White Supremacist Posters Found in South Lake Union

They were put up by Identity Evropa, whose leader helped organize the Charlottesville rally.

Comments

1
Be careful removing those flyers. Weren't some of the ones in Ballard booby trapped with razor blades?
2
Can we have a journalistic convention that photos of Nazi bullshit get posted only with mocking overlays of some kind?
4
No mention of the Atomwaffen Division member was outed as an employee at the Franz Bakery factory in the Central District, hm? Figure an established member of a neo-nazi terrorist organization, who had tweeted not 1 but 2 of the AWD members who have committed murders in the past year, working ~50ft from a middle school would make the cut but I guess not -_-
6
@5 - no, you moron, they use d4s, they're much pointier. Can't cut a bitch with a d12.
7
@6 Ha!
8
"Today, I saw things which have shaken me to my core. As a non-gender conforming Woman of Color, who works at Amazon (yes, we exist), I've never felt safe in a cis, white male, "tech-bro" environment"... "I am literally shaking!"

These shaken "amazon employee" tipsters sound a lot like white supremacists trying to get media attention by play-acting as offended libruls. Good job falling for their act, Steven.
10
@5 Thank you.

I can respect people not wanting their names published ... but why would these jerkoffs retaliate? Publishing the pics just gives them wider distribution. Which is what they are after anyway.
11
A pic of Richard Spencer and a guy smoking a pipe. The appeal of this image seems limited.
12
"Over the last couple of years"?

Where were you in the 80s and 90s, Brownstone?
13
Isn't a "non-gender conforming woman" an oxymoron?
15
@ 14 Don't bruise my core bro! Like martinis, they should always be stirred.
17
16

You do realize that white supremacists have a long and horrifying history of violence against others in this country, right?

Maybe "shaken to the core" is a bit hyperbolic, but discomfort/anxiety is definitely understandable.
18
@5 first, it's not just physical safety, there's professional safety in being able to take the same risks as anybody else without being judged differently.

Second, yes physical safety. Not dice, sexual harassment. Many women in a tech environment have reason to be very conscious of situations where they're alone with one guy -- a particular one who "thinks they're beautiful" or anyone not known. They may have to avoid working late at the office.

Have you asked a few women at Amazon, or in tech more generally? I expect you'll find this report from a good fraction of them.
19
Dox these fvckers.
20
@16, Would you have thought like 2-3 years ago that in a few years you would be defending white supremacists like they were just any other right-wing political organization? Did it creep up on you so slowly that you didn't even realize it? Or would you have been just as unimpressed by their presence in your midst as you are today?
21
@16

Oh hush, Queen Bitch.
24
@22 You're language infers a bit more than we actually know.

In 2005 Farrakhan appeared before the Black National Caucus, of which Senator Obama was a member and present that day. We can assume Farrakhan was invited but we don't know if he was just wandering the halls looking to shake hands or giving a rousing, anti-semitic speech because the CBC seems to have instantly regretted hosting him and never really shared what the whole thing was about. He is based in Chicago, so no surprise the young Senator foolishly snapped a pic with him for posterity.

All that aside, Farrakhan's brand of bullshit is nothing compared to the threat of a White Nationalist movement.
25
@18: it was just a hanging curveball I couldn't resist.

amazon has, no doubt, policies that specifically address all of the levels of "safety" you think I'm dismissing. so does nearly every tech or professional company in seattle, including mine. if she doesn't feel safe for whatever reason (from specific tech bros), take it up with HR. in my limited experience, motherfuckers get disciplined and fired for harassing women.

white supremacists outside of the office are another thing entirely - but this is LARGELY a very safe city. even the gay bashing on capitol hill seems to be under control nowadays. if it wasn't I'm sure the stranger would let us know.
26
22

Ok. I didn't say anything about Farrakhan. Is he posting fliers downtown too? I don't anything Obama meeting with him or the National Women's March nor denouncing him. Don't really care. Many Democrats in office are also bigots, just like many Republicans in office.

I agree, anti-semites are awful.

But isn't it reasonable and understandable to be offended by white supremacists or to feel uncomfortable about their presence in our neighborhoods?

My room looks good actually. Just finished dishes and laundry. About to decide what to make my kids for dinner. Thanks.
28
Who is actually playing "Identity Politics" here? Looks like the white people are...
29
27

That's cool.

Let's not make arguments against each other then. Instead, can we agree, as a sort of baseline.. and regardless of whatever other differences of political opinion we have ... that white supremacy is hateful, toxic, and counter-productive to a just and free society?

In which case, can we agree that white supremacists are not welcome nor wanted in our community?

Now, I'm not talking about infringing on anyone's 1st Ammendment rights. The cops aren't coming to arrest these folks. I mean, as a community .. as a culture.. saying "No way. No more. Not here."

I don't think that's too far-fetched a position for everyone ... on both sides of the political divide .. to embrace.
30
Will it take WW3 to get rid of these rabid shitheads once and for all?
31
If or when the white supremacists stop posting flyers and turn to violence I'll stand alongside you.

They already have, Queen Bitch.
32
@30

"Will it take WW3 to get rid of these rabid shitheads once and for all?"

You mean, like a genocide or something?
33
They probably voted for #45.
35
34

I understand. I'm not advocating for taking away their freedom of speech.

I am advocating for us, as a community, to let them know loudly and clearly that their speech is neither tolerated nor wanted here. I'm advocating for those injured or offended by their ideology (which is pretty much everyone) to use their freedom of speech to let these bigots know how we feel about their point of view.
38
Alright Dadddy and Dick in Shoreline. So since we're all playing teams here now, how the fuck do you expect the "left" to fucking react? Name one fucking time the "left" has placed us into a prolonged quandary that envelops society so that capriciousness becomes normal? Name one leftist with any sort of power that completely fucks all of society over that a singular right wing fascist can. Name a leftist who has sought to undermine the less fortunate. Name a leftist who is pro gun who does not have a reason to own one due to reaction to the threats of the extreme right. You are right, hate begets hate begets hate begets hate begets police state. And then you, you fucking retards, will feign concern at the existential bzzt you get at the beginning of the game that fully makes it impossible for your "free market" to even exist at all. Go down to Amazonia buddy. Check it out. I am there every day. I cannot speak for everyone. But it is a good place to set down some rudimentary roots even though there are a lot of international employees. At all points fascists must be documented, reported and ridiculed. I also have no doubt that Amazon will have no qualms with becoming the oversightless police force in every last place on Earth and even maybe Mars.

See where you right wing dumb ass fucks have gotten us?
39
@28: Only a matter of time before white people wanted in on the identity politics train. After being told for years that they were not allowed to have an identity or feel anything but shame about themselves, I don't see why anyone is surprised that it is now boiling up in an angry fashion.

@36: In the next ten years or so, the ACLU will be branded a neo-Nazi hate group, by the way things are going.
40
There's always been a weird White Supremacist/Crazy Christian fringe in Seattle. They made their presence known by putting pamphlets in library books and phone books. You'd pick a book off the shelf at the library, and there would be a flier about The Jews or the pope or how black people are controlling the NFL inside it. You'd go to look up a number and there would be some nutcase book of revelations quote. It was creepy, and annoying as hell.

Now that they've found technology and got a better printer they are apparently launching a new drive. That doesn't necessarily mean there are more of them. It just means they got some posters off the internet.
41
It's important to remember that the First Amendment (like the others) protects us against GOVERNMENT infringement of our rights (speech, in this case) but it is not a guarantee that we can do whatever the hell we want with no consequences. Yes, the Neo-Nazis (or the Communists) get to have their little march or make their moronic speeches without the state shutting them down. But nothing says that the rest of society can't call them out for the jackasses they are. You don't have to listen to them/befriend them/invite your Nazi relatives to Thanksgiving dinner etc. And there is no reason whatsoever that we can't say loud and clear that they are not welcome here. You don't have to patronize their businesses or generally be nice to them. Of course, the a-holes posting these stickers on public property are committing a crime, regardless of what view they are expressing.
42
This is one of the most commented on Slog postings in quite awhile. That'll help keep the advertisers happy knowing people still come here.
43
Oh noooooo the bubble is popping! The bubble is popping! Funny how mere posters really bring out the hypocrisy in a “progressive” society. Seems given recent events is the liberals that are crazy and a bit gullible at how the consistently fall for it. For all anyone knows it could be a scenario such as:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.militar…

