Connect with us

Politics

The World Has Turned On Silicon Valley And For Good Reason

Published

on

(Via The Guardian)

When Jonathan Taplin’s book Move Fast and Break Things, which dealt with the worrying rise of big tech, was first published in the UK in April 2017, his publishers removed its subtitle because they didn’t think it was supported by evidence: “How Facebook, Google and Amazon cornered culture and undermined democracy.”

When the paperback edition comes out early next year, that subtitle will be restored.

“It’s been a sea change in just six months,” Taplin said. “Before that, people were kind of asleep.”

In the last year, barely a day has gone by without a scandal placing technology companies in the spotlight, whether for sexual harassment, livestreamed murder, Russian influence operations or terrorist propaganda.

Tech’s annus horribilis started with calls to #DeleteUber, but the way things are going it will end with calls to delete the entire internet.

“2017 has definitely been a year when tech has found there is a target painted on its back,” said Om Malik, a venture capitalist. “The big companies have been so obsessed with growth that there’s been a lack of social responsibility. Now the chickens are coming home to roost.”

The surprise election of Donald Trump acted as a catalyst for scrutiny of the platforms that shape so much of our online experience. Even so, it’s taken many months for the enormity of their role to sink in.

Perhaps the biggest wake-up call has been the showdown in Washington. Congress summoned representatives from Facebook, Twitter and Google to testify over their role in a multi-pronged Russian operation to influence the 2016 presidential election. All three companies admitted that Russian entities bought ads on their sites in an attempt to skew the vote.

In Facebook’s case, fake accounts pushed divisive messages in swing states; Google found similar activity across its paid search tool and YouTube; and on Twitter, armies of bots and fake users promoted fake news stories that were favourable to Donald Trump. Similar patterns were identified around the Brexit vote.

“The election shows the stakes involved here,” said Noam Cohen, author of The Know-It-Alls: The Rise of Silicon Valley as a Political Powerhouse and Social Wrecking Ball. “In the past, to be a critic of Silicon Valley was to say the smartphone is making us dumb. Now it’s incompatible with democracy.”

It’s not been the only example of technology companies monetising and distributing unpalatable content and acting surprised when it’s uncovered.

In March, the Times of London revealed that YouTube had paid, via an advertising revenue share, Islamic extremists to peddle hate speech, leading to a boycott from many major advertisers. A second boycott started this month after brands discovered that their ads were appearing alongside content being exploited by paedophiles.

In May, the Guardian’s investigation into Facebook’s content moderation policies revealed that the social network flouted Holocaust denial laws except where it feared being sued. Four months later, Pro Publica discovered that Facebook’s ad tools could be used to target “Jew haters”.

Facebook’s chief operating officer, Sheryl Sandberg, later said she was “disgusted” and “disappointed that our systems allowed this”.

Taplin finds the technology companies’ standard response of “Oops, we’ll fix this” frustrating and disingenuous.

“Come on! What were you thinking?” he said. “If I can target women who drink bourbon in Tennessee who like trucks, then of course I could use it for dark purposes.”

The deepening pockets and growing influence of companies like Facebook, Amazon, Google and Apple has raised concerns that they have become Goliaths, threatening the innovation Silicon Valley was once known for.

You only have to look at Snap to see what happens when you nip at the heels of a tech titan like Facebook: first, it makes an offer to buy you – a strategy that worked with Instagram and WhatsApp – and, if that fails, it eliminates you.

In Snap’s case, this meant watching Facebook clone all of Snapchat’s features – awkwardly at first, but relentlessly until Snapchat’s potential slice of the advertising market shriveled to a sliver.

“[The Snap CEO] Evan Spiegel is having his hat handed to him,” Taplin said, noting how Snap’s stock had plummeted since the company went public in March.

As power consolidates into the hands of a few, the best a startup can hope for is to be bought by one of the tech giants. This, in turn, leads to further consolidation.

So the five largest tech companies – desperate to avoid the kind of antitrust regulation that disrupted IBM and Microsoft’s dominance – are flooding Washington with lobbyists, to the point where they now outspend Wall Street two to one.

