…only nobody knows what it is, where it is, who leads it, or who belongs to it - because nobody does.

I suppose the point is that opposing fascism will not be tolerated when forming an authoritarian fascist regime is the administrations goal.

Dipshit might as well declare ghosts and goblins to be terrorists.

Opposition groups silenced. Media critics silenced. First Amendment attacked. Lackeys installed in key governmental positions. Military engaged in civilian roles. And the MAGAts just whistle past the graveyard blissfully unaware so it seems of the implications.

Who isn't anti-fascist?

Why, the wannabe fascists of course…

See, with a Putin or a Kim or a Xi running things, you’ll do just fine if you can worm your way into the ‘inner circle’. If you can’t buy your way in, or ass-kiss your way in, you end up being feed stock for those who did.

The MAGAts seem to think that if they suck hard enough that they’ll be ‘inner circle’ for sure, but that’s not quite how it works…in reality, not all dogs go to heaven.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
Opposition groups silenced. Media critics silenced. First Amendment attacked. Lackeys installed in key governmental positions. Military engaged in civilian roles. And the MAGAts just whistle past the graveyard blissfully unaware so it seems of the implications.

Cult.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...xuP?ocid=socialshare

Trump sold Americans a 'fantasy' — and it’s now unraveling
Story by Alex Henderson • 4h •
3 min read

"The essence of President Trump's pitch to the American people last year was simple: They could have it both ways," Bouie explains. "They could have a powerful, revitalized economy and 'mass deportations now.' They could build new factories and take manufacturing jobs back from foreign competitors as well as expel every person who, in their view, didn't belong in the United States. They could live in a 'golden age' of plenty — and seal it away from others outside the country with a closed, hardened border."

One "binary choice," according to Bouie, was that "Americans could have a strong, growing economy, which requires immigration to bring in new people and fill demand for labor, or they could finance a deportation force and close the border to everyone but a small, select few."

"Millions of Americans embraced the fantasy," Bouie laments. "Now, about eight months into Trump's second term, the reality of the situation is inescapable. As promised, Trump launched a campaign of mass deportation. Our cities are crawling with masked federal agents, snatching anyone who looks 'illegal' to them — a bit of racial profiling that has, for now, been sanctioned by the Supreme Court. The jobs, however, haven't arrived."

The New York Times columnist continues, "There are fewer manufacturing jobs than there were in 2024, thanks in part to the president's tariffs and, well, his immigration policies…. To embrace nativism in a global, connected economic world is to sacrifice prosperity for the sake of exclusion, just as the main effect of racial segregation in the American South was to leave the region impoverished and underdeveloped."

https://www.msn.com/en-us/vide...mxW?ocid=socialshare

‘We Have No Choice’: Donald Trump’s Warning To American Voters About Tax Cuts For The Wealthy During The 2016 Election
President Donald Trump told Republican Primary voters that he had 'no choice' but to cut taxes for the wealthiest Americans during the 2016 Republican Primary debates.

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
Opposition groups silenced. Media critics silenced. First Amendment attacked. Lackeys installed in key governmental positions. Military engaged in civilian roles. And the MAGAts just whistle past the graveyard blissfully unaware so it seems of the implications.

Cult.

so true but imagine the numbers that were laughing at me when i started to talk about the followers of the cult of the supreme leader.

Nigeria and Zimbabwe are in awe!

Just prosecute the crimes and the funders of the crimes. Most Antifa people are just basement dwelling testosterone deficient soy positive cosplay kids who got bullied in school.

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:
Nigeria and Zimbabwe are in awe!

So is Orban:

Following Trump, Orban says Hungary will designate Antifa a terrorist group

https://www.cnn.com/2025/09/19...-hungary-antifa-intl

============================================

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/0..._aYxq&smid=url-share

Can Trump Actually Designate Antifa a Terrorist Group? Here Are the Facts.
The president made the same declaration in 2020, but nothing came of it. His new declaration came amid broader threats against liberals after the Charlie Kirk killing.

By Charlie Savage
Charlie Savage writes about national security legal policy. He reported from Washington.

Sept. 18, 2025

President Trump declared late Wednesday that he was designating the antifa movement a terrorist organization, amid a broader effort by his administration to threaten liberal protesters and donors to progressive groups after the killing of the conservative activist Charlie Kirk.

Mr. Trump had made the same declaration in May 2020, but nothing came of it. And there are major factual and legal challenges to any government effort to formally designate antifa a terrorist group in any substantive way.

Here is a closer look.

What is antifa?
It is a diffuse and sometimes violent protest culture of far-left activists who want to stop the far right. The movement is associated with an aggressive form of protest its adherents call “direct action,” which can sometimes cross the line into illegal or violent activity like breaking store windows or setting police cars on fire.

“‘Antifa’ is short for antifascist and is most often used to reference activists and protesters who support more direct methods of confronting the far right,” said Jared Holt, a researcher of extremist movements at Open Measures, a company that monitors influence operations online. “Some who have self-labeled with the term have engaged in threatening or violent behaviors, but those individuals represent a small number of people who self-identify with the term.”

Is antifa actually an organization?

No.

Antifa is a label for a political subculture or protest style. The phenomenon does not have a leader, an initiation process, membership rolls, a headquarters, a bank account or a centralized structure.

Cynthia Miller-Idriss, an American University professor who studies domestic extremism, said antifa was an idea that could mobilize people. She compared it to concepts or ideologies like “white supremacy” and “Islamist extremism,” as distinguished from specific groups like the Aryan Brotherhood or Al Qaeda.

“There may be little groups organized around antifa in a neighborhood or community that meet up and share that stance, but it would be very hard to see that as connected in an organizational form that could be tackled,” she said, adding, “There is no expert I’ve ever heard of who has identified antifa as an actual organization.”

What did Trump say?
He announced the designation on his social media platform and threatened to investigate anyone funding antifa.

“I am pleased to inform our many U.S.A. Patriots that I am designating ANTIFA, A SICK, DANGEROUS, RADICAL LEFT DISASTER, AS A MAJOR TERRORIST ORGANIZATION,” he wrote. “I will also be strongly recommending that those funding ANTIFA be thoroughly investigated in accordance with the highest legal standards and practices.”

