Darmouth Professor Says Antifa Violence Justified. Pre-emptive Strike against Nazism

The basic justification of violence for the Antifa groups is that democratic institutions have historically proven themselves incapable of preventing the rise of fascists. So, people have to take direct action against fascists groups, which includes violence.

In the US it is easy to think that there is absolutely no way fascists would ever come to power. Every time some white supremacist group holds a rally, the counter protesters out number them by 1000 to 1. So, it is easy to call out the Antifa as overreacting and being more interested in just venting their frustrations with society in general by engaging in street fights with neo-Nazi and bashing in bank windows.

But the line between white supremacists, fascists and neo-Nazis and mainstream right wing Republicans is growing very blurry. Rep. Steven King tweets about not being able to restore our civilization with somebody else's babies in a clear reference to the European white supremacist view that immigration will destroy European society. Donald Trump . . . period.

So what if the white supremacists are really on a rising trajectory similar to the Nazis in the 1930s? If all it took to keep them in check was a bunch of guys in their 20s wearing black and roughing up people at rallies, would that not be preferable to an all out civil war or losing our government to fascists? How many Germans wished that they had disrupted Hitler's rallies and beat on some of his brown shirts instead of assuming that Germans would never let Hitler come to power?

I personally think we are very far away from anything like that. But the Antifa do make a fair point that should not be dismissed out of hand. Right wing groups arm themselves against what they think is a corrupt government. There are many more militia groups who are running around with automatic weapons and actually training in the woods for taking up arms against the government. The Antifa in a way seem pretty tame by comparison.

3hr-marathoner wrote:

...

At some level we have to forget about our political affiliations and trust the experts to do their jobs.

That would work if the experts were not political hacks themselves, but alas, they are. So we must take the political leanings of our experts into account when deciding to act on their advice.

DiscoGary wrote:

3hr-marathoner wrote:

...

At some level we have to forget about our political affiliations and trust the experts to do their jobs.

That would work if the experts were not political hacks themselves, but alas, they are. So we must take the political leanings of our experts into account when deciding to act on their advice.

When it regards politics, yes, absolutely. When it doesn't, no, I disagree. Do you care about the politics or your surgeon? I don't. If they are good at their job, then it's irrelevant. The same goes for the doc's that make vaccines.They are the experts. It's a really risky move to argue that since you distrust academia generally, it's safe to ignore the recommendations of the experts in any given field, in that particular field. Now, when these same experts start spouting off opinions about stuff outside their field, that's completely different. Ignore them then.

If only we violently deprive a FEW people of their rights, we can secure the rights of everyone else. That sounds good, but your own logic reveals the slippery slope you are on.

You claim that it's only a few Nazis who need to be silenced for the greater good, but then immediately tie the Nazis to mainstream Republicans, which widens the scope to 60 million who need to be silenced. So if you can justify silencing Nazis with violence, you can justify silencing mainstream Republicans with violence. We have to break a few eggs right?

Your inability to contain your desire to use violence to silence people you disagree with proves that you are in no position to be making decisions about who should be beaten into silence and who should be allowed to speak their mind.

You seem incapable of seeing that there is no functioning nationwide Nazi movement and that your own desire to use violence on the tiny group of Nazis will only server to make them sympathetic victims, which to your mind will make it look like there MUST be a growing Nazi movement because so many people refuse to join you in your calls for violently depriving others of their rights.

You are fighting a monster which doesn't exist and in the process you can not see that you have become the Nazi monster you accuse others of being.

Precious Roy wrote:

Every time some white supremacist group holds a rally, the counter protesters out number them by 1000 to 1.

Which is quite the hypocritical point, considering that you and many other's continually claim that there is a mass-racist/fascist problem in the United States.

If the number is 1000/1, how did Donald Trump get elected? If white supremacy leads the way, how are they outnumbered 1000/1??? And don't give me some BS that they 'only show up to vote'.

3hr-marathoner wrote:

...

Do you care about the politics or your surgeon?

...

If we have socialized health care run by the government, then I absolutely care about the political leanings of my surgeons. Or more to the point, I care about the leanings of the people who decide who gets health care.

DiscoGary wrote:

3hr-marathoner wrote:

...

Do you care about the politics or your surgeon?

...

If we have socialized health care run by the government, then I absolutely care about the political leanings of my surgeons. Or more to the point, I care about the leanings of the people who decide who gets health care.

maybe in that hypothetical future, but what of the rest of it? Are you really will ignore the top experts in a given field just because that field is predominantly liberal?

DiscoGary wrote:

3hr-marathoner wrote:

...

