ANTIFA AND THE STATE OF DENIAL

Is ANTIFA a terrorist group? Is it a movement that seems to be entirely ignored by local, state, and federal government agencies?  Is it a group made up of angry basement dwellers? The bottom line, are they a danger to the nation? Well, since this is my blog, I get to push my opinion. The answer to all the above questions is yes. ANTIFA is a terrorist group that is seemingly ignored by all levels of government as well as populated by angry, often strange-looking, basement dwellers. Oh ya, I almost forgot. ANTIFA is a real danger to the stability of the United State's society. Okay, now that I have that out of the way, let me set out to prove my point. 

The History of ANTIFA: 

Does anyone remember the Anarchist that consistently showed up to protest global economic summits? Wait! To hear some tell the story, ANTIFA came about as a result of Donald Trump's "stealing" the election in 2016.  Is ANTIFA a Trump phenomenon? Not hardly. Do the left and the MSM leverage reality to continue their anti-Trump agenda? Absolutely. ANTIFA. Not a "new" movement, just the Anarchist rebranded. As a matter of fact, the whole sales pitch of anarchy comes up in their published rants. Nothing like a bunch of kids who took too many electives at the University. 100,000.00 dollars in debt with a BA in Environmental Dance! 

Who backs them:

Deep Throat, " Follow the money." You have to admit, it's a brilliant piece of advice, especially when it comes to organizations populated by basement dwellers. I know, not all the members of ANTIFA are basement kids, but it's fun to toss that rock at them. Okay, back on track. Money. Where does the money come from that allows this group to operate? How much money does it really take? Back in the day, the anarchists seemed to travel all over the world. Even back then, the question became, money. Are there groups, supporters that might wish to see the ANTIFA movement grow? Are some of these groups from outside the US? Let me give you a mixture of reality and clues. Whenever a movement begins to impact the normal rhythm of another nation's rival, that movement is almost always going to receive " help."  As the narrative of the Cold War changed, it became clear triple-digit agencies like the CIA and KGB could not support "issues" out in the open. That's when it was decided to hijack another "cover story." That cover story came in the form of NGOs. Not only did triple-digit organizations find a mask with NGO's, so did movements and not just movements. Powerful, wealthy people learned how to play the NGO game. Let me give you another "clue" here. George Soros. Alright, let's cut to the chase. ANTIFA is seen as a tool, a weapon, and more than one nation, organization, movement, fits that statement. Can I prove that statement? I bet I know people who could. Does DC know this to be true? You bet they do. So, what is going on here? Why is the US seemingly allowing ANTIFA to run unchecked? Why are they allowed to confront old people in wheelchairs as the city police stand there? Why are they allowed to attack individuals as they are leaving a political rally? The perception in the US is simple. This group is out of control, and no one in any level of authority seems to be willing to make the right move. Why? It's the question that drove me to write this post. Now, here comes the scary part; my theory as to why. 

Fear:

Are authorities fearful of taking strong action against ANTIFA? Is leadership, and I use that definition loosely, reluctant to identify ANTIFA as a subversive movement. I realize many people want the movement designated as a terrorist organization, a domestic terrorist organization, to be exact, but it's not going to happen, at least not yet. Why? Are they that dangerous? Here we go! No, they are not. What is dangerous, even frightening to the government, is the status of the nation. I told you my theory was going to be scary. 

Just how fragile or secure is the societal structure of the US? Is it ANTIFA leadership fears, or is it the overall status of the nation? How divided as the US indeed become? Has some agency with its entourage of "experts" convinced the government, at all levels, the concept of forcefully taking on a youth movement, that is what ANTIFA is,  would be too dangerous or disastrous to the country? Has someone convinced DC the US's enemies would see violence in the streets as a sign of decay? Just what perception does the government have when it comes to the overall "health" of society? Has the virus of Political Correctness paralyzed leadership? Strange statement with Trump in the White House, but then again, you just never know.  One thing is absolute. With each passing day, members of ANTIFA become more emboldened. Keeping an elderly person in a wheelchair from crossing a street? That's emboldened. 

Where is this all going: 

Is it a mystery as to why ANTIFA is allowed to be so violent and destructive inside the US? Honestly, I had the same question when they simply called themselves Anarchist. I hope I'm wrong, no, I pray I'm wrong. If the government is scared of repercussions, then the impact of this group and, most likely, others will grow and perhaps dramatically. "Follow the money." Is some agency doing their job? I honestly don't know anymore. It seems most DC controlled programs are completely ingulfed in party politics. Ya know, in the end, that statement might be more dangerous than ANTIFA. 

