Antifa Militants Ready To Break Bones, Invade Homes

Hot take: Not everything is chicago

Even hotter take: The reason why "but chicago" is so popular as a thought terminating cliche among the right-wing is because it acts as a dogwhistle for calling black people inherently violent. If you call them racist they'll act outraged and point to very real crime statistics as if you're talking about that and not the narrative they're intentionally crafting and the connotations it holds. Chicago has a crime problem, but the reason it's an object of obsession is due to the racial connotations the discourse around it has taken on.

I'm not sure what exactly you're trying to communicate.

And I've also read Muhammad Ali's account of the astonishing lack of racial prejudice he experienced in the USSR. Going to go ahead and take eyewitness accounts with a grain of salt.

That said, radical movements aren't immune to prejudice, but it's disingenuous and historical erasure to act like communism and ethnic minorities don't have close historical ties. W.E.B. Dubois, MLK, Malcolm X, Frantz Fanon, Fred Hampton, Assata Shakur, and many others viewed Capitalism as being inherently racist.

Not all rioters are anarchists. Most of them are just people who are fed up and don't know what to do about it. They are unheard and demand to be heard.

"I want to commit genocide" and "I'm going to beat the hell out of you if you try to promote an organization that aims to commit genocide" are pretty different. Advocating for genocide is fighting words, and you shouldn't he surprised if you get the tar knocked out of you for shooting of your mouth to the wrong people about it.

Whether or not you agree with violence, if you think that someone's going to march around a synagogue screaming holocaust denial and not get a boot to the head you're a moron.

To hammer my point home: Ask Cornel West and Reverend Traci Blackmon's congregation what they think of the anarchist and communist antifascists that saved their lives from a violent crowd of fascists. The police didn't help them because the police don't care, the FBI has documented how the police have been systematically infiltrated by white supremacist groups over the past few decades. We can't rely on the authorities.

I don't value nonviolence in the face of violent enemies..

Stalinism is insufficiently socialist. The basic relationships that define capitalism still exist under stalinism- the employer is merely replaced with the state and the wage laborer still works for a wage. It's capitalism with a communist face. I despise statecraft anyway.

Communism doesn't mean anyone's taking away your damn toothbrush.

Libertarianism's sole and core belief is that deregulating the private sector is good, which can be rephrased as "Any restrictions on the private sector are bad".

Libertarianism is never going to benefit normal people because we don't have control over our own lives. It hurts to admit it, but we don't. We're at the mercy of our employers because we depend on our paychecks and we're kept in a constant state of insecurity. The growth of information technology has meant that nobody can escape the telephone by leaving their home, there is now no excuse for not being constantly on call. In many industries, certainly the service industries my generation will be trapped in until our deaths or the end of capitalism, whichever comes first, not taking a shift your boss calls and asks you to do means getting written up or fired, and it doesn't matter if that's illegal in some places because they don't give a ****, what are you going to do, hire a lawyer on a tipped wage?

I can't take credit for that particular turn of phrase, that's a saying of the hosts of Chapo Trap House.

Individualism vs collectivism is a false dichotomy. Conditions that allow the individual to flourish must also be ones that enable a social existence. Believing in individualism but not collectivism is like believing in steps but not staircases.[/QUOTE]

 

And not all anarchists are rioters...

There are smarter and more constructive ways of making yourself heard. Destroying the businesses in your neighborhood isn't going to elevate life in your community.

Daniel Patrick Moynihan made an interesting observation back in 1965 when America's "Great Society" and " War on Poverty" welfare programs were being enacted in Washington, and I think you can see what he warned about in the rioting that has taken place in the last few years (if not longer):

From the wild Irish slums of the 19th century Eastern seaboard, to the riot-torn suburbs of Los Angeles, there is one unmistakable lesson in American history; a community that allows a large number of men to grow up in broken families, dominated by women, never acquiring any stable relationship to male authority, never acquiring any set of rational expectations about the future -- that community asks for and gets chaos. Crime, violence, unrest, disorder -- most particularly the furious, unrestrained lashing out at the whole social structure -- that is not only to be expected; it is very near to inevitable.

