Conor here: The “Global War on Terror” comes full circle. US protestors exercising their rights are now convicted of terrorism charges. Trump’s National Security Presidential Memorandum 7 (NPSM-7) also threatens all labor actions as it lists “anti-capitalism” opinions along with “anti-Christian” and “anti-American” among the indicia of terrorism. Even more troublesome is the pre-crime component of NPSM-7, which aims to “disrupt” any individual or groups “that foment political violence…before they result in violent political acts.” Trump’s directive is so broad that just about anyone for anything could be labeled terrorism—well just about anyone. The prosecution of corporate criminals, which fell to record lows under Biden, and they’re not rebounding under Trump.
By Olivia Rosane, a staff writer for Common Dreams. Originally published at Common Dreams.
The government has largely won its first case bringing material-support-for-terrorism charges against protesters alleged to belong to “antifa,” which President Donald Trump designated as a domestic terror group in 2025 despite the fact that no such organized group exists and the president has no legal authority to designate organizations as domestic terror groups.
A federal jury in Fort Worth, Texas agreed on Friday to convict eight people of domestic terrorism because they wore all black to a protest outside Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s (ICE) Prairieland Detention Facility in Alvarado, Texas on July 4, 2025, at which one of the protesters shot and wounded a police officer. Legal experts say the verdict could bolster attempts by the administration to stifle dissent.
“A case like this helps the government kind of see how far they can go in criminalizing constitutionally protected protests and also helps them kind of intimidate, increase the fear, hoping that folks in other cities then will think twice over protesting,” Suzanne Adely, interim president of the National Lawyers Guild, told The Associated Press.
The administration promised it would be the first such case of many.
“Antifa is a domestic terrorist organization that has been allowed to flourish in Democrat-led cities—not under President Trump,” Attorney General Pam Bondi said in a statement Friday. “Today’s verdict on terrorism charges will not be the last as the Trump administration systematically dismantles Antifa and finally halts their violence on America’s streets.”
The trial revolved around a nighttime protest at which participants planned to set off fireworks in solidarity with the around 1,000 migrants detained inside the Prarieland ICE facility. Some participants brought guns, which is legal in Texas, as The Intercept reported.
Sam Levine explained in The Guardian what happened next:
Shortly after arriving at the facility, two or three of the protesters broke away from the larger group and began spray painting cars in the parking lot, a guard shack, slashed the tires on a government van, and broke a security camera. Two ICE detention guards came out and told the protesters to stop. A police officer arrived on the scene shortly after and drew his weapon at one of the people allegedly doing vandalism. One of the protesters was standing in the woods with an AR-15 and hit him in the shoulder. The officer would survive.
At first, the federal government charged those arrested after the event with “attempted murder of a police officer,” according to NOTUS.
However, that changed after Trump’s designation of antifa as a terror group in September and the release of National Security Presidential Memorandum 7 (NSPM-7), which directs federal law enforcement to target left-leaning groups and activities. The next month, the government’s case expanded to include terrorism charges.
“This wouldn’t be a terrorism case if it weren’t for that memo,” one defense lawyer told NOTUS on background.
The prosecution argued that the fact that the protesters wore black clothes to the protest was enough to convict them of material support for terrorism.
“Providing your body as camouflage for others to do the enumerated acts is providing support,” Assistant US Attorney Shawn Smith said during closing arguments, as The Intercept reported on Thursday. “It’s impossible to tell who is doing what. That’s the point.”
The defense, meanwhile, warned the jury about the free speech implications of the charge.
“The government is asking you to put protesters in prison as terrorists. You are the only people who can stop that,” Blake Burns, an attorney for defendant Elizabeth Soto, said, according to The Guardian.
Ultimately, the jury decided to convict eight defendants of material support for terrorism as well as riot, conspiracy to use and carry an explosive, and use and carry of an explosive. However, they dismissed attempts by the state to argue that the protest constituted a pre-planned ambush and charge four people who had not shot at the police officer with attempted murder and discharging a firearm during a crime. Only Benjamin Song, the alleged shooter, was charged with one count of attempted murder and three counts of discharging a firearm.
