Blood on the Streets


The President of the United States is not a Nazi, in the sense of being a member of the historical National Socialist German Workers’ Party or any of its subsequent pale imitators. But as he made clear during his August 15 press conference, Donald Trump is a Nazi sympathizer, in the narrow yet very literal sense of showing sympathy to modern-day Nazis.

Trump’s remarks came in the context of the August 12th white-nationalist “Unite the Right” rally in Charlottesville that started with Nazi salutes and slogans and ended in one murder and dozens of malicious woundings. As word of the happenings — and, more specifically, videos and images — fanned out, people began to wonder if Trump could or would do one of the most basic things presidents have done since World War II: issue a denunciation of Nazis. Surely even Trump, whose skills in split-second denunciation are famed all across the digital landscape, and who responded almost immediately to the Aug. 17 vehicular attack in Barcelona, could manage that.

Donald Trump is a Nazi sympathizer, in the narrow yet very literal sense of showing sympathy to modern-day Nazis.

Turns out, no. A man who has taken to his Twitter account to spit on actresses, political rivals, and entire other nations — a man, moreover, whose entire campaign for president centered around the talking point of calling out “radical Islamic terrorism” by name — could not, in the wake of an actual murder, bring himself to condemn white-supremacist terrorism, instead backing himself into the corner of “many sides” contributing to the Charlottesville violence. Two days later, he went before cameras to read what was clearly someone else’s statement; staring ahead, dead-eyed, he was teleprompted the following:

"Racism is evil, and those who cause violence in its name are criminals and thugs, including the KKK, neo-Nazis, white supremacists and other hate groups that are repugnant to everything we hold dear as Americans . . . We condemn in the strongest possible terms this egregious display of hatred, bigotry and violence.”

Sure, he delivered the lines with all the enthusiasm of a hostage listing his captors’ demands, but at least he said them. At the very least, his comments enraged rally attendee and former Klan Imperial Wizard David Duke, which should be the bare minimum for any 21st-century statement on race relations. All he had to do was answer a few questions about why it took so long, and he would be in the clear. But with the self-destructive impulsiveness that formerly was mistaken for strategy, Trump charged hard into the breach. The day wasn’t even over before he was whining about how the “Fake News Media” would never be satisfied (which is, as their treatment of President Obama should remind us, the one thing the media cannot afford to be).

A man who has taken to his Twitter account to spit on actresses, political rivals, and entire other nations could not, in the wake of an actual murder, bring himself to condemn white-supremacist terrorism.

The next day, at a rare press conference following an event meant to be about infrastructure, Trump flipped out and went way off script. He didn’t so much reverse his prior statements as wrap them up in a big bundle and set them on fire. He claimed first that his original Saturday (Aug. 12) statement was “fine,” and that he — Donald Trump! — needed to “wait a little while to get the facts.” Then he lied about the mother of the deceased thanking him for his comments. Next he refused again to say that a vehicular homicide, using tactics borrowed from ISIS, was “terrorism.” Finally, he returned to and elaborated on his “many sides” rhetoric:

Not all of those people were neo Nazis, believe me. Not all of those people were white supremacists, by any stretch. . . . You had a group on one side and you had a group on the other and they came at each other with clubs and it was vicious and it was horrible and it was a horrible thing to watch. . . . I do think there's blame, yes, I think there's blame on both sides. . . .

But you also had people that were very fine people on both sides. You had people in that group . . . protesting very quietly the taking down of the statue of Robert E. Lee. I'm sure in that group there were some bad ones. The following day it looked like they had some rough, bad people. Neo Nazis, white nationalists, whatever you want to call them. But you had a lot of people in that group that were there to innocently protest and very legally protest. Because I don't know if you know, they had a permit. The other group didn't have a permit. So I only tell you this, there are two sides to a story. I thought what took place was a horrible moment for our country. A horrible moment. But there are two sides.

He finished on a bizarre if characteristic note by pimping his home and winery near Charlottesville.

Setting aside for a moment his equal apportionment of blame to “both sides,” let’s review what the “very fine people” who Trump insists were just “protesting very quietly” actually did this past weekend. (This Vice mini-documentary provides an excellent summary of the weekend’s events, presenting the white supremacists as they chose to present themselves.)

