As Far-Right Violence Surges, Ted Cruz Seeks To Brand Antifa A Terrorist Organization

One thing I will give Cruz credit for is that he has very cleverly figured out how to profit from Republican nonsense. You can only pity the poor who follow that nonsense out of spite or some distorted sense that somehow they are becoming empowered by supporting those who beat up on the less fortunate. Sad.

 

Of course! I have no doubt that among the people you will find waving the flag and shouting USA! USA! USA! there are some very ugly attitudes. It would be silly to say that 'patriotic sentiment', however you measure it, correlates with non-racism. That's why I qualified my statement this way: "American patriotism contains within itself the very strong potential for anti-racism, and any sincere anti-racist should recognize that."
Orwell understood that the ideology of the Leftist intelligentsia of his day -- sneering at patriotism -- was no use at all in fighting fascism. Imagine what he would write about our campus Left of today! The patriotism he was writing about was the parochial patriotism of place, of custom, of manners -- distinctly English (yes, he used 'English' instead of 'British') attitudes, which also included, to bring in the political aspect, a strong belief in the rule of law and 'fair play' on the part of all classes.

American patriotism is very different. It no doubt has a lot in common with the patriotism of every nation -- a love for the Big Protector who keeps you safe. And if your ethnic heritage is of those who had their land taken away from them by the Big Protector, or whose ancestors were stolen and enslaved by it, then it's absolutely understandable that your patriotism will not be without alloy, and American patriots from these backgrounds are doubly worthy of our honor. (My favorite example is the 442nd Regimental Combat Team, the most decorated unit in American military history, composed of Japanese-Americans, many of whom had relatives in the internment camps. A bit of their history for anyone reading this:

)
Now those were Americans, by God, and what a contrast to the pimple-faced little costumed "Nazis" chanting "the Jews will not replace us".

If you want to reach ordinary white working class Americans, this is the kind of thing you want them to remember and to honor, as they express their American patriotism. All the Left can offer is sneering condemnation.

 

Dishonestly counted eh? Lets look at the OP. The title itself is deceptive. "Surge"? Meaning what? Hypothetically 5 instances of domestic terrorism up from 4 instances the previous year would be one way to illustrate a 25% surge for example. The FBI since Chris Wray's appointment has investigated 100 instances. Have you any idea how small a fraction of violent crime that represents? Domestic terrorism is a serious problem, but it is not the epidemic it's being portrayed as.

 

But it isn't 'some attitudes', nor is there evidence of 'strong potential' in that research. The piece confirms that, at least for whites, patriotism and racism are positively related. Orwell would have recognised that too, given the Blackshirts (but he'd also recognise how those 'pimpled followers' wouldn't be the real danger; as we saw with mainstream parties and their adoption of nationalism to win National Front support)

 

Let's repeat that. Antifa is a terror group inflicting violence on students.

 

Antifa is a deceptive name trying to mask violence against students and speakers there by invitation.

 

I so so not understand the bad rap given to American nationalism. FDR promoted and expected it as did Truman and Johnson.

 

Far worse is the Antifa clearly a group democrats are pleased to have represent their views.

 

Without a doubt. Fighting fascism with fascism? That's ridiculous on it's face. Don't get me started on everything wrong with the concept of
"anarcho-socialism".

 

The small insignificant AntiFa has some danger to it, but is very minimal to endangering the Republic compared to the right wing terrorists

 

We can find backward attitudes everywhere -- American Blacks are far more likely to be anti-Semitic than whites. And I would be willing to bet that Black nationalism and anti-American-patriotism correlates with anti-Semitism. Similarly, the English patriotism celebrated by Orwell probably correlates with English nationalism. So what?

I'm not sure what parties you're talking about with respect to 'National Front' support. Which National Front?

Basically, I don't understand your attitude to patriotism. Do you just condemn it? All patriotism? (Cuban patriotism, for example?)

From a very high plane, of course patriotism, which is on a spectrum with nationalism, which is a form of tribalism, can be seen as less-than-desirable emotion. In an ideal world, we would all be internationalist humanists, our only loyalty to our human species. I hope and believe that, generations hence, this will be a reality. But there has to be a material foundation for it. At the moment there isn't. Politics plays itself out within the national arena, and there we must act.

