Nonsensical "Equivalency" Between NeoNazis , KKK, white supremacists - and "Antifa"
The right and right media is in full throat trying to invent an "equivalency " between the Charlottesville white supremacists and the people who protested those racists and anti-Semites . The anti-raciists are dubbed "antifa" by the right , although there are many photos of protesters who appear to be no more than college students or otherwise very normal looking people. But let's go with the idea for the moment that the battle was "white supremacists" vs "anarchists" (antifa).
What constituency or base in the United States Of America do anarchists have? Do politicians dog whistle the anarchist vote? Are there millions and millions of anarchists trying to "take their country back"?
Anarchists are about as popular as atheists, but a lot smaller in number. They are a virtual non-factor in daily American life. "Antifa" is a bogeyman without influence or meaning to the masses.
White supremacists on the other hand , have a constituency. There are tens of millions of Americans who are or can become susceptible to a racial message. The message of "take our country back". The white nationalists may be fringe, but their message of redressing white grievance is one that can spread far and wide if not contained and diminished. Racism is the threat here , not anarchy . There isn't even a remote equivalency.
Tags
Who is online
111 visitors
Right wing media is now all about creating these false "equivalencies". We have to oppose this nonsense at every turn.
The single most repugnant thing Trump did today was to try to equate the White Supremacists with those who were protesting against their virulent hatred and anti-American views. One group has a goal of an America of, by and for only White Protestants and the other group are patriots for their country where that is rejected.
The racists main hope is to create a false equivalency between them and their betters.
They use antifa as a boogeyman.
The right is pretty much desperate to promote this false equivalency.
the other group are patriots for their country where that is rejected.
Sure:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/04/27/portland-rose-parade-canceled-after-antifascists-threaten-gop-marchers/?utm_term=.f52b7a1f4300
Violently threatening people for marching in a parade is now patriotic.
Pepper sparaying girls for expressing their views is patriotism in action, I guess.
Hey, Sean. Let us know when a pro-trump girls gets murdered, okay?
Amazed once again by the writer, and commenters not be able to remember anything for two months, like a rare unanimous scotus decision. The abhorrent supremacists had a permit, and that decision in hand Saturday. Those who attempted to violate their civil rights had a mental defect driving them. My friends, and I despise opera, and it's' supporters. When an opera is being performed at the local theatre, having normal, and above human intelligence, we avoid that part of town those nights. It really is that simple snowflakes.
a little off topic, but thanks for the comment
Those who attempted to violate their civil rights had a mental defect driving them.
Yet the violence was instigated by the ones with the permit. The permit did not give them permission to do that.
The anti-fascists had a permit also. No one seems to mention that.
What the hell are you saying?
This how the game is played:
The progressives who riot, attack bystanders, shuts down parades and speeches have nothing to do with the progressive movement.
The Democratic party volunteer who shot Republicans had nothing to with Democrats.
The Black Lives Matter leader who assassinated cops has nothing to do with the black lives matter movement that democrats embrace.
But every Republican must constantly answer for the racist guy who murdered a girl in Virginia.
What constituency or base in the United States Of America do anarchists have? Do politicians dog whistle the anarchist vote? Are there millions and millions of anarchists trying to "take their country back"?
Anarchists are about as popular as atheists, but a lot smaller in number. They are a virtual non-factor in daily American life. "Antifa" is a bogeyman without influence or meaning to the masses.
Anarchists are about as popular as atheists
Ouch.
sorry
No worries.
communists and progressives are anarchists now, I see.
Likewise, white supremacists can be dismissed as maoists.
They smashed windows and rioted through the streets of Washington during the inauguration of President Donald Trump . In Charlottesville they joined liberal demonstrators in counter-protesting a white supremacist rally. And this week, they toppled over a bronze Confederate statue in Durham, N.C.
On Tuesday, Trump insisted that counterprotesters in Charlottesville acted violently and deserved equal blame for the unrest that left a 32-year-old woman dead and others hospitalized. "What about the alt-left that came charging at the alt-right?" Trump demanded. "Do they have any semblance of guilt?"