Or

https://www.cnn.com/2017/11/08/us/air-fo…

Or
https://www.google.com/amp/s/nypost.com/…

Or

http://wach.com/news/local/black-man-arr…

Or .......

44
The ACLU defends the constitution. Their stated mission is to defend people with unpopular beliefs. David in shoreline isn’t the ACLU, he is a private citizen and he is mocking people of color who are upset by the presence of of white nationalism in Seattle.

Lmk when the ACLU starts calling people snowflakes for feeling threatened by white supremacists and I’ll stop giving them money.
47
Stop with the "boobytrapped with razer blades" scare tactic
nonsense. Spend 3 minutes removing the illegal signage on public property, place it in a bag and deposit the bag in a waste receptacle. Less shaken to the core outrage and more community-minded litter removal please.
48
White folks (David in Shoreline) love to defend white supremacists' 1st amendment rights "until they get violent" because they're secure in knowing that the first act of violence will never be against them.
49
Deja vu. So much like the thread that followed our report when this group's posters turned up near a local park and high school a couple weeks ago (more than a year after a lone poster showed up under the bridge):

http://westseattleblog.com/2018/03/white…
50
If you stand on a public street corner and tell all the passers-by that they are ugly and the police come in and arrest you for it, that is a violation of free speech. Likewise if a congressman makes a law saying you can't call people ugly on a street corner.

If, on the other hand, one of those passerbyers stands in front of you and shouts back in your face that actually you are the ugly one this is not a violation of your free speech. Likewise if a group of them stand in front of you and block what you have to say from other passers-by.

And finally, if one of those people walks up to you and punches you straight in the face, this is not a violation of your free speech. It's assault, but it's not a free speech violation.

The first amendment protects you from the government preventing you from saying something in a public space. It does not prevent you from facing consequences for what you say.

I'm really sick of all these free speech people misunderstanding this very simple fact.
51
EmmaLiz, @50

Either Free Speech is a principle or it is not. To say it's only about government suppression of speech is disingenuous. The fact is, American's have always understood free speech to be a right that anyone ought to be able to exercise without facing intimidation from the state or from individuals.

Once private people start very seriously to prevent other people from speaking, then the principle no longer matters and the technical, legal rights eventually go out the window. Why not have the state censor speech if it's not a value which applies to everyone and that everyone ought to respect it? Either we defend it as a principle from ANYONE who seeks to violate a person's civil rights, or we lose it, slowly, over time.

The argument the left always makes is based on a technical, "letter-of-the-law" interpretation, which doesn't take into consideration the spirit and intent of the law-- the principle behind it that people should be able to talk about ideas without suppression.
52
Since @51 clearly don't understand the meaning of the word "genocide" (@32), i think we can all safely ignore any thoughts they may think they're having.
54
@32: Um, white supremacists usually are the culprits of mass genocide.
It took the allied forces during WWII to end the Nazi madness of the Hitler regime--even after 8 million Jews were brutally murdered and sent to concentration camps.
These present insaniacs must be stopped in their violently destructive tracks.
It's like we haven't learned shit 80 years later.
55
@38 ortolan: Bravo! I nominate you winner of this thread.
56
@51 You can argue all you want about principles and morals and the like, and I think those are useful discussions in terms of how humans get along with one another, but that is not the same thing as rights. You are doing exactly what I said- mixing up legal rights with moral principles.
57
I personally find white supremacy to be unprincipled and while I don't believe the government has the right to arrest someone for posting bigoted flyers around a city or standing on a street corner with a Nazi flag, as a civilian (not a cop, not a military member) I find it extremely principled to tell that person to shut the fuck up and go to hell.

