The Rise of the Violent Left

Antifa’s activists say they’re battling burgeoning authoritarianism on the American right. Are they fueling it instead?

SEPTEMBER 2017 ISSUE

Since 1907, portland, oregon, has hosted an annual Rose Festival. Since 2007, the festival had included a parade down 82nd Avenue. Since 2013, the Republican Party of Multnomah County, which includes Portland, had taken part. This April, all of that changed.

In the days leading up to the planned parade, a group called the Direct Action Alliance declared, “Fascists plan to march through the streets,” and warned, “Nazis will not march through Portland unopposed.” The alliance said it didn’t object to the Multnomah GOP itself, but to “fascists” who planned to infiltrate its ranks. Yet it also denounced marchers with “Trump flags” and “red maga hats” who could “normalize support for an orange man who bragged about sexually harassing women and who is waging a war of hate, racism and prejudice.” A second group, Oregon Students Empowered, created a Facebook page called “Shut down fascism! No nazis in Portland!”

Next, the parade’s organizers received an anonymous email warning that if “Trump supporters” and others who promote “hateful rhetoric” marched, “we will have two hundred or more people rush into the parade … and drag and push those people out.” When Portland police said they lacked the resources to provide adequate security, the organizers canceled the parade. It was a sign of things to come.

For progressives, Donald Trump is not just another Republican president. Seventy-six percent of Democrats, according to a Suffolk poll from last September, consider him a racist. Last March, according to a YouGov survey, 71 percent of Democrats agreed that his campaign contained “fascist undertones.” All of which raises a question that is likely to bedevil progressives for years to come: If you believe the president of the United States is leading a racist, fascist movement that threatens the rights, if not the lives, of vulnerable minorities, how far are you willing to go to stop it?

In Washington, D.C., the response to that question centers on how members of Congress can oppose Trump’s agenda, on how Democrats can retake the House of Representatives, and on how and when to push for impeachment. But in the country at large, some militant leftists are offering a very different answer. On Inauguration Day, a masked activist punched the white-supremacist leader Richard Spencer. In February, protesters violently disrupted UC Berkeley’s plans to host a speech by Milo Yiannopoulos, a former Breitbart.com editor. In March, protesters pushed and shoved the controversial conservative political scientist Charles Murray when he spoke at Middlebury College, in Vermont.

As far-flung as these incidents were, they have something crucial in common. Like the organizations that opposed the Multnomah County Republican Party’s participation in the 82nd Avenue of Roses Parade, these activists appear to be linked to a movement called “antifa,” which is short for antifascist or Anti-Fascist Action. The movement’s secrecy makes definitively cataloging its activities difficult, but this much is certain: Antifa’s power is growing. And how the rest of the activist left responds will help define its moral character in the Trump age.

Antifa traces its roots to the 1920s and ’30s, when militant leftists battled fascists in the streets of Germany, Italy, and Spain. When fascism withered after World War II, antifa did too. But in the ’70s and ’80s, neo-Nazi skinheads began to infiltrate Britain’s punk scene. After the Berlin Wall fell, neo-Nazism also gained prominence in Germany. In response, a cadre of young leftists, including many anarchists and punk fans, revived the tradition of street-level antifascism.

In the late ’80s, left-wing punk fans in the United States began following suit, though they initially called their groups Anti-Racist Action, on the theory that Americans would be more familiar with fighting racism than fascism. According to Mark Bray, the author of the forthcoming Antifa: The Anti-Fascist Handbook, these activists toured with popular alternative bands in the ’90s, trying to ensure that neo-Nazis did not recruit their fans. In 2002, they disrupted a speech by the head of the World Church of the Creator, a white-supremacist group in Pennsylvania; 25 people were arrested in the resulting brawl.

By the 2000s, as the internet facilitated more transatlantic dialogue, some American activists had adopted the name antifa. But even on the militant left, the movement didn’t occupy the spotlight. To most left-wing activists during the Clinton, Bush, and Obama years, deregulated global capitalism seemed like a greater threat than fascism.