Can the U.S. designate domestic groups as terrorists?
No.

Federal law empowers the executive branch to deem overseas groups “foreign terrorist organizations.” The law gives such groups a due process right to hearings to challenge the designation. If the designation stands, the status allows the government to freeze such groups’ assets and makes it a crime to provide material support to them.

But there is no equivalent domestic terrorism law, noted Mary McCord, a former acting head of the Justice Department’s national security division during the tail end of the Obama administration and opening months of the first Trump administration.

“Trump can declare whatever he wants to declare, but there is no legal authority to actually designate a domestic group as a terrorist organization even assuming that antifa is an organization and not just an ideology,” she said. “That means his declaring this has no legal impact. Certainly it does not trigger criminal terrorism charges, like providing material support to a foreign terrorist organization.”

Would the Constitution allow this?
First Amendment protections for freedom of speech and association would probably bar any attempt by Congress to enact a statute allowing the government to designate domestic groups as terrorist organizations and make it a crime to help them, legal specialists say.

In a 2010 case in which the Supreme Court upheld the prosecution of a charity for steering funds to a designated foreign terrorist organization, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. distinguished the matter from sending funds to a domestic organization.

Hypothetical attempts to criminalize support for designated terrorist groups under different circumstances might not “survive First Amendment scrutiny,” he wrote, adding, “We also do not suggest that Congress could extend the same prohibition on material support at issue here to domestic organizations.”

Because of First Amendment concerns, when the F.B.I. has carried out what are effectively domestic terrorism investigations into neo-Nazi organizations like the Base and Atomwaffen Division, it has instead treated them as criminal enterprises.

What was the context of Trump’s declaration?

Mr. Trump and his administration are using the killing of Mr. Kirk — and criticism of Mr. Kirk from some liberals — to threaten to use federal power to punish what it claims without evidence is a vast left-wing network that funds and incites violence. Democrats have warned that Mr. Trump appears to be using the killing as a pretext to suppress political dissent.

Among other things, Mr. Trump has also said the Justice Department would conduct a racketeering investigation into George Soros, the billionaire who funds civil-society and liberal causes, accusing him without evidence of paying people to riot. Attorney General Pam Bondi threatened to “go after you if you are targeting anyone with hate speech,” which as a matter of basic First Amendment law would be unconstitutional. Brendan Carr, the Federal Communications Commission chairman, threatened ABC over remarks by the late-night host Jimmy Kimmel, and the network took him off the air.

Against that backdrop, Mr. Trump’s declaration that he would designate antifa a terrorist organization was greeted with praise by various Republican lawmakers.

What happened last time?
Nothing — but Mr. Trump is less constrained now.

In May 2020, as the Black Lives Matter protests swelled after the videotaped police killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis and some protests were marred by rioting, Mr. Trump declared on social media that the federal government “will be designating ANTIFA as a Terrorist Organization.”

The first Trump administration did not follow through on his declaration. But that does not mean that the second Trump administration will not try to do so this time — even if there is no clear legal or factual basis to justify such a declaration. Mr. Trump and his team have systematically sought to install loyalists in his second term who would not seek to constrain him.

For example, back in 2020, Mr. Trump wanted to use the military against protesters, but his administration did not follow through after his top aides resisted. But in June, after some protests against his immigration crackdown in Los Angeles turned violent, Mr. Trump sent federal troops into the streets of that city to suppress the demonstrations — and then continued to use them for police functions for months, in a way a judge has ruled illegal. The administration has appealed that ruling.

Notably, the second Trump administration has already been pushing the limits of the president’s terrorism designation powers by declaring various foreign criminal gangs and drug cartels to be foreign terrorist organizations, even though they are motivated by profit, not religion or ideology.

My way of seeing antifa is they are the epitome of fasistic mind So no matter the political,leaning we should all condemn those

quote:

Originally posted by M.Shy:
My way of seeing antifa is they are the epitome of fasistic mind So no matter the political,leaning we should all condemn those

So, from your post I can correctly infer that you are anti-fascist.

Do you know that Antifa is literally anti-fascist? That's their self ID.

Hummm. Please explain the obvious contradiction in your POV.

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:
Who isn't anti-fascist?

Fascistas can be either conservative or liberal.
The National Socialist Workers Party is an example (that turned out to be a misnomer).

quote:

Originally posted by TomP:

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:
Who isn't anti-fascist?

Fascistas can be either conservative or liberal.
The National Socialist Workers Party is an example (that turned out to be a misnomer).

Is fascism left or right?

AI Overview
Historically, fascism is a far-right, authoritarian, and ultranationalist political ideology. Mainstream scholars and historians classify it this way, though the term has been inaccurately applied by some to left-wing ideologies, confusing the term with authoritarianism.

Why fascism is classified as far-right:
The classification of fascism as far-right is based on its core tenets, which stand in stark opposition to the principles typically associated with the political left, such as egalitarianism and internationalism.

Key factors placing fascism on the far right include:
Hierarchical social order: While the political left fundamentally seeks to reduce social inequalities, fascism embraces and enforces a natural social hierarchy. This can be based on nationality, ethnicity, or loyalty to the leader, with the interests of individuals completely subordinated to the perceived interests of the nation or race.

Ultranationalism:
At its core, fascism is a form of hypernationalism that seeks to build an integrated nation-state by forcibly purging it of ethnic minorities and other "undesirable" elements. This is distinctly a right-wing attribute, as the left typically promotes international solidarity.

Opposition to left-wing movements:
Fascist movements arose in part as a violent reaction against communist and socialist movements in the 20th century. Figures like Italy's Mussolini and Germany's Hitler built their platforms on the promise of destroying Marxism and other leftist ideologies.

Contempt for democratic liberalism:
Fascists demonstrate contempt for electoral democracy and liberalism, instead favoring a totalitarian, one-party state with a dictatorial leader. This disregard for individual rights is a common feature of far-right authoritarianism.

Militarism and expansionism:
Violence is often celebrated as a tool for achieving national rejuvenation and expanding the nation through conquest and imperialist aggression.

