Oregon

Proud Boys, Antifa Clash Again on Portland Streets

The city is looking less like Portlandia and more like Little Beirut.

|

Emily Molli/ZUMA Press/Newscom

Gangs of masked left- and right-wing protestors clashed again in Portland, Oregon, on Saturday night, raising the question of whether political street violence is the new normal in the Rose City.

The weekend's violence began with an impromptu gathering of the right-wing group Patriot Prayer—a staple of Portland's street melees over the last couple of years—who rallied in the city's downtown to call for the ouster of Mayor Ted Wheeler, who they accuse of surrendering the city to far-left protestors.

Pictures and video from the rally show demonstrators waving American flags and sporting MAGA and Proud Boy hats. One man wore a homemade t-shirt with the slogan "I hunt Antifa cowards."

In attendance were Joey Gibson, leader of Patriot Prayer and unsuccessful candidate for U.S. Senate in Washington state, and Tusitala "Tiny" Toese, another prominent member of the group, who's been charged with assault for his brawling at past protests.

Following the Patriot Prayer rally, the assembled group marched through the city's downtown, shouting chants of "USA" as they passed a vigil for Patrick Kimmons, who was killed by Portland police last month.

According to Willamette Week, the first scuffles started shortly after the Kimmons vigil ended. One vigil attendee set fire to an American flag, which was then snatched away by a member of the Patriot Prayer crowd. Insults started to fly between the two groups, followed by squirts of pepper spray.

One video, captured by Portland freelancer Mike Bivins, shows right-wing protestors he identifies as Proud Boys and a black-clad antifa demonstrator approaching each other, fists raised, before another leftist lets loose a string of pepper spray.

The violence only escalated from there, reaching a peak at around 8 P.M. when a full-scale brawl broke out in front of the bar Kelly's Olympian. Video shows the two sides exchanging more blows and pepper spray. One clip, again captured by Bivins, shows what appears to be a right-wing protestor repeatedly stomping on a left-wing counterdemonstrator, who's lying prone on the ground.

Portland Police eventually intervened, firing pepper ball rounds and other non-lethal ammunition.

"We are aware that there was a large, violent encounter between opposing groups on Southwest Washington Street," Portland Police Chief Danielle Outlaw said in a press release. "Officers responded to the scene and used less lethal munitions to break up the fight and prevent further violence. We will continue to investigate this incident and ask that anyone who was the victim of a crime to come forward and file a report."

No arrests were made Saturday. After being broken up by police, the two sides dissipated, with the Patriot Prayer crowd chanting "Trump, Trump, Trump" as they marched away from the scene.

Violent protests are hardly an unprecedented phenomenon in Portland. The city was affectionately nicknamed "Little Beirut" in the late 1980s for the raucous protests that greeted visits by President George H.W. Bush and Vice President Dan Quayle.

Still the street warfare of the kind we saw this weekend is a relatively new phenomenon, spawned from the hysterical aftermath of Donald Trump's election. As right and left repeatedly face off, the Portland Police have been criticized for both overpolicing and underpolicing the rallies.

And while the fighters like to present themselves either as dogged defenders of racial equality against the forces of white supremacy or as free speech warriors standing up to an intolerant leftist mob, all I really see in these street scuffles are a bunch of angry people looking for a fight.

NEXT: The Most Badly Behaved Border Patrol Agents Are in Texas

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

    1. Protip: when you’re marching on the side with a hammer and sickle, you don’t exactly have the moral high ground.

      1. When you’re marching for bigotry and conservatism, you have neither the moral high ground nor much of an electoral future.

        Carry on, clingers.

        1. Both sides can, in fact, be evil, as the Poles learned in World War II.

        2. Comrade Kirk, was that you being stomped on in the video?

        3. We’re libertarians not conservatives. Classical liberals. Radical capitalists.

        4. @asshole Kirkland fuck you, commie. So you agree with a ideology that has murdered millions of people? Your fucking stupid and evil, everyone your comments is hysterical, stupid bull shit. Fuck off, leftist shitbag asshole.

    2. I’ve seen zero evidence that Patriot Prayer Group is ACTUALLY a far right organization.

      They seem more like a Christian free speech organization. Am I wrong?

      1. I saw something where the PPG was praying for a black man that was gunned down.

        With that being said, PPG allows neo-Nazis to protest with them.

        What Libertarian would Socialist Nazis hanging with them?

        1. Any libertarian would defend a nazi’s right to free speech.

          So it seems they are a free speech group.

        2. We’re supposed to be nice to socialists. remember?

          1. Only international socialists homey.

            See, when some hipster douchebag musician (e.g. Tom Morello) wears the Red Star it’s all cool and edgy and punk and stuff.

            Unlike when punks wore swastikas. Which was like, totally not cool, and stuff.

            Or so Pleather Jacket would tell us.

        3. I dunno about that man… Joey Gibson isn’t even proper white IIRC, and Tiny is Samoan IIRC. So, yeah, not really far right. Or Nazis. I don’t believe they have ever had any actual Nazis protest with them either. Are you trying to call the Proud Boys Nazis? Because they definitely aren’t either. Their thing is simply that “Western Civilization Is Superior” to other cultures. But they allow people of any ethnicity in their group… So definitely not Nazis.

          1. ” I don’t believe they have ever had any actual Nazis protest with them either”

            Actual Nazis, i.e., Germans from 7 decades ago? No, none of them. But they did have a guy leave their rally, entertain himself by harassing a couple of women on the electric choo-choo train, and then murder two of the three men who told him to knock it off. So.. if not “actual Nazis”, at least “Nazi-adjacent”.

            1. Oh, because a single mentally unstable person who happens to be conservative not only makes that crazy guy basically a Nazi… But ALSO makes everybody he’d ever hung out with a Nazi, and the entire organization all Nazis.

              I see.

              Well, let’s definitely not think to mention that the overwhelming majority of murderers, rapists, people who commit assault, etc tend to vote Democrat then! Because they’d REALLY be guilty by association if every deed done by anybody who supports them makes them all guilty.

              Even if you want to count him as doing a political violence thing, there have been more on the left. Shooting at congressional baseball teams anyone? Intentionally hunting police? Yeah. Not to mention infinitely more assaults with ANTIFA/

    3. More propaganda from reason.

      Its Lefties fighting Lefties.

  1. >>>political street violence is the new normal in the Rose City

    peace would reign if only the Blazers were good

    1. “peace would reign if only the Blazers were good”

      So, Beirut it is then

  2. I used to think that nothing could be lamer than LARPing, but then along came political LARPing.

    1. Somebody needs to recast that silly game as Angry Nerds.

      1. Leave James Rolfe out of this. His life is sad enough.

  3. So are both of these groups resident in Portland? And if so, are normal people leaving?

    1. normal people. Portland.

