THESIS: Antiracist = Antifa = BLM = Marxism = Fascism


Before we begin, we must get rid of a myth that fascism is a feature of right-wing politics. This is not true. Fascism is an ideology characteristic of both extremes. Red fascism is fascism that is built off of Marxist-Leninist ideologies.

Capiche? Now on to Antifa.
Antifa believes it must fight white supremacy & fascism, which it equates w/white racism. Antiracists believe any1 who is not an antiracist must be racist, aka supports white supremacy. Antiracists ALSO believe they must fight back against white supremacy.
In any tale, for the warrior to have purpose he must have a nemesis. The greater the threat the greater the purpose. Anti-fa/racists already believe Nazism/white supremacy to be pervasive+imminent, but the gen public doesn’t.
So how are these yungblood activists supposed to push forward their activist revolution w/out more support?
In order to understand that, we need to understand the origin story of #BLM.
In other words, who is Marcus Anthony Hunter and how is he connected to Eric Mann, Bill Ayers, Sirhan Sirhan (the man who killed RFK), and Patrice Cullers who is one of the 3 main organizers of the #BLM organization and responsible for the popularization of #BLM?
In order to answer that, here is some suggested reading, a work of art: https://twitter.com/SomeBitchIKnow/status/1312552844231421955?s=20

If you’ve read thru @SomeBitchIKnow's thread from above, then you understand BLM has Marxist roots. BLM = Marxism. If you haven’t, no worries. There’s enough evidence in the fact that mainstream BLMs most prominent and original leaders are self-proclaimed “trained Marxists”

You also understand that there is a playbook of tactics & ways of organizing that have been passed down over the decades in activist circles.

These activist circles are the same as antifa/socialist/Marxist/Maoist circles and they’ve figured out tactics that have been really effective at recruiting & creating activists.
Ideologies/Philosophies are hereditary in a sense & get passed down over the generations. Many of the ideologies/tactics used in these antifa/antiracist activist playbooks derive straight from the Nazi Brownshirts. Don’t believe me? Let me whet your appetite w/ breadcrumbs…
“Antifaschistische Aktion”, aka The “OG” Antifa, was started by members of KPD - the Communist Party of Germany. Led by Ernst Thalmann, a Stalinist, the KPD viewed fascism as the final stage of capitalism, as do many Marxists/Leninists/socialists/etc you get the point.

Thalmann established Antifa in 1932.
Eventually, the KPD was banned and dissolved through a legal case btw the KPD & the Federal Republic of Germany in 1957. The ruling was that the KPD was advocating for rhetoric based in totalitarian doctrine & rhetoric that endangered democracy.
The same ruling was used back in 1952 to ban the neo-Nazi Socialist Reich Party. Go figure.

As I mentioned above, Ernst Thalmann, the leader of the KPD, was known as a committed Stalinist. Stalin believed in forcibly purging society of what he saw as threats to itself and to communism. Stalin and Hitler have been compared to each other as “evil twins”.

I found a doc full of Thalmann’s translated speeches. In one of them he says “As long as capitalism exists in Germany as long as there can be no liberation from the chains the Versailles robbery peace and Young slavery give”.

In another he says “Capitalism, is the sign of bourgeois democracy.”

Sounds familiar.
In this speech, he is praising the Soviet Union and Lenin and Marx.

It’s clear that Antifa were obviously very anti-capitalistic, as is to be expected of Marxists.

David Winner writes abt Thalmann here: https://www.newstatesman.com/world/europe/2018/10/how-left-enabled-fascism. He tells us that Thalmann hated centrists so much that he was willing to let Hitler & the Nazis win.

There seems to be a whole set of historical analyses done on this topic. One paper to start w/ for those interested: https://www.jstor.org/stable/4545915?seq=1

So what have we learned thus far? The KPD created Antifa. KPD was run by Thalmann, a radical left-extremist committed to Stalinism. The KPD engaged in violence & bloody tactics to fight the Nazis, but the KPD also allowed Nazis to come into power for its own benefit.

KPD hated more than just the Nazis and saw centrists as a threat.

The greater the threat the greater the purpose.

It should come as no surprise then, to make the logical connection that in order to fight what it perceived to be an existential threat, the KPD resorted to many of the same tactics used by the Nazi Brownshirts...
Newton’s 3rd law of political extremism: two extremist groups meet each other w/equal and opposite lvls of force.
I’ve read various accounts that say Nazis took tactics from KPD Antifa, and other say KPD Antifa took tactics from the Nazis. We may never know the absolute true answer, but what we can be certain of is that there is truth to both of these statements.
The two were at war with each other and anything goes in war. Two sides of the same coin. it’s these tactics that have been passed down over the decades on both extremes.

