Free Speech

"Antifa" as Antipasto

I get it -- we've just been interpreting the word "antifa" wrong!


Maybe the "anti-" in "antifa" doesn't really mean against, but is just the Italian prefix for "before," as in "antipasto" (or, it turns out, "anticipate"). It comes before the planned fascism, as a way of paving the way for fascism, as antipasto makes us anticipate the pasta.

I mean, yeah, that prefix is usually rendered "ante-" in English, but fascism comes from Italian, so that must be it …. After all, it so well explains the many incidents we've seen; here's Avi Selk (Washington Post) writing yesterday about the most recent one, involving attacks on reporters (real physical attacks, not just verbal criticism) in D.C. over the weekend:

[Y]ou might expect that when Antifa can't find any fascists, it has nothing to fight. That seemed to be the situation this weekend, when a long-planned rally for far-right extremists fizzled into a paltry gathering of a few dozen white supremacists, unapproachable and nearly invisible behind a police blockade as they met without incident in a Washington D.C. park.

And yet Antifa still managed to fight — not fascists this time, but reporters….

A few blocks [from the rally and counter-rally], several dozen masked Antifa members marched up 13th Street in the early afternoon. They carried the movement's red-and-black flag, and some wore makeshift body armor even though no fascists were anywhere in sight.

When a Washington Post reporter tried to interview the antifascists, they refused to speak. When he followed them up the street with his cellphone camera, one of them shoved a black umbrella into his lens and several shouted: "No photos!"

"This can harm us," one of the protesters said, just before someone swatted the reporter's iPhone out of his hand and threw it into the middle of the street.

The reporter and camera were fine, but the incident was hardly isolated. Throughout the day, journalists covering the rally shared stories of cameras being yanked and reporters accosted by members of the same movement that claims it is protecting free society.

At the same event, NPR reporter Tim Mak watched Antifa protesters lob fireworks and bottles at the police separating them from the white supremacists.

Then he ducked as someone whipped an egg at his head….

Robyn Urback (CBC) has a similar story from Toronto:

A member of the news media was assaulted by a protester in Toronto this past weekend.

The altercation happened on camera, in front of police, with dozens of people standing by. The incident in which a journalist was struck by an activist — ironically, at an anti-hate rally — seemed entirely unprovoked: a pathetic attack on someone who was just there to do his job.

Every Canadian who respects the role of the news media (and knows that grown-ups aren't supposed to hit each other) ought to be outraged. Though, at a guess, at least a few readers are only learning about this incident now.

The encounter happened Saturday, when a number of anti-fascism groups assembled to counter a planned protest by the Calgary-based Worldwide Coalition Against Islam (WCAI) organization at Nathan Phillips Square, outside Toronto City Hall. The WCAI protest was actually cancelled ahead of time, but the counter-protest was held anyway, and it was there that a Toronto Sun photographer was attacked by a still-unidentified protester.

Forgive me for employing a lazy rhetorical technique here, but it's perhaps still the best way to emphasize the point: if that protester were an alt-right fanatic, and the journalist worked for a more centrist news organization, this column — written days after the incident — would be old news….

I'm telling you, antipasto.

NEXT: Plaintiff Dropping Case in Which He Got Order to Google to Vanish Photo from Search Results

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 or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Brilliant, accurate, and precise. But I hope you have good personal security. In California, the police tend not to interfere in antefa’s “peaceful demonstrations.” And don’t turn your back on any colleagues until you ascertain that they are not holding bicycle locks.

  2. The main difference is that pasta tastes better.

  3. The Antifa are naturally averse to reporters: They know they’re generally engaged in an illegal conspiracy to violently suppress the exercise of civil liberties by their foes, (18 U.S. Code ? 241 – Conspiracy against rights) and so place a high priority on retaining anonymity. Thus the masks, for instance: It does the police no good to prove that crimes were committed, if they can’t prove which mask clad thug committed them.

    So, of course they get violent if they see somebody with a camera. You’d get the same response from any criminal, if you tried photographing them in the act.

    1. I think it’s more the assault charges they’re hiding from than whatever that is.

      1. That’s the anti-Klan act, which makes it a crime for people to conspire together to intimidate or attack anybody in order to prevent them from exercising a civil right. And additionally makes it a crime to go about “in disguise” with the intent to do so, even if the attack doesn’t take place.

        Since the Antifa are organized for the specific purpose of violently preventing people they disagree with from exercising 1st amendment rights in public, and do so masked to conceal their identities, it’s right on point.

        I think this act is actually more a threat to them than local assault charges, because they seldom go where the fix is not in with the local authorities, and thus have comparatively little to fear about local charges being brought. While 18 U.S. Code ? 241 is a federal law, and could potentially be used against them even where they’re serving as surrogates for the local government, as in Charlottesville or Berkeley.

