Table
of Contents
1.
First Introduction: The Skokie Affair
2.
Second Introduction: The Legal Setup
3.
Insurance, Permits, and the “Heckler's Veto”
4.
Public Property, Private Property, and Privacy
5. Displaying the
“Swastika”
6. In Favor of Allowing the March While Requiring
Swastika Display
7. The Paradox of Intolerance, and the Communication
of Hate Speech
8. The "Quarantine Strategy" and Whether to Avoid "Provoking" Nazis
9. Concentration Camps vs. I.C.E. Detention Facilities
10. Conclusion
11.
Post-Script: Resources
Content
1.
First Introduction: The Skokie Affair
I
recently watched the 1981 made-for-television movie Skokie.
The film depicts the so-called “Skokie Affair” of 1977.
In
the Skokie Affair, the National Socialist Party of America, a
neo-Nazi group founded by Frank Joseph Collin, engaged in a legal
battle with the village of Skokie, Illinois, over its right to march
in the streets of that town.
[Note:
The names of those lawsuits are National Socialist Party of
America v. Village of Skokie,
Skokie vs. NSPA,
Collin v. Smith, and
Smith v. Collin.]
The
Skokie Affair began on October 4th,
1976, when Collin wrote a letter to the Skokie Park District,
formally requesting to use Birch Park “to conduct a meeting of
speakers from this organization” (that is, the N.S.P.A.) on
November 6th
of that year.
The
plot of Skokie centers
on fictional character Marty Feldman, portrayed by Danny Kaye. The
character is a resident of Skokie, a Jewish survivor of the Nazi
Holocaust, and the president and founder of Skokie-based Precision
Fabricating Incorporated. Feldman is shown attending meetings
concerning the right of the National Socialist Party of America to
march in Skokie, explaining his decision to attend those meetings to
his family, and explaining to his daughter how his mother died.
The
town of Skokie was, at that time, about 40% Jewish-American, with a
significant number of Holocaust survivors. These events occurred just
thirty-two years after the liberation of the Nazi death camps and the
end of World War II.
Skokie
also depicts a character named Herb Lewisohn, played by John
Rubenstein and based on attorney David A. Goldberger. Goldberger was
a lawyer with the A.C.L.U. (American Civil Liberties Union), and
represented Frank Collin and the N.S.P.A. in court. Like Goldberger
is in real life, Herb Lewisohn is Jewish, yet he finds himself
defending the right of a group to protest, which admittedly supports
reviving the National Socialist (Nazi) movement which killed millions
of Jewish people (among others) in the 1930s and 1940s.
Throughout
the film, various legal arguments are made, both in opposition and
defense of the right of neo-Nazis (and anyone in general) to march in
the streets with proper permission. But just as much attention is
paid to legal arguments, as it is to the horror expressed by the
community in the fact that people could be allowed to march who favor
“exterminating” them.
[Note:
I place the word “exterminating” in quotes because to use the
term unironically is to give in to the Nazi idea that Jews are like a
disease, or rats, or a plague of insects. The Nazis used dehumanizing
rhetoric like this to excuse the murder of Jewish people and other
so-called “inferior races” and untermenschen
(sub-humans).]
In
this essay, I will examine and analyze various legal arguments, as
well as moral arguments, both in opposition to and defense of,
neo-Nazis' right to march in public. I will especially focus on the
issues of insurance, permission, and the issue of displaying the Nazi
swastika in public.
2.
Second Introduction: The Legal Setup
The
N.S.P.A.'s plan was to demonstrate on public property in Skokie for
twenty minutes, while limiting the number of protesters to 25. They
stated that they had no plans to speak, nor distribute leaflets, and
no intention to break the laws.
When
Frank Collin and the National Socialist Party of America initially
applied for permission from the Skokie park district to allow him to
hold a “meeting” (meaning a demonstration), they were denied. The
group was informed that if they did not post a $350,000 insurance
bond, that “meeting” could not take place. The purpose of the
insurance bond was to cover possible damage to park property which
could potentially occur during, or as a result of, that
demonstration.
A.C.L.U.
lawyer David A. Goldberger argued that the right of the N.S.P.A. to
march – in full uniform, including “swastikas” - is protected
by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, as part of
the freedom of speech and freedom of assembly. On June 14th,
1977, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed, ruling in favor of the plaintiff
(Frank Collin's neo-Nazi group) in the case of National
Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie.
If
the film Skokie
accurately portrayed
events, the village of Skokie “failed to show that it has any cause
to believe that any illegal activity would result” from the
N.S.P.A.'s protest, and failed to show that the N.S.P.A. had a “plan
to engage in any illegal activity”. Since it could not be shown
that the N.S.P.A. had any intent to commit a crime, or harm anyone,
it could not be proven that they had any malice of forethought, and
were not engaged in acts in furtherance of committing a crime.
Some
attention is given in the film to the legal arguments in favor of the
village of Skokie prohibiting neo-Nazis from marching; not enough,
however. While I deeply value the freedom of speech and the freedom
of assembly, but I also understand the feelings of the people of
Skokie. In the film, a judge ruling against the N.S.P.A. stated, “the
Constitution certainly doesn't give a person like Collin the right to
come into a peaceful community and cause violence.”
[Note:
That judge character subsequently enjoined the N.S.P.A. from
“marching, walking, or parading in uniform, displaying the
swastika, displaying any materials which incite or promote hatred
against persons of Jewish faith or ancestry”.]
There
is certainly a legal case, in addition to a moral case, to be made in
favor of that judge's, and the community of Skokie's, sentiment. The
film makes a fair point that the freedoms to speak and assemble in
public would be harmed, if the government could tell any
group that it can't
express itself - speak, assemble, march, “meet” (demonstrate),
display their chosen symbols and flags, even denounce government –
then it could tell any other group that it could not do the same.
The
concern of Goldberger and the attorneys who defended the N.S.P.A.,
was that if the government had the power to deny a permit to a group
on the grounds of its having neo-Nazi sympathies, it constituted a
prior restraint of expression of ideas on public property, which is
certainly an illegal and unconstitutional overreach of government
power, no matter against whom it is used. Numerous times, the film
gave civil rights groups, or group of African-American activists, as
examples of groups whose freedoms might be denied as a result of the
village of Skokie being allowed to deny the N.S.P.A. a permit to
demonstrate.
Throughout
the remainder of this essay, I will explain why I believe that
various methods could and should be used to dissuade or prevent
neo-Nazis from marching on public property, giving consideration to
methods which are legal and illegal, violent and non-violent, and
legalistic or apolitical alike. I also hope to suggest possible
solutions to this conflict, which would protect both
the rights of a community to civil order and public peace, and
our freedoms to speak and express ourselves and gather in public.
3.
Insurance, Permits, and the “Heckler's Veto”
According
to the N.S.P.A. and its lawyers, the village of Skokie “failed to
show that it has any cause to believe that any illegal activity would
result from” the N.S.P.A.'s demonstration”. To say such a thing
may well be pragmatic and legally accurate, but that does not mean
that is morally correct or advisable. It does the people of Skokie no
service, that its representatives in local government are willing to
take the National Socialist Party of America at its word that it
doesn't intend to do anything illegal, or cause violence (or incite a
mob to riot, etc.).
