Trump Declares AntiFA a Terrorist Organization. - Page 2 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in the USA and Canada.

Moderator: PoFo North America Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15096400
Robert Urbanek wrote:Several groups led by Antifa (Anti-Fascist Action) Sacramento and BAMN (By Any Means Necessary) attacked white nationalist groups at a rally and counter-rally held on June 26, 2016 outside the California State Capitol in Sacramento. Ten people were hospitalized for stabbing and laceration wounds with the majority being the left-wing counter-protesters.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Sacramento_riot

So, yes, there are organized Antifa groups and they have attacked people, although in that Sacramento incident they came out on the losing end.


The resulting publicity fortunately pushed Matthew Heimbach's neo-Nazi party underground where it eventually imploded because he kept trying to fuck his friends' wives.
#15096401
Pants-of-dog wrote:I am almost certain this is not true.

Those white guys that took over a national park were violent, and the only one who got charged was the one who actually shot a cop.

There are also certain laws in the US that allow (white) civilians to kill other people just because they feel scared.


Then people need to vote to change the laws, or vote someone in who will enforce them.

Then violence is an option for fighting fascism.


If you live in Nazi Germany and the government is a dictatorship and the people don't have a voice, then yes. That's not the case in the USA.
#15096403
Unthinking Majority wrote:Then people need to vote to change the laws, or vote someone in who will enforce them.



If you live in Nazi Germany and the government is a dictatorship and the people don't have a voice, then yes. That's not the case in the USA.


Ah, so people are only permitted to use violence against fascists after fascists have seized control of the state. :eh:
#15096404
Donna wrote:Cringe take. Preemptive violence against fascists *is* defensive, particularly on the part of POC and those who belong to groups that fascists would attempt to exterminate if they gained power.


The key word above is *if* they gained power. If you see it's imminent they will gain power and they say they will exterminate you, then it's ok to attack. If it's "well, maybe one day fascists could gain power so let's kill them" then no it's not justified, because there's not really any physical danger to you now or in the near future.

The US invaded Iraq based on preemption. They should not have. The US invaded Iraq because Bush and co. said "well, these are bad guys, and we don't really know but think maybe they're trying to get nukes/WMDs, and maybe they could use those nukes/WMDs on us or allies some day, so let's invade". Your logic is the same.
#15096408
Donna wrote:Ah, so people are only permitted to use violence against fascists after fascists have seized control of the state. :eh:


No. See this reply from above: "If you see it's imminent they will gain power and they say they will exterminate you, then it's ok to attack."

There's 2 months between the US POTUS election (Nov.) and when the new POTUS is sworn in (Jan.) and gains power, so attack between then.

You can't just physically attack every idiot with a dumb opinion because one day "they might gain power".
#15096414
Unthinking Majority wrote:Then people need to vote to change the laws, or vote someone in who will enforce them.


Getting back to your claim about how civilians cannot engage in violence, we see that laws do allow for such violence in certain respects. So antifa cannot and should not be considered a terrorist group solely on the basis of civilian violence.

If you live in Nazi Germany and the government is a dictatorship and the people don't have a voice, then yes. That's not the case in the USA.


....for white people. I think black and indigenous people have a less democratic reality.

The current reality in the USA today is not that far from a police state. There are many videos of cops attacking press, random civilians, peaceful protesters, and other innocent people for the audacity of filming them or protesting their actions.

And at the same time, many right wing authoritarian and nationalist movements are allowed free rein in the modern USA. Because of this, many black, Latino, and indigenous people are needing to defend themselves against this type of violence, so it would be incorrect to say that these communities are not dealing with this.
#15096416
Unthinking Majority wrote:The key word above is *if* they gained power. If you see it's imminent they will gain power and they say they will exterminate you, then it's ok to attack. If it's "well, maybe one day fascists could gain power so let's kill them" then no it's not justified, because there's not really any physical danger to you now or in the near future.


Why are you conflating anti-fascist violence with murder, which is generally a product of fascist violence? Nearly all anti-fascist violence simply involves physically confronting and deplatforming neo-Nazis when they attempt to organize themselves or disseminate their views. It's pretty straight-forwardly defensive: if fascists are unable to organize and spread their views (which is only possible to achieve through physical confrontation), then the active threat they present to minorities diminishes.

