The nuance of this issue is that while the left positions all of this as an organized, massive movement of white supremacists in the traditional way of understanding them, their attempt at 'multiracial whiteness' demonstrates how they are struggling to manage the complexity.
The observable truth here is that the Capitol Riot was a mix of various fringe groups all united under a singular temporary identity.
Ironically, by banning them all from social media over the last four years, the left united them together under a cause.
Traditional white supremacist movements sought to intimidate minorities or to engage in violence against them.
They rarely act as a group. Usually individuals who self-identify with a movement or org or philosophy act on their own.
The issue has been focused on messaging.
What messaging is causing these individuals to act and commit acts of terrorism?
The left sees it as simple.
White supremacy.
They included Trump under this because these groups held him up as their leader.
But the messaging changed to one of nationalism.
The nationalist vision came as a host of issues common in conservative thinking became building blocks of conspiracy and underground revolutionary thinking.
The further hidden from social media, the more individuals were radicalized into believing bigger conspiracies.
The extremists believed the election was being stolen and the rally was meant to *stop* it.
But as we saw from video, a lot of people were simply involved to be obnoxious and gain clout with photos in offices or standing behind the desk and so on.
Mobs easily become violent. Trump inspired vigor in individuals who began acting as a group and the more violent people already there to 'save the country' easily became violent.
That is the problem with highly volatile and densely centralized protests. They easily escalate.
So while people who identify as white supremacists or nazis or other types of nationalists were eager to join the 'revolution,' it was not a 'white supremacist' rally or even riot.
It was a riot of many individuals associated on a spectrum of far-right ideology acting together.
Why does this distinction matter?
Because a dedicated effort to erase, imprisoned and ban all white supremacist ideology is not going to solve the radicalization.
It will make it worse.
The left's obsession with pre-1990's style white supremacy movements is blinding them.
These groups are still rare and scattered, aligning only under Big Tech suppression and leftwing excess in America. Their various ideologies becoming less of an influence than their overall belief in revolution for 'freedom.'
The alt-right shows this progression perfectly.
They started as an aggressive anti-leftwing, anti-GOP, anti-PC movement that quickly attracted and became dominated by people who express those ideals to their extremes in racism, antisemitism and violent rhetoric.
Within that group actually disturbed people found a voice.
Just like in leftwing movements where disturbed individuals come to believe they are fighting literal nazis and fascists.
This is why the left labels all people on the right the same way, because we use similar language and they see it as unified.
Like Muslims after 9/11.
No one supports or defends any form of white nationalism because we have rightfully determined as a society that those views are abhorrent.
The fact those who align with these groups also support Constitutional rights and nationalism and other rightwing ideals is irrelevant.
That's been our struggle as a movement.
We champion free speech and a white supremacist says 'Me too!!'
But we are not the same movement. The left simply exploits fear and hatred of this group to marginalize rightwing views as a whole.
Now they believe its all true.
Essentially the issue is not one of any fringe group's beliefs but an environment of political violence.
You can't stop rightwing political violence while championing or ignoring or denying leftwing political violence.
It has to be a unified pursuit against all violence.
We already marginalize and socially reject the white supremacist spectrum of beliefs.
The focus now must be to prevent protests from turning into mobs that turn into riots.
Otherwise its just theater catering to people susceptible to mass hysteria and emotion.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Here's the thing.
Big rallies draw lots of kinds of people.
Mostly peaceful, but passionate voices.
They also bring out crazies.
The more passionate the rally the more likely the crazies will falsely believe they are empowered to act out the chants and slogans all around them.
The Capitol Riot had a contingency of well-known instigators, fantasy revolutionaries and very real actually dangerous people deluded into believing they were there to save the country, oh, and lots of white supremacists and Nazi LARPers and so on.
We shouldn't shut down all political activism and rallying.
But we must have better security and better organized rallies.
We have to be aware of the people who show up and pay attention to rising passions.
Our leaders must balance passion with measured reason.
Here is my argument for why access to digital services should be considered a civil right equal to access to physical services.
As a Jewish person and as a gay person I am protected under anti-discrimination law (varied for being gay).
A store cannot ban me for either.
A store could not, for example, have a policy that bans 'immoral behavior' on their property and then selectively enforce this only on gay couples who happen to either simply walk in or who hold hands or show affection of any kind.
No liberal perspective would agree.
If this happened to me I would be able to argue that my civil rights had been violated.
Even without official legal protections, this would be enough to file a lawsuit, launch legislation and create public outcry until it was officially illegal to do so.
The left believes bad ideas reproduce in the open.
You let someone share a bad idea and it multiplies with the validation of an official platform.
That makes it 'dangerous' as exposure is like a virus.
They think if you suppress the people with the bad idea, it will suffocate.
It seems simple to them.
Trump incited his followers to commit violence through his rhetoric, ban Trump and you remove the rhetoric.
No one else gets infected.
But then you must remove all those already infected...
Then you must stop the rhetoric from repeating.
Its a simple issue of threat reduction, not speech suppression.
But they refuse to recognize that in doing so they validate the rhetoric, turn it into dogma and it becomes mythology with more and more loyal adherents.
It goes underground.
It grows in power and legitimacy.