Indeed, there is an enormous difference between speech and violence, and here in the United States a dumbass shooing off his mouth doesn't give another dumbass a right to assault him.

I get what you're saying, in general, but in specific I'm seeing two groups of violent, insecure idiots who deserve one another. In that respect I enjoy watching them wail on each other.

Not really. People have a right to express their abject stupidity in this country.

I agree that we can't rely on the authorities, and what happened in nearby Charlottesville is the flip side of the coin where you have a couple of opportunistic Leftist scumbags in Michael Singer and Terry McAuliffe permitting protests to turn violent in order to advance their own personal and political agendas.

Neither do I when actual violence is involved.

I guess that would be one of the few articles of private property communists would be magnanimous enough to permit me to possess.

That's not true. Libertarians recognize and accept the need for laws and regulations. It is excessive government and regulation that libertarians oppose.

I reject the proposition that we don't have control over our own lives. As I see it, the problem with Libertarianism, as with Communism, is that both ideologies demand too much from people.

I can see the validity in that observation, even though it overlooks many things, but let's face it - human beings have always lived in a constant state of insecurity, and communism hasn't changed or rectified that, nor can it. As you well know, the collectivization programs in many communist states only led to increased insecurity and the deaths of millions due to starvation, etc..

I would think that most Americans, like myself, are not constantly on call. I understand that many people are in that position but I would state that one of the reasons why we have government agencies to regulate businesses and their conduct is to prevent and remedy the abuses you talked about. In the scenario you cited, a person doesn't need to hire a lawyer.

And what makes you think you and the rest of your generation is going to be trapped in the service industry? I waited tables, amongst many other things, when I was younger and I didn't remain trapped in that vocation.

That depends on your definition of "collectivism". I can believe in individualism and still support the public and private structures and institutions that enable our society to serve our needs and help those who need help (and I do).

 

Might as well destroy businesses. They're part of the systemic problem. The conditions the man you quote complains about has godawful analysis that ignores how material conditions create these factors.

"I'm going to kill you" is speech that warrants violence. "I'm going to kill your entire race" shouldn't be any different, but apparently you think so.

I don't care. I see one side with swastikas screaming about how the jews won't replace them and I'm on the side of the people opposing them. This shouldn't be a question anyone has to anguish over. Fascism is a cancer. You don't sit down and have a chat with cancer You get rid of it as quickly as possible. You might die anyway, but at least die throwing a few punches. Don't die talking to cancer.

I'm against absentee ownership, not personal ownership. If you actually intend to use a thing and it makes a difference in your life, keep it. If it's nothing but numbers in a portfolio for you to passively gain income from, it should be seized.

Profit is a drug. You aren't going to stop cash junkies from doing scummy things by deregulating. That just makes it easier for them to get away with acting like there's no regulations.

I reject the proposition that we don't have control over our own lives. As I see it, the problem with Libertarianism, as with Communism, is that both ideologies demand too much from people.

I'm aware famines happened in famine prone regions with long histories of disastrous famines within a few years of communists taking power. Almost like the countries in question were undeveloped backwaters. You'll notice that life expectancy and education dramatically shot up once time enough passed for improvements to be made.

I'm no defender of Marxism-Leninism, but I criticize it on the basis of how it inadequately diverges from capitalism based on the whole of its development rather than repeating talking points.

I'm a millennial. We have no real opportunities or future. Our very humor is tinged with surrealist nihilism and often expresses suicidal sentiments because we know better than to expect things to get better. Our precarity is permanent. The industrial jobs are gone and the demand for white collar work is so low that service work is all we can reasonably expect. You probably haven't worked service in the information age.

 

No offense to you personally, but if what you say is true, and you people were the generation of majority during the Depression, the US (and then the world) would have collapsed.

You make your future. Blaming others is lazy and dishonest.

 

The post-war recovery was inevitable. America was the only undamaged industrial power. There is no potential avenue of recovery now

 

I speak of the time before and during the war.
You make your future. Blaming others is lazy and dishonest.

 

Yeah what's up with that? You'd think ' TotallyFa' as you call it would have burned Richmond to the ground after the statues were destroyed, after all wasn't Richmond the capitol of the Confederacy?

