> ... an Italy-based entity that supplies specialized digital architecture, tools, and services for Antifa cells and other violent far-left extremists ...
> Currently we face three major types of terror groups:
> • Narcoterrorists and Transnational Gangs
> • Legacy Islamist Terrorists
> • Violent Left-Wing Extremists, including Anarchists and Anti-Fascist
It's wild that we've hit a point where the existence of Right-Wing Extremists is simply denied.
From 2020:
> First, right-wing attacks and plots accounted for the majority of all terrorist incidents in the United States since 1994. In particular, they made up a large percentage of incidents in the 1990s and 2010s. Second, the total number of right-wing attacks and plots has grown substantially during the past six years.
I would read that as an endorsement by omission. Maybe too conspiratorial? I'll accept criticism, but it definitely smells like implication (especially given the hard right-turn ICE took in their choices of "apparel").
It's also worth noting that the idea of Antifa as any sort of organization is 100% shitty fiction.
It's a fucking hashtag (and the spiritual predecessors of hastags like email label, etc for the years prior). Anyone organizing or "promoting" an event (demonstration, protest, whatever) would label it antifa if they felt that the people who were strongly opposed to fascism would find it worthwhile to support the cause.
Yes there are people out there who primarily focused on supporting anything that opposed fascism, and weirdly some of them know each other. (Strange things happen when people congregate, some of them talk to each other and even form friendships... shocking I know).
The idea that its anything other than people in a scene knowing each other is just as dumb as people saying OSS is a terrorist organization because Anonymous released loic under a public domain license.
I guess it depends on how you define ideology, but I suppose I mean a more killing-based belief. "Rich Jews are to blame for all of Germany's problems" or "Death to the West" or "From the river to the sea" are statements with murder as the goal, as is "Everyone I disagree with is a Nazi and also it's fine to kill a Nazi".
Antifacist, styled "antifa," and Republican are adjectives like Christian. Christianity and the GOP are massive, documented networks with representatives and hierarchies.
So without a hierarchy, things scare you to the point of declaring them terroists?
So why aren't you screaming about the horrors of OSS and family parties?
(BTW Christianity does not have a hierachy, not a universal one anyway, some groups do of course, like the Catholics... but the baptists, various orthodoxies, and many many more groups don't recognize that hierarchy).
Interesting how Jewish terrorists aren't mentioned, even though Israel has a long and storied history of engaging in terrorism. I guess it's such a legacy that it's not even brought up anymore?
Also wild that they're willing to just put "Anti-Fascist" in there as the enemy - if you're anti-anti-fascist, that's kind of hiding in plain sight, as if they weren't already. Simply staggering to think that in such a short space of time a country can head off the rails quite so much, but it should be instructional - whenever you look at history, the collapse often happens slowly - and then all at once...
"Anti-Fascism" is not an objective terminology to describe a stance against fascism. There are a million ways in which you can oppose fascism, most of which follow democratic traditions of the social, classical liberal, or conservative flavor.
Antifascism is a self-designation of popcultural dimensions, similar to a Che Guevara shirt. It can be appropriated by anybody who's willing to sign off on the same vague image of an enemy. I have no idea if there are, indeed, terroristic cells in the US that appropriated the brand of Antifascism, but there are some in Germany[0][1].
But more interestingly, the brand hasn't always been free of ownership: it was first created by the Communist Party of Germany (KPD) in 1932 as a part of their internal and external stalinisation and their adoption of authoritarian structures and policies, which started from 1928 under the influence of the USSR. During that time, KPD proclaimed the main fascist adversary to be no other than the Social Democrats (SPD):
"Stalinisation of the KPD began under the leadership of Ernst Thälmann. Freedom of discussion and internal democracy were replaced piece by piece by (...) authoritarian leadership. (...) in 1929 Thälmann and Stalin agreed upon an ultra-left course against the SPD, concluding that the Social Democrats represented a form of 'social fascism'. (...) The theory of social fascism dictated that Nazis and Social Democrats were essentially two sides of the same coin. The primary enemy of the Communists was supposedly the Social Democrats" [2]
Vigilantism [0,1] isn't ok in a modern democratic society but if the society tolerates neo-nazis and they get kicked ass it's the least of my problems and far from the terrorism definition.
Terrorism targets the mainstream population, not a bunch of radicals.
> It's wild that we've hit a point where the existence of Right-Wing Extremists is simply denied.
OK, let's go 30 years back and see how many terror attacks, worldwide, were from islamists: it's something like 95% of all terror attacks.
Then we take all the drug related killings (in which drug users have a responsibility btw: I don't care if they should be legal or not, they're not and you're evil if you support in any way a system that sells fentanyl to teenagers)...
