‘Crying Nazi' who became infamous after Unite the Right rally is back in legal hot water with strangulation charge
The white supremacist and convicted extortionist known as the 'Crying Nazi' is back in hot water with law enforcement after being hit last weekend with criminal charges stemming from an incident at the Manchester, New Hampshire, rooming house where he has lived since his December 2022 release from federal prison.
Christopher Cantwell was arrested shortly before 2 a.m. Sunday on one count of felony strangulation, as well as simple assault and criminal mischief, both misdemeanors.
Cantwell, 44, became notorious as one of the most visible participants in 2017's infamous Unite the Right rally, during which a group of marchers paraded through the University of Virginia's Charlottesville campus brandishing tiki torches while chanting, among other things, 'Jews will not replace us.' After the angry mob drew universal condemnation for its actions, during which non-violent counterprotester Heather Heyer was killed when a Unite the Right attendee intentionally drove his car over her, then-President Donald Trump further inflamed tensions by claiming there had been 'very fine people on both sides.'
On Tuesday, Cantwell told The Independent what led to his latest arrest, insisting the accusations were 'complete BS.'
'I didn't strangle anyone,' he argued. 'People who are trying to cause legal problems for other people know that they can escalate a misdemeanor to a felony by saying strangulation occurred.'
Cantwell laid the blame on a local man who entered his room, allegedly without permission, and also claimed he was the target of a previous break-in just over a week ago.
'This is New Hampshire, not North Korea, and I have every right to physically remove someone from my home when they refuse to leave upon being ordered to do so,' Cantwell went on. He said the person 'refused multiple verbal commands to leave while raising his voice to disturb neighbors and escalate the conflict. I used the absolute minimum amount of force that I could to remove a trespasser who physically resisted my attempts to remove him.'
The strangulation charge, which carries up to seven years behind bars, is defined under New Hampshire state law as 'the application of pressure to another person's throat or neck, or the blocking of the person's nose or mouth, that causes the person to experience impeded breathing or blood circulation or a change in voice.'
News of Cantwell's latest arrest was first revealed by Charlottesville-based journalist Molly Conger, host of the podcast Weird Little Guys, which exposes the activities of right-wing extremists.
Emily Gorcenski, a data scientist and antifascist researcher who was brutally attacked by Unite the Right attendees while covering the rally, began tracking Cantwell and other members of white supremacist groups in 2018. Although she said she 'cannot speak to the particulars' of Cantwell's latest run-in with the law, Gorcenski described him on Tuesday as having 'a history of violence.'
'But more than that, he has a history of trying to play the victim when being caught in his violent acts,' Gorcenski told The Independent. 'He did this when he was convicted in federal charges for extortion, he did this when he was sued for participating in a violent conspiracy against civil rights in Charlottesville, and he did this when I swore a complaint against him for violently assaulting me with pepper spray at the University of Virginia.'
From Cantwell's perspective, Gorcenski went on, 'his frequent violence is always just and his victims are always liars.'
'Unfortunately for him, there is rarely much overlap between Chris's world and the real world,' she said. 'I hope one day he learns to take accountability for his actions.'
Cantwell is a New York native who grew up in an affluent suburb on Long Island. He told the Southern Poverty Law Center's Hatewatch investigative unit that his father was one of 11,000 air traffic controllers fired in 1981 by President Ronald Reagan after refusing a back-to-work order amid a nationwide strike for better pay and increased benefits.
He has agitated for the violent overthrow of the U.S. government, for Democrats and 'communists' to be 'physically removed' from the country, and for white men to take multiple wives in an effort to produce more Caucasian babies.
Due to his federal conviction, Cantwell cannot presently vote, but has been vocal about the fact that he voted for 'God Emperor' Donald Trump in 2016.
'Do I have a capacity for violence? You f*****g bet I do,' Cantwell told Hatewatch prior to his 41-month federal prison sentence, which was handed down in September 2021. 'I carry two pistols, and I've been in multiple different types of combat training. I can f*****g harm a man, and I'll put an end to a life if I have to, but I don't particularly want to. I've been involved with enough violence to know that it can go very bad, and I take prudent measures to avoid getting myself into violent conflict.'