Addressing common points of confusion:
Some points about fascism can lead to confusion regarding its place on the political spectrum:
Economic policies: Although fascists in power, like Mussolini, implemented state interventions in the economy, this is not a left-wing position. These economic controls were not intended for worker empowerment or equality, as in socialism, but rather to serve the national and military interests of the state. Private ownership was allowed but controlled by the state for state purposes, a system known as a dirigiste economy.

The "Socialist" label:
Critics sometimes cite the word "socialist" in the Nazi party's name (National Socialist German Workers' Party) to argue that fascism is left-wing. However, this is widely considered a misnomer used for propaganda purposes. The Nazis brutally suppressed Marxist and socialist parties upon gaining power and eliminated many of their own members who genuinely held socialist beliefs, such as during the Night of the Long Knives.

Authoritarianism vs. left-right axis: Authoritarianism, or the degree of state control, is a separate dimension from the left-right economic and social spectrum. Both left-wing ideologies (like Communism) and right-wing ideologies (like Fascism) can be authoritarian. Placing them side-by-side on a one-dimensional line can misleadingly suggest they are close ideologically when their core principles are fundamentally opposed.

https://www.google.com/search?...gHFg&sclient=gws-wiz

"Do you know that Antifa is literally anti-fascist? That's their self ID."

But I thought they didn't actually exist. That is what the left would have us believe. ANTIFA is not a group. It has no leadership and no members. It is only make-believe. Regards, Bill

Actually your definition is make-believe. BTW, part of the reason I post definitions a lot is because we really can't have a conversation unless we're on the same page with definitions. The Right makes up a lot of crap.

There is a lot of that melding into belief and discourse. That's part of the problem. There is also a lot of disinformation, misinformation, and a lot of it comes directly from Dear Leader.

This whole thing about Trump declaring Antifa a terrorist org is nothing but political circus.

AI Overview
Antifa, a term short for "anti-fascist," refers to a decentralized, leaderless protest movement, not a single, structured organization. It comprises autonomous groups and individuals on the political left, including anarchists, communists, and socialists, who oppose far-right and white supremacist ideologies.

Structure and ideology
Decentralized movement: Antifa lacks a central command, official membership, or unifying leadership. Local groups or "cells," like Portland's Rose City Antifa, operate autonomously, sharing resources and intelligence on far-right activities.

Anti-fascism: The core goal is to combat fascism and other oppressive systems like racism, sexism, and capitalism. Adherents believe that hate speech is not protected free speech and aim to shut down the public expression of such views.

Tactics: Actions range from peaceful community organizing and digital activism to more confrontational methods, including property damage, harassment, and physical violence, which its members justify as a form of self-defense. Activists often wear all-black clothing and masks, a tactic known as "black bloc," to protect their identities from law enforcement and political adversaries.

History: The movement's roots trace back to anti-fascist groups in 1920s Italy and 1930s Germany, and it was revitalized in the US in the 1980s by the Anti-Racist Action network. Its prominence grew significantly after the 2016 US presidential election and the 2017 Charlottesville rally.

Controversies and legal issues

Domestic terrorism designation: Some political figures, including Donald Trump, have repeatedly called for antifa to be labeled a domestic terrorist organization. However, legal and national security experts argue that there is no legal mechanism to designate a domestic ideology or movement in this way, which could also violate First Amendment rights.

Disproportionate threat assessment: Though some antifa adherents have engaged in violence, independent analyses by organizations like the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) suggest that far-right extremists pose a significantly greater terrorism threat in the U.S..

Conspiracy theories and disinformation: The movement has been the subject of numerous hoaxes and false claims, often originating from right-wing extremist groups, including being wrongly blamed for events like the January 6th Capitol riot and Western wildfires.

ANTIFA may well identify as anti fascist, but they share a lot of their behaviors with the neo Nazis.

Just because it’s a decentralized network doesn’t make it not an organization… communist cells in revolution look very similar.

The difference between fascists and communists actually is very minimal, just where they claim their authority comes from. Communists claim the worker proletariat (which is very vague) and the fascists claim the nation-state.

Both are authoritarian and run by a small cabal usually with a cult of personality figure as leader.

If the neo Nazis are a terror org, so is ANTIFA.

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
ANTIFA may well identify as anti fascist, but they share a lot of their behaviors with the neo Nazis.

Just because it’s a decentralized network doesn’t make it not an organization… communist cells in revolution look very similar.

The difference between fascists and communists actually is very minimal, just where they claim their authority comes from. Communists claim the worker proletariat (which is very vague) and the fascists claim the nation-state.

Both are authoritarian and run by a small cabal usually with a cult of personality figure as leader.

If the neo Nazis are a terror org, so is ANTIFA.

are you willing to ban the supreme leader and his followers ... following your logic of course lol ...

Ban the supreme leader?

I don’t get it.

Neo Nazis and ANTIFA are essentially the same is what I said.

I don’t have an issue with either org being termed a terrorist organization.

That’s different than banning someone.

I don’t think Trump is a fascist.

That doesn’t make him a good president. It also doesn’t mean I agree with him about everything or anything.

If you want to prance around in a KGB or SS uniform, that doesn’t make you a member of either group.

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
Ban the supreme leader?

I don’t get it.

Neo Nazis and ANTIFA are essentially the same is what I said.

I don’t have an issue with either org being termed a terrorist organization.

That’s different than banning someone.

I don’t think Trump is a fascist.

That doesn’t make him a good president. It also doesn’t mean I agree with him about everything or anything.

If you want to prance around in a KGB or SS uniform, that doesn’t make you a member of either group.

you do not think trump is a facist? with all the messages sent, the control he want to have on your medias and the use of military power when it fits ... well wait a little longer and come back to re-assess your thinking ...

quote:

well wait a little longer and come back to re-assess your thinking ...

I said that, in similar words and meaning, to Doc Butler long ago. He hasn't changed his opinions as far as I can tell.

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:

I don’t get it.

Neo Nazis and ANTIFA are essentially the same is what I said.

