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


drew ferguson

Mr./Ms./Mx. Owens:

Thank you for your comment, which I will reply to in some detail below. As per usual Liberty habit, I will leave you, if you choose the last word below (subject to our usual commenting policies, etc).

If I speak glowingly of antifa in this article, it is because on this day, in the town I have called home for almost a decade, their presence and activity was central in deterring further serious violence and loss of life. But you don’t have to take my word for it: here’s an article which gathers actual statements from people in the community (some of whom were very mistrustful of antifa before that day), detailing how crucial their presence was in keeping a very bad situation from potentially getting much, much worse.

I do agree with you that the recent treatments of antifa in the media—appearing in the last week alone in CNN, the BBC, The Atlantic, and even Reason, hardly conservative outfits—are often badly wrong on matters of history, but the ’90s is hardly the origin point either. If you’re picking the ’90s as your origin point, that’s a rhetorical move designed to erase anti-fascist resistance in 1930s Europe, in the American South in the ’50s and ’60s, in the face of a resurgent British National Party in the ’70s, and so on. All those groups were depicted as being unruly, violent, damaging to law, order, and civil society. In hindsight, we can recognize those lies for what they were; but why shouldn’t we get out in front of them for once?

Are there people, then and now, who join such groups for the chance to throw stones and kick in windows? Of course. But I’ll wager there’s fewer of them in antifa then there are in the military or police forces (see particularly here), and certainly less than in the paramilitary groups cosplaying as real soldiers that marched through Charlottesville on the 12th. And as regards property damage more generally, here’s the thing: broken windows can be fixed. Go to Seattle today and you won’t find a single mark of the WTO Riots left. You wouldn’t have found one even two or three weeks after the event; all those windows were replaced, largely with insurance money, and business carried on as usual. But lives don’t work the same way. You can’t go out and find Heather Heyer anymore. You can’t find the 9 churchgoers murdered by a white-supremacist neo-Nazi in Charleston. No amount of money can bring them back. The violence is not commensurate.

You ask where the fire was in Ferguson. It was in uniform, quite obviously. People who had been harassed by police their entire lives finally hit boiling point after yet another inexplicable death in their community, and the police met their questions with chemical clouds, riot gear, sound cannons, and troop-carrier tanks. Berkeley is a bit more complex, with a much muddier political history, but every condemnation of student protest activity there going back to the ’60s and before should be balanced with consideration of decades of aggressive policing as well as an administration often far more intent on punishing or dismissing students rather than listening to them. I guess we’ll see what happens next week, since UC Berkeley is so intent on pushing the issue that they’ve invited Milo Yiannopoulos back, despite his (probably empty) promises to reveal the identities of undocumented immigrant students last time.

But still, to judge them based on Berkeley alone would be like judging libertarianism solely by the racist content in Ron Paul’s old newsletters; it’s a strategy calculated to dismiss the entire movement and place it all outside the pale, allowing for extremity in response. (For just one example: take a look at the aftermath from Trump’s rally in Phoenix: protestors waited outside for hours in triple-degree heat with no incidents of note, only to be tear-gassed and pepper-bombed by Phoenix PD, apparently before any order had been given to disperse.)

Look, I don’t expect most libertarians to see antifa as friends; after all, most are overtly anti-capitalist and anti-market. But I would hope that libertarians can look at them and see why they might appeal to huge swaths of the young voting public—it’s not the prospect of mindless property destruction and vandalism that gets them going. There’s a deeper point against the total control of our lives by government and corporation alike, especially where the two entities become essentially indistinguishable. And that’s ground that libertarians can join them on, and from there we can work out the terms of a freer, more just society.

Thanks for reading.


H. W. Owens

So, let me get this straight--now, the members of Antifa are a community policing agency? Speaking of the police, why were they called off in Charlottesville? Governor McAuliffe justification for declaring a state of emergency was that the Unite the Right protesters "had better equipment than our State Police had". In a statement to Reason magazine Corinne Geller (a spokesperson for the Virginia State Police) said, "I can assure you that the Virginia State Police personnel were equipped with more-than-adequate specialized tactical and protective gear for the purpose of fulfilling their duties to serve and protect those in attendance of the August 12 event in Charlottesville." Governor McAuliffe also claimed that police had "...picked up different weapons that they had stashed around the city," Geller claims that searches were conducted and "No weapons were located as a result of those searches." (Reason article here). This doesn't pass the smell test. If I were to break out the old tin foil hat, I'd suspect that something more is going on.

