Though it has been around for years the “antifa” (anti-fascist) movement gained national prominence following its actions opposing neo-Nazis and KKK members at the Unite the Right alt-right rally in Charlottesville, which left a woman dead. As the specter of officially-sanctioned far-right activity rises in the age of Trump, leftists are debating the proper role of violence, if any, in opposition to right-wing extremism.
The Resistance, 2017
Ted Rall
Ted Rall is a syndicated political cartoonist for Andrews McMeel Syndication, WhoWhatWhy.org and Counterpoint. He is a frequent contributor to The Wall Street Journal, a graphic novelist and author of many books of art and prose, and an occasional war correspondent. He is, recently, the author of the graphic novel "The Stringer."
28 Comments. Leave new
This is the game which was described by Brigadier Frank Kitson in his book, “Gang-Countergang Warfare,” a form of counterinsurgency in which a disgruntled and immiserated population is manipulated into taking sides in an orchestrated conflict that effectively prevents them from opposing their real oppressors.
Is this like how the militias to fight gangs in Mexico never manage to realize the government works with and against the gangs, causing as much harm as they do?
One moment, they are hosing down a bus and handing students over to a gang to be mass graved, the next they are rounding up tons of poor people for possibly being in a gang.
There are times when pacifists should take up the sword, but this isn’t one of them. The neo-Nutzis are *looking* for a fight. Milo Yiannopoulous loves the publicity and talking points he gets when protesters turn violent.
Let ‘im talk, but in the words of the late Robin Williams, “joke ’em if they can’t take a fuck.”
“In 2005 the National Socialist Movement chapter in the Northwest paraded a dozen or so sieg-heiling brown shirts around the state Capitol steps in Olympia. It was supposedly a recruiting session for the coming “race war,” the group said.
But instead of shouting or, worse, attacking, protesters dressed up as Nazi clowns to mimic the rally. Ever seen a Nazi clown goose-stepping? It was like “Springtime for Hitler!” Neiwert says after a time onlookers seemed to forget about the deflated white nationalists entirely: “That was the most striking defeat I’ve ever seen dealt to neo-Nazis.”
Quoted from this article: http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/the-best-way-to-fight-neo-nazis-is-to-laugh/
I agree, when crazy leftists attack anyone, conservatives will feel some compulsion to pick the other side.
Same goes for fascists and leftists feeling compelled to pick the other side.
Let us not choose one of the sides on the Eastern Front, and instead stop giving these people attention by which they use to recruit.
Is the gist of this message: “Fight fire with fire”?
One man’s «freedom fighter» is the next man’s «terrorist». The neo-Nazis regard themselves as the «resistance», fighting courageously against those dastardly Bolsheviki who have taken over «their» country….
«O wad some Power the giftie gie us
To see oursels as ithers see us!»
Henri
Excellent article poking holes in and fun at the Neo-Nutzis:
http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-pieces-good-news-about-recent-surge-nazis/
One might want to note as well that if one is going to engage in combat, the most effective mode is through military organization, that is, dictatorship and totalitarianism. It doesn’t matter who you think you are theoretically, in the end it’s what you do that matters.
The US should never have gone to war against Nazi Germany because that made us as bad as they were.
Discuss.
I ain’t no history scholar — I’m a languages specialist. But as I understand it, once the Germans declared war against the USA (in retaliation for the declaration of war against Japan, their ally), the USA had no recourse. The decisive factor was forcing Japan into a corner with the oil embargo that provoked Japan into action, all of which could have been avoided. Did I miss something? Cut-and-dried it ain’t.
The embargo of Japan, cutting off their necessities of life, was an act of war per my understanding of international law.
FDR struggled to turn American anti-war sentiment by provoking an attack from Japan by means of this US act of war, and then called it a surprise attack.
This was a disingenuous morality play, taking a stance of righteous moral indignation, and perpetrating a fraud on the people in another example of “theater of war”.
FDR turned a boatload of Jews fleeing Nazi Germany away from refuge in the US.
On the other hand, I have on a couple of occasions been subject to an unprovoked verbal attack, and rather than wait for a sneak attack from the attacker, chose to spit in the face of the attacker to force immediate escalation. I preferred to risk a punch in the face now over taking a punch at some unknown time and place of his choosing.
I feel for someone who fears being caught alone by a group of racist fascist thugs. This is not a fantasy game, but real situation with real life consequences.
There is a difference between the former and latter scenarios; the first was for capitalist interests and the second was for survivalist interests.
