Split Thread Difference between Antifa and the Proud Boys

Once again, the USA was perfectly fine with the Nazis instituting terrible discrimination against their minority populations, seizing Austria and Czechoslovakia. Anti-Nazi? Hardly.
Didn't answer the question. For the last time, who were these brave American GI's fighting against, and whose trophy flag they have captured?

Here, I'll give you a clue. The answer starts with "f"..."fa"..."fasc"... Got it yet?
 
Didn't answer the question. For the last time, who were these brave American GI's fighting against, and whose trophy flag they have captured?

Here, I'll give you a clue. The answer starts with "f"..."fa"..."fasc"... Got it yet?

In all honesty, they were fighting against the Germans. Not Fascism & racism.
 
Nope. They were fighting Italians and a number of other countries. So that's wrong.

Try again. I'm sure you can say the right answer. ;)

We did not fight Fascist Spain or Portugal. They stayed Fascist for decades. We did not fight Fascist Chile. Or Argentina. We allied with Fascists against the Soviets.
 
We did not fight Fascist Spain or Portugal.
In WW2, when the picture was taken, they were neutral.
They stayed Fascist for decades.
Indeed. While the US was Republican.

We did not fight Fascist Chile. Or Argentina. We allied with Fascists against the Soviets.
Not in WW2 you didn't.

Avoidance, and pitiful at that. Try again.

Who were these brave GI's fighting against?
 
It's a historical fact that the Anschluss could not have happened if the militant anti-fascists in Austria hadn't all been killed or arrested before.
Actually, the Anschluss was a little more complex than that. After WW1 most Austrians wanted to join Germany, and polls and illegal plebiscites reached over 90% support, but the victors did not allow it. The reason was that Austria was in a much worse economic state than Germany. Even the communists wanted to join Germany because they felt that the communist movement was stronger in Germany.

When Germany had a huge economic boom under Hitler, Austrians felt left out, and their local would-be dictator Schussnig (who came to power after his predecessor was killed in a Nazi coup) tried to “out-Hitler” Hitler (with Nazi politics in all but name). A strong majority (though less than twenty years earlier) wanted the real thing and welcomed Anschluss when Hitler forced it on Schussnig.

It was only after WW2 that a genuine Austrian identity was rebuilt.

You are right that anti-fascists had been killed off - or at least imprisoned - by 1938, but I think that it was the local austro-fascists under Schussnig who really resisted being absorbed by the Nazi state.
 
Germany's democracy would have lasted if they didn't make it so damn easy to amend their Constitution. Majority vote to install dictatorship?? Insane.
Hitler did change the constitution, but by that time he already had the power, and could do what he wanted. Before he got his own constitution, he ruled by emergency laws (kindly signed by the president who had no idea what he was unleashing). And only 37% of the Germans ever voted for him, so dictatorship was not a question of a majority vote.

ETA: Given the a certain apathy, and lack of resistance to fascism, dictatorship can be created anywhere. Several democracies today are inching their way forward to authoritarianism.
 
Last edited:
If folks wish to discuss the history of WW2, the lead up, the social-economic-political structures and so on please take it to an appropriate thread.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Darat
 
I prefer folks only use violence as a last resort.

And too many people define “last resort” as “not now, when I might be inconvenienced by things. Or worse, actually having to face head on my own bloated moralizing!”

ETA: before warning. Sorry
 
Last edited:
My recollection of the "mainstream awareness" of antifa is that around the time of Milo Yannapoulis it was viewed with mixed feelings on the left. A few expressed glee (types of friends who are openly 'radical' and they and hated both parties). Most didn't like the means to the end. Bit it could be complex, some schadenfreude mixed with pragmatic concern, etc.

Charlottesville is when the attitude changed and it became a badge of honor for even a moderate fiscal conservative with a social conscience.

My experiences from some while back (Occupy, very early BLM) was they were just always trouble and made up of an odd proportion of trust fund kids/middle-class suburban young adults.

Not a lot of folks struggling to stay clinging to the bottom rung of the ladder have resources for all that cosplay gear.

Both early on and as recently as some clips seen even a year or so ago. Antifa and BLM still get in each other's faces about tactics at times.

One side thinks the other is ungrateful for the help. The other side doesn't think coming to burn down a neighborhood they don't live in is very "helpful."

A black woman chastised two young white girls chicken scrawling "BLM" on a shop window. They object "but we're allies!"
 
'If left completely unchecked one side might one day do things almost as bad was what their opposition is currently doing, so we have to stop the former from fighting the latter' is one hell of a way to think that has certainly never lead to authoritarian savagery.

So many moderates and even left wingers would rather fascism take over than be inconvenienced, let alone be dirtied by what is needed to keep a free nation free.
 
It's a historical fact that the Anschluss could not have happened if the militant anti-fascists in Austria hadn't all been killed or arrested before.

I would go so far as to say that for its survival, a Democracy needs people who are willing to oppose authoritarianism by extra-legal means if necessary.

Indeed. When the authoritarians take up illegal measures, and get to a certain point in capturing the judiciary, then the gloves must come off because legal means to defeat them have been largely nullified.
 
My recollection of the "mainstream awareness" of antifa is that around the time of Milo Yannapoulis it was viewed with mixed feelings on the left. A few expressed glee (types of friends who are openly 'radical' and they and hated both parties). Most didn't like the means to the end. Bit it could be complex, some schadenfreude mixed with pragmatic concern, etc.

Charlottesville is when the attitude changed and it became a badge of honor for even a moderate fiscal conservative with a social conscience.

My experiences from some while back (Occupy, very early BLM) was they were just always trouble and made up of an odd proportion of trust fund kids/middle-class suburban young adults.

Not a lot of folks struggling to stay clinging to the bottom rung of the ladder have resources for all that cosplay gear.

Both early on and as recently as some clips seen even a year or so ago. Antifa and BLM still get in each other's faces about tactics at times.

One side thinks the other is ungrateful for the help. The other side doesn't think coming to burn down a neighborhood they don't live in is very "helpful."

A black woman chastised two young white girls chicken scrawling "BLM" on a shop window. They object "but we're allies!"


All links to Wikipedia:
Based on my (European) experience, I would say that you are talking about a certain segment of Antifa, or maybe not even Antifa but a kind of Antifa hangarounds who are only there to take advantage of a crowd they can hide in, which may make it difficult to distinguish them from right-wing militia or looters pretending to be Antifa. (Even more so if they are dressed up for the part.) We would call them the 'autonomous' in Danish or German.

The German article links to this article in English, Autonomism, but I don't think it's quite right. It defines them like this: "Autonomism, also known as autonomist Marxism, is an anti-capitalist left-wing political and social movement and theory."

However, I don't think they usually have much (or any) theory. Their ... let's call it sentiment ... is more akin to the Spontis, who were downright enemies of theory: "Some of Sponti sayings, such as "Wissen ist Macht, nichts wissen, macht auch nichts" ("Knowledge is Power, (but) knowing nothing does not matter anyway") survived for many years after Sponti times, sometimes acquiring different meanings." My translation would be: "Knowledge is power, but knowing nothing is perfectly fine." (There's a pun in there in German that is lost in translation.)
The Spontis are all about "Frust abbauen", reducing Frustration by living it out, i.e. smashing something. If it accomplished anything other than that isn't important.

I hadn't heard about chicken scrawling, but I'm happy to learn that no chicken was harmed in the process. :)
 
Last edited:

Back
Top Bottom