Punching Nazis
Of all the trends to develop in the wake of the 2016 presidential election, perhaps the most alarming has been the sudden acceptance of political violence, notably by the left. The level of tacit, and even more often, unequivocal support I've witnessed for acts of aggression and coercion against proclaimed "Nazis" and "fascists" is truly staggering. I first became aware of it when the video of notorious white nationalist, Richard Spencer, being punched started to go viral. While I personally find Spencer's political ideology repugnant, I do feel strongly that he has a right to say whatever he wants without fear of violent reprisal. I was shocked at the type of people who were gleefully sharing the video. In my personal experience, they were often people that I assumed abhorred violence. I also received a remarkable amount of resistance for suggesting that this was a category of behavior that we should explicitly avoid.
There was unsurprisingly a measure of unabashed celebration over the video. Throngs of people shared "remixes" of the punch set to music, and writers like The Nation's Natasha Lennard rejoiced in the "kinetic beauty" of the violence. Fortunately, it also ignited a debate about the moral and ethical permissibility of punching "Nazis." Though perhaps a fruitless endeavor, it did produce an avenue for some level-headed individuals to share their thoughts on the subject. One of whom was writer Randy Cohen of The New York Times Magazine who is the author of The Ethicist column. Newsweek reached out to Cohen for his comments on the Spencer video. When asked about his position on punching "Nazis," he replied:
The Newsweek writer then continued to suggest that many people on the internet were "quite conflicted" about the morality of punching Nazis when Cohen interrupted saying:
The real problem, which has been repeated vociferously, is that there is a demonstrable risk of escalation when political violence becomes established behavior. There is no shortage of historical evidence to emphasize exactly that, but it is disheartening to see how many people, deeply convinced of their own righteousness, fail to acknowledge that danger.
Within days of the attack on Spencer, with tensions high on both sides of the political spectrum, additional incidents began to occur. At the University of Washington, an anti-Trump protester outside of a Milo Yiannopoulos speaking event shot another protester because, as he told police, he thought he was a "white supremacist" and was acting in self-defense. During a protest of Trump's immigration ban at Portland International Airport, a counter-protester was sucker punched and knocked unconscious. Again, because the victim had espoused objectionable sociopolitical views, this was lauded by many on the left as an appropriate response. Without saying anything about the ethical justification for these episodes, they made it clear that violence against political opposition was becoming a recurring phenomenon.
Curious to see what type of response this was generating, principally on the right, I visited Reddit's "The Donald" community to peruse remarks on the video. News of these events was being spread as an illustration of the "violent intolerance" of the left. Whether or not there was an ethical or moral rationalization for the behavior was irrelevant. The replies to the images and videos there were illuminating. The comments below are only a portion of the most combative responses, but they illustrate quite well the trajectory that these events had established. People in conservative circles were beginning to see themselves as victims of political violence.
In January, David Hines wrote an interesting article examining Bryan Burrough's book, Days of Rage, about political violence in the 1970s. Although the whole thing is worth a read, there are a couple of quotes that stand out as relevant, especially in the wake of the most recent protests in Berkeley. He writes:
The most recent clashes between Antifa and protesters occurred again in Berkeley in what is now being referred to colloquially as "The Battle of Berkeley" and represented another step in this progressive escalation of violence. As Tim Pool reported, what he initially billed as an "alt-right" demonstration actually appeared to be a wide-ranging amalgam of free-speech advocates that spanned the spectrum from No-DAPL activists to actual white nationalists. Again, violence broke out as Antifa hurled M-80s, explosive mortars and other debris into the gathered crowd. This time, however, an even larger contingent of "defensive" protesters had assembled. After hours of skirmishing, Antifa was, for lack of a better word, routed.
In the wake of Antifa's "defeat" at Berkeley, some participants lamented on Reddit's r/anarchism that the right was able to hold their own in "one of the most radical metropolitan areas in the country." Other members suggested that they needed "combat training," and some even went on to propose that they bring handguns to future clashes. This is a distressing example of how the situation continues to deteriorate.
This essentially brings us to the present. With further events on the horizon that will almost certainly provoke additional response from Antifa like /pol/'s "Free Speech Rally" in Boston as well as Ann Coulter and Milo Yiannopoulos' renewed commitment to speak at Berkeley, it's hard to dismiss the idea that more violence is inevitable.
When we study history, all we truly get is a compressed reflection of a moment in time--an abridged version of a much longer story. We don't experience the days and months that lead up to a significant historical moment. What if we've already witnessed the opening salvo in a new Civil War? That's admittedly sensational, but it's difficult for me to see how this situation can be disarmed, particularly because I'm not old enough to have experienced the Civil Rights Movement. I don't know how this violence compares. What I am certain of, however, is that both sides of this conflict seem to be existentially committed to their respective causes, and as violence has become a common occurrence, that is deeply unsettling.