        Just as the Klan was frequently acting as a surrogate for local governments, and thus had no fear of local prosecution. The Antifa are just a modern Klan. Different targets, but otherwise basically identical.

        1. I don’t think you are formally wrong as to the law. I don’t think you are functionally correct, however – I doubt any prosecutor would bring such a trial on such a charge.
          And I’m not sure they would be wrong – that’s gonna be a tricky one for any jury, for reasons that are not hard to understand (and are arguably part of they juries are enshrined in the Constitution, whether I like it or not).

          On the other hand, their assaults (and sometimes batteries) are right out there and often caught on film. A much easier case to make, though you might not like it compared to your much more sweeping ambitions.

          If Antifa is the modern Klan, then the alt-right is…? Haha, come of it, Brett. Antifa sucks, and they suck just fine without your lowering yourself to paint Nazis as sacred martyrs.

          1. The original “Antifa” were Communists fighting NAZIs over which would get to turn Germany into a totalitarian state. There were no good guys in that fight.

            So, why pretend that recognizing today’s Antifa are a terrorist movement implies sympathy for every last victim they attack? That’s just an effort to intimidate people into closing their eyes to the problem. You should be ashamed of trying that tactic.

            Not everyone the Antifa chose as targets are horrible monsters, even if they pretend everyone they attack is a “NAZI”. And I’d say that riot in DC clarified the situation nicely: A couple dozen right wing idiots, and hundreds of Antifa. And denied a chance to ‘bash a fash’, they tuned their violence on the police, reporters, and innocent passerby’s.

            What does that say about who is the greater threat? The tiny spent movement with no friends, or the large and growing movement with government allies?

            1. So you got the sense I was trying to urge people to ignore Antifa. OK, dude.

              I can call Antifa bad, but also say it’s not quite the Klan. This is not to ignore their tactics.

              And for terrorists, they seem to have a remarkably low death toll compared to just about all the other ones I know.

              But yeah, when they come out it’s versus white supremacists. If you want to die on the hill that white supremacists is not the same as Nazi, go ahead, knock yourself out.

              I’m not one for collective guilt, but it was one of the Nazis who killed someone. Antifa has not.

              1. Yeah, nope. When they come out, they always call whoever they feel like attacking ‘white supremacists’.

                Doesn’t mean they always are.

                1. One of the great achievements of America’s liberal-libertarian mainstream during my lifetime is that bigots no longer wish to be known as racists, misogynists, gay-bashers, etc.

                  1. No, they want to be known as warriors for social justice.

              2. The guy in the car panicked and hit the gas as he was being attacked by leftists. He won’t be convicted.

                1. Good God, you are the worst.

                2. You’re full of shit.

              3. Sarcastro, let’s see if you can be honest. Let’s compare the media coverage of the ranchers up in the North West a few years back (Stormed the government building in a rural location) to the coverage of antifa in general. Please defend the bias there.

          2. “If Antifa is the modern Klan, then the alt-right is…? ”

            Well, you call them “nazi-types”. I’m not sure why Brett doesn’t get to compare antifa to the klan if you get to compare the alt-right to nazis. The alt-right sure hasn’t committed any genocide.

            1. Right, they just argue for ethnic cleansing…

              Antifa, for all it’s dumb methods to achieve fascist ends, isn’t arguing for anything like that.

              Anyhow ‘which side is worse’ is a dumb game to get tempted into. Antifa is bad, but somehow not the Klan or terrorists. And if that makes me a Commie Antifa apologist, then I think y’all are overplaying your moral highground.

              1. “Antifa, for all it’s dumb methods to achieve fascist ends, isn’t arguing for anything like that.”

                They’re beating people who disagree with them. Not just arguing for it, but doing it.

                “Anyhow ‘which side is worse’ is a dumb game to get tempted into.”

                Not in this case. People who beat other people are worse than people who peacefully argue for bad things. People who kill others with cars, or shoot Congressmen, are worse than people who beat other people. It’s not that difficult.

                1. Stick with the “Jews will not replace us” and “blood and soil” chanters, TwelveIncher.

                  It suits you.

                2. First, it’s still a dumb game – what is the utility in comparing these two?

                  Second, I’m not one to speculate but I’m quite comfortable deciding that these white supremacists would be quite content to get violent.

                  1. Perhaps they would, but the Antifa come right out and state their intention to get violent. Getting violent with people who disagree with them is their stated goal.

                    And, as I pointed out, lacking a chance to get violent with their purported enemies in D.C., they went ahead and got violent with the media, the police, and random passerby’s.

                    But in your world being comfortable deciding somebody would like to get violent trumps somebody actually getting violent.

                    1. As I said, this is a dumb game.
                      Antifa is bad, we should enforce the laws regarding any and all the violence they do (bike locks, shoving reporters, eggings, trash-can fires…). And discuss why we fail to do so.
                      These resurgent Nazis are also bad, and we should also enforce the laws regarding any and all violence they do (running people over with cars, firing guns at protestors…). And discuss why we fail to do so.

