Support NeoGAF

[antonz]

Oh absolutely, hell I don't think "Antifa" in particular is the correct group given their context in other countries, but they're the one that's taken root, like BLM has taken root as the primary response to polce brutality.

I would love for a group to pop up with the message that Nazis will be protested and they will do everything in their power to protect non-violent protesters. I think that is a better and more singular message.

Basically an armed militia group on the left that does not provoke violence, but steps in when they are needed. The right would still villify them regardless.

That's the thing. Antifa is not the group that's taken hold. In most cases thousands or tens of thousands of like Minded Americans show up to protest, march etc. without any desire to burn buildings, cars or attack people.

Then a Small group of Antifa show up and do their antifa ways and hijack what was otherwise a successful event and turn the headlines into Antifa does XYZ. Antifa is doing its thing for its own endgoals and it directly conflicts with the others.

 

[JustenP88]

So, alienate large groups of people. That'll help the cause.

Anyone who looks at what happened in Charlottesville and feels alienated by anything other than the goddamn people waving Nazi and Confederate flags while chanting blatant white supremacist slogans, driving into a crowd of protestors who, clearly, weren't provoking violence and group beating on a black man in a parking garage then those people were never, under any circumstances, going to be sympathetic to the cause.

Like I said pages ago, I've heard way too much "well, she shouldn't have been playing in the street!" and "Colin Kaepernick is a communist who hates the troops" and "Black Lives Matter is a terrorist organization hell bent on starting a race war" to think that the content of left-leaning political dissent matters in the slightest.

 

[Gaz_RB]

Gallup has you covered with historic polling data.

MLK and his ideals weren't portrayed as good and pure by the general American public - like the centrists in that era - until after the laws had been passed and he was dead.

That's fine-- but that's the public, not the government. The CRM was successful regardless of the public thought. You can protest all you want, make your voice heard--but ultimately protest (violent and otherwise) is to change the institution/laws/government. You're almost never going to change minds through violence and protest. That's what's happening here--and nothings going to change because people's minds, as a general rule, don't change. No matter how hard you hit them in the head with bricks or make persuasive argument via protest and debate.

TBH, we mostly just have to wait for these fuckheads to die.

 

[shamanick]

TBH, we mostly just have to wait for these fuckheads to die.

People have been waiting since 1776. When is it going to happen, exactly?

 

[aeolist]

True, but there's no reason to help the manufacturers and provide them with more, in this case.

if the alternative is antifa not showing up to these protests and protecting people then i say fuck it, the difference in terms of right-wing coverage is marginal and not worth worrying about

 

[Gaz_RB]

It's been discussed in this thread. If your only knowledge of Antifa comes from television you should maybe do some reading

I want to know how you think they're protecting people though, that's why I responded to you and not the thread.

People have been waiting since 1776. When is it going to happen, exactly?

Don't act like an incredibly significant amount of progress hasn't been made since that time.

 

[Phrynobatrachus]

Antifa is doing its thing for its own endgoals and it directly conflicts with the others.

what endgoals do you think those are?

 

[Nafai1123]

That's the thing. Antifa is not the group that's taken hold. In most cases thousands or tens of thousands of like Minded Americans show up to protest, march etc. without any desire to burn buildings, cars or attack people.

Then a Small group of Antifa show up and do their antifa ways and hijack what was otherwise a successful event and turn the headlines into Antifa does XYZ. Antifa is doing its thing for its own endgoals and it directly conflicts with the others.

This isn't absolutely true though. Antifa SAVED protesters in Charlottesville from Nazis. They protested NONVIOLENTLY in Boston among those other protesters.

Labeling all Antifa protesters as anarchist, property destroying thugs is just wrong. The problem is with no message the actions of the view get portrayed as the whole.

 

[Deepwater]

Institutional racism is very real and still deep, but it's retreated into the shadows and it's incredibly difficult to pin down. It's not in the law books, it's in the hearts and minds of many of those running the country. That's so hard to root out with violent protest because in order for that to work you have to have a clear and simple message like "blacks and whites should be equal in the eyes of the law." That's just human rights. Easy to unite behind. What do they unite behind now? How do we sway the general public when they can simply ignore or spin everything you're doing?


How are they protecting people?

If white people were willing to enact threat of violence, intimidation, or social ousting on their racist peers in the same way people do towards child sex offenders, we'd be well on our way towards rectifying the injustices of racism.

