Portland: Journalist injured during riot between Antifa and Proud Boys.

[Pontifex Maximus]

Antifa has exposed itself recently. Antifa is a domestic terrorist organization unabolishedly linked to the far leftist movement. Of course this exposes what we already knew to be true: they have advocated for violence against their political rivals on the right. They advocate for violence and actively support political assassination because, idk, communism good and capitalism bad. The sad fact is that TWC has become a sponsor for this leftist rhetoric and extremism. Total self "dis-regulation" will allow for meaningless activity which will soon be substituted be meaningless.

[Cope]

Antifa has exposed itself recently. Antifa is a domestic terrorist organization unabolishedly linked to the far leftist movement. Of course this exposes what we already knew to be true: they have advocated for violence against their political rivals on the right. They advocate for violence and actively support political assassination because, idk, communism good and capitalism bad. The sad fact is that TWC has become a sponsor for this leftist rhetoric and extremism. Total self "dis-regulation" will allow for meaningless activity which will soon be substituted be meaningless.

??

[Cyclops]

Antifa has exposed itself recently.

They look like the same unwashed ratbags to me.

Antifa is a domestic terrorist organization unabolishedly linked to the far leftist movement.

Big if true. Is there a list of Domestic Terrorist organisations? Have they blow anything up? Killed anyone? Or are you deciding they are because something something.

They engage in political violence: if they can be shown to have a degree of organisation (and it seems self evident they do) they may be classed as a gang, like the Proud Boys, which would be a smart way to shut them down.

Of course this exposes what we already knew to be true: they have advocated for violence against their political rivals on the right.

Its not really exposing it, they have a slogan "bash the fash" don't they? They are not hding the fact they're ratbags.

They advocate for violence and actively support political assassination because, idk, communism good and capitalism bad.

Ratbags gonna ratbag. These political thug types usually show little intelligence. Once again the Proud Boys or AtomWaffen spring to kind.

BTW got any evidence they plan or carry out assassinations? Or is that from the "concrete milkshake" basket with Santa and the Easter Bunny.

The sad fact is that TWC has become a sponsor for this leftist rhetoric and extremism.

Are you alleging TWC sponsors an organisation you describe as terrorist?

Total self "dis-regulation" will allow for meaningless activity which will soon be substituted be meaningless.

This is the most sensible part of your post. .

[mongrel]

why does it matter that they are new (about 2007), except that it is worrying it took so long for antifa to get traction in the US?

My question is why are conservative and liberal people antsy about the antifa. I granted it before, there is always the rare case that someone is going to be mischaracterized by antifa but search though as I may on the internet, I can't seem to find more than a dozen cases this has ever happened. So, why is this blown out of proportion, and why people who should quizzically observe as the rest of us start to feel so uneasy?

because we are soaked in a conservative notion of political correctness. be nice, dont offend, let the far-right extremist have his opinion, this brand is less dangerous to us. far-right violence doesnt threaten the status quo as much. not that antifa is actually about to eat the burgies, but thats the image we are being sold. social conservativism blames the people at the bottom for societies problems, progressivism tells us our own lifestyle and support of captitalism and other -ismsis the problem. nobody wants to be implicated in exploitation and racism, so we take the easy explanation.

I think you have got it.I dare say if one has a racist head of state ( I think there is no doubt of that after his latest twitterings) it would be profitable to useful to have a dead cat to bounce when the heat is on.

[sumskilz]

Big if true. Is there a list of Domestic Terrorist organisations? Have they blow anything up? Killed anyone? Or are you deciding they are because something something.

They engage in political violence: if they can be shown to have a degree of organisation (and it seems self evident they do) they may be classed as a gang, like the Proud Boys, which would be a smart way to shut them down.

I think they're more a movement than an organization. Anyway, I assume he's referring to this:

Federal authorities have been warning state and local officials since early 2016 that leftist extremists known as “antifa” had become increasingly confrontational and dangerous, so much so that the Department of Homeland Security formally classified their activities as “domestic terrorist violence,” according to interviews and confidential law enforcement documents obtained by POLITICO...

Previously unreported documents disclose that by April 2016, authorities believed that “anarchist extremists” were the primary instigators of violence at public rallies against a range of targets. They were blamed by authorities for attacks on the police, government and political institutions, along with symbols of “the capitalist system,” racism, social injustice and fascism, according to a confidential 2016 joint intelligence assessment by DHS and the FBI.

