Stephen Knight: The Enemy of My Enemy Is a Nazi

H.L. Mencken you say? This  H.L. Mencken?

The educated Negro of today is a failure, not because he meets insuperable difficulties in life, but because he is a Negro. He is, in brief, a low-caste man, to the manner born, and he will remain inert and inefficient until fifty generations of him have lived in civilization. And even then, the superior white race will be fifty generations ahead of him

Oh how deliciously illustrative it is for you to close by quoting a white racist! Demonstrating at once your (i) softness for white supremacists and/or (ii) your abject ignorance in these matters. Oh how wonderfully ironic that  Spencer, the Nazi you defend, is a founder of and Director of the  H.L. Mencken  Club! The White Nationalist organisation whose creation was”inspired”  by the late Sage of Baltimore himself!

You’ll notice I referred to Spencer as a Nazi; as that is what he is. You didn’t quite have the heart to do so yourself. You limit yourself to a single sarcastic remark – “see terrible human being”. Your obscurantism is most illuminating.  You are avoiding the crux of the issue and caping for a Nazi in the process. You reduce the real threat to all non-white minorities of the rise of neo-Nazism to “someone speaking their mind”.  Eugenics, forced sterilisation of blacks, ethnic-cleansing and actively working towards creating a white ethnostate are not “speech” and certainly shouldn’t come for “free”. Spencer’s speech is calculated propaganda engineered to recruit and advance his racist agenda.

Not that you need concern yourself Stephen.  As a white atheist and European male you’ll be last in line for the ovens. That’s if you’re not herding the minorities in yourself.  You’ll be OK though, you can show Spencer your zero attacks on Neo-Nazism versus your attack on the “suspicious” Black Lives Matter. You even have more in common with the dapper Nazi than a shared love of Mencken. You both share an obsessive fixation on the “regressive left”/SJWs. You and Spencer have mutual friends. You find anti-Muslim hate-group leader Tommy Robinson “likeable” while Spencer holds a deep admiration.

Which reminds me, given your supposed objections to “thuggery” you never did justify a) Your platforming of convicted violent criminal and football hooligan Tommy Robinson and b) Your failure to criticise him over this or his public threatening of all British Muslim with the violent retribution of his ultra-nationalist followers baying for blood.

In fact, it’s not just your blind-spot for the far-right, there is a lot you don’t say. While your own Government is month-after-month literally fuelling horrendous war crimes in Yemen as blockaded children are starving to death you reserve your ire for Mo Ansar, CJ Werleman,  Malia Bouattia and Black Lives Matter. Where are your priorities?

Your empty protestations for defending Nazis on liberal principles are betrayed by your own past. It shows that you pick and choose whose right to speech to defend. Which makes your passioned defenses of Le Pen, Milo and now Spencer troubling. For example:

Bias firmly established, there can be no doubt that you are comfortable with violence (with the exception of violence against neo-Nazis) — And coincidence or not this comfort hasn’t extended beyond the targets of this violence being in majority-Muslim nations.

You are a member of the Quilliam Foundation: Warmongers. Your heroes (some of whom you have platformed yet never challenged on their violence) are warmongers. Sam Harris: Warmonger. Ayaan Hirsi Ali: Warmonger. Douglas Murray: Warmonger. Christopher Hitchens: Warmonger and War Propagandist. Nick Cohen: Warmonger and on and on we go.

I see no reason to respond to your idiotic claims of “misrepresentation” by using your own words verbatim against you. Though its curious that you insist Bukhari (a Muslim) never be offered a platform on television again for relatively trivial reasons all the while you’ve neglected to demand the same for Spencer, who was being filmed by mainstream Australian news at the time of his assault. Telling.

You’d do well to heed the words of the ironically intolerant Hirsi Ali: “Tolerance of intolerance is cowardice”. You’re a coward.

Advertisements

12 thoughts on “Stephen Knight: The Enemy of My Enemy Is a Nazi

  1. Stephen was fully aware of Menken’s appalling racism. He chose to quote him because he’s sympathetic to those views and wanted to out himself publicly in the very same article in which he describes racism as “obnoxious” and “disgusting”, and racists as “terrible human beings”. That’s your opening argument? That’s too ridiculous for even you to believe. You don’t believe it. It’s a cheap-shot over a mistake that you didn’t have the self-restraint to ignore.

    Many people don’t know that Roald Dahl had some pretty unsavoury views about Jewish people. I’m sure the next time you hear anyone mention any of his work approvingly you’ll pounce on them as being a closet anti-Semite or at least abjectly unqualified to express opinions on the subject.

    Or what about if someone reveals that the late Muhammad Ali – a proponent of segregation, an opponent of interracial relationships, and a member of the avowedly racist Nation of Islam – is one of their favourite Americans?

    Your point is nothing more than: “He didn’t know Menken was a racist. Lol.” That’s it. Not an argument.

