Making Terror “The Order Of The Day”: Charlottesville Leads To Call For Opposing Groups To Be Declared Terrorists

Heads_on_pikesBelow is my column in the Hill Newspaper on the call from both the right and the left for protesters to be declared domestic terrorists.  With rising anger over protests and counter protests, politicians are rushing to join calls for the government to not simply investigate these groups for hate speech but actually terrorism.

Here is the column:

BarereMore than 200 years ago, France descended into a period known as “la terreur,” or the reign of terror. Revolutionary Bertrand Barère declared at the infamous September 1793 convention, “Let’s make terror the order of the day!”

A couple centuries later, we appear to be on the brink of achieving Barère’s dream to an extent that even he could not imagine. If you read the comments from the left and the right in the last two weeks, it would seem that most everyone can be defined as a terrorist in this age of rage. There are now calls from both groups demonstrating and counter-demonstrating in Charlottesville to be declared domestic terrorists. The question is what will be left of free speech if terrorism becomes merely a type of extreme speech.

The Illinois legislature is considering a measure by state Sen. Don Harmon, a Democrat, that calls on the government to “pursue the criminal elements of these domestic terrorist organizations in the same manner and with the same fervor used to protect the United States from other manifestations of terrorism.” Harmon insists that the measure takes a “stand in total opposition to the hatred, bigotry and violence displayed by these groups.”

Screen-Shot-2017-08-14-at-4.53.09-PM-654x362-cf7cb2dYet, the racist protesters in Virginia had a permit to march and Charlottesville Police Chief Al Thomas denounced the violence on both sides. That raises the question of whether the presence of a “criminal element” on either side is enough (when combined with extreme views) to meet a new evolving definition of terrorism. Some have insisted that Nazi rallies are inherently threatening to public safety and terrorizing to various groups. The clear message is that politicians want these groups not simply denounced for hate speech but declared actual terrorists.

Conversely, over 100,000 people have signed a petition calling on the Trump administration to formally recognize the Antifa movement as a terrorist organization. The petition states, “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.”

A similar movement has called for Black Lives Matters to be declared domestic terrorists for the violence seen at various protests. There is a striking similarity in the rationales for declaring both sides to be terrorists. Neither side is willing to recognize, let alone respect, the right of the other side to free speech regardless of the content of their views. For years, some of us have been warning about a dangerous tide sweeping over Europe as Western countries in the criminalization of speech deemed offensive or insulting while banning whole groups deemed hateful. The West is losing faith, and patience, with free speech.

It has not worked, as history has consistently shown. Germany criminalizes symbols like the swastika or Holocaust denials. Neo-Nazis however continue to flourish and simply slightly altered their symbols and salutes. France, England and other countries routinely prosecute people for expressing views deemed hateful, but both extremism and terrorism continue unabated. The reason is simple. The enforced silence produced by these laws is purely superficial. It does not stop extreme views or change minds, it merely forces it below the surface.

As shown by Europe (and Canada), criminalizing of speech places countries on a slippery slope toward what the Framers feared as the “tyranny of the majority.” It becomes an insatiable and satisfying appetite for those who want to simply silence opposing views. For their part, politicians want to show voters that they feel their anger by declaring unpopular groups “terrorists” or unpopular speech crimes. If you are not with those declaring the other side terrorists, you look like you are not sufficiently appalled or opposed to their views.

imagesThe fact is that the two groups protesting in Charlottesville was not the largest convergence of terrorists in history. James Alex Fields is under investigation for possible terrorism in mowing down counter-demonstrators. His actions rather than his values will be the basis for any terrorism charge. Moreover, whether he meets that definition or not will not alter that likely demand for a death sentence for murder.

Like most Americans, I was disgusted by the appearance of torch marching neo-Nazis in the streets of Charlottesville. I was shocked that so many held such hateful views. Those views can clearly intimidate or scare others. However, if that is the standard for terrorism, the difference between a protester and a terrorist is merely how their speech is interpreted by others.

We have had Nazi rallies in this country going back to the 1930s, including the infamous Nazi rally in 1977, which took place after the U.S. Supreme Court supported their right to march. We tolerate such demonstrations, not because their speech has objective value, but rather because free speech as a whole has value. We have refused to limit the right to speech for everyone to combat the few.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. You can follow him on Twitter @JonathanTurley.