[Kritias]

"Infiltrate" means "to become a member of a group or organization to secretly gather information about its activities". Ngo seems to have rather openly been filming antifa protesters and not as a member.
What you claim Ngo's intent to be is irrelevant.

You're seriously nitpicking on the word I used?

So these 'journalists' (the "popular reporters and authors") that Quilette identified as having connections to antifa, were wearing masks and among antifa at antifa protests. And Ngo filmed them.
Interesting.
Your source seems to indicate something different. Your source (or its source) seems to indicate that it was the twitting and books and articles and interviews of these "popular authors and reporters" that caused Lenihan to link them to antifa.
It does not say that Ngo found these journalists as they were participating in antifa protests while wearing masks.

No, I said that Mr. Ngo doxxed the journalists from a previous protests, which is the most logical conclusion on why Mr. Ngo's beating happened.

Yes, you called Pontifex Maximus a nazi. You don't have any evidence that he is.
You could have asked what he meant. You did not.

You seem to skip the entire argumentation. Let's look at it again. I said in the OP there are clear insinuations of connection between the mainstream left and the antifa. I said by the way the OP was presenting the incident, and how others responded to that presentation, it was same as equalizing the mainstream left to antifa. I said, this is so ridiculous like to say that the OP, because of his argumentation being based on sentiments of security and order, is a nazi. You try to present this as something else. This is your right, but I didn't go there and you know it.

You are indicating an an unwillingness or inability to name these ideologies that form the ideological tree from which fascism and nazism came.
Hint: You could start with collectivism.

I told you again, the fascists have wisened up to the fact that they need to market their ideas. That's why you got people like Richard Spencer who, up until the point he was filmed crying his hails to victory, most people saw as definitely not a nazi. Richard Spencer's nazism had to be exposed by him shouting sieg heil in english and doing the hitler salute for people to understand he was a nazi.

This is the reason that naming the ideology tree is useless as a practice. If I were to start naming political theories that are linked to fascism or nazis, you'd hear the fascist say "oh but I am not trying for collectivism, I hate collectivism, I am a liberal tribal cooperationalist". And if you're being honest, you know this is what they do.

Still non responsive. I did not ask how you define a fascist.
Here, let me be more clear:
Does antifa get to define who is a 'fascist' ?
I also asked:
Does antifa get to define what "fascist iconography" is?

I told you before. Do antifa define who is a fascist? In the narrow sense of who they target, yes. You don't ask how, though, which is what I told you. Because when someone punched Richard Spencer, I thought I saw a nazi getting punched. So they must get it right an unknowable percentage of the times. Yes?

Does antifa came over the world as a tyrannical mob to single out people and beat them up for being nazis? No. The things you say and believe make you a nazi. The things you rally in favour of make you a nazi. After all, back in 1930's people marching in the streets of Germany for Nazism didn't really know what that would turn out to be like. In that sense, no the antifa don't define who a fascist is. Everyone has to do that for themselves.

Does Antifa define what fascist iconography is? No. The real nazis, fascists of the past got to define that.

It stems from not wanting to be mis-characterized. As you are not answering the questions, I will take this as an acknowledgement that you realize you were 'mis-characterizing' me.
If it continues, I will begin to consider it deliberate.

By reading your arguments, I have an inclination to think you're somewhere within the liberal sphere [Europe-wise, you might call that the classical liberal]. But I might be wrong. Again, you're representing yourself a certain way, and my brain is making judgements as much as everyone else's. But what do you mean by this statement, exactly?

Non responsive.
I asked:
"Are you saying that they [the groups that call themselves antifa and march with commie flags, chant anti US slogans etc] are not antifa?"
It is a straightforward question.
Do answer.

I told you already, antifa are not about chanting anti-US slogans, or any other anti-country slogans. They're about chanting anti-fascist slogans. If there's a splinter group of people who are anarchists and say stuff like that, it's not all the movement. After searching for this, I understand this started from Breitbart news and from what I've seen there's only one video showing this slogan. If it were as widespread, you'd certainly have more of it captured on film, right? Incidentally, I have found the main chant that goes "No ban, no wall, sanctuary for all"
So, which one holds the most validity?

