Search
Archives

You are currently browsing the archives for the Antifa category.

Categories

Archive for the ‘Antifa’ Category

Antifa’s spinners have been trying to convince people that they aren’t a domestic terrorist organization, that they’re just misunderstood and that they come out to protect people from evil right-wingers and the police. This article demolishes that myth.

The article starts by saying “Well before the deadly Aug. 12 rally in Charlottesville and the ongoing violent clashes with white supremacists and other groups, federal authorities warned local officials the actions of left-wing extremists were becoming increasingly confrontational and dangerous.” Later in the article, it says “In previously unreported documents dating back to April 2016 and viewed by Fox News, the FBI and Department of Homeland Security wrote that ‘anarchist extremists’ and Antifa groups were the primary instigators of violence at public rallies. They blamed these groups for attacks on police, government and political institutions, racists, fascists and ‘symbols of capitalism.'”

Still later, it quotes “Brian Levin, a former New York City police officer who monitors domestic militants at the Center for Study of Hate and Extremism at California State University, San Bernardino” as saying “People in this movement allow for confronting, jostling, committing low-level types of offenses, but there has been for some time a core that have tipped the movement to confrontational violence,” he told Fox News on Friday. “The hardest edge in the Antifa spectrum comes under that category…not all Antifa are busting heads.”

That’s right. Not all Antifa thugs are into violence. Those that aren’t committing acts of violence are enabling acts of violence. This video shows what some Antifa are willing to do:

The main thing to take from the article is that the Obama administration knew about Antifa in April, 2016, then did nothing. (Perhaps, this is proof that strategic patience wasn’t just limited to causing crises around the world?)

This isn’t surprising in that President Obama didn’t hesitate in punishing his enemies. (See Lois Lerner, IRS vs. TEA Party groups.) This isn’t surprising. It’s just disgusting.

Technorati: , , , ,

When I wrote that Daryle Jenkins was Antifa’s unofficial spokesman, I highlighted how he spun things to make his cause seem justified. There’s no way Antifa can spin this article successfully.

For instance, when it’s said that “The vast majority of the 4,000-some protesters who descended on Berkeley’s Civic Center Park last Sunday to demonstrate against a small group of Trump supporters were perfectly peaceful, but some of the 100 to 200 black-clad Antifa there ganged up on the Trump fans, punching and kicking them. Other Antifa carried colorful shields painted with the words ‘no hate’ to build a barrier that Antifa claims is needed to protect anti-racist protesters from the police and right-wingers. The activist said Antifa takes to the streets ‘out of love’, keeping nonviolent protesters safe from right wing protesters and the police.”

That isn’t just spin. It’s an outright lie. This video provides verifiable proof that that isn’t what’s happening:

According to the newscaster, Antifa protesters “broke through police barricades during a rally against hate and clashed with right wing activists.” It’s impossible to explain why Antifa rioters needed to break through police barricades and fight with right wing activists while protecting “nonviolent protesters from right wing protesters.” If there’s a police barricade separating the non-violent protesters and Antifa, then all that’s needed to ‘protect’ Antifa is for them to stay separated. Let the police do their job of protecting the peace.

Later in the article, an Antifa activist said “if the police try to attack protesters, Antifa gives other people the space to stay safe.” According to the article, “violence is justified, the Bay Area Antifa member said, because the far right is trying to create a fascist state.”

I’m pretty certain that thoughtful people might dispute who’s trying to create a fascist state. Activists that crash through police barricades to attack peaceful protesters aren’t likely to be considered peaceful protesters. They’re most likely to be called anarchists and/or rioters.

I just learned that Antifa has its own spinmeister. His name is Daryle Jenkins. Recently, Vox sat down with Jenkins for an interview. Saying that most of Mr. Jenkins’ statements weren’t honest is understatement. Let’s start with Vox’s interviewer Sean Illing asking Jenkins “Let’s talk about Antifa, the militant left-wing group that has received a lot of attention since Charlottesville. You’ve emerged as one of the faces of this group. Do you own that label?”

Jenkins replied “Absolutely. I proudly stand with Antifa, and I’ve always been Antifa, even before people knew what that meant. People keep talking about Antifa like it’s a comprehensive belief system, but it’s not. Antifa, as a group, simply stands against fascists — and we fight them wherever they emerge. Once upon a time, anti-fascists were just called civil rights activists or anti-racist activists. So this isn’t exactly new or unusual.”

Let’s get serious. Antifa’s tactics look a lot like the Black Panthers. They don’t look like anything that Martin Luther King would’ve sanctioned. Jenkins’ attempt to portray himself as a civil rights activist isn’t honest. It’s spin.