363 thoughts on “Making Terror “The Order Of The Day”: Charlottesville Leads To Call For Opposing Groups To Be Declared Terrorists”

  1. Free speech is allowable for all. However, it is no longer just free speech when someone fires a gun into an opposing crowd of protesters. It is no longer free speech when someone runs his car into a crowd of protesters. It isn’t rock science. Everyone has their opinion, and they can keep it, but they do not have the right to kill, or hurt another person who opposes their view. It is that simple. The issue is that these hate groups are moving out of the “free speech” arena, to actively attacking the rest of us who disagree with their views. This presidency and administration is not able to handle the issue obviously. I don’t think they are racist, but they don’t have the intellect to see what is before them.

    1. This presidency and administration is not able to handle the issue obviously.

      This has been a growing movement long before this administration. What would you suggest an administration should do? Identify these groups as domestic terrorists and fight them with federal resources? What should the last administration have done that the current administration should be doing?

  2. It seems to me that the mass media have to decide to refuse to give unpaid publicity to protest movements that orchestrate violence to get “on the radar”. Beyond that, I would like the mass media to set an example of filtering out incivil actions from mass distribution. This would require that a news organization, such as CNN, draw a red line defining the use of violence to spread one’s message, and to not cover over-the-line actions.
    The media, in their indiscriminate thirst for drama and sensationalism, has “trained” activists on how to create the types of events that will be irresistable to the media. Those that came to Charlottesville looking for a fight got much more publicity than they deserved. Who wants to live in a media-fueled dystopia?

  3. Again, there has been no ‘The Klan” since 1949. There have been a mess of klanlets, a few who pretended to have a national organization (one was found in a 1987 court case to have assets totaling $51,000), 7 or 8 with skeletal state organizations, and a score or more local klaverns. The most spectacular klan operation since 1949 was the murder of five people at a demonstration in Greensboro, North Carolina in 1979. That was the work of a local klan with no connection to any other body. The sum total of members of all klanlets is usually estimated by the FBI at around 2,000. The Anti-Defamation League estimated a sum of 8,500 members in 1983 or thereabouts (of which 6,000 were supposedly followers or Bill WIlkinson or David Duke), but it later turned out (in the bankruptcy proceedings of Wilkinson’s outfit) that they had overestimated that organization’s membership number by about 2/3. The last homicide attributable to a klavern occurred in 1981. There were fewer than 20 such homicides between 1953 and 1982. Invoking the KKK is equivalent to invoking the boogyman.

  4. Get ready to call NPR fake news (many of you goofballs probably have already), but this pretty much settled the debate for me: since September 11, 2001, White Nationalists, neo-Nazis, and the KKK have killed 68 people; ANTIFA has killed zero. Does that quantify the debate enough?

  5. If it merely speech, that’s one thing. BUT Antifa doesn’t merely speak; they physically attack. That is their mode; the only thing they go to events to do – perpetrate violence. Folks need to recognize that.

    1. Get ready to call NPR fake news (many of you goofballs probably have already), but this pretty much settled the debate for me: since September 11, 2001, White Nationalists, neo-Nazis, and the KKK have killed 68 people; ANTIFA has killed zero. Does that quantify the debate enough?

      1. Yes, it works for me, BPW. I suspect that we would have heard by now about any Antifa homicide offenses.

        1. Diane, you are listening to badparent’s rant which has been repeated over and over. I already responded to this litter elsewhere. Violence is bad whether on the right or on the left. He only likes violence on the left. The Antifa we know is young and violent using molotov cocktails, fire etc. The violence under their name comes from many different groups that have been involved in killing and similar violence. Maintain your beliefs, but don’t fall into badparent’s stupid trap.

          1. I don’t follow you on whatever my stupid trap is, most likely, because you are putting words in my mouth. I never said I like violence in either side, that I can recall, and I don’t believe I even said ANTIFA is good or necessary. At least in my own warped mind I have been arguing that ANTIFA and blm are not domestic terrorists and are not to be equated with the three alt-rifht groups we’ve been discussing. I’ve barely understood any of your counter arguments because you go off on side tangents and accuse me of being communist or a thug or whatever you’ve been claiming I am or am saying.

