Back in the 2nd century B.C., there was in Rome two brothers, the Gracchi. Before them for most of Rome's history it was just a city-state in Italy. Oh, it controlled most of the peninsula, but that's not really an empire. Eventually it came into conflict with Carthage, a city in North Africa, and fought four wars — the Punic Wars — until it won completely and thoroughly. And suddenly Rome wasn't just an important city-state anymore. As a result of this war it expanded its territory significantly, and it now had to maintain an army to defend portions of it. So the Gracchi tried to implement land reforms that they believed would help the lower classes and replenish the military ranks. Until finally one day instead of debating about this as they usually did, a group of senators politically assassinated the elder brother in 133 B.C. The younger suffered the same fate in 121 B.C. This set a very dangerous precedent, and it wasn't the end of the matter. Whenever someone seemed to be sticking his neck out too much, he was killed. Or a civil war would spring up between two different sides of the senate; Sulla and Marius were fighting each other long before Caesar and Pompey were on the scene.

I don't want to say that political assassination and inability to talk things through in the senate was the sole reason why the Roman Republic crumbled and the Roman Empire took its place — there was the fact it was damned-near impossible in those days to manage such a large territory without quick and direct orders from the top — but it was part of it. Once you've moved into "violence is OK against anyone I disagree with" territory, although it may seem right in some cases it shouldn't become the norm.

That's what I think about when I see the quarrel about Richard B. Spencer. He's basically... I guess two steps away from being a Nazi. He doesn't argue for violence or death camps but he definitely wants all the minorities out. During the inauguration as he gave a televised interview someone punched him in the face. I'm not going to say this is on the level of Roman assassination, but I'm not going to condone the action either for the same reasons. I don't want violence to be used in general as a way of silencing your opponent. If Spencer were inciting people to go out and kill the kikes and niggers, then yeah the authorities need to have a serious talk with him. But saying I don't like non-WASP whites, as distasteful as it is, is something he's allowed to say. That's part of our free speech. And to be honest he does deserve a punch in the face. But if you normalize violence, little things like one dude getting decked start evolving into larger things. Like institutionalized violence against those we don't agree with. You start off with two outlier brothers being assassinated and about a century later you have a general crossing the Rubicon to exert his own authority.