Activism, Books, Free Speech, History, Journalism, Law, Politics, Recommended

How Antifa’s Apologists Fell in Love With Street Violence

A day before the 2017 Women’s March, spectators and activists of all stripes descended on Washington, D.C. for the inauguration of President Trump. Supporters of the new president wore “Make America Great Again” baseball caps and toted “Trump-Pence 2016” signs. Detractors were more colorful.

“Trump is the symptom, capitalism is the disease, socialism is the cure,” read one sign, wielded by a woman with a T-shirt depicting a clenched fist.

Others were at least funny: I spotted a man holding a sign featuring a cartoon Batman slapping Trump in the face with the caption “Stop tweeting!”—a parody of a drawing from the Batman comics, in which the caped crusader slaps Robin.

The demonstrations were mostly peaceful. Mostly.

Masked protesters known simultaneously as the “black bloc” (because they wear black clothes and hoods to mask their identities) and “antifa” (as in anti-fascist) smashed the windows of a local Starbucks and a Bank of America. They also set a limousine on fire. How these acts of property damage were intended to undermine Trump remains a mystery, given that the CEO of Starbucks and many Bank of America employees were financial supporters of the Hillary Clinton campaign. The limo driver, we learned, was a Muslim immigrant.

A rioter knocked a friend of mine, the journalist Philip Wegmann, to the ground, causing him to briefly lose consciousness—even though, Wegmann told me, he was wearing credentials that clearly identified him as a member of the press. Wegmann is a writer for conservative news outlets such as Washington Examiner and The Daily Signal, however. And one of the main principles of the new activist left is that unfriendly media organizations should not have the right to cover their activities, even on public property.

But it isn’t just conservative media outlets that bear the “unfriendly” designation; many activists are equally dismissive of mainstream news sources. One activist told me that she hates CNN just as much as Trump supporters do. Only explicitly leftist media organizations are permitted to cover the antics of the #Resistance.

Of course, the most famous victim of Inauguration Day violence was alt-right leader Richard Spencer, a white nationalist with some positive feelings about Trump. An Australian news channel was interviewing Spencer when a masked protester walked up to him and punched him in the face while the cameras were rolling.

One can—and should—strenuously object to Spencer’s racist opinions while still acknowledging his right to hold them. As a strictly legal matter, his speech is quite obviously protected by the First Amendment. The U.S. Supreme Court has carved out a few exceptions, but none of them would apply here. In the 2011 decision Snyder v. Phelps, for instance, the Court held that the virulently anti-gay Westboro Baptist Church could picket military servicemembers’ funerals, waving signs that read “God hates you” and “Fag troops.” The fact that the church’s message was objectively offensive and emotionally damaging to the families of deceased soldiers was not enough to strip it of constitutional protections. If such speech is protected by the First Amendment, you can bet Spencer’s is, too.

But this did not stop members of the left from defending—even praising—the antifa activists who struck Spencer. Natasha Lennard, an activist and journalist who participated in black bloc activities in D.C. that day, described the attack as “pure kinetic beauty” in The Nation. The window-smashing, trash-can fires, limousine-burning, and Spencer-punching “should be celebrated as an opening salvo of resistance in the era of Trump,” she wrote. Mob violence is only a problem “if you think there are no righteous mobs, or that windows feel pain, or that counter-violence (like punching Richard Spencer) is never valid.”

The most extreme members of the anti-Trump resistance have taken up the banner of antifa, a continuation—in their minds—of a movement that arose in Germany in the 1930s to counter the rise of Nazism. Antifa movements have sprung up in a variety of countries, often opposing Nazis and Nazi sympathizers while also promoting general far-left politics of the Marxist and communist variety.

Modern antifa is decentralized and relatively leaderless; many of its members are anonymous and unknown. Though they are known for wearing black masks, bandanas, and black clothing and for committing acts of destruction, antifa itself is an ideological position and does not prescribe any specific tactics. One can be opposed to fascism without endorsing black bloc tactics, property destruction, censorship or violence.

In practice, however, antifa groups tend toward illiberal means to achieve their ends—both historically and at present. In Antifa: The Anti-Fascist Handbook, Mark Bray writes that antifa explicitly rejects “the classical liberal phrase incorrectly ascribed to Voltaire that ‘I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.’” According to Bray, “Anti-fascism is an illiberal politics of social revolutionism applied to fighting the Far Right, not only literal fascists.”

In the antifa view, their enemies started it—by making statements that serve to further marginalize people who languish under some form of oppression. Caring about intersectionality means that an attack on one disadvantaged group is an attack on all. And if it is wise to stop people on the right from speaking against any member of the coalition, then it must occasionally be necessary to silence them when they try to speak. If they will not be silenced willingly, then violence is the only alternative.

“The inherent contradiction of antifa,” wrote Carlos Lozada in his fair-minded but ultimately critical review of Antifa: The Anti-Fascist Handbook, “is that, if America is indeed so irredeemable and hypocritical that violence is the answer, then what exactly are you fighting to preserve?”

Those who defend the validity of mob violence claim that it is justifiable to the extent that it unnerves the powers that be. But do the powerful really feel threatened by a smashed Starbucks window or Richard Spencer taking a punch? The evidence strongly suggests the opposite: When leftists resort to explicit violence, they make regular people more sympathetic to governmental authority and a conservative worldview.

Princeton University’s Omar Wasow studied protest movements in the 1960s and found that violent upheaval tended to make white voters more conservative, whereas nonviolent protests were associated with increased liberalism among white voters. “These patterns suggest violent protest activity is correlated with a taste for ‘social control’ among the predominantly white mass public,” wrote Wasow in his study.

This is something that President Richard Nixon understood quite well. In 1969, he received a memo from an aide warning him to expect increased violence on college campuses in the spring. The president grabbed a pen and scrawled a single word across the document: “Good!” He knew something many activists failed to grasp: Law-and-order policies become more palatable to the silent majority when leftists are punching people in the streets.

In contrast, “nonviolent movements succeed because they invite mass participation,” says Maria Stephan, a director at the United States Institute of Peace. Violent resistance, on the other hand, is incredibly divisive. Stephan and Erica Chenoweth produced a book, Why Civil Resistance Works, which found nonviolent resistance movements were twice as likely as violent movements to achieve their aims in the 20th and early 21st centuries. “A campaign’s commitment to nonviolent methods enhances its domestic and international legitimacy and encourages more broad-based participation in the resistance, which translates into increased pressure being brought to bear on the target,” they wrote. According to Stephan and Chenoweth, governments have little trouble justifying brutal crackdowns on violent protesters, but nonviolent protesters engender greater sympathy from the public, reducing the likelihood of repression.

Based on these findings, it’s hardly surprising that Spencer himself isn’t wholly opposed to violence. “The fact that they are excusing violence against [me] inherently means that they believe that there’s a state of exception, where we can use violence,” Spencer told the Atlantic. “I think they’re actually kind of right.” When asked by a fellow traveler, Gregory Conte, whether members of the alt-right should support free speech as a general principle for the long term, Spencer responded, “No, of course not.”

To drive the point home, I asked Spencer about his attitude toward free speech (and much else; read Chapter Eight of my new book, Panic Attack: Young Radicals in the Age of Trump, for the rest of the interview). He told me he was certainly not for absolute free speech, and he thought the state should have “at least some involvement” in promoting a better society by suppressing dangerous ideas.

In any case, the idea that certain people do not deserve free speech protections is now as popular among the far left as it always was among the far right. But it didn’t use to be this way: Leftists were once firm defenders of free speech for all, even for Nazis. Amazingly, in fact, when the Nazis came to campus in the 1960s, they did so at the left’s invitation.


Adapted, with permission, from Panic Attack: Young Radicals in the Age of Trump, by Robert Soave. Copyright © by Robert Soave, Jr. All rights reserved. Published by St. Martin’s Press, 175 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY, 10010.

Featured image: 2017 photos released by Portland police, depicting antifa members arrested in 2017 and arraigned at Multnomah County Court.




  1. Barney Doran says

    The Resistance. Ask the French what ‘The Resistance’ is. Ask the Serbs what ‘The Resistance’ is. Ask the Poles what ‘The Resistance’ is. Ask the Russians what ‘the Resistance’ is. I think you are getting the picture. For much of the MSM, these sorry Antifa losers, and fellow travelers to call themselves ‘The Resistance’ is such a dreadful devaluation of the term that anyone with even a modicum of historical perspective should be disgusted. The proper term is ‘the opposition.’ Believe me, they will know it if they actually do become ‘The Resistance.’

    • If Antifa is good at destroying anything, it’s the value in words that used to have meaning. For another example, just look at how people used to quake with terror upon hearing the word “Nazi” back in the 1940s, whereas they just roll their eyes upon hearing that same word these days.

    • hunter says

      Antifa = Anti-First Amendment.
      The media/big tech oligarchs have basically firmed The Ministry of Truth.
      Antifa and the disgusting self appointed sanctimonious whiney censors like SPLC (in it’s modern form) and Vox are the foot soldiers of MiniTruth.

      • kind of obvious that... says

        Ah and that is the incongruity! Look at any general definition of “fascism,” and it mentions corporations and the government coming together to oppress. When so many gov. bureaucrats already have this attitude, Big Tech joining them just firms it up. Where these loosers could be doing some good, if they’d bring attention to the MNC’s (multi-national corporations) and Deep State are coming together to overrule the will of the people, instead they’re doing the work of the real fascist class for it

        Good work, kids!

        P.S. Want one more incongruity? “the oppressed” as they say, is not according to color or who you go to bed with. The kids of the rural folk in my area are more oppressed than the children of Ellen or Maxine Waters, as those latter two have not only wealth, but pull…

        … their offspring face no “oppression” (ironic!) trying to get into good schools, where our kids have a less chance than any black or Hispanic kid with 5 times the wealth growing up. So anti-fa is not only helping zuck and the other billionaires oppress the working class, but helping wealthy people as well.

        REALLY good work, kids!

  2. Tersitus says

    So what exactly is not fascist about antifa?

    • They are practically the very definition of facist and remind me very much of Hitler’s bully boys in the early days of the National Socialists.

      • Kauf Buch says

        TO JG
        You’re accurately referring to the Sturmabteilung (the SA). Antifa is the SA of the Democrats.

    • Ted Talks says

      Because the term “fascist” is not the correct term. These people are communists- which is worse than fascist.

      • Charlie says

        If one looks at Germany, many communists ended up joining the Nazi and ended up in the SS and Gestapo. After WW2 , in East Germany, ex Nazis joined the Stasi and the Police secret. Some of the Nazis were ex WW1 veterans and were tough. Those who came to manhood in the 1920s and 1930s varied, some were tough workers, others were type who stayed at the back of the fights.

        The reality is that there are those who believe in the use of terrorism to achieve tyrannical power be they Communists, Nazis and Anarchists have minimal differences. The major difference is between those who use violence to obtain power those who are prepared to fight for freedom and democracy. There is a sizeable group of people who will follow either, tyrannical power or free democracies provided they are saved from physical harm.

        Antifa are the feeble middle class types who enjoy attacking those who are weaker and less in number than themselves. If Antifa want to prove their toughness they can take up bare knuckle boxing.

    • Cognominal says

      If you call antifas fascists, you are endorsing their destruction of the language which reduces words to their connotation (good/bad) and forget their denotation (their meaning). Fascists were/are nationalist, most antifas are no borders, meaning preaching the destruction of nations. So antifas are definitively not fascist, at least according to that criteria. I am a sovereignist, which is a pragmatic position close to nationalism, but by other criteria I am not a fascist. By other criteria, authoritarism and violence, antifas are similar to fascists, but that is not sufficient to call them fascists. Also most people they oppose are not fascist. So antifa are neither anti fascist not fascist. They are just intellectually lazy, procensorship, violent, cowards, sneaky and dangerous. They break the law and should face the consequences.
      But they are a good excuse for the militarization of police and go along the governments to encourage all encompassing laws to criminalize opinion. In France, their violence was used as a pretext to use police violence against the gilets jaunes.
      So the best way to qualify antifas is « violent useful idiots ».

      • It is also important to note that Antifa see themselves as defenders of the anti-white/anti-male, anti-heterosexual coalition. Double negatives intended. The Alt Right emerged as the first real threat to Cultural Marxism. We were blowing apart the lies that keep their religion intact and growing. Antifa emerged to protect the status quo. If people started to learn about the depravity of homosexuality and the delusion of gender fluidity all heck would break loose. If they understood race realism, policies would change and billions would be lost in diversity funding. If they realized, finally, that men are different than women, we would need to change everything. If they learned who was orchestrating social changes and the extent to which they are doing it because they despise white people and western civilization, civil war would commence. So yes, Antifa is illiberal and they use coercive means to defend the Progressive monster.

      • Paolo says

        I twisted my mouth at the first sentences of your comment, as indeed thought ‘fascists’ was fit to qualify antifa. But you actually make a very good case, missing the nationalistic element that’s not appropriate really. It’s just so temping to call them fascists because it underlines the obvious contradiction between their declared intent and their actual nature and deeds.

      • Kauf Buch says

        GARBAGE. Have you seen ONE SINGLE INCIDENT where the police DID their job and arrested these jerks en masse?!? (PRO TIP: no)

  3. It’s funny that the antifa types are too dim-witted to read this. That they would ever become self-critical is too much to hope for. But I am very much looking forward to the court cases where Andy sues them into penury. They will have to go cap in hand to Soros for big payments.

