The Crying Nazi has been convicted on two federal counts.
The lede, from Hilary Sargent↱:
Cantwell, once known as a men's rights advocate° emerged to infamy after the Charlottesville white supremacism riots, during which he was recorded uttering spectacular bigotry and violent threats; he earned the nickname, "Crying Nazi", by weeping through several minutes of later video, responding to word of arrest warrants. He has already pled to misdemeanor counts in a deal with Loudon County, Virginia prosecutors, and is included in a lawsuit against organizers of the Charlottesville demonstrations. Monday's conviction involves a dispute between American Nazis.
How to explain? Well, the Crying Nazi threatened CheddarMane, a Bowl Patrol member, and his wife in pursuit of Vic Mackey, the Bowl Patrol leader. That is, Cantwell threatened Benjamin Lambert (CheddarMane) and his wife and, technically, children, because he wanted a piece of Andrew Casarez (Vic Mackey). The four-day trial also included, as witness for the prosecution, the Bowl Patrol congressional candidate, Paul Nehlen.
Lambert, made infamous in along the way as a Bowl Patrol member, expressed afterward that he is "thankful to have the opportunity to turn the page on this part of my life". Compared to being outed in a manner that includes the public seeing how someone threatened sexual violence against his wife, and in front of the children, in a beef between American Nazis, we can only wonder what the next page holds, and if we're lucky, it won't be any of our business and we'll never have to think about him again, except as an historical note.
Meanwhile—
—if we crawl back through the years of excuses, maybe blithely and blindly telling people to not get triggered was not the most appropriate response to escalating antisociality.
Three years ago, when the Crying Nazi won his nickname, Amanda Marcotte↱ observed, it was "no huge surprise" that the "Weeping Nazi started off as a 'men's rights activist' ", explaining:
Toward parsing in logical terms, or what it means to not be bound by basic rules of logic, time since has seen some clarification, but those notes often seem to only beg more questions. There is a basic empowerment question, and also the point that birds of common feather will eventually gather together. Moreover, at the intersection of male and white supremacism, the common economic culprits look even easier to blame given their functional overlap.
It is one thing to attend the threshold of threats, as does U.S. Attorney Bonavolonta, but it is worth considering his colleague's discussion of "other worlds where really abhorrent things are said": The point is not to absolutely banish certain speech, but, rather, stop making excuses for wilful bad behavior. It's not like we haven't known, for years, about the toxicity of certain masculinism, for instance, and it can certainly be useful advice to not let stupid words get under your skin, but when they're not simply encouraging body counts, but actually tallying up, there is a problem. It's a complicated discussion who ought to be losing sleep in U.S. Attorney Davis' context.
To the other, what does any of that mean to a Nazi? At what point did the Crying Nazi ever stop to think about the idea that he was actually leaving a record of threatening sexual violence, including children?
Who, for instance, would stand up to parse the logic of calling it a rape threat, as Hilary Sargent's lede characterizes? After all, he didn't actually say, "rape", he just said, "fuck". And in front of the children? Come on, that's just macho bluster and you can't take it seriously. Right? People have offered myriad excuses for bloodlusting machismo over the years. Cantwell was the only witness in his own defense, and the jury did not seem willing to accept any such excuse°°. Nor did Cantwell fool himself into believing that sort of excuse, either; it was just something to say in the moment, and he still described a crime.
In those "other worlds where really abhorrent things are said" it is not permissiveness, in and of itself, about free speech that presents a problem, but, rather, unanchored, or, worse yet, antisocially-anchored permissiveness. For some people, the boundaries of free speech are described by their own fallacious characterizations of some opponent or enemy. It is easy to lose track of meaning and function when these aspects are considered irrelevant.
There is a functional difference between the right to express oneself, and where who has what power to grant a platform for expression. The underlying concept is not confusing: This isn't about banishing abhorrent speech, but rather, as traditionalists and conservatives put it, accountability. Speech is also behavior, and sometimes must be regraded in that context; i.e., threatening speech. Free speech is not, and never has been, considered to be the license to make any noise anywhere at any time.
It should be easy enough to suggest this is apparent; it's in Supreme Court rulings, international human rights arguments, and even the rules in small corners of the web like Sciforums. Still, look at what people protect, this way: It's not really racism, nor misogyny, nor even trolling.
What stands out is how outrageous Cantwell wasn't, as such, until he was, and we're not supposed to fret the escalations until ... well, that remains something of a mystery. It's not entirely unlike the cancel culture discussion.
____________________
Notes:
Marcotte, Amanda. "Weeping Nazi started off as a 'men's rights activist,' which is no huge surprise". Salon. 18 August 2017. Salon.com. 2 October 2020. https://bit.ly/3cCgaut
Sargent, Hilary. "Cantwell Trial Day 4: So much Cantwell". The Informant. 25 September 2020. Informant.news. 2 October 2020. https://bit.ly/3ifQu7W
—————. "Christopher Cantwell guilty of extortion and threats". The Informant. 28 September 2020. Informant.news. 2 October 2020. https://bit.ly/3n9B6Om
The lede, from Hilary Sargent↱:
Christopher Cantwell, the neo-Nazi podcaster charged by federal prosecutors with threatening to rape a rival neo-Nazi's wife has been found guilty of extortion and threats. Jurors acquitted Cantwell of cyberstalking.