To take the neo-Nazi group at its word, risks endangering the people.
And
so, the city resigned itself to allowing the neo-Nazi group to march,
on the condition that it post a $350,000 insurance bond in order to
do so; in order to cover potential damages to public property, public
infrastructure, public safety, etc..
I
suppose it's possible
that a neo-Nazi
“meeting” could happen without any violence occurring as a result
of it. In fact, I'm sure that neo-Nazi meetings happen all the time,
without violence. But most of them happen in private,
not in broad daylight
in public property in a town they know to be full of Jewish-Americans
who would be particularly offended, shocked, and horrified by such a
thing. So the need to be concerned with the safety of the public
should be considered here. Moreover, a private meeting is very
different from a public march and demonstration, and the N.S.P.A.
used tricks of legal language to suggest that they are the same
thing.
It
certainly seems reasonable to charge a significant amount of money to
cover the expenses which would be likely to result during or after a
march by a neo-Nazi group. Certainly the price of paying police
officers to stand guard, and potentially protect people, and
cordon-off traffic, and direct drivers away from the parade. And some
city workers would have to be paid to set up wooden horses.
The
taxpayers should not foot the bill for those activities. Certainly
not if a majority of taxpayers don't wish to do so. Maybe even if
just one or two
taxpayers in the
community don't wish to do so (if you're a strong supporter of
individual rights). If the taxpayers are expected to pay for any and
all groups to march, as long as they get the proper permits, then
that means the insurance bond would cover none
of the expenses which the public would incur in supporting a march on
public property. It also means that public roads could potentially be
turned into marching and parade routes any and all times of the year,
with little notice given to the community, and no opportunity to deny
that permission.
While
I'm on the topic, why are politicians
making this decision?
Granted; letting the courts decide is wise. But should the federal
government intervene
in a local community's decision; and why should the city's elected
officials decide whether to allow the march, rather than the members
of the community, say, voting in an emergency referendum?
On
another topic, aren't there laws that prohibit the expenditure of
public funds to serve an exclusionary or discriminatory purpose?
Is
the government's “discrimination” against the neo-Nazis, really
as bad as the forms of discrimination which the neo-Nazis would be
promoting (albeit silently) at their march? Does government denial of
a permit to march, really amount morally to the same kind of
“discrimination” which the Nazis practiced during World War II
(namely, to concentrate Jews, Poles, and others into camps, and then
to segregate them further on the basis of gender and age)? Absolutely
not; one could not argue that those things are morally equivalent,
unless one is prepared to argue that the Nazis have a reasonable
right to restrict Jews from leaving a death camp because they would
have to “march” in order to do so.
There
is no reason why we cannot have a nuanced policy regarding which
groups ought to be allowed to use public property to communicate
their ideas. Groups which do not advocate for discrimination should
be free to march, but groups openly
promoting
discrimination and segregation should never be allowed to use
taxpayer money while doing so.
It
could be argued that the neo-Nazis ought to have the right to
taxpayer money, on the grounds that public expenditures must benefit
everybody, and equally. But I will not defend that idea. Taxpayers
want to pay for patriotic American
events, and other
community events; not virtual Nazi war reenactments. The fact that
that taxpayer money should benefit everyone when
and if it is spent,
does not necessarily mean that that money has
to be spent. The money
could just as easily benefit nobody.
And that
would achieve the goal of benefiting everybody equally, because none
of them would benefit at all, and nobody could claim that he was
discriminated against.
While
we're on the topic: Why should taxpayer money fund parades and
marches in the first place? What if those events could not succeed
financially without assistance from the public? This could very well
be a case of government picking winners and losers in the
marketplace. If so, it is economic interventionism, and it is
incompatible with the ideals of a free economy.
Returning
to the issue of the price of the insurance bond:
Take
a look at the amount of damage caused by the last
round of Nazi marches. I'm referring, of course, to World War II.
Seriously though; in monetary terms, how much damage has the average Nazi march caused throughout history?
The
Nazis were estimated to have caused $640 billion in modern U.S.
Dollars; they also caused the deaths of 47 million people. The number
of soldiers who served in the army under Adolf Hitler between 1935
and 1945 was 13.6 million. From this, it seems appropriate to
conclude that somewhere around 10 million Nazi soldiers served during
World War II. That's 4.7 deaths per Nazi soldier, and $64,000 of
damage per Nazi soldier.
Frank
Collin wanted 25 neo-Nazis to march. If the N.S.P.A. caused as much
damage in Skokie - in terms of monetary damages and murder of
civilians - as the German Nazis did during World War II, on a
per-capita basis, that works out to $1.6 million to cover potential
damages associated with allowing 25 Nazis to march. One million six
hundred thousand dollars is much
more than the $350,000
for which the village of Skokie asked, but if you take inflation into
account, $350,000 in 1977 would be worth $1.48 million in 2019.
This
means that the only thing unreasonable about the amount the village
of Skokie expected to cover potential damages, was that the village
undershot
the estimate, rather than overshooting it.
Granted,
levying high rates and high amounts – whether to insure marches on
public property, or on fees to apply for permits therefor – is
inappropriate and justifiable, both in an economic and constitutional
sense.
It
is not economically, nor politically, justifiable (especially if a
government is trying to pursue a policy of free trade) to impose an
onerous tax, an unjustifiably high rate which ordinary people cannot
afford, nor a requirement that one ask for and pay for a license or
permit, in order to exercise one of their freedoms. If we have to pay
or ask for permission to engage in some activity, then it is not a
freedom, but a privilege.
However,
given what we know about history, the amount the village of Skokie
was asking for, is completely reasonable. Furthermore, to demand
large amounts of money in exchange for holding a controversial march
which is likely to result in a public disturbance and a disruption of
the public peace, is a non-violent way for government to achieve its
goal.
In
demanding that the N.S.P.A. purchase an expensive insurance bond, the
village is offering the group an incentive;
to either 1) keep the march peaceful, or else 2) cancel the march.
That is a peaceful, non-punishment-oriented, carrot-over-stick
approach to the public getting what it wants. And what the public
wants, is to either stop or prevent the neo-Nazis from marching, or
else (failing that) keep public order and peace while allowing the
march to occur.
If
non-violent solutions to dissuade and prevent neo-Nazis from marching
have a chance at working, then they should be tried; however, not
when there are lives at stake, not when neo-Nazis are present, and
thus stand to pose a clear and present danger of harm to others.
In
Skokie,
the judge who enjoined the N.S.P.A. from marching, commented,
“...based on the evidence I've seen – the leaflets, the
absolutely repulsive material within them, which the defendant [Frank
Collin] avows completely – I believe he intends to make trouble; to
incite to riot and cause bodily harm.” There is no question that
the public peace and civil order would be disturbed were this group
allowed to “meet” (a/k/a “march through the streets in full
Nazi regalia”).
