Make it official: Antifa is a movement of domestic terrorists

Some wise soul has created a White House petition to designate Antifa a terrorist organization. As of this writing, 314,725 people, including this author, have signed. With the exception of perhaps the Muslim Brotherhood and whatever ISIS/al-Qaeda cells in operation in the U.S., there are few, if any, domestic groups more deserving of that title.

The petition says:

Terrorism is defined as “the use of violence and intimidation in pursuit of political aims”. This definition is the same definition used to declare ISIS and other groups, as terrorist organizations. AntiFa has earned this title due to its violent actions in multiple cities and their influence in the killings of multiple police officers throughout the United States. It is time for the pentagon to be consistent in its actions – and just as they rightfully declared ISIS a terror group, they must declare AntiFa a terror group – on the grounds of principle, integrity, morality, and safety.

Antifa groups openly declare what they are: anarchists, communists and other Marxist/Leninists of various stripes, dedicated to seeing America destroyed. The red and black of the antifa flag (shown below) is the symbol of anarcho-syndicalists, i.e. anarchists allied with labor (isyndicates).

Will this presidential election be the most important in American history?

The modern antifa movement, in both symbolism and rhetoric, recalls a similar communist movement in Weimar Germany called Antifaschistiche Aktion, which engaged in street battles with Hitler’s brownshirts (Sturmabteilung).

Leftists make extensive use of symbolism. Perhaps Obama – a self-described “union man” and extreme leftist as well, signaled his sympathy for anarcho-syndicalists when, during his 2008 victory speech, his entire family wore red and black — Michelle in particular stood out with that hideous black widow spider outfit. How did we ever get such a horrid couple? But I guess it was not unprecedented: Hillary and Bill set the standard.

In any event, during his presidency Obama advanced the antifa cause with his inexcusable persecution of George Zimmerman, the “White Hispanic” who killed Trayvon Martin in self-defense. Obama’s constant, dishonest, and inexcusably irresponsible racist agitation that inspired deadly race riots in Baltimore, Maryland and Ferguson, Missouri, and the insane mass shootings of police also advanced the antifa cause.

As the first affirmative-action president, Obama got a pass for that and much else. He should be in prison. He and the Democrat Party that supported him have blood on their hands. They may be about to get more.

His entire modus operandi was to define America as “racist” and “bigoted.” Taking it to the next level, antifa justifies its violence on the contrived narrative of a racist America now taken over by “fascists” with the election of Donald Trump.

Antifa openly declares its goal is to make America ungovernable. Democrats have signed on to this strategy too. Insanity is described as doing the same thing over and over, and expecting different results. Do the Democrats not understand why they really lost?

There is nothing new, however, in the “racist” “fascist” narrative. The true enemy, according to Karl Marx, has always been capitalism. According to standard Marxist-Leninist dogma, capitalism is “racist, imperialist, and oppressive,” hence America is inherently, unsalvageably racist. And since America is the most prominent example of these claimed evils, the real goal has always been to destroy America.

But Marx’s theories are absurd. Anyone with even an elementary grasp of economics sees right through the flaws in Marx’s theories. Capitalism is the driver of economic prosperity for all, and the only true source of economic growth.

Navigating this inconvenient truth, Marx used a much more sinister technique to lure in adherents: greed and envy. While claiming that Marxism frees people from selfish preoccupation with material wealth, it simultaneously rests its attraction on promising increased wealth through income redistribution — with no compensating increase in output or productivity.

Those at the lower end of the income scale were encouraged to believe they could expect a better standard of living without lifting a finger. This doesn’t work in the real world — transferring resources from productive uses elsewhere does not reproduce productivity. It destroys it. But Marxists have never sought the results they promise, only the power that their lies deliver.

By implying that capitalist wealth is obtained illegitimately — i.e. by stealing it “off the backs of labor,” Marxists give people a rationalization for receiving unearned income through what we all know at the core of our hearts is nothing more than legalized theft. Only they call it “social justice.”

And while stoking the fires of resentment by suggesting lower-income people are having their rightful incomes stolen, Marxists have unleashed one of the most dangerous of human emotions: envy. Many of us have been infected with it to some extent at some point in our lives, but sooner or later we recognize it for the poisonous, destructive and entirely unworthy human emotion it is.

In its worst forms it can lead to murder, and throughout history it has prevented many societies from advancing past Stone Age development. Dr. Jack Wheeler calls it the Evil Eye:

Among the Yanomamo and other tribes deep in the Amazon rain forests… it is an accepted practice that when a woman gives birth, she tearfully proclaims her child to be ugly… She does this in order to ward off the envious black magic of the Evil Eye, the Mal Ojo, that would be directed at her by her fellow tribespeople if they knew how happy she was with her beautiful baby.