    Next.

    “Spencer’s speech is not speech.” This actually is an argument, but a self-evidently stupid one. Unless Spencer has been involved in carrying out eugenics, forced sterilisation, ethnic-cleansing and the creation of a white ethno-state, then yes his opinions are opinions and not actions. His views are revolting but expressing them is protected speech. You accuse Knight of avoiding the crux of the issue, yet you’ve refused to answer multiple times on Twitter and in two blog articles as to whether you condone the assault on Spencer and to provide examples of what Spencer has done that goes beyond expressing horrendous ideas.

    If that’s not an avoidance of the crux of the issue then I’m Hitler.

    It’s amusing to me that in a discussion about whether attempting to silence views with physical violence is ethically justified, you attempt to do the same with hysterically hyperbolic statements in place of violence. “That’s if you’re not herding the minorities (into ovens) yourself.” Again, another disingenuous non-argument. Accuse people of a supressed desire to commit genocide and maybe they’ll stop talking about things I disagree with them about, right?

    I’m not sure if your mention of Tommy Robinson was a lazy and desperate segue or an equally lazy and desperate example of the guilt by association fallacy you seem keen on. But equating Knight with a neo-Nazi for giving a Pakistani ex-Muslim an opportunity to question Tommy Robinson uninterrupted is quite comically ridiculous.

    If you want to suggest that every single person that has ever interviewed Robinson without raking up his past or a stupid remark that’s been flogged to death, then that’s an awful lot of interviewers you’ll need to accuse of having a blind-spot for the far-right rather than a simple desire to cover new ground.

    You’re right about Israel though – he never criticises Israel! Except in GSPodcast episode 26. And a blog article. Oh and the fact that he has said that Israel is “potentially guilty of war crimes”. And the fact that he has said that their response seems “disproportionate and brutal”. And the fact that he has been called anti-Semitic for criticising Israel by people that are clearly as dedicated to logic and sincerity as you are. But all of that aside, perhaps Knight’s comparatively limited output on Israel and Zionism and free speech issues relating to them is the relative lack of prevalence in comparison to the calls for speech prohibitions by the regressive left or to Muslims attempting to shut down expression by invoking blasphemy law or by killing people. Or perhaps it’s because your “what about the jooooz?!” concerns are covered abundantly in other circles including by a multitude of protests and marches and demonstrations, and by the pathologically obsessed output of people like CJ Werleman and Asghar Bukhari.

    Still, some people he likes have views supportive of intervention in certain cases. Clearly the mark of a Nazi sympathising, warmongering hypocrite. I mean imagine being opposed to criminal assault against people for their views but not crippled by pacifism in regards to military intervention. It’s like a sensible and incredibly widely held attitude towards violence that corresponds with the constitution of the United States and with the U.S Supreme Court or something. What a coward.

    Hopefully one day we’ll all build up the courage it must take to avoid stating your own position on a topic in favour of trolling people anonymously on the internet. Bravery like that is rarity indeed.

    Like

    • Knight suggests he wasn’t aware of H.L. Mencken’s “overtly sinister white supremacist views”. Why distort him like that?

      Unless this “Menken” you refer to is someone different?

      Like

    • YOU: “Stephen was fully aware of Menken’s appalling racism. He chose to quote him because he’s sympathetic to those views and wanted to out himself publicly in the very same article in which he describes racism as “obnoxious” and “disgusting”, and racists as “terrible human beings”. That’s your opening argument? That’s too ridiculous for even you to believe. You don’t believe it. It’s a cheap-shot over a mistake that you didn’t have the self-restraint to ignore.”

      ME: No that’s your strawman. Be more honest. This is what I’d said:

      “Demonstrating at once your (i) softness for white supremacists and/or (ii) your abject ignorance in these matters. ”

      YOU: “Many people don’t know that Roald Dahl had some pretty unsavoury views about Jewish people. I’m sure the next time you hear anyone mention any of his work approvingly you’ll pounce on them as being a closet anti-Semite or at least abjectly unqualified to express opinions on the subject.”

      ME: “Many people….”I’m sure”…blah…blah…blah” Your Roald Dahl non-sequitur wasted both of our time.

      YOU: “Or what about if someone reveals that the late Muhammad Ali – a proponent of segregation, an opponent of interracial relationships, and a member of the avowedly racist Nation of Islam – is one of their favourite Americans?”

      ME: Good for them. Ali denounced his racist past, He was a victim of a deeply anti.black society and was taken advantage of as a young man by the charismatic Elijah Muhammed.

      YOU: “Spencer’s speech is not speech.” This actually is an argument, but a self-evidently stupid one. Unless Spencer has been involved in carrying out eugenics, forced sterilisation, ethnic-cleansing and the creation of a white ethno-state, then yes his opinions are opinions and not actions. His views are revolting but expressing them is protected speech. You accuse Knight of avoiding the crux of the issue, yet you’ve refused to answer multiple times on Twitter and in two blog articles as to whether you condone the assault on Spencer and to provide examples of what Spencer has done that goes beyond expressing horrendous ideas”

      ME: Except I have.

