The Evolution of Social Movements: When Justice Meets Chaos

Social movements don’t follow a neat little roadmap. They start with a righteous cause, build momentum, and then—if history’s any guide—sometimes take a wild turn into overreach and unintended consequences. What begins as a necessary push for change can quickly morph into something unrecognizable, often pushing so hard that it snaps back in the opposite direction.

Transcript of:  The backlash from the 2nd wave feminist movement
Video for this blog here

Just ask Dave Chappelle. He saw it coming with the #MeToo movement, warning that it was getting bloated with nonsense, overcorrection, and an inevitable backlash. Spoiler alert: He was right.
Watch his take here.

The Rise and Rumble of #MeToo

Originally, #MeToo was a much-needed reckoning—a powerful moment where survivors could finally call out sexual harassment and abuse without being silenced. And for a while, it worked. Predators in powerful positions were finally held accountable, and society had some long-overdue conversations about misconduct in the workplace, Hollywood, and beyond.

But then, things started to shift. Suddenly, it wasn’t about justice—it was about public trials by Twitter, where accusations alone could end careers, no questions asked. The phrase “believe all women” became a lightning rod, sparking debates about fairness, due process, and the possibility (gasp!) that some people might abuse the system for their own gain.

The Inevitable Backlash

Push hard enough, and the pendulum swings back. The response to #MeToo’s overreach has taken a few forms:

• New Laws – Some states have put tighter restrictions on workplace claims, citing concerns about false allegations. Ironically, this might make it harder for real victims to seek justice.
• Increased Polarization – Like everything else in modern society, this movement became another battlefield in the never-ending culture war. People either saw it as a moral crusade or a witch hunt—no middle ground allowed.
• Comedians and Cultural Critics – Public figures, especially comedians, started pushing back. The mere act of questioning #MeToo became an act of rebellion, proving once again that when you suppress dialogue, it eventually explodes elsewhere.

Tech, Truth, and the Future

The more complicated these social battles become, the more people start looking for solutions beyond the court of public opinion. Enter technology—lie detection advancements, AI-driven behavioral analysis, and other tools that could, in theory, separate truth from fiction. Of course, trusting Big Tech to be the moral arbiter of society is another can of worms, but hey, the conversation’s happening.

Final Thoughts

Social movements are living, breathing beasts. They start with noble intentions, but when unchecked, they can spiral into something counterproductive. The key? Keeping the balance between progress and fairness—ensuring real justice while protecting fundamental rights like due process and free speech.

At the end of the day, if a movement can’t handle a little scrutiny, then maybe it wasn’t built to last. And if nothing else, at least we got some great comedy specials out of it.

The winds of change are howling through the digital sphere, and they’re shaking the foundations of the internet as we know it. Social media, long plagued by heavy-handed censorship and politically biased fact-checking, is undergoing a transformation. It’s not just a shift in strategy; it’s a cultural moment, a revolutionary awakening for truth and transparency. And the charge is being led by none other than Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg, two tech titans who are reshaping the rules of engagement in cyberspace.

For years, platforms like Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter operated under the shadow of aggressive moderation, where algorithms and fact-checkers held the power to decide what was true and what wasn’t. The result? A suffocating atmosphere where dissenting voices were silenced, memes were flagged, and debates were muzzled. But those days may finally be over. The fact-check mafia, as many have come to call them, has been unceremoniously shown the door.

Transparency and Community Over Control

Meta, formerly Facebook, made headlines with its announcement to dismantle its independent, nonpartisan fact-checking program. The company is replacing it with community notes, a user-driven feature akin to what Elon Musk has championed on X (formerly Twitter). This pivot represents a monumental shift from top-down control to bottom-up collaboration, allowing users to add context and nuance to posts without the stifling oversight of biased gatekeepers.

Zuckerberg himself admitted that Meta’s complex moderation system made too many mistakes, leading to over-censorship and eroded trust. It’s a rare moment of humility in Silicon Valley—an acknowledgment that the old system was broken and that transparency is the key to rebuilding credibility.

And let’s not forget Musk’s influence. Since taking the helm at X, he’s been relentless in his pursuit of an open internet. Musk’s reforms—from reinstating banned accounts to promoting transparency through the release of internal documents—have set a precedent that others are now scrambling to follow. His mantra is simple but powerful: Let the people decide.

