New York Times puzzled why neo-Nazi killed people

I honestly don’t think the NYT means to minimize nazi violence. Since at least the fifties, they’ve been clear that nazis have no place in genteel society.

What they absolutely refuse to acknowledge is Republican violence.

1 Like

And yet they are doing that.

That too.

There really isn’t any excuse for their actions here. And they have a long history of whitewashing nazi violence, treating the original nazis as a weird, but not very dangerous oddity of German politics - right into the time when they were violently and brutally suppressing Jews and other minorities. The fact that they did not stand up to them is pretty beyond the pale.


At this point, the guy has nazi tattoos, an SS tattoo as well as a swastika. He has a website presence full of his manifesto. He’s got videos of him being nazi.

And the NYT is minimizing his violence.

So… yeah, they do mean to. They’re both siding the issue, and it’s frankly not new behavior for them.


I suppose that none of this information is in this new york times article?


No, it’s in there.

1 Like

He also didn’t attack totally random people. He attacked a specific kinds of people in a specific place and it wasn’t an accident. It may not be obvious to people nationally but locally it definitely is felt.


He’s dead. Why he did what he did (he’s a nazi) is potentially less meaningful than which nazis in particular are planning similar things in the near future. And at this point, they are stiil investigating.

1 Like

Mall frequented by a largely immigrant clientele? I have not seen any reporting to this effect, but based on the victims I have seen, it seems the best match.


This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.