Does TSR3 Have Nazi Connections?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Evidence has been compiled by an anonymous website which suggests that TSR3's Star Frontiers: New Genesis (Star Frontiers being one of the trademarks under legal 'dispute' with WotC right now) is written by an author with extreme Nazi sympathies.


I'm not going to directly post the hateful images and tweets here because the content is extreme. It's one of the most focused outpourings of hate that I've personally seen.

But there is a website [CONTENT WARNING -- I need to post the link as evidence but I honestly do not recommend that you click on it] where somebody has anonymously and comprehensively compiled screenshots which indicate that a Twitter feed called 'DaveFilmsUS' (that they allege belongs to New Genesis author Dave Johnson) is filled with hate speech and Nazi imagery. These tweets include racist, homophobic, and transphobic content, along with Nazi and white supremacy memes. There are images of swastikas, and messages about the 'replacement' of white people. The tweets cover a long period of time, going back to at least 2017. They are extreme.

Star Frontiers: New Genesis is a book whose existence many doubt. It shows up as 'sold out' on TSR3's webstore on Dungeon Hobby Shop. Earlier this year, TSR3 posted manipulated images of piles of books (below) made to look like they were Star Frontiers stock. To the best of my knowledge, nobody has seen this book. The game was announced in June 2021.

Meanwhile, Star Frontiers owner Wizards of the Coast continues to sell the game on DriveThruRPG. TSR3 attempted legal action against WotC last year with the goal of claiming ownership of some of WotC's IP; WotC responded with a countersuit which is still ongoing.

Johnson, who runs Dave Johnson Games, also publishes an ezine called Alarms & Journeys, a name presumably 'inspired' by the the well-known zine Alarums and Excursions by the award-winning game designer Lee Gold. Alarums and Excursions has been running since 1975, and is still published to this day.

TSR3 is run by Justin LaNasa (a tattooist, weapon designer, and briefly a politician who refers to himself as Sir Justin LaNasa), who sent (real) TSR alumnus Tim Kask profane messages in January of this year. TSR3 is the third company to bear the name, and is in no way connected to the TSR which published Dungeons & Dragons from the 1970s to the 1990s.

WotC's countersuit against TSR3, which names the company and Justin LaNasa personally, currently remains ongoing.

sfng_stock_manipulated.jpg


 

log in or register to remove this ad

Russ Morrissey

Russ Morrissey

HammerMan

Legend
I do think a lot of this 'all cishet white men are bad' stuff in the media hurts, TBH. There are a lot of lower- and middle-class men in that demographic who aren't particularly privileged, and it definitely has a radicalizing effect from what I've seen.
this is at best a misrepresentation and at worst (I hope) a dog whistle repeated unknowingly.
There is NOT a movement against straight white men.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Steampunkette

Shaper of Worlds
Supporter
That, I think, is giving far too much power to a single punch. I think a very strong factor in getting him turtling up is probably the lawsuit brought to bear on him as well as the legal trouble of his followers. I couldn't even say that his wife filing for divorce and accusing him of abuse was a downstream impact of him being punched in public.

Getting into fights is what Nazis do. It's what brought them to power in the 1930s. It's what keeps the hard core radicalized. Before they brought the case about marching rights in Skokie back in 1977, the NSPA mostly just got beat up and it never stopped them. And when they finally did march, after changing location from Skokie to Chicago, they were utterly dwarfed by the counter protest (by something like 100 to 1). That is what seems to work best. Turn out to countermarch/counterprotest. Bullies don't seem to handle being outnumbered very well. Plus, it undermines their momentum - being the ones to turn out in large number emboldens them.

Edit: It also takes their implicit threat of mob violence from them and turns it into a losing proposition. You don't even have to deploy the violence in the end.
Getting into fights didn't bring the Nazis into power in the 1930s. It -almost- destroyed them at the Beerhaul Putsch but the Weimar Republic wanted to be "Tolerant" and didn't do what needs to be done with the intolerant.

And sure, the 1970s you could peacefully protest Nazis and outnumber them and it be presented as some big victory over them... but that was when there were still laws about how stuff had to be presented in media and the like. Back when journalists actually had convictions and a responsibility to be objective.

Now? "Both Sides" is the name of the game, with people bending over backwards to be tolerant of intolerant people. Same situation as the 1930s.

I will acknowledge that him losing his wife probably wasn't because of the punch... But that was mostly carrying on the old school country song I had in my head where you lose everything.
I feel there is rather unfair binary being presented here. It's not a choice between appeasement and physical violence.