With the self-destructive impulsiveness that formerly was mistaken for strategy, Trump charged hard into the breach.

The festivities started the night before the scheduled rally with a very unscheduled parade through the campus of the University of Virginia. The marchers made Nazi salutes and chanted old favorites like “Blood and soil” as well as new ones like the alternating “You will not replace us / Jews will not replace us!” Almost all of them bore torches — not the rag-around-a-stick type, but backyard Tiki torches, a touch that might seem comical until you remember that they still serve quite adequately as weapons. As the group approached the Rotunda (if you have any mental image of UVA, it’s probably that building), many began swinging their torches at the small knots of summer-school students, faculty, and staff there to protest their presence; one librarian who took a torch to the neck while protecting students would later develop a blood clot that led to a stroke.

After the police finally showed up, the march moved on toward the supposed turf of their protest, the Robert E. Lee statue in Emancipation (formerly Lee) Park. Along the way, they surrounded a historic black church where a community prayer meeting was in progress. Once at the Park, they found themselves opposed by a small group of students who linked arms around the statue in nonviolent protest. The torchwielders again surrounded the group, chanting Nazi and racist slogans, some sucker-punching the unarmed students, others spraying them with mace and pepper spray. One young counterprotester in a wheelchair was pelted with kerosene cans and threatened with torches, before countering streams of mace and pepper spray — and ultimately, again, the police’s late arrival — spoiled the show.

The next day, the official, permitted “protest” was slated for noon, but the marchers got an early start parading around Charlottesville’s redbrick downtown. In that crowd, the predominant outfit seemed to be a white polo shirt with khakis and a red cap, likely in tribute to the president’s golfing attire, but there was also an assortment of white-power logos, Klan slogans, paramilitary gear including an array of openly-carried semiautomatic rifles — and, naturally, plenty of Nazi paraphernalia, including t-shirts bearing Hitler quotes, references to the 14 Words and 88 Precepts, Iron Crosses, Imperial Eagles, Black Suns, and swastikas on armbands, patches, and at least one full-sized flag.

Many began swinging their torches at the small knots of summer-school students, faculty, and staff there to protest their presence.

If any of the “very fine people” there solely to support the Lee statue seemed concerned about their cohort in any way, they definitely didn’t show it. Or maybe they somehow totally missed the above, plus all the continued yelling of anti-Semitic slogans, plus the occasional “White lives matter” or “Fuck you faggots” to keep the repertoire fresh. Certainly those fine people weren’t involved when their fellow statue-protestors bore down on an interfaith pacifist group and had to be repelled by antifascist counterprotestors. And they must not have been there when a splinter group brutally beat a young black man in a parking garage, necessitating eight staples in his head.

Well before noon, the event was more street fight than march, and the city tried to move the actual rally to another park, further away from downtown. (They had actually tried to do so two days earlier, in a legally dubious move.) Many of the groups boarded vans or buses they had chartered for the occasion; many more had to rely on their own transport. One of these latter, James Alex Fields, Jr., had spent the day in white polo uniform, rallying with Vanguard America, whose use of “Blood and Soil” as permanent slogan made them a natural choice for someone described by nearly everyone who knew him as a Nazi-military fanboy. In trying to exit the area, Fields turned into one of the wide alleyways crossing over the pedestrian Downtown Mall, only to see at the other end a large crowd of counterprotesters, celebrating the withdrawal of the white supremacist masses. At this point, as video and multiple eyewitness accounts confirm, Fields revved his engine and pointed his Dodge Challenger squarely at the throng.

Estimates vary over the speed of the car when he struck the crowd; he was going at least 30 down a corridor meant for a maximum of 5 MPH. What is clear is that he hit several people before crashing into the back of another car, which jolted forward into a minivan, trapping people in between the various vehicles. Fields then threw the car in reverse, trailing blood streaks and his front bumper up the pedestrian alley, before squealing away back at the top. Heather Heyer died soon after from the injuries she sustained; 19 more would be sent to the hospital, some in critical condition.

