_crop.jpg)
The message to “punch a Nazi in the face” is not about violence as a first resort. It is about drawing a line in the sand. It is the visceral, human reaction to the catastrophic failure of every system we were taught would protect us.
We are raised on a comforting story. We are taught that evil is a historical aberration, defeated by righteous institutions and good people. We fought a world war, and the tale we tell ourselves is that the Allies were the good guys, the system worked, and justice was served at Nuremberg. We created international bodies and wrote laws to prevent it from ever happening again. The message was clear: the system will handle it.
But that is a comforting fantasy for a people who no longer wish to be disturbed.
The system did not handle it. The system failed. The institutions designed to prevent this very thing have proven to be either impotent or, worse, complicit. The “good people” in power have spent years equivocating, making false equivalences between those who want to exist and those who want to erase them, and warning against “incivility” when faced with actual, literal Nazis.
The importance of the message to punch a Nazi in the face is that it is a raw, collective scream of rejection against that failure. It is the admission that when the system refuses to act, when the institutions that are supposed to protect us instead offer a platform to evil, then the responsibility falls back onto the individual. It is the moment the social contract is declared null and void, not by the resistor, but by the aggressor.
This is where the central lie of modern discourse must be dismantled. The media and political elites treat a masked neo-Nazi chanting “blood and soil” and a citizen protesting for racial justice as two sides of the same “extremism” coin. This is not a failure of analysis. It is a deliberate act of moral cowardice. It is a system so terrified of taking a stand that it equates the victim with the aggressor, the fire with the fire brigade. Punching a Nazi is important because it is a physical rejection of this toxic, paralyzing centrism. It is the declaration that there is no “both sides” when one side is advocating for your extermination.
The cherished liberal belief that the best way to combat bad ideas is with good ideas in a “marketplace of ideas” is a suicidal fantasy when applied to ideologies built on hate. Nazism is not an idea to be debated. It is a virus that seeks to destroy the host. It does not enter the marketplace to compete. It enters to burn the marketplace down. The “marketplace” metaphor only works if all participants agree to the basic rules of the market. Nazism’s goal is totalitarian conquest. To treat it as just another “viewpoint” is to fundamentally misunderstand what it is and what it wants. Punching a Nazi is the recognition that you are not in a debate hall. You are in a fight for survival.
And finally, the most crucial point. Violence is already present. Nazism is violence. It is the threat of violence, the promise of violence, and the historical reality of industrial-scale mass murder. To be “civil” in the face of it is to allow their violence to proceed unopposed.
It is to be a good German in 1933, tut-tutting at the Brownshirts in the streets while assuring yourself that things will settle down.
Therefore, punching a Nazi is not an initiation of violence. It is a defensive response to the violence they already embody. It is the moment you stop being a polite bystander to a threat and start being a resistor. It is the understanding that, sometimes, the only way to prevent a greater violence is to commit a smaller one.
It is not a political statement. It is a moral imperative. It cuts through the noise. It bypasses the useless intellectual debates about “free speech” and gets to the core truth: you have a moral duty to extinguish a fire before it burns down the whole house. You do not debate it. You do not try to understand its point of view. You punch it in the face.
Follow the Vanguard on Social Media – X, Instagram and Facebook. Subscribe the Vanguard News letters. To make a tax-deductible donation, please visit davisvanguard.org/donate or give directly through ActBlue. Your support will ensure that the vital work of the Vanguard continues.
From video: “Anyone we don’t like is a Nazi”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A8UwMCeD6jU
Don’t know where these “Nazis” are, but if Matt Stone (or anyone else) “punches them in the face” – I hope they put me on the resulting jury in regard to his trial.
(edited)
The photo for the image is an actual photo, do you think the people who ended up at Charlottesville materialized out of thin air? Also, you wouldn’t be able to serve on a jury for Matt since you have prior interactions… sorry man.
Would you be able to serve on a jury, if someone like Matt punched one of those guys (or someone like me)?
Tell me that you don’t really understand the point regarding “who” the hazard to society is.
This type of thinking is also the reason that someone like Beth gets attacked (which you then defend).
The ACLU used to defend free speech. Nowadays, some of those who would have supported it in the past are themselves advocating for violence, rather than protection.
Unfortunately, Matt is not alone in that type of thinking, and it increasingly appears that you have joined the mob yourself.
I just like giving straight answers to obvious sarcasm
My comment, at least, wasn’t intended as sarcasm.
