It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: oloufo
a reply to: Diisenchanted
it's fascinating to see people living in their bubble. and its sad. because you are the real sheep and you dont even know it. you are helping the far-right to grow. did your grandfather fight against nazis or against antifacists? tell me. do you realize that all this neonazis around the world are celebrating folks like you? they celebrate trump, they celebrate putin, they celebrate breitbart and all this crap. they celebrate them, because they spread chaos and fear. we do have antifa in germany, yes, and sometimes cars burning and windows get smashed. i know some activists. they sometimes act stupid, but they never killed anyone in opposite to neonazis and racists. so, why you people dont stand up against the far-right-movement? i dont get it.
originally posted by: seeker1963
Burn some books then! Maybe it will make you feel better?
I support the Constitution and Freedom and Liberty, if you are against that? Then I guess you and I or your comrades will square off when the time comes?
so even back then we were having pretty much this exact convo with mostly the same results
For as long as there have been fascists, there has been debate over the way to respond to them. In his new book, Antifa, historian and organizer Mark Bray traces various leftist anti-fascist movements from the 1930s Europe to the “Antifa” movements we see on the streets today. The history of anti-fascism, it seems, is stuck on repeat, with the same arguments over free speech and uncompromising resistance cropping up repeatedly. Disruption—sometimes violent disruption—has been central to anti-fascist action from the beginning. Many Jewish anti-fascists in Britain argued, “fists can be put to better service than propelling pens.” Communist anti-fascist papers in Germany read, “Hit the fascists wherever you meet them!” and “Wherever a fascist dares to show his face in the quarters of the working class, workers’ fists will light his way home. Berlin is red! Berlin is staying red!” But others were quick to rebuff these tactics. After the Battle of Cable Street, the older Jewish generation argued that the anti-fascists were “copying the Nazi violence which we loathe and detest.” They thought Jews should take the moral high ground and “show the world that the Jew can be as good a citizen as anybody else.” Some political groups issued leaflets arguing for “Dignity, Order, and Discipline.” Rather than facing off with the fascists, those who opposed fascism should attend a rally in support of the Spanish Republic nearby instead, they argued. Fascism could be quashed through legal and electoral means.
really really really long article about the history of antifa
The movement has shrunken continuously since the late 1990s, fragmented across ideological lines and unable to adjust its original autonomist strategies to shifting patterns of urbanization and the rise of right-populism. Its most promising products of late — the mass mobilizations against neo-Nazi marches in cities like Dresden, as well as the formation of a new, distinctively post-autonomist current in the form of the Interventionist Left — mark a departure from rather than a revival of classical Antifa strategy. Antifascism has surged to the fore of debates on the American left under Trump’s presidency, and many of the tactics and visual styles of the German Antifa can be seen emerging in cities like Berkeley and elsewhere. Some argue that with the arrival of European-style neo-fascist movements on American shores, it is also time to import European Antifa tactics in response. Yet the Antifa of today is not a product of a political victory from which we can draw our own strength, but of defeat — socialism’s defeat at the hands of Nazism and resurgent global capitalism, and later the exhaustion of the autonomist movement in the wake of the neoliberal turn and the sweeping gentrification of many German cities.
