Whistleblowers & Truth Seekers

[marduk]

Not sure what you're referring to as nonsense. You don't believe the guy in the interview was actually a former Antifa activist? Or something else? Got a link to the FBI file you're referring to? I'll check it out. I don't know much about this at all. It's something @marduk brought up, so I started keeping watch for potentially interesting stories.

Antifa is 100% invented as a made-up enemy. It literally does not exist.

That is not to say that there are not radical left-leaning individuals prone to protest or violence - of course there is. But there is no central group with this as a mandate, or is coordinated, or has a clear agenda. It seems to mostly be individuals or small groups of people akin to the kind of people that used to chain themselves to trees, or threaten pipelines.

However, Antifa as an organization does not exist. Even the name is invented - it means 'Anti-Fascist,' or something that during WWII the entire world rallied against. Fascism used to be a bad thing - now to hardline Trump supporters and Q followers, it's a good thing. You can even see 'Anti-Antifa' t-shirts at Trump rallies. Which by simple logic means you're pro-fascism. The 'scist' part has been removed to make it sound like something it's not.

To these pro-fascist groups - like Q, white nationalists, and hardline Trumpians, it's the mythical 'other' to fight against to rally the troops. Everything can then be 'Antifa' and therefore bad. It's a convenient label to throw on things.

Actually had guys I know talk about Antifa as this giant enemy. I challenged them to tell me who the leader of Antifa is. They couldn't. I challenged them to name even one person that calls themselves Antifa. They couldn't. I then pointed out that it's only pro-fascist groups that use the term, and asked them if fascism was good. They all said no. So then I said... why would you be against people that are anti-fascist?

All they mumbled was something about rioting. I pointed out that was BLM, who they then claimed were Antifa. You can't make this stuff up.

There is a professor named Mark Bray from Rutgers that has published a self-proclaimed manifesto titled "Antifa: the Anti-Fascist Handbook' but nobody seems to follow him, and it seems to have come after the Trumpians decided it existed, and nobody seems to take him seriously at all.

All in all, the groups that the right considers to be Antifa have the following in common: they are generally left-wing, generally very LGBTQ friendly, oppose unrestrained capitalism, racism, and of course oppose fascism. None of which seem to self-identify as Antifa, and with very few exceptions have been linked to BLM protests, or violent counterprotests to Trump supporters. In fact, many of the Trump supporters that stormed the White House were claimed by team Trump to be Antifa in disguise - even though they can be traced as longtime members of pro-Trump groups and Q websites. So they turn on their own as the mythical other as well when it's convenient.

The symbolism is not at all lost to me that this is an invented enemy, and the real aim here is to both fight an enemy that you can label anyone as, and quietly normalize fascism. Which to be honest I think was Trump & co's real goal.

 

[marduk]

As a counter-point: hardline Trump supporters do exist, and you can find them organizationally on places like 'thedonald.win,' parler, etc and they do have leaders, a mandate, a rough org structure, they self-identify, etc.

As does Q: it exists, it's leaders can be named, and it has a mandate. It's mandate is a total joke (literally it appears to have been started on 4chan as a joke and it spiralled out of control) - basically that there's a satanic baby-eating pedophile cabal running the world. But it is a more centralized group, with named leaders and supporters, and a mandate. For what it's worth.

Simply offering as a counter-point to Antifa.

 

[marduk]

Hey Randall, all of that SJW stuff is contagious because of social media, algorithmic facebook newsfeeds and the like, whereas a cult operates on the basis of a central, charismatic person who calls the shots and dispenses info. So the methods of indoctrination are not at all similar, except that outside information -- contrary opinions and the like -- is shunned in favor of whatever confirms one's biases. But the similarities end there. I wonder if there is a better word than "cult." It's just a group think phenomenon, not so much a cult. Religious or spiritual views are not involved in any case. How do you define cult?

Even the term SJW is an appropriated term. It means 'Social Justice Warrior' and one that could be applied to many that post here. If you've ever called anyone out for anti-social behaviour, you're an 'SJW,' and that's somehow become a bad thing.

As is 'Cancel Culture' which is something capitalists used to call 'the free market' but is now somehow a bad thing when it's applied against aggressive capitalism in the name of (you guessed it) social justice.

It's merely an attempt to re-label things we used to think of as good things as bad things, so up becomes down and left becomes right... and again you get to rally against a made-up enemy.

There have always been social justice warriors. Like Martin Luther King, or Ghandi, or John Lennon. We used to think these things were good. In a Trumpian post-Truth era... they somehow became bad things. All by design. Same thing as in the 80's, when we relabelled greed as a good thing - as promoted in such films as Wall Street.

