On-Topic ANTIFA: When is Violence Justified?

[Sausy]

Mark Bray, published Dartmouth professor, has recently published ANTIFA: the Antifascist Handbook. As I saw him interviewed, he was unapologetic for promoting physical violence as a means.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/antifa-violence-ethical-author-explains-why-n796106

Traditionally, antifascists wanted to avoid becoming thugs and fascists from the left. No longer.


And there are even more explicit more violent extremists: http://dailycaller.com/2017/07/31/armed-antifa-group-offers-training-manual-on-terrorism-and-guerrilla-warfare/

If the right must answer for its far right extremists, then the left has no less obligation to own its own deviants.

The ones most doing the work for the far right are those in the antifa movement who are like Bray, unapologetic and supporting proactive action. Does there come a time when a violent reaction is justified? Yes if we wait til fascists take over without challenging them and holding them to account...but by then it will be too late. There is both a violent wing in the antifa movement and one standing for peaceful but strong visible protest. The violent wing will be the undoing for all if it is not challenged and denounced by those who take the threat of the far right seriously, but realize we cannot become their mirror image in actions. Trevor Noah had a great takedown of the violent wing on Comedy Central recently... no matter how well intended one's cause, when willful violence becomes an operating standard in one's workings then the moral claim to the cause is lost. You just become one with those you claim you oppose, just with another agenda.

 

[opinterph]

Mark Bray, published Dartmouth professor … was unapologetic for promoting physical violence as a means.

I worry that Dr. Bray, through his ostensible insight and public commentary, may be shifting Antifa toward a more violent posture. Is he not effectively normalizing that expectation?

Dr. Bray helped to organize Occupy Wall Street and later described that movement as an anarchist core covered by a liberal shell.

I think it is important to recognize that Antifa does not have a central command. It offers a suggested template that other like-minded individuals can adopt to help further the cause Antifa represents, which is to end neo-Nazi politics – typically focusing on one event or entity at a time.

It is my impression that each Antifa group may sponsor different boundaries with respect to the use of violent opposition. One common tenet of the movement seems to be a distrust of the police.

 

[NotHardUp1]

The rise of Bray reminds me of those in the Tea Party. The menace of the Tea Party rose gradually out of the bitterness and ongoing failure of the right, which became more caustic after the re-election of Obama.

The extremists on the left look very similar to me. They are now chafing under the dull pain of realizing Trump will reign four years and his buffoonery is enough that the fascists will hold sway with unanticipated endorsement from the Commander in Chief.

Advocates of thuggery on the left are sewing the dissolution of our democracy, every bit as much as any Klan or militia or fascists. Civil war always seemed a near-comical exaggeration of possibility by alarmists. However, with the right and left wings both crumbling and leaving the field to the extremists, I'm no longer sure it cannot happen.

As I can discern, ANTIFA is a symptom of entropy on the left, and in our political system more generally.

 

[opinterph]

The menace of the Tea Party rose gradually out of the bitterness and ongoing failure of the right, …

What were the early demands of the Tea Party – before it was commandeered by the likes of Dick Armey?

 

[opinterph]

[Antifa] offers a suggested template

Forming An Antifa Group: A Manual

(Its Going Down; February 2017)​

 

[NotHardUp1]

What were the early demands of the Tea Party – before it was commandeered by the likes of Dick Armey?

My remembrance is that the Tea Party coalesced more than it represented a formal organized party.

 

[opinterph]

My remembrance is that the Tea Party coalesced more than it represented a formal organized party.

How is that similar to, (or different from,) what happened with Occupy Wall Street?

 

[Telstra]

Violence is a complex issue.
And physical violence should never be justified.

Maybe all should apply the golden rule, and the eye for an eye (or for a nose) rule ??

 

[ballcaphair]

Violence is a complex issue.
And physical violence should never be justified.

Maybe all should apply the golden rule, and the eye for an eye (or for a nose) rule ??

Or perhaps we should not give an ear.

 

[MakeItTonite]

As I can discern, ANTIFA is a symptom of entropy on the left, and in our political system more generally.

Can't argue with that.

It's complex just because it's such a hodgepodge of overlapping groups, but it is very easy to say that I have no respect for forcible violent bullshit. So they can go fuck themselves if they want to take that route as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Kulindahr]

You deal with it when it happens.

There will always be a fringe. There will always be a lunatic fringe. There will always be a violent lunatic fringe.

But you cannot ever let the fringe move to the center of discourse.

Author Robert Heinlein back in the forties wrote about this in the form of a science fiction story. Among other things, he predicted people crashing airplanes into buildings and mass killings, pointing out that there will always be some so determined to do violence to others that there is no law or policy that can stop them.