Again, let me be more clear:
Does antifa get to define what "violence" is? Who gets to define who the 'nazis' and 'fascists' are? Is it antifa?

I have answered that since my opening post. We as a society define what violence is. And fascists and nazis are self-identifying themselves as such. But not in public. That's how you got Richard Spencer. And if someone tells me he's not a nazi, go to youtube and watch the videos of him doing the hitler salute crying 'hail victory'.

[Gaidin]

If I "miss how this works", perhaps you should explain it to me (and America).
If journalists don't want to be known, maybe they should not be "popular reporters and authors" who get interviewed by media and publish articles and books.
Is it now doxxing to film people at public protests?
And somehow I doubt antifa, which has regularly attack... er I mean engaged in masked gang defensive actions on reporters (and randos with cameras) is particularly concerned with Ngo 'lying' about reporters...

Question already asked and answered. Lying reporter is lying. Hostile environment is hostile. Just because I don’t care for Antifa or Proud Boys methods doesn’t mean I can’t observe.

[Gaidin]

Antifa has exposed itself recently. Antifa is a domestic terrorist organization unabolishedly linked to the far leftist movement. Of course this exposes what we already knew to be true: they have advocated for violence against their political rivals on the right. They advocate for violence and actively support political assassination because, idk, communism good and capitalism bad. The sad fact is that TWC has become a sponsor for this leftist rhetoric and extremism. Total self "dis-regulation" will allow for meaningless activity which will soon be substituted be meaningless.

Big words if true. Let’s see your balls drop and do the right thing. Call the FBI on your fellow posters.

[Kritias]

Antifa has exposed itself recently. Antifa is a domestic terrorist organization unabolishedly linked to the far leftist movement. Of course this exposes what we already knew to be true: they have advocated for violence against their political rivals on the right. They advocate for violence and actively support political assassination because, idk, communism good and capitalism bad. The sad fact is that TWC has become a sponsor for this leftist rhetoric and extremism. Total self "dis-regulation" will allow for meaningless activity which will soon be substituted be meaningless.

Let's deconstruct this and see what we think about it.

The OP, once again, states that antifa is unabolishedly [sic] linked to leftist movements, only this time he adds cleverly the 'far' word. That's good. It also shows that my initial assertion was correct. He also says that the antifa have exposed themselves to something he, the OP, always knew to be true: the advocation of violence against their political rivals. Just so nobody is confused, their rivals are these people. Watch it till the end.
The OP also says they actively support political assassination. Source? From what I've seen so far in the US, the antifa support 'punching nazis in the face'. I would like the OP to show how many people have been assassinated due to their political identity.

The OP also gives a reason for that – communism good, capitalism bad. This is just red scare tactics. Nowhere have anyone said that antifa are against capitalism per se, only against the fascists.

Then the OP states that TWC has become a sponsor for leftist rhetoric and extremism. I'll just allow the mods to get on top of this one.

The last sentence I had trouble understanding. It seems a functionalist argument where the distance from society will give rise to anomie, ie meaninglessness and negative individualism. If so, then I agree. But I would like the OP to explain this further.

Having said that, a few more points.

Firstly, the way we've been approaching this could be better. For some reason people attacking the leftists in general, and extremism in particular fail to understand how individuals work. While you yourselves want not to be mischaracterized and put into labels, you are the first to jump to do that, ironically. It should stand without saying that people are going to be people, with all their disparages in ability, intelligence, emotional stability and so on and so on.

Why does this matter? If you search hard enough, you're bound to dig up someone stupid enough in any group. Does that mean that the individual stands as an adequate representation of an entire group? If you think about it, the only logical answer is no.

Are there idiot antifas? Damn, dude, it goes without saying. Does that mean that they have no point when it comes to the nazis? That's something everyone should answer for themselves.

You can't have reasonable nazis or fascists. The insistance that something like that exists is an oxymoron. The simple adherence to this ideology means that you adhere to the whole consiracy theory, the racial superiority, the whole thing.

Again, I will retain that if decisive action was taken by the state to limit on these ideologies, the vigilantes would have no goal left and go back to their homes. This seems to be the experience in Europe, so I fail to see why this wouldn't be the case for the US.
Thankfully, companies such as Twitter, YouTube and Facebook have taken action to deny the fascist their platforms, if a little on the late side. But better late than never, and the institutions and companies have seen the 'egg of the snake' and try to limit access to it.