The US invaded Iraq based on preemption. They should not have. The US invaded Iraq because Bush and co. said "well, these are bad guys, and we don't really know but think maybe they're trying to get nukes/WMDs, and maybe they could use those nukes/WMDs on us or allies some day, so let's invade". Your logic is the same.


You're going to compare marginalized people defending their communities from nazis to the US government invading Iraq? What an obtuse and bad faith comparison. We all know what fascists do when they obtain political power, why would you even want to give them a fucking inch?

No. See this reply from above: "If you see it's imminent they will gain power and they say they will exterminate you, then it's ok to attack."


Fascism is always an imminent threat to minorities and the intentions of fascists have always been genocidal.

Go fuck yourself for even trying to give nazis the benefit of the doubt.

You can't just physically attack every idiot with a dumb opinion because one day "they might gain power".


It's not just "a dumb opinion", it is the century-old racist movement to overthrow democracy and exterminate minorities.

And you want to give it oxygen.
#15096424
Look yew'all know that I'm not one of ANTIFA's greatest fanbois, but their contempt for the lock down is beautiful to behold. :lol: My God, some of those contact tracers are going to have their work cut out. oh well if they have to employ a few more contact tracers, that should help the economy to bounce back.
#15096426
Donna wrote:They were simply liars who appropriated leftist terms in order to appeal to the industrial working class.

Similarly the first people to call themselves libertarians were Spanish communists before American conservatives stole the word from the left.


Mussolini was an ardent socialist and somehow change his mind-----I am not surprised. However, like most communists states he believed in an authoritarian system where the government could control the economy. I suspect Hitler was like that too. The evil side of these men was nationalism.

Today, racism is regarded as a crime if practiced by a majority—but as an inalienable right if practiced by a minority. The notion that one’s culture is superior to all others solely because it represents the traditions of one’s ancestors, is regarded as chauvinism if claimed by a majority—but as “ethnic” pride if claimed by a minority. Resistance to change and progress is regarded as reactionary. Ayn Rand. Sorry if that makes your blood boil, but it is actually a true statement.

Politically and historically ignorant Americans play into it in order to silence and stave off any mainstream discourse on socialism whatsoever.


There is no more ignorant than the poor black voter living in large cities that have been run by the Democrats for at least 50 years. Many white rural voters are ignorant too.

Stop pretending that it's only the left that is trying to move the overton window. Does anyone remember the "compassionate conservatism" of the George W. Bush era, when the GOP was trying to modernize and become more cosmopolitan and attractive to Hispanic and black voters? :lol: Now the Republican Party is the party of building walls and security barriers, deporting immigrants, Muslim-baiting, supporting racist cops, etc.


The looting is self entitlement, nihilism, low self esteem. and anger.
Hispanics tend to become conservative unless they adapt black culture.
Muslims are ultraconservative.

Are Muslims a protected minority?
#15096433
Julian658 wrote:Mussolini was an ardent socialist and somehow change his mind-----I am not surprised. However, like most communists states he believed in an authoritarian system where the government could control the economy. I suspect Hitler was like that too. The evil side of these men was nationalism.


Both Mussolini and Hitler preserved capitalism and class antagonisms, they weren't socialists in any real sense.

Today, racism is regarded as a crime if practiced by a majority—but as an inalienable right if practiced by a minority. The notion that one’s culture is superior to all others solely because it represents the traditions of one’s ancestors, is regarded as chauvinism if claimed by a majority—but as “ethnic” pride if claimed by a minority. Resistance to change and progress is regarded as reactionary. Ayn Rand. Sorry if that makes your blood boil, but it is actually a true statement.


Ayn Rand was a degenerate sociopath and not a real social philosopher.


There is no more ignorant than the poor black voter living in large cities that have been run by the Democrats for at least 50 years. Many white rural voters are ignorant too.


The Democratic Party plantation is a myth. America's racial problems are such that the GOP has never made an overwhelming case as to why blacks and POC should support them, especially as considering how racist the majority of the party's constituents are.