    2. A mate of mine moved to Portland during the early 2000s.

      And even as he is largely sympathetic to SJW concerns, he could only tolerate a few years before he finally moved out.

      The entire west coast has turned from a left-libertarian sensibility to some three-headed mutant demon.

      Damn shame really.

      1. Libertarian moment!

      2. The “left” always overcomes the “libertarian” in left-libertarian, eventually.

        1. I beg to differ. My personal political evolution contradicts what you say.

          1. Zeb, come on. You’re an anarchist, right? You are not Libertarian then. Which is fine, but you are NOT a left-libertarian because there is no such thing. What is more politically left of Libertarianism that is not Socialism and Communism? Libertarians support as much personal freedom as you can have and still have a non-authoritarian government.

            You as an anarchist would never support tiny limited government that has rule of law under a Constitution. Anarchists want all personal freedom and NO government that is not a volunteer organization.

            1. A volunteer organization running voluntary communal affairs with no police powers is not what most people would consider a government.

              1. How about strange women dispensing swords from the bottom of lakes?

                1. How about strange women dispensing swords from the bottom of lakes?

                  Ah! Now we see the violence inherent in the system. Help! Help! I’m being repressed.

            2. Just another confused Fiscal Conservative-Social Liberal.

            3. Earlier in my life I held somewhat left-ish political views (yes, with a fairly anarchistic philosophical undercurrent, but as far as practical politics went, that was it).

              I wouldn’t call myself a left anything today. Politically I’m libertarian. Practically and philosophically I think “rational anarchist” is the best term I’ve found (apologies/thanks to Heinlein). All I’m saying is that people do evolve from left-libertarian (incoherent as that may be) to more actual libertarian.

              1. Zeb, so you are okay with limited government that has its authority granted from say…a federal constitution which was given power by 13 states that also have constitutions?

            4. Your view of “left” is rooted in a very myopic idea that modern democrats = left and modern republicans = right. The problem with this view is that “left” and “right” preceded modern democrats and modern republicans, so you can’t move the goalposts by redefining what those terms mean to suit your (minority) viewpoint.

              But the real issue here is that you continue to associate libertarianism with conservative republicanism, which makes absolutely zero sense. In the way you’re defining “left” and “right”, libertarians CAN’T BE EITHER. Libertarianism is its own thing.

              Also — you repeatedly talk about how anarchism disqualifies someone from being “libertarian”. Explain the approx. 20% of the LP party that is anarcho-capitalist. Or the major founders of the party who are anarcho-capitalist. Or the philosophers and economists who libertarians hold in high regard who are anarcho-capitalist.

              You want libertarianism to be conservatism so bad that you keep making up a set of rules and expecting other people to follow them.

              1. Problem is Junk, you haven’t defined libertarian. You seem to be saying it’s in the eye of the beholder. If that’s so, then it has no meaning. Therefore a left-libertarian is the same as right-libertarian is the same as an anarcho-libertarian.

                if the qualifier left, right, anarcho, etc, etc, is real, then libertarian cannot be attached to those qualifiers since the qualifier would alter its meaning. It’s not as if we’re talking about cars and we have a blue car, a green car, etc. We’re talking about the different ways of organising society and the individual’s relationship to that society, ie: politics. It ain’t just a matter of semantics; of choosing your favorite qualifier but at heart just being a “libertarian”. Words have meaning.

                1. if the qualifier left, right, anarcho, etc, etc, is real, then libertarian cannot be attached to those qualifiers since the qualifier would alter its meaning.

                  imo – the main function of the qualifier is shorthand for identifying what forces that person thinks are the primary threat to individual liberty. They don’t de-emphasize liberty. They merely differ on what threatens it.

                  Left-libertarians tend to see corporate power and a corporatist state as the main threat. They are far better imo at identifying actual cronyism and non-self-correcting monopoly – and at countering it – than the other groups of libertarians. Maybe they aren’t as good at seeing the inertia of bureaucracy or the manipulation of elections/choice. Well that’s the value of a big tent based on ideas rather than a tiny church based on ideas.

                  If other libertarians can’t see the libertarian potential in get rid of all taxes on incomes; then maybe they just aren’t interested in actually competing in the world of political ideas. The biggest problem with left-libertarians (and for that matter I’d argue a potentially new ideology of eco-libertarian or blue-greens) is that other libertarians don’t even bother to engage with them. So Marxists – and maybe some laziness – fills the vacuum. And hey presto – more enemies of liberty and fewer friends.

                  1. Just looking at one example in American history. imo – the American west/frontier has always been the best case study of both the libertarian impulse in regular people and the origins of how the state actually comes into existence.

                    But if you study actual history rather the cartoon/myth version – focused on the troublesome stuff – native v settler contact, free range v barbed wire, gold standard v bimetallism, railroads/banks v farmers, vigilance committees v elected sheriffs, water wars, mining companies v IWW – it’s easy to see how one could get to an underdog-favoring libertarianism. That morphs into left-libertarianism based on American experiences not Marxist noodling.

                  2. If other libertarians can’t see the libertarian potential in get rid of all taxes on incomes; then maybe they just aren’t interested in actually competing in the world of political ideas.

                    Bingo!

                    The left leaning libertarians I know started with bog standard libertarianism, but then actually tried to apply it to the real world of compromises and not requiring everyone to think like you as a prerequisite to getting anything done. While ideologically codified neighborhoods sounds nice, it isn’t practical as even the Free State Project isn’t libertopia by any standard, and has to work with their neighbors.

                    So they try to work out what can most be sensibly accomplished given the lay of the land.

                    In relation to other libertarians, which necessitates the eradication of all other modes of thought except theirs, it is going to lean left as most of the world leans left in relation to libertarians.

                    Essentially, one of these is a utopian project. The other actually gets incremental changes to the status quo.

                    1. What can be most sensibly accomplished is simple. The problem is the government initiating force. The solution is to prohibit it from doing so.

                  3. Maybe they aren’t as good at seeing the inertia of bureaucracy or the manipulation of elections/choice.

                    I don’t know about that. Many (perhaps even most) left-libertarians have an anarchist tendency, and so I think you’ll be hard-pressed to find very many that don’t hate bureaucracy. In my view, the whole damned thing is mostly about how one defines property. Right-libertarians believe that property rights extend to things that are (IMO) not property: “intellectual property”, natural resources, and “corporate” property. Left libertarians consequently are at odds with right libertarians on issues related to property.

                    And you’re right. Left libertarians may prioritize topics like mass incarceration and war more than the things right libertarians prioritize. But this isn’t always the case. You have left libertarians like Gary Chartier who seem to prioritize economic issues (at least, that’s what he tends to write about I guess).