The we take the far-left killings like the assassination of the (maybe despicable) Charlie Kirk and the Trump assassination attempts (with a 's') and Luigi Mangione killing a CEO...
And it's kinda, sorta, indeed not a world where "far-right" terrorism ain't that much of a big thing.
It's been a long time we have seen true far-right, like Mussolini style fascists, doing anything.
And, arguably, the nationalists who think they defend "the people" of their country, are more like nazis (aka national socialists) than actual fascits (to me portraying national socialists and the "one car for everyone" / the car of the people "volkswagen" as purely a far-right party when there were clearly socialists tendencies in nazism --especially at the beginning when Hitler got elected on many "socialist" promises, and that's not open for discussion-- is the biggest success ever of socialism).
Leftists somehow tried to dissociate themselves from all the socialist promises that got Hitler elected.
But not everybody got fooled.
I know what those who killed Charlie Kirk and the UnitedHealthcare CEO are made of.
And I certainly know what those who slaughtered 300 people at the Bataclan and 100 times that in january 2026 in Iran are made of.
Get your priorities right mate: otherwise I know what you are made of too.
> The we take the far-left killings like the assassination of the (maybe despicable) Charlie Kirk and the Trump assassination attempts (with a 's') and Luigi Mangione killing a CEO...
I have no recollection of any of those perps being left-wing.
> OK, let's go 30 years back and see how many terror attacks, worldwide, were from islamists: it's something like 95% of all terror attacks.
Islamism is a far-right ideology. Islamists even collaborate with other flavors of far-right. A lot of American leftists don't like talking about it because they also want solidarity with liberal and leftist Muslims, and the biggest vulnerability to that solidarity is for the American right to demonize Muslims by pointing out that there's an Islamist right. The far right is always inherently scary to anyone outside the preferred in-group.
> Leftists somehow tried to dissociate themselves from all the socialist promises that got Hitler elected.
Even though the Soviets and the Nazis did collaborate, Hitler wasn't a leftist by any definition of the word. Both sides of the collaboration hated each other's guts and figured they'd be able to beat the other once they silenced their mutual threat: liberals and liberal socialists[1]. Hitler was clearly sponsored by German and American[0] business interests looking to maintain their wealth by any means necessary - including putting a meth-addled idiot in power. Everything that "seems socialist" about Hitler (or Stalin[1], or Trump, or Napoleon) is either a concession, or a lie, made to fool people at the margins of the left wing.
The ultimate goal of any fascist is to divide and conquer the people by using non-class divisions (e.g. race, language, religion) to keep the people from realizing whose boot is on their neck. In America this was "Why would you join a union? Do you want to be paid the same as a black person!?". In Germany this was "Why would you vote socialist? Don't you know the Jews made that up!?". The labels are different but the effect is the same: don't join together and fight us, your friends and neighbors are your real enemy.
> And it's kinda, sorta, indeed not a world where "far-right" terrorism ain't that much of a big thing.
It stops being far-right terrorism when the far-right is in power. There's no need to maintain a large insurgency against... what, exactly? Yourself?
[0] Casual reminder that Henry Ford was a huge Hitlerite and that cars are inherently Hitlertech.
[1] Hitler was an example of what happens when the reactionary counter-revolution succeeds. But there's a second possibility: the reactionaries only succeed at pushing the left in a far more authoritarian direction. A Reign of Terror happens, in which both the reactionaries and left-libertarians are purged as equal traitors to the revolution. This continues to burn through the political hierarchy until the forest fire runs out of fuel to burn, Robespierre is hung by his own guillotine, and Thermidor comes. Russia's communists went down the same path the French left did a hundred years ago, and that's why you sometimes hear socialists say "true socialism has never been tried".
Yes, the Ayatollahs were very notable in using foreign media to provide cover while they turned a liberal revolution into a far-right Islamist one. I believe there was also a few radical feminists who were so pissed off about America they thought Osama was one of the good guys. The history of left-wing own goals is frustratingly long.
Idiots aside, Islamism is obviously far-right. Okay, left- and right- don't have good definitions as is, as they were defined in response to where people physically sat in the Estates General during the French Revolution. But I can at least point to a few properties that are manifestly right-wing and why Islamists all tick those boxes:
1. Right-wing politics supports and defends already-established power structures. Islam (Sunni-Shia divide notwithstanding) is an established power structure; in fact, it's the dominant power structure in the region. Ergo, Islamism supports and defends an established power structure: a specific religion.
2. Right-wing politics is Wilhoitist: it believes in an in-group, to whom the law protects but does not bind; and that the law binds but does not protect the out-group. Islamism specifically wants an Islamic theocracy, that's about as Wilhoitist as it gets.