This guy has literally called me a racist. What does he advocate for me? Am I in the same category as a Nazi in his view (and therefore deserving of getting punched in the face)?
Words matter, and the article itself borders on illegal speech (advocating for illegal attacks on others). Are you sure that you want the Vanguard to be associated with that?
So David, do you think this article is only about actual card carrying Nazis (so to speak), or is it about what the left deems to be Nazis today? Because if that’s the case they pretty much call everyone they don’t like a Nazi anymore.
No, as I explained to Ron, I was giving a straight answer to his sarcasm.
There is no sarcasm from me (or Matt) on here. It’s literally a call to physically attack someone because he doesn’t like what they say.
But I’m not going to “differentiate” between Nazis and those who are simply “called” Nazis or racists regarding this.
It’s illegal (for good reason) to attack ANYONE – including card-carrying Nazis in this manner.
This is also true for the people in the photo. Again, put me on a jury if that happens, and I’ll follow/apply the law without hesitation.
Jefferson once wrote: “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants.”
Not sure how that applies here, but you’re quoting a slave owner (and according to Matt – a rapist). He put forth a sound argument regarding the latter, in regard to the overall situation.
A problem with inciting small violence as response to, as you put it “actual, literal Nazis”, is anything and everything these days is declared “Nazi”, including your “The system failed” which wasn’t a Nazi system, until you just rhetorically made it so. This is how we get twisted-S like the victims of the Nazis being declared Nazis and therefore violence justified as ‘resistance’.
” there is no “both sides” when one side is advocating for your extermination.”
Polls of Israelis and Palestinians show that the *vast* majority of both populations believe the other population wishes to have them exterminated. If ‘both sides’ believe that, then ‘each side’ is justified to punch the perceived ‘Nazi’ in the face in the paradigm you present. Thus, perpetual violence.
Behold the conservative brain at work, folks. Absolutely incapable of doing nuance or complexity and only capable of black-or-white thinking.
Nowhere does this article “border on illegal speech.” Again, an inability to deal with complexity is on bold display here.
And I love the concern Ron is showing now about words mattering. Words, he claimed, didn’t matter when it was the hypothetical white person yelling the N word into a Black man’s face. Words didn’t matter then.
Because he feels he is being attacked, *now* “words matter.”
Like I said in a previous thread, hit. dogs. yelp.
Words, he claimed, didn’t matter when it was the hypothetical white person yelling the N word into a Black man’s face. Words didn’t matter then.
You are correct – that word doesn’t matter (legally). It’s protected speech. You can still find that word being used throughout society today, in music, on TV, in neighborhoods, etc. Sometimes in a purposefully-offensive manner (I can refer you to some mainstream links, if you doubt that).
Now, if someone literally threatens someone else, that’s a different issue.
Do you actually not understand this?
Do you think the law itself differentiates use of words based on the user’s skin color? And if so, do you think your belief is going to hold up in a court of law?
Do you actually not see that Matt (in contrast) is literally advocating for illegal violence?
Are you really that ignorant, or are you just pretending to be to get a reaction? (Pretty sure I know the answer to that – it’s the latter.)
But yeah, both you and Matt are a hazard to society. You both incite hatred and resulting violence.
He didn’t threaten anyone. Again, you are inacapable of nuance or complexity.
So you have zero reason to whine about “words mattering” now, by your own elaboration above.
“Punch the Nazi in the Face”. Should I go ahead and quote other sections as well? It’s right there in the article.
Is this what you advocate for, as well?
Using your own example, do you think a black person, for example, has a “right” to punch a white person in the face simply for using that word?
And does a white person have a “right” to punch a black person for using some word like “cracker”? (Somehow, it doesn’t seem to be as effective that way.)
I’ve been called “white boy” in a derisive manner several times by gangs of black youth – intended to intimidate me. I’ve also been physically attacked due to my skin color (I already know that someone like you would deny that, or simply not care).
So in my case, being called “white boy” would not justify me attacking a black person, though that’s not the primary reason I didn’t do so.
The comments were intended to denigrate and intimidate me, in a situation where I would have been severely injured at best if I responded in any manner at all (including verbally).
Now, the times I’ve been physically attacked are obviously different, but I also had no chance (regardless of any words used). But the law itself does allow self-defense, in general.
Those guys in the photo from several years ago? Not attacking anyone, nor were they advocating for that.
If there was a group of black people holding signs regarding how much they hate white people, I’d just let them be (and would hope that the law protects them, as well).