The groups of belligerent leftists that are turning up at protests legitimately believe that Donald Trump is an authoritarian fascist, and they're involved in a virtuous act of rebellion. If you believe, as many of them seem to, that the current administration is truly a historical divergence that represents a real and direct threat to the democracy and people of color, violence becomes a moral imperative in the service of a revolutionary goal. I'll save how erroneous I believe this to be for another post.
On the opposing side, Trump supporters see him as the rightful victor of a democratic election. In that context, Antifa is a compelling threat to a functioning democratic process as they're violently contesting the results of a "fair" election. There is also a growing faction from various backgrounds that see themselves as protectors of free-speech. Though arguably well-intentioned, these street defense groups are going to start drawing people who are more comfortable with violence if they haven't already, which will only add more fuel to fire.
Although I struggle to add anything else of significance here, I am reminded of people like Martin Luther King whose unwavering commitment to nonviolence set a luminous example for the rest of us. I think a lot of people who feel heavily emotionally invested in our current struggle would be well served by reflecting on his message.
There was unsurprisingly a measure of unabashed celebration over the video. Throngs of people shared "remixes" of the punch set to music, and writers like The Nation's Natasha Lennard rejoiced in the "kinetic beauty" of the violence. Fortunately, it also ignited a debate about the moral and ethical permissibility of punching "Nazis." Though perhaps a fruitless endeavor, it did produce an avenue for some level-headed individuals to share their thoughts on the subject. One of whom was writer Randy Cohen of The New York Times Magazine who is the author of The Ethicist column. Newsweek reached out to Cohen for his comments on the Spencer video. When asked about his position on punching "Nazis," he replied:
"Do you really not know if it's ethical to punch someone even though they have odious politics? I mean, should we call your mother? Or my mother? Or anybody's mother?... I mean, we do understand that just because someone's politics are vile--and Richard Spencer's are--you don't get to punch them. Why is that a question?"
The Newsweek writer then continued to suggest that many people on the internet were "quite conflicted" about the morality of punching Nazis when Cohen interrupted saying:
"Well, I weep for our country in yet another way. No, you do not get to punch people even though they're ideologically despicable."I think it would be unreasonable to suggest that it was some sort of moral transgression for viewers to delight in Spencer being punched. I would be lying if I said that I didn't take some joy in it as well. One significant issue, at least as I see it, is that we witnessed a lot of people on social media using consequentialism to suggest that it was a moral imperative to punch Nazis. I don't think it takes a tremendous intellect to see that the notion that violence is the only means to stop the rise of Nazism is logically dubious (and that is leaving aside the "slippery slope" problem that arise from trying to quantify specifically who qualifies as a "Nazi" in the first place).
The real problem, which has been repeated vociferously, is that there is a demonstrable risk of escalation when political violence becomes established behavior. There is no shortage of historical evidence to emphasize exactly that, but it is disheartening to see how many people, deeply convinced of their own righteousness, fail to acknowledge that danger.
Within days of the attack on Spencer, with tensions high on both sides of the political spectrum, additional incidents began to occur. At the University of Washington, an anti-Trump protester outside of a Milo Yiannopoulos speaking event shot another protester because, as he told police, he thought he was a "white supremacist" and was acting in self-defense. During a protest of Trump's immigration ban at Portland International Airport, a counter-protester was sucker punched and knocked unconscious. Again, because the victim had espoused objectionable sociopolitical views, this was lauded by many on the left as an appropriate response. Without saying anything about the ethical justification for these episodes, they made it clear that violence against political opposition was becoming a recurring phenomenon.
Curious to see what type of response this was generating, principally on the right, I visited Reddit's "The Donald" community to peruse remarks on the video. News of these events was being spread as an illustration of the "violent intolerance" of the left. Whether or not there was an ethical or moral rationalization for the behavior was irrelevant. The replies to the images and videos there were illuminating. The comments below are only a portion of the most combative responses, but they illustrate quite well the trajectory that these events had established. People in conservative circles were beginning to see themselves as victims of political violence.
- "This is the last straw. I am actually ready to see someone open fire on the "peaceful protesters" after something like this happens. THEY ARE TERRORISTS."
- "So when are we getting the green light to finally fight back?"
- "The time to get armed is now if you're not already. Time to organize and get prepared."
- "You fuckers thought you had it bad, wait until we start taking shit into our own hands as self-defense. They won't do this shit in our more conservative states because these faggots know they'll get lit the hell up. We'd kill them all."
- "THE LINE MUST BE DRAWN HERE. THIS FAR AND NO FARTHER. FUCK THESE GODDAMN PIECES OF SHIT. THEY'RE GOING TO KILL SOMEONE IF THEY CONTINUE TO BE ALLOWED TO INITIATE VIOLENCE WITH IMPUNITY. I'M SICK OF IT."
- "If you keep cheering this behavior on, this will only escalate. You people are directly response for this and the future. You can stop it, the blood will be on your hands."
- "These cunts are traitors. Always kill a traitor before an enemy. Round them up to SoCal, split the state up, and build a wall around Southern California."
