Charlottesville: State of emergency over US far-right rally

[Bernkastel]

All I can say to this is: what does either of our support for Bernie Sanders have to do with... well, anything else said in this thread?

Trying to establish some common ground so you wouldn't take the criticism as a personal attack meant to hurt your feelings, like that was possible, you insufferable prick.

I'm sadly not that surprised TRR didn't get that. It was an obvious effort at trying to present your criticism as that of a ally providing constructive criticism. Yet it is a bad habit of his.

Seriously, TRR, we're in a situation where people here have a good reason to be concerned about their future and, even if things don't get worse, have a good reason to fear going to protests that might be the target of future attacks. Given the situation in the US, I'd say the most optimistic situation is that these groups have until 2020 before they need to expect anything from the government.

[Bernkastel]

I was on a library computer and ran out of time for my last post. So, I'll continue and add that the "need to" in the last sentence of my previous post should be "can". Anyway, you've already had this incident. Plus, while admittedly a biased source, Cornel West has claimed that Antifa likely saved his life in Charlottesville. I'd say there's a lot to be frightened about and justification for wanting an organised protection force, like Antifa, to at least cover the gap until a government not reliant on the Trumpist block and willing to take action gets into power.

Besides, even if you don't agree with that, you really aren't doing a good job at conveying your sense of empathy for those who will be injured/killed before the government will likely take action in the most optimistic situation, some of the potential victims being people who are here on this forum. It's why people have reacted to how you've given no solid indication of when you'd consider violence acceptable beyond "we're not at WWII yet" in the way they have. We're talking about a real thread to people's lives, some of whom are here, one that isn't going to be addressed by the government for a while, baring a 2018 miracle. It's not out of the question that it might be a person here who will be amongst those who will be injured or even killed during the interim. So, when we talk about the point in which violence is acceptable, we are talking about the point in which something can be done to ensure the Nazis can't claim more lives, again potentially one of those of the people you're talking to or people they know, beyond planning for the elections and accepting the casualties in the interim.

I'm sure you understand why the later isn't remotely acceptable to the prospective Nazi/supremacist victims here. This is what you must address in any solution you offer. It must be something that doesn't amount to telling people that they have to accept the current situation, one where some people will have to gamble their lives and will lose for the sake of a long term victory.

[Flagg]

Antifascists have been punching Nazis in the US since the 1980s. If they were going to start punching or shooting democrats, they would have done it before now.

You're off by about 50 years. They've been punching Nazis in the US since the 1930s.

[Thanas]

If you're going to throw tired insults and personal attacks, could you at least actually say something substantive to go with it? Or we just going to have another 'round of "dog pile TRR with ad hominems, because apparently its okay to do that if I'm the target"?

Great idea. How about I mod him for that comment and mod you everytime you insult somebody by implying they are promoting cvil war/fascism/anarchism/Putinism for disagreeing with you? Would be only fair, right?

[The Romulan Republic]

All I can say to this is: what does either of our support for Bernie Sanders have to do with... well, anything else said in this thread?

Trying to establish some common ground so you wouldn't take the criticism as a personal attack meant to hurt your feelings, like that was possible, you insufferable prick.

I didn't take it as a personal attack, but the fact that you supported Sanders is not going to make me more or less likely to do so. That was my point- I am not quite so single-minded that I will think better or worse of someone based simply on their support for Bernie Sanders, when it has nothing to do with the topic under discussion..

In hindsight, though, my reply was more caustic-sounding than it was meant to be. I didn't take your post as hostile, and did not intend to reply in a hostile manner. My apologies.

[The Romulan Republic]

If you're going to throw tired insults and personal attacks, could you at least actually say something substantive to go with it? Or we just going to have another 'round of "dog pile TRR with ad hominems, because apparently its okay to do that if I'm the target"?

Great idea. How about I mod him for that comment and mod you everytime you insult somebody by implying they are promoting cvil war/fascism/anarchism/Putinism for disagreeing with you? Would be only fair, right?

If I actually do that, sure.

Now may I respectfully ask that we please get back to the actual topic of this thread?

On that note:

I was on a library computer and ran out of time for my last post. So, I'll continue and add that the "need to" in the last sentence of my previous post should be "can". Anyway, you've already had this incident. Plus, while admittedly a biased source, Cornel West has claimed that Antifa likely saved his life in Charlottesville. I'd say there's a lot to be frightened about and justification for wanting an organised protection force, like Antifa, to at least cover the gap until a government not reliant on the Trumpist block and willing to take action gets into power.

In theory, I can see the prudence and wisdom of having armed security of some sort at events like this to deter or repel Right-wing terrorists. I don't have a problem with people using force in self-defence, if its actually necessary to protect themselves or others from serious bodily harm. I don't even really have a problem with people organizing to protect themselves, or carrying arms, to the extent permitted by law (which in open-carry states at least is fairly permissive). In theory.

In practice, militia-type groups tend to attract people who are looking to start, not prevent, violence. This is part of why I posted a thread recently suggesting that as an alternative to gangs of partisan vigilantes, those Left-wing organizations which have the resources to do so (the Democratic Party, some of the larger activist/civil rights organizations consider hiring more professional private security for their facilities/candidates/events. I'd even be willing to donate to help fund such efforts, to the best of my limited ability. Though I'll concede that this approach carries its own risks of escalation, and in any case relies on the groups with resources to pursue such a course of action being actually willing to do so.

At the very least, anyone who is serving as armed security in a volatile situation ought to be well-vetted and operating under strict guidelines if they're not going to make the situation worse. I'm not convinced that Antifa does that.

Someone (Alyrium) said that you go to war with the army you have. Maybe so, but if your army isn't up to the task, then you damn well better start building a better army if you don't want to lose badly.

