Dartmouth prof defends Antifa

Why do they still call these schools "Ivy League"?  I'm sure there's ivy growing on the walls of ancient buildings, but really, the best reason to call them "Ivy League" is because it describes the stuff growing on their brains.

A Dartmouth University professor went on TV to defend Antifa and the violence they perpetrate. 

Hot Air:

This may be the first time in TV history that someone from the Southern Poverty Law Center was booked to argue with the far left instead of the far – and usually not-so-far – right. Good for them for doing it, though. The counterpoints to this Antifa idiocy are more effective here coming from a liberal than from a conservative. If it's a conservative versus Antifa, that's standard left/right noise to the average viewer. If it's the SPLC versus Antifa, that's a signal that Antifa should be considered a radical outfit. Which, of course, they are.

The most pitiful thing about Bray's apologetics is how obviously they mirror alt-right and traditional Nazi arguments. We need a muscular response to defend good people from this extreme threat, huffs Bray. That's what brownshirts said about Bolshevists in 1930s Germany and what the alt-right says about Antifa and Black Lives Matter now. Asked about censorship, Bray insists that Antifa opposes any governmentefforts to silence speech. Of course they do; that's the politic line to take for PR purposes when you don't control the government and are seeking power. A government run by Antifa sympathizers would obviously censor "fascist" speech, however that's defined, with the same logic they use to justify riots at Berkeley to keep people like Ann Coulter from speaking. The alt-right also styles itself a "free speech" movement because it's in the same position as Antifa – eager to gain adherents and aware that laying bare its most totalitarian impulses right now would make recruiting harder. Put fascists, whether right-wing or left, in charge of the government and see what happens to freedom of speech.

Allahpundit appears to be making a common mistake when lumping the entire "Alt-Right" in with the racists and Nazis.

The Alt-Right is not a formal organization with a recognizable hierarchy.  As shorthand for the right-wing fringe, it will do, but not all people who identify as Alt-Right are necessarily racists or fascists.  Should we lump, for example, radical Christians in with the Kluxers?  I would just like to see the nomenclature used more carefully.

That said, the morally relative position of the professor is acceptable only if you believe that the racists and Nazis are a threat to take over the country.  If that were the case, most conservatives reading this would almost certainly hold their noses and team up with Antifa to save the country.

But Antifa isn't saving anything – it is destroying free speech, free association, and every traditional means of protest the country has followed since its founding. 

Nor is Antifa especially trying to save America from fascism.  Its long history of protesting globalization and capitalism would suggest that it couldn't care less about the U.S. and is simply using the excuse of going after Nazis to disrupt and destroy.

As JFK once remarked about the tyranny in Vietnam under General Thieu, "[h]e may be a son of a [b----], but he's our son of a [b----]."  Leftists take a similar attitude toward Antifa.  Members' tactics may be questionable, but their hearts are in the right place.

Why do they still call these schools "Ivy League"?  I'm sure there's ivy growing on the walls of ancient buildings, but really, the best reason to call them "Ivy League" is because it describes the stuff growing on their brains.

A Dartmouth University professor went on TV to defend Antifa and the violence they perpetrate. 

Hot Air:

This may be the first time in TV history that someone from the Southern Poverty Law Center was booked to argue with the far left instead of the far – and usually not-so-far – right. Good for them for doing it, though. The counterpoints to this Antifa idiocy are more effective here coming from a liberal than from a conservative. If it's a conservative versus Antifa, that's standard left/right noise to the average viewer. If it's the SPLC versus Antifa, that's a signal that Antifa should be considered a radical outfit. Which, of course, they are.

The most pitiful thing about Bray's apologetics is how obviously they mirror alt-right and traditional Nazi arguments. We need a muscular response to defend good people from this extreme threat, huffs Bray. That's what brownshirts said about Bolshevists in 1930s Germany and what the alt-right says about Antifa and Black Lives Matter now. Asked about censorship, Bray insists that Antifa opposes any governmentefforts to silence speech. Of course they do; that's the politic line to take for PR purposes when you don't control the government and are seeking power. A government run by Antifa sympathizers would obviously censor "fascist" speech, however that's defined, with the same logic they use to justify riots at Berkeley to keep people like Ann Coulter from speaking. The alt-right also styles itself a "free speech" movement because it's in the same position as Antifa – eager to gain adherents and aware that laying bare its most totalitarian impulses right now would make recruiting harder. Put fascists, whether right-wing or left, in charge of the government and see what happens to freedom of speech.

Allahpundit appears to be making a common mistake when lumping the entire "Alt-Right" in with the racists and Nazis.

The Alt-Right is not a formal organization with a recognizable hierarchy.  As shorthand for the right-wing fringe, it will do, but not all people who identify as Alt-Right are necessarily racists or fascists.  Should we lump, for example, radical Christians in with the Kluxers?  I would just like to see the nomenclature used more carefully.

That said, the morally relative position of the professor is acceptable only if you believe that the racists and Nazis are a threat to take over the country.  If that were the case, most conservatives reading this would almost certainly hold their noses and team up with Antifa to save the country.

But Antifa isn't saving anything – it is destroying free speech, free association, and every traditional means of protest the country has followed since its founding. 

Nor is Antifa especially trying to save America from fascism.  Its long history of protesting globalization and capitalism would suggest that it couldn't care less about the U.S. and is simply using the excuse of going after Nazis to disrupt and destroy.

As JFK once remarked about the tyranny in Vietnam under General Thieu, "[h]e may be a son of a [b----], but he's our son of a [b----]."  Leftists take a similar attitude toward Antifa.  Members' tactics may be questionable, but their hearts are in the right place.

RECENT VIDEOS