I notice you ignore my linking Antifa with Occupy Wall Street to allow yourself to go on about the '90s being disingenuous. I did not mean to say that '90s are the origin, but one. In Weimar Germany, two political parties (Communist and National Socialist) were fighting for the same voters--the working class. Both engaged in violence; both promised goodies. Their object was to impress their targets with their power. In the American South the fight was, again, against a political party (the Democrats in that case). The British National Party couldn't (and still can't) get anyone elected. The Unite the Right marchers don't have a political party and most likely couldn't put a dog catcher in office anywhere in the U.S. even if they did.

I do not claim that violence against property and violence against life is commensurate. I am saying that violence is violence and the law is the law. I agree that lives are more valuable than property, and our laws recognize that. Dylan Roof was brought to the bar, tried, convicted and will pay for his crimes. I expect the same procedure for James Alex Fields, Jr. How many rioters were arrested in Berkeley? How many are paying restitution for their crimes? And, it's not just Berkeley or Seattle--the recent incident in Boston comes to mind. That old pesky violence seems to follow Antifa from place to place.

Did you really mean to say that everyone participating in the riots at Ferguson had been "harassed by the police their entire lives", or were you reaching for hyperbole? The death of Michael Brown was explained in grand jury testimony--he tried to get a gun from a police officer and then charged at him. Even the Washington Post (close to your home) admitted in an article on 12/14/2015 that "Hands Up Don’t Shoot" was one of the biggest "pinocchios" of 2015.

I seem to have read that most of the authorities (yeah, I know) in Phoenix agree that the police issued dispersal orders, but if everyone had obeyed, how could they have made the evening news?

Antifa, in some circles, describes themselves as anarchist, anti-fascist, anti-capitalist and anti-colonial. I would add Marxist and Maoist, but that's just me. Even if I agreed with their tenets, I would never endorse their methods. I also don't endorse the police standing down to permit Antifa's acts of destruction. Referring to one of your favorite phrases, I pose this question: Would Heather Heyer be alive today had Governor McAuliffe and the mayor of Charlottesville allowed the city and State police to do their jobs? There's a moral equivalence for you.

I appreciate your patience in responding to my replies. I doubt either of us has change any of the other's opinions, but at least we managed to try without resorting to nail-studded clubs, urine and feces filled balloons, knives and tiki torches.

Hardy Cox

You have many reasons to trash Trump politically. But at least he was standing there and telling the true feeling.

drew ferguson

I confess myself uncertain what you mean. What true feeling? Whose true feeling? And why should "true feeling," whatever that is, be heeded if it leads to politically, legally, and morally odious actions?

Scott Robinson

Dear Andrew,

One good point is that Donald Trump, along with every other candidate during the Republican primary said that Obama was bad because he would not say "Radical Islamic Terrorism". Based on that alone, Trump should have denounced the white supremacist terrorism of James Fields. However, I think that Trump's comments on Saturday, besides the absence of mentioning terrorism, were good. He did say that there was no justification for bigotry, hate, and violence. His cardinal sin was that he didn't denounce the neo-NAZIs, and KKK. I would have added a denouncement of the Aryan Nation, which if I remember right was David Duke's organization in the 1990's.

That said, I have seen on TV coverage of the protests at least one person wearing a shirt with Black Lives Matter written on it. My thought then was, what is White Lives Matter? White Lives Matter is the Ku Klux Klan. If you look at the history of the KKK, they were started to preserve and protect the white race and heritage. There are also numerous Antifa counter protestors in the TV coverage. Yesterday, I saw a CNN special about the Antifa. An interviewer asked a member why she wore a black bandana covering her nose and mouth and the hood of her black sweatshirt over her head. She said it was to stay anonymous. All I could think was that the bandana and sweatshirt hood is a lot like the white robe and hood covering the face that members of the KKK wear. It's kind of like what I heard as a child, when one group goes extreme left and another group goes extreme right, they both end up in the same place on the circle of viewpoints.

Maybe Trump knew that there was violence from both protestors (Nazi, KKK) and counter protestors (BLM, Antifa) and didn't want to name names. Also, what kind of neo-Nazi would let his daughter turn Jewish and have his Jewish son-in-law hold a position in his inner circle? However, he definitely should have labeled the car attack an act of white supremacy terrorism just like the lynchings that were carried out when that Robert E Lee statue was built. Thank you for giving us readers the info about the protest march the day before. All I've gotten from TV is getting to see the Tiki torch carrying protestors saying their mottos.

Well Done,

drew ferguson

Hi Scott—

Thanks for the comment. I appreciate several of the things you said, in particular your perspicacity in recognizing that the slogan White Lives Matter is essentially Klan doctrine without the hood, and I agree that you can draw a line directly from the Jim Crow lynchings (and race-based violence long before) to the present day.