Ninja Edit: And even then, in evangelical communities it's still swept under the rug

 

[shamanick]

I want to know how you think they're protecting people though, that's why I responded to you and not the thread.



Don't act like an incredibly significant amount of progress hasn't been made in that time.

Here are a couple of examples

https://mobile.twitter.com/schradie/status/902293581502627840

https://www.democracynow.org/2017/8/14/cornel_west_rev_toni_blackmon_clergy

If you think that Antifa exists to break windows and attack journalists then the propaganda worked

Don't act like an incredibly significant amount of progress hasn't been made since that time.

I didn't say that. People have been saying that the racists are gonna die out any day now, liberalism will save us all, and it's just as much of a load of BS now as it was then

 

[Gaz_RB]

If white people were willing to enact threat of violence, intimidation, or social ousting on their racist peers in the same way people do towards child sex offenders, we'd be well on our way towards rectifying the injustices of racism.

I agree 100%.

 

[Demoskinos]

Lol, okay Noah. Yeah, the people fighting back against the nazis are the fuckin problem not the you know.... nazis.

 

[MHWilliams]

That's fine-- but that's the public, not the government. The CRM was successful regardless of the public thought. You can protest all you want, make your voice heard--but ultimately protest (violent and otherwise) is to change the institution/laws/government. You're almost never going to change minds through violence and protest. That's what's happening here--and nothings going to change because people's minds, as a general rule, don't change. No matter how hard you hit them in the head with bricks or make persuasive argument via protest and debate.

TBH, we mostly just have to wait for these fuckheads to die.

Right, but there were violent action that happened that were taken as part of the general civil rights movement. Facets of the government had to be willing to look beyond that to do what's right. Essentially, to decide in no uncertain terms that civil rights was morally right and legislate that. You can legislate people towards a tenable situation; that is one way to enact change. It has no historically been the only one.

And to be quite honest, folks have been waiting for them to

 

[LordKasual]

The tangible outcome of A is moot though, as the situation in B shows. Especially in the case when you have an opposition that will, as evidenced, making up actions against you in the case where they don't exist.

Again, the ideas are opposed because the tangible outcomes are opposed.

I don't know man, i disagree. Just because outlets like Fox News would desperately try to smear a truly organized protest does not mean that it would work the same as it would with footage of members trashing stores and setting cars on fire.

Choosing to move forward under the assumption that anything done in that direction is doomed to failure is just defeatist, and removes way too many good options from the table. It really just sounds like an aversion to organization to me more than anything. And if the left is shit at anything, it's organization..

So no, I don't necessarily buy that. If that's the case, then we're all just confined to operate within the confines of "Situation B" and we're just ultimately fucked either way.


But I don't buy that, because for all the shit that went wrong during the late election, the left was still unorganized as fuck and Donald Trump still didn't win the popular vote. Things aren't the way they are because that's how they have to be, it's because (I believe) the other side is fighting a smarter battle with a honed strategy.

 

[Deepwater]

I want to know how you think they're protecting people though, that's why I responded to you and not the thread.



Don't act like an incredibly significant amount of progress hasn't been made since that time.

please understand how infuriatingly insulting it is to speak amongst black people ITT and wave white people's pitiful pittance of "progress" in an attempt to assuage your feelings of wanting to resolve our injustices as fast as peacefully possible, but not a second faster.

It's maddening.

 

[Gaz_RB]

Here are a couple of examples

https://mobile.twitter.com/schradie/status/902293581502627840

https://www.democracynow.org/2017/8/14/cornel_west_rev_toni_blackmon_clergy

If you think that Antifa exists to break windows and attack journalists then the propaganda worked

I didn't say that. People have been saying that the racists are gonna die out any day now, liberalism will save us all, and it's just as much of a load of BS now as it was then

Thanks for those. You're right that using Antifa as if it were a monolith was disingenuous on my part (and Noah). As with Ferguson, a few people can ruin a situation and, as always, if it bleeds it leads--even if that means not covering the 10000 other peaceful protestors (because no one will click on that).

