The Daily Stormer is an American neo-Nazi and white supremacist news and commentary website.[1][2] It considers itself a part of the alt-right movement.[3] Its editor is Andrew Anglin, who founded it on July 4, 2013, as a faster-paced replacement for his previous website Total Fascism.

The site is known for its use of Internet memes, which have been likened to the imageboard 4chan and cited as attractions for a younger and more ideologically diverse audience.[4] While some white nationalist authors have praised The Daily Stormer's reach, others have taken issue with its content and tone, accusing Anglin of being an agent provocateur, used to discredit true white nationalism.[5]

The Daily Stormer orchestrates what it calls the "Troll Army", which is involved in Internet trolling of figures with whom Anglin disagrees politically. It has also distributed propaganda.

 Frazzled wrote:
And the US bashing continues.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
And the US bashing continues.

It would help if you did not take every occasion to portray the free-speech laws of the Commonwealth and EU as the avatar of Orwellian oppression.


Wether these Neo-Nazi are proper Nazi or not is entirely inconsequential. If they are honestly Nazi, then they espouse a dangerous ideology. If they are the political equivalent of morbid fetishists, then they are simply dangerous individuals, because prone to escalation, desillusion and stupidity.

And then you have the absurdity of equating the violence of protesters to the violence of fascists. Punching a Nazi in the face is as disturbing to civil peace as the attention the media and justice system will give to the case. The function of Nazi organisation is to be a threat to civil society as understood nowadays.

 Blood Hawk wrote:

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
And the US bashing continues.

It would help if you did not take every occasion to portray the free-speech laws of the Commonwealth and EU as the avatar of Orwellian oppression.


Wether these Neo-Nazi are proper Nazi or not is entirely inconsequential. If they are honestly Nazi, then they espouse a dangerous ideology. If they are the political equivalent of morbid fetishists, then they are simply dangerous individuals, because prone to escalation, desillusion and stupidity.

And then you have the absurdity of equating the violence of protesters to the violence of fascists. Punching a Nazi in the face is as disturbing to civil peace as the attention the media and justice system will give to the case. The function of Nazi organisation is to be a threat to civil society as understood nowadays.

You realize that there are self declared communists actively attacking these so called fascists right? People flying communist flags and burning college campuses in California right? You do realize that many more people died to internal repression in communist controlled countries vs those killed by fascists right? You realize that communists are also a threat civilized society?

If we were being accountants about this we would be more afraid of the guy with the communist flag.

Heather D. Heyer died standing up for what she believed in.

Friends described her as a passionate advocate for the disenfranchised who was often moved to tears by the world’s injustices. That sense of conviction led her to join demonstrators protesting a rally of white nationalists in Charlottesville, Va., on Saturday.

“We were just marching around, spreading love — and then the accident happened,” a friend, Marissa Blair, said. “In a split second you see a car, and you see bodies flying.”

The authorities said Ms. Heyer, 32, was killed when a car driven by a man from Ohio plowed into the crowd.

“Heather was such a sweet soul, and she did not deserve to die,” Ms. Blair said on Sunday.

Others said Ms. Heyer, who lived in Charlottesville, spoke out against inequality and urged co-workers to be active in their community.

“Heather was a very strong woman,” said Alfred A. Wilson, manager of the bankruptcy division at the Miller Law Group in Charlottesville, where Ms. Heyer worked as a paralegal. She stood up against “any type of discrimination,” he said. “That’s just how she’s always been.”

Mr. Wilson said in an interview on Sunday that he found her at her computer crying many times.

“Heather being Heather has seen something on Facebook or read something in the news and realized someone has been mistreated and gets upset,” he said.

A couple of years ago, she was dating someone who became agitated after learning that Mr. Wilson was black and that they were friends.

“She just didn’t like the way he was judging me as a minority male that’s doing well for myself,” Mr. Wilson said, adding that Ms. Heyer stopped seeing the man after that.

She often posted messages on Facebook about equality and love, said Ms. Blair, who recently left the law firm.

“She’s always so passionate and she speaks with so much conviction all the time,” she said.

Mr. Wilson hired Ms. Heyer at the recommendation of a friend. She had a high school diploma but did not have a background in law. Instead, she was working as a bartender and waitress, but he said she had an eye for detail and was “a people person.”

“If you can get people to open up to you, that’s what I need,” he told her. “I’ll teach you everything about the law you need to know.”