You can argue until you're blue in the face that Democrats are bad administrators and blah blah blah, but why should blacks vote for a party that is full of people who hate them?


Hispanics tend to become conservative unless they adapt black culture.


Racist nonsense.

Muslims are ultraconservative.

Are Muslims a protected minority?


Muslims are an identifiable minority, yes. And like Hispanics and blacks they tend to avoid voting for the Republican Party despite the fact that they all have socially conservative tendencies. Why is that? :excited: Or are smoothbrains like you going to start arguing that there's a Hispanic plantation and a Muslim plantation too? :lol:
#15096434
Donna wrote:Both Mussolini and Hitler preserved capitalism and class antagonisms, they weren't socialists in any real sense.

The similarity to socialism was the authoritarian side.

Ayn Rand was a degenerate sociopath and not a real social philosopher.

She lived under a communist system as a young girl and woman. Instead of using ad hominem to AR: Can you analyze these words in a vacuum?

Today, racism is regarded as a crime if practiced by a majority—but as an inalienable right if practiced by a minority. The notion that one’s culture is superior to all others solely because it represents the traditions of one’s ancestors, is regarded as chauvinism if claimed by a majority—but as “ethnic” pride if claimed by a minority. Resistance to change and progress is regarded as reactionary .


I suspect you will not comment because YOU KNOW it is true.

Ayn Rand also said this:

Racism is the lowest, most crudely primitive form of collectivism. It is the notion of ascribing moral, social or political significance to a man’s genetic lineage—the notion that a man’s intellectual and characterological traits are produced and transmitted by his internal body chemistry. Which means, in practice, that a man is to be judged, not by his own character and actions, but by the characters and actions of a collective of ancestors.

Do you disagree too?


The Democratic Party plantation is a myth. America's racial problems are such that the GOP has never made an overwhelming case as to why blacks and POC should support them, especially as considering how racist the majority of the party's constituents are.


Blacks in the inner city are totally unaware they are in a plantation where people like Joe Biden, HRC, abd even uppity black leaders feed them crumbles. PLease name one city ran by blacks Democrats where blacks have benefitted.

BTW, until the 1960 most blacks were Republican. The Dems were always known as the KKK party.

Racist nonsense.

Not an argument.

Muslims are an identifiable minority, yes.

Are Jews a minority too?
Where do Muslims rate in the intersectionality scale of oppression? Are they ahead of transgenders?

And like Hispanics and blacks they tend to avoid voting for the Republican Party despite the fact that they all have socially conservative tendencies. Why is that? :excited: Or are smoothbrains like you going to start arguing that there's a Hispanic plantation and a Muslim plantation too? :lol:


Ethnicity or skin color should no determine how a person votes. You mentioned racism above. Well----what you have said is the essence of racism.
#15096436
Pants-of-dog wrote:Getting back to your claim about how civilians cannot engage in violence, we see that laws do allow for such violence in certain respects. So antifa cannot and should not be considered a terrorist group solely on the basis of civilian violence.


What kind of laws?

....for white people. I think black and indigenous people have a less democratic reality.


Well I suppose, since they are a minority of the vote. They have to basically convince the white majority to agree with them to change laws. That's how Jim Crow laws ended, for instance. My point is that violence should be a measure of last resort. If voting, peaceful protest, and civil disobedience etc. has been tried and fails, only then should violence be considered.

The current reality in the USA today is not that far from a police state. There are many videos of cops attacking press, random civilians, peaceful protesters, and other innocent people for the audacity of filming them or protesting their actions.


The key here is that this police violence is not systemic. These are rogue cops acting outside the law, outside our democratic system, breaking the oaths they took when they became officers. It's now up to the system to punish these rogue cops because they are criminals, as much so as any rioter, actually more so since rioters are mostly only breaking/stealing property not shooting people with tasers. Systemic violence and a police state would be government law passed saying these cops can taze, punch etc. any innocent peaceful protestor they like.

Unfortunately rogue cops are a problem, and one that will probably never go away even with the most just system. Rogue cops break people's rights all the time, for whites, blacks, latinos, and all races, I watch Youtube videos of it all the time. Some rogue cops go to prison, as they should.