                      Using either to argue that the other is individually or collectively more or less bad is worse than pointless, it’s letting partisanship get in the way of rule of law.

                    2. I would call that progress. You’ve gotten past that “formally correct, but not functionally correct” line.

                      Yes, people who conspire to violently attack others should be prosecuted for doing so, regardless of their politics, or the politics of their victims. I’m glad we can agree on that.

                    3. I’m quite consistent with my previous positing that prosecutors aren’t going to press the charge you are so excited about, but may well do so when it comes to actual assault and battery.

                    4. The charge I’m “so excited about” does relate to actual assault and battery. It just makes it a federal matter where the actual assault and battery is part of a concerted effort to prevent/punish people for exercising a civil liberty. Which is Antifa’s reason for being, and they make no bones about it.

                      The reason it’s a federal law is because the Klan would attack people, and then local police would refuse to defend those people, and wouldn’t bring charges against the Klan for attacking them. Just as localities like Berkeley do to protect the Antifa.

                    5. Similar to the way the feds will use “Violation of Civil Rights” to make a federal case when local officials are either unable or unwilling to charge perpetrators.

                    6. Except that there have been cases brought in state court. Maybe not as many as you’d like, since you’ve decided they are terrorists, but this is not quite Massive Resistence.

                      And, as I said yesterday, think about what it would mean as a practical matter if the Feds started taking sides in this melee.
                      Regardless of right or wrong, enhanced rule of law would not be the result of the policy you want.

                      FlameCCT has the correct clear and convincing kind of scenario where dual soverigns could come into play, but that paralell hasn’t come up yet.

                    7. “And, as I said yesterday, think about what it would mean as a practical matter if the Feds started taking sides in this melee.”

                      I want them to take sides. One side showed up to speak. The other showed up to assault them. How does that NOT call for taking sides?

                    8. When, as has been the case with Civil Rights prosecutions, it is publicly clear that state law has fails, as FlameCCT said, and you’ve implied.

                      You do see how ‘taking sides’ would end up accomplishing nothing you or I want, no? I can’t tell if you are want righteous action for righeousness’ sake or to fulfill your prophecy of the left getting violent, but mass arrests of counterprotestors who look Antifa-ish isn’t how you stop Antifa. Or the Alt-Right.

                    9. Time was, conservative middle America outlawed Nazi rallies, and flaming leftists in the ACLU defended them. How times have chaged.

                      At least, that’s what Russian trolls are pushing. To both sides: You will think about right wing as Nazis…you will conflat the two. Obey…

              2. Do you have any examples sarcastro? After all the left is basically calling everyone on the right nazis at this point.

                1. Examples of what? A Crackdown not eliminating the associated ideology? I’d say Civil Rights.
                  Of when federal government stepping in and re-prosecuting was actually hellpful? That’s more rare, but I’d say I’d say Civil Rights.

        2. Since the Antifa are organized for the specific purpose of violently preventing people they disagree with from exercising 1st amendment rights in public, and do so masked to conceal their identities, it’s right on point…….The Antifa are just a modern Klan.

          I agree that Antifa are scum and ought to be prosecuted for their violence. But just as a pure matter of fact they are very far from the Klan. How many have they lynched?

          1. Give them time; They’ve already put people in the hospital, and their violence is still escalating. It’s only a matter of time before they kill someone.

            1. Well last year one of the white supremacists that antifa was protesting actually did kill somebody. Are they subject to the same slippery slope?

              1. Oh, we’re counting loosely but never officially associated people now? So you’re counting BLM with the murder of a bunch of cops, for example, NTOJ?

            2. So they are guilty of things they haven’t done, because you think they will eventually do them.

              Interesting outlook, for a psychiatrist.

              1. No, at this point they’re guilty of what they’ve actually done, which was to seek out and attack people peacefully saying things they didn’t like. And isn’t that bad enough for you?

                I’m just anticipating that, given their escalating violence and track record of hospitalizing people, sooner or later they’re going to kill somebody. You can only crack so many skulls before somebody dies.

                1. at this point they’re guilty of what they’ve actually done, which was to seek out and attack people peacefully saying things they didn’t like. And isn’t that bad enough for you?

                  It is bad enough. Can you read? What do you think I meant when I wrote, just above, that

                  I agree that Antifa are scum and ought to be prosecuted for their violence.

                  And if they do kill someone, which I agree is not unlikely, the killers should be prosecuted for murder, but they will still have quite a ways to go to match the Klan.

                  1. Yes, and I want them stopped BEFORE they grow to match the Klan.

                    1. Then concentrate on the bad things they are doing, not some slippery slope speculation that undercuts the case with drama.

                    2. Do you agree that you have zero basis for claiming I’m sympathetic to Antifa, and that there record of violence isn’t bad enough for me?

