Charlottesville and Antifa

[Fuzzy Necromancer]

AntiFa exists because police responses to Nazi brutality are consistently inadequate.

People wave signs because a black man got shot, well then it's time to deploy tanks, tear gas, explosives, and rubber-coated bullets.

Five hundred nazis with torches shouting about jews? Dear heavens, what shall we do?

They did NOTHING. Human lives were at risk. The interfaith coalition was under attack and the duly consituted authority did fuckall to stop them. The antifa did something.

That's why antifa exists. They are needed. If you'd rather everyone sit back and wait for the police to get their riot gear on while Sons and Daughters of the Confederacy try to burn peaceful priests, then you're no better than the prime directive fanboys in Voyager.

[Darth Wedgius]

Of course it matters. There's a huge gulf between "We tried, but we didn't get it right." and "We just sat that one out." We live in an imperfect universe, and we always get imperfect results. All we can do is try harder next time.

If it happens again, I think it's fair to call the response as consistently inadequate. That means that it really doesn't matter whether they are unwilling to respond adequately or unable to respond adequately.

And I'd say that a consistent failure of the police to handle the situation would count as an emergency.

And yes, we can send the National Guard to all those locations.

[LittleRaven]

If it happens again, I think it's fair to call the response as consistently inadequate.

You're acting as if this is happening over and over again in the same place. It isn't. It happened once at Berkeley, CA. Then it happened again at Charlottesville, VA. Those places are almost 3000 miles apart. I promise you, if the Alt-Right returns to Berkeley, they'll get a very different reception. Charlottesville is still trying to process things, but I suspect they'll have a different reaction next time too.

You've identified yourself as leaning to the right, so I assume you're a fiscal conservative, and that you're well aware of just how much it costs to activate the national guard. I'm sure you're also aware that most state governments are not exactly flush with cash at the moment. If you really expect elected officials to start pre-deploying the national guard to every place where the Alt-Right promises to make a ruckus...well, as Dread Pirate Roberts put it: get used to disappointment.

For a slightly more sane approach to the problem you seem to be worried about, I'd refer you to this article by David French over at the National Review. He shares your concern about what seems to be a trend of police inaction, and thinks the police need to push back hard against it.

Yes, that’s asking that police officers endure greater risks. Controlling an angry mob is far more challenging than controlling an unruly suspect, and, truth be told, I suspect that the “stand down” orders are in part explained by concern for officer safety. Most police officers don’t have comprehensive and effective training in riot control, and when poorly trained police confront vicious rioters, the risks skyrocket. In ordinary times, we’d think twice before asking men and women in uniform to accept such heightened dangers.

...

If the clashes continue, there is no way to moderate or control the effects. It’s only through sheer good fortune that this weekend’s terror attack didn’t exact a far higher toll. We’re only a few trigger pulls away from a true massacre. Americans have long extolled the “thin blue line” that’s vital to maintaining our security and our liberty. As our nation’s angriest and most violent citizens threaten both, that blue line has to step forward once again. The Constitution can’t protect itself.

For what it's worth, I do suspect that last weekend changed the rules. Previously, whenever the Alt-Right did a march, we saw at most a couple of hundred guys walking down a street surrounded by cops who did their best to keep the Klansmen from getting beat to a pulp. Charlottesville made it clear that the far right has more muscle and resolve than anyone suspected, and I'm willing to bet that going forward, cops will be better prepared.

[Antiboyscout]

You're acting as if this is happening over and over again in the same place. It isn't. It happened once at Berkeley, CA. Then it happened again at Charlottesville, VA. Those places are almost 3000 miles apart. I promise you, if the Alt-Right returns to Berkeley, they'll get a very different reception. Charlottesville is still trying to process things, but I suspect they'll have a different reaction next time too.

Berkeley. Do you remember how it all started. When a Milo the gay jew was not allowed to speak at Berkeley because he was an "alt right Nazi", and groups like Antifa and By any means necessary did their violent protests. Images of a woman desperately trying to jump over a barricade because black clad figures are beating her with sticks. Another woman who was maced just because she had a red hat on. It wasn't even a Trump hat. Fires and chaos, and an escalation of violence as farther and farther right movements protested Berkeley in response to Antifa. And Antifa was willing to escalate the violence right with them. Stop saying Anti Fa is not violent or that they are justified in what they do.

[LittleRaven]

Berkeley. Do you remember how it all started.

Yes, Anti. I remember Berkeley quite well. And yes, Antifa was clearly in the wrong when they transformed what had been a peaceful protest into a street-wide brawl. Milo Yiannopoulos is a strange poster boy for any political movement, but no matter how repulsive his views, he was invited to speak and should have been allowed to speak.

