All it showed was a pedantic and lacking view on the issue.
No, it shows that these people will do anything to show their stances, such as attack city and private property.
Oh, you mean the ones I specifically mentioned? The KKK? The ONLY far right/fascist group to mask up like that? Also that isn't to hide their identity to protect them, it's to intimidate their victims. It's basic power politics.
Ok, so what makes it any different when AntiFa dress up in all black when they go rioting and attacking people? Nothing will help them hide their identity when the police arrest them. These people are only concerned with savagery, just like the far-Right, and terrorists like them deserve the death penalty.
I don't even know how to respond to this. It doesn't matter if they see themselves as wrong, it was completely idiotic for you to compare the actual holocaust to the joke that is the white genocide myth. The Alt-Right fascists would not have the legitimacy of an anti Fascist movement because their genocide doesn't exist and they actively support ethnic cleansing themselves.
There is no legitimacy in terrorism, only the savagery of "might equals right", in which those who invite violence into politics invites the bloodiest group to contend with them. The American far-Right will co-opt the Conservatives just as their European counterparts did, and with the Republicans tending to have more guns and the Military tending to be more conservative, the have the capacity to be the bloodiest group in this situation. You fail to realize the scope of what happens when you invite political violence.
They're not, very few AntiFa members carry flags, they need those hands free. Anyone can turn up to an AntiFa event with a flag, I could turn up with the British Labour Party's flag and no one would remove it from me. It's a moot point.
That's why that video showed a huge amount of those flags, right? Within each affinity group there was at least one flag. And why would they need those hands free? Is it so they can carry molotovs and fireworks so they can threaten civilian's lives over their imaginary state that will never happen? Or is it so they can throw objects at those civilians and police?
Socialists don't have a set flag, there's thousands of movements and parties we belong to, many of us would wave no flag at all. Communist flags are often seen at international AF events, but given the rampant and baseless McCarthyism in the states it's probably far less safe for a comrade to display the red flag than it is to be actively attacking someone in the streets.
That still does not prevent a Socialist in AntiFa from bringing a Socialist flag from a particular movement to represent them. It makes no sense for them to wave around an Anarcho-Communist or Anarcho-Syndicalist flag if they are not such. Also, if you really find it more safe to go and attack people in the streets then wave a dumb little flag, you should get your priorities checked.
"The communism"? Can you clear that up please. Do you mean the Communist Manifesto? Or do you mean communist history? Using overall deaths is ridiculous, the Soviet Union's scope and population dwarfed the Western countries where Fascism lingered/grew. Never mind China's population. Fascism and it's spread caused more deaths in the 5 years of WW2 than Stalin supposedly caused in over 40. I'm not even gonna ask you how many have died under/because of Capatalism.
It's just a grammatical errors, just calm down. And by the way, I even admitted that using Communism's death toll was moot due to how long it has existed and also due to what countries it had a chance to affect. That still does not absolve Stalin, Mao or any other Communist leader of their crimes against humanity.
Wrong. Completely, completely wrong. It is genuinely insane how much of an apologist for fascists that you are. Mao isn't pure communism that's why his doctrine is called Maoism. Do you have a copy of Mein Kampf? Or access to one? Fascist violence is to be committed by the state to suppress the people, it is not committed against Fascists to protect minorities and the people en masse. Completely incomparable to AntiFa.
The same can be said for you defending terrorism done by your ideological allies, however you cannot say the same about me. In another forum I have already expressed that I would happily watch a violent far-Right protestor be shot as much as a violent far-Left protestor; terrorism only acts as a way to suppress viewpoints. Also, it seems that you do not understand Communism
at all, nor Direct Action. You see, Direct Action was used before the installation of the Fascist state to attack dissidents and said minorities. What Antifa is doing is attack people en masse who they deem as dissidents at these protests (Fascists, Nazis, liberals get the bullet as well by the way, anyone they deem to be too Right-wing). Also, the Communist state has done the same; both Fascism and Communism used extensive use of the secret police they had to suppress anyone who was a dissident, and in the Fascist's case, minorities. It is the same because in both instances, AntiFa is attacking the ideological rival of themselves and innocent people.
By the way, Mao is pure communism. Just replace working class with peasants and crank up the authoritarian populism and you get Maoism. Communism always devolves into an authoritarian state in which the political elite rule over everyone else. Everyone else is in poverty.
Also, direct action is not an "AntiFa" only thing.
This is a realm of politics.
Wikipedia also lists both versions, non-violent and violent. Violent direct action is fascist in nature.
That's really baseless conjecture that falls flat on it's face when you consider AntiFa would be attacking anyone they could if your belief was even remotely true.
