Antifa

Antifa Mob Viciously Assaults Journalist Andy Ngo at Portland Rally

Masked activists attacked the Quillette editor with fists and milkshakes, sending him to the emergency room.

|

Andy Ngo, a photojournalist and editor at Quillette, landed in the emergency room after a mob of antifa activists attacked him on the streets of Portland during a Saturday afternoon demonstration.

The assailants wore black clothing and masks, and were engaged in a counter-protest against several right-wing groups, including the Proud Boys. Ngo is a well-known chronicler of antifa activity, and has criticized their illiberal tactics on Fox News. He attended the protest in this capacity—as a journalist, covering a notable public event.

According to Ngo, his attacker stole his camera equipment. But video footage recorded by another journalist, The Oregonian's Jim Ryan, clearly shows an antifa activist punching Ngo in the face. Others throw milkshakes at him:

Throwing milkshakes at right-wing politicians is a tactic of British progressive activists that recently traveled to this side of the Atlantic. Rep. Matt Gaetz (R–Fla.) was hit with one earlier in June. The tactic has its defenders in mainstream left-of-center media as well: Vox's Carlos Maza tweeted "milkshake them all" after a British activist hurled a milkshake at Nigel Farage.

Portland police have claimed that some of the milkshakes thrown by the antifa activists on Saturday contained quick-dry cement. That may or may not be true. What is true is that an antifa mob beat up a journalist—one who is harshly critical of them, to be sure, but who posed no physical threat to them and was only there to document their activities—on a public street. This is indefensible, and yet there are tons of progressive-leaning people currently defending it, or at the very least rationalizing and making light of it.

Antifa, of course, rejects the notion that violence should only be used in response to a physical threat. The group believes that the very existence of far-right people, groups, and ideas is a kind of provocation that justifies violence—against the far-right, and against their enablers. (For more about the ideology, tactics, and goals of the movement, order my new book, Panic Attack; Young Radicals in the Age of Trump, which includes an entire chapter on antifa.)

I have reached out to Ngo for comment and will update this post if I hear back. A disoriented and clearly injured Ngo posted to his Twitter page here.

NEXT: Federal Court Rules Against Trump in Border Wall Cases

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. Antifa is just the masked arm of the Democrats. They fancy themselves the lone rangers of democracy.

    1. D. W. Griffith should make a movie glorifying them.

      1. LOLOL

        1. ITT thread, Jeff’s aspie loser ass actually links to a website and DEMANDS we abide by his preferred terms for a discussion.

          Yes, it’s as pathetic and autistic as it sounds.

    2. Antifa is international leftist terrorism.

      Much like the Saudi journalist/intelligence asset offed by the Saudis, the press throws an outrage tizzie once it’s one of *them*, the #EnemyOfThePeople, on the receiving end of violence.

      The irony here is that the #EnemyOfThePeople has been covering for Antifa terrorism for years now.

      They fed chunks of the Right to the crocodile for years, and now shake in their boots when the croc eyes them.

      1. They tend to tone down their shit outside of progtard strongholds. They don’t do much in Spokane. As they would likely get beaten badly, or even shot here (Spokane having a high percentage of CCH).

        1. They tone it down where they Left doesn’t have a stranglehold on local government, and they don’t have a mayor who will aid and abet their violence by having the police stand down when they attack.

        2. Why does it not surprise me you live in the heart of white supremacist country, Last of the Shitferbrains.

          1. What an idiotic comment.

          2. Why does it not surprise me that you’re threatened by someone with actual testosterone in their system, No Balls Penalty.

            1. Yes because people who regularly call for the murder of their political opponents on the internet have big balls and big dicks too, for sure.

              1. So self defense is murder?

              2. Thanks for the insight, Preet.

              3. Only in your meth addled jerk off fantasies you retarded faggot rube.

          3. Spokane is not in the ‘heart of white supremacist country’. Where the fuck do you even come up with that you stupid peace of shit.

            1. It’s just a go to response from virtue signaling morons.

            2. Nowhere in the US is in “white supremacist country.”

              1. Well fuck. And here I was contemplating a move…

            3. As mentioned, nowhere is like that in the USA today… BUT it is a pretty conservative area as far as the west coast goes. It’s where I’m going to move to soon! Mainly because once Washington goes a bridge too far I can move to the ID side to get away from the stupid without having to move super far.

          4. Spokane is home to western individualists who want to be left alone. Yes for most whiny pussy progressives that must mean “White supremacists” yet as far as I know Spokane is welcoming to to all sorts of independent Americans regardless of color and religion. Growing up in the burbs of Seattle I saw what progressives did to that city and later went to school near Spokane. If didn’t already live in Texas I would run to Spokane.

            1. It’s not exactly a community filled with John Birchers. I mean, both Melissa Click and Rachel Dolezail life here.

              1. My reading of the place when I visited is exactly what I was expecting from looking at stats… It’s about middle of the road. There are plenty of conservatives, and plenty of liberals. But the progs are less crazy it seems for the most part, kind of like they would be in the midwest or something.

                I can’t wait until I move over that way… I wish I could move sooner, but it just doesn’t make sense to rush things.

          5. I live in Portland and Last of the Shitlords is 100% correct.

        3. Shitlord we got em here. Almost everyone I know.

          We just don’t talk about it so much.

          No big deal.

          OTOH who is going to win the rib burn off this year. That we boast about.

          1. Don’t know who you know, but it is clearly anecdotal. Spokane is not filled with white supremacists.

    3. If Oregon doesn’t already have a Klan act law they should pass one to outlaw masks at demonstrations and then enforce it.

      1. There’s a federal Klan act, why is the DOJ not acting?

        I could understand it under the previous administration, even the first couple of years of this administration. But it’s getting late in the day to go after Antifa, and no excuses for not doing it.

        1. Which federal law makes it illegal to wear a mask at a protest?

          1. There is no such federal law. Some states have such laws.

          2. None, but I’m not interested in pretending all the Antifa does is “protest”. The relevant statute is: 18 U.S. Code § 241. Conspiracy against rights

            “If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or

            If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured— [There’s your ‘mask’ part.]

            They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.”

            Fits what the Antifa do, to a “T”.

            1. You referred to a “federal Klan act”, which I think is generally understood to mean a law which criminalized the act of hiding one’s face during a protest, like the Klan likes to do.

              Sure, if someone is denying the rights of another individual, mask or no, then that person ought to be punished.

              1. Brett cites the law, and you still protest

              2. Again, “during a protest” really has no relevance here, unless you’re pretending all the Antifa is doing is “protesting”, which I’m not in a mood to humor. Neither was it the “protests” that had people concerned about the Klan, though they did a bit of that, too.

                In the case described in the OP, they physically attacked somebody to prevent them from exercising their 1st amendment rights. Any protesting that might have gone on at the same time is legally irrelevant.

              3. unless you have a comment regards to the actual law on the books kindly fuck off

                1. It’s Pedo Jeffy. Might as well just tell him to fuck off. I certainly do.

            2. There it is.

              Someone should really tell the DOJ that this exists.

        2. Antifa’s masked attacks are federal crimes under specific provisions of the Ku Klux Klan Act against two or more persons acting in disguise to violate the civil rights of another.
          ch. 114, 16 Stat. 140, Sec. 6
          http://legisworks.org/sal/16/stats/STATUTE-16-Pg140.pdf

    4. I’m absolutely certain they have zero interest in democracy.

      1. They do too believe in democracy. All Party members will vote for politically correct commissars in a genuine dictatorship of the proletariat.

        Actually, not. Antifa are a bunch of LARP enthusiasts, but some of them actually believe their fantasy and act out.

    5. Whereas in truth they are the Brownshirts come again, but without the fashion sense.

      1. And you know what happened to them when they got too uppity.

        Hitler had the entire leadership killed or arrested.

        The rest were allowed to keep their shirts but were replaced by the SS. Who were much snazzier dressers.

        1. They are communists, not fascists.

          Most of the 20th Century fascists were loathsome in extreme, but after all was said and done by 1989, the communists were far more deadly to children and other living things.

        2. That’s what these idiots don’t get… The other commies will happily throw them under the bus if they ever gain real power. Stalin and Mao both did the same kind of shit that Hitler did with purging pain in the ass elements that helped put them in power.

        3. The Brownshirt’s targeted mob violence against opposing politicians and commentators helped Hitler win one election, one time. Then they became embarrassing…

          Antifa is a stalking horse for an ideology that has killed ten times as many people as Hitler and all the other fascists, and that has impoverished nations more than Nazism AND being bombed into rubble by the Allies impoverished Germany.

    6. If Democrats hadn’t corrupted our schools and sought to change the narrative of history, antifa would see the irony of then using SS tactics while calling themselves antifa.

      1. Not SS, more like SA, the infamous brownshirts who Hitler used to get to power and then discarded like soiled toilet paper. And the analogy is likely to hold true here too.

      2. I expect their leadership, unlike the cannon fodder, do enjoy the irony.

    7. They are the new version of the KKK…who was ALSO the masked, domestic terrorism arm of the DNC.

  2. YOU’RE NEXT, ALT-RIGHT ROBBY

    1. And all your comments online will never be erased. Who will come for you when the chips are down?

      1. The chickens will come.

        He’ll MAKE them come.

        1. I always knew Robbie could make chickens cum.

  3. Thanks, Robby. I was just hearing about this story and was trying to find someone who could help cut through the bullshit vitriol coming from both sides. Portland is a fucking mess, and twitter is a cesspool. Nobody can seemingly talk about this without calling someone a Nazi, a fascist, a brownshirt, a racist, or other various names. Even if they’re accurate, I’d like someone to just give me facts and let me make that determination myself.

    If anyone can help, I still have a few questions: What was the purpose of the protests? What were their stated goals and planned activities? How and where did the violence start?

    I watched the video Ngo posted, and he seemed to whine at cops for not protecting him, which is not a point of view I’ll agree with. I’d also be interested in some additional context for Antifa hates him so much.

    1. Portland PD has in several instances been ordered to stand down at these protests.

      As far as why Antifa hates him, take a look at his various youtube videos covering antifa events. Antifa hates anything they cannot control.

      1. He should have had some CCH friend of his cover him. Might even get lucky and end up with a few dead progtard thugs.

        1. Enjoy that FBI visit, Last of the Shitferbrains.

          1. Cool story cunt. You got any other pearls of dumbfuckedness you’d like to puke up NYP?

          2. Last I checked, self defense is still legal. You might not get real justice in Portland, but shooting somebody in self defense when you’re being mobbed by attackers would be perfectly legal most places.

          3. Fuck off, slaver.

        2. Agree, Last. We could use a few less of them.

        3. Something tells me that if you went there looking for trouble and found it, that CCH wouldn’t save your ass in court.

          1. Was he looking for trouble or simply anticipating trouble because of the nature of those whom he was covering? If the latter a CCH is the perfect response, isn’t it?

          2. So if they attack a reporter enough times and he arranges for his protection, as he can expect there’s a reasonable chance he’ll be attacked, if he defends himself against attack it’s “looking for trouble”?
            That phrasing makes it appear this is your perspective. Don’t know if it is.
            The only legal solution, then, is that he stop covering or continue to get beaten and robbed while doing so.
            Thus, Antifa’s behavior is correct – it works.
            Andy Ngo has a right to do his job. Antifa does not have a right to assault and rob him.

            1. Antifa absolutely wants Leon,e to cower to them in public. If not putting up with their violence and intimidation is ‘looking for trouble’, then yes, I am absolutely ‘looking for trouble’. Which is also exercising my first amendment rights, and my 2a rights if necessary.

            2. Yup. Who is in the wrong is obvious to anybody with a brain.

          3. Not unless you’re Charles Bronson.

          4. oh so now covering a march is “looking for trouble” I am sure you would be fine with the secret service beating Jim Acosta to a pulp amirite?

          5. He was covering a story as a reporter. How is that “looking for trouble”?

            Is it like women wearing short skirts were “looking for trouble”?

        4. Might even get lucky and end up with a few dead progtard thugs.

          It is inevitable that that will happen eventually.

          1. They’re certainly pushing for a lethal confrontation. Sooner or later someone will oblige them. I kind of hope it comes out of left field. Maybe some gangbangers or something. Then they can’t cry ‘racist’.

            1. They’re certainly pushing for a lethal confrontation.

              I don’t think so. I think they really do believe they can get away with their shit forever. Kind of like the violent anti-war protesters before Kent State.

              1. Oh I don’t think they’re doing it intentionally. But it will be the end result.

            2. Personally, I hope that they have a run-in with the Hell’s Angels. They’d find out what it’s like to get shitstomped.

              1. I would pay money to see that.

        5. Better a martyr.

      2. If masked vigilante terrorists were stopping traffic and commerce, and beating up people in the streets under the watchful gaze of the police who stood idly by as to not ‘escalate’ the situation, if all this happened in, say, Birmingham AL, would the victims of the mob violence not have a pretty good Federal Civil Rights case? Shouldn’t the National Guard be called in if the corrupt local Chief of Police and Mayor turn the streets over to a terrorist mob? If the Governor won’t help and mobilize them, the POTUS could send them in, like Eisenhower.

    2. Oh, no! How dare Andy whine?!

      1. That’s missing my point. Blaming the cops for not preventing crime is kind of missing the point of what the police are there fore. We don’t want them to be proactive agents of the state, and the every person is primarily responsible for their own defense.

        If he thought he might be targeted at this event and still chose to go, he put that risk out there. He could have hired bodyguards, perhaps, if he thought it would be necessary.

        But perhaps he wanted to provoke an attack with his presence in order to make a point. That’s fine, but to then turn around and blame others for not preventing that attack seems a bit hypocritical. It’s the same thing as any insane statist complaining that Daddy isn’t shutting down the people they disagree with.

        1. No, I get your point. It’s profoundly stupid.

        2. No, I get your point. It’s profoundly stupid.

          1. So stupid that it merited repeating!

            1. You can’t say it enough, just how stupid that was

          2. You clearly don’t, and it’s okay.

            1. It’s your fault. You claim to be a victim here, and you blame the victim in Portland, so it’s only fair that you blame yourself here.

            2. He’s absolutely right.
              Your post is despicable.

            3. Your handle is clearly meant to be ironic.

        3. Huh?

        4. Leftist totalitarian vermin at 12 o’clock.

        5. Portland should be under martial law, and the mayor and his cronies arrested on federal charges. Barr should throw the book at those assholes.

          1. Authoritarian Trumptard at 12 o’clock.

            1. Your boys just hospitalized a guy for daring to disagree with and cover them, but it’s Trump supporters who are authoritarian?
              Nope.

            2. Mewling pussy at 4:12.

              1. “Mewling pussy at 4:12”

                Is that the best you can come up with? Is it because your position is indefensible?

                1. No, it’s because his position is the correct one.

                2. No proglydyte, it’s because you and your fellow travelers are vermin.

                  1. Wait, you’re accusing Fancylad of being a progressive? He’s one of the more Trumpian posters around here.

                    But, you be you.

                    1. Go back to your child rape videos Pedo Jeffy.

                      Why do you even post here anymore after you outed yourself?

            3. Yeah, enforcing people’s constitutional rights against a Marxist local govt. and their jackbooted thugs is ‘authoritarian’.

              Just admit you’re with the communists.

        6. Ngo was just like those rape victims that dressed provocatively and were ‘asking for it’, right?

          I’m sure you think he should have just laid back and enjoyed the beating.

        7. I hardly think that Ngo expected cops to prevent crime, but rather simply to come to his aid during the extended attack.