Those "very fine people" must not have been there when a group of marchers brutally beat a young black man in a parking garage, necessitating eight staples in his head.

The videos are shocking, but that shock should be tempered (as Trump would never do) with an acknowledgment that right-wing media outlets and social-media feeds have been talking for years — fantasizing, even — about plowing through crowds of protesting pedestrians. And that’s not just on the fringe: pundits such as Glenn Reynolds have suggested people just “run them over,” then howled with indignation when at the idea that anyone might ever actually take them up on it; GOP-dominated legislatures in a number of states have taken up bills to make it easier to get away with, at best, vehicular manslaughter.

And yet, the president among others (including Stormfront contributor and event organizer Jason Kessler, who a few days after being literally run out of town tweeted that Heyer was a “fat disgusting Communist” whose death was “payback”) expects the counterprotesters to bear an equal share of the blame — if not greater — for the violence at the rally. But while some on the opposite side certainly made use of fists as well as chemical deterrents, they didn’t maliciously wound or murder anyone. You can’t use “both sides” rhetoric to whitewash blood off the streets.

Trump, or someone in his administration with more intelligence, seems to have recognized this in the days since, as evidenced by his pivot to talking solely in terms of the statues and the erasure of history. But hanging that story on the Lee statue already erases Charlottesville history: the monument was installed more than half a century after the Civil War, in a town which saw next to no military action. Like most of the glut of such statues erected during the Jim Crow era (in this case 1924, though commissioned in 1917), it had a lot more to do with peak-power white supremacy than with any scarcely existent Confederate heritage — especially given that in order to build it, they had to ignore the words of Robert E. Lee himself, who did not want any statues or memorials, or indeed any potentially nostalgic evocation of the Confederacy.

Fields then threw the car in reverse, trailing blood streaks and his front bumper up the alley, before squealing away back at the top.

Generally I would expect the Democrats’ stupidity and seeming allergy to advantageous situations would get Trump off the hook. But this time he might have gone a bit too far even for those who have cut him enormous slack (David Duke excepted): CEOs jumped ship from his business panel; handwringing conservative columnists actually took him to task; a few odd-duck GOP congressmen in safe districts actually called him out by name. And yet no one resigned from the administration itself, and if any of the senior GOP leadership said anything on the record, they were at best “protesting very quietly,” leaking statements through surrogates of how angry or saddened they were, without actually themselves saying a thing. So many of them still seem to think, despite the pile of evidence to the contrary, that Trump can be contained or at least mitigated long enough for them to get what they want out of his presidency, and most of what they want is scarcely friendly to a freer society.

There’s no saving any of them; whatever they say in private, publicly they are part of the Trump loyalist base, and they won’t leave until the whole thing is in ashes (probably even then, if they can make a quick jump to a Pence presidency). But libertarians find themselves at perhaps the most important crux in movement history. Those who talked themselves into voting for Trump — not against Clinton, mind you, but for Trump — based on one or another mistaken idea about his future performance in office have had more than enough time for a rethink. His supposed isolationist foreign policy has vanished in the smoke of bombs over Syria and Yemen and hot air over North Korea, Iran, and Venezuela. He’s declared himself ready to start a trade war at the drop of a MAGA hat. Any slashes to his domestic budget will be made back up, and then some, by bloat in military spending. His healthcare plan is, per Cato, likely even worse than Obamacare. He’s fed the cruelty and callousness in our nation’s policing and immigration enforcement.

Libertarians who can’t denounce authoritarianism in this case cannot and should not be trusted to do so down the line.

Closer to the White House, Trump’s administration churns through employees faster than his own reality shows did, until now the man who promised to “drain the swamp” finds himself surrounded almost entirely by Goldman Sachs employees and military men. Increasingly isolated and subject to the likes of Gen. John Kelly’s attempted “military” discipline, Trump will become more and more likely to lash out and say whatever comes to mind — and that’s a scary prospect, considering what that has involved in the past, from pre-presidential days till now.

Remember that all this is taking place without a single major terrorist attack on American soil, or a large-scale natural disaster, or an outright war, or any similar scenario so often used to massively increase governmental power. This is the last chance to sever cleanly, to make a break, to toss out a mea culpa — just pick your preferred metaphor. Taking a soft line on neo-Nazis is pretty bad, but it’s only going to get worse from here; libertarians who can’t denounce authoritarianism in this case cannot and should not be trusted to do so down the line. There are political battles to be had down the road with liberals and — gasp — socialists, but for right now there’s a common foe. Let’s work to take care of what we can and survive, or else be counted among those “very fine people” for whom history will find labels far more accurate and far less flattering.

Share This



Here is one of many ironies of history.

Take an individual in the 1930s dedicated to the fight for the communist nirvana and not some scheming top level operative but just a local level naïve idealist actually believing that he is saving the mankind from rapacious imperialists, corrupt bourgeoisie and unacceptable exploitation in general. A goal so noble, he is told that all means and methods are acceptable to bring about that end and so he and his comrades aren’t shy about using them. Only they have a competition in similarly ruthless and determined group with similar goals bar the classless & nationless society.
Those are of course the Nazis who briefly gain the upper hand and start prosecuting them. So our commie and his comrades go underground, form a resistance and actually fight bravely throughout the war only to be captured and sent to the concentration camps say in the last year of war, an ordeal which our idealist miraculously survives. (Bear in mind, that they fought Nazis and were arrested by them mainly for mutual hatred- not some freedom notions though they would use that rhetoric.) In the meantime the true horrors of what went on during the war came out.

So now we have a true hero. A guy who survived a death camp, genuinely fought the Nazis, the new personification of the worst evil of all time, and not only that , the liberation, for big chunk of Europe, came on the wheels of an army of comrades from a country where the classless society is already a reality(carefully brushed out). So, newly energized and with warmongering imperialists hated more than ever, our hero goes right back to work organizing, demonstrating, accusing and intimidating to bring about his dreamed out classless society, this time with the support of the masses whose “sentiments” (I stole the word from Lori Heine) tell them that he and others like him are the good people with noble intentions who have proven themselves under the most horrendous circumstances.

And now and this is the really important part: How do You tell this guy, or to anybody else about this guy, that he is an instrument of evil, his ideology completely misguided, that he is about to usher in horrors comparable to what went on during the war, that even if he doesn’t do it personally he will help establish a system of widespread persecutions where others will do it? Please keep in mind that he himself might be perfectly amiable, sympathetic guy you would not object to hang out or have beer with.

And he wouldn’t be alone. There were tens, even hundreds of thousands of them. Now how do you shun such a group of sainted genuine resistance fighters offering free stuff, promising taking care and fighting for the common man, justice, security, equality, work? Even on the off chance that you would have the heart to try you would be immediately called a Nazi.

What is my point?

That evil may sometimes be hard to tell especially if it is coupled (or intentionally masked ) with some good laudable deeds and even harder to expose when it is hidden behind a rhetoric that is hard to oppose even where rational discussion is allowed to take place. And liars can only be proven lying after the fact. Quite often people fight for the right thing incidentally or with the wrong intention.

Taliban fought the soviet occupiers, Muslim Brotherhood operates hospitals and schools, even Hitler took care of his own people-or bought them- as Gary Jason beautifully illustrates especially in Buying Genocide Part 2., Communists offered “free” health care (be it misleading as it is) and education, guaranteed work etc. Virtually every African dictator from the sixties and on came to power as a leader of a liberation movement.
It gets even harder to tell if you personally know some people or are yourself involved in the movement.

Being caught in the moment it is easy to forget to ask some important questions such as: Is that whole philosophy really well thought out? Is that minor inconsistency in it that everybody glosses over really minor? Is it rooted in reality as opposed to just being some fantasy in someone’s head- can any society actually survive, function and prosper on those principles? Are we making a mountain out of a molehill protesting this and that? What is the end game? Who pulls the strings and finances it all? What kind of society would the activists ultimately establish if given free rein? Are we destroying more by our actions than what will be gained? Is there even a need for violent protests of any kind inside a democratic society that is regularly having (still?) peaceful transitions of power and is obsessed with rights of any conceivable variety to the point of foolishness, or are the protests meant to circumvent the democratic process and in a true communist/fascist fashion superimpose the will of the protest handlers on the stunned society paralyzed by their very protests?

Looking at today, we have the Democratic Party leadership thoroughly composed of Saul Alinsky disciples, who have figured out a way to pretty much stick the taxpayer with financing of their donors, symbiotic NGOs and their friends cushy jobs in them. We have the riots financier George Soros boasting how much fun it is to organize the overthrow of governments, (We have a perfect example for how it is all done in Ukraine and also what it all leads to, corrupt as Yanukovich was - actually that country is also a perfect example for what I am talking about – the difficulty to establish who is the hero and who is the villain in a nation’s history and whose statues to erect and take down, what flag to fly etc) we have undisguised attempts to bring down an administration of a legally and properly elected president, we have burned down cities (and unless I misread Thomas Sowell many of the neighborhoods never completely recover from the riots even decades later) ,shootings of the Republican legislators, police officers , out of control universities, the left’s madrasas– and virtually all other violence incubated from the left and we are supposed to worry about some spent Nazi mental cases who, if they were left alone, would only embarrass themselves? That ideology has been so thoroughly discredited that the only thing that could conceivably make some part of it in demand again is escalating violence, harassment and intimidation from the left that may make some people wish someone would stand up to them, which of course might be the left’s goal to justify further activism and speech and criticism clampdown since they know who will pick up the mantle.

German sociologist Helmut Schelsky wrote a nice article in 1971 about a silent revolution underway in Germany at that time, that turned out to be a neat and tidy description of a new universal revolutionary method.. For readers who haven’t heard of it (Though I am sure similar things were written by others as well ) you can download it from Digital Commons by copying to browser:

Helmut Schelsky: The New Strategy of Revolution:
The “Long March” Through the Institutions Study
Guide, 2014 (2014 because it is a somewhat updated republication)

Read it, plug in American particulars and you have a perfect description of the State of the Union.(Both American and European)

So in conclusion on the question of equivalency I find the leftist radicals way more dangerous to the survival of free society than any Nazi sympathizers (also actually left) because their ideas are repellent to most normal people right from the onset but the sly, disingenuous left uses positive moral values of decency and compassion to manipulate their holders as hostages for their own ends. and thus hides its true purpose.(And uses unsuspecting naïve and clueless participants to help them do it, like antibodies attacking healthy cells. At least with the Nazis we would see them coming. (If they actually had any pull.)

PS; Donald Trump has so far done only one thing that would conceivably deserve such an ire from the left and that is that he punctured their monopoly on controlling the narrative (Grief over Hillary’s loss being mere symptom of it, like an air escaping from the balloon. Not even Democrats could have been so excited and then depressed about her personally.) and refused to kowtow and accept their self-proclaimed role as the sole arbiters of what is proper, moral and only acceptable without any questions asked. That of course cannot stand and the current iconoclastic movement is nothing but a hysterical frantic effort to reassert their role as the guardians of righteousness and attempt to show and prove it to the populace, while besmirching the conservatives who are somehow supposed to defend the statues of Democrats. Statues or otherwise something had to be found for a virtuous peacock parade and to control the news cycle.(Though other purposes are also served by the effort.)

I am now old enough to know that the Best is indeed the enemy of the Good and that there are important irreversible things and also ultimately inconsequential things in life and so if Pres. Trump’s only legacy left is that the commies(here politely called progressives) and crooks loose the control of the narrative and are exposed for what they are I will be a happy camper. And if that happens who knows, he may after all still save America as an exceptional nation (because it really is) for a bit longer, no matter how weird and improbable he may appear to be for the job.

Russell Hasan

Hello Drew,
I am writing to praise you for this honest piece of reporting. It was complete and insightful. Many libertarians have been active on social media saying that Trump is a racist, and then, in response, many other libertarians are also extremely active in accusing the anti-Trump libertarians of being "liberals," "SJW"s, "Communists," and other less attractive insults, and these pro-Trump libertarians then double down on their belief that no, Trump is not a racist, and racism is "fake news" created by CNN. Interestingly, I have noticed that the pro-Trump libertarians are usually Republicans, and the anti-Trump libertarians are usually Libertarian Party members. Have you noticed this?