                2. You seem to be saying it’s in the eye of the beholder. If that’s so, then it has no meaning.

                  I’m saying quite the opposite actually. I’m saying you can’t arbitrarily move the goal posts to fit your own idealized view of libertarianism. We have literally hundreds of years of history to go on. And we have nearly 5 decades of party history (yes, I get that the LP isn’t the same as libertarianism, but the fact that there’s an organized group that shares a lot of the same history is noteworthy).

                  Why do democrats and republicans get to be a diverse group but libertarians don’t? Read more about the party history for a good glimpse of 3-5 very disparate groups getting together and deciding to make concessions and agreements to forge the libertarian party and American political movement. Excluding anarcho-capitalism excludes one of the FOUNDING groups, let alone our most cherished economists and scholars.

              2. Personally, I don’t want libertarianism to be conservatism. I just know who the true enemies of liberty are, and they aren’t really conservatives. Conservatives are just what their name implies. They are afraid of extreme change. That is a very beneficial thing in society. See Paine and Burke and the rise of Napoleon.

                The left, on the other hand, may call themselves liberal, but they are ANYTHING but liberal. They are statists. Authoritarians. And yes, fascists. They have so few redeeming qualities in the eyes of a libertarian that I cannot fathom why anyone who frequents this magazine, let alone writes for it, gives them any excuses. They are dangerous, and they will murder you for power, whether it is today or 20 years from now.

                1. I just know who the true enemies of liberty are, and they aren’t really conservatives.

                  A lot of people, myself included, would very strongly disagree with that statement. Conservatives historically have been against very key libertarian ideals, for example issues related to:

                  * privacy
                  * freedom of movement
                  * war
                  * mass incarceration
                  * the drug war
                  * bureaucracy/spending
                  * corporate welfare/trickle down economics

                  And it’s recently become painfully obvious to everyone that they have never been our allies on things like balanced budgets/debt and free trade.

                  1. I understand that a lot of people would disagree with that. I get it to an extent. On the other hand, all of those, the conservatives are currently better on than Democrats, excepting maybe the Drug War. Corporate Welfare is very different than “trickle down” as the latter is just letting people keep their money.

                    Democrat/Progressives – Government is the solution to almost any problem.
                    Libertarians- Government is very, very rarely the solution to any problem.
                    Republican/Conservatives- Skeptical of government, but believe institutions serve great purpose and should be conserved.

                    Now, their conservatism can get in the way of liberty, but it isn’t necessarily an ideological rejection of liberty, like the Democrats.

                    1. “Except maybe the drug war?” First of all, there’s no maybe about it. The democrats are bad on this issue, but the republicans are certainly worse. The democrats are more open to the idea of marijuana legalization, ending mandatory minimums for drugs, and assigning to treatment rather than caging (neither of those options is libertarian, but one is certainly better than the other).

                      Second of all, the democrats are also better than the republicans on privacy, freedom of movement, and mass incarceration. I mean, they’re still bad on all three. But they’re less of an enemy to libertarianism than the conservatives are on those issues.

                      But I didn’t intend for this to be a democrats vs. republicans thing. The point is that the republicans are not our allies on ANY of those topics I listed. Conservatives are NOT “skeptical of government”, as evidenced by the fact that they increase the size and scope of government every time they come to power. Even worse, they believe that the US, which has imprisoned more of its citizenry than any other country in the history of mankind, doesn’t throw enough people in jail, often for procedural violations (i.e. victimless crimes). This is the most un-libertarian stance someone can possibly take.

              3. I have no idea why anarchists are in the LP. Anarchists dont want a government with police powers that come from a constitution. Libertarians are fine with that, as long as its a tiny and limited government.

                The USA and it being a constitutional democratic republic are very compitable with Libertarianism.

                As for the LP, its a clusterfuck of a political party that puts weld as a VP.

                Libertarianism shares many characteristics with the GOP and conservatives.
                The GOP was the party to end slavery- Libertarians would never support slavery
                Conservatives tend to be fiscally conservative- libertarians are even more fiscally conservative.
                The GOP supports most of the civil rights protected in the Constitution-Libertarians support even more civil rights

                1. Libertarianism is very open to ideas from other political ideologies. This openness shapes how Libertarians move within the range of fiscal conservatism. Some Libertarians are fine with roads being a government function while others say it should be 100% private. Both arguments are Libertarian as well as some mixture of the two.

                  Socialism is not Libertarianism. You cannot be for government ownership and administration of private property and be a Libertarian.

                  Anarchy is not libertarianism. Anarchy is anarchy, which is why it has its own term. Anarchy has absolute liberty which libertarianism does not have. You always give up some liberty to form a government for a common defense. The government may choose your farm to fight a major battle and all your crops are destroyed. An anarchist would never allow a government to make that choice for him.

                  1. A libertarian government would only fight in defense so it would really be the attacker who is responsible for the crop destruction.

                  2. Socialism is not Libertarianism. You cannot be for government ownership and administration of private property and be a Libertarian.

                    Socialism doesn’t have to “be for government ownership/administration” either.

                2. “I have no idea why anarchists are in the LP. Anarchists dont want a government with police powers that come from a constitution. Libertarians are fine with that, as long as its a tiny and limited government.”

                  Problem is, that’s not true for all the various flavors of libertarian, and libertarians self identify, just as the 72-genders people do. You are what you say you are. If an anarchist claims to be libertarian, they are. It applies in reverse of course. The anarchists can’t be sure they’re not talking to a Minarchist or a weird Leftist apparition.

                  So the term has been rendered null. You can’t even say it refers to those who lean towards a contraction of state power since what the hell does a left-libertarian subscribe to but a leftist view of politics which is about the state dictating choice. If that’s not what left means in the lib context, what’s the point in using it at all?

                  The destruction of concepts, or the unlinking of concepts from their references, is a powerful tool in modern philosophy, especially in politics. I see no point in using the term any longer as there’s no common reference.

                  1. You can’t even say it refers to those who lean towards a contraction of state power since what the hell does a left-libertarian subscribe to but a leftist view of politics which is about the state dictating choice. If that’s not what left means in the lib context, what’s the point in using it at all?

                    Yeah, that’s not what “left libertarian” means in any way I’ve ever heard. As I mentioned above, “left libertarianism” is distinguished from “right libertarianism” primarily from an economic perspective. It favors free markets and outwardly rejects capitalism (the two are not the same). All the same tenets exist, including the right to freely associate in the absence of the state. Many “left libertarians” are anarchists, so you can’t say that they are advocating for state control of anything.

                    Some left libertarians even argue in favor of the labor theory of value, although this is not typical. Some argue for the notion of communal property to solve the free rider problem.

                    Reason has a video from about 5 years ago interviewing Gary Chartier, which is a good intro to left libertarianism.