Cantwell earned the 'Crying Nazi' nickname after posting a video of himself in tears following the Unite the Right march, upon learning there was a warrant out for his arrest.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Los Angeles Times
an hour ago
- Los Angeles Times
South Dakota is on track to spend $2 billion on prisons in the next decade
SIOUX FALLS, S.D. — Two years after approving a tough-on-crime sentencing law, South Dakota is scrambling to deal with the price tag for that legislation: Housing thousands of additional inmates could require up to $2 billion to build new prisons in the next decade. That's a lot of money for a state with one of the lowest populations in the U.S., but a consultant said it's needed to keep pace with an anticipated 34% surge of new inmates in the next decade as a result of South Dakota's tough criminal justice laws. And while officials are grumbling about the cost, they don't seem concerned with the laws that are driving the need even as national crime rates are dropping. 'Crime has been falling everywhere in the country, with historic drops in crime in the last year or two,' said Bob Libal, senior campaign strategist at the criminal justice nonprofit the Sentencing Project. 'It's a particularly unusual time to be investing $2 billion in prisons.' Some Democratic-led states have worked to close prisons and enact changes to lower inmate populations, but that's a tough sell in Republican-majority states such as South Dakota that believe in a tough-on-crime approach, even if that leads to more inmates. For now, state lawmakers have set aside a $600-million fund to replace the overcrowded 144-year-old South Dakota State Penitentiary in Sioux Falls, making it one of the most expensive taxpayer-funded projects in South Dakota history. But South Dakota will likely need more prisons. Phoenix-based Arrington Watkins Architects, which the state hired as a consultant, has said South Dakota will need 3,300 additional beds in coming years, bringing the cost to $2 billion. Driving up costs is the need for facilities with different security levels to accommodate the inmate population. Concerns about South Dakota's prisons first arose four years ago, when the state was flush with COVID-19 relief funds. Lawmakers wanted to replace the penitentiary, but they couldn't agree on where to put the prison and how big it should be. A task force of state lawmakers assembled by Republican Gov. Larry Rhoden is expected to decide that in a plan for prison facilities this July. Many lawmakers have questioned the proposed cost, but few have called for criminal justice changes that would make such a large prison unnecessary. 'One thing I'm trying to do as the chairman of this task force is keep us very focused on our mission,' said Lt. Gov. Tony Venhuizen. 'There are people who want to talk about policies in the prisons or the administration or the criminal justice system more broadly, and that would be a much larger project than the fairly narrow scope that we have.' South Dakota's incarceration rate of 370 per 100,000 people is an outlier in the Upper Midwest. Neighbors Minnesota and North Dakota have rates of under 250 per 100,000 people, according to the Sentencing Project, a criminal justice advocacy nonprofit. Nearly half of South Dakota's projected inmate population growth can be attributed to a law approved in 2023 that requires some violent offenders to serve the full-length of their sentences before parole, according to a report by Arrington Watkins. When South Dakota inmates are paroled, about 40% are ordered to return to prison, the majority of those due to technical violations such as failing a drug test or missing a meeting with a parole officer. Those returning inmates made up nearly half of prison admissions in 2024. Sioux Falls criminal justice attorney Ryan Kolbeck blamed the high number of parolees returning in part on the lack of services in prison for people with drug addictions. 'People are being sent to the penitentiary but there's no programs there for them. There's no way it's going to help them become better people,' he said. 'Essentially we're going to put them out there and house them for a little bit, leave them on parole and expect them to do well.' South Dakota also has the second-greatest disparity of Native Americans in its prisons. While Native Americans make up one-tenth of South Dakota's population, they make up 35% of those in state prisons, according to Prison Policy Initiative, a nonprofit public policy group. Though legislators in the state capital, Pierre, have been talking about prison overcrowding for years, they're reluctant to dial back on tough-on-crime laws. For example, it took repeated efforts over six years before South Dakota reduced a controlled substance ingestion law to a misdemeanor from a felony for the first offense, aligning with all other states. 'It was a huge, Herculean task to get ingestion to be a misdemeanor,' Kolbeck said. Former penitentiary warden Darin Young said the state needs to upgrade its prisons, but he also thinks it should spend up to $300 million on addiction and mental illness treatment. 'Until we fix the reasons why people come to prison and address that issue, the numbers are not going to stop,' he said. Without policy changes, the new prisons are sure to fill up, criminal justice experts agreed. 'We might be good for a few years, now that we've got more capacity, but in a couple years it'll be full again,' Kolbeck said. 'Under our policies, you're going to reach capacity again soon.' Raza writes for the Associated Press.
