Heroic leftists steal a sign reading "Free Speech" from an evil right-winger and burn it (using an American flag as kindling)
I just read what might be one of the most inflammatory, hypocritical, biased, pieces of "news" I've ever seen from a mainstream source. When I neared the bottom and began feeling a deep pain inside me, I scrolled back up to see the source of the news, it had to be some radical leftist site like Daily Kos or Vox. It was NPR.
NPR is known to be liberally biased. "Nakedly Progressive Radio" is an apt moniker. But they're usually not insane. This article was written by someone mentally ill, actively trying to destroy society and get people murdered. Much like Antifa. I paused and collected myself. I began to reason. Maybe it was an "opinion" piece, or something like that were radical leftists who control the media get to vent their frustration that anyone lives to oppose them. No. It's under the category "National Security".
The headline to the insane manifesto propaganda is:
Right-Wing Embrace Of Conspiracy Is 'Mass Radicalization,' Experts Warn
https://www.npr.org/2020/12/15/946381523/right-wing-embrace-of-conspiracy-is-mass-radicalization-experts-warnA quirk of the psychotic screed is this use of "conspiracy" in singular as a plural. As if "conspiracy" is some kind of virus one can catch. Or maybe it's like calling it "religion". Either way I suspect there's some reasoning for why it remains singular. Perhaps in the same vein of why this article cites no sources, despite the bullshit headline "experts warn" and that repeated claim within.
The first paragraph re-iterates the title.
"The widespread embrace of conspiracy and disinformation amounts to a "mass radicalization" of Americans, and increases the risk of right-wing violence, veteran security officials and terrorism researchers warn."
Citation needed. Which "veteran security officials" or "terrorism researchers"? Again the use of "conspiracy" as a plural. If there weren't some ulterior motive, or maybe just poor English, it should read "embrace of conspiracy theories". In fact the way it's worded is the reverse of its meaning through context. "embrace of conspiracy and disinformation" - this means the people themselves are participating in a conspiracy and they are disseminating disinformation. It should be more like "embrace of conspiracy theories and susceptibility to disinformation". But those are the potatoes.
The meat of this is really "increases the risk of right-wing violence". Because as I will show here, the argument being made is that the left cannot possibly be susceptible to the same thing. They are innocent little kittens. Hence the bias and hypocrisy as my accusations of this article. The psychotic bullshit intended to rally hate and animosity against the right while obfuscating left-wing crimes continues:
"At conferences, in op-eds and at agency meetings, domestic terrorism analysts (CITE A SOURCE) are raising concern about the security implications of millions of conservatives buying into baseless (so say you, injecting personal bias and opinion into an article categorized as "National Security") right-wing claims. They (WHO?) say the line between mainstream and fringe is vanishing (Have you ever acknowledged a mainstream right to begin with? Just curious...), with conspiracy-minded Republicans now marching alongside armed extremists at rallies across the country (oh no, not marching! Haven't seen that before). Disparate factions on the right are coalescing into one side, (this is where the shitty "journalist" links to another biased article by herself as evidence of her own bullshit argument, the first actual citation of anything and it's to more of her bias) analysts say (Which ones?), self-proclaimed "real Americans" who are cocooned in their own news outlets, their own social media networks and, ultimately, their own "truth."
I will give this last sentence its own paragraphs. "cocooned in their own news outlets" Oh. I was actually enjoying myself when I first read that. Radical leftist labelling biased bullshit as "National Secrity" in a mainstream news article, Leftistsplaining how these right wingers have their own news outlets. Using your platform as a supposed journalist on a mainstream news site ironically rallying against a fringe. FIRST AMENDMENT mean anything to you?"their own social media networks" LMFAO. Which ones are those? Please re-direct me because I'm about fucking tired of my "neutral" social media networks like Twitter and Facebook putting "fact check" warning labels on every post of our fucking president no matter what he posts. I'm a little tired our out neutral social media platforms actively censoring factual news that offends leftists but has ZERO HISTORY OF CENSORING EVEN THE MOST RADICAL LEFTISTS. "and, ultimately, their own "truth."" I know we've all been through this wringer. The "post-truth" "fake news" blah blah. But it has never stopped disturbing me how utterly full of shit leftists are and how boldly they lie in the face of reality.