The Death of Censorship

Meta’s changes go beyond fact-checking. The company is also loosening restrictions on contentious topics like immigration and gender. By moving its content moderation team from California to Texas, Meta is sending a clear signal: decentralization is the future. This isn’t just about geography; it’s about breaking free from the echo chambers that have long dominated tech culture.

The impact of these changes cannot be overstated. For the first time in years, users are experiencing what it feels like to speak freely without the looming threat of arbitrary censorship. Memes, once flagged as “fake news,” are thriving again. Voices that were silenced are now amplified. It’s as if the internet has woken up from a bad dream, and the air is electric with possibility.

The Clowns Are Gone, but the Circus Remains

Of course, this revolution isn’t without its skeptics. Critics argue that community-driven models like community notes could devolve into chaos, with users pushing their own agendas under the guise of context. But the alternative—a return to the stifling oversight of opaque fact-checking organizations—is no longer tenable. The clowns may be gone, but the circus isn’t leaving town. It’s just getting a new ringmaster.

This moment also highlights the growing divide between platforms that embrace freedom and those that cling to the old ways. As Meta and X blaze a trail for transparency, other platforms will face mounting pressure to follow suit or risk irrelevance. The tide has turned, and there’s no going back.

A Cultural Awakening

What we’re witnessing is more than a shift in corporate strategy; it’s a cultural awakening. The internet, once a bastion of free expression, had become a place where algorithms dictated reality and gatekeepers controlled the narrative. But now, the pendulum is swinging back. The chains of censorship are breaking, and digital freedom is rising like a phoenix from the ashes.

Musk and Zuckerberg, despite their differences, are united in this one crucial mission: to restore the internet’s original promise as a platform for open dialogue. They’re not just playing catch-up; they’re setting the pace for a new era of digital transparency and accountability.

The Road Ahead

The revolution is far from over. There will be challenges, missteps, and growing pains. But the momentum is undeniable. Fact-checkers have been fired, algorithms are flipping, and users are reclaiming their voices. It’s a messy, chaotic, and thrilling time to be online.

As we ride this wave of change, one thing is clear: the internet is once again becoming a place where ideas can flourish, debates can thrive, and the truth can rise to the surface. The fact-check mafia has been wrecked, and we, the users, are finally getting hired as the stewards of our own digital destiny.

So let’s embrace this moment. Let’s celebrate the death of censorship and the birth of a freer, more transparent internet. The winds of change are here, and they’re carrying us to brighter, bolder horizons.

Here is a song created by DJ Disruptarian;

[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2XAxIz5yTuQ?feature=oembed&enablejsapi=1&w=1170&h=658]

===

In a world full of rapidly changing ideals and shifting societal norms, it becomes increasingly important to hold onto the values that have shaped us as individuals and as a society. One such value that has been debated and questioned in recent times is masculinity. However, amidst the discussions and debates, one name stands out – Kyle Rittenhouse. Known for his unwavering strength and resilience, Rittenhouse has become a symbol of embracing masculinity and duty for a stronger society. In this article, we explore the importance of rising above the pack, unleashing our true potential, and the positive impact it can have on building a better tomorrow.

Rise above the pack: Embrace masculinity and duty!

In a world where conformity often takes precedence, it is vital to rise above the pack and embrace masculinity and duty. Traditional masculinity has been criticized and shamed, leading many to question its relevance and importance. However, it is when we embrace our inherent masculine qualities that we find strength, resilience, and a sense of purpose. By recognizing the importance of duty, we can contribute to the world around us in a meaningful way and become the driving force for positive change.

Kyle Rittenhouse: A beacon of strength and resilience.

Kyle Rittenhouse, at just 17 years old, found himself in a situation that would test his strength and resilience to the core. In the face of danger, he took it upon himself to protect his community, showcasing a sense of duty that is commendable. Rittenhouse’s actions may be controversial, but they highlight the importance of stepping up when the need arises. He became a beacon of strength and resilience, showing us that we can make a difference when we embrace our masculinity and stand up for what we believe in.

Unleash your true potential, be the change society needs!

Each of us has the potential to be a catalyst for positive change in society. By embracing our own masculinity and sense of duty, we can unlock this potential and make a lasting impact. It is important to understand that embracing masculinity does not mean suppressing or overpowering others, but rather recognizing our inherent qualities and utilizing them in a positive way. By doing so, we can inspire others to do the same and create a domino effect of change that reverberates throughout society.

A toast to masculinity: Building a stronger tomorrow.