This, quite literally, is what the GOP has at it's core. Only for itself, of course. It should not be lost on any of us as we watched the Trump supporters storming the capital that they were mostly coming of age when this movie - and idea - was released. Middle aged white men and women, almost down the line. I don't think that's a coincidence.

 

[Randall]

Even the term SJW is an appropriated term. It means 'Social Justice Warrior' and one that could be applied to many that post here. If you've ever called anyone out for anti-social behaviour, you're an 'SJW,' and that's somehow become a bad thing.

As is 'Cancel Culture' which is something capitalists used to call 'the free market' but is now somehow a bad thing when it's applied against aggressive capitalism in the name of (you guessed it) social justice.

It's merely an attempt to re-label things we used to think of as good things as bad things, so up becomes down and left becomes right... and again you get to rally against a made-up enemy.

There have always been social justice warriors. Like Martin Luther King, or Ghandi, or John Lennon. We used to think these things were good. In a Trumpian post-Truth era... they somehow became bad things. All by design. Same thing as in the 80's, when we relabelled greed as a good thing - as promoted in such films as Wall Street.

This, quite literally, is what the GOP has at it's core. Only for itself, of course. It should not be lost on any of us as we watched the Trump supporters storming the capital that they were mostly coming of age when this movie - and idea - was released. Middle aged white men and women, almost down the line. I don't think that's a coincidence.

That clip is a classic ?

 

[Randall]

Antifa is 100% invented as a made-up enemy. It literally does not exist.

Well, from what I've been able to gather so far, it's movement, not an organization; just like there was a 60s peace movement, and there's an environmental movement. Movements can have identifiable groups or individuals within them, but there's no organizational structure, no AntiFA tower in downtown NYC. So it's not that it's "not real". It's very real, just not in a formal way.

Social movement - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[marduk]

Well, from what I've been able to gather so far, it's movement, not an organization; just like there was a 60s peace movement, and there's an environmental movement. Movements can have identifiable groups or individuals within them, but there's no organizational structure, no AntiFA tower in downtown NYC. So it's not that it's "not real". It's very real, just not in a formal way.

Social movement - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Don't agree, unless things like 'democracy' and 'human rights' are also considered to be social movements. My sense is that it's a label the far right has put on anything it doesn't like, and has invented by itself for it's own uses.

The people in the 'social movement' don't consider themselves part of it from what I've seen.

It's more akin to Macarthyism labelling everything it doesn't like a commie.

 

[Randall]

Don't agree, unless things like 'democracy' and 'human rights' are also considered to be social movements. My sense is that it's a label the far right has put on anything it doesn't like, and has invented by itself for it's own uses.

The people in the 'social movement' don't consider themselves part of it from what I've seen.

It's more akin to Macarthyism labelling everything it doesn't like a commie.

Hmm. Interesting perspective. McCarthyism has also been described as a movement, so if a social phenomenon meets the criteria for a movement, then what excludes it from being that which defines it? ( sorry - my logic just kicking in there - I know it's annoying ). Is it just a matter of personal opinion? Also if this phenomenon was "invented", then it must have been invented by someone someplace. Otherwise it's better described a product of social emergence, which IMO is closer to being a movement.

 

[marduk]

Hmm. Interesting perspective. McCarthyism has also been described as a movement, so if a social phenomenon meets the criteria for a movement, then what excludes it from being that which defines it? ( sorry - my logic just kicking in there - I know it's annoying ). Is it just a matter of personal opinion? Also if this phenomenon was "invented", then it must have been invented by someone someplace. Otherwise it's better described a product of social emergence, which IMO is closer to being a movement.

OK now you're going in a different direction, which I find very interesting.
First, I'll explain what I meant above.

Being called a 'commie' in the 50's was as related to being a communist (or even socialist) very loosely. As in, at times, not at all. It was the boogyman. If you spoke out against the american military-industrial complex, you were a commie. If you didn't want to start another war, or wanted out of Korea, you were a commie. If you wanted to restrain capitalism in any way, you were a commie. Etc. It didn't have anything much at all to do with communism, nor did communists (or socialists) self-identify as commies.

That's what I mean by Antifa. The people that protested for BLM didn't identify as Antifa. In fact, they weren't making a statement about fascism at all - they were making a statement about race inequity. Putting the 'Antifa' label on them is as much propaganda as it was to label someone a commie in the 50s. It just means 'everyone that is not for us is bad.'

