Antifa Explained

[JokerX27505]

why answer a question when you can scream white supremacist?
alright I tried to give you an opportunity for some discussion don't go making weird accusations and instead support your beliefs and perhaps if you do well you can make me contributor.

 

[antifa]

Mark Bray wrote the Anti-Fascist Handbook, and does a pretty good job at explaining the evolution of the movement. The video is 26 minute so I only expect one of you to watch it. The rest of you will remain ignorant, yet continue to post as if you know what we are about.

Mark Bray wrote the Anti-Fascist Handbook, and does a pretty good job at explaining the evolution of the movement. The video is 26 minute so I only expect one of you to watch it. The rest of you will remain ignorant, yet continue to post as if you know what we are about.

Hi member antifa and thanks for posting this.

I relate more to the views expressed by Chris Hedges in this video
but at least understand the Antifa purpose in that context.

I have experience working with both approaches within the Occupy
movement, and the peace and justice community where this issue
came up with the Revolutionary Workers and the Food Not Bombs
and Anti Racist Action as well as La Raza and other groups that
weren't opposed to using violence in protests against war and
global oppression. I share more of Chris Hedges views that
the greater goal IS to reach out and break down the barriers, and
form alliances by making allies within the very ranks being protested and opposed
in order to effect real change. But Mark Bray made it clear that part of the
process is not the goal of Antifa but to protest, target and stop small
groups at the start before they can mobilize into larger movements.

my criticisms of this are pretty much along the lines that Hedges expressed.

What I will say about Antifa
1. even after watching this video that explains their reasons for protest,
it still comes across to me as white men enlisting others to fight turf wars using the
same race baiting tactics against the opposite side. I find the real minorities who are
truly oppressed have needs that are met by working to solve problems across racial,
class and party lines. So although this protests serve a purpose to publicize and
protest problems, like Hedges also stated it doesn't serve to solve the actual problems.

2. in fact, I believe similar to Hedges criticism that these violent protests serve
to strengthen and embolden the very opposition they seek to strike fear and shame into.
Instead like Hedges said, because this doesn't make a dent in the real power structure,
those in power merely exploit these protests to empower more opposition to the opponents,
by demeaning and belittling and discrediting the groups due to violence and other criticisms of methods.
In addition to what Hedges says, I would say that these tactics REINFORCE the "white power"
tactics of divide and conquer and "fear based" politics, that merely keep those people in power further.

What I wish that more people did instead was adopt the tactic where the "greedy people in power"
will set aside their differences and commit to work together to achieve goals that benefit them anyway.
If the activists adopted THAT tactic and found ways to work together, then that would be fighting
fire with fire and beating people at their own game. Instead, taking the opposite path of
divide and conquer by fear based bullying and attacks is playing into the game of remaining
disempowered while those in control play one side against the other and still win regardless.

3. third is I don't see the connection between "people fighting against Nazi Hitler holocaust in Germany"
with antifa protests blaming White Supremacists or Nationalists in America at rallies or protests.
Instead this comes across as trying to silence free speech because the people speaking
at these White Unite the Right rallies are NOT the same as Nazi's having committed genocidal holocausts.

One group is actually fighting in defense against the actual armies and offenders doing the attacks.
The other is trying to do "preemptive" strikes at the point where people are exercising free speech and
haven't been proven to commit any race based attacks or lynchings much less genocidal acts that require physical defense.

Again, I understand Mark's explanation that the point is not to wait for the attacks to get to the point of unstoppable violence that can't be defended against. But if someone is committed offense by their speech, they should be answered
at the same level, so this dialogue should be open and civilized, not set up to fail by waging attacks on each other.

The last time I saw a video with an Antifa person, the woman representing Antifa refused to talk share or even shake the hand of the Unite the Right organizer who offered to dialogue and talk respectfully to address concerns and work it out.

So that's where I would disagree with Antifa and agree more with Hedges that a constructive approach is
more conducive to really changing the oppressive class and race based disparities by direct action and alliances.

4. overall I thank you for trying to reach out which is more than other antifa have been trying to do.
keep up the good work to address these issues,
and my main concern is the same as Hedges where the focus is on
building partnerships and alliances toward positive sustainable change.

I'd rather see those solultions in the media rather than anonymous
protestors attacking people they don't know and getting bad press
that sends the wrong message in the media that merely empowers the very dynamics being protested.

Thanks and keep up the good fight, build bridges not walls,
and support all workers uniting across all parties and classes
instead of being divided by party and conquered and oppressed.

Yours truly,
Emily Nghiem
www.10million.net
www.rightsfortheworkers.org
www.freedmenstown.com

Try to imagine white supremacists as the British soldiers in the northern colonies circa 1770. There was no way for Americans to start solving our problems until we got rid of the British soldiers. That is the purpose of Antifa. We will fade away as soon as white supremacists are no longer a problem so Americans can start focusing on real issues.

Difference is antifa the British soldiers were the actual oppressive military forces.
People just defending white culture by free speech at rallies are not the same as actual soldiers.

This comes across as "misdirected"
like trying to target the "black thugs who are ACTUALLY killing people or cops"
by verbally and physically attacking or protesting "black people speaking out at rallies" but not actually doing the attacks.

Also I forgot to list in my response,
what are you doing or not doing about terrorist attacks, rapes
and selling people into slavery that people are doing other than Whites.
What about Mexican cartels who are committing mass violence and genocide,
what about jihadist terrorists who have taken over govts and terrorized civilians for power.

Are you equally against all men/power tyrants who are oppressing innocent
workers and minorities for military and govt controls?

Otherwise it seems "convenient" to blame and target and protest
civilized white men blaming them for the problems you are trying to use them to symbolize.
But avoiding confronting any really dangerous oppressors because that isn't
convenient or safe. So it looks chicken and cheap, just going for easy targets
but overlooking really gross threats to human rights as in terrorist and trafficking rings.

Isn't this just for convenience?

British soldiers were (are) servants to the crown. White supremacists are tools to distract us from the real issues.

 

[JokerX27505]

Mark Bray wrote the Anti-Fascist Handbook, and does a pretty good job at explaining the evolution of the movement. The video is 26 minute so I only expect one of you to watch it. The rest of you will remain ignorant, yet continue to post as if you know what we are about.

Mark Bray wrote the Anti-Fascist Handbook, and does a pretty good job at explaining the evolution of the movement. The video is 26 minute so I only expect one of you to watch it. The rest of you will remain ignorant, yet continue to post as if you know what we are about.

Hi member antifa and thanks for posting this.

