Christianity Today Op Ed

[simplicio]

Antifa is a lot more than just the folks in Bloc, friend.

I'm antifascist, as any good american should be, and I go to the local rallies as my own person to counter protest. I've personally been protected by people in bloc when someone snuck into the liberals group and was going to pepper spray us and I am very happy a teenager in a black hoodie/bandana combo tackled the dude. I never even knew the guy was there, but he kept me safe and I'm grateful for it.

By far the largest bit of work done by antifascists is researching/tracking/exposing people who are active members of hate groups. Bloc is only the most visible part of antifascist work and the most easily demonized

Antifa is good, actually, and while I find the use of violence regrettable in my experience it is fundamentally a defensive use of force. I've seen firsthand what happens when traditionally liberal activists get isolated by the far right and its not pretty. I'd rather we not have political violence, but the initiative is with the far right groups. The Antifa people are, overwhelmingly, locals. Proud Boys from all over the US invaded Portland in August. They come into cities that are thought of as liberal (Charlottesville, Berkeley, Portland, New York) explicitly to waste city resources and so they can get their 4th degree rank in the gang.

Also worth pointing out that most antifascists I've spoken to in Portland don't like either political party, but the far right groups that come to brawl are explicit fans of the President. Only politician I think I've ever heard an antifascist say they like is Bernie. The rest of the Dems can eat it as far as they're concerned.

The left right, conservative liberal, and Christian non Christian fault lines all come into play here. I don't disagree with you, but no other post seemed appropriate for these remarks.

The Antifa was at several high profile events, which turned violent, and the left wing politics became intertwined with anti fascism so much that many on the right could not distinguish anti fascism from extreme left wing politics.

Then the summer of 17 had a series of alt right rallies, ostensibly to protect against the removal of Confederate statues. Charlottesville had some rallies which had a strong Antifa presence, Gettysburg had a rally in the Fourth with little Antifa presence. But the rallies were successful in putting forth the right wing agenda, while downplaying the racist items in that age da. The movement was presented and accepted as consistent with Christian conservatism. Sales of Confederate flags soared, and in my area it was displayed by some who had never flown it before then.

The Charlottesville really did not just pop up, it was the culmination of a summer long political campaign. The police response plan was modelled on the successful police plan of earlier rallies, in spite of the evidence that the scope and scale would be different. (the after action report was rather lengthy, noting the shortcomings of the police plan, I can't find it on the net, but read it when it came out. It is worth the effort to read.)

The Antifa was seen (with some reason, many antifas were hardly sympathetic to the faith) as a movement at odds with the Christian ethic. Simce the Antifa was seen as antichristian and the alt right had many Christian apologists, few Christians saw any conceivable place for Christians after the nature of the alt right was apparent.

Few could envision Christians marching alongside openly racist Nazis or the leftist and Marxists in the Antifa, so many concluded there was no Christian presence at the rally or counter rally. And it was reflected in the conservative media. This was in spite of calls, by Christians, for a presence at the rally, who did keep their church open, and Christians who travelled to the city from outside. Which made the claim of "outside agitators" absurd.

Any attempt to reduce the politics to simplistic dichotomies ultimately fails. The "fine people" remark is defended by people who recognize the symbolism of a president taking a stand against evil. Trump failed to score political points by making a symbolic statement against the far right fascists; a mistake more appalling considering his campaign was criticized for the early and enthusiastic support of the neo Nazis and neo confederates. Americans look to the symbolism of a president making benign remarks after a tragedy, the obligatory soundbite from the scene of the disaster.

Many forget the background

[lilpixieofterror]

The only Trump Derangement Syndrome is people still playing cover for this guy

Says the obsessed person.

[lilpixieofterror]

Gotta learn to post things that support, rather than undermine, your point.

The argument wasn't that most white supremacists were violent or that none of the counter-protesters were violent.

The argument was that Trump called white nationalists/supremacists/neo-Nazis "very fine people", inventing a fictitious group of pro-Confederate statue protesters Friday night and/or non-fascist-supporting Unite the Right protesters Saturday.

--Sam

[Mountain Man]

When Trump was making his "very fine people", he was referring to the protests on Friday night to protect the statue of Robert E. Lee. There were many people present but those people were part of a march with the crowd chanting "Jews will not replace us!"

Saturday's protests were explicitly formed by white supremacist groups and attended by various flavors of white supremacist groups, militias, and neo-Nazis.

Anyone found protesting alongside those groups but not herself a white supremacist or neo-Nazi would have been part of an extreme minority and, given the circumstances, deserves to be counted among the horde.

And those people are who Trump tried to split off as "very fine people". A distinction without a difference.

--Sam

President Donald Trump:

But you had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists. Okay? And the press has treated them absolutely unfairly."

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...sides-remarks/

To claim that Trump refused to unambiguously condemn neo-Nazis and white nationalists and referred to them as "very fine people" is a bald faced lie.

[DivineOb]

Nice! Thank you for keeping an open mind :)

Most cities with an active far right presence has groups of people that do research,

https://rosecityantifa.org/#blog

This one for Portland has been instrumental in keeping track of the receipts, so to speak.

I try to always have an open mind. I understand that the way you defeat groups in the modern age is more through their other investigative activities. I agree that we also need "boots on the ground" to prevent violent gangs from ruling the day. I remember now where I got my first impression of antifa from. It was a video posted by someone who I no longer view as credible (Mister Metokur).

[Sam]

President Donald Trump:

But you had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists. Okay? And the press has treated them absolutely unfairly."

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...sides-remarks/

To claim that Trump refused to unambiguously condemn neo-Nazis and white nationalists and referred to them as "very fine people" is a bald faced lie.

I will repeat myself:

"The argument was that Trump called white nationalists/supremacists/neo-Nazis "very fine people", inventing a fictitious group of pro-Confederate statue protesters Friday night and/or non-fascist-supporting Unite the Right protesters Saturday."

Trump, as he often does, followed one clause with a completely incompatible clause. It was a white nationalist rally that Trump was both-siding and it was a group of white nationalists and neo-Nazis that Trump was calling "very fine people", while trying to distinguish them from white nationalists and neo-Nazis.

Like when he said "I want nothing, I want no quid pro quo" but then immediately reiterated what he wanted in exchange for releasing security aid and granting a WH visit. It's the weakest, most childish way to grant oneself deniability ... but it still ropes in enough people to work.

--Sam

[Bill the Cat]

Gotta learn to post things that support, rather than undermine, your point.

The argument wasn't that most white supremacists were violent or that none of the counter-protesters were violent.

The argument was that Trump called white nationalists/supremacists/neo-Nazis "very fine people", inventing a fictitious group of pro-Confederate statue protesters Friday night and/or non-fascist-supporting Unite the Right protesters Saturday.

--Sam

Fictitious??? I went to High School with one of the Virginia Flaggers, and I've known her and her family for decades, who was there with the sole purpose of protesting the removal of the statue. Arm-chairing with no more information than what the leftist press spoon fed you is just plain awful, Sam, and you should be ashamed of yourself.

[Bill the Cat]

I will repeat myself:
...

--Sam

You are repeating a bald faced lie, Sam.

[Sam]

Fictitious??? I went to High School with one of the Virginia Flaggers, and I've known her and her family for decades, who was there with the sole purpose of protesting the removal of the statue. Arm-chairing with no more information than what the leftist press spoon fed you is just plain awful, Sam, and you should be ashamed of yourself.

Yes, fictitious. There was no group of people separated out from the group marching with torches chanting "Jews will not replace us." Saturday's rally was organized by white supremacist groups and was littered with supremacist and neo-Nazi paraphernalia.

If you're a small number of people who find themselves surrounded by such people and decide to stick around, there isn't any distinction to be made. You might not wear the gear but you carry a common cause.