                    1. “Many “left libertarians” are anarchists, so you can’t say that they are advocating for state control of anything.”

                      Yes I can, and on the basis that words must have an agreed meaning to be worth their salt. Left only has meaning in relation to a state. If you claim that it has meaning in relation to anarchism then you’re merely talking about a way in which people choose to organise themselves in the absence of a state, which is only of consequence to those that agree to be thus organised. It has no consequence for those that don’t since under anarchism others may choose to live elsewise.

                      However, in the context of a state, left has a quite different meaning and which means a state that dictates how all people should be *required* to live. Therefore if you subscribe to libertarianism as minarchism (or any more onerous implementation of a state) left assume a quite different meaning. Indeed a minarchist would regard left-minarchism as a contradiction in terms. That’s not to say that a leftist may not form a commune under minarchism–that would be their right–but they would be subject to the laws of the minarchist state, whereas under anarchism no such subjection could apply. The point would be moot.

                      Therefore left-libertarian has a quite different implication under libertarian-minarchism than it does under libertarian-anarchism. And that’s only dealing with three flavors. Want to go for three?

                3. I have no idea why anarchists are in the LP.

                  Ah, you’re new. Read more about the history of the LP. See if you can get to a national convention one of these days.

                  Also, everything else you wrote mischaracterizes what conservatives are for. There’s literally no evidence to suggest they’re fiscally conservative. Nor is there any evidence that they support civil rights in any appreciable way.

            5. Well, it’s fucked up, that’s all I can say.

              It’s a 72-genders situation where libertarianism means nothing any longer.

              It really is in the eye of the beholder. And don’t give me that bullshit, no, no, there’s a strong historical definition of this and that. Well, that matters not one bit in a modern political context. If you think libertarianism = anarchism then you lose all the minarchists, and vice versa. Left-, right-, eco-, lesbian-, trans- and robo-libertarians no doubt have some special angle that is a mash-up and perhaps even involves a large state that exhibits some bizarre definition of “libertarianism” only recognisable to that identity group, where freedom or liberty is synonymous only with the outlawing of specific bugbears.

              Libertarianism for many seems to mean free from this particular THING, not free from the power of the state per se. Or some fucked up idea that a highly-regulated situation can exist without the state, which is nothing more than fantasy land. Or a utopian state much like Brave New World. Sure, you’re controlled, but you’re also free. Free from want, from disease. Only the all-powerful state can make you free. There we go, I’ve just invented State-libertarianism. Who knows, maybe the Christian-libertarians believe that, too. A benevolent dictatorship under Christ’s church.

              Look in the mirror and wonder not why.

            6. “You as an anarchist would never support tiny limited government that has rule of law under a Constitution”

              Anarchists are closer to right-libertarians. A right-libertarian wants to be free from constraints from government. An anarchist wants to be free from government.

      3. “from a left-libertarian sensibility to some three-headed mutant demon”

        aka

        inevitability.

    3. “So are both of these groups resident in Portland?”

      Probably not. The Patriot Prayer group comes down from Washington.

  4. …spawned from the hysterical aftermath of Donald Trump’s election.

    I don’t think you’re allowed to characterize it like that.

    1. It’s kept me laughing.

      1. Hysterical is a boldly sexist term.

        1. That’s a very reflexive form of coercivity…

        2. If only we could procure the cure for all those overcome with hysteria…

  5. Seems like the proud boys have an awful lot of non-white people for a “neo-nazi, white supremacist” organization

    1. Uh huh. It’s ridiculous. Same with Patriot Prayer. Joey Gibson isn’t even a “proper” white person by any remotely white supremacist perspective, and Tiny his right hand guy is Samoan I believe.

      But what else would one expect? The left has got sooo fucking crazy now they have literally called Jewish people Nazis! It’s beyond belief.

  6. losers fighting guys who like to fight , got it

  7. I believe Antifa is also “clashing with motorists trying to get to work” while the cops sit idly by just up the street. Not sure if those motorists are part of an identifiable political constituency.

    1. Yeah, you don’t see Proud Boys causing shit with others. JUST Antifa. And antifa causes shit with, literally, everybody.

      Gavin McInness > Antifa

      1. “Causing shit” = crashing the vigil for a dead guy who is a victim of an incompetent government police force.

        1. The sane vigil that accosted people who drove on streetS?

          Fuck them.

          The Proud Boys are a far better group than the useless monkeys of antifa.

    2. Well one of them had NC license plates, so he was obviously KKK

    3. “Wobblies”?

  8. Why hasn’t this been turned into a reality TV show yet? So much potential.

    1. That’s a good idea. Call it Occupy II: The Occupation of Stupid.

    2. I am so in on this!

  9. Tyler Durden could not be reached for comment

  10. After watching some of the Antifa… uhm, acts of… well I’m not sure if we can call it “disobedience” because they have the explicit support and backing of the mayor, but we’ll just say acts of protest… it’s clear the obesity epidemic has hit the activist community rather hard.

    1. Well “fat shaming” is against their woke ideology.

    2. Indeed, most of the Nazis I’ve known are insecure about not being able to acquire muscle bulk. I try to tell them, just be gay, where there’s almost no such thing as too skinny.

      1. “Too skinny” does exist, and but the reference is “Holocaust victim,” and that’s a bit of a mind-bender in this context.

      2. Tony, You know Socialist Nazis?

        1. Socialist Nazis — so, EVERY Nazi????

          1. Tony has a bit of a Nazis are Socialists denial thing going on.

            1. “Tony has a bit of a Nazis are Socialists denial thing going on”

              Oh, one of those. Thinks Nazi is just a general pejorative for rowdy types?

              1. He thinks Nazis are conservatives.

                1. You know, the Nazis that dont like change and just wait for massive support of popular ideas and policies to make their way through the conservative government that has all sorts of checks and balances to minimize chances of authoritarian take over.

    3. Yeah, Christian bitches about the Pantifa clown getting curb stomped but fails to mention the clown used pepper spray on Patriot Prayer demonstrators. Then the cops step in to protect Pantifa.

      Seems to me the cops have chosen sides, and it’s not ours.

      1. If your side is the half-educated, can’t-keep-up white nationalist right-wingers, what are you doing at an ostensibly libertarian site?

        The liberal-libertarian alliance has been shoving progress down your whiny throat for at least a half-century. You should hate libertarians, you bigoted rube.

        1. You are dumb Rev.

    4. “…well I’m not sure if we can call it “disobedience” because they have the explicit support and backing of the mayor…”

      It’s instructive, these so very obvious examples of how the whole deal is organised. You don’t even have to look too hard. The sausage making is on full display these days, and everywhere. They’re not even trying to hide it. Speaks to a confidence about how they’ll be reported on and judged. The idea that they are rebelling is laughable. The are simply reinforcing, through violence, the power structures already set up by their intellectual and political wings. Long series of investments finally paying off.