Also:

I mean racism will never die. It's built into the human psyche. But the amount of racism--and acting upon that racism by the state and sanctioned by the state is night and day to what it was in 1776. Racism has been curbed in an incredible way since then, both in the public perception and it will continue to erode in the arena of ideas. But all progress is slow.

please understand how infuriatingly insulting it is to speak amongst black people ITT and wave white people's pitiful pittance of "progress" in an attempt to assuage your feelings of wanting to resolve our injustices as fast as peacefully possible, but not a second faster.

It's maddening.

I agree it's infuriating and unjust and we can always strive against it. That doesn't change how the world works.

 

[JustenP88]

TBH, we mostly just have to wait for these fuckheads to die.

That's not happening in our lifetime, unfortunately. Our progress has been largely superficial.

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaig...-negative-view-of-black-lives-matter-movement

 

[Gaz_RB]

Right, but there were violent action that happened that were taken as part of the general civil rights movement. Facets of the government had to be willing to look beyond that to do what's right. Essentially, to decide in no uncertain terms that civil rights was morally right and legislate that. You can legislate people towards a tenable situation; that is one way to enact change. It has no historically been the only one.

And to be quite honest, folks have been waiting for them to

I don't particularly disagree on any particular point.

Going back to my original argument though--it's incredibly hard to unite and make that change now because it's so hard to get everyone to agree on what the change should be. The solution to the problem during the CRM was clear--now it's far less so.

 

[excelsiorlef]

you could copy paste these arguments in practically every BLM protest thread

Yep

 

[MHWilliams]

I don't know man, i disagree. Just because outlets like Fox News would desperately try to smear a truly organized protest does not mean that it would work the same as it would with footage of members trashing stores and setting cars on fire.

Choosing to move forward under the assumption that anything done in that direction is doomed to failure is just defeatist, and removes way too many good options from the table. It really just sounds like an aversion to organization to me more than anything. And if the left is shit at anything, it's organization.

I never said anything done in that direction is doomed to failure. I merely didn't drop "just keep doing it" as an option. You're the one who removed an option from contention. Some will continue with the antifa idea as currently presented. Others will choose a a more civil method.

So no, I don't necessarily buy that. If that's the case, then we're all just confined to operate within the confines of "Situation B" and we're just ultimately fucked either way.

Well, assuming one side gets cover regardless of their actions, then the playing field is not really level in any fashion. I thought this was understood.

But I don't buy that, because for all the shit that went wrong during the late election, the left was still unorganized as fuck and Donald Trump still didn't win the popular vote. Things aren't the way they are because that's how they have to be, it's because (I believe) the other side is fighting a smarter battle with a honed strategy.

The left will always be unorganized, because it's a rough and diverse coalition of different ideas and aims. As shown with Trump's election and governance, the right in the US is a voting bloc willing to skip the perfect candidate in order to potentially legislate their pet goals into law. The left tends to throw away to the potential to legislate fighting amongst itself; the right increasingly just wants to win. An example is evangelicals. Trump is by no means a good Catholic or Christian president, but they will stand by him in order to get certain religious freedom and anti-abortion measures passed. (Also, taxes) But this part is a bit of the divergence from the thread topic.

And note, the "a smarter battle with a honed strategy" of the other side includes violence of varying degrees, including from neo-nazis and many times state-sanctioned. Which again is probably the much larger problem.

 

[Deepwater]

I agree it's infuriating and unjust and we can always strive against it. That doesn't change how the world works.

The world doesn't work that way because whi....you know what. Fuck it.

 

[excelsiorlef]

That's fine-- but that's the public, not the government. The CRM was successful regardless of the public thought. You can protest all you want, make your voice heard--but ultimately protest (violent and otherwise) is to change the institution/laws/government. You're almost never going to change minds through violence and protest. That's what's happening here--and nothings going to change because people's minds, as a general rule, don't change. No matter how hard you hit them in the head with bricks or make persuasive argument via protest and debate.

TBH, we mostly just have to wait for these fuckheads to die.

...

The government?

The government currently lead by a white supremacist?

 

[Nafai1123]

I don't particularly disagree on any particular point.

Going back to my original argument though--it's incredibly hard to unite and make that change now because it's so hard to get everyone to agree on what the change should be. The solution to the problem during the CRM was clear--now it's far less so.

The problem is we can't convince a large group of the population there IS a problem.

 

[Gaz_RB]

The world doesn't work that way because whi....you know what. Fuck it.

I think I know what you're going to say, and you're right again. I think we agree on a lot of the way things are--I think where we disagree on how those things get solved.