The jury also convicted a ninth defendant, Daniel Rolando Sanchez Estrada, of conspiracy to conceal documents. Sanchez Estrada, who was not at the protest, had simply moved a box of zines out of his wife’s home after she was arrested for the protest, according to The Intercept.
“The US lost today with this verdict,” Sanchez Estrada’s attorney, Christopher Weinbel, said, as AP reported.
Support the Prarieland Defendants said in a statement, “Everything about this trial from beginning to end has proven what we have said all along: This is a sham trial, built on political persecution and ideological attacks coming from the top.”
However, the group commended the solidarity that had sprung up among the defendants and their allies and vowed to continue to support them.
“We have a long journey ahead of us to continue fighting these charges along with the state level charges,” they said. “What happens here sets the tone for what’s to come. We are here and we won’t give up.”
Outside observers warned about the implication for the right to protest under Trump.
“Remember all the people who dismissed the alarm over NSPM-7 because ‘ANTIFA isn’t even a real organization’? We told you that didn’t matter. When the villain is a made-up boogeyman then the target becomes ‘anyone who disagrees with Trump’—and this is the result,” said Cory Archibald, the co-founder of Track AIPAC [American Israel Public Affairs Committee].
Content creator Austin MacNamara said: “The Prairieland trial was given almost zero media coverage because of the blatant lies by DHS [Department of Homeland Security] and Police. This verdict now sets a precedent for criminalization of dissent across the board. Noise demos, Black-Bloc, pamphlets/zines/red cards, all of this can be used to imprison you.”
Academic Nathan Goodman wrote that convicting people of terrorism based on clothing was a “serious threat to the First Amendment.”
The verdict gives new poignancy to what defendant Meagan Morris told NOTUS ahead of the jury’s decision: “If we win, I think it shows that Trump’s mandate is not working, that the people understand that you can’t criminalize, you know, First and Second Amendment-protected activities. And I think if we lose, then… a lot of the country is OK with what’s going on. And it will be a much darker time, it’ll just signify a much increased crackdown on political opposition and free speech.”
18 comments
Comments are closed.
The Intercept also had an article on this which included this statement: “Signal messages obtained by the government showed that the demonstrators believed that less confrontational protests against ICE — such as one that had occurred earlier in the day at the same facility — were ineffective.”
So Signal does not seem safe for protesters unless they use Disappearing Messages.
One point to add – obviously, this very site foments dissent and will therefore be considered antifa.
No, we are too small and Trump is very TV fixated. They will go after Judge Napolitano and his guests long before they even recognize that we exist. Not only is his audience a huge multiple of ours, but Judge Nap is ex-Fox and knows Trump personally. Nap who really is a former judge has the stomach and allies to put up a serious legal fight.
This appears to be true re: Tucker Carlson. That said, Trump’s MO across the world has been to go after what he considers small and weak before he goes after the strong.
The trouble is, one has to read naked capitalism rather than watching it. I don’t think twilight Trump is so capable.
Agreed. In addition to its small size and text-basedness, NC is
1. a forum for critical thinking,
2. a firehose of information and opinion.
These facts make it very confusing at first glance.
Q: What is it advocating by posting a given article?
A: Often only for the commentariat to bring their considerable expertise and critical eye to it.
Q: Why did it post something pushing a position today that’s incoherent to advocate with the position that seemed to be pushed yesterday?
A: See above.
Q: Why so much? It takes too long to read it all.
A: When we are coming to our own conclusions in a contested and complex terrain, it often takes a lot of blind men for us to perceive the elephant at the granularity that may interest us. Many don’t routinely read it all, but we’re grateful it’s all there when something is happening we need it all to begin to understand.
NC does us a great service, while also appearing as a smokescreen to the uninitiated. I was overwhelmed by it for a few years before it became essential near-daily reading for me.
Great comment. I’m still overwhelmed by it, in the very best way.
