Is AntiFa becoming more fascist than the fascists they organized against?
Real life has been quite hectic on the personal front lately, so I haven't been able to come and share my thoughts with you guys and gals as frequently as I was, but I felt I had to take the time to put this together as I fear it is a troubling sign for the future. It may be full of typo's and whatnot as I don't have the time or inclination to proof read it first as I gotta run out for a few hours and conquer a giant honey-do list before I fly up to the big cold north for my Grandmothers 100th Birthday next week. (Some good news at least, apparently I come from a long lived family at least on my mothers side, lol!)
Ok, enough personal blather, the story commences below...
More and more reports keep coming out about "left wing" protesters attacking people attending talks and events organized by "Right wing" groups using violence.
Multiple reports are surfacing at an ever increasing rate of supposed leftists attacking their ideological opponents using Bear mace, Steel flag poles, thrown bricks, etc. (A quick youtube search shows that their are videos of these type of actions taking place all over the globe.)
It would be bad enough if they were actually attacking the right people, but during a live stream last night a student who was not even taking part on either side of the shitstorm at the Milo talk at Berkeley was struck in the head with a brick.
In stream I saw the person who was struck was being asked what happened by someone live streaming and he seemed very disoriented and was either mildly intoxicated or seriously concussed, but the short answer was he had no idea. (Sorry about the source, there for some reason is no real media coverage of this as of yet.)
In another video, a pro-Milo attendee is being interviewed by a reporter, is being civil and at the very end even makes a statement to the effect of, "I am just here to make my voice heard by being present, and I think the protesters are doing the same thing and props to those that are doing it non-violently.
Right before she was assaulted with Bear Mace.
[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zs7IYyA2UCE]
Who's side would you say has the bad actors on it in this instance?
Or how about this one? I am trying to find the version I saw streamed last night, where the Milo supporter, who is laying on the ground, already unconscious, is being struck by metal poles while a woman in the background repeatedly shouts, "Kick his Ass! Fuck him up!!!". (Unfortunately this version has zero audio and terrible video, so you will just have to take my word for what was being said and the context of the video.)
[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_pLKE6SoGVY]
Do these people not realize that they are playing directly into the hands of those that want a reason to "go to war" with their fellow Americans?
Do they not realize that they are destroying their very credibility and wearing their hypocrisy on their sleeves for the whole world to see?
Are they any better simply because "Their motives are pure"?
What are they hoping to achieve by acting like nothing more than violent thugs that want to suppress speech? Isn't that straight out of the fascist playbook?
Look, while I might not agree with everything, or anything for that matter, that these people stand for, but for fucks sake the last thing I would want to do is silence them and force them underground, for two very important reasons.
1. I want a spotlight shined on them and their ideas, I want us to be aware of what they think and believe, I want them operating in the open not in secret clubs so we know what they are doing.
2. I am an absolutist when it comes to free speech, I believe in the concept that the very nature of our right to do so is predicated on protecting unpopular speech because popular speech by the very nature of it's popularity requires no such protection.
We need to attack their ideas with logic, not the people spouting them with weapons.
To do otherwise makes you an opponent to free speech and the constitution, and the far right will be able to use these attacks quite successfully to dismiss and minimize everything else that comes from those on the left as coming from a group of violent anti-freedom radical idiots at best and fascist thugs pretending to be leftists, or even worse, that the left is actually really just a fascist organization from the bottom down.
There are a lot of people that will buy that argument, and as more and more of these instances occur their numbers will indeed grow.
There are tons of things we need to be fighting against, and their may come a time for violence,something that I fear more and more is going to come to pass, for how can a nation remain intact when half of it's population is constantly attacking, both verbally and physically, the other half and not devolve into a full blown civil war?
How can we be headed towards anything other when this is the course so many are taking?
With people like these on both sides (unfortunately for us though, it seems that most of these actual physical attacks are coming from "Our Team".) I don't see how we can't be headed towards that iceberg and it is up to us to reign in the baser instincts of those on the left that engage in such actions and call them out for doing so. Just as we would hope our saner friends on the other side of the aisle would do to their lunatic fringe.
We can't expect the right to get their house in order while ours is full of children running amok and smashing the furniture.
At least not if we want to be perceived as anything other than hypocrites.
I lay this current state of affairs squarely at the feet of the Corporate Media.
