🧩 Why “Breaking” Antifa Is Legally and Logically Problematic.
Antifa isn’t an organization: It’s a decentralized movement or ideology, not a formal group with leadership, membership rolls, or headquarters. Think of it more like feminism or anarchism -- there are groups that identify with it, but no central entity to “break”.
No legal mechanism exists for a U.S. president to designate domestic groups as terrorist organizations. That power lies with the State Department and applies only to foreign entities.
RICO laws require patterns of criminal activity tied to an organization. Applying them to a diffuse ideology would be legally unprecedented and likely challenged in court.
🔍 What Might Actually Happen.
Trump could direct federal agencies to increase surveillance or prosecutions of individuals suspected of antifa-related violence.
He might push for legislation or executive orders that symbolically target left-wing activism.
But dismantling a decentralized ideology is more a rhetorical goal than a practical one.
🧠 Bottom Line.
The phrase “break antifa” is more of a political signal than a feasible policy. It plays well with Trump’s base, especially in the wake of high-profile violence, but legally and structurally, it’s nearly impossible to “break” something that isn’t formally organized.
^^Denies the Benz/ Sundance premise that the National Security State has been "domestically" performing Unconstitutional/ illegal "continuity of government" operations in the US since at least 2012 (functions your Ai summary ascribed to the DoS and foreign territories).
5 comments:
Via Copilot...
🧩 Why “Breaking” Antifa Is Legally and Logically Problematic.
Antifa isn’t an organization: It’s a decentralized movement or ideology, not a formal group with leadership, membership rolls, or headquarters. Think of it more like feminism or anarchism -- there are groups that identify with it, but no central entity to “break”.
No legal mechanism exists for a U.S. president to designate domestic groups as terrorist organizations. That power lies with the State Department and applies only to foreign entities.
RICO laws require patterns of criminal activity tied to an organization. Applying them to a diffuse ideology would be legally unprecedented and likely challenged in court.
🔍 What Might Actually Happen.
Trump could direct federal agencies to increase surveillance or prosecutions of individuals suspected of antifa-related violence.
He might push for legislation or executive orders that symbolically target left-wing activism.
But dismantling a decentralized ideology is more a rhetorical goal than a practical one.
🧠 Bottom Line.
The phrase “break antifa” is more of a political signal than a feasible policy. It plays well with Trump’s base, especially in the wake of high-profile violence, but legally and structurally, it’s nearly impossible to “break” something that isn’t formally organized.
[end]
^^didn't watch the video^^
^^Didn't address the premise of making the internet safe for technofeudalism^^
^^Denies the Benz/ Sundance premise that the National Security State has been "domestically" performing Unconstitutional/ illegal "continuity of government" operations in the US since at least 2012 (functions your Ai summary ascribed to the DoS and foreign territories).
Nope. I watched a few seconds. Linnux is antifa? Sounds like someone's brain worm induced delusions. You could summarize it for me.
Post a Comment