Terrorist Attacks Thread

[Aber gas]

Punch Nazis people.

 

[Ian_Wrexham]

Anyone who has ever argued that antifascists are as bad as fascists can get straight to fuck tbh.

Rest in power Heather Heyer

 

[smat]

Some cops crashed a helicopter there too, two of them were killed.

What a stupid way to die.

 

[AFCB_Mark]

The more entrenched. toxic, and emboldened the left and right at the extremes get over there, given the proliferation of weapons, at some point it's going to result in an absolute blood bath. I've seen some bits pointing out that some of the weaponry banded around by civilians over the weekend was more powerful and advanced than that held by the police FFS.

Protest and counter protest is one thing, clashes between them with a few punches is one thing, a bloody car being used as a weapon is of course another, but if it keeps going there will become a literal warzone.

 

[JaseTheVillain]

American Civil War Part 2? Unlikely, but getting more and more likely by the minute at the same time.

 

[smat]

The more entrenched. toxic, and emboldened the left and right at the extremes get over there, given the proliferation of weapons, at some point it's going to result in an absolute blood bath. I've seen some bits pointing out that some of the weaponry banded around by civilians over the weekend was more powerful and advanced than that held by the police FFS.

Protest and counter protest is one thing, clashes between them with a few punches is one thing, a bloody car being used as a weapon is of course another, but if it keeps going there will become a literal warzone.

Agreed Mark. What the American left needs to do is get around the table and negotiate sensibly with the white supremacist Nazi right.

 

[Aber gas]

The more entrenched. toxic, and emboldened the left and right at the extremes get over there, given the proliferation of weapons, at some point it's going to result in an absolute blood bath. I've seen some bits pointing out that some of the weaponry banded around by civilians over the weekend was more powerful and advanced than that held by the police FFS.

Protest and counter protest is one thing, clashes between them with a few punches is one thing, a bloody car being used as a weapon is of course another, but if it keeps going there will become a literal warzone.

Thing is Mark it's not both sides. The folk there with the automatic weapons were members of Nazi militias. The guy using a car to murder people is a unashamed Nazi. To think that this an escalation from both sides is wrong. Can you imagine the police response if those guys with guns had been antifa, BLM? The fact that Nazis feel emboldened enough to march around a US city carrying assault rifles should be a massive wake up call to anybody not already aware of the threat posed by these people.

 

[AFCB_Mark]

Arguing the far left is better or nicer than the far right. Ok. But is that a solution?

The entrenchment of one feeds the other. We saw how toxic and polarised the America election was even in the mainstream, which ridiculous rhetoric all over. Anecdotally I saw for myself at a family wedding near the time, how much hatred there was between mid southern Republicans and Coastal liberals, within the same family. They pretty much had to be pulled apart, family member from fellow family member. That's at the mainstream rather than the extreme. And If that's not civil war territory, I don't know what is. It appears to have only gotten more entrenched since, and it pushes people of left and right further left and right, once moderates into the arms of extremes. History tells us this well enough.

In this country when you have protest and counter protest, a few punches get thrown, the police move in and pull people apart, fine. But over there, what are the authorities supposed to do when the people marching have automatic weaponry.

Without wishing to stereotype I've no doubt there's more than a few paid up NRA members within the far right. But one way or anoter shots will get fired on one side and then the other side will arm up and retaliate. It's head in sand stuff to pretend that nobody in the far left owns a weapon given the prolification. And to think they wouldn't protect themselves if push came to shove.

Agreed Mark. What the American left needs to do is get around the table and negotiate sensibly with the white supremacist Nazi right.

I know you'll think me a wishy washy centrist, and that's fine I probably am. I don't know what the answer is Smat, I'm just rambling I'm afraid. There's going to be some people involved in that Nazi march who are hardened scum beyond the reach of civilised discourse. They'll be others who probably aren't beyond saving if a more conciliatory approach could be taken to their political discourse in general. The whole thing needs ratcheting down before the lid blows. Of course one President Trump isn't likely wanting or able to do that. The whole thing worries me hugely, not least for family I have over there.