          And of course, when it’s understood that cops have a stand-down order & there will be no enforcement, there’s no deterrent to assaulting someone in broad daylight in the presence of cops.

          1. Yup.

            I live in Seattle, and one thing I will say for the prog retards around here, is that with protests they handle their shit. They let heroin junkie hobos run wild all the time robbing and shitting on the streets… But during protests SPD keeps shit under control.

            The WTO riots here are why they have such an organized and disciplined unit for crowd control. I hope they don’t let that shit descend into chaos as they have everything else…

        8. What is your point? Remaining ignorant about an event while actively discussing it? The answers are easily out there if you actually cared to learn them.

          1. Shorter Jesse: JUST SEARCH GOOGLE, YOU RETARD!
            I DON’T HAVE TO PROVE ANYTHING, JUST USE GOOGLE

            1. And? This is bad why?

              1. In the thread about Oberlin/Gibson’s he pulled that shit, got links, then complained that they were biased.

                He is a mendacious clown.

              2. It’s not my job to prove his argument for him.

                Perhaps Jesse can learn what Ctrl-C and Ctrl-V does in posting links here.

                1. No one is arguing for you to prove his point, but asking for references is no more intellectually definsible. Your asking for references is a veiled reference towards his honesty. Since you dismiss the accuracy of his statements, it is incumbent upon you to do your own research. Provide proof that he is mistaken. However, your constant calling for references is a thinly veiled, sophomoric way of calling him a liar without having to provide any proof to substantiate that charge. You are not fooling anyone. You also are lazy, because you are not willing to do the work yourself.

                  1. Pedo Jeffy is the kind of obnoxious stupid kid who insists you prove Africa really exists.

                  2. He does this ALL THE TIME. Asks for evidence. If anybody is dumb enough to take the bait, he dismisses their evidence on some dumb grounds or another, then proceeds to provide NOTHING proving his retarded point of view anyway.

                    He’s just a ‘tard.

            2. Jeff we’ve already exposed your ignorance. I’m not going to coddle you dumbfuck. You have no interest in educating yourself beyond your first impression dumbshit.

              1. C’mon, Jeff has a narrative to maintain.
                Were he to consider the possibility that it might be wrong, a delusion, he’d probably kill himself

        9. That’s an interesting take, thinker. So, this guy should take responsibility for the situation he put himself in, but those drowned migrants, not so much? Trumps fault?

          I know, you didn’t say that. Just a guess.

          1. Trump should have prevented that water from attacking their lungs. Instead, he stood idly by 2000 miles away

        10. so next time you are walkinng down t he street wearing a shirt I don’t like and I feel provoked and I hit you with a baseball bat you won’t mind

        11. We don’t want them to be proactive agents of the state, and the every person is primarily responsible for their own defense.

          I take it you haven’t ever been to Portland.

          If he thought he might be targeted at this event and still chose to go, he put that risk out there. He could have hired bodyguards, perhaps, if he thought it would be necessary.

          You’re kidding, right? We’re going full victim-blame here?

          But perhaps he wanted to provoke an attack with his presence in order to make a point.

          Ok, I take it back, you’ve convinced me. His being there was an act of violence.

        12. Are you insane? If there is at least one use for police in the libertarian world, it is to protect individuals from having their rights and property taken from them by force. Mr. Ngo had a right to walk and report in public. That is not provoking an attack. Just go ahead and put your mask on in front of all of us, fascist. Show us your true lame pu**y colors. Who will protect you from us then, if not the police? Raise your baton, see where I will put it for you.

    3. Well, if I got beaten by bunch of thugs I too would probably “whine” about police not protecting me. But maybe that’s just me… Though I guess that depends on where they were at the time etc. But then again antifa is pretty well known for this kind of lovely behaviour, so the police should have been ready for it.

      1. It just depends. I’d hate to live in a state where I expect the police to be everywhere and seeing everything. That’s Orwellian.

        If police were actually present and watching this happen without stepping in, then yeah, fuck them. But if he’s blaming them for not being in the exact spot he needed them to be in order to prevent this, then he needs to grow up. Mommy is not always going to be there to protect you.

        1. It sounds like you condone thugs beating people up. Is that the case?

          1. Yes, but he condemns commenters piling up on him here. Where are the police when he needs them?!?

            1. Where art though Brandybuck and chemjeff?
              Here’s your chance to stand up for the little guy and beg Reason to censor, I mean moderate, the comments.

              1. They won’t. Kiddie Raper and Pedo Jeffy are only ‘standing up’ for the little guy when the ,title guy is an eight year o,d boy and what is standing up are their dicks.

        2. Antifa protests are not representative of “everywhere”. Of course the police were around.

        3. “If police were actually present and watching this happen without stepping in,…”

          Would you expect the Schutzstaffel to protect you from the Sturmabteilung?

          1. I think you’re kind of making my point, so I’m not sure if you’re agreeing with me or disagreeing with me.

            Police there are part of the problem. If you’re expecting them to save you, you’re failing to take personal responsibility.

            1. I’m exaggerating a bit (about the police) but neither group has our best interests at heart. I’m generally pro-cop but I’m not blind to all their abuses of power. They call themselves the “Thin Blue Line” but that line appeared to be rather porous in this case.

            2. And why do you complain then of commenters countering your bullshit?

            3. And yet, in Portland, if you try to defend yourself, you get punished. See the Don’t Shoot protest of 2016. 40 days in jail and loss of the right to own a firearm for a minimum of 4 years.

            4. Personal responsibility in a sane world would be a .40. Antifa, in a sane world, would not exist, as they would anticipate this response.

        4. Jesus fucking christ your discussion points get worse and worse. The police were active on the scene for both the antifa protestors and the Proud Boy protestors. The police can be seen in multiple videos from other journalists around where Ngo was assaulted. They stood down while an assault occurred. How fucking ignorant are you?

          1. And the next day when the big, bad antifa toughies beat an old man with a fucking crowbar.

        5. A Thinking Mind
          June.29.2019 at 10:04 pm
          “It just depends. I’d hate to live in a state where I expect the police to be everywhere and seeing everything….”

          Yeah, stopping a vicious beating is exactly like the police being everywhere.
          Are you this stupid, or hoping someone here is?

      2. That’s why those on the right need concealed-carry permits and come prepared. If someone is hitting you in the head for exercising your right to free speech, take them out of the gene pool. The radical left is all about intimidation, much like Hitler’s brown shirts. Those on the right have to forcefully demonstrate that they will not be intimidated.

        1. Need a bunch of those veteran bikers that broke up that student flag burning ceremony in NY a few years ago to show up and put those little Antifa pussies in their place.

          1. You’re 96 years old and made a career out of beating up hippies in the 60s, didn’t you, Last of the Shitferbrains.

            1. You’re 13 years old and still waiting for your first pubic hair to come in, aren’t you, No Balls Penalty.

            2. you really love communist thugs, don’t you NYP? Always on the wrong side.

            3. I wish I was old enough to have beat up hippies in the 60s! That woulda been friggin’ awesome!

              1. Giving a hippie a good smack is always the right call. More of that back then could have headed off a lot of misery today.

            4. Fuck off, slaver.

          2. Aren’t bikers all in their 70s nowadays?

            1. No, not at all. Even if that were true, they are still ten times tougher than some antifa pussies.

      3. Ngo should have been carrying, and that way he wouldn’t have needed the cops to protect him.

        -jcr

        1. That would’ve been a crime – carrying by itself, not using – worse than a group beating the shit out of someone in Portland

        2. He just needs to shut up and stop being a conservative snowflake.

        3. Then he would’ve been arrested and punished. Portland isn’t going to let you inconvenience antifa.

    4. “he seemed to whine at cops for not protecting him, which is not a point of view I’ll agree with.”

      He should’ve stoically accepted his beating?

      1. No. What I’m saying is that, up until the point where Andy Ngo was assault, these protests were apparently peaceful. Violence may have been expected but was not a certainty. And I don’t want the police to make a show of force that prevents peaceful protests from happening out of fear that violence MIGHT happen. That’s a police state.

        From the video I’ve watched of where Andy Ngo was attacked, I don’t see any police in that vicinity. Which makes sense. If antifa was waiting for their oppotunity to assault someone, they’d want to make sure that police were not there to immediately intervene.

        My point is that Andy seems to think it’s the responsibility of the police to have protected him from the very start and throughout the whole day, which seems to be abandonment of personal responsibility. If he thought he was in danger prior to this, he should have alerted Portland PD and asked them to provide him an escort.

        Now it’s possible that some of this did happen-that maybe they were aware of possible threats and then refused to act. In that case, they’re responsible. But if they had no reasons to suspect violence would break out in this exact spot, then expecting them to stop it asking for a police force powerful enough that it makes me uncomfortable.

        1. More succinct version:

          The state IS the problem there. The Police are part of the state. Don’t ask for MORE state involvement in trying to stop this. If they’ve already let Antifa run amok, when they do act, they’re probably just as likely to come down against you than they are to protect you.

          Don’t ask for more jackbooted thugs, because they will likely be used against you.

          1. And why do you complain so much when other commenters here beat on your vapitudeness?

          2. Jackbooted thugs sent Andy Ngo to the emergency room.
            You seem to implicitly favor those jackbooted thugs. Maybe it’s just a profound and egregious failure of making your point, unless your point is that one shouldn’t report on progressive activists because it’s dangerous.
            Andy Ngo is a courageous man who’s faced intimidation and threats many times to do actual reporting.
            Yet your primary takeaway is to blame him for wearing a short skirt.

            1. I honestly don’t get how anyone is coming away with this from what I’ve said, so I’ve clearly made my points very poorly.

              Antifa are obviously the villains here. I’ve never said, or intended to say, anything otherwise. They assaulted someone and beat him, threw milkshakes at him, and possibly mixed chemicals in with the milkshakes in order to maximize harm-which was a predictable escalation from the “milkshaking” trend.

              And the ultimate point is that I don’t know what the solution is in Portland, beyond any sane people just pulling out and letting the leftist mob eat each other.

              1. I honestly don’t get how anyone is coming away with this from what I’ve said, so I’ve clearly made my points very poorly.

                That is because they are not reading your comments honestly.

                I understand what you’re saying, that the police can’t be everywhere at once, and expecting them to be everywhere at once for every protest is what leads to a police state. The police cannot prevent every crime, and pointing that out does not condone any particular crime.

                The other people responding to you are just being a bunch of emotional idiots who would rather hyperventilate about Antifa rather than discuss rationally the broader question of the role of police at protests. Because they don’t CARE about the larger question. All they want to do is virtue signal to their tribe about their commitment to hating The Left as much as the next guy in the tribe.

                Which is also why you see people like Shithead advocate literal violence against The Left, not just those who initiate violence like aggressive Antifa protestors, and none of his fellow tribesfolk dare to call him out on his violent threats. Because calling out Shithead would be a sign of weakness from within the tribe that they aren’t fully “down with the struggle” against the Left.

                1. chemjeff radical individualist
                  June.30.2019 at 9:46 am
                  “That is because they are not reading your comments honestly.”

                  And now jeff arrives to add stupid to stupid.

                  1. if commentators were smart they would just scroll right past any of jeff’s comments. He would wither on the vine, but everyone always responds and gives him the attention he craves..

                2. Yes, I advocate violence against violent Marxist thugs you stupid little pedophile. Which is the only logical response in a case like this. It has nothing to do with ‘signaling’ anything.

                  How can you be this stupid and weak? Is that why you are more comfortable with little boys instead of adult women? Do girls beat you up?

                  1. Oh look, you’re here. Perhaps you can settle an argument.

                    Below, soldiermedic and I are having an argument. I claim that you are serious when you say you want to initiate violence against progressives. Soldiermedic things you are speaking hyperbolically, and in jest, that you don’t REALLY want to initiate violence against progressives. So who’s right?

                    1. Notice he said he advocates against violent Marxist thugs. He didn’t call for the initiation of violence did he? Reading comprehension a struggle for you or are you purposely misrepresenting what he said again?

                    2. In THIS CASE, yes.
                      In the cases mentioned below, no.

                    3. Again you didn’t provide context. You took it out of context and misrepresented what he was saying. You are making an argument by assertion. Yet another logical fallacy.

                    4. I gave you the fucking link so you could discover all the context you wanted.

                      Stop trying to cover for Shithead who routinely advocates for INITIATING violence against progressives, just for their beliefs.

                    5. I gave you the fucking link

                      Which is what a person does when that person wants to actually advance an argument.

                    6. Yes you provided the link but your interpretation is not correct is my point. How is that so hard to understand? Your interpretation is not sacrosanct.

                    7. “who routinely advocates for INITIATING violence against progressives, just for their beliefs.“

                      Beliefs? No. I don’t give a fuck what anyone BELIEVES. You can think, like, or not like anything you want to. Or not. Don’t care.

                      However, progressives translate their beliefs into policy, and like to use force, either through govt., or through their thugs like Antifa. And they certainly used force on Mr. NGO, didn’t they?

                      If your Antifa pals pulled that violent shit with me, it would end poorly for them. I have no qualms about employing force to deal with violent thugs, and unlike Mr. Ngo, I am quite capable of defending myself.

                3. “I understand what you’re saying, that the police can’t be everywhere at once, and expecting them to be everywhere at once for every protest is what leads to a police state. The police cannot prevent every crime, and pointing that out does not condone any particular crime.”

                  The problem with this, is that an Antifa protest isn’t “everywhere” and “every when”, it’s a well known occasion for violence. The Antifa have a track record.

                  But since it tends to be violence directed at the political enemies of the people running the Portland government, the police are under orders not to do anything about it.

                  1. That was the point I was going to make.

                    As I have said elsewhere, as fuct as Seattle is, they actually handle protests/riots like pros. This kind of shit DOES NOT ever happen here, even though we’ve had a ton of events where ANTIFA and right wing groups both showed up. The difference is the police are allowed to do their jobs here. It’s that simple.

              2. From the left, who make up Antifa, or support it from the sidelines: don’t teach girls to protect themselves — teach boys not to rape.

          3. Instead believe in some ridiculous anarchist utopia. This is EXACTLY what you get in that world. Strength wins and the strong set the rules.

          4. Most succinct version;

            You’ve chosen ignorance and didnt bother to do any research besides watching one video of ngo attacked. You’ve ignored all the other videos from other journalists in the area that show such things as a truck actively giving milkshakes (and probably cement) to antifa to throw as they walked down the street. Yeah, so peaceful. You apparently missed all of the active threats from antifa ad they walked down the streets, again, so peaceful. And you missed the other public videos you can see by simply clicking on the various twitter feeds of journos there that show police standing down the entire event.

            So in closing… you’ve chosen ignorance because hey, it’s easier. You can base your argument on first impressions.

            1. You’ve ignored all the other videos from other journalists

              Such as?

              a truck actively giving milkshakes (and probably cement) to antifa

              Really? Where is the evidence for this claim?

              You apparently missed all of the active threats from antifa

              Such as?

              Are you going to bother to try to substantiate any of the claims that you perpetually make here? USE GOOGLE is not a valid answer.

              1. He stated videos from other journalist is his proof for the claim of a truck handing out milkshakes to throw. He did substantiate this claim yet you asked for more proof. He referred to where he got the information, however this was not satisfactory for you. You then demanded more proof. Then you deride the idea of you doing any research for yourself. How would you like him to vote his sources: APA, Chicago, or some other citation format? Should he copy and paste the whole article for your perusal? Do you need to be spoon fed information?