I fully believe that hate speech should be prosecuted, I think bigots should be deplatformed and generally not welcomed in the society.

I'm still a tad sceptical about the merits of violent vigilante justice thought... Sure, I certainly grant that there are rare situations where violence is a valid choice, albeit my bar is pretty damn high there.

There was recently this news story about a taxi driver who told bigots to get out of his car and was very clear about why. This is the attitude everyone should have. But had this guy started to punch the prospective customers, I think the reporting might have had rather different tone...
To be clear: I'm not sincerely advocating that everyone in proximity with a Nazi should punch them. Punching Nazis is a reference to violence, but as we all know not all violence is physical. Deplatforming? Literally a form of sociopolitical violence used against minorities all the time.

Sometimes it does mean shouting them down with larger numbers. Sometimes it means passing laws against them. Sometimes it means creating systems of oppression which make it infeasible to be a Nazi. But it never -ever- means Debating them. Convincing them. Being Gentle with them. It means being violent and extreme against their ideology.

Though I do, also, mean punching for me, and for people who want to punch Nazis. Because that is self-defense. They want me dead, I have the right to fight back.

Also, I love the idea that punching a Nazi who gets close to me is being presented as Vigilante Justice. Like I'm strapping on a cape and cowl, heading to Nazi hangouts, and getting into BIFF BAM KERPOW fist fights with them.

There's a reason I said Nazi Bars have to be shut down, kicked out, etc. No one person is gonna march in there and beat all the Nazis with their mighty fists.
 


FoolishFrost

Adventurer
So...what's the actual best way to fight the far-right? Not sure, honestly. Every country and time is unique--there's no guarantee that the strategies that succeeded elsewhere will here, and anyway whatever was tried in Weimar failed. A lot of it has to do with overall material conditions (makes me sound like a leftist)--extreme viewpoints are less attractive when times are good.

I think unionization would help--it unites working-class people across racial lines--and a stronger welfare state (worked here in the USA in the 1930s).

Well, education helps. If you can stop people neutering education. Unions help, but those keep getting kneecapped at every level... partially due to education being hampered for so long... Improving infrastructure to make jobs can help... Oh... Right... Wait, what about passing laws to enforce equal rights? Repealed, you say? Uh...

...

I got nothing.
 


billd91

Hobbit on Quest (he/him)
I think unionization would help--it unites working-class people across racial lines--and a stronger welfare state (worked here in the USA in the 1930s).
You might hope so, but American history has been spotty on that since unions have a history of being fairly conservative along some topics - including race relations. Things have the potential to be better now, if union membership grows again, since their main political allies have shed their harshest, white supremacist roots (which are now increasingly proudly borne up by the other party).
You usually wind up having to coopt the center-right at some point--not enough of the country leans left. After all, Winston Churchill kept Hitler out of the UK.
Yeah, but until British Imperial interests started looking directly threatened, Churchill was awfully enamored of fascism. The role of the center-right in Weimar Germany can't be underestimated though. They tolerated the hell out of the SA and Nazis because they mostly fought Communists and Social Democrats, one of whom was openly pro-Soviet, the other substantially responsible for ousting the emperor. Had enough of the center and center-right held with the Social Democrats or helped bolster the Weimar Republic, millions of people might not have suffered.
 

I'm too lazy to dig up references, but I remember reading something (maybe in the Economist?) about how one of the most effective way to counter Nazis is to laugh at them. They're just hoping somebody will start a fight at one of their rallies because it drives recruitment, but if you line the route of their march dressed in clown outfits, with signs that say "Wife Power!" and throwing white flour (get it?) in the air, with everybody laughing their heads off, it makes it very difficult for them to find new recruits.
 

Mythical persecution cooked up by the scumbags does hurt, yes.

Pretending it's a real thing while professing to be against those guys also.

Oh, I genuinely am against Nazis.

I also think the media leans left, albeit a sort of business-friendly left that divides by race and gender rather than class.

The two are not mutually exclusive.

I actually would support labor laws more protective of unions, repealing Taft-Hartley, etc.
 

Vaalingrade

Legend
Oh, I genuinely am against Nazis.

I also think the media leans left, albeit a sort of business-friendly left that divides by race and gender rather than class.

The two are not mutually exclusive.

I actually would support labor laws more protective of unions, repealing Taft-Hartley, etc.
None of them precludes you buying into a false narrative and perpetuating it. We all do it sometimes, but it is important to recognize and rescind it.
 

billd91

Hobbit on Quest (he/him)
Getting into fights didn't bring the Nazis into power in the 1930s. It -almost- destroyed them at the Beerhaul Putsch but the Weimar Republic wanted to be "Tolerant" and didn't do what needs to be done with the intolerant.
Oh, it sure did. You're missing a full additional decade of violence unlimbered against their opponents, unions, and Jews as well as intimidation at the polls, all tolerated by the right-wing police and judiciary. And just look at the wrist slaps meted out to the leadership of the Putsch. A coup attempt led to a setback in 1923, but when the violence was directed at lower-level enemies rather than the state, it was effective.
 

Morrus

Well, that was fun
Staff member
I do think a lot of this 'all cishet white men are bad' stuff in the media hurts, TBH. There are a lot of lower- and middle-class men in that demographic who aren't particularly privileged, and it definitely has a radicalizing effect from what I've seen.
I find it frustrating that in 2022 people are still mistaking what 'privilege' is. For the record, privilege does not mean you have no hardships. Lots of people have hardships. Lots of people are poor. Lots of people suffer daily. 'Privilege', specifically, means those hardships are not due to your identity, whether that be as a person of colour, a transgender person, etc. This should not need to still be repeated after all this time. So yes, cishet white men, even those with hardships, are privileged.

I know the word 'privilege' sounds like its means 'has no hardships' but that's not what it means. And it's important to understand that. You can have hardship and still be privileged.
 


FoolishFrost

Adventurer
I'm too lazy to dig up references, but I remember reading something (maybe in the Economist?) about how one of the most effective way to counter Nazis is to laugh at them. They're just hoping somebody will start a fight at one of their rallies because it drives recruitment, but if you line the route of their march dressed in clown outfits, with signs that say "Wife Power!" and throwing white flour (get it?) in the air, with everybody laughing their heads off, it makes it very difficult for them to find new recruits.
Or cosplay as the joker and try to help them recruit in the worst ways, and then go "Wait? You're NAZIS? What do you think I am, CRAZY?"
 

None of them precludes you buying into a false narrative and perpetuating it. We all do it sometimes, but it is important to recognize and rescind it.

I've thought it over, and I think, as TVTropes has it, 'Villain Has a Point'. (Villain being the far-right here. And yes, they want to kill me too, I'm aware of that. Evil people can be right about stuff--Philipp Lenard wasn't wrong about cathode rays because he was a Nazi.)

So for a long time there were a lot of negative portrayals of ethnic minorities in TV, movies, etc. (One of the original ten rules of the mystery story concerns the fad at the time for Chinese villains.) They got together and made pressure groups to stop that, with the result that villains tend to be predominantly white males these days (look at the recent Star Wars movies for a recent example). You can see how that would backfire.

Similarly, you get all kinds of cases where the media hides the race of a gunman if he's a minority, refers to 'mostly peaceful' protests, etc. (Quite a few merchants had their stores burnt down.) Are they doing the right thing in trying to avoid ethnic stereotyping? I guess, but if you're a member of the declining majority it sure starts to look conspiratorial.

On a larger scale, while I can see affirmative action for African-Americans and Native Americans/First Nations as a form of reparations, it's not clear why someone whose relatives voluntarily come here should get preference over a native (of course, they shouldn't be discriminated against either)...and I say that as the first generation born in the USA!

And about that declining majority...I don't know, given the history of ethnic conflict in just about every nation in the world (and not just European-descended ones either...look at the violence against overseas Chinese merchants in other parts of Asia), I can see them being worried about outnumbered.
 

this is at best a misrepresentation and at worst (I hope) a dog whistle repeated unknowingly.
There is NOT a movement against straight white men.
I also very much doubt the "radicalizing effect".

I can only speak for Britain in detail but there's one thing that radicalizes men, and it's not being told cis-het white men are bad, it's being self-pitying losers. Long before "cis het men are bad" was even dreamed over, back in the 1950s and even earlier, self-pitying losers were buying into extremist ideologies.

Simple as that. The same goes for Islamist terrorists and no doubt for many other kinds of terrorist too. You look at their personalities and histories, and where it's discussing, what they post about. They're universally self-pitying losers. And this has been true through history, very clearly.
I also think the media leans left, albeit a sort of business-friendly left that divides by race and gender rather than class.
What does that even mean though?

