PDA

View Full Version : “Physical violence against white supremacists is ethically justifiable and effective"




Anti Federalist
08-31-2017, 09:51 PM
So says a Dartmouth "visiting professor".

Of course, when you start beating people down for political reasons, the fly in the ointment is how that term is defined.

Ron Paul (and his supporters, us) have been labeled as racist, nazis and white supremacists by numerous publications and have been listed as a "hate group" by SPLC.

So, what next?



Dartmouth scholar endorses Antifa violence

https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=9616

Sandor Farkas on Aug 21, 2017 at 3:32 PM EDT

Mark Bray, a visiting scholar at Dartmouth College, has repeatedly defended Antifa's use of violence in response to white supremacist organizations.
In a recent appearance on Meet the Press, Bray argued that violence is a "legitimate response" to groups with such incendiary views.

A visiting scholar at Dartmouth College has repeatedly endorsed Antifa’s violent protest tactics as a “legitimate response” to white-supremacist organizations.

Mark Bray, a self-described “historian of human rights, terrorism, and political radicalism in Modern Europe,” currently resides at the Gender Research Institute at Dartmouth (GRID), which once hosted Rutgers University Professor Jasbir Puar, who accused Israel of harvesting Palestinian organs.

Bray has recently been making the rounds on the media circuit to promote his new book, Antifa: The Anti-Fascist Handbook, a topic he first drew attention for after writing a Washington Post article in which he called the group’s tactics “ethically justifiable.”

While he argued that “the vast majority of anti-fascist organizing is nonviolent,” he then acknowledged that they “preemptively shut down fascist organizing efforts,” suggesting that “physical violence against white supremacists is both ethically justifiable and strategically effective.”

That same day, Bray appeared on Democracy Now! to explain that “anti-fascists view their struggle as trans-national and trans-historical,” since their lineage can be traced “to Italian opposition to Mussolini’s Blackshirts, [and] German opposition to Hitler’s Brownshirts.”

During that appearance, Bray maintained that Americans must emulate such groups, saying “clearly we can see that rational discourse and debate was insufficient” during the rise of European fascism in the first half of the twentieth century.

“Clearly we can see that the mechanisms of parliamentary government were insufficient,” he stated. “We need to be able to come up with a way to say…‘By any means necessary, this can never happen again.’”

Bray concluded by encouraging viewers to “give up on the liberal notion” of “a regime of rights” that allows individuals to voice Nazi beliefs and reiterated his view that American white supremacists are “an enemy to humanity that needs to be stopped by any means necessary.”

More recently, Bray made an appearance on Meet the Press to debate Richard Cohen, president of the Southern Poverty Law Center.

“You seem to be a very small minority here who is defending the idea of violence considering that somebody died in Charlottesville. Why do you defend confronting in a violent way?” moderator Chuck Todd asked Bray, who disputed Todd’s characterization of him as a “minority.”

“Self-defense” in the face of “white supremacy and neo-Nazi violence” is a “legitimate response,” Bray argued, saying that “the way to stop” white supremacy from “becoming established” is to do “what people did in Boston, what people did in Charlottesville.”

Cohen, on the other hand, reasoned that “it’s a spectacularly bad idea to give one group of people the right to silence another group of people,” and suggested that doing so could escalate the violence.

Although Bray responded by again calling Antifa tactics a matter of “self-defense,” Cohen shot back by arguing that “it’s a very peculiar notion of self-defense to say you can censor people.”

Campus Reform contacted Bray for comment, but received no response as of press time.

UPDATE: A spokesperson for Dartmouth provided Campus Reform with the following statement.

"Recent statements made by Lecturer in History Mark Bray supporting violent protest do not represent the views of Dartmouth. As an institution, we condemn anything but civil discourse in the exchange of opinions and ideas. Dartmouth embraces free speech and open inquiry in all matters, and all on our campus enjoy the freedom to speak, write, listen, and debate in pursuit of better learning and understanding; however, the endorsement of violence in any form is contrary to Dartmouth values."

Raginfridus
08-31-2017, 11:58 PM
What doesn't kill you makes you stronger. Beating huwite supremacists - and sending kids do it - just makes the huwites meaner, and gets the kids' teeth kicked in. Eventually, when COINTELPRO move on to the next granfaloon, antifa will learn the meaning of police brutality, and wish too late they'd been docile. If there's a bright side, its that the fascist groups are being turned against each other first. That gives us time to do our business, enjoy what freedom's left, and prepare ourselves. I expect the fascists to wise-up soon, get their degrees, and become the cops.

phill4paul
09-01-2017, 12:08 AM
What's good for the goose is good for the gander. I'll meet the coward fuck any day. He can even bring two of his sycophants with him. We can put it on youtube.

Anti Federalist
09-01-2017, 01:15 PM
What's good for the goose is good for the gander. I'll meet the coward fuck any day. He can even bring two of his sycophants with him. We can put it on youtube.

Unlikely he would ever move beyond the "ivory tower".

Origanalist
09-01-2017, 01:27 PM
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DIknCqaVwAAplGS.jpg

Dr.3D
09-01-2017, 01:32 PM
So the anti-fascists become the fascists.

Brian4Liberty
09-01-2017, 03:04 PM
Pretty simple what is happening here. It's about crime, and what is acceptable to do to criminals. Additionally, it's about what is legally defined as a crime.

For example, is it acceptable to punch a burglar? Is it acceptable to punch a robber? Or suppose an even greater use of force, is it morally justifiable to shoot a criminal?

This professor says it is OK to punch a "fascist". What if this professor said it was morally justifiable to punch a Muslim? What if this professor said it was morally justifiable to kill an abortion doctor?

What these all have in common is that someone believes that these are crimes, but they are not defined as crimes by the government (or consensus of society as a whole). This professor believes that these so-called fascists are guilty of thought crime, and thus he feels it is acceptable to engage in extra-judicial punishment.

So we have two immoral stands taken by this professor. Most would not categorize "thought crime" as actual crime, which is why it is not legally a crime, and in the contrary, it is legally protected. It is immoral for this professor to randomly define what is crime.

Secondly, the professor believes in extra-judicial street justice, which is well known for having many drawbacks. To name just a couple of problems, there are no checks and balances and there is no due process. The punishment is not defined or controlled. Thus we have Antifa people punching their fellow demonstrators or innocent bystanders, because there is no process or controls on their extra-judicial street justice on "crimes" that they themselves define on the fly.