I had posted on that one as well originally before deleting my posts. I've seen people justify to themselves to attack.. But it seems like when everyone is being called a nazi, it seems like everyone is going to be targeted unless they have the same exact opinions.

I feel like people missed the point entirely of the journal, and that point is that just because a person hits you and break your toys doesn't make them a terrorist. Violence may not be the best option at all times, but it is an option and there is a time and a place to use it like anything else. I'm not drawn into the propaganda and crocodile tears presented by Nazis decrying Antifa as this radical, ultra-violent group when all of the Nazi's history both recent and distant past, their ideology, and their methodology are littered with horrendous crimes far more worthy of the label "terrorist"

Nor am I a pacifist who believes violence is never an answer. In an ideal world, it shouldn't be but we don't live in an ideal world, we live in this one.

Nazis are master manipulators, they like to charm your pants off and place victim while getting ready to plant the knife in your back, and if you cry foul on them, they'll weaponize the very system that meant to protect the innocent and give a platform to those who need it most, they use it to legally suppress and discredit opponents by claiming "They're denying me my rights to free speech, this is a free country ain't it? If I want to tell other people we need to purge all the undesirables to achieve my dream of an Aryan Utopian Paradise, no one can challenge it."

If you are using violence as a terror tactic to prevent people from speaking, what exactly are you?

Many people are called Nazi's in this current environment, many have been attacked that certainly aren't trying to create a white ethnostate and genocidal system. One can easily say "I can and will fight the Nazi's" but I've seen everyone called a Nazi just for disagreement if they don't fully agree with ANTIFA's methods.

You know what's annoying? Not once did I call anyone in specific a Nazi, except people who had already claimed themselves to be Nazis. Don't lump me with a group of people for things I haven't done. Despite that, I myself have been called a Nazi because I've expressed some beliefs that people interpreted as authoritarian.

Over what? Because I don't like Vore or Guro and I'd greatly appreciate a better filter/tag system so I don't have to see it. Yeah.
People will literally call you a Nazi over anything. In the same way people will call anyone a terrorist now.

Antifa's counter-protesting efforts are despised because they're seen as intimidating and silencing when of what I've seen with my own two eyes, they're glorified shouting matches. One side says their piece, another side says theirs, and it goes back and forth until someone inevitably gets into a fight or they disassemble.

That's pretty normal for protests between rival groups.

I see no suppression of white supremacists here. I don't see Antifa blocking off white supremacists from leaving or swarming to beat them to death. They're just both arguing. Have you never had an argument before?

When Charlottesville had their march, people focused on Antifa wearing black and bringing blunt weapons. Thanks to America's rule of right to bear arms however, the white supremacists were also weaponized, but unlike Antifa, they actually had military-grade weapons since a portion of their group were also right-wing militias. They were not defenseless, and you don't bring a gun and flash it around unless you yourself have intent to intimidate. Peaceful protest my ass.

So when I hear people bitch about Antifa threatening white supremacists and suppressing free speech, I'm annoyed because it portrays white supremacists as fragile and unprotected which is not the case. People are clueless and distant from reality on this matter, where any sort of slight can be seen as comparable to bloody murder. You think calling people Nazis senselessly is bad, just calling anyone you don't like terrorists is just continuing the same problem under a different name.

The worst of Antifa's efforts regarding the so-called suppression of free speech usually involves deplatforming (Which means getting someone uninvited to an event LEGALLY as 1. By law, only the government is absolutely forbidden from suppressing free speech, and 2. Protestors of any kind need permissions from property owners to assemble on private property and if that permission is revoked, it simply means they have to find elsewhere to assemble) and get involved in shouting matches that sometimes devolve into violence.

Also, if you pay attention to the events, it's always Antifa who ends up worse for wear in every encounter because despite supposedly Antifa's emphasis on violence, it's always Neo-Nazis that are quick to start running people over with cars and stabbing people to death. Antifa has yet to cause so much harm in any encounter that they killed somebody, yet we act like they have. Objectively, none of what Antifa does constitutes the label of terrorism. Calling them such is the same irrational emotional response that people claim everyone else is doing when they call people Nazis.

The only people I call Nazis are people who call themselves Nazis or associate themselves strongly with their ideology. That's a Nazi. Nazis are not fragile, repressed conservatives unjustly hated by a corrupt liberal hivemind, they're armed, dangerous, and always ready for a fight.

On principle, I support free speech.

On principle.

I also accept there is no such thing as an easy ride either. If you're going to protest and rally in support of something controversial like Nazi ideology, you're going to have opposition like any other argument. Instead of throwing out labels unjustly, take the situation at face value.

"These two groups both have the right to protest each other, but there should be a strong dividing line between the two so they don't get into a fight. Then let their characters speak for themselves"

I've not once said you called someone a Nazi, I specifically said. "Many people are called Nazi's in this environment" and that I've seen innocents called Nazi's and attacked. So cool it there, I'm not insulting you. In fact while I disagree with much you say I'm glad you actually prefer taking it to actual Nazi's and those who desire the downfall of others compared to others.

The thing is several times there have been Antifa attacking groups, which you seem to ignore which is what bugs me more then anything. You make it out as if they've done nothing but shout at people, rather then having actually attacked people, stole items, and generally intimidated groups. The Berkley attacks are a good example of this.

Objectively, if you go to an event with weapons (The flagpoles and other things they carry can conveniently be used as brawl and beating weapons) with the intent to intimidate a group to stand down.. You are essentially using force to cause others to stand down. Which is a far cry from some sort of innocent standoff. They go there with the hope that they will infact cause a brawl so that they can use said implements and "Bash the Fash".

This is why I didn't want to get involved though, I'm a very passive and I don't speak well enough to really warrant well in these conversations.