“So in my case, being called “white boy” would not justify me attacking a black person”
Correct, it shouldn’t because even though that may be personally offensive, there is no systemic or structural offense behind it.
“there is no systemic or structural offense behind it”
Please translate so anyone who’s doesn’t speak far-left-ese can understand.
Being called the “n” word also does not legally enable one to launch a physical attack out of anger.
The law is clear regarding that.
Systemic and/or structural offense (imagined, or otherwise) have nothing to do with this in the eyes of the law.
Of course, if someone like Kendra ended up on a jury (by hiding her views, for example), a prosecutor might not obtain a conviction as a result of such an attack. No doubt, a defense attorney would attempt to claim that a violent response is justified.
“Of course, if someone like Kendra ended up on a jury (by hiding her views, for example), a prosecutor might not obtain a conviction as a result of such an attack. No doubt, a defense attorney would attempt to claim that a violent response is justified.”
Stop putting words in my mouth and making assumptions about me. Stop making straw men out of what you don’t know.
How about you take the proverbial flying sex act at a rollling donut? You don’t get to speculate on what I might say or do on a jury.
Got it?
Again, shutting your mouth is always an option. Anytime.
But you’re a bully. Fullstop. Which has been demonstrated over and over again in these comments.
D-day, when Antifa, or should I say Anti-fascist forces landed on Normandy they demonstrated how to deal with Nazi’s.
You guys are so quick to defend the free speech rights of those who would march under the most despicable banner of the 20th century. But here is the deal with Nazi’s that you are missing and why its okay to slap them around. Historically it has been the Nazi’s who brought the violence under that banner and with the protection of government. And the great lesson of WWII is to fight back and not be bullied by a bunch of thugs. So I’m fine with doing what it takes to let them know that the hate they promote is not going to be tolerated.
But here is the deal with Nazi’s that you are missing and why its okay to slap them around.
So I’m fine with doing what it takes to let them know that the hate they promote is not going to be tolerated.
Another example of a supporter of lynch mobs, as well as another example of someone who is not fit or qualified to serve on a jury.
I guess I shouldn’t be surprised (and yet I am).
I would hope that (if ever asked to serve on a jury), you and Kendra let them know up-front that you’re unwilling to adhere to the law.
Stop speculating on what I would or would not do on a jury. Knock it off with the personal attacks, clown.
What’s up with your fixation of juries? This article isn’t about them.
He needs to stop lying about what people would or would not do in such circumstances. I’ve served on a jury. I did not lie in any way, shape, or form.
He’ll keep doing it, because as I said previously, he is a worthless bully, period. He can’t control himself.
What’s up with your fixation of juries? This article isn’t about them.
Are you just purposefully being ignorant, David?
Kendra is apparently advocating illegal actions/retributions – the type of incident that one might be required to decide on a jury.
The ENTIRE ARTICLE advocates for breaking the law. And you have no concerns about running this in the Vanguard? I’m not sure if this says more about you, your supporters (or both).
Yeah, I think you misread the text here
You mean like this one?
“Punch the Nazi in the Face”
But again, since Kendra keeps bringing it up (across multiple articles), what retribution does she advocate for (legal, or otherwise), in regard to a white person who uses the “n” word?
And for that matter, does she also advocate for literally “punching Nazis in the face”, as well? (And do you?)
Ron, I think you’re reading the piece far more literally than it’s written. The article isn’t instructing anyone to go out and assault specific people but instead it’s making a moral argument about how society should respond to openly violent ideologies and rejecting the idea that those ideologies deserve neutral treatment. The “punch a Nazi” line functions as provocative rhetoric and historical analogy, not as a call to violence. So while you are free to disagree with the tone or framing, saying the “entire article advocates breaking the law” mischaracterizes what it actually argues.
David, we can dissect the entire article if you’d like.
It’s actually quite a dangerous thing to say, for more than one reason.
This is also how someone like Beth gets attacked, with the support of the mob.
One cannot “play dumb” regarding what this type of article actually leads to. Not when it literally says “Punch a Nazi” – repeatedly.
But let’s see what Kendra has to say (e.g., regarding what retribution is justified regarding her example – legal or not).
Nazis, white people who use the “n” word, etc. This type of comment should be exposed.
Let’s start here: “ The message to “punch a Nazi in the face” is not about violence as a first resort. It is about drawing a line in the sand. It is the visceral, human reaction to the catastrophic failure of every system we were taught would protect us.”