As dishonest as that spin from Jenkins was, it doesn’t compare with this exchange:

Sean Illing: Antifa endorses violence as a justifiable means, and I assume you do as well. Why?
Daryle Jenkins: I’m glad you brought this up, because I’ve noticed a lot of attention has been placed on Antifa’s use of violence. But it’s not as though we’re running around like the nihilists in A Clockwork Orange looking for a nasty fight. Violence is not a central component of what we do and it’s definitely not the only thing we do. It’s not preferred or even the first option.
Sean Illing: And you, personally, how do you think about violence in defense of your political goals?
Daryle Jenkins: Look, I was a police officer in the Air Force. I was trained to deescalate situations. That’s how I approach things. I try as much as I can to deescalate, and if I can’t, I’m prepared to do what I have to do to protect myself and anyone around me.

Does this video show Antifa trying to de-escalate things:

I don’t think there’s an honest person that’d say that Antifa was trying to de-escalate the situation. The police officers that arrested these thugs later certainly didn’t think Antifa tried de-escalation. This might be the most honest answer Jenkins gave:

Sean Illing: Do you think your emphasis on de-escalation is shared by most of the people in Antifa?
Daryle Jenkins: While we do have some people who go on the offensive, that’s not what I do. I try to encourage folks to not put themselves in bad positions. I tell them to not make themselves the aggressor or the bad guy when you’re not. But what’s happened over the last couple of years is that the frustration levels have gone way up. People are lashing out now. There’s a desperation setting in and people don’t know what to do.

People of integrity know exactly what to do. Antifa isn’t made up of people of integrity. Antifa is composed mostly of thugs. Their first instinct is to react violently. This exchange is telling, too:

Sean Illing: When you say expose them, you mean dox them, right?
Daryle Jenkins: Exactly. Our belief is that we research and report on these groups and encourage communities to be proactive in dealing with them. This diminishes their ability to hide and function. This is why we expose them.
Sean Illing: So you take their pictures, find out their names, and share that information with their communities, their friends, their employers?
Daryle Jenkins: Yes, all of that. We share it with communities and employers in particular. We contact anybody that may be receptive to this particular information. Most importantly, we make sure it’s on our website. We write new stories, and we also write mini-bios of various individuals as well. And that exposes them. They don’t like that.

That isn’t all that Antifa does. This article exposes Antifa:

I expected to see a dust-up, a handful of white supremacists in MAGA hats, angry that that they’d been denied a permit to spew their reprehensible bile due to a “culture of political correctness” or some other preposterous catchphrase. What I saw was a photographer—a white guy, thirty-something, pink shorts, black tee-shirt; media affiliation, if any, still unknown—taking blows to the head and body while cradling his camera like a football recovered post-fumble. Evidently, he’d captured something the Antifas didn’t want him to document. They wanted to destroy the evidence, and he wasn’t going to hand it over.

According to this article, Democrats are rethinking their public support for Antifa. I’m still skeptical over whether these Democrats have rejected Antifa totally. The headline of the article says “Democrats’ alliance with Antifa crumbles; even Berkeley’s mayor denounces ‘street gang.'” The first Democrat who publically criticized Antifa was Nancy Pelosi.

In this post, I wrote “The Antifa riot happened on Sunday. Ms. Pelosi didn’t issue her statement until Tuesday afternoon. Clear-thinking, principled people with integrity don’t need 48 hours to know Antifa were a bunch of thugs who’d committed felonies.” I said then that I was skeptical of Ms. Pelosi, saying that “Democrats always do the right thing … when it’s the only option left.”

Democrats have shown who they are. The fact that they’re backing off their public support for Antifa doesn’t mean, IMO, that they won’t appreciate Antifa’s tactics. The next logical step for Antifa is to disappear, then re-emerge under a different name.

John Kass’s column was written before a Ms. Pelosi’s denunciation of Antifa. He raises lots of questions that still haven’t gotten answered. Democrats certainly haven’t denied his part of his column:

There has been no concerted media effort to pressure Democratic politicians to denounce Democratic muscle. So Democratic politicians have been relatively silent, as have many of their loyal pundits. A few pundits of the left have even compared the thugs with American soldiers hitting Omaha beach, a ridiculous attempt to legitimize the violence. This is all corrosive and dangerous. And in a loud political year, the silence of Democratic politicians explains so very much.

Because silence is consent.

Ms. Pelosi’s statement was required because Democrats were losing the PR fight with the American people. In this video, Antifa leadership admits that they were violent:

Violence isn’t just a tactic with Antifa. It’s who they are. It’s horrifying that Democrats think that they’ll be able to convince Antifa to be part of their coalition. One Democrat who has credibility on the issue of Antifa is retired Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz. Here’s what he recently said:

Do not let the hard left, the radicals, represent the Democratic Party. There is an alt-left and we cannot deny it. The alt-left are radical people who want to deny us free speech, who want to close the campus to conversation, who want to stop people from having dialogue, who want to use violence … Antifa is not our friend. They will not help us win elections. … I do not want to give a pass to the hard radical left, which is destroying America, destroying American universities, destroying the Democratic Party.”

Professor Dershowitz has consistently fought for people’s civil rights. He’s spoken eloquently about academia and old-fashioned debate. Antifa’s picture of debate, according to the video available, is them beating people with whom they disagree with weaponized pieces of lumber.

Technorati: , , , ,

After 3 days of waiting, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi condemned the actions of Antifa. IMHO, that isn’t nearly enough. Ashton Whitty, a prominent member of the College Republicans at U-Cal Berkeley, described a frightening situation in this post.

She told a reporter for Campus Reform that she’d been “targeted and stalked during an Antifa march that left several people injured this weekend.” Campus Reform’s reporter reported that “video footage reviewed by Campus Reform appears to show Antifa members stalking Ashton Whitty, a prominent conservative student at the university and Campus Reform Campus Correspondent, as she was being interviewed by the American Freedom Keepers.”

In this video, it’s clear that Antifa was proud of their stalking activities, saying that they were “hungry for supremacists”, adding that they were “real hungry for white supremacists and there’s more of us.” Additionally, one Antifa rioter said “you guys are all bleeping racist mother bleepers.”

Monday night, Whitty told Martha MacCallum that “They came with black masks, they carried weapons, they were pounding people down with their fists and feet. I knew I had to get out of there. Everything was great until Antifa showed up.”

This video confirms that Antifa was armed with unconventional weapons and that they didn’t hesitate in using those weapons against college students with whom Antifa disagreed. Further, Antifa didn’t see the irony of them using fascist tactics to prevent so-called fascists from speaking.

These aren’t the actions of a bunch of protesters. They’re the actions of a domestic terrorist group. What type of lunatic gets that bent out of shape? Antifa’s stated goal is to highlight fascism. I’d say they’re doing a pretty good job with that. The indisputable thing is that they’re acting like fascists. It’s indisputable because video doesn’t lie.

On a different topic, Antifa was upset that they’re getting negative press. My suggestion is to have them stop acting like vigilantes and/or anarchists. I’m positive this won’t happen but it would be refreshing to see Antifa stop acting like terrorists and anarchists.

Philip Wegmann’s article and tweet suggest that conservatives should throw a parade for Nancy Pelosi for her condemnation of Antifa.

With all due respect to Mr. Wegmann, I won’t entertain the thought of throwing Ms. Pelosi anything, much less a parade.

The Antifa riot happened on Sunday. Ms. Pelosi didn’t issue her statement until Tuesday afternoon. Clear-thinking, principled people with integrity didn’t need 48 hours to know Antifa were a bunch of thugs who’d committed felonies. They knew it the minute the saw the footage of Antifa rioters hitting protesters with sticks and dumping urine on peaceful protesters.

Wegmann insists that “anyone with even an eighth grade understanding of American Civics must be welcomed as an ally.” Again, I disagree. Ms. Pelosi didn’t issue that statement because she was upset with Antifa. She spoke out because the political pressure built to an unacceptable level.

If there’s anything I’ve learned, it’s that Democrats will always do the right thing … when it’s their only option left.

Let’s put this into perspective. According to this article, Ms. Pelosi supported the Occupy Wall Street ‘movement’, starting in October, 2011. OWS, as they were nicknamed then, were dirtbags, although, to be fair, they weren’t the violent monsters that Antifa is. They were disgusting people who committed rapes, etc., but they weren’t an organized terrorist organization committed to inflicting violence.

Why shouldn’t we tell Ms. Pelosi that she needs to show more integrity before we accept her statement of condemnation as sincere? The fact that it took her 2+ days indicates to me that this was a political statement. It wasn’t a statement of principle. Here’s what she said about OWS at the time:

Those aren’t the words of a person who thinks of Antifa as domestic terrorists.

Berkeley’s mayor is getting called out in Allahpundit’s post. In his post, AP quotes Mayor Arreguin as saying “I don’t want Berkeley being used as a punching bag. I’m very concerned about Milo Yiannopoulos and Ann Coulter and some of these other right-wing speakers coming to the Berkeley campus, because it’s just a target for black bloc to come out and commit mayhem on the Berkeley campus and have that potentially spill out on the street. I obviously believe in freedom of speech, but there is a line between freedom of speech and then posing a risk to public safety. That is where we have to really be very careful; that while protecting people’s free-speech rights, we are not putting our citizens in a potentially dangerous situation and costing the city hundreds of thousands of dollars fixing the windows of businesses.”

