White House Announces Crackdown on “Terrorist” Left
The White House is cracking down on Left-wing “terrorist” organisations following the killing of Charlie Kirk, with President Trump saying he will considered designating Antifa as a terror group. The Telegraph has more.
Donald Trump said he would consider designating Antifa as a terror group, while one of the US President’s senior strategists said the administration would “destroy” Left-wing organisations.
Last week’s killing of Mr Kirk by a gunman accused of radicalised views has prompted many Republicans to warn of rising Left-wing extremism in the US.
It came after a rise in violence against officials across the political spectrum, including the shootings of two Minnesota Democratic politicians last year, as well as several attempts to assassinate Mr Trump.
However, Democrats have accused Mr Trump and his allies of trying to exploit Mr Kirk’s death, using it as a pretext to launch attacks on political opponents and consolidate power.
Asked about designating Antifa, the Left-wing US group, as a terror organisation during a question-and-answer session with reporters in the Oval Office, Mr Trump said: “I would do that, 100%. Antifa is terrible.”
Speaking on a memorial edition of The Charlie Kirk Show – hosted by J.D. Vance, the Vice-President – Stephen Miller, Mr Trump’s Deputy Chief of Staff, vowed to “disrupt, dismantle and destroy” Left-wing groups that organise political violence
“We are going to channel all of the anger that we have over the organised campaign that led to this assassination, to uproot and dismantle these terrorist networks,” he said.
“With God as my witness, we are going to use every resource we have at the department of justice, homeland security, and throughout this government, to identify, disrupt, dismantle, and destroy these networks and make America safe again for the American people.
“It will happen and we will do it in Charlie’s name.”
Mr Vance said national unity was “impossible” with those who are celebrating Mr Kirk’s death.
“I’m desperate for our country to be united in condemnation of the actions and the ideas that killed my friend,” he said on the programme, which was broadcast from the White House.
“I want it so badly that I will tell you a difficult truth. We can only have it with people who acknowledge that political violence is unacceptable.”
Worth reading in full.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
How does one distinguish political violence from other types of violence?
I guess by the apparent or stated motivation- the justification for making it a special case of violence or murder is that it disrupts the functioning of civil society way beyond the impact on those immediately involved
I think it has some logic to it but one is always sceptical about the motives of those who seek to make special cases of things to justify extra powers or additional action
I reckon it has more to do with the extent to which it challenges the establish order or incumbent power.
If Charlie Kirk had been shot on Biden’s watch, I think the chances that he calls it terrorism and uses it to start a clamp down on left wing organisations is zero.
At this point I suppose we can assume the assassination of Charlie Kirk was politically motivated. But we are left with no doubt whatsoever that the response is 100% political – I mean, they’re telling us straight up.
In any case, it is clearer to me now more than ever that the DS readership is characterised far more by its anti-leftism than by its scepticism.
“the DS readership is characterised far more by its anti-leftism than by its scepticism.”
A good deal of truth in that. Being an anti-leftist myself, I have some sympathy with anti-leftism. Arguably scepticism can only flourish/be given room in the absence of the left dominating power. We’re desperate. But yes, we should be wary of anyone seeking or who has sought power, and always question their motives and competence, regardless of their stated political position. On the other hand, in that direction lies a rabbit hole – people like MiriAF who think EVERYTHING is psyop. Thinking everything is a psyop means someone has psyoped you. Time for another sambuca.
I’m not sure what anyone else is seeing, but I’m not observing any psyop. What I’ve been seeing emerge over the last few days is a good, old fashioned revanchism cloaked in moral superiority.
I guess years of woke tyranny has built up a certain resentment that is now coming out in the ugliest of ways. And this is probably just the beginning.
Yes, that may well be the case.
Stewart wrote:
“ the DS readership is characterised far more by its anti-leftism than by its scepticism.”
So what?
Well, they might want to change the title again is all as it might otherwise turn out to be a bit misleading.
Btw, this is why I would rather see scepticism than anti-leftism. Here is a proclamation by a US Republican congressman: “I’m going to use Congressional authority and every influence with big tech platforms to mandate immediate ban for life of every post or commenter that belittled the assassination of Charlie Kirk. If they ran their mouth with their smartass hatred celebrating the heinous murder of that beautiful young man who dedicated his whole life to delivering respectful conservative truth into the hearts of liberal enclave universities, armed only with a Bible and a microphone and a Constitution… those profiles must come down. So, I’m going to lean forward in this fight, demanding that big tech have zero tolerance for violent political hate content, the user to be banned from ALL PLATFORMS FOREVER. I’m also going after their business licenses and permitting, their businesses will be blacklisted aggressively, they should be kicked from every school, and their drivers licenses should be revoked. I’m basically going to cancel with extreme prejudice these evil, sick animals who celebrated Charlie Kirk’s assassination. I’m starting that today. That is all.” It’s all the same crap we’ve seen from the “left”, but now from the “right”.I mean, this could… Read more »
The Agenda we have been living through for the past few years has been pushed by the left (DEI, Trans nonsense, Climate Change, Covid Tyranny etc) so it’s hardly surprising that sceptics …. those questioning and opposing the policies tend to come from the political right.
Certainly not surprising.
But I would like to break out of this kind of cycle where one side gains the upper hand and abuses that power, whichever side that is. I would like to see much stronger limits on state power. I have fairly conservative views but no desire to impose those views on others.