With George Floyd, it makes no sense to riot right now. Violence and riots should be a measure of last resort. I would think riots would only justifiable if the cop was never brought to justice. If it was clear he was never going to be charged, or if some crooked judge lets the cop off of the charges. You have to let the system work first. If democracy fails, meaning the courts, peaceful protest, civil disobedience, voting etc all fail...ok then go riot. Just being outraged isn't justification enough. People are PO'd at things the government does all the time.

Riots aren't democratic, it's a minority going out and taking the law into their own hands, without the consent of the majority. It's tyranny, and not any different than rogue cops committing unlawful violence. Both are a minority of people committing violence against the will of the majority. Only one is top-down, the other bottom-up. The reason cops have a monopoly on violence is because the rules on how and when they can act are decided by the people, with oversight by the people. Terrorism is outside that too, these are rogue citizens acting just like rogue cops, outside the law, doing whatever the fuck they please.

The only time terrorism should be justified is if democracy has broken down, tyranny reigns, the will of the people no longer rules, and civilian violence is then used only as long as is needed to restore democracy. To fight tyranny with tyranny to achieve democracy, after all other peaceful petitions for redress have gone unanswered. This is what the American Revolution was, and essentially what the Declaration of Independence says.
Last edited by Unthinking Majority on 01 Jun 2020 22:16, edited 2 times in total.
#15096439
Image

Antifa is an American far-left movement. Antifa members typically dress in black and wear a mask at their demonstrations. What makes them stand out is the level of violence that Noam Chomsky called “a major gift to the right”. Its members are predominantly white.

Because of Antifa’s repeated involvement in violence, many liberal figures have criticised the group for bringing disrepute to existing anti-fascism movements in the country. Antifa’s activities, they note, allow right-wing organisations to portray organisers of peaceful events, too, as extremists. Writer and social commentator Noam Chomsky has been quoted as calling the Antifa “a major gift to the right”. Many have pointed out that major substantive reforms, such as the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the ending of formal racial segregation, were achieved after years of non-violent disobedience.
Last edited by ThirdTerm on 01 Jun 2020 22:35, edited 1 time in total.
#15096440
Sorry, I'm just not interested in discussing Ayn Rand, especially when you're using her words as a proxy-argument simply because you're less articulate than she was. It's a pathetic smoothbrain tactic. Use your own big boy words or fuck off.

Julian658 wrote:Blacks in the inner city are totally unaware they are in a plantation where people like Joe Biden, HRC, abd even uppity black leaders feed them crumbles. PLease name one city ran by blacks Democrats where blacks have benefitted.


I've explained to you why this is a bogus argument. It doesn't matter how bad Democrats are at government, Republicans hate everyone who isn't white. You haven't explained to me why people should vote for a party that hates them. You keep pivoting.


Ethnicity or skin color should no determine how a person votes.


It isn't. It's a two party system and one party, the Republican Party, is the party of white nationalism and white identitarianism. It's not the fault of blacks and POC that one of the two parties in the two party system fucking hates their guts.

You mentioned racism above. Well----what you have said is the essence of racism.


You are now unironically claiming that not supporting people who hate you is the very essence of racism. It's not even accurate to describe comments like that as infinitely stupid. It is worse than that. It is a dangerously cynical political delusion that will tear the United States apart.
Last edited by Donna on 01 Jun 2020 22:38, edited 1 time in total.
#15096446
Donna wrote:Sorry, I'm just not interested in discussing Ayn Rand, especially when you're using her words as a proxy-argument simply because you're less articulate than she was. It's a pathetic smoothbrain tactic. Use your own big boy words or fuck off.



There is nothing esoteric about those words. You simply cannot analyze them because they contradict your point of view and you have no way of refuting them. So you try to escape with ad hominem. Nice try.

How about this:

I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.

Do you disagree with that too? Why do we have to classify people according to skin color? Why must use different words to describe people and classify them as different?

I've explained to you why this is a bogus argument. It doesn't matter how bad Democrats are at government, Republicans hate everyone who isn't white. You haven't explained to me why people should vote for a party that hates them. You keep pivoting.


