Comments by "No Fate But What We Make" (@SonoftheAllfather) on "Trump to Declare Antifa a Terrorist Organization: My Thoughts" video.

@Bryan_Pureblood No, he really wasn't. Obviously no one here is a fan of Antifa, but Styx is concerned with the precedent it sets. Creeping normalization. The Left would love to label me a domestic terrorist because they want to outlaw certain political movements. I want racial separatism. I don't condone or plan to use violence ever, but still. At what point does anyone with a dissident opinion become a "terrorist?" That's the kind of shit that the Bolsheviks did.
9
@MarkProffitt Antifa is the bastard descendent of the "German" RFD, a communist paramilitary organization with uniforms, a flag, and...foreign funding.
8
@Jack Reagan The problem is with the label of terrorism/terrorist. No one is really arguing that Antifa aren't communists.
4
@nothim7321 Every insurgent thinks their cause is virtuous. Otherwise, they wouldn't be willing to die for it. One man's terrorist is another's revolutionary or freedom fighter. That's something people can't seem to conceptualize; "terrorist" is a subjective and relativistic term.
4
@Jack Reagan I can only assume your intellectual capacity is equally as stunted as your emotional maturity, given how quickly you went into attack mode. The point is that when a government or a media apparatus starts labeling any political unrest, civil disobedience (or even rioting and lawlessness) as "terrorism," you're heading down a very slippery slope which may end with any and all political dissidents being labeled as "terrorists." Ironically, this is what communist governments and their controlled media apparatuses do to political dissenters. So this is an inherently semantic argument, because the term terrorist/terrorism is now largely subjective. It doesn't really even describe the tactics used by a group anymore. It just means an unconventional group or movement that a hegemonic power has deemed seditious.
3
The Grin Reaper Point is, the patriots were insurgents who used violence to further their political goal: an independent American state. They were also largely funded by a foreign power. They fit the definition being used today for domestic terrorists. Doesn't matter what mental gymnastics we use to defend, differentiate, or rationalize their actions.
3
The Grin Reaper An insurgent is defined as a rebel or a revolutionary. The patriots were called rebels by the British and by loyalists. The fvcking war is called the Revolutionary War and/or the American revolution, FFS. They were insurgents. The French basically bankrolled the American Revolution. A terrorist is defined as a person who uses unlawful violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims. The violence the patriots used was unlawful according to crown law and was used in the pursuit of political aims. Those who collaborated with the rebellion were considered guilty of treason and sedition. They rarely used violence against civilians, but it happened. You can go ahead and keep doing mental gymnastics until you're blue in the face. You can insult me like a child...whatever. Your understanding of history is equally as pathetic as your lack of intellectual honesty and emotional maturity.
3
@Adversary I'm not saying they're virtuous, just that they believe in their own very small minds that they are. So did the Taliban that I wasted over in Afghanistan. I'm not a moral relativist, but in their minds, they were fighting for what they truly thought was right.
3
@Adversary Again, you're grasping at straws and splitting hairs trying to differentiate. I have studied the American Revolution more thoroughly than anyone on this thread, almost guaranteed. It was a revolt, a revolution, and an insurgency against the British crown. The use of subversion, espionage, and psych ops was not uncommon at all. In fact, it was integral to the patriot victory. I find it rather pathetic that people can't simply admit it fits the contemporary definition. It doesn't mean it was wrong or they were on the same moral plane as Islamists or Antifa. It just means that the definition for terrorism is BS and subjective.
3
The Grin Reaper Insurgent and revolutionary/rebel are literally synonyms according to every single thesaurus out there. A loyalist is the antonym...ya know, what they called the Tories? Hahahaha I feel like I'm arguing with leftist politicians here the way you're lying.
2
The Grin Reaper I am NOT trying to say the Founding Fathers "did the same thing anti-fa is doing" you lying little worm. It is not the same thing morally whatsoever and was dissimilar in a lot of ways. That does NOT mean the patriots do not meet the contemporary definition of insurgent and/or "terrorist."
2
@Bryan_Pureblood I worry about leftards trying to redefine terrorism to anyone with dissident right-wing views, which they're already trying to do. I think they would do it if they could and use something like this as an excuse, that's all.
2
@Adversary I never insult anyone until they insult me first. If they can't engage in discourse they don't agree with without hurling insults, I'd say that's their problem. I also don't have to "sound smart." This is just how I am. I think failure is yours. I'm not a communist, either. I'm pretty much the exact opposite. But nice try.
1
@larryhuffman4326 Yes, the difference is violence. But again, my concern is creeping normality. Kind of like "racist," at some point, "terrorist" could become anyone who politically opposes the leftist establishment. Only "terrorist" has the force of law behind it. The Left like to call anyone on the dissident right a "white supremacist" and they have moved to label "white supremacists" as "domestic terrorists." This same thing could be done with "anti-Semitic" or "racist" if there is the force of law behind it.