My objection is not to the use of force in self-defence. Its to offensive force, force used to advance a partisan agenda, and especially to untrained, undisciplined, and unaccountable force. Even were we fighting an actual war here, I'd still make the same objections to relying on militia or vigilante activist groups more than we could possibly help.

Besides, even if you don't agree with that, you really aren't doing a good job at conveying your sense of empathy for those who will be injured/killed before the government will likely take action in the most optimistic situation, some of the potential victims being people who are here on this forum.

And what of the people who will be killed during a cycle of escalating partisan street fights (presuming that's as far as it goes)?

Do you think I want people to die? No. It is because I don't want people to die needlessly that I'm arguing the position I am.

It's why people have reacted to how you've given no solid indication of when you'd consider violence acceptable beyond "we're not at WWII yet" in the way they have.

I actually have elaborated on this point repeatedly, if not as comprehensively as I could have. But why bother responding to what I actually said when you can jump on the band wagon and repeat the latest defamation?

I have stated fairly comprehensively my view on when violence is acceptable in other threads, and could do so again here, but since I have every reason based on experience that it would be ignored in favour of repeating variations on "TRR doesn't care about genocide", I see little reason to bother.

We're talking about a real thread to people's lives, some of whom are here, one that isn't going to be addressed by the government for a while, baring a 2018 miracle. It's not out of the question that it might be a person here who will be amongst those who will be injured or even killed during the interim. So, when we talk about the point in which violence is acceptable, we are talking about the point in which something can be done to ensure the Nazis can't claim more lives, again potentially one of those of the people you're talking to or people they know, beyond planning for the elections and accepting the casualties in the interim.

I understand why people would feel that way. I also understand that fear and anger, however understandable and justifiable, can cloud objective thinking about an issue.

All of the attacks on me in this thread, and most of the support for political violence, have in my opinion been founded on emotion, not a pragmatic analysis of the situation. Understandable emotion, sympathetic emotion, but its still a knee-jerk response being driven by anger and fear. It is fundamentally no different than when people who thought "maybe we shouldn't go into Iraq or destroy due process and the right to privacy" were met with "You're with us or you're with the terrorists, America fuck yeah!"

Admittedly, I'm not entirely innocent of this. I'll be the first to admit that the prospect of wide-spread, legitimized political violence in America terrifies me.

I'll also point out that that, while I am nowhere near the top of the Nazis' "to be murdered" list, as an outspoken liberal and socialist, I'm probably still on it. And a number of my friends and family are higher on the list.

I'm sure you understand why the later isn't remotely acceptable to the prospective Nazi/supremacist victims here. This is what you must address in any solution you offer. It must be something that doesn't amount to telling people that they have to accept the current situation, one where some people will have to gamble their lives and will lose for the sake of a long term victory.

Would you rather throw away lives for short-term action resulting in a long-term defeat? Do you think that people will not lose their lives if brawls or shoot-outs in the street become the accepted norm of American politics? Do you think it will only be Nazis who lose their lives?

Its not because I don't care that I argue against political violence in the way I do. Its because I do care, both about my own safety and others'.

[The Romulan Republic]

I'll add, since its too late to edit that post, that I also believe have discussed alternative approaches to backing Left-wing militias or vigilantes, both here and elsewhere. In brief:

-Act through the legal system and the police where possible (small town police forces should coordinate more with other police departments and state forces to ensure they are not overwhelmed, as reportedly happened in Charlottsville).

-Try to keep a lid on the situation as much as possible until we can get the current enabling cabal out of power in Washington.

-Mobilize all our efforts to win in 2018 and 2020, and to impeach and convict Trump and his chief lackies (while avoiding divisive actions that could make that harder).

-Consider hiring additional private security where possible.

-Individuals can carry arms as permitted by law and exercise their right to self-defence as necessary, but should be discouraged from crossing the line to offense or retaliation.

If anyone is interested in debating my actual position and arguments, as laid out in this and the preceding post, without attempting to derail the thread into attacks on my personality, character, or supposed motives, I would much appreciate it, and will make every possible effort to conduct such a discussion civilly.

[Thanas]

If you're going to throw tired insults and personal attacks, could you at least actually say something substantive to go with it? Or we just going to have another 'round of "dog pile TRR with ad hominems, because apparently its okay to do that if I'm the target"?

Great idea. How about I mod him for that comment and mod you everytime you insult somebody by implying they are promoting cvil war/fascism/anarchism/Putinism for disagreeing with you? Would be only fair, right?

If I actually do that, sure.

In my opinion you do so quite often. So maybe you should be a little more grateful that I am usually a pretty laid-back guy.

[Dragon Angel]

Do you think that people will not lose their lives if brawls or shoot-outs in the street become the accepted norm of American politics? Do you think it will only be Nazis who lose their lives?

why do you constantly throw out this question as if every single person in these threads is this stupid

why do you insist on insulting our intelligence

[The Romulan Republic]

Do you think that people will not lose their lives if brawls or shoot-outs in the street become the accepted norm of American politics? Do you think it will only be Nazis who lose their lives?

why do you constantly throw out this question as if every single person in these threads is this stupid

why do you insist on insulting our intelligence

I brought it up in response to being accused, basically, of acting like I don't care about the victims of Nazis. It was my futile attempt to remind people that, yes, just because I disagree with you doesn't mean I don't care about innocent lives.

That you take it as an insult to your intelligence when it was not directed at you is your problem, not mine.

It also shows that it doesn't fucking matter what I say: it WILL be spun to be interpreted in the most negative and hostile possible light. Because this thread isn't, any more, about discussion. Its about a combination of "bash TRR" and "You're either with us or you're the enemy."