Atlantic
3 hours ago
- Atlantic
America's Anti-Jewish Assassins Are Making the Case for Zionism
The founding father of Zionism, the modern movement to create a Jewish state, had a Christmas tree. In 1895, Theodor Herzl, the Jewish journalist who would later convene the world's first Zionist Congress, was busy lighting the holiday ornament with his family when the chief rabbi of Vienna dropped in for a visit. The cleric was not amused—but the episode helps explain what Zionism is, why it came to be, and why it still finds adherents. Far from seeking to flee non-Jewish society, Herzl—like many European Jews of his era—ardently hoped to be accepted by it. He did not circumcise his son, and initially proposed that Jews evade anti-Semitism by converting en masse to Roman Catholicism. Only after such ill omens as the rise of Karl Lueger, the Vienna mayor who would serve as inspiration to Adolf Hitler, did Herzl reluctantly conclude that Jews would never be accepted in gentile society and pivot to pursuing Jewish statehood. Moving to a then-backwater in the Middle East was the last thing that Herzl wanted to do. It was also the last thing most Jews of his time wanted to do. Like Herzl, they simply sought to live in peace in the places they'd called home for centuries. And some, like Herzl, slowly realized that this was not going to be possible. As the historian Walter Russell Mead has put it, 'Zionism was not the triumphant battle cry of a victorious ethnic group,' but rather 'a weird, crazy, desperate stab at survival' made by those who foresaw their impending doom and despaired of other options. Seen in this context, Herzl's influential manifesto Der Judenstaat ('The Jewish State') was the 19th-century equivalent of Get Out for European Jews: a warning that well-intentioned liberalism would not save them, and that they needed to escape while they still could. Ever since, much of the world has worked to prove Herzl right. This past Sunday in Colorado, a man infiltrated a solidarity event for Israeli hostages in Gaza and began setting the Jews there on fire. The attack left 15 wounded, including an 88-year-old Holocaust survivor. The Boulder assault occurred just weeks after the execution of a young couple outside the Capital Jewish Museum in Washington, D.C., where a leftist extremist allegedly emptied his clip into one of the victims as she tried to crawl away. That shooting followed the attempted assassination of Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro on the second night of Passover. The firebomber in Colorado was captured on video shouting 'end Zionists' during his rampage. The murderer in Washington produced a keffiyeh and reportedly declared, 'I did it for Gaza.' Shapiro's would-be killer told a 911 operator that he targeted the Jewish governor 'for what he wants to do to the Palestinian people.' Although these assailants all attacked American Jews, they clearly perceived themselves as Zionism's avengers. In reality, however, they have joined a long line of Zionism's inadvertent advocates. As in Herzl's time, the perpetrators of anti-Jewish acts do more than nearly anyone else to turn Jews who were once indifferent or even hostile to Israel's fate into reluctant appreciators of its necessity. Consider the Holocaust, the greatest anti-Jewish atrocity in modern memory. The Third Reich and its many collaborators exterminated two-thirds of Europe's Jews. At the same time, the enemies of the Nazis—including the United States and Canada—refused to let most desperate Jewish refugees into their countries. This inevitably funneled many people toward their destination of last resort: mandatory Palestine. The creation of Israel was the consequence less of Jewish choices than of all other Jewish choices being foreclosed by non-Jewish powers. In 1948, Israel declared independence and fought off the attempt of five invading Arab armies to strangle it in the cradle. Some 800,000 Palestinians fled or were expelled from their homeland. Wide swaths of the world promptly took out their displeasure at this outcome on the Jewish populations nearest at hand. In the years following Israel's founding, nearly 1 million Jews left their ancestral homes in the Arab and Muslim world. Many fled abuse in countries such as Iran, Iraq, Yemen, Libya, Syria, and Tunisia, where Jews were imprisoned, tortured, murdered, and stripped of their possessions, despite having lived in these places for millennia. At the time, few of these people were Zionists. They loved their home countries, which refused to love them back, and faced persecution when they arrived in Israel. Today, this Mizrahi community and its descendants comprise about half of Israel's population and form the backbone of Benjamin Netanyahu's right-wing base. The Soviet Union, despite presenting itself as the vanguard of universal brotherhood, also turned on its Jews. The Communist police state cast the community as subversive, institutionally discriminated against its members in higher education and the professions, and labeled countless Jews who had no interest in Israel as 'Zionists.' The state executed secular Jewish artists and intellectuals under false charges, repressed observance of the Jewish faith, and threw those who protested into Gulags. Eventually, after decades of international pressure, nearly 2 million Jews were allowed to leave. More than half moved to Israel, where they would become one of Israel's most reliably conservative constituencies. Simply put, Israel exists as it does today because of the repeated choices made by societies to reject their Jews. Had these societies made different choices, Jews would still live in