In “Antifa: The Anti-Fascist Handbook”, Mark Bray writes “After Auschwitz and Treblinka anti-fascists committed themselves to fighting to the death the ability of organized Nazis to say anything.” A righteous & honorable goal.
Up until the definition of “Nazi” changes and becomes an all encompassing term that reflects the same type of cynicism that pervaded Thalmann’s hatred for everything right of his left-extremism.
In this book, Bray also mentions “Antifaschistische Aktion” and recounts the historical origins of Antifa as well as historical recounting of the KPD and its fight against Nazism.

We've already covered this as well as Ernst Thalmann

Bray also seems to make various passive-aggressive, and in some instances very direct, arguments FOR Antifa tactics of violence and disruption of free-speech.

The crux of the args in Bray’s book tends to over-amplify the fears of fascism by leveraging the historical context of Antifa’s origins in its fight against Nazism.

The argument is quite literally trying to scare you into becoming an antifascist by training you to see everything as a much bigger threat than it may be.

The greater the threat the greater the purpose.

This is the slippery slope fallacy. For those unfamiliar w/the term, it is essentially the idea of the butterfly effect. One small thing will be the reason that something drastic and significant happens.

Bray also has something to say about the slippery slope fallacy in relation to criticisms of his push for policing speech. He says that bc there are already some laws curtailing speech, why not curtail hate speech?

He says that worries that this will be used by Antifa to attack any1 who opposes them are not based in evidence historically and are victims of slippery slope fallacy. Is he correct? I say no.

Why? Does the phrase “cancel culture” ring a bell?
Evergreen college vs @BretWeinstein + @HeatherEHeying . Columbia university vs @findingnimesh. Twitter culture vs @JKRowling. SNL vs Shane Gillis. USC vs Professor Greg Patton.

And so many more known & unknown examples of this happening across the world.
Moderates/centrists/conservatives even some leftists are afraid of speaking their minds and expressing their political views because of fear of persecution from the Left. Because of fear of being misnamed as a “racist” or a “Nazi” or a “white supremacist”.
The sad part about it is that the Left is doing this with impunity and irrationally to everyone it dislikes, even to itself. How many of you have either tried to engage in rational discussion & ended up being vilified wrongfully as an apparent “white supremacist”?
How many of you are too afraid to even try because you either know, have heard, or have experienced it yourself times before?
Ironically, cancel culturists used this open letter as yet another way to feign outrage & cancel the people who signed the letter against cancel culture because they were offended by other names on the list.
These children are unable to cognitively grasp the skill needed to be able to hold two conflicting ideas in their minds. Our education system has coddled them & they are now incapable of being able to work w/ or even tolerate ppl+ideas they disagree w/.
To them, everyone is symbolically a fascist & white supremacist, a view no different than those held by Ernst Thalmann, father of Antifa.
This cancel culture tactic is very reminiscent of the “No Platform” tactic, something that is outlined in great detail in Bray’s “Antifa: The Anti-Fascist Handbook”.
Antifa believes that those it deems to be existential threats should not be given any platform & their speech is hate speech. Cancel culturists believe that words are violence, & consider speech that offends them as hate speech.
The bar for what offends them is very low. If you’re familiar w/the news in this space, you will have seen these arguments made all over the place.
One latest such example is the following: https://twitter.com/AlecMacGillis/status/1312065091316178945?s=20
1st img is from the Anti-fascist handbook and 2nd img from https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/09/the-rise-of-the-violent-left/534192/

While there is an argument to be made for curtailing hate speech, the cancel culturists have effectively expanded the definition of what hate speech means and have encroached upon isegoria by attacking parrhesia. What they don’t realize is that everything is a yin and yang.
The Greeks understood that this is also true with speech. Isegoria and parrhesia exist in a fine balance and we are operating on the precipice of a destruction to that balance; and we need to find a way to restore it
Our institutions, namely educational institutions, MUST recognize this and restore the balance otherwise we will indefinitely endanger political discourse thereby doing irreversible damage to this society. Peaceful progress will not be made w/out open-debate.
There existed a time, not too long ago, when political differences and confrontations were amicably set aside in the midst of a heated debate w/the aim of resolving them at a later time.
Today, however, agreeing to disagree is seen as a tool of “white supremacy” and antiracists/Antifa of today are claiming that such terms are “red flags”: https://twitter.com/mariejbeech/status/1308111484279549953?s=20

Red flags for what exactly? Of fascism? Of racism? Of a normal human conversation?
What this person has effectively done is destroy a tool used to reconcile differences between people and replaced it w/a void that demands that you are either on their side or not. You are either an antiracist or a racist. You are either w/ them or against them.

