Six years ago, BLM was considered a fringe organization and was widely shunned. They're now supported by nearly every major corporation in the West. All signs point to ANTIFA following a similar trajectory. Here's a thread on why.

ANTIFA aligned themselves with the BLM movement right from it's onset. They are intentionally hiding behind the guise of racial activism while pushing their own agenda.

They do this because it's easy for onlookers to condemn communists that are attempting a revolution for their own selfish ambitions. However, it's not so easy to criticize "racial activists facilitating a revolution for the sake of protecting 'vulnerable' minorities."

Many moderates are hesitant to condemn ANTIFA because they have been misled to believe that they would be criticizing racial activists and labeled racists for doing so.

The problem today is that people tend to be ruled by emotion rather than critical thought. People are told that ANTIFA's antics are done in the name of racial activism, and that alone is enough for them to assume that they are on the right side of the moral dichotomy.

ANTIFA first demonstrated this tactic with the creation of their name. They call themselves anti-fascist, but are in fact opposed to anything to the right of communism on the political spectrum, and support and employ many authoritarian policies.

In spite of their behavior supporting the latter, many moderates support them because publicly condemning them is often met with the simple mined retort of "if you're against ANTIFA then you are pro-fascism," an ideology universally condemned by the mainstream.

The thought of being morally superior to others, especially to the right who are painted as evil by the MSM, is as addictive as heroin to many people. This is why once someone has endorsed BLM or ANTIFA, it is almost impossible to change their mind.

There is a saying; "virtue is more to be feared than vice, because it's excesses are not subject to the regulation of conscience." When someone believes they are acting in the name of virtue, they are less prone to analyze their actions.

Such people feel the need to protect their sense of moral superiority be ignoring any arguments or evidence that contradicts the ideology facilitating it. This is why they can become aggressive or hostile when they are adequately challenged.

It's like trying to separate an addict from their drugs.

This has created a cycle in which leftists are constantly striving to break ground on new rhetoric and policies to the point that they are in competition with each other. This is the phenomena known as "woketivism."

This is what leads to the hyperbole such as "calling the police on a black person is the equivalent of murdering them," or "asserting that sex is real is denying a trans person their existence," and it's mainstream acceptance in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

These ideas are perpetuated by both moderates who want to be on the virtuous side of the dichotomy, and by opportunists who directly benefit from the rhetoric.

Once someone has decided they are on the side of the virtuous activism, they are prone to continue to endorse new principles and policies, often overlooking or ignoring the absurdity of some of them. Social media and it's tribalism facilitate this.

It's almost impossible to break someone from this cycle. One of the hardest things to do is change the mind of an emotional thinker. All we can is awaken them to the trap they have fallen into. But much like an addict, some people don't want to be helped