    5. The guys are scarecrows and the women blimps. So together they’re fit.

  11. Did either organization have a permit for their demonstration?

      1. That would rankle with the anarchists in their ranks.

        1. Good thing many of the ‘anarchists’ are actually communists.

  12. I’m not sure what to make of this. There was certainly something worth protesting in what Antifa and their ilk are being allowed to get away with.
    But it seems like Patriot Prayer and Proud Boys are out looking for trouble. Which I don’t think helps anything. Being prepared to defend yourself is one thing. Showing up looking for a fight is another.

    I also have a lot of skepticism about news coverage of events like this, so I’m not taking any strong opinion just now.

    1. I like the American Roman.

      1. A member of “Caesar’s legion” perhaps?
        The NCR wouldn’t tolerate this crap.

      2. The centurion definitely wins best costume in the pic provided.

    2. Damn it, Zeb. Take a strong position and then defend it until the end, even when shown evidence to the contrary. Be one of us

    3. So they shouldn’t be allowed because Antifa will fight them?

      1. Um, no. I didn’t say anything about anyone being allowed (or not) to do anything.

    4. But it seems like Patriot Prayer and Proud Boys are out looking for trouble.

      Sure they are Zeb. They are looking for trouble by holding a march and walking down the street in front of Antifa, which is their right to do. They are only “looking for trouble” because Antifa is a bunch of violent fascist thugs who attack anyone who expresses an opinion they don’t like.

      There really isn’t any equivilence between the two groups, despite Reason’s desparate need to pretend there is. If Antifa didn’t attack the Proud Boys or the rest of them, there would be no violence. The fact that there is violence is entirely the responsibility of Antifa and the local politicians who have enabled them.

      1. Reason: Anti free speech and anti self-defense.

        Amazing, isn’t it? Reason again proves that its writers are the biggest cowards in journalism.

        1. Reason drawing false equilvence between someone exercising their right to free speech and assembly and someone attacking those people for that is something even I didn’t think reason was capable of. They always seem to live down to the charges of their worst critics.

        2. That subpoena did more damage than is readily apparent.

          1. Reason dimed you out, man

      2. I’m certainly not trying to draw an equivalence. I’m somewhat sympathetic to PP and PB. Not at all to Antifa.

        I think you are probably right about Antifa being the ultimate root of the violence. I still don’t think that means it’s a good idea strategically or morally to go to the streets looking to get into a brawl with Antifa. Maybe that’s not what the other groups were doing. But it kind of looks like at least some of them were. Which is why I’m not taking a strong stance here.

        1. I still don’t think that means it’s a good idea strategically or morally to go to the streets looking to get into a brawl with Antifa.

          I think it is. If Antifa can bully people out of having marches or saying views they don’t like in Portland, where can’t they do so? How else do you counter Antifa besides going to the places they inhabit and exercising your rights?

          1. You may be right. I don’t know.

          2. How else do you counter Antifa besides going to the places they inhabit and exercising your rights?

            I think you are right about that. If the city lets Antifa get away with their shit, someone needs to do something. I’m just not sure whether the line between exercising rights and looking for a fight was crossed. Or even where exactly that line lies.

            1. The proud boys seem to be just a bunch of assholes. But the Patriot Prayer group seems to be a legitimately peaceful organization. And they have a right to march or meet anywhere they like. That Reason doens’t seem to want to defend that is very disapointing to say the least.

            2. There might be a fine line between “expecting and preparing for trouble” and “looking for trouble.” IMO, Patriot Prayer and the Proud Boys were doing the former.

              1. And I am open to being persuaded that that was the case. I would like it if it were the case.

              2. “IMO, Patriot Prayer and the Proud Boys were doing the former.”

                VERY likely that some of them were doing the one, and some of them the other (and some thought they’d just show up, shout their slogans, and then go home unopposed.)

              3. I’m not at all interested in that “fine line”, so long as the trouble is a result of the other guy’s aggression.

        2. When antifa takes over streets and forces people to obey and yell and attack little old people in their cars that is the time to confront them otherwise you have surrendered to them for fear of wimp arm violence and their tactics will only grow with greater violence and soon no street will be passable without paying their toll

          1. that is the time to confront them otherwise you have surrendered to them

            Yes, someone needs to confront them. The question is who? and how?

            Are you there confronting them?

            If that old guy who got attacked in his car had run over one of the Antifa assholes, I think that would have been a reasonable act of self defense. I think he had good reason to believe that they were likely to beat the shit out of him given the chance.

            1. These fascist Lefty assholes dont try this shit in gun toting areas.

              If someone approaches my truck and opens the door, they get a .45 cal slug in the brain. I call the cops and no trial or charges for me. That’s Georgia.

              1. “These fascist Lefty assholes dont try this shit in gun toting areas.”

                Make up your mind. Are they fascist, or lefties?

          2. “When antifa takes over streets and forces people to obey and yell and attack little old people in their cars” and the lawfully appointed authorities stand by as mute and idle witness it’s hard to fault people who choose stand up against it.

            No justice, no peace, and all that entails.

        3. The problem with NOT going out on the streets, is you’re letting commie thugs WIN.

          We cannot let commie thugs win.

          Frankly, I have ZERO problem with political violence in some contexts. It is unfortunate, but needed from time to time. If commies are going to start getting violent, because their chosen leftist politicians can’t win elections… And then they want to shut down free speech, that IS NOT the time to back down. You go have your rallies, make your speeches… And if thugs show up and attack you, you should hand them their asses.

          Frankly, if I had the time and money to burn on hiring a lawyer if anything went down, I’d probably go to some of the Patriot Prayer rallies in Seattle where I live just to show support. If shit went down, and I had to defend myself, it’d be fine by me. You can’t let thugs win.

      3. ” If Antifa didn’t attack the Proud Boys or the rest of them, there would be no violence. ”

        Right. Meanwhile, here in the real world, a couple of years ago a young man left a PB rally and decided to exercise his right to express his opinion by harassing a couple of women, and when some other gentlemen called him on it, he killed two of them and seriously wounded another.
        Not an antifa anywhere near.

        Does this incident mean that all of the PB demonstrators are racist murderers? No. But it indicates that their message appeals to people who ARE racist murderers.

        1. What does that have to do with ANYTHING?

          Nothing. Hitler had extra strong support among women in Germany when he was elected… Does that somehow make all women responsible for Hitler? Then why would the inverse be true? If people that are pro gun had happened to attract communist votes instead of Nazi votes, would that mean being pro gun made one bad because communists liked them?

          NO. Pure nonsense.

          1. “What does that have to do with ANYTHING?”

            Should have read all the way to the end.
            Does this incident mean that all of the PB demonstrators are racist murderers? No. But it indicates that their message appeals to people who ARE racist murderers

            1. I understand your so called point… My point is SO WHAT.

              If racist murderers on average like lower taxes, is that anything relevant?

              NO. It’s not. So that more racists might like politicians who are in favor of lower taxes is a literally useless correlation.

              There are more obvious things, like immigration, where you can see why racists like restricting it directly because of their racism. But that still doesn’t mean that 99% of the people supporting immigration reform are doing it because they’re racist.

              I’m mostly white, but part Mexican and Native… I HATE illegal immigrants. I think every single one of them should be deported. I don’t hate them just because they’re Mexican, since I am myself… I hate them for a variety of practical reasons. I grew up in California and have seen the mess large scale unskilled immigration creates. I don’t like it. I don’t think it is in citizens interests.

              But even THAT opinion doesn’t have to come from a racist perspective. Correlation does not equal causation.

      4. Yes, they had every right to march wherever they want to. Just like I have a right to go up to your face and call your daughter a c***. Don’t conflate having a right to do something with “not looking for trouble”. Both groups are full of violent assholes. End of story.

        1. And the fella with the supposedly cunty offspring would punch your face in. Actions have consequences.

          1. Real world.

            And if I were on a jury hearing a criminal case like that, I would acquit the puncher.

            You cant go around punching people but we also cannot let people call girls cunts to ’cause trouble’.

            1. “And if I were on a jury hearing a criminal case like that, I would acquit the puncher.”

              It’s the beauty of the common law, which recognises grey lines, and over time juries and judges have defined the fuzzy limits of such things, and it allows us to assert our rights while suffering consequences if we forget a particular context.

              I may be free to associate with whomever I please but that association better not be sodomy on my front lawn where the neighbors can see me. That’ll land me in court, and so it should. And if some Antifa gets so close I can smell his cum-soaked breath and feel his cold spittle, and he’s calling my daughter a cunt, I’d hope a jury of my peers would absolve me of short, sharp violence.

            2. And if I were on a jury hearing a criminal case like that, I would acquit the puncher.

              No you wouldn’t. You would sentence him to death. At least that’s what you said in the thread about Michael Drejka.

              1. “No you wouldn’t. You would sentence him to death. At least that’s what you said in the thread about Michael Drejka.”

                Huh? What? Where? Quote me and link me or you need to retract.

                1. That was a response to loveconstitution. The indentation sucks on this site.

                  1. You’re right. The indentation stops at five levels. And further, I didn’t read the quote closely enough.

                    Mea culpa.

          2. And the fella with the supposedly cunty offspring would punch your face in. Actions have consequences.

            Yes, my point exactly. I had the right to say that terrible thing, but clearly I would be looking for a fight if I went around behaving in that way.

            1. Depending on which state you happen to be standing in at the time, when you react to the guy saying mean things about your daughter with violence, he’s legal to shoot you dead on the scene, and walk away.

    5. “”But it seems like Patriot Prayer and Proud Boys are out looking for trouble.””

      The ones looking for trouble will be dressed for trouble.

      1. Right, and according to reports I’ve seen, at least some of the anti-Antifa people were dressed that way.

        Look, I’m not trying to dismiss both sides as just as bad, or anything like that. Patriot Prayer and Proud Boys aren’t evil Nazis as far as I can tell, and I’m sympathetic to many of their stated goals. Antifa are definitely evil commies. All I’m saying is that I don’t think street brawls with Antifa assholes is helping. And it does look to me as if at least some of them were there for the purpose of brawing with Antifa. Maybe I’m wrong. Maybe we’re at the point where that’s the only effective response. But I hope that’s not the case, and I’m far from convinced that it is.

        1. Right, and according to reports I’ve seen, at least some of the anti-Antifa people were dressed that way”

          Only Ghandi got away without protection and when you know others are looking for trouble then you must be prepared

        2. “”Right, and according to reports I’ve seen, at least some of the anti-Antifa people were dressed that way.””

          Considering the bias in the media on this. I’m not convinced they were in fact anti-Antifa. They could be antifa, dressed as anti-antifa to make Patriot Prayer and Proud Boys look like they want trouble.

          1. “They could be antifa, dressed as anti-antifa to make Patriot Prayer and Proud Boys look like they want trouble.”

            Right. Or maybe the “antifa” are not really leftist thugs, but rightist thugs PRETENDING to be leftist thugs. Or maybe they’re ALL police undercovers, trying to get a big raise when the union contract is up for renegotiation…

        3. Zeb, you were right the first time. Don’t back down because of the conservative bent of the people who comment on this site.

      2. Seriously dude?

        I have thought about going to a PP event in Seattle. I have a couple friends that did, but didn’t go onto “their” side, because they didn’t want to be “outed” as being non commies in Seattle in case anybody they knew saw them.

        Anyway, just going to one of these things to express your speech can REQUIRE you to wear safety gear now, else you might get blinded by pepper spray, broken bones, etc. So even if you go JUST to express your opinion, you’re an IDIOT to go without at least some protective gear. That is simply how bad the ANTIFA guys have made things. If they didn’t show up and assault people, like at Tea Party rallies this was not happening… Then there would be ZERO violence, or need for protective gear.

        1. I remember attending a Michigan Militia rally back in ’94; Children, women with their babies in strollers.

          If you did that today, the people attending would just about have to wear riot gear for their own safety.

          That’s the problem here: The left’s penchant for violence isn’t a stupid strategy: They’re trying, and succeeding at, scaring normal people away from right-wing politics.

          By 2020, you’ll think about wearing a bullet proof vest, and bringing protective goggles, if you attend a Republican campaign event outside of a very “red” state.

          1. It’s true. I went to one of the biggest Tea Party events back in the early days of that at the state capitol in Olympia. There were families, lots of clean cut people. ZERO violence, although there were some counter protesters. But it was fine. Before that I had worked on Ron Paul’s 2008 campaign, and went to numerous events. No problems.

            If either of those things happened today there is a 100% chance ANTIFA would show up and try to start shit. In Seattle the cops keep them in line by keeping them separated… But the mere fact that half of the SWAT team has to be called out just so a few dozen people can give a few speeches is RIDICULOUS.

    6. There is a real difference between holding a rally legally despite known opposition and going after somebody else’s rally with the express purpose of shutting it down both today and in the future. Only one of the two groups is doing the latter and it ain’t PP & PB.

      What you’re arguing is that we should simply let the heckler’s veto rule since anything else is hard and uncomfortable.

      I think much of the problem is we’ve (all Americans) have let the ratchet slide one way so long because it’s easier and incrementally not much or many people that now there are fewer options to turn things back without a severely painful reorientation.

      1. “Only one of the two groups is doing the latter and it ain’t PP & PB.”