[Infidel144]

You're seriously nitpicking on the word I used?

If you are mis-characterizing what happened, it throws into question your characerization of, well, anything..

No, I said that Mr. Ngo doxxed the journalists from a previous protests, which is the most logical conclusion on why Mr. Ngo's beating happened.

A "previous protest"? I did not make any assertion about what "protest" you claim he doxxed masked journalists from.
Your source does not support what you say. Your source (or your source's source) names a variety of "popular authors and reporters" supposedly 'doxxed'. It does not say any of these journalists were masked at antifa protests.
As I noted to Gaiden, I rather highly doubt antifa, which your source, as I recall, via Jake Tapper, notes as having attacked a variety of (mainstream) journalists, gives a wub. Indeed, antifa in this latest, attacked a rando with a camera (and is getting charged for it).

You seem to skip the entire argumentation. Let's look at it again.

Again, you could have asked him what he meant. You did not.

I told you again, the fascists have wisened up to the fact that they need to market their ideas. That's why you got people like Richard Spencer who, up until the point he was filmed crying his hails to victory, most people saw as definitely not a nazi. Richard Spencer's nazism had to be exposed by him shouting sieg heil in english and doing the hitler salute for people to understand he was a nazi.
This is the reason that naming the ideology tree is useless as a practice. If I were to start naming political theories that are linked to fascism or nazis, you'd hear the fascist say "oh but I am not trying for collectivism, I hate collectivism, I am a liberal tribal cooperationalist". And if you're being honest, you know this is what they do.

Non responsive. If you were being honest you would name this ideological tree you claim.
Since you are unwilling to back up your assertion, your assertion is dismissed.

I told you before. Do antifa define who is a fascist? In the narrow sense of who they target, yes. You don't ask how, though, which is what I told you. Because when someone punched Richard Spencer, I thought I saw a nazi getting punched. So they must get it right an unknowable percentage of the times. Yes?

Excellent. According to you (and to antifa) Antifa gets to decide who is and is not a fascist.

Does antifa came over the world as a tyrannical mob to single out people and beat them up for being nazis? No.

(Hmm, antifa, regularly engages in their un-cowardly, un-nazi, un-pathetic masked gang defense actions from behind against reporters, police, random passers by, wheelchaiir bound WW2 veterans, banks, soldiers on leave, old people driving down the street, people trying to stop violent assaults, Bernie supporters (liberals get the bullet too), banks, coffee shops, other places of business, universities, cars, hmm, nazis one and all, according to antifa.)

The things you say and believe make you a nazi. The things you rally in favour of make you a nazi. After all, back in 1930's people marching in the streets of Germany for Nazism didn't really know what that would turn out to be like. In that sense, no the antifa don't define who a fascist is. Everyone has to do that for themselves.

You just said antifa does get to define who is a nazi.

Does Antifa define what fascist iconography is? No. The real nazis, fascists of the past got to define that.

Facinating. Seems antifa does not know this though. See antifa attac... I mean masked gang defense from behind with weapons on Bernie supporting democrat.

By reading your arguments, I have an inclination to think you're somewhere within the liberal sphere [Europe-wise, you might call that the classical liberal]. But I might be wrong. Again, you're representing yourself a certain way, and my brain is making judgements as much as everyone else's. But what do you mean by this statement, exactly?

I mean that I don't weant to be mis-characterized, and if you continue do so, I am going to call your honesty and integrity into question.

I told you already <snip>

Non responsive.
Are you claiming these people who call themselves antifa are not antifa?
The question is simple and straight forward. Yes or no.

I have answered that since my opening post. We as a society define what violence is. And fascists and nazis are self-identifying themselves as such. But not in public.

Society gets to define violence. Not antifa. Is that what you are saying?

It's true that liberals have taken one for the team, on a few occasions.

The team? What "team" is this that you refer to?

Big if true. Is there a list of Domestic Terrorist organisations? Have they blow anything up? Killed anyone? Or are you deciding they are because something something.
They engage in political violence: if they can be shown to have a degree of organisation (and it seems self evident they do) they may be classed as a gang, like the Proud Boys, which would be a smart way to shut them down.

I previously provide the Politico article on the DHS classification of Antifa, in a response to the error prone HannibalExMachina. Sumskilz has linked it again above. What department has classified the Proud Boys as a gang?