 

[Aber gas]

Arguing the far left is better or nicer than the far right. Ok. But is that a solution?

The entrenchment of one feeds the other. We saw how toxic and polarised the America election was even in the mainstream, which ridiculous rhetoric all over. Anecdotally I saw for myself at a family wedding near the time, how much hatred there was between mid southern Republicans and Coastal liberals, within the same family. They pretty much had to be pulled apart, family member from fellow family member. That's at the mainstream rather than the extreme. And If that's not civil war territory, I don't know what is. It appears to have only gotten more entrenched since, and it pushes people of left and right further left and right, once moderates into the arms of extremes. History tells us this well enough.

In this country when you have protest and counter protest, a few punches get thrown, the police move in and pull people apart, fine. But over there, what are the authorities supposed to do when the people marching have automatic weaponry.

Without wishing to stereotype I've no doubt there's more than a few paid up NRA members within the far right. But one way or anoter shots will get fired on one side and then the other side will arm up and retaliate. It's head in sand stuff to pretend that nobody in the far left owns a weapon given the prolification. And to think they wouldn't protect themselves if push came to shove.




I know you'll think me a wishy washy centrist, and that's fine I probably am. I don't know what the answer is Smat, I'm just rambling I'm afraid. There's going to be some people involved in that Nazi march who are hardened scum beyond the reach of civilised discourse. They'll be others who probably aren't beyond saving if a more conciliatory approach could be taken to their political discourse in general. The whole thing needs ratcheting down before the lid blows. Of course one President Trump isn't likely wanting or able to do that. The whole thing worries me hugely, not least for family I have other there.

It's not about arguing who's "nicer" it's about the fact that armed Nazis are killing people on the streets. The cognitive dissonance required to equate Nazis with the "left" is astonishing.
You don't have to imagine or have any doubt about armed Nazis marching the streets because they're right in front of you wearing swastikas and carrying assault rifles.

At what point do we stop conceding ground to these people and their "legitimate concerns" ? At what point do we stop being conciliatory in the face of calls for genocide? People are still saying "ahh, they're not real Nazis" as they wave swastika flags and viciously assault black people for being black.
It's not about being left or centrist it's about understanding that these people are a massive danger to all of us and must be stopped.
I remember you calling me hyperbolic for calling Trump a fascist. After the travel bans, the hiring of white supremacists, the extra judicial killings, the unconstitutional deportations, the language provoking race hate, the suppression and harassment of the press and now armed Nazis killing people do you still think the same?

 

[AFCB_Mark]

It's not about arguing who's "nicer" it's about the fact that armed Nazis are killing people on the streets. The cognitive dissonance required to equate Nazis with the "left" is astonishing.
You don't have to imagine or have any doubt about armed Nazis marching the streets because they're right in front of you wearing swastikas and carrying assault rifles.

At what point do we stop conceding ground to these people and their "legitimate concerns" ? At what point do we stop being conciliatory in the face of calls for genocide? People are still saying "ahh, they're not real Nazis" as they wave swastika flags and viciously assault black people for being black.
It's not about being left or centrist it's about understanding that these people are a massive danger to all of us and must be stopped.
I remember you calling me hyperbolic for calling Trump a fascist. After the travel bans, the hiring of white supremacists, the extra judicial killings, the unconstitutional deportations, the language provoking race hate, the suppression and harassment of the press and now armed Nazis killing people do you still think the same?

What ground has been conceded? Far as I can tell, in general the American right has pulled right and the left has pulled left. No ground has been conceded by either. The result of that is an increase on the extremes, that's what I'm trying to say. The "left" isn't responsible for Nazis wondering the streets, which I think you're trying to imply me saying, those hardened on the far right are responsible for that. But that more people are moving towards their banner, is fed by this growing lack in central consensus, I believe.