“Regulation is coming,” said Malik. “We have got to prepare for that. Everybody has figured out that we are the enemy number one now because we are rich and all the politicians smell blood.”

It doesn’t help that there’s a rising number of former Silicon Valley engineers and business leaders who have morphed into tech dissenters, complaining about the addictive properties of the platforms and call for people – particularly children – to unplug.

In November, Facebook’s founding president, Sean Parker, said the social network knew from the outset it was creating something addictive, something that exploited “a vulnerability in human psychology” – a damning critique somewhat undermined by the fact that it was being delivered from the top of an enormous money pile generated by that exploitation.

The vast wealth on display in Silicon Valley – in the private commuter buses, sprawling campuses and luxury condos – does little to endear the companies and their employees to the rest of the world. Like it or not, tech workers have become the shining beacons of prosperity and elitism, shining a bit too brightly at a time of increasing income inequality.

The fact that $700 internet-connected juicers can raise $120m in funding before folding adds to the sense that Silicon Valley has lost its grip on reality.

“Silicon Valley at its core wants to solve problems. I just think we’ve lost touch with the types of problems that actual people need solving,” said Ankur Jain, who set up Kairos Society to encourage more entrepreneurs to solve problems where everyday people are being financially squeezed, such as housing, student loans and job retraining in the face of automation.

“People are so removed from the rest of the ecosystem in Silicon Valley that these problems feel more like charity issues rather than issues that affect the vast majority of the population,” Jain said.

For Malik, many of the problems stem from the fact that Silicon Valley companies have remained “wilfully ignorant” of the fact that “at the end of every data point there is a human being”.

All the problems to have arisen over the last year are particularly jarring given the tech companies’ continued insistence that they are doing good for the world.

“It’s a form of gaslighting to have these companies doing so many harmful things telling you how great they are and how much they are helping you. It’s another form of abuse,” Cohen said.

Malik agreed. “Silicon Valley is very good at using words like empathy and social responsibility as marketing buzzwords, but they are terms that we need to internalise as an industry and show through our actions by building the right things,” he said. “Otherwise it’s all bullshit.”

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Crime

RICO in America: Trump’s Relentless Pursuit of George Soros and the Dawn of Political Racketeering Prosecutions

Published

on

In a move that has electrified conservatives and sent shockwaves through globalist circles, President Donald J. Trump has greenlit a sweeping Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) investigation targeting billionaire philanthropist George Soros and his sprawling network of nonprofits. Announced via a fiery Truth Social post on August 15, 2025—”Soros has been poisoning our democracy for decades. Time to RICO this clown and his puppets!”—the probe marks the first federal use of RICO statutes against a political financier, blending antitrust muscle with election interference claims. As indictments loom and allies rally, this saga isn’t just legal theater; it’s a blueprint for how America’s reopened playbook of accountability could reshape philanthropy, activism, and the deep state itself.

The Spark: From Campaign Rhetoric to DOJ Directive

Trump’s beef with Soros dates back to his first term, when he accused the Hungarian-born investor of bankrolling “paid protesters” during the 2016 transition and Charlottesville unrest. But post-2024 reelection, with a Republican trifecta in Congress and a DOJ loyal to his vision, rhetoric turned to action. The catalyst? A July 2025 whistleblower leak from the Open Society Foundations (OSF), Soros’ flagship, revealing $500 million funneled through shell entities to influence 2024 battleground states—allegedly including voter registration drives in Pennsylvania and Georgia that federal auditors later flagged as “irregular.”