Edits: Its a dog-piling circle jerk, end of story. If anyone wants to actually debate my actual arguments, I'll be happy to do so. Otherwise, consider this my withdrawl from a discussion that has ceased to have any point.

[Dragon Angel]

I brought it up in response to being accused, basically, of acting like I don't care about the victims of Nazis. It was my futile attempt to remind people that, yes, just because I disagree with you doesn't mean I don't care about innocent lives.

That you take it as an insult to your intelligence when it was not directed at you is your problem, not mine.

It also shows that it doesn't fucking matter what I say: it WILL be spun to be interpreted in the most negative and hostile possible light. Because this thread isn't, any more, about discussion. Its about a combination of "bash TRR" and "You're either with us or you're the enemy."

Edits: Its a dog-piling circle jerk, end of story. If anyone wants to actually debate my actual arguments, I'll be happy to do so. Otherwise, consider this my withdrawl from a discussion that has ceased to have any point.

Word of advice: Go back to grade school. I was not just talking about just myself (hence: "in these threads", plural). You've asked numerous people here, INCLUDING ME, that so many times it begs the question of what you think of us, you condescending piece of garbage.

Whatever. You're demonstrating that you have no interest in actually learning about your faults and working to better yourself, so this will be my withdrawal too.

[Flagg]

Ceeeeelebtate good times, come on!!

Not you DA.

[Simon_Jester]

I'll add, since its too late to edit that post, that I also believe have discussed alternative approaches to backing Left-wing militias or vigilantes, both here and elsewhere. In brief... [snip]

If anyone is interested in debating my actual position and arguments, as laid out in this and the preceding post, without attempting to derail the thread into attacks on my personality, character, or supposed motives, I would much appreciate it, and will make every possible effort to conduct such a discussion civilly.

Here goes.

-Act through the legal system and the police where possible (small town police forces should coordinate more with other police departments and state forces to ensure they are not overwhelmed, as reportedly happened in Charlottsville).

Difficulty with this course of action: a lot of small-town police forces don't seem to consider it very much of a problem if liberals get their heads bashed in. The left-wing protestors who are considering "alternative approaches to backing left-wing militias" do not have enough leverage over the small town police forces to induce them to coordinate.

-Try to keep a lid on the situation as much as possible until we can get the current enabling cabal out of power in Washington.

Difficulty with this course of action: the neo-Nazis themselves are actively trying to crowbar the lid off the pot. It wasn't the left's idea to hold a huge confrontation in Charlottesville. What happened was that the neo-Nazis chose to show up, because they feel a lot more confident about being able to march and demonstrate and intimidate their political enemies now than they did two years ago.

And Trump is actively lending weight to the crowbar by saying things that the neo-Nazis themselves interpret as moral support for their position.

The left does not have the choice of keeping the lid on. It's going to come off, or not, depending almost entirely on the actions of the current presidency and congress, and whether the people now holding power in the US decide that they love democracy more than they love having fascist supporters.

-Mobilize all our efforts to win in 2018 and 2020, and to impeach and convict Trump and his chief lackies (while avoiding divisive actions that could make that harder).

If voters are suppressed to the point where the 2018 election becomes a sick joke, this plan fails. While it is probably unlikely that we could escalate from here to major voter suppression in a mere fifteen months, it is not an impossibility. Especially if neo-Nazis' takeaway lesson from Charlottesville (and Phoenix, and the next city and the next) that they can just show up anywhere they want, openly carrying guns and threatening people as they please, with minimal risk and inconvenience to themselves... Because the police have neither the means, nor the motive, nor the guts to try and do anything about it.

Many of the contested seats in the 2018 election will be in places where even small amounts of voter intimidation by the far-right against the left could swing the election. That goes equally for the 2020 election. At this point, preparing against the prospect of voter intimidation by goon squads is a valid and serious activity for the left to concern itself with.

-Consider hiring additional private security where possible.

Tricky to arrange, but at least not openly impossible. The difficulty is, private security companies aren't mercenary soldiers. They don't agree to risk death for their paycheck. If confronted by people who are numerous and violent and well armed, they will run, not stand and fight back.

A politically motivated militia, if similarly attacked, is more likely to fight back.

-Individuals can carry arms as permitted by law and exercise their right to self-defence as necessary, but should be discouraged from crossing the line to offense or retaliation.

This leads to the same outcome you already decry: namely, self-organized militias choose to carry weapons and prepare to defend themselves. Once these groups are on the ground, some degree of poor behavior and retaliatory actions are inevitable. So either this is a meaningless idea, or it reduces to "if we have left-wing militias, let us have well-disciplined onces." Which we aren't going to get by denigrating at the idea that they should even exist in the first place.

...

So in summary, some of your ideas are impossible because they presuppose that the left has more influence over how much rule-of-law we actually get in this country than it really does. One of your ideas is possible and worth looking into, but dubiously effective.

The rest of your ideas are not alternatives to being prepared to meet neo-Nazi violence with antifascist violence, they are things that are possible only if neo-Nazi violence doesn't override the normal political processes of the country.

[The Romulan Republic]

Difficulty with this course of action: a lot of small-town police forces don't seem to consider it very much of a problem if liberals get their heads bashed in. The left-wing protestors who are considering "alternative approaches to backing left-wing militias" do not have enough leverage over the small town police forces to induce them to coordinate.

This is definitely a problem in some areas, and I absolutely agree that simply relying on the cops to deal with it is not always going to be possible, though that would be how these things would be dealt with in an ideal system.