Trump has changed that. For antifa, the result has been explosive growth. According to NYC Antifa, the group’s Twitter following nearly quadrupled in the first three weeks of January alone. (By summer, it exceeded 15,000.) Trump’s rise has also bred a new sympathy for antifa among some on the mainstream left. “Suddenly,” noted the antifa-aligned journal It’s Going Down, “anarchists and antifa, who have been demonized and sidelined by the wider Left have been hearing from liberals and Leftists, ‘you’ve been right all along.’ ” An article in The Nation argued that “to call Trumpism fascist” is to realize that it is “not well combated or contained by standard liberal appeals to reason.” The radical left, it said, offers “practical and serious responses in this political moment.”

Those responses sometimes spill blood. Since antifa is heavily composed of anarchists, its activists place little faith in the state, which they consider complicit in fascism and racism. They prefer direct action: They pressure venues to deny white supremacists space to meet. They pressure employers to fire them and landlords to evict them. And when people they deem racists and fascists manage to assemble, antifa’s partisans try to break up their gatherings, including by force.

Such tactics have elicited substantial support from the mainstream left. When the masked antifa activist was filmed assaulting Spencer on Inauguration Day, another piece in The Nation described his punch as an act of “kinetic beauty.” Slate ran an approving article about a humorous piano ballad that glorified the assault. Twitter was inundated with viral versions of the video set to different songs, prompting the former Obama speechwriter Jon Favreau to tweet, “I don’t care how many different songs you set Richard Spencer being punched to, I’ll laugh at every one.”

The violence is not directed only at avowed racists like Spencer: In June of last year, demonstrators—at least some of whom were associated with antifa—punched and threw eggs at people exiting a Trump rally in San Jose, California. An article in It’s Going Down celebrated the “righteous beatings.”

06c49cbed.jpg

Antifascists call such actions defensive. Hate speech against vulnerable minorities, they argue, leads to violence against vulnerable minorities. But Trump supporters and white nationalists see antifa’s attacks as an assault on their right to freely assemble, which they in turn seek to reassert. The result is a level of sustained political street warfare not seen in the U.S. since the 1960s. A few weeks after the attacks in San Jose, for instance, a white-supremacist leader announced that he would host a march in Sacramento to protest the attacks at Trump rallies. Anti-Fascist Action Sacramento called for a counterdemonstration; in the end, at least 10 people were stabbed.

A similar cycle has played out at UC Berkeley. In February, masked antifascists broke store windows and hurled Molotov cocktails and rocks at police during a rally against the planned speech by Yiannopoulos. After the university canceled the speech out of what it called “concern for public safety,” white nationalists announced a “March on Berkeley” in support of “free speech.” At that rally, a 41-year-old man named Kyle Chapman, who was wearing a baseball helmet, ski goggles, shin guards, and a mask, smashed an antifa activist over the head with a wooden post. Suddenly, Trump supporters had a viral video of their own. A far-right crowdfunding site soon raised more than $80,000 for Chapman’s legal defense. (In January, the same site had offered a substantial reward for the identity of the antifascist who had punched Spencer.) A politicized fight culture is emerging, fueled by cheerleaders on both sides. As James Anderson, an editor at It’s Going Down, told Vice, “This shit is fun.”

Portland offers perhaps the clearest glimpse of where all of this can lead. The Pacific Northwest has long attracted white supremacists, who have seen it as a haven from America’s multiracial East and South. In 1857, Oregon (then a federal territory) banned African Americans from living there. By the 1920s, it boasted the highest Ku Klux Klan membership rate of any state.

In 1988, neo-Nazis in Portland killed an Ethiopian immigrant with a baseball bat. Shortly thereafter, notes Alex Reid Ross, a lecturer at Portland State University and the author of Against the Fascist Creep, anti-Nazi skinheads formed a chapter of Skinheads Against Racial Prejudice. Before long, the city also had an Anti-Racist Action group.