Whether
it is currently technically legal for neo-Nazis to march in the
street is one issue; they undoubtedly have that right (as far as the
courts are concerned). However, it is absolutely naive and absurd to
assume that neo-Nazis do not intend to cause a public panic, and/or
incite a mob to riot, through holding a march to petition their
government in order to protest its denial of a permit to hold a
meeting. After all, it only seems natural that the public should
exercise authority over what takes place on its public property,
while if the Nazis stay free to march, it should be on their
own property, right?
While
the film Skokie
pays adequate attention to the village of Skokie's attorneys' use of
the “Heckler's Veto” argument, the film does not
pay any attention to the fact that Jewish-American Skokie residents
wanting to harm neo-Nazis is not
the only cause for concern.
The
Heckler's Veto is the theory that “a hostile reaction of listeners
to a speaker can be the grounds for silencing the speaker in
advance”, and the theory that the government can restrain speech
before it occurs, out of the concern for what the person hearing
the speech might do,
rather than concerns about what the person making
the speech intends to accomplish. In this case, we aren't talking
about a speech, only marching and displaying full Nazi regalia
including swastikas; but again, that's taking the Nazis at their
word, assuming they are telling the truth that they have no intention
to speak or shout anything during the march.
And
that is hopelessly naive, even if it turns out to be true, because if
the Nazis march once peacefully, they can march again later and call
for killing Jews. Furthermore – in Germany, Ukraine, and Great
Britain alike (under Adolf Hitler in Germany, under the not
anti-Semitic Nestor Makhno in Ukraine, and in sympathy with British
Union of Fascists founder Oswald Mosley in the U.K., officers and
fascist sympathizers have engaged in random
acts of pogroms against Jews and sabotage of Jewish businesses;
without even being ordered to do so, and without it being a matter of
public policy. In
fact, Oswald Mosley (although admittedly he was an M.P.) did not
command anyone;
his supporters committed acts of violence against Jewish people,
despite the fact that Mosley was a racial separatist who never
directly advocated the murder or domination of Jewish people.
So
– if we are to learn anything from history - even if the N.S.P.A.
does not speak,
the mere fact that it is marching
poses a credible, immediate risk to the public. And the fact that the
march was to take place in one of the highest Jewish population
suburbs of Chicago, should demonstrate more than anything, that the
march was
intended as a provocation. That
is why there existed a real chance of violence – against both
the neo-Nazis and the village residents alike – and that is why
expensive insurance bonds are justifiable.
Aside
from the concern that Jewish-American Skokie residents upset by the
march could attack the neo-Nazis, there should also
be concern for the chance that Skokie residents could be harmed by
N.S.A.P. members. Granted, these N.S.P.A. members formally and
legally insisted they had no plans to commit acts of violence. But we
also need to be concerned with the possibility that Skokie residents
could find themselves in a deadly stampede or other accident, if
something goes wrong during the protest.
These
risks are what the
village rightfully expected the N.S.P.A. to pay to insure against. To
disagree is to ignore history; if anything, if the $350,000 price on
the insurance bond to allow 25 Nazis to march, remains the policy of
the village of Skokie, then it should immediately raise the rates of
insuring public marches, increasing it by at least 8.1%, or maybe
even more so as to cover the potential loss of lives
in addition to monetary damage which could result from the march.
4.
Public Property, Private Property, and Privacy
The
public has the right to deny permission to use public property. Just
as private owners have the right to deny permission to use their
private property. If you want an open, “public” place, where
people are free to do whatever
they want and nobody
can deny them permission to do so, then what you're looking for is
not public property, but a commons or a public commons.
It
is unreasonable to expect public institutions of government to have
“shall-issue” policies regarding permits to march. While blocking
traffic, modern left-wing activists say “We're not blocking
traffic; we are
traffic.” And they are correct; they're pedestrian traffic. But
keeping in mind that a march or procession of people is
traffic, it should
have to abide by certain regulations if the government is expected to
support and protect them. Especially so, if the organizers of the
march want their participants to be the
only traffic going through that street at that time.
The
local government should not be obligated to support any and all
groups of people who wish to siphon-off public resources (labor,
money, police attention, etc.)
for the purposes of promoting their political ideology. At that, by
forming a physical
barrier with their bodies
that stops people from passing through them. Forming such a physical
barrier is the inevitable outcome of marching through the streets in
a line or a formation. Do you really think a citizen will be free to
walk towards a group of 25 marching neo-Nazis, and walk through
the formation, without
getting hurt? I doubt it.
The
act of marching in a line or formation, through a public street,
means that nobody else can do the same, nor walk through that line
and expect protection. It is an obstruction of traffic – especially
the more militarized and disciplined and organized the group is –
and it would be both logistically impossible and fiscally untenable
for the government to attempt to protect all people present from one
another (even if it actually intended to do so).
Additionally,
if the government is required or expected to issue permits to all who
apply for them, then there is no point of having a public permit
process to begin with. People would simply be free to march wherever
and whenever they please without applying or paying for permission. I
know I argue in favor of doing things without asking government
permission a lot, but that only applies to personal
possessions, not
public property.
The
unrestricted use of public property renders it a commons, not true
public property. If public property, private property, and the
commons are to exist, then they should be treated differently from
one another, they should be to some degree separate from one another,
and each community should allow for balanced amounts of all of them
to exist.
While
one could make the argument that this all boils down to the issue of
whether demonstrators have the right to expect privacy in public. But
that is only a tangential issue.
If
a Jewish lawyer will defend the right of neo-Nazis to march on public
property, then there are probably few people who would say it should
be illegal for Nazis to hold meetings on their
own private property.
This is arguably an issue of the N.S.P.A. bringing their private hate
into the public sphere. And it would
not be reasonable for
the group to expect to retain their privacy while demonstrating in
public. But that doesn't necessarily mean that they forfeit their
right to be free from harm and threats, in the act of holding Nazi
beliefs in public.
Now,
you could say that the neo-Nazi marchers should be arrested
immediately if and when they do anything harmful or illegal; perhaps
even if they violate the instructions in the city's permit in the
process the slightest
bit (for example, if
one of the protesters spoke a single word). But all this achieves is
to allow the march to occur. The fact that one or two of the 25 Nazis
would be arrested – and at that, for petty violations – only
turns the government into a nit-picker, and it would reinforce the
image that the administration of government involves nothing but
utter absurdity.
If
such a policy were to be adopted, then even if its purpose were to
decrease the chance of violence occurring at the march, the police
coming in to arrest N.S.P.A. members would be bound to result in a
public disturbance. It could result in a stampede, and people could
be trampled to death; regardless of whether they're running away
from the N.S.P.A. and/or the police, or whether they're running
towards
them with the intention of harming them. It would be better, for the
sake of public safety, that the march never happen in the first
place.
It
is one thing to ask the public to sit at home and ignore the N.S.P.A.
while it petitioned for the right to march. And that is what
happened, according to the film Skokie.
But what the film failed to show, was the fact that Skokie cops, and
Skokie city workers, were expected to do the work necessary to allow
that march to happen. Skokie residents had to pay taxes to pay those
people.