I relate more to the views expressed by Chris Hedges in this video
but at least understand the Antifa purpose in that context.

I have experience working with both approaches within the Occupy
movement, and the peace and justice community where this issue
came up with the Revolutionary Workers and the Food Not Bombs
and Anti Racist Action as well as La Raza and other groups that
weren't opposed to using violence in protests against war and
global oppression. I share more of Chris Hedges views that
the greater goal IS to reach out and break down the barriers, and
form alliances by making allies within the very ranks being protested and opposed
in order to effect real change. But Mark Bray made it clear that part of the
process is not the goal of Antifa but to protest, target and stop small
groups at the start before they can mobilize into larger movements.

my criticisms of this are pretty much along the lines that Hedges expressed.

What I will say about Antifa
1. even after watching this video that explains their reasons for protest,
it still comes across to me as white men enlisting others to fight turf wars using the
same race baiting tactics against the opposite side. I find the real minorities who are
truly oppressed have needs that are met by working to solve problems across racial,
class and party lines. So although this protests serve a purpose to publicize and
protest problems, like Hedges also stated it doesn't serve to solve the actual problems.

2. in fact, I believe similar to Hedges criticism that these violent protests serve
to strengthen and embolden the very opposition they seek to strike fear and shame into.
Instead like Hedges said, because this doesn't make a dent in the real power structure,
those in power merely exploit these protests to empower more opposition to the opponents,
by demeaning and belittling and discrediting the groups due to violence and other criticisms of methods.
In addition to what Hedges says, I would say that these tactics REINFORCE the "white power"
tactics of divide and conquer and "fear based" politics, that merely keep those people in power further.

What I wish that more people did instead was adopt the tactic where the "greedy people in power"
will set aside their differences and commit to work together to achieve goals that benefit them anyway.
If the activists adopted THAT tactic and found ways to work together, then that would be fighting
fire with fire and beating people at their own game. Instead, taking the opposite path of
divide and conquer by fear based bullying and attacks is playing into the game of remaining
disempowered while those in control play one side against the other and still win regardless.

3. third is I don't see the connection between "people fighting against Nazi Hitler holocaust in Germany"
with antifa protests blaming White Supremacists or Nationalists in America at rallies or protests.
Instead this comes across as trying to silence free speech because the people speaking
at these White Unite the Right rallies are NOT the same as Nazi's having committed genocidal holocausts.

One group is actually fighting in defense against the actual armies and offenders doing the attacks.
The other is trying to do "preemptive" strikes at the point where people are exercising free speech and
haven't been proven to commit any race based attacks or lynchings much less genocidal acts that require physical defense.

Again, I understand Mark's explanation that the point is not to wait for the attacks to get to the point of unstoppable violence that can't be defended against. But if someone is committed offense by their speech, they should be answered
at the same level, so this dialogue should be open and civilized, not set up to fail by waging attacks on each other.

The last time I saw a video with an Antifa person, the woman representing Antifa refused to talk share or even shake the hand of the Unite the Right organizer who offered to dialogue and talk respectfully to address concerns and work it out.

So that's where I would disagree with Antifa and agree more with Hedges that a constructive approach is
more conducive to really changing the oppressive class and race based disparities by direct action and alliances.

4. overall I thank you for trying to reach out which is more than other antifa have been trying to do.
keep up the good work to address these issues,
and my main concern is the same as Hedges where the focus is on
building partnerships and alliances toward positive sustainable change.

I'd rather see those solultions in the media rather than anonymous
protestors attacking people they don't know and getting bad press
that sends the wrong message in the media that merely empowers the very dynamics being protested.

Thanks and keep up the good fight, build bridges not walls,
and support all workers uniting across all parties and classes
instead of being divided by party and conquered and oppressed.

Yours truly,
Emily Nghiem
www.10million.net
www.rightsfortheworkers.org
www.freedmenstown.com

Try to imagine white supremacists as the British soldiers in the northern colonies circa 1770. There was no way for Americans to start solving our problems until we got rid of the British soldiers. That is the purpose of Antifa. We will fade away as soon as white supremacists are no longer a problem so Americans can start focusing on real issues.

Difference is antifa the British soldiers were the actual oppressive military forces.
People just defending white culture by free speech at rallies are not the same as actual soldiers.

This comes across as "misdirected"
like trying to target the "black thugs who are ACTUALLY killing people or cops"
by verbally and physically attacking or protesting "black people speaking out at rallies" but not actually doing the attacks.

Also I forgot to list in my response,
what are you doing or not doing about terrorist attacks, rapes
and selling people into slavery that people are doing other than Whites.
What about Mexican cartels who are committing mass violence and genocide,
what about jihadist terrorists who have taken over govts and terrorized civilians for power.

Are you equally against all men/power tyrants who are oppressing innocent
workers and minorities for military and govt controls?

Otherwise it seems "convenient" to blame and target and protest
civilized white men blaming them for the problems you are trying to use them to symbolize.
But avoiding confronting any really dangerous oppressors because that isn't
convenient or safe. So it looks chicken and cheap, just going for easy targets
but overlooking really gross threats to human rights as in terrorist and trafficking rings.

Isn't this just for convenience?

British soldiers were (are) servants to the crown. White supremacists are tools to distract us from the real issues.

What's your definition of a white supremacists?

 

[emilynghiem]

Mark Bray wrote the Anti-Fascist Handbook, and does a pretty good job at explaining the evolution of the movement. The video is 26 minute so I only expect one of you to watch it. The rest of you will remain ignorant, yet continue to post as if you know what we are about.

Mark Bray wrote the Anti-Fascist Handbook, and does a pretty good job at explaining the evolution of the movement. The video is 26 minute so I only expect one of you to watch it. The rest of you will remain ignorant, yet continue to post as if you know what we are about.

Hi member antifa and thanks for posting this.

I relate more to the views expressed by Chris Hedges in this video
but at least understand the Antifa purpose in that context.

I have experience working with both approaches within the Occupy
movement, and the peace and justice community where this issue
came up with the Revolutionary Workers and the Food Not Bombs
and Anti Racist Action as well as La Raza and other groups that
weren't opposed to using violence in protests against war and
global oppression. I share more of Chris Hedges views that
the greater goal IS to reach out and break down the barriers, and
form alliances by making allies within the very ranks being protested and opposed
in order to effect real change. But Mark Bray made it clear that part of the
process is not the goal of Antifa but to protest, target and stop small
groups at the start before they can mobilize into larger movements.

my criticisms of this are pretty much along the lines that Hedges expressed.

What I will say about Antifa
1. even after watching this video that explains their reasons for protest,
it still comes across to me as white men enlisting others to fight turf wars using the
same race baiting tactics against the opposite side. I find the real minorities who are
truly oppressed have needs that are met by working to solve problems across racial,
class and party lines. So although this protests serve a purpose to publicize and
protest problems, like Hedges also stated it doesn't serve to solve the actual problems.

2. in fact, I believe similar to Hedges criticism that these violent protests serve
to strengthen and embolden the very opposition they seek to strike fear and shame into.
Instead like Hedges said, because this doesn't make a dent in the real power structure,
those in power merely exploit these protests to empower more opposition to the opponents,
by demeaning and belittling and discrediting the groups due to violence and other criticisms of methods.
In addition to what Hedges says, I would say that these tactics REINFORCE the "white power"
tactics of divide and conquer and "fear based" politics, that merely keep those people in power further.

What I wish that more people did instead was adopt the tactic where the "greedy people in power"
will set aside their differences and commit to work together to achieve goals that benefit them anyway.
If the activists adopted THAT tactic and found ways to work together, then that would be fighting
fire with fire and beating people at their own game. Instead, taking the opposite path of
divide and conquer by fear based bullying and attacks is playing into the game of remaining
disempowered while those in control play one side against the other and still win regardless.

3. third is I don't see the connection between "people fighting against Nazi Hitler holocaust in Germany"
with antifa protests blaming White Supremacists or Nationalists in America at rallies or protests.
Instead this comes across as trying to silence free speech because the people speaking
at these White Unite the Right rallies are NOT the same as Nazi's having committed genocidal holocausts.

One group is actually fighting in defense against the actual armies and offenders doing the attacks.
The other is trying to do "preemptive" strikes at the point where people are exercising free speech and
haven't been proven to commit any race based attacks or lynchings much less genocidal acts that require physical defense.

Again, I understand Mark's explanation that the point is not to wait for the attacks to get to the point of unstoppable violence that can't be defended against. But if someone is committed offense by their speech, they should be answered
at the same level, so this dialogue should be open and civilized, not set up to fail by waging attacks on each other.

The last time I saw a video with an Antifa person, the woman representing Antifa refused to talk share or even shake the hand of the Unite the Right organizer who offered to dialogue and talk respectfully to address concerns and work it out.

So that's where I would disagree with Antifa and agree more with Hedges that a constructive approach is
more conducive to really changing the oppressive class and race based disparities by direct action and alliances.

4. overall I thank you for trying to reach out which is more than other antifa have been trying to do.
keep up the good work to address these issues,
and my main concern is the same as Hedges where the focus is on
building partnerships and alliances toward positive sustainable change.

I'd rather see those solultions in the media rather than anonymous
protestors attacking people they don't know and getting bad press
that sends the wrong message in the media that merely empowers the very dynamics being protested.

Thanks and keep up the good fight, build bridges not walls,
and support all workers uniting across all parties and classes
instead of being divided by party and conquered and oppressed.

Yours truly,
Emily Nghiem
www.10million.net
www.rightsfortheworkers.org
www.freedmenstown.com

Try to imagine white supremacists as the British soldiers in the northern colonies circa 1770. There was no way for Americans to start solving our problems until we got rid of the British soldiers. That is the purpose of Antifa. We will fade away as soon as white supremacists are no longer a problem so Americans can start focusing on real issues.

Difference is antifa the British soldiers were the actual oppressive military forces.
People just defending white culture by free speech at rallies are not the same as actual soldiers.

This comes across as "misdirected"
like trying to target the "black thugs who are ACTUALLY killing people or cops"
by verbally and physically attacking or protesting "black people speaking out at rallies" but not actually doing the attacks.

Also I forgot to list in my response,
what are you doing or not doing about terrorist attacks, rapes
and selling people into slavery that people are doing other than Whites.
What about Mexican cartels who are committing mass violence and genocide,
what about jihadist terrorists who have taken over govts and terrorized civilians for power.

Are you equally against all men/power tyrants who are oppressing innocent
workers and minorities for military and govt controls?

Otherwise it seems "convenient" to blame and target and protest
civilized white men blaming them for the problems you are trying to use them to symbolize.
But avoiding confronting any really dangerous oppressors because that isn't
convenient or safe. So it looks chicken and cheap, just going for easy targets
but overlooking really gross threats to human rights as in terrorist and trafficking rings.

Isn't this just for convenience?

British soldiers were (are) servants to the crown. White supremacists are tools to distract us from the real issues.

So how does responding to them and further drawing attention to this "distraction"
help to solve any of the real issues this is distracting from antifa

 

[Norman]

Mark Bray wrote the Anti-Fascist Handbook, and does a pretty good job at explaining the evolution of the movement. The video is 26 minute so I only expect one of you to watch it. The rest of you will remain ignorant, yet continue to post as if you know what we are about.

Mark Bray wrote the Anti-Fascist Handbook, and does a pretty good job at explaining the evolution of the movement. The video is 26 minute so I only expect one of you to watch it. The rest of you will remain ignorant, yet continue to post as if you know what we are about.

Hi member antifa and thanks for posting this.

I relate more to the views expressed by Chris Hedges in this video
but at least understand the Antifa purpose in that context.

I have experience working with both approaches within the Occupy
movement, and the peace and justice community where this issue
came up with the Revolutionary Workers and the Food Not Bombs
and Anti Racist Action as well as La Raza and other groups that
weren't opposed to using violence in protests against war and
global oppression. I share more of Chris Hedges views that
the greater goal IS to reach out and break down the barriers, and
form alliances by making allies within the very ranks being protested and opposed
in order to effect real change. But Mark Bray made it clear that part of the
process is not the goal of Antifa but to protest, target and stop small
groups at the start before they can mobilize into larger movements.

my criticisms of this are pretty much along the lines that Hedges expressed.

What I will say about Antifa
1. even after watching this video that explains their reasons for protest,
it still comes across to me as white men enlisting others to fight turf wars using the
same race baiting tactics against the opposite side. I find the real minorities who are
truly oppressed have needs that are met by working to solve problems across racial,
class and party lines. So although this protests serve a purpose to publicize and
protest problems, like Hedges also stated it doesn't serve to solve the actual problems.

