BaptistLife.Com Forums.

"Antifa"--it's a word I had never heard before Charlottesville. Suddenly those defending white supremacists are blaming everything on a group called "antifa." As I looked for definitions, what I find is "radical antifascists." I guess I'm out of touch, but it seems those who defend a strong military and who want the "rule of law" in the country would be seeking to mold this group because many of us are the descendants of the most radical anti-fascists in history--US military people who fought Hitler and Mussolini's disciples in the Second World War. I realize that some of these folks got into violent actions in recent demonstrations, but I'm having real trouble finding any substantial or scholarly treatments of this, only right wing attacks from white supremacists and Trump defenders. Anyone know any credible sources that actually have studied or reported on this movement?

The new Brownshirts. Ironic.

Yeah, my impression is that there are indeed a group (or groups; not sure if they're formally linked) of opponents of Trump and the alt-right who are prone to violence. Not that "slip or fall" into it, but that go to alt-right or pro-Trump demonstrations with the hope and intent of doing some damage to the alt-right or pro-Trump folks. They need to be opposed every bit as seriously as their counterparts at the KKK/Nazi end of the spectrum.

And Zorro, though it's probably a sign that he was undocumented...

Oh dear, were Robin and Batman Mexicans??

I'm seeing a new reference today in some FB comments: "antifa communists." Thanks for the info. I'm having trouble putting my head around some of these groups. On the surface, at least, it appears the antifa should be the opponents of the Neo-Nazis, but it doesn't seem to be working that way.

No it is not clear. The spin is that antifa fights undesirables. The truth is that they disrupt legally protected speech, violently. That was the role the brownshirts filled. Smashing stores? Kristallnacht. How far is it from the 1930s when violent groups decide who gets to exercise free speech and who does not.

We're not there yet but the outlines are present.Bears watching. At the least it gives the racist supremacists something to deflect attention.

No. Antifa is credited with store smashing and assorted thuggery, intimidation. The seed bed is the same. Labels are different. Criminal gangs.

The problem is the term "Antifa(scist)" and the way we use terms. There are antifascists who are in fact dedicated to shutting the faces of those who do not measure up to whatever their criterion of acceptability is, and who while they are at it break windows in shops that have no more connection with fascism than your typical pizza joint has with Mussolini. These folks are very similar in intent and behavior to the historic Fascist brownshirts, and also very similar to some on the other end of the supposed "political spectrum" that they target. If you paint with a broad enough brush, you make them out to be closely allied to Obama and Bernie. In other words, there are brushes that are so broad they are meaningless, and when applied they produce lies and obfuscations, not paintings.

Perhaps the biggest hang-up of the mod-libs concerning the alt-R, whatever that actually is, has to do with nationalism, defined as “loyalty and devotion to a nation; especially a sense of national consciousness exalting one nation above all others and placing primary emphasis on promotion of its culture and interests as opposed to those of other nations or supranational groups.” This has nothing to do with the KKK or “white supremacy” groups since they're interested in exalting one group over another within this country. I am a nationalist—no apologies for that—because I put this country's welfare above that of other countries. The democrat approach as practiced by Obama/Clinton was that the president of the USA is actually the president of the whole world; therefore, putting this country's interests above those of other countries was discriminatory/unacceptable. This nonsense was remarked in Obama's unprovoked attack on Libya. He thought he had an obligation to do that since he disapproved of the Libyan government's stance in its own civil war. He nearly made the same mistake concerning Syria. Trump is making the same mistake in Afghanistan using the excuse that he's helping to squelch terrorism everywhere, sort of acting as the president of the world but actually sending GIs to be back-shot by members of the Taliban, who kicked the Soviets out in the decade of the 80s and will never be defeated by any entity. Results: 15,000 Soviet troops killed; 35,000 wounded; about 1,000,000 civilians killed. The so-called “hate-groups” in this country see it as being culturally undermined by liberals and immigrants. To a great extent, they are right.

Well put, Jim. I don't agree with all of it, but there is something to some of it, and you didn't engage in as much offensive wit as usual, so for me at least it's pretty easy to read. Not a nationalist, so I don't join you on America First; not a fan of borders; but there's still stuff I can at least halfway agree with in there.

And yet people who claim to be followers of Jesus brush all that aside when they are in bed with Caesar...

This is one of the areas where I really think the Mennonites got right what the Baptists (all too many of us, anyhow) got wrong.