    • JWatts says

      Wouldn’t the case be tried in Portland? Furthermore, who would he sue? Antifa, is a loose group and probably has not definable assets. And if the cops can’t determine who the assailants were then there’s nobody to go after. Even if they find 1 person, these type of Lefties have no assets to take. Sure, there is certainly some funding in the background somewhere, but I’ll guarantee you that it’s structured in a way that isolates it from the actions of any member of the group.

      • bumble bee says

        @JWatts, If by chance he cannot sue antifa themselves for reasons you listed, I would hope that he goes after the city of Portland as well as the police department for not doing their job. When these enablers get a look at how their inaction could cost them, and thereby threaten their political existence, they may actually grow a pair and start cracking down on these thugs. It’s time for these people to either start paying up or stop protecting violent offenders. I hope Ngo does not let this opportunity pass.

      • Bill says

        I think his attorneys may simply collect the list of news organizations who were defamatory toward him and sue ala the school students a few months ago. Who knows, maybe that’s how the MSM becomes journalists again…a change in ownership.

      • Joe says

        The mob (which was/is far smarter than this limbic crowd), met its match many times under the U.S. RICO legislation to address this type of issue.

        • Memetic Tribe says


          I doubt we’ll ever see a RICO trial like the “commision case” set against antifa. The high profile RICO trials against the mob exposed racketeering influence deep into several industries (trucking, air freight, construction, unions, taxi and limo, funeral parlors, brokerage houses).

          A similar effort against antifa would open up doorways to the globalist funding and structural support which make antifa possible (NGO’s, media, local goverment, university system, peer review journals, crypto)

          The democratic machine will not let that happen.

          • Mark says

            I am not a lawyer or any kind of constitutional expert, however, am I wrong in thinking the Andy Ngo case is one with bearing on federal civil rights law? Wasn’t this as case of conspiracy to violate his civil rights. As such, couldn’t a federal case be built on the great legal work of the NAACP in not un-similar cases involving the failure of local authorities to protect the civil rights of persons violently attacked while practicing their First Amercement rights?

      • Jeremiah says

        Yeah Id say theres about a 50/50 chance the attackers dont even have jobs and a 99.9 percent chance they don’t have the money or assets to make suing them make any financial sense.

  4. Farris says

    To compare Antifa to Nazi fighters is repulsive. Antifa is composed of criminal cowards. They don masks and hoods to hide their identities (like lacking the courage of their convictions like their Klansman brethren). They break windows and vandalize cars. They push and beat the elderly. They retreat to their mother’s basement feeling they have accomplished something. They eschew dialog and debate because they have nothing constructive to say or propose. They are spoiled brats with nothing to offer. As life’s privileged losers they are naturally frustrated. A frustration which they take out in violent destructive tantrums. They color themselves as hip and edgy when they are just purely pitiful. They are the Klan, the Brown Shirts and any other unintelligent uninformed group who who produce violence and destruction while fearing recognition and accountability. Anyone who lionizes these delinquents is either morally bankrupt or one of their ilk. Contempt is too good for them.

    • Jeremy H says

      In fairness I don’t think the author was making a direct comparison of modern antifa to the original groups in the 30’s but pointing out that it’s antifa that view themselves in that manner. Other than that your assessment is dead on.

    • Kauf Buch says

      Antifa is the Democrat’s paramilitary arm today, quite like the Ku Klux Klan was in the 19th Century.

    • Bill says

      We need to declare it for what it was. Antifa lynched a homosexual minority because they didn’t like the way he looked at them.

      • Kauf Buch says

        Well, Antifa was honest enough to admit they attacked him for his “conservative”
        (everything they disagree with, they call “fascist.” SEE:
        beliefs…but it also confirms that

        the Left doesn’t care a whit about “minorities,” “sexism,” “gay rights,” or any other label…

        • Cognominal says

          Control freaks like a Jewish mother, but violent.

    • D.B. Cooper says

      Granted, this is based off mugshots, but it’d be something worse than an exaggeration for me to pretend that any single one of these ass clowns strikes me as having much in the way a pugilist streak. I’ve done a fair amount (12 years) of boxing/Jiu Jitsu and not the first one of these perps pass the sniff test. I don’t see a contend among the whole lot… well, maybe that 13-year-old lad in the bottom right. Once he hits puberty, he might have some potential.

      As for the rest, well, the guy in the top middle, his ass couldn’t pass a drug test if Mike Pence loaned him a sample. I’m fairly certain that hermaphrodite in the bottom middle has a communicable disease, so he/she’s out. Bottom left clearly spends too much time in the tanning bed to be a contender. I’m pretty sure that’s a midget (little person/dwarf, sorry I never know which one to say) in the top left. And ol’ girl in the top right, well, she was made for the cull pile, let’s leave there.

      • Kauf Buch says

        TO DBCooper
        STOP IT. Even one of these Soy Losers is a KILLER with a small weapon (i.e. a mallet disgused as an umbrella, or a bike lock) in the hand. THEY POSE A REAL DANGER.

      • Robert Franklin says

        DBC – That was my thought too. It’d be nice for some of these tough guys to land in prison where they could get a taste of actual violence.

        • Jeremiah says

          Yeah especially if it was a legit segregated prison like the California prison system. He’d be extorted and attacked by the white supremacist gangs and the black and latino gangs. The only way he’d get out of there with half his teeth and without HIV is if mommy and daddy are rich enough to pay off all the prison gangs on a regular basis.

          This is Oregon though so Id imagine their prisons arent so intense. I’m sure there’s white supremacist gangs in there though and if they somehow knew who he was “antifa” he’d certainly be fucked.

      • Jeremiah says

        Hah best use of Mike Pence in a joke i’ve heard becore lol.

    • Jeremiah says

      Most of them will grow out of it by 30.. The truly sad ones are the few 40 and 50 year old ones in the bunch. At least the 19 year old ones have the excuse that the pre frobtal cortex doesnt fully develop until 25.

  5. YourNext says

    When there is a fascist in the White House and violent paramilitary groups roaming the streets (Proud Boys, Patriot Prayer) kumbaya won’t work. Of course a fascist website would promote this nonsense. ANTIFA will keep on and more fascist enablers will get punched (get our of here with that brain hemorrhage baloney. The little drama queen got punched. Quite pushing propaganda). It you organize for fascism this is what happens.

    • Respek Wahmen says

      Your username is missing a verb.

      • kind of obvious that... says

        Ha! Love that. Used to teach HS special ed in the city, where kids were at the same level as anti-fa and every day, I’d be saying “Where’s your verb? Use verbs!” ‘cos of all this dumb “Where my pencil?” (Or it’d be “where my pencil at?” and I’d be yelling “use verbs and drop the ‘at’!”

        Anyway, yeah, the dude’s threatening anyone who doesn’t think like him (I think that’s sometimes called “totalitarianism” ) but can’t get a grammatical, correctly-spelled user name going. No wonder they prefer to use fists when the numbers are in their favor. Words are not their friends.

        vladyyGonna go far.

    • derek says

      Jared, Jared. I know you think this is effective; you post crazy unhinged leftist blather to harden support for your father in law. But please. This is way too early. The election is a year and a half away.

    • Farris says


      One word vocabulary….fascist. This is what passes for an intelligent response.

    • Monte Martinez says


      Titania MaGarth, is that you under a new twitter handle?

    • You'reNext says

      It’s funny how you all are SO concerned about one documentarian for white supremacist hate groups getting punched but are completely silent about the 50 people murdered by right-wing terrorist last year. The worse thing about Quillette is its pretense. Just be honest, you like when white supremacists shoot up black churches but get upset when your mentally challenged videographer gets punched for supporting white supremacist terror groups. You people are disgusting.

      • Monte Martinez says


        I am afraid I am going to have to ask you for a credible citation on this entire “50 people murdered by right-wing terrorist last year: business. Any time a white person kills anyone in America it is international news. You really have to dig to find the stories and statistics illuminating the white slaughter by immigrants and blacks.

      • Farris says


        Personally I’d be happy if they would hang the little bastard that shot up the black church.
        That’s what you fail to grasp about Antifa like Dylan Roof see violence as a solution.

      • bumble bee says


        Can you see your own rhetoric in your statements, or the hypocrisy in your own pro-antifa views? Unlike a majority of citizens, antifa has a slash and burn mentality and cannot seem to distinguish the difference between challenging radical right members, and people who have nothing to do with those groups. Antifa is so rabid with hatred, they must exercise that rage against anyone they come across. It is just as dangerous as the radical right they claim to counter. Antifa is the mirror image of what they claim to fight against.

        Frankly, antifa behaves like teenagers hopped up on 5hr energy drinks and too much weed. What would they say if they knew they attacked innocent people? Would it be considered collateral damage in some naive rationalization to reinforce their own self-righteousness?

        Just like all the movements, no one cares whether their actions are wrong, they just want to knock some heads around. To even believe that anyone beyond the .01% violent, racist, murdering thugs of radical right groups supports their evil ways is another flaw of antifa. For some reason they believe there are more of them than there really are, of which gives antifa their own personal license to do violence.

        Face the facts, whatever antifa is “fighting” against it will get no where except alienate more people. There will be no victories because they have no goals, except to be a mosh pit of anger and rage and when that finally gets old there will be fewer people. At best, antifa will be relegated to the same extreme has-beens as the SLA and Weather Underground.

        • jakesbrain says

          @Bumble: Nah, weed doesn’t make people violent. This looks more like cocaine or speed.

      • Neb says

        You’re Next,

        People at Quillette are so concerned, because Andy Ngo in fact WORKS for Quillette. Of course they are concerned about one of their own workers being assaulted by a bunch of left wing fascists.

      • Geary Johansen says

        @ You’reNext

        You fail to understand that Antifa encourages White Supremacy, it doesn’t defeat it. The Christchurch shooter in NZ, explicitly stated that he wanted to get PewDiePie and Candace Owen censored or banned, because he saw American Conservatism as a roadblock to the formation of a white ethnostate. By branding people with fairly mainstream conservative views as fascists, Antifa is going a long way to accomplishing his goals.

        The road you are on can only lead to more violence and more hate- here’s an article from the New York Times to prove it: Best estimates put the total number of white supremacists in the US at around 11,000. Antifa are just a bunch a hooligans who get off on inflicting violence on people they hate. Is it any less unreasonable to beat someone up for their political beliefs, as the colour of the football (soccer) shirt they wear?

    • Grump in St. Louis says

      Oh please! When paramilitaries are operating the corpses are stacked like cordwood. I don’t know much about these groups, but when the black bandanna idiots, who are their “enemies”, are dead in the streets in significant number, I will then begin to worry about them being paramilitaries. Right they all look like media created social loudmouths.

      • You'reNext says

        The reason that these right-wing terror squads have not been killing people is because ANTIFA has prevented them. My guess is that if Trump is installed in office again that these goons will get more aggressive. Quillette is trying to rile up average jerks like you to enage in violence against Antifa. Claire Lehmann want the armchair racists like yourself to join hate groups like Atomwaffen Division to engage in the exact violence you discuss. Antifa will stop you, though. These heroes prevent the exact bloodshed that you write about and desire.

        • Kauf Buch says

          TO YN
          Thanks for trolling here,but we adults would really like to continue our discussion, WITHOUT having to point out repeatedly the difference between YOUR and YOU’RE.

          • YaNext says

            Quillette is filed with many kinds if people. You got white supremacists, white nationalists, and phrenologists. You got birthers and other whack jobs. But there ain’t no “adults” in the way your’re using the term. No reasonable nor serious people.

          • Kauf Buch says

            TO YN
            Thanks for confirming to readers where that the Left’s racism is alive and well.
            Just as an intellectual exercise, explain why Blacks, Latinos, etc. etc. can express pride and unity/nationalism, but not Whites.

            Oh, wait. It’s because Leftists use guilt and bullying to demonize Whites,
            and thereby “de-humanize” them.

            Now, please take your identity politics & name calling AND STICK IT. Grow up, child.

          • kind of obvious that... says

            Next one, too. The attempted use of “nor” which is used when the two adjectives contradict each other, such as “They were neither wealthy nor poor” (meaning “they were not wealthy, but they were not poor either.) In the case of “no serious/reasonable,” the grammar is “no reasonable OR serious people here” because “reasonable” and “serious” do not contradict each other.

            Sorry, But c’mon, it’s bad enough they’re dumbing down politics; hate to see them dumb down the English language, too.

        • Stephanie says

          YN, the link you provide claims Parkland and the Tree of Life synagogue shooting as “right-wing extremism.” The Parkland shooter was a twice-orphaned teenager with major behavioural issues and the Tree of Life shooter hated Trump because he’s very cosy with Jews. How is this supposed to be evidence of Trump-affiliated mob violence?

          Also, the Proud Boys came about as a reaction to antifa’s violence against normal conservatives. They wouldn’t exist if antifa weren’t throwing urine on 22 year old girls.

          • C-unit says

            antifa has existed since the 1930s. proud boys didn’t form because of antifa though. please get your facts straight before you continue making a fool of yourself.

        • It’s weird, I can’t tell if You’reNext is trolling or not.

          I think that speaks to how unhinged the sjw movement is in particular, where the revolutionaries speaking truth-to-power are totally indistinguishable from the shit posters, stirring the pot for the lawls.

        • Locketopus says

          The reason that these right-wing terror squads have not been killing people is because ANTIFA has prevented them.

          You anorexic soibois can’t even hold the streets of Portland against a bunch of pudgy guys in polo shirts, much less operate effectively on a national level.

          Oh, I’ll grant that your little Stalinist circle-jerk is effective when it comes to fighting “dangerous opponents” like sheets of plate glass, or sucker-punching old men, or ganging up to beat a small gay Vietnamese dude. Against a real opponent, much less the “right-wing terror squads” that exist only in your delusional narrative? Yeah…no.

