Deranged Republicans blame anti-fascists for coup attempt

ConversesPro and Con

Afegeix-te a LibraryThing per participar.

Deranged Republicans blame anti-fascists for coup attempt

Editat: gen. 14, 2:39pm

I shouldn't be surprised, but somehow, I still am. 69% blame antifa; 22% unsure; only 9% in touch with reality. I'm not sure whether these people are actually deluded by all the lies they are told, or if they are just strategically lying to pollsters en masse. Do they even know themselves? Are they so over truth that they can't distinguish a sincere expression of their beliefs from a lie that sincerely expresses their allegiances/promotes their team?

Certainly their leaders are aware they are absurd lies. I am reminded of that Sartre quote: “Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.”

It's worth noting that this article completely misrepresents antifa as an ideology of violent resistance to fascism. That's absurdly incorrect, but then, it is Newsweek. Violence is a tiny, tiny part of antifascist action; the vast bulk is actually research. But antifascists are unlikely to clutch their pearls about property destruction or, you know, fighting literal nazis.

gen. 14, 6:26pm

Antifa are kind of like a cancer drug. If the govt. could get all these right wing extremist groups under control then antifa would no longer be needed and FWIW I don't think these loose coalitions of anti-fascists would at all mind going into retirement.

gen. 14, 10:50pm

>1 pnppl:

Thanks for that Sartre quote. Why does it suddenly remind me of certain right wing posters on LT?

gen. 15, 12:17am

>3 John5918: Sartre anticipated trolls. I suppose they called themselves 'devil's advocates' then.

Editat: gen. 15, 3:35am

>4 MsMixte:

Thanks, yes, "troll" was the first word that came to my mind. Sartre sums them up nicely.

Edited to add: I wouldn't conflate a troll with a devil's advocate, though. I think the latter is at least honest about presenting the opposing point of view to give it visibility, or to test or explore the issue, even though they themselves may disagree with it. Being a devil's advocate can be honest, respectable and useful. And a devil's advocate will usually at least argue the case and stay on the topic, rather than just posting inflammatory nonsense and red herrings.

Editat: gen. 15, 11:13am

Was the Anti-Fa contingent of these Capitol "insurrectionists" there sincerely or were they planted as rabble-rousers? Because there was at least one anti-Fa activist among those who sought to breach the Capitol.

And in that Ecumenical movement, isn't one Anti-Fa activist enough to bring them into disrepute or do you insist they comprise some very large portion of the whole? No one I've heard from so far has explained why a relative handful of vaguely identified so-called Right-wingers leaves Donald Trump and everyone who has ever spoken other than damningly of him forever tainted, but, at the same time, an even smaller number of Anti-Fa people can pass without let, hindrance or complaint in the same manifestations without that movement suffering any public-relations damage.

>1 pnppl:

Physician, "Heal thyself."

gen. 15, 7:10am

>5 John5918: Encyclopedia Britannica describes the devil's advocate:

"Devil’s advocate, Latin advocatus diaboli, a former office in the Roman Catholic Church, the Promoter of the Faith (Latin: promotor fidei), who critically examined the life of and miracles attributed to an individual proposed for beatification or canonization. He was called the devil’s advocate because his presentation of facts included everything unfavourable to the candidate in order to uncover any character flaws or misrepresentations of their life of heroic sanctity. The term is popularly used to describe anyone who champions a less accepted cause solely for the sake of argument."

In Sartre's time, a useful church official. Now, however, just someone who posts inflammatory nonsense because that person enjoys upsetting others for his or her own amusement.

gen. 15, 8:37am

>6 proximity1: why a relative handful of vaguely identified so-called Right-wingers leaves Donald Trump and everyone who has ever spoken other than damningly of him is forever tainted

As often happens, you misrepresent the case. it's about incitement to violence, calling for violence, escalating the situation, continuing to fire his followers up with lies about the election process even after every legal and procedural appeal has been dismissed, right up to the Congress and the Supreme Court. It's the difference between a movement which openly calls for violence and the subversion of democracy based on lies, and one which calls for nonviolent protest in the cause of justice and equality, even though some of its adherents may go against its principles and commit violence.

gen. 15, 11:49am

>6 proximity1: Because there was at least one anti-Fa activist among those who sought to breach the Capitol.

I'd like to see some evidence for this oracular assertion.

I see no reason to believe that the traitors who attacked America last week were anything but what they claimed to be. The people who have been identified so far, for example, have all had deep pro-fascist backgrounds, as did the woman whose death those traitors caused by their reckless actions.

If you believe that there was an "anti-Fa contingent" present among the insurrectionist riot, you should have some reason to believe it, but I don't believe you do have a reason, I think you're just making things up to try to salvage something of your lost cause. Prove me wrong if you can, or by your silence admit that your assertion is completely without foundation.

Editat: gen. 15, 2:19pm

>9 kiparsky: When I was watching the coverage I did see a flag with AF on it. I haven't ever seen an Antifa flag but I thought that was what it must have been. It was on the bottom of the steps. I didn't see it up at the top or inside the building or even ever again.

eta: I would hardly call one flag a contingent.

gen. 15, 2:40pm

There's this report in politico, It doesn't claim he is antifa though and one person doesn't change the nature of the riot.

Editat: gen. 15, 3:29pm

>10 mamzel: I haven't done a very exhaustive search, but I have not come across anything like an "antifa flag" with "AF" as part of its design. The most common "antifa flag" designs I've seen feature a circular logo of two flags, red and black, with a motto including the words "Anti-Fascist" around the radius of that logo in German or English.

The only reference I've seen to an "Antifa Flag" with "AF" in its design is to a hoax which tried to associate antifa with a design used by the British National Front. (it's sort of funny how bad that hoax is, once you look at it - they just added a horizontal bar to the "NF" on the National Front's flag...)

>11 jjwilson61: If I wanted to be pedantic, that article does not connect Sullivan to antifa in particular, only to "liberal causes".

But more to the point, from that article it is clear that the efforts to force an entry into the Capitol were ongoing when he arrived on the scene, so this case in no way supports the notion which some of the more pathetic Trumpoids are trying to float, that "antifa" (or even "liberal") instigators somehow bear some responsibility for the treasonous attack on our nation carried out by a mob of right-wing rage-filled losers*.

*plus apparently one confused liberal.

Editat: gen. 17, 8:22am

>10 mamzel:

“I would hardly call one flag a contingent.”

No, of course it isn't. Nor would all those who were there at the Capitol on January 6th and who took part in the events with which we're concerned here constitute one --- even if they had been unified in motives or purposes. But they weren't.

What they were was a motley assortment of people with various and divergent aims and intentions and motives. They in no way constituted the absurdly exaggerated term, “insurrection,” as the episode was repeatedly described by the nation's corrupt and thoroughly anti-Trump “mainstream press.”

The Confederate States of America constituted an “insurrection.”

What was witnessed at the Capitol on Wednesday was an example of what René Girard has so astutely described in his writings as an episode in a continuing “crisis of Degree.”

(p. 185)

… “When mimetic rivalry escalates beyond a certain point, the rivals engage in endless conflicts that undifferentiate them more and more; they all become doubles of one another. We (i.e. his readers) are familiar with this process but are not through with its violent consequences. At first, the doubles are still paired in conformity with the mimetic history that they have in common; they have been fighting for the same objects (political dominance, in this case) and, in this sense, they truly 'belong' to one another. Conflicts are still 'rational' to the extent at least that each double is entitled to call his antagonist 'his own,' when he designates him as the man responsible for all his troubles.

“This last element of rationality is about to disappear. Since mimetic effects constantly intensify but can no longer influence the choice of objects, they must affect the choice of the only entities left inside the (psychic) system (at work here), the doubles themselves. Mimetic contamination will now determine more and more the choice of antagonists.” …

(p. 195)

… “The general trend is clear: it takes less and less time for more and more people to polarize against more and more victims for flimsier and flimsier reasons. A little earlier, (in the play, The Tragedy of Julius Caesar ) Ligarius's indifference to the identity of his victim was still an exceptional phenomenon; after Caesar's murder, this indifference becomes commonplace and the last criteria disappear in the selection of victims. Mimesis learns fast and, after only a single try, it will do routinely and automatically what seemed almost unthinkable a moment before.”


René Girard, Chapter 22: “Domestic Fury and Fierce Civil Strife: Violent Polarization in Julius Caesar” of ( A Theater of Envy: William Shakespeare; (1991) Oxford, Oxford University Press.

Pay attention to this---it speaks volumes:

"SPEAKER NANCY PELOSI: (Quote) "Well, I think the investigation is central. That has to come first. But there will be--in addition to Representative--Mr. Chairman Ryan's Leg Branch Committee, we have Homeland Security Committee. We have issues that relate to intelligence from Judiciary and Intelligence Committee. We have the Armed Services Committee. So, there will be a full--the committees will be doing their oversight in many different ways. And of course, the Appropriations Committee and the Oversight Committee have overarching responsibility.

"But it--it--it--again, the investigation will tell us what we need to know to have truth that we can trust the system that we have here. And it is--it's so sad. Imagine, like 10 days ago, as I've said we--we've really lost our innocence in this, because we always prepared to protect and defend from all enemies foreign.

"But the Constitution all--also says 'and domestic,' and now we have to protect ourselves from enemies domestic. How close within the--the investigation will--will let--will let us know."

"That's it. Thank you."

If you know how to read and rightly parse English and you are a clear thinker, know more than just nothing at all about the U.S. Constitutional system, its history, traditions, principles and purposes then look here!:

after reading the above citation from Speaker Pelosi, all your reasoning and civil liberties alarms should be sounding and the warning-lights flashing "Red-for-DANGER!!! ---and they are, right?!?!?, aren't they!??!

Because if they aren't, some or all of these are deficient:

your reading-comprehension, your knowledge of law and Constitutional principles or your care in thinking and reasoning.

And maybe that's it. Perhaps you're intellectually so lazy that, when Speaker Pelosi says something, you lap it up like a cat laps milk.

Do you spot her outrageous reasoning there? It's right in front of your fucking nose. If you don't see it, then you are very seriously part of the problem.

Who here doubts that Joe Biden would not subscribe to all that Pelosi said there?---that he would "fail to be" so fucking ignorant, careless and stupid as to heartily endorse her every word? Who?

Her's is a vivid portrait of how and why the nation is in such very, very serious political trouble and danger.



(from Fox News via Tucker Carlson Tonight (aired Friday, 15 January, 2021

gen. 15, 5:17pm

FWIW the truly organized at a Trump rally I would think would be somewhat smaller % than the average unaffiliated Trumpista. Still there are going to be 3%'ers and proud boys and other alt-right types and white supremacists out in the crowd too and however their views align with Donald's they see his (and have seen since Charlottesville) presidency as a vehicle to advance their own ambitions and Donald's never seemed to mind that much about it either. It's been pretty much a quid pro quo arrangement between Donald and all these 2nd amendment nuts etc. These divergent right wing groups have had four years to message as they please, recruit and flex their muscles--to cement relationships with law enforcement nationwide. The Trump administration has pretty much given them the time, space and cover to grow..............and that's about to change with Biden/Harris coming in.

gen. 16, 2:17pm

>12 kiparsky: Goes to show I'm not at all up on extremist logos! It was the only thing I could come up with that had A and F. I have since checked what they looked at. I sometimes feel I don't want a search like that to be in my browser history.

gen. 16, 3:05pm

>10 mamzel: I think you might have seen an 'America First' flag. It is the letters AF, surrounded by a circle.

It's a far right symbol, not antifa.

gen. 16, 3:06pm

>11 jjwilson61: This individual was booted out of several left wing organizations because he was suspected of being a right wing infiltrator.

gen. 16, 3:10pm

>17 MsMixte: Sounds about right to me.

gen. 16, 3:27pm

So the person that the right claims is a left-wing infiltrator is actually a right-wing infiltrator. Typical.

gen. 16, 3:32pm

>19 jjwilson61: *was.
If he wasn't blown before, he sure is now.

gen. 16, 3:35pm

>19 jjwilson61: That is my understanding. Here is a link to the tweet giving a heads up to the Seattle protest community. Note the date.

gen. 16, 8:59pm

>9 kiparsky: >10 mamzel: From the Anti-Defamation League database:
The American Front is a longstanding racist skinhead group. In recent years, most of its members have been from California and Florida.

gen. 16, 10:21pm

>22 librorumamans: Well, what on earth would they be doing trying to support a nice young man like our Donald, I wonder?

I mean, since he's so anti-racist and all that, you would think that racists would be against him, wouldn't you?

And yet there they are. I hardly know what to think.

gen. 16, 11:05pm

>23 kiparsky:

I expect they're members of Mar-a-Lago simply showing neighbourly solidarity.

Editat: gen. 17, 4:18am

Aquest missatge ha estat suprimit pel seu autor.

gen. 17, 7:42am
QAnon Is Destroying the GOP From Within

Ben Sasse wrote the following ~

"The violence that Americans witnessed—and that might recur in the coming days—is not a protest gone awry or the work of “a few bad apples.” It is the blossoming of a rotten seed that took root in the Republican Party some time ago and has been nourished by treachery, poor political judgment, and cowardice. When Trump leaves office, my party faces a choice: We can dedicate ourselves to defending the Constitution and perpetuating our best American institutions and traditions, or we can be a party of conspiracy theories, cable-news fantasies, and the ruin that comes with them. We can be the party of Eisenhower, or the party of the conspiracist Alex Jones. We can applaud Officer Goodman or side with the mob he outwitted. We cannot do both."

gen. 20, 5:51am

In Central African Republic, disputed polls spark a rebel offensive (International Crisis Group)

At least 100,000 people have fled their homes in Central African Republic as a rebel coalition calling for the resignation of the president launches attacks around the county, throwing into question almost two years of peace efforts. The capital city, Bangui, has come under fire and major towns are occupied by the coalition of some of CAR’s strongest rebel groups, which formed shortly before December elections won by President Faustin-Archange Touadéra but contested by the opposition...

Sound familiar?

Editat: feb. 23, 1:17pm

Insurrectionist, Jose Padilla, Insists Trump "Patriots," Not Antifa, Responsible for Capitol Attack

Let there be no doubt.

“There’s a lot of memes and posts flying around saying that the people who were fighting last night were all Antifa provacateurs etc. I just want to say that as a first hand observer of every point of last night, that it was not Antifa. They were Patriots who were trying to Restore the Republic. . .
Padilla also worked to correct the record about online rumors that “Antifa” was somehow responsible for the pro-Trump mob’s efforts.

Honestly, the guy breaking the windows weren’t Antifa,” he wrote. “They were Patriots trying to find a new way in so we could flank the cops who were holding the doorway.”

Padilla joins a list of Capitol insurrectionists who pushed back on online rumors about antifa because they were upset about anti-fascists getting credit for their work.