A vague and dangerous ideology There is currently, on the streets, smashing storefronts and setting things on fire, a group called “Antifa,” for “anti-fascist.” Antifa are not a new phenomenon; they surfaced during the Occupy movement, and during the anti-globalization protests of the late 1990s and early 2000s. Antifa movements began in early-20th-century Europe, when fascism was a concrete and urgent concern, and they remain active on the Continent. Lately, Antifa have emerged as the militant fringe of #TheResistance against Donald Trump — who, they maintain, is a fascist, ushering into power a fascist regime. In Washington, D.C., Antifa spent the morning of Inauguration Day lighting trash cans on fire, throwing rocks and bottles at police officers, setting ablaze a limousine, and tossing chunks of pavement through the windows of several businesses. On February 1, Antifa set fires and stormed buildings at the University of California–Berkeley to prevent an appearance by Breitbart provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos. (They succeeded.) In April, they threatened violence if Ann Coulter spoke on the campus; when the university and local law enforcement refused to find a secure location for her to speak, she withdrew, saying the situation was too dangerous. These and similar episodes call to mind Woody Allen’s character’s observation in the 1979 film Manhattan: “A satirical piece in the Times is one thing, but bricks and baseball bats really gets right to the point of it.”

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/448275/antifa-protest-donald-trump-roots-left-wing-political-violence

I don't know what their treatises and manifestos, etc, etc, ad nauseum, say, but I would suspect that no, they are not fascist, they are anarchist.  A fascist is actually "for" something, albeit in a twisted kind of way, an anarchist is against anything that smacks of government or organization above the small group.  Of course, they think they can be organized, for the purposes of opposition, that is.  I think that the anarchists in the Spanish Civil War, are the best example of anarchist actually getting "into" power.  Just because the anarchists in Spain weren't fascists, doesn't mean they were nice. 

No, that doesn't sound like Tim Kaine is calling for violence, at least _not_ _physical_ violence.  That sounds like he is calling for public protest, legal action, and legislative action.  Some people would consider any opposition to be "violent," I hope that the United States has not come that far, that is something like Venezuela or Indonesia dictators would characterize their opposition.

Vanuatu wrote: Considering the recent violence I don't think Tim Kaine needed to say "fight in the streets." He's trying be Van Jones and Maxine Waters. I find his rage to be dubious and politically convenient.  Why aren't democratic leaders condemning arson and destruction of property?  Is this helping the mood and bad blood among Americans?

I think your President Trump fired the first salvo at Fort Sumter.  Of course, it is not his fault, nothing is ever his fault....  He is 'just a wild and crazy guy.'

I believe Robespierre didn't make it to his 40s, so I am not sure how clever he, ultimately, was.

Edited by Vanuatu - 31 Aug 2017 at 15:51

ANTIFA is not really part of my world, I don't know much about them.  So you can demand that I condemn them, but I kind of feel like your trying to stampede me into something I don't know.  I generally don't condemn thugs, not because I like them, but because if they cared what people thought they wouldn't be thugs.  Of course, I don't like most protestors that much either.  They tend to be self-righteous on either side.  "Mostly carrying signs, saying hurray for our side"  CSNY

franciscosan wrote: ANTIFA is not really part of my world, I don't know much about them.  So you can demand that I condemn them, but I kind of feel like your trying to stampede me into something I don't know.  I generally don't condemn thugs, not because I like them, but because if they cared what people thought they wouldn't be thugs.  Of course, I don't like most protestors that much either.  They tend to be self-righteous on either side.  "Mostly carrying signs, saying hurray for our side"  CSNY

Franciscosan

franciscosan wrote: I know stuff that is tangential to the OP like I always do, it drives toyomotor crazy (short journey<grin> ).  But no, I really don't know about ANTIFA which I have heard about here, but little else. However, a friend who is a history buff likes to point out that Marcus Garvey considered his group to be the original fascists.  I cannot find the quote on Wikipedia, but I am not surprised (that I cannot find it, nor that he probably called himself a fascist).  I am sure that ANTIFA's tackling of fascism, does not include the Black Muslims or other black separatists.  It is selective.  Funny part is that Marcus Garvey and white supremacists agreed, they both wanted African-Americans to go back to Africa.  The funny thing is that today probably some of those White Supremacists are dredging up black separatists like Garvey.  It is probably very confusing to them how one thing said by a white is verboten, but the same thing said by a black is not, at least not for "liberal" media outlets.

I finally read an article you posted on ANTIFA, the California attack(s) and Pelosi speaking out about it.  So what does one need to know? that they are attacking peaceful protesters (who are not overt racists).  The Charlottesville VA incident comes across in the media as one groups of idiots vs. another.  Probably more complex than that.  But you know, I kind of just attribute it to an extension of the University political correctness.  One problem with the Vietnam War was that if you could go to college, you could get out of it.  Before that, radicals were actually out in society.  After that, radicals took over the university, got tenure, and got entrenched.  Of course, later they got into the internet, but in a way that is just an extension of the university for them.  It is ironic because in both the University and the WWW, there is an odd mixture of democratic claims and elitism at the same time.  It is kind of a matter of 'all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal in others.'  (Orwell Animal Farm), ANTIFA believes that they are the elite, that they will save the world.  Again it is a weird paradox that they are the most "worthy" because they are 'protecting' democracy.  Democratic and elitist at the same time.

Fascism is usually brutal, and proud of it, it is the combined might of the lowest common denominator, the bundle of sticks.  I think that ANIFA are probably a bunch of elitists who would never stoop to hang out with the plebs that they purport to stand for, if they stand _for_ anything at all.  They would consider themselves like Lenin's vanguard.  A revolution cannot happen unless "enlightened ones" such as they do it.   But, again, I may be giving them more credit for organization than is there.

This kind of thing is loosely organized. It's the new head of the "Occupy wall Street" crowd. And something like the Bilderberg conspiracy theorist who see themselves as fulfilling a revolutionary role against ?? Whatever.

ANTIFA wants to decide who the fascists are and justifiably in their view, punish them with violence.