Far-left academics slam think tank after it condemns Antifa violence

There's an attempted Antifa takeover of a nonpartisan think tank focused on covering the far-right after far-left academics were outraged that the organization published a column condemning Antifa violence.

The Centre for Analysis of the Radial Right is reportedly in the midst of a takeover by Antifa-associated people after the think tank posted a column by Dr Craig McCann, a policy and practitioner fellow at CARR, that criticized Antifa violence.

On Sunday, The Post Millennial editor-at-large Andy Ngo tweeted: "There has been an attempt by #antifa to takeover  @C4ARR, a nonpartisan think tank focused on covering the far-right. Far-left academics were enraged the organization published a column criticizing antifa's violence. They’re now demanding the org explicitly become an Antifa group."

The first pair of screenshots attached to the Twitter post came from Alexander Reid Ross, a senior fellow at CARR, in which Ross posted an open letter from CARR fellows and resignees. "Beginning yesterday morning, a number of CARR fellows and resignees came together to draft a response to the recent crisis, demanding significant changes as a specifically-antifascist organization. We 27 antifascists present, today, our demands," Ross wrote, leading into the letter.

The letter begins by slamming McCann's pieces calling it "neither evidenced nor fact based," and "did not meet the standards of a scholarly organization."

"Moreover, the response from CARR does not match with what we have come to know to be the values of the Steering Group," the letter continued.

"As members of CARR, we oppose the rise of the far right and we work to support unequivocally anti-fascist values and consensus. As such, we believe the promotion of far right material and ideology is inimical to the mission of our organization," the letter added.

In the letter, 13 CARR fellows and workers handed in their resignation "over the article in question and the response from CARR."

They stated that comments issued on Twitter on Feb. 4 under CARR's name "appeared to further contradict its own mission statement, which positions the institute as a key player in existing efforts to counter radical right extremism."

The letter sets forth five demands for CARR. The first states that they demand CARR establish an editorial board with clear processes and standard for approving materials, and which "must function in a democratic fashion, obliged to only publish articles that can withstand rigorous scrutiny."

The second demand calls for changes in the recruitment process of fellows to prevent "far-right members from joining."

"The way CARR recruits new fellows is to be democratized to prevent far-right members from joining and subverting the organization. We call for a committee composed of fellows from across the research units to ensure this process."

The third demands calls for the democratized fellowship review board or an appropriate committee to be able to reconsider fellowships "where concerns are raised about the trajectory of a fellow's research or behavior that may indicate they have come into fundamental disagreement with CARR's values, or would otherwise bring CARR into disrepute." This committee would conduct interviews and assess recent and previous scholarship, with the ability to reprimand the fellow or "ultimately remove fellowship."

The fourth demands states that CARR hold a meeting once a year comprised of all fellows, "to agree important matters of strategic direction—specifically a missions statement drawn up by the steering group and open to discussion by fellows, that should restate what we know to be the guiding principles of CARR's founding fellows.

The final demand states: "Former Fellows alongside Fellows who resigned are welcomed back with immediate effect to CARR, if they wish to return."

"This effort was made possible by the incredibly courageous people who tendered their resignations to preserve dignity. The signees hope we can offer due redress and bring them back on board to a better, reformed CARR," wrote Ross.

Ngo's tweet also includes a screenshot from Dr William Allchorn, the associate director of CARR. In the Feb. 5 tweet, Allchorn confirmed receiving CARR director Matthew Feldman's resignation. Allchorn stated that he would be taking over as Managing Editor, "and meeting with the CARR Steering Group and remaining fellows early next week to see how we proceed with the Centre."

"We will take into consideration the valuable comments and suggestions made in a public letter signed by several Senior Fellows and Doctoral Fellows, and I extend a public apology to those who have been upset/feel let down by this episode," wrote Allchorn.

"This is the column by Dr Craig McCann that prompted the coordinated effort by far-left militant activist academics to force out the group's director. They're now trying to take over the org to ensure that criticisms of their comrades' violence will never be allowed again," wrote Ngo.

McCann's column, titled "Beware the Anti-Fascists, for they have become what they oppose," he talks about Antifa’s usage of the same violence the "radical right" is the same, and how "violence begets violence."

"Firstly, I don't trust those identifying so passionately as 'Anti-Fascists' to know how the radical right differs from the 'regular right.' Their grievances against the status quo run wild and it is often difficult to identify a coherent strand of thinking, other than anger. The largely ignored Antifa protests which have led to large scale disorder, criminal damage and violence in Portland, Oregon is a demonstration of where the wisdom of the mob can lead. Advocating for street violence is a messy business and one in which you surrender all vestiges of the moral high ground," McCann wrote.

He continued on to state: "Secondly, I cannot get behind the idea of 'brass knuckling up and punching a Proud Boy' as an effective means of responding to the radical right. Exactly the opposite is the case. Violence begets violence. We have seen this with street-based protest movements where groups of diametrically opposed people spoiling for a fight repeatedly converge."

McCann noted that "I also can’t help but feel that those most vociferously advocating for violence against those they perceive to be ‘Nazis’ would not be capable of punching someone else in the face. Rather, they are content to angrily encourage others to do their dirty work for them."

"These are not good faith actors. Beware those who are adding kindling to the fire in order to keep it burning. More often than not they have a book to sell or a consultancy service to promote where they get to play both arsonist and firefighter."

McCann continued on to point the finger at researchers, activists, and commentators who in aligning themselves so fervently in opposition to the radical right and overlooking violence perpetrated by the left, "some find themselves unable to challenge the worst excesses of groups on the radical left, for fear of weakening the collective stance against the fascists."

"My position is clear. No-one advocating for violence should not be given a pass, regardless of your political persuasion," said McCann, who concluded his article by stating: "To those who advocate for violence against those you oppose, take a good look in the mirror, for you may have become that which you hate."

Ross wrote his own over 5,000-word response to the article, beginning by stating: "Craig McCann's recent article, 'Beware the Anti-Fascists, for they have become what they oppose,' I am told, does not necessitate a response. The piece is so noxious that it casts a pall over the Centre for Analysis of the Radical Right, which published it, and anyone associated, including myself."

"Sometimes, far from begetting more violence, violence actually stops the cycle. In Oslo, a crazed would-be mass murderer burst into a mosque and started shooting before three men brought him down. Nobody died," Ross wrote, in response to McCann stating "violence begets violence."

"I would even venture the claim that some, if not a great many of those written off by Dr. McCann share these methods and goals. As someone who has criticized tendencies on the left with some regularity, I would offer that 'the divisiveness we see everywhere' is often weaker than the forces that would unite us. If McCann truly hopes to bridge divides, I am sure it would help to remove some of the straw from of the image created of those who aspire to many of the same objectives and learn who they truly are," Ross concluded.