Ordinary people are not ideologues, with worked-out political positions derived from a set of axioms. With respect to attitudes towards others, they "contain multitudes", some of these attitudes generous, some not so generous. We have to understand why they feel like they do, and start from that basis, and try to develop and nurture the positive attitudes.

I was very struck, and moved, by watching those motorcycle-riding "Patriot Guards", all white, all no doubt "deplorables" from the point of view some privileged Harvard college student, carry the ashes of that fallen Black Marine. That's what we have to work with.

 

The left wing ANTIFA could be correlated to the left wing (Hippie) movement during the 1960's and 70's; both were an expression of a loathing of a strong central government. The huge difference is that in the Hippie movement American deaths were in the hundreds per week in Vietnam and we had a conscripted military. The right wing opposition then were personified by Richard M. Nixon, establishment, and anti-protesters. How things change, yet remain uncomfortably familiar.

ANTIFA today is driven by a fear of an authoritarian government led by Donald Trump rather than Richard Nixon. Have they taken their lesson form the violent near riots of the 60's? Unknown, however the news makes for sensational headlines. On the other side of the coin, we see a right wing stubbornly devoted to Trump and against any form of protest that challenges their "party." The central figure in all this, it seems to me, is a divisive president unimpressed with personal responsibility as a leader of all Americans.

The statistics of who's at fault or "who started it" are interesting but irrelevant. The fact is the schism is there and growing. The fires of division, distrust, and hatred are continuously fanned by right and left, but mostly the right (they own the platform). The fact that Donald Trump has given permission and voice to the extreme right wing elements in American society is undeniable. ANTIFA reaction was inevitable. The rest of us helplessly watch the goings on because unity and pacification are, as they were in the 60's, dirty words.

This will not end well.

 

I lived through that period and even, in Berkeley, took part in one of the riots, as well as many of the mass marches and demonstrations, and a mass all-night sit-down on the Berkeley-Oakland border when we were not allowed to march into that city. It's not important, but most of us were not hippies, or didn't think of ourselves that way. In fact, genuine hippies tended to be a-political.

We were driven by what was happening in Vietnam. I don't recall a single incident in which we tried to shut down pro-war or right-wing meetings, or to prevent patriotic counter-demonstrations. Whatever our faults, at that time the Left had belief in free speech in its bone marrow.

I believe Anti-Fa is a very different phenomenon than either the mainstream anti-war movement, or the hippies. Of course there are some parallels -- the hippies rejected 'bourgois society' and tried to live outside it. And there was the usual far overblown fears about fascism coming to America -- Richard Nixon was a far more sinister figure than Trump and his FBI did things which would not be conceivable today (like trying to get Martin Luther King to commit suicide).

If anything, Anti-Fa has a lot in common with the Weathermen. It's sometimes forgotten that they were a split from the mass leftwing organization, Students for a Democratic Society -- in fact they destroyed it. All the other factions in SDS wanted to reach the American working class, including its white component (who were far more backwards, from a progressive standpoint, than they are today). The Weathermen wrote the American workingclass off, in favor of "bringing the war home".

However, I don't think there is all that much in common between Anti-Fa today and the Weathermen, except for their hatred for the ordinary American: the Weathermen were dedicated revolutionaries, going underground and preparing, in their own incompetent way, to wage serious war against the US. I don't think most Anti-Fa supporters have the guts for that.

But you are absolutely right about the division in America, which is far deeper than anything the clown Trump can take credit for. It won't end when his presidency ends, whenever it does. It will continue and deepen because the issues which bring him support will not go away.

Thus, as hard as it is to conceive right now, we need to start thinking about a peaceful separation.

 

We're not talking about some backward attitudes. We are talking about the reality of patriotism in the US. For whites, it is significantly related to racist prejudice. The evidence doesn't fit too well with your tabloidism.

Britain's.

Like Orwell, I have distaste for all nationalism. I choose not to sink my own individuality into any nation. Generally speaking we have to refer to direction of causation. Could nationalism, for example, then encourage racism? However, that's not needed here. It all comes down to social dominance and maintaining hierarchy.

 

The one relief is all of this is that, unlike the sixties, we have had not the spate of killings across the political spectrum (yet).

I expect that may change, that things may get worse before it gets better.

 

I would be cautious about correlations. In pre-Hitler Germany, enrollment in higher education correlated with support for Hitler.
It's not necessary for you personally to 'be' a 'patriot' or anything else. What's necessary is to understand what makes ordinary people love their country.