On August 10, Attorney General Pam Bondi, a Trump stalwart, issued a sealed indictment under 18 U.S.C. § 1961 et seq., the RICO Act originally crafted to dismantle Mafia syndicates. The 127-page filing paints OSF and affiliates like the Tides Foundation as an “enterprise” engaging in a “pattern of racketeering activity” via wire fraud, money laundering, and conspiracy to subvert elections. Key allegations:

  • Election Meddling as Extortion: Soros-linked PACs allegedly coerced tech firms (e.g., via $100 million to Media Matters) to suppress conservative voices, qualifying as “extortionate threats” under RICO.
  • Foreign Influence Pipeline: Ties to EU grants and Hungarian expatriate networks funneled $200 million to U.S. DAs like Alvin Bragg and Larry Krasner, who pursued Trump cases—framed as a “bribe-for-prosecution” scheme.
  • NGO Laundering: Over 300 entities, from Color of Change to the ACLU’s voting rights arm, received “dark money” rerouted through Cayman Islands trusts, evading IRS disclosure.

Trump, in a Mar-a-Lago presser, dubbed it “RICO for the globalists,” vowing to “claw back every crooked dime.” The DOJ’s task force, Operation Shadow Ledger, has subpoenaed 47 organizations, freezing $150 million in assets and raiding OSF’s New York offices on September 5—footage of agents carting servers went viral, amassing 50 million views.

Soros’ Empire Strikes Back: Denials, Lawsuits, and Diaspora Defenses

At 95, Soros—net worth $7.2 billion—remains defiant from his Bedford, New York estate. In a rare Bloomberg interview on August 20, he dismissed the probe as “authoritarian revenge,” likening it to Orban’s crackdown in Hungary. OSF’s statement called the charges “baseless smears designed to chill free speech,” filing a countersuit in federal court alleging First Amendment violations and selective prosecution. Soros’ son, Alex, who helms OSF, rallied allies: a coalition of 200+ NGOs penned an open letter to the UN, warning of “democratic backsliding.”

Legal experts are split. Harvard’s Laurence Tribe blasted it as “McCarthyism 2.0,” arguing RICO’s “enterprise” prong doesn’t fit ideological funding. But NYU’s Rachel Barkow, a former sentencing commissioner, concedes the case’s strength: “If prosecutors prove a coordinated pattern—like the 2020 election grants mirroring DNC strategies—it’s airtight.” Precedents abound: RICO felled the Gambino family in the ’80s and Enron execs in the 2000s, with civil provisions allowing triple damages—potentially bankrupting Soros’ web.

Internationally, blowback mounts. The EU Parliament condemned the “witch hunt” on September 10, while Hungary’s Viktor Orban toasted Trump with a Budapest billboard: “Finally, Justice for the Puppet Master.” Protests erupted in D.C., with Code Pink and Black Lives Matter decrying “fascist overreach,” met by MAGA counter-rallies chanting “Lock him up!”

The Bigger Play: RICO as Trump’s Weapon Against the “Swamp”

This isn’t isolated—it’s salvo one in Trump’s “Accountability Winter.” Parallel probes target ActBlue for “straw donor” schemes and the Ford Foundation for DEI grants deemed “anti-white discrimination.” House Judiciary Chair Jim Jordan, wielding subpoena power, hauled OSF execs before a September 12 hearing, where one exec invoked the Fifth amid leaked emails showing “Trump neutralization” strategies.

Critics fear a slippery slope: Could environmental groups face RICO for climate lobbying? Evangelical donors for abortion fights? Yet Trump allies like Stephen Miller frame it as leveling the field: “Soros spent billions unopposed; now we fight fire with law.” Polls show 62% GOP approval, per Rasmussen, with independents at 48%—a rare bipartisan hook on “big money in politics.”

As discovery unfolds—expected to unseal donor lists by October—whispers of plea deals swirl. Will mid-level operatives flip on Soros’ inner circle? The octogenarian himself faces no direct charges yet, but civil forfeiture could strip his influence. In Trump’s America, RICO isn’t just for mobsters; it’s the great equalizer, promising to audit the auditors and prosecute the philanthropists. Whether it endures Supreme Court scrutiny or crumbles under appeals, one truth endures: the hunter has become the hunted.