I'm a skeptical guy. It's takes two to tango in any conflict Zeb.

Even though there is this argument that both sides were at fault, not only is there evidence to contradict that, but the perception of the conflict focuses exclusively on Antifa as the instigators which is simply not true. No I'm not ignoring their crimes or them holding weapons, they do have the right to bear arms after all and if the white supremacists were armed, that means they were equal and not so easily intimidated, making that whole argument about trying to suppress them fall flat.

Furthermore, you can't put blanket blame on an entire group for the actions of a few people.

Antifa is a name, it is a group of loosely aligned individuals who share a common goal. Because there is no membership, anyone can call themselves Antifa. If I call myself an Antifa member, even though I've robbed no, beaten no one, intimidated anyone into submission, does that mean I'm still guilty by association? If anyone can call themselves Antifa, do you not think it's possible there are people who will infiltrate the group with intent to cause harm and stir conflict? I have good reason to believe so, especially since Nazis are more than willing to use such deceptive tactics or it could even be a third party, like actual anarchists and protest hijackers.

It's like comparing a playground bully who has a rep for being an asshole versus the new kid with no friends. The bully harasses the new kid to the point they get into a fight. Even though we know the bully has a history of harassment and logically we should give the new kid the benefit of the doubt, but because the bully lied that the other guy harassed him first, and because the new kid has no friends, nobody calls out the bully on his bullshit and even force the new kid to take most of the blame.

That's not fair is it?

Let's be honest, radicalization of any kind is a threat to society.

Radicalization is about ideas, not violence. Violence is simply a means to an end, it is Nazis who have the extreme radical ideas. Purge the undesirables, create the Aryan Utopia. What happens to the other guys? I dunno, firing squad, gas chambers, biochemical weapons, being fed to hungry dogs...they have a checklist of options...

Edited the journal disclaimer

The problem with Antifa vs Nazi's is that Antifa is fascism under the guise of "anti-fascism". They have this weird twisted mentality that anyone who doesn't instantly agree with them is immediately a Nazi so it justifies them attacking anyone that they want without question or remorse.

When your political duty is to punch fascists and nazi's and you get to personally decide who a fascist and nazi is there's a bit of a conflict of interest.

There's a reason that Antifa was labeled as a terrorist group.

Neo-Nazism is also a terrorist group, it met all the requirements and so it's terrorist group vs terrorist group.

https://www.trackingterrorism.org/g.....o-nazis-global

Since they're both criminal organizations, maybe now Nazis can go back into obscurity? I see it this way, if Nazis leave and Antifa goes with them, then the whole "Antifa are actually fascists" argument falls apart because with their most significant hateboner gone, they would do like any other power-hungry group and make a reach for the controls. I don't see that happening with Antifa, it's not a part of their modus operandi. They are an aggressive vigilante group, certainly. But a terrorist group? I think not.

But the big issue with Antifa is that they self proclaim who they believe Nazi's to be. Out of all of their gatherings the only time that Nazi's even came onto the scene was in Charlottesville, VA, and that may very well be people just dressing up as Nazi's to troll them.

What you're saying about Antifa is different than what we're witnessing. They claim anyone that has a different opinion to them as being Nazi's no matter what that opinion is. They think that everyone is a nazi and that everyone is a fascist, and that's how they justify attacking anyone that they want when they want to. They're a vigilante terrorist group that tries to force people into sharing their opinion through violence and silence those that won't conform to their ideas.

The people that antifa attack aren't Nazi's, they're just normal people that are tired of getting punched in the face for having a different opinion. There are no active Nazi regiment in the United States so Antifa finds targets and proclaims them as Nazi's. Look at Milo or Ben Shapiro. One is homosexual and the other is jewish, but Antifa would have BOTH labeled as being Nazi's. How does that work?

Antifa are not a massive organization, they are an amorphous, disjointed made of several individuals united by a common cause, as well as people who use the label as a smokescreen to do terrible things, like protest hijackers.

Every major clash I've seen so far has been between counter-protestors associated with Antifa against self-proclaimed Nazis. Not only Charlottesville but also the clash in Sacramento in 2016 among many others.

If a group is calling themselves Nazis, wears the symbols, chants the verses, marches and use their usual bullshit rhetoric.

There is a definite chance that they are a sea world employee (jk) Nazi.

When I see videos of Antifa clashing with Nazis, there are three things I tend to notice.

1. We rarely see who started the fight, who agitated who. It's always in the middle of the violence and because Antifa is scarier, it must be those guys who did it. right? (No)

2. Antifa's record of violence mostly consists of beating people up and destroying property. Nazis meanwhile has a history of bombings, severe violence a murder, vitrolic hate speech, theft and causing political instability. Every nation in Europe has a laundry list of shitty things Nazis have done along with the united states. The worst crimes of antifa, the absolute worst, don't hold a candle to what the Nazis have done, and intend to do. That knowledge, even if I were to acknowledge both as violent groups, the Nazis are clearly more threatening and have greater intent to cause long-term harm.

3. Antifa's motivations are in the right, but their methods are wrong being quicker to resort to unjust violence. Nazis like to use and abuse the system to insulate themselves from opposition and weaponize it against them, giving their movement more credibility through victim sympathy and crocodile tears. I ain't buying it. Knowing what I know of Nazis, and knowing what I know of Antifa, I have no doubt the Nazis were the primary instigators, they baited Antifa into a brawl and Antifa bought hook, line, and sucker. Despite that, I understand and sympathize with Antifa more and I'm not going to let violence on either side overshadow the argument at hand.

People unfortunately get called Nazis all the time. I've been called an Authoritarian Nazi as well as a Liberal SJW Madman. The only reason to call names is to use them as weapons to demonize and discredit your opponent. But it falls flat if it's not true.