That's right Doc. You don't get it. Why doesn't Trump declare these actual organized hate groups terrorist orgs? Could it be that he considers them his private militia on standby? Or could he and Wormtongue Miller know it's illegal to make such declaration and know its political theater? Or both?

Neo-Nazis and Antifa are not the same. That's another of your false equivalencies. They are even more polarized than the general population of leftists and rightists. Their ideology and goals are not the same. Their org structure is not comparable.

Excerpt:

https://www.splcenter.org/reso...mist-files/neo-nazi/

Neo-Nazi

Neo-Nazi groups share a hatred for Jews and a love for Adolf Hitler and Nazi Germany. While they also hate nonwhite people, LGBTQ+ people and even sometimes Christians, they perceive “the Jew” as their cardinal enemy.

Top Takeaways
In an election year marked by extreme racist rhetoric and anti-immigrant sentiment, neo-Nazi groups found common cause with more mainstream right-wing groups. In Springfield, Ohio, radical-right figures and Republican politicians targeted the Haitian immigrant community with racist conspiracy theories that led to a rash of bomb threats, doxing (i.e., the act of posting someone’s personal information online) and demonstrations. Among those neo-Nazi groups that aided in this targeting Haitian immigrants and other members of the community in Ohio were members of Blood Tribe, the neo-Nazi group founded by Chris Pohlhaus.

Still, some groups in this ideology faced significant setbacks. Amid a series of arrests on criminal charges and civil cases, some prominent neo-Nazi groups withdrew their in-person activism or adapted their tactics.

2024 Neo-Nazi Hate Groups

2119 Blood and Soil Crew
Alabama
Pennsylvania
Texas

American Futurist
Michigan
Reno, Nevada
Ohio

American Nazi Party
New Hampshire

Aryan Freedom Network
Alabama
Florida
Georgia
Indiana
Minnesota
Montana
North Carolina
Pennsylvania
South Carolina
Texas
Utah

Atlantic Nationalist Club
Connecticut
New Jersey
New York

Blood Tribe
Ohio
South Dakota
Wisconsin

Church of Aryanity/Order of the Western Knights Templar
Kentucky

The Daily Stormer
Worthington, Ohio

Dissident Minds Books
Fairfield, California

Folkish Active Clubs
Kentucky
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Tennessee
West Virginia

Hate Club
Missouri
Ohio

Injekt Division
Pennsylvania

National Alliance
Pennsylvania
Iowa
Mountain City, Tennessee

National Socialist German Workers Party
Lincoln, Nebraska

National Socialist Movement
Maricopa, Arizona
Highland City, Florida

Nationalist Social Club (NSC-131)
Massachusetts
Rhode Island

New England Minutemen
Massachusetts

New Order
Milwaukee, Wisconsin

North ‘Bama Brigade
Madison, Alabama

NS Publications
Wyandotte, Michigan

Order of the Black Sun
Florida
Pennsylvania
Texas

People’s Initiative of New England
Connecticut
Maine
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
Rhode Island

S14/National Socialist Youth Detachment
Pennsylvania

Third Reich Books
Fairbury, Nebraska

Vanguard News Network
Kirksville, Missouri

Vinland Rebels
Tennessee

Most Neo Nazi groups have already been declared terrorist organizations by U.S. law enforcement.

That they are similar is simply in their methods and authoritarian behavior.

“Who” they hate is a nonissue. They hate and behave badly because of it.

quote:

Most Neo Nazi groups have already been declared terrorist organizations by U.S. law enforcement.

AI Overview
The statement that most neo-Nazi groups have been declared terrorist organizations by U.S. law enforcement is false. While the U.S. government has designated a few specific foreign neo-Nazi groups as terrorist organizations, there is no legal mechanism to designate domestic groups in the same way.

Key differences in U.S. terrorism law:

The core of this issue is the legal distinction between foreign and domestic groups.

Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTOs): The State Department can designate foreign organizations as FTOs, which has significant legal consequences. This includes freezing their assets, banning members from entering the U.S., and prohibiting Americans from providing material support.

A few transnational neo-Nazi groups have been designated as FTOs:
Russian Imperial Movement (RIM): The U.S. designated this Russian ultranationalist group as a terrorist organization in 2020.
Nordic Resistance Movement (NRM): The Biden administration sanctioned this Scandinavian neo-Nazi group and several of its leaders in 2024.

Domestic organizations: There is no legal authority for the U.S. government to designate domestic organizations as terrorist groups. The First Amendment protections for freedom of speech and assembly make it legally challenging to create a similar designation for groups operating entirely within the U.S..

How U.S. law enforcement addresses domestic neo-Nazi groups:

Instead of designating entire groups, law enforcement primarily uses existing criminal statutes to prosecute individuals affiliated with these organizations for their specific violent or criminal acts.

Targeting violent crimes:
Federal and state charges can include hate crimes, weapons violations, conspiracy, murder, and providing material support for a foreign terrorist organization. For example, the FBI has arrested members of the Atomwaffen Division for cyberstalking and making threats.

Focus on individual accountability:
While neo-Nazi and white supremacist groups pose a significant threat, the U.S. legal system focuses on holding individual members accountable for their actions, rather than banning the organization as a whole.

quote:

That they are similar is simply in their methods and authoritarian behavior.

There is a major difference in opposing authoritarianism (fascism) and a goal to achieve it.

Your compulsion to make false equivalencies tempts me to be annoyed. But I overcome that by realizing that you actually provide real fodder for argument. IOW, I don't characterize your opinions as BS and dismiss them. That's because I consider them an opportunity to address common Rightist misconceptions.

So, you are appreciated, because you are perfect.

So because the USSR was communist, and Putin calls himself a socialist/communist, he’s ok in your book?

Trump is doing a lot of things I dislike. I didn’t support him in the last election. I voted bill the cat.

Is Trump playing with authoritarian behaviors? Yes.

He’s certainly more nationalistic than the one world types that dominate democrat circles.

Let’s try restating this…
Just because a left of center type calls someone a fascist or Nazi doesn’t make it so, and by using those words they are behaving like a real Nazi.

Ok, so they are domestic terror orgs or whatever it takes to put yourself on government watch lists.

AFAIC, same/same.

