been victimized, and those who try to draw attention to it. Additionally, those who admit that even when institutional, governmental discrimination ended in one sector, the effects last until this day.

     Most perplexingly of all, it seems that the Alt-Right are so committed to reinforcing this master / slave relationship, that they are not even willing to dismantle it, nor create a state of classlessness, even if solely to prevent themselves from becoming the underclass. That's because the “slave morality” rewards both submission and dominance.

     When the white nationalists marched on Charlottesville, Virginia in August 2018 - shouting "the Jews will not replace us" - they weren't saying "we refuse to let the Jews replace white people as the race that controls America". "The Jews will not replace us" means that they don't want the Jewish people, whom they believe to be controlling the U.S., to replace white people with non-white people, as the Jews' favored race of non-Jews. The idea is that whites would earn a place high in the racial hierarchy, and that then, as the Jews' favored non-Jewish race, they would be inferior to Jewish people, but otherwise in charge of the country, and allowed to keep the other races down. That's what they think.

     Of course, some of them do want to defeat and destroy and replace Jewish people, and it would be naive to suggest that many of them don't want to do that. But the Alt-Right are so cucked by their own ideology, that they seem more willing to assent to a place in the middle of the racial hierarchy which they perceive, than to destroy it altogether.

     As confusing as it seems, I think the rationale for this is fairly simple: it would be too difficult for them to admit that there is a racial hierarchy without using Jewish people in positions of power and influence as the evidence, without exposing white dominance of avenues of control at the same time. Additionally, if, by the phrase, they had meant “Jews will not replace white people as the dominant race”, then that would have been to admit that they are afraid of a Jewish take-over. That shows fear, and showing fear is not acceptable to people whose ideology is based on control.

     On the other hand, the Alt-Right is also unable to claim that whites are in control. They would like to do this, because that would be a way to express dominance. However, to say that whites are in control would be to admit that Jewish people have not taken over white society. It would dismantle the whole crux of their argument; which is that whites need to be in control, and therefore need to do something. They also believe that "cultural Marxism" is a Jewish conspiracy to destroy nations, by introducing multiculturalism and immigration, as a way to make them homogenous. This, the Alt-Right believes, leads to the erosion of social cohesiveness - which they believe to be based on common nation, heritage, and/or language – and also leads to the breakdown of welfare states. Which, for some reason, many of them support; just not for everybody, of course, only for white people.

     In a society which respects and protects individual rights, the whims of fleeting majorities can change constantly, without threatening the most important of anyone's natural rights.

     In the sense that they refuse to challenge the racial hierarchy which they oppose, even when it could benefit them, the Alt-Right are just like the Republicans. The Alt-Right and Republicans both refuse to recognize individual rights, and the illegitimacy of hierarchy, even if only as a way to prevent the disaster they fear, which is that America will get overtaken by a non-white majority.

     Likewise, the Republicans are just like the Democrats, because they too refuse to recognize individual rights, but also oppose stronger supermajoritarian measures to prevent the oppression of minorities by majorities. And Democrats refuse to do so, even if only as a way to prevent the disaster they fear, which is that America will get taken over by Republicans (which happens every several years, and which, for all intents and purposes, is unavoidable).

     In a way, the Democrats, Republicans, and the Alt-Right, are all enabling each other; by subscribing to the same master / slave system; the same hierarchical system, whether racialized or not, and the same reckless disregard for individuals' natural rights to be free from control by majority and minority alike. They even support the same economic system; a right-wing system uniting aspects of capitalism, mercantilism, Keynesianism, liberal-conservatism and a neoliberal market economy, and “state socialism” (which is really just capitalism, but with a welfare system which benefits the select few).