Actually, it isn’t obvious that Mayor Arreguin believes in free speech. I’d argue quite the contrary, in fact. It’s obvious that Mayor Arreguin is letting thuggish rioters like Antifa cast a ‘rioters veto’, thereby chilling the exercise of free speech.

If Mayor Arreguin wants to restore free speech to Berkeley, he should take a page out of President Trump’s immigration handbook. Before President Trump took office, Fox News interviewed Sen. Schumer. One of the topics discussed was building the wall. Sen. Schumer insisted that Democrats wouldn’t budge on building the wall, that they’d insist on “comprehensive immigration reform” instead. I said at the time that Schumer was blowing smoke because Jeff Sessions could stop Sen. Schumer in his tracks simply by enforcing the law.

The point is that Gen. Sessions’ enforcement and President Trump’s belligerent tone on immigration, illegal immigration has slowed to a trickle. The point Mayor Arreguin should take from this is simple: If you’re willing to enforce the law and dangle the possibility of stiff prison sentences in front of Antifa, the conditions on the ground shift pretty dramatically. BTW, forget about expensive fines. They won’t work because Soros is willing to pay the fines.

Enforcement is the only way to restore free speech in Berkeley or any other place where Antifa threatens to cast a rioter’s veto. If they know you’re serious, they’ll stop. If they don’t stop, then they’ll be thrown in prison for a lengthy stay. According to this TV segment, there was a standoff between law enforcement and Antifa:

The reporter then said that law enforcement “withdrew.” If Mayor Arreguin wants to be seen as a wimp who won’t defend his citizens’ civil rights, then he should be impeached, then immediately thrown out of office without his pension. When rioters threaten citizens’ civil rights, it’s time to take action.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , ,

Anyone that describes Antifa thugs as protesters will get a smackdown in a heartbeat from me after this riot broke out on UC-Berkeley’s campus. It isn’t a stretch to say that Antifa is comprised mostly of rioters and thugs. They aren’t peaceful protesters.

According to the article, “Their faces hidden behind black bandannas and hoodies, about 100 anarchists and antifa, ‘anti-fascist’, members barreled into a protest Sunday afternoon in Berkeley’s Martin Luther King Jr. Civic Center Park. Jumping over plastic and concrete barriers, the group melted into a larger crowd of around 2,000 that had marched peacefully throughout the sunny afternoon for a ‘Rally Against Hate’ gathering. Shortly after, violence began to flare. A pepper-spray-wielding Trump supporter was smacked to the ground with homemade shields. Another was attacked by five black-clad antifa members, each windmilling kicks and punches into a man desperately trying to protect himself. A conservative group leader retreated for safety behind a line of riot police as marchers chucked water bottles, shot off pepper spray and screamed, ‘Fascist go home!'”

What’s worst is that the police were totally ineffective stopping the rioters. Whether that’s because they just stood down or whether it’s because they were bad at their jobs, they didn’t get the job done. When standing up to rioters, police have to be smart, tough and disciplined. That didn’t happen this weekend:

It’s time conservatives stopped using the Democrats’ euphemisms. These aren’t protesters. They’re rioters. Here’s the definition of riot:

1. a noisy, violent public disorder caused by a group or crowd of persons, as by a crowd protesting against another group, a government policy, etc., in the streets.
2. Law. a disturbance of the public peace by three or more persons acting together in a disrupting and tumultuous manner in carrying out their private purposes.
3. violent or wild disorder or confusion.

Here’s the definition of protest:

an expression or declaration of objection, disapproval, or dissent, often in opposition to something a person is powerless to prevent or avoid.

There’s a pretty dramatic difference between protesting and rioting. Rioting, by definition, involves violence. Protesting doesn’t. This paragraph is infuriating:

And although the anti-hate and left-wing protesters largely drowned out the smaller clutch of far-right marchers attending a planned “No to Marxism in America” rally, Sunday’s confrontation marked another street brawl between opposing ends of the political spectrum, violence that has become a regular feature of the Trump years and gives signs of spiraling upward, particularly in the wake of the violence in Charlottesville.

The Trump years aren’t what’s causing the violence. It isn’t President Trump’s fault that Democrats can’t handle defeat. That’s solely on the Democrats. For generations, people have protested in America.

This is different because these Alinskyites aren’t interested in making America better. They’re interested in this:

President Obama, not President Trump, gave legitimacy to these Alinskyite tactics.