Absolutely agree they're a massive danger, but how does it stop is a better point.

Regarding Trump being a fascist - it's a fair question as yes I've said that. I could argue that Obama's record in extra judicial killings and deportations was pretty extensive, if you can attribute those statistics to the sitting president. Trump's appointments I absolutely give you, there's been some incredibly shady characters. How much of that is Trump, and how much of that is the GOP machine I'm not sure. There's no doubt, as I've been trying to say, that the right is moving right over there, just as the left is moving left. And it's dangerous when you throw a proliferation of arms into the mix, with a political discourse that certainly is becoming ever more fascist in the dictionary sense of intolerance. Though I'm probably being hyperbolic myself worrying about proper violence. Hopefully.

 

[Aber gas]

What ground has been conceded? Far as I can tell, in general the American right has pulled right and the left has pulled left. No ground has been conceded by either. The result of that is an increase on the extremes, that's what I'm trying to say. The "left" isn't responsible for Nazis wondering the streets, which I think you're trying to imply me saying, those hardened on the far right are responsible for that. But that more people are moving towards their banner, is fed by this growing lack in central consensus, I believe.

Absolutely agree they're a massive danger, but how does it stop is a better point.

Regarding Trump being a fascist - it's a fair question as yes I've said that. I could argue that Obama's record in extra judicial killings and deportations was pretty extensive, if you can attribute those statistics to the sitting president. Trump's appointments I absolutely give you, there's been some incredibly shady characters. How much of that is Trump, and how much of that is the GOP machine I'm not sure. There's no doubt, as I've been trying to say, that the right is moving right over there, just as the left is moving left. And it's dangerous when you throw a proliferation of arms into the mix, with a political discourse that certainly is becoming ever more fascist in the dictionary sense of intolerance.

You've said in your previous post that these people on the march aren't hardcore scum and if a more conciliatory approach to them was used they wouldn't be Nazis anymore. So which of their demands do we need to consider? Jewish media influence? Genocide? Legalising lynchings? When you take a conciliatory discourse with these ideas you legitimise them. There should be no tolerance for these people. They have to be confronted on the streets, in the media and in day to day life. Every right thinking person be they left, centre or conservative needs to make it known that they will not stand by and accept these people.

 

[AFCB_Mark]

I think you're missing my point Aber. Or maybe I'm not articulating it very well. You don't consider the paid up Nazi's demands because they are going to be a) horrific but b) immovable. But for example you can build consensus around the centre-right, and stop the 'recruitment' or uptake of people to the far right. The latter legitimises the extreme if there's little of the former. But with a centre in general both left and right that appears to be shrinking or moving apart, at least if rhetoric is anything to go by, it plays into the hands of extremes.

 

[Aber gas]

I think you're missing my point Aber. Or maybe I'm not articulating it very well. You don't consider the paid up Nazi's demands because they are going to be a) horrific but b) immovable. But for example you can build consensus around the centre-right, and stop the 'recruitment' or uptake of people to the far right. The latter legitimises the extreme if there's little of the former. But with a centre in general both left and right that appears to be shrinking or moving apart, at least if rhetoric is anything to go by, it plays into the hands of extremes.

There already is a nominally centre ( at least mainstream) consensus in American politics. The GOP are in power and the democrats are far to the right of what we'd consider centrist so I'm not sure of your point. The conservatives aren't exactly hounded for their ideas and pretty much dominate discourse. I'm not sure how much more conciliatory we it can get when both major parties and the majority of the media support a centre right agenda. What more do these folk want to not be Nazis?

 

[Ebeneezer Goode]

"they're bigger c*** then we are!"

 

[.V.]

"they're bigger c*** then we are!"

We're talking about actual Nazis. You don't think that argument doesn't have any merit? Presumably you don't have any positive thoughts about the Battle of Cable Street?

