All the attention being paid to Antifa and its minions and associated organizations is clearly making the organization very uncomfortable indeed. One of its leading lights (such as it is), Prof. Mark Bray, has fled to Europe to avoid what he will doubtless categorize as "persecution", and other leaders are either "taking the gap" with him or trying to avoid public identification in the USA.
Another tactic is to issue "talking points" to left-wing commentators to deny that Antifa even exists. It's so blatant it would be funny, if it weren't so dishonest. See for yourself in this montage of TV commenters all agreeing with each other. It's a tactic we've seen many times before - gaslight the opposition, pretend something isn't so when it very clearly is, and try to obfuscate the issue at every turn. (A helpful question to deniers: if it doesn't exist, why is Prof. Bray's book about the organization still a best-seller?)
As a general rule of thumb, I think the safest approach is to assume that any far-left-wing progressive source, or claim, or allegation is a lie from start to finish. They can't be trusted, because they can't be truthful. It's like some pathological obsession with them. When presented with conclusive video evidence and eye-witness confirmation, they simply reject it as false rather than engage with it. They're what Robert Heinlein would have referred to as "yammerheads", trying to talk over and drown out the opposition and defy reality.
The lies and confrontations are only going to get worse from now on. We have a very difficult period ahead of us as the present Administration tries very hard to remove the excrescences that have defiled the US body politic, and return us to the rule of law. Let's not allow excrescences like Antifa to disrupt public understanding of what's really happening out there.
Peter
1 comment:
When people say it doesn't exist, I like to ask them who received millions in donations over the last 5 years.
Big companies weren't giving that money to just anybody; they were giving it to groups properly organized and documented under state and federal law (I'm sure their lawyers wouldn't allow otherwise).
I think this is an attempt to steal from the Tea Party, which was a variety of low level groups with no national organization. And of course, if they claim it doesn't exist then you can't sue it or take it's assets.
The problem with their claims is that a fairly simple review of legal documents shows there is in fact a national organization. I saw an article a few months ago that laid it out, but I can't find it at the moment.
Jonathan
Post a Comment