Antifa's end.

[The Kilted Heathen]

Um, it's not illegal to be a communist.

Communist Party USA

Honestly, on that same hand it's not illegal to be a Nazi either. So these Antifa thugs are just as unconstitutional.

 

[Augustus]

No, they're not the same thing.

You've got the wrong end of the stick. Antifa and Anti-Fascist Action are synonymous and refer to anti-fascist groups that believe in direct action and developed as part of the 20th C European Left. American groups wishing to mirror their European counterparts adopted this ideology in the later parts of the 20th C.

What precisely do you think Antifa is if not an AFA group? What makes you think this?

 

[Enoch07]

Incorrect; a communist running for office isn't inherently treasonous nor criminal.

Sorry but that is incorrect. The law i stated does make it criminal for a communist to run for office. Steve Bannon is not a communist.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

Now that we have learned Antifa has been officially declared a domestic terrorist group by the DHS, and considering the fact they are openly a communist organization. What will be done about them?

Article 50 U.S. Code 842, communist have forfeited their rights when they actively seek to overthrow the government, which they are attempting now as we speak.

Also what do to with Antifa sympathizers/apologist?

I didn't know the Neo-Nazis who marched through Charlottesville were government agents.

Honestly, on that same hand it's not illegal to be a Nazi either. So these Antifa thugs are just as unconstitutional.

How exactly is standing up to fascism unconstitutional?

 

[Father Heathen]

Not unconstitutional. You do realize that people do not have a right to be violent to others or destroy private property right? Someone can be a communist in theory, talk about communist theories etc. (Tehehe communist l.a.r.pers..ahem) Thats all covered under free speech. But the minute one runs for office, commits violence, or tries to overthrow the current government/potus, that person is a treasonous criminal and should be treated as such.

Of course violence is illegal, but what does that have to do with identifying or organizing as communists?

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

Sorry but that is incorrect. The law i stated does make it criminal for a communist to run for office. Steve Bannon is not a communist.

It only criminalises a communist running for office on the condition that violent usurpation of governance is their aim. They might campaign for a transition to a communist regime peacefully in which event they are not in violation of this code.

"The Communist Party of the United States, or any successors of such party regardless of the assumed name, whose object or purpose is to overthrow the Government of the United States, or the government of any State, Territory, District, or possession thereof, or the government of any political subdivision therein by force and violence, are not entitled to any of the rights, privileges, and immunities attendant upon legal bodies created under the jurisdiction of the laws of the United States or any political subdivision thereof; and whatever rights, privileges, and immunities which have heretofore been granted to said party or any subsidiary organization by reason of the laws of the United States or any political subdivision thereof, are terminated: Provided, however, That nothing in this section shall be construed as amending the Internal Security Act of 1950, as amended [50 U.S.C. 781 et seq.]"

Using this definition as a legal standard, Neo-Nazi groups should be illegal too but they're not. I wonder why...

There's also a strong case of hypocrisy here. The United States itself was established by use of illegal violence against the lawful rule of the Crown.

 

[Brickjectivity]

I did read the article. No where did it mention antifa being a domestic terrorist organization by the DHS. Don't be embarrassed to show your source.

Politico did say that in the article. Also Newsweek confirmed that it did here: The feds reportedly have formally classified antifa activities as “domestic terrorist violence” "The FBI and DHS were reportedly unwilling to elaborate on any of this to Politico, given the materials the publication obtained were never supposed to be publicly disclosed."

 

[Father Heathen]

Honestly, on that same hand it's not illegal to be a Nazi either. So these Antifa thugs are just as unconstitutional.

Those to attempt to silence others through violence or intimidation are definitely criminals.

 

[Enoch07]

Of course violence is illegal, but what does that have to do with identifying or organizing as communists?

As I said they are within their freedom of speech to identify as such, so long as they do not attempt to organize or run for office. Even if they peacefully run for office it is still illegal according to the law.

The Communist Control Act (68 Stat. 775, 50 U.S.C. 841-844) is a piece of United States federal legislation, signed into law by President Dwight Eisenhower on 24 August 1954, which outlaws the Communist Party of the United States and criminalizes membership in, or support for the Party or "Communist-action" organizations and defines evidence to be considered by a jury in determining participation in the activities, planning, actions, objectives, or purposes of such organizations.

Using the protection of the constitution in order to overthrow the govt/constitution is not going to happen. Which is why this was signed into law.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

How exactly is standing up to fascism unconstitutional?