I honestly don't know much about Ben Shapiro or Milo so I'm not going to make claims about either. All I know is that they both did work at Breitbart, a conservative-leaning journalism group. If they're called Nazis and didn't deserve it, then the people who did are wrong. Simple as that. If they have self-proclaimed beliefs that can be interpreted as Nazism or Fascism, then it's fair but inaccurate.

Well the first point here is that you're saying that Antifa doesn't commonly act out the way that they're portrayed, but instead people commonly take on the costume to do bad things in the name of Antifa. The issue here is that you can say the same about any group of individuals. You can even say the same thing about modern day Nazi's. That the primary members are just hateful douchebags that keep to themselves, but there are people that claim themselves as Nazi's and act out, which later in this same post you claim that if they call themselves Nazi's then that makes them Nazi's. You can't have that both ways. Either a group is responsible for people that claim to be part of it or they aren't. You can't claim that anyone who says he's a Nazi IS a Nazi and then say that not everyone who says that they're Antifa are actually Antifa.

The second point here is that if you're going to focus so much attention on the history of the Nazi organization in comparison to Antifa then you have to accept that with Nazi's being around a LOT longer they're going to have more of a chance to do horrible things, especially after they had the financing of an entire government to basically do what they wanted. Nobody will disagree that the Nazi's did horrible things and then got their butts kicked into being an underground organization. Even German's hate Nazi's, but what you seem to be implying is that Antifa is justified in their aggressive behavior because Nazi's are more dangerous. That's basically making the statement that "A burning match might hurt you, but it's not where as hot as the surface of the sun." Trying to justify acting out in violence because you feel that another group might be MORE violent doesn't help suppress the more violent side, it just provides them with motivation to act out with their greater power of violence.

Honestly, person can have opinions, these opinions can be dumb, radical, moronic, racist, or anything else, but they have the right to have those opinions. It's nobody's duty to stop them from having stupid, and to act violently towards them based on these opinions only enforces them. Violence solves nothing, only education fixes these problems. If you want to fix these opinions then you have to fight them with facts and information so that the person is made to change their mind about what they previously thought. Violence has never helped anyone on a social level.

Finally, people aren't pointing at Antifa and calling them villains because they look scary. They're doing so because in countless videos on youtube you can clearly see where Antifa and BAMN straight up attack people sometimes with no provocation at all. Yeah theirs violence on both sides, but you can't argue with the fact that anywhere Antifa shows up violence occurs where there wasn't any before. Even Leftist protestors have gone on the record stating that arguments between differing opinions were pretty much peaceful until Antifa showed up. It could be people cosplaying as Antifa, but if that's the case then you guys need to get in front of these accusations and denounce them, not stay silent and allow people to think that your group is this overly-violent hate group.

I want to give you the benefit of the doubt and allow Antifa to show that it's not what people think it is, but then again you did claim it yourself as being a vigilante group. Assaulting people is illegal even if you think that you're in the right for doing so. You stated in your original journal that actions have consequences, but opinions aren't actions, they can lead to actions, but they aren't actions in themselves. You can't attack people because you don't like what they're saying. I can guarantee you that if what they're saying is downright stupid and ignorant then nobody is going to agree with them anyway. Might doesn't make right.

...Whoo boy

Think of it this way. Antifa is made of dozens of people, who may share goals but don't necessarily share the same ethics when it comes to achieving those goals, and again due to the amorphous nature of the group, anyone can join it. Because of this nature, there are bound to be inconsistencies and contradictions that will paint them in a positive or negative light depending on the actions of individuals. Second, people only pay attention to Antifa and get riled up after an incident occurs. What does Antifa do outside of counter-protesting? What happens in between the brawls?

They do what any protest movement does: Provide services to the community, lobby for the prosecution of hate crime commiters, and educate people on the dangers of fascism and racist rhetoric. This is what Antifa is really about and when a person does something that makes themselves and the group they represent look bad, it's undermining their efforts.
Furthermore, if their goal is to undermine fascism, it makes sense to me there would be individuals who'd want to ruin their credibility so they'd have less opposition. I mean, nobody is going to infiltrate a Neo-Nazi group and make it more tolerant and accepting of other races now are they?

I'm more willing to believe if an Antifa "member" attacks an innocent person, that was the decisions of that one person and not the group. I'd imagine the majority of Antifa thinks like the rest of us, and are aware of the dangers of arbitrary, senseless violence and how it looks bad on the rest of the. Even so, they can't control everyone and it's not fair to write off the actions of an entire movement because a few people lost control and/or couldn't keep their hate boner in check.

What do Nazis do in their free time? Intimidate communities into submission, indulge in racist rhetoric, cover up hate crimes and discredit their opponents through the spread of false information. There might be some who act in the service of their community, but it's not for the good of all, their ideology would contradict that. Nazi ideology makes it clear they have no love for people of color, gays, or jews. If they attack one of these innocent people, it's expected of them because their beliefs tell them they should. If they commit violence, there is more reason to believe they did so intentionally. I write off Nazis entirely because of their philosophy, but you can't arrest people who commited a crime. If a person claims themselves to be a Nazi, but commited no crime, you can't arrest them because they technically did nothing wrong, but you SHOULD be suspicious of them. If Nazi philosophy was something like "Increasing the quality of life for impoverished, uneducated white euro-ethnic peoples", that at least would be respectable and worth supporting.

But that's not what they're all about. They're fascists, they want control, they want an Aryan Utopia and the compete purging of all undesirables. They can't do it now because they don't have the power. They made it clear however that if they did have the power. On principle alone, I support Antifa.