I do wonder to what extent state-level governments could be subjected to political pressure to do more, either by putting pressure on small town police to get their act together, or by employing state troopers to maintain order. But I'm uncertain of all the legalities involved, and the inadequacies of American law enforcement are of course a long-standing problem in their own right, which is now feeding into the rise of political extremism and political violence.

So let's look at the other approaches I advocated- after all, I would not expect one solution to work in all circumstances.

Difficulty with this course of action: the neo-Nazis themselves are actively trying to crowbar the lid off the pot. It wasn't the left's idea to hold a huge confrontation in Charlottesville. What happened was that the neo-Nazis chose to show up, because they feel a lot more confident about being able to march and demonstrate and intimidate their political enemies now than they did two years ago.

And Trump is actively lending weight to the crowbar by saying things that the neo-Nazis themselves interpret as moral support for their position.

The left does not have the choice of keeping the lid on. It's going to come off, or not, depending almost entirely on the actions of the current presidency and congress, and whether the people now holding power in the US decide that they love democracy more than they love having fascist supporters.

By "keep the lid on", I mean: try to avoid any actions which unnecessarily escalate things on our part, and respond to escalation by others with an appropriate level and type of force to keep the violence as contained as possible.

If voters are suppressed to the point where the 2018 election becomes a sick joke, this plan fails. While it is probably unlikely that we could escalate from here to major voter suppression in a mere fifteen months, it is not an impossibility. Especially if neo-Nazis' takeaway lesson from Charlottesville (and Phoenix, and the next city and the next) that they can just show up anywhere they want, openly carrying guns and threatening people as they please, with minimal risk and inconvenience to themselves... Because the police have neither the means, nor the motive, nor the guts to try and do anything about it.

I am fairly certain that in most major cities, if Neo-Nazis showed up to polling places with automatic weapons, the police would intercede. At least, they would have the ability to do so. If some of the reports I've seen are true, then the problem in Charlottsville was not that the police were sympathetic to the Nazis, so much as that they lacked the numbers and equipment to deal with them. This would not be the case with a major city's police force.

I do think that going to polling stations in groups when possible will be advisable in certain areas, though it would be best if those groups were not armed and looking for a fight.

Many of the contested seats in the 2018 election will be in places where even small amounts of voter intimidation by the far-right against the left could swing the election. That goes equally for the 2020 election. At this point, preparing against the prospect of voter intimidation by goon squads is a valid and serious activity for the left to concern itself with.

I agree with that, to an extent. Although in terms of effecting the result, I'm more concerned about the long-standing issues of voter suppression by ID laws, gerrymandering, etc., as well as the possibility of Russian hacking.

I will acknowledge that I share your concerns about 2018 and 2020. Everyone, regardless of party or faction, has been primed to assume that the other side will cheat (the Left by the long history of voter suppression and the Russian interference last time, the Right by the illegal voters lie). I do not condone, but am realistic enough to fully expect, major violence regardless of outcome. But I expect that it'll mostly be after the results come in, not at the polling stations, unless things go rapidly downhill between now and then.

Tricky to arrange, but at least not openly impossible. The difficulty is, private security companies aren't mercenary soldiers. They don't agree to risk death for their paycheck. If confronted by people who are numerous and violent and well armed, they will run, not stand and fight back.

A politically motivated militia, if similarly attacked, is more likely to fight back.

Well, its a weighing of risks. Of having security who are reluctant to fight, but trained and at least theoretically accountable, vs. having security who are less professional and more likely to be looking for a fight in order to pursue a partisan agenda.

I do think a degree of armed private security would at least provide a deterrent and sending a message that the Left will not allow the Right to monopolize force, while avoiding the worst dangers of vigilantes and militias.

And frankly...

If things ever get to the point where armed private security and law enforcement are routinely insufficient... then we're at civil war levels, and its going to come down to weather significant elements of the armed forces side with us, not weather we have Antifa on our side.

This leads to the same outcome you already decry: namely, self-organized militias choose to carry weapons and prepare to defend themselves. Once these groups are on the ground, some degree of poor behavior and retaliatory actions are inevitable. So either this is a meaningless idea, or it reduces to "if we have left-wing militias, let us have well-disciplined onces." Which we aren't going to get by denigrating at the idea that they should even exist in the first place.

...

I guess what I'm saying is that people have the legal right to self-defence, and some people will choose to exercise it, but we shouldn't be encouraging people to go beyond that, even if some inevitably will. Its about encouraging a tone and culture on the Left of "restraint, and use violence only as a last resort" as opposed to "Yes, we need to start fighting now!"

As you said, its going to happen to an extent anyway. Which is why I'd rather pour a little cold water on things to keep it from getting too out of hand, rather than pour gasoline.

So in summary, some of your ideas are impossible because they presuppose that the left has more influence over how much rule-of-law we actually get in this country than it really does. One of your ideas is possible and worth looking into, but dubiously effective.

I never imagined that relying on law enforcement alone would solve the problem (it would also vary from state to state and even county to county, of course), and I'm not sure which of my other suggestions is politically unworkable.

I do think that their is a very strong argument to be made for activist/civil rights organizations, and the Democratic Party, investing in more armed private security. Unfortunately, I'm not in a position to push those ideas personally. If any of you know anyone who works in the relevant organizations at a higher level than "unpaid volunteer", please feel free to pass it on.

The rest of your ideas are not alternatives to being prepared to meet neo-Nazi violence with antifascist violence, they are things that are possible only if neo-Nazi violence doesn't override the normal political processes of the country.

Granted.

However, most of those political processes are still somewhat functional at present- see the ongoing investigations into Trump, the various boycotts and resignations over Charlottsville, the various orders by Trump and voter suppression laws that have been smacked down in court, etc. And I'd like to try to keep them functional as much as possible.