It terrorizes me more than violence could ever, because if you're so sure you can get away with your evil that you will openly publicly deny it exists while you're doing it, I fear nothing can stop you. So when leftists like this piece of shit writer declare some massive "right wing" "own "truth"" exists, it actually strikes fear into me. No hyperbole.
Yes what I'm writing here is bombastic, over the top and not at all journalistic. But I'm being dead fucking serious on this, this is when the article turned for me and became worrying. I genuinely fear you leftist psychopaths because I've watched for years as you've smashed in the skulls of innocents, murdered, burned buildings to the ground. And then calmly in the news reported there were clashes between the "far right" and "others..." and outright deny the existence of Antifa as they LITERALLY MARCH DOWN THE FUCKING STREET WITH FLAGS WAVING AS THEY BEAT INNOCENT PEOPLE TO DEATH.
Oh and here's some links by the way, because I'm going to give you some fucking citations. Not a scholarly amount. Just enough to show what I'm actually referring to. If you want to know more, Google is your enemy, but a useful one. THIS RANT CONTINUES AFTER
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2020/11/04/facebook-twitter-add-warnings-trump-posts-accusing-democrats/
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/16/technology/twitter-new-york-post.html
https://quillette.com/2019/02/12/it-isnt-your-imagination-twitter-treats-conservatives-more-harshly-than-liberals/
https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/03/us/david-dorn-st-louis-police-shot-trnd/index.html
https://www.capradio.org/articles/2020/12/05/antifa-protesters-confront-pro-trump-demonstrators-proud-boys-at-californias-capitol-violence-ensues/
https://www.pri.org/file/antifa-march-1024x682jpg
https://nsjonline.com/article/2020/10/matthews-joe-biden-denies-antifas-existence-and-thats-dangerous/
""This tent that used to be sort of 'far-right extremists' has gotten a lot broader. To me, a former counterterrorism official, that's a radicalization process," said Mary McCord, a former federal prosecutor who oversaw terrorism cases and who's now a law professor at Georgetown University."
Finally our first actual "official" our first citation of anything. And it's a lawyer who "oversaw terrorism cases". I don't want too dig to deeply into this because I want to encourage others to actually cite their fucking bullshit lies, so I appreciate this person was named. But a lawyer prosecuting people for terrorism, is not a fucking "counterterrorism official" and doesn't implicitly know shit about why people become terrorists. Prosecutors convince judges and juries to put people in prison. They aren't fucking experts in the fields of the people they prosecute, they aren't necessarily even experts in catching criminals. Otherwise prosecutors would be assumed to be qualified to be detectives, they would be qualified to take the stand themselves to denounce people being prosecute (I say, "aren't necessarily" because some lawyers do actual criminal investigations). I can only imagine you not only cherry-picked the lawyer because she's a leftist, but she must be a standout activist type of leftist, or professor, but I repeat myself.
"McCord was speaking at a recent online conference, Millions of Conversations, an organization aimed at reducing polarization. Along with McCord, several other former officials who served in senior national security roles said the mass embrace of bogus information poses a serious national security concern for the incoming Biden administration."
I looked up "Millions of Conversations". It's a leftist effort to bring more people into leftist causes. While they say they want to hear from millions, their video page only has 4 videos, two by co-founders railing railing against white people and the presumption of white guilt. No sources on the subject. Just absurd claims like black men are stopped by police for a tail-light and then go to prison for life. That America has "never" faced its racist past. OK. It repeatedly states prison race statistics. It doesn't of course address some obvious questions like, are the people guilty? It says many who get out of prison are arrested soon again, OK so the cops are not only targeting black people, they can actually sense former inmates? Or are those former inmates just still criminals?
Don't get me wrong. I'm for police accountability. I'm disgusted by police abuse of power and getting away with murder. I just don't believe the left is. Because when given the choice between police accountability and making white people look like shit, they always choose making white people look like shit.
