Can you name a modern fascist group?……ANTIFA.


Nowadays, a very quick and easy response to conservatives is the label: “Fascist!”

But where does it come from?

Now most people would automatically think of WWII and the Nazis….wrong

Some will actually say it’s from the Italian word fascismo, referring to the political movement spearheaded by Benito Mussolini…..close….but still wrong.

I say close because it did originate in Italy(not Germany) and was conceptualized by one Giovanni Gentile.


 The man was the self-styled “Philosopher of Fascism” and was essential in creating the foundation of fascism.

Well, Giovanni’s philosophical mentor and inspiration was none other than Karl Marx. In his writings about fascism, Gentile explained how he believed that the entire community was at the service of the state because the state was the community. Sound familiar? Hold that thought.



Fun Fact about fascism: It’s a form of Government, not a political alignment.

The Nazi party was an ultra-nationalist party that used fascism to function.

So what exactly is Fascism? Fascism is a form of government that most noticeably uses the forcible suppression of opposition and control of media, industry, and commerce. 

Notice how no mention of political alignment is mentioned there. That’s because the opposite of Fascism is not communism, but rather libertarian.

Neither a socialist or a nationalist must exclusively be a fascist.

Now ANTIFA is short for Anti Fascist. Ironic that their methods are exactly like those of those they hate. ANTIFA is a self-proclaimed left-wing group that feels that they can use any means necessary to crush whoever they feel is part of, or in support of Neo-Nazism and far-right groups. While that doesn’t sound too bad, they really do mean, any means necessary.

The real problem is, they very often award the label of fascist, to anyone who disagrees with them. This is where that previously mention, any means necessary, happens. It always involves yelling and very often if there are enough members, they will surround the person. From a bird’s eye view,  it probably looks like the exact definition of a mob. There have even been serious reports of extremely violent crimes committed by ANTIFA members.

ANTIFA has been known to also start riots that commit violence by targeting anything they consider to be commercially owned, be it businesses, property or cars.

Their idea is that a community has a right to defend itself against anything it considers a threat, even if it is an idea. Freedom of speech is acceptable as long as it conforms to their socio-political ideology. Otherwise, that freedom is drowned out by the noise of being labelled and branded.


It’s ironic isn’t it, those who wish to preserve freedom of speech and freedom of expression are quick to crush the speech and expression that doesn’t agree with theirs.

The truth is if one fine day somebody could actually hand over everything this group demands, the hoped-for result of an absolute balance, would turn out to be a one-way ticket to anarchy(no stops and no turnarounds).

….and where are we today?

It is true, the numbers of this violent group are dwindling. But certain left-wing politicians, are working quite hard to push certain parts of the establishment the wrong way.  Just like what happened recently in Portland, Oregon. In a violent clash between Antifa and a free-speech group(who some, have claimed are a far-right group), it was noted that police seemed uninterested in the Antifa rioters and seemed to focus on their opponents.

Many have pointed out online that Portland’s mayor has quite the reputation for being quite the hardcore left winger who prefers to turn a blind eye to Antifa as they are self-proclaimed left-wingers too. I believe this just goes to show, that while the left, makes accusations of corruption, they also make use of …the end justifies the means… attitude also. 

When a cause is pushed without prudence at the helm, it’s bound to fall into the same traps as it’s failed, predecessors.


If the pay gap against women is real, businesses would become sexist towards men.


Let me explain what I’m saying…and then you can go nuts.
Now we’ve all heard about the Gender Pay Gap…. so no need to go into too much detail about it.
But here is a quick summary for those who aren’t too familiar:
Quick Wikipedia search the phrase Gender pay gap and the introductory paragraph is as follows:

The gender pay gap is the average difference between a man’s and a woman’s remuneration.

There are two distinct numbers regarding the pay gap:
Unadjusted versus adjusted pay gap. The latter takes into account differences in hours worked, occupations chosen, education and job experience. For example, someone who takes time off (e.g. maternity leave) will likely not earn as much as someone who does not take time off from work. Factors like this contribute to lower yearly earnings for women; while the pay gap has narrowed over time, a gender pay gap still exists, even when controlling for these external factors. Unadjusted pay gaps are much higher.
In the United States, for example the unadjusted average female’s annual salary has commonly been cited as being 78% of the average male salary, compared to 88-93% for the adjusted average salary for college graduates.

Source : Wikipedia

So, the summary provided… onward then.

I have to point out that the points provided by the movement against the gender pay gap, actually would result in businesses acting in a sexist way towards men, rather than women.
The biggest claim(or as the opposing side call it; the myth) being, that:

Businesses will pay a man more than women, for the exact same job.

With just a bit of reasoning, it’s easy to see why that doesn’t make sense; the following being aside from it being against the law in most countries where this issue is protested.
Ask around for what the purpose of a business is and the easiest answer is :

…to make a profit…

Expand it ever so slightly and you can get an easy formula like this: Gross Sales minus Expenses = Profit.
That translates into; the more money your business generates while reducing more of its expenses; the more profit it can yield.
So let’s apply the myth to a real-life scenario…
Bob has a company and he needs an employee. He gets two applications, from a man and woman respectively.
Let’s call them John and Jane.
According to many feminist movements, if John and Jane are of equal qualification; then John gets the job.
Woah, WHAT?!…*Said my internal dialogue*
This isn’t going to hold, and here’s why:
If a company attempts to act in a sexist way, it would only do so towards its own detriment. If both applicants, are of equal qualification but it would cost the business less to employ the female applicant; then the only way that the business would employ the man would mean that it is prepared to go against its very purpose for the sake of sexism.
This is impossible. The reason being that as a whole and in the profit intended running, a business doesn’t allow itself to make a sexist decision like that because; it would make less profit for no logical reason.
If the myth is true we can go a bit further and say, women would get hired more and that would result in an active discrimination towards men.
How? It would eventually mean that the average of earnings(this is by using the myth supporter’s methods of calculation no less) of both genders, should reflect that women would be earning more as a whole; while men will get less as a whole. Resulting in the original statement that women earn less, shattering; because men wouldn’t be hired, resulting in men not even earning enough to compete on the same graph as a collective against women.
Let me go back to the quote for a second.

Unadjusted versus adjusted pay gap. The latter takes into account differences in hours worked, occupations chosen, education and job experience.

If the latter, mentioned in the above is not properly adjusted for; then the facts provided by the myth supporters is actually fiction from the start. Real life scenario’s take the above mentioned into account.

I wish someone would explain to me, why feminists are pushing to debating an issue that:

  • doesn’t happen in the legally correct job environment,
  • is not a concept that society finds fair or acceptable,
  • would actually lead to women dominating the job market in the future.

Just because there are situations where wrongdoing is committed it doesn’t mean that the collective is bad.

People must stop condemning the barrel, because of a few bad apples.