Is there anyone monitoring US government websites for deletion of pages beyond what people may notice in an ad hoc way? I feel like this should be automated.
There's an Archive Team project for the government, although it's just trying to get as much of a snapshot as possible: https://wiki.archiveteam.org/index.php/US_Government Detecting changes across all pages in real time is going to be difficult to accomplish.
You can use a combination of the website capture data available in the Internet Archive along with what the Internet Archive and ArchiveTeam crawl to analyze and track when page status changes (both content and http codes, 200->4xx for example). Look for the diffs across the .govs of interest. Crawling continues.
(no affiliation, friendly reminder to donate to the archive)
If significant armed left wing groups actually existed, we might actually get meaningful gun control legislation, like happened during the rise of Black Panther.
I think most organized and militarized western leftist groups were probably defunct by the end of the Cold war.
I’d assume it’s mostly a product of who the enemy was during the Cold War. Though I understand the far right made a large shift in how decentralized they operate around the end of the 20th century too after the feds started picking a lot of various KKK and other organization members off.
That doesn't make it true though. Just like 300 million Americans died from overdosing on drugs according to POTUS. They just say things knowing people in their base will not verify anything they say. If someone does, they clearly are opposition just making a stink.
No, it certainly doesn't. But lies are the only relevance "antifa" has, and if you ask the people caught up in it, they'll adamantly insist that antifa is an extensive organization with identifiable leaders and cohesive plans that are executed widely by a unified member body.
None of that's true. But we should be aware of the lies being told, at least the ones told widely.
Generally, when someone says something like "left wing groups" they mean something with a formal organization.
"Antifa" is less of an organization than even some loose collective like "anonymous"
Are there left-wing agitators? Sure, black bloc and other "direct action" protestors have been around since at least the world trade protests in the 90s.
But to the best of my knowledge there isn't really a formal "antifa" organization to dismantle or anything.
> Elon Musk, who owns X, recently tweeted that he was going to “fix” the platform’s AI assistant Grok after it cited research that showed right-wing violence was more common than left-wing violence: “My apologies, we are fixing this cringe idiocy by Grok,” he said.
I understand why it's hard to make AI that's accurate, but Musk's elite engineers can't even make it push a preferred narrative consistently. Sounds like it should be a much easier problem to solve.
Regardless of the bias inherent in Grok, it wasn't a good experience to me. I tried it for some time before going back to ChatGPT (this was before GPT-5 though, I'm also not super happy with GPT-5 UX)
I don't think we should normalize cover ups like this especially when it comes to political violence studies. POTUS immediately blamed the "radical left" after the attack without evidence. Not only is that reckless, it's not even the most likely scenario.
> If you already have guns, the threshold for terrorist actions is likely lower
Guns are easily accessible to everyone in America.
Guns are accessible, but prior gun ownership is skewed, and prior gun ownership is one less barrier to cross when attempting political violence. In theory, that should mean increased attempts for that high-gun-ownership demographic.
Exactly, because owning a gun and being trained are very different things.
I own guns but I am not capable of performing a Charlie Kirk style assassination. Nor could I actually carry out a school shooting with high rate of fire across many weapons.
Both of these crimes require that the shooter have training and practice in this style of shooting. You need specialized equipment beyond what a casual gun owner will spend. Buying a 9mm and going to the range every couple of months isn’t cutting it.
Gun culture creates the environment where folk are prepping for combat situations. Go watch any guntuber and you’ll see them train for military situations that your hunter, farmer, or even family defense gun owner is not concerned with.
In fact, I learned that there’s a pejorative term “Fudds” for gun owners who aren’t militarized like this. As in, Elmer Fudd; an actual hunter that uses guns for game. Somehow this is not a respectable person for a gun nut.
When gun ownership becomes a hobby and personality trait you see a lot more people optimizing their habits toward maximum lethality
A right wing terrorist assassinated the Democratic Speaker of the House of Minnesota, her husband, and their dog in their own home just a few months ago. The terrorist had a target list of other Democratic law makers, abortion rights advocates, and abortion providers. It didn't get a ton of coverage even in the United States due to all the right-wing nastiness on the regular.