them, and Israel likely would not exist—certainly not in its present form. Instead, Israel is a garrison state composed precisely of those Jews with the most reason to distrust the outside world and its appeals to international ideals, knowing that these did precisely nothing to help them when they needed it most. In this manner, decade after decade, anti-Semitism has created more Zionism. Put another way, the unwitting agents of Zionism throughout history have been those unwilling to tolerate Jews in their own countries. Bruce Hoffman: The Boulder attack didn't come out of nowhere Given this dynamic, a rational anti-Zionist movement would devote itself to making Jews feel welcome in every facet of life outside of Israel, ruthlessly rooting out any inkling of anti-Semitism in order to convince Jews that they have nothing to fear and certainly no need for a separate state. Such an anti-Zionist movement would overcome Zionism by making it obsolete. But that is not the anti-Zionist movement that currently exists. Instead, Israel's opposition around the globe—whether groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah or their international apologists and imitators —often seems determined to persuade those Jews who chose differently than Herzl did that he was right all along. Attacks such as those in Colorado, Washington, and Pennsylvania, not to mention the white-supremacist massacre at Pittsburgh's Tree of Life synagogue in 2018, have raised the costs of being Jewish in America. Synagogues, schools, and other Jewish institutions collectively pay millions of dollars to secure their premises, resulting in communities that are less open to the outside and attendees being forever reminded that they are not safe even in their places of worship. And now American Jews thinking of attending communal events must stop to consider whether would-be attackers will associate them with Israel and target them for death. America, at least, was not always this way. The country has long stood as the great counterexample to the Zionist project—proof that Jews could not just survive but thrive as equals in a pluralistic liberal democracy, without need for their own army or state. After Barbra Steinmetz, the 88-year-old Holocaust survivor in Boulder, was attacked, she had a message for the country. 'We're Americans,' she told NBC News. 'We are better than this.' That is what most American Jews and their allies believe, and the justification for that belief was evident in Colorado this week, where Jared Polis, the state's popular Jewish governor, forthrightly condemned the attack. But if the perpetrators and the cheerleaders of the incipient American intifada have their way, that spirit will be stifled. Such a victory, however, would be self-defeating. According to video captured at the scene, the Boulder attacker accidentally set himself on fire in the middle of his assault. It would be hard to script a better metaphor for the way such violence sabotages the cause it purports to advance. If the anti-Zionist assassins succeed in making Jewish life in the United States less livable, they will not have helped a single Palestinian, but they will have made their opponents' case for them. They will have proved the promise of America wrong, and the darkest premonitions of Zionism right.
Los Angeles Times
4 hours ago
- Los Angeles Times
No Supreme Court win, but Mexico pressures U.S. on southbound guns
MEXICO CITY — More than a decade ago, Mexican authorities erected a billboard along the border in Ciudad Juárez, across the Rio Grande from El Paso. 'No More Weapons,' was the stark message, written in English and crafted from 3 tons of firearms that had been seized and crushed. It was a desperate entreaty to U.S. officials to stanch the so-called Iron River, the southbound flow of arms that was fueling record levels of carnage in Mexico. But the guns kept coming — and the bloodletting and mayhem grew. Finally, with homicides soaring to record levels, exasperated authorities pivoted to a novel strategy: Mexico filed a $10-billion suit in U.S. federal court seeking to have Smith & Wesson and other signature manufacturers held accountable for the country's epidemic of shooting deaths. The uphill battle against the powerful gun lobby survived an appeals court challenge, but last week the U.S. Supreme Court threw out Mexico's lawsuit, ruling unanimously that federal law shields gunmakers from nearly all liability. Although the litigation stalled, advocates say the high-profile gambit did notch a significant achievement: Dramatizing the role of Made-in-U.S.A. arms in Mexico's daily drumbeat of assassinations, massacres and disappearances. 'Notwithstanding the Supreme Court ruling, Mexico's lawsuit has accomplished a great deal,' said Jonathan Lowy, president of Global Action on Gun Violence, a Washington-based advocacy group. 'It has put the issue of gun trafficking — and the industry's role in facilitating the gun pipeline — on the bilateral and international agenda,' said Lowy, who was co-counsel in Mexico's lawsuit. A few hours after the high court decision, Ronald Johnson, the U.S. ambassador in Mexico City, wrote on X that the White House was intent on working with Mexico 'to stop southbound arms trafficking and dismantle networks fueling cartel violence.' The comments mark the first time that Washington — which has strong-armed Mexico to cut down on the northbound traffic of fentanyl and other illicit drugs — has acknowledged a reciprocal responsibility to clamp down on southbound guns, said President Claudia Sheinbaum. She hailed it as a breakthrough, years in the making. 