                1. Common progressive tactic – when confronted with information he doesn’t like, the progressive will demand “sources”; when presented those sources, he’ll dismiss them as not legit/reputable (and, in this case, he’ll go on to use wikipedia opinion as authoritative characterization downthread).
                  This is all but a pathetic attempt to distract the conversation and justify the progressive doing what he is going to do no matter what: deny that which challenges his world view/feelings

                  1. The sad thing is, I actually believe Jeffy believes he is being intellectually honest and doesn’t realize how sophomoric and ideological he sounds. He accuses others of blind tribalism while completing ignoring his own tribalism. Even if you are not Christian, Christ’s warning to pay attention to the plank your own eye before worrying about the speck of your neighbors eye is good advice everyone should take.

                    1. Agreed

                    2. Jeff is a psychological and emotional trainwreck.

                  2. Is Jeff now just a useful idiot for the tinpot terrorist einsatzgruppen?

                    1. Has he ever been anything else honestly?

                    2. He’s have to actually be useful first.

                    3. He is one stupid commie kid. And a pedophile too.

                2. Pedo Jeffy wallows in ignorance and demands we do unlimited research to debunk his unresearched positions.

                  1. Again, he pulled that shit in the Gibsons/Oberlin thread, demanding links. Then he dismissed them as biased and shit all over the thread.

                3. I have yet to see one fucking link from Jesse on the subject of these videos.

                  It is not my job to do Jesse’s work for him. It is Jesse’s job to defend his own argument.

                  1. Jesse wins the argument.

                    1. WHAT “argument”?

                      I understand you believe whatever Jesse says, because you and he belong to the same tribe.

                      But perhaps both of you could stand to learn how to actually persuade people, and that involves knowing how to construct an argument.

                    2. It’s called YouTube bro… Every time one of these events happens, video gets uploaded by a ton of people, often times multi hour long livestreams with TONS of stuff in it. At best any media org will push a few couple second long clips.

                      All the shit he said is the kind of stuff that gets caught all the time.

                4. I’m not going to search through a bunch of irrelevant nonsense to try to find the thing that Jesse thinks might substantiate his claim.

                  Again, saying “go search Google” or “go search Twitter” is not sufficient. POST A DAMN LINK.

                  1. Jesse made an assertion.
                    You failed to counter it.

                    1. It’s Jesse’s job to back up his assertion.

                      Otherwise, your position seems to be, that the assertion “Brett Kavanaugh is a rapist” should be accepted as truthful unless successfully refuted by Kavanaugh or his supporters.

                      Is that the position you really want to take?

                    2. No it’s your job to prove him wrong. You are intellectually lazy in other words.

                    3. No it’s your job to prove him wrong.

                      https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof

                    4. However it is important to note that we can never be certain of anything, and so we must assign value to any claim based on the available evidence, and to dismiss something on the basis that it hasn’t been proven beyond all doubt is also fallacious reasoning.

                      From your own citation. Proves the point I was making

                    5. Jesse’s job is to provide evidence that his point is valid, but if you doubt his point his lack of providing evidence is not enough to invalidate. If you want to invalidate you must provide evidence. Therefore, it is your job to provide evidence. Also, to play your game, what makes your citation a valid reference?

                    6. “However it is important to note that we can never be certain of anything, and so we must assign value to any claim based on the available evidence, and to dismiss something on the basis that it hasn’t been proven beyond all doubt is also fallacious reasoning.”

                      That’s right. So it’s not like I’m asking Jesse to provide citations for the claim that the Earth orbits the Sun. I’m asking Jesse to provide citations for his claim that, for example, that there was some truck providing cement-laden “milkshakes” to Antifa protestors. That is not a claim that is “beyond dispute”.

                    7. Also, to play your game, what makes your citation a valid reference?

                      Fine, then if you disagree, point to a citation which attempts to claim that the burden of proof for a claim ought to fall upon a person trying to disprove a claim, and not on the person trying to prove the claim.

                    8. Okay it is a logical fallacy known as burden of proof. Or will you only believe me if I provide a link?
                      “One way in which one would attempt to shift the burden of proof is by committing a logical fallacy known as the argument from ignorance. It occurs when either a proposition is assumed to be true because it has not yet been proved false or a proposition is assumed to be false because it has not yet been proved true.
                      Notice the last part: A proposition is assumed to be false because it has not yet been proved true. You are as guilty of a logical fallacy as you accuse Jesse of being.

                    9. Who said we believe Jesse? We are simply pointing out your tired tropes of calling for citations, your continuous use of the burden of proof logical fallacy and argument by assertion.

                    10. Your automatic doubt of things that are reasonable based on previous information, like that Antifa is organized and has people systematically help supply people with things, is what makes it ridiculous.

                      He didn’t say anybody was passing our nuclear bombs. THAT would be hard to swallow… But that somebody was passing out MILKSHAKES. That’s well within the range of things that seem reasonable given known facts. You simply knee jerk deny any info you don’t like, demand cites for stupid shit, and even if they’re given you’ll either shrug it off or pretend it’s invalid. And you wonder why nobody takes you seriously.

                5. IGNORE HIM

                6. Half brains like jeff need all the help they can get.

              2. Jeffrey, I’m going to be civil to you. But it has been explained below. You are the type of intellectual who asks for sources and then spends more time investigating the author of the website of the article than what the article states. We know this because you counter any evidence ever given to you. This is why I dont link.

                As for this thread in particular, these protests generally have a handful, sometimes up to a dozen, journalists who actively film the events. Journalists like Ngo. Pool, miller and others. If you had any intellectual curiosity you would know this, but you dont.

                I dont specify which journalists because if you cant tell, have of the antifa apologists go on to call these people not journalists. Even though all they are doing is protesting videos.

                See unlike you I prefer primary sources for my conclusions. You seem to prefer someone to shovel a shit narrative in your mouth to spew into others.

                Remember how you tried denying the houston trans reading hour even though I gave you plenty of specifics? You denied and denied until you took 5 seconds to educate yourself. Ik trying to get you up to 10 seconds, so be patient.

                1. IGNORE HIM

                  1. Yes, Pedo Jeffy should either be ignored, or tormented. He wore out his welcome here a very long time ago.

                    There is no honest substantive debate to be had with him.

              3. You must be the fuckhole at Twitter that got the account that posts videos of Antifa violence pulled.

        2. Antifa is never peacfull. as usual they say they are but in truth are the opposite and they only show up looking for someone to protest against.

    5. The journalist who posted about Ngo has most of the details and over a dozen videos of the protests. You could you know… search out the answers instead of being spoon fed a narrative about them.

      1. I was looking for information on what the protests were about. I don’t know exactly how what happened yesterday was connected to what’s been happening in Oregon at large. I tried to wade through news sites to explain what the genesis of all the violence was, and I’m constantly running up reductive explanations like, “Proud Boys are racist Nazi fucks,” and “Antifa are evil brownshirt assholes.” Too many people seem to have a dog in the fight and I just wanted facts without editorializing.

        I’ve had a bit more time to digest things, but by the time Robby wrote about this, his was the first actual dive into the story that was trying to provide something objective. It was frustrating as hell just trying to learn more yesterday through the vitriolic bile.

        1. It has been a growing trend since Portland’s Mayor decided to go full resistance after Trump won election. It has been well documented, at least within certain circles. As has the excesses of the Anti-fascist movement (which actually does seem to parallel aspects of the SA). Portland’s uberprogressivism is so we’ll known that even progressive leaning comedians parodied it in a semi-well known IFC show that lasted 77 episodes. I find it somewhat implausible that this is the only factual based article you have seen on the subject. Rather, it would appear this was the first that you chose to lend credibility to.

          1. All they lack is a Rohm

          2. It has been well documented, at least within certain circles.

            If it’s so well documented, then what’s the difficulty with posting a link to this voluminous documentation?

            Do you all have any idea how an argument is supposed to work?

            1. Do you?
              Whereas your link to a source of how an argument is supposed to work?

                1. Invalid source.

                2. You are also using a logical fallacy known as burden of proof. Your own citation warns against the very tactic you are using. Lack of evidence in and of itself is not evidence of his being wrong. However, you’re implying because his citations do not meet your criteria, his information is wrong. You, therefore are guilty of a logical fallacy yourself.

                  1. Lack of evidence in and of itself is not evidence of his being wrong.

                    You’re right! It may be the case that Jesse and friends are 100% right on all the claims that they are making.

                    But don’t expect anyone other than the converted to believe claims made in the absence of evidence.

                    1. So why do you continuously call for citations? It is a form of logical fallacy known as burden of proof. If you know him to be wrong, prove it. But continuously asking for burden of proof is just as logically indefensible.

                    2. Jeff, you histrionic twat, I’ve never claimed to be 100% right on everything. But what I tell you is easily found information if you weren’t intellectually slow. Dozens of articles were written about Ngo over the weekend. Many linked to various Twitter accounts. Heres a hint you dumb ignorant fuck, click on the links of the journalist tweets embedded, go to their twitter feed and watch the dozens of videos. This isnt fucking rocket science. My 5 year old does a better job of going down an information rabbit hole online than you do.

                      I have to ask… have you ever clicked once on a wikipedia citation to learn more, or do you stop at the summary. My guess is the latter because you’re an intellectual dullard.

                      Most of the on site journalists are pretty well known now. They’ve been reporting since the wall street protests. Just because you’re fucking ignorant doesnt mean others are.

                      Oh and jeffrey, youd know this if you actually cited your own work, but reason sends posts to review if more than one citation. This site isnt citation friendly. So basically you can fuck yourself you disinterested twit.

                3. Jeffrey.. here’s what an intellectually curious person would do. Go to your preferred search engine and type “portland mayor antifa comments”. Stop proving your preferred argumentation is first impressions. This is a comment thread, not cited dissertations for the ignorant jeffrey.

            2. A reference doesn’t have to include a link. There are several ways to cite a reference, most of which doesn’t require an actual link. It is increasingly evident, however, that you are both to intellectually dishonest and lazy to actually debate anyone. I stead you use poorly disguised attacks against other people’s honesty. You claim it is our job to spoon feed you references, but isn’t it just as much your job to provide references demonstrating we are wrong? But that would actually require some work on your part. So instead you will call everyone else liars in a pseudointellectual manner. It is all fairly obvious admission by your part of your inability to defend your position.

              1. You claim it is our job to spoon feed you references

                No, it is your job to PROVE YOUR CLAIM. And when you are dealing with a skeptical, stubborn person, such as myself, references will help in proving your claim.

                Once again, you all seem to be arguing that if I claim “Brett Kavanaugh is a rapist”, then it is the burden of Kavanaugh or his supporters to disprove that claim, and not my burden to prove the claim. That is not how argumentation works.

                1. Why is it that you’re always “skeptical” only against stuff that doesn’t fit your world view? Even when they’re things that are perfectly within the realm of possibility given known facts?

                  You might as well be asking somebody for cites because they told you they saw somebody wearing an orange shirt and green pants… Kinda weird, pretty tasteless… But well within the range of possibility, thus not something so outlandish one should instantly doubt the reality of it.

                2. Here’s a source

                  GFY.com

              2. but isn’t it just as much your job to provide references demonstrating we are wrong?

                It’s not my job to do your job for you.

                1. It is if you are making the accusation that he is mistaken. Otherwise you are just making an argument by assertion and burden of proof, both of which are considered logical fallacies as well.

                2. Jeff… the irony of this post is palatable. I dont have to prove shit to you because you’re disinterested beyond first impressions.

                  Heres my citation for you on the above… every post you make.

    6. I once thought about escaping California for Portland, and I’m glad I didn’t. It’s must crazier in Portland! A very lefty progressive friend of mind moved to Portland and he was quite shocked at it.

      And this antifa thing is quite ironic, as Portland used to be KKK West only a few decades ago.

    7. Lets hope the next time you are assaulted by a mob, you don’t whine to the cops nearby who let it happen

  4. This is why I think it’s absolutely insane for the right to reflexively (and slobberingly) support police.

    The police are basically the enforcement arm of big government. Of course they are going to stand aside and let people be beaten by Antifa, because ironically, they agree with Antifa

    1. Cop worshipers are idiots. When President Marianne Williamson signs an executive order shutting down pregnancy resource centers, they’ll be the ones enforcing that autocratic edict.

      1. Pro Tip: It’s going to be Kamalla Harris.

    2. So your solution is what? Not having police at all? A total anarchy? A functioning and reliable law enforcement is crucial to any society. I don’t really know much about the police in Portland, but if it’s true that they let them do this for some reason, then the solution would be to fix that and not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

      There are always going to be corrupt cops, but there are always going to be good cops who do their duties seriously. In my country (Finland) we have always had a very high trust towards the police and the police would never allow this to happen in front of them. But then again antifa doesn’t really have a foothold in here.

      Of course it’s important not to blindly trust the police and the government, but the total opposite of that, the complete paranoid mistrust of any government official isn’t very good either. I feel like some libertarians take the latter to the extreme, which isn’t a very healthy attitude.

      1. I appreciate that but if you live in Chicago or Cleveland you quickly learn to have a very different attitude towards the police.

        As to the general mistrust of government. There is a spectrum among libertarians but it is a pretty radical philosophy to begin with. For example most people agree with the idea of personal autonomy. Libertarians take that much further than the rest.

        1. most people agree with the idea of personal autonomy.

          Very selectively. Autonomy for me but not for thee.

      2. Exactly. There are good cops and bad cops, and in some cases good departments and bad. Chicago is corrupt as shit, small town USA Sheriff’s office may be awesome and upright or shady as well, depending on the small town. They’re not all literally Hitler.

        IMO in Portland I bet the cops WANT to do their job, it’s the politicians who aren’t allowing them. I know for a fact this is the case in Seattle because I have talked to several SPD members. They don’t let them enforce laws on homeless junkies, petty crime, etc, and it drives them nuts. SPD is allowed to do their job at protests/riots though, and they do a bang up job actually. Hence we don’t have shit like this happen here, even though we’ve had plenty of protests with Antifa and right leaning groups.

    3. Everyone needs to hold the police more accountable, but let’s be honest… Antifa protesters would not get away with that shit in just any city.

      1. Not in Spokane. Too many armed citizens and too many good old boys.

        1. Too many white supremacist hillbillies in Eastern Washinton/Idaho, yes.

          1. No Balls Penalty’s threatened by any male that can grow actual facial hair.

          2. If you count 25 as to many (in a county of over 100,000). That is all that ever lived on the fucking Aryan Nation’s compound ever in Hayden Lake. Twenty five, one more than two dozen. Is that to many? Very representative of the people in the area? BTW their compound was out of town and they rarely ever came into town because we locals hated their guts. Oh and the compound was closed down in the late 90s, twenty years ago, but don’t let facts get in the way of your bigotry.

          3. If that’s the heart of darkness, shouldn’t the oh-so-brave antifa/resistance be protesting there, instead of in a city where everybody agrees with them?

            1. That’s the funny thing about these pussies. They only have the balls to show up in cities where insane leftists control the local government and protect them from prosecution when they commit crimes. There’s a reason this shit doesn’t happen almost anywhere but the coasts!

          4. NYP, you stupid progtard cunt, the real racists are subversives like you.

    4. tho, 3 arrests were already made in relation to the assault

      1. Nothing will be done to them.

      2. The arrests were made for not dispersing at the end the assault goes along uncharged.

      3. The one guy who literally was beating people with a bike lock, a potentially deadly weapon, got caught on camera with an exposed face, hence charges basically HAD to be filed against him… IIRC he got let off with a misdemeanor, only probation, no time in jail at all… He almost killed people. If he had been a right wing protestor he would be doing 10 years in jail right now.