I think what you're trying to say is that the US news media tends not to support bigotry on the basis of race/gender/sexuality, except for the massive section that does, and none of the news media, either bigot-supporting or otherwise, supports any kind of leftist fiscal policies at all even slightly (this is what I think you mean by "business friendly" - solidly right-wing fiscal policies).

And even that requires an incredible Overton-window shift. Eisenhower's "right" is far, far to the left of where the US center is now, for example.
 

Dannyalcatraz

Schmoderator
Staff member
“Privilege” isn’t an aegis against hard times & difficulties, it’s a set of baked in advantages. As someone else put it, you’re playing the game on the “Easy” setting while others play on “Normal” or “Hard”- you can still lose, but your odds of winning are boosted.
 

Vaalingrade

Legend
What people who are advocating talking and understanding don't get is... they aren't understanding how authoritarians work.

And authoritarian is someone who recognizes internally that they don't have their crap together, but either through ego or upbringing, cannot abide by actually entering into a give and take relationship to get help. Instead, they want a big powerful daddy who will in turn empower them as their vassal.

And the only power they value is force and shows of force. That's why the love military parades and pageantry and symbols and regalia: the only power they understand or respect is the projection of force. They see trying to talk to someone, showing tolerance, leaving people alone -- as weakness. So when you try and talk to them, tolerate them, or leave them alone, they take that as a win. It encourages them to roll over you because you are not presenting any of the resistance they recognize as such.

Cutting their force, via deplatforming, via public humiliation, etc absolutely works. Look at all the oinking sadness that comes up whenever they get so much as a ban until they remove their tweet calling for violence. Another big, strong daddy stepped in and removed their power and they can't handle it. But when that daddy just slaps them on the wrist, they learn they can get away with more and more just like the sad toddlers they are.

The key is to remove and undermine their power however and whenever possible without offering them any of the respect or 'politeness' they demand because if you concede anything, you are rewarding their behavior.
 

Vaalingrade

Legend
I've thought it over, and I think, as TVTropes has it, 'Jerkass Has a Point'. (Jerkass being the far-right here. And yes, they want to kill me too, I'm aware of that. )

So for a long time there were a lot of negative portrayals of ethnic minorities in TV, movies, etc. (One of the original ten rules of the mystery story concerns the fad at the time for Chinese villains.) They got together and made pressure groups to stop that, with the result that villains tend to be predominantly white males these days (look at the recent Star Wars movies for a recent example). You can see how that would backfire.

Similarly, you get all kinds of cases where the media hides the race of a gunman if he's a minority, refers to 'mostly peaceful' protests, etc. (Quite a few merchants had their stores burnt down.) Are they doing the right thing in trying to avoid ethnic stereotyping? I guess, but if you're a member of the declining majority it sure starts to look conspiratorial.

On a larger scale, while I can see affirmative action for African-Americans and Native Americans/First Nations as a form of reparations, it's not clear why someone whose relatives voluntarily come here should get preference over a native (of course, they shouldn't be discriminated against either)...and I say that as the first generation born in the USA!

And about that declining majority...I don't know, given the history of ethnic conflict in just about every nation in the world (and not just European-descended ones either...look at the violence against overseas Chinese merchants in other parts of Asia), I can see them being worried about outnumbered.
So... just doubling down then?

Cool. Cool.
 

They got together and made pressure groups to stop that, with the result that villains tend to be predominantly white males these days (look at the recent Star Wars movies for a recent example). You can see how that would backfire.
This is extremely silly, facile and superficial thinking, I'm afraid.

Your example shows how muddled and confused your thinking is here. The original SW movies, 4/5/6, have villains that are solely white men (and I guess Jabba? but he's not human). No-one on those starship bridges is female or non-white.

Whereas in 7/8/9, where female villains, and we have non-white villains - admittedly most of the latter only have a single line or the like, but people discussed it quite a lot and somehow it seems you totally missed it? Did you actually watch the recent SW movies?

Your point is thus obviously wrong by your own example. 4/5/6 = white males sole villains - 7/8/9 they are joined by women and non-white villains.
 

HammerMan

Legend
I've thought it over, and I think, as TVTropes has it, 'Villain Has a Point'. (Villain being the far-right here. And yes, they want to kill me too, I'm aware of that. )
This isn’t helping. In theory a Nazi and I could agree on our favorite color but when you start even a little seeing there political theory as having a point you are on a SUPER slippery slope.

The fact is (meaning to or not) you have just doubled down on the propaganda.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.

Visit Our Sponsor

Level Up!

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top