Full Reichstag Fire

[Kishkumen]

The correct word is "terrorist" and it's chosen for a reason. The word "terrorist" is all over legal documents, like "communism" on steroids. Oppenheimer himself lost his security clearance because of his ties to the "communist party". That of course had nothing to do with ties to the Soviet Union, it was essentially a "pro-worker" American party.

Now, this first stuck in my mind when I flew back into the US in the early 00's and I had to sign a paper, even as a US citizen, attesting that I was not a terrorist. Don't worry Whiskey, it wasn't just me they singled out, everyone in the line had to. I laughed at it -- why ask stupid things that nobody is going to ever admit to? So I picked up on things related to this in the future. It's a legal trap to make legal decisions easier. It's hard to prove somebody really is a "communist" but if their employment stipulates they ties to communism, and then they literally once got together with a bunch of other pro-workers who called themselves "communists" then that's much easier to prove.

In immigration, various forms may ask if you are a terrorist and I think I recall it on a security clearance application I filled out in 00s. Obviously, nobody is going to answer "yes". So why ask such a stupid question? Because if you get involved in a group later on that's considered extreme, it makes prosecution much easier. You don't have to prove the person committed a crime, only that they didn't fill out their paperwork properly. That invalidates the paperwork.

So obviously, this administration wants ANTIFA -- something that doesn't even exist -- and whatever else, including "anti-fascism" to be considered terrorism, because then anybody either in the immigration process or in certain federal jobs, or with security clearances, or works for a private company that contracts with the government, or receives government benefits or...who knows how long the list is, vulnerable to prosecution or losing a benefit with a much lower standard of evidence than would otherwise exist. Example: oh, on your student visa you said you weren't a terrorist. Yet you showed up this rally, and somebody marching in front of you held an ANTIFA sign, ANTIFA is declared by executive order to be a terrorist organization, and therefore you filled out the form wrong, and thus it is invalidated, and so now you have to go.

Very insightful, Dean Robbers. Thanks for sharing that. If only our resident MAGAheads could bring similar substance to their side of our discussions.

[canpakes]

So Important that these fascists and terrorists have these labels so much.

The correct word is "terrorist" and it's chosen for a reason.

Bingo.

[canpakes]

This seems authoritarian-ish.

Trump’s attack on George Soros is the next step in the autocrat’s handbook

Having already attacked judges, lawyers, media companies and universities, the president has set his sights on civilians

Opinion - Kenneth Roth
07:00 EDT Saturday, 27 September 2025

As a former federal prosecutor, I know that prosecutors should be guided by the facts. But in his determination to hound George Soros, Donald Trump wants prosecutors to become agents of his personal vendetta, facts be damned. That is the conclusion to be drawn from the instructions issued by one of Trump’s senior justice department officials to a group of US attorney’s offices across the country, telling them to investigate Soros’s foundation.

This is the latest step in Trump’s implementation of the autocrat’s handbook, with the aim of chipping away at the checks and balances on presidential authority. Having already attacked judges, lawyers, media companies and universities, Trump now sets his sights on civil society. Soros, a longtime and extraordinarily generous funder of progressive causes around the world including in the United States, is Target Number 1. Trump shares this fixation with the likes of Hungarian prime minister Viktor Orbán, Europe’s most prominent autocrat, who for years has used Soros as a scapegoat for widespread and growing dislike of his corrupt, self-serving rule.

As the name of Soros’s Open Society Foundations (O.S.F.) suggests, he promotes the free and public exchange of ideas. Soros made his billions by recognizing that markets are fallible. He gave away billions based on the insight that human governance is imperfect, too, and that the best way to compensate is with independent voices engaged in free debate. Having survived as a Jewish boy in Hungary under Nazi rule, Soros understands that we are safer when people can contest government dogma.

Soros has funded not only human rights activists who defend open societies but also intellectuals and journalists who have pushed the limits of public debate, as well as organizations devoted to redressing a range of injustices. My former organization, Human Rights Watch, was and remains a major beneficiary.

Despite his brilliance, Soros is too modest to believe he has the ultimate answers to society’s most vexing problems. He is always self-critical, deeply aware of his inability to see the full truth, skeptical of any moment’s conventional wisdom.

At age 95, he has stepped back from an active role in his foundation, which is now chaired by his son Alex. But his vision still guides the foundation and is antithetical to Trump’s delusional belief that he alone is the guardian of all wisdom while critics are to be demonized and persecuted. Soros has the self-confidence to eschew the kinds of sycophantic lackeys whom Trump prefers.

The debate that Soros has long promoted is peaceful. That is the essence of the open society that he champions. O.S.F. recently reiterated that they “unequivocally condemn terrorism and do not fund terrorism. Our activities are peaceful and lawful, and our grantees are expected to abide by human rights principles and comply with the law.”