Antifa and Nazis are roughly the same age, both coming about in the early 20th century, but Antifa lost their first fight with Nazis clearing their way to power. Had Antifa succeeded then, perhaps the final solution would have been avoided. But we'll never know, we will never know what Antifa would do given a chance at power so all we can do is give them the benefit of the doubt. Nazis, there is no room for doubt. We've analyzed their tactics, their philosophy, their history for decades and if education hasn't taught you yet that self-proclaimed Nazis have no good intentions, nothing will.

As for whether or not violence has ever helped on a social level, that is a lie. In the Gulf War, the united states along with NATO and other allied nations join forces to push back the unjust invasion of Saddam Hussein into Saudi Arabia to siege their oil wells. We kicked them out and Americans were seen as heroes by the Saudi people for coming to their aid and until the war in the middle east, we actually had a favorable reputation there.

Violence saves lives when it's used to protect others and enforce laws that punish criminals. People don't always relent by being sent to a corner and being slapped on the wrist. Sometimes you have to get in there and do what needs to be done. By taking violence off the table, you take away people's ability to defend themselves from harm. It's naive and foolish to believe violence doesn't have a place on the social level.

Furthermore, how can a group that is made of individuals supposed to speak for everyone without a leader? They're just people with a common cause, like any group of protestors. I've watched these same videos, and when you're caught up in the passion and chaos of a brawl, it's easy to forget why the fight started in the first place.

"Everything was going fine until Antifa showed up"

Why? Was it Antifa who started the fight? That's the question nobody is answering. They talk about how it was both sides fault, or Antifa tried to intimidate the other, but intimidation alone isn't always enough to start a fight, and it's certainly not the first blow. Let me tell you of one video I saw, an Antifa member was having an argument with a Neo-Nazi, and the Neo-Nazi hit the Antifa guy with pepper spray. The Antifa guy struck back with his first and a brawl ensued. I saw with my own two eyes clearly the Neo-Nazi attacked first. I'm thinking "How many more incidents started like this?"

Because most videos show the conflict after it has already started, we're left with witness testimony. Witness Testimony is easily manipulated, and if you're dealing with an emotional witness, they make mistakes. In our modern law, we'd never allow witness testimony alone decide a case, we'd gather evidence to support the claim. If most videos focus on the brawls after they've started, their use as evidence is limited. It simply shows a fight DID happen and we're left to guess why.

My money, using deductive reasoning leads me to believe Nazis were the instigators. They may not ALWAYS be the instigators, but I have less reason to trust them knowing who they are and what they do.

But again you can say the same thing about any group being made up of individuals. The KKK is made up of individuals, but due to their core ideology we detest them in the same way that we detest Nazi's. And again, you're saying "Nazi's" a lot, but discounting the possibility of people proclaiming the title out of irony, frustration, or even sarcasm due to constant and often unjust accusations thrown at them because of it being a key word that Leftists use to shut down conversations. Also what you're saying is that Nazi's don't have a down-time from being Nazi's. You're basically creating a straw man of what a Nazi is and using that as your only example of what they do when they aren't going to rallies.

I'll give you an example of another dangerous group outside of Antifa and Nazi's. Hell's Angels is an incredibly dangerous biker gang that is run much in the same way as a biker styled mofia. They're responsible for the public and private deaths of countless people (especially out west), but in their down time they host Cancer Drives, Toy Drives, and other community activities to help improve the lives of people and make their group look good. Everyone can agree that Nazi's hold a horrible ideology (I don't think anyone would argue otherwise), but in reference to Antifa (and Nazi's if they do anything for their communities at all outside of being Nazi's) a few events of good activities don't undermine the fact that they can and WILL act violently and dangerously at the drop of a hat. At least we know where Nazi's stand and they keep most of their meetings and activity under a rock where it belongs. Antifa is not only in your face about it, but their violently in your face, even if not all of them are violent. Also, you can't look at an Antifa counter-protest and claim that these handful of people are the true members while these countless violent individuals that are brawling in the streets simply aren't. The focus of a group is made up of the majority, so if the majority is violent then the group is violent.

Which brings me to another point. The change of the point of view to the battle field that these ideologies take place. Neo-Nazi's basically don't exist in a large enough meaning to matter. What I'm saying is that they really have no influence at all on any level, but Antifa is still looking to fight them which leads many Antifa members to proclaim anyone as being a Nazi just so that they'll have a target to declare their relevance. It's the same thing with Modern Day Feminism. Equal rights exist, discrimination is outlawed even on corporate levels and so they look for all new things to be offended about so that they can justify the continued existence of their group.

I guess in a way it's easy to claim the moral high ground when you're dialect is to claim that you're fighting literal Nazi's, but this isn't 1944 anymore. Nazi's not only don't really exist in any kind of relevant level, but everyone who does exist now a days believes fully that they were absolutely and completely wrong in every single aspect of their ideology. If Antifa's entire purpose is to fight Nazi's then congratulations you all won that when history books started including events from WW2. The only people that claim that the Nazi Regime had any credibility are trolls and idiots, and even they're no actual threat.

Away from that tangent - You mention that if an Antifa member hits someone then that should be considered the action of the single member, but that's the same thing as saying if a KKK member burns a hispanic person's house down to try and run him out of a neighborhood then that should be considered the action of the individual. The reality is that when a member is working within the ideology of a group then the group is actually to blame. Just like how the KKK runs an ideology of white purism on a social and political level Antifa also houses a violent ideology towards anyone that they deem to be Nazi/Fascist (which by the way IS fascism). You can't blame an individual for acting in line with the beliefs of the group that they claim to be part of.

On a secondary note to this point. For the sake of recording their progress. Antifa has functioned in about a dozen different countries within Northern America and Europe. So the question that I'd like to provide you is if they've been successful at all in riding Nazi/Fascist ideology from any of them using their violent "might makes right" justification.