        Because OUR side is noble and true and brave and righteous, they can’t POSSIBLY be doing anything wrong…

        Recall that a couple years back, a man left the PB rally, decided to harass some women on the electric choo-choo, and then killed the gentlemen who objected to this.

        1. Noble and true and brave ain’t got nothing to do with it. If you turn up at your own rally, with a parade permit, you’re the good guys for 1st amendment purposes. If you turn up at somebody else’s rally and attack them, you’re the bad guys for 1st amendment purposes.

          EVERY movement has bad apples. But the Antifa are something like 99 and 44/100ths percent bad apples, they’re organized for the purpose of being bad apples: Violently shutting down speech they don’t like.

          They don’t even pretend otherwise, they’re proud of it, so why do other people pretend on their behalf?

          1. “They don’t even pretend otherwise, they’re proud of it, so why do other people pretend on their behalf?”

            Because OUR guys are noble and true, and THEIR guys are all evil and bad. (Or 99.44% bad)

            1. Well, it’s true!

              How many left wing rallies have had right wing people decide to show up in force, SPECIFICALLY to disrupt their rally?

              You DO know there are TONS of conservative parts of the country right? Places where right wingers could easily outnumber and mob the leftist protesters? Why doesn’t this happen to left wing protests there?

              Because the right isn’t nearly as big of shit heels as the left. That’s why.

              1. “You DO know there are TONS of conservative parts of the country right?”
                No shit? Really???

                Dimwit, I live in the South.

                Take off your partisan goggles, and look around again. The landscape looks REALLY different when you aren’t intentionally blinding yourself to what’s going on around you.

                1. I’ve never voted for a Republican OR a Democrat for president… I’m not some partisan hack.

                  I dislike both parties immensely.

                  All I’m saying is there is no equivalency between them anymore. The Dems are demonstrably worse. 30 years ago one could make a decent argument they were about comparably good/bad, just in different ways. The Dems just don’t have much in the way of redeeming qualities anymore… AND they’re essentially endorsing political violence.

                  So they can fuck right off.

                  I live in Seattle, progtard central. Maybe if YOU lived in a place like this, and saw how bat shit crazy insane these people really are first hand, then YOU could see what’s really going on around you.

                  The whole country isn’t like this, thank god, but they are trying to force it to be like this everywhere. And I oppose that 110%.

    7. Would not surprise me if Portland was told by the FBI not to engage. One of the newly planted agents needs to make his cover look good. Portland cannot talk about it because it is an active investigation.

  13. Only the left could be this stupid….and right.

    1. They’re this stupid because they’re absolutely convinced they’re right, no matter what they do.

  14. It couldn’t happen to a nicer city.

  15. Until these ‘two’ groups start killing one another in number, in the street in battles like the Braun Shirts and the Coms enjoyed a few years ago they are just simple half-wit hobbyists.

    1. If you don’t do something, they will inevitably start killing one another. You cannot allow this kind of stuff to fester.

      1. In Portland, the killing started a couple of years ago.

  16. It is ironic given the racial history of Portland which is now thought of as highly liberal and progressive.

    1. Pity that Portlandia never parodied these fascist lumps festering about the landscape. Fred and Carrie may not have wanted the unwanted attention by tweaking the pig noses of the antifa hobbyists.

  17. Can we just put all these crazies on an island somewhere and let them play out their stupid Hunger Game fantasies?

    1. Would make a really great reality show.

      You could add challenges for extra effect like a random tiger or kimodo dragons.

    2. I’d totally volunteer for that show!

      Leftists are all a bunch of limp wristed pussies, so it would basically amount to just going around wasting stupid commies! That would be good times!

      1. Snicker. Those antifa twits are all big bullies just looking for a fight! We hate them! Because of them, a person just wanting to express their opinion needs to wear a bunch of protective gear! But all the leftists are limp wristed pussies.

        Do you even hear it in your head when you type in these comments?

        1. Have you not watched much video from these things?

          The vast majority are 100 pound women. The men are mostly emaciated little manlets. There are a small handful that aren’t total pussies, but they’re far and away the minority. They go start shit by trying to use overwhelming numbers in their favor. They also use weapons, pepper spray, etc. Mob violence is bullshit, and it doesn’t prove anybody is actually tough either.

          Just because some little soy boy thinks he’s tough pepper spraying somebody when they outnumber the other side 10 to 1, that doesn’t mean they’re actually tough. At almost every single one of these events where the right got into a proper scuffle with the ANTIFA thugs they handed them their asses. Go watch some of the fight videos, they’re HILARIOUS. Tiny is truly amazing. He’s been caught on video just one punch dropping tons of commies. It’s AWESOME.

          It would be nice if ANTIFA hadn’t made things devolve to this point… But if this is where we’re at, I’m all for seeing commies get their asses beat. Maybe they’ll learn their lesson and we can go back to having a CIVILIZED society again where people can protest without protective gear.

  18. These things always play out the same. Conservative group, whether Patriot Prayer or Proud Boys or someone else go through all the hoops to make sure they’re allowed to march or have an event. Antifa shows up, assaults the conservatives who fight back. Police stay out of it until the conservatives start winning. Media then reports it as “Far right extremists clash with protesters”, usually stating that no one knows who started it, despite independent journalists and individual twitter users posting video evidence showing that Antifa begins the conflict… because you know that if the Cons actually started something, it would be a national headlines of “right intolerance”. To all those saying the proud boys and their ilk are in the wrong for looking for a fight, its more that they know they’re going to be attacked for daring to state opinions, and that the cops aren’t going to do anything. Libs are the only ones breaking the NAP here.

    Frankly, the proud boys should be suing some journalists for libel. They’re not white supremacists, they’re a pretty diverse bunch, with a bunch of those folks in leadership positions… I think Reason even had an article that mentioned it at one point a year or so back.

    1. None of these are ‘conservative’ groups. They may share some particular ideals with some conservatives but their methods mark them as something else entirely.

      As previously noted both sides of this fight are leftists. They are all violent authoritarians.

      Nazis and commies both opposed abortion when they thought they needed the cannon fodder.

      1. “As previously noted both sides of this fight are leftists”

        Approximately half of them would consider your statement an invitation to violence. A “you called me WHAT!?!” situation.

      2. I am one of the people who called this for what it is Lefties fighting Lefties, erily similar to Nazis fighting Socialists and Communists in street fights in Weimar Germany. The main difference is that there were tens of thousands of thugs then and under a hundred now.

        Conservative protests tend to have the families, including kids, come along. Thats why you see loud abortion protesters with their kids on the sidewalks. Very Rarely is there violence. Its more about blocking acces to the abortion clinic. Conservatives still mostly follow the law.

        Lefties are the constant vandals, assaulters, bombers, and other violent types. Its revolution through violence.