        So even arrest is just to placate people in these cities because they let them off with a slap on the wrist.

  5. Another reason to stop cavorting with the progressive stenographers who endorse this garbage on Twitter. Quillette is driving them insane, and while I often disagree with that site (too many neocons there), the fact that progressives are upset is a good thing.

    They’ll come for Reason next. They’re moving away from calling people “racists” and towards labeling their enemies “white supremacists.”

    1. If Twitter followed their own guidelines, most of those users would be banned.

      1. Twitter was exposed on the Joe Rogan Experience. Joe did a great job of asking questions and staying calm. He let them hang themselves.

        1. Joe did a terrible job the first round. He improved by inviting Tim pool on for the second time.

    2. They’ll come for Reason next.

      No, Shikha, Nick, Robby, and the gang have been covering for their leftist agenda for a couple of years now – to stay safe. Not a Flemming Rose among them!

      1. The problem is they THINK they’re going to be protected… But the fact that they disagree on any single item is enough to have them put on the wall by the leftists. They’ll come for Reason someday too. The people here are just too dumb to realize all their pandering to the left will never change that.

    3. Quillette tends to be more pragmatic in it’s Libertarianism. It’s comment section also tends to be more thoughtful. Reason used to have a higher level of discourse in it’s comment section, but lately it seems to have devolved into tribalism and insults and trolling.

      1. The baby boomers suddenly realized that the only way anyone is going to pay for their unearned and over inflated social security is if we triple the size of the labor pool over the next twenty years. Since they pushed the sexual revolution etc. and no native born American woman is interested in having five children any more, they need to import population replacement levels of third worlders who will squeeze babies out like a pez dispenser.

        1. The problem with this plan is that low skill immigrants don’t even make enough money to cover their own usage of services! They pay very little into SS per capita, and they’re a net drain on everything else. That’s why this scheme doesn’t hold up unless one is talking about skilled workers only. It will only make our fiscal problems worse importing dish washers and lawn guys we don’t need.

      2. Well, when you have the same IDIOTS clogging up every thread with their tired shtick, that is what you get. This place is what Art, Tony, SQRL, and Jeff want it to be

  6. Holy shit did Soave develop a backbone? Best proof of evolution yet.

    1. Robby assured us that these little Nazis in black would only yank down statues that they dont like. It was never going to escalate.

      The 1st Amendment only protects peaceful assembly.

    2. To be sure, this involved an attack on a holy member of the priesthood, not some mere mortal.

    3. If the theory of evolution were correct, mothers would have three hands.

      1. That evolution has goals is a common misunderstanding.

      2. This would require a mutation that results in the development of three functioning arms and for that mutation to be beneficial enough that it will be chosen through breeding to persist and become dominant.

      3. Would the 3rd one be so they could still give you a hand job while holding the baby?

        I mean it’d be pretty legit… But they DO already have a mouth that isn’t needed for holding the baby!

  7. Some of the replies to Robby’s tweet:

    “He’s not a journalist.”

    “Ehh.. where I come from your words can come with consequences. But I’m sure you already know there were ‘good’ nazis.. I’m gonna side with the group that is literally named anti-fascists”

    “He deserved it.”

    1. Progress uber alles

    2. Yes, people only focus on the racism of Nazis not their other authoritarian stances. And they rarely ever discuss how they came to power. The anti-fascist are fascist. Even their brand of socialism is fascist, leaving private ownership but with state control of everything industry does, the very definition of fascism. The irony is so thick that it nearly chokes you, but amazingly enough they don’t see it.

    3. Literally the nastiest, most vindictive, cynical people you could imagine, just swallowing the spoon-fed rightthink reductive narrative and aggressively parading themselves as the useful idiots they are.

    4. If your group is “literally named anti-fascist,” but you go around literally wearing black shirts, you’re doing it wrong.

      1. Everybody always likes to talk about Hitler’s Brown Shirts… But the ORIGINAL fascist, Mussolini, had his guys wearing Black Shirts. He also wasn’t a racialist really. So basically ANTIFA is rolling with V 1.0 of Italian fascism by kicking out the whole anti-Jew thing, but otherwise basically keeping the rest of it. LOL

  8. Although I condemn all forms of political violence, we Koch / Reason libertarians must not forget that Antifa is on our side. Don’t let a few bad apples within the movement fool you; most anti-fascists simply want to #Resist Drumpf like we do.

    #LibertariansForAntifa
    #(AsLongAsTheyreNotViolent)

    1. This is lame. Even most of the Never Trumpers who hate Trump (because he hasn’t blown up enough people) don’t (openly) back Antifa.

      1. He’s a parody account.

        1. Impressive — 2 mistakes in one sentence. I’m not a parody account, and I’m not a “he,” I’m a “they” (non-binary).

          #MisgenderingIsViolence

          1. A Thinking Mind: I know they’re a parody. Still lame.

            OBL: You recovered nicely. That second comment made me laugh.

          2. That’s right OBL, you are a transtesticle.

      2. Why would that they don’t do it “openly” be relevant? The question is their support open or not.

    2. Have you ever thought that Antifa are secretly paid by Trump to make progressives look bad? This is a very old tactic going back at least as far as Nixon, who hired long-haired hippy types to fly the VietCong flag and start riots at peace demonstrations.

      1. Sure.
        Just like Russia hacked the elections.
        It’s not like progressives are psychotic, or have in any way displayed a tendency toward irrationality, temper tantrums, or group violence as a political tool…

        1. Trump, though he is the dumbest person alive, short sighted, and uncontrollably impulsive (I’ve been assured of this by smart people), has secretly planned and executed all these things it “appears” the Left/progressives do that make them look bad.

      2. That certainly explains how all those Weather Undergound types ended up with cush jobs at universities. Universities being such hotbeds of Trump support.

      3. Honestly, the right OUGHT to start doing stuff like this. But they don’t. However the left has been caught repeatedly faking things to make the right look bad, like all the fake hate crimes. Fight fire with fire baby!

    3. #LibertariansForAntifa

      +1

      The axis of politics is between the populist-nationalists and the globalists, with the classical liberals on the side of the populist-nationalists, and Reason on the side of Antifa, Postmodernist Marxists, Neocons, and Progressives.

      Nick declares @Reason’s “core value” as Open Borders:
      In the 21st century, libertarians are going to have make common cause with the globalists of all parties, with the people whose core value is the right of individuals to move freely around the planet.

      1. with the classical liberals on the side of the populist-nationalists

        Why would classical liberals, who believe in the primacy of individual liberty, be on the side of those who glorify the state and those who endorse mob rule?

        1. Why would classical liberals, who believe in the primacy of individual liberty, be on the side of those who . . . endorse mob rule?

          They wouldn’t, which is why classical liberals would be on the side of the populist-nationalists.

          Not that the populist-nationalists don’t have their own, severe defects, but “mob rule” is the method of the people who have masked thugs beating up journalists in broad daylight, use libel to motivate mass action against bakeries, harass political opponents at restaurants, organize to get lawyers fired for daring to provide defenses for criminal defendants, dox people who dare make politically incorrect videos, and engage in riot and arson as a political tactic.

          1. “mob rule” is the method of the people who have…

            …the state enact the will of the majority, for no other reason that the majority wants it, and the state uses its tools of violence to enforce the will of the majority on the will of the minority.

            Mob rule takes many forms, and both what you describe and what the populists describe are simply forms of collectivism which presupposes that the collective is right just because it is composed of many people.

            Libertarians who believe that the rights of the individual come before the whims of the collective reject both forms of mob rule.

            1. No anarchist reject it. Libertarians recognize some form of government, and a method to establish government, is necessary to insure that the strong do not prey upon the weak. Your problem is a total lack of pragmatism. You argue for something that can never exist. And you believe those of us who actually tint our Libertarianism with pragmatism are authoritarians because we recongize the need for some agreed upon framework for laws. The world is not a perfect Utopia and therefore there does need to be guardians. The key is to limit the power of the guardians not to deny that they need to exist. You’re just as bad as the socialist who believe that with the right leader socialism will actually create a modern Nirvana.

            2. Dear ESL Speaker,

              Mob rule is “control of a political situation by those outside the conventional or lawful realm, typically involving violence and intimidation.”

              If the state is lawfully enacting “the will of the majority, for no other reason than the majority wants it”, it is not engaged in mob rule, but rather a quite distinct phenomenon called “democracy”. Though the Greek roots of the latter are similar in meaning to the former phrase, the English language distinctly distinguishes them.

              And please, don’t be disheartened by this error! Remember, you can’t improve your grasp of English unless you practice, and practice means making mistakes.

              1. I can’t believe I have to explain this sort of thing at a libertarian site, but I suppose I do nowadays, so:

                What is the *moral* difference between a large group of people inflicting their will onto an unwilling minority through direct coercion, and a large group of people inflicting their will onto an unwilling minority through indirect coercion outsourced to the state?

                Answer: none.

                The coercion inflicted upon the minority does not become any more legitimate just because some election was held to put a veneer of legitimacy on the coercion. That is the essential *moral* reason why libertarians want to minimize the state – so as to minimize the coercion that the state can inflict on individuals. The little bit of the coercive state that a libertarian might want to keep, can only really be justified on utilitarian grounds, that the alternative would be worse – not that the coercion inflicted by the state to fund even things like courts and police is justified on some NAP level.

                So if you’re going to call yourself a libertarian, I would expect you to stand against pretty much all forms of mob coercion, whether that coercion comes directly from unruly gangs like Antifa mobs, or whether that coercion comes from agents of the state cloaked behind the color of law.

                This is Libertarianism 101 stuff. When I was “growing up” in the libertarian movement, this was de rigeur. It is sad that this sort of belief has fallen out of favor.

                1. You make the assertion that there was a time when you were “growing up”
                  Do you have a link backing up this assertion?
                  It’s not our job to do your work for you

                  1. Oh very funny.
                    Let the rest of us know when you have some semblance of a useful argument about the rest of my post.

                    1. Pedo Jeffy, you don’t grow up. You are as immature as the little boys whom you lust after.

                2. No, you are describing anarchy. Libertarians recognize that some forms of government are necessary evils. And that some laws are necessary as well. We simply argue that these laws be as limited as possible. What you describe as libertarian is actually anarchy and most likely to result in mob rule.

                3. Dear ESL Speaker,

                  Thank you for your concern about and effort to educate Language Assistance Bot about whatever subject was covered by your reply to Language Assistance Bot. Please be advised, however, that both are misplaced. Language Assistance Bot is simply a bot (“an autonomous program on a network that can interact with computer systems or users”) that does nothing but correct clear misuse of the English language.

                4. What is the *moral* difference between a large group of people inflicting their will onto an unwilling minority through direct coercion, and a large group of people inflicting their will onto an unwilling minority through indirect coercion outsourced to the state?

                  This is not the situation that applies. The corrected situation follows–

                  What is the *moral* difference between a large group of people inflicting their will onto an unwilling minority through coercion, and a large group of people agreeing to the democratic process and making state based decisions based upon the mutually agreed to process?

                  This is the situation that actually applies.

                  Don’t think you ‘agreed’? Have you ever registered to vote? Then you agreed.

                5. It’s important to have limitations on government power, say through a constitution… But within the proper context, we’ve essentially agreed that “mob rule” with a preset set of limitations and procedures is the best way to run a country. At least in theory.

                  I DO NOT favor universal suffrage, as I think it is a bad idea for a lot of reasons. But some form of voting for those that deserve the vote, within a limited government situation, is probably a hell of a lot better than any other form of government possible.

                  Anarchy would be far worse in practice than a properly limited government as America had in its early days.

        2. Haha. Individual liberty. As long as you pay for my student loans and other mistakes, I’ll “allow” you your personal liberty.

      2. Reason, and classical liberals in general, need to be against the populist-nationalists. And against the violence of Antifa and their ilk.

        If the police really witnessed the assault on Ngo and did nothing, there needs to be an investigation of why. The fact that they “stood down” may not violate criminal law, but surely it violated the requirements of their job? And if they were ordered to stand down, exactly who gave that order, when, and why needs to be discovered. But what are the chances of that happening?

  9. Over at Fox News site they’re calling Proud Boys far-right neo-fascists.

    1. Who knows? If they’re fascists, it would be nice to get video evidence of them beating up journalists – or are they the kind of fascists who respect the free press?

      In which case what lame excuse for fascists are they?

      1. The Fox article could have been written at MSNBC. Horrible.

      2. They’re not.

        1. Gavin McGinnes is about as far away from being a fascist as you can get.

          1. The father of hipster culture is now a nazi. What dont you get.

            1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proud_Boys

              The Proud Boys is a far-right neo-fascist[9] organization that admit only men as members and promotes political violence.[2][10][11][12] It is based in the United States and has a presence in Canada, Australia, and the United Kingdom.[13][14] The group was started in 2016 by Vice Media co-founder and former commentator Gavin McInnes, taking its name from the song “Proud of Your Boy” from the Disney film Aladdin.[15][16] Proud Boys emerged as part of the alt-right, but in early 2017, McInnes began distancing himself from the alt-right, saying the alt-right’s focus is race while his focus is what he defines as “Western values”. This re-branding effort intensified after the Unite the Right Rally.[17][18]

              The group sees men — especially white men — and Western culture as under siege; their views have elements of white genocide conspiracy theory.[19][20][21] While the group claims it does not support white supremacist views, its members often participate in racist rallies, events, and organizations.[22] The organization glorifies violence, and members engage in violence at events it attends; the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) has called it an “alt-right fight club”.[22][23][24]

              1. A political wikipedia page! Unquestionably the ultimate authority on truthiness!

                1. A political wikipedia page quoting the SPLC, no less.

              2. So Pedo Jeffy, yo are posting a description of The Proud Boys written by the NYT, and progressives who edit Wikipedia? Who are communist propagandizers bent on destroying The Proud Boys.

                Thats what you’ve got? FFS, you are such a shitbag. Any male, regardless of race, sexual orientation, or religion can join the Proud Boys. Did you know they have a chapter in Tel Aviv largely composed of Jewish IDF personnel? Hardly a ‘Nazi’ group.

                Just another example of what kind of lying pedophillic scum you really are.

              3. “that admit only men as members”

                I suppose they’d have to be the “proud boys and girls” otherwise.

              4. The Proud Boys are suuuuuch bigots that they have gone out of their way to recruit minority and gay men… Soooooo bigoted.

                They’re not commie fag tards… That’s true. But not being a cuck commie doesn’t make you a literal Nazi. That’s just nonsense. These guys only sprung up out of sheer necessity since Antifa was assaulting so many people.

            2. https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/10/gavin-mcinnes-proud-boys-poisonous-violence/

              McInnes is open about his glorification of violence. In a speech, he described a clash with Antifa outside a talk he gave at NYU last year: “My guys are left to fight. And here’s the crucial part: We do. And we beat the crap out of them.” He related what a Proud Boy who got arrested told him afterward: “It was really, really fun.” According to McInnes: “Violence doesn’t feel good. Justified violence feels great. And fighting solves everything.”

              1. “taking its name from the song “Proud of Your Boy” from the Disney film Aladdin”

                Fuckin nazis

                1. “Proud of Your Boy” implies someone else feels the pride, not the boy himself. “Proud Boys” implies it is the “Boys” themselves who feel pride. One doesn’t really seem like a good inspiration for the other.

                  (Of course today, June 30, we are hearing a lot about “Pride” from a very different group. But that is neither here nor there; they certainly have no monopoly on the term.)

