Proud Boys vs. Antifa: Comparing America's Extremist Groups

Introduction and Research Question

When it comes to domestic extremism, there are groups on both the right and the left of the socio-political spectrum in America. While they differ ideologically, they also share a great deal of similarities. This paper examines two extremist groups in particular—Antifa on the left and the Proud Boys on the right. The questions this paper poses are: What is the nature of Antifa, and how does the Proud Boys organization mirror it from the opposite end of the spectrum? How can these extremist groups best be countered?

The purpose of this paper is therefore to compare and contrast the two groups while showing that both represent deep sub-cultural trends among the American populace that are emerging into popular culture and have the potential to disrupt and subvert mainstream cultural norms. To accomplish this objective, the paper first reviews the literature on the subject, then provides profiles of both groups while comparing and contrasting them and discussing ways to counter violent extremism. Finally, it adopts a holistic approach to interpret the data, discuss the findings, and draw conclusions. Ultimately, by comparing and contrasting these two extremist organizations, it is hoped that some understanding of the left and right worldviews can be acquired—and how those worldviews feed into, support, and diverge from the extremist groups that purport to project them.

One of the problems of today's American socio-political system is that it is a two-party system in which all of society is essentially forced to choose sides—right or left. This binary way of thinking creates dichotomies that can become reactionary and polarizing rather than understanding and collaborative. Drutman (2019) notes that today's political system reflects "a binary party system that has divided the country into two irreconcilable teams." Meanwhile, Hartmann (2012) notes that "a two-party system isn't really that democratic at all … [because] more parties mean more ideas"—and yet in America, when ideas clash, open conflict can break out. The nation's system is set up as a contest between two opposing views, so it should not be surprising when extremist groups on either side form and wage war upon one another.

One example of this dynamic can be seen at the national political level with the election of Donald Trump, who is popularly perceived by the left to be a fascist (Klein, 2019; Koch, 2018). Antifa movements in the US organized in direct response to events sponsored by supporters of the Trump administration—such as the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, VA in 2017 (Klein, 2019). Proud Boys organized in direct response to antagonism from groups like Antifa, proudly promoting their support for Trump and his policies while denouncing the leftist movement and its violence (DeCook, 2018). Proud Boys founder Gavin McInnes attempted to dissociate the organization from neo-Nazism and white nationalism, yet the group attracted individuals like Jeremy Christian, accused of stabbing three men on a train after directing hateful rhetoric at two minority women (Feuer, 2018). Antifa, on the other hand, has never shied away from embracing aggressive and violent tactics in order to beat back what it perceives as a rising tide of fascism in society (Doyle, 2018).

The themes associated with the literature on domestic terrorism, extremism, and violence focus on three important categories: (1) how culture makes extremism socially acceptable; (2) how culture fosters violent attitudes and beliefs; and (3) how laws are responsible for shaping the culture that fosters the first two (Breger, 2017; Cramer, Choi, & Ross, 2017; Klingspohn, 2018). These themes interact and intertwine because each overlaps with the others. A nation's laws should not reflect bias or prejudice in society, but if they do not disallow a toxic culture of extremism and violence, they are ultimately responsible for the violence that ensues—which is largely what has happened in American society. Culture has to be addressed at the legislative level because this is where laws are determined and where expectations for social behavior are identified (Breger, 2017). If people do not know what is acceptable behavior or what will not be tolerated, they cannot be held entirely responsible for acting in unacceptable ways.

Review of the Literature

The importance of culture cannot be overstated: culture is the key by which domestic violence can be both understood and effectively addressed. Cramer et al. (2017) state that "culture is a social construction that is influenced by the ways in which people make sense of who they are; the beliefs, practices, and values with which they might identify or reject, partially or wholly; and the institutional influences that promote or suppress the beliefs, practices, and values that appear to be in line with that culture, such as religion, government, and education" (p. 89). When these values are not determined or enforced, domestic violence increases, especially for minorities or marginalized groups who are not valued by the society's culture. Breger (2017) posits that "norms have been defined as 'rules or expectations of behavior within a specific [culture]'" (p. 173) and that these norms must be redefined so that the problem of toxic culture can be better addressed.