                    3. I’ll agree to that when you agree that they’re properly subject to enforcement of the anti-Klan acts.

                      That you say they’re the same as the Klan is hardly necessary, I’m not saying that. I’m saying they’re the same as the Klan in legally relevant ways. Not that they’re identical.

                    4. In case I’m being unclear, I don’t want the Antifa treated as an organization that has criminal members. Treating it that way is a fundamental evasion of what the Antifa really is.

                      I want it treated as what it actually is: A criminal organization.

                    5. Haha, you’re not going to RICO Antifa. For both legal and practical reasons.

                    6. Yes, and I want them stopped BEFORE they grow to match the Klan.

                      They haven’t even caught up to Dylann Roof yet, or James Alex Fields for that matter.

    2. Antifa need chipping.

      1. Why do you hate the poor innocent wood chippers so much? 🙂

      2. Bigots need replacing. And it is happening every day, as cranky old right-wing bigots die off and are replaced by better Americans in our electorate.

    3. So how do you identify “Antifa” members?

  4. By this point it’s become almost pass? to point out the irony that Antifa’s tactics would have the Brownshirts nodding in approval. We live in strange times indeed…

  5. The Antifa seem strangely oblivious to the irony in the fact that they literally wear black shirts.

  6. Antefa


  7. I prefer anchovies

  8. Pantifa. Always in a bunch.

    1. Don’t get your bundies in and unch.

  9. I’m shocked that people are shocked that communists behave the way they have for decades.

    Literally the only thing new here is that some people are starting to wake up because there’s no way for the media to spin this in their favor.

    1. You may be correct in kind, but I very much doubt you are correct in degree. And that’s assuming that you’re not just trying the ‘liberals are all violent secret-Stalins’ track.

      Just like how Nazi-types have always been around with about the same agenda and sometimes violent methods, but now they have become a much more serious deal both on the streets and in politics.

      Whether it’s Trump or the Internet or just the pendulum of history, I don’t know. But this here is somewhat new in the post-Vietnam era.

      1. The Fascists and Communists seem to have a kind of symbiotic relationship. As one increases in notoriety so will the other. This happened in the 20s/30s (obviously), the 60s/70s (weather underground was around at about the same time as the last gasp of the Wallace type segregationists), and now again.

      2. “now they have become a much more serious deal both on the streets and in politics.”

        20 neo-nazis in DC on Sunday. Serious deal!

        Even last year in Virginia it was 100-150 guys.

        In a country of 335 million you can find 150 people to march for anything. Nazis have been marching for decades [remember the ACLU and Skoie].

        They are only a “serious deal” as a “conservatives are all violent secret-Nazis” club against conservatives.

        1. “remember the ACLU and Skoie”

          It’s Skokie.

          1. “I hate Illinois Nazis.”

        2. They’re running for office, Bob.

          1. So are Democratic-Socialists like Sanders, Ocasio-Cortez, not to mention their historical predecessors like Democratic-Socialist Vladimir Lenin or more recently Democratic-Socialist Hugo Chavez.

          2. “They’re running for office, Bob.”

            So what? They get nominations in no hope races because no one else wants to get whipped in a hopeless cause.

            They lose by huge margins in contested primaries. Paul Nehlan got 11% of the vote yesterday running for Ryan’s old seat.

            General elections are slaughters also.

            David Duke finished in the top two in the primary in Louisiana in 1990 or so. If anything, that was the high water mark for extremist racists.

            None of these clowns could hope to win a contested nomination now.

            1. They’re winning contested GOP primaries now. This isn’t some media-generated narrative; there is a rise of white nationalism going on right now both on the streets and in the GOP.

              And DSA is quite another thing from the alt-right FlameCCT. There is indeed a rise in the use of the world socialist, and policies that Europe has been practicing for quite a while. You may not like it, you may think it’ll lead to Venezuela, but minimum basic income isn’t ethnic cleansing.

              1. “They’re winning contested GOP primaries now. ”

                Fake news.

                No Nazi has won a primary.

                1. Russel Walker

                  Paul Nehlen isn’t winning, but is doing embarrassingly well for how blatantly antisemetic he is.

                  I thought there was at least one more this week even. I must have misread something.

                  1. he won 824 votes. That is not a contested election

        3. It’s only “a club against conservatives” to the extent conservatives seem to welcome right wing insurrectionists as useful allies.

          Remember, “fine people on both sides?”

          Some who follow today’s politics are troubled by frightening echoes from the past. Fascism never came to power by majority support, in Italy or Germany. It came to power when socialists and conservatives couldn’t govern together effectively.

          Parliamentary ability to cope broke down. Crisis after crisis followed, with ineffectual responses from governments. That, in turn, encouraged extremists on the left and right to clash openly and violently, both over the unresolved issues, and because in the prevailing power vacuum they could get away with it. The situation resolved when conservatives decided to accept support from fascists, to dominate socialists politically. The conservatives expected to control the fascists, as minority-party allies. On the basis of that conservative blunder, the catastrophe ensued.