And yes, Antifa fought Nazi's in the streets, but it's that violence that forced the public eye against them and favored the Nazi's in order to allow the regime to rise into power. People were willing to turn a blind eye to the Nazi Regime rising into power because of being seen as the victims of these conflicts. It's more surprising to see Antifa attempting the exact same tactic now after they failed the first time because of it. The only difference is that there is no fascist group trying to rise to power so they're actually just fighting people in the streets for literally having different opinions. There's a difference in proclaiming that some group of non-majorities should be removed from society and simply questioning why 5-15 percent of the population is committing 50% of the crime and asking how to actually solve that clear problem. What's made worse is that when questioned about their opinions and political ideals involving their group they typically refuse to answer any questions and try to run people out of events. It makes the group look shady and untrustworthy more than they already are.

On social violence, I should state that there is a clear difference between Military Operations and social violence. In Military violence the military and ultimately the leader of said military is to blame and has to answer to other governments about its decisions and how the operation was carried out. That's government to government and while may have some social backlash on our level the people (and the people of other countries) aren't really the focus of who they need to answer to. When I'm talking about social violence I mean person to person. Us ground level people. Violence is only justified when it's carried through sanctioned military operations, law enforcement where every other avenue has been considered and failed/discounted, and for the purpose of self defense. But Antifa doesn't defend itself most of the time. Not when they're a group dedicated to attacking people due to a difference in opinon (yes, I'm still on that because it IS the ideology of the group). What I'm saying is that outside of self defense there's no reason for a person to be attacking another, in fact it's illegal to do so.

Typically the right is willing to always say that the left started the fight regardless of what group it is. But when even the left is pointing at Antifa and stating that the rally was peaceful until Antifa showed up. That should clue you in right there. The left has always been protective of their people (people is what the left is all about), so if they're saying that there's a problem with a group being too openly violent then it's worthy of actual credit.

As for your video that you saw. You stated yourself that people just dress up as Antifa to start stuff so how do you know that this individual was actually Antifa? How do you know that the guy that hit him was actually a Neo-Nazi? Again Neo-Nazi's really active in the United States, at least not on a level that actually matters, so how do we know that both of them weren't just proclaiming themselves as something for the sake of starting stuff and then immediately started stuff? The point of blame entirely starts to fall apart when you introduce that a group isn't responsible for the individuals that act on it's behalf. My point is that at some point there must be some level of accountability for the group and it's members. I especially have to question if the person is actually a Nazi only because I find it hard to believe that someone would openly admit that they ARE aligned with a fallen organization that is so regularly despised on all sides of any political spectrum. How do you know if you're facing a Nazi or not since they aren't typically open about being Nazi's? Do you do so based on their opinions? Anyone can have those or similar opinions without being Nazi's. Being part of a group requires some kind of dedication to said group.

If I'm going to look at the full picture of a conflict then I'm not going to just assume that the people with the worst reputation is responsible. I'm going to follow the clues and testimonies of people on both sides to determine what actually happened. Claiming that everything is the fault of the Nazi's when there might not even be actual Nazi's involved only due to the fact that nazi's are well known for having done horrible things since the 1930's is the same thing as instantly blaming Antifa due to them being an openly violent terrorist group. I'm not willing to look into either conclusion without some level of investigation. Heck, a conflict could be as simple as one side walked in on the other while carrying baseball bats, or as stupid as one got pooped on by a bird and thought that the other side threw a rock. It's an infinite range of possible outcomes for why violence happened, but that doesn't mean that an investigation shouldn't occur before deductive reasoning is applied.

sorry for the wall as well. Lol. I guess I got carried away as well.

This has been a pretty brutal debate and I'm sure you're just as worn out as I am, so I'll just try conclude my feelings on this matter here so we can give both our heads a deserved rest.

A straw man is what you create when you're trying to weaken an argument. Nazis need no straw men, their argument is in their ideology. It's really not up for debate unless Nazis themselves change their core ideals completely, which is unlikely. I loathe their ideology and their reasons for having it. How do you argue with someone who believes there is only one perfect, superior race, and everyone else is comparable to roaches that need to be exterminated? This is beyond left vs right at that point

Individuals choose to join Nazis just as they choose to join Antifa. People who join Nazis are either pressured into doing so or because they sympathize with their ideology. Either way, they're responsible for the path they took. Same with Antifa members, who want to undermine fascism by any means necessary, which for some unfortunately also means doing pretty shitty things which I won't pretend doesn't happen. Even so, I can at least say that if a person joins Antifa, there is reason to believe they did so with good intentions, not the same with Nazis. No person joins the Nazis with good intentions, you know they're either doing it to cause harm or scared into submission. Now I'm not saying there aren't people who could be pressured to join Antifa out of fear, I simply have less reason to believe they would do so.

Hell's Angels is a biker gang who's philosophy revolves around freedom, rejection of societal norms, and self-reliability. That unfortunately doesn't exclude criminal activity and some members of their group have gained a reputation for violent crimes including theft and murder. Like Antifa and the Nazis, I also see them as individuals who made a choice and are responsible for those choices and it's regrettable some would enact violent crimes for their own self-interest, and that's a key point here, self interest.

Any crime a Nazi commits makes sense both because it's people acting in their own self-interest AND following the core ideology. They're in sync, there is consistency, it takes what's already there and feeds into it. With regards to Antifa and Hell's Angels, the former wants to undermine fascism and some believe violence should be the first answer to dealing with them, which is wrong and I'm not going to argue that (Though it is not my belief violence be ruled out at all times, it's situational and requires good judgment) while the latter simply wants the freedom to do whatever they want, and some people with freedom instead of doing the right thing, do shitty things. What can you do? Do we put the entire blame on Antifa or Hell's Angels for being enablers, even when there are just as many people doing the right thing under their name? Is it names or people that causes terrible things to happen. With Antifa, I can at least believe their intentions are in the right place, even if they make mistakes like letting the wrong people into their ranks. With Nazis, that consistency factor of hatred along with their history gives me more reason to believe that not only do they have the worst intentions with their presence, but given an opportunity would act on those ill intentions. The point is, I'm not going to trust their word over Antifa and you'll be hard pressed to make me think they're innocent or deserve the benefit of the doubt in the same way Antifa does.