 

[Ian_Wrexham]

Put bluntly, Mark, there's no danger of a civil war in America between the left and the right because the US left is in no position to fight one and would get crushed if it tried.

There are no left militias. Police forces (which are heavily infiltrated by the far right) have access to military-grade equipment. US unions aren't strong or independent enough to take swift and decisive action to shut down right wing mobilisations.

If there was a left-wing uprising, it would be crushed ruthlessly by the artillery units and helicopter gunships of the local sheriff's department.

I have immense respect for US antifascists given the violence they suffer from both the police and state, but they have their hands full containing an extreme right that is largely armed with sticks and shields.

The US antifascist left are fighting for their own survival at the moment and they deserve our full solidarity.

 

[Ebeneezer Goode]

We're talking about actual Nazis. You don't think that argument doesn't have any merit?

I don't think anybody disputes that Neo-Nazis are idiots, but what that has to do with the dangers of Antifa and the extreme Left I'm not quite sure. Just because they call themselves anti-fascists that doesn't mean they're diametrically opposed to those people, in reality they're just a different flavour of hateful authoritarians that discriminate based on political beliefs instead of religious ones and/or ethnic background. Sure we can make the argument that that's not as objectionable as what the far-right does, but what for? It's not an either/or proposition. We don't have to support one or the other.

 

[Ian_Wrexham]

*very clippy the microsoft paperclip voice*
It looks like you're writing fascist apologia. Need some help?

I don't think anybody disputes that Neo-Nazis are idiots

I don't think they're idiots, per se, I think they're dangerous fascists whom our collective liberation is bound up in opposing. I think to an extent they are defending their class interests, although more significantly they have taken concepts that Western society is founded upon - white supremacy, colonialism, nationalism - further than mainstream discourse would currently tolerate.

, but what that has to do with the dangers of Antifa and the extreme Left I'm not quite sure. Just because they call themselves anti-fascists that doesn't mean they're diametrically opposed to those people, in reality they're just a different flavour of hateful authoritarians

Antifascists are anti-authoritarian. In fact, the reason that we collectively oppose fascists is that we do not trust the state (insert the word "bourgeois" in front of that if you're a Leninist) to defend our interests. History has shown that the state has been only too happy to deploy fascists to disrupt strikes and crush radical working-class organising. History has shown that cops are riddled with fascist sympathisers, and frequently work in tandem with them, or turn a blind eye to their activities.

As such, anti-fascism has to be a key component of any radical left political project.

that discriminate based on political beliefs instead of religious ones and/or ethnic background.

When a political belief is "we want to violently subjugate people of colour, lgbt people and leftists" I think it's entirely valid to discriminate against them.

Sure we can make the argument that that's not as objectionable as what the far-right does, but what for? It's not an either/or proposition. We don't have to support one or the other.

I think you do. You're either in favour of working-class people defending themselves and their political interests or you're with the aggressors. If you oppose anti-fascism, you're at the very best giving fascists space to operate and at worst are a collaborator.

 

[.V.]

I don't think anybody disputes that Neo-Nazis are idiots, but what that has to do with the dangers of Antifa and the extreme Left I'm not quite sure. Just because they call themselves anti-fascists that doesn't mean they're diametrically opposed to those people, in reality they're just a different flavour of hateful authoritarians that discriminate based on political beliefs instead of religious ones and/or ethnic background. Sure we can make the argument that that's not as objectionable as what the far-right does, but what for? It's not an either/or proposition. We don't have to support one or the other.

So do you condem the people who fought the fascists in the Battle of Cable Street or not?

 

[Cornish Piskie]

What we are discussing here is the polarisation of a debate that has been going on in America for a number of generations and is founded on central principles. Liberals vs Conservatives... it's a reasonable social debate and covers most popular issues of concern. These include same sex marriage, abortion, religion, the death penalty, global warming.... the list goes on.