The fundamental reason why certain cultures remain static and never evolve… is the overwhelming extent to which the lives of the people within them are dominated by envy and envy avoidance: as anthropologists call it, the envy barrier.

Any effort to progress in those societies is sabotaged by the group. Wheeler quotes sociologist Helmut Schoeck, who describes it as:

A self-pitying inclination to contemplate another’s superiority or advantages, combined with a vague belief in his being the cause of one’s own deprivation… Whereas the socialist believes himself robbed by the employer, just as the politician in a developing country believes himself robbed by the industrial countries, so primitive man believes himself robbed by his neighbor, the latter having succeeded by black magic in spiriting away to his own fields, part of the former’s harvest.

Free market capitalism, by allowing the entrepreneurial spirit of the individual to flourish, has allowed for unprecedented advances in human development and affluence. But it is truly a novel innovation in societal organization. Most societies throughout history have instead fallen victim to the all-too-common maladies of human greed, envy, and corruption. Indeed, these negative human motives are ever present. Overcoming them requires constant vigilance, resourcefulness and commitment.

Our constitutional republic was set up to promote the prosperity found only in liberty. Following the Constitution’s enactment, Benjamin Franklin was famously asked, “Well Doctor what have we got a republic or a monarchy?” Franklin responded, “A republic… if you can keep it.” The clear implication is that the tendency toward despotism is baked into human nature. Resisting its attractions requires an informed, committed, moral constituency.

Communism is the polar opposite of free market capitalism. It cannot compete honestly. It thrives on envy and destroys everything it touches. Communists are the evolutionary endpoint to human depravity. Individually they are possessed of such arrogance that facts have no meaning. They embrace and almost messianic belief in Marxism – while simultaneously making sure they get personally rich.

They are usually one or some combination of wealthy spoiled brats (think Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, and most communist leaders like Castro, Mao and Lenin – who all came from wealthy families, propaganda notwithstanding) – with an extremely overdeveloped sense of entitlement; angry social outcasts in it to vent their hatred who have found acceptance among a movement of other outcasts; and many are simply vicious, vindictive little sadists. If you watch Game of Thrones, the perfect example would be the bastard son of Roose Bolton, Ramsay Bolton, who got his thrills raping women and peeling the skin off of defenseless peasants.

It is all such a massive lie. Even the communists themselves do not believe the “racist, sexist, xenophobe” narrative that they constantly spew. The true goal is to destroy our credibility through intimidation and shaming. The reality of this strategy is demonstrated by its history of use. It is an asymmetrical military strategy. That is it.

Vladimir Lenin, the Soviet Union’s first leader, is believed to be the first to lay out this strategy, and has been credited with saying, “We must be ready to employ trickery, deceit, law-breaking, withholding and concealing truth… We can and must write in a language which sows among the masses hate, revulsion, and scorn toward those who disagree with us.”

Lenin is the secular god of Marxism-Leninism. His ideas thus advanced and evolved as the decades rolled on. In 1943 the Soviet Communist Party sent the following message to the communist parties of the world:

Members and front organizations must continually embarrass, discredit and degrade our critics. When obstructionists become too irritating, label them as fascist or Nazi or anti-Semitic… constantly associate those who oppose us with those names that already have a bad smell. The association will, after enough repetition, become `fact’ in the public mind.

Over the subsequent years they have added in, “sexist, homophobe, xenophobe,” and the latest epithet, “Islamophobe.” I’m sure they will dream up more. Name your phobia. There is not a shred of reality to the accusations. It is a tactical ploy to shame, discredit and silence opponents. And it has been very effective.

Facing little official resistance, antifa is now suggesting its violence is justified, and that its opponents should be silenced and oppressed. After all, if you are the saviors of the world, and your opponents are horrible racists, sexists, homophobes, etc., etc., why question or second-guess your actions at all?

But this tactic too, has a long, sordid history. Lenin is also credited with saying:

Why should freedom of speech and freedom of the press be allowed? Why should a government which is doing what it believes is right allow itself to be criticized? It would not allow opposition by lethal weapons. Ideas are much more fatal things than guns.

The German Communist Herbert Marcuse advanced Lenin’s idea with his 1965 essay “Repressive Tolerance.” Marcuse was one of the better known members of the so-called Frankfurt School. Founded in Frankfurt, Germany in 1923 as the Institute for Social Research, the school was disbanded when Hitler rose to power, and its professors fled. Most came to America.

