Sunday, June 14, 2020

'Correct' Narrative on "Antifa" Not Quite Correct, but Trump-Hate Is There!

The local rag wants you to learn all about "Antifa," so they asked a professor at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee to explain it all.

And that professor--surprise!!--made several misleading and/or downright dishonest comments. 

He begins by shaping the definition to fit a Narrative.

...Vysotsky said antifa is shorthand for anti-fascist, and its meaning is broad.

Fascism is a political philosophy that crystallized between World War I and World War II, Vysotsky said, particularly in Germany with Adolf Hitler and Italy with Benito Mussolini. In its simplest forms, it is a belief in the fundamental inequality between people, in a biological and social sense. ...

Not entirely correct.  The Urban Dictionary uses Mussolini's own definition, which describes State Totalitarianism.  Since Mussolini was a Fascist, he should know.

1."Everything in the state". The Government is supreme and the country is all-encompasing, and all within it must conform to the ruling body, often a dictator.
2."Nothing outside the state". The country must grow and the implied goal of any fascist nation is to rule the world, and have every human submit to the government.
3."Nothing against the state". Any type of questioning the government is not to be tolerated. If you do not see things our way, you are wrong. If you do not agree with the government, you cannot be allowed to live and taint the minds of the rest of the good citizens.

No racism there, is there?  Now, then.  Hitler's Socialists (Nazis) were racist and also found time to send a lot of Catholics to the gas chambers, too.  So Merriam's definition includes racist, as does that of Cambridge.  But Wiki's does not include "racism" as part of Fascism.

Like I said, not entirely correct.

But being semi-correct doesn't stop the Professor from using the Narrative's preferred language about Trump:

..."Every single comment Donald Trump has made about anti-fascism" is misleading or fundamentally incorrect, Vysotsky said. 

For example, Trump on May 31 tweeted: "The United States of America will be designating ANTIFA as a Terrorist Organization."...

Coming from a guy who is misleading, well, gee...  Trump named AN enemy--or a group of enemies--acting under the label "Antifa."  Rather than spending 20 minutes going through the subtleties, he used the term WHICH WAS and IS BEING USED as a self-descriptor by violent activists in Seattle and PortlandAre they actually anarcho-communists?  Yes.  Are Communists actually anti-fascist?  Technically, no; communism is also Totalitarian.  Interesting to note that the Professor describes the inter-war antifascist movement as 'anarcho-communist,' eh? 

Trump could have used the term "anti-American," or brought up the concept of the National Interest--but as we mention below, that concept seems to be foreign to the Professor.

Let's move on.

..."While some anti-fascists engage in actions that are considered to be violent, the scale and scope of that violence does not meet the criteria of what constitutes terrorists' violence," he said. ...
They didn't burn down enough buildings in Minneapolis, eh, Professor?  How many blocks have to be burned down--and how many cops have to be assaulted--before that violence 'meets the criteria' which you think is sufficient?

Then he goes off the rails with his Trump-hatred.  When asked 'why Antifa is labeled a terrorist group'....

...Vysotsky said this actually has more to do with the ideological orientation of the people making the claim, than with those who identify as anti-fascist.

"They are seeking to discredit their political opponents, and they are unable to describe them on the merits of their beliefs and their claims, so they're trying to associate their political opponents with anti-social political activities,"  he said....


Is this guy telling us that the Democrat Party--Trump's "political opponents" are actually Antifa?  Or that the Democrats ENDORSE Antifa?  Or maybe the Professor doesn't understand the term "National Interest", which would excuse his moronic clam that 'it's all politics.' 

He continues down the path of Professorial Lunacy!!

..."You're placing anti-fascists who have not killed anyone in the United States, not kidnapped anyone in the United States, have not engaged in any actions of large scale intentional property destruction in the name of anti-fascism in the United States, on par with the organizations that have murdered people, kidnapped people, blown up entire buildings, held entire populations in fear."...

Yah, ya'know, none of the Antifa activists in the US carry business cards with the Antifa office address, phone, fax, email, and website, Professor--so you have NO F***ing idea who is, and who is not, "Antifa" here, do you?  Given that they are subversives, do you expect them to identify themselves as "Antifa" at trial?  Or acknowledge that their money came from Communist and other anti-American sources?

As to "large-scale" destruction---how about if they burn down the block you live on?  Would that be sufficient, or should they fire-bomb all of UW-M?  How about all of ZIP Code 53211?  Are we getting close to "large-scale," you twit? 

There are some ideas so stupid that only intellectuals hold them, Professor.  Thanks for proving the rule.

No comments: