What is Antifa? The Storm Troopers of The Cultural Elites

It uses fascist methods inits make believe fight against fascism

Antifa is a strange phenomenon because it represents itself as the antithesis of something that often does not exist. It is not as if organised paramilitary units sporting brown shirts are stalking the streets of Europe. On the contrary, this supposed anti-fascist movement operates in an environment where fascists are conspicuous by their absence. This point is well observed by the academic Jonathan Arlow in a journal essay, ‘Antifa without fascism: the reasons behind the anti-fascist movement in Ireland’.[i]

Arlow’s essay addresses the puzzle: ‘Ireland has no significant extreme right, but it still has an anti-fascist movement that plays an influential role within radical left circles’. Arlow, who is clearly supportive of Antifa, notes that anti-fascism does not need to engage with real live fascists to serve an important purpose. Why? Because ‘anti-fascism acts as a form of prophylactic action’. The term prophylactic refers to preventing the emergence of a far-right movement in the future. ‘In effect, the aim of this activism is to deny political space to extreme right micro groups before they become a popular force or a more serious political threat’.

Yet Antifa continually conveys the impression that fascism constitutes a clear and present danger.

Preventing the mutation of a non-existent political movement into one that exists as a ‘popular force’ is a performative accomplishment. It is communicated through the hysterical practice of a politics of fear oriented towards constantly raising the alarm. Like superstitious societies that adopt rituals to ward off evil, the Antifa movement continually insists that its practices are designed to prevent the emergence of a malevolent political force.

As it happens, the activism of Antifa does not require the presence of genuine fascists. Why? Because it has arrogated to itself the authority to expand the meaning of fascism and of the far right to cover anyone and any movements that it does not like. In this respect, it is the beneficiary of a cultural climate where political and social movements which question the cultural and political outlook of the ruling elites are invariably assigned the label of ‘far right’ or ‘fascist’. As I noted elsewhere, scaremongering about fascists and the far right has become a normal feature of the political and cultural landscape of the Western world. Such labels are not only routinely applied to describe conservative parties but also to pathologise groups who challenge the normative assumptions of the ruling elites.

Protesting farmers fighting for their livelihood are routinely associated with the far right. No sooner did Europe’s farmers launch their protest before the mainstream media and centrist political commentators raised the alarm about yet another threat from the ‘far-right’. ‘Brussels struggles to placate farmers as far right stokes protests’ notes The Financial Times.[ii] Opponents of transgender ideology are often denounced as fascists or as far right.

Gender-critical feminists are often attacked by members of Antifa and treated as if they represent a threat akin to fascism. In July 2023, at the Trans+Pride event in London, Transwoman Sarah Jane Baker could be seen waving the anti-fascist flag while telling the crowd, ‘If you see a TERF, punch them in the fucking face’.[iii] This kind of crude rhetoric and incitement to violence is justified because anti-fascists possess the moral authority to do whatever it takes to crush their opponent.

Antifa justifies its violent and antidemocratic behaviour on the ground that the supposed threat posed by their enemies justifies denying them the right to freedom of speech and of assembly. They explicitly reject the claim that democracy ought to be an inviolable principle. Last week, their contempt for democracy was openly expressed during their campaign to prevent the holding of the National Conservative (NatCon) conference in Brussels. The Belgian League of Human Rights – an organisation that works hand in glove with their colleagues in Antifa stated that; ‘Freedom of speech may indeed apply to everyone, within the limits of the law, but that does not mean we have to open our home to the far-right’.[iv] For these selective supporters of ‘human rights’, the mere mention of ‘far-right’ serves as a justification for denying them the freedom of assembly.

Antifa’s contempt for freedom and democracy mirrors that of the historical fascists of the 1930s. As the academic Mark Bray, the author of Antifa: The Anti-Fascist Handbook and supporter of this movement, explained, ‘anti-fascists and fascists have one thing in common: an illiberal disdain for the confines of mainstream politics’.[v] That’s another way of saying that both movements regard democratic decision-making with contempt.

Were he more consistent, Bray would have to acknowledge that both movements possess a contemptuous attitude towards democratic politics. Bray himself spoke positively of Antifa’s hostility to the liberal ideal of tolerance and free speech. He is critical of the traditional affirmation of free speech and noted that ‘At the heart of the anti-fascist outlook is a rejection of the classical liberal phrase… that says I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it’.[vi] From this perspective, opponents are perceived as enemies who must be crushed and not allowed to possess the rights enjoyed by the citizens of a democratic entity.

Bray’s and Antifa’s contempt for free speech and tolerance echo the sentiments expressed by Herbert Marcuse, the quasi-Marxist philosopher of the 1960s counter-revolution. In his critique of what he characterised as ‘repressive tolerance’, Marcuse could effortlessly make a leap from denouncing capitalist cultural domination to calling for the suppression of views that he found objectionable. He had no problems with the ‘withdrawal of toleration of speech and assembly from groups and movements which promote ‘aggressive policies’ or ‘discrimination on the grounds of race and religion, or which oppose the extension of public services, social security, medical care’.[vii] In an inarticulate manner, Bray and his Antifa friends promote the authoritarian ideals of Marcuse.

