You think it is Chaotic Good to throw M-80's and other explosives into crowds. To hit innocent people in the head with locks. To even show up at another guy's event with weapons, ready to start something in the first place.
Because Trump is evil?
I think anytime anyone uses a D&D alignment analogy, it's fairly safe to write that off as a joke. And since the working theory among those who espouse views similar to yours is that nearly ANYTHING can be written off as a joke, it would only be fair to give him the benefit of the doubt on this one. It's certainly no less distasteful than constantly stating what Hillary's Charisma score would be.
As to the actual acts, I think everyone here has been pretty clear. Though many of us have never heard of Antifa until taking part in this thread, we'd like them to go the hell away, and can't stand them. Honestly, having to keep saying this is giving me the tiniest little notion of what it must be like when African-Americans and Muslims are constantly called upon to denounce violent acts committed by members of their race or religion.
For another thing, anarchists don't even BELIEVE in the state. That's the essence of who they are. The #1 complaint that has been used against Democrats for decades is that we believe TOO much in government, so it sort of boggles the mind as to how we would be associated with a group that doesn't believe in ANY government whatsoever. Anarchism itself is nearly totally off the grid as an ideology.
These guys suck. More importantly to me, they are incredibly stupid, and a detriment to things I care about getting done. I listened to Rage Against the Machine when I was in High School too, I just didn't decide to Cosplay their albums in real-time when I grew up. My guess is they are young, have too much free money coming in from their parents, and enjoy causing shit. I'm not sure how much more unequivocal I can be about these people, they are a complete detriment to what liberals are trying to get done, and the worst part is, most of us don't even know who the f**k these people are. We should probably be more pissed about it than you are, frankly.
Well i'm currently in college, I can see myself going to a free speech rally or something like that, i'm mostly pissed about it because I don't go to those things to face baseball bats and stuff.
Antifa aren't anarchist, they are specifically against Nationalistic Government.
Boy, the goalposts really keep shifting here. The site anarchistnews.org would certainly disagree with you, since Antifa seems to be literally the ONLY thing they have posts about. Mind you I wouldn't have a clue, because it was the first time I've ever visited it, and the last, because I honestly don't give a shit about these people one way or another, and I've made that ABUNDANTLY clear.
Its been in their name the entire time, every single website, facebook of theirs repeats that. Their actions repeat that theme (targetting right-wing nationalists).
Its been in their name the entire time, every single website, facebook of theirs repeats that. Their actions repeat that theme (targetting right-wing nationalists).
AND the official name of North Korea is Democratic People's Republic of Korea.
I don't think I need to define what Democratic and Republic are. But they definitely are not represent what North Korea's politics are about.
Fascism is also a form of government, so opposing it, aligns with anarchist's beliefs.
AND the official name of North Korea is Democratic People's Republic of Korea.
I don't think I need to define what Democratic and Republic are. But they definitely are not represent what North Korea's politics are about.
Fascism is also a form of government, so opposing it, aligns with anarchist's beliefs.
Your just arguing for arguings sake lol and everyone can see it.
Antifa's stated goal is against fascism, their Actions align with their stated goal which is why they target right-wing celebrities, which they reiterate explicitly on their websites and in their own name.
And your example once again, doesn't even work because Antifa's actions completely align with their stated aims and with their own title.
If your going to use an example, make sure it is actually synonymous with whom your comparing it too.
Of course lets not beat around the bush, your just arguing for arguings sake because its me, Antifa being labelled as anarchists or anarchism is incorrect, anymore then saying Democrats are pro-lifers, just because some of them might be.
Antifa is as anarchist as much as they are anti-anarchists, lots of Antifa members do in fact support Government, Just not a particular form of Government.
Which makes describing them an anarchist completely incorrect.
Its been in their name the entire time, every single website, facebook of theirs repeats that. Their actions repeat that theme (targetting right-wing nationalists).
There's a difference between a nationalistic government, and a fascist government.
Be careful in that defending the one, you don't fall prey to admitting the other.
While I find a nationalistic government distasteful and backwards, I'd still accept it as legitimate so long as it WAS legitimate.
In America, at the moment, if you promote a nationalistic government, backed by the current rule of corporations, you are promoting a fascist agenda.