 

Here's more:

http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/350524-antifa-activists-say-violence-is-necessary

Antifa activists say violence is necessary
BY KATIE BO WILLIAMS - 09/14/17 06:30 AM EDT 11,545
12,010

Antifa Movement On The Rise After Trump's Charlottesville Remarks
Autoplay: On | Off
Anti-fascist activists, or “antifa,” increasingly mobilized in the wake of President Trump’s election, are unapologetic about what they describe as the necessary use of violence to combat authoritarianism.

While both experts on the movement and activists within it emphasize that not everyone who participates in anti-fascist activism engages in violence, they say the use of force is intrinsic to their political philosophy.

“The justification [of the use of violence] is that Nazi ideology at its very core is founded on violence and on wielding power by any means,” said Mike Isaacson, one of the founders of Smash Racism D.C., an antifa organization in Washington.

Isaacson is unequivocal in his defense of violence as a legitimate tool to combat the creeping threat of what he deems authoritarianism.

“There is the question of whether these people should feel safe organizing as Nazis in public, and I don’t think they should,” said Isaacson.

“I don’t think anyone should think that someone who is intent on politically organizing for the sake of creating a state-sponsored genocide — I don’t think is something that we should protect,” he said.


Antifa activists justify their use of violence as self-defense against “the inherent danger of fascists organizing,” according to Mark Bray, a Dartmouth historian and author of a recent book on the movement.

“The argument is that it needs to be stopped immediately, because if you let it grow, that poses a danger to society,” Bray said.

Dubbed the “alt-left” by President Trump, antifa has increasingly been making their presence known after his victory in the 2016 election was openly embraced by white supremacists.

On Sunday, antifa protesters hurled glass bottles and bricks at police officers monitoring a far-right march in Portland, Ore.

And the University of California, Berkeley, is bracing for the possibility of more violent clashes on Thursday, when conservative political commentator and former Breitbart editor Ben Shapiro is scheduled to speak.

There is no central organizing committee governing antifa, and different affiliated groups have different priorities and governing principles, making it impossible to gauge the growth of the movement in the wake of the election.

But activists and law enforcement sources say anecdotally that their numbers have almost certainly swelled. Jim Pasco, executive director of the Fraternal Order of Police, the nation’s largest law enforcement union, told The Hill that he has “for sure” seen rising interest in the movement since Trump’s election, noting that six months ago he had never even heard of antifa.

As early as 2016, the Department of Homeland Security and the FBI warned state and local officials that antifa had become increasingly confrontational and were engaging in “domestic terrorist violence.”

While Bray says antifa focuses mostly on nonviolent activities, such as researching white supremacists and disrupting their efforts to organize, the movement’s more violent methods — and its use of so-called black bloc tactics, where activists wear black masks and clothing to conceal their identity — have drawn fierce criticism from the right and divided the left.
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), for example, has condemned antifa’s use of violence.

Liberal activist Cornel West, in contrast, said that antifa activists saved him and other counterprotesters in Charlottesville, Va., from “being crushed like cockroaches” by "alt-right" demonstrators.

The antifa movement traces its roots to militant leftists who combated fascism in the streets of Europe in the 1920s and 1930s. The movement saw a revival in response to neo-Nazi activity in the U.K. and Germany in the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s.

The philosophy was first transposed to the U.S. in the 1980s by anti-racist activists in Minneapolis, according to Bray, and while its popularity has ebbed and flowed since then, there are several current groups that have been around for almost 10 years. Rose City Antifa in Portland, Ore., for example, was established in 2007.

If the loosely affiliated network of far-left activists can be said to have a creed, it is to combat what it sees as fascism wherever it occurs.

Rose City Antifa defines fascism as “an ultra-nationalist ideology that mobilizes around and glorifies a national identity defined in exclusive racial, cultural, and/or historical terms, valuing this identity above all other interests (ie: gender or class).”

Antifa also tend to be deeply mistrustful of the police and often overlaps ideologically with anarchism, a political philosophy that Isaacson defines as a society built on cooperation and mutual aid. Isaacson, who is an anarchist, argues that in order to be successful, anti-fascism has to operate outside of government.