Mein verehrter Lehrer, I hope you will pardon me here for being perhaps a little – but not entirely – off topic and asking for your reaction, as a resident of Mexico, to the events described in this recent New York Times article….
Henri
@mhenriday –
“I hope you will pardon me here for … asking for your reaction, as a resident of Mexico, to the events described in this recent New York Times article….”
*
As a resident of Mexico but not a citizen, I am prohibited by law from engaging in political activity, an action that could result in my expulsion. Still, I find it interesting that “The Zapatistas, the most powerful political rebels in Mexico in nearly 100 years, are renouncing armed revolution, after decades of opposing the government….” (The cartels provide violence enough to satiate everyone.)
Especially noteworth is the following: “‘We couldn’t care less about the presidency; all we want to do is crash the election party and ruin it,’ said Mr. González, the spokesman.”
“So many people forget that the first country the Nazis invaded was their own.” – Dr. Abraham Erskine, 1942
The Germans had the right to determine how their government operated, and the US had no right to interfere with that process. But then Germany started practicing genocide and invading other countries. Then the US had not only the right but the obligation to go to war against that country. (belatedly – the Brits and the Dastardly Russians had more do to with defeating them, but I digress)
We – the US citizenry – have the right to determine how our government operates. I sincerely hope we can do so in a peaceful manner. While I prefer mocking Nutzis to shooting them, I do stand ready to shoot them if they do not proceed in a peaceful manner.
Perhaps the Nutzis will prevail, practice genocide, and invade other countries. At that point the rest of the world would have not only the right, but the obligation, to go to war with this country.
Hysterical Note: Contrary to popular pseudohistory, the GOP were the ones who wanted to play nice with the Nutzis ‘cuz money. Granpappy Bush profited greatly from Jewish slave labor, yet somehow he was never called up at Nuremberg.
«The embargo of Japan, cutting off their necessities of life, was an act of war per my understanding of international law.» Difficult to say, Glenn, as we must here take into account «international law» at the time ( e g, the passage of the Export Control Act of 1940 ), which differs from «international law» post-WW II, which presumably, under the UNO Charter, prohibits war, save as an immediate response to an attack by another country – something which, as we all know, the US has been violating ever since that time. One thing that must be kept in mind when discussing US actions is that back in 1932 Japan had created a puppet state, the so-called «Manchukuo» on Chinese territory and from 1937, was engaged in a full-scale war on the rest of China and from 1940 on Indochina, then under Vichy French control. All of these actions, of course, would be certainly considered as violations of «international law» as understood today (unless done by the US). I am reminded of Thoukydides observation, which he puts into the mouths of the Athenian envoys to Melos (the men of which they proceeded to slaughter, selling the women and children into slavery : «Right, as the world goes, is only in question between equals in power, while the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must»….
There are few innocents in international affairs….
Henri
To Glenn,
The US did not go to war with the Nazis.
It let the USSR take care of that.
When Hitler was defeated, we appeared in dramatic, if incidental, style to, essentially, affect a high level management take-over, retaining key employees, and move HQ from Berlin to Wash DC.
The US vaporizing perhaps a half-million people, only to show the USSR who was boss, clearly proved that control of fascist ideology had passed to the most deserving candidate.
Perpetual war since and amassing a virtual empire of 800 military bases, in 2/3 of the countries of the world, likely did not even occur in Hitler’s wildest dreams.
December 11, 1941, the United States Congress declared war upon Germany.
But not against the Nazis, you imply, because you differentiate Germany from the Nazis, a point worthy of consideration.
And it was the USSR that won the war against Germany, and not the US, contrary to popular Hollywood propaganda.
To Glenn,
Re: Germany/Nazis, I am rarely that subtle!!!
Re USSR: China was an indispensable ally in the US defeat of Japan but immediately after the war became an enemy, as did the USSR.
(Note wars in Korea, Viet Nam.)
«Re USSR: China was an indispensable ally in the US defeat of Japan but immediately after the war became an enemy, as did the USSR.» The USSR, which in response to Roosevelt’s urging at Yalta, entered the war against Japan three months to the day after the victory in the War in Europe (Stalin had wanted six months to transport his troops from one end of that huge country to the other), and swept through Manchuria like a hot knife through butter, was likewise an indispensable ally in the defeat of Japan. Rather than the A-bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima, it was the Soviet entry into the war that convinced the Japanese Supreme War Council that the war was irrevocably lost and that the Potsdam terms had to be accepted unmodified…
One had to wonder what the immediate post-war world would have been like if Roosevelt in 1944, instead of dumping his vice-president since 1941, Henry Agard Wallace, and choosing Harry S Truman (for whom Roosevelt had nothing but contempt) to run on his ticket, had kept Wallace, who would then have become president on Roosevelt’s death on 12 April 1945. I suspect it would have been very different from the world which the Truman administration, with the president very much under the influence of Admiral Leahy and the latter’s vision of the apocalyptic struggle against Communism, shaped. Alas, we shall never know….