But that has not stopped Trump from insinuating without evidence that Soros and O.S.F. are somehow supporters of people who engage in political violence. I have known Soros for more than three decades and have never seen a hint of that. It is the opposite of who he is. But stubborn reality has never impeded Trump and his acolytes in their universe of “alternative facts”.

Straining to justify the vendetta, Trump’s justice department points to a report issued by a group that calls itself the Capital Research Center. It is filled with tendentious, McCarthyite allusions about O.S.F. grantees having alleged sympathy for Hamas or tolerance of “direct action”, a supposed allusion to violence.

One of the prominent examples it cites is O.S.F.’s funding of the highly respected Palestinian human rights group Al-Haq, one of six Palestinian organizations that the Israeli government in 2021 designated as supposed terrorists. But the Israeli government bandies about accusations of terrorism the same way it tries to silence critics with false allegations of antisemitism. I have worked with Al-Haq throughout my career and have always known it to be a fact-based, principled, and peaceful organization that fairly and objectively investigates and reports on Israeli abuses in extraordinarily difficult circumstances.

Another O.S.F. grantee targeted is the human rights group Dawn, which was founded by Jamal Khashoggi, the Saudi journalist who was murdered by the Saudi government. One of its stated offenses is that while it condemned Hamas’s 7 October 2023 attack, it focused on the civilian, not the military, victims.

That such “evidence” might tempt Trump to order criminal charges against Soros under his newly announced effort to counter “domestic terrorism and organized political violence” means that almost anyone could be targeted.

In persecuting Soros, Trump has taken on a tough target. Like Harvard, which successfully sued rather than capitulate, Soros has the means to fight back. Moreover, unlike some law firms that cut deals with Trump to escape his wrath, 100 progressive foundations have announced that they will mount a common defense if any of them faces Trump’s vengeance. That mutual support is the right response to Trump’s divide-and-conquer strategy.

I would expect that the courts will promptly dismiss any action that Trump takes against Soros. Despite Trump’s efforts to bully them, federal judges have maintained their independence, and many continue to apply the law rather than Trump’s dictates. A fact-free prosecution of a well-known critic is a recipe for judicial rejection.

But that doesn’t relieve Soros and his foundation from the burden of defending themselves from fabricated charges, which can be substantial. Trump’s abuse of his power to persecute an independent voice – his posturing to his base in utter contempt of the first amendment – should be widely and firmly denounced. Unless the pushback is intense enough, Soros may be Trump’s first civilian target but not the last.

Kenneth Roth, former executive director of Human Rights Watch (1993-2022), is a visiting professor at Princeton University’s School of Public and International Affairs. His book Righting Wrongs: Three Decades on the Front Lines Battling Abusive Governments is published by Knopf and Allen Lane


https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... plnews_d-1

[Whiskey]

I commit. The conversation is moving along just fine.

I believe the issue is that I don’t cave to unsubstantiated claims or your conclusions based on imagination. Disagreement with your ideology is unsettling to you, but it is allowed. Or isn’t it?

I think every non-MAGAhead here is pretty aware that your use of the term "ideology" is interchangeable with "anti-Trump."

Kish, you’re projecting again.

By your logic my use of the word “ideology” could mean pro-Trump, anti-Trump, or that Trump owns a pet goldfish. That’s how ridiculous your leap is.

I use the word because it has an actual meaning. You keep coming back with conclusions that aren’t based on fact but whatever storyline you’ve already cooked up. That isn’t debate, it’s you shadowboxing with your own imagination. If you don't want disrupted conversations, then don't disrupt conversation by making them about me. Deal? If, on the other hand, you want to make it about me, please stick to facts that you can substantiate.

[Whiskey]

The correct word is "terrorist" and it's chosen for a reason. The word "terrorist" is all over legal documents, like "communism" on steroids. Oppenheimer himself lost his security clearance because of his ties to the "communist party". That of course had nothing to do with ties to the Soviet Union, it was essentially a "pro-worker" American party.

Now, this first stuck in my mind when I flew back into the US in the early 00's and I had to sign a paper, even as a US citizen, attesting that I was not a terrorist. Don't worry Whiskey, it wasn't just me they singled out, everyone in the line had to. I laughed at it -- why ask stupid things that nobody is going to ever admit to? So I picked up on things related to this in the future. It's a legal trap to make legal decisions easier. It's hard to prove somebody really is a "communist" but if their employment stipulates they ties to communism, and then they literally once got together with a bunch of other pro-workers who called themselves "communists" then that's much easier to prove.