To stop the rise of domestic terrorism, extremism, and violence, the overall mainstream culture must become more humane in how it regards others and in what it can do to help others, rather than promoting a binary, polarizing, politicized culture in which one must choose between the right and the left. As Vitolo-Haddad (2019) argues, such polarization leads to a symbolic type of violence that extremist groups on both sides promote and use to attract followers, who self-identify as patriots and use violent symbolism to represent their attitudes. At the core of it all is violence motivated by ideologies from two extremes, enacted by people who take their views to their logical extreme conclusions (Wynia, Eisenman, & Hanfling, 2017). For that reason, the laws that a nation erects are what will ultimately guide, govern, and help dictate human behavior (Breger, 2017).

However, as Brockhoff, Krieger, and Meierrieks (2014) point out, education also plays a large part in the formation of domestic terrorism. The less education a person receives, the more likely that person is to become an extremist (Brockhoff et al., 2014). Thus, if young people are left to their own devices, they are more likely to fall prey to extremist groups, who appeal to the polarizing sentiment that exists within people as a result of growing up in a polarizing society where they receive little guidance. All of these factors can play a part in the rise and spread of extremism—but at the root of it all is culture.

Antifa represents a self-described anti-fascist movement in the US inspired to a large degree by the election of President Trump in 2016. Their motto is: "Abolish capitalism, Anti-Fascist Action, Smash Fascism" (Beinart, 2017). Antifa groups have existed in the US since the 1970s but did not become widespread until 2017. The ideology dates back to the 1930s in Italy and Germany, when fascist movements were seizing power and anti-fascist groups protested and opposed them. Antifa has directly, violently, and deliberately opposed right-wing marches, movements, and targeted individuals, including Fox News host Tucker Carlson (Beinart, 2017).

The Proud Boys represent a self-described Western values movement, which critics have characterized as white nationalist and neo-fascist. The movement grew out of the alt-right subculture surrounding Gavin McInnes, co-founder of Vice magazine (Feuer, 2018). Other individuals linked to the promotion of the Proud Boys include white nationalist and Third Reich admirer Richard Spencer and former InfoWars staffer Joe Biggs. The group is anti-political correctness and has directly, violently, and deliberately opposed Antifa organizations in the streets (DeCook, 2018).

Antifa's goals and objectives are decentralized, which allows independent groups and subcultures to form with their own specific objectives. Broadly speaking, the organization has broad goals beyond the simple deterrence of fascism—it also aims to raise awareness about government overreach and to promote community values. However, the organization is better known for its violent posture toward the right (Doyle, 2018).

The goals and objectives of the Proud Boys can be found in founder Gavin McInnes's own words: "We don't start fights… We finish them" (Feuer, 2018). McInnes envisioned the Proud Boys as a defender of nationalist interests, populist voices, conservative values, and right-wing ideals. Similar to how the KKK originated to defend the Old South after the Civil War, the Proud Boys came into existence to defend against the perceived threat of violent leftist actions and ideologies. The group therefore opposes feminism, political correctness, and the left in general, and Antifa in particular (DeCook, 2018).

Antifa targets not just white nationalists and fascists but also conservatives and Trump supporters, whom the group associates with fascism. It disrupts right-wing rallies, has protested outside the home of conservative commentator Tucker Carlson, and uses both street demonstrations and social media platforms like Twitter to spread its message.

The Proud Boys target feminists, Antifa, and leftists. McInnes is active in a socio-political sense, appearing on podcasts; the group attends right-wing and far-right rallies. Their main political actions involve holding demonstrations and appearing at rallies where they anticipate an opportunity to defend right-wing ideals from leftist challenge (DeCook, 2018).