          So yeah, mainstream conservatism needs to reject Trumpism’s open efforts to ally conservatism with far-right insurrectionism, and repeat Europe’s blunder. Until that happens, would-be right-wing triumphalists will hear reminders about ugly European history which now seems all-too-familiar. Conservatives ought to be listening to what they hear. Indeed, listening and responding to those reminders has become an urgent test of whether mainstream conservatism even exists in America.

          1. “It’s only “a club against conservatives” to the extent conservatives seem to welcome right wing insurrectionists as useful allies.”

            At least according to Progressive politicians and media while at the same time those same Progressive politicians and media (especially CNN) not only welcome but encourage the violence of groups like Antifa.

            1. I haven’t hesitated to criticize left-wing lunacy, and indeed, also Democratic Party lunacy. I’m now looking for Republican Party criticism of right-wing lunacy, and not finding it. If you are inclined to suggest, “Why should they do it, when Democrats aren’t,” then that just makes it worse. It concedes the crisis is a good fit for the cautionary European example which I suggest the U.S. would be unwise to repeat.

              Of course, you may not be thinking about that at all, but only looking for a subject change.

          2. “Some who follow today’s politics are troubled by frightening echoes from the past. ”

            You need to get your hearing checked. There are no such echos.

            The media blows up a few weirdos into a vast movement for clicks and ratings. Its a fantasy.

            1. Aren’t you the guy saying the left has become a vast violent movement using about the same logic? And you ain’t even in it for the clicks and raitings!

              1. No, I would say that there’s a faction of the left that’s a violent movement, and the rest of the left has way, way too much tolerance for it. But for now it’s just a faction, not the whole.

                History suggests that it doesn’t have to stay that way. I suggest we try learning from history for once.

                1. Same of the right and the alt-right white supremecists. Except the paralell fails in that the latter are winning contested primary elections, have a President who refuses to condemn them, and advocate for more than silencing the other side (which is bad enough).

                  History is full of reactionary groups falling by the wayside as well. (Know-nothings spring to mind). That’s why I’m optimistic we’ll find our way out of this partisan morass, even if I don’t know how.
                  I do know that history shows rounding up partisan hooligans isn’t the path to ending that hooliganism unless you have full public buy in, and here you do not.

        4. Besides, they’re really fine people, right, Bob?

      3. Ahhh yes… the Trump is a nazi meme. And what’s this about secret-stalin supporters? You’re pretty open about your ideals.

        1. Not what I said, but shine on, you crazy diamond!

  10. Helpful translations of MSM ANTIFA protest headlines

    “Alt right brawls with counterprotestors!”: ANTIFA attacks other slightly less extreme leftwing groups

    “Far right brawls with counterprotestors!”: ANTIFA attacks random people

    “Neonazis attack antiracist counterprotestors!”: ANTIFA attacks a peaceful conservative march

    “Violence between Neonazis and counterprotestors!”: An especially violent confrontation instigated entirely by ANTIFA where there is already widely circulated footage they can’t sweep under the rug.

    1. CNN calls them a “anti hate” organization.

    2. And so how do you identify members of “Antifa”?

      1. Pacific,
        I would suggest police use marker dye and spray them when they get violent. Makes it much easier to identify them.

    3. It’s incredible how enthusiastically some on here give up clear moral high ground in attempts to make Antifa a little worse and the alt-right totally fine.

      1. I’d defy you to identify anybody saying the “alt-right” are totally fine. Stupid assholes who none the less have 1st amendment rights, more like it.

        And you don’t need to make the Antifa any worse, they’re already bad enough to belong in prison. Conspiring to violently attack people for exercising their civil rights is a felony even if you find the people being attacked distasteful.

        I am increasingly horrified by how comfortable the left is getting with “no-platforming”, and how indifferent they’re becoming to whether or not it’s being accomplished by legal means. I’m watching what remains of the left’s commitment to achieving its ends peacefully dissolve in real time.

        1. The Nazis/alt-right are not clean of violence. Not that it should matter.

          The impressive bit is how you’re taking a fact pattern that is great for your side and turning it into delusionary claptrap in order to keep things as close to black-and-white rah rah as possible.

          And don’t think I didn’t notice the pivot from the always bad heckler’s veto to the more general ‘no platforming.’
          And your sudden cry to hew to norms.

          Of course, the cries of ‘the left are gonna get violent soon’ is something I’ve been hearing forever. Often to rationalize violence on the other side (didja see the chipper comment?)

          1. Sarcastro, while the effort to win arguments by silencing your opponent, rather than persuasively responding to what he says, is not always a crime, it IS pretty much always horrible for a functioning democracy. And I do consider this one of the worst features of leftism, the perpetual effort to silence rather than debate.

            And it’s a problem even if it is accomplished by nominally legal conspiracies, such as the one that’s gotten Infowars kicked off so many platforms, or has denuded so many colleges of any conservative voices.