The FBI monitors you and tries to catch you doing something illegal and arrests you.

In my mind we should be using the same efforts with any/all political extremists. You use violence politically, you are beyond the pale in polite society.

AOC and such should be getting the same treatment as Boebert and such- public ridicule.

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:

quote:

Most Neo Nazi groups have already been declared terrorist organizations by U.S. law enforcement.

AI Overview
The statement that most neo-Nazi groups have been declared terrorist organizations by U.S. law enforcement is false. While the U.S. government has designated a few specific foreign neo-Nazi groups as terrorist organizations, there is no legal mechanism to designate domestic groups in the same way.

Key differences in U.S. terrorism law:

The core of this issue is the legal distinction between foreign and domestic groups.

Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTOs): The State Department can designate foreign organizations as FTOs, which has significant legal consequences. This includes freezing their assets, banning members from entering the U.S., and prohibiting Americans from providing material support.

A few transnational neo-Nazi groups have been designated as FTOs:
Russian Imperial Movement (RIM): The U.S. designated this Russian ultranationalist group as a terrorist organization in 2020.
Nordic Resistance Movement (NRM): The Biden administration sanctioned this Scandinavian neo-Nazi group and several of its leaders in 2024.

Domestic organizations: There is no legal authority for the U.S. government to designate domestic organizations as terrorist groups. The First Amendment protections for freedom of speech and assembly make it legally challenging to create a similar designation for groups operating entirely within the U.S..

How U.S. law enforcement addresses domestic neo-Nazi groups:

Instead of designating entire groups, law enforcement primarily uses existing criminal statutes to prosecute individuals affiliated with these organizations for their specific violent or criminal acts.

Targeting violent crimes:
Federal and state charges can include hate crimes, weapons violations, conspiracy, murder, and providing material support for a foreign terrorist organization. For example, the FBI has arrested members of the Atomwaffen Division for cyberstalking and making threats.

Focus on individual accountability:
While neo-Nazi and white supremacist groups pose a significant threat, the U.S. legal system focuses on holding individual members accountable for their actions, rather than banning the organization as a whole.

Putin is never ok IMO.

I agree - simply calling someone or a movement Fascist or Nazi by someone like me (or you) certainly doesn't make it true. Nor does denial make it truth as in non-existential.

I absolutely rely on appeal to authority on this. Do you?

All the corrections I've posted to your claims are appeal to authority. I didn't make it up, and my preconception or belief has nothing to do with it. Can you claim the same?

I'm careful to use "IMO" (in my opinion), when not appealing to authority. Generally, I could back up my opinion with appeal to authority, but often just short-cut to opinion.

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
So because the USSR was communist, and Putin calls himself a socialist/communist, he’s ok in your book?

Trump is doing a lot of things I dislike. I didn’t support him in the last election. I voted bill the cat.

Is Trump playing with authoritarian behaviors? Yes.

He’s certainly more nationalistic than the one world types that dominate democrat circles.

Let’s try restating this…
Just because a left of center type calls someone a fascist or Nazi doesn’t make it so, and by using those words they are behaving like a real Nazi.

well who is a supporter of putin: the great trump ... you wont see me supporting trump or putin and for the same reason. ussr was the enemy when i was a kid and when i was in the army nothing changed for me but usa is not anymore the ally we had will it for nato or the economical side the fact that trump tried and thought about taking over a country is exactly the same as putin ... you can think it is great nationalism from your side as us citizen but as a canadian i do not see it the same way.

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
Ok, so they are domestic terror orgs or whatever it takes to put yourself on government watch lists.

AFAIC, same/same.

The FBI monitors you and tries to catch you doing something illegal and arrests you.

In my mind we should be using the same efforts with any/all political extremists. You use violence politically, you are beyond the pale in polite society.

AOC and such should be getting the same treatment as Boebert and such- public ridicule.

WOW, Doc., you are radical after all.

"we should be using the same efforts with any/all political extremists."

We are. Are we not? At least law enforcement used to, until Trump got the power. Now he pardons extremists and calls them patriots.

So, you characterize AOC and Boebert as political extremists?

I don't recall either inciting violence. IMO Boebert is just another nut bimbo who is in politics and attracts nutz. AOC may be considered far left but at least she's sane.

Dr. Butler, can you name three things Trump has done that you approve of?

Trump’s pardoning of all 1/6 arrestees is one of my dislikes for the guy.

His claim he would do so was one of about half a dozen things that made me not vote for him.

And no, until Trump got in, ANTIFA was not considered a threat by national LE.

As to Boebert and AOC, they are both fringe politicians. The fact that you consider Boebert a nut, and AOC as sane shows how far on the left you are. The two are about equally intelligent and extreme.

They are not extremists in the sense of ANTIFA or the Proud Boys, but in my mind that either got elected says mountains as to how Trump got elected… twice … and Biden got elected once.

Or if you want someone in my backyard, Ilhan Omar.

I wouldn’t say insane, or evil. Just very poor representation of the American people.

As to appeal to authority on Trump and fascism… I had a bunch of political science classes and history classes in college. One thing I learned is that as far as defining fascism there was a lot of disagreement over what it precisely was, and frankly I can find both physical paper support and plenty of online support for whatever claim you want to make of it.

Fundamentally, my position is that fascist/nazi is such a loaded term that unless you meet EVERY criteria, you are playing Josef Goebbels if you use it in modern politics.

Is Trump using some behaviors of Hitler’s rise to power? Yes. But frankly, name a politician who hasn’t. I’d agree that Trump has some troubling authoritarian behaviors, but again, that doesn’t make him fascist.

ANTIFA was originally the communist Brownshirt
Group in the Weimar Republic of Germany. Their behavior was part of why the Nazis got some of the support they did.

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:
Dr. Butler, can you name three things Trump has done that you approve of?

Securing the southern border.

While I think he has gone too far in how he is doing it (extrajudicial behaviors) I agree with removing all illegal aliens. Note this is not anti immigrant, just anti uncontrolled immigration.

Tax relief, although that was his first term.

His biggest? He’s not Joe Biden giving cover for all these executive privilege left of center policies.

Frankly, there isn’t a lot I like about the guy.