Anarchists and antifascists, often called the antifa, are factions of the far left who feel they are not represented by the mainstream Democratic Party. They have become more visible in the Trump era and are often lumped together, although not all antifascists identify as anarchists.
"The Trump presidency has certainly given a boldness to fascists and racist movements throughout the country, and that's a moment where anarchists are ready to respond in a way that many others aren't," said Samantha Miller, 32, a Washington anarchist who helped organize the Inauguration Day protests.
But that approach - in which people are willing to engage in some level of violence or property destruction to achieve a social or political goal - existed long before the Trump presidency.
Andrej Grubacic, an anarchist and anarchist theorist who heads the anthropology department at California Institute of Integral Studies, says that anarchism became an international movement during the first age of globalization at the end of the 1800s, when people were migrating around the world.
People moved across Europe, Asia, and the Americas seeking a better life, but didn't always find it.
"They did not discover, as they expected, streets paved in gold," Grubacic said. "They discovered lots of coal mines and factory jobs working in really bad conditions."
Even then, anarchists were associated with violence. But Grubacic said that at the time, violent acts against people in power were an accepted part of radical politics. People saw it as a way to build social justice movements and stop wars.
During the 1886 Chicago Haymarket Square Riot, a bomb was thrown at a labor rally in support of eight-hour workdays, resulting in the death of at least eight people. Anarchists were convicted and sentenced to death for the crime, although there was not strong evidence against them, and many criticized the trial proceedings. The men are considered martyrs for the labor movement.
In 1901, Leon Czolgosz, a self-proclaimed anarchist, assassinated President William McKinley, a murder that was disavowed by many anarchists as hurting the movement. Czolgosz said that Emma Goldman, one of the most famous anarchist figures, inspired him. Goldman, who did not know Czolgosz, wrote about the assassination in the Free Society, a popular anarchist magazine at the time.
"I care not what the rabble says; but to those who are still capable of understanding I would say that Anarchism, being, a philosophy of life, aims to establish a state of society in which man's inner make-up and the conditions around him, can blend harmoniously, so that he will be able to utilize all the forces to enlarge and beautify the life about him," Goldman wrote. "To those I would also say that I do not advocate violence; government does this, and force begets force. It is a fact which cannot be done away with through the prosecution of a few men and women, or by more stringent laws - this only tends to increase it."Violence damaged the anarchist movement's reputation around the world, and at the onset of the 20th century, anarchists rebranded, referring to themselves as libertarians. In most countries today - with the United States among the exceptions - libertarianism is synonymous with anarchism."
When Nazis and fascists rose to power in Europe in the 1930s, anti-fascist groups emerged. The punk rock scene in the 1980s also spurred the growth of those groups in the United States. So has the issue of police brutality and the Black Lives Matter movement.
Although these groups share many similarities and protest tactics with anarchists, they are focused on fighting fascist and racist politics. Anarchists in America, for example, also think that the government and Constitution are inherently racist and the entire U.S. government should be abolished and reimagined on a much smaller scale, Washington anarchists say.
Anarchism in the 21st century is most commonly associated with "black bloc" tactics - protests in which participants wear all-black clothing and black masks to conceal their identities as they often engage in property destruction. This makes it harder for participants to be charged and prosecuted. The "black bloc" approach was used during the 2017 Inauguration Day protest.
Grubacic said that it is possible to be an anarchist and disavow violence.
"Many anarchists disagree with the idea of breaking a window. But it's a practical tactical disagreement, not a moral one," Grubacic said.
"Breaking windows is a way of showing that we are not going to just go into the good night," he said. "We are here and we are going to do everything we can to prevent the murders of millions of people. It's a sense of just showing and demonstrating that we are serious about opposition to wars and opposition to violence against human beings."
Anarchists in America, for example, also think that the government and Constitution are inherently racist and the entire U.S. government should be abolished and reimagined on a much smaller scale, Washington anarchists say.
These people are not Democrats, who believe in government.
Was the guy who went door to door canvassing for Democrats before shooting a group of Republicans playing baseball an "anarchist" too?
Was the guy who went door to door canvassing for Democrats before shooting a group of Republicans playing baseball an "anarchist" too?
He was a lunatic with a history who was able nevertheless to obtain a firearm in NRA America … and he acted alone.
"He was a lunatic with a history who was able nevertheless to obtain a firearm in NRA America … and he acted alone."
Isn't all political violence lunacy?
Isn't all political violence lunacy?
If, in fact, it is politically motivated and only politically motivated, I suppose "lunacy" is one way to characterize it.
Jews who resisted Nazi soldiers at the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising were trying to defend themselves from a "political" regime that was also tyrannical, guilty of crimes against humanity … genocide.
I guess there's a question to be answered, here, ausmth … "At what point does a "political" party, by virtue of its policies and actions, cease to be merely political, and, for the good of humanity, need to be met with the degree of force/violence to end its very existence?
Realizing that I have responded to your question with another question … that's what makes for good dialogue perhaps.
Realizing that I have responded to your question with another question … that's what makes for good dialogue perhaps.
That it does A-Mac!
You described the situation when political violence is justified. The Warsaw ghetto was a place where Jews were held until they could be exterminated. There was no recourse for them but to fight for their lives.
That isn't the case with the political violence we are now seeing in America. In America there is legal recourse to deal with the hate groups. There are ways to prevent this violence as well if the local governments have enough smarts to do it. Charlottesville didn't.
There is legal recourse to get statues removed. To some it's easier to take to the streets for vigilante justice.
Violence to defend one's life is different than violence for political reasons. Violence for political reasons is terrorism and should be treated as such.
Why are you so dismissive about the violent groups on the left? Pointing out that there were two groups fighting in Charlottesville doesn't mean acceptance of one group over another. It points out that there is too much violence. Violence for political purposes is wrong and should be dealt with by the rule of law.
I have no problem with calling both the supremacists and antifa terrorist groups and use the law to go after them.
Exactly. The racists on both sides should be condemned. The violence by both sides is wrong.
You have a good imagination.
Yeah, it's now the republicans in the background.
The irony is that there is a group calling itself the Anti-fascists (Antifa) that uses Fascist tactics and is excused by the left as being just protesters. Think about that before bringing up the so-called false equivalency. They are using the entire Joseph Goebbels playbook, yet there is no equivalence between them and Nazis.
there is no equivalence between them and Nazis.
that is correct . anarchists are not nazis
repeat 100 times
Terrorists: Those who use violence to instill fear to achieve their political goals. All the above fit in that shoebox.
The old reliable and lazy "both sides are the same" gambit that substitutes for really knowing what went on.
They are both dangerous to a free society and need to be sent back under the rocks they hide under.
Nope. They have become what they say they are against. Remember that.
John,
First and foremost, I'd like to emphasize that the Charlottesville incident was the result of Neo-Nazi and KKK incitement to violence. There is really no one else to blame for this. I'm dumbfounded at the attempts to somehow parcel out blame for this terrible and embarrassing event.
As far as your indictment of the "right wing media" is concerned, that's their job. It's no different than the "left wing media" continuing to pile on beyond the point of being driven home. It absolutely works that way on both sides. A point is made, and driven home over and over, long after most people care to be exposed to it. You know what piling on is like. Be reminded that this is your style of disseminating content here on this site.
A point about the "anarchists" you refer to:
In our country, there are many fringe groups, espousing their own brand of fringeness. That includes the far left, which include the people you are referring to as "anarchists". I do agree that their brand of ideology is anarchist, similar to that of the Neo-Nazis. There are different brands of anarchy, but it is anarchy nonetheless, and a threat to our great democracy. Keep in mind that they are far more likely to support candidates that you favor in elections. And, I doubt you'd withdraw your support with this knowledge in hand.
There is a time and place for everything. Charlottesville was the time and place to roundly denounce the Neo-Nazis and KKK, who inhabit the extreme right wing of America's political ideology. It's not appropriate to blame the extreme left wing anarchists who also were in attendance at Charlottesville. But they were there, and in force.
The group labeled "Antifa" is a left-wing, socialist anarchist group. They are smaller in size than their right wing counterparts, but they are no less dangerous to our society and great democracy. There were incidents in the recent past where their participation and incitement resulted in injury and death to innocent people. And again, they bear no blame for the events this past weekend. Just don't insult our intelligence by saying things that give the impression that they are some innocuous, non-participatory group.
At this point in time anarchists are far less worrisome than white racists. Antifa has a few thousand adherents in a country of 330 million people. There is , without doubt tens of millions of white racists. They can in fact, and have, effect local and even statewide elections. One could reasonable argue they effected the last presidential election. Anarchists have no such influence and probably never will. We live in a technically oriented consumer society. That is the opposite of anarchsim.
Antifa has a few thousand adherents in a country of 330 million people.
Now would be a good time to get rid of them before they grow. Too bad we didn't do that to the racists back when they were small in number.
Ah, the way Nazis and Commies and all totalitarians deal with people they didn't like. Bravo and thanks for admitting who you really are despite the pretense you try to pull off.
John, you cannot possibly know how many left OR right wing extremists there are in this country. I'll stipulate that there are more right wing, but to declare that they have no influence is specious.
And how do you declare that some group cannot have influence because we live in a technically oriented society? Even ISIS has a sophisticated IT presence!!
You're attempting to marginalize a group by posting. The fact is that if our country continues to polarize, there will be more and more people lining up on the fringes, and that includes the left.
Wake up.
When was the last time a politician dog whistled anarchists?
Trump would rather fight than be right. I inferred this in my first paragraph.
John,
I have to agree with Jonathan on this. Whether we are talking about white supremacist or ANTIFA, they are both violent and both have a similar message. Heck in your city, gay Jews were not allowed to march in the gay rights parade hold a flag with the star of david, because they said they were a pro palestinian march...
So jewish gays are not welcomed. That is hate and intolerance.
Whether we are talking about white supremacist or ANTIFA, they are both violent and both have a similar message.
You have got to be kidding.
Read the Newsweek article
I did.
I don't believe the gay rights parade in Chicago was antifa, although I could be wrong.
Refusing Israeli flags in the parade seems to be a political restriction, not one based on race creed or color. I dont think Jews were barred from the parade.
John
Its a gay rights parade. You either allow both groups to march unfer their flags or no flags at all. You don't allow one while excluding the other
I am not saying it was fair.
Saying that this instance shows that white supremacists and those who oppose them on the streets are "similar" is not fair either.
John what I am saying is that within the good protesters are ones that are no different than the neo nazis. Their message is one of hate and intolerance
Yes, I know, everything that is bad on one side has to be equally bad on the other side. I know Perrie. I have heard it all before.
everything that is bad on one side has to be equally bad on the other side. I know Perrie. I have heard it all before.
Hearing is one thing. Actually understanding is another.
Are you still for just hearing ?
huh?
Huh ?
I understand much better your way of thinking now !
glad to hear it
Now the BIG question. Did YOU understand what you heard ?
Sorry to have misled you. I don't play these senseless ping pong games.
In other words, You choose NOT to understand.
I understand !
Isn't violence for political purposes bad John? In several postings you have tried to minimize antifa and other left wing violent groups. Why defend political violence done by anyone? Violence only begets more violence and hate. Isn't there already enough of that?
Saying that this instance shows that white supremacists and those who oppose them on the streets are "similar" is not fair either.
Supporting violence from either side is still supporting violence. Do you think there is good political violence and bad political violence?
Do you think there is good political violence and bad political violence?
I've answered that in another comment …
But let's not call any act of violence "good" or "bad" … rather, let's distinguish between violence as a "justified last/only remaining alternative" vs. "political violence to advance or maintain its own political/ideological objectives".
Those are clearer distinctions IMO.
I share your distinctions on violence.