Important detail from Texas press (https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/jury-in-prairieland-ice-shooting-finds-8-guilty-of-rioting-supporting-terrorists/ar-AA1YzT6f):
Seven additional defendants in the case pleaded guilty last year to one count of providing material support to terrorists., and five of them testified at the trial, including two who said they helped Song escape after the shooting. Song was arrested about a week later.
The defendants who pleaded guilty – Seth Sikes, Nathan Baumann, Joy Gibson, Susan Kent, Rebecca Morgan, Lynette Sharp, and John Thomas – face sentences of up to 15 years, according to the U.S. Attorney’s Office.
Also, too:
Defense attorneys have argued that antifa is an ideology and not a formal organization to which the defendants belong.
Teams of attorneys for the defendants were each given 15 minutes to speak Wednesday. The defense did not call witnesses during the trial, instead focusing on making their case through cross-examination of prosecution witnesses and closing arguments.
…
Warren St. John, the defense attorney for Meagan Morris, who is listed in the indictment as Bradford Morris, shared a similar sentiment with the jury. He asked his client to stand up for the jurors to see her, showing the jury how emotional she was. The defense has said that Morris never got out of her van during the protest.
“People who are guilty don’t cry,” St. John said. “She cries because she’s scared of getting punished for something she didn’t do. I know my client will be found not guilty.”
I am not even a small-town bird lawyer, but something about these defense tactics seems off to me. I mean, couldn’t they have at least called in an expert of some kind to explain what “antifa” is and is not?? As well, I suspectificate that the five people who’d pre-emptively pled guilty and testified against their fellow “antifa terrorists” had a lot to do with convincing the (not-big-city Texas) jury of a “conspiracy to overthrow the government” (words actually used at some point) or some such.
All that said. As someone who’d actually read some of the materials from the Nuremberg trials, especially the 12 “mini-Nuremberg” trials conducted by the US rather than by an international tribunal, I find it beyond ironic that we are now designating “anti-fascists” as terrorists while buddying up to the likes of Al Julani or the MEK. And something makes me think that even should a Newsom-like Democrat be elected in 2028, none of this toothpaste is getting put back inside the tube…
Regarding strange defense tactics: friends and I have been defendants in past versions of this NPSM-7 madness, charged en masse with ludicrous charges (terrorism, racketeering, posession of false explosive device, obstruction of essential government installation, assault on police officer) in grand juries or criminal cases for such things as allegedly locking ourselves to something, making a poster, parading with a permit, or bailing people out of jail.
Defense costs a lot, the defendents are often weird poor people, inscrutable to the prosecution and judge. If the moderator will permit me a long excerpt from Charles Portis’s novel *Masters of Atlantis*, it often goes down very much like the following:
—
The big hearing room with its dark wood and high windows had a desolate air… The television people had left with their blazing lights, but still the room was too warm. Only a handful of spectators remained. The panel of a dozen senators had dwindled down to just three—Churton, Rey and Gammage—all in shirt sleeves. From their raised platform they looked down on Popper with fatigue and dull disapproval.
Senator Churton, the chairman, was a thin, haggard man who smoked cigarettes and made impatient gestures with his gavel. Behind him on a stool sat Senator Junior Moaler, a big man, whose face, like his father’s, was congested with blood. There was little further resemblance. Junior was a much bigger man. Here the pygmoid strain in the Moaler blood had skipped a generation… Junior sat anxious on his campstool with a box of papers on his knees, ready to prompt the examiners with questions and feed them damaging material.
Popper was the last witness. He swore to tell the truth, then kissed the Bible, not strictly required, and took his seat with Esteban at the long table. He wore his blue western suit, with a yellow neckerchief this time, tied cowboy style, the knot to one side and the two pointed ends laid out just so.
Senator Churton said, “Thank you for coming, Mr.—is it Popper or Wilson?”
“Popper.”
“Mr. Popper then. Thank you for coming and bearing with us. We’re running very late. Your boss, I understand, has taken to his bed with the sniffles, or should I say, Mr. Moaler’s bed. Is he feeling any better?”