In immigration, various forms may ask if you are a terrorist and I think I recall it on a security clearance application I filled out in 00s. Obviously, nobody is going to answer "yes". So why ask such a stupid question? Because if you get involved in a group later on that's considered extreme, it makes prosecution much easier. You don't have to prove the person committed a crime, only that they didn't fill out their paperwork properly. That invalidates the paperwork.

So obviously, this administration wants ANTIFA -- something that doesn't even exist -- and whatever else, including "anti-fascism" to be considered terrorism, because then anybody either in the immigration process or in certain federal jobs, or with security clearances, or works for a private company that contracts with the government, or receives government benefits or...who knows how long the list is, vulnerable to prosecution or losing a benefit with a much lower standard of evidence than would otherwise exist. Example: oh, on your student visa you said you weren't a terrorist. Yet you showed up this rally, and somebody marching in front of you held an ANTIFA sign, ANTIFA is declared by executive order to be a terrorist organization, and therefore you filled out the form wrong, and thus it is invalidated, and so now you have to go.

Very insightful, Dean Robbers. Thanks for sharing that. If only our resident MAGAheads could bring similar substance to their side of our discussions.

Again, Kish. If you do not want disrupted conversations, try staying in the topic lane and not making the conversation about other posters. Particularly, don't do so when your conclusions are damned asinine and pulled from your ass like pork. The conversation benefits from Gad's comments. He addressed me, but did not make the post or comment about me. You - on the other hand - went damned emo on the joint in hopes of a derail that you could then cry about.

[Whiskey]

So Important that these fascists and terrorists have these labels so much.

The correct word is "terrorist" and it's chosen for a reason. The word "terrorist" is all over legal documents, like "communism" on steroids. Oppenheimer himself lost his security clearance because of his ties to the "communist party". That of course had nothing to do with ties to the Soviet Union, it was essentially a "pro-worker" American party.

Now, this first stuck in my mind when I flew back into the US in the early 00's and I had to sign a paper, even as a US citizen, attesting that I was not a terrorist. Don't worry Whiskey, it wasn't just me they singled out, everyone in the line had to. I laughed at it -- why ask stupid things that nobody is going to ever admit to? So I picked up on things related to this in the future. It's a legal trap to make legal decisions easier. It's hard to prove somebody really is a "communist" but if their employment stipulates they ties to communism, and then they literally once got together with a bunch of other pro-workers who called themselves "communists" then that's much easier to prove.

In immigration, various forms may ask if you are a terrorist and I think I recall it on a security clearance application I filled out in 00s. Obviously, nobody is going to answer "yes". So why ask such a stupid question? Because if you get involved in a group later on that's considered extreme, it makes prosecution much easier. You don't have to prove the person committed a crime, only that they didn't fill out their paperwork properly. That invalidates the paperwork.

So obviously, this administration wants ANTIFA -- something that doesn't even exist -- and whatever else, including "anti-fascism" to be considered terrorism, because then anybody either in the immigration process or in certain federal jobs, or with security clearances, or works for a private company that contracts with the government, or receives government benefits or...who knows how long the list is, vulnerable to prosecution or losing a benefit with a much lower standard of evidence than would otherwise exist. Example: oh, on your student visa you said you weren't a terrorist. Yet you showed up this rally, and somebody marching in front of you held an ANTIFA sign, ANTIFA is declared by executive order to be a terrorist organization, and therefore you filled out the form wrong, and thus it is invalidated, and so now you have to go.

Tell me more about the highlighted point. "[ S ]omething that doesn't even exist," is a popular explanation for Antifa. I want to understand how you come to that conclusion. I disagree with it, but I want to understand it.

Now - here is where I am going with this. If there are two members who say they are part of it? Does it exist? If one or more persons have been convicted or plead guilty to criminal acts done in association with Antifa, does it exist? What evidence must one provide to prove the existence of Antifa to your satisfaction?

And - if Antifa is "something that doesn't even exist," could the same be said about semi-fascists? Where do we draw the distinctions on existence or not?

Trickfuckery post 9-11 related to terrorism is not clever. It is not respectable. From the wars, to the BS in airports, to profiling to all of it. From Clinton to Trump2, it is not a transparent or respectable process. It is not efficient. And frankly, the lack of efficiency is a big reveal on the credibility.

[Kishkumen]

Kish, you’re projecting again.

By your logic my use of the word “ideology” could mean pro-Trump, anti-Trump, or that Trump owns a pet goldfish. That’s how ridiculous your leap is.

I use the word because it has an actual meaning. You keep coming back with conclusions that aren’t based on fact but whatever storyline you’ve already cooked up. That isn’t debate, it’s you shadowboxing with your own imagination. If you don't want disrupted conversations, then don't disrupt conversation by making them about me. Deal? If, on the other hand, you want to make it about me, please stick to facts that you can substantiate.

I am fully aware of what the word ideology means. It is your usage that I am questioning. You are not a very clear poster. You don't post complete ideas. If I read Gadianton's stuff, it is very clear what he means. Your posts, by comparison, are more like dance moves than communications. There's just not much to interact with. As a result, most of us find you opaque, misleading, disingenuous, and a waste of the board's time. This has been true of many of your posts in many interations of your manifestations under different handles.

[Kishkumen]

Again, Kish. If you do not want disrupted conversations, try staying in the topic lane and not making the conversation about other posters. Particularly, don't do so when your conclusions are damned asinine and pulled from your ass like pork. The conversation benefits from Gad's comments. He addressed me, but did not make the post or comment about me. You - on the other hand - went damned emo on the joint in hopes of a derail that you could then cry about.

Yeah, Gadianton goes out of his way to take your poop and turn it into something to interact with. I admire him for it. I don't admire the slop you serve that he tries to make something out of.

[Kishkumen]

And - if Antifa is "something that doesn't even exist," could the same be said about semi-fascists? Where do we draw the distinctions on existence or not?

I have been uncertain about this, just as I am uncertain about the claim that there are no extremist trans activists. I mean, who were the dudes who showed up at rallies to punch Neo-Nazis? The ones wearing makeshift body armor and such? I guess there is no Antifa headquarters and PO Box? On the extremist trans activists, I could have sworn I did read an article some time ago about a small group of online trans radicals who perpetrated acts of violence.

The problem I have with Trump's use of these terms like radical left is that he applies them pretty sloppily to anyone who opposes him politically. Everyone he does not like is in danger of being called a "radical left lunatic," or some such. I doubt Trump really cares who the actual radical left people are. He and his ilk find it a lot more useful to call everyone he hates, and everyone who hates him, a radical left lunatic, or Antifa, or a trans terrorist or some such.

The dude is completely irresponsible in his messaging.

[Res Ipsa]

As someone once said, back to the topic.

Let's zoom in on the parts of this order that illustrate how extreme it is:

Heinous assassinations and other acts of political violence in the United States have dramatically increased in recent years. Even in the aftermath of the horrifying assassination of Charlie Kirk, some individuals who adhered to the alleged shooter’s ideology embraced and cheered this evil murder while actively encouraging more political violence. This was preceded by the 2024 assassination of a senior healthcare executive and the 2022 assassination attempt against Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh. Two separate assassination attempts against my own life in less than 3 months took place during the 2024 Presidential election cycle.

First point: Since when is a clampdown on constitutionally protected speech and association justified by "some individuals ... who embraced and
cheered" Kirk's murder? "Some individuals?" In a country of 330 million people? Really?

Has the author of this memo read anything on the internet? Some people say terrible, horrible, awful, very bad things on the internet. Like making fun of a man who was beaten half to death with a hammer simply because he was married to the Democratic Speaker of the House. Or any speech by Donald Trump.

Second point: what is the shooter's ideology? We don't know. His stated motive was to stop Kirk from saying hateful things. So, was his ideology "anti-hate?" Who here among us is "pro-hate"?" Was his ideology "we should not demonize trans men and women?" Is anyone here "pro-demonization" of their fellow sentient bits of carbon? The formation of an ideology is complicated and cannot be reduced to one semester at Utah State. A couple of decades being socialized in southern Utah Mormonism and immersed in gun culture doesn't get erased overnight.

Third point: the list of assassination attempts is cherry picked. One glaring omission is the assassination of two Minnesota legislators by a bona fide Trump supporter, who also had a hit list of other democratic politicians. When asked about violence on the political right, the president said that he doesn't care and justified it by pointing to high prices. These political assassinations were not marked by the flying of flags at half-staff, cries for revenge by Democratic politicians and influencers, or a memorial celebration complete with pyrotechnics. Trump couldn't even be bothered to phone the governor, let alone to the distraught spouses and children of the victims.

It's not like political scientists and sociologists haven't studied political violence and its causes. The evidence is clear: after the demise of the Weather Underground and other violent leftist groups in the late '60s and perhaps early '70s, political violence by right-wing extremists has far outpaced that of left-wing extremists, whether measured in terms of number of incidents or number of victims. The White House knows this, which is why they tried to deep six one of the reports that shows just that.

I want to stress that this trend in political violence is not a necessary fact -- it is a contingent fact. There is no necessary connection between being on the left or the right and killing a fellow human. It just so happens at this point in time that there is no equivalent on the left of Christian Identity (no, not all sentient bits of carbon who identify as Christian. It's a term of art. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Identity), Neo Nazi, and armed militia groups that espouse violence. The importance of the trend is to show that the memo's account of violence is deliberate misinformation intended to give a false impression of the source and cause of political violence.

More to come.