Now... in terms of emergence of social movements - especially anti-establishment or anti-pattern movements, that's more interesting. Because it's akin to how the www emerged from the internet. Emergence is interesting. Nobody planned that - it just happened.

 

[Randall]

OK now you're going in a different direction, which I find very interesting.
First, I'll explain what I meant above.

Being called a 'commie' in the 50's was as related to being a communist (or even socialist) very loosely. As in, at times, not at all. It was the boogyman. If you spoke out against the american military-industrial complex, you were a commie. If you didn't want to start another war, or wanted out of Korea, you were a commie. If you wanted to restrain capitalism in any way, you were a commie. Etc. It didn't have anything much at all to do with communism, nor did communists (or socialists) self-identify as commies.

That's what I mean by Antifa. The people that protested for BLM didn't identify as Antifa. In fact, they weren't making a statement about fascism at all - they were making a statement about race inequity. Putting the 'Antifa' label on them is as much propaganda as it was to label someone a commie in the 50s. It just means 'everyone that is not for us is bad.'

Now... in terms of emergence of social movements - especially anti-establishment or anti-pattern movements, that's more interesting. Because it's akin to how the www emerged from the internet. Emergence is interesting. Nobody planned that - it just happened.

Perhaps your objection to AntiFa being called a movement is a sort of reflex against any legitimization of it, which I empathize with. I guess we have to be completely dispassionate about it and recognize that movements aren't necessarily good. So if the sort of sentiment you're expressing is that you want to avoid implying that AntiFa should have any status at all ( as movement or anything else ), that's understandable given their prevailing attitudes and behavior.

But then again, did you check out that video on how media tends to define and feed public opinion by only focusing on those aspects which align with their agenda? I forget where I posted it at the moment, but it was really good. They exposed how cherry-picking violent irrational behavior during a demonstration, sometimes not even associated with the actual demonstrators, and then promoting it as typical ( name your cause ) behavior, creates a skewed, if not false, impression. Meanwhile the actual demonstrators were just hanging out peacefully sipping coffee and holding some signs.

I would almost bet you a cup of your favorite bevy at Good Earth that a person could probably find all kinds of perfectly reasonable seeming people from the AntiFa movement who would say that all the troublemakers are just that ( troublemakers ) and not "real" AntiFas ( whatever those are ).

 

[marduk]

Perhaps your objection to AntiFa being called a movement is a sort of reflex against any legitimization of it, which I empathize with. I guess we have to be completely dispassionate about it and recognize that movements aren't necessarily good. So if the sort of sentiment you're expressing is that you want to avoid implying that AntiFa should have any status at all ( as movement or anything else ), that's understandable given their prevailing attitudes and behavior.

Kinda, but not really.

My point is that Antifa (the organization) literally does not exist, contrary to what Trump & co claim. And that Antifa (the name) was invented/coopted by the same Trump & co group to mean anything it wants. And mostly it now means an insult. So I respond to it in an allergic way, because the syntactic and semantic symbolism behind it means a lot more.

Now, if we want to talk about violent left-wing organizations or individuals, that's fine. But mythologizing it as some nebulous far-reaching and omniscient organization just plays into it's utility as a propaganda weapon for fascists, quite frankly.

But then again, did you check out that video on how media tends to define and feed public opinion by only focusing on those aspects which align with their agenda? I forget where I posted it at the moment, but it was really good. They exposed how stories cherry-pick violent irrational behavior during a demonstration, sometimes not even associated with the actual demonstrators, and then promoting them as representatives of the the typical ( name your cause ).. Meanwhile the actual protesters were just hanging out peacefully sipping coffee and holding some signs.

Sure, and what is being pointed as is confirmation bias. Something we're all guilty of because it's the human condition.

I would almost bet you a cup of your favorite bevy at Good Earth that a person could probably find all kinds of perfectly reasonable seeming people from the AntiFa movement who would say that all the troublemakers are just that ( troublemakers ) and not "real" AntiFas ( whatever those are ).

Again, we're back to Antifa being a label placed upon these varied groups and individuals, not things they identify themselves as. Remember as well that the kind of people that are radially left wing don't tend to get along with each other, and have very different views on how to handle things.

 

[Randall]

But mythologizing it as some nebulous far-reaching and omniscient organization just plays into it's utility as a propaganda weapon for fascists, quite frankly ...

You mean there's no Virtucon Industries? No Dr. Evil? No dimly lit room room full of old smoking men pulling the strings of AntiFa puppets? How is that even possible?