Each side has a number of core principles to which they adhere. Let's take an example:

Same Sex Marriage: Liberals support same sex marriage, saying it is the union of people who love each other regardless of sexual orientation. They oppose the proposed creation of a constitutional amendment establishing marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Prohibiting same-sex citizens from marrying denies them their civil rights.

Conservatives argue that marriage is the union of one man and one woman. They support the Defence of Marriage Act (DOMA), passed in 1996, which affirms the right of states not to recognize same-sex marriages licensed in other states. Requiring citizens to sanction same-sex relationships violates moral and religious beliefs of millions of Christians, Jews, Muslims and others.

Such a debate is well within the parameters of a reasonable national discussion and is part of the American tradition of free speech.

OK... thus far, we're on sensible ground and in my opinion this accounts for the overwhelming majority of Americans who have a view on political matters.

Now, let's make a point about the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution. The Second Amendment does not give citizens the right to keep and bear arms, it only allows for the state to keep a militia (National Guard). Individuals do not need guns for protection; it is the role of local and federal government to protect the people through law enforcement agencies and the military.

What this means is that the mass arming of pseudo political groups is outside of the law and could be interpreted as subversive. The FBI have the authority to deal with this and if the political will existed, would have the lawful powers to do so.

What we have seen in Charlottesville is an extreme and in my opinion gatherings such as this one display a level of violence disproportionate to the numbers involved.

The people have a right to free assembly and peaceful protest and this is being exploited by those whose principle aim is to provoke a reaction from those opposed to them. They are not a political group. Essentially, they're anarchists.

I don't believe for one minute that anybody in the Far Right group who took part in events at Charlottesville had one jot of interest in a statue of Robert E Lee being removed. This was simply an excuse to mobilise in large numbers to cause gratuitous mayhem.

There is no real political doctrine behind any of these far right groups except for hatred of negroes, homosexuals, muslims and other alleged "undesirables". If they were given a platform to debate in a genuine political forum their argument would be quickly ripped to shreds. They know this and rather than put forward a political manifesto they resort instead to rabble rousing and mayhem. They're one trick ponies.

They've been around a long time, but have become emboldened to escalate their activities since Donald Trump became President, by his rhetoric, his bluster and his extreme form of Nationalism. Comments like "Make America Great Again" have been manipulated and this and comments like it have become a rallying cry.

In my opinion, State Governors should consider mobilising trusted elements of the national guard whenever intelligence is received of a planned demonstration by either side of the polarised groups. Practices such as "Kettling", while undesirable, have been found to be effective in keeping conflicting groups apart at demonstrations.

America has a great tradition of free speech, liberty and the right to assemble. These things must be protected, but they have to be balanced against the possibility of loss of life or the risk of anarchy. If splitting a demonstration up into smaller groups, keeping them apart and surrounding them with large numbers of National Guard and trained riot police is what it takes, then do it. The demonstrators can still make their point.... liberty is preserved.... they can be dispersed in small groups.....and nobody dies.

Nothing can work though without political leadership and organisation, and effective non-partisan policing. The former is not present at this time and the latter may be difficult to achieve given the nature of the American policeman. But containing the troublemakers while still allowing them the right to demonstrate is what should be aimed for.


Things cannot be allowed to spiral any further out of control.

 

[Aber gas]

What we are discussing here is the polarisation of a debate that has been going on in America for a number of generations and is founded on central principles. Liberals vs Conservatives... it's a reasonable social debate and covers most popular issues of concern. These include same sex marriage, abortion, religion, the death penalty, global warming.... the list goes on.

Each side has a number of core principles to which they adhere. Let's take an example:

Same Sex Marriage: Liberals support same sex marriage, saying it is the union of people who love each other regardless of sexual orientation. They oppose the proposed creation of a constitutional amendment establishing marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Prohibiting same-sex citizens from marrying denies them their civil rights.

