Charlottesville, Are We Really Falling for the Trap (?), and Antifa...
OK, so…in the aftermath of Charlottesville…I am observing a couple of things…both pretty darn odd and unsettling. So this is a two-parter piece.
The first involves a rather patronizing dynamic of Prog Media personalities urging us not to ‘fall for the trap’ of C'ville. The warning is usually delivered along the lines of:
"It is an establishment mechanism meant to keep ‘us’ divided".
“Look at all of this coverage and controversy, just because of a few hundred people”
Or my favorite...
“this was a mistake…if we would have just IGNORED the righty demonstration, they would have had their fun and gone away and gotten little coverage... and nothing bad would have happened”.
All of these narratives were introduced to the public discourse by the Progressive Left. NOT the Shillary 'left'. While there may be parts of this message which has some validity…as a whole I find this unnerving actually. (And this is coming from ME, who believes we are going to have to coalesce to some degree with conservatives in order to bring about any sort of positive change).
So why wouldn’t I be trumpeting the ‘Don’t fall for the C’ville trap’ schtick ???
While I have little doubt the Estab allowed things, and perhaps fomented things, to get out of hand and accelerate a possible tragedy in C’ville… I am not at all convinced that the Estab's goal was necessarily to divide potential allies. I have a BIG problem with the subsequent and simplistic ‘Now is the time to unit, not divide”. We need positivity and LOVE right now, not hate and divisiveness.”
All of these things are true. We need to unite. We need Love and positivity.
But what’s the problem with that response ? First of all, it’s disrespectful to those who felt the need to defend their community, their country, and their morals. These people were not ‘suckered’ into anything. That we are deeply outraged by this and willing to dive into heated debate and mobilize does not make us dupes. Rather than misguided, I would say those who focused on C’ville, mobilized to defend the community, and remain focused on the gross injustices which occurred are quite brave.
Simply.…what we had there was the extreme right descending on a community which is actually relatively diverse and tolerant. To omit this from the equation is baffling.
This notion that diving into the C’ville aftermath - remaining angry, defiant, outraged - is somehow contrary to the 'uniting we need to do' is arguable. Indeed while 'we' have to ‘unite’... ‘we’ were never going to ‘unite’ with 'THOSE people' anyway, to put it bluntly. There IS no ‘uniting’ with the extreme right/white supremacists. So, is it reasonable and accurate to portray C’ville as an Estab trap to ‘keep us divided and sat each others throats’, when the gap between the extreme right and the center-left to left was far too vast to ever be bridged to begin with ?
Any potential coalescence with the extreme right Fringe was never particularly realistic.
Let me be clear: I believe that C’ville may well have been the latest ‘distraction’ to draw attention away from further skullduggery of the Plutocracy. I do not believe it was necessarily a vehicle to ‘keep potential allies divided’, however. I don't think the manipulators went that deep.
As a matter of fact, I might argue (with some foundation) that it may well become a flashpoint where those ‘traditional’ conservatives still trying mightily to remain on the fence about Trump, will finally have to fall to one side or the other…and this can potentially be beneficial to the idea of coalescing.
So the microcosm of C’ville was perhaps not yet another example of "Them keeping us us at each others’ throats”. Because there never was a potential of allying with Nazis and White Supremacists.
In its most constructive light it is perhaps another opportunity to take Tragedy and turn it into some sort of stepping stone. It may well have been the latest and most intense 'looking glass' which has shown America that things are actually as bad as many feared.
Rather than a trap, I would argue it could be an important launch point, as I do not believe America is particularly ‘divided’ over the C’ville tragedy. Nor is America particularly ‘divided’ over Trump’s reaction to it.
So rather than the tragedy being a lure to keep us divided, I would posit that the tragedy may well in fact result in Americans finally finding the commonality needed to build, coalesce, and ally.
To say ‘hey, don’t get hooked into and angry and worked up about C’ville…look how to generate LOVE instead’ while understandable on one level, is a bit absurd on another. Because nobody has yet provided even a thumbnail sketch about what that might look like in the aftermath. It also completely ignores the fact that sometimes love and understanding can be generated from a reprehensible event.
It is both possible to move forward with love and healing while simultaneously processing and owning anger and moral outrage. They are both strong emotions, and although outrage and anger can be destructive, they can also mobilize people to demand more Good.
Now, as far as subject #2….I found it quite interesting that there seemed a very rapid rise of anti-Antifa discussion among Progressives in the past week or two. While the Antifa has been taking it on the chin from the Trumper-Fox News sorta folks since whenever…I had not actually seen such aggression and disparagement coming from the left until recently, and particularly post Charlottesville.
I find this very odd, personally. The common attacks/criticism are two fold: 1) Antifa is violent. They use violence, which is wrong. 2) Antifa is against freedom of speech and assembly.
Both of these are overly-simplistic misrepresentations, IMHO. But first let me note that people are attacking Antifa as if it is a single entity or movement. In fact, part of the entire MO of Antifa is that it is localized and decentralized. This, in and of itself, is a foriegn concept to most Americans, who conceive movements, parties, and organizational structures in general as centralized and top-down.
So whenever someone says to me “Antifa did this” or Antifa believes that”…my first question is always: ‘ which Antifa are you referring to ?”