[Heathen Hammer]

So an antifa member just tried to blow up a federal facility (where illegal aliens were detained), McVeigh style. Thankfully, he was shot and killed. It seems groups like SPLC as well as liberal lamestream media are the ones that doing radicalizing to a far bigger extent then their right-wing counter-parts are claimed to.

[Vanoi]

How does the SPLC radicalize people? Last time i checked the SPLC doesn't advocate for violence.

[Kritias]

If you are mis-characterizing what happened, it throws into question your characerization of, well, anything..

Read my posts up to point. Mr. Ngo allegedly went to the rally to film people. Twitter has a lot of accounts that accuse Mr. Ngo of doxxing jewish journalists as part of the antifa, causing them getting death threats by neo-nazis. Hencheforth, he used his journalist credentials in order to film and later dox people. That comes as close to infiltration with intent as it goes.

You nitpicking the word doesn't take away what Mr. Ngo did. Check the sources.

A "previous protest"? I did not make any assertion about what "protest" you claim he doxxed masked journalists from.
Your source does not support what you say. Your source (or your source's source) names a variety of "popular authors and reporters" supposedly 'doxxed'. It does not say any of these journalists were masked at antifa protests.
As I noted to Gaiden, I rather highly doubt antifa, which your source, as I recall, via Jake Tapper, notes as having attacked a variety of (mainstream) journalists, gives a wub. Indeed, antifa in this latest, attacked a rando with a camera (and is getting charged for it).

See above and the previous posts, and sources.

Again, you could have asked him what he meant. You did not.

My asking him what he meant is immaterial. If the line hadn't been removed, I could show you again -word for word- that my meaning was pretty clear: if you lop everything into a huge pile and call it antifa, then by the same logic I can lop everything into a huge pile and call it nazi. Did he lop it in a huge pill with the leftist, majority hellscape cities[sic] comment? He did. Therefore my criticism of his insinuations and generalizations is valid. Maybe it is I who should put your honesty and integrity under question, since you misrepresent my argument again and again.

Non responsive. If you were being honest you would name this ideological tree you claim. Since you are unwilling to back up your assertion, your assertion is dismissed.

Okay. With the danger of being exclusive here, here it comes: white nationalism, white supremacy, odinism (the political part, not the religion), fascism, some parts of the incels, neo-nazism, neo-fascism, identitarianism, white authroritarianism, the KKK, christian nationalism, collective authoritarianism to name but a few of the hundreds of different branches springing up from this mess. Your assertion of my assertion – yeah, dude, dismissed.

And before anyone of you go all smart and tell me 'Ah, you didn't say x!' - I said, I can't possibly cover all of them, they are more than a couple hundred different, yet very similar ideologies.

Excellent. According to you (and to antifa) Antifa gets to decide who is and is not a fascist.

No. I said - and you deliberately avoided that part – antifa chooses their targeting according to whom they judge to be fascist. I also said that everyone by their own actions color themselves as fascists or not. If you go into a white nationalism rally and cry out that 'jews will not replace us', it's not the antifa's arbitrary judgement that made you a fascist – it was your own actions.

(Hmm, antifa, regularly engages in their un-cowardly, un-nazi, un-pathetic masked gang defense actions from behind against reporters, police, random passers by, wheelchaiir bound WW2 veterans, banks, soldiers on leave, old people driving down the street, people trying to stop violent assaults, Bernie supporters (liberals get the bullet too), banks, coffee shops, other places of business, universities, cars, hmm, nazis one and all, according to antifa.)

Sources. For every single incident that you write, with evidence that the perpetrator was an antifa. I've been giving you sources. It's your turn. I need fourteen articles that show beyond reason of a doubt that these people attacking were antifa and not anarchists or any other extremist group.

To keep it fair, I am going to double check on your sources to see whether there's more to the reporting or not.

You just said antifa does get to define who is a nazi.

No, that was you misrepresenting my argument. I said that antifa target people who promote fascism by being, you know, fascists. The fascist actions are carried out by the person themselves. Take responsibility that if you're being fascist, or a nazi some people will call you out and boo you in the streets, and others will punch you. It's been what has been happening in politics for ages, you know.