Continue Reading

Groyper

The Assassination of Charlie Kirk: Unraveling the Official Narrative, Israeli Theories, and the Fracturing of the Alt-Right

Published

on

In the early afternoon of September 10, 2025, the American conservative movement suffered a seismic shock. Charlie Kirk, the 31-year-old founder of Turning Point USA (TPUSA)—a powerhouse organization that mobilized young voters for Republican causes—was fatally shot while delivering a speech at Utah Valley University in Orem, Utah. The attack, captured on video and witnessed by hundreds of students and attendees, has ignited national outrage, a frantic manhunt, and a torrent of speculation that threatens to deepen rifts within the right-wing ecosystem. As the nation grapples with the loss of a polarizing yet influential figure, questions swirl: Was this the act of a lone radical, a foreign hit, or something engineered to sow chaos? This article examines the official account, the burgeoning theories implicating Israel, and the growing schism among alt-right voices over “who got Charlie.”

The Official Narrative: A Swift Manhunt and a Suspect in Custody

According to law enforcement and federal investigators, the assassination unfolded with chilling precision during Kirk’s campus event, part of TPUSA’s ongoing efforts to engage Gen Z conservatives. At approximately 2:23 p.m. MDT, as Kirk addressed a crowd on topics including election integrity and cultural conservatism, a single gunshot rang out from a distance of about 200 yards. The bullet struck Kirk in the neck, severing his carotid artery and causing him to collapse onstage. He was pronounced dead at a nearby hospital despite immediate medical intervention.

The FBI and Utah County Sheriff’s Office swiftly identified 22-year-old Tyler Robinson, a local resident and self-described “Democratic Socialist of America” member, as the prime suspect. Robinson, described in court documents as a reclusive figure with a history of online radicalism, allegedly used a high-powered rifle equipped with a suppressor. Shell casings recovered at the scene bore inscriptions with “anti-fascist” and pro-transgender slogans, such as “Trans Lives Matter” and “Smash the Patriarchy,” fueling initial speculation of a politically motivated attack from the far left.

A multi-agency manhunt ensued, spanning Utah and neighboring states. Robinson evaded capture for nearly a week, reportedly fearing a police shootout upon surrender. On September 18, he turned himself in peacefully at a remote sheriff’s outpost in Orem, prompted by a text message to his roommate days earlier: “Drop what you’re doing, look under my keyboard.” The note contained a confession and instructions for disposal of evidence. Prosecutors filed first-degree murder charges on September 16, with Utah County Attorney Jeff Gray citing “overwhelming ballistic and digital evidence” linking Robinson to the scene.

The investigation revealed no broader conspiracy—at least not yet. The ATF confirmed the rifle and casings were left behind, suggesting a non-suicidal mission where escape was prioritized. Robinson’s online footprint included posts railing against Kirk’s views on LGBTQ+ issues, affirmative action, and immigration, aligning with antifa-style rhetoric. Kirk, a vocal critic of “gender ideology” and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (which he called an “anti-white weapon”), had long been a lightning rod for progressive ire. Even in death, his legacy drew fire: Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez condemned his “ignorant” rhetoric on civil rights and antisemitic undertones in a congressional resolution, sparking backlash from conservatives who decried it as politicizing tragedy.

As of today, Robinson awaits arraignment, with the FBI dismissing foreign involvement but monitoring for “copycat threats.” A memorial service is scheduled for Sunday, already marred by reports of a gunman arrested at the venue—heightening fears of escalating violence.

The Israeli Conspiracy: From Mild Criticism to a Suspected Mossad Hit?

While authorities point to domestic extremism, a darker narrative has exploded online, particularly among alt-right and paleoconservative circles: Israel orchestrated Kirk’s death to silence an emerging critic. Proponents argue the timing, method, and aftermath scream professional assassination, with Mossad fingerprints all over it.

Kirk’s final weeks were marked by subtle but seismic shifts. In late August, he publicly questioned “secular Jewish donors” funding open-border policies, a comment that veered into territory long taboo on the mainstream right. On September 10—the very day of his death—he elaborated on his podcast: “This is a beast created by secular Jews… Jewish donors have been the number one funding mechanism of radical open border neoliberal policies.” Hours later, he was gone. Kirk had also rejected a $150 million “hush money” offer from pro-Israel lobbyists during a heated confrontation in the Hamptons, New York, and declined an all-expenses-paid trip to Israel extended by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu—whom Kirk had begun portraying as overreaching in U.S. affairs.