            I have only tried to argue that comparing the two groups is ridiculous. But, yes, I am not worth listening to.

            1. badparent, I need not place words in your mouth. You do that all by yourself. I never accused you of being a communist. You were comparing apples to oranges so the comparison wasn’t appropriate. When did you first hear about Antifa? Certainly not in 2001 or 2002 which was the basis of your comparison. If a death caused by a left wing group now identifying with Antifa was recorded under a different name and therefore not listed a fair comparison? Of course not.

              “At least in my own warped mind I have been arguing that ANTIFA and [blm] are not domestic terrorists”

              Dealing only with Antifa, is not the throwing of molotov cocktails terrorism? How about starting fires?

              There are no side arguments or tangents here only a request for accountability of the basis of your arguments, your date and the fact that you seem not to relate the use of molotov cocktails to terrorism.

              See Jane Surber’s eloquent discussion below that distinguishes violent protest from protest. I agree with her completely.

  6. I have no problem with free speech. If Antifa or BLM want to hold peaceful protests, marches, and rallies, that’s perfectly fine. But the key word is peaceful.
    Looting and vandalizing buildings is not peaceful.
    Blocking streets and intersections is not peaceful.
    Attacking people who are protesting in ways or for causes that you do not agree with is not peaceful.
    Refusing orders from police to disperse is not peaceful.
    Peaceful people get a permit for their rally. They are orderly and calm, they meet, march, listen to speeches–without looting buildings, vandalizing cars, or attacking other people. When the time they have been given is up, they disperse quietly.
    With THAT, I have no problem at all.
    Violence is not free speech. Violence–from either side of the political spectrum–should not be tolerated. And if violence occurs at your march or rally, and you do not unequivocally condemn it, then you have made yourself part of it, and no more permits for public meetings should be issued to your group. Actions have consequences, and I’m tired of groups getting away with violence by denying that it was ‘them,’ while doing nothing to disavow the people who broke the law.

  7. The left wing democrates have created something that they have lost control of. Antifa, Blm and George Soroses groups are now out of control. They are now operating autonomously from any major political base.

    1. Dems Officially Endorse Anti-Cop BlackLivesMatter Movement
      The Democratic National Committee has officially endorsed the increasingly violent Black Lives Matter movement whose paranoid radical left-wing members accuse police nationwide of systemic anti-black racism and brutality against black suspects.

      Throwing their lot in with black racists and radical Black Power militants who have openly expressed support for the murder of police officers, Democrats embraced a statement that slams the U.S. for allegedly systemic police violence against African-Americans. The statement is not extreme enough for the Black Lives Matter movement whose leaders quickly rejected it. Last month members of the movement unveiled a list of policy proposals they claim will help to bring about “a world where the police don’t kill people.”

      What’s especially interesting about the resolution that hundreds of delegates at the DNC meeting in Minneapolis on Friday approved is that it accuses American police of “extrajudicial killings of unarmed African American men, women and children.”

      In other words, it is now official Democratic Party policy that there are roving death squads manned by police officers who specifically stalk and execute without trial black men, women, and children across America. Police in the United States today, says the DNC, are no better than the Sturmabteilung and Einsatzgruppen of Nazi Germany, the Soviet-era Cheka and NKVD, and the (Democrat-led) Ku Klux Klan, all of which used extrajudicial killings for political repression.

      A copy of the draft resolution obtained by BuzzFeed News before the grotesque anti-American pander-fest Friday uses the same kind of inflammatory, dishonest wording Bill Ayers and his Weather Underground comrades used to endorse the Black Power movement and condemn the U.S. during their bombing sprees that wreaked havoc on American society.