I would argue that the current assault on Antifa from the ‘civil’ left does in fact rely on choosing outlier Antifa actions to bolster their narrative. For every clip one can show us of an Antifa member/members acting badly, I can counter with two examples of an Antifa occurrence where the members acted with justification and feasible explanation.
Now, sadly, we must acknowledge the fact that various Antifas have actually not behaved very well and indeed this may hurt their own cause. Acts of random violence/destruction or misguided retaliation have been caught on vid and have been distributed widely; there is a fair trove of available clips online if one chooses to source right-wing media and alt media for the material.
Of course, some of this is edited to create the appearance of aggression without reason, when in fact there was reason. But, in fairness, in many instances it appears that the aggression and cringe-inducing acts were uncalled for and unreasonable.
Personally, I think the grey zone which exists between Antifa and Anarchists is something which needs to become more defined, and goals established. For while I support the notion of Anti-Fascism, some who consider themselves Anarchists can and do act in a random fashion - to shake things up, act out, do something socially unacceptable, etc - even when such an act is to the detriment of the group they are a part of.
(I am not saying there is no place or value to be purely ‘counter’ or ‘reactionary'…but I would say that the Anarchistic element of/within Antifa movements at times does them more harm than good).
Now, the ‘free speech opponents’ argument is superficially a good one…because it is something which would hit most Progressives in the bread basket. But again, this seems to be based on two rather rickety interpretations: 1) Antifa openly state if they encounter fascist/rightie hate speech or threatening activity, they will mobilize to shut it down. and 2) Antifa has not 'publicly stated they ‘support' free speech rights’.
Again, on the surface these may seem like good arguments. However, they also gloss over some important distinctions.
Free Speech is a protected right, protected by the state. Antifa makes no argument that the state should shut down these demonstrations.
Antifa groups which have presented themselves at local demonstrations across the country have made no attempts nor objections in order to have these events cancelled.
As a matter of fact, it can be argued with some foundation that Antifa support these public, legal events as meaningful sociopolitical platforms of messaging and resistance. Furthermore, many Antifa will readily admit that a movement to pressure the state to deny or revise enforcement of free speech rights wouldn't likely diminish white supremacist demonstrations.
Antifa does not put their resources towards such.
I would further argue that, for the most part...Antifa makes the decision to appear at an event, and act/react according to the context and situation presented. If the content of a demonstration presented is racist, fascist, or threatening to the community…Antifa makes no bones about actively disrupting those; and there are many instances where particular Antifas have stated their goal was to do exactly that.
...Is this the same thing as being 'against free speech’, however ?
Some argue that Antifa responds to ‘free speech’ with violence. Once again, an intentional misrepresentation which fails to consider many aspects.
Is it not reasonable to say that speech can be, in of itself, violent ? If part of a speech or presentation actively outs members of a particular community with the intention of ultimately harming them in some way - is this not violence (even before any physical or threatening act itself is committed) ?
Is not descending upon a diverse, relatively tolerant community - with your own private militia armed to the teeth - a violent or threatening act, in and of itself ?
Is not a Neo-Nazi march through a town with torches while chanting ‘we will take back our streets’ an overtly threatening and violent act ?
Because all of the above scenarios can be described as the exercising of free speech, and protected by free speech laws….but is not the content or intent of the free speech also germane ?
Is it not worthy of consideration ? Or does the fact that its ‘free speech’ simply negate any consideration as to whether it can also be an act of violence simultaneously ?
People will argue speech is legally defined and protected, thus is not violence. I would remind them of another legal definition: that which encompasses Assault. For the fact is Assault does not actually require a physical harm to be committed. The legal definition of Assault is met by there being a threat of harm.
In this respect, then , these right-wing demonstrations can be considered both protected under free speech, yet still threatening and even violent acts. This coexistence is possible. One does not negate the other.
So to argue that a group of white supremacists, some armed, marching in the direction of a gathering of mostly POC clergy while singing Nazi songs IS free speech…it most certainly IS also a threatening and violent act (an assault) as well.
In which instance, should a group of Antifa choose to step in to protect a threatened portion of their community (physically if necessary)…isn’t it a hella reach to represent the events as "Antifa responded with violence against those who were simply exercising their right to free speech " ?
I would submit that consideration of the context, message, material, intent, and content of such speech must also take place before we interpret, decide how to represent, and pass judgment or make broad generalizations on Antifa groups and actions.
As always, thanks for reading.
Comments
Quite the double standard.
So when Nazis march their speech is inherently violent.
But when the Antifa commits ACTUAL violent acts we all need to consider the context.
Conflating perceived threats with violent acts is the fatal flaw in your argument. Violence is not excused by the mere perception of a threat that has yet to actually materialize.
Assault alone (real or imagined) doesn't justify battery, no matter how scared you say you are.
The current working assumption appears to be that our Shroedinger's Cat system is still alive. But what if we all suspect it's not, and the real problem is we just can't bring ourselves to open the box?
So . . .
when confronted by a thug wielding a knife you have to wait until he stabs you to start defending yourself. Your argument is not legally accurate. I don't find it morally persuasive.
There is a much simpler explanation.
We are already divided. Charlottesville is simply one expressions of that cultural and political division, albeit a particularly ugly and violent one.