(In a later thread I will go through each post in that thread and point out just how wrong this thinking is to the best of my ability)
By now, it should come as no surprise that this is in line w/yet another Antifa tactic as outlined by Bray in “Antifa: The Anti-Fascist Handbook”.

Notice the hypocrisy in how Antifa explains it believes in intolerance and justifies it by saying it has “no tolerance for intolerance”. To Antifa, it fights intolerance w/intolerance. To Antifa, it fights violence w/violence.

We’ve already established that Thalmann’s KPD Antifa fought Nazi brownshirts using the same techniques. So then would it not fight fascism w/fascism? Would it not justify it the same as it justifies using violence against violence? Intolerance against intolerance?

It shouldn’t be that much of a jump to say that Antifa can also turn into fascists in its fight against fascists, but modern day Antifa will say that they are “anti-fascists”. You will rarely hear them say that they are “not fascists”.

If we apply Ibram Kendi’s logic - that to say you’re “not racist” is a term of denial - we can understand why “anti-fascist” is the preferred phrase. It’s a way for fascists fighting fascism to say that they’re not fascists.

Same logic goes with the antiracists. It’s a way for the racists fighting racism to say that they’re not racists.

It’s all a dumb and manipulative language game that I’ll cover later in this thread, but for now let’s take a look at that quote from the handbook again:

Read that first line again.
Now read this: Antifa believes in using intolerance to fight intolerance. Tit for tat.

Remember these two things. We will come back to them very soon.
Something interesting to note: “punch a Nazi”. I’m sure we’ve all heard that phrase. What I find most interesting is that this sentiment is echoed in Bray’s book.

In it he quotes Die Rote Fahne: “Wherever a fascist dares to show his face in the quarters of the working class, workers’ fists will light his way home. Berlin is red! Berlin is staying red!””
I hope that by this point in the thread, I have convinced you that modern day Antifa and antiracist tactics have roots tied directly to the tactics of Nazi brownshirts

Or at the very least modern day Antifa tactics are directly tied to Stalinist tactics as evidenced by KPD Antifa leader Ernst Thalmann’s commitment to Stalinism.

It is worth noting that Thalmann died as somewhat of a cultish messiah and a martyr given that he was executed by Hitler...

So it wouldn’t be so far-fetched to assume that his martyrdom amplified how his ideas transcended generations and spheres of influences far beyond his immediate reach, and especially over such a long period of time.

Quick recap: Antifa/antiracists believe Nazism/white supremacy is pervasive & imminent. A belief that is essential to their existence. One extreme fighting another. Ideologies+tactics get handed down over the generations and across cultures. Now let’s fast-forward to today.

Where ARE all these white supremacists and Nazis? How pervasive is the threat? AFAIK, white supremacists are a fringe group (see image) & the majority of ppl condemn them, EVEN TRUMP…by my count, he’s condemned it AT LEAST 38 times in this video: https://twitter.com/CCRTheory/status/1312178169470840833?s=20
This enemy that Antifa is fighting isn’t as big of a threat to everyone else as it is to Antifa; and as a result, my guess is that much of the Antifa/antiracist activism over the years was largely ignored or not as efficient as they hoped it would be.

The more ppl who are scared of a threat, the more ppl who will support ur movement, the more momentum you get. Common sense.
So if a threat doesn’t exist or isn’t as extreme, and your movement depends on society’s fear of that threat, what do you do?

I hypothesize that you could do 1 of 3 things.

1. Actively create that threat

2. Create a facade of a threat, like what The Villagers did in M Night Shyamalan’s movie

3. Change the meaning of a word to describe things that aren’t the threat as the threat itself
The last one is the most dangerous bc it grays the lines between how we communicate about the world and dramatically changes our understanding of it W/OUT explicitly bringing attention to what changed.
That subtle malicious shift in language can drastically alter social behavior & dismantle+disrupt foundations of our institutions.
It relies on this dismantling+disruption of clarity and lack of understanding in order to amplifying existing fissures in society, which is exactly the divide that Marxist revolutions aim for. The question is what fissures do you use and how do you do it?
Traditional Marxists would focus on class divides in a capitalistic system in order to pit the proletariat against the bourgeois elites. In the US, those tactics prob didn’t work that well, bc land of opportunity+the American dream and what not…