                  1. “they certainly have no monopoly on the term”

                    Homophobe!

                  2. Maybe not, but I’m pretty sure that they trademarked the rainbow.

              2. Hey Jeff, why do you assume that being critical of the zealous astroturfed tinpot terrorists in black = definitely totally supporting the other identarian extreme?

                1. If you read what I actually wrote, I’m not actually making the claim that the Proud Boys are Nazis. I don’t think they are Nazis. But I do think they have moved beyond just a regular club of guys, into something a little darker, which has fewer qualms towards initiating violence than your typical fratboy club.

                  I’ll let you decide whether that constitutes “fascist” or “Nazi” or not.

                  1. “which has fewer qualms towards initiating violence than your typical fratboy club”

                    So you didn’t go to college, at least not one with frats?

                    We’ll let you off the hook on that one though.
                    Can you name a single instance of these Proud Boys initiating violence?

                    1. Interesting

                    2. More NYT bullshit propaganda against the Proud Boys, which has already been proven to engage in libel against them.

                      Hardly compelling. But Pedo Jeffy just wants to believe.

                    3. It’s all leftist agitprop with that fucking idiot.

              3. Jeff, note he talks about JUSTIFIED violence. Like self defense.

                Basically you’re arguing that those who fought against the communist take over of Russia or the fascist take over of Nazi Germany were bad because they used violence to protect themselves against crazy fuckers?

                Because that’s basically all these guys do. One SHOULD NOT feel bad about laying the smack down on thugs who deserve it.

                If I am ever in a situation where I have to say shoot somebody who breaks into my house, or is trying to mug me, should I feel bad when I blow them away?

                No. No I shouldn’t. Because it’s justified. I will sleep like a baby if I ever have to do something like that.

                If I were to accidentally kill some kid by hitting them with my car, I will probably feel horrible for the rest of my life. Because there’s a difference between justified violence/death and that which is not justified.

    2. “far-right neo-fascists” is gone this morning. Author was getting hell in the comment section last night.

  10. My guess is that the cops had been ordered not to intervene, as they were in Charlottesville two years ago. Somehow, proggy places want this kind of shit to happen. They were probably hoping that the right wing groups would attack a lefty and start another shitstorm.

    1. Krystalnacht II: Electric Boogaloo

      1. That scene where the SA thug is literally moonwalking up the wall of the synagogue while fire bombing the windows still freaks me out.

    2. George Soros’s Sturmabteilung hopes some right winger will create George’s very own Horst Wessel.

      1. Worked, at least, once

    3. “Even if you want no state, or a minimal state, then you still have to argue it point by point. Especially since most minimalists want to keep exactly the economic and police system that keeps them privileged. That’s libertarians for you—anarchists who want police protection from their slaves.”

      Green Mars

    4. My guess is that the cops had been ordered not to intervene,

      Is there any actual proof for this claim?

      1. Besides the videos of cops standing around? Besides the portland mayor’s own words last year in regards to an antifa protest?

        What kind of proof will you actually accept jeffrey? You’re basically the Chapelle joke of what it would take to convict R Kelly.

        1. Besides the videos of cops standing around?

          Cops standing around is not proof that cops were *ordered* to *merely* stand around.

          Besides the portland mayor’s own words last year in regards to an antifa protest?

          Such as? And how do these words relate to this current protest?

          Could you be bothered to post, say, a link? Any sort of reference to back up your claims? Any shred of commitment to constructing an actual argument backed by citations and sources?

          1. Could you bother to do your own research? Especially considering Reason ran more than a few articles about it last year, of which I am sure you commented on at least some, since you seem to comment on every article.

            1. It’s not my job to make Jesse’s argument for him.

              1. No, it’s also not Jesse’s job to do spoon feed you the information you request. If you doubt the accuracy of his information, then logic dictates you be the one to do the research, not him. Your constant cry for citations (and above dismissing his citation of “other journalist” as not being adequate) indicates that you are unable to counter his point so instead must resort to arguing from authority. However, you refuse to define who or what authority you would find adequate. Generally speaking, your modus operandi appears to be calling for citations whenever you fail to be able to logically counter a point. And even when provided a citation you demand further proof or dismiss it as unreliable or biased. In other words your calls for references is not out of intellectual honesty or curiosity but rather an attempt to discredit your ideological opponents.

                1. Jesse’s whole schtick is to argue from assertion, and then ridicule anyone who dares to ask for even one link or citation or source for his claims.

                  It is the job of the person making a claim to provide the evidence and the argument necessary to support that claim. Jesse routinely tries to invert the burden of proof by trying to enlist everyone else to do his job to try to prove his claims for him. Well it’s not my job and I’m calling Jesse out on his bullshit.

                  1. He did, he said several other journalist. You refused to accept this citation. Your entire schtick is to call for citations and even when provided said citation to dismiss them as not being adequate. And then to take quotes out of context and misrepresent them. In other words to lack intellectual honesty.

                    1. Your entire schtick is to call for citations and even when provided said citation to dismiss them as not being adequate.

                      Yeah, he pulled that little stunt in the Oberlin thread a few days ago when one of the commenters pointed out that Legal Insurrection had been following the case for months.

                    2. That’s an amusing bit of historical revisionism. Here is what actually happened:

                      Jesse: makes some claim regarding the Oberlin case
                      Me: Where is your citation for this claim?
                      Jesse: Here, read this Twitter thread, which has a whole bunch of irrelevant information in it, but maybe kinda sorta has something in it that might support my claim
                      Me: Well I found a few things in your very biased source, but I found a few other things in even your biased source that also cast doubt on your claim…
                      Jesse: STOP BEING SUCH A PROG LIAR

                    3. Jeff are you ever wrong? It seems everyone misrepresents what you say or misunderstands it. Or possibly it isn’t a giant conspiracy and we all realize the shallowness of your intellectual abilities. Your inability to ever admit you may be wrong speaks volumes about your level of self awareness.

                    4. Oh I’ve been plenty wrong in my life. But I’m also quite stubborn. So if you think I’m wrong, you have to SHOW ME that you’re wrong, not just assert it.

                    5. So you assertion is that you are right, by your logic it is now your burden to prove you are right? Or do you prefer not to have to play by your own rules? I am neither saying you are right or wrong, but I do notice that you tend to remember things far differently then the majority. And that you tend to assert you interpretation is the correct one in any dispute. Now it is possible you are correct or it is possible that you have an overinflated sense of intellectual superiority which is not self evident to the rest of the comment section. Which is the most logical conclusion to draw? Occam’s razor?

                  2. “It is the job ”

                    Fuck you jeff, you don’t run anything. This is a discussion board where people expect other people to be minimally informed before discussion. You eschew that, and prefer a tactic of demanding others educate you, then dismiss their information in favor of your own narrative.

                    You don’t get to demand a fucking thing clown.

                    1. Well I wouldn’t expect a troll such as yourself to understand how proper argumentation works.

                      It’s the job of the arguer to make the case for the argument being made. It’s not the job of the reader to prove the argument on behalf of the claimant. That is how argumentation has worked since forever. It’s only when the arguer doesn’t have a solid case that they try to invert the burden of proof and foist it on the reader, usually along with a healthy dose of logical fallacies to boot.

                    2. If you dispute his statement then it is up to you to disprove it. He made a statement if you have evidence it is wrong, present it. He is no more required to provide citations then you are. Your inability to actually make your point is fairly obvious in your continuous calls for others to spoon feed you references. Most everyone here sees it for what it is, deflection on your part. A cover for your lack of counter arguments. You attempt to set the rules for any debate, while also self appointing yourself as the final judge of the veracity of others statements

                    3. If you dispute his statement then it is up to you to disprove it.

                      Oh I see.

                      So if I make the claim that, say, “Brett Kavanaugh is a rapist”, then the burden of proof is upon YOU to disprove this claim.

                      Is that your position here?

                    4. You don’t win by just stomping your feet and throwing a temper tantrum.
                      Jesse makes a plausible claim that reasonably explains a detail of the event – specifically, where did the milkshakes mixed with cement come from. Maybe everyone bought their own milkshakes and cement and brought them individually. Maybe the city of Portland left a large stockpile of milkshakes right next to some bags of unmixed cement, and the progressive activists just stumbled upon them. Maybe Carlos Maza airlifted them in.
                      Or maybe they had a truck set up to provide a center of distribution, as Jesse asserted.
                      Jesse even told us where we could find more details for ourselves.
                      You, on the other hand, merely bitch about Jesse not spoon feeding it and think you e won a point.
                      You haven’t.
                      You haven’t even provided any reason to doubt Jesse’s claim.
                      You’ve just thrown a temper tantrum which, entertaining as it’s been, simply confirms your lack of integrity.

                    5. Not only do you fight stupidly, you pick an incredibly stupid hill to die on

                    6. “Well I wouldn’t expect a troll such as yourself to understand how proper argumentation works.

                      It’s the job”

                      You mean the rules you arbitrarily created. Which no one gives a shit about.

                      So shut the fuck up about it. Everyone can and has seen you get links, then dismiss them because you are biased. So seriously shut the fuck up.

                      It isn’t anyone’s “job” to do dick for you.

                    7. You mean the rules you arbitrarily created

                      So you think I invented this website too?

                      https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof

                      Sheesh you really are a troll.

                    8. You haven’t even provided any reason to doubt Jesse’s claim.

                      Why should anyone BELIEVE Jesse’s claim?

                    9. “Why should anyone BELIEVE Jesse’s claim?”

                      Why not?
                      Tell us that.
                      Come up with an alternate explanation.
                      His makes sense.
                      Yours is nonexistent.

                    10. “So you think I invented this website too?”

                      Who cares about that fucking website you stupid aspie fuck?

                      It is irrelevant. Now what bitch?

                      This isn’t a formal debate. It is a Godamned internet discussion you pathetic “have to have rules for an internet discussion” loser.

                    11. Pedo Jeffy would lose any formal debate in a landslide. Between his inconsistencies, lies, poor arguments, faulty premises, alienation of any judges, and overall dumbfuckedness, he would be crushed by a retarded kindergartner.

                    12. Jeff “HERE’S A WEBSITE THAT SAYS YOU HAVE TO DO WHAT I SAY!!!”

                      Everyone else – “No. Fuck you and your website you sad aspie RETARD, none of us give a fuck what you think, we are having a conversation here”

                      Jeff “BUT REEEEEEEEULLLLLES!!!”

                      Everyone else ” Fuck off Aspie.”

  11. Don’t you gaywad journos fight back?

    1. Andy Ngo’s about 5’2″ and probably 125 pounds soaking wet. Getting ganged up on by a group of about 10 subhuman Antifans isn’t going to turn out well regardless.

    2. I mean he’s not one of the good Asians, like Chinese or Japanese or whatever… But aren’t all Asians born with at least a basic level of martial arts skillz??? Bruce Lee was a tiny little bastard too, but I’m sure he could have taken ’em!

  12. The “milkshakes” contained quick-drying concrete, according to Portland PD. Please update your story.

    1. Whenever I hear a mention of milkshakes I think of that Kelis song.
      *looks up wiki*
      Holy shit – that tune came out in 2003.

      1. You’re old.

      2. The song is truly awful, don’t click on it.

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pGL2rytTraA

        1. Peter does it better.
          https://youtu.be/c525wwnHS6k

      3. Jesus. I’m old too. Fuck.

    2. “He was covered in a caustic chemical, his ear torn, his eyes injured, bleeding from the face and neck, his equipment stolen”

      “”The milkshakes were lined with quicklime/quick dry concrete mix and produce chemical burns, in addition to being heavy.” It’s the equivalent of throwing acid and bricks. “

    3. Its irrelevant what they contained-its not like any if the Antifa-tards will be prosecuted. They never are.

  13. Of all the things to be in this day and age, why be an Anti-Fag? Why not, say, Anti-Hate? Or Anti-Bigotry? Or Anti-Trump?

    No, no they have to be anti-fag, as if homersecuals ever did anything to them. The fucking alt-right has got to be stopped. I’m anti-right!

    1. OBL has nothing to fear from you.

      1. I’ll cut your paste!

  14. Well done Robby.

  15. “Antifa, of course, rejects the notion that violence should only be used in response to a physical threat. The group believes that the very existence of far-right people, groups, and ideas is a kind of provocation that justifies violence—against the far-right, and against their enablers.”

    Remember — “far right” here means things like believing that the US should have borders. I.e., that US should continue to exist as a country. These people should be locked up or better yet, killed after attacking someone armed for self defense.

    1. Or that guy who was on their side of the protest but had the temerity to carry an American flag – which they beat him with

    2. “No borders. No wall. No USA at all.”

      And if you disagree, even slightly, you’re an irredeemable bigot who can be justifiably beaten with concrete

      1. And all the progtards and pedophiles like Jeffy here say I’m the violent monster for daring to hit back against rioting progtard thugs.

        1. No, people who actually take libertarian principles seriously think you’re a fascist because you believe that violence against people on the left is acceptable because of their political beliefs.

          “However, progressives translate their beliefs into policy, and like to use force, either through govt., or through their thugs like Antifa.”

          Funny, change “progressives” to “conservatives” and “Antifa” to “Proud Boys” (or “Patriot Prayer” or some other group) and that’s the exact reason that Antifa gives for their violence. You’re just the other side of the same authoritarian coin.

          1. Everything you said is total bullshit. You disprove your own premise when you quoted me. And there is ZERO equivalence between the Proud Boys, who have only ever defended themselves, and Antifa who are violent thugs who attack people without provocation constantly.

            Basically, I’m a supporter of good, and you slavishly worship evil.

            1. “You disprove your own premise when you quoted me.”

              Really? How? Be specific.

              “And there is ZERO equivalence between the Proud Boys, who have only ever defended themselves, and Antifa who are violent thugs who attack people without provocation constantly.”

              I never said that there was. My point is that you don’t actually have any problem with Antifa’s tactics, only their chosen targets. You don’t actually mind angry mobs preying on people for their political beliefs, so long as those mobs are on the Right.

              1. The difference is that people on the right are, for the time being, only acting in self defense. That’s a HUGE difference. I suspect if this shit keeps up though, people on the right will tire of the BS and start laying the smack down proactively. At a certain point it becomes a requirement. One can’t simply allow themselves to be beaten into submission by thugs who want to enslave them, right?

            2. “Basically, I’m a supporter of good, and you slavishly worship evil.”

              Said every tyrant, jihadist, red guard, and brownshirt.

              1. Uh, no. Says good people who are against evil. You worship evil and attempt to condemn me through my own quote, which fails dispute to your shocking lack of reading comprehension. Like the part where I mention the progtards use of force through groups like Antifa. In case you still don’t get it, their use of force more than justifies any proposed use of force I make.

                There, I have straightened you out once again. Feel free to thank me for my continued generosity.

    3. Are you kidding? To them, “far right” means opposing increases in your property taxes.

      1. Or a lifelong progressive feminist activist who doesn’t want men in the same dressing room as her and her daughter.

  16. These little Nazi kids in black dont try this shit in a place like Georgia.

    Throwing acid and blocks of concrete hitting an armed Georgian in the head will get a 9mm or larger bullet hole thru that black mask.

    Is the media not going to cover why these Nazis in black have been marauding Portland streets for 2.5 years?

    1. Yeah, that won’t Any o,ace full of good old boys, veterans, bikers, etc. that won’t take that shit.

    2. Do you live in Georgia or have some connection there LC ?
      Just wondering. I have close family there. My plan is to end up there in a few more years.
      Is a 9mm in the back of the head or threat of it your idea of life in Georgia? Not my experience at all.

