Remember, Antifa only attacks fascists, right?

[blastula]

This is now a thread about why all cops are bastards. Thank you Jason for reminding us not to forget this important fact.

Even these cops?

Since El Paso there have been six right-wing mass shootings stopped by the police before they happened.

 

[PyramidHead]

This is now a thread about why all cops are bastards. Thank you Jason for reminding us not to forget this important fact.

Even these cops?

Since El Paso there have been six right-wing mass shootings stopped by the police before they happened.

Yes. Did you know that the Ordnungspolizei in Germany used to catch bank robbers?

 

[Elixir]

That's the beauty of egalitarian anarchy. PH is such an authority.
Antifa doesn't need a Hitler or a Trump to worship and rally around, like white supremacists do.

The authoritarian cult of scientology also has such a problem with critics. It's as if they cannot grasp that a bunch of independent actors can come to the same or similar conclusions without an authority or ideological group telling them to.

I've been watching the cult and its critics for twenty years, and they are still bent on finding that authority figure to take out to destroy the whole critic movement.

Yeah, they're really something. I used to enjoy toying with them... they have this problem; their ignorance is not nearly as invincible as say, that of a Young Earth Creationist. Makes it really hard for them to keep their cool, but worse, it means lots of their "converts" de-convert themselves.

 

[blastula]

Even these cops?

Yes. Did you know that the Ordnungspolizei in Germany used to catch bank robbers?

Then all antifa are bastards too. It's a weak, tenuously supported slogan, just like the idea that all violence by antifa is self defense.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Works for me. I believe in all of those too. Have you already forgotten which one of us was defending cops in the other thread?

Making an analogy between Bloods-Crips-Cops and Antifa-Fascists-Civilized people is not defending the cops. I wish I was surprised that you couldn't figure that out.

One of us wants authoritarian rule, and it isn't me. I'm not on one of the authoritarian corners of that analogy.

It's the same with the right wing. They said it about the women's march, Occupy, and any other left-leaning protest: it must be backed by a (((shadowy oligarch))), because everybody knows that people don't spontaneously form coalitions without dark money from think thanks and investors.

So NAAAFLT whenever any part of the movement does anything bad. And according to that, it is possible to have a fascist in antifa because NAAAFLT.

The thing about fascism that you have no clue about is that they prefer to work within established power structures to take control from within. That's what Hitler and Mussolini did directly, and Franco did indirectly. You don't get there by being a street punk. If you want to oppose fascism, you have to oppose government in general instead of wanting your clique to be in charge of it instead of the fascists. By legitimizing government you are legitimizing the way fascist take power. That is why you aren't really opposing them nearly as much as you think. All you are doing is watching TV and seeing a bunch of white middle class students LARP as revolutionaries throwing milkshakes at centrists and saying "I'm just like them". And those white middle class students, they are watching WWII documentaries and saying "I'm just like them" about the allied forces.

BACK TO TOPIC.

Pyramid Head. I'll leave it at reiterating Jolly's questions. You are pretty much this board's most ardent supporter of this group of white middle class kids pretending to be revolutionaries. Do you or do you not support the assault of Mr. Ngo? Do you or do you not support physical violence against non-violent white nationalists? Do you or do you not support physical violence against Trump supporters? Do you or do you not support physical violence against conservatives generally? State your boundaries for us so we don't mischaracterize you.

 

[Worldtraveller]

That's the beauty of egalitarian anarchy. PH is such an authority.
Antifa doesn't need a Hitler or a Trump to worship and rally around, like white supremacists do.

The authoritarian cult of scientology also has such a problem with critics. It's as if they cannot grasp that a bunch of independent actors can come to the same or similar conclusions without an authority or ideological group telling them to.

I've been watching the cult and its critics for twenty years, and they are still bent on finding that authority figure to take out to destroy the whole critic movement.

Yep. The fact that JH seems to think that's the only structure that he will accept is amusing, especially given his continued claims to be libertarian....

 

[Jarhyn]

Works for me. I believe in all of those too. Have you already forgotten which one of us was defending cops in the other thread?