You were reaching there at the end. It's a good thing I didn't ask for five, eh?

I agree about securing the southern border, but I don't agree that all illegals should be deported--and Trump doesn't insist otherwise, since he's exempted illegals in the food, hotel, and farming industries. I don't agree on deporting any of them until given due process.

We have no business getting tax relief so long as we're running deficits. I say that even though the Trump tax cuts benefit me financially.

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
Trump’s pardoning of all 1/6 arrestees is one of my dislikes for the guy.

And no, until Trump got in, ANTIFA was not considered a threat by national LE.

As to Boebert and AOC, they are both fringe politicians. The fact that you consider Boebert a nut, and AOC as sane shows how far on the left you are. The two are about equally intelligent and extreme.

They are not extremists in the sense of ANTIFA or the Proud Boys, but in my mind that either got elected says mountains as to how Trump got elected… twice … and Biden got elected once.

Or if you want someone in my backyard, Ilhan Omar.

I wouldn’t say insane, or evil. Just very poor representation of the American people.

As to appeal to authority on Trump and fascism… I had a bunch of political science classes and history classes in college. One thing I learned is that as far as defining fascism there was a lot of disagreement over what it precisely was, and frankly I can find both physical paper support and plenty of online support for whatever claim you want to make of it.

Fundamentally, my position is that fascist/nazi is such a loaded term that unless you meet EVERY criteria, you are playing Josef Goebbels if you use it in modern politics.

Is Trump using some behaviors of Hitler’s rise to power? Yes. But frankly, name a politician who hasn’t. I’d agree that Trump has some troubling authoritarian behaviors, but again, that doesn’t make him fascist.

ANTIFA was originally the communist Brownshirt
Group in the Weimar Republic of Germany. Their behavior was part of why the Nazis got some of the support they did.

Response paragraph by paragraph:

I think the pardons included those arrested and awaiting trial, but the pardons were mostly about those convicted or pled guilty to crimes, criminals, by the judicial system of the country which abides the rule of law.

If Antifa wasn't a national threat before Trump, why are they now?

Yea, I agree, disliking Boebert a lot and neutral on AOC definitely shows my bias.

And I think Boebert represents Rightists very well and AOC representing the Left not so much. The Right just likes to make a deal out of it. Do you think MAGA Mike is a good representative of American People, or just the portion that's Christian Nationalist?

You say there was (past tense) a lot of disagreement over what fascism precisely was. Just because we can find disagreement doesn't mean that we can use that as a basis for denial that it existed. And the issue now is what is it nowadays in the USA. We can find disagreement there too. We can look at the criteria which characterizes fascism and then ask the question: If it's not perfectly defined and the characteristics don't perfectly fit, is that reason to deny that, by far, most criterion fit? If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck.

It seems that the starting place in evaluating fascism today is to look at the past, although Trumpism fascism is a new breed of the same dog. I think comparing it to the past in Europe is a way of denying it exists and is active today. You say "One thing I learned is that as far as defining fascism there was a lot of disagreement over what it precisely was".

============================================

Mussolini had no problem defining it, and quelling disagreement:

who invented the term fascist?

The term "fascism" was coined by Benito Mussolini, who founded the Italian Fascist movement in 1919. The name derives from the Italian word fascio, meaning "bundle," which was chosen for its association with the ancient Roman fasces.

The origin of the term:
Fasces: In ancient Rome, the fasces were a bundle of rods tied around an axe, carried by officials known as lictors. It symbolized the authority and power of the state. A single rod could be broken, but the bundle represented strength through unity.

Fasci:
Before Mussolini, the Italian word fascio was used to refer to various political groups or unions, including some radical or left-wing ones in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

Mussolini's usage:
Mussolini adopted the term and its imagery for his political movement.

In 1914, he established the Fascio Rivoluzionario d'Azione Internazionalista ("Revolutionary League for International Action").

In 1919, he refounded his group as the Fasci Italiani di Combattimento ("Italian Combat Squads"), which would become the National Fascist Party.

The ideology:
While Mussolini named the movement, the ideology of fascism draws on various earlier ideas:

It is a form of ultranationalism that rejects the values of liberal democracy, socialism, and communism.

It emphasizes the subordination of individual interests to the needs of the state.

The ideology also promotes militarism, imperialism, and the establishment of a totalitarian state with a charismatic dictator at its head.

===========================================

You say "fascist/nazi is such a loaded term that unless you meet EVERY criteria". Ok, let's call it Trumpism. Is that okay with you? It doesn't have the same sting and makes it easier to deny.

I agree that it's a loaded term, but it's folks like you who are compelled to dismiss or deny it exists in Trumpism cause me to want to use the term often. At what point in Trump's fascist playbook are you going to acknowledge what he's doing - the end-game?

You say: "Is Trump using some behaviors of Hitler’s rise to power? Yes. But frankly, name a politician who hasn’t. I’d agree that Trump has some troubling authoritarian behaviors, but again, that doesn’t make him fascist."

Jimmy Carter

IMO, using the word authoritarian rather than fascist is a way of diminishing the reality of Trumpism.

You say: "ANTIFA was originally the communist Brownshirt"

AI summary:

Antifa was originally the communist brownshirt.

The user's claim that Antifa was originally the communist "brownshirt" is incorrect. The Brownshirts were a Nazi paramilitary group, while the original "Antifa" was a communist-led anti-fascist group in Germany that actively fought against them.

Antifaschistische Aktion (1932–1933)
Original purpose:

Antifaschistische Aktion was founded in 1932 by the Communist Party of Germany (KPD) to combat the rising threat of Nazism and engage in street battles with the Nazi Brownshirts (Sturmabteilung or SA).

Targeting rivals: Under Stalinist leadership, the KPD also followed the "social fascism" theory, which viewed moderate Social Democrats as a more dangerous type of fascism than the Nazis. This doctrine created deep divisions on the left and undermined a potential united front against Nazism.

Legacy: After the Nazis seized power in 1933, the group was suppressed. However, its logo and name would later be adopted by new groups.
The Nazi Brownshirts (Sturmabteilung or SA)

Origin: The SA was a paramilitary wing of the Nazi Party that played a crucial role in Adolf Hitler's rise to power in the 1920s and early 1930s.

Tactics: The Brownshirts used violence and intimidation to attack political opponents, particularly communists and Jews.

Ideology: Their ideology was fundamentally fascist and nationalist, which is the opposite of the communist and anarchist principles held by the original Antifaschistische Aktion.

Modern antifa
Decentralized movement: The contemporary antifa movement, which re-emerged in the 1980s, is not directly connected organizationally to the original Antifaschistische Aktion. Instead, it is a loose, decentralized network of autonomous groups and individuals who use the name as an inspiration.

Ideology: Modern antifa activists subscribe to a variety of left-wing ideologies, including anarchism, communism, and socialism, united by their opposition to fascism, white supremacy, and other forms of oppression.

Core distinction: The Brownshirts were a uniformed, organized, and centrally controlled paramilitary group of the fascist Nazi Party. In contrast, modern antifa is a decentralized, leaderless movement of anti-fascists with no central command or official membership.

=========================================================

And BTW Antifa is a loaded term also. The way I see it is just like the title implies, it's anti-fascism. I see a distinction in "subscribe" and promote. Just because there are a few anti-fascists who favor ideologies such as anarchism, communism, and socialism, their opposition to fascism, white supremacy, and other forms of oppression is the common motivator.

There are far Rightists who subscribe to anarchism, and promote it. I figure such ideologies as anarchism, communism, and socialism have no traction. They are just boogies of the far right. But fascism definitely has traction.

quote:

Originally posted by Aspen Hill Adventures:
Netherlands, Hungary Push to Designate Antifa as Terrorist Organization

Looks like a fascist push to me.

Excerpt:

“Enough is enough! The violent and criminal terrorist organisation that is Antifa, with chapters all over the world , will finally be OUTLAWED in the Netherlands. This is just the beginning.”

This is another example of rightists leaders making up crap for political traction/circus.

Viktor Orban is a fascist.

======================================

"The violent and criminal terrorist organisation that is antifa, with chapters all over the world", presented as a question.

AI summary:

Antifa is a decentralized protest movement, not a single organization with chapters worldwide. The movement is composed of autonomous, leaderless groups that use the label "antifascist" for their shared ideology, rather than belonging to a unified command structure.

Here's what is known about the Antifa movement:
Decentralized movement, not an organization. Law enforcement agencies, including the FBI, have concluded that Antifa is an ideology or a movement, not a single, cohesive organization with membership rolls, leaders, or headquarters.

Varying tactics, including violence. The movement is known for "direct action" against those it defines as fascist or far-right, which sometimes involves illegal or violent acts, such as vandalism and street brawling. However, the level and type of activity vary widely among individuals and groups.

Far-right perpetrators of attacks. Multiple independent reviews, including data from the Global Terrorism Database, show that attacks that meet the definition of terrorism are overwhelmingly carried out by far-right extremists or jihadist-inspired actors. While violent acts have been committed by individuals self-identifying as Antifa, these represent a small portion of overall politically motivated violence.

Political labels. Certain politicians and conservative commentators have described Antifa as a terrorist organization. However, there is no legal framework in the United States to designate a domestic group as a terrorist organization. A legal expert noted that any such attempt would likely trigger serious First Amendment challenges.

Some criminal acts, no terrorism charges. While some individuals linked to Antifa have engaged in criminal activity, law enforcement generally prosecutes these acts under existing criminal statutes like assault or property damage, not as acts of terrorism. Some experts say zero terrorist attacks in the US have been attributed to Antifa in recent years.

In summary, Antifa is best described as a diffuse, decentralized political movement rather than a structured, international criminal or terrorist organization. While some adherents have engaged in violent or criminal acts, multiple experts and law enforcement officials have refuted the idea that it functions as an organized terrorist group.

quote:

Viktor Orban is a fascist.

This is an opportunity to extend my explanation to Doc Butler, about how the definition of fascist is muddy, mostly intentionally. And it shows the characteristics of authoritarianism that IMO are fascist-like if not just plain modern fascism.

AI summary:

Viktor Orban is a fascist.

Characterizing Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán as a fascist is a matter of debate and different interpretations. While most political scientists and organizations do not label him as a fascist in the strict, historical sense, many argue that his policies and rhetoric exhibit characteristics of authoritarianism, right-wing populism, and democratic backsliding.

Key elements of Orbán's political system, dubbed "Orbanism," include:

Illiberal democracy: Orbán famously declared his intent to build an "illiberal state" in 2014, rejecting liberal principles while maintaining the facade of democratic structures like elections.

Nationalism and "cultural war": He and his Fidesz party promote an ideology focused on Hungarian national identity, Christian values, and "traditional" culture. This is often accompanied by aggressive rhetoric that portrays migrants, LGBTQ+ individuals, and liberal elites as enemies.

Control over democratic institutions: Critics point to his systematic weakening of democratic checks and balances by undermining the judiciary, controlling the media, stifling civil society, and manipulating electoral laws.

Centralized power: The government has consolidated power by appointing loyalists to key positions, using executive decrees under a "state of emergency," and concentrating economic resources in the hands of allies.

Foreign alliances: He has established close ties with other authoritarian leaders, such as Vladimir Putin in Russia and Recep Tayyip Erdoğan in Turkey. He uses his influence to obstruct EU policy and has recently created the "Patriots for Europe" far-right political group in the European Parliament.

Arguments for and against the fascist label
Arguments in favor of the label
Ideological echoes: Some analyses argue that Orbán shares key ideological notions with fascism, such as the rejection of liberal norms, a focus on hierarchy, and the cultivation of a specific national identity that excludes minorities.

"Cultural code": Some observers define fascism as a "cultural code" rather than a rigid power structure and find that Orbán's policies reflect a similar mindset.

Arguments against the label
Not historically identical: Mainstream political analysis notes that Orbanism lacks the defining features of historical fascism, such as the creation of a one-party totalitarian state, the complete elimination of elections, and the systematic use of state-sanctioned violence against political opponents.

