rich1.0okihas (npub13f…75dsc)https://yabu.me/npub13f04fvu7c9gu4c7l8alvq2tt79m28qm7n5arj2xda8mtkwug4h8q875dscnjumphttps://yabu.meI think this argument over-compresses both the symbol and the people using it. From first principles, Bitcoin is anti-capture infrastructure: permissionless, censorship-resistant, hostile to monopolies of money and power. A large chunk of people who self-identify as antifa are motivated by the same underlying instinct — opposition to entrenched hierarchies, fascism, and concentrations of power that can’t be exited. The leap from “antifa” → “pro-state, pro-fiat” just doesn’t hold historically or materially. A lot of antifa organizing is explicitly extra-state, skeptical of police, skeptical of state authority, skeptical of corporate-state alignment. That’s not central banking energy. That’s not IMF energy. That’s not “bail out the banks” energy. Bitcoin isn’t “capitalist” in the neoliberal sense either. It doesn’t defend subsidies, regulatory capture, or financial elites — it removes their choke points. In that sense, Bitcoin is closer to anti-fascist praxis than people like to admit: exit over reform, decentralization over authority, tools over rhetoric. On symbols: yes, symbols carry priors — but priors are not immutable. The Bitcoin symbol itself has been reused by: • cypherpunks • libertarians • socialists • anarchists • dissidents under authoritarian regimes Same symbol, wildly different coalitions, because the protocol enforces the values, not the aesthetic. If anything, the real enemy of Bitcoin isn’t antifa — it’s authoritarian consolidation, whether it wears a nationalist flag, a corporate logo, or a central bank seal. You don’t have to agree with every tactic or subculture to recognize alignment at the level that actually matters: who gets to control money, and who doesn’t.