It's infringing on their First Amendment rights. The ironic thing about the "Antifa" crowd is that they behave in such a manner that is pretty fascist itself. I understand all too well what a tough line it is to walk, but there's opposing fascism and standing up to it, and then there's stamping out opposing views and even accusing others who disagree with you as being "Nazis" or "Nazi sympathizers" and demonizing them as well. The later is very strongly behaviors exhibited by the "Antifa" crowd.

 

[idav]

As I said they are within their freedom of speech to identify as such, so long as they do not attempt to organize or run for office. Even if they peacefully run for office it is still illegal according to the law.

The Communist Control Act (68 Stat. 775, 50 U.S.C. 841-844) is a piece of United States federal legislation, signed into law by President Dwight Eisenhower on 24 August 1954, which outlaws the Communist Party of the United States and criminalizes membership in, or support for the Party or "Communist-action" organizations and defines evidence to be considered by a jury in determining participation in the activities, planning, actions, objectives, or purposes of such organizations.

Using the protection of the constitution in order to overthrow the govt/constitution is not going to happen. Which is why this was signed into law.

Of course the gobment doesn't like any sort of anarchy talk or criminal activity, as they shouldn't. Is that what your saying this "group" does?

 

[Enoch07]

Of course the gobment doesn't like any sort of anarchy talk or criminal activity, as they shouldn't. Is that what your saying this "group" does?

Which group? Antifa? If so, they go beyond talk and are actively seeking to bring Trump/capitalism/the constitution down using violence and intimidation tactics. Which is something they openly admit, "by any means necessary" in their own words.

Or the communist party of america? My understanding is far as the CPA goes according to the law cited (Article 50 U.S. 842) it is up to a trial and jury to determine their involvement, should it ever be enforced.

 

[Father Heathen]

As I said they are within their freedom of speech to identify as such, so long as they do not attempt to organize or run for office. Even if they peacefully run for office it is still illegal according to the law.

The Communist Control Act (68 Stat. 775, 50 U.S.C. 841-844) is a piece of United States federal legislation, signed into law by President Dwight Eisenhower on 24 August 1954, which outlaws the Communist Party of the United States and criminalizes membership in, or support for the Party or "Communist-action" organizations and defines evidence to be considered by a jury in determining participation in the activities, planning, actions, objectives, or purposes of such organizations.

Using the protection of the constitution in order to overthrow the govt/constitution is not going to happen. Which is why this was signed into law.

I don't know much about the cpusa, but I don't think they're trying to overthrow anything, but rather are trying to be a legitimate political party.

 

[Enoch07]

I don't know much about the cpusa, but I don't think they're trying to overthrow anything, but rather are trying to be a legitimate political party.

I don't know much about them either. Personally I see any form of communism as a threat to democracy. Solely because of the history of communism. Its values directly conflict with the freedom we enjoy in the U.S.

Freedom of speech is always the first to go. That is currently what is being attacked as we speak. Without that there is only blood left to be spilled. Which is something I personally want to avoid.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

It's infringing on their First Amendment rights.

The First Amendment only protects speech against government actions. It doesn't stop people from being de-platformed or out-shouted by others.

The ironic thing about the "Antifa" crowd is that they behave in such a manner that is pretty fascist itself. I understand all too well what a tough line it is to walk, but there's opposing fascism and standing up to it, and then there's stamping out opposing views and even accusing others who disagree with you as being "Nazis" or "Nazi sympathizers" and demonizing them as well. The later is very strongly behaviors exhibited by the "Antifa" crowd.

It's what's known as Popper's Paradox: if a society is tolerant without limits it will eventually find that tolerance destroyed by the intolerant. There's no reason to extend tolerance to ideologies like racial supremacism or Christian exceptionalism as they are themselves inherently intolerant. Antifa are, paradoxically, intolerant of that intolerance and view violence as a necessary and just method of stamping it out.

How many of the people here who deplore Antifa's actions would be so quick to condemn violence used to limit the spread or influence of Islamism, for instance? Or if you want a more pertinent example, how many of the people here who deplore Antifa's actions would be so quick to condemn violence used against Black Lives Matter who are, according to some, racist?

 

[tytlyf]

What precisely do you think Antifa is if not an AFA group? What makes you think this?

It's not the same. The antifa movement is recent in the US. It's anti-fascist, anti-racist, anti-sexist, etc. You know, things most people are in favor of.

AntiFa USA

 

[idav]

Which is something they openly admit, "by any means necessary" in their own words.

Those are definitely fighting words. Feds don't even need that much.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

The First Amendment only protects speech against government actions.

Specifically it states that no law will be made to abridge the right to free speech. That's the legality of it, but the intent is unabridged freedom of speech. What "Antifa" groups are doing endangers this in that they're taking it upon themselves to socially and financially ruin whomever they deem to be a Nazi - whether they are or not - and effectively abridge their speech. What happens when Antifa decides to ramp it up and go for another group, then another? Anyone who doesn't fit their social view gets either the gag or the sack.