Conservatives argue that marriage is the union of one man and one woman. They support the Defence of Marriage Act (DOMA), passed in 1996, which affirms the right of states not to recognize same-sex marriages licensed in other states. Requiring citizens to sanction same-sex relationships violates moral and religious beliefs of millions of Christians, Jews, Muslims and others.

Such a debate is well within the parameters of a reasonable national discussion and is part of the American tradition of free speech.

OK... thus far, we're on sensible ground and in my opinion this accounts for the overwhelming majority of Americans who have a view on political matters.

Now, let's make a point about the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution. The Second Amendment does not give citizens the right to keep and bear arms, it only allows for the state to keep a militia (National Guard). Individuals do not need guns for protection; it is the role of local and federal government to protect the people through law enforcement agencies and the military.

What this means is that the mass arming of pseudo political groups is outside of the law and could be interpreted as subversive. The FBI have the authority to deal with this and if the political will existed, would have the lawful powers to do so.

What we have seen in Charlottesville is an extreme and in my opinion gatherings such as this one display a level of violence disproportionate to the numbers involved.

The people have a right to free assembly and peaceful protest and this is being exploited by those whose principle aim is to provoke a reaction from those opposed to them. They are not a political group. Essentially, they're anarchists.

I don't believe for one minute that anybody in the Far Right group who took part in events at Charlottesville had one jot of interest in a statue of Robert E Lee being removed. This was simply an excuse to mobilise in large numbers to cause gratuitous mayhem.

There is no real political doctrine behind any of these far right groups except for hatred of negroes, homosexuals, muslims and other alleged "undesirables". If they were given a platform to debate in a genuine political forum their argument would be quickly ripped to shreds. They know this and rather than put forward a political manifesto they resort instead to rabble rousing and mayhem. They're one trick ponies.

They've been around a long time, but have become emboldened to escalate their activities since Donald Trump became President, by his rhetoric, his bluster and his extreme form of Nationalism. Comments like "Make America Great Again" have been manipulated and this and comments like it have become a rallying cry.

In my opinion, State Governors should consider mobilising trusted elements of the national guard whenever intelligence is received of a planned demonstration by either side of the polarised groups. Practices such as "Kettling", while undesirable, have been found to be effective in keeping conflicting groups apart at demonstrations.

America has a great tradition of free speech, liberty and the right to assemble. These things must be protected, but they have to be balanced against the possibility of loss of life or the risk of anarchy. If splitting a demonstration up into smaller groups, keeping them apart and surrounding them with large numbers of National Guard and trained riot police is what it takes, then do it. The demonstrators can still make their point.... liberty is preserved.... they can be dispersed in small groups.....and nobody dies.

Nothing can work though without political leadership and organisation, and effective non-partisan policing. The former is not present at this time and the latter may be difficult to achieve given the nature of the American policeman. But containing the troublemakers while still allowing them the right to demonstrate is what should be aimed for.


Things cannot be allowed to spiral any further out of control.

They do have a political doctrine. It's fascism and white supremacy and they're quite happy to celebrate it and debate it in the mainstream. See, I disagree with this idea that we can somehow stop them with reasonable debate. They couldn't care less if you think they're wrong, they revel in it. It legitimises them. Every time Milo or Spencer gets to debate their vile ideas without getting punched in the face it once again emboldens their base. Tbh, how one goes about debating whether black genocide is a desirable course of action with someone who vehemently believes that is beyond me and I'd hope most of the people here with a few obvious exceptions.
Your point about firearms is a good one but is there a will on the behalf of the authorities to disarm these Nazis? It's a fucking terrifying thought but there are a good few politicians happy with the sight of armed Nazis marching. Torches and swastikas included. I include the president in this.

 

[Laker]

I didn't even know there was a true left wing in America. I've always considered Democrats to be about as right as our Tories and Republicans even further right. I think that mindset is wrong but my general perception is that America is "more right" than us.