I have no doubt that the sociopaths that populate our government intentionally use our differing cultural identities to play one group against the other to their personal and party's advantage, but it would be rather large leap to believe that this particular confrontation was engineered to unfold with the violence it did. The seeds of identity politics' intolerance and hatred were sown long ago, the Charlottesville violence is simply part of the larger harvest.
Capitalism is the extraordinary belief that the nastiest of men for the nastiest of motives will somehow work for the benefit of all."
- John Maynard Keynes
Identity politics is, by definition, racist
"Vote for me because you are black" is as racist as "vote for me because you are white." Both the Democratic Party and Republican parties have exploited race for own their ends since the 70's (before that too but in different ways). Neither party has done much for poor whites, blacks or Hispanics. What this strategy has done is increase division and this is inherent and intentional, and it ultimately works against the interests of working class people of all races and genders and national origins. One thing that troubles me is that the "left's" response to a white supremacist from Ohio's murder of an innocent person is to tear down confederate memorials. I have no admiration for Robert E. Lee. He was a pretty effective general, and was not as psychopathic as Grant or Sherman, but I would feel in no way diminished if the Lee statues were to disappear. That being said, erasing history, even cartoonishly misrepresented history, worries me a lot. I don't think, moreover, that we should remove memorials to Confederate war dead. Perhaps they should not be honored, but they certainly should be mourned and remembered. Returning to my point, however, we should deal with white supremacists who are alive now, but we don't seem to do that in any meaningful way. What the "left" has been doing is denigrating peoples' heritage, when what we should be saying is that racism (union and Confederate, then and now, left and right) is poisonous to us all and we need to get past it to work together for common good rather than obsess on it.
I can only hope
that your eminently rational and tolerant point of view is shared by a great many Americans.
native
For years . . .
most histories of the Civil War were written by Southerners. Grant does not come out well. There are numerous recent biographies that do a better job. Jean Edward Smith's GRANT would be a good place to start, but there are several others.
Robert E. Lee never won a battle outside the South. He put the interests of Virginia and his army over the interests of the Confederacy on numerous occasions, which aided the North's efforts to split the South. And his refusal to surrender his army when he knew it was beaten accomplished nothing but thousands of additional casualties on both sides.
I need to think more about what you said...
My personal view on speech is "sticks and stones". Sticks and stones can make me bleed. Words, well, I'm rubber and you're glue. My intent isn't to make light or childlike what you laid out in such detail. Rather, it is my way of distilling something complicated into something easy to grasp. I believe in sticks and stones. It worked and worked well for a whole generation until someone (latte sipping, Birkenstock wearing, limousine liberals?) started elevating feelings above flesh.
If I am to remain consistent with my beliefs, I guess I would have to say that the fascists were exercising free speech. It is only when the antifa and others attempted to silence their speech by any means available including physical force that violence occurred. Antifa transgressed and provoked violence.
I also believe this whole thing is obscuring the bigger picture. We need to quit arguing about race. If this means reparations and an apology to start the process, let's do it so we can move on to the next fight. We never have the conversations we need to determine the fixes we need to fix the problems we have. Why is that? Because when all is said and done, the only fucking thing that matters in this country is money. The Kochs and Soros don't have all that power because they're cute. We do need to unite to redistribute all that money and power back down to the people. A little equality will go a long way to diffuse so many contentious issues.
"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon
OT(maybe)
When the word goes out that economic justice for All must be put on the back burner until we end (name your)-ism; do they look at the single black mother working two(or more) jobs that she has to WAIT for help until she's truly emancipated with a straight face?
Because if so, I don't get it.
Economic justice means I can feed and shelter My family- and You can do the same for Yours-Without having multiple jobs to make it.
Without being at each other's throats.
What does a poor/struggling gay POC have in common with Dan Savage(just an example- I like Dan) other than being gay?
What does an unemployed Black ex-con have in common with Clarence Thomas(I Don't like Clarence) other than skin colour?
What do I have in common with Any of the(white) billionaire class(I don't like billionaires) other than my whiteness?
I know Nothing of that life- and they know nothing of mine due to the COSMIC gulf between us.
And I suspect it's the same in the above examples.
I'm not trying to (pick one)-splain anything to anybody 'CAUSE I AIN'T QUALIFIED! That shit is Way above my paygrade.
What I'm trying to do(poorly) is say I have more in common with other working poor/just plain poor than I do with Any of the semi-well off to uber rich.
This is the divide we should focus on(and Do here@c99p).
There Are true and real divides in the lived lives of various (pick any)ethnicities, religion, socio-economic, geographical groups.
And we have to work to, if not bridge these gaps, at least start back filling the ditch between them.
To the essay, you say the ptb thinking didn't go too deep? Ukraine, Georgia, Honduras, Brazil, Venezuela, Syria, Libya etc. . .
They are thinking deeper than you give them credit for. They Know what they are doing and they Think (rightly so) that most of us Aren't.
Look at how the Psichopaths that Be Allowed this incident to be framed; Clashes between sides. I don't hear the talking heads decrying the media portrayal as equal fault- just dRumphs comments doing so.
I myself am not sure of my point here but I'm gonna let it go out anyway and see if you all can help me on this one.