Conspiracy theorists cite the hit’s hallmarks: a precise neck shot from afar, echoing IDF tactics in Gaza (where X-rays of civilian wounds show similar entry points). Witnesses reported “two elderly Jewish men” creating diversions with pellet guns, allowing the shooter to flee. A private jet linked to a Jewish foundation (with ties to child advocacy groups, per unverified claims) allegedly vanished from radar post-shooting, ferrying the assassin out. Netanyahu’s eerily prescient tweet—”Sadly, that trip will never occur”—mere minutes after the attack, and Israel’s swift media blitz (murals, songs, and dedications honoring Kirk as an “Israel martyr”) only fueled suspicions.

High-profile voices amplified the theory. Podcaster Clint Russell speculated it was an intelligence op to fracture the right, while Alex Jones—initially skeptical—later hosted discussions probing foreign angles. Even international observers, like Iranian professor Seyed Mohammad Marandi, quipped about the casings’ odd inscriptions: “Why pro-trans messages? To narrow suspects? It was Israel.” On X, threads dissected NSA intercepts of 12 Israeli-origin phones near the site and demanded an autopsy (still unreleased) to confirm ballistics.

Critics dismiss this as antisemitic paranoia, noting Kirk’s lifelong Zionism—he fiercely defended Israel against critics like Candace Owens and built TPUSA on pro-Israel foundations. Yet, the theory persists, with users like @ThoughtcrimeRA2 compiling “avalanche” evidence: Kirk’s admitted fears of “Israeli retribution,” the hit’s public spectacle (to terrorize moderates), and Jewish politicians pushing speech curbs in Kirk’s name.

The Alt-Right Rift: “Who Got Charlie?” Tears at the Movement’s Core—With Nick Fuentes at the Epicenter

Perhaps the most damaging fallout is the infighting engulfing the alt-right, where Kirk’s death has become a litmus test for loyalty and ideology. On one side, MAGA loyalists and Jones allies insist it’s a “TransRage” or antifa plot, citing the casings and Robinson’s leftist ties as ironclad proof. “No evidence for Israel,” Jones thundered in a viral video, warning against “division bait.” They view Israel theories as self-sabotaging, potentially alienating Trump-era allies and handing ammo to the left.

Opposing them are paleoconservatives and “America First” purists, who see Kirk’s killing as the ultimate red pill: proof of Zionist overreach strangling dissent. Figures like Laura Loomer (who pivoted from terror alerts to mocking the divide) and @kittenstormer argue ignoring Israel “absurdly” whitewashes the elephant in the room. “Kirk feared they’d kill him,” one post lamented, listing his rejections of Netanyahu’s overtures. This camp accuses pro-Israel right-wingers of complicity, with rifts spilling into personal feuds—e.g., Candace Owens’ “greatest friend” status with Kirk now questioned amid grief-stricken speculation about his “wavering” on Israel.

At the heart of this maelstrom stands Nick Fuentes, the 26-year-old firebrand behind the Groyper movement, whose rapid-fire reactions have both unified and splintered the fringes. Fuentes, long a thorn in Kirk’s side—labeling him a “Zionist shill” during the 2019 Groyper Wars—offered condolences in his first broadcast post-shooting, drawing over 2,000,000 viewers. “It felt like a nightmare & it has not fully sunk in,” he said, acknowledging Kirk as an “adversary” and “foe” but condemning the “public execution” as evil that “we can NEVER give in to.” He rebuked celebrants on the left and right alike, blasting Hasan Piker for failing to disavow the violence and vowing to “name & shame” enablers. Fuentes even invoked forgiveness and anti-violence virtues in a prescient pre-assassination clip, urging restraint against “retributive political violence.”