Now, in the Trump era, Portland has become a bastion of antifascist militancy. Masked protesters smashed store windows during multiday demonstrations following Trump’s election. In early April, antifa activists threw smoke bombs into a “Rally for Trump and Freedom” in the Portland suburb of Vancouver, Washington. A local paper said the ensuing melee resembled a mosh pit.

When antifascists forced the cancellation of the 82nd Avenue of Roses Parade, Trump supporters responded with a “March for Free Speech.” Among those who attended was Jeremy Christian, a burly ex-con draped in an American flag, who uttered racial slurs and made Nazi salutes. A few weeks later, on May 25, a man believed to be Christian was filmed calling antifa “a bunch of punk bitches.”

The next day, Christian boarded a light-rail train and began yelling that “colored people” were ruining the city. He fixed his attention on two teenage girls, one African American and the other wearing a hijab, and told them “to go back to Saudi Arabia” or “kill themselves.” As the girls retreated to the back of the train, three men interposed themselves between Christian and his targets. “Please,” one said, “get off this train.” Christian stabbed all three. One bled to death on the train. One was declared dead at a local hospital. One survived.

The cycle continued. Nine days after the attack, on June 4, Trump supporters hosted another Portland rally, this one featuring Chapman, who had gained fame with his assault on the antifascist in Berkeley. Antifa activists threw bricks until the police dispersed them with stun grenades and tear gas.

What’s eroding in Portland is the quality Max Weber considered essential to a functioning state: a monopoly on legitimate violence. As members of a largely anarchist movement, antifascists don’t want the government to stop white supremacists from gathering. They want to do so themselves, rendering the government impotent. With help from other left-wing activists, they’re already having some success at disrupting government. Demonstrators have interrupted so many city-council meetings that in February, the council met behind locked doors. In February and March, activists protesting police violence and the city’s investments in the Dakota Access Pipeline hounded Mayor Ted Wheeler so persistently at his home that he took refuge in a hotel. The fateful email to parade organizers warned, “The police cannot stop us from shutting down roads.”

All of this fuels the fears of Trump supporters, who suspect that liberal bastions are refusing to protect their right to free speech. Joey Gibson, a Trump supporter who organized the June 4 Portland rally, told me that his “biggest pet peeve is when mayors have police stand down … They don’t want conservatives to be coming together and speaking.” To provide security at the rally, Gibson brought in a far-right militia called the Oath Keepers. In late June, James Buchal, the chair of the Multnomah County Republican Party, announced that it too would use militia members for security, because “volunteers don’t feel safe on the streets of Portland.”

Antifa believes it is pursuing the opposite of authoritarianism. Many of its activists oppose the very notion of a centralized state. But in the name of protecting the vulnerable, antifascists have granted themselves the authority to decide which Americans may publicly assemble and which may not. That authority rests on no democratic foundation. Unlike the politicians they revile, the men and women of antifa cannot be voted out of office. Generally, they don’t even disclose their names.

Antifa’s perceived legitimacy is inversely correlated with the government’s. Which is why, in the Trump era, the movement is growing like never before. As the president derides and subverts liberal-democratic norms, progressives face a choice. They can recommit to the rules of fair play, and try to limit the president’s corrosive effect, though they will often fail. Or they can, in revulsion or fear or righteous rage, try to deny racists and Trump supporters their political rights. From Middlebury to Berkeley to Portland, the latter approach is on the rise, especially among young people.

Revulsion, fear, and rage are understandable. But one thing is clear. The people preventing Republicans from safely assembling on the streets of Portland may consider themselves fierce opponents of the authoritarianism growing on the American right. In truth, however, they are its unlikeliest allies.

Advertisements

Is Sharia Law Coming to a Neighborhood Near You? Ex-Muslim’s Answer is Terrifying

We’ve entered at time when the Islamic conquest of the West is no longer happening quietly behind the scenes.