        • Matt the Rat says

          Your every utterance is a logical fallacy.

          “Quillette is trying to rile up average jerks like you to enage in violence against Antifa. Claire Lehmann want the armchair racists like yourself to join hate groups like Atomwaffen Division to engage in the exact violence you discuss. “

    • V 2.0 says

      @YourNext (your next what?)
      If paramilitary groups were roaming the streets Antifa would not exist and you would not be around to play keyboard warrior. Why? Because the people you accuse of these things are much better at violence (should they choose to use it) than scrawny/doughy, entitled university students who have to resort to picking on small Asian men and old people. From looking at them, it’s clear they know how to throw a decent punch and most likely are good with the guns they own. The only reason you are not dead is that they are actually (shockingly) less awful than you and the people you support.

      But you go ahead and keep annoying the regular folk into siding with these guys. It will be fun to see how that turns out…

    • Kauf Buch says

      TO YN
      You are the poster child for the retardation of the typical Leftist.
      I hope you try your violent idiocy somewhere where there’s Concealed Carry.
      But cowards like you simply have verbal diarrhea and pampers of courage.

    • Zaru says

      “The little drama queen”? So much for the Left being sympathetic to racial (“little”) and sexual (“queen”) minorities.

      • YaBadPeopleNext says

        I hope that you warmed up before typing that message. I mean, that extreme of a stretch can hurt a person!

    • Weasels Ripped My Flesh says


      Your next what?

    • Applied Thought Crime says

      Congrats on defending gay bashing bro

    • Kencathedrus says

      @YourNext: Donald Trump isn’t a fascist. This is an assumption encouraged by much of the left-wing mainstream media which knows how to rile its reader base for advertising revenue. It’s causing TDS (Trump Derangement Syndrome) which is typified by a hysterical reaction related to all things Trump. I’ve seen it for myself – perfectly sane sensible people turning into raving troglodytes at the mere mention of Donald Trump’s name.

      I have a little bit of a psychological background and my reasoning for why this is happening is because people who are indoctrinated into leftwing ways (usually through their education) are never allowed to give healthy expression to their baser emotions for fear of offending others. In that regard Donald Trump and anyone else associated with the mostly fictional far-right have become safe targets for all those nasty tendencies that the left suppress within themselves (hatred, bigotry, sexism and racism).

      Antifa is basically a violent manifestation of the Left’s fascistic tendencies. If fascism comes to the US it won’t be because of Trump supporters (people who mostly just want to be left alone and not feel bad about being white), but through the ‘educated’ useful idiots who believe they are the good guys and that the ‘rabble’ (those who reject left-wing indoctrination) need to be browbeaten into submission. To that effect they are doing their utmost best to spread ‘campus culture’ to the rest of the US so as to transform it into a country where white men (the only demographic that weak people feel safe in insulting and denigrating) are perceived as a ‘far-right’ enemy that needs to be psychologically crippled in order to ’empower’ others. Fascism is the politics of envy and that is what we are seeing coming from the Left.

      • Nor Cal Wino says

        Spot on dude!
        I like how you link it to an inability to come to terms with the base emotions we all share.

      • YouBeNext says

        Lets use a little CBT here. No one can make you feel any particular way. Right? You folks have been saying this forever, that is it the fault of the person who is offended that they are offended. No one is making anyone “feel bad about being white.” If someone gets butt hurt by an accurate description the power dynamics of this society (that we live in a white supremacist, capitalist patriarchy) than the problem is that person’s fragility. Trump supporters are like Germans in the 1930s. Sure, not all of them work at the camps, but their support of a brutal tyrant needs to be called out. It is even more hilarious that you make this comment today as Trump is having his fascist parade. Trump and his supporters are fascists and they are what is wrong with this country.

        • doug deeper says

          If Trump was a fascist, your comments would not exist, you would have died on the day of his inauguration. If you were president we would all be dead. Reality bites.
          But I do thank you for helping ensure Trump’s reelection.

    • The Prophet says

      One of these days someone’s going to open fire on a crowd of you bike-lock wielding fucknauts. Keep it up, I’m looking forward to the inevitable moment when someone is just so fed up with your bullshit that they kill dozens of you in a couple of minutes. Once that happens I’m sure you pussies will never venture outside again.

      It’s funny how you commies are so afraid of guns when your idols were such lovers of them. Here’s a quote to memorize, let it be the second-last thing to go through your heads when the bullets are flying towards your skulls:

      “One man with a gun can control 100 without one.” — Vladimir Lenin

    • You have bad grammar and I’m guessing you have no idea what fascism even is. You’re just mad because some people have views you don’t like.

    • Jeremiah says

      You’re all losers you and the Proud Boys. Grow up and stop play acting as street fighters.

    • Jeremiah says

      Also calling Trump a fascist just seriously undermines the seriousness of the term. He’s just a dumb populist. He’s obviously a serious embarrassment to the US, but the country hasnt changed. The sky isnt falling. We should be easily done with him, but the 2020 democrats are insanely writing and filmibg the exact attack ads he’ll need to scrape by a victory (lose your private insurance, Harris embracing forced busing, and reparations for slavery).

    • Jeremiah says

      I have hope for you though. Statistically speaking you’ll likely grow out of this “I wanna be a pretend revolutionary” phase by the time you’re 30. Your pre frontal cortex will finish developing around 25.

  6. Respek Wahmen says

    Democracy is a joke, because it turns out that over half of all people are actually wahmen. Rough statistic.

    Here’s a challenge: Link to a single so-called anti-so-called-fa so-called journalist that isn’t a wahmen or feminized male. Exactly.

  7. gina says

    First skirmish I’ve seen. Didn’t see how this started, but @MrAndyNgo got roughed up.

    — Jim Ryan (@Jimryan015) June 29, 2019

    “Didn’t see how this started”. I read this as Ryan implying Andy did something to get this started. It wasn’t a “skirmish” which again implies Andy did something, and Andy didn’t get “roughed up”.

    I am sickened at CBC, the Canadian tax payer funded broadcaster, who has once again hired a radio host who thinks they can say (do) whatever they want, anywhere, they’re so secure on the tax dollar. I can’t imagine any other radio employing someone who said what Raina Duris said on her Twitter. Not even the shock jocks. Raina, like all CBC staff, lives off the tax dollar. Unless I’ve missed it, Raina’s “cement happens to be my favourite flavour” seems to be all the coverage this attack on journalism garnered from CBC.

  8. Mark says

    A few months ago Quintette had a piece by an antifa who left the cult. Is that still available. I’ld like to read it again.

  9. Chip says

    Maybe people shouldn’t make campaign speeches saying that journalists are enemies of the people.

    Or wear tee shirts saying “Rope; Tree; Journalist; Some Assembly Required”

    Not so funny now, is it?

    • Andy Ngo is called a propagandist by Antifa. Meaning, a journalist that is the enemy of the people (being antifa) Ergo, Antifa slapped loose some of his brain cells.

      They’re doing exactly what Trump wanted. What a glorious Resistance.

    • David of Kirkland says

      Upset by words while defending physical violence. Whether left or right, violence is a recognized bad thing except to counter violence. Like you counter what you think is bad speech. While rude, the tee shirt is funny so long as you don’t act on it, in which case it’s you who is bad, not the tee shirt.

      • Jack B. Nimble says

        @D of K

        ‘……Or wear tee shirts saying “Rope; Tree; Journalist; Some Assembly Required”……’

        You: ‘…the tee shirt is funny so long as you don’t act on it……..’

        What if the T-shirt had those words and also an image of, say, CNN reporter Jim Acosta?

        Or if the T-shirt had a bulls-eye superimposed over a picture of, say, Nancy Pelosi? Or a photoshopped bullet hole in her forehead?

        Are those ‘jokes’ or incitement to violence?

        Note that right-wingers often pass off their hate speech as gags or jokes, and accuse their opponents of lacking a sense of humor or of being unable to take a joke:

        ‘….For many on the alt-right, the taunts and threats they issue….are an elaborate practical joke. But, as the New Yorker’s Emily Nussbaum points out in her analysis of the rise of Trump and his fellow reactionaries through the lens of comedy, these jokes aren’t benign. Taunting, as bullies have long known, makes a wily tool of oppression. Should the object of the joke protest the humor, they are written off as uptight and the bully is emboldened. Ignore it and, yep, the bully is still emboldened……..’


        • CP says

          Jack B. Nimble, are you equating t-shirts with actual physical violence? There are many disgusting images out there that offend various folks. And there is lots of violent imagery. But incitement to violence? That completely devalues the concept of inciting violence. I opt for offending and inciting everyone…. and not actually physically touching others.

          • Jack B. Nimble says


            I said “incitement to violence.” The US Supreme Court ruled in Brandenburg v. Ohio that “The constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.”


            Hate-speakers can always deny any causal link between their incitement and later violence–unless they are caught ‘red-handed’ engaging in violent acts. Claiming that the incitement is merely a joke is another form of denialism. The problem with the Brandenburg rule is that it ignores the cumulative effect of violent imagery in desensitizing the public to actual violence

            “….. I opt for offending and inciting everyone….” Your comment shows that libertarian principles, when carried to their logical limit, are harmful to the public good.

          • CP says

            Jack B. Nimble, the trick is defining the public good though isn’t it? Who gets to define what is hate speech? I mean, the real Nazis would have said their detractors were harming the public good and spewing hate speech. There are plenty of folks who disagree with your definition today – likely a majority or nearly so. Why should I trust that your way is the best/right way? I am libertarian when it comes to speech – the more the better. I support an artist that creates something that offends or incites religious folks… and I support prosecution of any religious folks that attack said artist for their “incitement.”

            Re: the case you cite. I think we would have to see actual journalists lynched or Pelosi with a hole in her head to believe those t-shirts are inciting violence. I think you’re misconstruing the law to support your position. I just don’t think most courts would agree with you.

            Anyway, thanks for the response. I strongly disagree with you, but still appreciate you writing back.

          • Jack B. Nimble says


            ‘…….. I am libertarian when it comes to speech – the more the better. …..’

            I agree up to a point, but the UMKC link I provided earlier includes this counter-example:

            ‘……A website called “The Nuremberg Files,” a virulently anti-abortion website, featured such images as simulated blood dropping from fetuses. It also provided the names and addresses of doctors in the United States who performed abortions. Red lines crossed the names of a few doctors who had been killed by militant anti-abortionists and gray lined [sic] crossed the names of wounded doctors. It is a federal crime to intimidate persons who provide reproductive health services. Can the website operator be prosecuted under federal law? Sued civilly by a doctor wounded by a website visitor……the 9th Circuit, voting 6 to 5, held the speech on the Nuremberg Files was not protected. (Planned Parenthood v American Coalition of Life Activists)……..’

            ‘………I think you’re misconstruing the law to support your position. I just don’t think most courts would agree with you…..’

            I criticized the SCOTUS Brandenburg rule on these terms:

            ‘….the Brandenburg rule…..ignores the cumulative effect of violent imagery in desensitizing the public to actual violence….’

            In other words, one T-shirt or web page or billboard that shows a bloody abortus won’t have much effect, but a succession of individual images can accumulate in the minds of mentally unbalanced persons and lead to violence against abortion clinics. I don’t expect that any US court would agree with this argument; I’m advocating a different perspective on the potential costs and benefits of free speech. In other words, the cost of the free speech of anti-abortionists is usually borne by the doctors and patients of abortion clinics.

            Bottom Line: libertarianism is a drug that should be consumed in small quantities….

          • CP says

            Jack B. Nimble, I think I understand now what you’re saying. However, that cumulative speech/imagery that may potentially end up with an unhinged person doing something illegal after enough exposure to the speech/image is, I think, still too vague to end up in a law.

            I haven’t read the SCOTUS opinions on this issue, but logically I can see why they ended up where they did. How do you know a violent or offensive image will eventually end up in actual violence? Who gets to determine that? How do you know the cumulative effect of negative or violent speech and how do you know that something that seems innocuous isn’t the real catalyst? Would you trust whichever politician you despise with that decision? I have no doubt that if there were cumulative speech laws there would be political groups that would push to make seemingly innocuous speech illegal. Those are some reasons that the incitement has to be direct and immediate and obvious.

            If we had a ban on violent images that could maybe lead to violence it wouldn’t just impact nasty unhinged abortion activists – in the 90s it would have impacted all violent video game producers – today it could likely be used to stop negative images of not just Pelosi but also Trump. I just think there are too many pitfalls when it comes to limiting speech. Things that are obvious to you might not be to the majority… and that has a high probability of changing in your lifetime.

            My bottom line? In the US – When it comes to speech there should be no limit other than what is there right now – very very narrow limits. There is no such thing as too much libertarianism when speech is involved.

            Anyway, thanks for offering your side and link. It made me think more about this issue.

        • Geofiz says


          Andy Ngo did not taunt or bully the Antifa protests. He wrote about them, albeit critically, The same is true for other reporters, including those from CBS and NBC a Tah were attacked by Antifa.

          I agree that there is a very small group of far right extremists that commit violent acts. Most are “lone wolves (ex. Dylan Roof). No reputable publication on the right supported his heinous crime or those of other nutcases.

          So here is my question do you : Do you support the attack on Andy Ngo? It is a yes or no question.

          • Jack B. Nimble says


            Look, when a news story like this erupts, most commenters rush to claim the moral high ground. That is what I did in my first comment on an earlier thread:

            “……There’s no excuse for political violence, whether from the Antifa, the Proud Boys or the right-wing militias in Oregon and elsewhere……”

            I believe that this is true of the USA and other mature democracies that have apolitical police and military forces and relatively independent legal systems. Whether political violence is justified in Venezuela, Hong Kong, Palestine, Ukraine, etc., is another question.