2. in fact, I believe similar to Hedges criticism that these violent protests serve
to strengthen and embolden the very opposition they seek to strike fear and shame into.
Instead like Hedges said, because this doesn't make a dent in the real power structure,
those in power merely exploit these protests to empower more opposition to the opponents,
by demeaning and belittling and discrediting the groups due to violence and other criticisms of methods.
In addition to what Hedges says, I would say that these tactics REINFORCE the "white power"
tactics of divide and conquer and "fear based" politics, that merely keep those people in power further.

What I wish that more people did instead was adopt the tactic where the "greedy people in power"
will set aside their differences and commit to work together to achieve goals that benefit them anyway.
If the activists adopted THAT tactic and found ways to work together, then that would be fighting
fire with fire and beating people at their own game. Instead, taking the opposite path of
divide and conquer by fear based bullying and attacks is playing into the game of remaining
disempowered while those in control play one side against the other and still win regardless.

3. third is I don't see the connection between "people fighting against Nazi Hitler holocaust in Germany"
with antifa protests blaming White Supremacists or Nationalists in America at rallies or protests.
Instead this comes across as trying to silence free speech because the people speaking
at these White Unite the Right rallies are NOT the same as Nazi's having committed genocidal holocausts.

One group is actually fighting in defense against the actual armies and offenders doing the attacks.
The other is trying to do "preemptive" strikes at the point where people are exercising free speech and
haven't been proven to commit any race based attacks or lynchings much less genocidal acts that require physical defense.

Again, I understand Mark's explanation that the point is not to wait for the attacks to get to the point of unstoppable violence that can't be defended against. But if someone is committed offense by their speech, they should be answered
at the same level, so this dialogue should be open and civilized, not set up to fail by waging attacks on each other.

The last time I saw a video with an Antifa person, the woman representing Antifa refused to talk share or even shake the hand of the Unite the Right organizer who offered to dialogue and talk respectfully to address concerns and work it out.

So that's where I would disagree with Antifa and agree more with Hedges that a constructive approach is
more conducive to really changing the oppressive class and race based disparities by direct action and alliances.

4. overall I thank you for trying to reach out which is more than other antifa have been trying to do.
keep up the good work to address these issues,
and my main concern is the same as Hedges where the focus is on
building partnerships and alliances toward positive sustainable change.

I'd rather see those solultions in the media rather than anonymous
protestors attacking people they don't know and getting bad press
that sends the wrong message in the media that merely empowers the very dynamics being protested.

Thanks and keep up the good fight, build bridges not walls,
and support all workers uniting across all parties and classes
instead of being divided by party and conquered and oppressed.

Yours truly,
Emily Nghiem
www.10million.net
www.rightsfortheworkers.org
www.freedmenstown.com

Try to imagine white supremacists as the British soldiers in the northern colonies circa 1770. There was no way for Americans to start solving our problems until we got rid of the British soldiers. That is the purpose of Antifa. We will fade away as soon as white supremacists are no longer a problem so Americans can start focusing on real issues.

Difference is antifa the British soldiers were the actual oppressive military forces.
People just defending white culture by free speech at rallies are not the same as actual soldiers.

This comes across as "misdirected"
like trying to target the "black thugs who are ACTUALLY killing people or cops"
by verbally and physically attacking or protesting "black people speaking out at rallies" but not actually doing the attacks.

Also I forgot to list in my response,
what are you doing or not doing about terrorist attacks, rapes
and selling people into slavery that people are doing other than Whites.
What about Mexican cartels who are committing mass violence and genocide,
what about jihadist terrorists who have taken over govts and terrorized civilians for power.

Are you equally against all men/power tyrants who are oppressing innocent
workers and minorities for military and govt controls?

Otherwise it seems "convenient" to blame and target and protest
civilized white men blaming them for the problems you are trying to use them to symbolize.
But avoiding confronting any really dangerous oppressors because that isn't
convenient or safe. So it looks chicken and cheap, just going for easy targets
but overlooking really gross threats to human rights as in terrorist and trafficking rings.

Isn't this just for convenience?

British soldiers were (are) servants to the crown. White supremacists are tools to distract us from the real issues.

What's your definition of a white supremacists?

I bet, someone who doesn't want white genocide for Christmas.

 

[JokerX27505]

Antifa Explained

"Yet I'm here with more questions and zero answers."

 

[antifa]

Mark Bray wrote the Anti-Fascist Handbook, and does a pretty good job at explaining the evolution of the movement. The video is 26 minute so I only expect one of you to watch it. The rest of you will remain ignorant, yet continue to post as if you know what we are about.

Mark Bray wrote the Anti-Fascist Handbook, and does a pretty good job at explaining the evolution of the movement. The video is 26 minute so I only expect one of you to watch it. The rest of you will remain ignorant, yet continue to post as if you know what we are about.

Hi member antifa and thanks for posting this.

I relate more to the views expressed by Chris Hedges in this video
but at least understand the Antifa purpose in that context.

I have experience working with both approaches within the Occupy
movement, and the peace and justice community where this issue
came up with the Revolutionary Workers and the Food Not Bombs
and Anti Racist Action as well as La Raza and other groups that
weren't opposed to using violence in protests against war and
global oppression. I share more of Chris Hedges views that
the greater goal IS to reach out and break down the barriers, and
form alliances by making allies within the very ranks being protested and opposed
in order to effect real change. But Mark Bray made it clear that part of the
process is not the goal of Antifa but to protest, target and stop small
groups at the start before they can mobilize into larger movements.

my criticisms of this are pretty much along the lines that Hedges expressed.

What I will say about Antifa
1. even after watching this video that explains their reasons for protest,
it still comes across to me as white men enlisting others to fight turf wars using the
same race baiting tactics against the opposite side. I find the real minorities who are
truly oppressed have needs that are met by working to solve problems across racial,
class and party lines. So although this protests serve a purpose to publicize and
protest problems, like Hedges also stated it doesn't serve to solve the actual problems.

2. in fact, I believe similar to Hedges criticism that these violent protests serve
to strengthen and embolden the very opposition they seek to strike fear and shame into.
Instead like Hedges said, because this doesn't make a dent in the real power structure,
those in power merely exploit these protests to empower more opposition to the opponents,
by demeaning and belittling and discrediting the groups due to violence and other criticisms of methods.
In addition to what Hedges says, I would say that these tactics REINFORCE the "white power"
tactics of divide and conquer and "fear based" politics, that merely keep those people in power further.

What I wish that more people did instead was adopt the tactic where the "greedy people in power"
will set aside their differences and commit to work together to achieve goals that benefit them anyway.
If the activists adopted THAT tactic and found ways to work together, then that would be fighting
fire with fire and beating people at their own game. Instead, taking the opposite path of
divide and conquer by fear based bullying and attacks is playing into the game of remaining
disempowered while those in control play one side against the other and still win regardless.

3. third is I don't see the connection between "people fighting against Nazi Hitler holocaust in Germany"
with antifa protests blaming White Supremacists or Nationalists in America at rallies or protests.
Instead this comes across as trying to silence free speech because the people speaking
at these White Unite the Right rallies are NOT the same as Nazi's having committed genocidal holocausts.

One group is actually fighting in defense against the actual armies and offenders doing the attacks.
The other is trying to do "preemptive" strikes at the point where people are exercising free speech and
haven't been proven to commit any race based attacks or lynchings much less genocidal acts that require physical defense.

Again, I understand Mark's explanation that the point is not to wait for the attacks to get to the point of unstoppable violence that can't be defended against. But if someone is committed offense by their speech, they should be answered
at the same level, so this dialogue should be open and civilized, not set up to fail by waging attacks on each other.

The last time I saw a video with an Antifa person, the woman representing Antifa refused to talk share or even shake the hand of the Unite the Right organizer who offered to dialogue and talk respectfully to address concerns and work it out.

So that's where I would disagree with Antifa and agree more with Hedges that a constructive approach is
more conducive to really changing the oppressive class and race based disparities by direct action and alliances.

4. overall I thank you for trying to reach out which is more than other antifa have been trying to do.
keep up the good work to address these issues,
and my main concern is the same as Hedges where the focus is on
building partnerships and alliances toward positive sustainable change.

I'd rather see those solultions in the media rather than anonymous
protestors attacking people they don't know and getting bad press
that sends the wrong message in the media that merely empowers the very dynamics being protested.

Thanks and keep up the good fight, build bridges not walls,
and support all workers uniting across all parties and classes
instead of being divided by party and conquered and oppressed.

Yours truly,
Emily Nghiem
www.10million.net
www.rightsfortheworkers.org
www.freedmenstown.com

Try to imagine white supremacists as the British soldiers in the northern colonies circa 1770. There was no way for Americans to start solving our problems until we got rid of the British soldiers. That is the purpose of Antifa. We will fade away as soon as white supremacists are no longer a problem so Americans can start focusing on real issues.

Difference is antifa the British soldiers were the actual oppressive military forces.
People just defending white culture by free speech at rallies are not the same as actual soldiers.

This comes across as "misdirected"
like trying to target the "black thugs who are ACTUALLY killing people or cops"
by verbally and physically attacking or protesting "black people speaking out at rallies" but not actually doing the attacks.

Also I forgot to list in my response,
what are you doing or not doing about terrorist attacks, rapes
and selling people into slavery that people are doing other than Whites.
What about Mexican cartels who are committing mass violence and genocide,
what about jihadist terrorists who have taken over govts and terrorized civilians for power.

Are you equally against all men/power tyrants who are oppressing innocent
workers and minorities for military and govt controls?

Otherwise it seems "convenient" to blame and target and protest
civilized white men blaming them for the problems you are trying to use them to symbolize.
But avoiding confronting any really dangerous oppressors because that isn't
convenient or safe. So it looks chicken and cheap, just going for easy targets
but overlooking really gross threats to human rights as in terrorist and trafficking rings.

Isn't this just for convenience?

British soldiers were (are) servants to the crown. White supremacists are tools to distract us from the real issues.

So how does responding to them and further drawing attention to this "distraction"
help to solve any of the real issues this is distracting from antifa

White supremacists will lead this nation to civil war -- again. We can stop them before that happens.

 

[Norman]

Hi member antifa and thanks for posting this.

I relate more to the views expressed by Chris Hedges in this video
but at least understand the Antifa purpose in that context.

I have experience working with both approaches within the Occupy
movement, and the peace and justice community where this issue
came up with the Revolutionary Workers and the Food Not Bombs
and Anti Racist Action as well as La Raza and other groups that
weren't opposed to using violence in protests against war and
global oppression. I share more of Chris Hedges views that
the greater goal IS to reach out and break down the barriers, and
form alliances by making allies within the very ranks being protested and opposed
in order to effect real change. But Mark Bray made it clear that part of the
process is not the goal of Antifa but to protest, target and stop small
groups at the start before they can mobilize into larger movements.

my criticisms of this are pretty much along the lines that Hedges expressed.

What I will say about Antifa
1. even after watching this video that explains their reasons for protest,
it still comes across to me as white men enlisting others to fight turf wars using the
same race baiting tactics against the opposite side. I find the real minorities who are
truly oppressed have needs that are met by working to solve problems across racial,
class and party lines. So although this protests serve a purpose to publicize and
protest problems, like Hedges also stated it doesn't serve to solve the actual problems.

2. in fact, I believe similar to Hedges criticism that these violent protests serve
to strengthen and embolden the very opposition they seek to strike fear and shame into.
Instead like Hedges said, because this doesn't make a dent in the real power structure,
those in power merely exploit these protests to empower more opposition to the opponents,
by demeaning and belittling and discrediting the groups due to violence and other criticisms of methods.
In addition to what Hedges says, I would say that these tactics REINFORCE the "white power"
tactics of divide and conquer and "fear based" politics, that merely keep those people in power further.

What I wish that more people did instead was adopt the tactic where the "greedy people in power"
will set aside their differences and commit to work together to achieve goals that benefit them anyway.
If the activists adopted THAT tactic and found ways to work together, then that would be fighting
fire with fire and beating people at their own game. Instead, taking the opposite path of
divide and conquer by fear based bullying and attacks is playing into the game of remaining
disempowered while those in control play one side against the other and still win regardless.

3. third is I don't see the connection between "people fighting against Nazi Hitler holocaust in Germany"
with antifa protests blaming White Supremacists or Nationalists in America at rallies or protests.
Instead this comes across as trying to silence free speech because the people speaking
at these White Unite the Right rallies are NOT the same as Nazi's having committed genocidal holocausts.

One group is actually fighting in defense against the actual armies and offenders doing the attacks.
The other is trying to do "preemptive" strikes at the point where people are exercising free speech and
haven't been proven to commit any race based attacks or lynchings much less genocidal acts that require physical defense.

Again, I understand Mark's explanation that the point is not to wait for the attacks to get to the point of unstoppable violence that can't be defended against. But if someone is committed offense by their speech, they should be answered
at the same level, so this dialogue should be open and civilized, not set up to fail by waging attacks on each other.

The last time I saw a video with an Antifa person, the woman representing Antifa refused to talk share or even shake the hand of the Unite the Right organizer who offered to dialogue and talk respectfully to address concerns and work it out.

So that's where I would disagree with Antifa and agree more with Hedges that a constructive approach is
more conducive to really changing the oppressive class and race based disparities by direct action and alliances.

4. overall I thank you for trying to reach out which is more than other antifa have been trying to do.
keep up the good work to address these issues,
and my main concern is the same as Hedges where the focus is on
building partnerships and alliances toward positive sustainable change.

I'd rather see those solultions in the media rather than anonymous
protestors attacking people they don't know and getting bad press
that sends the wrong message in the media that merely empowers the very dynamics being protested.

Thanks and keep up the good fight, build bridges not walls,
and support all workers uniting across all parties and classes
instead of being divided by party and conquered and oppressed.

Yours truly,
Emily Nghiem
www.10million.net
www.rightsfortheworkers.org
www.freedmenstown.com

Try to imagine white supremacists as the British soldiers in the northern colonies circa 1770. There was no way for Americans to start solving our problems until we got rid of the British soldiers. That is the purpose of Antifa. We will fade away as soon as white supremacists are no longer a problem so Americans can start focusing on real issues.

Difference is antifa the British soldiers were the actual oppressive military forces.
People just defending white culture by free speech at rallies are not the same as actual soldiers.

This comes across as "misdirected"
like trying to target the "black thugs who are ACTUALLY killing people or cops"
by verbally and physically attacking or protesting "black people speaking out at rallies" but not actually doing the attacks.

Also I forgot to list in my response,
what are you doing or not doing about terrorist attacks, rapes
and selling people into slavery that people are doing other than Whites.
What about Mexican cartels who are committing mass violence and genocide,
what about jihadist terrorists who have taken over govts and terrorized civilians for power.

Are you equally against all men/power tyrants who are oppressing innocent
workers and minorities for military and govt controls?

Otherwise it seems "convenient" to blame and target and protest
civilized white men blaming them for the problems you are trying to use them to symbolize.
But avoiding confronting any really dangerous oppressors because that isn't
convenient or safe. So it looks chicken and cheap, just going for easy targets
but overlooking really gross threats to human rights as in terrorist and trafficking rings.

Isn't this just for convenience?

British soldiers were (are) servants to the crown. White supremacists are tools to distract us from the real issues.

So how does responding to them and further drawing attention to this "distraction"
help to solve any of the real issues this is distracting from antifa

White supremacists will lead this nation to civil war -- again. We can stop them before that happens.

And yet, it seems like only you are resorting to violence. Can you explain that?

 

[antifa]

Try to imagine white supremacists as the British soldiers in the northern colonies circa 1770. There was no way for Americans to start solving our problems until we got rid of the British soldiers. That is the purpose of Antifa. We will fade away as soon as white supremacists are no longer a problem so Americans can start focusing on real issues.

Difference is antifa the British soldiers were the actual oppressive military forces.
People just defending white culture by free speech at rallies are not the same as actual soldiers.

This comes across as "misdirected"
like trying to target the "black thugs who are ACTUALLY killing people or cops"
by verbally and physically attacking or protesting "black people speaking out at rallies" but not actually doing the attacks.

Also I forgot to list in my response,
what are you doing or not doing about terrorist attacks, rapes
and selling people into slavery that people are doing other than Whites.
What about Mexican cartels who are committing mass violence and genocide,
what about jihadist terrorists who have taken over govts and terrorized civilians for power.

Are you equally against all men/power tyrants who are oppressing innocent
workers and minorities for military and govt controls?

Otherwise it seems "convenient" to blame and target and protest
civilized white men blaming them for the problems you are trying to use them to symbolize.
But avoiding confronting any really dangerous oppressors because that isn't
convenient or safe. So it looks chicken and cheap, just going for easy targets
but overlooking really gross threats to human rights as in terrorist and trafficking rings.

Isn't this just for convenience?

British soldiers were (are) servants to the crown. White supremacists are tools to distract us from the real issues.

So how does responding to them and further drawing attention to this "distraction"
help to solve any of the real issues this is distracting from antifa

White supremacists will lead this nation to civil war -- again. We can stop them before that happens.

And yet, it seems like only you are resorting to violence. Can you explain that?

revisionist

 

[emilynghiem]

An honest question. "If you were anti fascist wouldn't you be part of the party that wants less government not more?

Isn't it much easier to pretend to be a good guy, than actually be one?

What we know for fact is the Clergy at Charlottesville would have been beaten or killed without Antifa stepping to stop you white supremacists.

I'm a bit skeptical on that antifa
Had the protest been set up to be nonviolent, where participants of both the
rally and the counterprotest had to sign agreements not to use violence, alcohol or drugs
or to invoke arrests, maybe nobody would have gotten killed or threatened at all.
maybe the whole threat could be avoided by using nonviolent strategies
that other protestors have used at protests to ensure civil liberties and protections.

I guess that's one advantage of working openly instead of anonymously.
the most effective activists and organizers I have worked with
met and worked arrangements out with the police in advance,
so there are no unexpected acts of violence or abuse that escalate out of control.
And these are serious activists who have organized rallies that
publicized actual progress, including a Marxist couple who organized
a peaceful rally against the Klan in Tomball and succeeded in winning
a lawsuit against the City because they followed laws and worked with authorities not against them.
They actually got the City to agree to change their policies that violated
14th Amendment and public accommodations laws when they rented
a public facility to the Klan that the suing couple proved had policies
discriminating by race against members of the public who could attend.

That's what I consider a successful action and public rally that drew
attention to the antiKlan cause. So I respect that approach more
than anonymous attacks that just make the opponents look as
bad or worse than the people being protested. Instead of putting
down this distraction, it seems to make it worse and make Antifa look like the bad guy
so it makes your opponents look like the good guys in comparison. thus defeating the purpose.

 

[OKTexas]

Mark Bray wrote the Anti-Fascist Handbook, and does a pretty good job at explaining the evolution of the movement. The video is 26 minute so I only expect one of you to watch it. The rest of you will remain ignorant, yet continue to post as if you know what we are about.

Two fucking commies discussing how best to take over, how cute.


.

 

[JokerX27505]

Difference is antifa the British soldiers were the actual oppressive military forces.
People just defending white culture by free speech at rallies are not the same as actual soldiers.

This comes across as "misdirected"
like trying to target the "black thugs who are ACTUALLY killing people or cops"
by verbally and physically attacking or protesting "black people speaking out at rallies" but not actually doing the attacks.