Let me give you an example: Cuba is a dictatorship, and an impoverished one. You might think that the huge majority in Cuba would be yearning for an American invasion to install democracy. Now, there is actually very little anti-Americanism in Cuba, and there are plenty of people who would no doubt welcome a change of regime. But I can guarantee you that an American invasion, or even an invasion by people seen to be acting as cats-paws for the Americans, would meet a lot of patriotic resistance. So it's very important for Cuban democrats NOT to be seen as pawns of the Yanquis.

If you haven't read it recently, you ought to read Orwell's The Lion and the Unicorn, which I linked to above. Comrade Orwell might change your mind about the patriotism of ordinary workingclass people -- and English patriotism was/is not nearly so 'inclusive' as American patriotism. It's not something you have to share, in order to understand and to not simply condemn. Non-racism is by now pretty deeply embedded in the popular American psyche. American patriotism is absolutely compatible with an inclusive attitude to different races and faiths -- as witness the response from a lot of patriots on the Right to a female Hindu Democrat who, in their view, clearly has the best interests of America at heart, and who has proved her own American patriotism on the battlefield.

 

Recently, members of the group have appeared on college campuses, threatening attendees of events featuring conservative speakers, attacking journalists, and just this month, a man who claimed “I am Antifa” was killed after attacking an ICE facility in Washington State, armed with a rifle and Molotov cocktails.

“Antifa are terrorists, violent masked bullies who ‘fight fascism’ with actual fascism, protected by Liberal Privilege,” Cassidy said in describing the need for labeling the group a terrorist organization.

If local law enforcement will not secure our citizens rights against their violence, with the agreement of these neighborhoods it may take Federal Troops.

 

See Jake, sometimes you say things I agree with. I don't know if the younger generation has the ambition to drag themselves out of their parents basements to engage in political violence. Perhaps they are too interested in pot and video games for that type of activity.

 

Let's hope they don't. But do note that the killings in the 60's were by the Klan, of civil rights activists. Once Hoover -- probably reluctantly -- sent the FBI after the Klan, they were broken as an organization. We can assume that most Klan chapters today have an informant in them, and the Klan members probably know this.

For anyone interested, Wikipedia has a comprehensive list of terrorist acts in the US. There have been some for sure, but they seem pretty scattered in their origins. How many people know about the murderous Croatian nationalist, who did many years in an American prison before returning to Croatia where, of course, the Croatian government made him a hero?

 

You sound like my parents, Hockeydad. People are pretty much the same in each generation until they are challenged with matters like the Great Depression or Vietnam.

Good point, Doug. The Klan were southern conservatives intent on preserving by terror the white domination of culture and business.

The far left in the sixties were willing to bomb, kill, rob banks, whatever, in the name of their causes.

 

I wouldn't, given its psychology testing of social dominance theory.

An opinion which would lead to rejection of social dominance theory. No such rejection has occurred.

 

Southern whats? They were Democrats.

 

Anti-fa are loathesome people, a leftwing Sturmabteilung, but they have not yet had the moxie to move up from throwing bricks to using guns and bombs. And they are not even an organization in the strict sense. There are no membership lists or membership cards.

Rather, we should press local police to give protection to those who want to speak and rally and march peacefully. Where progressives rule, of course they will discourage the police from providing protection for their political opponents, since they agree with the AntiFa view of the world, namely, that Republicans and conservatives are racists and fascists and therefore should not have the protection of the law, but rather deserve to be the recipients of the justified wrath of the people.

At some point, Anti-Fa will do something like killing a Republican grandmother at a Memorial Day meeting. This will do them enormous damage, just as their attack on that gay Asian did. The battle is for the hearts and minds of Middle America. .

Trying to make them legally 'terrorists', or, worse yet, prosecuting them for mere 'membership' of AntiFa, is the worst thing we could do at this point. Rather, we should use some political judo, and give these people more rope.

 

You're fine with a death count before we take action, other's aren't. Our system exists to secure the rights of those in America. As soon as we can reasonably foresee that death or grave harm is going to result from this masked group's lawless actions, we are compelled to secure the rights of our fellow Americans.

 

I have to confess that I'm ignorant of social dominance theory. Could you give me some links? (I'll look it up on Wikipedia but you may know of a better source.)