At some level we have to forget about our political affiliations and trust the experts to do their jobs.

That would work if the experts were not political hacks themselves, but alas, they are. So we must take the political leanings of our experts into account when deciding to act on their advice.

Which might actually work for someone who is unbiased and expert in every relevant subject area. In practice it's often simply justification for ignoring inconvenient facts.

enlighten-er wrote:

If the number is 1000/1, how did Donald Trump get elected?

Because not everyone who voted for Trump is a fascist.

Look, I don't like Antifa either. In an ideal world, there would have been a bipartisan counter-protest against the Nazi march in C'ville. I for one, am thankful that some people stood up to the Nazis. Hopefully next time sane Republicans will join the counter-protest.

Some people see Antifa as a fascist group. If these guys in their 20s continue roughing people up, they will continue to be met with increasing levels of violence, as they should be. Levels of violence will continue to escalate. Nobody is going to lie down while a bunch of twenty-something Antifa tools with too much testosterone attempt to carry out violence with what they believe to be moral impunity.

above_average_joe wrote:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/18/opinion/the-test-of-nazism-that-trump-failed.html

Look, I don't like Antifa either. In an ideal world, there would have been a bipartisan counter-protest against the Nazi march in C'ville. I for one, am thankful that some people stood up to the Nazis. Hopefully next time sane Republicans will join the counter-protest.

Take a look at the picture in the NYT article header, and think critically for a moment.

above_average_joe wrote:

Look, I don't like Antifa either. In an ideal world, there would have been a bipartisan counter-protest against the Nazi march in C'ville. I for one, am thankful that some people stood up to the Nazis. Hopefully next time sane Republicans will join the counter-protest.

The trouble is what is your definition of a nazi? The left's definition includes those clowns at the Nazi march all the way up to Mitt Romney. This one comment alone probably makes me a Nazi in their definition, even though I haven't committed genocide that killed 11 million people. That gives them their moral authority to riot and assault anyone they may disagree with politically.

Aunt Tifa wrote:

Some people see Antifa as a fascist group. If these guys in their 20s continue roughing people up, they will continue to be met with increasing levels of violence, as they should be. Levels of violence will continue to escalate. Nobody is going to lie down while a bunch of twenty-something Antifa tools with too much testosterone attempt to carry out violence with what they believe to be moral impunity.

The fascists of the future will be called anti-fascists.

I know you won't believe this wrote:

enlighten-er wrote:

If the number is 1000/1, how did Donald Trump get elected?

Because not everyone who voted for Trump is a fascist.

This is true - many of them just hated Hillary - but every racist voted for Trump. And don't try to redefine racist.

Hillaryist wrote:

I know you won't believe this wrote:

Because not everyone who voted for Trump is a fascist.

This is true - many of them just hated Hillary - but every racist voted for Trump. And don't try to redefine racist.

... but I thought it was my White Privilege to redefine racist?

Hillaryist wrote:

I know you won't believe this wrote:

Because not everyone who voted for Trump is a fascist.

This is true - many of them just hated Hillary - but every racist voted for Trump. And don't try to redefine racist.

...maybe every WHITE racist voted for Trump.

Every black racist voted for Hillary and black people are far more racist than whites. As evidence, 40-some percent of white people voted for Obama. The percentage of black people who voted for Romney / McCain was in the single digits.

Black people are far more identitarian, when it comes to race, than white people

markschultz25 wrote:

These clowns will be useful during election time. To show everyone just how deranged the Left is.

http://dailycaller.com/2017/08/20/dartmouth-professor-defends-antifa-violence-video/

Anyone who's voting for a president based on what one professor says is extremely vulnerable to being swindled by less emotional elites. If this is the kind of sh*t you care about, big city elites will say "fine, I'll agree with that platform and we can bundle it with tax cuts for me". Don't whine that the system is rigged. It's not. It's simply capitalism.

As Harvard Professor Dr. Robert Putnam found in his diversity study:

"Lowered trust in areas with high diversity is also associated with:

Lower confidence in local government, local leaders and the local news media.

Lower political efficacy – that is, confidence in one's own influence.

Lower frequency of registering to vote, but more interest and knowledge about politics and more participation in protest marches and social reform groups.

Higher political advocacy, but lower expectations that it will bring about a desirable result.

Less expectation that others will cooperate to solve dilemmas of collective action (e.g., voluntary conservation to ease a water or energy shortage).

Less likelihood of working on a community project.

Less likelihood of giving to charity or volunteering.

Fewer close friends and confidants.

Less happiness and lower perceived quality of life.

More time spent watching television and more agreement that "television is my most important form of entertainment".