But let's not pretend that this was a shooting gallery for Antifa, either. When it became clear that Antifa wanted a fight, the Alt-Right was more than happy to oblige. Nathan Damigo sprang to fame when video of him punching out an Antifa woman surfaced on YouTube. The Oath Keepers sent at least 50 men to help safe guard Trump supporters, and they were not shy about employing violence themselves.

“I don’t mind hitting” the counter-demonstrators, Rhodes said. “In fact, I would kind of enjoy it.”

When the dust settled at Berkeley, we had a few dozen wounded, half a dozen hospitalized, and nobody dead. Considering we had literally hundreds of people throwing down, I'd say that's pretty good. The fact is, there are a lot of people on both sides who are really, REALLY anxious to punch each other. And thanks to the internet, it's easier to arrange a street-wide mosh pit than ever before. That's pretty much what we saw at Berkeley. And yes, Antifa started it. They wanted a fight, and at Berkeley, they got one.

Stop saying Anti Fa is not violent or that they are justified in what they do.

I assume you're confusing me with someone else here, because I don't recall saying either. Antifa is most definitely violent at times...their willingness to engage in violence has been a staple of the movement since the 30s. As to whether or not they're justified in what they do....that's a more complex question, because Antifa is made up of lots of different people and as a movement it does quite a few things. Much of what they do is very much justified. Occasionally, they screw up. This is true of most human organizations.

[The Romulan Republic]

I can say that, among the political right, it was a fairly commonly held belief that the Berkely police let Antifa have their way. I didn't research that, and I don't know how true that was. I do wonder if the left may see (or come to see) the Charlottesville police as behaving similarly toward the alt-right. We may end up with neither side really trusting the police to protect them.

If this kind of large-scale conflict happens again, with police standing on the sidelines, I hope governors start mobilizing the national guard in a buffer zone between the two sides.

Doesn't the National Guard ultimately answer to the President (along with the rest of the armed forces)?

If it gets deployed against protesters under the current Administration, it won't be against Neo-Nazis.

[TGLS]

Doesn't the National Guard ultimately answer to the President (along with the rest of the armed forces)?

Yes, but this is convoluted because the governor of the state can also call in the national guard too (the national guard receives federal funding, so it can be called up by the Federal government too)

[The Romulan Republic]

Well, to be honest...

I understand the need for restraint sometimes, to avoid escalation.

But when you have hundreds or thousands of heavily armed, organized white supremacists moving into a town, many of them engaged in illegal acts including violence, and the police are apparently unable to deal with it...

That's not a protest. That's an armed insurrection.

And restraint does little good if the result, as we've seen here, includes more and more people on the Left concluding that the only answer is to form our own militias and respond in kind, as well as the white supremacists being emboldened to keep puling this shit.

So, next time they pull this shit, the state governor should deploy the National Guard (or at least state police to bolster local police). Let them protest as long as they're peaceful, but the moment violence starts, tell the protesters that they have ten minutes to disperse or the troops will open fire.

[Darth Wedgius]

You're acting as if this is happening over and over again in the same place. It isn't. It happened once at Berkeley, CA. Then it happened again at Charlottesville, VA.

And I said the guard should be called out if the problem happens again. Once is understandable. Two, well, nobody's perfect, and two establishes a pattern, at least if you want to err on the side of caution. Three times in a row means there was a pattern, and somebody missed it.

You've identified yourself as leaning to the right, so I assume you're a fiscal conservative, and that you're well aware of just how much it costs to activate the national guard.

Yeah. But it might be better than the cleanup costs, the lawsuits, etc. And, moreover, having a police force is, itself, expensive. But it serves a valid purpose. Besides, they can always cancel all their support for the arts or something useless like that.

Charlottesville made it clear that the far right has more muscle and resolve than anyone suspected, and I'm willing to bet that going forward, cops will be better prepared.

And antifa has made it clear that it considers violence a first resort. If the cops are better prepared for violence from either side, hey, that's great.

In advance of being accused by anyone of treating both sides as equivalent -- no. But that too does not matter. Violence by both sides is unacceptable. When BLM protests police shootings, their critics often point to the vastly greater danger blacks are to themselves, but that's stupid. One thing being worse does not make the other thing OK. That more Americans die in traffic accidents than terrorist attacks does not mean we ignore terrorist attacks, for the same reason. That one side wants to ethnically cleanse America does not make antifa OK by any means. They're not against fascists, they're against "fascists," and is there anyone on the right who hasn't been called a fascist by the left?

[Fuzzy Necromancer]

This was a nation BIRTHED in violence. The founding fathers did not gain independence from British rule by holding candle vigils.

Sometimes, violence is not only effective, but politically necessary.

If there's hundreds of angry Nazis surrounding a few priests and rabbis, chanting blood and soil, well, that seems like the perfect time to employ some strategically placed fists to the jaw. I'm not about to condemn the Antifa for doing that.