“He was able to eat a little solid food last night.”
“Always a good sign. Senator Moaler tells it a little differently. He tells me that this crafty old man, Mr. Jimmerson, is down there in his daddy’s trailer lounging around in his shorty pajamas and eating like a hog, with a broad sheen of grease around his mouth, just smacking his big “lips and looking around for more.”
“I’m not surprised he called in sick,” said Senator Gammage. “Eating like that at his age.”
“Not true,” said Popper. “And I was not aware that Senator Junior Moaler was a member of this committee.”
“Big Boy is here at my request. He is acting as an advisor. All perfectly proper. His father’s homestead is overrun by a swarm of mystical squatters and you wonder that he takes a personal interest? Perhaps your attorney would like to introduce himself.”
“I am not represented by counsel, Mr. Chairman. This man beside me is Esteban, my security chief and director for press hospitality.”
“Well and good. But let Esteban keep silent and let him keep absolutely still. All week long we’ve had these strange people sitting down there, a parade of stargazers, soothsayers and cranks, whispering and grimacing and blinking and suddenly shifting their feet about to some new position. These leg seizures are particularly distracting. One more thing. It’s late, we’re all tired and we need to wind this session up, so, above all, keep your answers brief. Now you’re the representative of this—group. What’s it all about, Mr. Popper? What are you Gnolons up to? We don’t have to know your passwords or your secret winks and nods but we would like to get some general idea of your mission.”
“It’s the Gnomon Society, not the Gnolon Society, and I believe I have anticipated all your questions, sir, in my opening statement, if I may be permitted to read it. I have prepared a timely and interesting—”
“No, you may not read it. No statements and no charts. You may present any written materials you have to the bill clerk. Just short answers to our questions, please. That’s all we want here.”
“Then allow me to say, before we get into those questions, Mr. Chairman, how much I admire the way you have handled this inquiry—the patience you showed with that last witness, Dr. John, and the fairness with which you—”
“Thank you, Mr. Popper. We need to move along. It was your mission I was asking about. Your movement.”
“Well, our mission, sir, as you put it, is simply this—to preserve the ancient wisdom of Atlantis and to pass it on, uncorrupted, to those few men of each new generation worthy of receiving it.”
“Fair enough. More power to you. You have chapters elsewhere?”
“Yes, sir. We call them Pillars. We have Pillars in all the fifty states and Guam.”
“What about your leader? This mysterious Mr. Jimmerson? Who is he and just what is he doing here in Texas?”
“Mr. Jimmerson is the Master of Gnomons. He is in La Coma, Texas, as the invited guest of Mr. Morehead Moaler, himself a Gnomon of very high degree.”
“How long will he be here?”
“It’s hard to say. At least until we can get our hospital project off the ground.”
“What hospital is that?”
“A hospital for poor children we are planning to build in La Coma. These things take time.”
“They sure do. What it really comes down to is this, isn’t it, Mr. Popper? This sly old man, Mr. Jimmerson, wearing a very peculiar electromagnetic cap, has moved in, bag and baggage, with poor old Mr. Moaler for an indefinite stay, bringing with him his family, a butler, a hairdresser, four or five musicians and various sacred birds and monkeys. Is that not a fair summary of the situation?”
“No, sir, most unfair. The Master, I repeat, is an invited guest. That can be confirmed easily enough. His cap has no magnetic properties. His family did not accompany him on this trip. He does, very naturally, travel with his executive staff.”
“He comes off to me as a very sinister figure. Can you tell us a little more about him?”
“I’ll be glad to. Lamar Jimmerson is a decorated veteran of the Argonne campaign. He is a man of military bearing and twinkling good humor. He is clean and strong. He suffers from an occasional head cold but is otherwise a fine specimen. He runs six miles a day and maintains the physique of a thirty-year-old man. He is a gentleman. Children and animals take to him instinctively and rub up against him. He is a philosopher. He is a teacher in the great tradition of Hermes Trismegistus and Pletho Pappus. “Mr. Jimmerson is the American Pythagoras.”