That is the essence of racism! Assuming that skin color determines whether someone hates black people or not is RACIST to the marrow. How about judging people individuality and ignoring the group? DO you agree?


It isn't. It's a two party system and one party, the Republican Party, is the party of white nationalism and white identitarianism. It's not the fault of blacks and POC that one of the two parties in the two party system fucking hates their guts.


I give you some credit here. The Dems have pushed to be the party of anyone that is not white. So many white people feel out of step in a party that demonizes white people 24/7. By the way, I am a LAtin American. I am giving the perspective of an outsider.



You are now unironically claiming that not supporting people who hate you is the very essence of racism. It's not even accurate to describe comments like that as infinitely stupid. It is worse than that. It is a dangerously cynical political delusion that will tear the United States apart.


Supporting or not supporting a party using skin color as the reason is racist. I wish we would not label humans according to looks.
#15096447
Unthinking Majority wrote:What kind of laws?


Whatever laws allow white guys to walk around state capitals or wildlife refuges with assault rifles and not get charged.

Or stand your ground laws.

Well I suppose, since they are a minority of the vote. They have to basically convince the white majority to agree with them to change laws. That's how Jim Crow laws ended, for instance. My point is that violence should be a measure of last resort. If voting, peaceful protest, and civil disobedience etc. has been tried and fails, only then should violence be considered.


If the laws are built from the ground up to keep you from exercising your rights, why follow the laws?

The key here is that this police violence is not systemic.


It is definitely systemic.

So much so that I am going to predict that all these cops who are currently employing violent tactics of repression will not be charged with anything. In fact, the authorities will support them wholeheartedly.

These are rogue cops acting outside the law, outside our democratic system, breaking the oaths they took when they became officers. It's now up to the system to punish these rogue cops because they are criminals,


No, police beating protesters is a normal part of the system that is supported by the system.

They even give cops special equipment just to do this.

as much so as any rioter, actually more so since rioters are mostly only breaking/stealing property not shooting people with tasers. Systemic violence and a police state would be government law passed saying these cops can taze, punch etc. any innocent peaceful protestor they like.


And from a practical point of view, cops can and do taze, punch, et cetera any protester they like, as well as any homeless person, or person of colour with legal impunity.

How is this different from a police state?

Unfortunately rogue cops are a problem, and one that will probably never go away even with the most just system. Rogue cops break people's rights all the time, for whites, blacks, latinos, and all races, I watch Youtube videos of it all the time. Some rogue cops go to prison, as they should.

With George Floyd, it makes no sense to riot right now. Violence and riots should be a measure of last resort. I would think riots would only justifiable if the cop was never brought to justice. If it was clear he was never going to be charged, or if some crooked judge lets the cop off of the charges. You have to let the system work first. If democracy fails, meaning the courts, peaceful protest, civil disobedience, voting etc all fail...ok then go riot. Just being outraged isn't justification enough. People are PO'd at things the government does all the time.

Riots aren't democratic, it's a minority going out and taking the law into their own hands, without the consent of the majority. It's tyranny, and not any different than rogue cops committing unlawful violence. Both are a minority of people committing violence against the will of the majority. Only one is top-down, the other bottom-up. The reason cops have a monopoly on violence is because the rules on how and when they can act are decided by the people, with oversight by the people. Terrorism is outside that too, these are rogue citizens acting just like rogue cops, outside the law, doing whatever the fuck they please.

The only time terrorism should be justified is if democracy has broken down, tyranny reigns, the will of the people no longer rules, and civilian violence is then used only as long as is needed to restore democracy. To fight tyranny with tyranny to achieve democracy, after all other peaceful petitions for redress have gone unanswered. This is what the American Revolution was, and essentially what the Declaration of Independence says.


The riots are irrelevant in comparison to the issues of the murder of Mr. Floyd and the resulting police brutality.

Getting back to the actual topic, who is AntiFa?

Is it anyone who dresses in black and smashes windows during protests?
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 17

Muscovite’s Slaughter of Indigenous People in Alas[…]

You Zionists just can't stop lying can you. It wa[…]

Any of you going to buy the Trump bible he's prom[…]

No, it doesn't. The US also wants to see Hamas top[…]