A lot has been coming out lately about Antifa's money sources. Nevertheless, the mainstream media continues to hammer out the tired clichés: that none of them voted so they have no right to protest, that they don't even know what they're protesting about, that they're criminals etc. Yesterday, they brought violence back to the streets of Portland, in the blue state of Oregon, which is not exactly a hot zone of interest the way that Berkley is (which means they won't face the same retaliation they did recently).
As a Portlander, it's been surreal following what's been happening in Berkley through alternative media, only to see it hit national news, followed by local news. From my television screen, I watched them smash up businesses I've frequented and places where I've gone on urban hikes, all as they waved around idiotic flags: red and black (anarcho-communism ((by the way, they sell t-shirts)).
I couldn't help but think of Hans Hermann Hoppe's definition of an anarchist. Rather than an economic distinction, his is an ethical/philosophical one. As a matter of fact, he posits that someone can be one without even knowing it. He simply asks someone what they would do to him in order to get him to behave a certain way, or what that person would have someone else do on their behalf. If they answer ‘nothing,' they're an anarchist. If they have another answer, they might as well be a tyrant themselves.
People who destroy local businesses to crush capitalism would fall into the latter category.
People who throw rocks at men, women and children for having different ideas than they do would fall into the latter category.
People who require that all of their members wear a uniform and act anonymously would fall into the latter category.
There are admirable people like Keith Preston, who wish to bridge the gap between Left and Right, Center, Libertarian, alternative and outside, but they are few and far between. People like Keith Preston recognize that Antifa is dangerous to liberty, but most people fail to realize that this is where words fail. Far more than what defines the Right or the Left, archo-this or anarcho-that, we must see actions for what they are, stare them straight in the face and bare witness to reality.
The pressure is mounting between two ethical positions which will, as time goes on, come to a finer and finer point. These points are as such: those who would do something to you for not getting what they want out of you or get someone else to do it on their behalf, and those who wouldn't (in other words, those who just want to be left alone). Call it what you will, but those are, finally, the two positions. You can make historical cases for either side all you want (I'm certainly not allergic to historical cases and have my own opinions about historical violence) but there you have it. There will come a day when you have to make a decision, and it won't be about parties or ideologies, but doing the right thing.