They have been generating fear of a Trump presidency beyond all rational bounds for damn near a year now, so of course people are afraid, many even terrified.
What do people do that are afraid?
We all already know the answer to that one unfortunately, at least those of us that have studied our history that is.
Comments
Is Pence a member
of The Family? (apparently not, though he is described as a "christian supremacist")
On to Biden since 1973
Old school euro socialists KNOW that you fight
Fascism with as much violence as you need up to and including murder. There are no rules when it comes to fighting fascists, you either win or your family dies. That is it.
I am a giant fan of free speech. I want to know who the fascists are so when it kicks off we know who needs to taken care of.
Hitler was himself almost beaten to death in the 20s and was saved by an Irishman plucking him from the crowds (Michael Keogh for those interested in googling the story). So you know, don't be ignoring the upsides to violence
It kicked the Yanks out of Vietnam and the Brits out of most of their empire.
@gendjinn I've had this discussion
I've had this discussion with some anarchists I respect.
The way I look at it: I value free speech and the ethics surrounding it (you must allow for the expression of ideas even if they are disgusting; you must allow for dissent, because nobody is trustworthy enough to be the guy who decides what ideas are acceptable and what ideas aren't). I value those notions very highly. However, for me it is not an absolute. I could be persuaded to trade those ethics for some other social good. HOWEVER, it would have to be a pretty fucking amazing social good, because to me, having the whole society bound in a cultural contract to honor dissent has some powerful benefits. So whatever we got out of, well, punching Nazis for instance, would have to provide benefits equally valuable.
In other words, analyze the tactic. Weigh its costs, benefits. Identify whom it serves, what the results are most likely to be in the current historical context.
Explain to me what the left gets out of punching Richard Spencer that's worth the cost. Hell, explain to me what the left gets out of punching Richard Spencer that's worth anything at all. What David Graeber, to my dismay, told me was that punching one neo-Nazi media figure put all the others on notice that if THEY committed violence, it wouldn't be tolerated, and there would be a cost (I'm not sure if he's counting the spread of Nazi ideas as violence in itself). I was actually shocked, because his book revealed a really impressive mind--yet here, he came up with something that is essentially a fairy tale. He imagines that the punching of one Nazi media guy will make all the other neo-Nazis in the US quake with fear and restrain themselves. On what does he, or anybody, base that idea? How do you know they won't respond with anger instead, or even a call to arms?
Either way, who benefits from the left and right punching each other in the streets? Because it looks to me like the Establishment does. And, in fact, it might even help the Nazis themselves, in that it makes them look justified and will probably up recruitment. But the primary problem here is that the hard left is doing what the establishment wants them to do--and not just wants, but desires like a kid grabbing for the brass ring. Non-billionaires fighting each other in the streets along ideological or racial lines is one of the establishment's clearest goals over the past few years. This shouldn't be hard to see. So the far left has now decided to help the establishment get that goal, and in a situation where even the short-term or immediate tactical benefits are negligible. FFS.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Punching is a waste of time, agreed.
When I talk about using violence against fascists I mean killing them. I have zero moral qualms about taking sociopaths and those preaching genocide out of this world. In fact it is a moral imperative.
So you are correct, punching in the streets is a waste of time. I am talking about the post-WW1 running street battles between the left & right in Europe and obviously most memorably in Germany.
If WW2 is a just war because Nazis. Then murdering them in the streets BEFORE 60 million die is obviously morally justified. In fact a moral imperative.
For all other contexts I agree with you. With fascists the rules get suspended, the costs are too high otherwise.
@gendjinn Interestingly, we
Interestingly, we agree on tactics even if we disagree on principles.
One of the things I said to Graeber & one other guy was "Are you going to punch all the Nazis? Or are you going to punch only the ones within reach, which means NOT the richest and most powerful of them? Which also means, NOT those who are probably running things? Meanwhile, are you willing to accept the kind of society you're going to get if people start punching people because they are, or are perceived to be, Nazis?" It sounded like a tactic with a potentially very high cost (violence that could benefit the establishment; people getting caught in the crossfire) with a very low benefit (you're only punching, at best, an upper-middle-class media frontman, and not harming Nazism at all.
I guess that's my difference from their position: I'm not interested in attacking Nazis, I'm interested in attacking Nazism, which sometimes involves attacking Nazis. But attacking Nazis is not a good in itself. Only attacking Nazism is.
