There are some people really obsessed with Antifa.
A week or two ago I browsed Eric S. Raymond's Twitter/X, and he keeps banging about it as some organisation that ruins everything. He also still keeps banging on about BLM in a similar fashion. Curious people. (also: don't do this; it's not good for your blood pressure – the guy is literally calling for segregation of "low IQ savages" now; he's gone full KKK).
Raymond has been like this for many, many years and it's probably best just not to pay attention. I don't think there's much broader social insight you'll be able to pull from whatever he's on about this week.
No, he wasn't quite this bad before. I spent some time reading up on what he was saying around ~2021 and there was racism, but not "these low IQ savages need to be segregated" levels of racism.
They didn't take the Jordan Neely verdict very well either. Someone joked right after the verdict on Twitter that we should brace for more riots. Whoever runs the account said that sounded like a good idea.
It's not, it never was in a meaningful sense. It's a poorly defined boogie man, an idea.
You know how the war on terror gives the federal government, the military industrial complex, the prison industrial complex, etc., a ton of power and tax payer money, for pretty much no effort or return on investment because you can't wage war with an ethereal idea? Do you know how it gives the government power to jail people it perceived as its enemies, sometimes without due process?
This is the same thing. Trump is looking for justification, manufactured consent, pretense, etc., to use this power against his political enemies who might happen to not be Muslim.
He's also trying to act strong in a time of weakness, while Putin laughs at Trump and does incursions in Poland, Trump knows he can't lash out at him, so he takes it out on his own constituents.
I am aware of the current US administration. But what's the point in denouncing an organisation which barely even exists today (as far as I can tell)? I don't see them denouncing the Communist Party USA, but I would see about as much point in that as in this.
It's a constant part of history wrt autocracy and securing power.
If, for example, I call you out for being a fascist (or even falsely accuse you of such) then I must be anti fascist and therefore a terrorist, an enemy of the state, someone that can be seized from the streets and cast into a black hole somewhere.
The particulars don't matter, be it Red Scare (and under the bed), Yellow Peril, Anti-Fa, et al. the playbook is familiar.
As if they needed more reasons to be authoritarian. They seem to be able to be that just fine without this, but I guess even they need some sort of reasoning, however flimsy, and more options to pick from probably does help them achieve their goals.
Yes they still show up in masks and black outfits at events in particular cities (Portland and Seattle in particular), disrupting others’ legal activities, and intimidating people (for example by holding cans of pepper spray in their hand and shaking them), or committing outright violence.
I’m not sure how you haven’t heard of them since “before COVID”. They were far more active post COVID and George Floyd. You can find lots written about their activities online, and lots of videos as well.
Most of his content is literally just showing evidence in photos and videos of what is happening. The reason critics of him always deflect to some kind of character attack is because they know the evidence is damning.
>Yes they still show up in masks and black outfits at events in particular cities (Portland and Seattle in particular), disrupting others’ legal activities, and intimidating people
> There is an alternate universe out there in which we never have to ponder, let alone read, “Unmasked,” provocateur Andy Ngo’s supremely dishonest new book on the left-wing anti-fascist movement known as antifa.
[. . . ]
> The right is always reminding us that ”facts don’t care about your feelings,” so let us set out some facts. Ngo writes that the “numbers and influence” of right-wing extremists “are grossly exaggerated by biased media,” while antifa poses “just as much, if not more, of a threat to the future of American liberal democracy.” He frequently references [2020’s] anti-racism protests, conveniently eliding the point that 93% were peaceful, according to a study from Princeton. A brief published by the Center for Strategic and International Studies, hardly a lefty outfit, found that antifa had a “minor” role in what violence did occur, most of which was driven by local, autonomous actors, and that the organization’s threat was “relatively small.”
> January 6th administered the coup de grâce to Ngo’s already teetering thesis. It should not have taken this long, however. Trump’s own Department of Homeland Security warned last October that “white supremacist extremists” would remain the “most persistent and lethal threat” to the American homeland.
The LA Times is itself is biased, which makes sense given its location and audience (https://www.allsides.com/news-source/los-angeles-times-bias). But this article is frankly well beyond the typical lean left bias of the LA Times, annd it is just dripping with that bias - for example by flippantly claiming that the shake thrown at Andy Ngo by antifa, which gave him a head injury, must have been a “vegan blend heavy on cashew butter”. Funny perhaps, but far from credible. Let’s also not ignore that the author of this article is also author of at least one book and many articles criticizing the right, and is therefore not a balanced source in general, not just on this topic.
My suggestion - if you’re genuinely curious about this topic, go watch videos of antifa in cities like Portland or Seattle and decide with your own eyes what you want to believe.
Yes, I heard you the first time, you believe he’s a “solid journalist.” So it goes. I have no intention of convincing you otherwise. However, others may appreciate some context to your (also biased, obviously) account.