Your opening statement is opinionated, factually incorrect, and unnecessarily divisive. Murder is not a matter of left or right as it stems from individual pathology, often tied to mental illness. Political affiliation is irrelevant in such cases.
Labeling and name-calling only deepen division and hostility. Conservatism, at its core, has historically meant preserving traditions, though its positions have shifted over time. Similarly, progressive movements have had both positive and negative impacts depending on the era.
I personally refuse to align fully with either side. What I do oppose is the deliberate incitement of hatred through oversimplification and demonization. That kind of rhetoric, not one’s political affiliation, undermines the principles America was built upon.
> In 2018, Cesar Altieri Sayoc was sentenced to 20 years prison for sending pipe bombs to nine prominent Democrats, including Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden and Maxine Waters. Sayoc was a registered Republican.
> In 2020, 13 men attempted to punish Michigan’s Democrat Governor Gretchen Whitmer for enforcing Covid lockdown measures. All were far right extremists.
> Roy Den Hollander murdered human rights lawyer Marc Angelucci in July 2020. He then tried to kill district judge Esther Salas, but succeeded instead in murdering her son and seriously wounding her husband. Hollander was a far right Trump supporter.
> Quintez Brown attempted to kill Democratic Mayor of Louisville, Kentucky, Craig Greenberg, in February 2022. Brown was motivated by Black nationalism, pan-Africanism and revolutionary socialism.
> In October 2022 David DePape seriously injured Paul Pelosi with a hammer while seeking to kill House of Representatives Speaker, Nancy Pelosi. DePape is a far right Trump supporter.
> In December 2022, Solomon Peña paid gunmen to attack the houses of Democrat state lawmakers in New Mexico. Peña is a registered Republican and a former candidate for state office.
> Craig Robertson was shot and killed by FBI agents in August 2023 while being arrested for threats against President Joe Biden and others. Robertson was an army veteran with extreme right wing views.
> Donald Trump himself was targeted at a July 2024 rally in Pennsylvania. The shooter Thomas Crooks killed one attendee and injured three others, including Trump, whose ear was cut by a flying fragment. Crooks was a registered Republican.
> Another attempt on Trump’s life, thwarted before completion, was made by Trump voter Ryan Routh in September 2024. The trial is continuing.
> In April 2025, Cody Balmer attempted to kill Pennsylvania’s Democratic Governor Josh Shapiro in an arson attack which caused extensive property damage but no injuries. Balmer was a Trump supporter at the time.
> The Democrat Speaker of the Minnesota House of Representatives Melissa Hortman and her husband Mark Hortman were killed by avid Trump supporter and registered Republican Vance Boelter in June 2025.
> Boelter then attempted to murder Minnesota Senator John Hoffman and succeeded in seriously injuring the senator and his wife.
This is a very odd take and shows your media bubble. The real stats are 7-10x in favor of right wing violence. They have the title for most destructive with OKC bombing, frequency, body count, etc. All stats are at least an order of magnitude greater for right wing violence. It's even difficult to find examples of left violence. The famous examples provided are "BLM Riots" which were mostly peaceful protests against violence. It's all spin.
The discussion above was about violence stemming from political ideology. You will have to provide evidence that the murders in Chicago are politically motivated.
Non-american here: if you get to the point where you want to kill another person or groups of people, it doesn't really matter whether you are left/right/pink/blue/whatever. You are unwell. To blame an entire group for one person's mental break is silly. You have no idea what is in another person's head, what their beliefs are, which of those beliefs are conflicting with each other. You might as well say that because the person ate pizza on the day, that we should blame and ban italian pizza places. Silly.
I live in a very broken country too, but our people are not shooting up random places/people. We have many guns too, so we cannot attribute it to that.