'This is not just about the passage of narcotics from Mexico to the United States,' Sheinbaum said Friday. 'But that there [must] also be no passage of arms from the United States to Mexico.' Mexico is mulling options after the Supreme Court rebuff, Sheinbaum said. Still pending is a separate lawsuit by Mexico in U.S. federal court accusing five gun dealers in Arizona of trafficking weapons and ammunition to the cartels. Meanwhile, U.S. officials say that the Trump administration's recent designation of six Mexican cartels as foreign terrorist organizations means that weapons traffickers may face terrorism-related charges. 'In essence, the cartels that operate within Mexico and threaten the state are armed from weapons that are bought in the United States and shipped there,' U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio told a congressional panel last month. 'We want to help stop that flow.' On Monday, federal agents gathered at an international bridge in Laredo, Texas, before an array of seized arms — from snub-nosed revolvers to mounted machine guns — to demonstrate what they insist is a newfound resolve to stop the illicit gun commerce. 'This isn't a weapon just going to Mexico,' Craig Larrabee, special agent in charge of Homeland Security Investigations in San Antonio, told reporters. 'It's going to arm the cartels. It's going to fight police officers and create terror throughout Mexico.' In documents submitted to the Supreme Court, Mexican authorities charged that it defied credibility that U.S. gunmakers were unaware that their products were destined for Mexican cartels — a charge denied by manufacturers. The gun industry also disputed Mexico's argument that manufacturers deliberately produce military-style assault rifles and other weapons that, for both practical and aesthetic reasons, appeal to mobsters. Mexico cited several .38-caliber Colt offerings, including a gold-plated, Jefe de Jefes ('Boss of Bosses') pistol; and a handgun dubbed the 'Emiliano Zapata,' emblazoned with an image of the revered Mexican revolutionary hero and his celebrated motto: 'It is better to die standing than to live on your knees.' Compared with the United States, Mexico has a much more stringent approach to firearms. Like the 2nd Amendment, Mexico's Constitution guarantees the right to bear arms. But it also stipulates that federal law 'will determine the cases, conditions, requirements and places' of gun ownership. There are just two stores nationwide, both run by the military, where people can legally purchase guns. At the bigger store, in Mexico City, fewer than 50 guns are sold on average each day. Buyers are required to provide names, addresses and fingerprints in a process that can drag on for months. And unlike the United States, Mexico maintains a national registry. But the vast availability of U.S.-origin, black-market weapons undermines Mexico's strict guidelines. According to Mexican officials, an estimated 200,000 to half a million guns are smuggled annually into Mexico. Data collected by the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives illustrate where criminals in Mexico are obtaining their firepower. Of the 132,823 guns recovered at crime scenes in Mexico from 2009 to 2018, fully 70% were found to have originated in the U.S. — mostly in Texas and other Southwest border states. In their lawsuit, Mexican authorities cited even higher numbers: Almost 90% of guns seized at crime scenes came from north of the border. Experts say most firearms in Mexico are bought legally at U.S. gun shows or retail outlets by so-called straw purchasers,who smuggle the weapons across the border. It's a surprisingly easy task: More than a million people and about $1.8 billion in goods cross the border legally each day, and Mexico rarely inspects vehicles heading south. In recent years, the flood of weapons from the United States has accelerated, fueling record levels of violence. Mexican organized crime groups have expanded their turf and moved into rackets beyond drug trafficking, including extortion, fuel-smuggling and the exploitation of timber, minerals and other natural resources. In 2004, guns accounted for one-quarter of Mexico's homicides. Today, guns are used in roughly three-quarters of killings. Mexican leaders have long been sounding alarms. Former President Felipe Calderón, who, with U.S. backing, launched what is now widely viewed as a catastrophic 'war' on Mexican drug traffickers in late 2006, personally pleaded with U.S. lawmakers to reinstate a congressional prohibition on purchases of high-powered assault rifles. The expiration of the ban in 2004 meant that any adult with a clean record could enter a store in most states and walk out with weapons that, in much of the world, are legally reserved for military use. 'Many of these guns are not going to honest American hands,' Calderon said in a 2010 address to the U.S. Congress. 'Instead, thousands are ending up in the hands of criminals.' It was Calderón who, near the end of his term, ventured to the northern border to unveil the massive billboard urging U.S. authorities to stop the weapons flow. His appeals, and those of subsequent Mexican leaders, went largely unheeded. The verdict is still out on whether Washington will follow up on its latest vows to throttle the gun traffic. 'The Trump administration has said very clearly that it wants to go after Mexican organized crime groups,' said David Shirk, a political scientist at San Diego University who studies violence in Mexico. 'And, if you're going to get serious about Mexican cartels, you have to take away their guns.' Special correspondent Cecilia Sánchez Vidal contributed to this report.