Electoral autocracy: Many experts describe Hungary under Orbán as a "hybrid regime" or an "electoral autocracy," meaning he uses nominally democratic processes to entrench authoritarian power rather than explicitly abolishing democracy.

Strategic opportunism: Some scholars argue that Orbán's actions are less about a rigid ideology and more about pragmatically consolidating his personal power and eliminating political rivals.

Conclusion
While the term "fascist" is not universally accepted for Orbán, his governance and ideology draw frequent comparisons to authoritarianism and far-right populism. His systematic erosion of democratic norms, aggressive nationalist rhetoric, and targeting of minority groups are the primary basis for the concerns raised by critics in Hungary, the European Union, and beyond.

Back to the OP:

quote:

Originally posted by Tumbleweed:
…only nobody knows what it is, where it is, who leads it, or who belongs to it - because nobody does.

I suppose the point is that opposing fascism will not be tolerated when forming an authoritarian fascist regime is the administrations goal.

Dipshit might as well declare ghosts and goblins to be terrorists.

This could be considered a prelude to declaring the Democrat party domestic terrorists. He's said it already. There being no legal basis for such declaration won't stop him.

Antifa is almost a perfect Boogie, representing the Left and supporting Trump's narratives.

It's imaginary red meat for MAGAs.

This is the sort of things that Wormtongue Miller and Heritage Foundation would dream up.

AI Overview
The phrase "fascism has to have a boogie" is a popular observation reflecting the political tactic of creating a specific enemy, or scapegoat, to unite a movement and justify its actions. This "boogeyman" figure serves as a unifying cause, directing fear and frustration away from the ruling elite and toward an external or internal foe.

Why fascism requires an enemy

Unifying cause: Fascist regimes use the perceived threat of a common enemy to rally people into a patriotic frenzy. By focusing on this foe, the government can distract from internal problems and consolidate power under the guise of protecting the nation.

Controlling the narrative: The enemy is framed as simultaneously weak and decadent, yet also powerful and conspiratorial, a rhetorical tactic known as "Ur-Fascism". This dual image allows the regime to present itself as the only force capable of defeating a grave but beatable threat.

Suppressing dissent: The "fear of difference" is exploited to sow division and target minority groups, immigrants, communists, or liberals as scapegoats. Any disagreement is treated as treason, which silences intellectual discourse and critical reasoning.

Justifying brutality: The enemy's supposed threat is used to justify the suppression of human rights, glorification of violence, and establishment of a police state. This makes the population more willing to overlook abuses in the name of national security.

Cultivating loyalty: The perpetual struggle against an enemy creates a sense of permanent war, which emphasizes the need for conformity and loyalty to the state. This fosters a culture of contempt for weakness and elevates the "in-group" above all others.

Common "boogeymen" in historical fascism
Historically, fascist movements have blamed their nations' problems on a range of scapegoats.

Political opponents: Communists, socialists, and anarchists were primary targets for early fascist movements in Europe, often facing extreme violence.

Ethnic and religious minorities: Jews, Freemasons, and immigrants were demonized in fascist propaganda, with their alleged conspiracies blamed for economic and social problems.

Cultural and intellectual elites: Fascist regimes often display disdain for intellectuals, the arts, and higher education, portraying them as enemies of the people.

=========================================================

I'm not going to look this up because I figure I already know the answers.

And so do you.

Does real conservativism require an enemy for justifications?

Does real liberalism require an enemy for justifications?

Does being American and patriot require an enemy for justifications?

When an ideology requires a Boogie for justifications, what is the implication?

========================================================

But I did look this up:

AI Overview
Illiberalism does not strictly require a "boogeyman" or scapegoat figure, but it is a common and highly effective tool for illiberal leaders to consolidate power. The creation of a frightening enemy allows illiberal movements to maintain a state of public fear and suppress dissent by portraying opposing ideas as existential threats.

Why illiberal regimes use a "boogeyman"
Creating a collective identity: A shared enemy helps to unify a group by defining who is not one of "us". This us-vs-them dynamic can galvanize followers against a perceived threat, whether it is a foreign power, a minority group, or a political opposition.

For instance, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán has used figures like George Soros as an international boogeyman to discredit political opponents and NGOs.

Justifying suppression of rights: By claiming to protect the nation from a dangerous enemy, illiberal leaders can justify eroding liberal norms and suppressing individual rights and freedoms. This tactic often involves branding independent media as "fake news" and questioning the integrity of judges who challenge the ruling party's actions.

Distracting from domestic problems: A boogeyman serves as a convenient distraction from domestic failures, economic hardship, or other issues within the illiberal state. By focusing public attention on an external or internal threat, the leadership avoids accountability and maintains popular support.

Fueling disinformation: Creating a boogeyman is a primary method for spreading disinformation. Narratives of a sinister, manipulative enemy are easily exploited to promote conspiracy theories that undermine civil society, political opponents, and independent institutions.

"Boogeyman" vs. "Charismatic leader"
While a charismatic leader is a common element of populist movements, illiberalism does not necessarily require one. However, a boogeyman or a manufactured external threat is a core tactic of illiberalism, though it may not be present in all cases. The crucial difference is that the boogeyman provides a powerful external justification for the leader's actions, regardless of their charisma.

Illiberalism without a boogeyman
In some cases, illiberalism can arise from the slow erosion of liberal norms through subtle changes that concentrate power in the executive branch. These changes might include limiting political pluralism and social diversity in the name of values like "tradition" or "harmony," rather than targeting a specific enemy. This gradual, less confrontational form of illiberalism may not feature a single, defined boogeyman but is still driven by similar anti-pluralist, anti-institutionalist sentiments.

When someone puts in “AI overview” in a political debate forum, it seems to me they don’t know what they are talking about, at least enough to make an argument.

The reason I used past tense is because until the left decided to inflict this particular boogeyman on the body politic, the discussions were much more rational.

Even your own citations admit that there is serious criticism of their positions.

For an attempt to try and cool down the debate, and be more factual, you seem to go out of your way to use the most loaded language possible.

You wonder why folks like Lane are supporting less compromise?

How does one compromise with someone who considers you to be the equivalent to the embodiment of evil?