58
EmmaLiz

I'm saying a right only has a basis in a principal, or a value. Rights aren't arbitrary, they don't fall from the sky. When we start making exceptions(like allowing speech to be supressed or actively encouraging it, in this case), those exceptions undermine the principal behind the legal right, then the legitimacy of the right comes into question.

This is the problem of violating the spirit of a law--by finding a loop-hole--because you want to get around the values and princals that uphold it-- for political expediency.
59
I mean, tbh, the political culture of America(currently liberal)could change. History is often cyclical and not secular. Lefties could find the tables turned and their undermining of free speech could be used against them in the future. At least recognize that!
60
Georgie, nope. I'm not worried that people telling Nazis to shut the fuck up are going to cause the end of protection of civilians against government interference with free speech. And I don't have to wonder what it would be like if government forces started rounding up and targeting leftist activists, that's literally been going on for decades.
61
I don't know why you wouldn't be worried? But my first point still stands. It's underhanded and dishonest to undermine free speech on a technicality. It does no one any favors, and could, quite potentially, be dangerous in the long run.

And, tbh, I really don't get why the left is so afraid of speech they disagree with. You can't ignore the right(let's be honest, they aren't all nazis), even if you try to shut them down, they'll still talk and make their arguments. And it appears their arguments have been winning people over. It makes more sense to work on your own arguments than to turn yourselves into the bad guys by supressing speech. It's always a bad idea to needlessly escalate a conflict.
62
Is there any fundamental difference between that shit and run-of-the-mill MadiSSon-Avenue propaKlanda? I say "Nyet!".
63
Georgie, it's not a technicality. It's a fundamental difference of opinions. I believe you have the right to say whatever you want free from government oppression or punishment. I do not believe that you have the right to say whatever you want free from consequence of others who disagree with you and/or are offended by you. Likewise in the opposite direction. I disagree with you that it is principled to stand by without challenging or fighting people who say things that are hateful or bigoted. You seem to believe that I have some appreciation for manners or some belief that people should be able to say whatever they want without any challenges at all, despite the fact that I've repeatedly said the opposite. I think it's very good to shout down Nazis, to confront them, to disrupt them. I think confrontation by civilians is good. I'm not trying to win them over. I'm trying to fight them. I want to escalate a conflict. I think most of them are pussies and I think there are more people who will beat them down than there are people who will agree with them. I think what causes people to stand aside is this confusion over good manners vs moral convictions- neither of which have jack shit to do with rights which are about the state's relationship to people, not about people's relationship between one another. It seems a technicality to you because you think we are talking about the same thing when we are not. There is a fundamental disagreement here that I'm trying to explain to you.
64
The main source of our disagreement is your misunderstanding of power - both in terms of the state and in terms of freedom of speech. Your free speech is protected as a right against government/military intervention because otherwise they would use their power to serve themselves against the people. If you understand the principle behind the law from this point of view, then you should be able to see why it's not a contradiction therefore to see why your freedom of speech is not protected from the insults/attacks of other civilians. They likewise have every right to collectively tell you to shut the fuck up. We have other laws in place to prevent violence or chaos as a result of confrontation. It is illegal to punch someone in the face- not because it's a violation of that person's free speech but rahter because it is assault, as I said in my first post. It's illegal to physical threaten someone with violence not because it violates their free speech but because it violates their bodily autonomy. I likewise agree with these laws, and I agree that when someone punches a Nazi in the face, they are committing assault and if the cops catch them, they are right to be charged with assault under the law. But this is because of assault, not free speech. The reasoning being that two individuals have equal power- one of them is not controlling a military or a prison system. There is no contradiction in this line of thinking. You are the one mixing up things, not me.

Now if you want to hear a contradiction, I'll tell you one. While I agree it is and should be illegal to punch a Nazi in the face because we can't have a civil society if people go around punching people, I still think it's the principled thing to do. :) Pointless probably and non-strategic maybe, but principled no doubt. Illegal nonetheless.