This
is just one more reason why the N.S.P.A.'s plan to march in Skokie
was intended as a provocation. The group's plan to hold a march
didn't only offend and horrify Skokie residents; its activities stood
to cost the public money. The group took
it for granted that
they would be allowed to march, and they were fully prepared to be
complicit in the government legally obligating Jewish-Americans to
pay taxes to support a march on public property held by neo-Nazis who
admit they want Jews dead.
Public
institutions of American government should not be expected, nor
required, to foster a welcoming nor freeing environment for groups
that wish to revive a military entity (the Nazi army) that declared
war on the United States less than 80 years ago. Private owners and
entities can salute each other, display Nazi flags, etc.,
on their own property; but for a public institution of American
government to do so, should always be considered an act of rebellion
and treason.
To
allow neo-Nazis to march on public property is to, quite literally,
turn our public
infrastructure over to the enemy.
If we do this, then we might as well allow them to occupy capitol
buildings and their legislative chambers while we're at it. To do
that would be to cease excluding anyone from public property,
rendering it a public commons. I am not advocating that we do such a
thing; I am only cautioning that it will destroy the public sector to
cease allowing the public to regulate its own public property.
5.
Displaying the “Swastika”
To
speak directly to the issue of expecting privacy while in public:
There is
a way to get privacy in public; it's to mask or disguise oneself.
In
recent years, conservatives have characterized Antifa (short for
Antifaschistische
Aktion, an
anti-fascist group) as cowardly for wearing face masks in public.
Some conservatives have also suggested that Muslim women be
prohibited from wearing veils, either in public all the time, or else
solely in official government photographs.
While
it may sound
reasonable to use the “don't expect privacy in public” argument
against Muslim women wearing veils, and Antifa members wearing face
masks, it should never excuse ripping the item of clothing off of
someone. This should be considered the equivalent of sexual assault,
whenever there is not reasonable cause to suspect that the person has
harmed, or intends to harm, someone.
Likewise,
there should be no justification for ripping the swastika symbol, or
the Nazi armband, off of a neo-Nazi. Yet that is more or less what
the village of Skokie and its lawyers considered, as a way to offer a
compromise which would allow the march to occur peacefully.
As
I explained above, what the village of Skokie considered, was to
allow the march to take place, but only on the conditions that the
N.S.P.A. agree to refrain from speaking, distributing literature, and
displaying the swastika.
The
film Skokie,
as well as a Twitter user I recently saw comment on modern American
protests, point out that nationalists, racists, neo-Nazis, etc.
use the law, and formality, to their advantage. That is exemplified
by the fact that Frank Collin and the N.S.P.A. took so much care to
ensure that they did not do anything illegal during the process to
apply for permission to march. [Note: We should also consider here,
whether the fact that Collin applied
for permission,
suggests that he knows he does not
have the right to march on public property without the public's
permission.]
The
fact that the neo-Nazis have come to be known for their attention to
detail, and concern for formality and legality in their activities,
should teach us that they will find ways to get around whatever
obstacles – legal or otherwise – that stand between them and what
they want. Being aware of this, it should not come as any surprise to
us if a neo-Nazi group takes advantage of the specific wording in a
city's permit.
Although
the Nazi symbol is usually called the “swastika”, the German term
for that particular swastika – which is an inverted version of the
Indian good luck swastika that inspired it – is hakenkreutz,
which means “crooked cross”. Any neo-Nazi whose group is
prevented from displaying “the swastika” could easily argue that
he technically does not
wish to display “the
swastika”, only the Nazi hakenkreutz.
And he would be technically in the right, and the court would be
foolish if it didn't rule in his favor.
We
should not underestimate the risks of taking neo-Nazi groups at their
word that they do not intend to commit violence, or damage public
property, or incite a mob to riot. We should not underestimate the
abilities of racists and Nazi sympathizers to use the legal system,
and legality and formality and the law, to their advantage.
They
will also not hesitate to use the public police as cover. Just
several weeks ago, a police officer told a citizen “I didn't see
it” after the citizen told the officer that he'd just been
assaulted by a protester from the right-wing side. The police have no
intention to protect anti-fascists from right-wing protesters, they
have no obligation
to protect and serve the public (if you're familiar with Warren
v. D.C.), and the
police should be expected to cooperate
with and protect
racist and nationalist protesters over the people they are
threatening and harming.
The
purpose of the police is to protect private property, and to
“maintain public order” (but only insofar as it protects public
employees). Also, to use force to apply the laws of the nation, and
promote the wholeness and integrity of the nation by doing so. The
police have nothing to gain by either
defending anti-fascists more than racists, nor
by trying to defend everybody against everybody else. The police are
probably not even insured to do so, even though it seems like the
kind of thing which ought to be their job. If the police cannot even
be counted on to be neutral
in such a manner, then they certainly cannot be trusted to choose the
right side in a protest if it comes down to it.
The
thought that allowing the N.S.P.A. to march, on the condition that
they be prohibited from displaying the swastika, could or should
placate or satisfy any resident of Skokie, is stupefyingly appalling
to me. It reeks of busybody government, incremental change, and
hyper-focus on the details of the law. Prohibiting the swastika does
not erase, excuse, nor make up for the moral evil of allowing Nazis
to march.
For
one thing, it would be especially foolish to criticize people who
wish to retain privacy in public, while also arguing in favor of
allowing the N.S.P.A. to march but prohibiting swastikas. That's
because prohibiting the display of swastikas provides
free, mandatory, legal cover for
march participants who might want
to conceal the fact that they are Nazis.
Now,
I know that Nazi sympathizers go out in public every day, and
continue to believe in Nazism and eradicating the Jews, and don't
wear the swastika proudly because they are effectively dissuaded from
doing so because of all the people who might react with horror or
violence at such a thing. But that is a prevention of open display of
Nazi insignia, which does not
require resorting to violence, nor to law enforcement for solutions.
I
say this in order to defend the idea that, if and when a government
decides to allow a Nazi or neo-Nazi group to march, then it should
not issue any orders regarding swastikas, except to make display of
swastikas optional. That's because prohibiting swastikas risks
prohibiting the wrong
swastika and provides
free legal cover for neo-Nazis who might wish to conceal their
Nazism; while requiring
the participants to
display the swastika could risk turning them into targets.
Despite
the need to avoid unnecessarily provoking neo-Nazis, inciting them to
violence, and needlessly exposing them to the risk of harm – and
leaving aside my previous statement that government should let
display of the swastika remain optional, as it otherwise would stay
in a free society without government and its intervention - I believe
that if the government must
choose between requiring or prohibiting the swastika, then it should
require
demonstrators to display the swastika.
The
purpose of this would be to allow the neo-Nazis to gather, to allow
them to march – in full regalia, with the hakenkreutz
– and to refrain from infringing on their First Amendment rights.
But I only say this sarcastically.
These
First Amendment rights supposedly include the right to disrupt the
public peace and the civil order, and the right to expose innocent
civilians to the emotional and mental stress of reliving a traumatic
experience that claimed the lives of their relatives. All of this, as
a reminder, would potentially all
be funded by public
taxpayer money, and by an 8%-too-low insurance bond paid by the
N.S.P.A..