It's also very interesting that the people whose ideological cousins created the concentration camps to exterminate their oposition are the only ones crying about their freedom of speech. Why would that be?

Facinating. Seems antifa does not know this though. See antifa attac... I mean masked gang defense from behind with weapons on Bernie supporting democrat.

Source showing this has happened and that again, sources showing they were antifa and not anarchists or any other group. I'm giving you sources, you haven't and you're claiming quite a lot of things have happened.

I mean that I don't weant to be mis-characterized, and if you continue do so, I am going to call your honesty and integrity into question.

You are mischaracterizing a lot, my arguments including, in this very post I quote you from. You have done so from your first rebuttal. Maybe you should extend the same grace to others before you ask it for yourself?

Non responsive. Are you claiming these people who call themselves antifa are not antifa?
The question is simple and straight forward. Yes or no.

I'm saying that these people you mentioned are anarchists and promote anarchist ideals, self-evident by the slogan. The anarchists are the ones who will attack state facilities and police officers as representations of the State. The antifa attack the fascists, not the State. In fact, most of the actions of antifa incorporate the State and other institutions because they need state intervention against fascism. If you mischaracterize an anarchist as an antifa, that's on you.

An example of antifa action is crowds pressuring universities to disavow and dis invite public speakers who promote fascism like Richard Spencer.

Plus, you seem to avoid the fact that Breitbart has issued a single video of this slogan, and the same single video is the only one reproduced with this slogan. If it was as widespread as you claim, then surely you can come up with more videos? On my side, I gave you a source where the slogan is 'no ban, no wall, sanctuary for all.' Check my previous post.

Why is it that the 'no ban, no wall, sanctuary for all' is less valid to you as an antifa action?

Society gets to define violence. Not antifa. Is that what you are saying?

Yes. If you check the bottom of my first post in this thread I write ''I'm against violence. I believe the law is the first and last refuge of the citizen. I am middle class like that.''

We as a society have agreed that violence is abhorrent, yet we are lenient towards it for certain reasons. The police can also use violence, but because it does so for the greater good we call that 'force', not violence. Antifa is indeed committing violence, I never said that they aren't. But their violence serves a reactionary purprose to fascism and neo-nazis' violence. It's no accident that all apparent antifa risings have coincided with the rise of fascism and nazism. Deal with the fascists, and you've have dealt with the antifa.

But what seems to happen now is a cracking down on antifa while the fascists and nazis are getting a slap in the wrist. Let's hope this won't blow up in our collective faces sometime in the future.

The team? What "team" is this that you refer to?

The society you live in. Unless you believe that the rise of fascism is not going to be a threat against your entire society, with all the authoritarianism, secret police, concentration camps etc. The FBI director certainly believes that they are a constant, pervasive threat. Source.

I previously provide the Politico article on the DHS classification of Antifa, in a response to the error prone HannibalExMachina. Sumskilz has linked it again above. What department has classified the Proud Boys as a gang?

Check the link on the Director of the FBI's concerns on white supremacy groups.

So an antifa member just tried to blow up a federal facility (where illegal aliens were detained), McVeigh style. Thankfully, he was shot and killed. It seems groups like SPLC as well as liberal lamestream media are the ones that doing radicalizing to a far bigger extent then their right-wing counter-parts are claimed to.

A sixty-nine year old man allegedly wrote a manifesto and then went on to try and blow up a facility detaining people who had crossed the borders illegally [1][2][3]. In his manifesto he apparently says that he wasn't affiliated with any antifa organization though he deemed himself to be antifascist (see Seattle Times). Take note that it's Fox News that not only claim to have the entire letter when no other outlet claim that, but also conveniently contradict different parts of the story that the man's longtime friend said to the Seattle Times. Like hushing the part where the alleged friend calls the man an organized anarchist. It's important to note that other outlets, like CNN and CBS, don't include any mention of the letter/manifesto at all. UPI claims that as of now it's unclear whether the man died of the police shots or whether it was self-inflicted. The Dailybeast site claims that the incediary devices found in his satchel were...flares. It is also important to know that Kiro7 (see source 3) claims that ''Tacoma police took great pains to say that Van Spronsen is not affiliated with the activists who were planning to protest here today'' but that the activists weren't as quick to disown him, using his death as further proof that the facility should close down.

This is a very wierd case. We'll know more in a few days.