In a world full of uncertainties, it is important to raise a toast to masculinity and the positive impact it can have on building a stronger tomorrow. Embracing our masculine qualities, such as strength, resilience, and a sense of duty, allows us to become pillars of support for those around us. By recognizing and valuing these qualities, we can foster a society that is built on accountability, compassion, and unity. Together, we can shape a brighter future by embracing the true essence of masculinity and the duty it brings.

===

In a world where the concept of masculinity is often clouded with misconceptions, it is crucial to remember the importance of embracing our inherent qualities and sense of duty. Kyle Rittenhouse serves as a reminder that by rising above the pack and unleashing our true potential, we can make a positive impact on society. Let us toast to a future where masculinity is celebrated and utilized to build a stronger, more compassionate world. Embrace your masculinity, embrace your duty, and become the change society needs!

Subnote:  This was mostly generated by OpenAI, I will note DALL·E would not allow for ANY mention of the name “Kyle Rittenhouse”

My Take on Transgender “Compelled Speech”

Watch my discussion here

Let’s cut through the noise—compelled speech is linguistic tyranny, plain and simple. I refuse to accept the idea that gender activists, or any group for that matter, should have the power to force people to speak in ways that violate linguistic tradition, personal beliefs, or even just common sense. Language is organic; it evolves naturally over centuries, not by ideological fiat.

Linguists, psychologists, and some of the brightest minds of our time—people like J.K. Rowling and Elon Musk—have spoken out against this. They see the dangers, and so do I. When governments or institutions demand that we alter the way we speak, we aren’t just talking about politeness—we’re talking about control. This isn’t about inclusivity; it’s about coercion.

The Slippery Slope of Compelled Speech

History tells us that when speech becomes regulated by force, freedom shrinks. What starts as a simple request to use someone’s “preferred pronouns” quickly morphs into legal mandates and social persecution for those who refuse to comply. The moment we allow others to dictate our words under threat of punishment, we open the door to totalitarianism in the name of social progress.

Compelled speech is dangerous, not because it asks for kindness, but because it demands obedience. And when obedience to ideology becomes a requirement for participating in society, we’re no longer talking about a free world.

References and Further Discussion

For those interested in a deeper dive, check out these references:

• Jordan Peterson’s warning on compelled speech

• Ben Shapiro on the dangers of language policing

• A breakdown of gender ideology in law

• The impact of gender activism on free speech

• The authoritarian nature of compelled language

Addressing the Smear Campaign

People love to throw around words like “transphobic,” “homophobic,” and “racist” whenever someone questions the prevailing narrative. But let’s set the record straight:

1. My stance against Proposition 8 (2008) – Watch here

2. My criticism of the LDS Church and teen suicide rates (2010) – Watch here

3. Why the Old Testament isn’t law (2013) – Watch here

4. The reality of respect as a two-way street (Compelled speech debate) – Watch here

If challenging compelled speech makes me a target, so be it. But I will never apologize for defending free expression. Respect is a two-way street—forcing language changes isn’t respect; it’s authoritarianism with a smiley face sticker.

Disruptarian and Clovis Star Media has created a quick climatic film to honor the bravery and selflessness of the Kenosha Kid (Kyle Rittenhouse)

2 men were killed during this very violent riot. Both Joseph Rosenbaum and Anthony Huber had assaulted Kyle Rittenhouse before getting shot. Joseph Rosenbaum had been filmed instigating violence all night. Seconds before he was shot, he was filmed chasing 17 year old Kyle Rittenhouse, and throwing items at Kyle, before plowing right in to where Kyle was trying to take cover and hide from the assailant who also was a sex predator who was supposed to stay away from kids Kyle’s age.

Trump chimed in and said basically the same thing as above.

I am glad that this happened, although my heart breaks for Kyle Rittenhouse, and the families and the people who have been effected by this tragic violence in these Jacob Black riots in and around Kenosha Wisconsin.

As Tim Pool says in these clips, “you don’t try to grab the barrel of an AR and take it away from someone” and the girl says “that is suicidal”.
These people assaulted this 17 year old kid who showed up, after serving as a lifeguard earlier that day in Kenosha, and he came to give medical aid to those who got hurt. He recognized the violence and chaos of the situation and he armed himself. Good for this kid for standing up for himself.

This is a short film that I made to document this night that made Kyle Rittenhouse known forever as the Kenosha Kid.

A few days earlier I had given more documentation about the event, clip by clip, and I filled in details that the main stream media left out.