      “Eugenics, forced sterilisation of blacks, ethnic-cleansing and actively working towards creating a white ethnostate are not “speech” and certainly shouldn’t come for “free”. Spencer’s speech is calculated propaganda engineered to recruit and advance his racist agenda.”

      See?

      Go on, tell me out straight on Holocaust Day of all days that Nazis should be completely free to recruit and propagandise as they work towards the establishment of a racist, whites-only ethnically cleansed state for the master race.

      YOU: “It’s amusing to me that in a discussion about whether attempting to silence views with physical violence is ethically justified, you attempt to do the same with hysterically hyperbolic statements in place of violence. “That’s if you’re not herding the minorities (into ovens) yourself.” Again, another disingenuous non-argument. Accuse people of a supressed desire to commit genocide and maybe they’ll stop talking about things I disagree with them about, right?”

      ME: It’s amusing to me that you put all this time and effort into me for my “hyperbolic statements” – which you stupidly equate with “violence” – while defending the “free speech” of an ethnic cleansing Nazi propagandist.

      YOU: “I’m not sure if your mention of Tommy Robinson was a lazy and desperate segue or an equally lazy and desperate example of the guilt by association fallacy you seem keen on. But equating Knight with a neo-Nazi for giving a Pakistani ex-Muslim an opportunity to question Tommy Robinson uninterrupted is quite comically ridiculous.”

      ME: No. Clearly you aren’t sure by why let that interrupt your flights of fancy? I’ll dumb it down for you: Knight is crying over a Nazi getting sucker punched. Once. Ostensibly he is appalled by the “thuggery”. In reality he’s had a violent criminal who as head of an anti-Muslim hate-group threatened completely innocent British Muslims, including men, women, children and the elderly with violent hate crimes.

      Now, Knight had an opportunity to confront his guest about his outrageous threats but opted not to. This is a clear display of bias and hypocrisy.

      YOU: “You’re right about Israel though .. But all of that aside, perhaps Knight’s comparatively limited output on Israel and Zionism and free speech issues relating to them is the relative lack of prevalence in comparison to the calls for speech prohibitions by the regressive left or to Muslims attempting to shut down expression by invoking blasphemy law or by killing people. Or perhaps it’s because your “what about the jooooz?!” concerns are covered abundantly in other circles including by a multitude of protests and marches and demonstrations, and by the pathologically obsessed output of people like CJ Werleman and Asghar Bukhari.”

      YOU: Not once have I claimed that “he never critcises Israel”. Again, be more honest. Also, your conflation of Israeli trangressions with all Jews is disgustingly antisemitic. Be better than this. The reality is that Capt Free Speech Knight has not once condemned the Israel Lobby and Israel itself’s assault of free speech. Your strawmen, antisemtism and obfuscation cannot hide this.

      YOU: “Still, some people he likes have views supportive of intervention in certain cases. Clearly the mark of a Nazi sympathising, warmongering hypocrite. I mean imagine being opposed to criminal assault against people for their views but not crippled by pacifism in regards to military intervention. It’s like a sensible and incredibly widely held attitude towards violence that corresponds with the constitution of the United States and with the U.S Supreme Court or something. What a coward.”

      ME: You could have done away with this verbose nonsense and accepted that yes, Knight does look up to many violent warmongers who have called for violence (against Muslims) so why is he so upset about violence against Nazis?

      YOU; “Hopefully one day we’ll all build up the courage it must take to avoid stating your own position on a topic in favour of trolling people anonymously on the internet. Bravery like that is rarity indeed.
      it ”

      ME: My own views on punching Nazis is conflicted. I can see the case where it could be considered pre-emptive self defense given the likely fates of “cultural Marxists”, and all non white minorites in the white ethnostate Spencer and his Org are working to establish.

      Like

    • I’ve stated my position on this issue clearly and repeatedly, whereas you have passed up every opportunity to do so. I use Damo on Twitter as it’s an abbreviation of my name and it’s what my mates call me. That is a picture of me on my blog. That is also a picture of me on my Twitter page. If you call that anonymous then let’s see you do the same.

      Like

      • OK. You won the anononymity Dick swinging contest. Now what? Don’t get me wrong, you’re tribal defense of your Buddy is touching but since you’re the Guy who literally wrote “in defense of Tommy Robinson” your caping for Knight also kinda helps prove My point.

        Like

  2. Lack of substance? You mean addressing and refuting every single one of your points as well as writing a lengthy blog post spelling out my position in detail? I’d love to know what you think a substantial argument is – presumably the stream of consciousness, ad-hom rant you’ve already provided.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s