Cantwell, once known as a men's rights advocate° emerged to infamy after the Charlottesville white supremacism riots, during which he was recorded uttering spectacular bigotry and violent threats; he earned the nickname, "Crying Nazi", by weeping through several minutes of later video, responding to word of arrest warrants. He has already pled to misdemeanor counts in a deal with Loudon County, Virginia prosecutors, and is included in a lawsuit against organizers of the Charlottesville demonstrations. Monday's conviction involves a dispute between American Nazis.
How to explain? Well, the Crying Nazi threatened CheddarMane, a Bowl Patrol member, and his wife in pursuit of Vic Mackey, the Bowl Patrol leader. That is, Cantwell threatened Benjamin Lambert (CheddarMane) and his wife and, technically, children, because he wanted a piece of Andrew Casarez (Vic Mackey). The four-day trial also included, as witness for the prosecution, the Bowl Patrol congressional candidate, Paul Nehlen.
Lambert, made infamous in along the way as a Bowl Patrol member, expressed afterward that he is "thankful to have the opportunity to turn the page on this part of my life". Compared to being outed in a manner that includes the public seeing how someone threatened sexual violence against his wife, and in front of the children, in a beef between American Nazis, we can only wonder what the next page holds, and if we're lucky, it won't be any of our business and we'll never have to think about him again, except as an historical note.
Meanwhile—
Assistant U.S. Attorney John Davis, who prosecuted the case, said he was “pleased” and “vindicated” by the verdict.
He also said the case should be an example for some of the toxic corners of the web.
“I do think there is a deterrent value—I hope there is—for everyone, including everyone on the internet, including in the white nationalist world and in other worlds where really abhorrent things are said,” Davis said.
“When freedom of speech is weaponized, and threats are made, a line must be drawn where individuals like Christopher Cantwell will not be allowed to cross,” said Joseph R. Bonavolonta, Special Agent in Charge of the FBI Boston Division.
He also said the case should be an example for some of the toxic corners of the web.
“I do think there is a deterrent value—I hope there is—for everyone, including everyone on the internet, including in the white nationalist world and in other worlds where really abhorrent things are said,” Davis said.
“When freedom of speech is weaponized, and threats are made, a line must be drawn where individuals like Christopher Cantwell will not be allowed to cross,” said Joseph R. Bonavolonta, Special Agent in Charge of the FBI Boston Division.
—if we crawl back through the years of excuses, maybe blithely and blindly telling people to not get triggered was not the most appropriate response to escalating antisociality.
Three years ago, when the Crying Nazi won his nickname, Amanda Marcotte↱ observed, it was "no huge surprise" that the "Weeping Nazi started off as a 'men's rights activist' ", explaining:
Cantwell ran for Congress in 2010 as a Libertarian. He and two friends started the "Free Keane Squad," which made it to "The Colbert Report" in 2014 because their main form of activism appeared to be chasing meter maids around and harassing them for giving people parking tickets.
Cantwell also identified as a "men's rights activist" and wrote for the site A Voice for Men, one of the hubs of organized misogyny on the internet. He expressed his views that the state supposedly gives "women the power to have men arrested for anything without any evidence at all" and how women, in their roles of "traditionally carrying the role of raising children and supporting the men," did not evolve to have high IQs. Like men do. Allegedly.
It's yet another example of how the world of online anti-feminism has become a gateway to white supremacy. While there hasn't been any rigid academic analysis of this phenomenon, sites like We Hunted the Mammoth, which started as a way to monitor the various and overlapping worlds of online misogyny, have tracked that when men get together to gripe about their resentment of women's growing independence, they often start drifting toward talking about "white genocide" and other white supremacist ideas.
Why hating women would lead so many men to hating nonwhite people is difficult to parse in logical terms. But racism and sexism aren't rational ideologies and really aren't bound by the basic rules of logic. At the root of both lies a thwarted sense of entitlement and a sense that women and people of color are somehow stealing what is the white man's due. That was felt most keenly in Charlottesville last Friday night, when the torch-wielding mob chanted, "You will not replace us!"
Cantwell himself mentioned one of the most common narratives that white supremacists and men's rights activists use to link the two ideologies together, by claiming that "their" women are being stolen from them by Jews and men of color. In one of his many interviews with Reeve, Cantwell sneers at Donald Trump for "giving his daughter to a Jew" and says, “I don't think you can feel about race the way I do and watch that Kushner bastard walk around with that beautiful girl."
Cantwell also identified as a "men's rights activist" and wrote for the site A Voice for Men, one of the hubs of organized misogyny on the internet. He expressed his views that the state supposedly gives "women the power to have men arrested for anything without any evidence at all" and how women, in their roles of "traditionally carrying the role of raising children and supporting the men," did not evolve to have high IQs. Like men do. Allegedly.