It
is foolishly naive to assume that any
level of insurance, or
legislation, could possibly protect the community against the risk
which could be posed – against people and property alike – by
neo-Nazis marching proudly in the street, as the German Nazis did on
Ukraine, Poland, Russia, and other nations just seventy to eighty
years ago. The purpose of having elected officials should not be to
profit off of enemies of the United States who wish to pay for
permission to turn their public spaces into
war-zones-waiting-to-happen.
While
these neo-Nazis are marching, somebody could take that opportunity to
burn down the local synagogue. They could take advantage of the fact
that security would be heightened around the vicinity of the march,
while resources might be taken off of local synagogues, Jewish
centers, and places where Jewish-Americans (and other groups deemed
“sub-human” by the Nazis) tend to congregate.
I
would recommend only allowing Nazis to march on the condition that
security be increased on surrounding buildings housing Jewish
organizations. But that would be to pretend that there are not any
anti-Semites among our police officers. Which is - just like thinking
insurance and laws will protect us from fascism – foolishly naive.
Just
as the Soviets had no right to expect Poland to roll over and allow
itself to be turned into the front line of a war without any
resistance, we should never expect our local government to agree to
allow the city's public spaces to be turned into a war zone. But if
it is better, for the sake of the safety and survival of the
community, that the city be turned into a war zone, then so be it; it
is better that the conflict happen sooner rather than later, so that
we don't stick our children and later generations with the problem.
If
we can't expect the government to legalize shooting Nazis in the
street, then we should logically expect our police to cooperate with
the fascists. That only leaves us one option: fight both the
fascist protesters, and the police that favor them when it
comes to protection, the instant that one of the protesters
calls for violence or begins an attack against someone.
Nazis
and Nazi sympathizers deserve to be shot, whether they are actively
posing a threat of harm to those around them or not. As I explained,
people take non-verbal signals from neo-Nazi groups, as license to go
burn down Jewish places of worship. We are idiotic slaves if we
expect government to legalize shooting Nazis who display symbols
signifying support of mass murder. We are idiotic slaves if we expect
government to legalize shooting fascist police officers, even when
they are legally in the wrong and are trying to murder us without
even having a warrant or reasonable suspicion.
6. In Favor of Allowing the March While Requiring
Swastika Display
Do
I support allowing the Nazis to march in the street, while displaying
the hakenkreutz
openly? Hell yes, I do! I support their right to out
themselves by being so
stupid as to voluntarily
display the swastika in public. To prohibit the swastika only gives
the neo-Nazi protester the legal protection to deny us, the public,
the privilege of knowing who he is and what he stands for. Hell,
requiring neo-Nazis to wear swastikas just might be the only way we
have to distinguish the cops from the Nazis.
While
we're on the subject, why not allow the Nazis to march, but require
all police officers with Nazi sympathies to display the swastika on
their police uniform?
After all, there is no shortage of ridiculous “solutions” when it
comes to government. The village of Skokie offered some (regrettably)
ultimately untenable legal defenses in the 1977 case, and so, I have
decided to offer some serious solutions when the village did not. I
have also offered additional
absurd solutions where
none are needed; in order to demonstrate the ridiculousness of the
idea that a quick-fix from the government could ever solve anything,
but also to show how absurd it is that the
right quick-fix policy
might actually succeed, if only we pick the right one.
And
requiring swastika display, keeping swastika display optional,
protecting both sides of a protest, protecting anti-fascists over
fascists, and requiring the purchase of expensive insurance bonds,
could all potentially serve as that quick-fix. It just takes a
deeper, more thorough examination of the legal and moral issues and
facts at hand – a more nuanced exploration of all the angles on all
the sub-issues related to this case – to come up with all
the potential solutions to the problems articulated by the
adjudicants; and, at that, to come up with the correct policy.
I
support the right of the village of Skokie to exercise its authority
to allow or deny the use of public property, as it pleases. But I
support the right of neo-Nazis to march, while displaying the
swastika. I support their right to march... to
their deaths.
I
support their right to march into the throngs of Jewish-Americans who
would, and should, stand up against them – with bats and batons,
with guns, with whatever means necessary – and physically beat the
bodies of the neo-Nazis and fascist police who protect them, in order
to send the signal that they are never welcome in that town again.
Nazis
and neo-Nazis, and fascists, mind you;
not communists, not anarchists, not black civil rights activists, not
Native American or Hispanic pride groups. Why should we go on
pretending that it would be impossible
for the government to pass a law – bypassing
the permit system altogether – which
would prohibit gangs and Nazis from marching, but allow all other
groups which oppose discrimination?
Of
course, logically, they would have to support discrimination against
Nazis,
but as I have explained, the discrimination policies employed by the
Nazis, means that the benefits of discriminating against Nazis in
this manner, outweigh the potential costs of refraining
from discriminating
against them (that is, the costs of allowing them to protest).
7. The Paradox of Intolerance, and the Communication
of Hate Speech
It
would seem appropriate to conclude from all this, that sociologist
Karl Popper was correct, when he articulated the “Paradox of
Intolerance”, and argued that the intolerant should not be
tolerated. The Paradox of Intolerance holds that the most intolerant
people in society must not be tolerated, but refusing to tolerate the
intolerant is itself an intolerant act. To refuse to tolerate the
intolerant is a paradox that destroys the purpose of tolerance.
Noam
Chomsky, taking the opposite position, has explained that the essence
of the freedom of speech and political expression, is that if we only
protect the right to speak when it is exercised by people who agree
with us, then what is the point of protecting the freedom of speech,
and who is that protection for? If that protection is not for the
people with the most controversial issues, then whom is it for?
As
Ron Paul has said, “We don't have the First Amendment so we can
talk about the weather; we have the First Amendment so we can say
very controversial things.” Paul has also said that “Freedom is
the right to tell people what they don't want to hear.”
Maybe
Professor Chomsky and Dr. Paul are correct. Maybe the real danger
here is that we can't
know whether we disagree with speech until we hear it and think about
it. The lesson of Ray
Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451
is that it should be of little concern that people are burning books,
if they are not even reading
them in the first place.
If you burn a book without reading it first, then how do you know
that you actually oppose what's in it?
A
similar argument could be applied to the speech of Nazis and
neo-Nazis, and the open display of the hakenkreutz
and the Nazi flag (which are forms of non-verbal communication).
Because
those are forms of non-verbal communication – and because they
would have been allowed at the N.S.P.A.'s march - to allow Nazis to
speak, or even display the swastika or a Nazi flag, could potentially
incite a mob to riot; stampede, smash the windows of Jewish
businesses, kidnap and torture Jewish people, etc..
However,
to deny
the Nazis any and all
opportunity to communicate their ideas, carries with it the risk of
people having no idea
what they are protesting against.
Which is already enough of a problem today; we don't need more
clueless protesters demanding God-knows-what. Refraining from
criminalizing the trade and purchase of Mein
Kampf by Adolf Hitler,
for example, allows Nazis to communicate their ideas in a non-violent
way.
While
allowing the book to circulate freely could teach people to hate the
Jews, it could just as well function as a historical document that
allows readers to understand why Hitler did what he did, so they can
come to their own conclusions about whether his reasons and attempted
solutions were right or wrong. Truly unbiased educators will be able
to find and develop a way to “teach the controversy” without
either excusing or promoting Nazi ideals, or else ordering their
students to come to a certain conclusion about what they had read.
