I see repeated references to antifa as some sort of far left organization and I disagree because I have never seen a single democrat renounce or condemn the group or any of its actions. The entire liberal order in the United States supports antifa and is crushed that President Trump is preparing to add it to the rolls as a terrorist organization and unleash all of Law Enforcement on rounding up, prosecuting and jailing its membership and it supporters. They are not outliers of the far left, they are standard bearers of leftism.
I don't know what it would take to make Americans sit up and notice that we have a thriving terrorist army on par with the PLO, Hamas or Isis in our midst and demand action to annihilate them the same way we would any local branch of the Dravidian Church or any group meeting in Waco or outbreak of the SLA.* There is no reason to tolerate them. They openly proclaim their hatred and willingness to kill others. Let them serve as a lesson to themselves and others.
You know what sets the left apart from the rest of us? I'll tell you, they don't hesitate to dehumanize and vilify anybody and everybody who fails to agree with them. Once they've pushed someone into the 'other than human' category they turn gleefully to killing him or encouraging others to kill. You know what that is? That isn't right.
*Gentle reader, there was just a trace of sarcasm in that sentence.
6 comments:
How long before like the "Patriot Act" that this new power is used against other dissidents (like you and I perhaps?).
Dissident is just a term used to cover whoever is saying what we do not want to hear.
That slippery slope. There is plenty of RICO and other laws quite useful IF USED to stop the Antifa.
But like gun laws, more laws are needed every event that occurs.
I wonder if the lawless will ever obey them?
Not dissident, terrorist is the correct term. Do not conflate speech with physical violence as some are wont to do.
We have ample laws against terrorism also.
Our founding fathers would find themselves under the terrorism laws also.
So many laws, each subtly and not so subtly eating at our liberties, all to the tune of "It's for OUR SAFETY".
If you really want to get terrorists get those that FUND and Run Political COVER.
Soros and his ample front companies are noted funders of a lot of our troubles here and abroad. Yet, he's a dear friend of the Congress critters. Funding THEIR re-election and such.
Michael, the founders and Minute Men were all subject to hanging if caught in rebellion and so perhaps they are not the best model to cite for refuting the punishment of out and out terrorists. I am not one to question the freedom of speech but I am also a full throated supporter of running over scumbags demonstrating their outrage in the streets. Speech is speech and literally ONLY SPEECH is speech. All the rest of the violence, arson, bomb throwing, physical attacks on me or federal or state or local police is violence and the existing rules let us play more harshly with those who openly agitate and militate and carrry out violent attacks. Getting a designation means we can also go after the people who fund the mysterious piles of bricks and sudden infusion of gas masks to riots. I am for that. Calling for the overthrow is speech. Burning down precincts and nightly attacks every night for 3 months on a federal holding pen in Washington is a crime and has nothing to do with speech. People need to be taught the difference because it does matter and it always has.
We're discussing stuff that occurred OPENLY as far back as Trumps 1st Presidency. Well over a Decade, just ebb and flow as the Dems need "street action" or not.
The REASONS they were not crushed back then was POLITICAL COVER and Funding from Soros (who as you know OWNS a LOT of DA's and Judges, Judge Boros the Trump blocker being one).
We HAVE AMPLE Laws against all of that.
Laws that are Selectivity Applied. JUST US instead of Justice.
Just as "Terrorism" was used to rush through the "Patriot Act" more add on laws are being pushed as the
Hegelian dialectic
The concept of creating a problem to offer a solution can be referred to as the Hegelian dialectic. This term describes the process where a person creates a problem, observes the reaction to it, and then presents a solution to address the issue. This approach is often used in a manipulative context, where the individual creates the problem to gain recognition or control.
Laws created today "TO CLOSE the Loopholes criminals-terrorists use today" WILL be Used by the Other Side against Americans (probably Labeled Terrorists) soon enough.
Between our rush to "Safety" (remember that Charlie said accidental gun deaths were sad but were part of keeping the 2nd Amendment) and the "ALL SEEING EYE" of Plantar AI we are rushing into a cross between Orville's 1984 and Brave New World.
Sarcasm, certainly, but the reference to the SLA is showing your (and my) age!
Post a Comment