I think the kind of person that is willing to kill others (in the american sense, shootings), typically are highly suicidal but since they are able to blame the society or some aspect of society, they come to the conclusion to not commit suicide but to rather attack the system as a final punishment / giving up moment or to assert that they have some form of control. They ofcoarse find no relief there either.
Meanwhile your media and politician use these people as scape goats and cheerleaders for their own agendas. Disgusting in its own right.
Killing innocents is for the unwell, but assassinations have been a staple of politics for as long as humanity has had politics.
It also doesn't follow that an entire group can't be held for a single person's actions. There are plenty of organizations that go out of their way to shape individuals' ways of thinking in order (or otherwise compel them) to harm groups of innocent others. Those groups can and absolutely should be held accountable.
This book might be relevant for those trying to understand why and how fascists attempt to control the narrative by suppression of the free press, erasure of documents, and nowadays hiding and flagging posts on social media and popular RSS feeds: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/207294076-erasing-histor...
> Since 1990, far-right extremists have committed far more ideologically motivated homicides than far-left or radical Islamist extremists, including 227 events that took more than 520 lives.[1] In this same period, far-left extremists committed 42 ideologically motivated attacks that took 78 lives.
Um... there was this thing called "September 11". It was after 1990. Out of the three named groups, 520 killed does not put them at the top.
The left only killed 15% as many people as the right. That is noteworthy. But saying that "Since 1990, far-right extremists have committed far more ideologically motivated homicides than... radical Islamist extremists" has to be massively cherry-picking the data.
But I suppose it might depend on the point of the study. If the point is "what dangers should people in the US be worried about", then it's absolutely a cherry-pick. If international terrorists kill you, you're still just as dead. But if the point is "where should law enforcement focus its efforts", and if international terrorism is not the responsibility of the same people, then the distinction matters.
Note "not a responsibility" is different from "not primarily the responsibility".
In fact, that point of view is interesting because the argument for the police state since 9/11 is 'but domestic terrorists!' (although nowadays it's back to 'think of the children').
If domestic islamic terrorists aren't as active as everyone think, maybe we can do with less surveillance, no?
To be honest in my country, domestic islamic terrorism killed more than any other terrorism since 2014, and even more than police, and I still don't like the surveillance state we have, it's still to much.
> Since 1990, far-right extremists have committed far more ideologically motivated homicides than far-left or radical Islamist extremists, including 227 events that took more than 520 lives. In this same period, far-left extremists committed 42 ideologically motivated attacks that took 78 lives.
Would have been nice if you were as skeptical of what the OP wrote. But here's the summary from TFA:
"Militant, nationalistic, white supremacist violent extremism
has increased in the United States. In fact, the number of
far-right attacks continues to outpace all other types of
terrorism and domestic violent extremism. Since 1990,
far-right extremists have committed far more ideologically motivated
homicides than far-left or radical Islamist extremists, including 227
events that took more than 520 lives.1 In this same period, far-left
extremists committed 42 ideologically motivated attacks that took
78 lives.2 A recent threat assessment by the U.S. Department of
Homeland Security concluded that domestic violent extremists are an
acute threat and highlighted a probability that COVID-19 pandemic-
related stressors, long-standing ideological grievances related to
immigration, and narratives surrounding electoral fraud will continue
to serve as a justification for violent actions."
The most likely explanation that I've seen so far is that the trans-humanists believe that they will solve the aging problem and that that will solve cancer as a byproduct, so we should pour lots of money into their pet subject. It's pretty obvious why they would want to solve aging first as long as they don't have cancer, after that it is going to be a toss-up.
What does that have to do with US domestic terrorists, which is what the study concerned?
Trump is the only one on your list where it was a US domestic terrorist.
The shooter in that case seems to have been more right-aligned than left-aligned but there is nothing definitive. He donated $15 to Democrats when he was 17, but a few months later when he was 18 and registered to vote he registered as a Republican. A social media account that is thought to be associated with him had a lot of anti-immigration and antisemitic content.