            So you should know the answer to your question already. But your framing it as yes/no is a standard right-wing rhetorical maneuver. We’ve seen that tactic before, and it is designed to extinguish nuance:

            You are either in favor of Trump’s wall, or you are in favor of open borders.
            You are either in favor of Bush’s Iraq war, or you are objectively pro-terrorist
            You are either supportive of the Covington HS ‘boys’, or you are anti-Catholic
            You are either in favor of capitalism, or you are a socialist/communist…….etc.

            Although I don’t agree with all their conclusions, Chris Cuomo at CNN and Zach Beauchamp* at Vox are trying to look at the story from multiple angles and not automatically adopt a simplistic victim vs. villain viewpoint. We need more of that kind of nuance, not less.


          • Photondancer says


            That was a lot of words to say “I refuse to unequivocally say I do not support the attack on Andy Ngo”. In my experience when someone is twisting around like you are, it means they do support it.

        • Photondancer says


          I have seen the faux feminists pass off vile and violent misandrist remarks as ‘obviously jokes ‘ many times. Do you also condemn them?

          • Jack B. Nimble says


            ‘……Do you also condemn them?….’

            Look, your two comments [and those by @geofiz] are attempts to police other peoples’ speech, just like when right-wingers demanded that Pres. Obama use the exact phrase ‘radical Islamic terrorism.’ They then claimed that his refusal meant that he was soft on terrorism or even a terrorist-sympathizer.

            If Obama had given in, right-wingers would have moved on and demanded that he use the phrase ‘failed Obamacare scheme’ instead of referring to the Affordable Care Act. Policing the speech of others and cranking up the outrage machine are things that conservative web sites engage in 24/7. And, yes, some liberals do the same thing.

            The takeaway here is that right-wingers want to police the speech of others but object raucously when someone attempts to police their speech [AKA speech codes].

            I’m not accountable to you or to @geofiz, but a review of my comments at Quillette over the past year or so would make clear that I am opposed to hate speech but also opposed to speech codes. I think that the US tilts a little too far in the direction of protecting speech that invokes or incites violence, compared to other liberal democracies, but we’re ‘stuck’ with the 1st amendment and I wouldn’t want to revise it.

            And yes, I condemn political violence like that visited upon Mr. Ngo, provided that persons with a grievance have unfettered access to the legal and political systems. In other words, I advocate working within the system or using non-violent civil disobedience.

        • Growthe Fuckup says

          What if we proceed based on actual events / facts rather than on speculative scenarios?

          Moot points – moot argument.

    • CAY says


      I do not think there is any evidence of Andy Ngo being a supporter of Trump. Neither are the Antifascists – from what I understand.

      I am not sure how you can say that the President is responsible for this attack – Was Antifa attacking Andy because they were inspired by the president?

      I would love an explanation of the correlation between the two.

      • bumble bee says

        “I would love an explanation of the correlation between the two.”

        First you put your head in a vice and ratchet it down real good and tight. Then start sniffing some glue while listening to The View. After a while, when you are good and gone, it all starts making sense.

        • Boris Badenov says

          ^^^^^^^^ + That was almost as poetic as a Rumsfeld rumination. It also reminds me of that Time Warp tune in Rocky Horror: first, you jump to your left …. Then you put your hands on your hips …. You bring your knees in tight … But it’s the pelvic thrust … That really drives you insane …..”

      • Geofiz says

        So JNB

        By your logic we should put many of the writers from Vox, Slate and The Huffington Post for specific articles praising the violent actions of Antifa and for the many “Punch a Nazi” articles. Same with Keith Ellison, Maxine Waters, etc. for advocating and promoting violence and harassment. How about Chris Cuomo’s ,comparison of Antifa with the brave men who stormed Normandy Beach.hisThe statements by these people and publications could be considered BY YOUR DEFINITION, incitement to violence.

        The problem with the left is that they only want the rules to apply to ones they disagree with.

        Imagine a headline: Rioting while men attack a gay person of color” That would be a dream headline for many left-wing publications. But apparently not, when the gay person of color is attacked by their own group of extremists.

        • Jack B. Nimble says


          I gave several hypothetical examples of violent images that could be considered incitement, yet according to the Supreme Court [Brandenburg rule] they are not illegal:

          1……..A T-shirt with the words ‘Rope; Tree; Journalist; Some Assembly Required’ and an image of CNN reporter Jim Acosta
          2……..A T-shirt with a bulls-eye superimposed over a picture of Nancy Pelosi
          3……..A T-shirt with a picture of Pelosi with a photoshopped bullet hole in her forehead

          You countered with a tweet [since deleted] by Keith Ellison in a bookstore with a pic of him holding an ‘antifa handbook’ and writing:

          At @MoonPalaceBooks and I just found the book that strike fear in the heart of @realDonaldTrump — Rep. Keith Ellison (@keithellison) January 3, 2018

          Your counter-example doesn’t include any violent imagery! And have you even glanced through the book that Ellison was holding? I haven’t either, but Newsweek describes it as:

          “….The subject matter of the book details the history of antifascism, and helps to explain how and why they protest. The text itself is politically neutral, though [author Mark] Bray is himself an activist…..”

          How is that even close to “…….advocating and promoting violence and harassment….”

          If you are that interested in antifa, I suggest you do some original research and step away from conservative web sites that give only a distorted and one-sided perspective.

  10. JWatts says

    It’s good to see Robby Soave (a Reason writer) posting this article. It’s clear that Soave is, at the least, sympathetic to the Left. However, his own intellectual integrity means that he won’t hold arbitrary double standards. Which has become deplorably common among modern journalists.

    • Kauf Buch says

      I personally LOATHE articles in which an author feels compelled to point out something/one “bad” on the Right, when writing an article about the violent, unhinged Left.

      It’s not “balanced,” it’s more like a twisted concept of Confession.

      • ga gamba says

        When they do so, I often wonder why they failed to preface their articles by acknowledging the Indians were the first owners of the land and to provide their pronouns.

  11. JWatts says

    It’s interesting that the argument above isn’t coached in the terms that violence is itself morally wrong. No the argument is that, it might not work. It looks like the left leaning Centrist (which is where I would classify this article) has given up on telling the Left that violence should be rejected out of hand.

    • Monte Martinez says

      Violence by left wing activists should be rejected out of hand because reaction they are inviting upon themselves isn’t a thing they will be able to handle. (See preface picture at the top pf the page).

  12. Andreas K. says

    I had wondered if anyone else would notice this too, yes. I am nobody highly credentialed, nor does my name command any respect among strangers. Consequently, my word doesn’t count for anything when I say that, yes, in my reading of interviews and memoirs by Germans who lived during the 1930s, especially those who remembered the abortive communist revolts of 1918, I found it was the real and imagined threat of left-wing violence which made them sympathetic enough to the Nazis for the Third Reich to happen. When I read or see the angriest examples of opposition to the American right-wing, or to its sympathizers among the insufficiently progressive in values, I am rather dismayed, saying to myself, “But they’re the ones who don’t want fascism, and they’re doing the very thing that facilitated fascism the first time!”

    At this rate, while I pray for it to be otherwise, I will be unsurprised if the next generation grows up sympathetic to racism. Not out of primitive tribal dislike like last time, which only creates an ideology of white supremacy after the fact to rationalize existing prejudices with a veneer of sophistication. But simply from apathy induced by the all-or-nothing demand for abject, unconditional surrender, saying to themselves, “They’ll call me racist either way; I’m damned if I do, damned if I don’t, so what the hell, let’s be racist why not.”

    • Monte Martinez says

      Andreas K,

      You and I my friend must have some of the same books in our respective libraries. The Coming of the Third Reich by Richard J Evans is a must read for anyone who wants to understand the NAZI movement from its inception. This whole leftist notion that whole races of ( white) people are inherently bad and thus the only ones susceptible to race hatred is a preposterous idea.

      Privation, economic insecurity and humiliation can make monsters of any of us.

      • Are they really comparable? With big tech effectively defending groups like antifa, and an outright assault on our republic with the notion of open borders. You think the right has the means to peacefully compete in this modern ‘polite’ society? Because they surely have no ability to morph into the actual nazi boogeyman the left so effectively propagandizes when events like Charlottesville was so vehemently disavowed by both sides. The right will always be framed under terrible optics.

        • UAC-unit says

          disavowed by both sides how? the left fully did, but on the right we got: 45 saying the neo nazi side had very fine people? everyone on the alt right trying to pass off the murder of heather hayer as not the fault of the neo nazi that killed her but because she was “fat?” or how they were saying the world was better off without her? even when 45 eventually came out against the violence it was obvious the tweet was written by whoever is in charge of pr that is allowed to slip out a ghost written tweet now and then. didn’t see 45 tweeting anything about justice being done on the charlottesville murderer’s sentencing. alt-right neo-nazis are silent to. don’t pretend the right is disavowing the violence they create.

          • DiamondLil says

            Neo Nazis and the “Alt Right” are just the Left’s version of Trump’s “Mexican rapists.” Both have created scary bogeymen to keep their supporters on the team.

          • Not sure what you are remembering but Trump was correct to say there were bad actors on the left, because there were. Heather died by pure happenstance, as there were others that got hit much worse yet managed to survive with minor injury. Not to mention he was provoked by having his car smashed, which isn’t an excuse but needs to be taken into consideration. No one can say know how they would respond in that situation. On the other hand, antifa somehow has managed not to kill someone, when in reality you have a much higher chance of dying from being bashed in the head than tripping and having a heart attack right at that moment. You believe what you wish but those are the facts.

      • MoreTemperate says

        Yes indeed, and this cannot be repeated often enough: The singling out of one demographic group as unduly “privileged” and hence somehow to blame for everyone else’s misfortunes is preposterous, as anyone who has read anything about the Third Reich will know.

    • ga gamba says

      I’m glad you said so, Andreas. I immediately thought of the anarchist and communist caused disorder and violence that occurred in Europe after WWI, most notably in Bavaria and Berlin. Yet, we can find a lot of evidence of anarchist and leftist terrorism beginning in the late 19th century. Several months ago I posted a comment re this, so I’ll add it here, though slightly amended.

      “Propaganda by the deed,” was conceived by Italian socialist revolutionary Carlo Pisacane in 1857. Shocking acts intended by their very audacity to wake the masses from their slumber, inspiring further action by others, creating a knock-on effect.

      The question for Pisacane was not whether violence per se might be justified, but exactly how violence might be maximally effective.

      The late 19th century was the era of regicide during which more monarchs, presidents, and prime ministers of major world powers were assassinated than at any other time in history: Russian Tsar Alexander II (1881), French President Sadi Carnot (1894), Spanish Prime Minister Antonio Canovas (1897), Empress Elizabeth of Austria (1898), King Umberto of Italy (1900), and US President William McKinley (1901). Several assassinations were also attempted: Tsar Alexander II (1866, 1879, and 1880) King Umberto (1878 & 1897), King Leopold II of Belgium (1902), King Alfonso XIII of Spain (1906), and King Carlos I of Portugal (1908).

      The assassins and attempted assassins were most often anarchists.

      What had started as a mostly peaceful movement, for example America’s first anarchist Josiah Warren was editor of the periodical The Peaceful Revolutionist in the early 19th century, evolved to one of violence not only against its class enemies, such as the attempted assassination of American industrialist Henry Clay Frick in 1892, but also of less discriminate attacks, such as the bombing of Paris’s Chamber of Deputies in 1893 and the Cafe Terminus in 1894, and then, bloodily, the explosion at the Barcelona religious procession in 1906 that killed 23 people and the Wall Street bombing of 1920, which killed 38. Even violence against other anarchists deemed insufficiently zealous was acceptable.

      “The existing system will be quickest and most radically overthrown by the annihilation of its exponents. Therefore, massacres of the enemies of the people must be set in motion,” said German-American anarchist Johann Most, nicknamed “Dynamost” for his violent ways and love of dynamite. He’s credited with popularising Pisacane’s “propaganda by the deed.”
      The two shining lights of the movement were (and still are) Pierre-Joseph Proudhon of France and Mikhail Alexandrovich Bakunin of Russia.

      “Killing people is the worst method for combating principles. It’s only through ideas that we triumph over idea.” Proudhon announced in 1848. Bakunin, who didn’t reject violence out of hand thinking very limited violence was inevitable, nonetheless explained in 1869 that “kings, the oppressors, exploiters of all kinds are evildoers who are not guilty, since they, too, are involuntary products of the present social order.” (Italics mine.)

      Adherents and sympathisers would cite, and still do, the two to argue anarchism was inherently peaceful whilst their comrades where perpetrating ever greater acts of violence. Bakunin’s “when one is carrying out a revolution for the liberation of humanity, one should respect the life and liberty of men” is frequently cited by anarchists to prove anarchy’s peaceful nature. So to is “we wish not to kill persons, but to abolish status and its perquisites” and anarchism “does not mean the death of the individuals who make up the bourgeoisie, but the death of the bourgeoisie as a political and social entity economically distinct from the working class.”

      Anarchists became frustrated with the very gradual reform brought about through instruction and education as promoted by Proudhon. Bakunin was capricious and embraced propaganda by the deed. “Let us therefore trust the eternal spirit which destroys and annihilates only because it is the unfathomable and eternal source of all life. The passion for destruction is a creative passion too!” He also wrote: “I await my…fiancée, revolution. We will be really happy – that is, we will become ourselves, only when the world is engulfed in fire.” (Bold mine.)

      Mussolini, the creator of fascism, himself cited Pisacane as an influence. Political violence was normal, and it was in this context that people lived and operated. Even the feminists got in on it by adopting the policy of deeds not words and launched militant action by perpetrating arson and chemical attacks as well as personal assaults on politicians.