I was curious how John would express himself since he has gone out of his way to diminish the left's political violence.
Hold on a second. This was to be a pro-Palestinian march and people showed up with Israeli flags and expected to be welcomed by the organizers? Don't you see the provocation intended by that? It was a political stunt by AIPAC types designed to disrupt the rally's intent, P-H.
Yesterday John.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/08/18/i-hope-trump-is-assassinated-a-missouri-lawmakers-facebook-comment-leads-to-calls-for-her-resignation/?utm_term=.d02606074952
The Maxine Waters wannabe will be ousted from the MO legislature. From the area in St. Louis she represents she will try to claim it's racism that got her booted. They keep electing Lacy Clay even though he is a hater who "inherited" his father's congressional seat. Think of him as the male version Maxine Waters of the midwest.
Since she also has been rebuked by the Dem leadership and AirClaire McCaskill she will be gone.
Tell you what, Dean … Unequivocally I repudiate any suggestion, implication or outright call for the assassination of any elected official!
NOW, DEAN, I WANT YOU TO REPUDIATE THE GENOCIDE PERPETRATED BY THE THIRD REICH AND THE NEO NAZIS, WHITE SUPREMACISTS, KKK MEMBERS/SYMPATHIZERS AND ALT-RIGHT "PEOPLE" WHO, IN ESSENCE CALL FOR THE ELIMINATION OF JEWS, BLACKS AND OTHERS!
You "two-wrongs-make-a-right" folks know exactly why you post such stuff … .
And so do I.
The inset on comments instead of comments being numbered makes it hard to have context of the comment being replied to. That is something I miss about the vine. Like you I have started to include a portion of the comment I am responding to.
This is the comment by John I think Dean was replying to. Please correct me if I got it wrong:
When was the last time a politician dog whistled anarchists?
If it were then his link would be an appropriate response. The pol was "dog whistling" a violent action by others. The MO politician is despicable and will be removed this fall when the legislature convenes.
I am proud to commend your comment condemning those who would wish death to any politician. Thank you for that!
Antifa has a few thousand adherents in a country of 330 million people. There is , without doubt tens of millions of white racists.
What a load of crap. Every video of thses incidents I'v seen show more anti-fa masked fighters as Klansman.
According to the far left propaganda machine SPLC, there are only 5,000-8000 members of the Klan in the country. Given the source's history, it means there's probably less than half that.
No one said turning this left leaning country to the right would be easy or painless.
but their message of redressing white grievance is one that can spread far and wide if not contained and diminished. Racism is the threat here , not anarchy . There isn't even a remote equivalency.
The LEFT and their Anarchy type dreams Created and Got Trump Elected. You don't have to be part of the KKK, or any other so-called hate group for that matter, to be fed up with the status quo' of constant giving and taking at an expense funded by those that aren't "Supremacists" types !
You see, regular folks can get fed up after awhile Too !
This article just proves that the ANARCHIST LEFT still doesn't get it.
Is there anyone who has participated in this thread who would posit an EQUIVALENCE BETWEEN NAZIS AND JEWS IN THE …
Warsaw Ghetto Uprising
The Warsaw Ghetto Uprising was the 1943 act of Jewish resistance that arose within the Warsaw Ghetto in German-occupied Poland during World War II, and which opposed Nazi Germany's final effort to ... Wikipedia
I would like members of the media ask Jared Kushner and all Jewish members in the Trump Administration that question. And I am asking any NT member who has come to this discussion to respond with a "YES" or a "NO" (with no equivocation).
Is the U.S. being invaded by itself ?
Everybody has an equal right to free speech and, if the right is meaningful, it must include the right to say what others don't want to hear. However, an equal right to free speech doesn't mean that the content of all speech is equal. I agree that racist speech is reprehensible and should be opposed as such. But when one side thinks that opposing the content of speech includes the right to stop the other side from speaking, then they threaten to undermine democracy itself. When either side engages in violence to silence the other, then they are wrong and they are still wrong no matter how reprehensible they find the speaker.
Well said!