And that's my ultimate point.

The problem is we can't convince a large group of the population there IS a problem.

Exactly. And protesting, violent or otherwise, will never change that. Racists gonna racist. We as a society can protect against that as much as we can legally, that's what the CRM was about in a lot of ways.

...

The government?

The government currently lead by a white supremacist?

Yep, and who elected them? The shitty people who's mind won't be changed via protest. Who luckily, due to civil rights movements and progress over the years, is mostly toothless.

 

[excelsiorlef]

TBH, we mostly just have to wait for these fuckheads to die.

Trump won the white youth vote as did Romney

 

[Gaz_RB]

Trump won the white youth vote as did Romney

Yep. But if you asked most of them, they wouldn't say they voted for him because of racism.

Of course, what they say and the truth are likely different things.

 

[Massive Duck. C.M.]

One of the main reasons civil rights got as far as it did in that era was because it was politically disadvantageous for America's terrible treatment of blacks to be so visible globally. Those opinion polls on MLK should make it clear that altruism was not part of the package.

Similarly, now is a good time to make a hard push because America again is in a bad place on th global stage, with extremely incompetent leadership that make decisions with globally adverse effects.

It's kind of fucked your how comfortable some people are with telling minorities that it's wrong for us to expect to be treated fairly while we're alive.

 

[excelsiorlef]

Yep. But if you asked most of them, they wouldn't say they voted for him because of racism.

Of course, what they say and the truth are likely different things.

KKK members don't call themselves racist

Gamergaters don't call themselves sexist.

What's your point?

 

[Gaz_RB]

KKK members don't call themselves racist

Gamergaters don't call themselves sexist.

What's your point?

The conversation was about racism dying off generationally. Your comment seemed to interpret that as all the racists just die out, when in truth what usually happens is that it has simply lessened and lessened through each generation.

The fact that the KKK don't call themselves racist is (which I'm not entirely sure I agree is the case), in a fucked up way, progress.

 

[excelsiorlef]

The conversation was about racism dying off generationally. Your comment seemed to interpret that as all the racists just die out, when in truth what usually happens is that it has simply lessened and lessened through each generation.

The fact that the KKK don't call themselves racist is (which I'm not entirely sure I agree is the case), in a fucked up way, progress.

They're not dying out is my point.

 

[Bastables]

Ah, classical strawman. You take my argument, blow it up to ridiculousness to try to discredit it.

Problem is, your comparison doesn't make sense at all, as you are talking about a war situation. Offcourse you are allowed to answer violence with violence. That's called selfdefence. The allied didn't start the war, they acted with violence on violence.

So please, don't compare the current situation with WWII. It's not because there are Nazi's that there is a war. If your antifacist, I assume you defend democratic values. Well, act like it then, and fight them with democratic ways in stead of resorting to violence.

Again, the violent fringe of the anti-fascist movement causes a lot of damage to a good cause. You know why? Because the moment you resort to violence in a non-self defence way, you say to the world you are out of arguments.

What are you talking about?

Chamberlain had a heart to heart with Herr Hitler and there was no war, and no holocoust right?
The UK lost moral superiority by declaring war on NAZI German after their invasion of Poland instead of continuing to attempt to sway them with genious morally pure debates. Why did the UK keep up the war after the fall of France, they could have had a talk, a couple of fire side chats, instead violence, and all the dead British civilians in the blitz are victims of their governments inability to sway the NAZI's with debates and just proves their lack of metal acuity.

Stalin heart to hearts with herr hitler were so fruitful that they had a non aggression pact and it went so well Stalin was incapable of believing the NAZI's were actually invading. If only everyone had continued talk it through and not resorted to violence.

Hitler did have a history of being open to discussions, if only everyone had kept down that superior path.

 

[Gaz_RB]

They're not dying out is my point.

Insomuch that they all don't die at the same time without passing their ideas down to their kids and others, you're not wrong.

 

[KHarvey16]

Is it sort of weird to cite a war against Nazis as support for the argument that violence is the only solution to fighting Nazis that are still around after that war?

 

[Valhelm]

People have been waiting since 1776. When is it going to happen, exactly?

The "wait for bigots to die" sentiment only makes sense if you assume your own values are the end-game of progressivism. I'm sure many white liberals in the 1960s thought there'd be no more racism once their parents were gone.