      The full wording of the resolution as approved by DNC delegates does not appear to have surfaced online but the draft states:

      WHEREAS, the Democratic Party believes in the American Dream and the promise of liberty and justice for all, and we know that this dream is a nightmare for too many young people stripped of their dignity under the vestiges of slavery, Jim Crow and White Supremacy; and

      WHEREAS, we, the Democratic National Committee, have repeatedly called for race and justice – demilitarization of police, ending racial profiling, criminal justice reform, and investments in young people, families, and communities — after Trayvon Martin, after Michael Brown, after Tamir Rice, after Freddie Gray, after Sandra Bland, after Christian Taylor, after too many others lost in the unacceptable epidemic of extrajudicial killings of unarmed black men, women, and children at the hands of police …

      WHEREAS, without systemic reform this state of unrest jeopardizes the well-being of our democracy and our nation;

      THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the DNC joins with Americans across the country in affirming “Black lives matter” and the “say her name” efforts to make visible the pain of our fellow and sister Americans as they condemn extrajudicial killings of unarmed African American men, women and children …

      (The Say Her Name campaign is an offshoot of Black Lives Matter that claims not enough attention is being paid to black female victims of police brutality.)

      In the document the DNC also “renews our previous calls to action and urges Congress to adopt systemic reforms at state, local, and federal levels to prohibit law enforcement from profiling based on race, nationality, ethnicity, or religion, to minimize the transfer of excess equipment (like the military-grade vehicles and weapons that were used to police peaceful civilians in the streets of Ferguson, Missouri) to federal and state law enforcement; and to support prevention programs that give young people alternatives to incarceration.”

      The DNC delegates approved the resolution on the same day a white sheriff’s deputy in Texas was shot to death allegedly by a black suspect in an unprovoked attack. The next day Black Lives Matter demonstrators marched near the Minnesota state fair chanting violent anti-police slogans and carrying signs reading “End White Supremacy.” Activists shouted “Pigs in a blanket, fry ’em like bacon,” while walking (protected by police) on a highway south of the fair grounds.

      The Black Lives Matter Network released a statement with a distinctly Leninist flavor pooh-poohing the DNC resolution of support:

      A resolution signaling the Democratic National Committee’s endorsement that Black lives matter, in no way implies an endorsement of the DNC by the Black Lives Matter Network, nor was it done in consultation with us. We do not now, nor have we ever, endorsed or affiliated with the Democratic Party, or with any party. The Democratic Party, like the Republican and all political parties, have historically attempted to control or contain Black people’s efforts to liberate ourselves. True change requires real struggle, and that struggle will be in the streets and led by the people, not by a political party.

      Some conservatives have loudly criticized the movement saying it is based on anti-American lies and that it fuels violence against police officers.

      On Fox News Channel Monday, outspoken law-and-order advocate Milwaukee County, Wisconsin Sheriff David A. Clarke Jr., a black man elected as a Democrat, blamed President Obama for the rise of Black Lives Matter.

      Look, President Obama has breathed life into this ugly movement and it is time now for good law-abiding Americans to rise up like they did [at a memorial] in Houston around that Chevron station [where a white sheriff’s deputy was shot], an outpouring, but it can’t just be symbolic. We now have to counter this slime, this filth coming out of these cop-haters.

      Brian Kilmeade of Fox News Channel, responded, “Well, Sheriff, a lot of people listening right now will say, no, President Obama has shed light on a problem and that’s the way blacks are treated by law enforcement in this country for too long.”

      That is a lie. President Obama didn’t shed light on anything. This is nothing more than an attempt to weaken the institution of policing. If there’s anything that needs to be straightened out in this country it is the subculture that has risen out of the underclass in the American ghetto. Fix the ghetto and then you’ll see a lesser need for assertive policing in these areas and then you’ll see less confrontation. Stop trying to fix the police. Fix the ghetto.

      Kilmeade asked, “So, Sheriff, what is it like on the street for the cop? … Are things changed right now for a cop at any level when they go to do their job?”

      Sure, they’re beleaguered right now and they’re beleaguered not out of fear of what’s going on on the street. Look, we take this on willingly. We volunteer for this service here. But what we’re beleaguered by is the fact that we don’t have any support from the political class. We don’t have the resources. Most of these agencies, I know mine is, I’m a hundred and fifty deputies short. The City of Milwaukee Police Department is about 300 officers short, so they send the law enforcement officer into these untenable, impossible environments and they ask them to work miracles and it just doesn’t work like that. We will see support when we start getting the resources we need to deal with these situations. But again, Brian, and I’m not going to stay off of this and I’m not going to leave it alone and stick my head in the sand about it. The problem isn’t the American police officer. Barack Obama won’t admit that these failed liberal urban policies have destroyed these great cities.