3. Right-wing politics demonizes the other, to the point of spreading lies about people outside their preferred in-group. Whenever there's someone shitting on Islam you can count on Islamists to make shit up about them to stoke the flames of outrage.
To me, at least, those properties alone are enough to confidently put Islamism in the far-right bin. The fact that some ignorant leftists do the whole "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" bit without actually reading what's on the tin is immaterial.
> 1. Right-wing politics supports and defends already-established power structures.
Once the left is in power, they immediately turn out to be right wing? Does it happen in the very second they gain power or only when try to keep it? Is running for the next election even though you're already in power inherently right-wing?
As I hinted at before, "left" and "right" aren't very well defined and it's easy to confuse one for the other, especially when cultural or national barriers are in the way. But I also do not want to spend paragraphs of text on redefining things people already intuitively understand. I assume people are vaguely familiar with the Political Compass and go from there.
As for left-wingers becoming right-wingers, yes that can and does happen.
For example, at the time the terms left-wing and right-wing were coined, liberal capitalism was understood to be a radical left-wing attack on the traditional feudal hierarchy of kings and priests that had ruled France in the past. A hundred years later and those same capitalists who had built their business empires on the back of liberal and left-wing revolution were either cozying up to the kings they'd once scared, or establishing new kings to replace the ones that got destroyed.
But merely running for office again does not inherently make you right-wing. Nor does engaging in a coup or other forms of power maintenance make you inherently right-wing. It makes you an authoritarian.
Just replace “left” with “the good guys according to kmeisthax (TM)” and “right” with “the bad guys according to kmeisthax (TM)” and I’d stop objecting at all. It’s not helpful (and not very honest, but rather eristic) to try to manipulate your understanding of good and bad onto “left” and “right”. It derails every discourse about what really matters: the question what is “good” and what is “bad”.
The author did not take a stance on the question if Hamas and Iran are leftist Muslims or far-right Islamists, so I dared to ask. You might not believe this, but many German leftist - even moderate ones - supported explicitly the Islamic Revolution, as well as the first or second Intifada. The author might include Hamas and IIR into his conclusion of some groups being "inherently scary to anyone outside the preferred in-group", but by observation, that doesn't seem to be true once your own out-group (i.e., Capitalists, Jews, and Jewish Capitalists) seems even more inherently scary to you than some Islamist thousands of miles away.
Furthermore, the author's claims demote "left" and "right" to some kind of synonyms of what they have labeld as "good" and "bad" on their personal moral compass, robbing them of any systematic meaning in political reality; those definitions match neither scientific consensus, nor the way people self-select into groups that call themselves either "left" or "right", nor the way these terms are used to describe policies. The reason is simple: the goals that he attributes to his idea of what "left" means cannot be achieved and sustained on the scale of modern governments and states without the means of authoritarianism, which is, by his definition, exclusively a "far-right" thing.
> It's wild that we've hit a point where the existence of Right-Wing Extremists is simply denied.
It's not denied; it's just that anyone vaguely right wing who kills is classified as a right wing terror attack. Right wing terror is constantly talked about, so it may appear bigger than it is.
Whereas in terms of groups or common causes, the three listed are much bigger. Why is it healthcare CEOs, presidents and campus debaters all be shot at (and killed in 2 of those cases) and the shootings be celebrated by so many on the left, and well into the mainstream? There's no right wing equivalent any more.
The extreme right massively outperforms the left, which I'm sure is in part due to the right wing obsession with owning as much stuff as possible to kill people with as you can.
Antonio Mays Jr was killed on livestream by CHAZ security — and the crime scene tampered after to prevent conviction by CHAZ members.
Tyler Robinson is clearly leftwing, as evidenced by the message on the bullets and association with the leftwing trans militia his partner was a member of in Utah.
If you are going to present two people killed by left wing extremists - they should be people actually found guilty based on the evidence presented in a court of law, whose motive was also established by the court.
What we have are a bunch of claims about 2 crimes, only one of which even has a suspect. There have been numerous reports, and frankly, American news media is inherently partisan and a lot of it is inherently unreliable.
Let me give you an decent (factual) example of people killed by extremism:
Joyce Fienberg, Richard Gottfried, Rose Mallinger, Jerry Rabinowitz, Cecil Rosenthal, David Rosenthal, Bernice Simon, Sylvan Simon, Daniel Stein, Melvin Wax, Irving Younger
Who were all killed by Robert Bowers. The attack was motivated by violent antisemitism, according to the evidence presented at trial.
The trial showed he espoused white-supremacist and antisemitic beliefs, promoted anti-immigrant conspiracy theories and opposed refugee resettlement.