So I think, as do many others, that Marxists learned & evolved to use the most unstable fissure in American society: racial/skin color divides.
That led to Marxist uprisings of the past, i.e. that of Angela Davis & the Black Panthers. These were shut down & many of these ppl who tried to dismantle the system then, were killed/chased out of the country (i.e. Angela Davis) & the radical Marxist revolution fizzled out
Parts of that story kind of reminded me of what happened to Ernst Thalmann in some ways to be honest. An interesting parallel… https://twitter.com/CCRTheory/status/1313250617641459714?s=20


In comes Critical Race Theory, DiAngelo’s white fragility & Kendi’s antiracism.

Remember pt 1 from this part in the thread? https://twitter.com/CCRTheory/status/1313250613061275649?s=20

Replace “fascism” w/racism and eventually you get the crux of @DrIbram’s & DiAngelo’s argument…
DiAngelo: racism is in everything, in everyone, & everywhere so we must ask not “if” racism took place, but “how” racism took place
Kendi: ur either a racist or an antiracist

DiAngelo+Kendi: we must apply an antiracist outlook to everything & everyone, everyday or otherwise.
These two philosophies make up what I consider to be 2 of the core fundamentals driving Critical Race Theory. Another crucial fundamental philosophy is that of identity politics & tribalism, which follow from these two (intensified by intersectionality + postmodernism)
CRT tells us that all the discrepancies that you see, all the differences you see in people & in society has nothing to do with socioeconomics, nothing to do with cultural differences, and nothing to do w/randomness inherent in spontaneous systems.
It tells us that it has ALL to do w/racism. A very convincing story esp when you live in a country that has a dark history assoc w/racism. A VERY convincing story although nowhere near being a rational or scientific or critically sound or logical one.
But CRT couldn’t give 2 fucks about rationality. This is about power & revolution. so wte narrative maintains & amplifies a divide btw people, that’s the narrative that gives it strength & directs the flow of power towards it
All at the expense of stability for the majority of people including the ones driving it.

It is the beginnings of a hostile takeover by way of manipulating and distorting language.
But it relishes the chaos generated by this narrative. History teaches us this much - look at the KPD+Nazi dichotomy & how both thrived in chaos, or the Maoist revolutions.

In the US this Marxist chaotic narrative and language game has become one of racism.
If you point the blurring of definitions out to a critical theorist, they’ll say “intent doesn’t matter”. If that’s the case, then the negative connotations associated w/the word “racism” and “racist” should also disappear.

If intent doesn’t matter, and if according to Kendi racism is just a descriptive word, then all that “racism” means is a description of something that has a difference in race/skin-color. No negative connotations there.
By that definition, consider a family w/2 kids - 1 blk, 1 white.

If the two kids choose different career paths, that’s racist. If they go to different colleges, that’s racist. If they play different sports, that’s racist. If one kid does bttr than the other, that’s racist.

If intent doesn’t matter, it shouldn’t matter to anyone if Kendi says you’re either racist or antiracist bc the words are just descriptive. They don’t hold the same meaning anymore.

But that’s NOT how the word is still used by people. The critical antiracists will play this linguistic game where they’ll distort language to cause confusion for political gains.
A ridiculous ex of the game: they will create a sport in which players throw a 🗑️ at a ball, call it 🏀; then demand they be allowed to play in NBA. Once in NBA they’ll demand that NBA changes its rules when they can’t compete. if the NBA doesn’t agree, they cry oppression
THAT is the linguistic trick that the BLM, CRT, and antiracist movement are playing on us. They whisper in one ear that “racism has nothing to do w/intent” & in the other that “ur either intentionally racist or an antiracist, choose ur side”. Kafka trap.

THAT is how CRT blurs the meaning of the word “racism” to mean ANY discrepancies in outcome; and it makes this change while still trying to hold onto the original essence of the word: INTENTIONAL discrimination.