      To recap, the DNC resolution was approved the same day sheriff’s deputy Darren H. Goforth, a 47-year-old white man, was gunned down near Houston, Texas, allegedly by 30-year-old Shannon J. Miles, a black man. Miles was apprehended the next day and is now charged with capital murder.

      Miles, who is being held without bond, appeared in court in Houston Monday for his arraignment but did not enter a plea, according to the Times Record of Fort Smith, Arkansas.

      Fifteen 40-caliber shell casings were found around Goforth’s broken body. “He unloaded the entire weapon into Deputy Goforth,” District Attorney Devon Anderson said. She added that a witness has positively identified Miles as the shooter in a lineup. Deputies searched Miles’s garage and retrieved a load 40-caliber handgun and the identical brand of ammunition as the casings located at the crime scene. Forensic tests indicate the gun was the same weapon used to kill Goforth.

      As FrontPage previously reported, Harris County Sheriff Ron Hickman (R), described the killing as “senseless and cowardly” and said that his deputy was targeted “because he wore a uniform.” He pointed to Black Lives Matter for ramping up rhetoric “to the point where calculated, cold-blooded assassination of police officers” happens.

      Miles allegedly killed Goforth execution-style, shooting him first in the back of the head and then standing over him and shooting him repeatedly. This is the same way two black heroes of the Black Lives Matter movement murdered cops. Mumia Abu-Jamal, the former Wesley Cook, shot white Philadelphia police officer Daniel Faulkner to death in 1981 as he tried to arrest the perpetrator’s brother during a traffic stop. Abu-Jamal shot the policeman once in the back and then stood over him and shot him four more times at close range, once directly in the face. Assata Shakur, formerly known as Joanne Chesimard, was convicted of first-degree murder in the 1973 killing of Werner Foerster, a white New Jersey State Trooper. During a traffic stop, Shakur shot Foerster once, and then as he lay helpless on the ground, shot him twice in the head with his own gun. She escaped from prison in 1979 and was granted political asylum in Communist Cuba where she remains to this day.

      A rally by the New Black Panther Party in Texas two weeks before Deputy Goforth was murdered may have emboldened Miles to target the deputy.

      Breitbart News reports that armed Black Panthers stood outside the Waller County jail where troubled young black woman Sandra Bland committed suicide this summer after being arrested for erratic driving and assaulting a police officer.

      The leader of the rally yelled at Harris County deputies through a megaphone. “You think we’re not pissed off a bunch about y’all killing our sisters? You think it’s okay? [We’re] the wrong n***ers to mess with. You’re gonna stop doing what you’re doing, or we will start creeping up on you in the darkness.”

      Breitbart recorded several other statements threatening law enforcement personnel. “The revolution is on… Off the pigs,” and “Oink Oink… Bang Bang!”

      Cop hatred, threats to kill police, the deterioration of law and order and the rule of law, and black nationalism: This is the new normal in Obama’s America. And it’s now officially endorsed by the Democratic Party.

      And things are bound to get worse before Barack Obama leaves the presidency at Noon on January 20, 2017.

        1. David, what I quoted wasn’t Fox News.

          There was a lot of material above, so for you to call it false means you know what is false and you have contrary proof to what was said. Let’s hear it.

          I know true discussion on your part seldom if ever occurs. Let’s see if you can’t actually defend a position.

          1. anonymous, If true, it’s a good arrest, but why wasn’t the NYTimes as forthright about all the violenc from Antifa and BLM? All these people when using violence and intimidation should be exposed, prosecuted and jailed.

        1. What is your point frankly? That violence occurred on both sides. Everyone already knows that and I don’t think anyone disputes it, so what is your point?

    2. Get ready to call NPR fake news (many of you goofballs probably have already), but this pretty much settled the debate for me: since September 11, 2001, White Nationalists, neo-Nazis, and the KKK have killed 68 people; ANTIFA has killed zero. Does that quantify the debate enough?

      1. One has to discount virtually everything you say, badparent. Antifa hasn’t been considered a group for more than a year so such a comparison is idiotic even though some of its members come from other groups that have been around for decades and responsible for deaths. How many deaths since 2001 originated from the white Naionalists, Neo-Nazi’s and KK are open to debate as are the number of deaths from the goups you appear to either affiliate with or have a liking for. You would have to prove your number of 68 with a citation that wasn’t an opinion piece. As far as I am concerned it could be more or it could be less.I just don’t trust your numbers without appropriate citations.