Henri
Glenn / Falco
re: “differentiate Germany from the Nazis, a point worthy of consideration.”
Indeed. Historically, one country has gone to war with another. But then, historically countries were ruled by kings who had the power to declare war regardless of whether the little people wanted it. [Insert famous Goering quote]
That’s just the way things were right up until G.W. Shithead declared war on an emotion. Sounds stupid, but maybe it’s time to rethink the whole idea of “war.” We’ve got nothing against *all* of Afghanistan, why declare war on all of Afghanistan? (not that we did, but the idea still holds)
We’ve sorta-kinda declared war on ISIS, that might be a defensible response – assuming they are a threat to us (they aren’t)
Which brings me around to our homegrown Nutzis. Using the same logic, could we not declare war on them? (posse comitatus notwithstanding – it’s not like we’ve never violated it before)
They *are* a terrorist organization by any sane definition of the term.
Ted, it’s simply a question of the greater number of options available today, compared with 1940. In 2017, I am informed, one can be a member of the «Resistance» by donating monthly to the Sierra Club, and one can «fight back» be subscribing to the Nation. These alternatives, alas, were not available to dissatisfied citoyen/nes in Paris in 1940….
Henri
I’m sure everyone’s heard about the ruckus in Berkley by now:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/08/28/black-clad-antifa-attack-right-wing-demonstrators-in-berkeley/
Part of me says, “HA hahahahahaha!”
Another part dreads the fallout. The Nutzi scum carry assault rifles for a reason – they’re just itching to use them. Somebody’s gonna get shot; and the shooter will claim self defense. OTOH, the victim may have one life to give for his country – too bad for him, good for the country.
I often imagined the creation of a public figure blatantly devoid of any sense of fairness and justice, simply to see if there is anything remaining in hidden within American cultural nihilism that could possibly be aroused to oppose someone as openly and obviously evil as Trump.
The experiment is on.
The Nazis in Charlottesville weren’t invading countries. They weren’t even beating people up until the “antifascist” (and they really deserve the scare quotes) started the fight. So stop pretending that it’s heroic resistance to beat people up on the street. Antifa aren’t as bad as the Nazis, they’re worse. They are totalitarian thugs who want to use violence on all those who oppose them and pretend their enemies are part of a hated group. The difference is that the Nazis are smart enough to know we won’t buy it when they say everyone they beat up is a communist. Antifa expects us to believe everyone they beat up is a fascist. Not that it matters.
> “antifascist” started the fight …
WHAHAHAHAHAAhaha … you just won the award for stupidest comment of the month. How can an “anti” *start* a fight? There must be something there to oppose in the first place. And who are they opposing? Pathetic little whiners who have conclusively shown that they are incapable of being housebroken, let alone civilized.
> [antifas] are totalitarian thugs who want to use violence on all those who oppose them and pretend their enemies are part of a hated group.
uhhh, right … You can tell by the way that they wear fatigues, carry assault rifles, burn crosses on peoples’ lawns, participate in lynchings, drive cars into crowds and shoot down innocent teenagers in the street.
> The difference is that the Nazis are smart enough to know we …
HAHAHAHAHA (second stupidest comment of the month) You’re too stupid to realize just how stupid you sound to normal people. You *claim* to be superior to The Other while at the same time you’re so scared of them that you’re pissing your little pink panties.
Those of us who can count to twenty with our shoes on have got you sussed. You’re not convinced you’re superior; you’re worried that you’re inferior.
Let me put those fears to rest: you are indeed inferior.
When I read the garbage to which you responded, I thought (briefly) of writing a retort of my own. Realizing that anything I might say would be “water off a duck’s back,” I chose not to respond. I’m glad, because you did a much better job than I would have. 🙂
I’ve been bored since Jerk Hard left. Now I get a new one to play with. The poor little snowflake is sobbing into his mommy’s skirts as we speak…
BWAhahahahahaha!
Here we see a member of the Master Race disciplining an uppity nigga.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uyK6io7VQnU