To
allow the book to circulate freely, if promoted as a matter of public
policy, would be neutral, voluntary, and non-interventionist, and it
would require no violence to enforce. However, taxpayer money should
never be disbursed to support the publication of such information;
not even for the purposes of historical education. No government
should be trusted to educate people on the dangers of government
becoming too powerful.
I
will add that it would not be unreasonable to tax people for buying
and selling, or producing, Mein
Kampf, if they are
receiving public funds; nor would it be inappropriate to tax such
activities as much as the public deems necessary. But that should not
excuse the public depending
on those revenues to
fund government, to the point where the public tolerates the
widespread proliferation of the publication, paid for with the
taxpayer dime. That would be an insult to injury, on par with
requiring Jewish-American citizens to pay to help Nazis hold a march
in their town.
I
have just explained several ways to “moderate”, or “soften the
blow” of, fascism, through taxing and regulating it. I do not
necessarily endorse all of them; I only mention these possible
solutions, because if we do not know which of these policies could
work, then they must all
be discussed, and weighed against one another.
It
is foolish to think that – through changing the law, or insurance,
or taxes, or removing symbols – government can (or
should) try to soften
the blow of Nazism. To do so risks diminishing the seriousness and
gravity of World War II and the Holocaust. And in Israel and most
European countries, diminishing the Holocaust – or any other crime
against humanity - is a serious crime meriting prison time. And one
could certainly make the case that it should be deemed a crime in
America as well.
Just
as the Union thought it could make slavery more palatable and
acceptable by taxing it – by imposing high internal domestic
tariffs (taxes) upon port cities in the South – the government
thinks it can make fascism OK, and politically acceptable, by
charging fascists a lot of money for permission to terrorize the
public.
Even
if the government genuinely wants
to moderate fascism
(if such a thing is even possible), it still should not attempt to do
so. To “take the sting out of fascism” serves no purpose other
than making fascism cool and hip and popular for a new generation.
The writing of Marx and Lenin contain dehumanizing references to
human beings, just like Hitler's rhetoric did. Marx, Lenin, and Mao
all referred to capitalists as parasites. Marx even used anti-Semitic
and anti-black language.
If
government and public schools have the power to “teach” socialist
philosophy – while conveniently leaving-out negative facts about
the people who wrote it – then the government is indoctrinating
students without overtly lying to them. Still, though, it would be
lying through omission. If government schools have the power to do
that, then they have the power to teach Hitler's writing, while
leaving out the fact that he advocated for killing (and did kill) six
million Jews. I presume that, if they did such a thing, they would
leave out the fact that Hitler killed six million Jews, on the
grounds that that fact might offend and upset some people.
And
we wouldn't want to offend people who have similar ideologies to
Hitler, but who don't
advocate killing Jews,
because that would be discrimination, and it would make nationalists
and conservatives feel uncomfortable. Right?
If
we rob students of the opportunity to know the full
truth about Hitler's
writing – and Marx's, and Lenin's, and Mao's, etc.
- then we risk
normalizing and sanitizing not just controversial speech (which is
acceptable), but also speech endorsing violence. Whether we
selectively edit Hitler, and sanitize and censor his writing (and the
writing of other extremists), or
we deny students the
opportunity to read Hitler, both
courses of action will result in the same thing: “educated”
people being against Hitler, but having no idea what he believed in,
supported, or did.
Watered-down
Nazi ideology is just ultra-nationalism and jingoistic American
Christian conservative racism. Watered-down Nazi ideology is already
mainstream in America;
in fact, it is guiding the Republican Party and running the country.
Had
we, the American public, educated ourselves more on the rise of
Nazism – how it happened, and how people fell for it – it could
only have served to help us to prevent the Trump regime from coming
into power (and from sowing so much racial discord, and urging so
much cooperation with authority to help carry out unjust policies).
Reading
Mein Kampf
should be part of our public education; not government-mandated, mind
you, but part of the education which adults voluntarily undertake –
as part of their need for civic education - in order to teach
themselves about history and the risks of large centralized
government.
I
hope I have shown that there are non-violent ways to dissuade and
prevent Nazis from marching and from communicating their ideals,
without either 1) watering-down a message which ought to stay
dangerous in order to
preserve the truth, or else 2) prohibiting the march or communication
outright, through plans to enforce police orders and commit legally
sanctioned violence. Nazis should be free to communicate their ideas,
but that does not mean that they should be free to communicate those
ideas wherever and
whenever they please, and on public property,
especially without asking permission. Again, not that permission can
make a Nazi march morally permissible – it can't – but refraining
from asking permission would have been especially insulting and
provocative.
The
government should either take a stance of neutrality, or else it
should side against neo-Nazi and nationalist protesters, who have
been known to provoke violence at events counter-protesting against
Antifa. Conservatives may wish to portray Antifa
as the ones wishing for violence, on the grounds that they “expect
violence” because they show up with shields. Well, Antifa may have
shields, but shields are for defense;
and the nationalists
have recently proven themselves more likely to show up with weapons
than Antifa are.
The
people must be prepared, at all times, to resist neo-Nazi protesters
while marching, as well as rogue agents of the police who are
terrorizing the public and threatening murder and egregious harm in
order to enforce their orders. Surrendering our right to bear arms to
the police, is not the solution; nor is applying for permission to
own and carry weapons. Our rights to privately buy and own guns, and
to keep them on our private property, should be protected without
regard for government permission; but that by
no means goes for
activities taking place on public
property.
Unless
you are prepared to argue that the public sector, and public
property, shouldn't even exist
- presumably because a
public sector always means legalized violence to enforce the law, and
theft from the people to fund it - then it will be extraordinarily
difficult to make the case that in a free society there would be no
form of property which could stop a person from doing what he
pleases.
People
do not have the right to treat public property like their own private
property; if the pure public sector and clubs are to exist, then they
should have every right to negotiate the conditions which they expect
to be fulfilled in exchange for using their property.
8. Third Conclusion: The "Quarantine Strategy" and Whether to Avoid "Provoking" Nazis
Before
exposing the viewer to the careful, thoughtful legal arguments which
supported the rights of the National Socialist Party of America, the
film Skokie
showers the viewer with a barrage of horrified statements about the
prospect of neo-Nazis marching. Those statements come from Marty
Feldman, and other Jewish-American residents of Skokie, during a
meeting at a local Jewish center, shown within the first half-hour of
the film.
It
should be obvious from the contents of this essay that the legal
arguments, and the shock of the community, were equally compelling.
That is why I decided that they deserved no less than the fullest
possible examination; on legal and moral grounds alike.
Perhaps
the most memorable part of the film comes during that scene,
depicting a meeting between Jewish residents of Skokie,
representatives of the Jewish community (including a rabbi), and the
also Jewish attorney representing the Nazis. Carl Reiner plays the
character of “Mr. Rosen”, who tells the crowd to avoid provoking
and inciting the Nazis. On the day of the march, Mr. Rosen says, stay
in your homes, draw your blinds, and basically pretend like it's not
happening.