Making an analogy between Bloods-Crips-Cops and Antifa-Fascists-Civilized people is not defending the cops. I wish I was surprised that you couldn't figure that out.

One of us wants authoritarian rule, and it isn't me. I'm not on one of the authoritarian corners of that analogy.

It's the same with the right wing. They said it about the women's march, Occupy, and any other left-leaning protest: it must be backed by a (((shadowy oligarch))), because everybody knows that people don't spontaneously form coalitions without dark money from think thanks and investors.

So NAAAFLT whenever any part of the movement does anything bad. And according to that, it is possible to have a fascist in antifa because NAAAFLT.

The thing about fascism that you have no clue about is that they prefer to work within established power structures to take control from within. That's what Hitler and Mussolini did directly, and Franco did indirectly. You don't get there by being a street punk. If you want to oppose fascism, you have to oppose government in general instead of wanting your clique to be in charge of it instead of the fascists. By legitimizing government you are legitimizing the way fascist take power. That is why you aren't really opposing them nearly as much as you think. All you are doing is watching TV and seeing a bunch of white middle class students LARP as revolutionaries throwing milkshakes at centrists and saying "I'm just like them". And those white middle class students, they are watching WWII documentaries and saying "I'm just like them" about the allied forces.

BACK TO TOPIC.

Pyramid Head. I'll leave it at reiterating Jolly's questions. You are pretty much this board's most ardent supporter of this group of white middle class kids pretending to be revolutionaries. Do you or do you not support the assault of Mr. Ngo? Do you or do you not support physical violence against non-violent white nationalists? Do you or do you not support physical violence against Trump supporters? Do you or do you not support physical violence against conservatives generally? State your boundaries for us so we don't mischaracterize you.

I'm not PyramidHead, so I can't answer for him. But I can answer for myself: asking whether someone supports or doesn't support an action is improper in then context. It is inappropriate to ascribe support for an attack, for the same reason it is inappropriate to say casualties are "acceptable" or "unacceptable" in military action.

You are begging the question of whether such a thing warrants evaluation on an axis of "support". It does not.

Instead, the injury or attack of a person is merely tragic. A group has been roughly drawn around fighting Fascism. Fighting Fascism is a right and proper goal. But we must forever question if we could do something better than through the tactics that were used. Certainly someone made a decision but it is nobody but the zealot that decided the tactic was "right" nor even "wrong". Merely, the fact is that responsibility must be taken. To say it happened, and it happened while fighting Fascism, and that tomorrow, we do everything in our power to prevent more violence.

All we can do is say "how do we, tomorrow, fight fascism in a way that minimises casualties?"

Certainly less violent measures such as milkshakes is a good start. Because doing nothing or merely asking nicely doesn't get us anywhere.

 

[PyramidHead]

Works for me. I believe in all of those too. Have you already forgotten which one of us was defending cops in the other thread?

Making an analogy between Bloods-Crips-Cops and Antifa-Fascists-Civilized people is not defending the cops. I wish I was surprised that you couldn't figure that out.

One of us wants authoritarian rule, and it isn't me. I'm not on one of the authoritarian corners of that analogy.

What? Who said anything about authoritarian rule? Be specific. Name names. Connect the dots to antifa. If you can.

So NAAAFLT whenever any part of the movement does anything bad. And according to that, it is possible to have a fascist in antifa because NAAAFLT.

No, silly; it's impossible by definition because Antifa isn't a group, it's an ideology opposed to fascism. It's like saying "Well, what if a meat-eater snuck into the ranks of the vegans? It's possible, right?"

The thing about fascism that you have no clue about is that they prefer to work within established power structures to take control from within. That's what Hitler and Mussolini did directly, and Franco did indirectly. You don't get there by being a street punk. If you want to oppose fascism, you have to oppose government in general instead of wanting your clique to be in charge of it instead of the fascists. By legitimizing government you are legitimizing the way fascist take power. That is why you aren't really opposing them nearly as much as you think. All you are doing is watching TV and seeing a bunch of white middle class students LARP as revolutionaries throwing milkshakes at centrists and saying "I'm just like them". And those white middle class students, they are watching WWII documentaries and saying "I'm just like them" about the allied forces.