Stop These Fucking Wars
peace(?)
Ya got to be a Spirit, cain't be no Ghost. . .
Explain Bldg #7. . . still waiting. . .
If you’ve ever wondered whether you would have complied in 1930’s Germany,
Now you know. . .
sign at protest march
your point
You made several points. In my humble opinion, the key point is this:
It is indeed "the divide we should focus on".
Anyone making six-figures plus a year after taxes, who dares lecture me on "privilege", is risking getting a face full of vitriol (or worse!). This statement remains true without regard to race, age, creed, national origin, gender orientation, etc.
And anyone who allows himself to dabble in such garbage is no legitimate social justice warrior, but rather a narcissistic jerk perpetrating Injustice Collecting on the rest of us. Fuck them!
"US govt/military = bad. Russian govt/military = bad. Any politician wanting power = bad. Anyone wielding power = bad." --Shahryar
"All power corrupts absolutely!" -- thanatokephaloides
@thanatokephaloides It's time to
It's time to acknowledge that the Injustice Collecting is often actually Virtue Mining being done by the establishment.
Here's the thing: if you're getting copious coverage for your insurgent justice movement in the corporate media, you might want to consider what the rulers of this country are getting out of your justice movement and how you're being used. Unless of course you already know.
"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
Your reply is worthy of it's own essay
...actually, why don't you write one, expanding on what you have said here ?
NotHenry - I do not believe I stated that whatsoever
I did however, state that just because a gathering or event may be correctly protected under 'free speech' does not necessarily mean the content or actions of such an event are not an assault on a particular community or group of people.
First off, I realize this may be a hot-button topic; but rather than shooting off a quick piece, I attempted to write this in a way as to be clear and not have my words twisted.
Maybe I'm not that good a writer....
Antifas have, ad infinitum, stated that they have no goal to stymie free speech gatherings. But the content of that free speech is not necessarily benign or non-violent just because it takes place under the free speech banner.
The bone I pick is with those who claim Antifa respond to non-violence, non-threatening situations with violence. This is either too simplistic an interpretation, or an intentional misrepresentation. I say that just because the situation may be a free speech one, does not mean violence or threat is not present.
I believe this article is a good example of an Antifa position:
https://www.thenation.com/article/not-rights-but-justice-its-time-to-mak...
I think you have been very clear.
And I trust I was not twisting your words I quoted you.
If all speech were benign, there would be no need for the 1st Amendment in the first place.
Oh really? From your own link:
Rationalize all you like, but from where I sit, that rhetoric clearly suggests an embrace of violent vigilante tactics to purge those you deem undesirable. In that sense, Antifa is following in the inglorious tradition of the Hitler Youth, Soviet Komsomol, and the Chinese Communist Youth League as organizations of earnest young people warped by ideological indoctrination to commit violent acts in furtherance of authoritarian agendas.
Violence is NOT the answer to hate. Never was. Never will be.
The current working assumption appears to be that our Shroedinger's Cat system is still alive. But what if we all suspect it's not, and the real problem is we just can't bring ourselves to open the box?
@Not Henry Kissinger I suspect GeorgeJohn
I suspect GeorgeJohn meant "bombarded and besieged" in a metaphorical sense.
That said, I don't get why Antifa doesn't just do what we all used to do every time the Nazis marched. Express that the majority does not agree with them. It was kind of a staple of the activist year to counter-protest the annual Hitler's Birthday march, and one of the few places that I and people on the right, including WWII vets, came together in opposition to what is historically one of the worst loads of crap ever invented by mankind. There's no need for violence, nor for firing people.
I admit, I love the famous scene in the Blues Brothers, but then, Elwood knew that they could jump off the bridge into the stream and come to no harm--except making them look like idiots. Which should be the goal of every anti-fascist, or, rather, anti-Nazi, because that's more what Antifa is:
"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
you mean something more like this, CStMS?
"If I should ever die, God forbid, let this be my epitaph:
THE ONLY PROOF HE NEEDED
FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD
WAS MUSIC"
- Kurt Vonnegut
@Mark from Queens ROTFLMAO!!! Oh,
ROTFLMAO!!! Oh, thank you Mark. I needed that, after today. What a fucking circus.
Yes, indeed, that is what stupid looks like--and clearly the tuba player knows his Blues Brothers well!
"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
Hooray for the dude with the Sousaphone!
Although I would have recommended "Teddy Bears' Picnic" rather than "Ride of the Valkyries" - much more humiliating.
There is no justice. There can be no peace.
@TheOtherMaven I believe he
I believe he was referencing this 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
My experience of Antifa groups in France have often been
less than positive. They are usually on the fringe of a march fighting with the CRS [special riot police] because they enjoy it and so do the CRS.
Dkmich - thanks
for your reply...and no, a bit of humour is never unwelcome. This subject IS a difficult one, and it should make us really search deeply.
I guess I disagree with your characterization that 'Antifa responded w/ violence to a free speech event'....for the reasons I tried to illustrate in my piece.
A demonstration protected under free speech does not necessarily mean the demonstration or content espoused is benign. I feel the righties in Charlotsville specifically were committing an assault on the community. That it was protected by right to assembly does not diminish that, in my eyes.