2018 will be a big test, I think- both because of the tensions surrounding the election and the questions about the integrity of the electoral system, and because the outcome may well determine the political viability of impeaching Trump (though it is also possible that proof of felonies resulting from Mueler's investigation could prompt impeachment regardless).

[Flagg]

I'll add, since its too late to edit that post, that I also believe have discussed alternative approaches to backing Left-wing militias or vigilantes, both here and elsewhere. In brief... [snip]

If anyone is interested in debating my actual position and arguments, as laid out in this and the preceding post, without attempting to derail the thread into attacks on my personality, character, or supposed motives, I would much appreciate it, and will make every possible effort to conduct such a discussion civilly.

Here goes.

-Act through the legal system and the police where possible (small town police forces should coordinate more with other police departments and state forces to ensure they are not overwhelmed, as reportedly happened in Charlottsville).

Difficulty with this course of action: a lot of small-town police forces don't seem to consider it very much of a problem if liberals get their heads bashed in. The left-wing protestors who are considering "alternative approaches to backing left-wing militias" do not have enough leverage over the small town police forces to induce them to coordinate.

-Try to keep a lid on the situation as much as possible until we can get the current enabling cabal out of power in Washington.

Difficulty with this course of action: the neo-Nazis themselves are actively trying to crowbar the lid off the pot. It wasn't the left's idea to hold a huge confrontation in Charlottesville. What happened was that the neo-Nazis chose to show up, because they feel a lot more confident about being able to march and demonstrate and intimidate their political enemies now than they did two years ago.

And Trump is actively lending weight to the crowbar by saying things that the neo-Nazis themselves interpret as moral support for their position.

The left does not have the choice of keeping the lid on. It's going to come off, or not, depending almost entirely on the actions of the current presidency and congress, and whether the people now holding power in the US decide that they love democracy more than they love having fascist supporters.

-Mobilize all our efforts to win in 2018 and 2020, and to impeach and convict Trump and his chief lackies (while avoiding divisive actions that could make that harder).

If voters are suppressed to the point where the 2018 election becomes a sick joke, this plan fails. While it is probably unlikely that we could escalate from here to major voter suppression in a mere fifteen months, it is not an impossibility. Especially if neo-Nazis' takeaway lesson from Charlottesville (and Phoenix, and the next city and the next) that they can just show up anywhere they want, openly carrying guns and threatening people as they please, with minimal risk and inconvenience to themselves... Because the police have neither the means, nor the motive, nor the guts to try and do anything about it.

Many of the contested seats in the 2018 election will be in places where even small amounts of voter intimidation by the far-right against the left could swing the election. That goes equally for the 2020 election. At this point, preparing against the prospect of voter intimidation by goon squads is a valid and serious activity for the left to concern itself with.

-Consider hiring additional private security where possible.

Tricky to arrange, but at least not openly impossible. The difficulty is, private security companies aren't mercenary soldiers. They don't agree to risk death for their paycheck. If confronted by people who are numerous and violent and well armed, they will run, not stand and fight back.

A politically motivated militia, if similarly attacked, is more likely to fight back.

-Individuals can carry arms as permitted by law and exercise their right to self-defence as necessary, but should be discouraged from crossing the line to offense or retaliation.

This leads to the same outcome you already decry: namely, self-organized militias choose to carry weapons and prepare to defend themselves. Once these groups are on the ground, some degree of poor behavior and retaliatory actions are inevitable. So either this is a meaningless idea, or it reduces to "if we have left-wing militias, let us have well-disciplined onces." Which we aren't going to get by denigrating at the idea that they should even exist in the first place.

...

So in summary, some of your ideas are impossible because they presuppose that the left has more influence over how much rule-of-law we actually get in this country than it really does. One of your ideas is possible and worth looking into, but dubiously effective.

The rest of your ideas are not alternatives to being prepared to meet neo-Nazi violence with antifascist violence, they are things that are possible only if neo-Nazi violence doesn't override the normal political processes of the country.

Speaking as a formerly licensed (unarmed) security "officer" ( ), we could legally not use firearms or wear body armor and I'm not getting shot or group-asskicked for $8 an hour. Even though if the fuckers doing it could (and they very well could under FL state law circa 2006 and I doubt it's changed) be charged with assault on a law enforcement officer.

[Zaune]

Quite. And defending against vehicle ramming attacks, snipers or multiple active shooters with automatic weapons is more than any security guard is trained or equipped for. If you want to outsource your security needs versus that kind of threat then you should be talking to Blackwater, not Securitas... or just say "fuck it" and go homegrown, because however bad forming a left-wing paramilitary militia might look on Fox News it'll be a fart in a hurricane compared to retaining the services of private military contractors.

[Ralin]

Speaking as a formerly licensed (unarmed) security "officer" ( ), we could legally not use firearms or wear body armor

Why on earth are there laws/regulations restricting who can wear body armor?

[Simon_Jester]

Difficulty with this course of action: the neo-Nazis themselves are actively trying to crowbar the lid off the pot. It wasn't the left's idea to hold a huge confrontation in Charlottesville. What happened was that the neo-Nazis chose to show up, because they feel a lot more confident about being able to march and demonstrate and intimidate their political enemies now than they did two years ago.

And Trump is actively lending weight to the crowbar by saying things that the neo-Nazis themselves interpret as moral support for their position.

The left does not have the choice of keeping the lid on. It's going to come off, or not, depending almost entirely on the actions of the current presidency and congress, and whether the people now holding power in the US decide that they love democracy more than they love having fascist supporters.

By "keep the lid on", I mean: try to avoid any actions which unnecessarily escalate things on our part, and respond to escalation by others with an appropriate level and type of force to keep the violence as contained as possible.