“Quite a man. How come I never heard of him until two weeks ago?”
“Like all the truly wise men in this world, Senator, Mr. Jimmerson is unknown to the world.”
“He’s not some naked and scrawny sage from India, is he?”
“No, sir.”
“What can you tell us about his economic theories?”
“He has none that I know of.”
Senator Gammage put in a question. “Is he the one who claims that the Chinese discovered America?”
Senator Churton rapped his gavel. “Later, Senator. Your turn will come. Now tell me this, Mr. Popper. How much does this old man charge for these fraudulent academic degrees that he sells through the mail?”
“Mr. Jimmerson sells no degrees. He sells nothing.”
“Are his financial records intact?”
“I believe so.”
“You’re not going to tell me that they were all blown away in a tornado like those records of Dr. John’s, are you?”
“Our records are intact as far as I know.”
Senator Moaler leaned forward for a whispered consultation with the chairman. Papers were passed. Senator Churton looked them over and then resumed his examination.
“What can you tell us, Mr. Popper, about Mr. Jimmerson’s police record?”
“He has no police record.”
“So you say. According to my information he was released from a maximum security prison in Arizona in June of 19 and 58 after serving seven years of a ten-year sentence for armed robbery and aggravated assault. He was going by the name of James Lee ‘Jimbo’ Jimmerson at the time. It says here that he played various percussion instruments in the prison band.”
“That would be another Jimmerson.”
“Perhaps. We do know this. You cult people are great ones for altering your names or taking new names.”
“Altogether a different person.”
“Perhaps. Even so, you can’t deny that your man springs from that same Jimmerson family of thugs in Stitt, Arizona, can you?”
“I can and do deny it.”
“I understand he practices herbal medicine. A lot of sprouts and berries in his program.”
“He doesn’t practice any kind of medicine.”
“Hypnotism?”
“No, sir.”
“Does he conduct pottery classes?”
“No, sir.”
Senator Churton took a closer look at his paper and placed his finger on a word. “Or is it poetry classes?”
“He teaches neither of those arts.”
“Does he claim to be in contact with spaceships that are circling the earth, communicating on a daily basis with humanoid pilots one meter tall wearing golden coveralls?”
“He makes no such claim,”
“I have been told that he is a man with several rather unpleasant personal habits. I won’t specify further.”
“I don’t know what you’re talking about.”
Senator Gammage broke in. “These unpleasant habits. Around the house? Out in the streets? Where?”
“Around the house,” said Senator Churton. “But I would rather not specify further. You will be recognized in due course, Senator Gammage. You can put your questions then, on your own time. We’ll leave that and go on to this. Now, Mr. Popper, how do you answer the charge that this cunning old man, Mr. Jimmerson, has come to Texas to work out his imperial destiny?”
“I don’t understand the question.”
“No? You can tell us nothing about his plans to conquer the earth and divide it up into triangular districts?”
“Mr. Jimmerson has no such plans.”
“So you say. But he does maintain a chemical laboratory?”
“We have our little experiments in metallurgy.”
“And in magnetism as well?”
“I believe so, yes,”
“Experiments that are carried on behind locked doors, I am told, with vicious dogs patrolling the corridors. What safeguards do you have in place, Mr. Popper? What precautions have you taken to ensure that these experiments do not get out of hand and set the air afire and perhaps melt the polar ice caps?”
“None.”
“Very well, then. Let’s move on to this dancing school that Mr. Jimmerson runs. How is that connected to your organization? Just what goes on in those classes?”
“Mr. Jimmerson has never run a dancing school.”
“It’s all right here in this report, with an eyewitness account of the old man himself dancing. It says here that he appeared to be hopped up on some kind of dope.”
“That report is completely false.”
“Oh? And yet strong narcotic drugs do play an important part in your ceremonies, do they not? In your revels?”
“They do not.”
“And lewd dances led by this man Jimmerson? Although you tell us he has never run a dancing school. I have it all right here in black and white, Mr. Popper.”