 

ANTIFA

WHY IT DOES FIT THE MODEL OF TERRORISM

Back in October of 2019, I posted this blog on the topic of ANTIFA. It was not my only comment on this group, but this particular post had a rather disturbing point. "Why is the U.S. government so reluctant to move on ANTIFA?"

http://coldansviewpoint.blogspot.com/search?q=ANTIFA+AND+THE+STATE+OF+DENIAL

Unless you have been under a rock, you know full well how the topic of ANTIFA has changed since October of 2019. It's for that reason I have decided to go back and try to address the question I posted last year. Why?

Rand:

https://www.rand.org/multimedia/video/2020/08/11/the-consequences-of-designating-antifa-as-a-terrorist-organization.html

If you have followed me over the years, you know my opinion of RAND Corp. Some of RAND's staff, such as the author of this article, give sound logic in their presentations. Some do not. When I read this particular piece, I couldn't help but think about my question from last year. Why? In my post from October of 2019, I ended by asking, "Is the government scared to truly move on ANTIFA?" Reluctance was based upon fear of making things worse; that was my theory. Well, this RAND release seems to give my theory a great deal of validity. According to Ms. Williams, ANTIFA doesn't fit the model of FTO, Foreign Terrorist Organization."

Antifa does not clearly meet the definition of the F, the T, or the O—it is primarily domestic, it is unclear whether their acts of violence rise to crimes of terrorism, and it is a loosely oriented movement.".

Her words. By the way, I love it when analytical work is done and the word, "cleary" is incorporated. If you want to stake your opinion to a topic, then use the word, "clearly." It's akin to saying, "look….. I know better than you."

If ANTIFA doesn't "fit" the FTO model, then what model do we look for? We are told we can't go down the path of FTO designation, an opinion I do not support. What about Domestic Terrorism? Why would anyone argue against a Domestic Terrorism status for ANTIFA? Well, it only took me reading the rest of the RAND story to figure out the answer. Fear! Just as I had warned about last year. Fear of making things worse.

"In particular, designating Antifa without the facts could cultivate a conspiracy theory that Antifa was "set up" by white supremacist groups in league with the government. This plays into a dangerous narrative that could both be leveraged by left-wing extremists to garner recruits and which could fuel further violence."

 

When I read this part of the report, I again got stuck on a keyword. "Facts." Without the "facts," a designation of ANTIFA could make things worse. The word "could" was also tossed in there, but then again, it almost always is when dealing in the world of intelligence analytics.

 

The Theme:

 

It's too risky. It could backfire". Those genuinely seem to be the words D.C. wants to hear, but they need validity. They need some well-established organization to give guidance. They need some group that has a reputation for providing, impartial, insert laughter here, analysis. Enter; RAND Corp. D.C. doesn't want the President's statement to the public to actually come true. When President Trump said, "we are going to go after ANTIFA," when he stated, just last week, they would be designated as a terrorist group, that is "clearly" 😊 not the wishes of D.C.  Even the President's F.B.I. Director is against it. Better yet, you can't even get the party in opposition to speak of ANTIFA. "ANTIFA. It's an idea, not an organization!" Biden and his team don't want to talk of the "idea." To the "experts," it's too dangerous. To the F.B.I., it's a distraction. To the Left, it's a weapon they would rather not talk address.

The Definition:

18 U.S.C. 

United States Code, 2009 Edition

Title 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

PART I - CRIMES

CHAPTER 113B - TERRORISM

Sec. 2331 - Definitions

From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov

 

 

5) the term "domestic terrorism" means activities that—

(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;

(B) appear to be intended—

(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;

(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or

(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and

 

(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.

 

Can someone please tell me how ANTIFA doesn't fit this definition? Even Ms. Williams stated they did. The problem is, she went on to inform D.C., it might be dangerous. Yes, it might be dangerous, at least to political ambitions. Some might fight the definition. I can think of one political party, in particular, that would absolutely push back at an attack on their proxy fighters.

Summary:

http://coldansviewpoint.blogspot.com/search?q=PRESIDENT+TRUMP++TEST+POSITIVE+AND+THE+LEFT+POUNCES

I posted the above article just two days ago. It has a theme I've addressed time and time again. Just how fractured has the U.S. become? Are we so fractured, so torn, we are going to be unable to unit against a movement that has ties to global enemies? Do you not believe those ties exist? Let me address that realty in my next post.