Nazis are no longer a political party, their current incarnation and the one I've been referring to all this time but never clearly defined as Neo-Nazis, which are the de-facto top of the pyramid when it comes to white supremacists beliefs. What they are now is a real roving gang of criminals globally recognized as terrorists themselves who have been unfortunately blessed with the charisma
they inherited from their predecessors. While most like to think that a racist is simply an uneducated buffoon who has no understanding of the real world, Nazis are actually quite educated...in their own skewed view of the world, having done extensive research into why everyone except their Aryan ideals are an infestation of cockroaches. They're indoctrinated fanatics, and they want you to believe what they believe by any means necessary. Even when they're doing things that are unquestionably kind, knowing how they like to put people into a false sense of security so they can gain new recruits and feed more of their beliefs to you, view everything they do with a skeptical eye.

and to call them no actual threat is to truly underestimate them as both a former political party and as a criminal organization. A noticeably large percentage of domestic terrorist action can be attributed to them (Or at least, their influence) since the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995 and even after 9/11, where everyone still wants to believe the only terrorists in the world are Muslim for some reason, Neo-Nazis are still doing their dirt and even when it's covered in the media, it's ignored by the public as being an exception to the norm, rather than the rule when it comes to Neo-Nazis. A threat? I think they've more than earned the right to be seen as a threat, both on the local level and the global level and not JUST because of their past history as the de-facto rulers of Germany and parts of europe, but their present history as white supremacist terrorists and roving gang of thugs. Why I call them Nazis collectively is because they're continuing the legacy of the fallen Nazis, but on a more guerilla level and if they want to continue that hateful legacy, then they get to carry all of that blood as well...the way it looks though, I don't think they care about that.

Antifa has been defined by their violence, because the court of public opinion said so. Reason being, massive public attention has been given to the many public fights they've had with Nazis at various events. But is the majority of their group violent inherently, or have simply become involved in violent encounters. It may not seem like much of a difference, but there is a difference. If we both agree that people are responsible for their own actions, then we also need to distinguish between those people who indulge in violence for the sake of violence versus those who act in self-defense or are drawn into conflict by the actions of others. What I mean by that if two people are fighting, an attack misses its intended target and hits a third person who was involved otherwise (A likely accident in a case of a brawl in the streets), it can easily snowball out of control as people either try to break up the violence or escalate it depending on their motivations and ultimately leave the situation ambiguous. Why this matters is that the arguments against Antifa lean heavily against them being instigators in all conflicts. Unrepentant Nazi Punchers who are beating a dead horse.

If they're not the primary instigators, especially when there's enough evidence to believe they're not (Or enough reason to at least doubt in their favor), how can anyone really argue that they have a might makes right philosophy over the few incidents we've actually been witness to. As for those innocent people who were harassed by Antifa, I don't know what to say to that. Should I assume they're telling the truth? Are they lying to discredit Antifa? Was it violence done with malevolent if it did happen, or an accident blown out of proportion? I DON'T KNOW and I'm not going to claim to know. You know what would make me believe Antifa are at fault and are absolutely violent and dangerous? If their leaders said "Go beat up anyone who you think is a Nazi, you have our blessing."

Sounds absurd right, and it is. Not only because Antifa has no leaders, but their goal is to subvert the spread of fascism and white supremacy as an ideology, and violence alone can't do that. Might makes right? Is that what Antifa says or is that public perception born of fear? I can't help the way people feel, but it's not coming from a rational place when people are comparing Antifa to Isis Death Squads (Hilariously combining Nazism with Radical Islamic Terrorism. Somebody actually said this by the way on my own journal)

Antifa's intimidation factor comes from their appearance and slogans "The only good Nazi is a dead Nazi" and things like that. Even I agree that the slogans go too far and do nothing for their imagine, but their weapons and garb are not enough for me to write them off as people looking for trouble. Recall Charlottesville again. The White supremacists showed up first to protest a statue, supposedly peacefully trying to protect history. Then why did they have right-wing militias with them, carrying rifles and semi-automatic weapons? You can't have a peaceful demonstration and bring guns if that's your intention. If you're looking for protection, that's what the police are for but again, since they have the right to bear arms and as long as they had licenses for them, you're allowed to have weapons. The way I read it, there were no peaceful intentions, they too were trying to intimidate opponents. Antifa also came with weapons, and yes I agree they also came prepared for violence, and I really can't think of a excuse that would put them doing so in a positive light since the argument for them I just made for Nazis.

Reading further into the situation, I say neither side trusted the police to defend them should a conflict occur and considering the aftermath, I can see why. Antifa, while armed were armed with makeshift weapons and shields like bats. Last time I checked, Guns have far more killing power than a Bat, can it not be argued while Antifa were ready to fight, the white supremacists were ready to kill? Who objectively has the greater potential for damage? Who was the greater threat? Even if you argue that both sides were complicit in the violence, you can't argue that Nazis were peacefully demonstrating with guns and torches and certainly can't argue Antifa were more dangerous in that situation.