Is your point that this happened or that this is indicative of all antifa people? And what do you mean exactly when you say that ''groups like SPLC as well as liberal lamestream media are the ones that doing radicalizing to a far bigger extent then their right-wing counter-parts are claimed to''? Because I think that when the Dept of Justice releases a report [here] for just 2017, where 50% of hate crimes were instigated by white people and that 58,1% of these were carried out due to race/ethnicity/ancestry, with an additional 22 per cent being committed for religious reasons and by 50.1 motivated by anti-Jewish bias, the right wing counter parts have done a pretty decent work themselves.

[Cyclops]

I think they're more a movement than an organization. Anyway, I assume he's referring to this:

If they show up at arranged times ans have plans that are worrying law enfocement surely an organisation.

...

I previously provide the Politico article on the DHS classification of Antifa, in a response to the error prone HannibalExMachina. Sumskilz has linked it again above.

Thanks, missed that. You're giving me an education here, have some rep.

...What department has classified the Proud Boys as a gang?

There's some guy called McInnes who founded them, he's podcasted a statement along the lines of "I founded a gang called the Proud boys...we will eat your babies". I believe he's all over Youtube etc. along with the Joe Rogan interview where he says they have a "fourth degree" which involves major altercation/getting arrested.

I believe the US has pretty strong anti-gang legislation, so if they cause real trouble (and lets be honest Proud Boys are less of a nuisance than antifa atm) they can be shut down pretty harshly.

[Kritias]

I previously provide the Politico article on the DHS classification of Antifa, in a response to the error prone HannibalExMachina. Sumskilz has linked it again above.

Hold on a second. In this article, the one Infidel provided, Josh Meyer says that "the department of Homeland Security formally classified their [antifa] activities as 'domestic terrorist violence'. That's published on September 1st, 2017. But on this article, Josh Meyer writes that ''Also, the FBI and the Justice Department don't keep lists of domestic terrorist organizations, because of concerns due to civil liberties.'' That's published on the 15th of August, 2017.

So, what's up with that? Are there or are there not lists where domestic terrorist activities are classified? Did the FBI, the DHS, and the JD retroactively drew up complete and up-to-date lists within a fortnight?

Keep in mind that this is early 2016, according to Meyer, when this had just happened (November, 2015). And I highly doubt that the DHS were searching the other way so close to a right-wing shooting at a protest. Or I could be wrong.

Apparently this whole story, as usual, was blown WAY out of proportion. According to this article, the basis for Meyer's September article was an alleged internal suggestion sent via email by an official of DHS. Who, according to this article, might just have a reason to suggest it. Also, there might be a connection to this [1] story.

In any case, I call bull on this particular story by Politico.

[Gaidin]

Domestic terrorism is only a legal definition in the US, not an actual charge yet.

[Heathen Hammer]

How does the SPLC radicalize people? Last time i checked the SPLC doesn't advocate for violence.

Neither do most groups that SPLC itself hypocritically designates as "hate groups". It does, however, demonize whole groups of people and spreads rather divisive propaganda. In reality SPLC is just as bad as what it claims to oppose. Of course, I wouldn't want them silenced just like any other individual or group, no matter how crazy their beliefs are, but recent antifa terrorist attack(or an attempt at such) is clear proof that claims of "radicalization" in regards to actual acts of violence motivated by ideology can be applied on both sides of the spectrum. The issue is that antifa terrorist who attempted to blow up a government facility (probably killing a lot of innocent people had he succeeded) is receiving literal praise by the left, while people like Tarrant and Brevik are condemned by the right. The moral schizophrenia of liberal establishment in US could be a serious issue, since people who applaud an antifa member who tried to commit a terrorist attack still have power and influence.

[irontaino]

Any examples of the SPLC demonizing an entire people or radicalizing anyone? I'm betting that's all just meaningless rhetoric, but I wanna see where you take this.

[NorthernXY]

Any examples of the SPLC demonizing an entire people or radicalizing anyone? I'm betting that's all just meaningless rhetoric, but I wanna see where you take this.

SPLC is a corrupt organization. There is a reason why all the higher-ups except the owner quit in the mid 80s and they have off shore bank account in the Caribbean. Why would a non-profit organization need bank accounts in the Caiman Islands? Source, 2015 tax filings.

[Infidel144]

I don't have a lot of time at the moment, I will return to other parts as I get the chance.