She did not stop working as a waitress even after she started at the law firm.

“It’s because of Heather that I started tipping people a lot better,” Ms. Blair said.

Ms. Heyer’s only flaw, Mr. Wilson said with a laugh, was that she liked to sleep late. “I had to change my office work hours just to meet her schedule,” he said.

She worked to improve herself by taking classes and studying.

“If she’s going to do something, she made sure she understood it,” he said. She was so dedicated that during her first two years on the job she did not take any vacations, he said.

Ms. Heyer lived alone with her Chihuahua, Violet, who was named after her favorite color.

For her, activism was about more than just “sitting behind your computer screen,” Ms. Blair said. “You gotta get out in your community and do things.”

Ms. Heyer and her friends were walking together at the protest when a car crashed into the crowd.

Ms. Blair, 27, saw it unfold.

Ms. Blair said her fiancé pushed her out of the way. She had a scrape on her arm and a bruise on her leg.

She began to look for him, and spotted his red baseball cap on the ground, covered in blood.

“It terrified me,” she said.

They two were reunited — he had a broken leg — and taken to a hospital, all the while wondering what happened to Ms. Heyer.

A detective broke the news that Ms. Heyer had been killed.

“I kind of knew and didn’t want to believe it,” she said. “When the cop told me, I cried and sank to my knees.”

James Alex Fields Jr., 20, of Maumee, Ohio, was arrested and charged with second-degree murder, three counts of malicious wounding and failing to stop at the scene of a crash that resulted in a death, the police said.

Charlottesville, in a statement about Ms. Heyer, said: “This senseless act of violence rips a hole in our collective hearts. While it will never make up for the loss of a member of our community, we will pursue charges against the driver of the vehicle that caused her death and are confident justice will prevail.”

A GoFundMe campaign created to support Ms. Heyer’s family had surpassed $200,000 as of Sunday evening.

“I’ve never had a close friend like this be murdered,” Ms. Blair said. “We thought, ‘What would Heather do?’ Heather would go harder. So that’s what we’re going to do. We’re going to preach love. We’re going to preach equality, and Heather’s death won’t be in vain.”

 Manchu wrote:

Set aside the entirely superficial appeals to Nazi branding and what's left? Certainly, no meaningful connection to mid-20th-century German politics. Nope, it's just homegrown American white supremacy.

James Alex Fields Jr. of Ohio was charged with second-degree murder in Charlottesville, Va., on Saturday after the authorities said he smashed a car into a line of cars in an episode that left a 32-year-old woman dead and injured at least 19 other people who were protesting a rally staged by white nationalists.

Background
• Mr. Fields, 20, was born in Kenton, Ky., to Samantha Lea Bloom.

• He was living with his mother until “five or six months ago” when he moved to his own apartment in Maumee, Ohio, according to an interview that Ms. Bloom gave to The Toledo Blade. They moved to Ohio from Kentucky about year ago because of her job, she said.

• Mr. Fields’s father died before he was born, an aunt, Pam Fields, said in an interview on Sunday. Ms. Fields said she had not seen her nephew, whom she remembered as a “very quiet little boy,” more than five times in the past 10 years.

• A friend and former neighbor of Ms. Bloom’s in the condominium complex where she lived until last year remembered her son as a quiet teenager who “kept to himself a lot.”

“He had some trouble in school making friends,” said the friend, who requested anonymity because she said she feared for her safety.

“She had struggled with him during his teen years but he came around towards the end of school,” she said, adding, “She was always trying to do the best for her son.”

• In an interview with The Associated Press, Ms. Bloom said she knew her son was going to a rally, but that she tried to “stay out of his political views.” She said that she thought the rally “had something to do with Trump,” adding, “Trump’s not a supremacist.”

• Derek Weimer, 45, told The Cincinnati Enquirer that Mr. Fields was one of his students when he taught history at Randall K. Cooper High School. He described Mr. Fields as “a very bright kid but very misguided and disillusioned.”

When Mr. Fields was a freshman, he wrote a report for another class that was “very much along the party lines of the neo-Nazi movement,” Mr. Weimer said.

“A lot of boys get interested in the Germans and Nazis because they’re interested in World War II,” he said. “But James took it to another level.”