 

[Kulindahr]

I think they assumed that it could never be as bad as it turned out. Who could possibly envisage such horrors, even in a Third World country, let alone a supposedly civilised society

That and the fact that it was all done so incrementally. Using existing laws, the Nazis made it harder and harder for anyone to be armed before focusing primarily on the Jews, so that by the time it became evident that resistance was needed most everyone had surrendered the ability to do so effectively.

This, BTW, is one reason I hate the movie Schindler's List: it lied about what really happened by omitting the fact that the real daring act of Schindler was not protecting Jews, but arming them so they could have hope of protecting themselves. It's worth noting that what he supplied them with was the very thing so many here love to demonize: semi-automatic rifles -- so if one takes the position that there comes a point at which violent resistance is justified (as the Declaration of Independence, notably, argues), then one should in now way lend support to restricting who can have such rifles since such restrictions were the beginning of the path the Nazis used to disarm the Jews in order to slaughter them.

 

[Kulindahr]

My point remains: those at the Southern Poverty Law Center believe ANTIFA intentionally escalates violence in an attempt to get the far right to show their true colors.

However, violence is violence, and it is not safe to assume that the far left is only fighting back in self defense. A review of recent (the last year) of clashes shows that it is not always the right that swings first. I respect the SPLC experienced leaders, and believe that we are headed for a worse state than we have now.

We can't live in fear of terrorism, but I do think we can push the extremists back into methods like the Oklahoma City bombing, and that is somewhere I don't want us to go. That doesn't mean we accept Nazis and Fascists, but it also doesn't mean we strike a hornet's nest and expect no consequences.

It's not possible to outlaw racism or bigotry, but it is possible to outlaw acts of discrimination, and we have. Pushing to silence them altogether will have a backlash. I am sure of it.

As Gandhi demonstrated so well, it isn't at all necessary to engage in violence to get people to show their true colors.

 

[Kulindahr]

So, do we protest the protesters? By doing so do we inadvertently promote them?
Most depictions of Nazis or the KKK that I have seen shows them as bumbling idiots who's parents likely met at a family reunion.
I say let them march, protest and speak their mind, while we ignore them.
Paying attention to them only aids their cause.

Imagine the reaction if their parade route were lined with people all of whom turned their backs on the marchers.

 

[Kulindahr]

If we had fewer idiots in this world and more common sense......

Well then issues like these would begin to disappear.

I recall from sociology in college that it takes only a fraction of a percent of crazies to destabilize a society but a significant percentage of sensible people standing in opposition to stop them. So the problem is that it requires a lot more sensible people taking a stand than it does the crazies to accomplish their goals. We may have few idiots, but a few is all it takes.

 

[Kulindahr]

Okay Ghandi.

People realize we have already been refuting these kinds of ideologies for years now, right? That these people only recently in the last year started to come out of the woodworks even more because of our current political climate.

Whether they are met with violence or simple refute, they are going to be angry because they were already riled up and given justification from the highest position in the US. It doesn't matter how opposition is met with them, they will find excuses and justifications for their actions.

None of this is to say violence is the correct response. At the same time, let's stop pretending that Nazism or the KKK deserves any kind of podium or reason for any respectable refute. These people marching under these names believe in the eradication of groups of people and are marching under names that have done horrible things in our history. There is no reason they should be met with civil discourse.

As much as I will actually defend someone right to say their ideals or beliefs, whether religion, political, etc. I will never ever defend these people under any capacity. Our history proves why they don't deserve that.

A major part of the problem is that society today values critical thinking only marginally. Ever since discourse got reduced to sound bites and tweets, those who actually study and analyze have been devalued.

 

[Kulindahr]

I would say a group marching under the name and ideologies of Nazism who wanted to eradicate the Jews and committed genocide against them in the past, saying "The Jews will not replace us" is at the very least, dangerous.

But instead let's focus on antifa and say what the other side is doing is the bigger part of the problem. Let's just hug Nazis and take them out for dinner for a lovely discussion about the eradication of groups of people, I'm sure they're just looking for some sort of understanding.

America, where we defend the rights of hate mongers but when other groups face actual discrimination, it's not nearly as big of a deal.

Hug them....?

A gal I know had her own idea of how to respond to Nazi marchers: hose them down with lube. She suggested pineapple flavor.

 

[Kulindahr]

As for the Jews and the neo-Nazis, the Anti-Defamation Leagues isn't sleeping through any of this.

I read a while back that JPFO membership has begun rising in response as well.

 

[Kulindahr]

What were the early demands of the Tea Party – before it was commandeered by the likes of Dick Armey?

Opposition to deficits, support for reducing the national debt, and frustration with perceived high taxes were the initial motivators of the Tea Party.

That the latter two are inherently contradictory was never really acknowledged.

 

[Benvolio]

Opposition to deficits, support for reducing the national debt, and frustration with perceived high taxes were the initial motivators of the Tea Party.

That the latter two are inherently contradictory was never really acknowledged.

Not necessarily. If spending were low enough, you could have lower taxes and still have a budget surplus to apply toward the debt.