Read my posts up to point. Mr. Ngo allegedly went to the rally to film people. Twitter has a lot of accounts that accuse Mr. Ngo of doxxing jewish journalists as part of the antifa, causing them getting death threats by neo-nazis. Hencheforth, he used his journalist credentials in order to film and later dox people. That comes as close to infiltration with intent as it goes.
You nitpicking the word doesn't take away what Mr. Ngo did. Check the sources.

Your source does not support your assertion.
Your assertion was that Ngo doxxed masked journalists in attendance at antifa protests.
Your source does not support that.

See above and the previous posts, and sources.

Your source does not support your assertion.

Sources. For every single incident that you write, with evidence that the perpetrator was an antifa. I've been giving you sources. It's your turn. I need fourteen articles that show beyond reason of a doubt that these people attacking were antifa and not anarchists or any other extremist group.

Your source did not support your assertion.
https://www.newsweek.com/antifa-viol...-video-1082072
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.ab6d992d69cf
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/234838
https://www.foxnews.com/us/portland-...-in-wheelchair
Antifa regularly attacks journalists; it’s reprehensible
https://twitter.com/jaketapper/statu...04063362674688
(note your own source refers to this by Tapper).
other twittings from Tapper:
https://twitter.com/jaketapper/statu...journalists%2F
LAT reporter
There is a complete mob mentality here. People are randomly accusing random people of being Nazis.
https://twitter.com/JamesQueallyLAT/...12508398690304
already provided previously:
https://www.oregonlive.com/crime/201...9-protest.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.20f6bcf931d6

No, that was you misrepresenting my argument. I said that antifa target people who promote fascism by being, you know, fascists. The fascist actions are carried out by the person themselves. Take responsibility that if you're being fascist, or a nazi some people will call you out and boo you in the streets, and others will punch you. It's been what has been happening in politics for ages, you know.

Uh, you said, and I quote:
"Do antifa define who is a fascist? In the narrow sense of who they target, yes."
I did not ask for an argument. I asked a straight forward direct question.
All the question required was a Yes or a No. Anything other than that is entirely irrelevant to the question I asked. Which is why I ignored the rest.
So, to be clear again,
Does antifa get to declare who the nazis/fascists are?
This is a yes or no question. It does not require any argument. It only needs a yes or a no.

It's also very interesting that the people whose ideological cousins created the concentration camps to exterminate their oposition are the only ones crying about their freedom of speech. Why would that be?

No clue what you are talking about here.
OTOH, I defend free speech. (Indeed a couple of us here at TWC have been called nazis and fascists for defending free speech).
Would you care to do that yourself?
Are you claiming only nazis and fascists (or their cousins) care about free speech?

I'm saying that these people you mentioned are anarchists and promote anarchist ideals, self-evident by the slogan. The anarchists are the ones who will attack state facilities and police officers as representations of the State. The antifa attack the fascists, not the State. In fact, most of the actions of antifa incorporate the State and other institutions because they need state intervention against fascism. If you mischaracterize an anarchist as an antifa, that's on you.

It is very simple. I asked a yes or no question. I did not ask for an explanation an argument or anything else.
Are you claiming that these people are not antifa?

Edit:

Hold on a second. In this article, the one Infidel provided, Josh Meyer says that "the department of Homeland Security formally classified their [antifa] activities as 'domestic terrorist violence'. That's published on September 1st, 2017. But on this article, Josh Meyer writes that ''Also, the FBI and the Justice Department don't keep lists of domestic terrorist organizations, because of concerns due to civil liberties.'' That's published on the 15th of August, 2017.

DHS is not FBI or DoJ.

Edit 2:

There's some guy called McInnes who founded them, he's podcasted a statement along the lines of "I founded a gang called the Proud boys...we will eat your babies". I believe he's all over Youtube etc. along with the Joe Rogan interview where he says they have a "fourth degree" which involves major altercation/getting arrested.


I believe the US has pretty strong anti-gang legislation, so if they cause real trouble (and lets be honest Proud Boys are less of a nuisance than antifa atm) they can be shut down pretty harshly.

Does not matter what McInnes says. He has no legal authority. I do not think Proud Boys have been classified as a gang. We already went through the 'degrees'. None involve getting arrested. one of them involves fighting with antifa.