even vox wants antifa to tone it down a bit and talks about how it plays right into trumps hands
The attack on peaceful right-wing protesters has once again invigorated debates over the use of political violence — discussions that go back to a protester punching white nationalist Richard Spencer in the face during rallies against President Donald Trump’s inauguration. Such violence violates longstanding political norms in the US, and many Americans find any political violence deplorable — but it’s now a topic of conversation nonetheless. The argument for antifa activists is that the current crop of right-wing protesters — which are partly but not entirely made up of neo-Nazis, KKK members, and other white supremacists and nationalists — are so extreme that they must be stopped swiftly and even violently. Antifa supporters worry that if these groups’ views aren’t completely robbed of any kind of platform, they could gain legitimacy — and take advantage of democratic ideals like free speech to, ironically, promote their undemocratic messages. Violence is one way to get them off the stage. What this view misses is the backlash that may come from political violence: that such violence can reinforce right-wing views about the left. As Michael Kazin, a history professor at Georgetown University and editor of Dissent magazine, told me earlier this year, “[N]on-leftists often see [the left] as a disruptive, lawless force. Violence tends to confirm that view.” Antifa’s violence plays into Trump’s hands Some of this backlash is already happening. Consider how Trump himself reacted to Charlottesville. He drew a lot of (justified) criticism for arguing that “both sides” had been behind the violence in Charlottesville, instead of pinning the blame on the white supremacists who swarmed the Virginia city and caused mayhem. But one reason Trump could draw up this false equivalence in the first place is because antifa protesters have been carrying out violence against right-wing groups for months now. As Peter Beinart reported in the Atlantic, antifa activists have violently protested right-wing speakers like Milo Yiannopoulos and conservative political scientist Charles Murray. In the Yiannopoulos protests in particular, antifa activists even threw explosive Molotov cocktails and other objects at police. When far-left protesters act violently, it gives Trump and other conservatives more ammunition to draw equivalencies between the far left and far right — even if it is a false equivalence, given that America has a long history of racist violence and very little, by comparison, of left-wing violence. And this argument seems to be working for a lot of people. A poll earlier this month by SurveyMonkey found that while 46 percent of US adults said far-right protesters were mostly to blame for the violence in Charlottesville, 40 percent agreed that the blame fell equally on both sides and another 9 percent blamed counterprotesters. (Although another poll found that a majority of Americans still disapproved of Trump’s reaction to Charlottesville.) This wouldn’t be the first time violence has led to a conservative backlash in the US. During the 1960s, there were hundreds of riots across America in protest of police brutality and in support of civil rights. Experts say the riots were a major contributor to the rise of “law and order” and “tough on crime” policies that followed in the coming decades. These policies made police more aggressive and filled America’s prisons to levels never seen before in US history. In short, the perception of lawlessness led both Americans and their politicians to demand more stringent law enforcement. Omar Wasow, a political scientist at Princeton University, noted as much in a recent study: In presidential elections, proximity to black-led nonviolent protests increased white Democratic vote-share whereas proximity to black-led violent protests caused substantively important declines and likely tipped the 1968 election from [Democrat] Hubert Humphrey to [Republican] Richard Nixon. Violent protests led to a conservative backlash, while nonviolent demonstrations helped liberals. The paper concludes, “[W]hile violence in response to repression is often justifiable, this research suggest it may not be strategic.”
originally posted by: daskakik
originally posted by: seeker1963
Burn some books then! Maybe it will make you feel better?
That came out of left field.
I support the Constitution and Freedom and Liberty, if you are against that? Then I guess you and I or your comrades will square off when the time comes?
This also has nothing to do with what I posted. Who asked you about what you support?
The FF used guerrilla tactics and so do Antifa. All I said was that someone always complains even if their freedom was obtained using the same tactics, which seems a tad hypocritical.
originally posted by: seeker1963
Came out of left field aye? Like your first comment to me?
I get it! You make excuses for violence when those who are instigating it supports your team.
a reply to: dragonridr
I dont think Americans realize how close democrats and republicans are compared to European standards. How ever socialism is starting to show in US politics so im not sure how long this will be true.
originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: SprocketUK
It's categorized as its own entity. Right Wing extremists committed more terror attacks. Muslim extremists racked up a higher kill count primarily thanks to the Pulse Nightclub massacre. And Left Wing extremists didn't commit any terror attacks.
It's amazing how much this site fears groups like Antifa. Meanwhile a much smaller group like Atomwaffen has killed way more people, has training camps in the desert, and had plans to blow up a nuclear power plant.
originally posted by: AutisticEvo
Comparing the Boston tea partys rebel acts against a foreign nation invading us to reap the rewards of our hard work for their own profit,
With antifa or any left wing #resistance group....
Wow, you really are delusional.
And historically uneducated.
That's like comparing the Nazi party, to the Boston tea party.
Delete your account
originally posted by: AutisticEvo
Oh I saw clearly how you were trying to take things out of context with the op.
And the reasons behind the acts, and what they signify do actually play into it,
I'm not going to bother explaining it to you...
Do not compare two historically unrelated things, that's an automatic fail on your part.
Sad enough you actually thought you could reply and defend your statement with me and try to accuse anyone but yourself of failing to understand.
If you don't know what the difference between what happened back in the day in Boston and what is going on today you need to go to the library and study history
More carefully before you continue on this thread.
Otherwise don't expect anyone to take you seriously
I hope that was a little more clear for you