        Who and what is Antifa? A violent movement using physical violence, fire, molotov cocktails and guns.

        There is no question that the KKK and neo.Nazi’s are bad people. What is strange is that badparent has set up a distinction between the two groups where both groups are violent. They are both bad groups, but apparently badparent has no problem with violence as long as it is his violence.

        That is really being a bad parent.

        (Huffington Post called the reporting good reporting)

          1. Antifa’s roots started in Germany in the 1980’s and they have been involved in the G20 protests and other protests. Most recently the name Anitfa has been associated with the violence that has occurred since Trump was elected. Antifa is a decentralized movement loosely associated with other groups and free lance individuals. Therefore, they are not a group to be compared to the KKK a more formalized group whose activities have a statistical trail. (Antifa is deveoping one as we speak)

            You can argue about how many deaths are associated with the KKK and neo-Nazi’s all you want. I don’t even care if your figures are wrong because whether they killed anyone or not those groups contain people we would be better off without. But you wished to make the comparison and in that comparison to make Antifa seem like the good guy. They are terrorists when their protests are violent and they attack with molotov cocktails. Sometimes they hide their identity by dressing in black which adds to one’s notion that they should be deemed terrorists.

            IMO they are agitators for the modern Communist Left and perhaps the anarchists. I’ll call them Antifa communists that denounce fascism while without a doubt they act as facists preventing the freedom of speech of others.

            1. There is always a misunderstanding of what place in the political spectrum “fascists” should be given. That they are non-democratic totalitarians goes without saying. However, they are clearly members of the Left since they did believe in State control and ownership of assets. National Socialism = NAZI. Remember? Their use of violence, intimidation, extra-legal punishment, transportation, banishment, and concentration camps were not new. Russian monarchs, the Turks in Armenia, Lenin and Trotsky, and Stalin themselves during their rise to power all used these things. I believe Hitler said that if he had had Siberia to place his prisoners in, there would have been no need for concentration camps. The effect would have been the same. The fact of the matter is that the various factions on the Left spent most of their time fighting each other-especially in Germany, Russia, or the Soviet Union, and Spain. No good First Amendment-breathing, prudent fiscally-conservative American would ever include the KKK in the assemblage we know at the “Right.” In fact the KKK has direct historical links to another group of petty tyrants, the Democratic Party. The Democrats are the fathers of the attempt to extend Slavery, the transporters of the Cherokees, choctaw, and Creeks, and others, the aggressors in the Civil War, the foot draggers during Reconstruction, the excuse-makers for slavery, the imposition of Jim Crow, and the exclusion of “Negroes” from Unions. Sen. Robert Byrd, the (don’t make me puke) reputed “Conscience of the Senate” from West Virginia was a recruiter for the KKK in his early days. All of which is to say is that the KKK are NOT a part of the Right. Their thing is racial and anti-Semitic. They are not at all like the First Amendment-respecting, fiscally-responsible, budget-balancing, free market oriented, literate and numerate people I know who vote Republican.

              1. ““fascists” should be given. That they are non-democratic totalitarians goes without saying.”

                I can’t disagree. Antifa and the neo-Nazi’s are brother and sister except today Antifa might be more violent.


    In 2013, TIDE had 1.1 million names in it.

    “These lists are horribly imprecise,” a former federal prosecutor, who asked to remain anonymous, told WIRED. “They are based on rumor and innuendo, and it’s incredibly easy to get on the list and incredibly difficult to get off the list. There’s no due process for getting off the list.” – Wired

    No need to add any more hay to the haystack, as has been said. As it is, we’re missing the needles.

    People need to calm down and breathe…

  9. If you live in a gun hating state/city I suggest you leave now unless Trump/Sessions go hot after these traitorous azzholes!

  10. In the 70’s the KKK or Neo Nazis would hold a rally and there were no counter-protests. It was basically a non-event. If it made the news at all it was on page 10 of a local paper. The only thing all these counter-protests have succeeded in doing is give the KKK and/or Neo Nazis a bigger platform. I suspect this plays right into their hand. When there is violence from the counter-protesters it allows the KKK or Neo Nazis to play the victim. I can’t think of a better recruitment tool for them. Don’t you think the best thing is just to ignore me and by doing so make them insignificant.