Both groups use social media persistently to spread their ideologies, promote events, and share videos (DeCook, 2018). Each group is active on social media, which functions as an enormous propaganda platform—particularly because it is controlled by individuals and constitutes a decentralized way of distributing information to potential followers. This approach appeals to Antifa in particular, since that movement is itself decentralized and Antifa groups can spring up anywhere without filing an official charter. Social media allows like-minded individuals to communicate and come together in the real world, thereby spreading their beliefs. Both groups also organize rallies, protest events, and use new media to promote themselves (Koch, 2018).

Violent actions have occurred in connection with both groups, though because of the looseness of affiliation in each, there is some dispute as to whether violent actors are actually expressing or representing the organizations' credos. Jeremy Christian, who killed two people on a train after spouting hateful rhetoric, was never officially affiliated with the Proud Boys but did attend rallies with them and has been connected to the group incidentally (Brown, 2017). Similar loose connections arose with neo-Nazis and the death at Charlottesville. There were also clashes in Portland between Proud Boys and Antifa, in which both groups committed violent acts against their perceived ideological enemies. Antifa protesters chanted outside Fox News host Tucker Carlson's home and broke his front door (May, 2018). The same group was accused of committing violence at Berkeley and throwing objects at people (Swenson, 2017).

Antifa recruits and radicalizes via college campuses, social media, and music scenes (Koch, 2018). The Proud Boys recruits and radicalizes via social media, pubs with right-wing affiliations, and music scenes (DeCook, 2018). Both organizations share similar processes of recruitment and radicalization: both aim at the younger generation and supply their own form of education for their target audiences. This is part of the broader culture problem, as it relates to a lack of formal education among young people and the way these groups fill that gap by providing their own instruction, offering a kind of ideological enlightenment and giving individuals a sense of identity and belonging.

Profiles of Antifa and Proud Boys

Their use of social media is particularly important to understand because it enables them to function as influencers on a large scale. Social media influencers have been found to have an enormous impact on the information processing and decision-making of younger generations (Freberg, Graham, McGaughey, & Freberg, 2011).

Both Antifa and the Proud Boys are relatively loosely organized, with a lack of clarity as to who is leading, who is in, and who is out. McInnes may have co-founded the Proud Boys, but his involvement with the organization has been limited, and he himself distanced himself from it after garnering negative press and being accused of promoting hate. Moreover, the principles, rules, and organizational structures are ambiguous for both groups. People seem to join them based on an overall attitude of antagonism toward their perceived ideological enemies—people on the right if they identify with the left, or people on the left if they identify with the right.

The main difference between these groups and people of more mainstream sensibilities on both the right and the left is that these organizations are made up of younger people who want to take action and to confront their ideological opposites literally in the street through a mob-style form of justice. As a result, forms of extremism range widely within both groups (Vitolo-Haddad, 2019).

The best way to counter violent extremism is to adopt a public health approach (Wynia, Eisenman, & Hanfling, 2017). This would include avoiding stigmatizing people and approaching communities not from a left-right paradigm but from an apolitical position, so as to avoid creating hostilities rooted in biases and prejudices. The public health approach focuses on education and raising awareness and could leverage social media to combat the educative influence of extremist voices. Governance networks can also be used to help counter violent extremism by giving agencies and departments the ability to collect and share data with one another, thereby better tracking, identifying, and preventing extremists from executing violent plans (Dalgaard-Nielsen, 2016).

Using a holistic analytical approach, it can be seen that Antifa and the Proud Boys essentially play off one another and thus act as two sides of the same coin. Both represent an extremist position in which young people want to take action—including violent action—in order to advance their beliefs or defend their community. The aim of Antifa is more proactive in that its members deliberately go out to prevent the right from organizing and rallying in the streets. Antifa's tactics are disruptive and aggressive, but deemed necessary by its leaders because they believe themselves to be in a war and embrace guerrilla-style tactics. It has not yet reached the level of IRA-style violence, but it could move in that direction. Likewise, the Proud Boys engage in confrontational action and have engaged in street fights with Antifa.