Every day, we witness the further surrender of our American values and society in a vain effort to appease Islam.

Sharia Law is here, and, according to ex-Muslim author Raheem Kassam, you can expect it to start affecting your life very soon.

Kassam, a British political activist, recently wrote the book No Go Zones: How Sharia Law Is Coming to a Neighborhood Near You.

Liberty Nation Radio interviewed Kassam about just how dire the threat truly is.

LN: The image on the cover of your book is the Statue of Liberty veiled in a full burka. Is this meant to imply or state outright that the American system of justice is in danger of bowing to Sharia law? Just how great is the threat you outline in your book?

Mr. Kassam: I think it’s a very grave threat, and in fact, the truth is the subtitle of the book should actually be, “How Sharia is already in a neighborhood near you.” That’s the point to which we have gone so far. You can see that all over the United States nowadays, all across Europe as well, and that’s exactly what I did, exactly what I want to do is find out where. Not just where there were large pockets of Muslim migration, but actually where that migration, that ghettoization, that self-segregation was turning into something more … that resembled a sort of dual track system of government, a dual track justice system, a dual track standard of living. Unfortunately, while I wish it were true and while I wish the Anderson Coopers and CNN’s of the world were right when they say these places don’t exist, I’m afraid they are incorrect.

LN: To what extent is Sharia law currently a factor in the American justice system as opposed to the many nations of Europe you visited in writing this book?

Mr. Kassam: Sharia law doesn’t try to be a factor in any other justice system. It holds itself up as a justice system in and of itself. It doesn’t need the authority and the approval of man-made law, as they call it in a derogatory fashion. You have in the United Kingdom, for instance, Sharia councils that exist, and they will weigh in on all manner of issues, be they local family disputes, business disputes, inheritance-related, divorce, marriage, all of that kind of thing.

Your question is a good question in the sense that in the UK we actually acknowledge the power of these councils and these courts because they find their legitimacy in the Arbitration Act, which is an Act of Parliament that allows religious communities to internally arbitrate their own disputes. Unfortunately, you can’t really guarantee fairness, safety, security, integrity when that goes on when you have a parallel justice system because they’re not being held to the same standard as the rest of us.

For instance, we know what the Quran says about women. We know that the Quran states that a woman’s testimony is worth half of that of a man’s. And therefore, when a woman is hauled before a Sharia council in the United Kingdom, her view is deemed to be half as legitimate, half as likely to be the truth, as perhaps the man she is trying to divorce or the man that’s trying to divorce her or the inheritance she’s trying to get, etc., etc.

Now, to use an old tactic from the left, “this is 2017.” You often hear that from the cultural Marxists out there, “This is 2017, how dare we have a Robert E. Lee statue up.” Well, why don’t we have protests against female genital mutilation? This is 2017. Why don’t we have protests against Sharia councils discriminating against women? This is 2017. Why don’t we have a protest against people that are being forced to wear the burka or the hijab or who are being beaten and lashed? This is 2017. But these arguments fall on deaf ears. They have this sort of moral and cultural relativism that they deal with when addressing Islam and radical Islam and fundamentalist Islam.

LN: Let’s talk about the issue of the left and the incompatibility of their pronounced virtue signaling in favor of every form of cultural, racial and gender diversity with their protection of an Islamic tradition that places little to no value on the input of women. How does the left reconcile those seemingly irreconcilable points of view?

Mr. Kassam: Well I don’t think it does, but in the arguments, I have with people about this…they tend to argue, “they’re different, you gotta leave them to their own devices, it’s Islamophobic if you say they can’t exercise their culture and their religion.” Of course, the United States has this incredible freedom of religion … acceptance. It’s built into the very fabric of your society, and of your country. But, when it gets to the point that people are being actively, seriously discriminated against, when women are being lashed, when children are being trafficked and sexually groomed and raped, as is the case in many of these areas…to what extent do we continue to allow this?

You have Maajid Nawaz in the United Kingdom, a former extremist himself, who has turned into a liberal leftist, who is now being shunned and shamed by organizations like the Southern Poverty Law Center. They call him a hater, they call him an Islamophobe, and why? He’s still a practicing Muslim. And why do they call him an Islamophobe? Because he does not want Sharia law in the west. And those who think like him are called Uncle Toms; they’re called House Muslims, they’re called Islamophobes, you name it.

It’s not like we can convince the left that they’re wrong on this issue. But at least we can hold up a mirror to them.

LN: Now the issue you constantly bring to the forefront in your book and in this conversation is assimilation, and how Muslims are, or are not, assimilating into the nations where they live. And what you seem to be saying is that Muslims have to a large extent isolated themselves in Islamic ghettos where no non-Muslims, or infidels, are permitted to tread, for fear of what?

Mr. Kassam: Well I mean it’s not like they have a gatekeeper standing at the entryway to these neighborhoods, but it becomes extremely uncomfortable for non-Muslims, for documentarians or police, for journalists, for women, especially white women, and especially blond white women, and I’ve seen that with my own two eyes, to go into these neighborhoods. I know people in the United Kingdom who grew up in those neighborhoods who simply won’t go there anymore because when a non-Muslim goes into that neighborhood, they’re set upon. They can be spat at; they can be shouted at, as I have been. They can be threatened; they can be insulted. The insults, I can’t even say them on radio, that I’ve heard hurled at women in these areas are absolutely extraordinary.

And in some parts of Europe, police don’t even want to go into these neighborhoods anymore, and they certainly won’t go in twos, they will go in sixes, sevens, eights, maybe even ten at a times. The postal services will refuse to deliver to some of them. When I was on a bus in the northern parts of the Parisian suburbs, the bus wouldn’t stop in these neighborhoods because it was too dangerous.

This is…our new reality. I often hear, “Yes, Raheem, sure, but when the Irish came over they ghettoized them, and when the Italians came over they ghettoized,” and so on and so forth. And then the next generation is supposed to integrate, and they did, but the problem with Islamic migration and the difference between all those other migrant groups, whether your average Muslim on the street acknowledges it or even knows it, is that…they believe that their law is better, they believe that their law is God-given and that every other law is man-made and therefore they don’t have to abide by it.

Source: Liberty Nation

 

 

VIDEO The Left Hates You. Act Accordingly… – I don’t play the left’s game – Great Service Vilifying Trump’s Nominees

Reclaim Our Republic

The Left Hates You. Act Accordingly…What Are YOU Gonna Do ‘Bout It?

american-flag-destroyed

They hate you.

Leftists don’t merely disagree with you. They don’t merely feel you are misguided. They don’t think you are merely wrong. They hate you. They want you enslaved and obedient, if not dead. Once you get that, everything that is happening now will make sense. And you will understand what you need to be ready to do.

You are normal, and therefore a heretic. You refuse to bow to their idols, to subscribe to their twisted catechisms, to praise their false gods. This is unforgivable. You must burn.

Photo: http://dcgazette.com
American, Photo: dcgazette.com

Crazy talk? Just ask them. Go ahead. Go on social media. Find a leftist – it’s easy. Just say something positive about America or Jesus and they’ll come swarming like locusts. Engage them and very quickly they will drop their masks and tell you…

View original post 2,463 more words

What We Deal with on Daily Basis Still

Because We Stand with Trump. These are not Protests nor Protesters. They are Domestic Terrorists and the Illegals who participated in this violence should be deported and any American Citizen who participated in the Violence should be Imprisoned! These people need to learn, with whatever laws can be enforced to stop this, that Violence will get them nowhere, nor be tolerated, in any way shape or form,  and that our laws, our Democracy will be re-instated. Ve Con Dios!

 

John Major: case for second Brexit referendum is credible

The UK establishment is utterly determined to keep us captive INSIDE the toxic Islamifying EU!!