      Wrote Christabel Pankhurst (the Pankhurst family was the most prominent suffragists in Britain) in 1913: “If men use explosives and bombs for their own purpose they call it war [clearly referencing the anarchists because this was prior to WWI], and the throwing of a bomb that destroys other people is then described as a glorious and heroic deed. Why should a woman not make use of the same weapons as men? It is not only war we have declared. We are fighting for a revolution!”

      By the mid 1920s most anarchists had been supplanted by communists operating under Comintern, with the exception being Spain. Anarchists and communists cooperated at first, but given the organisational and managerial incompetence of anarchists in Catalonia, soon the communists were pushing aside their once allies.

      It seems to me no surprise that after 40+ years of chaos and violence people would succumb to the appeal of groups, i.e. the fascists and Nazis, that promised to end it and bring forth stability.

    • Kauf Buch says

      TO Andreas K
      To a degree, what you write is correct. To another degree: Oh, BULL.

      To believe your nonsense, you’d have to accept the Left’s mental illness of “projection”:
      “Opposition to the IMAGINED ‘threat’ of the American Right-wing with ACTUAL violence which is repeatedly exercised by the Left will only facilitate the realization of the Right-wing threat! BLAME THE RIGHT-WING, no matter what!!!”

      tl;dr: “Victim, victim, über alles.”

      Antifa ARE the (useful idiots/tools of the) fascists.

      • Kauf Buch says

        p.s. TO Andreas K
        Someone summed up LEFTIST “LOGIC” (sic) nicely thus:
        “Speech you don’t agree with is violence. I’m triggered! Violence you agree with is free speech. Punch a fascist!”

  13. northernobserver says

    It’s funny how people who should know better can not see that the “Punch a Nazi” political philosophy leads to the end of liberal democracy pretty damn fast.
    Our Academics, Journalists, and certain politicians are really that dim.

    • David of Kirkland says

      Communists and anarchists are not for a liberal democracy.

    • Really? I can think of at least one occasion where failing to adequately punch Nazis led to the end of a liberal democracy.

      At some point punching Nazis is the least worst option. However, the US hasn’t arrived anywhere that point yet.

      • Curle says


        The choice for Weimar was punch Bolsheviks and end up with Nazis or punch Nazis and end up with Bolsheviks. Take a poll of Ukrainians as to which was the preferred option.

          • Stephanie says

            L, it isn’t a false dilemma, it’s what happened. It would happen today, but there are simply no real Nazis. We learnt that lesson from history, but because leftists can’t let go of the utopian dream, we still have communists. They’re the real threat.

      • Kencathedrus says

        @L: I’m afraid that what you wrote sounded offensive to me. You sound like a Nazi. Maybe you should be punched?

        Now do you see why that might be a problem?

    • Farris says


      It’s okay to punch them begets it’s okay to kill them.
      It’s okay to kill them begets it’s okay to herd them into ovens.
      Exactly who is fighting the Nazis here?

        • Farris says

          “Slippery slopes are very slippery….”

          Said the defender of masked individuals marching through streets assaulting people with chains, locks, bats, clubs ….

          The bravery of the “sucker punch”.

  14. northernobserver says

    Great photo btw, they look like Charles Manson’s grand children. And in many ways, spiritually, they truly are.

    • David George says

      Lovely bunch alright northernobserver, top centre looks like a more deranged version of CM himself. Imagine what their faces will look like after twenty or thirty years of stewing in resentment and hate.

  15. Curle says

    “of a movement that arose in Germany in the 1930s to counter the rise of Nazism.“

    Antifa was an outgrowth of the Spartacus Union which followed the Spartacus League, a group that attempted an Weimar coup, and that pre-dated the Nazis.

    Presenting them as an reaction to the Nazis rather than vice-versa seems an distortion of an important point.

  16. codadmin says

    Antifa and their apologists are fascists so a new, true anti-fascist group is needed to combat them.

  17. Citizen XY says

    It is rather funny/ironic how these types, with their intersectionality and race divisions, seem to be doing their best to bring about Charlie’s helter-skelter race war.

    • Citizen XY says

      (. . . was intended to be located in reply to northernobserver’s comment above, re Manson.)

  18. You're Not Helping says

    “It’s okay to punch Nazis and everybody should do it all the time.”
    “Won’t the widespread adoption of violent tactics signal the end of civil discourse and hasten the inevitable authoritarian crackdown, all while lending an air of legitimacy to the law-and-order rhetoric of the most reactionary elements?”
    “That sounds like something a Nazi would say!” [balls hand into fist]

  19. Let’s see:

    You have Fascists whose goal is to murder people, and you have anti-fa whose goal is to keep people from being murdered.

    You have rightwing terrorism which committed the majority of domestic terrorist murders last year, and you have anti-fa who have murdered no one.

    But sure, in Quillette la-la land, anti-fa is the real threat.

    • Curle says

      @Lets see,

      “Fascists whose goal is to murder people”. [Facts not in evidence]

      “ and you have anti-fa whose goal is to keep people from being murdered.” [Facts not in evidence].

      Though I’m sure you had fun making it all up.

    • CP says

      So is violence ok or not? And are you saying Ngo was trying to murder someone and Antifa beat him up to keep him form doing that?

      • IfYouAren'tAFacistsYou'reNotNext says

        Ngo was not trying to murder someone himself but was filming people so that his buddies in Patriot Prayer could attack them. Ngo uses his status as a “journalist” to do things like record a DSA sign-in sheet so that his fascist buddies can assault those people. In fact, Ngo even records the attacks that Patriot Prayer engages in and edits the footage of their attacks. Ngo should not be considered a journalist and instead should be viewed as the videographer for hate groups. Calling Ngo a journalist is like calling a person who films a bank robbery, at the behest of the bank robbers, a journalist. Ngo is an ally to white supremacist terror groups and and accessory to their violence. Punching him in the face was an act of self-defense.

        • CP says

          I don’t know anything about this Patriot Prayer group, but I bet if I went and asked them they would have negative stuff to say about Antifa. They may even claim Antifa are actually fascists (I’ve seen the claim somewhere already) and hence deserve a good beat down. So would it be self defense for them to attack Antifa folks that are walking around videoing them?

          This seems like terrible logic to use to support this violence. I support the usual form of self defense, not this tortured definition. I think I’m still in the majority in this one.

  20. CAY says

    There is a serious concern with the actions of the group calling themselves Antifascists and those supporting them whether openly or by omission.

    The first concern is that Antifascists are committing violence as a reaction to non-violent actions (despite the cause). Which means if people actually think that is acceptable, as long as the cause is “worthy – righteous – correct” violence is okay.

    The second concern is that it will become a self fulfilling prophecy. People will get tired of being attacked, eventually the most volatile of the right will band together as a reaction to Antifascists.

    All of this can be avoided if the government properly deals with criminals – no matter what they call themselves.

  21. Peter from Oz says

    America is an odd place. They tolerate shaty towns and mass public defecation in their cities, love illegal migrants and allow gangs of masked terrorists parade the streets without arresting them for breaking the law. They have this strange idea that sending children away for 4 years to learn things they should have learnt in school and to be indoctrinated with left-wing pap is somehow a good thing.

    • Morgan Foster says

      @Peter from Oz

      Almost all of this is happening in cities that are governed by the Democratic Party.


  22. Sparkles And Rainbows says

    “Antifa” in Portland is the usual cohort of shitheads who used to call themselves “Black Bloc” – a rotating group of people who like to break shit, think they’re “anarchists” while they avail themselves of most of what civilized society has to offer, and then complain about it. It used to be that the “Black Bloc” shit would try to co-opt peaceful marches. Now they just mob like thugs in their own unpermitted “marches”.

    The braindead fucktard Joey Gibson and his “Patriot Prayer” – what a fucked up name – group are idiot provocateurs and dumbfuck “antifa” in Portland just take the bait.

    Wonder what would happen if “Patriot Prayer” had their little Proud Boy rally and no one showed up against them?

    This theater is getting tiresome and is verging on one of those “every armed to the teeth asshole shows up in camo and locked and loaded” type situations.

    Get the fuck out of my city.

    • DiamondLil says

      A commentor on another article said it best: Both groups are “cosplayers” pretending to be revolutionaries. Bronx’s with brickbats.

    • Scott says

      There was a time when these same retards would get drunk at soccer games and commit brutal attacks on anyone wearing the other teams colors, now they pretend it is political.
      There has always been vandals and those so damaged they love letting blood. Don’t let there phony manifesto make you think they are somehow complex or legitimate. Let the cops do there job, lock these idiots up and stop buying into the drama

  23. David of Sydney says

    The creatures outside looked from antifa to fascist, and from fascist to antifa, and from antifa to fascist again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.

  24. GSW says

    “America is an odd place. They… allow gangs of masked terrorists [to] parade [in] the streets without arresting them for breaking the law” PeterOz

    Yes — directly on point because this isn’t the first time these masked terrorists have appeared in public so no one can claim to be surprised.

    Where are the U.S. laws that would prevent demonstrators (of any persuasion) from hiding their faces from surveillance cameras? Last time I looked, freedom of assembly didn’t include the right to violently attack persons or property while wearing a cloak of anonymity.

    Unmasked, the romance of attending street fighting hoedowns armed with weapons would fade away since these sociopaths have proven themselves time and again to be much too cowardly to face arrest or jail for their actions.

  25. IainC of The Ponds says

    (I emailed this tongue-in-cheek criticism of Antifa’s tactics in Portland to the Portland Antifa Chapter, but so far, no response.)

    Hi there. I’m very interested in the origins and motivations of modern fascist movements, and since Antifa is the pre-eminent fascistic movement in the US at the moment, I thought I would try to find out more about you. Could I get some responses to a few questions?
    1. Before changing to Antifa, is it true that you were originally calling yourselves Ante-Fa – “precursors to fascism”, to disguise your motivations?
    2. You’ve obviously styled yourselves on the original Sturmabteilung. Was this a conscious homage or is the manifestation of violent street thuggery while dressed in black simply unavoidable for fascist shock troops anyway?
    3. Bringing fascist violence to the streets is all very well, but when will your manifesto “Our Struggle” be released for the public to rally around?
    4. Russian fascists annihilated peasants, workers, bourgeoisie, Ukrainians and Jews, German fascists annihilated Jews, Gypsies and Slavs, Cambodian fascists annihilated intellectuals, landowners and the bourgeoisie, Chinese fascists annihilated landowners, bourgeoisie, peasants and workers, Venezuelan fascists are currently annihilating workers, peasants and property owners. Do you have plans to annihilate different groups initially or will you stick to the usual comfortable primary fascist targets – Jews, intellectuals, free-thinkers, dissenters, etc.
    5. It’s well known that fascist ideologies barely different to each other make the most ferocious of enemies, hence your altercations with other fascist cadres on US streets. However, do you plan to make any strategic alliances with other fascists (a la Molotov-von Ribbentrop) in order to advance your causes in the short-medium term?
    6. Fascist regimes are extremely environmentally conscious – when you consolidate power, do you plan to use jackboots made of leather substitute to save the earth?
    7. I used to think that this was the typical course for authoritarian regimes to consolidate power.
    Progressivism = just before the election
    Socialism = just after the election
    Communism = just before cancelling the next election
    Fascism = liquidating all the groups who complain about cancelled elections
    However, you seem to be happy to jump straight to fascism before any consciousness raising precursors. Could this be precipitate?

    That’s really all I have for the present. Please don’t send death threats! I am only trying to gather useful information for my enlightenment.

    • Photondancer says


      That made my day ? I particularly like point 6. I bet it will trip them up. Assaulting people- fine. Wearing leather – what kind of monster are you??

  26. Michael Cameron says

    50 – 0

    There is absolutely not excuse for the violence perpetrated by Antifa. I’m a proud liberal, and I have friends even far more liberal than me who I squabble with on occasion.

    50 – 0

    Everyone I know is horrified by these activities, and the few who are ignorant of the event have no excuse for their ignorance.

    50 – 0

    The 60’s and 70’s were a time of violence and even terrorism by many on the left. But we are not of that time. We are, however, living in an era of far-right violence in America.

    Far-right extremist murders in America since 2018: 50
    Far-left extremist murders in America since 2018: 0

    • ga gamba says

      It’s not for the lack of trying. They are just incompetent. It only takes one punch to the head or parts of the torso to kill someone as well as a bad fall to the floor from a push or strike. Probably because antifa is a lot of pudgy manlets ruled over by even fatter women.

      • Nakatomi Plaza says

        That’s a ridiculous response, ga. I suppose you think throwing a punch is attempted murder? As opposed to the actual attempted murders we’ve seen by the far right?

        This is a non-story relative to the right-wing domestic terrorism we have in the US. But will Quillette do a story on that? Hell no. Let’s all get worked up over a handful of losers who – by ga gamba’s own definition – are a bunch of fatties who can only accidentally do harm.

        Get your goddam story straight, Quillette. This is just click-bait for right-wingers.

        • ga gamba says

          Keep in mind that some jurisdictions have the charge of attempted manslaughter, which is a lesser charge than attempted murder. But, if prosecutors can establish the accused’s state of mind, such as a text that says “I’m going to kill Andy Ngo if I see him at the rally”, they may charge the accused with the more severe charge.

          Ultimately, it’s pretty much a judgment call on the part of the prosecutor. But the choice generally comes down to how much damage was done and how much damage could have been done.

          For example, a strike to the extremities most often doesn’t pose threat to life. A strike to the temple, throat, base of the head, as well as the heart and part of the abdomen may cause death. If I push you from an elevated structure and you fall 10 metres it may result itn death – that wasn’t even a punch. But even short falls at ground level may be deadly if your head strikes the kerb or other surface.