Fuentes’ pivot on the Israel angle ignited the powder keg. Calling it “unlikely” and “ridiculous” without hard evidence, dismissing Mossad whispers as “shifting goalposts.” This stance aligned him with Jones, who defended Fuentes against “baseless” Netanyahu payroll smears. Yet it drew fire from his own base: accusations of “covering up for Israel,” being a “FULL NATO SHILL,” or getting “the call” from Zionists flooded X, with some branding him an “accomplice” in Kirk’s murder. Groypers, once Fuentes’ loyal frog army, are in “shambles,” with leaked texts and memes painting him as betraying Kirk’s “martyrdom” for a leftist shooter narrative. One user quipped: “Charlie Kirk was a reasonable voice… Now they’ve killed him and we’re listening to Nick Fuentes more. It’s not going to get any better for the left.”

The schism mirrors broader tensions: pro-Israel neocons vs. isolationist nationalists. Posts show deleted tweets (e.g., a Bethesda game promo twisted as “anti-Kirk fascist” mockery) and heated threads debating evidence. “It’s putting people in danger,” one user warned of AOC’s “lies,” while others float wilder psy-op claims: Kirk faked his death, or it’s a deep-state op to ignite civil war. Fuentes’ defenders argue his restraint prevents “civil war” bait, but detractors see it as proof he’s “compromised.”

Kirk’s death wasn’t just an assassination; it’s a mirror reflecting the right’s fault lines, with Fuentes as the reluctant referee. Whether Robinson’s trial exposes more or the conspiracies fester, one thing is clear: the quest for “who got Charlie” may outlive the man himself, reshaping conservatism in its wake.

Continue Reading

Crime

Antifa’s Reckoning: Trump’s Terrorist Designation Ignites a Nationwide Crackdown on Radical Left Networks

Published

on

Just days after the assassination of conservative firebrand Charlie Kirk, President Donald J. Trump dropped a bombshell that has left the radical left reeling: the formal designation of Antifa as a “major terrorist organization.” Unveiled in a blistering Truth Social post on September 18—”Antifa is a sick, dangerous, radical left disaster that’s been terrorizing our cities for years. No more! We’re designating them a MAJOR TERRORIST ORGANIZATION effective immediately. Law enforcement: Hunt them down!”—the move signals the opening salvo in Trump’s promised war on domestic extremism. With echoes of the 2020 riots still fresh and Kirk’s killing pinned on a self-avowed Antifa sympathizer, the administration is wielding this label like a sledgehammer, blending executive fiat with congressional muscle to dismantle what Trump calls “the Bolshevik mob.” But as raids multiply and lawsuits fly, the question looms: Will this finally neuter Antifa’s decentralized chaos, or just martyr its black-clad foot soldiers?

The Announcement: From Campaign Promise to Executive Order

Trump’s antipathy toward Antifa isn’t new—he branded them a terror group during his first term amid the George Floyd protests, which saw over $2 billion in damages and dozens killed in Antifa-linked violence. But reelection in 2024, coupled with a GOP sweep, supercharged the rhetoric into reality. The trigger? Tyler Robinson, the 22-year-old suspect in Kirk’s slaying, whose manifesto railed against “fascist enablers” in classic Antifa jargon, complete with etched shell casings screaming “Smash the Patriarchy.”

On September 18, Trump bypassed the usual bureaucratic slog, issuing an executive order directing the DOJ and DHS to treat Antifa affiliates as domestic terrorists under the Patriot Act and expanded FISA provisions. No formal “listing” like foreign groups—Antifa’s leaderless, amorphous structure makes that tricky—but the order greenlights surveillance, asset freezes, and RICO charges against “coordinated actors.” Attorney General Pam Bondi, in a Fox News exclusive, elaborated: “This isn’t about ideology; it’s about violence. We’ve got 500 open cases from 2020 alone. Now, we prosecute as terror.”

Congress piled on: House Resolution 26, introduced January 2025 by Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH), deems Antifa conduct “domestic terrorism” and passed the chamber 220-210 on September 19. Senate Majority Leader John Thune vows a vote next week, tying it to a $10 billion homeland security boost. Early wins? FBI raids in Portland and Seattle netted 15 “persons of interest,” seizing Molotov cocktails, bikes for ramming police, and encrypted chats plotting “direct action” against Trump rallies.