• Military records show that Mr. Fields entered the Army on Aug. 18, 2015, around the time his mother wrote on Facebook that he had left for boot camp. Less than four months later, on Dec. 11, his period of active duty concluded. It was not immediately clear why he left the military.

• A photographer said he saw Mr. Fields on Saturday with symbols of Vanguard America, a group whose manifesto declares that “a government based in the natural law must not cater to the false notion of equality.” The organization denied any ties to Mr. Fields.

“The driver of the vehicle that hit counterprotesters today was, in no way, a member of Vanguard America,” the group said in a statement on its Twitter account. “All our members had been safely evacuated by the time of the incident. The shields seen do not denote membership, nor does the white shirt. The shirts were freely handed out to anyone in attendance.”

A Violent Crash

• Mr. Fields was driving a Dodge Challenger “at a high rate of speed” in downtown Charlottesville at about 1:45 p.m., a spokeswoman for the city said in a statement. He drove the car into a sedan, which hit a minivan that was in front of it.

The impact of the crash pushed the sedan and the minivan into a crowd of pedestrians. Mr. Fields fled the scene in the Challenger but was stopped a short time later by the Charlottesville police.


• Deia Schlosberg and Conrad Shaw, documentary filmmakers who were in Charlottesville to shoot footage of one of the counterprotesters, were nearby when the car barreled down the street. They said that it hit a number of people before crashing into the other vehicles.

“It seemed like it was trying to drive through the crowd,” Ms. Schlosberg said. “The other cars were enveloped in the crowd. I bet those cars saved a ton more lives because it couldn’t keep going.”

• The city identified the dead woman as Heather D. Heyer, 32, of Charlottesville.

• Military records show that Mr. Fields entered the Army on Aug. 18, 2015, around the time his mother wrote on Facebook that he had left for boot camp. Less than four months later, on Dec. 11, his period of active duty concluded. It was not immediately clear why he left the military.

 Blood Hawk wrote:
You realize that there are self declared communists actively attacking these so called fascists right? People flying communist flags and burning college campuses in California right? You do realize that many more people died to internal repression in communist controlled countries vs those killed by fascists right? You realize that communism is also a threat to civilized society?

If we were being accountants about this we would be more afraid of the guy with the communist flag.

 sebster wrote:

 Blood Hawk wrote:
You realize that there are self declared communists actively attacking these so called fascists right? People flying communist flags and burning college campuses in California right? You do realize that many more people died to internal repression in communist controlled countries vs those killed by fascists right? You realize that communism is also a threat to civilized society?

If we were being accountants about this we would be more afraid of the guy with the communist flag.

Yes, both communism and fascism are bad ideas with horrible legacies, but you're missing a huge distinction between the two at this level. The horrible elements of communism are secondary impacts, the appeal comes from the dream of social and material equality. People who believe in communism are wrong, but they're not automatically awful.

Whereas the really horrible parts of fascism are right there, up front, they are the central appeal. The worship of power, of political and military violence - those things are why people become fascists. People who believe in fascism aren't just wrong, they're inherently drawn to explicitly ugly ideals.

 whembly wrote:
erm... Seb... the distinction is so minute, I'm not sure you can really say that with a straight face.

In order to achieve both ideals... extreme brutality is seen when working towards those goals.

The proverb of "The road to hell is paved with good intentions" comes to mind.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
To continue my rambling, I hate Nazism and everything it stands for, but I'm not sure I'd want to live in a democracy where people weren't allowed to say what they thought, no matter how repulsive.

As I've said before, the USA of old, confident in itself, and its values, would laugh of this fringe movement. Let them march would probably be the response.

 sebster wrote:

 whembly wrote:
erm... Seb... the distinction is so minute, I'm not sure you can really say that with a straight face.

In order to achieve both ideals... extreme brutality is seen when working towards those goals.

The proverb of "The road to hell is paved with good intentions" comes to mind.

The distinction loses meaning when it is part of a political force that has a real chance at gaining power. But for individuals espousing personal philosophy, even if they're part of a minor political party, the difference is huge.

If you meet a regular person who happens to be a communist, then you're meeting a regular person with strong beliefs about material and social equality. They don't actually want mass political oppression and economic stagnation, even though that's almost certainly what their ideas will bring.

Whereas if you meet a regular person who happens to be a fascist, then you're meeting a person who dreams about committing violent acts of suppression on enemies both internal and external. They actually want the horrible stuff.