Luther Jett

Thank you Mister Ferguson for so clearly articulating the present situation. One cannot support, excuse, or overlook the transgressions of the Current Occupant of the Oval Office and still pretend to be a friend of Liberty. Nor is there any moral equivalency to be drawn between fascists and supporters of fascists and those who are trying to prevent them from taking over the country.

In my opinion, the Libertarian movement has missed a great opportunity in not joining with others to resist and oppose this administration from Day One, but perhaps now we can move forward. Save the arguments with the left for another day, a day when freedom and our Constitution are once again secure.


One cannot support, excuse, or overlook the transgressions of the Current Occupant of the Oval Office and still pretend to be a friend of Liberty.

Neil Gorsuch alone was worth the price of admission. There is at least some hope that the First and Second Amendments won't be "interpreted" out of existence. I can't see how the Current Occupant is any greater threat to my life, liberty, or property than several of the previous occupants.

Luther Jett

"I can't see how the Current Occupant is any greater threat to my life, liberty, or property than several of the previous occupants."

Perhaps we could start with his flagrant disregard and contempt for the US Constitution and the rule of law, in contrast to his predecessors who at least gave lip service to it.


Perhaps we could start with his flagrant disregard and contempt for the US Constitution and the rule of law ....

Perhaps we could start with specific examples, instead of broad conclusory assertions. Might you cite the chapter and verse of the Constitution and rules of law that were flagrantly disregarded and the specific acts that did so?

Luther Jett

I'm not going to provide an extensive dossier which you and other readers can certainly research for yourselves if you are so inclined. I'll just focus on the Emoluments Clause:

Article I, Section 9, Clause 8 of the United States Constitution

And as to whether or not Mr. Trump has violated it, i imagine there is a range of opinion, but his refusal to divest himself of his business holdings, both domestic and foreign, suggests he has no particular regard for this particular section of he Constitution. His contempt for the First Amendment is also, i believe, well-documented.

Beyond this, I am not going go. I suspect there is nothing I could possibly say or cite to dissuade those who continue to minimize the present danger. I commend Mr. Ferguson but taking a principled stand and refusing to look away from the travesty which is our present situation.

H.W. Owens

Mr. Ferguson,

After your through excoriation of President Trump, the neo-Nazis and white nationalists, surely the same can be expected from you for Antifa and Black Lives Matter in a matter of days. I look forward to it.

drew ferguson

I put my thoughts on antifa, BLM, and false equivalencies in my long comment to Scott Robinson (and note especially the differences between the two labels), but I’ll sum up here with words often attributed to Winston Churchill: “I decline utterly to be impartial between the fire brigade and the fire.”

H.W. Owens

I must apologize for being so blatantly ignorant, but I can't help but believe that someone who recognizes the danger (and utter lunacy) of the neo-Nazi, etc., but refuses to see the same in Antifa and BLM is deluded.

Where was your fire brigade in Ferguson and Berkeley? Nowhere--there was only fire. Where, pray tell, were the neo-Nazis in Ferguson and Berkeley who drew the ire of these fine defenders of freedom?

The current portrayal of Antifa in the media is that they have only of late (maybe as recently as Charlottesville) sprung up in response to the increasing threat from neo-Nazis and white supremacists. You even speak glowingly of them in your article. Antifa is the same group that violently protested the WTO meeting in Seattle in 1999 with different faces (although no one can see who they are because they are so proud of their activities they cover their faces). They are Occupy Wall Street. And they are at least as dangerous (and looney), are substantially more numerous and have wrecked more property than any group of neo-Nazis, white supremacists, or KKK in the entire United States today.

There. I feel better now. I await my epithet(s).

© Copyright 2020 Liberty Foundation. All rights reserved.

Opinions expressed in Liberty are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the Liberty Foundation.

All letters to the editor are assumed to be for publication unless otherwise indicated.