“Getting state involved in this is no better than letting the Nazis go free,” he said, pointing to the Virginia State Police response to the violence at the white supremacist rally in Charlottesville, which many protesters and counterprotesters criticized as too slow.

Activists, including Isaacson, claim that police departments and the military have been infiltrated by Nazis and “have them kind of on their side.”

Pasco insists that police officers are agnostic as to whether a person committing a crime is antifa or "alt-right."

“We don’t really have a perspective on [antifa] because it’s not really a movement — it’s kind of an amorphous group of people,” Pasco said.

“Nobody gets policed unless they need policing — there are just not enough police officers in the United States to satisfy the vanity of those who believe they are under constant surveillance,” he said.

Others see evidence of a disproportionate police response to antifa activists, such as those who criticized law enforcement in Portland for firing rubber bullets and stun grenades into a crowd of antifa protesters on Sunday.

“The way law enforcement has reacted to the protests far exceeds the amount of danger involved, particularly when we talk about violence at far-right protests — because there is a long and deep history of murderous violence coming out of the far-right movements that continues up to today that far exceeds anything associated with antifa,” said Mike German, a former FBI agent who works on law enforcement issues at the Brennan Center for Justice’s Liberty and National Security Program.

Antifa’s use of violence continues to dominate the national conversation. In January, shortly after a black-clad protester attacked the far-right activist Richard Spencer, The New York Times mused: “Is it OK to punch a Nazi?”

Isaacson, for his part, has not engaged in the use of violent tactics himself, “if for no other reason than I’m rather slight of frame,” he said with a chuckle.

“I’m not so good in a fight,” he said.

 

Here's more:

http://dailycaller.com/2017/09/14/c...es-antifa-violence-and-jokes-about-dead-cops/

Criminal Justice Professor Justifies Antifa Violence And Jokes About Dead Cops
Photo of Ian Miles Cheong
IAN MILES CHEONG
Contributor
7:11 PM 09/14/2017

Mike Isaacson, a professor at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice and a co-founder of the Antifa organization Smash Racism D.C., promotes political violence. In a series of tweets, he also laughed at dead police officers.

Isaacson shared his support of political violence in an interview with The Hill Thursday, which was pointed out by Far Left Watch. The article, which explores the Antifa movement and its proponents in academia, got a few choice quotes from the professor.

“The justification [of the use of violence] is that Nazi ideology at its very core is founded on violence and on wielding power by any means,” Isaacson said.

“There is the question of whether these people should feel safe organizing as Nazis in public, and I don’t think they should,” he continued. “I don’t think anyone should think that someone who is intent on politically organizing for the sake of creating a state-sponsored genocide — I don’t think is something that we should protect.”


Antifa supporters like Isaacson share the belief that Donald Trump is a white supremacist whose actions will move the United States towards fascism. Violent actions against the police and domestic terrorism are therefore justifiable as acts of political resistance. It is important to note Isaacson’s definition of “fascism,” however.

Isaacson notably refers to “anti-communism” as “code for fascism.”


In other words, anyone who opposes communism, such as capitalists, are fascists in his view.

The professor says antifa violence is “necessary” for social progress.


In his view, antifa supporters are akin to soldiers who fight in defense of their nation’s survival.


Isaacson, who teaches future police officers, has made jokes about killing his students — presumably those he foresees himself battling against in the streets as an Antifa supporter once they become cops.


At its heart, antifa is not merely a backlash against the supposed rise of fascism in the United States. As The Daily Caller has previously reported, Antifa is an ideological movement based on Marxist principles that calls for violence in the name of “social progress” and “social justice.”

Ian Miles Cheong is a journalist and outspoken media critic. You can reach him through social media at @stillgray on Twitter and on Facebook.

 

Behold the Nazi sympathizers in this thread....

 

Behold, those who support suppressing free speech they don't like with violence...

 

Too bad Hitler was unopposed. Oh wait, that was a good thing for you guys.

 

I see the Mindless Nonsense Patrol has arrived.

 

So Hitler was opposed? Explain.

 

YOUR side are the ones behaving Hitleresque.

 

Hitler would be really proud of the left wing Antifa terrorist group.

 

Imagine, a street lined with shops - each of them flying a swastika, with a "no Jews" sign on the door.
Imagine, the antifa terrorists, in the middle of the night, shattering all the windows and doors with bricks, rocks, whatever.
Imagine, the supportive reaction from the left, fully oblivious to the irony.

Not hard to do, is it?

 

Umm... Where?

Unless you mean Antifa fascists, you're gonna be hard-pressed to find examples from the right.

 

So, I've read all your posts in this thread. I can see that you're a smart guy. I have to believe that if you read these quotes, you can see the contradictions. On one hand, you complain about (financial) insecurity. On the other, you would eliminate the possibility of attaining it.

 

Do you even realize what a nihilistic and futile gesture that is?

Riiiiight.

The people who own and work at the crappy little convenience store you just burned to the ground are trying to make a living just like everyone else. Now they get to go home and tell their wife and kids that they can no longer pay the rent, put food on the table and keep the lights on because some fool scapegoated them for the "systematic problem".

He wasn't ignoring anything and despite your own flawed analysis his prediction came true. Clearly, there was some merit to his observations and predictions.

You're right - I don't think speech alone warrants or legitimizes violence of any kind. If you say you''re going to kill me and/or my race I'm going to tell you to go **** yourself. If you say you're going to kill me and then ACT on it I'm going to blow your head off.

What you don't seem to realize is that you become a cancer when you respond to speech with violence. If you want to be better than them you have to BE better than them.

So, you're arguing that people's Individual Retirement Accounts should be seized? What business is it of yours whether someone stuffs their retirement money between their mattresses or invests it in a product or service?

Like I said before, regulations aren't a problem. It's excessive regulation that's a problem. I don't need the government lording over every aspect of my existence and I assume you don't need that, either.

Natural disasters are one thing, but ill-conceived and executed collectivization programs, especially the ones that coincide with state-orchestrated campaigns of mass murder and ethnic cleansing such as what happened with the Holodomor, are not natural disasters.

I will acknowledge the improvements that were made in parts of the Communist Bloc during the 20th Century, but I don't think Communism was necessary to remedy the problems in those countries and I don't think the people had to pay such an extraordinarily high price to obtain those improvements.

I'm a Gen X'er so I'm well aware of the problems that the post-Baby Boomer generations face. The lack of opportunity is real, but the Boomers are retiring and dying off so that is going to open up opportunities for younger Americans. Furthermore, there are existing and emerging opportunities that are/will be open, but it's up to individuals to do what they have to do to seize and take advantage of those opportunities. If you wait or rely on others to seize those opportunities they will elude you.

However, it would be lazy to blame everything on demographics. First of all, we no longer live in the post-WWII Golden Age when most of America's competition in the industrialized world lay in ruins and the economies in undeveloped nations were still struggling to emerge. There's more economic competition in the world than ever before and there's going to be even more competition in the future. Secondly, to compound the matter, Americans at every level of society made a litany of mistakes that led to the loss of industrial, manufacturing and technological jobs in our country.

As for myself, it has been a long time since I worked in the service (and construction) sectors, but I worked long and hard to pull myself up from the bottom of the economic ladder and now I'm enjoying the fruits of my labor. Another thing I haven't told you is that ideologically I wasn't a lot different than you in my youth, however, unlike yourself, I was around to watch the catastrophic failure of Communism and all the lives it dragged down with it. I have friends who endured life in the Soviet Union, Czechoslovakia and Bulgaria, and my wife was living in another country that no longer exists - West Germany - when the Berlin Wall fell. It's fortunate that your generation didn't have to experience this but it's unfortunate that you haven't learned from it. I guess there's no substitute for experience, but these are things you guys are going to have to learn for yourselves as you grow older.

 

You mean Soros ... yes he is.

 

As long as you see yourself as a victim, you will be a victim. And the ruling class that you want to see in power and whose boots you will lick as they put them to your neck want you to remain a victim. It's how they exploit you and profit from you. Be a sheep, and the shepherds will always be around to shear you and the sheep dogs around to make sure you don't get away. Free people are not victims. So long as you are a victim, you are a slave.

 

As long as they don't use chain saws.

 

What is the replacement for "the state"?

Is it anarchy or another state?