And the thing about amendments is that they aren't set in stone. They are, by definition, edits and changes to our founding legal document. More often than not when people cite "First Amendment Rights" they are referencing the principle of Freedom of Speech & Worship, which permits any view and belief so long as the same rights of ones neighbors aren't infringed. Meaning (not endorsing) that a white supremacist can be as racist and ignorant as they want, but the minute they start forming a lynch mob they're in the wrong.

Problem being that Antifa has taken it upon themselves to determine that such is "so not 2017", and engage in reckless vigilante mob-mentality discrimination against more than neo-Nazis. Are you disagreeing with their extremist tactis? Nazi! Are you making excuses for why you're not a neo-Nazi? Nazi! Are you a Republican? NAZI! It's ridiculous, hypocritical, and as I said before, fascist in and of itself. The biggest problem is that they're not just shouting down the Nazis, or counter-protesting them. They're advocating and committing violence against them (them being both actual Nazis and assumed Nazis.) They're crossing a line poorly validated by WWII-era logic, even though we're not actually at war, it's a (violent) exchange of ideologies, and they're often the ones resorting to assault.

There's no reason to extend tolerance to ideologies like racial supremacism or Christian exceptionalism as they are themselves inherently intolerant.

Yes, they are intolerant. But there is a reason, that being the sole fact that our ideologies are tolerated, no matter who might disagree with them. Everyone is intolerant of something in their views, but ideas remain just that; when action is taken - depending on the action - then there's a problem. It's like Mr. Garrison from South Park said: "Look, just because you have to tolerate something doesn’t mean you have to approve of it. If you had to like it it’d be called the Museum of Acceptance. Tolerate means you’re just putting up with it. You tolerate a crying child sitting next to you on the airplane or you tolerate a bad cold. It can still **** you off--Jesus tapdancing Christ!”

Do Nazis and radical Christians **** me off? Absolutely. But the way I see it, the minute I condone someone silencing them for whatever reason, I allow for any number of views that I hold to be silenced, and I can't argue against it. Because at the end of the day - Nazi or not - they're just a bunch of pissed off, insecure white dudes complaining about their own fears and social shortcomings. (Granted, there are many violent people among them that have taken it to physical altercations, and they should be dealt with properly as their actions go beyond free speech). Which leads to:

How many of the people here who deplore Antifa's actions would be so quick to condemn violence used to limit the spread or influence of Islamism, for instance? Or if you want a more pertinent example, how many of the people here who deplore Antifa's actions would be so quick to condemn violence used against Black Lives Matter who are, according to some, racist?

Well, given the list of demands for white people issued by a BLM organizer, Chennelle Helm, the arguments that they're not racist are growing thin.

But here's where I stand on it. If they want to march down the street chanting for dead cops, or a bunch of islamists want to rant about "western evil" and how we're all doomed to allah's judgement... be my guest. I'll laugh at them, mock them, deride and demean them, sure, but I won't do anything about it, and I would expect the same of my neighbors. But the minute someone throws a punch, or fires a gun, they're asking for physical retaliation of equal measure.

And that's half the issue, I think; people care too damn much. They can't let words alone, and treat them as actions. It's where we got that ridiculous notion of "microagressions" and started punishing the slightest of words. Do you know how many times I've been called a range of names, and just shrugged it off? It pisses me off, yeah, but not enough that I'm going to punch someone over it, much less care past tomorrow. To date, there's only been one verbal incident in my whole life that instigated me to attempted extreme violence, and it certainly wasn't someone calling me a "cishet" or a Nazi.

People need to stop caring so much so that words incite them to violence. I do believe that if more people could ignore the loudmouths, the i"extreme activists", or the sanctimonious, they'd lose their platform and shut up eventually.

 

[LuisDantas]

Communist Control Act of 1954 - Wikipedia

Actually yes it is. Once they gather to commit political violence and/or overthrow the government Article 50 U.S Code 842 otherwise known as the Communist Control act of 1954 kicks in. Which is where we stand today. Why this law has not been strictly enforced yet, I cannot say. But I believe with the increasingly violent outburst, it will be very soon.

Way to contradict your first statement directly with your second.

 

[Enoch07]

Way to contradict your first statement directly with your second.

? I'm not contradicting myself. It is illegal for communist to even organize per the law. Its just not enforced. I am saying the reason it should now be enforced is because of the violence.

I understand allowing them to gather and not cracking down immediately. But with the increasingly escalating amount of violence and loss of property a line must be drawn.