If intent doesn’t matter, and if as Kendi says, "racist" is just a descriptive term and not a pejorative term…then NO ONE SHOULD CARE if anything OR ANYONE is racist, because that term is now just as descriptive as “brown skin” or “black skin”
Ultimately, the word ‘racist’/‘racism’ loses its meaning and Kendi’s and DiAngelo’s entire premise of shaming/guilt-tripping ppl to feel like sinful racists who need to commit to antiracism in order to overcome their original sin has no meaning either.
If being racist or being antiracist is just descriptive with no pejorative meaning, then you don’t need to commit to any activist cleansing by being “actively antiracist”. If you want to, fine sure, but do you NEED to and do OTHER people NEED to? Nah.
Because AGAIN, just to drive this home: if racism has NOTHING to do w/intent & is just a descriptive word; if racism is supposed to refer to simply ANY discrepancies REGARDLESS of intent ( https://twitter.com/CCRTheory/status/1313252981685407744?s=20), then no one should care if anyone is racist or antiracist.
Might as well replace “racist” and “antiracist” with “pro-chocolate” and “anti-chocolate” since these are just descriptive, not pejorative, words w/nothing to do with intent. Starts to get ridiculous.
But this is not how these words are used in praxis; and neither is it how Kendi+DiAngelo+CRT intend for them to be used because it renders their politics useless.
In praxis, you get Marxist-BLM Antifa intimidating and canceling ppl (“No Platform”) out on the streets and in our institutions, bc to them you’re either antiracist or a racist, and they still consider one of them to be pejorative as fuck
To add onto that blurring of definitions, Kendi has now expanded the definition of “racist” to mean ANYONE who doesn’t fit HIS definition of “antiracist”.

And BOOM just like that “racists” spontaneously appear in society where there are none. How exactly does this happen?
Bc now Kendi’s antiracists are redefining the world around them by vocally categorizing people as racists or antiracists based off of his definitions. Then they enforce conformity to that categorization on to other people

They do this employing identity politics+Antifa Stalinist tactics to bully/terrorize ppl into changing their worldview as well.

Voila. Threats have been created.

These guerrilla tactics force ppl to adopt a new worldview. Tactics that are in line w/the extremist tactics originating in Thalmann’s KPD Antifa
So what does this lead to? The beginnings of a Marxist revolution that leverages tribalism to force ppl to choose one side or another out of fear of being called a “racist”/“white supremacist”.

And those that dissent are subjected to “No Platform” Antifa tactics, aka “K”orrosive “K”ancel “K”ulture.

Other dissenters are demanded to express “solidarity” by raising their fists in order to effectively pledge allegiance to their faction.

“Prove to us that you’re not a Nazi/Jew/Racist; otherwise we will terrorize you until you capitulate, or cost you your livelihood”. If this sounds like hyperbole to you, then you’ve likely been living under a rock and I’m jealous of the blissful ignorance.
CNN anchors will tell you protests are mostly peaceful as a fires rage behind them. Time, Reuters, HuffPost will tell u 93% of the protests are peaceful so stop fear-mongering; and yet they will fear-monger themselves abt this imminent threat of white-supremacy and Nazism.
Sometimes they’ll go as far as painting people who are not white-supremacists or Nazis as exactly that, or insinuate it w/weaselly language.
Last I checked, most of the damage being done this year has been driven by leftist-extremists like Antifa and BLM. But we see the media blatantly lie and say this is far-right-wing violence.
If we’ve learned anything from this thread, it’s that the far-left NEEDS the threat of the far-right & throughout history it has even allowed/created more of that threat

The greater the threat, the greater the purpose.

I don’t think it’s any different today. The far-left is creating that threat in those 3 ways I mentioned: https://twitter.com/CCRTheory/status/1313252963230519296?s=20
CRT and Kendi+DiAngelo give us the rhetoric and framework to socially construct those threats by redefining words, changing their meanings and confusing us w/ultimatums and Kafka traps that we didn’t realize we had to choose between
And remember how I mentioned that from the Antifa handbook, they believed that intolerance was justified as long as it was used against intolerance itself?
Here’s what Kendi has to say about discrimination/racism ~pg19 in “How To Be An Antiracist”:

“The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination. The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination”

In other words, Kendi says racism is ok as long as it is against racism. Racism must be fought w/more racism.

Straight from the Antifa playbook. The same playbook used by Stalinists and Nazis.

Mark Bray: “Many anti-fascists will argue that you can’t really be an anti-fascist without being an anti-capitalist, because they argue that capitalism breeds the conditions for fascism”

Remember this? https://twitter.com/CCRTheory/status/1313245674012438531?s=20

Where else have I heard this before?
Ah yes Kendi

To love capitalism is to end up loving racism. To love racism is to end up loving capitalism

In order to be truly antiracist, you also have to be truly anticapitalist...and in order to truly be anticapitalist you have to be antiracist https://twitter.com/CCRTheory/status/1310028887032619008?s=20
To be continued...
You can follow @CCRTheory.
Tip: mention @twtextapp on a Twitter thread with the keyword “unroll” to get a link to it.

Latest Threads Unrolled: