Too often, radical left-wing movements are depicted by the media as a reactionary group of young ideologues, conceived by the flames of injustice in civilizations where whiteness, heteronormativity, and cisgenderism enjoy unquestioning approval and support by the overwhelming majority. Liberal commentators are quick to add, especially during moments of crisis fuelled by such left-wing movements, that the product of Antifa, Black Lives Matter, and other groups paraded and cheered by social justice warriors are the justifiable byproduct of years of intolerance towards their kind and ideology. Regardless of the atrocities committed by radical left-wing movements, many are quick to defend them because of the phenomenon of “white guilt.”
White guilt, of course, is the response of white individuals towards a number of wrongdoings committed by their own race or culture. It is a framework imposed upon white people by those who wish to hold guilty the successors of American slaveholders, Nazi soldiers, or other white groups held in contempt by the majority of the modern world. And such is the driving principle behind the defense of radical left-wing movements: that violent, outraged reaction is justified by a particular people group – and only that group – because their type has been historically oppressed by one’s own historical predecessors.
Is white guilt reasonable? Not at all. Individuals are individuals, and it requires a collectivist approach towards a people group, in this case, “white people,” and the presupposition a type of hive-mind or meta-kinetic connection that transcends space and time. The presumption that all white people should retain guilt for sins committed by those similar to themselves in appearance is completely divorced from reality, where people make their own choices. One, therefore, should not be crucified for a sin he or she has not committed, but should instead atone for the sins of themselves, whatever they may be. If an individual hates all members of a particular race, then they are by default a racist, and such a matter needs to be addressed. However, if an individual does not hate all members of a particular race, then they area by default not a racist; therefore, there is nothing to address with this particular individual. Unfortunately, movements such as Black Lives Matter seem to presume that white lives possess no inherent value due exclusively to their whiteness, based on the following video:
So if white people are not to be convicted for the crimes of their predecessors, thereby eliminating mythic instances of “white guilt,” then what are left-wing radicals “reacting” to? The answer is simple: nothing. Radical left-wing radicalism is precisely that: radicalism. It is not reactionary, nor is it justified on the basis of being provoked by injustice in the Western world. The self-proclaimed antifascists are dedicated to eradicating the marginalization of minorities; however, they have failed to provide a legitimate reason why minorities – that is, extreme minorities – should not be marginalized.
In a theoretical scenario, suppose that 99% of the population were x, while 1% of the population was y. The latter, in this scenario, could never dream of achieving the state of the former, because the two are quantitatively different. There exist hierarchies in nature, and such a reality also permeates social issues. The marginalization of peoples who wish to drastically alter the state of their locality out of selfishness or self-victimization is the natural result of living in a democracy. Social exclusion, therefore, is not necessarily a negative thing and is in fact required for a society to thrive. In our theoretical scenario, would it be fairer for the 1% demographic to speak with a voice equal to that of the 99% demographic? If this were so, one would quickly see the rise of a quasi-aristocracy, wherein minorities operate on an individual basis with more influence and weight than their opposition. The fact of the matter is that minorities will always exist in a society, and that justice determines that they should remain minorities; otherwise, national identity is thrown into disarray.
“Anti-fascists,” however, completely disagree with the above premise, and insist that because there exists a majority, there is a minority, and because minorities cannot be as powerful as majorities – oppression. Despite their misleading label, anti-fascists function counterintuitively, insisting for the forcible removal of the majority from socio-political institutions and the minority-driven placement of a minority in their place in the name of diversity. What is fascism in the United States, other than insisting on the lesser value of your opponent’s life and the willingness to use violence and force to elevate your cause into social and political spheres?
Thus, Antifa is not what the media paints. They are not a group of oppressed, hardened individuals, battle-worn by centuries of oppression by straight, cisgendered white people. They are a coalition of communists and anarchists insisting on the institution of an aristocracy, where minorities become the majority, thereby (in their own eyes) eliminating oppression. They are not reacting against anything, because there is nothing present to react to. Anti-fascists, therefore, are radicals, not reactionaries. They are extremists willing to use force in order to bring about their grey, dystopian future, and the only thing standing in their way is you.