So I would argue Antifa (at their best) reacts to the content of a particular situation, and their MO is to go beyond simple words or chants or marching. Thus, Antifa violence is not a violent response to a peaceful act....but a violent response to violence.
This is how I glean many in the movement view it, and I personally concur; and I think C'ville illustrated the idea that protected free speech can still be an assault on members of our society.
So I put that forward for consideration.
Thanks again for your worth comments
There was no humor intended in my comment.
Everything I ever needed to know I learned in kindergarten. We, adults, twist things up so much we sometimes lose sight of what is plainly in front of us. Can speech ever be violent? I don't think so. I think it can threaten violence, and be ugly and emotionally hurtful as hell, but it remains speech unless and until it is physically carried out on someone or some thing.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Good intentions and $5 will get you coffee at Starbucks. As a lefty, I have to support free speech. Restricting it has to require potential physical harm if NOT restricted. "fire" If antifa had let them march unimpeded, the Nazis would have fallen in the woods like a tree and never been heard.
"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon
Interesting question: can speech alone ever be violent
I'm curious what you think about the recent case where that young woman was convicted for encouraging her boyfriend to commit suicide, via text messages, until he finally did it. She wasn't even physically present, just sending him texts saying do it and coaching him. She was found guilty of manslaughter.
My spouse and I had this very discussion about that case. It was just words, he was alone and chose to continue to texting exchange with her and finally to commit siucide. How can she be guilty for just words?
But he was mentally unstable and she knew it, and used it to manipulate him. I really don't know if I agree with the conviction or not. But it did surprise me. Apparently it is possible to murder someone from miles away with nothing but words.
Hmm,
Goes back to guns don't kill people, people kill people. The words didn't kill him. She did. If you or I had uttered them, would he have listened to us? From the words I heard, she ordered him to call himself. She knew he was unstable, and she knew she had influence over him.
Did she ever say why she did what she did?
"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon
Excellent point dkmich
It was not just the words, it was the relationship that gave her words power over him. Yes, I agree with that interpretation. I don't know if she herself ever said why, but the general consensus is she too was not mentally stable, and thrived on the sympathy and attention, including trying to bond with his family in mourning. One messed up person messing with the head another messed up person.
Thanks for the reply!
@CS in AZ I do not agree with
I do not agree with that conviction at all. Given the police state we live in, being able to be convicted and jailed for words is an extremely bad idea.
"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
@dkmich I believe that there is
I believe that there is such a thing as hate speech, but it is not, in any way, comparable to violence.
And I've had some pretty ugly shit said to me by a predator who enjoyed a good mind-fuck. Stuff that had to do, among other things, with being female and what that meant. You know what? It's not his words he should have been jailed for. It's the rapes that accompanied them.
"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
It looks to me like some of the Antifa people
were itching for a fight. The Nazi-militia types of course, were intentionally provocative and fully prepared to accommodate them. Elements within both groups were looking for trouble. Cui bono? Nobody, as far as I can see.
No matter how you slice and dice the various brawls that erupted (who was the first to assault whom?) the net result served only to publicize and amplify the message of right-wing extremists. To make them seem more important and dangerous than they actually are. From their point of view, all publicity is good publicity -- what they want most of all, is for people to notice them. To take them seriously. And the msm made a thorough job of doing just that.
native
Net results
I'm hesitant to comment because I'm not aware of all the details of this, but what I'm seeing in the headlines is that the biggest result at this point is further isolation of Trump, as he was unable or unwilling to maintain the scripted role of condemning white supremacists that he was forced to say on Monday.
He couldn't help himself from saying what he believes (or he just wanted to play to his racist base), and had a press conference where he defended white supremacists carrying torches (silly looking tiki torches, yes, but still...) as "fine people" and said they were the victims. Oopsie. Now he has become the focus of almost all the outrage -- his business council disbanded, his presidency is breathlessly reported as being in "free fall" (yet again), and this time he's really gone too far! Um hum.
I don't actually think the Charlottesville incidents were orchestrated to do this, but if anyone fell into a trap it looks like it was trump. But honestly I think he couldn't care less, and this won't be the final straw anyway. He seems to have no limits to what he can do and say. But he's more popular with his racist base now, no question. Just wait until he shows up in Phoenix and pardons Joe Arpaio! Or at least says he will pardon him. If he does that, as many expect he will (why else is he coming to Phoenix right now?), the shit is going to hit the fan all over again, at least here in Az, where Arpaio is the epitome of racism and police brutality.
On the topic of the protests, I feel that the "violent left" antifa are not helping or helpful, and I don't know what their real agenda is. As I've said before, I am suspicious and skeptical of unknown individuals who dress in black outfits, cover their faces and wear helmets like they are dressed for war, and create violence that is, as stated in the essay, unnecessary and uncalled for.
I'm thinking of the riot over Milo Whatzhisname, giving a speech. There can be no doubt there that they attacked and caused violence for no reason. But who the fuck are they? Why are they creating these images and negative impressions? No one really knows.
That's the problem, however sincere and dedicated and good-intentioned many of the protesters might be; these violent so-called anarchists are making it appear that all the worst accusations of the right about the intolerant left are true.
