From: Zenaan Harkness <z...@freedbms.net> >For those so inclined, to sign or to discuss.
>Anyone, from any "country" can "sign" this. >https://www.change.org/p/president-of-the-united-states-declare-antifa-a-terrorist-organization A few days ago, wanting to understand what people REALLY mean when they say, "anti-fascist", I read a few articles on Wikipedia. Apparently, "anti-fascist" has become a term-of-art that isn't quite the same meaning as "opposing fascism". For instance, on the article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Anti-fascism × "I disagree. There is no such thing as "liberal anti-fascism", the term anti-fascism has its roots in the communist movement and only communists can be described as anti-fascists. The "fascist" part doesn't really mean fascism in the sense understood by westerners, the "anti-fascists" used it to refer to all non-communists, for instance the official name of the Berlin Wall was the "Anti-Fascist Protection Wall". Also see below for a link to the most recent Verfassungsschutzbericht on "anti-fascism". TYRXrus (talk) 22:47, 5 August 2009 (UTC)" It's hard to grasp what the "anti-fascists" are actually opposed to. I think they are doing what the quote above suggests, giving "fascism" an extremely broad and unrealistic usage: Anybody they don't like at the moment becomes a "fascist".One major motivation in this process is to be able to lump ordinary people (primarily conservatives) with various bad examples of "fascists" from the past. In the same way, "Socialists" probably don't want to get lumped in with "Communists", but at least they have a different word for their ideas. I think Razer, who was completely unwilling to define the difference between a mere conservative, and a "fascist", is displaying the same kind of obscure inconsistency in meaning. Jim Bell
