Anti-fascists keep popping in and out of relevance. Since most people are “anti-fascist” in that they do not knowingly support fascism, I should probably point out that I am referring to the anti-fascist agitators. Strangely, or perhaps not so strangely, the anti-fascist agitator seems less opposed to fascist methods than their name would imply. Admittedly, most of my knowledge on these movements is through 1990s movements like SHARP (Skin-Heads Against Racial Prejudice) and SCAR (Skins Committed Against Racism), and through their on-going protests against neofolk and martial industrial acts. Occasionally, they protest some White Nationalist march or attack members of political parties with whom they disagree (mostly in Europe).
So, what do they do? A large portion of their activity seems to involve the elimination of competing and conflicting views. Second seems to be violent suppression, i.e., street action, of their opponents and rivals. In this, their function seems to be identical to that held by Sturmabteilung (i.e., SA or brownshirts) and Milizia Volontaria per la Sicurezza Nazionale (i.e. blackshirts or squadristi). These groups served their political ideology by censoring or assaulting their opposition. Now, street action requires someone to act against. In the case of the National Socialists and Fascists, they were fighting similar groups from the Communist and Socialist parties. All were servants of totalitarian ideologies.
Totalitarian ideologies cannot tolerate dissent outside of a very narrow band. As an analogy, one can discuss whether the trim of the house should be painted white or blue, but not whether the house is big enough, located in a good area, or if one house is enough. Likewise, one is not permitted to address the fundamental assumptions underpinning the ideology of whatever movement. One must have faith. They are secular jihadists.
Typical tactics of anti-fascists involve stifling alternate opinions. The first step is to make accusations of complicity to whatever venue their opposition may be using. One should note that it is not necessary for the opponent to actually be National Socialist, Fascist, or racist. It is enough that their be enough flags that they can engage in their desire for oppression without earning a backlash from their social group (I will address this in more detail later). If that fails, they generally fall back on a two pronged attack. The first is for the complaints to the venue (or to the party being targeted) to escalate into threats of physical violence and property damage. The second is to organize a protest whose goal is to stifle freedom of expression. In the final phase is the actual violence and/or protest.
Now, many people justify the protest as being, in and of itself, an example of Freedom of Speech. This is sophistry. The people making this argument are far less understanding when the shoe is on the other foot. Were the fascists to crash a civil rights march with threats of violence, by drowning out and harassing participants, they would be appalled. In modern parlance, “Freedom of Speech” means the freedom for one side to talk as much as they want and for the other side to meekly accept it. This is not how a healthy society works and serves to demonstrate their own insecurities regarding their convictions.
Admittedly, there is a difference between avowedly Fascist (used colloquially to indicate Fascist, National Socialist, and White Nationalist groups) and Anti-fascist groups. While both subscribe to a totalitarian ideology, and both have a predilection for indulging their desire for violence (both have a tendency to glorify their struggle), the Fascist views themselves as being opposed to the greater society. They justify their actions as being a response to what they perceive as injustice in modern society. Anti-fascists, on the other hand, are agents of the dominant society. While fueled by the same desire for violence, they carefully ensure that their targets are those already ostracized by modern, liberal society. They prey on out-groups. They are, in a word, cowards.
In conclusion, the term Anti-fascist is a misnomer. They are just another pro-totalitarian group with a lust for oppression and violence. In a colloquial sense, i.e, as the term has come to mean since the 60s, they are as much, or more, fascist than those whom they oppose. It’s a shame that we cannot round them all up, both the “real” fascists and anti-fascists, and put them on an island to fight it out while the rest of us live our lives in relative freedom.