--Sam

[Sparko]

DHS classified Antifa as domestic terrorist

[Bill the Cat]

Yes, fictitious. There was no group of people separated out from the group marching with torches chanting "Jews will not replace us." Saturday's rally was organized by white supremacist groups and was littered with supremacist and neo-Nazi paraphernalia.

Yes there was! They are called the Virginia Flaggers. That you are willfully ignorant of their attendance is solely on you. And now that you've been told by someone with more direct knowledge, repeating your lie is willful, and therefore, sinful.

If you're a small number of people who find themselves surrounded by such people and decide to stick around, there isn't any distinction to be made. You might not wear the gear but you carry a common cause.

--Sam

Not if you have a greater purpose for being there. Attending DESPITE the ignoramuses is a rather courageous thing to do.

[Mountain Man]

I will repeat myself:

"The argument was that Trump called white nationalists/supremacists/neo-Nazis "very fine people", inventing a fictitious group of pro-Confederate statue protesters Friday night and/or non-fascist-supporting Unite the Right protesters Saturday."

And I will repeat myself: that argument is a bald faced lie, easily disproved simply by reading the entire transcript of Trump's remarks to the press.

"We condemn in the strongest possible terms this egregious display of hatred, bigotry, and violence. It has no place in America."

"You also had people that were very fine people, on both sides ... I'm not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists, because they should be condemned totally."

Do you think repeating the false narrative will magically make it true?

[lilpixieofterror]

And I will repeat myself: that argument is a bald faced lie, easily disproved simply be reading the entire transcript of Trump's remarks to the press.

"We condemn in the strongest possible terms this egregious display of hatred, bigotry, and violence. It has no place in America."

"You also had people that were very fine people, on both sides ... I'm not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists, because they should be condemned totally."

Do you think repeating the false narrative will magically make it true?

[Charles]

And I will repeat myself: that argument is a bald faced lie, easily disproved simply by reading the entire transcript of Trump's remarks to the press.

"We condemn in the strongest possible terms this egregious display of hatred, bigotry, and violence. It has no place in America."

"You also had people that were very fine people, on both sides ... I'm not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists, because they should be condemned totally."

Do you think repeating the false narrative will magically make it true?

When asked why it took him so long to blast neo-nazis his answer is: Based on the man's history with making quick, unthoughtful and often false statements I am not sure I feel too cartain I would trust that explanation...

[DivineOb]

STUFF

Thanks for posting this MM and I was unaware that he did also directly condemn Neo Nazis. I will take that larger context into account in the future.

Without sounding insincere to the above let me add that one key problem with Trump is that he often gives (multiple) answers which "both sides" are able to interpret according to their preferred narrative. That's not good and part of why we have the level of division in this country since it's hard for us to even agree on what are the base facts. If I were a neo nazi I might interpret his overall message as "Well, of course he has to *say* he condemns us, but he also said there were very fine people which is a wink that he didn't mean it." And you take it to mean "He condemned Nazis, why are you out to get Trump?" And I take it to mean "Why is it so hard to lay out a clear diatribe of neo nazis up front and then talk about everyone else if he wants to?"

Later in that interview he says

Reporter: "George Washington and Robert E. Lee are not the same."

Trump: "George Washington was a slave owner. Was George Washington a slave owner? So will George Washington now lose his status? Are we going to take down -- excuse me, are we going to take down statues to George Washington? How about Thomas Jefferson? What do you think of Thomas Jefferson? You like him?"

What he says is true but I can't avoid the feeling that this is elevating Bobby Lee to the same level as Washington and Jefferson. Why didn't he first say "Of course they're not the same" and then give his answer? I imagine you might say something like "He's just stating facts and you're seeing what you want to see." And maybe I am! But he could have also just been clear.

Soundbites are an unfair way to judge a person's meaning but in the Twitter age you have to *try* to be soundbite proof if you want to be clearly understood. Do you get where I'm coming from on this?