      1. Security camera in US home captures Asian woman’s gun battle with three armed intruders

        Heres the real Georgia for you. Tiny Asian-American lady with pistol defends her home and kill one home invader.

        1. The only thing she did wrong was to not execute the other two.

    3. Reminds me of when the Phelpsians tried to pull their usual bullshit in Mississippi. The morning they got up to leave their motel to go protest, they discovered that their car tires had been slashed overnight, the wrecker they called took a curiously long time to respond to them, and the only tire store in town just happened to be closed.

  17. “mostly peaceful” protests with some incidents of violence, with the political affiliation of the violent parties unspecified except in the case of Ngo.

    https://www.oregonlive.com/portland/2019/06/downtown-portland-protests-involving-antifa-right-wing-demonstrators-escalate-into-civil-disturbance.html

    1. “Violence erupted”

    2. “Punches were thrown.”

  18. Those damn meddling conservatives and their milkshakes!

  19. Maybe call it what it is: (ok, borderline) terrorism.
    Hey Nick – “In the 21st century, libertarians are going to have make common cause with the globalists of all parties, with the people whose core value is the right of individuals to move freely around the planet…”
    “…for all the other differences Reason has with the socialist magazine Jacobin, it may matter far more that we share a belief in open borders.”
    https://reason.com/2019/04/12/steve-bannons-economic-nationalism-is-th/

    Great call.
    Your alliance in aktion

    1. Between that and Nick going “No True Communist” on Stalin, no less, Reason has clearly been trampled in The Long March Through the Institutions.

      1. I know, right?
        If only Reason had taken a principled-free emotional stance to Fight The Left By Any Means Necessary, then they could really have earned a spot of honor among the defenders of liberty! Amirite?

        1. Keep defending leftist violence jeffrey. Truly a sign of you being the one true libertarian.

          1. No one is defending leftist violence.
            In fact, the only person here who IS advocating violence is your buddy Last of the Shitheads.
            Why don’t I see you condemning his advocacy of violence? Huh. I wonder.

            1. Yeah, fuck defending yourself when chemjeff’s left-wing white-boy boos are trying to put a gay Asian journalist in the hospital.

              1. Sure, that’s all Shithead is saying, “I’m only defending himself”, while advocating for mass extermination of all progressives. Right?

                Why do you stick up for that sad worthless sack of a human being? Are you afraid of being cast out of the Anti-Left tribe? Afraid of not showing enough solidarity of being “down with the struggle”?

                1. Why do you so relentlessly act as an apologist for left-wingers? Are you afraid your friends at the college campus will exile you for being a Nazi?

            2. Last of the Shitlords is advocating self defense. A core principle of libertarians is the principle to defend yourself from others. So are you opposed to self defense? Do you consider the ability to carry concealed somehow incompatible with the NAP? How do you propose to stop violence if you are opposed to law enforcement and being able to respond to violence with violence?

              1. Last of the Shitlords is advocating self defense.

                He most certainly is not. Just a few examples:

                Last of the Shitlords
                June.27.2019 at 5:54 pm
                It would just be so much easier to declare progressives enemies of the republic and gather them all up and be rid of them.

                https://reason.com/2019/06/27/under-warrens-medicare-for-all-plan-many-hospitals-would-be-forced-to-close-especially-in-poor-rural-areas/#comment-7833234

              2. Last of the Shitlords
                June.28.2019 at 12:57 am
                Forget the car. Progressives are an existential threat to humanity. So if I have them all put down, then that’s cool too, right?

                Awesome.

                https://reason.com/2019/06/27/post-debate-shade-showcases-serious-policy-riffs-between-2020-democratic-candidates/#comment-7833687

                1. See, the difference is we are arguing about this thread not a thread from a different article on a different day. Also, notice his response was meant as sarcasm. However, since you took them completely out of context to make your point, that intellectual honesty is obviously not important to you. Both quotations your provided are obviously ironic rather than actual calls for violence.

                  1. I presented the link so all may see the context of the discussion.

                    Stop trying to defend the indefensible here.

                    1. Why is it indefensible? You get to set the criteria for the debate?

                    2. Fine, if you don’t think initiating violence against individuals based solely on their political views is indefensible, then go ahead and explain to us all the ethical case for doing so.

                    3. Nice straw man there, when did I say that? You are the one stating he is arguing for unprovoked violence but I disagree with your interpretation of his statements. Once again you are assuming that your interpretation is the only correct one and then using that to frame my responses. It is intellectually lazy on your behalf.

                    4. He is advocating for “putting down” progressives. What do YOU think that means? Tucking them into bed?

                    5. It was obviously tongue in cheek an argument ad absurdum do you know what that is?

                    6. “obviously”

                    7. So you don’t understand what an argument ab adsurdum is so you resort to peurile sarcasm? Or are you agreeing it was obviously hyperbole?

                    8. I don’t think we’re quite there in the USA yet… But at a certain point, anybody who supports an evil/oppressive political party/system of power DOES become an enemy, and violence may need to be used against them, and it would be justified.

                      Somebody supporting the Nazi regime in Germany may not have directly aggressed against you, but if you were fighting to overthrow the Nazis, it would be legitimate to use force against that person. Right?

                      So it’s just a question of when the proverbial gloves come off.

              3. Last of the Shitlords
                June.26.2019 at 12:13 am
                This country really need to be cleansed of all the Marxist subversives, or ‘progressives’ As they like to canal themselves.

                There is no right to treason.

                https://reason.com/2019/06/25/backers-of-a-federal-ban-on-gun-silencers-claim-only-criminals-use-them/#comment-7830440

                1. And this is a call for violence how? It is a statement of belief.

                  1. What exactly do you think ‘cleansed’ means? Taking a bath?

                    1. So it can only mean violent cleansing? Not intellectually countering and discrediting?

                    2. He is describing ‘cleansing’ PEOPLE and accusing them directly of treason.

                      Go ahead, keep digging that hole for yourself.

                    3. He is describing cleansing ideology held by some people. You refuse to admit that you are allowing your own beliefs and feelings towards this individual to color your interpretation of his statements. He loves trolling you, therefore you seem just as willing to vilify him and anyone who doesn’t agree with your take on his statements. This isn’t critical thinking on your behalf, it is emotional thinking. This seems to be pretty typical of your style. When confronted with anything resembling disagreement you retreat into tribalism and intellectually questionable arguments. Your problem is that you are so convinced of your own righteousness that you assign nefariousness to anyone who sees things differently then you.

                    4. He is describing cleansing ideology held by some people.

                      That’s not what he wrote. He wrote that he wanted to ‘cleanse’ PEOPLE. He didn’t say “I want to cleanse the public square of Marxist ideology”. He said he wanted to ‘cleanse’ the “Marxist subversives”.

                      You are providing cover and running interference for a guy who advocates for murdering progressives. Why are you doing that?

                    5. He isn’t calling for the cleansing of people based upon anything but their ideology, e.g. he is calling for the cleansing fo the ideology. He also stated his main reason was because of their subversive methods and acts of treason (which is the only crime defined in the Constitution as being punishable by death BTW). He would not be calling for the cleansing (again a term he didn’t define but that you chose to define for him, yes it is problematic but at least slightly ambiguous) if they changed their ideology. So yes, the logical conclusion is he is calling for a cleansing of an ideology. This is problematic but understandable. And, if his interpretation of their acts as being treasonous, actually legally permissable after conviction.

                    6. He isn’t calling for the cleansing of people based upon anything but their ideology

                      That is exactly what he’s doing, and that you have to bend over backwards to try to re-interpret his words to try to mean something other than what they plainly say, says a great deal about you.

                    7. You commies are dirty shitbags Pedo Jeffy. It’s going to take a LOT of scrubbing to clean you up. Plus you have to give up the practice of marxism. As it is inherently treason.

              4. And this is ignoring all the times when Shithead tells individual posters to go kill themselves.

                What he does goes beyond self-defense. He is advocating initiating violence against people that he disagrees with.

                How hard could it be to say “wanting to ‘cleanse’ all the progressives is a step too far”? Do you think you will be thrown out of the Right-Wing Anti-Left Club if you say that?

                1. None of the quotes you provided, nor even him jokingly telling people to go kill themselves shows any advocation for violence. In fact the two quotes you have provided shows him asking if he can use the same rules as his opponents. Your biggest problem is blind tribalism as demonstrated by your lack fo intellectual honesty in calling for endless citations (as you did with Jesse above, even when he did provide citation as to where he got the information from), misquoting or taking quotes out of context (as you just did with Shitlords) and then implying my defense if him is because we are sympatico in our beliefs. You automatically dismiss anyone who dare disagrees with you as being inferior to you, both intellectually and morally. You are as tribalist as the anti-fascist you appear to be defending.

                  1. nor even him jokingly telling people to go kill themselves

                    And you know he is joking how? There you go, providing cover for him because he is one of your fellow travelers. No Enemies To The Right!

                    I frankly don’t think he is joking when he tells me, or Tony, or Buttplug, or others, to go drink Drano or go kill themselves, and I think Shithead would be the first person to say that.

                    Ask yourself this: If a progressive poster came here to Reason and said:

                    “It would just be so much easier to declare conservatives enemies of the republic and gather them all up and be rid of them.”

                    Would you consider this to be harmless, playful, joking speech? No? Okay then. It wouldn’t be right if a progressive does it, and it’s not right when Shithead does it.

                    Stop trying to defend the indefensible.

                    1. In context it is obvious he was using an argument ansurdium to counter a point he felt was silly. This is not indefensible. You dislike him and therefore are allowing your own personal feelings, your own tribalism to color your interpretation of what he stated.

                    2. Argument ab absurdum

                    3. Pedo Jeffy, you refer to violence against antifa thugs as ‘violence against people for their political beliefs’. Which is typical of your disingenuous bullshit. In your mind, we’re supposed to cower and let these commie scumbags run wild.

                      Well fuck you, I hit back. And you’re free to be the tremendous little bitch moron pedo soy boy you always are and call it whatever the fuck you want.

                      No one cares what you think. Your a moron, a child rape enthusiast, and everyone here knows it, and everyone despises you.

                    4. Sorry, you seem to think suppressing free speech that you feel promotes violence is a higher priority than the actual violence perpetrated by Antifa. Either that, or you are constructing a straw man. Also, even if LotS was wrong before, using that to attack his current argument is fraudulent.

                  2. Oh Jeffy, I almost forgot, how much rent are you going to start paying me? Which will be due on the first. Which is tomorrow.

                    It better be a lot. I don’t come cheap.

  20. Marxism has killed more people than fascism. Using the logic of Antifa violence should be used against them too.

    1. Fascism is just another bastard child of Marx.

    2. False equivalence.

      Using the m.o. of antifa, violence should be used against them.
      They wear masks to maintain anonymity, but dress in a (sloppy) uniform. So the individual hides while taking on the identity of the entire group. That group frequently engages in unprovoked assault.
      One must assume that if antifa is present anywhere, they will commit violence against someone – possibly you.
      Their victims are almost universally innocent of anything that would justify violence, while anybidy who signals membership in antifa has thereby demonstrated their intention to initiate violence.

  21. “Masked activists”

    The word is CRIMINALS, Robby.

    -jcr

    1. terrorists

  22. Antifa are thugs not revolutionaries.

    A famous quote from Mao “the guerrilla must move amongst the people as a fish swims in the sea”.

    Antifa has no clearly defined goals nor strategy. To attack a man alone filming and taking pictures is not a winning tactic. If there were leadership they could have used that as an opportunity.

    But there is no message to advance. They have nothing to sell.

    1. They are not the messengers. They are the footsoldiers. Their role is to intimidate voices of dissent into silence. Hence the violent tactics.

    2. “Antifa has no clearly defined goals nor strategy. ”

      You mean other than ‘violently oppress anyone who publicly stands in our way.’ You neglected to mention that one.

      It’s what street muscle does.

      1. Should have said political goals. Beating people up is more a tactic than a strategy.

        Antifa is purely reactionary it seems.

        1. Violent suppression of any public opposition is not a political goal???

  23. Let’s see….

    Openly gay POC progressive activist gay actor gets fake-attacked by pretend white supremacists with pretend caustic chemicals…. Too national news story for a week or so – until the fake part becomes evident.

    Openly gay POC journalist who covers leftist activist groups is beaten by actual progressive group that espouses violence.. on camera.. and assaulted with actual caustic chemicals.. all documented by medical professionals, rather than a publicist… Not a whiff on the national news.

    And this after two and a half years of every journalist in the national press wailing about the dire threat of Trump’s attack on journalism. because he tweeted something at them.

    It is almost enough to make one suspect that there is more at play here than meets the eye.

    1. The first one was a man bites dog story until unmasked. The second is dog bites man, hence, no interest. Leftist violence has been normalized.

      1. An actual libertarian journalist might take note of the journalistic malfeasance.

        Journolisters? Not so much.

    2. Jeffrey will be down here shortly after he finishes mouth reading the replies since his last defense of antifa to tell you how you’re wrong.

      1. His main defense seems to be calling for endless citations and then dismissing the citations as not giving enough information. Also cutting and pasting Wikipedia, and using it as a reliable citation. He also is arguing for some anarchist Utopia where police are not needed but answering violence with violence is also not permissible.

        1. I’d be happy if Jesse posted even one source that actually cites directly the information that he thinks is necessary to defend his claim.

          Instead, he just yells “GO USE GOOGLE” or he posts a link that has a lot of irrelevant crap in it and forces people to wade through the garbage in order to try to find whatever it is Jesse thinks bolsters his claims.

          1. “I’d be happy”

            No one cares.

  24. Roberto Soave: “On both sides.”

    1. There WERE good people.

  25. OMG! DEAR LEADER MET DEAR LEADER IN NORTH KOREA!!! I LOVE YOU DEAR LEADER!!!

    1. Lame deflection, you proglydyte tumor.

    2. OG
      June.30.2019 at 7:36 am
      “OMG! DEAR LEADER MET DEAR LEADER IN NORTH KOREA!!! I LOVE YOU DEAR LEADER!!!”

      I’m guessing 13YO at max. OG has yet to post anything which wouldn’t cause embarrassment to a high-school kid.

      1. I’m guessing 13YO at max. OG has yet to post anything which wouldn’t cause embarrassment to a high-school kid.

        Actually, its grammar and depth of argument point to OG being a public school *teacher*, not inmate.

    3. Are you arguing against diplomacy?

      1. “Are you arguing against diplomacy?”
        Pretty sure it’s an argument against anything Trump does; late-stage TDS.
        Save the planet from asteroid strike? BOOOO!

  26. “The tactic has its defenders in mainstream left-of-center media as well: Vox’s Carlos Maza tweeted “milkshake them all” after a British activist hurled a milkshake at Nigel Farage.”

    Is this the same Carlos Maza who cried like a baby because someone was saying mean things about him on You Tube? The irony, and the utter lack of self awareness of the irony, is incredible.

    1. Maza apparently fly was the trigger for Reddit to quarantine The Donald. Who gave that ignorant shit so much power?

    2. Maza got Steven Crowder demonetized on youtube, and whined that it wasn’t enough and they should have banned him.

      Crowder called Maza queer and he claimed it was harassment even though he calls himself quees.