That difference is massive.

 oldravenman3025 wrote:
I don't think that your late countryman, Mr. George Orwell, intended for 1984 to be an instruction manual. We've gone far enough here with the surveillance, both public and private, and the (sadly necessary evil known as the) NSA.

 sebster wrote:


So no, if 1984 was to be used as an instruction book then you wouldn't start by increasing surveillance powers. There are lots of good reasons to limit and control surveillance powers, of course, but the fear that surveillance is the first step to government takeover is miles away from reality.

 sebster wrote:

 oldravenman3025 wrote:
I don't think that your late countryman, Mr. George Orwell, intended for 1984 to be an instruction manual. We've gone far enough here with the surveillance, both public and private, and the (sadly necessary evil known as the) NSA.

Orwell was a keen thinker who believed in ensuring all his ideas were as clearly defined and argued as possible. As such, I think he'd fairly horrified that his most famous work is one of the most poorly understood books in literature.

The events of 1984 don't show the gradual creation of a police state through well intentioned increases in surveillance. The totalitarian regime begins in the chaos of war, and desperate starvation. Orwell did this quite deliberately, because Orwell knew how totalitarian states actually start.

Gary Kasparov, who knows quite a lot about actually fighting against a tyrant, wrote a very good piece in the wake of Snowden's leaks and flight to Moscow. One telling quote;
"But citizens behind the Iron Curtain were not terrified of the intelligence services because of data collection. We lived in fear because we knew what would happen to us if we gave any hint of dissent against the regime. As often as not, no data at all was required to persecute, disappear, torture, and murder potential enemies. If a court actually was involved, and evidence desired, it could simply be fabricated. And no, to take on the next argument I often hear, brutal totalitarianism does not begin with surveillance by a liberal democratic state. It begins with terror, it begins with violence, it begins with the knowledge that your thoughts and words can end your career or your life."

So no, if 1984 was to be used as an instruction book then you wouldn't start by increasing surveillance powers. There are lots of good reasons to limit and control surveillance powers, of course, but the fear that surveillance is the first step to government takeover is miles away from reality.

 whembly wrote:
Okay.. .you're referring to typical individuals.

I was targeting the ideology.

So... mea culpa on my part.

It's like when folks wear the Che Guerava t-shirt thinking they're supporting whatever Communist ideals Cuba represents... but, ignorant to the actual history of how brutal murderous Che was to his own people... murdering gays and blacks just because....

But, here's the crux of my point... the ideology of both the fascists and communisms ARE abhorent, as they both require a system to oppress the people. Yes, the individual may aspire to the appealing aspect of communisms and remain ignorant to the brutal realities of such ideals. It's incumbent on others to challenge that individual in the spheres of idea and convince them otherwise. Whereas the fascist donkey-caves don't really "hide" their desires for such power.

The thing is... we’re all people, whether we have differences of opinion, color of skin, accents, or beliefs.

My grandpa used to say that we're all the same "on the inside"... We breathe the same air, bleed the same blood, and eat the same things. He made a point to teach that to his kids/grandkids.

Life *is* a struggle... and it's one continuous journey with trials and tribulations... but it doesn’t mean you have to go through life hating others and looking for a reason to lash out at them.

I believe we’re better than that.... I believe we can counter bad ideas with good ideas. Resorting to violence as an "answer" is simply fething lazy.

 Grey Templar wrote:
To say that it can't possibly lead to a totalitarian state is really presumptuous.

Besides, surveillance can and is used as a tool of terror. So by Kasparov's quote, it could indeed by used as an opening salvo in the formation of a totalitarian state.

whembly wrote:

 sebster wrote:

Yes, both communism and fascism are bad ideas with horrible legacies, but you're missing a huge distinction between the two at this level. The horrible elements of communism are secondary impacts, the appeal comes from the dream of social and material equality. People who believe in communism are wrong, but they're not automatically awful.

Whereas the really horrible parts of fascism are right there, up front, they are the central appeal. The worship of power, of political and military violence - those things are why people become fascists. People who believe in fascism aren't just wrong, they're inherently drawn to explicitly ugly ideals.

erm... Seb... the distinction is so minute, I'm not sure you can really say that with a straight face.