I'm struggling to even talk about this because I'm not clear about the term "antifa" -- does it mean everyone who marches against people and events like Milo or the nazi march in Charlottesville? Or does it refer specifically to the militant/violent faction?
Well, I agreed with your first comment but ...
...disagree rather strongly with many aspects of your second ; although I do agree that there have been foolish transgressions by certain Antifa which have done them more harm than good.
Rather than getting into a drawn-out comment-reply discussion on it, let me just respond to your final paragraph and offer for your consideration (and others here) these couple of links:
http://www.salon.com/2017/07/20/antifa-is-not-a-group-of-people-it-has-a...
http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/39128-the-changing-face-of-anti-fasci...
As some here have
pointed out, this C-ville story is horse$h!t. fa, anti-fa, fa la la la la... it's all b.s. They got their 15 mins., which is 14 more than they desereved. Leave these asshats be and they fade fade away. "we" progs have Way bigger fights to engage. This one smells of Soros /Kochs /Oligarch horse$h!t.
the little things you can do are more valuable than the giant things you can't! - @thanatokephaloides. On Twitter @wink1radio. (-2.1) All about building progressive media.
Chomsky agrees with this.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/noam-chomsky-antifa-is-a-major-gift-to...
Like you, I am unfamiliar with the details. My comments were strictly theoretical.
"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon
I think some of the black hooded people are the same people
who used to screw up peaceful Occupy protests and other protests and were referred to as Anarchists. Maybe they're paid agent provocateurs.
Beware the bullshit factories.
@Timmethy2.0
Thanks for bringing that up! I have to admit that's something I initially wondered about and got tired and sidetracked enough to completely forget about - even though they've done that often enough...
Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.
A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.
@native Cui bono? Well, I hate to
Cui bono? Well, I hate to say it, but the establishment. The extremely wealthy. Those who make money off the police state. The politicians who want to continue to mine this disgusting legacy of racism and its concomitant struggle--both sides of the struggle--for political and moral capital. The fucking media, who are acting like ticks stuck to a vein.
"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
Actually, dkmich, there was humor...
whether intended or not...I found it quite clever (and that was a compliment, not a strafe).
Once again, while one may claim speech cannot be violence, I retort that violence need not be physical and assault need not be physical.
You claim that as a lefty "you must support free speech". The intimation is one must choose an either-or.
I support free speech.
therefore
I am against Antifas.
This is a false choice.
In stating Antifa are anti-free speech, I submit that you (intentionally or not) have created a false dichotomy. The Nation article I linked to in my above comment addresses this. These two things are not mutually exclusive of each other.
I support free speech and I can understand and support what a (well-administered) Antifa is doing.
These are not contradictory.
One can claim that marching towards a POC clergy group while singing Nazi songs is free speech, yes...but it becomes a far more specious claim to suggest such action is unthreatening or had no intent of being threatening.
Demonstrations being live....there are words, and there are accompanying actions as well.
There is a good video we should be familiar with, it was a great job by the journalist:
https://news.vice.com/story/vice-news-tonight-full-episode-charlottesvil...
You give hurt feelings equal import to physical injury.
Anyone can say anything. How it impacts the listener is entirely dependent on the listener. One might internalize the comment and experience hurt. Another might laugh and tell the sender of the those same words to fuck off. Hurt and/or offended feelings do not equate to physical violence.
"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon
@dkmich This is a flag I will
This is a flag I will continue to wave till the end. I don't care that my fellow leftists think it's crap because OMG NAZIS! Nothing Nazis say has enough power that we have to be afraid of it. We can fight anything they do with words. I would take any of them on. They wouldn't even be the hardest challenge I've ever faced.
As for their stochastic terrorist implications, perhaps the thing to do is to cut them off at the knees by providing something better for the people that they are trying to recruit. Like Bernie Sanders did (that's one reason the establishment hated his campaign; he had crossover appeal to Trump voters despite advocating for BLM from the stage.) Give people a space to occupy where racism isn't wedded to being heard, where bigotry is not the currency of solidarity.
"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
Bing. yep.
Why do I get the feeling our chain is being yanked. Again.
the little things you can do are more valuable than the giant things you can't! - @thanatokephaloides. On Twitter @wink1radio. (-2.1) All about building progressive media.
@Wink Because it is.
Because it is.
"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
I don't know how you come up with this stuff.
"How [speech] impacts the listener is entirely dependent on the listener." Sure, if a dozen men on horses wearing hoods armed with rifles and shotguns show up on a black farmer's doorstep and one yells through the door that if anyone in his family is ever seen on a public road after sunset again they're going to burn his house down and not check to see whether his wife and children are inside he could just laugh it off, walk out on the porch, and tell them to fuck themselves.
Yelling fire in a crowded theater is speech. It's also a crime. Does it occur to you that giving he aggressor the initiative may determines who wins a fight?
@dkmich
(First, I'd probably better point out that I'm not big on violence, unless necessary for protection, where officialdom cannot or will not act.)
But one problem seemingly not being considered in this discussion is that PoC are being routinely killed - by American police officers, this not being officially discouraged, and too-often at least tacitly encouraged in too-many cases by the lack of consequences resulting even from multiple murders/assaults/false arrests and routine harassment. As has occurred in everything from politics to child-raising, any abusive/destructive behaviour which is consistently rewarded by continued support/encouragement and undiscouraged by resulting negative consequences will worsen.