In that case, you are not disputing the merits of having anti-fascist militias. You are debating the details of policy these militias should pursue. Were you convinced these militias should exist at some point that I didn't notice?

Tricky to arrange, but at least not openly impossible. The difficulty is, private security companies aren't mercenary soldiers. They don't agree to risk death for their paycheck. If confronted by people who are numerous and violent and well armed, they will run, not stand and fight back.

A politically motivated militia, if similarly attacked, is more likely to fight back.

Well, its a weighing of risks. Of having security who are reluctant to fight, but trained and at least theoretically accountable, vs. having security who are less professional and more likely to be looking for a fight in order to pursue a partisan agenda.

I do think a degree of armed private security would at least provide a deterrent and sending a message that the Left will not allow the Right to monopolize force, while avoiding the worst dangers of vigilantes and militias.

There is very little or no functional difference between a political organization hiring armed security personnel willing to fight for it, and the same organization creating a band of armed volunteers willing to do the same.

Again, at this point it starts to feel as though you've already conceded the core point of discussion- "if the far-right continues to mobilize and organize armed groups in an attempt to exert a chilling effect on American politics, should the left organize groups ready and willing to fight them?"

Have you?

---

If voters are suppressed to the point where the 2018 election becomes a sick joke, this plan fails. While it is probably unlikely that we could escalate from here to major voter suppression in a mere fifteen months, it is not an impossibility. Especially if neo-Nazis' takeaway lesson from Charlottesville (and Phoenix, and the next city and the next) that they can just show up anywhere they want, openly carrying guns and threatening people as they please, with minimal risk and inconvenience to themselves... Because the police have neither the means, nor the motive, nor the guts to try and do anything about it.

I am fairly certain that in most major cities, if Neo-Nazis showed up to polling places with automatic weapons, the police would intercede. At least, they would have the ability to do so. If some of the reports I've seen are true, then the problem in Charlottsville was not that the police were sympathetic to the Nazis, so much as that they lacked the numbers and equipment to deal with them. This would not be the case with a major city's police force.

I do think that going to polling stations in groups when possible will be advisable in certain areas, though it would be best if those groups were not armed and looking for a fight.

How many suppressed votes do you think it would take in rural areas to flip an election? States routinely 'flip' by very narrow majorities, no more than a few tens of thousands of people. Having large areas of the country where if (for instance) blacks and Hispanics show up to vote "it would be advisable to go in groups" is automatically going to massively suppress turnout among those demographics... and states will flip accordingly. If that is allowed to happen, it will have a huge, disastrous effect on the fairness of the election.

This isn't a possibility you should be noting calmly. The idea that this could happen should seem like an emergency, because it means that the "red line" between democratic elections and undemocratic pseudo-elections has already been crossed.

Remember the parable of the frog in the pot of boiling water? If you wait for the water to visibly boil, you have waited too long. The first hint that the pot has been set to boil is the correct time to react. Waiting until individual citizens are afraid to go to the polls for fear of being attacked by goon squads is by definition waiting too long. If you tolerate the idea that this might happen in the next election, you can be assured that the election after that will either never be held, or will be a pure exercise in triumphal showmanship by the owner of the goon squads.

Many of the contested seats in the 2018 election will be in places where even small amounts of voter intimidation by the far-right against the left could swing the election. That goes equally for the 2020 election. At this point, preparing against the prospect of voter intimidation by goon squads is a valid and serious activity for the left to concern itself with.

I agree with that, to an extent. Although in terms of effecting the result, I'm more concerned about the long-standing issues of voter suppression by ID laws, gerrymandering, etc., as well as the possibility of Russian hacking.

What people are trying to warn you of is that it doesn't necessarily take more than a few years for Nazi-like movements to escalate from incidents like Charlottesville up to "we're actively obstructing people we don't like from voting in elections in our state."

This is precisely why there must be no ambiguity in the minds of the far right that if they try to organize armed bands to coerce and intimidate the rest of the citizenry, they will be stopped, plain and simple. If they don't try that, no problem- if they do, they get stopped.

Whatever needs to happen to bring about that outcome, needs to happen.

A person who cares about Americans having a democracy, would be wise to not stand in the way of letting that happen. And to not jump up and down saying "I don't condone this" when others try to ensure that it happens. If you condemn the necessary means to achieve an end hard enough, the effect is the same as condemning the end.

---

This leads to the same outcome you already decry: namely, self-organized militias choose to carry weapons and prepare to defend themselves. Once these groups are on the ground, some degree of poor behavior and retaliatory actions are inevitable. So either this is a meaningless idea, or it reduces to "if we have left-wing militias, let us have well-disciplined onces." Which we aren't going to get by denigrating at the idea that they should even exist in the first place.
...

I guess what I'm saying is that people have the legal right to self-defence, and some people will choose to exercise it, but we shouldn't be encouraging people to go beyond that, even if some inevitably will. Its about encouraging a tone and culture on the Left of "restraint, and use violence only as a last resort" as opposed to "Yes, we need to start fighting now!"

As you said, its going to happen to an extent anyway. Which is why I'd rather pour a little cold water on things to keep it from getting too out of hand, rather than pour gasoline.

I think your metaphor is more apt than you realize. Mix enough water into the gas tank of a car, and the car dies.

I'd like to try to place this in historical context, but it would be a waste of a LOT of words unless you're willing to hear me out on the subject. Are you interested in what I have to say?

[Zaune]

Why on earth are there laws/regulations restricting who can wear body armor?

Probably company policy rather than actual law. But even if it is, the reason is probably psychological: Rentacops walking around geared up like they're going into a warzone makes people nervous, and maybe a little resentful.