What an odd paragraph. You start by saying fascists are mostly in the government, which is false, even though they certainly are in the government. Then you say we should oppose the government as a result of this, and I oppose the government. So far so muddled. Then you say I'm legitimizing the the government? When did I do that? Was it before or after I pointed out that the President, the law enforcement, the military, and Congress are all more likely to kowtow to fascists and install right-wing dictators in other countries than support working people? Finally, you end your screed against the government and its institutions by pointing out how antifa fails to live up to... army soldiers. Are you a mirage? What are you even saying, ever?

Pyramid Head. I'll leave it at reiterating Jolly's questions. You are pretty much this board's most ardent supporter of this group of white middle class kids pretending to be revolutionaries. Do you or do you not support the assault of Mr. Ngo? Do you or do you not support physical violence against non-violent white nationalists? Do you or do you not support physical violence against Trump supporters? Do you or do you not support physical violence against conservatives generally? State your boundaries for us so we don't mischaracterize you.

I don't think it was necessary to assault Andy, and I don't think he should be assaulted every time he shows his face, no. So if you're asking me for a Kantian moral imperative, then no, I don't think that every rational actor should always attack Andy Ngo all the time. But I'm not a Kantian. And I'm not personally upset by him being attacked, in the grand scheme of the whole situation.

Depending on the context of the encounter, I support violence in self-defense against people who either are white supremacists or are aiding them, though. You already got my answer on the myth of the "non-violent white nationalist", so no misunderstandings there I hope.

As for the rest of those people, I generally would support violent resistance against them to the extent that they are enabling or publicly advocating violence against non-whites themselves. So I guess it depends on the situation. The only question with a definitive "no" would be "do you reject all violence in all forms for all reasons?" That's a bunch of liberal bullshit.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

So NAAAFLT whenever any part of the movement does anything bad. And according to that, it is possible to have a fascist in antifa because NAAAFLT.

No, silly; it's impossible by definition because Antifa isn't a group, it's an ideology opposed to fascism. It's like saying "Well, what if a meat-eater snuck into the ranks of the vegans? It's possible, right?"

What is the central authority clearing house of antifa beliefs that decided that was the definition?

I know you don't understand most of my post, but the "central authority clearing house" is straight from your own posts on the subject.

But since you need so much help ... I'm not saying "antifa fails to live up to army soldiers", I'm saying "they think they are the same when they aren't". That's different. Just like making an analogy doesn't mean I'm defending cops. You think that when you are sitting on your couch eating Cheetos and watching antifa on TV that you are the same as the people you see on TV. They think that when they are watching a World War Two documentary and they see the allied troops fighting actual fascists that they are the same as the people they see on TV. In both cases it is more wishful thinking than reality.

Nor am I saying fascists are mostly in the government. I'm saying that is how they gain control, they go into government. The tattooed street punk with a swastika on his forehead has even less of a chance of taking control than you do, and you don't have that chance.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

You are begging the question of whether such a thing warrants evaluation on an axis of "support". It does not.

Yes it does. And it isn't tragic to people who support it. That you see it as tragic means you merely don't support such an assault. Maybe you can't fathom others supporting such an assault, but I assure you there are people who do support such an assault. There are also neo-nazis who support assaults and even murders of certain minorities. If you understand why it happened and predict that it will happen doesn't mean you endorse the violence. If you seek other ways to counter hate groups (or what you see as hate groups) and don't condone the assault... Then you don't support such assault. I am not clear on it PH does or not.

 

[Derec]

So I think I found the origin of the symbol with three arrows going down and to the left.


Note that this was Social-Democratic Party (SPD) 1932 poster, and that they were opposed to communism. That is very different than Antifa, which was an organ of the Communist Party (KPD).

The two symbols really should not be used by the same people. It's like using a swastika and hammer and sickle together.

 

[Jarhyn]

You are begging the question of whether such a thing warrants evaluation on an axis of "support". It does not.