      1. They were not ignored in Germany, in fact Hitler was arrested for treason in Nov of 1923 and put on trial. The trial and he used the trial to generate great publicity for himself and his cause. There is a time to act, but there is also a time to ignore.

      2. Ken – here in the US, the Nazis are a fringe group. They have no broad base of support. In fact, the overwhelming majority of people of any party condemn them.

        In Germany, they were a major political party that came to power due to the bitterness after losing the first WW, among other reasons. There is no parallel.

        Neo Nazis are on the rise in Germany mainly because they are playing the victim to Europe’s speech laws. The more you repress speech, the more rebellion rises. They are in no way ignored in modern day Germany, but vigorously gone after, and yet they increase.

        Ignoring them as fringe lunatics dries them up as much as possible. There will always be bad people in any nation that consists of millions of people.

        One should recall that studies show the US to be one of the least racist countries in the globe.

    1. Absolute nonsense. Unless all the people who died by gunfire at the Greensboro massacre looked like you.

  11. “Making Terror “The Order Of The Day”: Charlottesville Leads To Call For Opposing Groups To Be Declared Terrorists”

    Those tearing down statues and denying freedom of speech and assembly to Americans are “terrorists” or a conquering army.

  12. The KKK were domestic terrorists when they were strong in the past – engaging in lynchings, beatings, and other killings in order to terrorize African Americans into accepting Jim Crow laws. I don’t think they classify anymore because they are not engaging in any bombings, or other violence designed to force people to do what they want.

    Antifa would only classify as a terrorist organization if they engaged in bombings, murder, or other violent acts in order to force a particular group of people to bow to their demands by terror. Much of Antifa’s problem is the they don’t even do their homework or any research. They declare someone a “fascist” and then attack them physically, only for it to turn out that they are an innocent bystander, a conservative, or merely someone who believes in free speech.

    “Fascist” does not mean what they think it means. Fascism was a type of national socialism. Instead of focusing on Karl Marx’s class struggle, it took subverting the individual to the common good to the extreme. There were no individual rights. It was all for the good of the collective, in this case the State. The State had supreme power over thought, speech, opinions, actions, industry. Yes, there were a few capitalist opportunities, but it was all controlled by a powerful State. In today’s Progressives, the “State” and “nationalism” was replaced by Global Progressivism. They are viciously intolerant of any speech or action deviated from the Nation of Progressives. Hurting the individual in the form of punitive taxes is approved because it’s for the common good (fighting Global Warming, Social Justice, Fairness…) A spartan lifestyle, as far as foregoing packaging, plastics, fossil fuel burning, is approved as it benefits the Common Good of the Globe. Progressives actually do not believe in egalitarianism any more than Fascists did. They do not view all religions, opinions, or political persuasions as “equal.” They believe in equal condition but not equal value. The redneck is not equal to the urbane New Yorker. They claim to support equal rights, but yet they try to take away the jobs and livelihood of anyone with whom they violently disagree, such as on the topic of gay marriage or transgender bathrooms. Heck, even voicing the opinion that women may be paid less on average because they voluntarily seek out more part time jobs in order to have a family will get someone drummed out of their career. They are very selective about equal rights.

    Conservatives believe in individual rights, and equal opportunity rather than equal condition, which is invariably miserable everywhere it is practiced.

    Really, to be accurate, Antifa should be targeting itself.

    I recall hearing Marc Steyn recently declare that the Democratic Party is essentially in a battle with itself. The modern Democratic paramilitary violent group, Antifa, is at war with the paramilitary group of yesterday’s Democrats, the Neo-Nazis. Without the Democratic Party, neither paramilitary violent group would have ever existed.

    Meanwhile, moderate Democrats and Republicans vehemently declare that they are not affiliated with either of them.

    We must support free speech and condemn violence.

    1. All of this hysteria has been a crisis manufactured artificially by the Democrats.

      The KKK has always existed , and it’s had its dismally small membership for decades now. There have always been their little insane rallies and demonstrations. None of that is news.