Our parents and grandparents and great-grandparents are probably rolling in their graves.
@vanatos That website barely says anything and the last activity was in 2015...
In which country Antifa is an actual organization? Because here we use the term as an umbrella for a bunch of anti-fascist groups who don't always communicate with each other. The only real "big" one would be Action antifasciste Paris-Banlieue and they were mostly unknown until a bunch of skinheads killed one of them in 2013. Not exactly what you would call an influential political entity.
@vanatos That website barely says anything and the last activity was in 2015...
In which country Antifa is an actual organization? Because here we use the term as an umbrella for a bunch of anti-fascist groups who don't always communicate with each other. The only real "big" one would be Action antifasciste Paris-Banlieue and they were mostly unknown until a bunch of skinheads killed one of them in 2013. Not exactly what you would call an influential political entity.
Mainly Europe, Though its been appearing in America.
Antifa is akin to something like Islamic Terrorism, its an ideology first that then creates small and loose organizations around that idealogy by like-minded people, which is 'fighting fascism'.
Much like Islamic Terrorist cells, No corporation or Government supports them (at least in any public way) which is why you never hear it, But they are useful idiots for whomever funds them against someone because they have no problem with violence.
In America, at the moment, if you promote a nationalistic government, backed by the current rule of corporations, you are promoting a fascist agenda.
No, An Authoritarian Government is one where freedoms are taking away from people in order to promote obedience to the Government.
A typical Authoritarian Government is one that takes away guns from the populace, Venezuala did this and the Democrat Party tends towards this, or extreme censoring of freedom of speech.
America isn't there yet, and Gun Rights is a general test for an authoritarian Government.
So long as a Government allows the populace to arm themselves, It won't really qualify as truly Authoritarian.
it's one of the reasons why Antifa is stupid and more then likely being used as a tool, Because the current Governments in Europe embody more authoritarian characteristics then some nationalistic fringe celebrity.
But they don't really go after the Government.
It's also the reason why socialist countries become authoritarian, because they already want Government to control most things.
Mainly Europe, Though its been appearing in America.
Antifa is akin to something like Islamic Terrorism, its an ideology first that then creates small and loose organizations around that idealogy by like-minded people, which is 'fighting fascism'.
Much like Islamic Terrorist cells, No corporation or Government supports them (at least in any public way) which is why you never hear it, But they are useful idiots for whomever funds them against someone.
Then why do you keep throwing "Antifa" around like a buzzword, as if it was a terrifying well-funded organization with a lot of influence?
Every political ideology has a bunch of small groups forming around it, it's not limited to anti-fascism. And no, the reason we don't hear about them is a lot more simple than some conspiracy. It's because they don't do anything of note.
I hear regularly about neo-nazis groups I don't give two shits about because they do things like attacking Arabs/gays or drawing swastikas on Jewish tombstones. I rarely hear about Action antifasciste Paris-Banlieue because they do things like distribute tracts and organize debates (the horror!). They don't need to do more at the moment. After all, we aren't in a fascist country - yet. Francois Hollande came dangerously close at times but didn't quite cross the line.
Your comparison to terrorism is also very disingenuous, because unlike terrorist cells, anti-fascist groups are not illegal. They do not fall under hate speech or appeal to violence. When one did, such as the Baader-Meinhof group, they were classified as a terrorist organization.
Then why do you keep throwing "Antifa" around like a buzzword, as if it was a terrifying well-funded organization with a lot of influence?
Every political ideology has a bunch of small groups forming around it, it's not limited to anti-fascism. And no, the reason we don't hear about them is a lot more simple than some conspiracy. It's because they don't do anything of note.
I hear regularly about neo-nazis groups I don't give two shits about because they do things like attacking Arabs/gays or drawing swastikas on Jewish tombstones. I rarely hear about Action antifasciste Paris-Banlieue because they do things like distribute tracts and organize debates (the horror!). They don't need to do more at the moment. After all, we aren't in a fascist country - yet. Francois Hollande came dangerously close at times but didn't quite cross the line.
Your comparison to terrorism is also very disingenuous, because unlike terrorist cells, anti-fascist groups are not illegal. They do not fall under hate speech or appeal to violence. When one did, such as the Baader-Meinhof group, they were classified as a terrorist organization.