Yes it does. And it isn't tragic to people who support it. That you see it as tragic means you merely don't support such an assault. Maybe you can't fathom others supporting such an assault, but I assure you there are people who do support such an assault. There are also neo-nazis who support assaults and even murders of certain minorities. If you understand why it happened and predict that it will happen doesn't mean you endorse the violence. If you seek other ways to counter hate groups (or what you see as hate groups) and don't condone the assault... Then you don't support such assault. I am not clear on it PH does or not.

I told you exactly how I view the assault. I also expressed that the fact that it was tragic does not mean I make a judgement about support or lack thereof.

I reject your framing of the issue entirely and think that it is a bad way of looking at any such issue. You are ascribing a positive value of support, when I am agnostic on the issue.

None of your language applies. You are not-even-wrong.

Your language has no value to the discussion. Violence is tragic. Sometimes it happens in the pursuit of a necessary goal. The correct course is NOT to consider any violence in the past or future as acceptable or unacceptable. The correct stance is always to ask "how can I learn from the past to prevent violence in the future?"

This involves accepting responsibility for past violence, and accepting whatever painful emotions arise, accepting that pain and guilt SHOULD BE the wages of violence so long as you have no answers for how to avoid it in the future.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Swastika and Hammer and Sickle?



Gay confederate communist Nazi. It does kinda look like Antifa.

 

[Bronzeage]

It's actually quite amusing to see conservatives wring their hands in anxiety over "left wing violence" and feign concern that such tactics will cause them to lose support. Get real.


The politics of this nation was built on left wing violence. Ask any Royal Tax collector who suffered 2nd degree burns after being tarred and feathered by a Boston mob.

The right seems to have gotten altogether too comfortable with the pacifist civil disobedience of Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King. Those guys were anomalies. The left has always had a violent element because the left has always lived with the threat of violence. Don't act so surprised when threats of violence are met with violence. Plus, always remember, violence is never well aimed.

Bronzeage: usually you are a lot more perceptive than this! Do you really think that conservatives are "wringing their hands" over Antifa? Antifia is giving the far right exactly what they want: an enemy to organize against. Antifia keeps right wing extremists in the spotlight.

Wringing hands is an ironic use of the term. The conservative lament about the left losing support is like the woman who tells her husband he might get more sex, if he didn't ask for it so often. Right wing extremists need to be in the spotlight. They can only survive in the shadows.

 

[ZiprHead]

"Alt-right" women are upset that "alt-right" men are treating them terribly

There's trouble brewing in the MAGA world, as prominent women in the "alt-right" are upset that white nationalists are being misogynistic towards them.

Women in the "alt-right" "are constantly harassed by low level anonymous trolls trying to put us in our place," self-described "Ethno Nationalist" Tara McCarthy wrote on Twitter Sunday, in a moment of revelation that was well-known to basically anyone else. "The ultimate goal seems to be to bully us off the internet."

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Reminder: no official member of the antifa organization has ever broken any law or assaulted anyone

Show

Antifa is not an organization with official members, it's a resistance movement haphazardly and spontaneously formed around the common goal of defending people against fascists

It waddles and quacks. Whether there is an official membership roster or not is irrelevant.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Reminder: no official member of the antifa organization has ever broken any law or assaulted anyone

Show

Antifa is not an organization with official members, it's a resistance movement haphazardly and spontaneously formed around the common goal of defending people against fascists

NAAALT.

 

[Angry Floof]

Reminder: no official member of the antifa organization has ever broken any law or assaulted anyone

Show

Antifa is not an organization with official members, it's a resistance movement haphazardly and spontaneously formed around the common goal of defending people against fascists

It waddles and quacks. Whether there is an official membership roster or not is irrelevant.

If there's not an official organization there, just imagine there is.

 

[Derec]

Antifa is not an organization with official members, it's a resistance movement haphazardly and spontaneously formed around the common goal of defending people against fascists

It may be unorganized now, but it did not form "haphazardly and spontaneously". Rather, it was formed as an organ of the German Communist Party (KPD) to advance their ideas with violence. That's why so many Antifas proudly display the hammer and sickle.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

I reject your framing of the issue entirely and think that it is a bad way of looking at any such issue. You are ascribing a positive value of support, when I am agnostic on the issue.

If you were agnostic on the issue you wouldn't see it as tragic. You would not judge it as good or bad.