 

[seat]

I've no issue with those who bash Nazi skulls in.

 

[hydragonwarrior]

Are dems losing the argument that Antifa is a good movement? Republicans took control of the media narrative almost immediately and are screaming it across every rooftop in America that they are evil and terrorists. The whole concept of Antifa seems to be damn obvious but it's been successfully redefined by Repubs.

The backlash is absolutely incredible and they're focusing more on Antifa being bad for property destruction and supposed beatings then Nazi's who want to commit genocide (and have also performed the same). They are unfortunately becoming much louder.

Should the movement rebrand, rename or re-organize? What should be talked about is how white supremacy is still around in America and how to combat that, not about the bad deeds of a select few idiots in Antifa.

 

[excelsiorlef]

Insomuch that they all don't die at the same time without passing their ideas down to their kids and others, you're not wrong.

So then you agree that your proposed solution is one that can only fail yes?

 

[Weilthain]

Are dems losing the argument that Antifa is a good movement? Republicans took control of the media narrative almost immediately and are screaming it across every rooftop in America that they are evil and terrorists. The whole concept of Antifa seems to be damn obvious but it's been successfully redefined by Repubs.

The backlash is absolutely incredible and they're focusing more on Antifa being bad for property destruction and supposed beatings then Nazi's who want to commit genocide (and have also performed the same). They are unfortunately becoming much louder.

Should the movement rebrand, rename or re-organize? What should be talked about is how white supremacy is still around in America and how to combat that, not about the bad deeds of a select few idiots in Antifa.

No one in their right mind is going to argue against taking down nazis and everything they stand for, but surely most people have seen the videos of antifa trashing shit up, throwing rocks and bottles of urine at the police, beating up people etc.

Just recently even msm have been forced to call them out for their shit

 

[LordKasual]

I never said anything done in that direction is doomed to failure. I merely didn't drop "just keep doing it" as an option. You're the one who removed an option from contention. Some will continue with the antifa idea as currently presented. Others will choose a a more civil method.

I don't know if that's a good or bad thing, to be honest. But i think the core of what I was getting at regarding "options" is that one is essentially counterproductive to the other, at least if you choose to actually consider how your opponents will respond.

now if you simply choose not to acknowledge the fact that they will respond (because they will anyway), then it's just a battle of who's going to reach the most people...which, as we've already established, is somewhat of a losing battle because the right is exceedingly good at twisting the media.

Which is why I suggest a shift of paradigm. (or at least an establishing of one lol)

As for me removing one from the table, alot of that is me assuming that people who would be opposed to this suggestion feel as though completely non-violent protest is a waste of time. i don't know why else would one would feel like Trevor Noah was slighting the movement by saying what he said.

I don't think "just keep doing it" should be removed. I think it should at the very least be regulated, or pointed in a more informed direction. If someone operates under Antifa, then it should not be left to their own personal judgement what qualifies as an Antifa movement.

And note, the "a smarter battle with a honed strategy" of the other side includes violence of varying degrees, including from neo-nazis and many times state-sanctioned. Which again is probably the much larger problem.

unfortunate, but true; the right seems to have long since abandoned morality for the sake of a solid support platform.

which isn't good, but....well, i mean it works.

I'm not suggesting that the left do the same. But it is wise to look at what you're fighting and how they're going about achieving things.

 

[Gaz_RB]

So then you agree that your proposed solution is one that can only fail yes?

No, because it's not really a solution. There's no solution for racist thought, short of killing all the racists, policing the media, or some sort of 1984 shit. All lines I'm not ready to cross.

The best we can do is mitigate the effects through government like we try (and sometimes fail) to do. And wait for the next generation to get slightly more progressive, like always. But maybe that's just me getting more cynical as I get older and am not seeing the change I desire.

 

[ironmang]

Are dems losing the argument that Antifa is a good movement? Republicans took control of the media narrative almost immediately and are screaming it across every rooftop in America that they are evil and terrorists. The whole concept of Antifa seems to be damn obvious but it's been successfully redefined by Repubs.

The backlash is absolutely incredible and they're focusing more on Antifa being bad for property destruction and supposed beatings then Nazi's who want to commit genocide (and have also performed the same). They are unfortunately becoming much louder.

Should the movement rebrand, rename or re-organize? What should be talked about is how white supremacy is still around in America and how to combat that, not about the bad deeds of a select few idiots in Antifa.