      What made it news was when the Democrats needed to rally voters to a cause. They’ve lost seats in record numbers around the country. So where’s a good war when you need one? So the Liberal media suddenly declared that Trump was a Neo Nazi. Which made the Neo Nazis sit up and take notice and say, “Cool!” Then the media claimed that the KKK and Neo Nazis had taken over the Republican Party, and were sweeping across the nation. Which made the Wall Flower Neo Nazis sit up and take notice and say, “Cool!” The only reason why the Neo Nazis would like Trump, the first sitting President with a Jewish First Family, would be because they actually believed the mainstream media telling them he was their guy. Otherwise, why would they like someone who was buddies with Netanyahu? Openly declared solidarity with Israel?

      So now the Neo Nazis are galvanized, thanks to the Democratic Party and the Democratic State Propaganda, the media. They get all the attention and free marketing they ever dreamed up. They get massive news media coverage where before they were mostly marginalized and ignored. Now they are the stars of the party. And they get people to try to take away their First Amendment right to free speech, which rallies people to the free speech cause who don’t support racism at all. They get the defense of people who disagree with what they say but would fight to the death to let them say it. And they get Antifa et al showing up ready and willing to fight with them, which they absolutely love. They are a violent group, so they wallow in the opportunity to get attention and violence.

      The Democrats created this problem, but they walk away whistling claiming it’s all the Republicans’ fault. The Republicans are not associate or affiliated with the KKK or the Neo Nazis.

      1. Deranged. Completely deluded, but does sound like you are working from script in a boiler room operation.

        1. Please be more specific about what you disagree with, and why. Please provide a valid reason other than emotion or ad hominem, or else your response does not contribute.

          It is an oft forgotten fact that Progressives and Fascists communicated frequently across the pond, exchanging ideas such as genetic hygiene – aka eugenics. They were similar movements, until the events of WWII made Progressives regret their support. They may have disavowed fascism, but their methods are still quite similar, most especially their emphasis on attacks on free speech, Big Government, intolerance of opposing ideas, violence against dissenters, demonizing their opponents, and subverting individual rights to the common good. It’s just that they’ve replaced “nationalism” with the newer idea of Globalism. You may find it interesting to read about the father of Fascism, Giovanni Gentile’s evolution of Marxism into a national socialism with government in complete control at the expense of individual liberty. Fascism has absolutely nothing to do with conservatism if you take it point by point, and nationalism as it was applied in Fascism as total control has nothing to do with patriotism.

          Fascism put Big Government in charge of every aspect of people’s lives, had zero tolerance for dissenting opinion or free speech, abolished individual rights in favor of the “greater good”. That sure as heck sounds closer to Liberalism than conservatism today.

          You will note that when Gentile complained about “Liberalism” in his articles on fascism, he was referencing the definition at his time, which today would be defined as “Classical Liberalism.” In Gentile’s day, Liberalism stood for robust individual rights and a small government that had a minimal role. That has nothing to do with Liberalism today.

          1. Karen S. your quiet words here provide a well rounded history of what is actually happening. Thank you. You provide significant content that is left unanswered by those wishing to criticize but cannot provide content.

        2. “Deranged”, that is the only response FTW can mount. Throw only insults. They are the weapon of the ignorant.

          1. I know people toss around the troll label far too often but FTW to this point is a classic internet troll. As for the other 3, the fact they are counting heads indicates they know they are on the wrong side of the debate, they simply want to know they aren’t their alone.

    2. Again, spot on Karen. I might add that working to grant one’s self a greater degree of liberty is, among others, to become as independent as possible. This includes financial, living, social, cultural, and political self-sufficiency.

    3. We must condemn you and help you relocate to Russia, I think. Sooner rather tater.

      1. Ooh, can you send me to Russia, too? I’d really like to go find Agafia Lykova and see if I could lend a hand.

  13. If you truly believe in free speech, then you have to support all speech, even the ones you don’t like.

    1. Excuse. Freedom of Speech is not “belief,” it is fundamental law or constitutional law. The only issue is enforcement of the law…or dereliction of duty and treason.

    2. No. Never has been absolute. Never will be. We may have to wait until The Trumpenfuhrer is shown the door to the rubber room, but stricter sedition laws are on the way back.

Comments are closed.