Trump's now denounced the violence, he needs some lessons in his immediate response to things like this to make his eventual comments seem remotely genuine.

 

[Martino Quackavelli]

Lest we forget the most influential and (by membership) the largest ever terrorist group was the KKK.

 

[The Paranoid Pineapple]

Very uncomfortable with any view that sees anti-fascist protesters as equivalent to Nazis and white supremacists. Think it only serves to minimise the actual physical violence and dangerous rhetoric of the latter group.

Actually think I detest this US administration even more than I thought I would. The President's a terrifyingly thick, dangerous c*** of a man.

 

[Craig]

Totally doesn't count. Fake news.

I've been to Charlottesville and it's hard to believe that this is happening there. They took all those type of statues down in New Orleans and there wasn't this reaction. Almost as if those Nazi c*** didn't want to pick a fight with a large black population with a local police force who could contain them.

Very similar reaction to the removal of the statues in New Orleans. Several clashes and death threats made to the contractors who removed them. Statues were taken down in the early hours of the morning by workers having to wear masks and bullet proof vests watched by a considerable police presence.

As you say it was probably mainly due to the fact the authorities in New Orleans would have been more prepared for this kind of thing than a comparatively small town like Charlottesville that a major attack was averted.

 

[Ebeneezer Goode]

Antifascists are anti-authoritarian. In fact, the reason that we collectively oppose fascists is that we do not trust the state (insert the word "bourgeois" in front of that if you're a Leninist) to defend our interests. History has shown that the state has been only too happy to deploy fascists to disrupt strikes and crush radical working-class organising. History has shown that cops are riddled with fascist sympathisers, and frequently work in tandem with them, or turn a blind eye to their activities.

When a political belief is "we want to violently subjugate people of colour, lgbt people and leftists" I think it's entirely valid to discriminate against them.

These two positions are intrinsically at odds with one another. You can't seek to stifle or punish non-violent free expression with public and state violence and then also claim to be anti-authoritarian. It's also the case that a large number of the people that anti-fascists attack are not fascists at all.

I think you do. You're either in favour of working-class people defending themselves and their political interests or you're with the aggressors. If you oppose anti-fascism, you're at the very best giving fascists space to operate and at worst are a collaborator.

I don't oppose anti-fascism, I oppose some of the groups and individuals that identify themselves anti-fascist. That's not the same thing. You don't need to be some knuckle dragger deluding yourself that the street violence you engage in is righteous to take fascist politics apart any more than you do to defeat any other political ideology. It's a great shame that we're so insecure about our democracy that we'd seek to ban any political group from marching or existing. Islam4UK and National Action were the thin end of the wedge, don't be surprised when some Hard Left groups are next, it'll only take one nutter to give the state the pretext they need...

We're talking about actual Nazis. You don't think that argument doesn't have any merit? Presumably you don't have any positive thoughts about the Battle of Cable Street?

If you're asking me to judge the situation based on my contemporary principles then yes, of course. I don't know how useful applying those principles to other points in history is though.

They do have a political doctrine. It's fascism and white supremacy and they're quite happy to celebrate it and debate it in the mainstream. See, I disagree with this idea that we can somehow stop them with reasonable debate. They couldn't care less if you think they're wrong, they revel in it. It legitimises them. Every time Milo or Spencer gets to debate their vile ideas without getting punched in the face it once again emboldens their base. Tbh, how one goes about debating whether black genocide is a desirable course of action with someone who vehemently believes that is beyond me and I'd hope most of the people here with a few obvious exceptions.

I seriously doubt that homosexual, Jewish, black cock-loving libertarian Milo is a White supremacist or Nazi. You don't need to reach the ideologues, you only need to reach the general public, which we have been doing fine for decades. What changed was not an absence of militant leftists, it was the rise of "progressive" puritanism and rampant globalism. Trump wasn't elected because people are more racist now, he was elected because he promised to change this and Hillary promised to perpetuate it.