On the matter of violence, I simply don't agree. Violence is merely a tool, and applied well it can save lives and subdue dangerous people. Used poorly, and can take lives and endanger innocent people. Who is guilty and who is innocent has not and never will be so black and white as there are so many factors like perspectives, histories, and characters to take into account that like the act of violence itself becomes an ugly blurred mess that makes most of us wish it never had to happen in the first place. To rule out all violence as being inherently wrong is to miss the point of why it exists in the first place: Survival, to ensure one's own self-preservation. When it comes to Nazis, while the Aryan utopia is the goal, the reason they want to purge the undesirables is to protect their own from a perceive threat, be it their loved ones or home or something less tangible like a cultural identity. They perceive the world around them that doesn't share their views to be a threat and all acts of violence to them are justified because of that. Even though I understand their motivations, they are still wrong and while assuming everyone to be a threat to them, they in turn are a threat to everyone else.

Antifa's violence is random, nonsensical, and vague. It's so random, nonsensical, and vague that I struggle to believe it actually happened, not because of an unwillingness to believe it actually happened and give responsibility to those who deserve it, but because there's nothing to gain from it They want to subvert fascism, which is understandable but unlike Nazis who need violence for their goals, Antifa doesn't. Nothing in their philosophy says they do, only everyone else says they do because of their reputations as Nazi Punchers. Why punch a Nazi, why attack innocent people? With the former, you might get the brief satisfaction of having hit an asshole (and who hasn't wanted to hit an asshole in their lives? I know I have) but in the long run, it DOES only makes them look bad. No sensible person is just going to get involved in a fight for no reason. I'd like to think both of us are sensible people who don't get into fights for any stupid reason. The reality is, when most people get into fights, at that moment, it seemed like a good idea at the time which brings me back to military operations. Operation Desert Shield was a good idea, we needed to stop Saddam Hussein's invasion, we did and it was seen as a wise decision.

On the flipside, we have the Vietnam War, a complete clusterfuck of bad decisions that damaged the morale and reputation of the united states indefinitely. If violence is inherently bad, why have war at all? Why have police with guns? Because why we may not want it, we do need it and there is a place for it and it's about how you use it and why you use it that matters. How do we judge that, that's the billion dollar question now isn't it? If we do accept the hard truth that violence is a part of our lives, and sometimes necessary, then we must also accept that mistakes happen, either by people losing control or unintentional accidents and we must find it in ourselves, as hard as it can be to forgive when mistakes happen.

Antifa's violent reputation is understandable, I know why people call them that. If you see a lot of articles that read "Antifa attacks protestors" or any variation thereof, you're going to get people that believe it. But real critical thinking looks beyond the sensationalized articles and asks what really happened and why. WHY it happened is more important that what happened. When you know the WHY, then you can make a judgement call. You reflect upon yourself and say

"If I was in their shoes, would I do the same thing? Am I the type of person to do such a thing in the first place?"

I can't say with an honest heart that I am so above it all, to condemn all violence absolutely with extreme prejudice. I could be pressured into defending myself against an aggressor, and I can see myself getting angry enough to lash out at somebody when provoked. However, I could never see myself committing an act of violence against someone unprovoked, for no reason just because of who they are. One's existence isn't enough for me to hate them so much I want to hurt them and I'd like to think there are a lot of people, inside and outside of Antifa who feel the same way I do. Nazis, however, I CAN believe would cause unprovoked violence against someone just because of who they are: For being jewish, for being black, for being gay, for being sickly and weak. That's not a strawman, and it's not twisting them to be the bad guys. We don't like Nazis because we know what they're all about, not because we assume so.

Antifa, if we admit to ourselves we don't know much about, at least as much as we should. What we know about them is that they failed to oust the Nazis the first time because public opinion turned against them. I can easily see it happening here again, and the only reason it's happening is because people who identified themselves or by others as members of Antifa commited acts of senseless violence, and people used that to make a platform to call ALL of Antifa violent, even the ones who didn't. I'm sorry, but good sense won't allow me to use such a rash generalization of Antifa. Nothing they've done has earned it, at least to me and while I can understand why others can feel that way, I feel no obligation to agree with them.

Until Antifa does something more significant than getting into street fights and trying to scare armed white supremacists with baseball bats and bandanas and does so as a united front with malevolent intent to force innocent people (People just living their lives, random strangers) into submission like actual radical terrorists, dictators, crime bosses, and the like, Antifa does not deserve the title of terrorist, their reputation as an inherently violent group should be taken with a grain of salt, and their conflicts with Nazis past and present should be viewed with great skepticism, with the underlying reasons for the conflict being given just as much consideration for the violence along with the moment to moment instances of violent flare ups. Only then, can we be certain of who's actually a threat and who's a perceived threat.

I ask you to please consider in the future the next time you see another article depicting another outbreak of violence between protesting groups these things.

1. Was there an effort to keep the groups distant from each other so a fight wouldn't break out.
2. Were their outlying factors involved like drugs, alcohol, or in some cases did a previous incident occur elsewhere that might also
be a motivating factor for conflict?
3. How was the fight escalated? Was it unprovoked (As in pushing, spitting, slurs, assault, etc)
4. Who instigated the fight?
5. Were there attempts to break up the fight after it started? Did the police get involved and do their job immediately?
6. If it wasn't broken up immediately, did the fight stay isolated or did it go out of control and more people got involved?
7. Was the fight one sided? Was one side armed exclusively?
8. Did one side try to run away during the fight? Were they forced to keep fighting even though they wanted to stop?
9. When the fight concluded, what was the status of those involved, how bad were their injuries?
10. After the initial fight concluded, did someone try to re-escalate it afterwards to keep it going?
11. Once the witnesses gave their testimony, and assuming both sides have animosity and bias against their opponents, was the information presented have at least some consistency with any videos or images seen of the fight or injuries?

After answering all of these questions, and perhaps more if you investigate further, does your final conclusion about the situation make sense with how events played out? Can you make a fair and accurate judgment about the character and actions of these groups after the fact?

For me, I've come to the conclusion that
Yes, both sides were complicit in the violence, I have a good idea why the violence happened, not enough people are doing their part to keep it from escalating, and that I have more reason to believe that one side is more motivated to instigate as well as escalate the violence than the other and that the court of public opinion is too caught up on the surface aspects of the conflict, riled by fear and shallow assumptions to give an in-depth analysis of the situation. But that is my opinion, it may not the best or hold the most weight, but I'd like to think it's educated and well-thought out enough to have some merit.

In short, my favor goes to Antifa even knowing their unfortunate reputation as a "might makes right" violent group. Because a reputation is not fact, it's not truth. Truth is Antifa is made of people, with individual motivations can be summarized as "stop fascism" and how they go about doing that depends on the individuals involved. Some will be violent, others won't, but regardless they've earned the benefit of the doubt from me. I can't say the same for Nazis, even though they're in arguably the same situation. They want an aryan utopia, and some will commit violent acts while others won't follow through. But if a person holds sincere beliefs in Nazi ideology, and knowing their reputation and history of violence, there is far greater consistency there than there is with Antifa and violence.

If it came down to a situation where I had to entrust my life to Antifa or Nazis on a split-second decision, Antifa just simply seems like the better choice all things considered.

I know I keep repeating myself and hammering these points in, but with Antifa I at least can say that I COULD trust them to do the right thing. There is reason to doubt, there is reason to debate their credibility which is why we're having this debate in the first place. Nazis have no credibility, there is no reason to trust them at all, there is no reason to believe that unless you fit their arbitrary requirements they would ever want to help you. If it came down to a life or death situation, I can actually see an Antifa member helping a Nazi, I can see lines being broken to help somebody in need because even Nazis are people. I just can't say the same for a Nazi, a white supremacist, at least if they sincerely believe their own bullshit.

What do you think?

We can stop the conversation if you're tired from it. There's not much of a huge reason to overly continue it given that we've both covered our major points and concerned regarding both Nazi's and Antifa. Of course nobody is ever going to trust Nazi's unless that person for whatever person follows those same beliefs, but while everyone can agree that Nazi's are bad the real meat of the discussion is whether we believe that Antifa is following unnecessary violent measures against people that aren't following that ideology. What we have to question is if an Antifa individual points at someone and proclaims them as being a Nazi/Fascist and that person responds stating that they aren't, then should the Antifa individual still persue the accused person or leave them be? Because in the videos that I've seen (regardless of who started the confrontation) this happens a lot where it concludes with the Antifa person continuing to push that accusation after it's been denounced.

If we're talking about who to trust then I'm going to trust neither, because I don't find either side as being truthworthy due to their activity. A decision doesn't always always have to be one side or the other, there's also other available options or no options at all.

My biggest concern is always escalation. It starts off with debate, moves to argument, moves to violence, moves to greater violence, moves to death, moves to genocide. Any kind of conflict not brought back down will eventually follow this path it doesn't matter what conflict it is or what group is involved. I've already seen videos and heard reports that Antifa are starting to arm themselves with firearms which is a much worse situation that i think either of us would be willing to allow. I simply don't want anyone getting hurt.

But yeah, we've both discussed this quite indepthly so we can end it there. I'm glad that I could help you second guess a few of your previous thoughts and if you ever want to talk about specific points I'm usually available to talk about these kinds of things. It's easier to think roundly about a subject if you have another perspective to bounce it off of, but I'm not about to take any extremist sides on flawed ideologies of false superiority based on race or gender. My core belief has always been that we're stronger with diversity, and that's coming from someone that was raised among racist care takers, so I've seen actual racism and bigotry first hand to have a real point of comparison that a lot of these straight out of highschool college kids that are rioting in the streets simply don't have.

HOLY SHIT, yeah no more, I give, I'm throwing up my hands. I'm basically writing essays on this matter. It's too much >.<

But you know what, while I didn't agree with everything you said, you made some great points that I must admit made me greatly reflect on some of my own thoughts and morality. This is all I could ever ask for in a conversation and though it took a poorly worded journal on my part to start this conversation, I don't regret having made it or having this discussion with you. I only wish I had written a better, more thought-out journal.

Oh, and one last thing, because I want to cover my bases and don't want to forget anything. Earlier I argued that, due to Antifa's amorphous, unorganized nature, just about anybody can claim to be a member and use it to purposely cause harm to their reputation. It sounded a bit paranoid and it seemed to divert blame away from Antifa and come off as a "No True Scotsman" argument and I apologize for that.

It is not unreasonable or irrational to assume that Antifa could very well be liars. That while they claim to be for the subversion of fascism and white supremacist movements, they could very well have their own sinister ulterior movements and the random bouts of violence could be argued as a symptom of that. My stance on this particular matter is that while possible, it's simply unlikely and it circles back to consistency. If Antifa had a more consistent and significant record of unjustified violence against innocent people, I'd be more willing to consider it as an alternative interpretation of their movement, but the numbers simply don't match up. As dark as it sounds, they simply do not hurt enough innocent people in a way that can be considered a pattern rather than accidents or the result of bad judgment. For that reason, if they're NOT hurting enough innocent people, that would give more motivation to their opponents to stir things up just so the argument is less one-sided. Nobody is arguing Nazis are bad, we already know they're bad. What we're arguing is whether or not Antifa is good and not just a violent group and whether or not their reputation as terrorists is earned.

Yeah, that post was a bit much, sorry about the wall of text.

I'm not even gonna take a side on this. I'm too terrified to get involved in this Charlie Foxtrot, but it was a very interesting read nonetheless. Learned some things I didn't know.

Although I don't regret making the journal, I do in hindsight regret not having written a better one. While it angered more than it's fair share of people and I lost a few good supporters, I did have a lot of great discussions about the topic as well and got out my feelings on the matter, so all in all, I'm content with how things turned out.

I wish you the best of luck in the future Saesar, and thanks again for chatting with me.