We should also be wary of those seeking or in power who claim to be on the political right, and not trust them further than we can throw them.
Yes indeed. It’s a bit like in Nazi Germany, many Jews were opposed to the Nazis and agitated against them. The Nazi propaganda machine used this as evidence that the Jews were evil and dangerous. But maybe if the Nazis hadn’t agitated against the Jews in the first place, many of these individuals might not have reacted as they did.
Surely whatever activity these groups engage in that is criminal is already covered by existing laws
That’s what I think.
I’ve raised the question on here a couple of times what defines terrorism and what purpose it serves to designate an organisation as “terrorist” and so far no answers, just negative feedback.
It’s an honest question. I think “terrorism” is one of things that people assume they know what it is and what it means, but then can’t define very well. And when you probe a bit one discovers it’s a fuzzy concept which, like so many fuzzy concepts, is used to obfuscate and manipulate.
Yes, see my post above/below
I think one could define it with a reasonable degree of accuracy, but would that definition be honestly applied? Even if it were to be, what would it add to anything? In Italy they had/have special offences like this Associazione di tipo mafioso – Wikipedia – I don’t know how much they added to the fight against the mafia, which seemed to gain ground more because of the over-reach by the mafia with the murder of Falcone and Borsellino, and the demise of Democrazia Cristiana and Andreotti. All very well intended I am sure, but…
Yes, terrorism is a useful word that one can you to carve out exceptions to established human rights that one would otherwise take for granted. Same as hate speech, hate crime etc. The sooner we move on to accepting that these things do not or should not exist as legal concepts, the better.
Ultimately there is no difference between celebrating the death of Charlie Kirk and celebrating the death of Osama Bin Laden. Either you approve of people being killed without a fair trial, or you do not.
Agreed.
The starting point must be to remove the left wing rot, the ideology from schools and colleges.
I had a message today in one of my WhatsApp groups in which a mother of an eight year old was contacted by her son’s school ‘Safeguarding Team’ – whoever they are – because they were concerned that the youngster, in a chat about “what did you do at weekend” innocently reported that he had been to the Tommy Robinson Rally.
WTF?
100%.
I was going to write a similar point in the previous article heralding the end of woke.
It certainly not dead in schools. Are children are being subjected in schools to a very heavy diet of wokeness and climate zealotry. It’s not just the political ideas of the teachers, who overwhelmingly have strong socialist leaning views. It’s firmly embedded in every subject of the curriculum, with perhaps the sole exception of Maths. And that is no exaggeration. Every single subject.
It is going to take a long long time and a massive effort to purge our schools of wokeness and socialist bias.
If we don’t address the issue from the educational indoctrination perspective everything will continue; a doom loop.
The biggest problem with teachers is that all they know of life is school, college and back to school. They don’t grow beyond an eighteen year old outlook.
Teachers should not be allowed to teach until they reach thirty years of age. They must also have a work history proving five years in private industry. Time spent in public services is invalid.
And. I have four teachers in the family. Not bad but still lacking upstairs. The ones I work with – like babies.
Yes, we need to get enough useful idiots who support this crap to wake up and realise it’s going to bite them on the arse
Seems to me like a stupid mistake.
Unnecessary, counterproductive. Use existing laws to stop violence, theft, vandalism and murder. No need to give anyone special labels – the violent loony left will defeat themselves in the court of public opinion.
Like the Palestine action fuckwits, why dignify them with a ban? Except we know that was presumably an attempt by sstarmer at 4D chess, failed obviously because it was more like 1 dimensional noughts and crosses.
Yes indeed
The PA people discredit themselves, don’t interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake
I read this as the US Administration stating its aim to start treating radical leftist groups (who have kind of had a free pass up to now) with the same gloves-off approach that has been long applied to extreme-right groups.
Extremism of any stripe radicalises impressionable people to call for, and indeed engage in ideologically-motivated acts which are not acceptable in a civilised society.
Just as KKK/Neo-Nazi indoctrination/propaganda is not acceptable, neither should it be acceptable when perpetrated or promulgated by groups aligned with causes or ideologies championed by the left.
If you ask me, it’s levelling the playing field. No one could argue that Marxist/far leftist idology has not been given pretty free reign of late. Try pumping out (actual) far-right propaganda and see how far you get.
Some people think that climate and Covid and vaccine denial are not acceptable in a civilised society
These are opinions, and if I may say so, evidence continues to emerge which validates those opinions.
ETA: Empirical evidence has to be the final arbiter – a thing is either so, or it ain’t, and empirical evidence which is freely released, whose founding experimentation is repeatable and open to challenge can be the only arbiter.
Empirical evidence is all very well, but it seems to me that it’s whoever wields the most power that gets to evaluate this evidence and make a decision.
Whan the Met Office nurtures a collection of dysfunctional weather stations, how can we expect empirical evidence?
Empiricism demonstrates correlation, not causation. This is why science uses empiricism but does not rely on it exclusively.
These are opinions, and only that, when ignorant of the subject. For example, understanding A’ level Physics and Chemistry would enable you to see that Windmills are unable to provide a reliable Electricity supply, especially for a modern economy. But is that the question, are we losing our Electricity, Water, and Gas supplies?
Even if there were no evidence whatsoever, there should still be a right to free speech and free competition among ideas.