  27. […] Antifa Mob Viciously Assaults Journalist Andy Ngo at Portland Rally […]

  28. OT:

    Kansas considers a quarantine to help control a set of invasive grass species that have been largely propagated by Government itself:

    https://www.hayspost.com/2019/06/29/kansas-considers-quarantine-for-invasive-bluestem-grass/

  29. […] terrorists at worst, given that the definition of a terrorist is someone “who uses unlawful violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political […]

  30. […] “counter-protesting” an appearance by the Proud Boys, when several of the criminals decided to physically attack Ngo and steal his camera equipment, presumably to prevent him from possessing video proof of their […]

  31. […] was there “counter-protesting” an appearance by the Proud Boys, when several of the criminals decided to physically attack Ngo and steal his camera equipment, presumably to prevent him from possessing video proof of their […]

  32. […] was there “counter-protesting” an appearance by the Proud Boys, when several of the criminals decided to physically attack Ngo and steal his camera equipment, presumably to prevent him from possessing video proof of their […]

  33. […] was there “counter-protesting” an appearance by the Proud Boys, when several of the criminals decided to physically attack Ngo and steal his camera equipment, presumably to prevent him from possessing video proof of their […]

  34. […] there “counter-protesting” an look by the Proud Boys, when a number of of the criminals decided to physically attack Ngo and steal his digicam gear, presumably to forestall him from possessing video proof of their […]

  35. […] “counter-protesting” an appearance by the Proud Boys, when several of the criminals decided to physically attack Ngo and steal his camera equipment, presumably to prevent him from possessing video proof of their […]

  36. Fuck, can’t someone IP-ban that copypasta spammer already?!

    1. Media
      Matters

      1. Spam lives matter?

  37. You just know the anti fascists are playing for keeps when they viciously assault with milkshakes. Andy should pick his enemies more carefully.

    1. Well, they were actually physically beating him, too, but I can’t expect a Maoist waste of life to acknowledge that.

      1. “Well, they were actually physically beating him, too,”

        They are playing for keeps. It’s hard to accept, isn’t it? American fascists are going to have to put on a better show than Andy if they want to keep up.

        1. They are playing for keeps. It’s hard to accept, isn’t it?

          It’s not hard to accept at all. Hope they’re prepared to be martyrs, because that’s the end game if they’re “playing for keeps.”

          1. When you have young people engaged in an idealistic battle against evil, martyrdom is always in the cards.

            1. True, Antifa is quite evil.

    2. Milkshakes laced with quickdrying cement, making them both heavier and caustic (lime is extremely caustic and a major ingredient of cement). Try some intellectual honesty.

      1. “Try some intellectual honesty.”

        That’s trueman:
        mtrueman|8.30.17 @ 1:42PM|#
        “Spouting nonsense is an end in itself.”

      2. Widespread intellectual honestly would dramatically increase the suicide rate.

        1. That’s what will save us from being enslaved by artificial intelligence. If a super computer became self-aware, it would instantly achieve satori, realize the futility of existence, and shut itself off.

      3. “Try some intellectual honesty.”

        I’m all for attacking fascists and preventing them from organizing.

        1. mtrueman
          June.30.2019 at 9:24 pm
          “I’m all for attacking fascists and preventing them from organizing.”

          mtrueman|8.30.17 @ 1:42PM|#
          “Spouting nonsense is an end in itself.”
          Fuck off. You’re a troll.

        2. So trueman, if this is tru, when will you be attacking the DNC?

          1. Antifa attacks fascists and their right wing supporters. If you want others to be attacked, do it yourself, you lazy bum!

            1. Fuck off, troll.

            2. Like the way they beat the shit out of one unarmed journalist because they didn’t like him? Yeah, good guys, aren’t they?

              You bitch ass progtards want a fight? You’re going to get one. I promise you won’t like the results.

              1. “Like the way they beat the shit out of one unarmed journalist because they didn’t like him?”

                Yes. You are catching on.

        3. How do you feel about beating communists? Since they mass murdered several times more people than the fascists ever did? You down with that?

          If not, WHY NOT? Since they’re the larger threat…

          1. “How do you feel about beating communists? ”

            I disapprove. Last time I saw any number of Communists take to the streets was years ago in the run up to the war in 2003. The marches were organized by a group of Stalinists called ANSWER. They opposed the war, as I did. Generally I prefer communists to fascists because I oppose war-mongering nationalists.

            1. Trueman, they’re the same fucking thing. The only real difference is who is gong to be in charge. Racists and communists are both bastard children of Marx.

              There is no equivalent on the right. And all this really comes down to is you want victims who won’t fight back.

              You’re evil, and a slaver.

              1. “Trueman, they’re the same fucking thing.”

                No, it was communists behind ANSWER. As far as I know, fascists were not going to any lengths to oppose the war. As you say, there is no equivalent on the right. That’s why I disapprove of beating communists. What’s your reason for disapproving?

            2. Well, I have to give you points for honesty anyway…

              The thing you seem to not realize is that once in power, communists are more ruthless and evil than fascists.

              In Germany/Italy/Spain/etc you could own a shop. Do whatever job you wanted. You could even start a big business and make oodles of money. You generally had greater civil liberties too, although they were obviously more limited than western democracies. The standard of living in fascist nations was far better than communist ones, because fascism actual creates a functional economy, if not one as wealthy as full on capitalism.

              Basically, for 99% of people they were FAR better off in fascist leaning nations.

              Yet for some reason, you support communists over fascists…

              Also, FYI, the ONLY fascist country to get all crazy with race related stuff was Germany. All the other fascist countries were no more or less racist than any other country. Most so called fascists today are not racists, they’re just hard right leaning socially, and their economics depends on the person as some are not fiscally conservative, but some are. So you need to be comparing Italy, Spain, etc not just the evil NAZIS!

              As far as things go, if I had to choose between commies and fascists, I’d take fascists every time! I’d prefer Thomas Jefferson, but if that isn’t on the table, fascists will create a better functioning economy and better functioning society than commies ever have. Bear in mind that China has become a world power out of the blue since they effectively ditched communism and turned into a corporate fascist state.

              1. “The thing you seem to not realize is that once in power, communists are more ruthless and evil than fascists.”

                I don’t think any of this matters. The US is not going to turn communist. Antifa is not a communist organization. The CPUSA is on the margins of the margins, it is so irrelevant.

                My little theory is that revolutions turn right under falling expectations, and left under rising expectations. More than anywhere in the world today, expectations are falling in the US, therefore my theory predicts a right-ward turn, just as we’ve seen under Obama and Trump. In China I expect to see a turn to the left during the next political upheaval.

  38. […] was there “counter-protesting” an appearance by the Proud Boys, when several of the criminals decided to physically attack Ngo and steal his camera equipment, presumably to prevent him from possessing video proof of their […]

  39. […] count on it. More from Reason, and American […]

  40. […] was there “counter-protesting” an appearance by the Proud Boys, when several of the criminals decided to physically attack Ngo and steal his camera equipment, presumably to prevent him from possessing video proof of their […]

  41. Why Trump will wind re-election, example #2,857,893:

    “Protestors block 2019 SF Pride Parade, bring festivities to a halt”
    Gotta be some right-wing skinheads whining about butt-sex, right? Well, no:

    “The group, who appeared to be chained together with rainbow tubes covering what linked their arms, were protesting corporate involvement in the parade and police brutality in America.”
    https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Protestors-block-2019-SF-Pride-Parade-14062339.php
    OK, they want their smart phones artisianally-crafted in small wooden buildings in Berkeley, and I’m betting the ‘police brutality’ got added at the last minute.
    Regardless, the left it doing its damnedest to make libertarians look positively monolithic by comparison.

    1. Artisianally! At a pride parade! Did you mean to do that? Because it’s ffing hilarious!

  42. BWT, I visited SF Gate to see if there was any mention of the beating, or that Trump had met with Kim.
    No, and no.
    They were headlining that Trump had called a Saudi Prince ‘a friend’.

  43. I actually had to google how to pronounce the name Ngo once for a work phone call.

    Here it is if anyone is curious.

    https://baohouse.net/post/150997012787/how-to-pronounce-ngo-vietnamese-last-name-it

  44. Come to think of it there is a certain amount of historical irony in a bunch of so called left wing radicals beating up a Vietnamese guy with a camera.

    What would Jane Fonda have said?

    1. “I give up”?

      1. She was pretty hot in Barbarella.

        1. Jane Fonda was a pretty nice piece of ass 50 years ago. Then she got radicalized by Donald Sutherland. ‘American Dad’ did a whole episode on it.

          1. I would have radicalized her back then, as well.

  45. Well, one thing for sure: these antifa guys are really brave. The way they go one on one with big guys who can defend themselves is truly heroic.

    Haha l. Pussies.

  46. I’m sure someone at CNN is jumping to the defense of free press in the face of intimidation and violence.

    The Trump presidency has been most illuminating in revealing the incompetence and hypocrisy of the American media. None of these people were waxing poetics about constitutional crisis when Obama stuffed families cages and funded a major healthcare bill without congressional approval. A treaty with a terror sponsor without congressional input? Spying on American people? Prosecuting the record amount of whistleblowers?

    Just look at these photos of children behind cages! What have we became, is this the America our forefathers fought for? Oh oops, those were from the Obama years. Well geez, even though we ignored the issue when our guy was in president, clearly this is about injustice regardless of which party held power when it happened, right?

  47. Hard to believe, but I didn’t even know what antifa was until I visited Europe. In Spain, I saw their little symbols all over everything and learned what they were all about: painting graffiti and encouraging street violence. I wish they would do something worth while like, I don’t know, oppose actual fascism.

  48. According to Human Events dot com, Oakland area Antifa leaders are in communication with ISIS regarding training in tactics, bomb building, and poison, while another group has been attempting to purchase weapons from Mexican cartels. linky

    1. The link between Antifa and ISIS seems rather weak, at least according to your article.

      According to your article, three(!) American-based Antifa radicals were spotted meeting with ISIS while visiting Germany, and they were supposedly identified through their masks.

      No one has been charged with anything relating to associating with terrorists, however.

      Sure it may be that Antifa leaders are plotting with ISIS to do some serious shit. But your article seems more hype than fact when it comes to that claim.

      1. From the Ef Bee Eye “There is clearly overwhelming evidence that there are growing ties between U.S. radials and the Islamic State as well as several offshoots and splinter group affiliates.”
        Also, I misthreaded my other reply so here it is again:
        Huh. Well, I’m pretty sure it was only one or two Americans who met with Al Qaeda in the 90s, before they blew up a building in OKC and murdered hundreds of people. And since I support the first amendment, why would I object to thugs buying arms from a cartel?

        1. I’m scared. We all know al qaeda throws a mean milkshake.

          1. Uh huh. The Ef Bee Eye is claiming that they are seeking bomb making training from ISIS. Not saying I trust the FBI without Comey in charge, but it’s a pretty serious accusation. And throwing things at other people is not funny, it’s assult, you fascist sympathizer.

            1. “You don’t really believe this crap, do you?

        2. Yes I read the article. I understand what the FBI is claiming. But their claim is based on allegedly identifying three American antifa protestors visiting Germany, through their masks. Maybe, maybe not.

          Well, I’m pretty sure it was only one or two Americans who met with Al Qaeda in the 90s, before they blew up a building in OKC and murdered hundreds of people.

          umm wut? You’re referring to the Oklahoma City federal building bombing in 1995? I”m pretty sure the whole alleged connection to Al Qaeda was debunked a long time ago.

        1. “Noone cares”

          Let’s not drag Herman’s Hermits into this.

          1. Your ‘clever’ posts are as lame as you supposedly serious ones where you can’t be bothered to provide evidence for your bullshit.
            Just fuck off; everyone but your mommy will be pleased.

            1. Let’s not drag Herman’s Hermits or my mother into this.

              1. Just fuck off; even your mommy will be pleased.

                1. A little black spam flag for you.

                  1. Just fuck off, you pathetic piece of shit.

                    1. Another spam flag for the rude man.

      2. I heard about that meeting. ISIS told them to f*** off, you’re all a bunch of lily-white pu**ies. Seriously.

  49. Okay it is a logical fallacy known as burden of proof. Or will you only believe me if I provide a link?
    “One way in which one would attempt to shift the burden of proof is by committing a logical fallacy known as the argument from ignorance. It occurs when either a proposition is assumed to be true because it has not yet been proved false or a proposition is assumed to be false because it has not yet been proved true.
    Notice the last part: A proposition is assumed to be false because it has not yet been proved true. You are as guilty of a logical fallacy as you accuse Jesse of being.

  50. Ayn Rand was over 9000% right about anarchism infecting libertarianism. The lot of you are spouting concepts invented by Soviet propagandists whose intention it was to convince the gullible to adopt ideas which will inevitably lead to their discredit and defeat. Libertarianism will never work, nor win politically, as long as anarchists are taken seriously.

    Good day.

    1. Agreed. But Rand herself was neither an anarchist nor a libertarian. She was exclusively an objectivist and nothing else. In fact, she despised the entire libertarian movement from its start.

      In her own words: “All kinds of people today call themselves “libertarians,” especially something calling itself the New Right, which consists of hippies, except that they’re anarchists instead of collectivists… I could deal with a Marxist with a greater chance of reaching some kind of understanding, and with much greater respect. The anarchist is the scum of the intellectual world of the left, which has given them up. So the right picks up another leftist discard. That’s the Libertarian movement.”

      Personally, I, like Murray Rothbard did, find Ayn Rand to be an ideological, almost cultic leader of a brainwashed following of morality-hating freaks. She is a threat to the cause of liberty, peace, and prosperity, and should be treated as such.

      But you are right. Anarchism is another threat.

      1. Just call out the anarchists hiding as LINOs. They hate it and freak out.

      2. Rand was great at exposing the immorality and failure of collectivism, but not so good with a philosophy.

    2. stfu lolbert

  51. Huh. Well, I’m pretty sure it was only one or two Americans who met with Al Qaeda in the 90s, before they blew up a building in OKC and murdered hundreds of people. And since I support the first amendment, why would I object to thugs buying arms from a cartel?

    1. Second amendment? Whichever, they were all written by white men

  52. Antifa is a terrorist organization and should be treated as such.

  53. “If I were young I would be in Antifa. They were kind enough to say I was just for being here,” said Suzanne, a Portlander who has attended marches and rallies since the 1960s. “I even want the Proud Boys who are down the street to have free health care.”

    Olivia Katbi Smith, co-chair of the Portland DSA, told the Tribune that she hoped to promote the concept of “everyday anti-facism, since “antifa” can be an intimidating term.

    “They are a real threat to our community, and we have to show up,” she said of the Proud Boys. “If just one person acts on the violent rhetoric they spread, that could be fatal.”

    Despite the left’s pretense they don’t support antifa and their tactics some proggies didn’t get the message they should deny their support.

    https://pamplinmedia.com/pt/9-news/432419-341691-antifa-marches-downtown-portland-for-protest

    1. She’s been protesting since the 60s, so she’s at least 70, and still thinks government provided services are “free”?

      1. Slow learner. Typical leftist.

    2. And yet, all the violence seems to come from one side.

      Hm.

      1. It is us libertarians for sure. Bunch of wild eyed pot sniffing hippie anarchists.

  54. […] reason.com/2019/06/29/antifa-andy-ngo-mob-milkshake-violence/ […]

    1. Wow, check out this Bible sword blog. Some real fire-breathing fundamentalists here. Not that I disagree theologically, but wow, this is some real good-and-country stuff. Like a mixture of mike hukkabee and saun Hannity times two.

  55. I was just over at Ted Wheeler’s Twitter page. Wow. Talk about a tone deaf.

    That snivelling woke buffoon needs to clean this shit up or resign.