As both organizations have heavily promoted themselves via social media, they represent a cultural phenomenon in which mainstream culture is accepting their emergence with considerable complacency. This in turn justifies their existence in the eyes of the young people who support them (Koch, 2018). The fighting words and ethos of both groups reinforce the sentiment of belonging and the importance of taking a stand (Klein, 2019). This further supports the notion that the two groups feed off one another's energy the way boxers do before a fight. They self-promote, draw favorable support from social media users, and gather in real life to demonstrate their conviction and commitment to causes they see as vital. Violence is an accepted expression of their beliefs and is largely sanctioned by a society accustomed to the left-right paradigm and the combative spirit that underlies it (DeCook, 2018).

What is the best way to defuse this situation? Increasing awareness, strengthening government response, and ultimately changing the culture by creating laws that reflect a more balanced approach to politics are the approaches that show the most promise (Breger, 2017; Dalgaard-Nielsen, 2016; Wynia et al., 2017). The culture of American society is what needs to change if extremist groups from both the right and the left are to be neutralized, but the current culture is resistant to change because the laws facilitate the very polarization that the Proud Boys and Antifa represent (Breger, 2017).

To create a more equitable society in which empathy, rapport, collaboration, and positive communication are core values, a culture must be fostered that encourages respectful debate rather than action based on violent credos and militant behavior. Violence is viewed as necessary by both sides because communication barriers exist and prejudices are deeply ingrained. Instead of seeing one another as enemies, a public health approach like that recommended by Wynia et al. (2017) should be adopted to raise awareness and close the education gap. For individuals in these groups who refuse to accept education and remain adamant in their positions, government agencies should work together to monitor their actions and words so as to prevent their harmful impact on society (Dalgaard-Nielsen, 2016). This interventionist approach by law enforcement can be made possible if the government overall becomes more bipartisan and less polarized, creating laws that prohibit the most inflammatory attacks that the right and left make upon one another.

By reforming cultural norms as Breger (2017) suggests, a more empathetic culture can be developed, which will in turn reduce the influence of groups like Antifa and the reactive need for organizations like the Proud Boys. Neutralizing the toxic culture in which they exist will help to stop their spread overall, since they naturally feed upon one another and the invective that both communicate.

To answer the original research questions, it has been shown that Antifa and the Proud Boys are essentially two sides of the same coin. Both represent the extreme ends of the left-right paradigm and both believe in violent action to counter the actions of the other side. They are ideologically divided along socio-political lines that are accepted at the mainstream cultural level as a result of a deeply entrenched two-party system that perpetuates polarization. This paper conducted a literature review to better understand the rise and impact of extremist groups in America and how those groups on the left and the right come into existence, recruit followers, organize, and act.

The strategy of analysis was holistic, and the results showed that both groups feed off one another and exist essentially as extreme representations of the already-existing culture that dominates American discourse. The members of both groups tend to be young, enthusiastic, impressionable, and eager to act. They see violence as necessary to suppress what they perceive as the irrationality of the other side. They are militant in focus but lacking in empathetic education. To combat these groups, a change in culture is needed, which can be facilitated by a three-pronged approach using a public health method, governmental collaboration, and a change in laws regarding the expression of polarizing views. Future research should focus on how such an approach could practically be implemented without further inflaming sentiments on both sides. The issue requires nuance, subtlety, sophistication, and patience. Examples set by political leaders are likely to be of great significance, and research may also want to explore how leadership in America inflames or ameliorates the left-right paradigm.

Beinart, P. (2017). The rise of the violent left. The Atlantic. Retrieved from https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/09/the-rise-of-the-violent-left/534192/

Breger, M. L. (2017). Reforming by re-norming: How the legal system has the potential to change a toxic culture of domestic violence. Journal of Legislation, 44, 170.

Brockhoff, S., Krieger, T., & Meierrieks, D. (2014). Great expectations and hard times: The (nontrivial) impact of education on domestic terrorism. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 59(7), 1186–1215.