The fascists evidently wish to be able to emulate the police in abusing and killing the vulnerable with impunity, as fascists have previously done.
Another that fascism is growing around the world, both in government and populations, as desperation and anger of bled-dry-for-the-enrichment-of-a-relative-few-already-having-most citizens is turned against those within the population perceived as being most vulnerable because it is tolerated as a legitimate movement.
Please remember that the Germans had to ban Nazism in order to cleanse their culture of that pathology.
When fascism/hate's permitted to flourish, it becomes normalized.
Look at what's happened to America so far, incrementally, yet over not all that much time. So many Americans even now fail to realize that they already are living in a fascist state, because their perceptions have been shifted over into the acceptance of a pathology termed and somehow 'validated' as a 'political viewpoint', with hate speech inciting violence against identifiable groups considered as 'protected speech' with no protections for the victims even considered.
Might does not make right, and a civilization provides equal protection for all citizens against organized threats.
Would a similar group marching and publicly promoting and threatening the brutal rapes and murders of equally identifiable women and children of all colours be considered 'protected speech' and merely a 'political position'? And how much longer will it be before this analogy becomes useless, due to all such issues having become 'normalized' and acceptable', should this 'protected threat' situation progress?
Or if that one doesn't bother anyone, suppose the Nazi's were marching to threaten Jewish people, and that a car had been driven into a crowd of protesting Jewish people, killing a sweet old grandmother?
This is not just ugly, it's deadly and, like political corruption, the threat will never go away until it is made to go away.
Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.
A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.
The whole point of Black Lives Matter
BLM espouses non-violence and to equate them with people who espouse hate and violence is repugnant.
Beware the bullshit factories.
@Timmethy2.0
Yeah, I don't like or support the violence either. But I fear that we're headed for the type of revolution we most need to avoid, simply by being unable to come up with the right (and effective) approach. I keep wondering where - and how - Alex Ocana is, our resident experienced expert in pacific revolution, and I worry, for him and for the rest of us...
Edit: tired, have been trying to figure this out:
but I wasn't actually thinking about (never mind equating) BLM or, really, thinking about specifically Black people (in that sense) being abused and killed as a separate issue from fascist/psychopathic types, whether official or not, abusing and killing people felt to be more vulnerable and, therefore, disposable.
People of identifiable types are being killed and harmed in numerous ways by public officials and the overall American society - as happened in Germany - has been propagandized to the point where this is seemingly often regarded not as people being killed but 'only certain types', if you know what I mean.
I did not grow up in a situation where this occurred in our history and to me, such murders and other abuses emotionally relate to my feelings for individuals I know/have known who, in that situation would be at risk as are perfectly nice others like them in America, so that my viewpoint may differ considerably from those who have grown up in this situation and with this conditioning, and with the media-propagated propaganda of 'divide and conquer' politics.
But the same/similar billionaires, corporations and media propaganda as are running things in America have been taking over, 'harmonizing' and selecting Canadian government and imposed, destructive and illegal law, (as with other countries) and it seems that this must be stopped at source...
Re-edit: it's the 'othering' of minor differences between groups of people that corporate media campaigns have created and expanded upon in America over the years that people previously not subjected to such may have trouble comprehending, but that may seem so intrinsic to the viewpoints of those having been saturated in it throughout their lives that they may not be able to comprehend how alien this may seem to others, either.
Unless I've misunderstood? Which is quite possible, I'm afraid, (sorta went splat a while ago, lol,) so do please explain if I have the wrong end of the stick here, so to speak.
Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.
A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.
It's possible we have a mutual misunderstanding
Sometimes I read comments too fast in an ADD sort of way and to my fault, don't respond to the exact gist of the comment. I'm sorry for that. I do feel there is a lot of false equivalence going on between groups that perpetrate hate and groups that defensively respond to that hate and I think the hate perpetrators are responsible for creating that false equivalence, which I find repugnant.
Beware the bullshit factories.
@Timmethy2.0
I do that too, lol, so totally understand. Plus, we're often stressed by the subject matter we discuss, with very good reason - and I'm afraid that concise clarity (or sticking to a single item/what's actually in the comment,) is not me.
You probably find that repugnant because it is. We will overcome. Just don't ask me how, lol.
Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.
A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.
Ovals, I agree with that,
(and apologies, I misidentified someone else's reply as yours a while ago).
I agree, to a large degree we are already divided and I also believe some of those divisions are unbridgeable. Which is why I feel those Prog Media personalities who are steadfastly claiming tha C'ville was meant to divide us and not allow us to ally..don't have it quite right.
Was C'ville 'designed' ? I would tend to agree with you, mostly: No, it was not planned and executed. But IMHO there were certainly signs that events were allowed to unfold (in the presence of Law Enforcement) which should make us ask questions.
I say this as a resident of Portland, where in early summer we had our own L-R standoff one weekend..only a few weeks after the fatal racial stabbings on our Metro. The Mayor attempted to get a right-wing group's permit revoked; ACLU came out in opposition to doing so. Both actions were understandable. The demonstartion proceeded, under very heavy and active Police presence. There were agitated righties...there were 'itching' Antifa as well.