“Not true. I’m afraid you have confused us with another organization calling itself the Gnomon Society. That pathetic little band is led by a man named Sydney Hen, and yes, I believe they do jig about some by the light of the moon. But we have nothing to do with them and they have nothing to do with true Gnomonism.”
This is a very thought-provoking episode. On the one hand the administration’s course of action in prosecution is, as the article states, based on the illegal exercise of presidential power in defining an organization as an enemy of the state.
On the other hand, what is being described here, without naming it, is “black bloc” protesting (Mr. MacNamara kinda gives the game away at the end). For anyone unfamiliar, the tactic is to get a largish group of people to dress in identical black clothing, so that when some of them commit violent crimes, they can blend back into the group and the police cannot identify who actually did the act.
This tactic is drawn from the political theory of Alinsky, whose great achievement was to recognize that the problem of resisting a government could be re-conceptualized as asymmetric warfare: the law and criminal procedure become “rules of engagement”. One can establish a space to maneuver by forcing the opponent to adhere to its own rules of engagement while ignoring them oneself. Thus “black bloc” protests and similar strategies rely on the reluctance of the police and courts to convict the wrong person of a crime. Further, the existence of law is not absolute, but only to be acknowledged insofar as it is an instrument to compel the behavior of the enemy – one complains about the illegal behavior of the state only to force it to recant in the face of popular disapproval, not because one genuinely believes in the binding force of the law.
So it’s worth noting that at least some of the people quoted in the article are conducting “doth protest too much” asymmetric warfare, which is Part II of a black bloc protest. They do not necessarily believe what they are saying but are rather following the playbook of forcing the state to adhere to its stated principles.
Now, in the meantime the Republicans have also read Alinsky, finally, which means that what we are seeing here is simply a defensive upgrade in an asymmetric warfare arms race – the antifa people, their space of maneuver closed off in this direction, will now have to come up with something new.
However, the interesting thing about this episode for me is how the exercise of power for both parties still has one eye on something called “public opinion”, when that may not even exist anymore. If power is exercised with impunity and there is no practical mechanism of public oversight or punishment, towards whom exactly are all these protests and justifications being performed? In the age of the spectacle even the most powerful are still hobbled by their need to look around and see what everyone else is doing. Power itself is hobbled in this way. Indeed, the successful invention of “soft totalitarianism” depends on this realization: power disguised as therapeutic law can paralyze effective protest for exactly as long as it does not disclose its Willen zur Macht. Now that we have those in power who are too badly educated or impatient to understand the source of the public paralysis that protected the grid of control, power is emerging again as violent fiat – which means there is something to hit back at.
Sorry, but I have to object to your description. The black bloc technique was NOT invented to provide cover for crimes, as you may have inadvertently suggested. It came from German anti-nuclear protests in the 1970’s where police were going to great lengths to identify protesters and then physically attack, as in beat them, in their homes, workplaces, etc., harass friends and family, even and especially in the absence of any crimes committed or arrests made. In response, German protesters came up with this technique to subvert attempts at identification, to create anonymity.
So the primary purpose of the black bloc is safety, to protect protesters. That crimes may or may not happen is true of any group, dressed in black or not, but it’s not a distinctive characteristic of the black bloc.
Additionally, the presence of a black bloc within a protest group often deters the police from commiting crimes they would otherwise commit, is very effective at keeping them behaved, so the protection extends even to those who aren’t dressed in black. Indeed, I think over time this became the primary reason for protesters to bloc up.
Those using the method could have literally any ideology at all, even fascists have dressed in black for the same reasons – anonymity, keeping police at bay.
Es, while your history is correct, there have been conversations in protester and antiracist action circles since the late ’90s about how black bloc “no longer works,” and yet it always persists.
In Italy and England 25 years ago La Tutti Bianche and the WOMBLES were an attempt to add padding vs police assaults and wear white to contrast with police black, to tell a cinematic story of good vs evil, instead of dressing in black. Also, their white overalls were slightly harder for a lazy provocateur to acquire than skinny jeans and a hoodie.
Black bloc often saw themselves at various times as the protectors of the rest of the protesters, willing to engage in more aggressive defensive action, or even lightly assaultive action to prevent “green” or “unarrestable” or whatever the word of the day protesters fom being pushed back, injured, or arrested.
The primary reason black bloc was said to “not work” anymore, each time this was the discovery of the day 1999-2009ish, was not because participants could be easily identified, but because it was easily and frequently joined by provocateurs on police or FBI payroll. Especially when the police or FBI needed to justify an absurdly inflated budget for event security by manufacturing a tame “terrorist” threat.
But the bloc seems to never die.
I can answer as to why the bloc doesn’t die. I’ve never been to a protest with a bloc contingent where I didn’t witness firsthand the bloc actively shielding the body of the protest from more agressive police actions. Time and time again I’ve seen riot police or horse squads forming to attack but as soon as a bloc comes between them and the body, they retreat. Whatever one might think, this is actually quite helpful and I’m sure I’m not the only one to have noticed or even benefitted. I’m sure anyone who has been part of a protest in the last 30 years has been thankful, they seem to fill a need.
But yes, to acknowledge your point, I’ve also witnessed where the bloc is so obviously infiltrated, by individual(s) with some obvious identifying feature leading the charge precisely where the police want them to go.
Again, this is true of any group, not just those dressing in black. I’ve also seen this same infiltration tactic used in Critical Mass rides. Police infiltrate then lead the mass OFF the roads, away from traffic, into parks, thus defeating the whole purpose of Critical Mass.
Police (or agency) infiltration is not only happening to the black bloc, it’s now happening for all forms of protest.
Alinsky, IIRC, was a politically liberal community activist. As far as I can tell, politically, he was never a member of any socialist or communist organization.
Can you give a reference from one of his books showing his conceptualization of politics as asymmetric warfare? The Wikipedia biography shows he was mainly interested in community organizing. I am aware that Glen Beck claimed he advocated for a godless utopia, but that is not likely to be an accurate account.
“…I think if we lose, then… a lot of the country is OK with what’s going on. And it will be a much darker time, it’ll just signify a much increased crackdown on political opposition and free speech.”
A lot of the country supports nazis, genocide, and censorship– and those are the “liberal democrats”– why surprise if the rabidly-righteous support the Pretti Good treatment of apostates, heretics, naysayers and/or dissenters?
Some discussion here ventured prospects for civil war, one likely based-upon ideological lines rather than geographic ones, and I would personally give more weight to the possibility for revolution than its civil cousin…
Mentioned previously that there are no bright-lines to distinguish one from the other, and that each may appear in a wide variety of forms, it appears that we are on the cusp of something much more savage than a mere “crackdown.” And whatever you wish to call it, it seems to be taking shape in a hurry.
An anecdotal ray of hope –
An extremely conservative, very Catholic, pro-life, anti-Democrat, Trump voting registered Republican friend of the family expressed her disgust over Trump’s latest war and recently said “It’s no longer Republican vs. Democrat – it’s us vs. them”.
“Welcome to the club”, said I!
I sincerely hope this attitude is spreading far and wide.
Behold, a Catholic who knows they’re supposed to be anti-war even if they don’t seem to know they’re supposed to love everyone equally, all are the children of God, and that not following this directive to love all is precisely the cause of wars.
supposed ‘liberals’ have been attacking the 1st Amendment for a while
John Kerry –
https://x.com/EndWokeness/status/1840223221120979211
and most of my links to Kathrine Maher dissing the 1st Amendment have been scrubbed but here are a few –
https://www.ted.com/talks/katherine_maher_what_wikipedia_teaches_us_about_balancing_truth_and_beliefs
“The number one challenge that we see here is, of course, the First Amendment in the United States,’ Maher said at the panel hosted by the Atlantic Council’s research lab, where she served as a nonresident senior fellow.”
https://www.atlanticcouncil.tv/videos/360-open-summit-the-world-in-motion-045-a-conversation-with-former-wikimedia-ceo-katherine-maher