If you follow the conversation to which you replied to me from, I was replying to someone else talking about what Antifa is.
So i have no idea what your even talking about.
Sure, Neo-nazi white supremacist groups suck as well.
I don't subscribe to any ideology or political group.
The comparison to terrorist groups is to explain to you (per your question) the type of organizational structure they have, which is not a corporate or even entrenched political group, But small activist organizations springing from a common ideology but that favors violent actions to their opponent, In that way they are similar to Islamic terrorist groups.
It doesn't matter to me whether they are classed as an illegal group, because their violent actions are illegal.
However i would disagree with you, shutting down college events by violence and molotovs is pretty notable.
As to Antifa being discussed, I don't care, Antifa injected themselves into the political sphere that got them into national news which is no one's fault here.
However i would disagree with you, shutting down college events by violence and molotovs is pretty notable.
When? Where? In which country? My search for molotov-related attacks is saturated by results involving religious edifices, police cars and Islamist terrorists.
As to Antifa being discussed, I don't care, Antifa injected themselves into the political sphere that got them into national news which is no one's fault here.
Not in Europe tho ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Edit: just to make sure you don't take it the wrong way - I'm not trying to annoy you here. Cultural lens change a lot of things and what can be seen as a terrible violent attack in the US might only elicit a "meh" elsewhere.
Well i'm not sure what you consider a violent attack them due to cultural differences you speak of.
In terms of Antifa, molotovs and shutting things down yeh they've done a fair amount of these things.
Antifa did it in America for the Berkeley university, many incidents in Europe over a wide variety of things really, Music concerts, Political opponents, police.
It's kind of hard to talk about a "Antifa" since it's kind of a loose term referring both to some broad anti-fascism as a whole and to different networks of anti-fascist and/or far left organizations. So I guess anyone who wants to start a riot or punch someone they don't agree with could claim that they are Antifa and no one could really say that they are not. Also, the various organizations associated with the name Antifa has had quite different ideologies. Some have tried to stick to plain anti-fascism. Others were more into anarchism and others into communism.
Anti-Fascist Action, a group founded in the UK in 80s, for example consisted of many different groups who really only had the "anti-fascism" part in common. Antifascistisk aktion, the Swedish branch, used to be very active in the 90s and early 2000s, but I haven't really heard much about them in a long time now. They usually showed up at neo-nazi rallys in an effort to stop them. And yes, they could be very violent, even though they never went as far as the neo-nazis.
There's a difference between a nationalistic government, and a fascist government.
Be careful in that defending the one, you don't fall prey to admitting the other.
While I find a nationalistic government distasteful and backwards, I'd still accept it as legitimate so long as it WAS legitimate.
A fascist government is legitimate if it is legitimate, too. There is no special rule that legitimate governments have to take only forms I morally approve of, or else I'd be picketing Vatican City for being an absolute monarchy and theocracy.
In America, at the moment, if you promote a nationalistic government, backed by the current rule of corporations, you are promoting a fascist agenda.
Our parents and grandparents and great-grandparents are probably rolling in their graves.
Well, yeah, my parents aren't even dead, so they'd probably be pretty uncomfortable in their graves. Also half of my grandparents.
America has a lot more differences than commonalities with Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, Fascist Spain, or more-or-less-Fascist Portugal. Yes, even under Donald Trump. Or any president, because America has had a nationalistic government for longer than the political concept of "fascism" has existed.
(Godwin's law aside, the fact fascism was such a convoluted mess of an ideology is why this keeps happening. What's fascism? Everything. Everything is fascism. That's why right-wingers can sneer about how they were National Socialists, after all, and argue in best-selling books about how the left are the real Nazis because something something politically correct something and also Stalin. Trump is fascist, Hillary is fascist, Bernie is fascist, Justin Trudeau is fascist, everyone on this board is fascist as long as the criteria is "there's something about you that resembles some fascist government, provided you squint and ignore all the things that are totally different from any fascist government".)
A typical Authoritarian Government is one that takes away guns from the populace, Venezuala did this and the Democrat Party tends towards this, or extreme censoring of freedom of speech.
America isn't there yet, and Gun Rights is a general test for an authoritarian Government.
So long as a Government allows the populace to arm themselves, It won't really qualify as truly Authoritarian.
