The Native Iowan

My ol bud Tony posted something on FB that caught my interest. This my reply….

Tony, You prompt me to respond with some facts (I know, those pesky things that get in the way of a good discussion) to help flesh this topic out…

You say:

“To say that you are against antifa is to be for fascism—a double negative is a positive.”

1) From: https://www.britannica.com/question/Where-does-the-word-fascism-come-from
2) The word fascism comes from the Latin fasces, which denotes a bundle of wooden rods that typically included a protruding axe blade. In ancient Rome, lictors (attendants to magistrates) would hold the fasces as a symbol of the penal power of their magistrate.
3) The original fascists were enforcers. They enforced the rules upon the population. The bundle of wooded “rods” were for beating people into submission.
4) Musolini’s message was clear when he chose the historic symbology of “obey or be beaten”.
5) From: https://www.britannica.com/topic/Antifa
6) Antifa, a broad and decentralized political movement comprising individuals and groups who believe that fascism continues to pose a unique threat to democratic and peaceful societies and must be combatted through extraordinary, radical, and, in some cases, violent and illegal means.
7) Highlighting from the above: “believe that fascism continues to pose a unique threat to democratic and peaceful societies” and “must be combatted through extraordinary, radical, and, in some cases, violent and illegal means.”
8) From: https://www.britannica.com/topic/anarchism/English-anarchist-thought
9) anarchism, cluster of doctrines and attitudes centred on the belief that government is both harmful and unnecessary.
10) From: https://www.britannica.com/topic/fascism/Common-characteristics-of-fascist-movements
11) What is a modern day fascist? There has been considerable disagreement among historians and political scientists about the nature of fascism. Some scholars, for example, regard it as a socially radical movement with ideological ties to the Jacobins of the French Revolution, whereas others see it as an extreme form of conservatism inspired by a 19th-century backlash against the ideals of the Enlightenment. Some find fascism deeply irrational, whereas others are impressed with the rationality with which it served the material interests of its supporters. Similarly, some attempt to explain fascist demonologies as the expression of irrationally misdirected anger and frustration, whereas others emphasize the rational ways in which these demonologies were used to perpetuate professional or class advantages. Finally, whereas some consider fascism to be motivated primarily by its aspirations—by a desire for cultural “regeneration” and the creation of a “new man”—others place greater weight on fascism’s “anxieties”—on its fear of a communist or socialist transformation of government and even of left-centrist electoral victories.
12) Discussion on this topic is interesting: One reason for these disagreements is that the two historical regimes that are today regarded as paradigmatically fascist—Mussolini’s Italy and Nazi Germany—were different in important respects. In Italy, for example, antisemitism was officially rejected before 1934, and it was not until 1938 that Mussolini enacted a series of antisemitic measures in order to solidify his new military alliance with Hitler. Another reason is the fascists’ well-known opportunism—i.e., their willingness to make changes in official party positions in order to win elections or consolidate power. Finally, scholars of fascism themselves bring to their studies different political and cultural attitudes, which often have a bearing on the importance they assign to one or another aspect of fascist ideology or practice. Secular liberals, for example, have stressed fascism’s religious roots; Roman Catholic and Protestant scholars have emphasized its secular origins; social conservatives have pointed to its “socialist” and “populist” aspects; and social liberals have noted its defense of “capitalism” and “elitism.”

Returning to your post:

“To say that you are against antifa is to be for fascism—a double negative is a positive.”

In this statement I hear you saying that being against antifa / the rioters (we see in the various city streets) conflicting with officers (from local, county, state and federal departments) is to be for the fascists.

Whom you are claim are the officers.

Antifascists = antifa.

Fascists = officers from local, county, state and federal departments.

Is this correct?

Perhaps, using our new facts, one can assume the people in the streets burning, looting, disrupting society, calling for death to Jews, perhaps we can understand that some folks view them as the fascists. The ones violently enforcing their wants, needs, desires on the general population.

Perhaps, using stuff I learned as a child, the uniformed officers, those duly appointed and trained to maintain the “public peace”, to enforce the rules are just the protectors of society.

Perhaps too, as a good anarchist or antifa faithful one would agree, there is nothing good in modern society and the USofA represents the biggest evil so anything is acceptable. Burn it all!

Do you believe… “believe that fascism continues to pose a unique threat to democratic and peaceful societies” and “must be combatted through extraordinary, radical, and, in some cases, violent and illegal means.”

If you do: You are saying you support the violence and lawlessness we are witnessing in many cities.

If I have this straight let me know.

I personally find it real, real hard to agree that societal violence is ever a positive. Ive seen what happens when society descends into anarchy/ lawlessness… It aint pretty…

Shootout at the Gizo Hotel