In order to achieve both ideals... extreme brutality is seen when working towards those goals

 whembly wrote:

But, here's the crux of my point... the ideology of both the fascists and communisms ARE abhorent, as they both require a system to oppress the people. Yes, the individual may aspire to the appealing aspect of communisms and remain ignorant to the brutal realities of such ideals. It's incumbent on others to challenge that individual in the spheres of idea and convince them otherwise. Whereas the fascist donkey-caves don't really "hide" their desires for such power.

 Steve steveson wrote:

 whembly wrote:

But, here's the crux of my point... the ideology of both the fascists and communisms ARE abhorent, as they both require a system to oppress the people. Yes, the individual may aspire to the appealing aspect of communisms and remain ignorant to the brutal realities of such ideals. It's incumbent on others to challenge that individual in the spheres of idea and convince them otherwise. Whereas the fascist donkey-caves don't really "hide" their desires for such power.

That's rather the point. Communism is not fundamentally a violent idea. Quite the opposite in fact. Communist ideology at it's core is a utopian concept of equality of all, post scarcity and lack of ownership. The reality is that people are rather attached to the idea that work is for the betterment of themselves, and they have some agency over property they view as theirs. The ideology is that everyone lives in a world where they are happy not to own anything and share all they have. In reality is eventually at some level you will run in to people who do not want to do this (normally once it goes beyond a group who know and trust each other). Sometimes this means that the group either fizzles out or reaches a settled point of a small commune. But with almost every ideology there will also be from time to time people who have taken belief to an extreme and believe the only way to do this is to force it upon people who will see the light once they are forced to. When they reach state level they generally become fascist in their actions and oppression of opposition. Communist dictatorships or Red Fascism.

Communism is not fundamentally an ideal of control or dictatorship. In fact one of the ideals of communism is a stateless society. Fascism however is. It is always about control and power over others, if you can call fascism an ideal (or neo-facism, which is what we are talking about here. Pre ww2 Fascism was something slightly different and is more of a state of rule than an ideal)

 Steve steveson wrote:
No, it's not. That's the point. Communism is not a violent idea at all. Someone who espouses communism is not supporting violence so the anti fascist protestors cannot be dismissed as the same as the fascists by saying they have violent ideals. You would have to prove that not only do they believe in communism but also want to bring about a communist state through violent means.

Fascists fundamentaly believe in violence and the violent oppression of those who oppose them.

Saying they are the same is like saying football (soccer) and boxing are the same and both violent sports because sometimes football players punch or kick each other.

 Blood Hawk wrote:

You realize that there are self declared communists actively attacking these so called fascists right? People flying communist flags and burning college campuses in California right? You do realize that many more people died to internal repression in communist controlled countries vs those killed by fascists right? You realize that communism is also a threat to civilized society?

If we were being accountants about this we would be more afraid of the guy with the communist flag.

 whembly wrote:

Steve... I'm arguing that the only way communism can be implement is through violent means. Anything else is academic.... all you have to do is look at history and understand human nature.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
To counter this idea that we have thought crime police here in Europe. Saying "I hate (insert group)" in public or the internet is perfectly legal. The moment you say "You should hate (insert)" is were it crosses into hate speech. This is not acceptable. Just voicing your own opinion is perfectly fine for the state. Of course threatening or harassing people online/in public is just as illegal here as it is in the US. All in all its a tiny difference that people are blowing up way out of proportion.

The reason police here, in the NL at least, would have stopped the Friday protest after those chants is because they set up a number of rules with the organizers of protests on what is acceptable behavior in light of preserving public order. As seems obvious from Charlottesville the public order threshold was certainly crossed.

 godardc wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
To counter this idea that we have thought crime police here in Europe. Saying "I hate (insert group)" in public or the internet is perfectly legal. The moment you say "You should hate (insert)" is were it crosses into hate speech. This is not acceptable. Just voicing your own opinion is perfectly fine for the state. Of course threatening or harassing people online/in public is just as illegal here as it is in the US. All in all its a tiny difference that people are blowing up way out of proportion.

The reason police here, in the NL at least, would have stopped the Friday protest after those chants is because they set up a number of rules with the organizers of protests on what is acceptable behavior in light of preserving public order. As seems obvious from Charlottesville the public order threshold was certainly crossed.

We have thought police in Europe.
Not officialy established, but the very moment you say you support Trump, the alt right or something like that, you risk your career.
You risk your reputation.
You can't say this kind of thing without consequences.