His online activity included Holocaust-denial and pro-Nazi statements, according to evidence presented in his federal case.
In June 2023, a federal jury found Bowers guilty on all 63 federal counts, including hate-crime charges.
Imagine working this hard to defend child murder by your political allies, live-streamed when they assassinated a black youth for joyriding on their turf.
So your example of left wing extremism is an unidentified black lives matter member that assassinated a black youth for joyriding, based on assumptions.
It's not exactly the most compelling example of a political motivated assassination, is it. Given I can pull out literally dozens of people killed by right wing extremists with overwhelming evidence and convicted in a court of law.
I'm a centrist, and I'm not even American. Your argument holds less weight than a wet paper bag.
We know he was killed by the John Brown Gun Club operating as “security” for CHAZ because they live streamed them shooting the vehicle, discovering he was still alive, and executing Antonio Mays Jr to the chilling words “Oh, you’re still alive?” before the gunshot that took his life.
Your argument we can’t count that as leftwing violence is as nonsense as saying we can’t count historic lynching as racial violence because the perpetrators weren’t convicted.
CSIS has an updated report. While right wing extremism was more prevalent in the decade up to 2024, it dropped significantly in 2025 for unclear reasons.
Yes, anyone who has been paying attention knows that this administration has been designating people who disagree with them politically or socially, or in some cases groups like antifa that don't really exist, as terrorist groups. This substantially escalated with nspm7 as reported by Ken Klippenstein.
Antifa doesn't really exist? Please explain people waving antifa flags, wearing antifa badges / clothing, putting antifa in their social media profiles? With this kind of logic, no terrorist group really exists.
There was a pride festival recently during which people were wearing rainbow clothing and waving flags. Do you think all of those people are part of an organization with leaders and "cells" or whatever? Or, maybe, they were all just expressing the same sentiment and using flags and colors and badges to do it?
Okay - but Antifa is still a thing, it exists. There are antifa telegram groups, there were people that identified as being antifa who came together and attacked immigration and customs enforcement officers and are in prison for it. The statement that antifa doesn't exist is not the same statement as antifa is not a hierarchal or centralized organization.
Also, just FYI, one of the more prominent early members of the hacker collective anonymous was a federal informant named Aubrey Cottle (aka Kirtaner) who was a long-time Something Awful forum member with a very sordid past. Anonymous really wasn't that anonymous - it was full of feds and essentially a psyop.
What you're missing is that while it's certainly true that there are plenty of small groups working from the antifacist position, the claim isn't simply that these groups exits- the claim (by the US gov) is that these groups are organized and funded in a top-down manner. Hence the "puppet master" style operations that they so hilariously failed at running against these groups.
The idea that they can find the folks organizing and funding these "cells" is a big part of the US gov's premise on how it is going to "fight" these "cells".
It's not stated as explicitly as that, so it's not surprising that folks don't pick up on that distinction between "distributed groups who agree on principle but don't have any material connections" and "top down, hierarchical structures funded by singlular sources".
But the folks running the US gov don't even see the folks who disagree with them as human, much less as having a legible and understandable grievance. So it's not surprising to me that they just project their own authoritarian and top-down organizational preferences onto other groups of humans doing stuff.
So sure, "antifa" exists. But it's categorically different than how the US government is trying to say it exists, and that's an important distinction.
Yes, when someone says something "doesn't exist", that doesn't automatically mean "in all conceivably possible ways". Different people have different perspectives and context in their mind when they say things like that, so we have to be careful in how we interpret their words as they don't always mean them as literally as others might assume... language is hard.
Sure, they could, but not everyone feels the need, or has the foresight or intelligence, to be so careful and articulating in their speech with every sentence they speak.
But instead of unprofessional and rude comments like the equivalent of "people should just be smarter"... instead we can either educate people on how to communicate more clearly, or simply ask follow-up questions without resorting to attacks or assumptions.
I didn't attack anyone - I simply replied that if we follow their logic to its conclusion, no terrorist group really exists.
Trying to educate anyone in anything on this website is a hopeless cause. Typing anything that contradicts a popularly held belief, even when true, earns downvotes into oblivion. People on this platform don't want to learn anything - people want to prop up the status quo, control narratives and further enlarge their already giant egos.
> ... an Italy-based entity that supplies specialized digital architecture, tools, and services for Antifa cells and other violent far-left extremists ...
So basically little woke marxists like Luigi Mangione who have a beef with free individuals?
lol. In case you didn’t notice, dissent is terrorism, failure to kiss the ring is treason, and if you want to play in the US market there are some cryptocurrency purchases you might want to do, as a hedge against unfavorable tariffs. Also, for only 100KUSD you can join the official US insider trading chat.