            Finally, and critically, it’s not a matter of “the left are gonna get violent soon”. It hasn’t been for a matter of “soon” for a long while. The left were getting violent all through 2016. Rioting, burning cars, attacking people trying to peacefully attend political rallies.

            If only it WERE a question of them becoming violent, rather than already being violent.

            1. Your absolutism is an amusing reversal of the right’s past positions on sex educaiton and obscenity and the like.

              There are lines of what counts as discource. Those lines must not be legal, but they are existant and have always been.

              For instance, I believe there should be a concerted effort to get more conservative points of view in academia. I do not believe there should be the same effort regarding Holocaust deniers. Can I make hard-and-fast rules where that line is? I cannot. But to insisit now that the Republic relies on their being no lines where poeople can declare ‘I will not assist you in disseminating your ideas’ is reductive and historically wrong.

              As for the left getting violent recently, your low bar betrays your melodrama. You could as easily be yelling about BLAACK PANTHERS, or They’re calling Bush a Nazi or redbaiting or any in a long line of ‘the left is suddenly violent’ crisis narratives.

              1. Rep. Scalise still walks with a limp, after a member of the left tried to murder the Republican House caucus. Rand Paul will probably be scarfing pain killers for the rest of his life. Milo Yiannopoulos can’t speak at college campuses because violent riots erupt if he tries, and he’s hardly alone in that.

                People with tickets couldn’t make it to Trump’s inaugural because of rioters deliberately obstructing them.

                What are you waiting for, car bombings?

                It seems to me that, yes, you aren’t concerned enough.

                And your casual attitude about viewpoints being systematically censored disturbs me, too.

                1. Scalise and Paul are not Antifa. Paul isn’t even political, dude. Milo was getting exactly what he wanted, and is now wasting away without it.
                  And then tying those to like Facebook and Twitter banning Alex Jones? That’s quite a stretch. Probably why you didn’t bother to actually connect it.

                  You’ve weaved together some oftentimes apolitical bad actors, generalizing based on smaller incidents, grievence seeking about social media, and speculation about future violence. It’s pretty weak, unless you want to be afraid.

                  I’m not the radical one here, nor am I the censor. You believe all viewpoints deserve a platform, regardless of what the hosting company wants? Because that’s actually pretty radical, and I’m pretty sure it’s against the First Amendment.

                  1. What, you think what happened to Alex Jones was spontaneous? Or will stop with him?

                    Maybe you don’t remember Operation Choke Point? It isn’t like the government held a press conference announcing it. It was a secret program coercing businesses into refusing service to industries and businesses the administration disliked.

                    You think the deplatforming movement is innocent, that there’s no coercion involved? I think you’re entirely too pollyannaish.

                    1. I see no evidence that it was any more than it seems, and I don’t think he’ll be the last, but I also don’t think there’s the inevitable slippery slope you’re on about. (And kinda shoehorning into this Antifa discussion, but it’s all good.)

                      We’ve discussed Choke Point before, and how there’s a viewpoint-neutral explanation, but it’s not a good look and they should have realized that.

                      The only coercion I see is consumer-facing businesses performatively rejecting Trump and the right, and manufacturing-facing businesses performatively embracing Trump. Which IMO says a lot more about Trump’s distortion the relationship between the government and industry than it does about whatever shadowy forces you’re assuming.

                      I’ll cop to being a bit pollyannaish. Cynicism is all fine and good, but it’s not cynicism that leads you to posit puppetmasters behind the scenes.

                  2. Paul isn’t even political, dude.

                    Holy fuck, you’re incredibly gullible or dishonest

          2. ‘the left are gonna get violent soon’

            The left has always been violent. From the Weathermen to the guy who shot Steve Scalise.

            Keith Ellison has openly praised the Antifa manual as a way to get Trump. Deputy DNC chair and the likely next AG of Minnesota.

            The violent left is mainstreamed in your party son.

            1. Been hearing that about my party since 1998. Still don’t believe it. Don’t believe it about the right either, no matter how much they stroke their guns and post about killing me before I enslave them.

              1. There’s a difference between not believing what’s actually happened and not believing what someone is predicting is going to happen, Sarcastro.

        2. It always makes me laugh when I talk to a leftist that doesn’t know what the Berlin Wall was nicknamed…

          Antifa Wall

          1. I mean, do you think North Korea is a democracy?

            1. You and your weird idiotic non sequitors. You do realize why I posted that right? Just because someone calls antif “anti-fascist” doesn’t make them less fascist. They are using the same exact tactics brown shirts did and you sit here happily applauding like an ignorant trained seal. You still refuse to recognize the issue of no platforming going on even with people like Jordan Peterson. You ignore the fact that various factions inside colleges also seek to silence a political voice. You claim there is a violent alt-right while declaring nodding your head as others on your side basically claim anyone right of Sanders is part of the alt right.