          Prosecutors also evaluate the physical size of the assailant(s) and their number. If it’s a mobbing, and each person only struck once. a prosecutor may decide the cumulative effect justifies severe charges for all.

          The problem the dim and violent have is they think it’s only about intention, that “he made me do it” is a defence, and they neglect to understand the law also considers foreseeability of the act’s consequence.

          This is a non-story relative to the right-wing domestic terrorism we have in the US. But will Quillette do a story on that?

          Thank you for your strong and brave whataboutery.

          Day after day you complain about the stories Quillette doesn’t offer you. Yet day after day you consume the ones you dislike. Instead of being a choosy beggar, why don’t you pitch your article about right-wing domestic terrorism to the editors? Who knows, it just might blow the lid off of it and win you a Pulitzer. Get crackin’.

          • Michael Cameron says

            It’s not a question of liking or disliking stories. It’s about proportionally. Readers of Quillette or Brietbart or Fox are not likely to realized that the overwhelming majority of ideologically inspired violence in America today comes from the right. This is because these outlets aren’t honest about the relative violence of both sides.

        • Kauf Buch says

          TO NP
          Don’t you have some productive work to do over at Vox, HuffPo or Communist Workers Daily…like, chewing broken glass or playing in traffic?

          Baseless claims (and tired, old, jaded cliches at that!)…tsk, tsk, tsk…

    • Curle says

      Ooh, here’s a factoid published in August of 2017: “Left Wing terrorists killed 13 people since the beginning of 2016. Nationalist and Right Wing terrorists have only killed five since then, including Charlottesville.”

      This came from Forbes. You picked a 2 year time frame that I suppose you contend favors your favored meme as opposed to the immediately preceding time frame which does not. Shocking!! Your source?

    • Stephanie says

      Michael, those statistics are cooked. They include the Parkland shooting which had nothing to do with right-wing politics.

      • ga gamba says

        Was a straight while male involved? That’s the definition of fascism, white supremacy, and all the other isms and obias to be conjured out of thin air to fabricate the long list of persuasiveness.

      • Michael Cameron says

        Seriously? Have you read anything about Cruz? His Instagram account was filed with bigoted remarks against the LGBTQ community, African-Americans, and Jews. The schools commission said his belongings were covered with swastikas. Is that normal behavior in your world?

    • Kauf Buch says

      TO MC
      Got any proof? Links (from non-rabid-Left sites)? MORE LEFTIST TRANSFERENCE.

  27. “In practice, however, antifa groups tend toward illiberal means to achieve their ends—both historically and at present.” This is a mere assertion, not even close to proven or even, it seems, provable.

    I am interested in an Quillette’s ‘explanation’ of what is meant by these two sentences which appear to be contradicting the pose taken in the instant article: “All revolutionary movements seek to sanctify their lawless behaviour as a spontaneous eruption of righteous fury. In some cases, such as the Euromaidan movement in Ukraine, this conceit is justified.” from:

    I have an opinion as to what it appears to be saying but I’d like a clearer explanation of what is mean by “this conceit is justified” in the Euromaidan instance.

    • Curle says

      “This is a mere assertion, not even close to proven or even, it seems, provable”

      Which part, the historical claim? Antifa was originally a Bolshevik street fighting paramilitary group spun out of the Spartacus Union and Spartacus League which attempted an armed coup against the German Republic of 1919. That not illiberal enough for you?

      They were the German arm of Lenin’s movement. Maybe you’ve heard of him?

  28. Farris says

    If you want to know and understand Antifa look at this action by one of their European brethren.

    For reference Thae Yong-Ho is the highest ranking North Korean defector to date.

    “Do you know about the recent fad of “milkshaking”? Protesters throw milkshakes on public figures they dislike. This happened to Thae as he was entering the Grand Hotel here in Oslo. The attacker, or “milkshaker,” was a Norwegian leftist, apparently.
    In the Free World, hard as it may be to believe, some people despise North Korean defectors as traitors, liars, and defamers. They take essentially the same view as the Kim regime itself.
    When Thae was “milkshaked,” his guards quickly subdued the attacker, and the man was soon arrested. Online, his comrades celebrated him. One of them said, “He got arrested for ruining a rich defector’s coat and deserves a lot of support and love right now.”

  29. Peter from Oz says

    MArk STeyn recently referred to a wonder apothegm uttered by Fellini’s favourite script writer:
    ”In Itally there are two kinds of fascists: the fascist and the anti-fascists.”
    That’s true of America today, except there are actually very few of the first kind of fascist nad many more of the second.

  30. David V says

    The modern Left lives in a dangerous fantasy world where they imagine they are fighting a “fascist” or “Nazi” enemy that doesn’t exist. The smear term is used to reinforce their sense of moral superiority because the truth about Communist atrocities are not as known as they should be.

    Leanne Wood smeared Brexit voters by comparing them to “Nazis”. In her mind, and that of the Left generally, anyone who wants a nation-state of their own is some kind of “Nazi” (unless they happen to be Scottish, Irish, Catalan, Palestinian or a “Third World” country).

    The SPLC is the “research” arm and Antifa is the militant arm of this whole charade.

    • Nakatomi Plaza says

      No. No way can you be this clueless. Every other post on here compares the left to Nazis. Godwin’s Law comes to Quillette to die, daily.

      • Kencathedrus says

        @NP: I agree with everything David V says, but I guess it’s a matter of perspective.

        The threat of fascism coming from a few deranged Trump supporters is very slight. It is far more likely to come from the left who have taken over the cultural pillars of the West.

        Brexit voters are casually being labelled right-wing, when really their concerns are very working class. Westerners resisting changes to their culture are lambasted as racist bigots, but tribal or developing countries are perceived as heroic or ruggedly independent.

        The SPLC has huge overreach at the moment. What started off as an organization to help descendants of slaves and combat poverty has now become toxic as this National Review (a middle-of-the-road news source) article discusses:

        What makes Antifa so dangerous is not just its use of violence, but that its violence is quietly endorsed by the mainstream media.

        • Curle says

          “What started off as an organization to help descendants of slaves and combat poverty“

          No, the SPLC was a well compensated Leftist front from the get-go founded by an unscrupulous mass marketer who realized that Left leaning Jews had money and could be parted with it by sending out feverish appeals regarding the reappearance of the Klan. I’m not sure who should be most angry, the people of the South he slandered for so long or the folks who gave to his scam.

      • Kauf Buch says

        TO NP
        It seems you have a reading comprehension problem. Sure, the Left calls anyone to the right of them “Nazis,” all while behaving like Hitler’s SA themselves. Not mutually exclusive.

      • Charlie says

        Principles of the Nazis. Items 11 to 14, 17, 18 , 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 are similar to communists. Goebbels and Hitler admitted there were great similarities between Nazis and Communists. Mussolini was friends with Lenin in Switzerland and when he came to power he received a congratulatory message. Prof S Hicks has good videos on the rise of the Nazis. Nakatomi Plaza you need to read far more on the rise of Communism and Nazism between 1900 and 1945. You also need to understand the Roman roots of the word Fascists, it come from the Latin Fasces, bundle of sticks carried by he Lictors. In Communism, Nazism and Fascism the state controls all aspects of life and the individual is subordinate to the needs of the State.

        We demand the union of all Germans in a Great Germany on the basis of the principle of self-determination of all peoples.
        We demand that the German people have rights equal to those of other nations; and that the Peace Treaties of Versailles and St. Germain shall be abrogated.
        We demand land and territory (colonies) for the maintenance of our people and the settlement of our surplus population.
        Only those who are our fellow countrymen can become citizens. Only those who have German blood, regardless of creed, can be our countrymen. Hence no Jew can be a countryman.
        Those who are not citizens must live in Germany as foreigners and must be subject to the law of aliens.
        The right to choose the government and determine the laws of the State shall belong only to citizens. We therefore demand that no public office, of whatever nature, whether in the central government, the province, or the municipality, shall be held by anyone who is not a citizen.

        We wage war against the corrupt parliamentary administration whereby men are appointed to posts by favor of the party without regard to character and fitness.

        We demand that the State shall above all undertake to ensure that every citizen shall have the possibility of living decently and earning a livelihood. If it should not be possible to feed the whole population, then aliens (non-citizens) must be expelled from the Reich.
        Any further immigration of non-Germans must be prevented. We demand that all non-Germans who have entered Germany since August 2, 1914, shall be compelled to leave the Reich immediately.
        All citizens must possess equal rights and duties.
        The first duty of every citizen must be to work mentally or physically. No individual shall do any work that offends against the interest of the community to the benefit of all.

        Therefore we demand:

        That all unearned income, and all income that does not arise from work, be abolished.
        Since every war imposes on the people fearful sacrifices in blood and treasure, all personal profit arising from the war must be regarded as treason to the people. We therefore demand the total confiscation of all war profits.
        We demand the nationalization of all trusts.
        We demand profit-sharing in large industries.
        We demand a generous increase in old-age pensions.
        We demand the creation and maintenance of a sound middle-class, the immediate communalization of large stores which will be rented cheaply to small tradespeople, and the strongest consideration must be given to ensure that small traders shall deliver the supplies needed by the State, the provinces and municipalities.
        We demand an agrarian reform in accordance with our national requirements, and the enactment of a law to expropriate the owners without compensation of any land needed for the common purpose. The abolition of ground rents, and the prohibition of all speculation in land.
        We demand that ruthless war be waged against those who work to the injury of the common welfare. Traitors, usurers, profiteers, etc., are to be punished with death, regardless of creed or race.
        We demand that Roman law, which serves a materialist ordering of the world, be replaced by German common law.
        In order to make it possible for every capable and industrious German to obtain higher education, and thus the opportunity to reach into positions of leadership, the State must assume the responsibility of organizing thoroughly the entire cultural system of the people. The curricula of all educational establishments shall be adapted to practical life. The conception of the State Idea (science of citizenship) must be taught in the schools from the very beginning. We demand that specially talented children of poor parents, whatever their station or occupation, be educated at the expense of the State.
        The State has the duty to help raise the standard of national health by providing maternity welfare centers, by prohibiting juvenile labor, by increasing physical fitness through the introduction of compulsory games and gymnastics, and by the greatest possible encouragement of associations concerned with the physical education of the young.
        We demand the abolition of the regular army and the creation of a national (folk) army.
        We demand that there be a legal campaign against those who propagate deliberate political lies and disseminate them through the press. In order to make possible the creation of a German press, we demand:

        (a) All editors and their assistants on newspapers published in the German language shall be German citizens.

        (b) Non-German newspapers shall only be published with the express permission of the State. They must not be published in the German language.

        (c) All financial interests in or in any way affecting German newspapers shall be forbidden to non-Germans by law, and we demand that the punishment for transgressing this law be the immediate suppression of the newspaper and the expulsion of the non-Germans from the Reich.

        Newspapers transgressing against the common welfare shall be suppressed. We demand legal action against those tendencies in art and literature that have a disruptive influence upon the life of our folk, and that any organizations that offend against the foregoing demands shall be dissolved.

        We demand freedom for all religious faiths in the state, insofar as they do not endanger its existence or offend the moral and ethical sense of the Germanic race.

        The party as such represents the point of view of a positive Christianity without binding itself to any one particular confession. It fights against the Jewish materialist spirit within and without, and is convinced that a lasting recovery of our folk can only come about from within on the pinciple:


        In order to carry out this program we demand: the creation of a strong central authority in the State, the unconditional authority by the political central parliament of the whole State and all its organizations.

        The formation of professional committees and of committees representing the several estates of the realm, to ensure that the laws promulgated by the central authority shall be carried out by the federal states.

        The leaders of the party undertake to promote the execution of the foregoing points at all costs, if necessary at the sacrifice of their own lives.

        • Kauf Buch says

          TO Charlie
          GREAT find/link. Thanks!

          • Charlie says

            The reality is that too many people lack an understanding of History and Post Modernism plus those who lived during the 1930s are dead. Suggested reading
            Shirer -Rise and fall of Third Reich. Shirer was An American who lived in Germany from 1933 until 1941, spoke fluent German, served in intelligence and read the German government records back to 1850s.
            The Travellers- book on travellers visits to Germany from 1918 to 1941; The Shortest History Of Germany, P Leigh Fermour’s travels books of the 1930s, M Muggeridge – 1930s, Orwell’s essays 1927-1948, S Hicks on Nietzsche and The Nazis- You Tube, Gramsci, Solzhenitsyn, V Shalamov, The Strange Death of Liberal England, Parkinson’s East West, Insanity Fair, Liberal Fascism

            Hegel’s followers split into Left and Right; anti-Semitism grew in German speaking lands post 1850; the resurgence of Pagan themes; Nietzsche’s Overman; misuse of Darwin’s Evolution as survival of the fittest; the decline of Christian compassion; the power of the Prussian Junkers; the insecurity of Willhelm the Second; The success of the Bolsheviks using violence in the October 1917 Revolution and failure in 1919 in Munich and Berlin ; defeat by Germany in 1918; the breaking of the Spirit of France in Verdun , reparations and the actions of France in the Saar in 1925; the more or less civil war in France between Catholic Right and Communist atheists in France in the 1930s and The Depression all comes to a head in the 1930s such that most European countries did not have sufficient deep democratic roots and respect for freedom to resist the power of the Communist or Nazis/Fascists.