Not really. These people would to use the facade of being against Fascism before they attack other dissidents because it tries to lend them any form of "legitimacy" to the groups most opposed to this. They would much rather pretend to be liberals to gain more leverage against these groups before they attack it.
And no,
Social Fascism is a thing.
Oh you mean where the Commies tried to stop the Fascists before they could do what they done to the minorities of Europe? Or afterward when we were crushing what was left of the vile cancer that had spread across our continent? Fascists deserve to die. No ifs or buts.
Communism was up and about violently rioting before the early seed of Fascism starting rioting, in which the Commies would have slaughtered any dissenter to the state once they got their "dictatorship of the proletariat". Fascism appealed to the people by attacking the Communists by saying it was law and order while also attacking minorities. A good example of this is the Great Unrest in the UK during 1910-1914 that was influenced by Marxists and Syndicalists. This was BEFORE World War I. Fascism was created in Italy during World War I.
If their traditional values are for genocide, ethnic cleansing, white superiority or any other key fascist stand point then they should be lined up and shot with the Fascist dogs. It's really very simple.
It's not that simple, though. Conservatives sided with them because the Fascists would help them with traditional values, however the Fascists lined them up and shot them. For example, the Nationalist faction in the Spanish Civil War was essentially the Fascist side (as it had the Falange party and a few other groups like the Carlists and CEDA) and Conservatives supported them
There's no photo, no statement from the apparent victim, no other reports of it happening. No AntiFa members saying it happened, just one reporter, who could get photos, just not of that individual.
Just because no other reports said that doesn't mean it cannot be true, and you know AntiFa will not deny that it's wrong when it did that because it would discredit them.
Not terrorism, try again.
I know what you're saying. "It cannot be terrorism because it is my side, and even if it was, my brand of terrorism is wholly justified!"
Wiktionary said:
the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.
Dictionary.com said:
the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.
Golly gee, I wonder what AntiFa did during Berkeley and #DisruptJ20?
NO ONE IS ATTACKING FASCISTS TO "GET THEIR POLITICAL VIEWS ACROSS" THEY ARE ATTACKING FASCISTS TO PREVENT A FOURTH REICH. I can't believe I have to explain this to you. AntiFa aren't going around bombing schools or taking over buses of complete strangers. They're targeting fascist crowds. It's not hard. It really isn't hard to understand this.
Last time I checked, bombing schools and taking over the buses of complete strangers isn't the requirements of terrorism. Attacking civilians for the sake of intimidation and to coerce them absolutely is, and you should be ashamed that you are defending a terrorist group. All domestic terrorism is savagery and needs to be quashed by law enforcement or the military. And before you say "but that's Fascism", it's been done before to protect people. These people are called the Little Rock Nine. If these fascists do start attacking civilians, I see no reason not to let them be executed by the state just as much as an AntiFa member committing terrorism.
You mean to tell me that FOX, a well known right to Far-right network with an abysmal track record for honesty, in your eyes, only reported on someone they give constant airtime to because of AntiFa? Wow.
He can try and go back, our boys and girls will be waiting.
I didn't say that, I said it was part of the reason and also pointed out that it had a Conservative bias. They reported this, it gets a lot of exposure to Conservative, and boom. Conservatives are now sympathizing with Milo.
Also, if they do attack, all it will ever do is give Trump more ammunition to become even more authoritarian. Don't be that guy.
If you can't understand that these states of escalation could only happen because we tried to tackle them first with words and non violence then you really should take a little time to study history. Some of us aren't willing to wait for the next holocaust to start up before we stand up.
There's a reason why we don't want violence. "Might is right" is not politically sound. Also, I see no reason to attack people if they are non-violent, even if they may use politically incorrect terms and phrases. The moment they turn violent is the moment when you suppress them with military supremacy and law enforcement. Communists instigated the violence first and Fascism formed partly because of a huge anti-Marxist feel from a lot of people. Do you honestly think that committing violence won't lead to the same thing?
Communism is only evil if you know absolutely nothing about it.
Communism is a hugely evil political ideology in which the top 1% (party members) rules over a country in which all national identity and culture is gone. What is left is the shell of the proletariat and other classes, in which they become a collective of slaves in poverty and despair as the totalitarian party rules over them. With their histories of terrible economics , it has lead to genocides such as the Holodomor and catastrophes such as the Great Famine in China. Communism has no achievable end-goal and can never work as a system of government in regards to humans because we are not eusocial insects. To be so naïve as to suggest that the only way for it to be evil is by pure ignorance is quite frankly unintelligent.