The joke is the people performing the acts of fascists that then claim to be anti-fascist. They simply do not recognize or acknowledge their own fascist, mob-like behavior, but apply the label to all of their enemies. They've read and heeded Saul Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals" to perfection. The US is one of the only countries taking the Antifa threat to civilization seriously.
sigh.. What's the strongest evidence you have that this so-called Antifa represents a greater threat to American democracy than the authoritarian conduct we're seeing from people actually exercising governmental power? walk me thru it.
Not since the venerable Joe McCarthy has America taken this threat with the seriousness it merits. I can only count the days until we get a proper House Antifa Terrorism and Extremism committee.
NSA, if you're reading, please relay this to Mike Johnson post-haste. America is so close to being great again!
"Threat to civilization"? I’m not even going to dignify that bullshit narrative with a response. And that’s before we get to the actual threats to civilization being unleashed by your pedo-rapist president—from starting a war with Iran to bombing an all-girls school and potentially dragging us toward WW3, with masked ICE gestapo thugs harassing american citizens.
Ever since the U.S. went fash, provably and demonstrably. This is an example of federal apparatus being used to delineate sides for cases in Oregon and Texas.
wow. your comment is also lunacy, tbh. autistici runs at a small deficit and is a passion project. so they are “yacht people” because they have some computers, a godforsaken server somewhere, and maybe an iphone? and where the hell is this russian money supposed to be?
your fantasy-world ideas do not help anyone grasp the gravity of the situation. they only show that you have zero facts and are filling the gap with random cartoon nonsense.
but sure, censorship of extremely small groups is becoming the norm, and you are here celebrating because the targets are communists, not your kind. where do you think this will lead?
This is much bigger than the banning of a volunteer webhost.
It shows the US government won't go through usual channels when Europeans do things that under european law, are probably¹ allowed.
It shows, again, that US infrastructure is unreliable (in a non-technical sense) and is everywhere.
An Italian bank "sacrificed" their customer because of the risk of losing access to Visa/USD network for international payments.
The I in ICANN is not. It is US. Etc.
¹maybe they did break laws. In which case the US would usually ask Italy to deal with it. But either the US government decided this is too much hassle, or they knew Italy wasn't going to help, because under Italian law, everything was fine: we'll never know. But we do know that the US government will reach into European countries to stop NGOs operating there.
104 comments
[ 0.24 ms ] story [ 7.6 ms ] thread> Autistici/Inventati provides internet support to activists and collectives coming from the world of grassroot and social movements.
US administration says:
> https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/sb0616
> ... an Italy-based entity that supplies specialized digital architecture, tools, and services for Antifa cells and other violent far-left extremists ...
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49464391
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49451343
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49477854
> • Narcoterrorists and Transnational Gangs
> • Legacy Islamist Terrorists
> • Violent Left-Wing Extremists, including Anarchists and Anti-Fascist
It's wild that we've hit a point where the existence of Right-Wing Extremists is simply denied.
From 2020:
> First, right-wing attacks and plots accounted for the majority of all terrorist incidents in the United States since 1994. In particular, they made up a large percentage of incidents in the 1990s and 2010s. Second, the total number of right-wing attacks and plots has grown substantially during the past six years.
Source: https://www.csis.org/analysis/escalating-terrorism-problem-u...
It's a fucking hashtag (and the spiritual predecessors of hastags like email label, etc for the years prior). Anyone organizing or "promoting" an event (demonstration, protest, whatever) would label it antifa if they felt that the people who were strongly opposed to fascism would find it worthwhile to support the cause.
Yes there are people out there who primarily focused on supporting anything that opposed fascism, and weirdly some of them know each other. (Strange things happen when people congregate, some of them talk to each other and even form friendships... shocking I know).
The idea that its anything other than people in a scene knowing each other is just as dumb as people saying OSS is a terrorist organization because Anonymous released loic under a public domain license.
So why aren't you screaming about the horrors of OSS and family parties?
(BTW Christianity does not have a hierachy, not a universal one anyway, some groups do of course, like the Catholics... but the baptists, various orthodoxies, and many many more groups don't recognize that hierarchy).
as if a violent ideology that’s been around for centuries simply gets deprecated like IE6?
if only it were that easy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_and_state-sponsored_ter...
Antifascism is a self-designation of popcultural dimensions, similar to a Che Guevara shirt. It can be appropriated by anybody who's willing to sign off on the same vague image of an enemy. I have no idea if there are, indeed, terroristic cells in the US that appropriated the brand of Antifascism, but there are some in Germany[0][1].