              You’re just a sad person.

              1. Then we both agree that names don’t mean much.
                And we both agree Antifa is fascistic.

                You have this very bad habit of assuming my opinions without reading the comments. I’m not applauding Antifa, Jesse.

                I’m actually a pretty happy person, but thanks for your concern.

  11. ANTIFA’s people walk like fascists, talk like fascists, dress like fascists, and act like fascists . . . who would think they might be fascist?

    1. Anyone who knows the definition of fascism, and anyone who knows that “anti fa” stands for “anti-fascism.” Maybe one or two others.

      1. LMAO.
        Anyone who knows the history of “antifa” aka anti-fascism also knows that they were Communists opposing fascists. Just as anyone that knows the history of Democratic-Socialism, knows that they too were Communists.

      2. “anti fa” stands for “anti-fascism.”

        “People’s Republic” and “Democratic People’s Republic” stand for the democratic rule of the people I guess.

        They can call themselves “anti-fascist” all they want, don’t make it true.

      3. What IS the definition of “fascism”? Is there one that doesn’t mostly serve its users’ agenda?

      4. What IS the definition of “fascism”? Is there one that doesn’t mostly serve its users’ agenda?

  12. The worst part about antifa is they make me feel like Nixon’s silent majority.

  13. If these people are masked, how can one be sure who they really are? And what is “Antifa”, by the way?

    1. “If these people are masked, how can one be sure who they really are?”

      Hi there, Mr. Berra, good to see you!

    2. Personally, I’d suggest dye bombs.

      1. Yup. Just spray them with dye, which is a non-lethal response to their violent behavior.

    3. “Anti-fascism.”

  14. I’m genuinely upset, scared, for our republic. The tacit support for Antifa from the mainstream press and local governments; indeed, the over support for Antifa from some news outlets, like CNN, is not only reprehensible, in my analysis it is illegal, and seditious. Don’t they appreciate, in their hearts, that this crowd is violent? They seem perfectly willing to go along with the violence to disrupt this administration, and suppress conservative thought.

    I am also disappointed and puzzled that the DOJ and FBI aren’t pursuing Antifa. Who are they? Who’s funding them, organizing them? I guess the administration really doesn’t have the DOJ and FBI under control.

    1. I’ve remarked before: I think this is the real purpose of the Mueller investigation: So long as Mueller’s investigation is ongoing, any staffing changes at the FBI or DOJ that Trump attempts can be construed as “obstruction of justice”. Just as Comey’s firing was, despite being over-determined by multiple causes.

      Trump still hasn’t taken operational control over large parts of the federal bureaucracy, and locking him out of control of the parts that investigate and prosecute crimes is likely the deep state’s highest priority, as they stand a good chance of being the subjects of those investigations if Trump ever does end up in a position to issue orders that can’t be ignored.

    2. You’re scared for the Republic and so you want to bring back sedition?

      Get stuffed.

      1. You’re an idiot, or a troll, maybe both.

        1. To be clear, you want to shut down CNN, to prevent fascism from rising?

          1. Eh, CNN already brought back sedition. He didn’t say anything about making sedition a crime.

            So, to be clear, you’re making up the part about his wanting to shut down CNN

            1. Sedition is a crime. And to also be clear, you’ve both made up the part about CNN committing sedition.

              1. The Alien and Sedition acts are history. So is the Logan act, though Mueller appears not to have gotten the memo.

                1. Neither has ThePublius.

                2. But they still get to play with the emoluments!

                  Liberals love weaponizing the law when they don’t get their way.

        2. He’s both. And he’s open about it.

  15. 1. login using plain explorer to comment, and -dog almighty- I HATE having to surf the web nekkid w/out adblock, noscript, ghostery, etc: it is an endless cesspool of shitty ads shoved up my ass will-I nill-I, with dialog boxes all over, stupid website tricks trying to get tricky clicks, and with the display jumping up and down for a minute or two, it is nearly impossible to click on your next destination…
    so, for ALL you websites (which is nearly all of them) who DARE bitch about your marks, er, customers using adblock, etc, FUCK YOU, YOU have made the situation intolerable, we only react in self defense…
    2. I guess I m -like- shallow and callow, but when you can’t bother to spell out fascist in anti-fa, I kinda, sorta lose a lot of respect for your lazy opposition… (‘uh, it has an ‘s’ AND a ‘c’ ? um, let’s just go with ‘fa’ ! ‘) not to mention, the concepts of self-awareness, hypocrisy, and intolerance have apparently lost all meaning, where they simply don’t apply to the self-appointed, self-anointed, self-congratulatory perfected cohort of so-called anti-fa children…
    yeah, you useless young-and-stupids invented morality and ethics… EMPIRE is the enemy of us all, not old white ‘fa’ guys… (AND Empire doesn’t give a shit about your race either way: they use you as a tool either way, and they crush you in their machinery either way… all the same to Empire…)

  16. By the way, Antifa calling themselves anti-fascist, and those opposed to Trump calling him and his administration fascist, and people calling conservatives and capitalists fascists is absurd. It is as completely absurd as the absurdity in Orwell’s 1984. The “completeness” is that they, indeed, are the ones behaving as fascists behaved, and advocating what fascists advocated.