The first line clearly delineates that this is not about violence in a first resort which I read as not advocating one simply walk up to someone and punch them.
Instead as the second line presents, it’s about drawing what I would argue is a moral line in the sand.
And really as the third sentence shows, this isn’t about violence at all, but rather systemic failure.
How about this (referenced in more than one way):
“To be “civil” in the face of it is to allow their violence to proceed unopposed.”
What does this mean, what does the author, Kendra, or you advocate here? Be specific.
What “incivility” do any of you advocate, in response? (Perhaps going back to the title of the article, then – which is also referenced more than once?)
You wanted to dissect it, in order to do that we have to do this systematically and sequentially
Fourth paragraph: “ It is the moment the social contract is declared null and void, not by the resistor, but by the aggressor.”
Here is a key point, he argues that the social contract is declared null and void. Now from Hobbes, we know that without the social contract we are in the state of nature, violence on violence.
Sixth paragraph: “ The cherished liberal belief that the best way to combat bad ideas is with good ideas in a “marketplace of ideas” is a suicidal fantasy when applied to ideologies built on hate. Nazism is not an idea to be debated.”
He’s basically rejecting that Nazism, which I see as a metaphor for modern political discourse, cannot simply be debate. (I probably disagree here somewhat)
“ And finally, the most crucial point. Violence is already present. Nazism is violence. It is the threat of violence, the promise of violence, and the historical reality of industrial-scale mass murder. To be “civil” in the face of it is to allow their violence to proceed unopposed. ”
Seventh paragraph he is arguing that violence is already presence, and accepting it civilly is acquiescing to the violence.
Eight paragraph goes back to Nazi Germany.
Then in the ninth: “ Therefore, punching a Nazi is not an initiation of violence. It is a defensive response to the violence they already embody. It is the moment you stop being a polite bystander to a threat and start being a resistor. It is the understanding that, sometimes, the only way to prevent a greater violence is to commit a smaller one.”
So here is the question: when he calls for resistance and a defensive response, does he actually literally mean that resistance is punching a nazism or is that simply a metaphor.
Conclusion: “ you have a moral duty to extinguish a fire before it burns down the whole house. You do not debate it. You do not try to understand its point of view. You punch it in the face.”
So again we are at the question does he mean literally punch it in the face or is that a metaphor and I would argue since literally punching it in the face is a useless and pointless act, he cannot be literal here.
Also, you must have missed this (in your own quote):
“It is the understanding that, sometimes, the only way to prevent a greater violence is to commit a smaller one.”
That doesn’t sound like a “metaphor” (e.g., in response to a rally that’s protected under the U.S. Constitution).
I referenced that. Ultimately punching a Nazi doesn’t actually accomplish anything therefore I conclude it’s a metaphor. Also I believe Nazi itself is a metaphor
At this point, I believe you’re the one who is “misreading” what this article (and some of the resulting comments) actually intend. There’s a visual aid attached to this article (a photo) which also doesn’t appear to be a “metaphor”, even if it is about a decade old at this point.
But if claim is that the author wants to punch imaginary metaphors, I suppose that’s legal at least. There’s homeless people on the street literally punching imaginary metaphors every day (though they probably don’t take the form of Nazis in their minds). In any case, they do have drugs which can control that, these days.
DG say, “Ultimately punching a Nazi doesn’t actually accomplish anything therefore I conclude it’s a metaphor. Also I believe Nazi itself is a metaphor”
You do ???!!! That sounds like the Jemma Decristo defense, which was insane but apparently ‘worked’ since JD got a slap and a job. How can one simultaneously argue that BB is causing an atmosphere of violence against one group (which, while I defend her 1st amendment, I think she is contributing to escalating tension), and then call the Nazi a ‘metaphor’ and the punch a metaphor? And yes, I’ll defend MS’s and DG’s 1st amendment as well.
But it’s all fun and games and metaphors until someone loses an eye.
https://www.thefp.com/p/the-hunting-of-jews-at-bondi-beach
DG say, “Also I believe Nazi itself is a metaphor”
To focus on that one statement, a metaphor for what ???!!! Considering Nazi is appropriated to ever group anyone doesn’t like these days, using the term only clouds reality and is offensive in clouding the extent of the evil as well as clouding the meaning of the ideology itself. This has gotten so bat-S crazy that Jews are being called Nazis by some out-there groups, the ultimate wacked political inversion. So how is this nonviolent rhetoric when many on the far-left are now for the 2nd amendment and opposed to the first? Your ideology may be clouding your thinking.
