As we never get tired of pointing out here at XYZ, Antifa is a terrorist organisation. It is classified as such by both state and federal U.S governments, and even sympathisers of the group such as Australian academic Troy Whitford are forced when pressed to concede that Antifa is indeed a terrorist organisation.
There is no debate here. As a group Antifa exists to achieve their political ends through violence and the threat of violence. That is the definition of terrorism. They are terrorists.
Even the author of the new bible of the group, U.S academic and proud Anarchist Mark Bray, boasts that violence is a “vital” part of the group and that it is entirely justified for Antifa to attack people doing nothing more than peacefully disagreeing with their extreme views.
Amazingly, our usually leftist press hasn’t tried too hard to cover up the nature of the group. Fellow travellers like Paul Barry have had a go, but it’s pretty difficult to justify gangs of black-masked thugs beating up political opponents, assaulting peaceful protesters with metal poles and attacking police.
Overall the Australian media has remained quiet on the Antifa question and tried to ignore the fact that such scumbags exist. This has deeply upset Michael Brull of the leftist New Matilda.
According to Michael, groups such as Antifa set up specifically for the purpose of organised violence shouldn’t be denounced or ignored by the press but rather sympathetically supported. In fact he believes these people who openly state that they want to bash those they disagree with in the street should be promoted by the press.
Because they’re against “Fascists” you see. Fascists like Milo Yiannopoulos.
Yes, Milo. The flamboyantly gay libertarian man married to a black guy who likes to trigger feminists.
That’s his big bad Fascist. Seriously.
If I were an actual Fascist I’d probably be getting pissed off right now.
Brull states:
“Opponents of fascists – like Milo – are not regarded as provocative, if a bit extreme. They aren’t invited on Sunrise or Channel 10 to discuss their provocative ideas about when violence may legitimately be used as a political tool. Virtually their sole coverage is in the prism of a questionable confession from a former anti-fascist who now thinks the work he was engaged in was comparable to ISIS.
“I have written along these lines before, but it is still shocking. It is shocking that fascists get more favourable coverage than their opponents in Australia, who are overwhelmingly marginalised.”
Wish I was so “overwhelmingly marginalised” that Stan was making an entire TV series glorifying me and my friends publicly beating up people we disagree with.
But I digress.
So according to the New Matilda, Milo (who behind his stage persona playing the deliberate provocateur is a pretty mainstream Classical Liberal in the Andrew Bolt mould) is now a Fascist and the terrorist group that wants to attack him deserves more sympathetic media coverage to explain why they think they are morally justified in using violence to attack people they disagree with.
Stating just again, for the record, this is a terrorist group being promoted by Michael Brull in an article published by New Matilda, an outlet with pretensions of respectability.
But it’s OK when Antifa attacks people you see, because it’s against Fascism. Fascism in the person of a slightly right-of-centre, Jewish-descended, pillow-biter libertarian who doesn’t like identity politics and thinks people should be judged on the basis of the content of their character rather than their skin colour or sexuality.
Despite his undeniable skill at making leftists go mad, ideologically the man is as mild as milk.
If Milo is a Fascist then so is almost everyone right-of-centre. Which is the point of course.
Michael Brull and people like him want to expand the definition of Fascist to include anyone who disagrees with them so that it is then justified to gang bash anyone who disagrees with them in the street with baseball bats.
A clue to where Brull gets some of his insane ideas can be found in one of the links in his article. In it, Brull vigorously denounces Jewish documentary maker John Safran for daring to ask Melbourne members of Antifa why their violence is moral while any violence used against them is not. Safran published their response in his book “Depends what you mean by extremist”. The Anarchists blathered on about how their violence was “non-structural” and therefore justified, while far-right violence is “structural” and therefore bad.
It’s not an impressive argument: it sounds like a four-year-old trying to justify himself getting more cake, and it comes across like that in print. The Australian Anarchist community, who have an immensely high opinion of their own intelligence, didn’t like the way Safran maliciously and flagrantly wrote down their words like that.
Brull’s source denouncing this vile, hate-filled (and accurate) “smear” is the Slackbastard site which published many hundreds of words pointing out that Safran is a poopy-head. Those playing along at home will know that Slackbastard is one of the main informational and organisational outlets for both the extremist Anarchist scene and the Antifa terrorist group here in Australia.
So one of Brull’s sources in an article arguing that a terrorist group should get more favourable press coverage is one of the most prominent Australian websites of that that terrorist group.
Which, considering that almost his entire argument about Milo being a Fascist is based on Yiannopoulos using extremists as sources in articles he wrote for Breitbart, is unintentionally hilarious.
Guilt by association! It’s a game anyone can play!
We can’t be too hard on poor Michael though, it’s just been announced that Milo will be speaking in Canberra at Parliament House as a guest of LDP Senator David Leyonhjelm. If he was agitated about Milo getting too much publicity before he is probably reclining on a fainting couch now.
And If Milo’s little tour does nothing more than make the heads of people like Michael Brull, Greens Senator Sarah Hanson Young, Socialist Alternative founder Jeff Sparrow and disgusting, chubby-faced troglodyte Osman Faruqi explode in a climax of spittle-flecked outrage, it will have been worthwhile.
In the meantime, maybe Michael needs to ask himself. If ex-members of the group you’re defending are publicly calling it a cult and comparing it to ISIS, while overseas governments are declaring it a terror-group, perhaps you should be a little quieter with your support?
Free advice. No charge.