            In Britain, the dominant party of the Left was The Labour Party which evolved differently to those on the Continent. The Labour Party was created by working class people who were Christians; Methodists and Baptists and many were Sunday school teachers. Keir Hardy , a miner believed in Self Help and wished to improve the quality of the lives of the poor , as did other labour leaders and were against revolutionary violence. Men like E Bevin, a docker and founder of the TGWU fought against communists. The communists were middle class and the only won a few Parliamentary seats. the People of all classes looked at Mosely with derision, he was mocked by PJ Wodehouse and his movement was called the ” Black Shorts ” .

            George the V and his wife Mary had ordinary tastes( he love stamp collecting ) and as the younger son, had been a naval officer for fifteen years and commanded a ship. George and Mary travelling the country in civilian clothes and chatted to people, on meeting the Labour Party leaders he treated them with respect and showed sympathy for those during the Depression which prevented hatred from developing. George V and his wife worked with the labour party to prevent class conflict growing. After WW2 men such as E Bevin prevented class strife ; when someone said there were too many public school types in the Foreign Office he said ” They did all right in the Battle of Britain “.

            It was said that the French Revolution was caused by unemployed lawyers. This is similar to Antifa , there are vast numbers of poorly educated effete affluent middle class arts graduates( they are not classicists) who have no practical skills and have a grudge against The West and their fellow man. If one looks at the poverty of Keir Hardy’s early life and those in Antifa it is insulting to the former to pretend they suffer. The feebleness of Antifa can be shown by the fact that Andy Ngo was punched in a cowardly way by people wearing gloves with glass fibre protecting the knuckles. If the attackers had been men who had undertaken hard physical work and boxed, Andy Ngo would be dead. Andy Ngo is not 205 lbs of labourer who has grown up brawling and can take punches.

            Antifa are very similar to those middle class humanities students who used violence in the universities from 1968 onwards which led to groups such as the creation of the Red Army Faction. If Antifa really wanted to help the disadvantaged , they would improve the technical education and skills so that high value manufacturing and the well paid jobs they produce, could be created.

      • DNY says

        Actually, posters to Quillette tend to compare the early 21st century Left to the fascists for which comparison there is good historical warrant.

        Briefly, central planning having proven to be a horrible way of running an economy, even most regimes self-identified as Communist, now have economic and social programs far closer to what Mussolini established in Italy than to what Lenin set up on Russia (in any of its iterations), and leftist movements in the West have largely followed suit. Some of Elizabeth Warren’s rhetoric about “responsible capitalism” and attendant policy proposals are very much the sort of thing Mussolini did.

        A long-form argument of the similarities can be found in Jonah Goldberg’s book entitled Liberal Fascism.

        • Kauf Buch says

          TO DNY
          Agreed! After all…
          RHETORICAL: In the greater scheme of things…is there really such a difference – when the rubber hits the road – between a tyrannical government OWNING private businesses versus CONTROLLING them 100% through OVER-REGULATION (ye olde Communism VS ye olde fascism)?!?

  31. James says

    I really do not see Trump as a fascist anyway. A lot of the things the leftists have done could be compared with fascism. For example, arbitrarily ordering the law enforcement agencies to not cooperate with the federal government in arresting and prosecuting criminals illegally residing in a state is an example of the arbitrary disrespect for the laws that occurred in fascist countries. Rioting when conservatives give lectures at universities is just the sort of thing the Nazis did. Using major media like CNN as political propaganda organs for the Democrat party is similar to the use of media by fascists. Politicizing courts and judges to advance the leftist agenda is similar to what the fascists did. Trying to use demographic change through illegal immigration or leftist immigration policies seems like something the fascists would do. Calling things the opposite of what they are is a typical tactic of fascists and communists. Calling illegal immigrants undocumented workers is an example. Or calling the unborn baby a vibrating foetus, or calling the violation of laws giving sanctuary, or calling men “trans-women” when they want to compete in womens sports. Giving massive amounts of money to Iran seems like forming covert alliances with enemies, something fascists might do. Trying to use the courts and justice system and slander to undermine elected officials is a tactic of fascists and communists

    • ga gamba says

      At most, and worst, Trump is Berlusconi.

    • Stephanie says

      James, you could add the Obama administration’s politicizing the IRS and FBI and mobilizing them against their political enemies to that list.

      • ga gamba says

        Trafficking weapons to Mexican drugs cartels. Murdering an American citizen without due process. Murdering another American citizen without due process. Murder a third American citizen without due process.

        Astonishing he wasn’t awarded more Nobel prizes. Must’ve been racism. Still, the committee could’ve created a special Nobel prize for extraordinary circumvention of the law for him.

      • Michael Cameron says

        Stephanie – even mainstream conservatives don’t believe either of those charges. I would stay away from Infowars if you want to be informed.

  32. Nakatomi Plaza says

    Oh, not this shit again. Nobody on earth gives a shit about Antifa like Quillette does. Literally, nobody fucking cares because this is 1) two years old, 2) an isolated incident, 3) Antifa is retarded, and 4) there are about a million bigger problems in the world right now.

    You turds are actually afraid of the six people in that photo? You’re afraid of fat chicks and dudes in make-up? You guys really need to get out of the house a little more often.

    • Gringo says

      Nakatomi Plaza

      Oh, not this shit again. Nobody on earth gives a shit about Antifa like Quillette does. Literally, nobody fucking cares because this is 1) two years old, 2) an isolated incident, 3) Antifa is retarded, and 4) there are about a million bigger problems in the world right now.

      Nakatomi Plaza on July 2

      Antifa is a symbol of everything left at Quillette. Meanwhile, practically nobody on the left gives a shit about antifa or defends them. They’re a tiny radical outlier group of losers who represent the left about as legitimately as a neo-nazi teenager represents the GOP.

      1)Nakatomi Plaza doesn’t care about Antifa, which is why Nakatomi Plaza posts so often about Antifa.

    • Kauf Buch says

      TO NP
      This happened LAST WEEK, you pathetic Lying Leftist moron!

    • Growthe Fuckup says

      “You’re afraid of fat chicks and dudes in make-up?”

      Why bring your family into this discussion?

  33. No sharia says

    Hey, how about right wing thugs who routinely attAck anti trump demonstrators??? Quill ette us shameless

    • Kauf Buch says

      TO Ns
      Show multiple PROOFS. Your lame claim is a laughable attempt to minimize/excuse/rationalize the violence of the Radical Left.

    • Gringo says

      No sharia
      Hey, how about right wing thugs who routinely attAck anti trump demonstrators??? Quill ette us shameless

      For example,there was the attack of MAGA-hat-wearing right wing thugs on Jussie Smollet. Where was the outrage on THAT? 🙂

      • ga gamba says

        He should have known that by entering MAGA country he was provoking people. Baiting them, you know? He knew it was MAGA country, yet in he went to incite. Disturb the hornets nest often enough, you gonna get stung.

        • Gringo says

          ga gamba
          He should have known that by entering MAGA country he was provoking people. Baiting them, you know? He knew it was MAGA country, yet in he went to incite.
          You are aware, are you not, that this was a hate hoax?Jussie Smollett hate hoax attack (1.09 million hits)
          (If you were already aware, a 🙂 would have assisted interpreting what you wrote.)

          • Photondancer says


            Ga gamba is well aware of it. He was parodying leftist arguments on why violence committed by those they support isn’t bad. He’s a regular here so may have felt the sarcasm tag wasn’t needed.

  34. Will says

    “…the idea that certain people do not deserve free speech protections is now as popular among the far left as it always was among the far right.”

    This sentence captures a sentiment that’s driven me firmly away from the Democratic party in the last few years — the right is just as bad as it was, say, three years ago, but the left has become definitively worse.

  35. Kauf Buch says

    HERE IS THE TRUTH about what Robert Spencer believes…in his in words:

    “I came from the United States of America to stand for freedom, with all free people, against the forces of oppression and darkness which you are representing.

    I came here in order to stand with the people who are fighting for the freedoms that make it possible for you to do what you are doing today.

    Not the violence and hatred, but to stand and dissent, but you can’t stand to have any kind of rational discussion, you can’t stand having dissent, you have to try to throw bottles, and drown us out, because you are cowards, because you know that you stand for nothing except for oppression and darkness and hatred, and that is why you are there.

    And that is why I am here.

    You are fronting for the most radically intolerant and hateful ideology on the planet. Everywhere in the world, everywhere in the world, where there are Muslims and non-Muslims, there is conflict because the Muslims attack the non-Muslims. The Qur’an teaches to make war against the unbelievers, and to subjugate them.

    And you are already subjugated! You are already their useful idiots. You are already their tools. You are out here in their service.

    And you think you’re fighting for freedom. You are fighting for your own slavery!

    You are fighting for your own enslavement.

    And it will come. It will come to you.

    You are fighting for an ideology that denies the freedom of speech, and one day you will wish you had the freedom of speech, and one day, you will wish you had the freedom of speech that you are trying to fight against today.

    You are fronting for an ideology that denies the freedom of conscience and will kill you if you disagree, which is exactly what you want to do already.

    You are fighting on behalf of an ideology that denies equality of rights for women, and all the women among you will one day be enslaved, if you get what you want.

    You are fighting for the destruction of all the freedoms that you enjoy.

    You are fighting for the utter defeat of your own selves, and your own life.

    You are slaves seeking slavery. You are the oppressed loving your oppression, and thinking that you are standing for freedom.

    You are the most foolish, you are the most evil, foolish, people on Earth.

    We are standing for the human rights of all people. Of the oppressed Christians in Indonesia, in Pakistan, in Egypt, in the Sudan that you just heard about.

    We are standing for the oppressed people who are targeted by Islamic jihad everywhere around the world. In Israel. Everywhere around the world.

    And so, in closing, I have to say: Shame on you!”

    • Kauf Buch says

      NOTE: this is Robert – not Richard – Spencer.

      • Photondancer says


        Thanks for posting. Trenchantly phrased.

  36. Barry says

    The people shown in the mugshots look so fucking weird. Are they the ones who attacked Andy Ngo?

    • Kauf Buch says

      I don’t think so. Portland is in Multnomah County, and enlarging the mugshots photo (poor resolution) with the Sheriff’s Seal, it doesn’t look like that. This one is probably from one of the many, many other previous Antifa arrests.

      • Barry says

        Christ, remind me not to go to Portland, with freaks like that on the loose. They look like drug addicts.

        • BrainFireBob says

          Significant meth problems here the last few years.

          **Native Portlander

          Also, at Nakatomi, since I’m posting: Antifa is frequently active here. Just because someone votes the way you want shouldn’t give them a pass.

  37. middleway says

    The photo for this article struck me as a police lineup from an H.P. Lovecraft Promethean nightmare, which apparently is the globalist road we are now traveling down.

  38. E. Olson says

    “Caring about intersectionality means that an attack on one disadvantaged group is an attack on all.”

    The question I have is who is attacking disadvantaged groups? Is it racist Trump trying to enforce existing immigration laws (pass by Congress) to protect US citizens from foreign criminals and welfare queens? Is it sexist Trump who has more female cabinet members and advisers than any previous president (all of whom seem to have been chosen for competence rather than diversity reasons)? Is it Hitler Trump who has a Jewish son-in-law and has moved the US embassy to Jerusalem? Is it homophobe Trump who supported gay marriage before Obama or Hillary Clinton, and has Peter Thiel as one of his unofficial advisers?

    Or perhaps it is racist Charles Murray whose “controversial” research finds people with low IQ are less successful in life, and that some racial groups have lower average IQ than others? Or perhaps it is those transphobic Republicans in N. Carolina who think men should use the men’s room and women should use the women’s room, or Ben Shapiro who accurately describes transpeople as mentally ill, or Martina Navratilova who believes it is unfair to allow trans-women to compete against real women in athletics? Is it attacking to simply point out uncomfortable empirical facts?

    And just who was gay, Asian, physically small Andy Ngo attacking with his camera and microphone? What disadvantaged group did he threaten? Inquiring minds want to know.

    • Kauf Buch says

      TO E Olson
      According to the Radical Left (and its rabid apologists posting here), Andy Ngo was “attacking” the truth about Antifa by using the “sunshine” of documenting their actions. 😮

      [insert pearl-clutching moans here]

    • Jonny Sclerotic says

      Trump has only two women cabinet members. You have to go back to Bush Sr. for that. I’m pretty sure Trump is sexist, although the fact he only has two women in his cabinet of course does not prove anything either way.

      • Kauf Buch says

        Math is CLEARLY not your strong point.
        See the Leftist.
        Such a SAD Leftist.
        Sad, Leftist, SAD!

        (Has a doctor prescribed any TDS medicine for you? WE CARE!)

      • Weasels Ripped My Flesh says

        “Trump has only two women cabinet members….”

        Which has exactly what to due with Antifa losers assaulting people??

        • Jonny Sclerotic says

          Ask E. Olson – he brought it up.

  39. James says

    Supreme failure that the DOJ and AG haven’t already declared war on this obvious domestic terror gang. And I’m looking at you Jeff Sessions and William Barr. How is it that American citizens are not safe to walk the streets of America? This is not a state and local issue.

  40. Etiamsi omnes says

    “When leftists resort to explicit violence, they make regular people more sympathetic to governmental authority and a conservative worldview.”

    Amen. (Signed: one of the regular people)

    • Kauf Buch says

      One caveat:
      “Governmental authority” only insofar as “ENFORCE THE DAMNED LAWS, ALREADY!”
      Otherwise I, like many, many other Americans, are becoming all too ready to respond/defend myself directly, without the intervention of government.

  41. Pingback: How #Antifa ’s Apologists Fell in Love With Street Violence https:/… | Dr. Roy Schestowitz (罗伊)

  42. Kauf Buch says

    Leftists in America suffer from a unique form of TOURETTE’S…
    …instead of reflexively shouting “fck!,” “sh!t” or such…
    …they just can’t *help
    but scream “NAZI!” “Right Wing Terror!”