But more interestingly, the brand hasn't always been free of ownership: it was first created by the Communist Party of Germany (KPD) in 1932 as a part of their internal and external stalinisation and their adoption of authoritarian structures and policies, which started from 1928 under the influence of the USSR. During that time, KPD proclaimed the main fascist adversary to be no other than the Social Democrats (SPD):
"Stalinisation of the KPD began under the leadership of Ernst Thälmann. Freedom of discussion and internal democracy were replaced piece by piece by (...) authoritarian leadership. (...) in 1929 Thälmann and Stalin agreed upon an ultra-left course against the SPD, concluding that the Social Democrats represented a form of 'social fascism'. (...) The theory of social fascism dictated that Nazis and Social Democrats were essentially two sides of the same coin. The primary enemy of the Communists was supposedly the Social Democrats" [2]
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dresden_left-wing_extremism_tr...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Complex
[2] https://isj.org.uk/divided-they-fell-the-german-left-and-the...
Terrorism targets the mainstream population, not a bunch of radicals.
And I did not speak out Because I was not a Communist
Then they came for the Socialists
And I did not speak out Because I was not a Socialist
Then they came for the trade unionists
And I did not speak out Because I was not a trade unionist
Then they came for the Jews
And I did not speak out Because I was not a Jew
Then they came for me
And there was no one left To speak out
- Martin Niemöller
OK, let's go 30 years back and see how many terror attacks, worldwide, were from islamists: it's something like 95% of all terror attacks.
Then we take all the drug related killings (in which drug users have a responsibility btw: I don't care if they should be legal or not, they're not and you're evil if you support in any way a system that sells fentanyl to teenagers)...
The we take the far-left killings like the assassination of the (maybe despicable) Charlie Kirk and the Trump assassination attempts (with a 's') and Luigi Mangione killing a CEO...
And it's kinda, sorta, indeed not a world where "far-right" terrorism ain't that much of a big thing.
It's been a long time we have seen true far-right, like Mussolini style fascists, doing anything.
And, arguably, the nationalists who think they defend "the people" of their country, are more like nazis (aka national socialists) than actual fascits (to me portraying national socialists and the "one car for everyone" / the car of the people "volkswagen" as purely a far-right party when there were clearly socialists tendencies in nazism --especially at the beginning when Hitler got elected on many "socialist" promises, and that's not open for discussion-- is the biggest success ever of socialism).
Leftists somehow tried to dissociate themselves from all the socialist promises that got Hitler elected.
But not everybody got fooled.
I know what those who killed Charlie Kirk and the UnitedHealthcare CEO are made of.
And I certainly know what those who slaughtered 300 people at the Bataclan and 100 times that in january 2026 in Iran are made of.
Get your priorities right mate: otherwise I know what you are made of too.
I have no recollection of any of those perps being left-wing.
what evidence is there that this registered republican was "far left"?
30 years ago - in the mid-1990s - 100% of all terror attacks were carried out by white Christians, often by groups like the Irish Republicans.
Can you give an example of even one "islamist" attack from that time period?
Islamism is a far-right ideology. Islamists even collaborate with other flavors of far-right. A lot of American leftists don't like talking about it because they also want solidarity with liberal and leftist Muslims, and the biggest vulnerability to that solidarity is for the American right to demonize Muslims by pointing out that there's an Islamist right. The far right is always inherently scary to anyone outside the preferred in-group.
> Leftists somehow tried to dissociate themselves from all the socialist promises that got Hitler elected.
Even though the Soviets and the Nazis did collaborate, Hitler wasn't a leftist by any definition of the word. Both sides of the collaboration hated each other's guts and figured they'd be able to beat the other once they silenced their mutual threat: liberals and liberal socialists[1]. Hitler was clearly sponsored by German and American[0] business interests looking to maintain their wealth by any means necessary - including putting a meth-addled idiot in power. Everything that "seems socialist" about Hitler (or Stalin[1], or Trump, or Napoleon) is either a concession, or a lie, made to fool people at the margins of the left wing.
The ultimate goal of any fascist is to divide and conquer the people by using non-class divisions (e.g. race, language, religion) to keep the people from realizing whose boot is on their neck. In America this was "Why would you join a union? Do you want to be paid the same as a black person!?". In Germany this was "Why would you vote socialist? Don't you know the Jews made that up!?". The labels are different but the effect is the same: don't join together and fight us, your friends and neighbors are your real enemy.
> And it's kinda, sorta, indeed not a world where "far-right" terrorism ain't that much of a big thing.
It stops being far-right terrorism when the far-right is in power. There's no need to maintain a large insurgency against... what, exactly? Yourself?
[0] Casual reminder that Henry Ford was a huge Hitlerite and that cars are inherently Hitlertech.