It's yet another example of how the world of online anti-feminism has become a gateway to white supremacy. While there hasn't been any rigid academic analysis of this phenomenon, sites like We Hunted the Mammoth, which started as a way to monitor the various and overlapping worlds of online misogyny, have tracked that when men get together to gripe about their resentment of women's growing independence, they often start drifting toward talking about "white genocide" and other white supremacist ideas.
‡
Why hating women would lead so many men to hating nonwhite people is difficult to parse in logical terms. But racism and sexism aren't rational ideologies and really aren't bound by the basic rules of logic. At the root of both lies a thwarted sense of entitlement and a sense that women and people of color are somehow stealing what is the white man's due. That was felt most keenly in Charlottesville last Friday night, when the torch-wielding mob chanted, "You will not replace us!"
Cantwell himself mentioned one of the most common narratives that white supremacists and men's rights activists use to link the two ideologies together, by claiming that "their" women are being stolen from them by Jews and men of color. In one of his many interviews with Reeve, Cantwell sneers at Donald Trump for "giving his daughter to a Jew" and says, “I don't think you can feel about race the way I do and watch that Kushner bastard walk around with that beautiful girl."
Toward parsing in logical terms, or what it means to not be bound by basic rules of logic, time since has seen some clarification, but those notes often seem to only beg more questions. There is a basic empowerment question, and also the point that birds of common feather will eventually gather together. Moreover, at the intersection of male and white supremacism, the common economic culprits look even easier to blame given their functional overlap.
It is one thing to attend the threshold of threats, as does U.S. Attorney Bonavolonta, but it is worth considering his colleague's discussion of "other worlds where really abhorrent things are said": The point is not to absolutely banish certain speech, but, rather, stop making excuses for wilful bad behavior. It's not like we haven't known, for years, about the toxicity of certain masculinism, for instance, and it can certainly be useful advice to not let stupid words get under your skin, but when they're not simply encouraging body counts, but actually tallying up, there is a problem. It's a complicated discussion who ought to be losing sleep in U.S. Attorney Davis' context.
To the other, what does any of that mean to a Nazi? At what point did the Crying Nazi ever stop to think about the idea that he was actually leaving a record of threatening sexual violence, including children?
Who, for instance, would stand up to parse the logic of calling it a rape threat, as Hilary Sargent's lede characterizes? After all, he didn't actually say, "rape", he just said, "fuck". And in front of the children? Come on, that's just macho bluster and you can't take it seriously. Right? People have offered myriad excuses for bloodlusting machismo over the years. Cantwell was the only witness in his own defense, and the jury did not seem willing to accept any such excuse°°. Nor did Cantwell fool himself into believing that sort of excuse, either; it was just something to say in the moment, and he still described a crime.
In those "other worlds where really abhorrent things are said" it is not permissiveness, in and of itself, about free speech that presents a problem, but, rather, unanchored, or, worse yet, antisocially-anchored permissiveness. For some people, the boundaries of free speech are described by their own fallacious characterizations of some opponent or enemy. It is easy to lose track of meaning and function when these aspects are considered irrelevant.
There is a functional difference between the right to express oneself, and where who has what power to grant a platform for expression. The underlying concept is not confusing: This isn't about banishing abhorrent speech, but rather, as traditionalists and conservatives put it, accountability. Speech is also behavior, and sometimes must be regraded in that context; i.e., threatening speech. Free speech is not, and never has been, considered to be the license to make any noise anywhere at any time.
It should be easy enough to suggest this is apparent; it's in Supreme Court rulings, international human rights arguments, and even the rules in small corners of the web like Sciforums. Still, look at what people protect, this way: It's not really racism, nor misogyny, nor even trolling.
What stands out is how outrageous Cantwell wasn't, as such, until he was, and we're not supposed to fret the escalations until ... well, that remains something of a mystery. It's not entirely unlike the cancel culture discussion.
____________________
Notes:
° ... published by the same website (and covered by the same TV show) as men's rights advocate and bicoastal shooter Roy Den Hollander↗ ...
°° cf., Sargent, "Day 4"↱: Cantwell answered, "It could have meant his wife would consent to having sex with me in front of the children." Attorney Wolpin "stressed that the language … was par for the course for neo-Nazi subculture", and Lambert "would have known that [Cantwell] was not serious”.
°° cf., Sargent, "Day 4"↱: Cantwell answered, "It could have meant his wife would consent to having sex with me in front of the children." Attorney Wolpin "stressed that the language … was par for the course for neo-Nazi subculture", and Lambert "would have known that [Cantwell] was not serious”.
Marcotte, Amanda. "Weeping Nazi started off as a 'men's rights activist,' which is no huge surprise". Salon. 18 August 2017. Salon.com. 2 October 2020. https://bit.ly/3cCgaut
Sargent, Hilary. "Cantwell Trial Day 4: So much Cantwell". The Informant. 25 September 2020. Informant.news. 2 October 2020. https://bit.ly/3ifQu7W
—————. "Christopher Cantwell guilty of extortion and threats". The Informant. 28 September 2020. Informant.news. 2 October 2020. https://bit.ly/3n9B6Om