Probably MAGA
DG say, “Probably MAGA”
Ok let’s say MS is using Nazi as a metaphor for MAGA. Isn’t that the ultimate over-a-cliff usage of Godwin’s law? I’m not going to defend MAGA-ism here, I’m no fan, but to just say it’s Nazism is lazy AF and totally minimizes the evil that Nazism was, and simultaneously does nothing to explain what MAGA-ism actually is and what the problems with it are.
I have *zero* tolerance for comparing everything to Nazis. It’s offensive/hazardous not just to Jews but to all the groups that were systematically slaughtered by the Nazis (Jews, Soviets, Ukrainians, Belarusians, Poles, Russians, Serbs, Roma (gypsies), disabled people, Jehovah’s Witnesses, gay men). With this lazy Godwinian labeling we end up with stupid narratives like Elon Musk was secretly signalling a Nazi salute to his fascist friends by awkwardly throwing his hand in the air kinda sorta like hail Hitler. If he goose stepped across the stage you might have had me. Again, I’m no fan of Eelon Musk, but just please everyone STOP with this S.
And if it were a metaphor for MAGA, is it OK to call for “punching a MAGA in the face” ? And when confronted with this, you’d just say it was a metaphor, too ? I know you don’t like both-sidesing (I’ve never understood why, as that’s just pointing out reality), but *what if* a MAGA journalist said via metaphor to punch a (liberal, immigrant, transgender, far-left, gay, Somalian, etc.) in the face? Would that just be a metaphor, and because, as you say “I would argue since literally punching it in the face is a useless and pointless act, he cannot be literal here” is somehow not also true on the ‘other’ side? And this wouldn’t be violence because it would be ‘pointless’ as well? Or would this be violence here have a point, because, y’know . . .
Well, ‘y’know’ what, exactly, because I sure don’t know why.
Punch violence in the face!
RG say, “D-day, when Antifa, or should I say Anti-fascist forces landed on Normandy they demonstrated how to deal with Nazi’s.”
What??? You are calling the Allied Forces “Antifa” ? Not even sure what your point is here.
“You guys are so quick to defend the free speech rights of those who would march under the most despicable banner of the 20th century.”
As did the ACLU.
“But here is the deal with Nazi’s that you are missing and why its okay to slap them around. Historically it has been the Nazi’s who brought the violence under that banner and with the protection of government.”
The Nazi government. And slap them we did.
RG say, “And the great lesson of WWII is to fight back and not be bullied by a bunch of thugs.”
That’s the lesson of WWII ? How about don’t block the Jews from both America and Palestine when they are being slaughtered in Europe ? That’s another “the” lesson. Lots of other lessons too, but this is a blog comment, not a history book.
RG say, “So I’m fine with doing what it takes to let them know that the hate they promote is not going to be tolerated.”
The Nazis? What Nazis? The ones from the picture from North Carolina a few years ago? The ones who painted the swastika on the silver railroad box in Davis the morning after Bondi Beach (even though the perps at Bondi Beach were Islamists, so probably stupid people who aren’t Nazis or Islamists) ? What Nazis are you talking about?
Seriously, I usually like/follow your posts. This one mystified me.
I’ll tell you later.
“But let’s see what Kendra has to say (e.g., regarding what retribution is justified regarding her example – legal or not).
Nazis, white people who use the “n” word, etc. This type of comment should be exposed.”
Naw. You’re doing such a fine job of straw-manning me on your own.
Keep gettin’ your bully on. I’m disengaging from your clownish and malicious antics.
Again, behold how the conservative brain works. No ability to deal with complexity or nuance or anything that is not black-or-white thinking.
He’s having a literal meltdown because of his inability to understand a complex article and not jump to the (absolutely wrong) conclusion that it is advocating violence.
Such non-serious people do not deserve being engaged with. Pearls before swine, people.
“Kendra is apparently advocating illegal actions/retributions – the type of incident that one might be required to decide on a jury.”
David, can you please delete these continued slanderous comments he is making regarding what I am or am not advocating in regard to jury service? I have adocated no such thing. Precisely zero of my own words in any comments herein support his continued malicious characterization of what I might or might not do in a hypothetical situation.
I’m getting pretty sick of this effing bully.
We’ll see how he responds to my dissection.
Ron stop referencing Kendra in your responses to me.