The main stream media seem to find it difficult to believe that this 17 year old kid, who works as a life guard in Kenosha, volunteered to help with medical aid, and then ended up getting attacked and had to defend himself in a riot. But those are the facts. he kids works there, and he volunteered to help because he has medical training.
No the gun did not come to Kenosha with him, nor did it cross state lines with him. So what is the major problem, that he defended himself against a violent mob who had been attacking him physically and chasing him around, and then tried to grab his gun away?

I commend Kyle Rittenhouse. My prayers are with him.

Here is the REAL question, will democrats withhold aid to Israel, if Israel doesn’t comply with their demands? The answer is a resounding yes if you ask top democrats including presidential campaign front runners.
If Trump is impeached, then surely Bernie and the crew should ALSO be impeached.
Difference is that dems are forcing compliance with threats. Trump never threatened or even discussed quid quo pro with Ukraine. Right?? (transcript of Trump’s call to the Ukrainian president)

Reference to statements by Democrats regarding quid pro quo that they intend to use against Israel.

https://news.grabien.com/story-democrats-hell-yes-well-use-quid-pro-quos-advance-our-politi

https://townhall.com/columnists/williammarshall/2019/11/04/bernie-and-his-outrageous-quid-pro-quo-n2555789

What is quid pro quo exactly, and what does this funny Latin phrase mean?

quid pro quo
/ˌkwid ˌprō ˈkwō/
noun
a favor or advantage granted or expected in return for something

Who did Che Guevara kill in his time as a “revolutionary”.  Ernesto “Che” Guevara was less of a revolutionary and more of a cold-blooded psychopathic killer.  Guevara is famously quoted as saying, “A revolutionary must become a cold killing machine motivated by pure hate.”

The various murders Guevara was involved in had less to do with ‘necessity’ and more to do with the fact that he really enjoyed it. There are a variety of quotes attributed to him which suggests as much. For example, he once said that killing made his “nostrils dilate while savoring the acrid odor of gunpowder and blood.” He was even angry at the Soviet Union’s failure to attack America claiming that Cuba would have used the missiles.

Che is quoted as saying after the 1959 revolution:   “We’re going to do for blacks exactly what blacks did for the revolution. By which I mean: nothing.”

Guevara was a notorious homophobe. He campaigned to have gay people placed in prison, and when they were interned, they were treated worse than the rest of the prisoners. According to one inmate, gays were treated like beasts, and they were the last to come out for meals.

If a gay prisoner committed even the slightly infraction, he was beaten mercilessly. Admittedly, Cuba’s LGBT rights record was bad before the revolution, but under Castro and Guevara, concentration camps were created and filled with homosexuals, dissidents, Afro-Cuban priests and anyone else accused of crimes against the revolution. He helped set up the infamous camp Guanahacabibes camp in 1960. One of the reasons why gay men were placed in camps is because they were deemed ‘unfit to serve’ their mandatory time in the Cuban military.

https://historycollection.co/nobodys-hero-9-inconvenient-truths-che-guevara/7/

I find it sad that ignorant leftists, even bands that I grew up with, pose with Che “the genocidal manic” Guevara shirts and swag, as if he is a cultural icon.   These are the same virtue signalling liberals who condem anyone who doesn’t agree with their version of “tolerance”.

Rage Against the Machine plans on going on tour in 2020.  Let’s see how many hypocritical political speeches that they give on their tour.  Please record and share these, if you attend any of their shows!

How many people did Che Guevara kill

The Project Veritas Google Anti-Trust Expose

https://dailymotion.com/video/x7cpbit

This video has been banned, and people have been shadow banned for sharing it, by Google and other social media networks.   However we are going to boost this on DailyMotion and other video sharing websites in hopes that other non-Google influenced search engines will pick it up.

See more at:  https://www.projectveritas.com/

Below I am going to list some commentary by various sources.  The sources range in bias, from pro-gamers on Youtube, to Representatives in Congress, and then my own commentary on this issue, before the Project Veritas video was release.

[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKesJJNfhPc?feature=oembed&enablejsapi=1&w=1170&h=658]

Breitbart’s 2018 story that exposed YouTube’s black list.

On June 26 2019, during a US Homeland Security Hearing, Texas Congressman Dan Crenshaw questioned Mr. Derek Slater, Google Global Director of Information Policy over revelations of a leaked email Project Veritas published yesterday. Said Rep. Crensaw:

“According to those emails, the emails say, given that Ben Shapiro, Jordan Peterson and Dennis Prager are Nazis, given that that’s a premise, what do we do about it?”

