nuclear-news

Criminalising an idea: the dangerous fiction of “ANTIFA, the organisation”

19 October 2025 Michael Taylor, https://theaimn.net/criminalising-an-idea-the-dangerous-fiction-of-antifa-the-organisation/

Let’s talk about a magic trick. Not the kind with rabbits and hats, but the political kind, where a complex idea is made to vanish, only to be replaced by a simple, monstrous caricature. The latest magicians? Pam Bondi, U.S. Attorney General, and the broader Trump administration, who are attempting to pull off the dangerous illusion of criminalising ANTIFA.

The premise of their act is that ANTIFA is a unified, hierarchical terrorist organisation – a domestic version of ISIS – that can be neatly listed, proscribed, and its members prosecuted. This is a profound and likely deliberate misunderstanding. ANTIFA, short for “anti-fascist,” is not an organisation; it is a political belief and a movement, no more a single entity than “conservatism” or “environmentalism.”

To be anti-fascist is to hold a conviction. It is to believe, based on the brutal lessons of the 20th century, that fascism – with its nationalism, authoritarianism, and intolerance – is a societal poison. This is not a radical notion. It is a principle that sent Americans and Allies to fight in World War II. Believing fascism is evil is simply logical: it is a conclusion based on observable evidence and a moral stance.

So, how do you criminalise a belief? You don’t. Instead, you criminalise the people who hold it.

This is the heart of the trick. The administration and its allies focus exclusively on the most extreme, visible, and often condemnable acts associated with the label of antifa: black-clad individuals engaging in property destruction or street brawls with far-right groups. They amplify these images relentlessly, creating a brand. They take the broad, decentralised ethos of anti-fascism and shrink-wrap it into the fictional, singular “ANTIFA” – a designated villain for their political narrative.

This branding exercise serves several purposes:

1. 
   It Creates a Boogeyman: A tangible enemy is a powerful political tool. It unifies a base, distracts from other issues, and allows a leader to position themselves as the nation’s sole protector. The vaguer the enemy, the more potent the fear.
2. It Equates Dissent with Terrorism: By framing anti-fascism as an extremist threat, the administration attempts to delegitimise all opposition. If you protest against policies you see as authoritarian or xenophobic, you risk being lumped in with a “terrorist organisation.” This has a chilling effect on the right to assembly and free speech.
3. It Absolves the Actual Far-Right: This false equivalence is perhaps the most damaging part of the trick. While loudly condemning the violent fringe of the anti-fascist movement, the administration consistently downplays the documented, and often deadlier, threat of white supremacist and neo-fascist violence. It creates a moral parallax where both sides are presented as equally bad, obscuring the fact that one side’s ideology is inherently rooted in hatred and elimination.

The legal and philosophical implications of this are staggering. In a free society, actions are criminalised, not beliefs. Assault, vandalism, and inciting violence are already illegal. The laws to address them exist. The push to designate “ANTIFA” is not about upholding law and order; it is about creating a legal pretext to target political opponents.

When Pam Bondi and the Trump administration talk about ANTIFA, they are not describing a reality. They are constructing a narrative. They are taking a legitimate political stance – opposition to fascism – and attempting to paint it as inherently violent and un-American.

We must not be fooled by the trick. The goal is not to make people safer. The goal is to silence dissent and redefine the boundaries of acceptable thought. To be anti-fascist is not to be a terrorist; it is to be on the right side of history. The real danger isn’t a black-clad protester breaking a window; it’s a government that seeks to break the foundational principle that in America, people are free to believe, and to protest, what they see fit.

October 20, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Religion and ethics | Leave a comment