        1. “I am one of the people who called this for what it is Lefties fighting Lefties, erily similar to Nazis fighting Socialists and Communists in street fights in Weimar Germany”

          The Nazis were (and are) right-wing. Pretending otherwise doesn’t change the fact.
          The lefties are intellectually honest enough to not pretend that the Khmer Rouge were right-wingers.

      3. I dunno man… Proud Boys aren’t leftists.

        You could say they’re okay with some amount of collective action, like in that they believe in crazy ideas like “cultures” and “civilizations” and “nations” all being things. But other than to a purist libertarian or anarchist, those aren’t exactly CRAZY levels of collectivism.

        In short, they’re pretty solidly in the old school right wing/conservative camp. Definitely not leftists by any normal definition.

        1. You don’t understand. to that dude, EVERYONE who isn’t that dude is a leftist. And sometimes, he isn’t 100% sure about himself. Commies are leftists. Fascists are leftists. Democrats are leftists. Republicans are leftists. EVERYONE. No exceptions.

  19. “Still the street warfare of the kind we saw this weekend is a relatively new phenomenon, spawned from the hysterical aftermath of Donald Trump’s election.”

    Democratic rioting in 2016 started well before Trump was elected.

    1. Trump dig is a requirement for all Reason articles after 2016.

  20. all I really see in these street scuffles are a bunch of angry people looking for a fight.

    All I see are intolerant leftists trying to violently suppress the freedom of speech all the while accusing the people they are attacking of being fascists. The irony is delicious but this does need to stop.

    1. Reason acts like people are not free to be angry and walk around the streets. Just because I am angry and looking for a fight doens’t make it okay for you to start one by attacking me.

      1. If you’re angry, and walking around looking for a fight, don’t be whining when you find one, is all.

    2. If you’re fighting for free speech you go to the front lines where it’s being denied. Last I checked Portland was still part of the US so the 1st Amendment still applies.

  21. Antifa = The new and improved brown shirts.

    1. The black shirt Fascistii of Italy actually wore black shirts.

      1. I was referring to the Nazi’s SA who wore brown shirts.

        1. Yeah, but antifa can’t get anything right.

        2. I know, I was just adding that actual fascists wore black shirts as well as brown shirts.

          1. Nazis were socialists.

            1. No, they weren’t. Saying it doesn’t make it true.

              1. But they were!

                They were NATIONAL Socialists. Just a different flavor than international socialists, like the USSR.

                That said, I think it is fair to call Nazis a mix of left and right wing political ideas. But socialist they definitely were.

              2. Nazi is an exonym … NSDAP stands for National SOCIALIST German Workers’ Party. That is what they called themselves in Germany. They were socialists.

                Illinois Nazis are just racist authoritarian assholes.

                1. ” That is what they called themselves in Germany.”

                  And the Chinese government calls itself the People’s Republic of China. They’re not a Republic. You know what North Korea calls itself?

                  Once again, for the slow… saying a thing doesn’t make it true. No matter how many times.

                  1. The thing is though, the Nazis actually DID implement a ton of socialist policies. Welfare stuff. Make work government projects. Outright operating industries, or heavily regulating/managing them.

                    Pretty socialist.

                    They were economically pretty socialist/leftist, and socially conservative/traditionalist.

        3. Which side wore the brown pants?

      2. Honestly, the Italian fascists had the better uniforms as far as their street thugs go. Brown Shirts looked lame, the Italians looked badass. BUT the Germans had far better actual military uniforms in the Wehrmacht and SS. Plus, they could actually fight and stuff. LOL

    2. Pantifa – always in a bunch

  22. More like Mad Max:

    “So long as the paperwork’s clean, you boys can do what you like out there.”

  23. If the police can’t keep order, maybe the Roman soldiers will.

    And sanitation.

    1. And the roads, don’t forget the roads

  24. Judging by the accompanying picture, I would assume this was just a cosplay event that went horribly wrong.

  25. Let us know when they start unlimbering the RPG’s, Mortars, and Artillery.

  26. “a bunch of angry people looking for a fight.”

    And finding it. What a surprise!

  27. How the fuck do these retards have the energy to do this shit? Do they not have jobs?

    1. Your (and Oregon’s) tax dollars at work!

      1. A fairly high number of these guys (both sides) are not Oregonians. Note that the event organizer was a candidate for office in Washington, for example.

        1. Note, he lives in a city that is RUN TOGETHER with Portland… Since Portland is right on the border.

          So yeah, lots of people from Washington and Oregon. Not many from elsewhere. But that whole area is super interconnected on both sides of the border, as many border areas are.

    2. Meth, caffeine from their barista job and crappy punk rock fuel them

    3. Unemployed, unemployable, or academics (but I am being redundant).

    4. They do, and this is their job.

  28. Pepper spray? Is that what the gangs are using now?
    Sounds like a good place to set up a booth and sell knives. Probably wouldn’t work out to well for the antifa crowd. They seem to be the least likely to have jobs.

    1. They use Bear Mace when they REALLY wanna take it up a notch!

      I think the reason they favor mace and pepper spray is that it is not considered a lethal weapon. A knife is. So the charges would be FAR higher if you get nabbed.

      1. Damn! I was hoping for some Gangs of New York action.

        1. Not out of these pussies apparently.

          1. Did you forget to log out and login with a different account, so it wouldn’t look like you were talking to yourself?

  29. Ever wonder why all this stupidity and violence only happens in the “enlightened, civilized, and educated” blue states?

    1. Because it doesn’t?
      Or is Chapel Hill, NC, now part of a blue state?

  30. Now we will all see what happens when a mayor is a feckless coward.

  31. Keep up the good work Joey Gibson! I don’t even really support the stuff he cares about much at all… But I like the diea of him refusing to bow down to commie violence. I’m going to make it to one of his Seattle events one of these days. I may stay on the leftist side, since ANTIFA is trying to dox anybody they see as being LITERALLY HITLER, and ruin their lives. But it would be cool to see the shit go down.

    As awful as Seattle is, I do have to hand it to SPD. After the WTO riots they got GOOD at crowd control. The reason you never see any real violence break out in Seattle is because SPD handles their shit like pros. They don’t let the ANTIFA guys get at the protesters at all. The fact that Portland PD has just allowed all of these to devolve into a shit show, when Seattle shows it can be easily dealt with basically 100% of the time, is a bunch of bullshit.

  32. …”all I really see in these street scuffles are a bunch of angry people looking for a fight.”…

    Perhaps that’s all scribblers saw in the street battles that took place at the end of the Weimar republic. In any case, care to tell me what little thing these people are truly fighting angry about?

  33. Creative Biogene’s gene editing CHO-K1 cells can save your precious time and effort with great performance in antibody production.https://www.creative-biogene.com/

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.