‘Tyranny of majority’ should not dictate manner of exit from EU, says former PM in remarks likely to anger pro-Brexit Tories

Sir John Major and Tony Blair

Sir John Major has become the second former prime minister within 24 hours to question the Brexit process, saying there is a “perfectly credible” case for a second referendum on leaving the European Union.

Speaking shortly after Tony Blair argued in an interview that Brexit could be reversed if the public changed its mind, Major said that the 48% of voters who wanted to remain should not be subject to the “tyranny of the majority”.

The former Conservative prime minister said in a speech at a private dinner on Thursday that the opinions of remain voters should be heard in the debate about how Britain left the EU, the Times reported.

In his first intervention over the issue since the 23 June referendum, Major said he accepted the UK would not remain a full member of the EU, but hoped any Brexit deal would mean the UK remained as close as possible to EU members and the single market, which he described as “the richest market mankind has ever seen”.

Whatever happened with Brexit, he said, he could not accept that those people who voted to remain should have no input on the terms of Brexit.

“I hear the argument that the 48% of people who voted to stay should have no say in what happens,” he said. “I find that very difficult to accept. The tyranny of the majority has never applied in a democracy and it should not apply in this particular democracy.”

Major argued that it must be parliament, not the government, that made the final decision on any new deal with the EU, and there was a “perfectly credible case” for a second referendum on such a deal.

Major was addressing a dinner and question-and-answer session commemorating the 100th anniversary of David Lloyd George becoming prime minister.

Earlier on Thursday, the New Statesman published Blair’s comments about the possibility of Brexit being halted.

In an interview to mark his return to commenting on political matters, Blair said he was not predicting Brexit would not happen, only that there was a possibility it would not. “It can be stopped if the British people decide that, having seen what it means, the pain-gain, cost-benefit analysis doesn’t stack up,” he said.

Such a turnaround could arise in one of two ways, both of them hinging on negotiations over access to the EU’s single market, Blair said.

“Either you get maximum access to the single market, in which case you’ll end up accepting a significant number of the rules on immigration, on payment into the budget, on the European court’s jurisdiction. People may then say, ‘Well, hang on, why are we leaving then?’

“Or alternatively, you’ll be out of the single market and the economic pain may be very great because, beyond doubt, if you do that you’ll have years, maybe a decade, of economic restructuring.”

Theresa May’s spokesman dismissed the idea of a second referendum.

“We’ve been clear all along that the people of the United Kingdom have given the government a very clear instruction to take us out of the European Union,” he said. “Even Sir John has accepted that we are going to be leaving the European Union.”

Asked about the idea of the 48% of remain voters having no say, the spokesman said such issues were being raised in Commons debate and in the work of the Brexit select committee: “All these opinions will be fully aired and fully debated.”

He dismissed Major’s notion of the “tyranny of the majority”, saying: “It was a full and fair, democratic vote, and the majority voted to bring Britain out of the European Union. It is now the job of the government to deliver on the will that was expressed on that vote.”

The Liberal Democrat leader, Tim Farron, said: “When a former Conservative prime minister publicly comes out in support of a Lib Dem policy, it shows we are the only sensible party on Brexit.

“The British people voted for departure but they didn’t vote for a destination, and they certainly didn’t vote to make the nation poorer and risk jobs. The haphazard way May’s cabinet are handling Brexit makes the case for a referendum on the deal stronger each day, and we’re glad to have growing cross-party support for this campaign.”

Like Blair, Major was notably more pro-EU than many other MPs in his party. The former Tory prime minister’s time in office was marked by persistent battles with his backbenchers over Europe.

The peak of the disruption came in 1995 when Major stood for re-election as Conservative leader against the leading Eurosceptic John Redwood in an attempt to regain his authority on Europe.

Major’s comments are likely to enrage some of his former foes, such as Redwood, who are still in parliament.

John Major: case for second Brexit referendum is credible