It's the same for me with Donald Trump. WTH good does it do me to attack Donald Trump if the system that produced Trump remains the same? The same system will just produce another, probably worse Trump 2.0 (in this case that model's already finished and sitting in the Vice Presidency). Attack the Nazi! only works if that's the best way to attack Nazism at the moment.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Well, agreed again with the point that attacking Nazis
is a required avenue for attacking Nazism.
In my own personal experience violence broke up an illegal Nazi celebration of Hitler's birthday on campus and the following fight with the harbour skinheads they recruited to have another go at us. That didn't work in their favour either
You deal with fascists robustly and early. The sooner you do it, the less violence you need, but whatever violence is required is justified.
However, the current set of marches & protests are specifically designed to be ineffective, so I agree with your criticisms of them. Once it gets to 1920s levels of street violence then things might be getting serious enough to make a difference but until then I'm staying out of the whole mess.
There's always a cost to the actor for violence
even if you think that you've averted something awful (and who can be sure of all the repercussions?). What else gave you changed for the better - or worse? Our ancestors believed purification ceremonies were necessary after violence, even after hunting for food.
The concept of karma is automatic justice - bad deeds you've done (hurting someone?) stick to your soul and weigh you down. With consequences. Best be prepared to pay a price.
Violence liberated my country from Britain
and violence kicked the Yanks out of Vietnam.
There is a difference between choosing peace over violence and choosing cowardice over bravery.
If you cannot learn that the ONLY way to deal with fascists is with whatever level of violence you need to defeat them then, I'd point out that you are tut-tutting along as most Germans did in the 20s and 30s. How did that work out for them? The longer you wait the higher the death toll. Stitch in time saves nine and all that.
The overall result may be good
but there's still a cost to the individual actors. You may decide that it's worth it, just be prepared to pay the personal price. It's a little like civil disobedience that way.
There's a price to be paid for standing by, doing nothing.
I disagree with your apparent moral that violence is always wrong. That is like saying fire is always wrong.
There is a time and a place when violence is justified. If you want to preach pacifism please don't bother me with it, I'm not interested.
That's not at all what I've said.
You're arguing with your own assumptions, not with my point.
That is precisely what I was thinking of you.
You got to know when your life is on the line
and then fight for your life. Many people's lives were on the line when Hitler came to power. Violence to prevent that would have been very justified then and there.
Beware the bullshit factories.
Someone needs to tell her
that she's being ridiculous.
Not sure why this is way down here-
initially replied to the comment about Sarah Silverman.
Like maintaining a relationship with my wife, I find that when
C99P does something odd sometimes the best, and easiest, course is to just nod and smile.
More than once I have had a comment appear in an odd place that could be taken in a way completely other than the one in which I intended.
So far I am liking the new layout a bit, but still confusing at times.
While a pain to deal with in some instances (Such as the ability to completely derail a thread) I kinda long for the old days of nested comments.
Maybe I am showing my (grey) roots...
"I used to vote Republican & Democrat, I also used to shit my pants. Eventually I got smart enough to stop doing both things." -Me
Since we are talking about
fascists, I think Nancy Pelosi might be coming around and turn into a fighter for the people.
She has valiantly come to the defense of some painting in the basement of the WH. It is a painting of a riot, with at least one cop depicted as a pig. The art offended some repubs, so it is now removed.
http://thehill.com/homenews/house/317857-pelosi-loses-bid-to-restore-cop...
The painting had been displayed in an underground tunnel connecting the Capitol and two House office buildings since June until conservative news outlets took notice of it in December. It came from the district of Rep. William Lacy Clay (D-Mo.) and was hung in the tunnel as part of an annual student art competition between House offices.
Shortly after it was removed in mid-January, Pelosi called for a meeting of the House Office Building Commission to appeal the decision. But her appeal fell short on Friday, given that House Speaker Paul Ryan
(R-Wis.) and House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) outnumber her on the panel.
I'm glad we've got Pelosi on our side, fighting for us. Baby steps, you know.
dfarrah
There's an article at Wired
now that discusses the Milo protests. It gave me a context for understanding the 'antifa' mindset. My summary is that this is basically a reddit-war that has entered the 3-D world, now causing bodily harm. I can see no upside or pragmatic use of this physical violence, and I hate to see this extreme behavior being laid at the feet of 'the left'
Pages