So America, which can tap your phone without warrant and murder you without trial, is not authoritarian, but virtually every other country in the First World is authoritarian.
Good to know people are looking out for the rights that really matter.
(Is there even any possible way to figure out how authoritarian a government might be before the 17th century or so, when guns became actually useful weapons? The mystery that has baffled political scientists and sociologists for years continues!)
This is why history is a good guide for us, we could sit here and theorize what fits under what category and what definition but history tends to show us some prevalent patterns and reality trumps theory.
Authoritarian states do exhibit some similar characteristics, extreme propaganda and control over communication channels, control of economy over private enterprise, disarming the populace, secret police (or attempts to foster some general spying over the civilian populace).
Fascism is just that, but with a nationalistic streak.
Is America Authoritarian at least internally? well out of most countries its probably one of the least but over time its developed alot of troubling things.
The uncontrolled and expansion of NSA and intelligence agency spying definitely is in my opinion moving in that direction of 'secret police'.
Does America try to control all aspects of the economy over private enterprise? I'd say it still values private enterprise.
Does America try to control media? Actually I'd say yes in subtle ways but thankfully mainstream media is losing power.
Does America want to disarm the populace? well America still values the 2nd Amendment.
Are critics of Government, lets say politicians, routinely jailed? Well I'd say America is very very far from North Korea or Iran.
Authoritarianism is not defined by one issue otherwise every Government no matter how good it is will be classed as that.
Because Europe in its history flirted with socialism it tends to have a bit more authoritarian characteristics then America.
You think it is Chaotic Good to throw M-80's and other explosives into crowds. To hit innocent people in the head with locks. To even show up at another guy's event with weapons, ready to start something in the first place.
Journalist Tim Pool, very liberal guy, relatively well known, has covered these things and claimed the violence is about 80% Antifa, 20% free speech supporters. And these are the guys showing to crash the event.
It's Chaotic Good because Trump is evil?
Oh, personally I've always thought there was a very fine line between Chaotic Good and Chaotic Neutral.
"Donald Trump Is Unintelligible" is trending based off an interview with the Associated Press where he made several incoherent and meandering statements in this interview.
Several times he is unintelligible as he wanders around on talking points and interrupts himself to pat himself on the back for something "tremendous" or whatever.
example: AP: So in terms of the 100-day plan that you did put out during the campaign, do you feel, though, that people should hold you accountable to this in terms of judging success?
TRUMP: No, because much of the foundation's been laid. Things came up. I'll give you an example. I didn't put Supreme Court judge on the 100 (day) plan, and I got a Supreme Court judge.
AP: I think it's on there.
TRUMP: I don't know. ...
AP: "Begin the process of selecting." You actually exceeded on this one. This says, "Begin the process of selecting a replacement."
TRUMP: That's the biggest thing I've done.
AP: Do you consider that your biggest success?
TRUMP: Well, I — first of all I think he's a great man. I think he will be a great, great justice of the Supreme Court. I have always heard that the selection and the affirmation of a Supreme Court judge is the biggest thing a president can do. Don't forget, he could be there for 40 years. ... He's a young man. I've always heard that that's the biggest thing. Now, I would say that defense is the biggest thing. You know, to be honest, there are a number of things. But I've always heard that the highest calling is the nomination of a Supreme Court justice. I've done one in my first 70 days.
TRUMP: Our military is so proud. They were not proud at all. They had their heads down. Now they have their heads up. ...
TRUMP: I'm rebuilding the military. We have great people. We have great things in place. We have tremendous borders. I mention the F-35 because if I can save $725 million — look at that, that's a massive amount of money. And I'll save more as we make more planes. If I can save that on a small number of planes — Gen. (Jim) Mattis (the defense secretary) said, "I've never seen anything like this," because he had to sign the ultimate (unintelligible) ... He had to sign the ultimate, you know. He said, "I've never seen anything like this before, as long as I've been in the military." You know, that kind of cutting.
He has never made any sense when he talks. The first reason is that on 95% of subjects, he doesn't know what the hell he is talking about. He has never been interested in serious issues previously, and he isn't interested now. He's the guy who shows up to the test and just tries to bullshit his way through the essay with a massive-volume word salad. Second, to say Trump speaks in generalities is an insult to the meaning of the word. Trump's policy on every position is "it's terrible, we're going to make it great." That is the extent of his solution, as if it will happen by osmosis. 5 year olds on a playdate put more thought into the scenario they are acting out with their Power Ranger toys than Trump does on any issue.
I stated for months prior to the healthcare vote that there was no GOP plan for healthcare, and that there sure as shit was no Trump plan for healthcare. Turned out I was underselling what a disaster that would be. The only issue Trump has a remotely coherant position on is the border wall, and how it was (or is) going to be paid for was a total lie. It was lie the whole time. He knew it, he just knew it was necessary to bring along fiscal conservatives who didn't want to pay for it with tax dollars. As if Mexico was just going to fork over billions of dollars to help us build a glorified fence on the Rio Grande. There is no legislative agenda, because Trump has the attention span of a gnat distracted by a porch light. He isn't capable of the disipline actual governing requires. I despise George Bush, but that guy had airtight message disipline. Obama had an almost supernatural calm to him. Trump has none of these qualities.
Associated Press is another fake news outlet. If you can't even be honest about what the Fresno terrorist actually said, and go so far as to outright lie about it, I can no longer trust you to give me the straight facts regarding...anything, really. Especially Trump.
Associated Press is another fake news outlet. If you can't even be honest about what the Fresno terrorist actually said, and go so far as to outright lie about it, I can no longer trust you to give me the straight facts regarding...anything, really. Especially Trump.
Then we have simply reached the point where there is no point in linking news articles at all. Clearly liberals distrust FOX and Breitbart. Conservatives distrust Huffpo or Salon. This is why I rarely link from liberal sites. But this is where the difference kicks in. Liberals have problems with the MSM, but they are mostly ones of tone and context. The right now mistrusts ALL news, to the point where everything is now "fake", and the entire profession of journalism is engaged in malicious intent.
Furthermore, this is an INTERVIEW transcript of Trump's own words. So unless you are saying the AP of falsely editing the entire thing, what are you talking about?? And it's not like this interview deviates from how Trump usually talks, it sounds exactly like him.
Associated Press is another fake news outlet. If you can't even be honest about what the Fresno terrorist actually said, and go so far as to outright lie about it, I can no longer trust you to give me the straight facts regarding...anything, really. Especially Trump.
This is really dangerous that the right is so confused as to what is real and what's fake. A transcript of Donald Trump is fake news? Wut.. Yet they believe Fox News and Donald Trump lies about Obama wiretapping him. After all the fake news from both those sources that can't even be honest about Obama, Obamacare, and wiretapping and they went so far as to outright lie about it, no one trusts them to give the straight facts on anything.
Of course transcripts can be edited. It's simply foolish to believe it can not. For example, if I wanted to make someone look smarter than they appeared, i'd simply cut out or minimize all the stuttering. If I wanted to do the opposite, i'd make sure to leave each one in, or in this case, just write (unintelligable).
Liberals only have minimal problems with the MSM because the MSM is vastly on their side. CNN,MSNBC, AP,NYT. Vast, vast majority of journalists also liberal. Meanwhile the MSM gets horrible trust ratings among the general public. Not hard to see why.
What you're describing sounds more like bias than falsehood. Falsehood would mean transcribing something completely different than what the interviewee actually said. Simply adding in stutters or stumbles may paint them in a bad light, but doesn't take away from the truth of what was said.
Right-wing media outlets did this to Obama countless times when he made a speech, making sure to play or highlight his long pauses instead of focusing on what he actually said.
The "truth" of what he "said" was that it was supposedly (unintelligible). They didn't tell us what he actually said so what truth of what he said is being taken away? I don't know. Point is, transcripts can be and are edited. For biased purposes or not. But AP is biased to the point of dishonesty, that much is proven.
Perhaps we could listen to the original audio clip of the interview. Surely no one could dispute an actual audio recording of Trump's own voice.
Actually, no. Thinking it would make any difference would be naive. When the Access Hollywood tape came out--an actual recording of Trump's own words in his own voice--plenty of people dismissed it regardless.
Because he didn't mean it. Because the mainstream media distorted it. Because the Democratic party was probably behind the leak. Because the media is biased. Because what he said it wasn't a big deal anyway.
You can say you don't believe this piece of evidence. You can say you don't believe that piece of evidence, either. But at some point, you need to ask yourself what piece of evidence you would believe.
I'm not even sure what i'm being demanded to believe. That Trump is an idiot because the AP says in it's transcript something he said is unintelligible? That AP is such a bastion of honesty it would never slant it's reporting as it's been proven to do? Clarify the claim i'm supposed to believe in and i'll tell you why I do or do not believe and why.
Comments
As to the actual acts, I think everyone here has been pretty clear. Though many of us have never heard of Antifa until taking part in this thread, we'd like them to go the hell away, and can't stand them. Honestly, having to keep saying this is giving me the tiniest little notion of what it must be like when African-Americans and Muslims are constantly called upon to denounce violent acts committed by members of their race or religion.
For another thing, anarchists don't even BELIEVE in the state. That's the essence of who they are. The #1 complaint that has been used against Democrats for decades is that we believe TOO much in government, so it sort of boggles the mind as to how we would be associated with a group that doesn't believe in ANY government whatsoever. Anarchism itself is nearly totally off the grid as an ideology.
These guys suck. More importantly to me, they are incredibly stupid, and a detriment to things I care about getting done. I listened to Rage Against the Machine when I was in High School too, I just didn't decide to Cosplay their albums in real-time when I grew up. My guess is they are young, have too much free money coming in from their parents, and enjoy causing shit. I'm not sure how much more unequivocal I can be about these people, they are a complete detriment to what liberals are trying to get done, and the worst part is, most of us don't even know who the f**k these people are. We should probably be more pissed about it than you are, frankly.
Although it's probably a good way to get some XP
Antifa=Anti-fascist (literally the name).
Fascism=Authoritarian Nationalistic Government.
"an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization."
Our goals are:
Inform the public about fascism;
Promote opposition to fascism;
https://antifaaustralia.wordpress.com/our-goals/
Its been in their name the entire time, every single website, facebook of theirs repeats that.
Their actions repeat that theme (targetting right-wing nationalists).
I don't think I need to define what Democratic and Republic are. But they definitely are not represent what North Korea's politics are about.
Fascism is also a form of government, so opposing it, aligns with anarchist's beliefs.
Antifa's stated goal is against fascism, their Actions align with their stated goal which is why they target right-wing celebrities, which they reiterate explicitly on their websites and in their own name.
And your example once again, doesn't even work because Antifa's actions completely align with their stated aims and with their own title.
If your going to use an example, make sure it is actually synonymous with whom your comparing it too.
Of course lets not beat around the bush, your just arguing for arguings sake because its me, Antifa being labelled as anarchists or anarchism is incorrect, anymore then saying Democrats are pro-lifers, just because some of them might be.
Antifa is as anarchist as much as they are anti-anarchists, lots of Antifa members do in fact support Government, Just not a particular form of Government.
Which makes describing them an anarchist completely incorrect.
Be careful in that defending the one, you don't fall prey to admitting the other.
While I find a nationalistic government distasteful and backwards, I'd still accept it as legitimate so long as it WAS legitimate.
In America, at the moment, if you promote a nationalistic government, backed by the current rule of corporations, you are promoting a fascist agenda.
Our parents and grandparents and great-grandparents are probably rolling in their graves.
That website barely says anything and the last activity was in 2015...
In which country Antifa is an actual organization? Because here we use the term as an umbrella for a bunch of anti-fascist groups who don't always communicate with each other. The only real "big" one would be Action antifasciste Paris-Banlieue and they were mostly unknown until a bunch of skinheads killed one of them in 2013. Not exactly what you would call an influential political entity.
Antifa is akin to something like Islamic Terrorism, its an ideology first that then creates small and loose organizations around that idealogy by like-minded people, which is 'fighting fascism'.
Much like Islamic Terrorist cells, No corporation or Government supports them (at least in any public way) which is why you never hear it, But they are useful idiots for whomever funds them against someone because they have no problem with violence.
A typical Authoritarian Government is one that takes away guns from the populace, Venezuala did this and the Democrat Party tends towards this, or extreme censoring of freedom of speech.
America isn't there yet, and Gun Rights is a general test for an authoritarian Government.
So long as a Government allows the populace to arm themselves, It won't really qualify as truly Authoritarian.
it's one of the reasons why Antifa is stupid and more then likely being used as a tool, Because the current Governments in Europe embody more authoritarian characteristics then some nationalistic fringe celebrity.
But they don't really go after the Government.
It's also the reason why socialist countries become authoritarian, because they already want Government to control most things.
Every political ideology has a bunch of small groups forming around it, it's not limited to anti-fascism. And no, the reason we don't hear about them is a lot more simple than some conspiracy. It's because they don't do anything of note.
I hear regularly about neo-nazis groups I don't give two shits about because they do things like attacking Arabs/gays or drawing swastikas on Jewish tombstones. I rarely hear about Action antifasciste Paris-Banlieue because they do things like distribute tracts and organize debates (the horror!). They don't need to do more at the moment. After all, we aren't in a fascist country - yet. Francois Hollande came dangerously close at times but didn't quite cross the line.
Your comparison to terrorism is also very disingenuous, because unlike terrorist cells, anti-fascist groups are not illegal. They do not fall under hate speech or appeal to violence. When one did, such as the Baader-Meinhof group, they were classified as a terrorist organization.
So i have no idea what your even talking about.
Sure, Neo-nazi white supremacist groups suck as well.
I don't subscribe to any ideology or political group.
The comparison to terrorist groups is to explain to you (per your question) the type of organizational structure they have, which is not a corporate or even entrenched political group, But small activist organizations springing from a common ideology but that favors violent actions to their opponent, In that way they are similar to Islamic terrorist groups.
It doesn't matter to me whether they are classed as an illegal group, because their violent actions are illegal.
However i would disagree with you, shutting down college events by violence and molotovs is pretty notable.
As to Antifa being discussed, I don't care, Antifa injected themselves into the political sphere that got them into national news which is no one's fault here.
Edit: just to make sure you don't take it the wrong way - I'm not trying to annoy you here. Cultural lens change a lot of things and what can be seen as a terrible violent attack in the US might only elicit a "meh" elsewhere.
In terms of Antifa, molotovs and shutting things down yeh they've done a fair amount of these things.
Antifa did it in America for the Berkeley university, many incidents in Europe over a wide variety of things really, Music concerts, Political opponents, police.
Anti-Fascist Action, a group founded in the UK in 80s, for example consisted of many different groups who really only had the "anti-fascism" part in common. Antifascistisk aktion, the Swedish branch, used to be very active in the 90s and early 2000s, but I haven't really heard much about them in a long time now. They usually showed up at neo-nazi rallys in an effort to stop them. And yes, they could be very violent, even though they never went as far as the neo-nazis.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antifaschistische_Aktion
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Fascist_Action
America has a lot more differences than commonalities with Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, Fascist Spain, or more-or-less-Fascist Portugal. Yes, even under Donald Trump. Or any president, because America has had a nationalistic government for longer than the political concept of "fascism" has existed.
(Godwin's law aside, the fact fascism was such a convoluted mess of an ideology is why this keeps happening. What's fascism? Everything. Everything is fascism. That's why right-wingers can sneer about how they were National Socialists, after all, and argue in best-selling books about how the left are the real Nazis because something something politically correct something and also Stalin. Trump is fascist, Hillary is fascist, Bernie is fascist, Justin Trudeau is fascist, everyone on this board is fascist as long as the criteria is "there's something about you that resembles some fascist government, provided you squint and ignore all the things that are totally different from any fascist government".)
Good to know people are looking out for the rights that really matter.
(Is there even any possible way to figure out how authoritarian a government might be before the 17th century or so, when guns became actually useful weapons? The mystery that has baffled political scientists and sociologists for years continues!)
Authoritarian states do exhibit some similar characteristics, extreme propaganda and control over communication channels, control of economy over private enterprise, disarming the populace, secret police (or attempts to foster some general spying over the civilian populace).
Fascism is just that, but with a nationalistic streak.
Is America Authoritarian at least internally? well out of most countries its probably one of the least but over time its developed alot of troubling things.
The uncontrolled and expansion of NSA and intelligence agency spying definitely is in my opinion moving in that direction of 'secret police'.
Does America try to control all aspects of the economy over private enterprise? I'd say it still values private enterprise.
Does America try to control media? Actually I'd say yes in subtle ways but thankfully mainstream media is losing power.
Does America want to disarm the populace? well America still values the 2nd Amendment.
Are critics of Government, lets say politicians, routinely jailed? Well I'd say America is very very far from North Korea or Iran.
Authoritarianism is not defined by one issue otherwise every Government no matter how good it is will be classed as that.
Because Europe in its history flirted with socialism it tends to have a bit more authoritarian characteristics then America.
Foreign policy is another matter though.
Several times he is unintelligible as he wanders around on talking points and interrupts himself to pat himself on the back for something "tremendous" or whatever.
example:
AP: So in terms of the 100-day plan that you did put out during the campaign, do you feel, though, that people should hold you accountable to this in terms of judging success?
TRUMP: No, because much of the foundation's been laid. Things came up. I'll give you an example. I didn't put Supreme Court judge on the 100 (day) plan, and I got a Supreme Court judge.
AP: I think it's on there.
TRUMP: I don't know. ...
AP: "Begin the process of selecting." You actually exceeded on this one. This says, "Begin the process of selecting a replacement."
TRUMP: That's the biggest thing I've done.
AP: Do you consider that your biggest success?
TRUMP: Well, I — first of all I think he's a great man. I think he will be a great, great justice of the Supreme Court. I have always heard that the selection and the affirmation of a Supreme Court judge is the biggest thing a president can do. Don't forget, he could be there for 40 years. ... He's a young man. I've always heard that that's the biggest thing. Now, I would say that defense is the biggest thing. You know, to be honest, there are a number of things. But I've always heard that the highest calling is the nomination of a Supreme Court justice. I've done one in my first 70 days.
TRUMP: Our military is so proud. They were not proud at all. They had their heads down. Now they have their heads up. ...
TRUMP: I'm rebuilding the military. We have great people. We have great things in place. We have tremendous borders. I mention the F-35 because if I can save $725 million — look at that, that's a massive amount of money. And I'll save more as we make more planes. If I can save that on a small number of planes — Gen. (Jim) Mattis (the defense secretary) said, "I've never seen anything like this," because he had to sign the ultimate (unintelligible) ... He had to sign the ultimate, you know. He said, "I've never seen anything like this before, as long as I've been in the military." You know, that kind of cutting.
AP: Right.
I stated for months prior to the healthcare vote that there was no GOP plan for healthcare, and that there sure as shit was no Trump plan for healthcare. Turned out I was underselling what a disaster that would be. The only issue Trump has a remotely coherant position on is the border wall, and how it was (or is) going to be paid for was a total lie. It was lie the whole time. He knew it, he just knew it was necessary to bring along fiscal conservatives who didn't want to pay for it with tax dollars. As if Mexico was just going to fork over billions of dollars to help us build a glorified fence on the Rio Grande. There is no legislative agenda, because Trump has the attention span of a gnat distracted by a porch light. He isn't capable of the disipline actual governing requires. I despise George Bush, but that guy had airtight message disipline. Obama had an almost supernatural calm to him. Trump has none of these qualities.
Furthermore, this is an INTERVIEW transcript of Trump's own words. So unless you are saying the AP of falsely editing the entire thing, what are you talking about?? And it's not like this interview deviates from how Trump usually talks, it sounds exactly like him.
Liberals only have minimal problems with the MSM because the MSM is vastly on their side. CNN,MSNBC, AP,NYT. Vast, vast majority of journalists also liberal. Meanwhile the MSM gets horrible trust ratings among the general public. Not hard to see why.
Right-wing media outlets did this to Obama countless times when he made a speech, making sure to play or highlight his long pauses instead of focusing on what he actually said.
Actually, no. Thinking it would make any difference would be naive. When the Access Hollywood tape came out--an actual recording of Trump's own words in his own voice--plenty of people dismissed it regardless.
Because he didn't mean it. Because the mainstream media distorted it. Because the Democratic party was probably behind the leak. Because the media is biased. Because what he said it wasn't a big deal anyway.
You can say you don't believe this piece of evidence. You can say you don't believe that piece of evidence, either. But at some point, you need to ask yourself what piece of evidence you would believe.