[1] Hitler was an example of what happens when the reactionary counter-revolution succeeds. But there's a second possibility: the reactionaries only succeed at pushing the left in a far more authoritarian direction. A Reign of Terror happens, in which both the reactionaries and left-libertarians are purged as equal traitors to the revolution. This continues to burn through the political hierarchy until the forest fire runs out of fuel to burn, Robespierre is hung by his own guillotine, and Thermidor comes. Russia's communists went down the same path the French left did a hundred years ago, and that's why you sometimes hear socialists say "true socialism has never been tried".
That's why Hamas and Iran are supported by western center-left and far-left idiots?
Idiots aside, Islamism is obviously far-right. Okay, left- and right- don't have good definitions as is, as they were defined in response to where people physically sat in the Estates General during the French Revolution. But I can at least point to a few properties that are manifestly right-wing and why Islamists all tick those boxes:
1. Right-wing politics supports and defends already-established power structures. Islam (Sunni-Shia divide notwithstanding) is an established power structure; in fact, it's the dominant power structure in the region. Ergo, Islamism supports and defends an established power structure: a specific religion.
2. Right-wing politics is Wilhoitist: it believes in an in-group, to whom the law protects but does not bind; and that the law binds but does not protect the out-group. Islamism specifically wants an Islamic theocracy, that's about as Wilhoitist as it gets.
3. Right-wing politics demonizes the other, to the point of spreading lies about people outside their preferred in-group. Whenever there's someone shitting on Islam you can count on Islamists to make shit up about them to stoke the flames of outrage.
To me, at least, those properties alone are enough to confidently put Islamism in the far-right bin. The fact that some ignorant leftists do the whole "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" bit without actually reading what's on the tin is immaterial.
Once the left is in power, they immediately turn out to be right wing? Does it happen in the very second they gain power or only when try to keep it? Is running for the next election even though you're already in power inherently right-wing?
As for left-wingers becoming right-wingers, yes that can and does happen.
For example, at the time the terms left-wing and right-wing were coined, liberal capitalism was understood to be a radical left-wing attack on the traditional feudal hierarchy of kings and priests that had ruled France in the past. A hundred years later and those same capitalists who had built their business empires on the back of liberal and left-wing revolution were either cozying up to the kings they'd once scared, or establishing new kings to replace the ones that got destroyed.
But merely running for office again does not inherently make you right-wing. Nor does engaging in a coup or other forms of power maintenance make you inherently right-wing. It makes you an authoritarian.
Furthermore, the author's claims demote "left" and "right" to some kind of synonyms of what they have labeld as "good" and "bad" on their personal moral compass, robbing them of any systematic meaning in political reality; those definitions match neither scientific consensus, nor the way people self-select into groups that call themselves either "left" or "right", nor the way these terms are used to describe policies. The reason is simple: the goals that he attributes to his idea of what "left" means cannot be achieved and sustained on the scale of modern governments and states without the means of authoritarianism, which is, by his definition, exclusively a "far-right" thing.
It's not denied; it's just that anyone vaguely right wing who kills is classified as a right wing terror attack. Right wing terror is constantly talked about, so it may appear bigger than it is.
Whereas in terms of groups or common causes, the three listed are much bigger. Why is it healthcare CEOs, presidents and campus debaters all be shot at (and killed in 2 of those cases) and the shootings be celebrated by so many on the left, and well into the mainstream? There's no right wing equivalent any more.
Except that it's by far the largest in the US based on the data.
We have leftwing examples from Charlie Kirk for speech to the live-streamed execution of Antonio Mays Jr for joyriding on leftwing militia turf.
I know he hasn't been convicted, and unless I'm wrong, federal investigators have found no confirmed ties to organised left wing groups.
Antonio Mays Jr's killing is still unsolved.
Check the data, it's not a secret.
https://ibb.co/R4b32CWy
The extreme right massively outperforms the left, which I'm sure is in part due to the right wing obsession with owning as much stuff as possible to kill people with as you can.
Tyler Robinson is clearly leftwing, as evidenced by the message on the bullets and association with the leftwing trans militia his partner was a member of in Utah.
What we have are a bunch of claims about 2 crimes, only one of which even has a suspect. There have been numerous reports, and frankly, American news media is inherently partisan and a lot of it is inherently unreliable.
Let me give you an decent (factual) example of people killed by extremism:
Joyce Fienberg, Richard Gottfried, Rose Mallinger, Jerry Rabinowitz, Cecil Rosenthal, David Rosenthal, Bernice Simon, Sylvan Simon, Daniel Stein, Melvin Wax, Irving Younger
Who were all killed by Robert Bowers. The attack was motivated by violent antisemitism, according to the evidence presented at trial.