While
that may be the most effective strategy to keep yourself safe after
the Nazis have already taken power, it is not
a way to
prevent people who
hate Jews from coming into power. Cowering indoors – in attics and
basements and cellars – is what Jews did, who were already
hiding from the Nazis.
At the risk of being labeled insensitive, the only purpose this
serves is to urge cooperation with authority. And while urging
cooperation with authority might occasionally serve some public good,
it all too often entails urging cooperation with one's captors.
Pretending
that the Nazis are not marching downtown – just like pretending
that the Ku Klux Klan is in your front yard – is not a solution to
anything. The American public tried to ignore Donald Trump, hoping
that he would go away. He didn't. Of course, it didn't help that
C.N.N. gave him hours of free press, so he wasn't being ignored
completely.
But to ignore the rise of fascism is to refuse to confront a threat;
it is to enable that threat, and to needlessly prolong confrontation
of a threat that needs to be eliminated.
The
fictional character of Marty Feldman pointed out that exact problem
in his speech: “...somewhere I heard that speech [by Mr. Rosen]
before, but not here. ...Where did I hear that speech? I heard it in
Germany. It came from the big city. Very fine
professional men, all members of the National Jewish Organization. I
was very young but I remember what they said. Nazis. Storm troopers.
Hoodlums in the street. How many are there? A handful? They're just
petty criminals. Don't pay attention. Go home they said. Close the
doors. Pull down the window shades. Don't look. Nothing will happen.
Quarantine. They talked about quarantine. Strategies. Game plans.
Tactics. I don't mean to offend you. But it was then, Mr. Rosen, who
said they are no danger to the safety and to the security of the
Jews. So my question to Mr. Rosen is 'No. No. No.'”
For
the attorney representing the National Socialists to make the
“Heckler's Veto” argument about Jewish people opposing a Nazi
march, is ridiculous whether the attorney doing so is Jewish or not.
That's because to suggest that the need to protect Nazis from Jews at
such a march, should be more of a concern than the need to protect
Jews
from Nazis,
is absurd and offensive.
Even
if Jewish-American residents of Skokie were
openly threatening violence against Nazis, it would be
understandable. I don't know if any of them did
openly
threaten violence, but the Marty Feldman character certainly did,
advocated the use of baseball bats.
To
call it “violence” to beat Nazis up with baseball bats, though,
suggests that these residents are engaging in premeditated acts with
malice of forethought. To call it violence is to ignore the
possibility that it is morally
and legally permissible use of force for the purpose of self-defense.
If a group wanted to protest in my town, and my understanding of
history led me to suspect that such a group could stand to endanger
people who look like me or worship alongside me, then I would
certainly not be able to control myself. I would beat up anyone I
thought had a high probability of launching attacks against me, my
friends and family, my children if I had them, etc..
Even
if you could never see yourself committing murder, it would be insane
and inhuman to insist that you cannot at least understand
why
a Jewish-American father would leave his family alone at home
unguarded, and walk to a neo-Nazi march with the intention of killing
Nazis; because if he doesn't, they might find his house and kill his
family. That should be obvious to anyone who has ever had a family or
loved another human being, and it should be especially obvious
because history has been known to repeat itself.
“Cooperate
with your captors, and you won't get hurt” is what we tell
hostages. “Don't struggle, you'll only make things worse” may
sound like good advice – especially if it's necessary to prevent or
minimize imminent harm – but it's not so different from “Don't
resist, you'll only make it worse on yourself”. And that is what
rapists tell their victims.
Good
government is not supposed to be about coercing people into assenting
to “minimal” amounts of harm and violence; any
amount is too much, and it is supposed to be government's job to
prevent
harm and violence, not to enable nor allow it.
All
over the country, today, both Democrats and Republicans are urging
cooperation with authority as a solution to our problems. They both
say undocumented immigrants (and people suspected of being
undocumented immigrants, even without cause) must cooperate with
authority and submit to arrest without resistant, at all times.
The
neo-liberals who control the establishment of the Democratic Party
have criticized Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ilhan Omar, and others for
comparing I.C.E. (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) detention
centers to Nazi concentration camps. This characterization has been
especially controversial, given those women's previous unpopular
comments criticizing U.S. policy towards Israel. But it is not
inappropriate to compare I.C.E. facilities to concentration camps.
For
one, they are both surrounded by barbed wire. Segregation by sex and
age occurs at both facilities. People were tempted with promises of
showers in order to deceive them (whether to kill them or kidnap
their child). People had their religious jewelry taken away. People
were exposed to toxic chemicals as part of cruel medical procedures.
For all these reasons and more, immigrant detention facilities have a
lot
in common with Nazi concentration camps. When more people die in
them, it will be appropriate to compare them to death
camps and extermination camps
as well. We should stop things before they get that bad; we should
not wait until six million people die in I.C.E. facilities, before we
describe it as the potential Holocaust that it is. And you may say
“Well, it will be a long time until America kills six million
immigrants”. America has invaded various Latin American countries
fifty-six
times
since 1890. America has already
killed
millions of Hispanics and Latinos. Probably six million already.
We
should have every reason to expect that having to apply and pay for
permission to travel (which is all a driver's license really is), and
having to apply and pay for permission to own guns and defend
ourselves (against Nazis, especially), should result in anything less
than Nazi-sympathizing police and government denying us the
permission
to exercise the “privilege”
of something we know is a right, which we shouldn't and don't need to
beg for, nor pay.
Yet
that is the position in which Jewish Americans today find themselves.
It does us no service that the Jews among us are expected to
relinquish their right to defend themselves at the airport, on the
moderating condition that non-Jewish people have their rights limited
in a similar or comparable manner. It does us no service that we all
must frantically write down the monetary value of everything we
purchased overseas when we come back to our home countries, if the
Jews are also
subject to the same indignity.
Like
Marty Feldman, I too saw Nazism come back, but right here in America;
I saw armed guards holding the leashes of dogs that were trained to
sniff Jewish children. I didn't see this in a documentary about World
War II or the Holocaust; I saw it at the Newark International Airport
in New Jersey in April 2019. I suppose it should serve as some
consolation to me that most of the people, and the children, whom the
dogs were sniffing, were not
Jewish; but for some reason, it doesn't.
The
ideology that allows government licensing of the natural rights to
travel and defend ourselves, can only result in what happened to guns
and travel in Germany. Under the Nazi regime, Germans were required
to have their travel and gun ownership regulated, but they were also
given special treatment over the Jews in regards to using those
privileges.
The
Nazi government used its power – power that should have been used
to establish equal justice under the law - to favor one group over
another, when it should have either 1) respected both groups equally,
or else 2) not restricted them at all. It did this by expanding
Germans' guns privileges while restricting the Jews', and
establishing different sets of rules permitting German or Jewish
travel in and out of – and even within – the country.
The
residents of Skokie had every right to expect that the National
Socialist Party of America's march on Skokie would turn deadly.