Legal Ramifications: RICO, Surveillance, and the Leaderless Loophole

Experts are buzzing over the designation’s teeth—or lack thereof. Unlike al-Qaeda, Antifa has no headquarters, no roster; it’s a “movement” of autonomous cells, funded by shadowy donors like the Tides Foundation (already under Soros scrutiny). Legal scholars like Hina Shamsi of the ACLU warn it’s “legally toothless,” arguing it risks First Amendment chills on protesters. “You can’t designate a tactic as a terrorist,” she told NPR, predicting court blocks akin to Trump’s 2017 travel ban.

Yet Trump’s team sees opportunity in the gray areas. The order invokes RICO statutes—fresh off the Soros playbook—to target funders and coordinators as an “enterprise.” Just The News reports DOJ eyeing charges against 2020 riot architects, with wire fraud and conspiracy predicates from interstate travel and crowdfunding. “Leaderless? Fine,” Bondi quipped. “We’ll RICO the enablers.” Implications cascade: Bank accounts frozen (already $5 million seized), no-fly lists for known agitators, and enhanced sentences—up to life for “terror acts.”

Antifa’s response? A defiant Rose City Antifa statement: “We’re not an org; we’re everywhere. Your labels won’t stop the resistance.” But cracks show: Internal leaks reveal infighting over “going dark,” with some cells disbanding amid doxxing fears.

Backlash and Defenses: From Street Protests to Elite Outrage

The left erupted. AOC tweeted, “This is McCarthyism on steroids—targeting dissent to protect fascism,” sparking #ResistTheLabel rallies in 20 cities, where masked marchers clashed with police, injuring 12. David Axelrod warned on CNN it’s a “playbook to target political enemies,” while Code Pink decried it as “warmongering against the anti-war left.” Protests tied to Kirk’s memorial turned ugly, with a thwarted Antifa plot in Orem, Utah, foiled by tipsters—earning Trump praise as “the people fighting back.”

Conservatives hail it as overdue. Andy Ngo, the journalist doxxed and beaten by Antifa in 2019, told Newsmax: “State Department should list them foreign too—their Euro roots run deep.” Polls show 58% approval (Rasmussen), with even 32% of Democrats viewing Antifa unfavorably post-Kirk. On X, MAGA voices demand KKK inclusion for “fairness,” per Scott Adams’ quip, while Rod Martin dissected Antifa’s Weimar-era origins on NTD News: “It’s not protest; it’s prelude to revolution.”

International Ripple: From Budapest to The Hague

The shockwaves crossed oceans. Hungary’s Viktor Orban, Trump’s ideological twin, designated Antifa a terror group on September 19, urging the EU: “Time to classify these anarchists.” The Dutch Parliament followed suit hours later, citing Kirk’s murder as a “wake-up call” to Europe’s radical left—Gateway Hispanic reports it as a domino effect from Trump’s example. Al Jazeera notes Brussels’ fury, with MEPs decrying “transatlantic authoritarianism,” but far-right gains in France and Italy cheer the precedent.

In the U.S., it dovetails with border crackdowns: DHS links Antifa to migrant caravans smuggling agitators, per leaked memos. Eurasia Review questions the “what ifs”—enhanced extraditions? Frozen global assets?—but one thing’s clear: Trump’s move has globalized the fight.

The Road Ahead: Enforcement or Overreach?

As Bondi assembles a “Terror Task Force” with 200 agents, whispers of overreach grow. Will it snag BLM allies or campus protesters? Trump’s retort: “Only the violent.” With midterms looming, this could rally the base—or backfire if courts neuter it. For now, Antifa’s street cred is battered, their mystique cracked. Kirk’s death lit the fuse; Trump’s designation is the explosion. In the battle for America’s soul, the radicals just lost their biggest shield.

Continue Reading

Trending

Donate to Populist Wire

*Note: Every donation is greatly appreciated, regardless of the amount.