1
Mt. Olympus Must Fall You just reduced all politics to an even more reductive binary (statism vs. anarchism) and yet you call me naive? I would never claim things are so simplistic, but there is a reason leftists don't identify as nationalists and have tried to make it into a bad word: they want globalism and the destruction of the nation-state. I'm also frankly rather tired of little subversive rats telling me the left-right binary is meaningless. In economic terms, the left and right might be capable of uniting for a nationalist cause, but culturally and socially, the left and right are diametrically opposed on most significant issues.
1
@Adversary I said he was correct. Read carefully.
1
The Grin Reaper Look up the fvcking dictionary definition of insurgent. a rebel or revolutionary. a person who revolts against civil authority or an established government especially a person who rises in forcible opposition to lawful authority, especially a person who engages in armed resistance to a government or to the execution of its laws; rebel. people who are fighting against the government or army of their own country. All these things fit the description of the patriots. The dishonesty of you people is absolutely pathetic.
1
@nothim7321 Oh yes, I'm a waaacist because I think humanity should organize itself the way it has for the majority of its existence. FFS I swear, I had to check to make sure I didn't wander onto a leftist channel that stole Styx's video. I love the way you go and personally attack me and play it off like an argument. I remember when intelligent people used to subscribe to this channel.
1
@Teddypally This really isn't that complicated. The patriots meet the contemporary definition of both insurgents and terrorists. That doesn't mean that they're on the same moral ground as contemporary examples of insurgency or of contemporary examples of terrorism. People here are just sperging out because they hate the idea of the Founding Fathers being grouped in with these commie scumbags. So they're doing all these mental gymnastics trying to differentiate the two instead of just admitting that the contemporary definition of terrorist is subjective. One man's terrorist is another's national hero. It just takes intellectual honesty to admit that, and no one here has that.
1
@GoSlash27 The literal definition of terrorist is what I am basing my assessment upon. The use of violence to further political aims. Exclusively attacking civilians is not a prerequisite to be considered a terrorist, although that may be what some consider to differentiate them for other types of insurgents. Irgun paramilitaries, for example, attacked both military and civilian targets, but are generally not defined as a terrorist organization. The LLTE in Sri Lanka; same deal. The leftist media fawned over the LLTE. The patriots of the American revolution attacked loyalist civilian and militia targets as well. Sorry, but they do meet the contemporary definition. I know it is an uncomfortable truth to admit, but admitting the truth in this instance is not a concession that the patriots were on the same moral plane as scumbags like ISIL or Antifa. Obviously, the patriot cause was much more noble and humanistic. All it proves is that the contemporary definition of terrorism is flawed because it is often used subjectively.
1
@GoSlash27 Militia are technically civilians, but I agree they are combatants so cannot really be rationally included as innocent civilians. Of course patriot forces at times attacked and killed loyalist civilians. It was a revolution. Why else would they kill loyalist civilians if not to further their political aims? Their political aims being to dismantle crown rule and establish their own independence. Part of that was to inspire fear in loyalism. Ever heard see the cartoon "JOIN, OR DIE?" That was Ben Franklin, a Founding Father. Either way you look at it, there is a strong argument that they fit the definition.
1
The Grin Reaper Hahahhaha they were not the governing body of the colonies until they revolted! That was the whole point of it being a REVOLUTION. Even after their rule was not considered legitimate because the colonies were colonial possessions of the British Empire. You are making the most ridiculous points, and yet you're still so low-impulse, so can't help but make insults.
1
The Grin Reaper The Founding Fathers were in insurrection when they were "selected as the governing bodies." Britain did not recognize them because...they were insurgents. Rebels. Revolutionaries. You said "they weren't insurgents, you idiot." The only argument I was making was that they fit the definition. HAhahaha "STOP using definition as the proof and evidence of your argument." Why? Because they fit the definition? WTF is wrong with you, kid? I'm not debating like a far-leftist, you are. Doing mental backflips, telling people not to use common definitions just so you can sustain your narrative on something. Sounds a lot like what leftists do: manipulate and/or ignore definitions to suit their narratives. All I said was that the patriots were insurgents; insurgent is just another word for a revolutionary.
