Antifa is a parasite of the rule of law. An active beneficiary and operator of anarcho-tyranny. Of course, Antifa supporters should be canceled. It is the moderate option.
(A memento from Antifa)
By what means should and may one fight Antifa? Barely had the first calls for consequences emerged after the murder of Charlie Kirk, when objections arose. You should not counter-cancel. After all, democratic culture must be preserved. One person who stood out in this regard is Professor Rieck, whom I otherwise hold in high regard. He now warns that the Right is now also engaging in canceling. And canceling destroys democratic discourse.
A good portion of my readers may already burst out laughing at the mere phrase “democratic discourse.” But I don’t even want to get into the extent to which this phrase is suitable for describing an actual political phenomenon in real existing democracies. The point is that Antifa’s methods are something that must not be tolerated in any political system, democratic or otherwise. At the same time, however, these methods are very difficult to combat while adhering to the rule of law.
The most important thing to understand is that Antifa is not primarily about spectacular acts of terror. The deeds of the hammer gang or the murder of Kirk are, from a strategic perspective, accidents.
These accidents arise from Antifa’s basic concept. Antifa largely uses psychologically unstable individuals—literally mutants if Edward Dutton is right—for the truly criminal part of their actions. These people are, in short, replaceable; no one cares about them, and if one of them does get into trouble, it is no loss to the political core of the movement.
Most of the time, however, nothing even happens to these people. As I said, those who beat shopkeepers and passersby with hammers or shoot activists on a debate stage are Antifa’s accidents. They are the crazies who are too crazy. The average “antifascist” mostly commits property damage. And threatens property damage. Especially against third parties. Antifa often does not even directly target political opponents, but rather the apolitical, who happen to be in some business relationship with political opponents. Above all, innkeepers and landlords, their property. In this way, Antifa makes its political opponents into an incalculable risk for third parties in commercial, often completely apolitical contexts. We on the Right like to complain about innkeepers who cancel our events or landlords who terminate our leases.
But: When a façade or glass front is attacked with paint and stones, damages of several hundred to several thousand euros are quickly reached. Thus, Antifa makes its political opponents unbearable risks in business dealings for apolitical partners. Conversely, they often bring these opponents into a situation where they must either stop their political activity or pass the risk of Antifa criminality onto third parties. Every right-winger who rents somewhere does this. The picture above was not on my wall. If it were my property, I would probably just leave it or paint it over roughly. Simply because this was already the second time, and it won’t be the last as long as I live here. That the owner wants it completely removed, I can understand, but I don’t have the means for that, and while there are solidarity networks within the right-wing scene, they are already occupied with replacing burned-out cars and smashed cameras of activists.
And what is best from Antifa’s perspective: Under the rule of law, this is for all intents an purpose legal.
Sure, the criminal code says something about property damage. But the chances of being caught are minimal. Even if it happens, what comes of it? The perpetrators are convicted only for the ONE act they were caught committing. A prison sentence is rare. As for compensation, the immediate perpetrators are usually people from whom nothing can be collected. At the same time, it is known where these acts come from; police and prosecutors can know where Antifa organizes. But as long as one cannot prove that specific individuals committed the acts, a lawfully operating state does nothing. By its own principles, it cannot do anything. In my case, the property owner always filed a report. Naturally, without result. What is the police supposed to do?
The consequence is: In a democracy under the rule of law, Antifa’s methods are an ideally adapted way to fight political conflicts. One can argue endlessly about how democratic democracies are. But even an elite-theoretical focus on organization does not change the fact that locations are necessary for organizing. Antifa prevents political opponents from hanging a sign with their name above their meeting places. The accumulated political damage of ten thousand acts of vandalism is many times greater than the handful of murders committed by the deranged few. Antifa very effectively prevents political structuring, and these methods are, in a democracy under the rule of law, optimal. This is, by the way, also the reason why even conservative parties foster this group. They are the main beneficiaries of Antifa. Because Antifa mainly harms their potential competitors.
The only question that remains is what is to be done about it. A symmetrical escalation is out of the question; it would mean also attacking third parties who are in business relationships with the left half of the political spectrum, smashing their windows, etc. Directly targeting Antifa does not solve the problem, because within the rule of law you only occasionally hit a replaceable foot soldier. The only currently practical option is to go after their supporters in the media and in associations. These are usually dependent on government money in some way, be it as a foundation, NGO, or even directly through public broadcasting. Those can be attacked.