 

[Ian_Wrexham]

These two positions are intrinsically at odds with one another. You can't seek to stifle or punish non-violent free expression with public and state violence and then also claim to be anti-authoritarian. It's also the case that a large number of the people that anti-fascists attack are not fascists at all.

Speech is a projection of the power that allows that speech to be heard. As such, political discourse isn't a marketplace of ideas where the best one wins out, but a constant struggle between rival discourses to gain access to the positions where they can drown out the others.

A Telegraph columnist might claim his right to free speech should prevent his column being censored*, but my right to the same free expression he enjoyed is censored by my lack of a telegraph column. So he can advance positions that cannot be rebutted except by people who also have newspaper columns**.

So we need to be aware that the right to free speech is like the right to own a yacht - a freedom that is theoretically universal but cannot exist universally in the state - because of social inequalities and power-relations that the state's existence is contingent upon.

The radical left know only too well that at the point where our politics win out and threaten the state's existence or even threaten to mildly reform social relations within it, the state will not "respect our right to free expression" and will in fact have us killed or jailed. Historically, they either just make up charges, or use extrajudicial killings rather than directly criminalise our expression so as to preserve their own founding myths, though sometimes they will completely abandon the liberal state and allow fascists to control it.

Two hundred years and thousands of bodies of our martyrs lie as testament to that. Fred Hampton's theoretical right to free expression meant nothing when he was shot in the back of the head by Chicago PD, nor Rosa Luxemburg's when she was tortured and murdered by fascist paramilitaries at the behest of the Weimar government. Joe Hill's free speech meant very little when he was framed and executed for a murder he didn't commit, nor Medgar Evers when he was murdered by the Klan, with the collusion of the FBI.

There is barefaced hypocrisy in liberals calling us authoritarian for giving people who literally agitate for our deaths bloody noses when they are historically ok with the mass suppression of leftist and anti-imperialist tendencies domestically and to an even greater extent in the global south. When they're happy to preside over mass death in the Mediterranean that is a direct consequence of tightening borders and imperialist wars.

I don't oppose anti-fascism, I oppose some of the groups and individuals that identify themselves anti-fascist. That's not the same thing. You don't need to be some knuckle dragger deluding yourself that the street violence you engage in is righteous to take fascist politics apart any more than you do to defeat any other political ideology. It's a great shame that we're so insecure about our democracy that we'd seek to ban any political group from marching or existing. Islam4UK and National Action were the thin end of the wedge, don't be surprised when some Hard Left groups are next, it'll only take one nutter to give the state the pretext they need...

Historically, militant antifascism has been the best way of defeating fascism. Group 43 smashed the Mosleyites after the war with a ferocity and intensity that would give today's liberals a heart attack. The Asian Youth Movements and British Black Panthers destroyed the NF as a political force and Anti-Fascist Action kicked the BNP bodily out of their organising bases in the East End. More recently, an attempt to unify the most extreme far right groups in Britain floundered in the face of extreme resistance from antifascists in Dover.

If AFA turned up on the Isle of Dogs talking about Socialism in 1993, the BNP would have beaten the shit out of them. That's the reality of your "marketplace of ideas". Winning the battle on the streets is a component part of winning the battle of ideas - because you can't advance your ideas if your mouth is full of knuckles.

And FWIW I don't support state bans on fascists. This sums up my feelings on it quite well.
https://www.vice.com/en_uk/article/9b8ja7/is-banning-neo-nazi-groups-actually-going-to-be-effective

* Good luck claiming "free speech" if he wants to criticise the Barclays, though.
** The state, of course, recognises that this power imbalance exists and hence that's why libel laws exist.

 

[Ian_Wrexham]

Looool

 

[PuB]

If you try to tell people you're a white male these days, they lock you up and they throw away the key.

 

[.V.]

If you try to tell people you're a white male these days, they lock you up and they throw away the key.

Of course they do