The Frankfurt School was reconstituted at Columbia University. Marcuse taught there before heading to Harvard, Brandeis, and finally the University of California, San Diego. He mentored Angela Davis, the black American Communist involved at the time with the Black Panthers, first at Brandeis, then at UC San Diego, which she attended specifically because he was there.

Marcuse and his fellow Frankfurt School Marxists created Critical Theory, an intellectual tool to deconstruct the West through constant criticism. Echoing the Soviets, their teaching relentlessly accused Western societies of being “the world’s greatest repositories of racism, sexism, xenophobia, homophobia, anti-Semitism, fascism, and Nazism.”[1]

Especially ironic is the “anti-Semitism” charge. The antifa thugs shout it out even though American leftists have joined the Islamists in creating a virulently anti-Semitic atmosphere at college campuses throughout the U.S. But even that is old-hat. While communist Antifaschistiches were in the streets vilifying Nazis for killing Jews, the Soviet Union was busy killing them too, but Stalin was an equal opportunity mass murderer — not satisfied with killing Jews alone.

Anyway, Marcuse’s understanding of the First Amendment had a peculiar twist. Leftists certainly could speak out, but it was a form of “repressive tolerance” because in a capitalist society ruled by racism, sexism, and so forth, their ideas would never get a fair hearing.

In order to correct Marcuse’s claimed oppressive imbalance, he suggested that — again recalling Lenin — those oppressed by the society had a special right to lie, intimidate, and engage in violence and law-breaking to get their way:

Under the conditions prevailing in this country, tolerance does not, and cannot, fulfill the civilizing function attributed to it by the liberal protagonists of democracy, namely, protection of dissent… I believe that there is a ‘natural right’ of resistance for oppressed and overpowered minorities to use extralegal means if the legal ones have proved to be inadequate…

And in order to get a fair hearing they needed a head start:

Not “equal” but more representation of the Left would be equalization of the prevailing inequality… Given this situation, I suggested in “Repressive Tolerance” the practice of discriminating tolerance in an inverse direction, as a means of shifting the balance between Right and Left by restraining the liberty of the Right, thus counteracting the pervasive inequality of freedom (unequal opportunity of access to the means of democratic persuasion) and strengthening the oppressed against the oppressors…

Marcuse further described the types of people who needed to have their freedom restricted:

[It] would include the withdrawal of toleration of speech and assembly from groups and movements which promote aggressive policies, armament, chauvinism, discrimination on the grounds of race and religion, or which oppose the extension of public services, social security, medical care, etc. Moreover, the restoration of freedom of thought may necessitate new and rigid restrictions on teachings and practices in the educational institutions which, by their very methods and concepts, serve to enclose the mind within the established universe of discourse and behavior — thereby precluding a priori a rational evaluation of the alternatives.

Our Social Security/Medicare system currently has a currently projected unfunded liability of $127 trillion. I have a problem with that. So does that make me a racist? Should my freedoms be curtailed because I hold such “extremist” views? According to Marcuse, apparently so.

Antifa and indeed the entire Left establishment have used Marcuse’s arguments to justify what they are doing. Some cite Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals, but Alinsky just developed Marcuse’s idea a little further.

Antifa is simply exploiting the moment. These ideas have been gaining traction for 100 years. With the dumbing down of our education system, and the systematic suppression of the terrors of communism, antifa is taking full advantage of the misperceptions that our media and popular culture have been incubating for years.

But the fact is that communism, socialism, and anarchism represent all the worst aspects of human nature. And they have justified it with the worst of lies. They have been violent for years, and have largely gotten away with it for reasons that defy explanation. Today they are publicly advocating violence, and using the false “racist” narrative to justify it.

As the antifa thugs seek to push this country toward civil war, it is way past time to identify communism for what it is and them for the treasonous, vicious, subversive domestic terrorists they are. We need to officially recognize antifa as a terrorist organization. Sign the petition and ask your member of Congress to support legislation that will put a stop to this anarchy. If we don’t act now, we may not get another chance.

[1] Buchanan, Patrick. The Death of the West: How Dying Populations and Immigrant Invasions Imperil Our Country and Civilization. New York, NY: St. Martin’s Griffin, 2002. 80.


If you haven’t checked out and liked our Facebook page, please go here and do so.

And if you’re as concerned about online censorship as we are, go here and order this book:

Banned: How Facebook enables militant Islamic jihad
Banned: How Facebook enables militant Islamic jihad – Source: Author (used with permission)

Related Articles

Our Privacy Policy has been updated to support the latest regulations.Click to learn more.×