Also I forgot to list in my response,
what are you doing or not doing about terrorist attacks, rapes
and selling people into slavery that people are doing other than Whites.
What about Mexican cartels who are committing mass violence and genocide,
what about jihadist terrorists who have taken over govts and terrorized civilians for power.

Are you equally against all men/power tyrants who are oppressing innocent
workers and minorities for military and govt controls?

Otherwise it seems "convenient" to blame and target and protest
civilized white men blaming them for the problems you are trying to use them to symbolize.
But avoiding confronting any really dangerous oppressors because that isn't
convenient or safe. So it looks chicken and cheap, just going for easy targets
but overlooking really gross threats to human rights as in terrorist and trafficking rings.

Isn't this just for convenience?

British soldiers were (are) servants to the crown. White supremacists are tools to distract us from the real issues.

So how does responding to them and further drawing attention to this "distraction"
help to solve any of the real issues this is distracting from antifa

White supremacists will lead this nation to civil war -- again. We can stop them before that happens.

And yet, it seems like only you are resorting to violence. Can you explain that?

revisionist

I'm getting jealous why don't I get replies?

 

[ranfunck]

That dog was showing what he thought about antifa

 

[antifa]

An honest question. "If you were anti fascist wouldn't you be part of the party that wants less government not more?

Isn't it much easier to pretend to be a good guy, than actually be one?

What we know for fact is the Clergy at Charlottesville would have been beaten or killed without Antifa stepping to stop you white supremacists.

I'm a bit skeptical on that antifa
Had the protest been set up to be nonviolent, where participants of both the
rally and the counterprotest had to sign agreements not to use violence, alcohol or drugs
or to invoke arrests, maybe nobody would have gotten killed or threatened at all.
maybe the whole threat could be avoided by using nonviolent strategies
that other protestors have used at protests to ensure civil liberties and protections.

I guess that's one advantage of working openly instead of anonymously.
the most effective activists and organizers I have worked with
met and worked arrangements out with the police in advance,
so there are no unexpected acts of violence or abuse that escalate out of control.
And these are serious activists who have organized rallies that
publicized actual progress, including a Marxist couple who organized
a peaceful rally against the Klan in Tomball and succeeded in winning
a lawsuit against the City because they followed laws and worked with authorities not against them.
They actually got the City to agree to change their policies that violated
14th Amendment and public accommodations laws when they rented
a public facility to the Klan that the suing couple proved had policies
discriminating by race against members of the public who could attend.

That's what I consider a successful action and public rally that drew
attention to the antiKlan cause. So I respect that approach more
than anonymous attacks that just make the opponents look as
bad or worse than the people being protested. Instead of putting
down this distraction, it seems to make it worse and make Antifa look like the bad guy
so it makes your opponents look like the good guys in comparison. thus defeating the purpose.

With your credentials, you must interact with us all the time. There is no way you could equate us with white supremacists.

 

[antifa]

British soldiers were (are) servants to the crown. White supremacists are tools to distract us from the real issues.

So how does responding to them and further drawing attention to this "distraction"
help to solve any of the real issues this is distracting from antifa

White supremacists will lead this nation to civil war -- again. We can stop them before that happens.

And yet, it seems like only you are resorting to violence. Can you explain that?

revisionist

I'm getting jealous why don't I get replies?

You are a joker.

 

[emilynghiem]

Hi member antifa and thanks for posting this.

I relate more to the views expressed by Chris Hedges in this video
but at least understand the Antifa purpose in that context.

I have experience working with both approaches within the Occupy
movement, and the peace and justice community where this issue
came up with the Revolutionary Workers and the Food Not Bombs
and Anti Racist Action as well as La Raza and other groups that
weren't opposed to using violence in protests against war and
global oppression. I share more of Chris Hedges views that
the greater goal IS to reach out and break down the barriers, and
form alliances by making allies within the very ranks being protested and opposed
in order to effect real change. But Mark Bray made it clear that part of the
process is not the goal of Antifa but to protest, target and stop small
groups at the start before they can mobilize into larger movements.

my criticisms of this are pretty much along the lines that Hedges expressed.

What I will say about Antifa
1. even after watching this video that explains their reasons for protest,
it still comes across to me as white men enlisting others to fight turf wars using the
same race baiting tactics against the opposite side. I find the real minorities who are
truly oppressed have needs that are met by working to solve problems across racial,
class and party lines. So although this protests serve a purpose to publicize and
protest problems, like Hedges also stated it doesn't serve to solve the actual problems.

2. in fact, I believe similar to Hedges criticism that these violent protests serve
to strengthen and embolden the very opposition they seek to strike fear and shame into.
Instead like Hedges said, because this doesn't make a dent in the real power structure,
those in power merely exploit these protests to empower more opposition to the opponents,
by demeaning and belittling and discrediting the groups due to violence and other criticisms of methods.
In addition to what Hedges says, I would say that these tactics REINFORCE the "white power"
tactics of divide and conquer and "fear based" politics, that merely keep those people in power further.

What I wish that more people did instead was adopt the tactic where the "greedy people in power"
will set aside their differences and commit to work together to achieve goals that benefit them anyway.
If the activists adopted THAT tactic and found ways to work together, then that would be fighting
fire with fire and beating people at their own game. Instead, taking the opposite path of
divide and conquer by fear based bullying and attacks is playing into the game of remaining
disempowered while those in control play one side against the other and still win regardless.

3. third is I don't see the connection between "people fighting against Nazi Hitler holocaust in Germany"
with antifa protests blaming White Supremacists or Nationalists in America at rallies or protests.
Instead this comes across as trying to silence free speech because the people speaking
at these White Unite the Right rallies are NOT the same as Nazi's having committed genocidal holocausts.

One group is actually fighting in defense against the actual armies and offenders doing the attacks.
The other is trying to do "preemptive" strikes at the point where people are exercising free speech and
haven't been proven to commit any race based attacks or lynchings much less genocidal acts that require physical defense.

Again, I understand Mark's explanation that the point is not to wait for the attacks to get to the point of unstoppable violence that can't be defended against. But if someone is committed offense by their speech, they should be answered
at the same level, so this dialogue should be open and civilized, not set up to fail by waging attacks on each other.

The last time I saw a video with an Antifa person, the woman representing Antifa refused to talk share or even shake the hand of the Unite the Right organizer who offered to dialogue and talk respectfully to address concerns and work it out.

So that's where I would disagree with Antifa and agree more with Hedges that a constructive approach is
more conducive to really changing the oppressive class and race based disparities by direct action and alliances.

4. overall I thank you for trying to reach out which is more than other antifa have been trying to do.
keep up the good work to address these issues,
and my main concern is the same as Hedges where the focus is on
building partnerships and alliances toward positive sustainable change.

I'd rather see those solultions in the media rather than anonymous
protestors attacking people they don't know and getting bad press
that sends the wrong message in the media that merely empowers the very dynamics being protested.

Thanks and keep up the good fight, build bridges not walls,
and support all workers uniting across all parties and classes
instead of being divided by party and conquered and oppressed.

Yours truly,
Emily Nghiem
www.10million.net
www.rightsfortheworkers.org
www.freedmenstown.com

Try to imagine white supremacists as the British soldiers in the northern colonies circa 1770. There was no way for Americans to start solving our problems until we got rid of the British soldiers. That is the purpose of Antifa. We will fade away as soon as white supremacists are no longer a problem so Americans can start focusing on real issues.

Difference is antifa the British soldiers were the actual oppressive military forces.
People just defending white culture by free speech at rallies are not the same as actual soldiers.

This comes across as "misdirected"
like trying to target the "black thugs who are ACTUALLY killing people or cops"
by verbally and physically attacking or protesting "black people speaking out at rallies" but not actually doing the attacks.

Also I forgot to list in my response,
what are you doing or not doing about terrorist attacks, rapes
and selling people into slavery that people are doing other than Whites.
What about Mexican cartels who are committing mass violence and genocide,
what about jihadist terrorists who have taken over govts and terrorized civilians for power.

Are you equally against all men/power tyrants who are oppressing innocent
workers and minorities for military and govt controls?

Otherwise it seems "convenient" to blame and target and protest
civilized white men blaming them for the problems you are trying to use them to symbolize.
But avoiding confronting any really dangerous oppressors because that isn't
convenient or safe. So it looks chicken and cheap, just going for easy targets
but overlooking really gross threats to human rights as in terrorist and trafficking rings.

Isn't this just for convenience?

British soldiers were (are) servants to the crown. White supremacists are tools to distract us from the real issues.

So how does responding to them and further drawing attention to this "distraction"
help to solve any of the real issues this is distracting from antifa

White supremacists will lead this nation to civil war -- again. We can stop them before that happens.

I see your intent but still don't think your strategy
fulfills that goal, but like you said 'distracts' from it.

antifa how does pouring more gasoline on a fire
do anything to prevent fire from spreading?

If you are trying to put out small fires before they get bigger,
you throw a wet blanket on it and put it out.
You don't pour water on a grease fire, or worse
add more fuel or gasoline.

I can understand if you are trying to steal their publicity
and take the spotlight and shine it on your message instead of theirs.

But given the tactics, this is fomenting more sympathy
for free speech and the right to civilized assemblies
and making both Antifa and BLM look like the violent thugs.

Sadly I understand that the media only publicizes violence.
If you did peaceful actions that actually made progress
that wouldn't get the same publicity.

So that's why I'm saying this is just playing into the same
white supremacist politics of using war force and violence
to glorify "white man's wars" and "distracting" from the
real work it takes to make peace and build sustainable
economy and communities that empower all people equally.

 

[JokerX27505]

So how does responding to them and further drawing attention to this "distraction"
help to solve any of the real issues this is distracting from antifa

White supremacists will lead this nation to civil war -- again. We can stop them before that happens.

And yet, it seems like only you are resorting to violence. Can you explain that?

revisionist

I'm getting jealous why don't I get replies?

You are a joker.

Its a noun here not an adj....
What is your definition of a white supremacists?

 

[emilynghiem]

An honest question. "If you were anti fascist wouldn't you be part of the party that wants less government not more?

Isn't it much easier to pretend to be a good guy, than actually be one?

What we know for fact is the Clergy at Charlottesville would have been beaten or killed without Antifa stepping to stop you white supremacists.

I'm a bit skeptical on that antifa
Had the protest been set up to be nonviolent, where participants of both the
rally and the counterprotest had to sign agreements not to use violence, alcohol or drugs
or to invoke arrests, maybe nobody would have gotten killed or threatened at all.
maybe the whole threat could be avoided by using nonviolent strategies
that other protestors have used at protests to ensure civil liberties and protections.

I guess that's one advantage of working openly instead of anonymously.
the most effective activists and organizers I have worked with
met and worked arrangements out with the police in advance,
so there are no unexpected acts of violence or abuse that escalate out of control.
And these are serious activists who have organized rallies that
publicized actual progress, including a Marxist couple who organized
a peaceful rally against the Klan in Tomball and succeeded in winning
a lawsuit against the City because they followed laws and worked with authorities not against them.
They actually got the City to agree to change their policies that violated
14th Amendment and public accommodations laws when they rented
a public facility to the Klan that the suing couple proved had policies
discriminating by race against members of the public who could attend.

That's what I consider a successful action and public rally that drew
attention to the antiKlan cause. So I respect that approach more
than anonymous attacks that just make the opponents look as
bad or worse than the people being protested. Instead of putting
down this distraction, it seems to make it worse and make Antifa look like the bad guy
so it makes your opponents look like the good guys in comparison. thus defeating the purpose.

With your credentials, you must interact with us all the time. There is no way you could equate us with white supremacists.

Dear antifa
what factor you have in common is divide and conquer tactics
and fear based attacks that destroy and sever relations
instead of inclusion and building relations that lift people up out of poverty and oppression.

promoting negative campaigns in the media
vs
reaching out and collaborating on real sustainable solutions
which doesn't get the same hyped up publicity as violent protests

you can be on opposite sides of the spectrum, as Chris Hedges
pointed out, and still both get played in the same game

you may be exact opposites of each other
but the divide and conquer tactics you use
make you both pawns of the corporate politics that benefits off the conflict
even though both sides are diametrically polar opposites

 

[theHawk]

Mark Bray wrote the Anti-Fascist Handbook, and does a pretty good job at explaining the evolution of the movement. The video is 26 minute so I only expect one of you to watch it. The rest of you will remain ignorant, yet continue to post as if you know what we are about.

Antifa isn’t fooling anyone. You’re a bunch of Marxist faggots and globalist pigs. You support open borders, Islamists, and despise whites, Christians, and capitalism.

I’m glad though that Antifa has come out like this, you’ve shown the world what a bunch of thugs and assholes you leftwingers really are. I’ve always said the best advertisement for conservatives is to let the leftwingers say and do what they really want.

 

[JokerX27505]

pawns of the corporate politics that benefits off the conflict

Wait what?
Explain this to me if you may?