Nevermind
the possibility of a stampede; an old Holocaust survivor could have a
heart
attack or a stroke – and maybe even collapse and die, possibly at
the march -
due to the stress of just thinking
about such a situation. Then before you know it, you've got bodies on
the ground, and the paramedics have to come.
William
Zantzinger killed poor Hattie Carroll without landing a single blow
on her body; he killed her just by waving his cane around, ordering
her around and berating her, until she collapsed from exhaustion and
fear. This should teach us that harm can result without being
triggered by overt physical violence.
Of
course, the fact that someone could collapse from the shock of
hearing that the Nazis wish to march, should not justify hiding the
facts from any of us, just to spare us from getting upset. The truth,
just like the Nazis, must be confronted as soon and as early as
possible. In Skokie,
Feldman is depicted attempting to hide the truth of his mother's
death in the concentration camps from his daughter.
It
is far
past the time
we should have started teaching our children that sometimes it is
acceptable to refuse to cooperate with authority, to refuse to take
orders. A little healthy rebellion is good sometimes, for kids and
freedom-loving citizens alike. Teachers should be unbiased and teach
the controversy, students should be inquisitive and not restrained
from learning the full truth, and children should be taught a healthy
distrust of people's intentions.
It
might be the only way to hammer-home the message that the Nazis and
fascists could come back again and regain political power. Because
for all intents and purposes, they have.
9. Concentration Camps vs. I.C.E. Detention Facilities
Many of the immigration
policies currently enforced by Trump – many of which were begun
under Barack Obama – should absolutely
be prepared to concentration camps, without hesitation.
I.C.E.
agents are literally concentrating large numbers of people into small
areas, and deprive them access to basic sanitation and hygiene items,
mocking them in the process by urging them to do with gradually lower
and lower standards – even drinking water from the toilet bowl when
the drinking chamber stops working – the longer their detention
goes on.
The
fact that none (or few) of these people are Jewish – and the fact
that the Holocaust was terrible, and diminishing its severity risks
letting it happen again – should not make a difference, when it
comes to deciding whether to compare I.C.E. facilities to
concentration camps, or even to call them that exact term. We must
fight for the freedom of Jews and non-Jews alike – citizen and
undocumented immigrant alike – to travel to whichever country they
suspect is least likely to murder them. Without
being ordered to show their papers.
The
next government that decides to expel Jews, is not
going to make it easy for Jewish people to leave the country, whether
with permission or without, no matter how much money they pay. That
is why we should never expect undocumented immigrants to obey all the
laws, and have all the proper paperwork, when they come into this
country. That is a profoundly irrational expectation to make, of poor
undocumented immigrants at the U.S.-Mexico border, who are refugees
seeking asylum.
Like
the Nazis did to the Jews, the U.S. government is finding ways to
trap
illegal immigrants here. We
mock them by depriving them of the opportunity to enter the country
at a safe point of entry where they can legally declare asylum, and
it exposes them to danger; just as the Nazis declared all Jews
foreigners and enemies of the state, which deprived them of
protection and exposed them to danger.
The
immigrant farmer should hardly be blamed if he cannot leave the U.S.
at the end of harvest season; the fact that he finds himself here
illegally is the fault of U.S.
border authorities
for closing his only way out. Ron Paul was absolutely right when he
cautioned us that we shouldn't worry about using the U.S.-Mexico
border to keep people out;
we should instead be worried about our government
using the border to keep
us in.
And if you're familiar with my take on driver's licenses, you'll know
that driver's licenses and passports are just government fees, levied
on the right to travel; reducing it from a right to a privilege, and
turning the government's jurisdiction into a cage which one must pay
to leave.
That
is the situation in which Jews found themselves in Germany, that is
the situation in which undocumented immigrants (and citizens alike)
find themselves in America, and that is the situation in which the
Palestinians find themselves in Israel. This kind of fascism happens
every day, in all sorts of countries, America being no exception.
10. Conclusion
The
village of Skokie, and the fictional character of Marty Feldman, had
every right to react the way they did. If anything, they
too
declined to adequately estimate the threat.
The
N.S.P.A. lied to the government; they had every intention of inciting
violence. They want people to see angry Jews on television,
protesting the freedom of speech and the freedom of assembly. Nothing
would make the neo-Nazis happier than for some Jewish person to kill
a Nazi protester - especially if it happened live on television –
because it would make the Nazis look good in comparison to the person
who committed violence.
So
I say: Why not give the Nazis what they want, yet again? Just as we
gave them the march, and the swastika, why not give them angry Jews
too? Give them wave
after wave of
angry Jews! And while we're at it, make sure they have guns and
baseball bats!
The
Nazis want violence. The Jews want violence. The cops want to stand
around and eat donuts. And the citizens want to kick the Nazis' and
cops' asses for working with each other. They all want to do the same
thing: kick each other's asses. So if they refuse to live in harmony
and peace with one another, or do not think that such a thing would
be possible, then let
them all do what comes naturally to them. Let
them fight it out.
If
you do, then you will promote the freedom of each and all of them,
without doing a single thing, and people will think that you have
done something right and you are a wise ruler, even though you have
done nothing. It's all there in the Tao
te Ching.
It's a terrible thing to see, when a person displays a swastika or a Nazi flag. But the government does us no good by stepping in, to stop us from seeing the guy who's holding the flag, or seeing the guy who's wearing the swastika.
I mean seriously, when I hear "Should the Nazis be allowed to march in public?", I just think, "What? The war's not over?"
If they're intent on marching on public property, they'll do it. If they insist on asking for permission, then don't give them permission! Let them fly those flags on their own property, so that we know where they live. And if you decide to let them march: 1) take the opportunity to regulate the march, and do it wisely, if they hand that opportunity to you; and 2) do it to let them show who they are, right there in the open, so we can get them in our sights.
11.
Post-Script: Resources
Those
wishing to learn more about why the “quarantine” strategy (to
urge Jews to leave Nazis alone) should read about Rabbi Chaim
Rumkowski, who was selected by the Nazis to communicate Nazi orders
to a Jewish ghetto community in Poland. Rumkowski eventually resorted
to asking a crowd of Jewish prisoners of war to hand over their
elderly and their children, while secretly helping other Jews out of
the country, in order to minimize the number of Jews who would be
killed.
Those
wishing to learn more about the rise of fascism should read the 1972
book Crystal
Night
by Rita Thalmann and Emmanuel Feinermann. The book recounts the story
of Herschel Grzynspan, who killed an ambassador after his family was
deported. The Nazis used that murder to excuse Krystallnacht,
a round of anti-Semitic pogroms and acts of vandalism against
Jewish-owned businesses and synagogues, which took place in November
1938.
For
those wishing to learn more about Frank Collin, it may interest you
to learn that his father survived the Holocaust, but Collin himself
never accepted that fact. In 1979, Collin went to prison for
molesting underage boys. Collin subsequently wrote over a dozen
books, several of them focusing on the legendary lost continent of
Atlantis, reinventing himself as a “neo-Pagan” figure in the
process. Collin's IMDB page is available here:
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1542331/bio
Based
on notes taken on July 21st,
22nd,
and 24th
Written
on July 25th
and 26th,
2019
Edited and Expanded on July 27th, 2019