But of all the bullshit in the videos, I would like to highlight one particular part and move on. In the first video "Here's how racial injustice plays out in the U.S. legal system..." the following statement, which I believe wraps up their bias neatly, and reveals what this article leaves out in its description: "Samar founded the Millions of conversations campaign to transcend ideological divides in the U.S..." and at 3:47 it continues "And to disrupt the cycle of fear, hate and violence" (sic, no Oxford comma). Behind the text, is video footage of leftist terrorists burning a city in one of uncountable riots. This is "disrupting the cycle of fear, hate and violence". This is what they mean. Understand that the media has been on board with backing months of terrorism in the U.S.; murders, violence, and destruction, because it's their side doing it. This is a beautiful extension of Antifa, who believe they are preventing violence by committing it. They claim speech by others is violence, and they simultaneously call their own violence "speech".
https://millionsofconversations.com/media.html
"They (WHO?) added that there's no easy foil for a right-wing propaganda effort that amplifies fears and grievances on a nonstop loop (any link to this?). Those beliefs already have inspired political violence at protests over lockdowns and racial injustice. Political conspiracies drew thousands to last weekend's pro-Trump rally, after which the Proud Boys and other violent extremist groups wreaked havoc in downtown Washington, D.C."
Brilliant. "after which the Proud Boys and other violent extremist groups..." Absolutely fucking masterful. Who are those other violent extremist groups? Maybe it's answered in that oh so rare link...no. Once again it's another link to an "article" by the same writer Hannah Allam. Every single article linked is more attacks on the right. She's a mainstream media reporter, writing an article about how the right is believing "Conspiracy" and her only proof that they are wrong are links to other articles by her shitting on right wingers and conspicuously leaving out their opposition. Gee Hannah, I wonder from which "right wing" news source these people are getting the idea that you're biased against them?
In her link and in this article, she leaves out it was LEFT WING EXTREMISTS COMMITTING THE FUCKING VIOLENCE.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3bZ7SQJe4s&list=PLzLkgYmFMjlecw2gXGPkK-qrq15mpZt5R&index=7&t=0s
Oh no wait. Sorry. My bad. Those were left wing scum attacking innocent Trump supporters in 2016. I had to be more specific with my searching because leftists have been violently assaulting innocent people for first amendment behavior for over four years.
Actually I had some trouble finding a mainstream news source even admitting there was anyone but Trump supporters. Every other article, including this one, seem to imply Trump supporters were attacking themselves. But when you go forward, consider these were Pro-Trump rallies when you see weasel wording from leftist pieces of shit like Hannah, who call terrorists who show up at any peaceable assembly to cause violence "counterprotesters". How are you a "counterprotester" when the people you're violently assaulting were just walking by, or had a rally, or went to see someone speak? If anything you're the primary protester because you're the one trying to oppose someone else, and you're not really a protester, you're terrorist scum. Because you come in masks, dressed in black, with weapons and then you use them on innocent people.
https://nypost.com/2020/11/15/lefties-attack-maga-marchers-in-dc-and-the-media-shrug/
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/12/us/4-stabbed-and-one-shot-as-trump-supporters-and-opponents-clash.html
It's getting really easy for Hannah to make her case that right wingers have their "own "truth"" and their own bubbles, and they are the ones we have to worry about, when everything she writes is a lie while obfuscating or outright denying the existence of left-wing violence as she, a left wing, consistent right-wing basher in a mainstream platform, claims there's no one actually trying to harm them.
""Breaking through that echo chamber is critical or else we'll see more violence," said Elizabeth Neumann, who in April resigned her post leading the Department of Homeland Security office that oversees responses to violent extremism."
I actually agree here, Hannah of NPR, national publicly funded mainstream news reporter, consistently only reporting on right wingers and actively denying left-wing violence to the point of omitting them entirely from a two-sided brawl. BREAK THROUGH YOUR FUCKING ECHO CHAMBER. YOU'RE LITERALLY JUST CITING YOUR OWN ARTICLES. "or else we'll see more violence" YES. LEFTIST VIOLENCE WHICH HASN'T ABATED IN FOUR YEARS AND YOU STILL DENY IT EXISTS. But that wasn't Hannah's quote, it was from another leftist activist who hates Trump. She resigned because she's a deep state leftist who wasn't getting what she wanted. "that oversees responses to violent extremism" oh right, you're still over here with your TWO IN TOTAL cited sources and both were leftist women with their own agendas that perfectly align with fucking right-wingers.