However, beyond that I’m afraid I can’t follow you into almost any of the equivalences you draw. The Klan went disguised from their beginnings because they were intent on undermining the project of Reconstruction after the Civil War, and often the men charged with keeping the law during the daytime were the ones wearing the masks and gowns (and, later on, hoods and robes) at night. Antifa went disguised from their beginnings because they were resisting, at great personal risk, the rise of authoritarianism in Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy. The latter fought the surveillance state, the former *was* the surveillance state.

Similarly, the aims of the groups could not be more different. The white supremacist protestors in Charlottesville (the so-called “alt-right”) have expressed publicly, again and again, their desire to live in a single-race ethnostate; some have even used the words “peaceful genocide” without explaining what exactly will be done with those blacks, Latinos, Asians, native Americans, and others who do not wish to leave (not to mention people who are homosexual, transgendered, disabled, religious or irreligious in some non-conforming way including, yes, Jews, etc., all of whom have been targets of this ilk in the past). Meanwhile the supposed “alt-left” (really a term invented by centrist Democrats to keep their cushy positions safe from primary and grassroots challenges) are fighting to keep this from happening. It’s really that simple.

Even the strategies, which might seem similar at first glance, are widely divergent. Look at this past weekend’s rally in Boston: there was next to no antifa presence, because counterprotesters were already out in overwhelming numbers—in fact, in a major irony, it was members of Black Lives Matter (who are not and have never been antifa) who ended up escorting the neo-Nazi “America Firsters” in and out of the security perimeter, to make sure that there were no opportunities for riots to break out. It was a very different situation from Charlottesville, where the white-nationalists made the tactical decision to march while school was out for summer, make sure the opposition would be very limited for numbers. It wasn’t possible to hem the marchers in, especially once the event broke up; little knots of Nazis kept breaking off to menace other people—Jews worshiping at the town’s lone synagogue, residents of the primarily Black neighborhoods south of Downtown, and those few business owners who tried to soldier on and stay open rather than closing shop like most everyone else. And you just can’t point to “violence” on both sides as if fistfights or pepper sprayings are in any way equivalent to beating bloody a body that’s already on the ground, or driving a car into a crowd with the apparent intent of killing way more than a single person.

Finally, you’ll note that I said very specifically that Trump himself is not a Nazi, of the historic or Neo variety; I personally think his thought process isn’t capable of the basic abstraction required even for racial hate, it’s just about himself and his brand and his pathological need to be praised at every moment. (How’s that for a snowflake?) Nonetheless, I don’t think you can answer the question of his personal anti-Semitism or lack thereof on the basis of a Jewish son-in-law, especially when that son-in-law controls a massive NYC housing empire that would otherwise be a rival to Trump’s ambitions. However, if you watch the Vice video, you’ll see that Christopher Cantwell, the main white supremacist featured, takes Ivanka Trump’s marriage to Kushner as a sign that Trump himself is insufficiently committed to the cause. So, to argue that Trump can’t be anti-Semitic because he has a Jewish son-in-law and his daughter converted is to buy into a neo-Nazi argument: not usually a rhetorical place you want to occupy.

Thanks again for reading!


Scott Robinson

Dear Drew,

I have thought more about your counterargument that violence by the counter protestors was justified because they are anti-facism and anti-white supremacy. While I agree that the cause of Neo-Nazis and KKK members are evil and their resistance is justified, physical violence against speech is not a justified response. The fact that Tiki torch carriers and hate speech chanters are offensive is not justification to use physical force against them. The operative answer is to the question of who threw the first punch or other physical force. The first to use physical force is the guilty one involved in the rucous. This still doesn't justify the assault with a deadly weapon by John Fields. This is why the saying, "actions speak louder than words" is useful because it tells us that physical force is never an appropriate response to verbal force.

Best Wishes,

Scott Robinson

Dear Drew,

I see that the problem of my argument is too heavily dependent on the guilt by similarity. I do confess that I don't think that BLM is the black version of the KKK, but I do remember during primaries when if a candidate said all lives matter, they were booed. That said, the BLM doesn't engage in terrorist attacks on white people the way the KKK did and in subdued form does. Also, I see almost equal numbers of white people marching with black people in Black Lives Matter rallies.

I do see a difference now between the protestors and counter protestors. the counter protestors are more resistance to tyranny than the KKK and NAZI's which are for tyranny. Just because both sides use violence, doesn't mean both sides are equal. I just understood the problem of Trump saying that the both sides were bad. It's about what their cause is. It doesn't matter that you are fighting, what matters is what you are fighting for. I see why reading and discussing issues with other opinioned people is good.

Thanks for Writing,

© Copyright 2018 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.