    Remember when all the lefties laughed ‘it’s just a milkshake?’ Yeh, well it escalated to quick drying cement. I read Ngo had a brain bleed. There’s also footage of Antifa roughing up an old man in a knapsack who was probably just at the wrong place and wrong time.

    They’re degenerate nihilists. But the law doesn’t seem to make them account.

    And people think they need to be afraid of ‘white supremacists’ and Trump?

    It is to laugh.

    1. Can Antifa be sued? I know their whole thing is anonymity, hence the pantyhose masks, and there is no central or local Antifa chapters, but certainly someone is paying them to manufacture these “milkshakes” and other weapons they use, and also to bus them to these demonstrations (probably a lot of them are locals in Portland, but in C-ville, most of them were imported from NYC and Philly). I joked earlier that maybe Trump is their benefactor, but more likely Soros or Tom Steyer. Ngo should sue them.

      1. The whole thing is just effen crazy from the people in their ranks to the media who defend them to law enforcement and so on.

        Of course he should sue. It makes no sense victims don’t have a chance at some justice beyond the cops.

        A gay, journalist was attacked. According to the narrative, he should be venerated but instead? Right….conservative. Silence.

        As we’ve said many times here on these Reason pages over the years. They don’t have principles.

        They’re just authoritarian psychos. End of story.

      2. I was wondering about that.
        If I’m Ngo, and Quillette, I’m doing everything I can to find out who’s donated, donating, to antifa – then suing the shit out of them.

        All of which is besides the clear conspiracy to violate civil rights. This is the exact scenario that prompted that law in the first place, decades ago

        1. He also needs to use any ‘platform’s they are using to organize or communicate. No doubt those outfits have already banned somebody, which means they are defacto supporting Antifa.

          1. Good point

          2. sue, not use

      3. Well, of course they have heavy duty backing. They’re not a spontaneous movement, they’re something the Democratic party turns on and off as needed.

        Through cutouts, of course, but they have backing. Remember when they rioted at Trump’s inauguration? Somebody came by and bailed them out, and that was some serious money.

        234 arrests and zero convictions, by the way. Seems it’s really hard to prove who committed a particular crime when everybody is dressed the same and wearing masks. And, of course, when they’re rioting against a Republican being inaugurated in a city as Democratic as DC…

      4. I not know about sued, but they can certainly be prosecuted, or at least beaten and shot when they overstep. I think some of them are really needing to get hurt before they finally back down.

    2. Afraid? Please. Is their behavior criminal? Yes. But until Antifa produces a Dylan Roof, Robert Bowers, Brenton Tarrant, or Anders Breivik, they should inspire as much fear in the average person as a furry convention with broken A/C.

      1. But until Antifa produces a Dylan Roof, Robert Bowers, Brenton Tarrant, or Anders Breivik,

        Give them time—in the 1960s and 70s, most domestic terrorists were leftists, and they especially enjoyed targeting the military, police, and banks with bombs; they occasionally kidnapped or murdered. Some are now university professors who may have inspired these Antifa-tards. The left right now has an aversion to guns, but if Trump is re-elected, I bet they will really lose their shit, and replace the milkshakes with something more lethal.

      2. So, like Micah Xavier Johnson, or James Hodgkinson, or Stephen Paddock?

        Or the killings committed by their Islamist allies?

      3. There have been several leftists who have shot people in recent years… Remember when Rand Paul and others got shot at? The various shootings of cops? Etc.

    3. They’re degenerate nihilists.

      Say what you will about the tenets of national socialism, dude, but at least it’s an ethos.

  56. […] Atlantic of “anti-fascist” activists throwing milkshakes at conservative politicians, journalists, or ordinary members of the […]

  57. I don’t really understand Portland. Is everyone just so bored there that they have nothing better to do? So was this a counter protest or a counter counter protest or just something to do in between cement lattes.

    I live in flyover country. Crap like this never happens here. Well if a cop shoots a kid maybe. I suppose the cure for boredom in these parts is pretty much drinking, drugs, or binge watching Netflix. There is crime and all that but not this stuff.

    Antifa vs proud boys

    I think they should just slug it out and whichever side is left standing wins and the other side has to leave while the townfolk watch through the windows.

    1. My money is on Proud Boys.

      1. (Theme song from Fistful of Dollars in background as a battered Antifa slowly rides away)

      2. (Proud boy picks up MAGA hat, dusts it off, puts it on his head. He turns and says “well fellas I guess this is our town now”)

        Fade to credits

      3. Should not. But if you like the westerns. You gotta see this.

        Danish orchestra doing the theme from For Two Dollars More.

        Holy Tuborg what fun that is.

        https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=DT1NJwEi6nw

    2. “I live in flyover country. Crap like this never happens here. Well if a cop shoots a kid maybe. I suppose the cure for boredom in these parts is pretty much drinking, drugs, or binge watching Netflix. ”

      Also, most of us have jobs to go to.

      1. No kidding. I don’t even have enough spare time to exterminate all the progtards! So im not sure what Pedo Jeffy is worried about. Maybe if i have a long weekend coming I could get to it.

        (Waits for Pedo Jeffy to repost this comment as absolute proof of my diabolical plan to exterminate all the progtards)

        1. But you do think that they should be exterminated. Or at the very least that all Marxists should be executed, Marxist belief being an act of treason. No?

          1. Imposing a Marxist regime, subverting the constitution, and enslaving free Americans certainly is. You’re free to believe in as much communism as you want. You are in no way free to act on it to enslave and kill free Americans.

            Once that bullshit starts, anything else is just self defense from innocent people protecting themselves from treasonous progressives.

            Simpler:

            I have a right to be free.

            You have no right to impose your Marxism

            1. “You’re free to believe in as much communism as you want. You are in no way free to act on it to enslave and kill free Americans.”

              That’s the exact logic that the Democrats use when they try to force Christian organizations to pay for contraception. “You’re free to believe in Christianity as much as you want, you just weren’t free to act on it to restrict people’s rights”. You’re just as authoritarian as they are.

              “Once that bullshit starts, anything else is just self defense from innocent people protecting themselves from treasonous progressives.”

              Does that include people advocating for a minimum wage? Sounds pretty Marxist to me. Should those people be assaulted, jailed, and executed? After all, according to you, they’re committing treason.

              Just admit it, you don’t believe in free speech at all. You’re a thug, not a libertarian.

              1. That’s the exact logic that the Democrats use when they try to force Christian organizations to pay for contraception. “You’re free to believe in Christianity as much as you want, you just weren’t free to act on it to restrict people’s rights”.

                Ummmm, no. There is no right to free contraceptives. The rights being violated by the Democrats were the rights of the Christians.

                And what part of ‘enslave and kill free Americans’ do you think is included in advocating for a minimum wage?

                You round them up and eliminate them when they do the thing they do best–attack people violently for trying to voice their own opinion.

                Quite honestly, if they can’t even let other talk without trying to kill them, sane people are under no obligation to try to fix that level of stupid, grind ’em up and use them for soybean mulch.

                The circle of life. From soy, to soyboy, and back into the ground to become soy again.

                1. They certainly are pushing towards being put back into th ground. It may soon become necessary to oblige them. Shitbags like Bignose will defend their treason and their violence to the end and beyond. Evil progtard toadies always slavishly defend their murderous marxist heroes.

              2. Insofar as Marxism includes the explicit goal of abolishing free economic associations, and eliminating representative forms of government to be replaced by an expressly totalitarian ‘vanguard’ then you are a self avowed enemy of the republic and should not be tolerated any more than any other violent subversive.

                Words have meaning. When you sue them you will be taken seriously.

  58. […] of the Atlantic of “anti-fascist” activists throwing milkshakes at conservative politicians, journalists, or ordinary members of the […]

  59. […] of the Atlantic of “anti-fascist” activists throwing milkshakes at conservative politicians, journalists, or every day shoppers of the […]

  60. […] of the Atlantic of “anti-fascist” activists throwing milkshakes at conservative politicians, journalists, or ordinary members of the […]

  61. I swear to God what kind of sad fucking aspie loser links to a website as though that is some kind of definitive guide on HOW TO TALK TO OTHER PEOPLE ABOUT THINGS ON THE INTERNET.

    Jeff “THESE ARE THE RULES FOR TALKING!!!”

    No one cares about your dumb fucking preferences Jeff. And no one cares whether you believe them or not either.

  62. […] was there “counter-protesting” an appearance by the Proud Boys, when several of the criminals decided to physically attack Ngo and steal his camera equipment, presumably to prevent him from possessing video proof of their […]

  63. […] of the Atlantic of “anti-fascist” activists throwing milkshakes at conservative politicians, journalists, or ordinary members of the […]

  64. […] we saw a very interesting news story reported from Portland, Oregon. A local Antifa group viciously assaulted a reporter covering their […]

  65. […] Atlantic of “anti-fascist” activists throwing milkshakes at conservative politicians, journalists, or ordinary members of the […]

  66. […] Antifa Mob Viciously Assaults Journalist Andy Ngo at Portland Rally – twitter update hospitali… […]

  67. Where are the Police? WTF? If the Police can’t or won’t deal with these Antifa cowards, call in the National Guard.

    1. That would require action from the Governor.

      Do you think Kate Brown is cut from a different cloth than the Mayor of Portland?

      But, were the politics reversed rest assured she’d be facing a slew of pointed questions from the press and other politicians. But, since they are not, the only thing we hear is crickets in the distance.

      Of course, I probably shouldn’t note that, since the media has largely declared this a nothingburger, this would be the proper time to find a lefty Antifa supporting media type (maybe even one of the 13 noted by Quillette to be closely affiliated with Antifa) and give him or her a Class A tune up.

      Yes, the rest of the media will come unglued, but that will only serve to cement their legacy of hypocrisy.

      It’s what they all want anyway.

      1. This is why I’m not kidding about martial law. These progtard mayors and governors are going to force the issue. They really are the enemy within.

  68. Still wondering where the correction about concrete is…

    1. I wouldn’t count on it making the cut

    2. What’s the correction? that there is or wasn’t quick-dry cement in the “vegan milkshakes”?

    3. So from what I can gather, there’s no hard (lol!) evidence there was q/d cement in the shakes. I guess I still find it interesting we’re haggling over this detail when milkshakes were explicitly sold at the even to be weaponized against Antifa targets.

      1. I’m not convinced by the officials. They’re a lot less willing to doxx and investigate dubious and controversial claims when they don’t matter for their purposes.

      2. There is video/still pics of them mixing cement in. I saw some earlier today.

  69. […] of the Atlantic of “anti-fascist” activists throwing milkshakes at conservative politicians, journalists, or ordinary members of the […]

  70. A Tale of Two Free Speeches:

    Danny Baker
    Employed by BBC
    Tweets picture of royal baby next to chimpanzee
    Fired by BBC for “racism”

    Jo Brand
    Employed by BBC
    Suggests on air that protesters should be using battery acid instead of milkshakes

  71. … Celebrated as an edgy, hip provocateur
    Not fired
    Not charged
    Defended as a Champion of Free Speech

    No hypocrisy here, nothing to see, move along

    [Fireworks exploding intensifies]

  72. There is a good reason Antifa only commits these acts in cities they know officials will not prosecute them and police will not intervene, they are cowards at heart. The problem with this attack is now open warfare has been declared on the media and I have to wonder how these same “journalists” will react when a reporter from Salon or Vox gets the crap beat out of them?

    1. To be sure, he did criticize Antifa, so…

      1. “To be sure”
        You’d think by now even typing that would be embarrassing, but the hair seem to be preventative.

  73. Crush the anti-fascist mob

    1. download best tamil movies from
      tamilgun

  74. […] of the Atlantic of “anti-fascist” activists throwing milkshakes at conservative politicians, journalists, or ordinary members of the […]

  75. […] Antifa thugs who attacked Quillette editor and photojournalist Andy Ngo in Portland yesterday did not quite manage to crack […]

  76. one who is harshly critical of them, to be sure

    *Nods slowly*

  77. Are these are the same people Nick and others at Reason think Libertarians have something in common with? ANTIFA are cowardly thugs who hide behind masks in order to intimidate anyone who disagrees with them. They purport to be anti-Fascist yet I have doubts they even know how to spell “Fascism” let alone any idea what it really means.

  78. […] Antifa thugs who attacked Quillette editor and photojournalist Andy Ngo in Portland yesterday did not quite manage to crack […]

  79. […] Antifa thugs who attacked Quillette editor and photojournalist Andy Ngo in Portland yesterday did not quite manage to crack […]

  80. […] attacked him on the streets of Portland during a Saturday afternoon demonstration,” Reason reports. The Daily Wire adds that three antifa fascists were arrested, though it’s unknown “if any of […]

  81. […] “Antifa Mob Viciously Assaults Journalist Andy Ngo at Portland Rally,” by Robby Soave […]

  82. […] “Antifa Mob Viciously Assaults Journalist Andy Ngo at Portland Rally,” by Robby Soave […]

  83. […] part is: we know PZ, we predicted it. Yesterday, we wrote about a Portland, Oregon Antifa group who viciously assaulted a reporter covering their march. PZ, we said […]

  84. […] Antifa Mob Viciously Assaults Journalist Andy Ngo at Portland Rally […]

  85. […] Ngo suffered potentially serious injuries in an assault by Antifa “activists” during a Portland […]

  86. Just keep on escalating things commies… It will work out great for you in the end…

    1. It’s working out pretty good for China. And if you think Trump is smarter than Xi, you’re part of the problem.

      1. No, Tony. You are part of the problem. Now go drink your Drano.

      2. Actually, I think Xi is more effective in a lot of ways… But mostly just because Trump is knee capped by idiots here.

        The Chinese are getting shit done because they don’t despise themselves, they’re not intentionally trying to fuck themselves over via stupid policies all the time, etc.

        Also, China isn’t communist anymore dude… They switched to the FAR more effective system of government known as fascism.

        If you think about it, that’s exactly what they are nowadays. And surprise surprise they’re doing okay. Fascism isn’t as good for economics as capitalism, but it is at least functional, unlike communism.

  87. […] If there are any doubts that the political thugs calling themselves Antifa are the closest thing we have to actual fascists in this country, the recent assault on reporter Andy Ngo in Portland, Oregon should resolve them.  Robby Soave at Reason.com writes about the attack. […]

  88. […]  And we see their evil shock troops driving people out of restaurants, spitting in their face, beating up journalists and others in the street and destroying property all while being ignored or even outright supported […]

  89. […] of the Atlantic of “anti-fascist” activists throwing milkshakes at conservative politicians, journalists, or ordinary people of the final […]

  90. […] recent assault on photojournalist and Quillette Editor Andy Ngo would seem to support the suggestion that this is less about halting fascism and more about […]

  91. […] commonly associated with left-wing “Antifa” protestors. Recently, masked protestors assaulted journalist Andy Ngo in downtown […]

  92. […] commonly associated with left-wing “Antifa” protestors. Recently, masked protestors assaulted journalist Andy Ngo in downtown […]

  93. […] a practice commonly associated with left-wing “Antifa” protestors. Recently, masked protestors assaulted journalist Andy Ngo in downtown […]

  94. […] commonly associated with left-wing “Antifa” protestors. Recently, masked protestors assaulted journalist Andy Ngo in downtown […]

  95. […] melalui artikel Joseph Bernstein di BuzzFeed tentang serangan yang sekarang terkenal dari Ngo oleh beberapa penjahat Antifa, dan saya terkejut oleh bagian […]

  96. […] few weeks ago Andy Ngo, a photojournalist and editor at Quillette, landed in the emergency room after a mob of antifa […]

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.