"While it's impossible to pin down the scope of such beliefs, analysts say (WHO?), the numbers are staggering if even a fraction of President Trump's more than 74 million voters support bogus claims that say, for example, the election was rigged, the coronavirus is a hoax, and liberals are hatching a socialist takeover."
Are the numbers "staggering" according to objective analysts or did you just write that out of your own bias and then pretend you have analysts to reference somwhere? And is it really "impossible" to determine the scope of belief in a conspiracy theory? I think a few surveys might actually answer this question easily. "bogus claims that say, for example, the election was rigged..." Let's talk about that for a moment. Because you claim that there's no evidence at all. That's a lie. Most leftist media has conceded there has been factual evidence presented, which is why they now use words like "widespread" or "significant" or in this USA Today article, "overblown" https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2020/11/13/trump-voter-fraud-claims-investigated-2020-election/6259980002/
The key being, there have been cases. The left just doesn't want to give an inch. Why, if being honest, would they not want to acknowledge up front the minimal cases of fraud that have been found? Because leftists live and die by making extreme minorities seem like majorities. They make their extremist left position seem like a popular national ideology. Take the one or two instances of right wing violence and write horseshit like this article. They take one example of police abuse (or a lie that it occurred) and justify burning a city to the ground, ignoring murder, and celebrating actual attempts of violent secession by anarchists.
https://blockclubchicago.org/2020/08/11/police-shot-a-black-man-in-englewood-then-misinformation-spread-like-wildfire/
https://www.thedailybeast.com/seattles-capitol-hill-autonomous-zone-chaz-has-armed-guards
https://www.foxnews.com/media/media-ignores-chop-seattle-violence-gainor
https://thehill.com/opinion/criminal-justice/512622-the-media-is-ignoring-the-violence-thats-tearing-our-cities-apart
But these various vote fraud stories, real and fake, are just one aspect of why people are seeing the election as fraudulent. And until you can admit this honestly, and deal with it head on, rather than in a sideways psychotic gaslighting fashion, this belief will continue, Hannah. I'll name a few:
1. The constant media bias against Trump. Just watch 1 press conference at random from any point in Trump's entire presidency. I rest my fucking case there. But books could be written on this. The almost daily LIES about Trump that started before he even came into office. Every few days at most, for his entire presidency a new "scandal" would come out with "unnamed sources" (kind of like everything in this entire article). The lies were so prevalent anyone trying to keep track seemed to have given up early. But if there was one major overarching theme to most lies about Trump. It was the Russian collusion hoax.
https://247sports.com/college/kansas/Board/103734/Contents/16-Fake-News-Stories-Reporters-Have-Run-Since-Trump-Won-54398717/
https://theintercept.com/2019/01/20/beyond-buzzfeed-the-10-worst-most-embarrassing-u-s-media-failures-on-the-trumprussia-story/
2. The last minute change to voter laws that make it flagrantly easy to commit fraud. I've encountered people claiming the contrary, so maybe it's not every state, or they're just idiots, but at least in California, the state just mailed valid ballots to every address in registry with a voter's name. They didn't check if the voter lived there. They had absolutely no means of verifying who filled it out or returned it. I heard bullshit about checking signatures. Not only is that premise absurd on its face, nobody in the registrar has my signature, so there'd be nothing to check it against. But literally show me a single human anywhere on election day looking at people's signatures and checking them against some database...you won't. And then further find me the science that shows this task can even be performed reliably by a professional...you won't. And then explain how all those Biden supporters counting the votes were certified professional signature checkers... you won't.
The simple, undeniable fact is the states intentionally changed voter laws to allow more people to vote, by utterly abandoning even a modicum of accountability or verification. You can't prove voter fraud because the criminal Democrats who instituted these criminal voter laws intentionally designed them to allow fraud. To enable illegal immigrants to vote. To enable people to commit fraud. They took their pro-illegal voting to its logical conclusion. Not requiring ID like most countries with voting accountability, wasn't enough because real humans still had to show up. In California one asshole in an apartment can ballot harvest his entire building. All votes to, whoever, you can't account for a single vote.