Didn't make much news, because it turned out to be a non-event, really. Mostly due to the Police presence and actions (none of which were 'crackdown' actions, BTW).
Am I saying 'yay for the Police !'. No, not really. But I am wondering why, given a situation where there were armed militias present (and expected), was C'ville law enforcement seemingly not taking initiative anywhere near as much as Portland did.
It indeed may have been just a botch...but...it raises questions, IMHO.
Yes, Native re: your initial comment
Indeed. and it is exactly this intentional provocation which I feel must be taken into consideration when one makes a determination as to whether the demonstration participants were in some way threatening to the community.
because as I have said, there can be a free speech event but this does not automatically imply that there would be no espousing of violence, no provoking, and no perceived threat to the community.
Welcome. (& off-topic helpful hint about comments on this site)
When you reply to comments on this site, leave the little snip of code that begins with @ and is followed by some numbers, which automatically appears at the top of the reply window. Don't delete the code or type over it.
This code is what causes your reply to be properly nested in the thread and include the name of the person you replied to. (Like how your handle appears at the top of this post.) Also you can click on the @username in the reply and it will open a popup window with the original comment; this is very helpful in following longer threads.
If you delete the code or type over it, your reply goes at the bottom of the list as a new comment, and it's very difficult to tell which comment you're replying to.
Just wanted to let you know.
Thanks for writing, interesting essay and good discussion, a lot to think about and timely.
I'm considering my thoughts before writing more.
@CS in AZ thx
thx...and BTW
I have actually been here for a year or so...just haven't posted an essay in a while....
A disturbing essay.
I read your statements "a rather patronizing dynamic of Prog Media personalities urging us not to ‘fall for the trap’" and "introduced to the public discourse by the Progressive Left". Yet you have no links to any of the Prog Media personalities or Progressive Left.
Was it a few of them? Some of them? All of them?
Who are these evil people you call out yet refuse to name?
I think that the establishment wants to expand the race war.
In pursuit of this goal, of course they will use sincere people where they can as well as manufacturing conflict.
But I don't think there's any doubt that they want Black people and white people (both from, say, the bottom five tiers of the economic ladder) at each other's throats in far greater numbers than they currently are.
I don't think there's any other way to explain last year's Presidential election, which campaigns were elevated, and what was presented as the dividing line between them. Nor the revision of what racism consists of into something more easily used by the establishment (never mention money or poverty; make a sad face about racism in the police and the courts but never engage in concrete or specific suggestions for how to push back; focus on images, symbols, and what somebody said on Twitter).
"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
Pondering whether militant racist groups
Have free speech rights, or whether "Antifa" groups have the right to supercede them if they interpret them as threatening, seems indulgently masturbatory in the absence of addressing what the Charlottesville made-for-TV conflict actually accomplished. A young girl is dead while a politically motivated media apparatus continues stoking the fires, protected by their patrons and the useful idiots who enable their agit prop.
There is always Music amongst the trees in the Garden, but our hearts must be very quiet to hear it. ~ Minnie Aumonier
Nobody has a right to incite
Nobody has a right to incite or 'normalize' violence against population groups perceived as being vulnerable. Nobody.
Edited due to not having altered a word to a singular following a partial sentence reconstruction, so removed an 's'. Honestly, I should have 'edit' stamps made up for at least 47 of my favorite things-to-notice after pressing 'post'...
Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.
A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.
@Ellen North Do people have the right
Do people have the right to get minimum-wage workers fired for attending a protest?
As far as I know, none of the people fired committed any violent acts.
Are minimum-wage workers working at, for instance, a pizza chain, somehow not vulnerable?
If nothing else, they are vulnerable to Nazi propaganda because of their shitty lives, and the left probably just sealed their eternal loyalty to that crap.
"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
@Cant Stop the Macedonian Signal
Very true, and they are also victims.
But what justifies victims of the powerful victimizing others among the victims of the powerful, in turn?
I'm sorry to (so rarely) disagree with someone for whom I have so much respect, but passing along other wrongs to other victims does not and can not make any wrong right. Nor does it make for a civilized and just society.
What are we fighting for? The right of the relatively powerless to also abuse each other, as those who've stolen their power abuse them? Or to stop the freely administered abuse by and of us all, as far as we can?
I cannot and will not support any evil.
Nobody is 'right' in all of this mess, in my view; not the fascists nor those using violence to stop them - but most especially not those manipulators and users at the top creating such situations as these.
And we must come up with a better way to stop fascism at all levels and of all types or the violence will explode on all sides. I certainly can't think of one - and I don't seriously expect the authoritarian, fossil fuel-dependent, corporate-friendly 'Super Putin' to swoop in and save us all from the authoritarian, fossil fuel-dependent, corporate North American politicians and their paymasters, even if I often do try to verbally tease any Putin-paranoid propagandists potentially perusing the site comments (and would like to see them try saying that last bit 3 times fast with a mouthful of crackers, even if not facing me at the time).
Nothing about this situation is remotely sustainable, even over the short term...
Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.
A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.
@Ellen North I agree with most of
I agree with most of what you say here. What I'm saying is that no revolutionary purpose was served by getting those people fired. Nor, really, was any moral purpose served.
"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
jumping on people is violent