A Defense of the Antifa

For John, BLUF:  Cure worse than the disease.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Who are the antifa?

This Opinion Piece in 16 August 2017 edition of the The Washington Post is by Dartmouth College history lecturer Mark Bray (He has a forthcoming book, Antifa: The Anti-Fascist Handbook).

Here is the sub-headline:

President Trump equated them with white supremacists.  Here's why he’s wrong.

Professor Bray then goes on to show why President Trump is correct.

For a start, why do we think people in masks represent the good guys?  When I was growing up it was the bad guys who worse the masks.  But let us look further.

Its adherents are predominantly communists, socialists and anarchists who reject turning to the police or the state to halt the advance of white supremacy.

Lets parse that:

• From my understanding of history, Communists are folks who enforce their socio-economic faith on others by force, killing millions, killing more than even Fascists.
• Socialists may well be a peaceful political crowd, as in much of Europe, but it is the extremism of Socialism (for instance, Communism and National Socialism) that give us problems.
• Anarchists, as I remember from school, tend to be violent and to prefer "propaganda of the deed".  They are associated with murders, including bombings, sort of like Daesh, today.

But, surely they are fighting evil?  However, what do they offer in the long run?  As we see above, evil.

Backt to writer Bray:

The vast majority of anti-fascist organizing is nonviolent.  But their willingness to physically defend themselves and others from white supremacist violence and preemptively shut down fascist organizing efforts before they turn deadly distinguishes them from liberal anti-racists.

I say an EMail this morning talking about North Korea and addressing its nuclear capabilities in terms of "preemption" and "preventive war".  The EMail writer was distinguishing between the two, arguing that one would be justified, but not the other.  Is Mr Bray really saying "preemption" or is he saying "preventive"?♠  I doubt he knows.

Then there is this:

Antifascists argue that after the horrors of chattel slavery and the Holocaust, physical violence against white supremacists is both ethically justifiable and strategically effective.  We should not, they argue, abstractly assess the ethical status of violence in the absence of the values and context behind it.  Instead, they put forth an ethically consistent, historically informed argument for fighting Nazis before it’s too late.

I am with Mr Bray on the horrors of chattel slavery, which is worse than indentured servitude, which some of my predecessors experienced coming to the new world.  However, chattel slavery has been around for a while.  How else do you think the pyramids were built?

However, Mr Bray does not talk about if we should intervene in slavery in other parts of the world today.  That is an important question.  Slavery is today a multi-billion dollar business.  Should Daesh enslavement of Yazidis, particularly Yazidi women, be met with military action?  Should it be met with action by the Antifa?

An ethically consistent argument for violence would include the suppression of those who would advocate one of the worst forms of slavery, Communism.

This is all rubbish.

Well, it is also evil as virtue signaling.

Worst of all President Trump was correct.

Don't get me wrong.  Fascism is to be resisted.  It is just that the antidote being offered is worse than the cure.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

♠  I would say Preemption is if someone is winding up to throw a punch, but prevention is if they are walking down the street, but might throw a punch.