Unfortunately, Antifa’s rejection of the ideal of tolerance and free speech is widely shared by many of the dominant cultural and political institutions of the Western world. The policing of speech has become widely institutionalised, and the censoring of dissident opinions is routinely justified on the grounds that they are offensive. Some go even further and insist that free speech is an oppressive ideal upheld by those who possess white privilege. Supporters of Antifa sometimes assert that free speech serves as a mask for hate speech. The widespread influence of such intolerant sentiments has created a climate where Antifa’s antidemocratic outlook enjoys formidable institutional support. That is why, contrary to appearances, Antifa lacks the independence usually associated with radical political movements. On the contrary, the existence of Antifa is dependent on the cultural and political support it receives from the prevailing Establishment.

Antifa serves as the stormtroopers of the woke elites

The recent response of the Brussels political establishment towards the campaign to cancel the NatCon Conference reveals its symbiotic relationship with Antifa.

It was not only the different local mayors and politicians but also the local media and cultural and business organisations who worked behind the scenes in support of Antifa’s campaign to cancel the NatCon event. As far as the members of this Establishment were concerned, the mayor’s violation of the right to free speech was a small price to pay for silencing the voices that they did not wish to hear. The Brussels Times led the way and came across as the House Magazine of Antifa. An article outlining a statement by The Belgian Anti-Fascist Coordination was devoted to celebrating the role played by this organisation. The author did not attempt to hide his bias. Instead, it approvingly asserted Antifa’s claim that ‘far-right policies remain a mortal danger’ and, therefore, this organisation had ’a legitimate right’ to defend itself and ‘to organise actively against them’.[viiThe Brussels Times even managed to find an anonymous Belgian political expert who stated that anti-fascist tactics in Belgium and elsewhere aim to protect democracy. The author of this article praised ‘the active culture of anti-fascist activism in Belgium’ and ‘highlighted the powerful mobilisation capabilities of Belgian social movements against the far-right’.

The role of Antifa is to create a climate of fear to justify its mobilisation against the supposed threat posed by the far right. Once it declares that it will mobilise to prevent its enemies from having a voice, the political establishment steps in and manipulates its legal powers to cancel an event ostensibly in the interest of public safety. In this way, a fabricated threat to public order masquerades the political project of silencing dissident views.

Often, Antifa’s political circus is legitimated by public bodies that present themselves as Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs) but are, in reality, parastatal bodies. Last week, the Ligue des Droits Humains (The League of Human Rights) played a key role in communicating Antifa’s narrative.

The Ligue des Droits Humains and its Flemish sister organisation, Liga voor Mensenrechten, overwhelmingly depend on government subsidies. Since their salaries consume almost their entire income, it is worth examining who finances these positions. According to their website, their staff consists of 14 people. The Belgian taxpayer covers most of the money they receive for their salaries. According to their report, the Brussel-Capital Region and the French Community subsidise 11 positions at LDH. The rest are covered by politically committed international organisations, such as George Soros’ Open Society.

Furthermore, the building used by both organisations as their headquarters was paid for by a crowdfunding campaign, whose donors list reads like a Who’s Who of the local Brussels cultural elites, mainly journalists and university academics with a sprinkling of lawyers. This elite also dominates the governing boards of the organisations, alongside local politicians with links to the Green parties. These parastatal bodies’ existence depends on the Belgian Establishment’s financial and political support. 

The role of these NGOs is to serve as the public relations wing of the Belgian Establishment. They present themselves as independent and disinterested bodies devoted to pursuing the public good. The NGO network is run by advocates with strong political commitments who are in the business of endowing their partners, such as Antifa, with a degree of legitimacy. In this way, the fascist techniques used by Antifa can be represented as instruments serving the genuine defence of human rights.

Like these NGOs, Antifa is entirely subservient to the interests of the ruling elites. Like guard dogs whose masters occasionally let them off their leash, the Antifa is allowed some space to cultivate a sense of fear amongst the public at large. In this way, it can maintain the pretence of a militant movement fighting against a dangerous foe. But in reality, their role as the stormtroopers of the cultural elites is to trample on the freedom of dissident voices.

This is a reader supported Substack

---

[i] https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/07907184.2019.1570139

[ii] https://www.ft.com/content/302c4a17-a91b-4ea2-a33d-ed563da8900d

[iii] https://www.spiked-online.com/2023/07/18/the-perversion-of-anti-fascism/

[iv] https://www.france24.com/en/europe/20240416-political-storm-erupts-after-police-ordered-to-shut-down-hard-right-natcon-conference-in-brussels

[v] https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/five-myths/five-myths-about-antifa/2020/09/11/527071ac-f37b-11ea-bc45-e5d48ab44b9f_story.html

[vi] https://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/civil-rights/348389-opinion-antifa-threatens-to-turn-america-into-an/

[vii] Marcuse, H. (1965) ‘Repressive tolerance’, in R. Wolff, B. Moore and H. Marcuse, A Critique of Pure Tolerance. Boston, MA: Beacon Press. Available at: www.marcuse.org/herbert/pubs/60spubs/65repressivetolerance.htm  p.7.

[viii] https://www.brusselstimes.com/1011516/freedom-of-speech-belgian-antifascists-respond-to-attacks-after-far-right-natcons-fundraiser