The trial showed he espoused white-supremacist and antisemitic beliefs, promoted anti-immigrant conspiracy theories and opposed refugee resettlement.
His online activity included Holocaust-denial and pro-Nazi statements, according to evidence presented in his federal case.
In June 2023, a federal jury found Bowers guilty on all 63 federal counts, including hate-crime charges.
It's not exactly the most compelling example of a political motivated assassination, is it. Given I can pull out literally dozens of people killed by right wing extremists with overwhelming evidence and convicted in a court of law.
I'm a centrist, and I'm not even American. Your argument holds less weight than a wet paper bag.
We know he was killed by the John Brown Gun Club operating as “security” for CHAZ because they live streamed them shooting the vehicle, discovering he was still alive, and executing Antonio Mays Jr to the chilling words “Oh, you’re still alive?” before the gunshot that took his life.
Your argument we can’t count that as leftwing violence is as nonsense as saying we can’t count historic lynching as racial violence because the perpetrators weren’t convicted.
https://www.csis.org/analysis/left-wing-terrorism-and-politi...
1. An anti-LGBTQ plot targeting a Texas pride parade
2. The attack on a Michigan Mormon congregation.
Also csis states "the fall in right-wing violence is likely temporary"
They might as well be called "Anonymous".
Also, just FYI, one of the more prominent early members of the hacker collective anonymous was a federal informant named Aubrey Cottle (aka Kirtaner) who was a long-time Something Awful forum member with a very sordid past. Anonymous really wasn't that anonymous - it was full of feds and essentially a psyop.
The idea that they can find the folks organizing and funding these "cells" is a big part of the US gov's premise on how it is going to "fight" these "cells".
It's not stated as explicitly as that, so it's not surprising that folks don't pick up on that distinction between "distributed groups who agree on principle but don't have any material connections" and "top down, hierarchical structures funded by singlular sources".
But the folks running the US gov don't even see the folks who disagree with them as human, much less as having a legible and understandable grievance. So it's not surprising to me that they just project their own authoritarian and top-down organizational preferences onto other groups of humans doing stuff.
So sure, "antifa" exists. But it's categorically different than how the US government is trying to say it exists, and that's an important distinction.
But instead of unprofessional and rude comments like the equivalent of "people should just be smarter"... instead we can either educate people on how to communicate more clearly, or simply ask follow-up questions without resorting to attacks or assumptions.
Trying to educate anyone in anything on this website is a hopeless cause. Typing anything that contradicts a popularly held belief, even when true, earns downvotes into oblivion. People on this platform don't want to learn anything - people want to prop up the status quo, control narratives and further enlarge their already giant egos.
It is called "democracy" nowadays.
So basically little woke marxists like Luigi Mangione who have a beef with free individuals?
I wish any of this was an exaggeration.
Uncle Sam really, really, really wants to terrify as many providers are possible into letting them peek into your personal correspondence.
This is why decentralized end to end encryption methods are so important
U.S. Sanctions Against the a/I Collective
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49477854
US sanctions Italian hosting provider Autistici Inventati
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49451343
US Government designates host of noblogs.org a "global terrorist"
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49464391
This is grim.
I guess this only works because those are foreign servers so freedom of speech does not apply but Italy is doing their bidding?
being anti-fascist is extremist? since when?
> being anti-fascist is extremist? since when?
The joke is the people performing the acts of fascists that then claim to be anti-fascist. They simply do not recognize or acknowledge their own fascist, mob-like behavior, but apply the label to all of their enemies. They've read and heeded Saul Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals" to perfection. The US is one of the only countries taking the Antifa threat to civilization seriously.
NSA, if you're reading, please relay this to Mike Johnson post-haste. America is so close to being great again!
Go touch grass and get off Facebook.
your fantasy-world ideas do not help anyone grasp the gravity of the situation. they only show that you have zero facts and are filling the gap with random cartoon nonsense.
but sure, censorship of extremely small groups is becoming the norm, and you are here celebrating because the targets are communists, not your kind. where do you think this will lead?
The most consequential legislation of my lifetime.
It shows the US government won't go through usual channels when Europeans do things that under european law, are probably¹ allowed.
It shows, again, that US infrastructure is unreliable (in a non-technical sense) and is everywhere.
An Italian bank "sacrificed" their customer because of the risk of losing access to Visa/USD network for international payments. The I in ICANN is not. It is US. Etc.
¹maybe they did break laws. In which case the US would usually ask Italy to deal with it. But either the US government decided this is too much hassle, or they knew Italy wasn't going to help, because under Italian law, everything was fine: we'll never know. But we do know that the US government will reach into European countries to stop NGOs operating there.