    Dinesh D’souza hit the nail on the head with his book “The Big Lie: Exposing the Nazi Roots of the American Left.” The actions, rhetoric, tactics of the progressive left and the Democratic party parallel those of the Nazi movement.

    The conservative, old, white man of today is the Jew of ’20’s and ’30’s Germany.

    1. I’m not fascist, YOU’RE fascist!


      1. Well, if the brownshirt fits.

    2. “Dinesh D’Souza hit the nail…”


    3. “The conservative, old, white man of today is the Jew of ’20’s and ’30’s Germany.”

      You’re a fool, an idiot, and a disgusting human being.

      1. Does it hurt being that ignorant Otis?
        Or just normal for a Progressive Plantation serf?

        1. You have to admit wrapping yourself in the Holocaust is a pretty rough comparison to make for any group, much less the dominant one.

          1. Actually the National Socialists were the minority in 1920s/30s Germany and used their “brownshirts/Sturmabteilung” (Kristallnacht) similar to the way Progressives use antifa for violence against opposition. Also similar to the way Democratic-Socialist Vladimir Lenin used “bolsheviks/Cheka” (Red Terror).

            1. And Hitler loved his dog; doesn’t mean all dog lovers are Hitler.

              I did call Antifa fascists above. I’m not going to call them Nazis or Stalinists, though.

              1. No, I’d say they’re not Nazis or Stalinists, yet. Trending in that direction, but they’ve got a long way to go yet before they hit the big time. I’d just prefer to shut them down before they rack up the same kind of death toll.

                They’ve already earned being shut down, by virtue of announcing their intent to violently stop people from saying things they disapprove of, and then acting on the threat.

                But what I’d really like to see happen is for the DoJ to exert a bit more effort to find out who’s pulling their strings. Because they don’t look to me like a spontaneous movement.

                1. You’re spending a lot of time in the speculative evil lib future when there’s plenty of wrondoing on the left to talk about in the present.

                  Maybe not as sexy and oppressive as you want, but we can’t always get what we want.

                  Your second paragraph fails Brandenburg pretty blatantly. You’re not going to get resonable doubt for some kind of collective guilt conspiracy charge.

                  Your third paragraph is just the usual ‘no one I know voted for Nixon.’ Just because you and I can’t relate doesn’t mean you should jump on the tin foil.
                  Violent young yahoos channeling their violence through partisanship and organizing over the Internet is new, it’s not normal, but it’s not unbelievable at all.

                  1. “You’re not going to get reasonable doubt for some kind of collective guilt conspiracy charge.”

                    Look, it’s not like they’re secretive about being violent. Probably the thing that most puzzles me about the left’s reaction to the Antifa is that: All this questioning about the Antifa being a conspiracy to violently punish the exercise of civil rights, when they don’t pretend otherwise!

                    1. That’s the wrong threshold, though. Look at the actual facts of Brandenberg. Antifa is nowhere near.

        2. The only ignorance you should be confronting is your own. Especially if you believe the experiences of today’s conservatives (calling them old and white is redundant) are in any way analogous to those of Germany’s Jews.

  17. Jesse, as to that wildlife refuge versus Antifa,

    Those two things were covered differently because one is violent reactions to a one-day protest and the other is a multi-day armed takeover of a federal building.

    Both are bad, for very different reasons.
    And both lend themselves to very different media coverage, given the purpose, media engagement strategies, length of time, etc.

    And stop calling me dishonest, it lays bare a desperate narrativism in you I don’t think you need.

    1. “and the other is a multi-day armed takeover of a federal building.”

      A vacant federal building, mind you. The only reason they knew it had been taken over was the press release.

      1. Well then, that’s OK!

    2. Those two things were covered differently because one was done by the right and the other by the left.

      The media just follows the no enemies to the left mantra.

      1. I gave three reasons for different media coverage that were not partisan that you ignored because you gotta be oppressed.

        My favorite is how the takeover had lots of people streaming lots of amusing crazy stuff on the Internet. Whereas Antifa is anonymous. Doesn’t take ideology to see which one the media got more into.

    3. “a multi-day armed takeover of a federal building”

      At this point, the American Indian occupation of Alcatraz is really old news.

  18. “A few blocks [from the rally and counter-rally], several dozen masked Antifa members marched up 13th Street in the early afternoon. They carried the movement’s red-and-black flag, and some wore makeshift body armor even though no fascists were anywhere in sight.”

    Sure they were in sight. They could be seen marching up 13th Street in the early afternoon.

Please to post comments