1
The Grin Reaper "pEoPlE dOn'T uSe WoRdS LiKe ThAt." Followed by calling me a brainlet. Hahahha that's rich. You're diving off the deep end now, but by all means, keep going...because you're actually making my point for me. The definition of insurgent, just like the definition of terrorist, only "changes context" when one applies their own moral and ideological bias to different groups which fit the original definition. For example, there is very little difference between Irgun and the IRA. They are/were both paramilitary groups which used similar methods of violence against military and civilians alike to further a political aim. But if you call Irgun a terrorist group, you're an "aNtI-sEmiTe" REEEE. The U.S. considers the IRA a terrorist group, but not Irgun. Why? Not because one fits the definition and the other doesn't. When I drew a parallel between revolutionary Americans and other insurgent groups, it rustled your star-spangled jimmies to such an extent that your mind created a deluge of cognitive dissonance inspired excuses to differentiate the patriots as something uniquely virtuous. In other words, you don't want to think of the Founding Fathers as insurgents, even though they definitively were, because you think that word carries with it a negative connotation. You think the patriots were national heroes, not rebels and insurgents. The same thing it true of the word "terrorist." It's typically used just to demonize a group that a person or group or state doesn't like. That is why the term is subjectively applied even though it has a definition with criteria. So no, you didn't burst any bubble, despite your delusional sanctimony. Definitions are intended to give exact meaning. They don't change just because you decide they don't apply based on your own moral or ideological position. You sound like a leftist talking about the definition of racism but you're saying I sound like a leftist. It's next level projection, I'll give you that. Hahahaha
1
The Grin Reaper Insurgent and revolutionary are synonyms according to every single major dictionary out there. A synonym is a word that means exactly or nearly the same thing as another word. The reason you consider there to be a difference is because of your BIAS i.e. your moral and ideological position which lends to your subjective interpretation. The terms are completely interchangeable to someone who is objective i.e. someone without bias, just as Irgun and the IRA are objectively/definitively both terrorist organizations to anyone without a bias. You can't admit this because you lack the requisite intellectual honesty, maturity and humility. It couldn't be more obvious.
1
The Grin Reaper Google insurgent right now and tell me the first thing that comes up. Don't lie either and cherry pick you little rat. The definition IS "a rebel or revolutionary." They literally mean the EXACT SAME THING. The American REVOLUTION was an INSURRECTION.
1
The Grin Reaper I said look up insurgent, you deceptive little rat. Hahahaha you just can't bring yourself to admit you wasted all this time and energy being wrong.
1
The Grin Reaper Rebels, insurgents, revolutionaries. Rebellion, insurgency, revolution. IT'S ALL THE SAME THING YOU FOOL.
1
@nothim7321 Violence being a foregone conclusion with ethnoseparatism is a popular assumptive myth. I believe can be peaceably accomplished if the will is there. But first, epithets like "racist" must largely be understood and accepted for what they are: manipulative epithets used to vilify those who oppose multiracialism/multiculturalism. So I reject that term just like I reject the label of supremacist. Just because I want autonomy and self determination for my own people doesn't mean I hate other groups. Just because I have pride in who I am doesn't mean I think I'm superior. It is no different from preferring and caring my your own family more than another. I don't hate other people's families just because I prefer my own more. In fact, I love other people's families very much. As far as an ethnic state is concerned, the concept is no different from wanting to secure a home for your family to live where they can be safe and prosperous and self determined. That's why it's called a HOMEland. None of this means I have to hate or abuse anyone else to obtain my goal. I just prefer my own kin and view my people as an extension of my family. My spiritual beliefs are not something I discuss often. But I'm a pantheist in the spirit of the Vedic tradition who also finds value in some aspects of native European religions.
1
@GoSlash27 Hey, I just saw your post that argues civilians must be the target for someone to be considered a terrorist. I think that's wrong. It is used especially when referring to civilian attacks, but civilian attacks are not prerequisite. They could exclusively target military assets and still match the definition. Most groups deemed terrorists attack both.
1
The Grin Reaper An insurgent is a revolutionary.
1
The Grin Reaper No they don't. You're a liar. They mean the exact same thing.
1
The Grin Reaper "That's just like... your opinion man." - Jeffrey Lebowski No, it's a fact, sorry. You simply can't admit the truth because you have no honor whatsoever.
1
@GoSlash27 If my definition is wrong, so is the OP's, because he makes no mention of civilians when defining Antifa as terrorists. Currently 697 people have agreed with that definition. The definition I'm using is not something I contrived. It is this: "a person who uses unlawful violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims." Note that it says, "especially against civilians" which I mentioned because I'm not a deceptive creep like many people on this thread. But, as I also mentioned, especially against civilians doesn't mean ONLY against civilians. Perhaps instead of resorting to condescending personal attacks, you can show you have some semblance of honor and defend your argument. Something tells me you won't be able to.
1
The Grin Reaper Apparently, my opinion is the more widely held one, because if you type in "insurgent definition" in a Google search, the first thing that pops up is the definition I am using and you are refusing to accept. The definition of an insurgent is: a rebel or revolutionary. The only "proof" you provided in this exchange was cherry picked to support your dishonest narrative. It's so depressing seeing the levels of dishonesty people are willing to resort to just because they lack the humility to admit they are wrong.
1
@GoSlash27 No you don't. Simply commenting is a contradiction of what you're saying and again proves that you're a liar without honor.
1