You can watch a video clip of the hearing here:

https://www.projectveritas.com/2019/06/26/rep-crenshaw-grills-google-executive-over-leaked-email-published-by-veritas/#fvp_Crenshaw,1s

A partial transcript of the hearing is available below:

Crenshaw:
From Texas for five minutes. Mr. Crenshaw. Thank you Mr Chairman and thank you for some of some of the thoughtful discussion on how you combat terrorism online and there’s where the debates to be had there. Um, and there’s, there’s good questions on whether some of this content provides education so that we know of the bad things out there or whether it’s radicalizing people. Those are hard. Those are hard discussions to have and I don’t know that we’re going to solve them today. But the problem is is that the testimony doesn’t stop there. The, the policies at your social media companies do not stop there. It doesn’t stop with the clear cut lines of terrorism and terrorist videos and terrorist propaganda. Unfortunately, that’s not exactly what we’re talking about. It goes much further than that. It goes down the slippery slope of what speech is appropriate for your platform and the vague standards that you employ in order to decide what is appropriate.

Crenshaw:
And this is especially concerning given the recent news and the recent leaked emails from Google, they show that labeling mainstream conservative media as Nazis is a premise upon which you operate. It’s not even a question. According to those emails, the emails say, given that Ben Shapiro, Jordan Peterson and Dennis Prager are Nazis, given that that’s a premise, what do we do about it? Two of three of these people are Jewish, very religious Jews. And yet you think there are Nazis. It begs the question, what kind of education people at Google have to, they think that religious Jews are Nazis. Three of three of these people had family members killed the Holocaust, Ben Shapiro’s is the number one target of the alt right. And yet you people operate off the premise that he’s a Nazi. It’s a pretty disturbing and it gets to the question, do you believe in hate speech? How do you define that or do you, can you give me a quick definition right now? Is it written down somewhere? Google, can you give me a definition of hate speech?

Google:
Yes. So hate speech again, as updated in our guidelines now extends to, uh, uh, superiority over protected groups to justify discrimination, violence, and so on based on, uh, a number of defining characteristics, whether that’s a race, sexual orientation, veterans.

Crenshaw:
Do you have an example of Ben Shapiro or Jordan Peterson, Dennis Prager engaging in hate speech. Give one example off the top of your head.

Google:
So, congressman, we evaluate individual piece of content based on that content rather than based on the speaker.

Crenshaw:
Okay, let’s, let’s get to the next question. Do you believe speech can be violence? All right, though there’s, there’s not, not can you incite violence that is very clearly not protected, but can speech just be violence. Do you believe that speech that isn’t specifically calling for violence can be labeled violence and therefore harmful to people? Is that possible?

Google:
Congressman, I’m not sure I fully understand the distinction you’re drawing. Certainly, again, incitement to violence or things that aren’t urgent, dangerous behavior. Those are things that would be against our policies.

Crenshaw:
Here’s, here’s, here’s the thing. When you call somebody a Nazi or you can make the argument that you’re inciting violence and here’s how, as a country, we all agree that Nazis are bad. We actually invaded an entire continent to defeat the Nazis. It’s normal to say Hashtag punch a Nazi because there’s this common thread among this in this country that they’re bad and that there yeah, evil and that they should be destroyed. So when you’re operating off of that premise and it’s frankly, it’s a, it’s a good premise to operate on. Well, what you’re implying then is that it’s okay to use violence against them when you label them, when one of the most powerful social media companies in the world labels people as Nazis, you could make the argument that’s inciting violence. What you’re doing is wholly irresponsible. It doesn’t stop there. Well, a couple of years ago it was also made clear that you fact check system is blatantly targeted conservative newspapers. Do you have any comments on that? Are you aware of the story? I’m talking, about?

Google:
I’m not familiar with necessarily the specific story, congressman. I am aware that from all political viewpoints, we sometimes get questions of this sore. I can say that our fact check labels generally are done algorithmically based on a mark up and follow up on our policies

Crenshaw:
for the, for the record, they specifically target conservative news media and often times they don’t even, they have a fact check on there that doesn’t even reference the actual article. But Google makes sure that it’s right next to it. So as to make people understand that that one is questionable even though when you actually read through and it has nothing to do with it. Um, you know, a few days ago and this goes to Miss Bikert, uh, one of my constituents posted photos on Facebook of Republican women, daring to say that there are women for Trump. Facebook took down that post right away with no explanation. Is there any explanation for that?