- "I feel like going liberal hunting tomorrow."
 |
| Kiara Robles was pepper sprayed by a protester during an interview. |
Though the protesters achieved their primary goal of preventing Yiannopoulos from speaking, the secondary effects exposed the myopic idiocy of this type of impulsive, reactionary behavior. Instead of speaking to a small crowd on campus, Yiannopoulos joined Tucker Carlson on his nationally televised talk show for an audience of millions, and within days, his book was launched from number 674 on Amazon to number one. In addition to inadvertently giving their political adversary a colossal publicity boost, they continued to reinforce the growing conception among some on the right that the crowds of protesters were comprised largely of violent extremists who wouldn't tolerate free speech.
In January, David Hines wrote an interesting article examining Bryan Burrough's book, Days of Rage, about political violence in the 1970s. Although the whole thing is worth a read, there are a couple of quotes that stand out as relevant, especially in the wake of the most recent protests in Berkeley. He writes:
"If you want to know why Righties will get down with streetfighting, if it comes to that: take a look at Antifa. A good long one... If at any point in 2017 Trump supporters are harmed or harassed like the rally in Chicago, expect Righties to get very interested in forming street defense leagues: goons and headhunters to make Black Bloc spit teeth. And they'll be purely defensive. For a while. But they're human. So they'll think about getting proactive."Unsurprisingly, events are starting to unfold precisely as Hines warned. In the past weeks, "Based Stickman," an individual who appeared at a protest clad in protective gear and armed with a stick and shield, has become a symbol for the right and free-speech advocates. He is a product of the images and videos that emerged from the protests in the early months of 2017 that seemingly showed Antifa attacking people who simply held divergent political opinions. In Stickman's own words, he views Antifa as "domestic terrorists."
 |
| "Based Stickman" |
The most recent clashes between Antifa and protesters occurred again in Berkeley in what is now being referred to colloquially as "The Battle of Berkeley" and represented another step in this progressive escalation of violence. As Tim Pool reported, what he initially billed as an "alt-right" demonstration actually appeared to be a wide-ranging amalgam of free-speech advocates that spanned the spectrum from No-DAPL activists to actual white nationalists. Again, violence broke out as Antifa hurled M-80s, explosive mortars and other debris into the gathered crowd. This time, however, an even larger contingent of "defensive" protesters had assembled. After hours of skirmishing, Antifa was, for lack of a better word, routed.
 |
| "Street Defense League" |
In the wake of Antifa's "defeat" at Berkeley, some participants lamented on Reddit's r/anarchism that the right was able to hold their own in "one of the most radical metropolitan areas in the country." Other members suggested that they needed "combat training," and some even went on to propose that they bring handguns to future clashes. This is a distressing example of how the situation continues to deteriorate.
This essentially brings us to the present. With further events on the horizon that will almost certainly provoke additional response from Antifa like /pol/'s "Free Speech Rally" in Boston as well as Ann Coulter and Milo Yiannopoulos' renewed commitment to speak at Berkeley, it's hard to dismiss the idea that more violence is inevitable.
 |
| Antifa briefly featured a collapsable knife for sale on one of their websites. |
 |
| "Right Wing Safety Squad" |
The question no longer seems to be whether or not there will be more violence, but when and to what degree. There was a significant possibility for grievous bodily injury or worse in Berkeley, and if someone is killed, which almost seems inexorable at this point, what happens next? Where do we go from there?
When we study history, all we truly get is a compressed reflection of a moment in time--an abridged version of a much longer story. We don't experience the days and months that lead up to a significant historical moment. What if we've already witnessed the opening salvo in a new Civil War? That's admittedly sensational, but it's difficult for me to see how this situation can be disarmed, particularly because I'm not old enough to have experienced the Civil Rights Movement. I don't know how this violence compares. What I am certain of, however, is that both sides of this conflict seem to be existentially committed to their respective causes, and as violence has become a common occurrence, that is deeply unsettling.
The groups of belligerent leftists that are turning up at protests legitimately believe that Donald Trump is an authoritarian fascist, and they're involved in a virtuous act of rebellion. If you believe, as many of them seem to, that the current administration is truly a historical divergence that represents a real and direct threat to the democracy and people of color, violence becomes a moral imperative in the service of a revolutionary goal. I'll save how erroneous I believe this to be for another post.
On the opposing side, Trump supporters see him as the rightful victor of a democratic election. In that context, Antifa is a compelling threat to a functioning democratic process as they're violently contesting the results of a "fair" election. There is also a growing faction from various backgrounds that see themselves as protectors of free-speech. Though arguably well-intentioned, these street defense groups are going to start drawing people who are more comfortable with violence if they haven't already, which will only add more fuel to fire.
Although I struggle to add anything else of significance here, I am reminded of people like Martin Luther King whose unwavering commitment to nonviolence set a luminous example for the rest of us. I think a lot of people who feel heavily emotionally invested in our current struggle would be well served by reflecting on his message.
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral; begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. Instead of diminishing evil, it multiplies it. Through violence, you may murder the liar, but you do not murder hate. In fact, violence merely increases hate. So it goes. Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness. Only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate. Only love can do that."
Comments