 

[marduk]

You mean there's no Virtucon Industries? No Dr. Evil? No dimly lit room room full of old smoking men pulling the strings of AntiFa puppets? How is that even possible?

I'm more of a Liz Hurley as the devil kinda guy myself.

 

[Damian]

Not sure what you're referring to as nonsense. You don't believe the guy in the interview was actually a former Antifa activist? Or something else? Got a link to the FBI file you're referring to? I'll check it out. I don't know much about this at all. It's something @marduk brought up, so I started keeping watch for potentially interesting stories.

Hey Randall,

Here is the FBI's statement on antifa because it is more nuanced than cable news and newspaper headlines:

The headline: FBI director says antifa is an ideology, not an organization
The quote everyone repeats: “It’s not a group or an organization. It’s a movement or an ideology.”
FBI director says antifa is an ideology, not an organization

During a presidential debate, Joe B. said "His own FBI director said antifa is an idea, not an organization."

The FBI’s Washington DC field office reported “no intelligence indicating Antifa involvement/presence” in violent activities there.

The full statement is more nuanced:

"Antifa is a real thing. It’s not a fiction...We look at antifa as more of an ideology or a movement than we do an organization. We do have quite a number of properly predicated domestic terrorism investigations into violent anarchist extremists, any number of whom self-identify with the antifa movement...We are actively investigating the potential violence from these regional nodes, if you will."
FBI director calls antifa 'a real thing'

People debating about it and history of antifa links:

https://www.reddit.com/r/dancarlin/comments/kx80xk

Antifa, explained

 

[Randall]

​

Antifa’s True Goals and Tactics Exposed: Andy Ngo​

​

In September 2020, FBI Director Christopher Wray described Antifa as more of an ideological movement than an organization.​

​

“Antifa is a real thing. It’s not a group or an organization. It’s a movement, or an ideology may be one way of thinking of it,” Wray said, acknowledging that Antifa does have “small groups,” or “nodes.”​

​

One of its groups is Rose City Antifa, “the oldest Antifa organization in the U.S.,” which is based in Portland, Oregon, the epicenter of the movement’s violent activity, Ngo said.​

​

Ngo has also uncovered a lot of evidence showing that Antifa is a formal organization, which he presented in his upcoming book “Unmasked: Inside Antifa’s Radical Plan to Destroy Democracy”​

​

Antifa’s True Goals and Tactics Exposed: Andy Ngo

Antifa is both an ideology and a movement that uses intimidation and violence to oppose capitalism and anybody ...

www.theepochtimes.com

 

[Gene Steinberg]

And the right wing uses antifa as an excuse to deflect blame from their terrorist acts, such as the attempted insurrection on Jan. 6.

 

[Randall]

And the right wing uses antifa as an excuse to deflect blame from their terrorist acts, such as the attempted insurrection on Jan. 6.

And that's not all. The video interview with the author is pretty good actually. There was no embed option or I would have included it.

 

[Randall]

‘Critical Race Training’ Forces a Woman to Quit Her Job with Smith College​

“I ask that Smith College stop reducing my personhood to a racial category. Stop telling me what I must think and feel about myself,” she said. “Stop presuming to know who I am or what my culture is based upon my skin color. Stop asking me to project stereotypes and assumptions onto others based on their skin color.”​

Staffer Finally Quits Job Over College's Obsessive Racial Demands

Decision-makers are obsessed with a word, a word that determines the way they see each individual, a word that, by design, further divides our country.

www.outkick.com

 

[Gene Steinberg]

Yeah that’s evidence from a right-wing publication with an ax to grind. Blame the employer or school rather than look into their souls.

 

[marduk]

Sigh.

 

[Randall]

Yeah that’s evidence from a right-wing publication with an ax to grind. Blame the employer or school rather than look into their souls.

Gene, she's a liberal. She says so in her video, and OutKick is a sports publication. I picked it because it doesn't have a paywall or hordes of ads popping-up all over the place. Sometimes it might benefit you not to look at everything through your partisan political filters.

Is this ethicist also always wrong about everything if he happens to vote Conservative or mention Left Wing censorship? I don't know what political leaning he is. But what he votes Left? Would that make his ethical opinion wrong too? Just because something is Left Wing doesn't automatically make it okay, just like if it's Right Wing, it doesn't automatically make it not okay.

Ethics Hero: Jodi Shaw

“I can no longer work in an environment where I am expected to apply similar race-based stereotypes and assumptions to others, and where I am told — when I complain about having to engage in …

ethicsalarms.com