[White Haven]

If things ever get to the point where armed private security and law enforcement are routinely insufficient... then we're at civil war levels, and its going to come down to weather significant elements of the armed forces side with us, not weather we have Antifa on our side.

We're running into another Weird Threshold Issue here. Either your definition of a civil war is drastically tame, or you're willing to jump into full-bore civil war really, really early, or... I don't even know? Do you honestly think that as soon as police can't handle a thing, it's time to start burning down Georgia again? Is your line before shelling Fort Sumter 'well, rent-a-cops just didn't cut it, so we had to?'

Honestly, I think that's a lot of where your frankly bizarre positions grow from; you seem either to not consider break-points like that all, or less charitably your break-points are simply deranged.

[Highlord Laan]

Speaking as a formerly licensed (unarmed) security "officer" ( ), we could legally not use firearms or wear body armor

Why on earth are there laws/regulations restricting who can wear body armor?

Because the eternally virtuous and courageous Blue Shields of the People don't want there to be a risk of people surviving a panicked mag dump. Their safety is already greatly threatened by smartphone cameras and the people thinking they actually have rights, adding in a greater chance of witnesses surviving them feeling mortally threatened would be too much.

[Simon_Jester]

That's funny, Laan, I thought that you only attribute to the ever-loathed pigs the habit of shooting at people who can't shoot back. Wouldn't those be the same people unprepared and therefore unarmored even if they owned body armor? Would you wear body armor around everywhere for fear of police shootings, realistically?

Body armor control has the same underlying logic as gun control, because realistically body armor is worn by people who intend to go into gunfights, to increase their ability to survive said gunfights. I'm not going to say that making body armor controlled-access is right or wrong, but it is closely analogous to an issue where most of us have a relatively sympathetic view to controlling access to the means to engage more safely in lethal violence.

[loomer]

Can I just suggest that saying that those people directly on the Nazi shitlist are having their 'objectivity' clouded by fear is highly insulting?

Here are some objective facts. Neo-nazis emulate and endorse a political ideology that would directly lead to my death. When in a group, neo-nazis and other fascists have about as long a history of extreme violence directed against the targets of their ideology as there can be - these are the same people as the skinhead gangs, remember? At a protest, the police are either disinterested or unable to respond swiftly to violence (we've seen that time and time again) and as a result, cannot guarantee my safety either in a timely fashion or at all, even if they're sympathetic.

So if I - one of their targets for literal extermination - am attending a protest where they're going to be, I don't think being glad that there's a bunch of dudes on my side who'll bumrush the Nazis right back if violence starts is me having my 'objectivity' clouded. I think going 'but political violence is bad, man!' is great in theory, but when you're faced with someone who'll happily beat your face in with a pipe for being a cripple on political grounds, that ship's sailed. At that point, the violence is already imminent and it's already political, and the only way to keep from losing ground to the other side is to have people willing and able to step in to fight for you. It's only where violence isn't a way to win that you can begin to reason with fascists.

Now, who's going to be more willing to have my back? A private security guard with a can of mace and a stick, who doesn't care about me on any personal or ideological level? A police officer with instructions to stay uninvolved until orders come down the chain? A private bodyguard (okay, that might work, but that's expensive)? A PMC (most of those probably aren't going to be on the radical leftist side)? None of those are especially reliable options. While antifascist street brawlers aren't the best disciplined, the best coordinated, or the best equipped, what they do have is an ideological commitment to meet the violence of fascists with defensive violence.

And this is where I'm going to suggest that even where they go on the offensive, that's actually defensive violence. Why? For the same reason that self defence laws permit you to act in anticipation of a real danger where you can't run, rather than demanding you let someone take the first swing with a tire iron at you before you can drop them. Fascism and naziism, by its very nature, is a real and present danger to its targets - so bumrushing the fascists in the crowd before they can work up the momentum is nothing more than acting in anticipation of that real and present danger.

[Elfdart]

This wasn't a protest. It wasn't a rally. It wasn't a demonstration. This was an attack. Protesters don't show up with clubs and shields. They should round these cunts up and charge them with terrorism. At least all the ones with a shield or a club in their hand.

When my old union picketed many years ago, police examined the little 1 X 2 sticks we used to hold up our signs. Federal law prohibited anyone on a picket line from carrying anything that might be used as a weapon. That needs to be the rule law for any kind of public rally or demonstration.

Individual cops in the US frequently(not all of them, KS works for SLC which is considered one of the most professional agencies in the country) say that their primary mission is to "get home to their families", not engage with the community, serve & protect, etc.

You'll note that in Dallas the local BLM frequently open carries firearms and the DPD doesn't really crack down on the protests, even though it's a mantra that cops will do so if the OC activists are black. I think it's more a reflection on the "I don't want to do more than the bare minimum unless I have overwhelming force" attitude so many have.

Add in that many VSP LEOs are at least mildly sympathetic to the alt-reich, I'm not hugely surprised that the VSP didn't do much until there were literal bodies on the ground thanks to a terrorist attack. There's a reason why the Guard were called in.

The NYT has video of one of Trump's "fine people" shouting "NIGGER!" and firing a pistol into the crowd -and the police only busted him yesterday.

When you really get down to it, Nazis believe most people shouldn't exist.

I'm not a fan of violence and normally am against, but at a certain point you have to act in self-defense. We just had a literal torch-waving mob in Charlottesville, and they fucking killed someone and they're celebrating that. At what point do you say "no more"?

I don't know why we have Nazis in this country. I don't know why we have NAMBLA. These are organizations that exist solely to promote vile actions.

Well, to be honest I lied, I do know why we have them. It's because people with lofty ideals who are far too sheltered from reality are under the mistaken impression that if you ban these organizations from existing and you ban the public promotion of their ideologies, you are somehow damaging the rights of everyone. And they are all too happy to ignore the fact that the vast majority of the democratic world has laws banning such organizations and are doing just fine.

Frankly, the hardest choices these individuals have ever made is to pick which color Che Guaverra t-shirt they are going to wear that day. And the irony is alway lost on them.

Some of it is just a kind of guttersnipe rebellion by young punks who resent the pious anti-racism/anti-homophobia/anti-anti-Semitism and think that by being openly bigoted or spewing fascist/Nazi shibboleths they're being naughty little scamps.

Seriously though, I'm old enough to remember Nazis from the ones who killed four union organizers in Greensboro, to the ones who killed Allen Berg, to Timothy McVeigh and they were a hell of a lot worse than nowadays (so far -knock on wood!). Yes, it boils my blood that an open white supremacist is in the White House, but not that much more than when a coy white supremacist like Reagan (who used the slave massa term "bucks" to describe black men) sat in the Oval Office. I'm hoping that the one tiny silver thread in a very thin lining is that Ku Klux Trump will bring the same level of disrepute to white supremacy and homegrown fascism that Fred "god hates fags" Phelps brought to queer-baiting.

I think Antifa are a bunch of wankers who, if they aren't paid as agents provocateur by the Nazis/Ku Kluxers, might as well be. There's a reason fascist fucktards from holocaust deniers like David Horowitz and Bradley Smith to unconvincing drag acts like Ann Coulter and Milo NAMBLA-nopolous to outright thugs like Trump's "fine people" make it a point to hold their little rallies at either liberal colleges or in neighborhoods where they know they'll get a hostile reaction (like when neo-Nazis marched in Skokie IL, a town with a large Jewish population (including survivors of the Final Solution).

Laurie Marhoefer has an interesting article making the rounds and I think she makes some good points namely, that even if lefties somehow manage to organize militias and match or beat the violence from the Nazis/KKK, the authorities and most importantly the population as a whole will side with the fascists, as happened in Germany.

The left takes the heat

In the court of public opinion, accusations of mayhem and chaos in the streets will, as a rule, tend to stick against the left, not the right.

This was true in Germany in the 1920s. It was true even when opponents of fascism acted in self-defense or tried to use relatively mild tactics, such as heckling. It is true in the United States today, where even peaceful rallies against racist violence are branded riots in the making.

Today, right extremists are going around the country staging rallies just like the one in 1927 in Wedding. According to the civil rights advocacy organization the Southern Poverty Law Center, they pick places where they know antifascists are present, like university campuses. They come spoiling for physical confrontation. Then they and their allies spin it to their advantage.

I watched this very thing happen steps from my office on the University of Washington campus. Last year, a right extremist speaker came. He was met by a counterprotest. One of his supporters shot a counterprotester. On stage, in the moments after the shooting, the right extremist speaker claimed that his opponents had sought to stop him from speaking “by killing people.” The fact that it was one of the speaker’s supporters, a right extremist and Trump backer, who engaged in what prosecutors now claim was an unprovoked and premeditated act of violence, has never made national news.

We saw this play out after Charlottesville, too. President Donald Trump said there was violence “on both sides.” It was an incredible claim. Heyer, a peaceful protester, and 19 other people were intentionally hit by a neo-Nazi driving a car. He seemed to portray Charlottesville as another example of what he has referred to elsewhere as “violence in our streets and chaos in our communities,” including, it seems, Black Lives Matter, which is a nonviolent movement against violence. He stirred up fear. Trump recently said that police are too constrained by existing law.


President Trump tried it again during the largely peaceful protests in Boston – he called the tens of thousands who gathered there to protest racism and Nazism “anti-police agitators,” though later, in a characteristic about-face, he praised them.

President Trump’s claims are hitting their mark. A CBS News poll found that a majority of Republicans thought his description of who was to blame for the violence in Charlottesville was “accurate.”

This violence, and the rhetoric about it coming from the administration, are echos – faint but nevertheless frightening echos – of a well-documented pattern, a pathway by which democracies devolve into dictatorships.

I'm a bisexual crippled freemason. My line for 'when is violence okay to fend off nazis' is probably a lot easier to cross than it is for someone who isn't going to be first on the list for internment and extermination.

I'm an Asian married to a white women with mixed race kids, I'm not that far behind you on the Nazi's kill list. Hell, my kids are on the kill list, so yeah, excuse me if I don't shed any tears when Nazi scumbags are the victims of violence.

Apparently, you're Mormon too.

[Elfdart]

In a letter to his nephew, Lund Washington, plantation manager of Mount Vernon, General George Washington writes on this day in 1776 of his displeasure with the undisciplined conduct and poor battlefield performance of the American militia. Washington blamed the Patriot reliance on the militia as the chief root of his problems in the devastating loss of Long Island and Manhattan to the British.

http://www.history.com/this-day-in-hist ... r-problems

Washington was fighting against professional, trained, equipped, and disciplined soldiers, with untrained, ill-equipped, and undisciplined militiamen. Then he got the help of von Steuben, who knew how to mint soldiers. (IMHO, taking his letters as a general indication, Washington was writing his excuses to history for when he lost.)

He certainly had a different opinion after von Steuben (and victory):
"A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well-digested plan is requisite" GW, 1790

In Federalist #29, Alexander Hamilton argued that the required discipline and uniformity of a militia "can only be accomplished by confiding the regulation of the militia to the direction of the national authority". George Washington was repeating the same argument in 1790.

http://www.stateoftheunionhistory.com/2 ... ngton.html

That's why Washington lost so many battles against the British in spite of having them outnumbered 3, 4 and sometimes 5-1.