3. Lots of "little" things like voting starting so early Trump's comeback performance in the second debate mattered little to millions who already voted. The media lying and hiding the facts on Hunter Biden. Debate moderators are routinely left-wing biased and while they'll happily fact-check, incorrectly, Trump, they stroke the halo around his opposition. Perpetual lies about things Trump has said. A glaring one was the ever repeated claim that Trump said there were good people on both sides of ..."white supremacists vs. anti-white supremacists" The lie is that he was talking about white supremacists to begin with. It was a given they weren't the good people. Otherwise why would he even bother saying it that way? If he really were full-blown racist as you lying pieces of shit lie, wouldn't he just say "they're good people"(period)? Why would he qualify it? He qualified it because he was talking about people who just showed up to protest tearing down a statue. In fact in a follow up to his statement he said
"I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists — because they should be condemned totally. But you had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists." -PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP DENOUNCING WHITE NATIONALISTS WHILE FUCKY MEDIA CONTINUED TO CLAIM HE DIDN'T. EVEN UP TO THE DEBATES. LEADING TO YOU PIECES OF SHIT GOING ON ABOUT WHAT "STAND DOWN" MEANS.
And yet, as many times as Trump has condemned them, and it's dozens, the biased leftist media has flagrantly lied and claimed he hasn't, 100 times over.
Another "little" thing was how the media and people lied about Trump's "failure" during Corona virus or the many riots over lies told about police. When Trump ordered the first actions to prevent the spread of the virus, Biden, Clinton, all the liberals in government and media attacked him for it. Then a month later were acting like they dragged him into taking action. While he was shutting down China, Nancy Pelosi was walking around Chinatown without a mask. And of course all of this gets 1984 style retconned. The history books being written with pure bullshit six months out. One of the laughably pure examples of this is Trump declaring during the debates that a vaccine was weeks away. He was mocked by dipshit Biden, by the moderators, by the news, by everyone. And then a few weeks later the vaccines were announced. Anyone apologize to Trump? No. They won't even acknowledge they are his success. Trump's vaccines. Fuck you. Fuck Biden. Trump's vaccines. Biden was opposed to every successful thing Trump did and you voted for him? Of course it seems suspicious.
https://nypost.com/2020/12/10/how-media-covered-up-the-hunter-biden-story-until-after-the-election/
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/trump-debate-election-early-voting-biden-1079974/
4. The impeachment was a farce and a stain on our country. Trump was impeached over, of all things, Biden's corruption. That's the long and short of it. Once again a hallmark of leftism, they take what they have done, and use it to attack their opposition. Hunter Biden is a piece of shit and Joe Biden, as much a senile ineffectual fuck as he is now, flagrantly abused his power to give wealth and access to his son. All Trump did was ask someone on the phone if they'd keep an eye out for Hunter's criminal fuckery. Before we go further, you do know the U.S. President as chief executive has ultimate police powers in the country right? Literally the power of policing is derived from the President and delegated. The so-called "top cop" of the federal government, the Attorney General, is a presidential appointee. And policing power in general is executive prerogative. Further the president is also the head of the nation's foreign diplomacy. The secretary of state and all U.S. Ambassadors are Presidential appointments. The U.S. President has every fucking Constitutional right to talk law enforcement with foreign nations. Including warning them about corrupt Bidens. But that's what he was impeached over.
Now it wasn't so much the impeachment, but the frothing at the mouth by Congress, the kangaroo court spectacles, the flagrant bias and knob-bobbing by the media on politicians "taking on Trump". Politicians flagrantly admitting they were looking for any excuse possible to impeach him since before he took office.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efforts_to_impeach_Donald_Trump
Ultimately that's the hallmark of fair, just elections. Can the results be challenged, can the evidence be viewed, can people observe the process? Democrats, the courts, and the media all said an emphatic "NO!" You all opposed even the most minor scrutiny like making ballot observers stand so far back they couldn't observe anything.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/fact-check-trumps-claims-poll-watchers/
Funny part of this link:
"Claim: "In Philadelphia, observers have been kept far away — so far that people are using binoculars to try and see — and there's been tremendous problems caused. They put paper on all of the windows so you can't see in."
Rating: Somewhat true"
Where I could go no further:
"On the conference call, the analysts agreed that the leftist fringe also is hardening and promoting its own conspiracies. But they said there's simply no equivalency with the right in terms of the volume of disinformation and conspiracy, or in its connections to violent acts."
This was the end of the line for me. I knew I had to write this. Even knowing nobody is ever going to read it.
