i've been clear over a long period that i think that violence has a proper place in politics, perhaps especially in anarchist politics, but i'm going to take a step back and point you again to the breakdown i posted the other day.

if you believe that human nature is fixed, you're going to be more likely to lean towards a leviathan type state where all of the power is invested in the hands of a single body, language not carefully chosen but strangely analytical. you might claim you reject violence, but you don't, really - you just invest a monopoly on violence in the state. all of this violence is designed to prevent humans from acting out of line, because they're inherently evil.

but, if you believe that human nature is malleable, then you're going to inevitably come across the idea that violence may be a means to an end. well, we didn't imagine hitler out of existence, right, we had to beat the shit out of him. liberals are consequently going to tend to be less concerned with monopolizing violence, and less worried about hypocritical language, because they think they can use it to their own aims.

you will of course run into pacifists, and they've been badly smeared as liberals. but, go talk to a pacifist for five minutes and come back and tell me how liberal they are.

so, yes - i support vigilante groups to stamp out white supremacists, and i'd rather work outside of the state to do it. i'm sorry if you're confused, but i guess you need to try a little harder.