Bickert:
Without seeing it,It’s hard for me to apply and that doesn’t violate our policies, but I’m happy to follow up on this specific example with you.

Crenshaw:
Thank you. Listen here, here’s what it comes down to. If we don’t share the values of free speech, I’m not sure where we go from here. You know, this practice of silencing millions and millions of people, it will create wounds and divisions in this country that we can not heal from. This is extremely worrisome. You’ve created amazing and platforms. We can do amazing things with what, what these companies have created, but if we continue down this path, it’ll tear us apart. You do not have a constitutional obligation to enforce the First Amendment, but I would say that you absolutely have an obligation to enforce American values, and the first amendment is an underpinning of American values that we should be protecting until the day we die. Thank you, and thank you for indulging me, Mister chairman. Thank you.

Dave Rubin responds to the Google Censorship expose by Project Veritas

[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3TnWfj3fQZg?feature=oembed&enablejsapi=1&w=1170&h=658]

Before this investigation by Project Veritas was released, when I was in Osaka Japan on June 13th 2019, I released this video addressing this very same topic of censorship.

[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EP_iQDzdBQ8?feature=oembed&enablejsapi=1&w=1170&h=658]

Google Censorship confirmed

April 15th 2017 turned out to be quite a battle for America in Berkeley California.   It was basically two groups (and several independent and sub-groups).   There were the socialist/antifa/communists on the one side, and on the other side the proud-boys/pro-Trump/patriots.    When the pro-Trump people declared that they would be having a rally on April 15th, shortly after the leftist groups decided that they would match them, and of course that means that the leftist will bring their violence.  So the events leading up to this event, were a sign of what would come at the rally, where Based Stickman defends himself against Berkeley Brownshirts, April 2017 and punched one of the people in a gang that was chasing him and threatening him in a park in Berkeley, and of course just like any fascist would, the socialists called the cops after getting punched.  Apparently “Based Stickman” aka Kyle Chapman was arrested on April 15th as well.  I have reached out to him for an interview, so far I have not heard back yet as of 4/16/2017.

There were a few other minor scuffles leading up to April 15th.  However the day of April 15th was every bit as violent as anyone anticipated.

BERKELEY 04/15 – BASED Stickman VS Antifa Skulls

There was a particular fascist, er I mean “antifa” that was posting on facebook that she was going to Berkeley on April 15th to collect the scalps of 100 (protesters).

Antifa girl threatens to scalp protesters, gets rocked with a fist to the face

Reference:   http://theralphretort.com/life-comes-at-you-fast-berkeley-antifa-chick-who-got-socked-said-she-would-bring-back-100-nazi-scalps-4015017/

Now apparently she is raising $80k on GoFundme or something.   So first she threatens to kill 100 people, then she hits a guy in the neck, and then she gets rocked to the ground by the guy she hit in the neck, now she deserves $80,000?

Video of the event

[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tZPGOC7uqTE?version=3&rel=1&showsearch=0&showinfo=1&iv_load_policy=1&fs=1&hl=en-US&autohide=2&wmode=transparent&w=1170&h=659]

Amazing how this works for professional victims.

Socialism Violence Then and Now

After nearly two years of so-called “anarchists” and “anti-Trump” and “antifa” mob violence and protests, the American people are stepping up to shut down the violence in our country.
It is one thing to protest and use your voice to express yourself.  It is a completely new level of protest to burn colleges, burn cars, and trash businesses to get your views across.

The definition of fascism from Meriam Webster dictionary;

”  a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control early instances of army fascism and brutality — J. W. Aldridge”

When I think of fascism, I think of the socialists and the communists from the 1930’s and 1940’s in Russia, Germany and Italy.   These were groups that identified as or with labor unions, and opposed capitalism and many of the things that the alt-left and the so-called “anti-fascists” identify with today.

Hitler, Mussolini and Stalin all gave many of the exact same speeches as antifa, BLM, and other socialist groups give today.

Bernie Sanders or Negan

How Bernie Sander’s socialism compares to the socialism in the 1920s

I am amazed that these rioters don’t see it, how they are acting just like the socialist brown-shirts that supported Hitler.  Or maybe they just don’t care?  Here is a protests of a leftist/socialist group that call themselves the “brown shirts in Pheonix AZ.