But they said there's simply no equivalency with the right in terms of the volume of disinformation and conspiracy, or in its connections to violent acts."
no equivalency with the right in terms of the volume of disinformation and conspiracy, or in its connections to violent acts."
no equivalency with the right... its connections to violent acts."
I guess ultimately it's the truth. Just not your "truth", Hannah. The left is violence. There is no equivalency. The right only began to learn how to react violently about 5 skull-smashing events into Trump's presidency. 2016 started with free reign from the left to violently assault anyone. At that time, me being someone who is against wanton violence and injustice, stated it was an absurd position to take because ultimately violence is met with violence. The media pretended all the previous events didn't occur. But once the right wingers finally showed up to play the same game, oh how the media did cry. Thus began the era where if anyone to the right of Marx holds a public assembly, leftist terrorists show up to crush their fucking skulls in, and the media like Hannah, fly to their defense writing floods of articles spinning like fucking turbines calling the victims anything under the sun and obfuscating as hard as diamonds about the existence of an organized international anarcho-communist movement sometimes labelled or self-described as "Antifa".
It really all began when a group of minorities from the Bay Area tried to have an open peaceful assembly sponsored by Patriot Prayer to speak on free speech and unity, and psychotic leftist San Franciscans like Nancy Pelosi and Dianne Feinstein rallied actual terrorists to violently assault them, meanwhile a local grassroots campaign of asshole rich fuck San Franciscans smeared dog shit all over their own park as a "welcome" to the minorities who simply wanted to talk. The 1st Amendment was successfully abolished in San Francisco by those traitorous fucks and they instead held it in Berkeley. Meanwhile people still showed up at one of the designated speech locations to violently assault police. When Patriot Prayer was attacked in Berkeley, it was the final straw and from that point on, "rallies", "protests" etc. were a joint left-right venture of people looking to scrap.
Ultimately this article is about how the right finally stood up and has been holding their own, voluntarily trading skull-crushing with leftists. And this psycho piece of shit "journalist" is mad. Because the left is the only side allowed to violently assault and the left has never violently assaulted. We have never been at war with Eastasia. We have always been a war with Eastasia.
https://www.police1.com/antifa/articles/video-black-clad-anarchists-storm-berkeley-rally-assaulting-5-OapSLpymvARuSH8E/
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/trump-supporters-counter-protesters-clash-berkeley-california-n747176
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/aug/25/patriot-prayer-san-francisco-rally-cancelled-dog-poo
https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/san-francisco-to-counter-right-wing-rally-by-dancing-leaving-dog-poop/29373/
And if you want to know what kind of biased scum CNN is, here's a quote from their article on the planned leftist violence opposing the first amendment:
"There were multiple creative counterprotests planned for the day, including a gathering of anti-fascism clowns, a moving dance party, a costume party and protest for kids in Golden Gate Park, and a plan to spread dog feces at the site of the rally."
Well isn't that wholesome?
That's all I've got on this. Hannah Allam, you're a shitty journalist. No sources, all bias. I have more objectivity and sources in a fraction of my ramblings than you have across the totality of your activist horseshit career.
This entire article seems eerily similar to another one I found on a leftist website. Curiously that website didn't file it under their "FACT" section, they actually filed it under their "Argument" section for expression of opinions: https://bylinetimes.com/2020/12/18/trump-derangement-fuelled-mass-radicalisation-of-america/
My only beef worth mentioning is that article is exploitive of the left's most devilish history re-write, in the vein of calling anti-SJWs "snowflakes" for complaining about SJWs, Trump Derangement Syndrome is and always was a condition of anti-Trumpers who lose their fucking minds and rational composure if Trump is involved with anything in any way. The left has tried so hard to turn it around and call pro-Trumpers the ones with the derangement. You're free to say people are equally deranged, but you're disingenuous assholes for actually stealing the term and pulling yet another 1984, acting like it was always a term against Trumpers. That's the hallmark of the left. From this article to anything else. To have your activist cake and eat it to. To shoot your activist bullets and deny guns exists. To strike violently in the streets and claim there's no violence. To organize in public, declare yourself a coalition, to direct your attacks at your stated enemy, and then gaslight the fuck out of people claiming you're for unity and you never conspired in the first place.