Do you have access to youtube? There's plenty of videos on there lol. Even a somewhat long video posted in this thread that has multiple incidents.

 

[And_Gignac]

I am glad this is getting so much backlash. May teach liberals centrist a lesson about how their "both sides" "no extremes" narrative is just as ideological as any other and that their radical centrism can, and will, continu to be rejected.

 

[Golden_Pigeon]

You can totally see he have no idea about the actual antifa movement, he is speaking about black blocs. The antifa movement is about organizing counter-demo when far-right groups are demonstrating. You have a part of black blocs/autonomous anarchists who are also identifying as antifa, but you have big chunk of the antifa movement that don't advocate violence.

The practice of breaking everything and attacking the cops have to do with black blocks, not with antifa ideology. The people who do that organize as black blocks, and they have the same method in a antifa demo or in a anti-G8 demo.

Another case of ivory tower political analysis, he should open a YT channel.

 

[Nipo]

Is it sort of weird to cite a war against Nazis as support for the argument that violence is the only solution to fighting Nazis that are still around after that war?

Only if you assume there are a fixed number of nazis and no new ones will be born/join. Now, if the war were still going on and Nazis were enemies of the state you could legally kill anywhere in the world.... there would be fewer sightings i bet.

 

[Weilthain]

You can totally see he have no idea about the actual antifa movement, he is speaking about black blocs. The antifa movement is about organizing counter-demo when far-right groups are demonstrating. You have a part of black blocs/autonomous anarchists who are also identifying as antifa, but you have big chunk of the antifa movement that don't advocate violence.

The practice of breaking everything and attacking the cops have to do with black blocks, not with antifa ideology. The people who do that organize as black blocks, and they have the same method in a antifa demo or in a anti-G8 demo.

Another case of ivory tower political analysis, he should open a YT channel.

So antifa are peaceful, and it's a separate group called black bloc who are carrying out the violence? I'm not trying to be funny I'm genuinely trying to get the facts of the matter here.

 

[perfectchaos007]

 

[aeolist]

lol

 

[legacyzero]

No, Tomi. No you don't.

 

[Suzushiiro]

At this point the term "antifa" is on the same level as "feminism" in that it's in this weird place where on their face they represent sane and relatively centrist ideas (men and women should be equal/fascism is bad) but in practice depending on the context the term has come to represent a wide range of beliefs from the aforementioned centrist ideas to crazyfuck extremist horseshoe theory-tier bullshit (men are the root of all evil and should be killed/rioting and other political violence are okay when in the name of resisting fascsim.)

While I thought that Richard Spencer getting hardcore memed on via that punching video was hilarious, I'd agree that more extremist antifa/left-wing protest tactics generally do more harm than good, particularly in an era where the right arguably holds more of the cards within the establishment/overculture than the left and are would love to use violent opposition as an excuse to sieze more power. The point of any form of public protest is (or should be) to draw more attention to your cause and make people more sympathetic to it, and there's a certain level of harm/annoyance/inconvenience where neutral parties will be more likely to oppose you out of spite than listen to/support you. Beyond that, if your objective is to make white supremacists stop being white supremacists you should keep in mind that most ex-white supremacists converted because people from the groups they hated gave them love and sympathy rather than hate and punches.

All that said- it's important to differentiate between "both sides do things that are Not Okay" and "both sides are just as bad." As much as people claiming to be antifa/leftist/liberal/etc. do shit that's over the line sometimes, their ultimate goal is a hell of a lot better than the ultimate goal of the white supremacist/nazi/alt-right/etc. fuckers. And last I checked antifa haven't murdered an innocent girl by running them over with a car yet. Criticizing antifa tactics as doing more harm than good is fine, saying they're just as bad or worse than the people they're fighting is complete fucking bullshit.

 

[Golden_Pigeon]

So antifa are peaceful, and it's a separate group called black bloc who are carrying out the violence? I'm not trying to be funny I'm genuinely trying to get the facts of the matter here.

Antifa are not necessarily peaceful but you have antifa group who don't get violent with far-right group. They mainly organize demo and call them out.

Then you have autonomous antifa group who attack far-right demo or nazis skinheads, calling it self-defense.

Then you have autonomous black bloc type of ideology joining up antifa demo and doing typical black bloc stuff.