    YOU can help! For just the cost of a double mocha latte (vegan) chai,…

  43. pbw says

    I followed the link for the Antifa book — LOL: $12.99 for the Kindle version and $16.99 for a print copy. You’d think communists and anarchists would simply release a PDF and post it any number of free file hosting sites rather than sell it and thereby financially support Amazon, the apex of capitalist praxis.

    I also think the point made in the article about violent vs. non-violent protest is well made — Antifa has cemented itself in my mind as the moral equivalent of skinheads (for what it’s worth, I’m not right or alt-right, I’m a Green voting liberal minded type).

  44. Islamaphooey says

    Imagine what would happen if there was a Proud Boys (or any other group on the right) rally and it was ignored. No counter demonstrations, no pushing and shoving and spitting and screaming. Just…nobody there to counter demonstrate. The Proud Boys (all what, 75 of them?) would do what? March and speak and strut and…then start to wonder, when’s the fun begin? Where’s our enemy? This is boring with nobody to fight. So the media is there, and they report that nothing much happened. There were no fights or bloodshed. Pretty much a demonstration and nothing else. Does this scenario embolden the Proud Boys to stage even more demonstrations? Do they recruit even more members so next time they have 80 or 90? Or do they realize it ain’t much fun when you gather together to provoke your enemies, and your enemies don’t show up to be provoked? Here in Denver back in the 80s there was a skinhead who gained a little notoriety and staged a rally on the steps of the capitol where he had a whopping dozen or so attendees. There was more press there than rally participants. My memory is there was no big crowd of counter demonstrators, if any. He had his rally, it was a flop, and you never heard from the guy again. However…antifa isn’t rational about this. Antifa WANTS and NEEDS the confrontation. If they KNEW that the Proud Boys would evaporate and disappear if they were ignored, they would STILL show up to strut and preen and push and shove and kick and injure. They NEED their enemies. This is what they do for fun. It gives their lives purpose. I guess trying to appeal to them to change their nature is like asking a scorpion to not sting. The most depressing aspect of this entire situation is the non response of the police. Much like the 1950s south when the law turned their eyes from obvious law breaking in their solidarity with their white brethren. The police telling Andy that he’s going to have to walk way over there somewhere to get medical attention is outrageous. Back in the segregated south how many black men and women pleaded with the local cops for medical help after getting the crap beat out of them only to be told “I didn’t see nothing, get on out of here”? It may be that the National Guard has to be sent in to Portland. But only after someone is actually killed. Happy 4th…

      • Kauf Buch says

        TO JS
        Please pay your TROLL FEE before posting your trash again.

    • Azathoth says

      “Imagine what would happen if there was a Proud Boys (or any other group on the right) rally and it was ignored”

      The sad thing is that we HAVE to imagine this. Because it doesn’t happen.

      People on the right often can’t even go out to eat without some leftist attacking them. They can’t go into their homes and simply live without a crowd of chanting morons. Hell, how often do we see articles exhorting the faithful to attack right wing relatives in their homes on family holidays?

      We would rejoice if we could get ignored–because that would mean we’d found a way to KEEP YOU OUT. A way to avoid the Gramscian march–a way to not get co-opted and destroyed.

      YOU need an enemy, a perpetual other that can always be blamed for why your insane policies never work.

      Our policies work. Follow them and you actually get peace, and freedom, and the ability to realize your dreams.

      We don’t need or want an enemy.

  45. ManCave Man says

    Antifa are domestic terrorists and should be treated as such. I hope Trump goes after them and puts them in Guantanamo Bay with their comrades.

  46. Strawberry Girl says

    Antifa is probably best described as anarcho-communist and it’s the newest incarnation of the Black Bloc. Its tactics are right out of the German paramilitary street thuggery of the 1920s and 1930s, both Nazi and pro-Soviet Communist factions. The difference is those German factions grew out of the devastation of losing WWI, the failures of the Weimar Republic, and the political winds blowing toward totalitarianism. Antifa seems to be the product of drug addiction, deinstitutionalization, family disintegration, dysfunction, and an education system run by Communists. Look at the people in these mugshots. They all look crazy. 50 years ago, they would’ve followed Charles Manson. Antifa attracts what all extremist movements attract, the lost and lonely, and the angry and aggressive where they can act out without consequences.

    • Kauf Buch says

      Don’t forget the sliiiiiiiiiiightly important part about WHO FUNDS ANTIFA….
      Just as Hitler had his industrialists….

  47. Kauf Buch says

    p.s. TO JS
    Appealing to “moral superiority”…spoken like the true totalitarian you are. And a CLOWN.

  48. Antifa is a vigilante group which formed because the establishment is unwilling to check the authoritarianism of the President of the United States, Donald Trump. Donald Trump’s behavior is outrageous and not subject to any control. Force is always necessary when a member of the public is acting out and refuses to exercise any self-control. If the police are unwilling to apply force, then somebody else has to step up to the plate to put a stop to the outrageous behavior. This is all governed by the basic instincts that evolution has instilled in our species. Vigilante groups are empowered by the suspension of the rule of law.

    • Weasels Ripped My Flesh says

      “Antifa is a vigilante group which formed because the establishment is unwilling to check the authoritarianism of the President of the United States, Donald Trump. Donald Trump’s behavior is outrageous and not subject to any control.”

      Can you give some specific examples of Trump’s “authoritarianism” and/or “outrageous behavior” that requires “vigilantes to run around and punch people that can’t defend themselves” other than the same old projection of butt hurt TDS hysteria since the 2016 election? Actual examples, not just repeated lies that become “truths” by being repeated enough.

      And no matter how much you loath Trump, how is a group of punk assholes in masks supposed to do squat other than pick on people that cant defend themselves or sucker assault people with bike locks? ?

      Who are the police failing to apply force against that requires Antifa to do this for them? Andy Ngo? Are you saying Antifa is required to assault Andy Ngo because the police wont do it for them?

      “Vigilante groups are empowered by the suspension of the rule of law.”

      Yes. Exactly. Got to agree with you on that last point.

      Antifa is absolutely empowered by the suspension of the rule of law by the mayor of Portland OR.

    • PBW says

      Get over yourself — you’re describing both parties. When Obama was president:
      – foreign wars went from 2 to 7.
      – the military literally ran out of bombs in 2015.
      – expanded GWB due process free detention to include due process free execution.
      – opposed an international ban on cluster munitions.
      – played the same games with Plan B the GWB admin did.
      – deporter in chief.
      – tried to gut social security (cat food commission, grand bargain).

      Trump is no worse from a practical standpoint than any Democrat or Republican in recent memory (this is not praise, I think they all suck). He’s certainly no worse than HRC would have been and since we’ve managed to not get into a nuclear war with Russia over Syria, maybe he’s been marginally better.

      Trump is worse from a twitter standpoint. But so fucking what. Every minute he’s pushing that “send” button, he’s not pushing THE button.

      • Kauf Buch says

        TO RSR
        President Trump is the GREATEST PRESIDENT in the last 150 years…if not since the Founding Fathers.

        That you have such emotional constipation about him suggests an anarchist base of thought, which does make for fun and games…until reality and human nature come into play.

        Whining about both Parties – and not seeing the good in what we’ve got – leads you to a dead end. Maybe you can do us all a favor and disappear there.

    • Kauf Buch says

      TO RSR
      Aaaand…just HOW does your delusional rant justify Antifa’s lifethreatening assault on Andy Ngo?!
      Bombast and verbal diahrrea are no way to go through life, sonny.

    • Lydia says

      In what way are Cutting taxes and deregulation, authoritarian?

  49. PBW says

    Hitler was a nobody until someone killed one of his goons. Then he got a bunch sympathy and press for what had been a pretty insignificant organization. Antifa turned a non-story into a huge deal that is only winning it scorn.

    Sometimes, as the person posted above, putting the behavior you dislike on an extinction program (meaning to intentionally give it zero attention) will lead to less blowback. If your goal however is to create sympathy and press for the utterly insignificant few Proud Boys, and perhaps swell their ranks — keep on keepin’ on.

  50. El Cid says

    The conclusion is false. Leftists were NEVER defenders of free speech. Liberals are. Destroying free speech is a hallmark of leftist policy vs. liberal policy. Obama’s agenda was to make speech either illegal or so dangerous that people would self-censor.

    • Lydia says

      Obama succeeded quite well in the self censor area. if one disagreed with his policies they were automatically labeled, racist.

  51. Ned says

    It seems telling that most of these Antifa demos are happening in places where firearms ownership is heavily restricted (Portland and Seattle, for example.)

    Imagine what would happen if they tried to throw a concrete milkshake at someone with a CCW permit…in a state with “stand your ground” laws on the books…

    • Kauf Buch says

      TO Ned
      Not only “firearm restricted,” but also (related, of course) with Leftist governments which are “sympathetic with these Domestic Terrorists (police “look the other way”, Mayors give “stand down” orders, etc. etc.).

    • Sparkles And Rainbows says

      “Firearms ownership is heavily restricted” in Portland how, exactly?

  52. Lydia says

    I don’t think antifa is nearly as cogent and rational as you tried to make them out to be. Perhaps the best way to approach it is they live in cognitive dissonance.

    Scott Adams has been following them and cruising their Twitter. He has a totally different take on them which I have found interesting. He seems to think they use politics as an excuse for basically what is young white men being violent hooligans because they like it. Some young women, too. since their politics make no sense whatsoever, even down to their name, he may have a point.

    • Kauf Buch says

      TO Lydia
      “…even down to their name…”

      They are not independent (ASK yourself: who PAYS for all their expenses?) and are the “Useful Idiots” (ref.: Lenin) of today. Expendable, yes. But still extremely dangerous.

      Thankfully, even MORE cowardly: they’d NEVER try these sorts of domestic Terrorist stunts (e.g. assaulting Andy Ngo) where there are Concealed Carry laws.

  53. DFWSteve says

    Antifa behavior is the perfect justification for national concealed weapon carry rights. If one of them attacks me, I will use all means necessary to defend myself, including lethal force. And so should anyone else. Andy Ngo could have died. A brain hemorrhage can be fatal.

    • Sparkles And Rainbows says

      How is it a case for national concealed carry rights? Ngo is a resident of Portland, where the incident happened. Unless he is a felon or has recent misdemeanor convictions, getting a concealed carry permit is no big trick in Oregon.

  54. Lydia says

    I”any case, the idea that certain people do not deserve free speech protections is now as popular among the far left as it always was among the far right”

    Who are you referring to when you use the term far right? For example the klu Klux Klan was very much part of the Democrat Party. Richard Spencer is a socialist and wants big government.

    The terms far-right and far-left are meaningless. I will stick with totalitarians.

    I am also finding more and more Libertarians who identify more with the left and open borders. Not impressed. Are Libertarians against nation-states?

  55. Hestia says

    OMG, look at those faces. Their IQs must be a combined 100, and the make-up on one of the girls – a devil? Or just a fucking idiot?

  56. Jason Dimmell says

    What are the pictures beside the article? Are they the thug perpetrators of the violence against Andy?

  57. Johann Muller says

    “How these acts of property damage were intended to undermine Trump remains a mystery, given that the CEO of Starbucks and many Bank of America employees were financial supporters of the Hillary Clinton campaign.”

    You’re confusing liberals with leftists here. Leftists believe that the rise of Trump and the Alt-right is a consequence of crises provoked by capitalism. They’re not liberals, which acts within capitalism.

    • Kauf Buch says

      Oh, PUH-LEASE!
      It’s long overdue that the “they’re the radicals, not those good-hearted moderates” crapola
      was put to bed.

      It’s most clearly stated about islam:
      “A radical muslim wants to behead you. A moderate muslim wants a radical muslim to behead you.”

      NO, NOOOOOOOOOOOOO…I don’t expect you to get the comparison, so let me spell it out:
      You so-called “moderates” (liberals) are the apologists/enablers of these radical Leftists.

      • codadmin says

        @Kauf Buch

        So, you must be a complicit in Nazism because you are a conservative?

        I don’t agree with the statement I’ve just made so why do you agree with yours?

        Liberals might be waking up slower but they are waking up. They are allies in this war.

        • Kauf Buch says

          TO codamin
          Your post, as written, makes little sense. CLARIFY.

          NO, of course one is NOT complicit in Naziism because one is a conservative!
          Exactly WHICH statement did you make that you disagree with (silly point) and which did I make with which I am ostensibly “wrong” to agree?!?

          Your English is unclear.

          “Liberals” of the Kennedy era may well have been “allies.”
          That’s a LOOOONG time ago.
          “Liberals” of 2019 are NO “allies.”
          At a certain point (or, after a certain amount of time), ya gotta say:

          Another alalogy:
          Ya want just a teensy weensy bit of HIV?
          THAT’S today’s equivalent of what you’re PRETENDING is an innocent “liberal.”

          • codadmin says


            You sound like a fascist, indistinguishable from the leftist fascists.

          • Kauf Buch says

            TO codamin
            You jibber jabber makes no sense and your retort that I sound like a fascist just confirms you’re here to spread disinformation. F+CK OFF. And God bless America.

  58. Morven says

    Mostly, antifa and the far right groups that they get into fights with are mutually codependent, feeding each others’ need for an enemy. Both are full of people larping Revolution. Neither is representative of the majority of leftists or rightists.

    • Kauf Buch says

      The BLOOD WOUNDS the Left/Antifa make ARE NOT “LARPing, jerk.”
      A brain hemmorhage is NOT a LARP.

    • Sparkles And Rainbows says

      Yup. Andy Gibson and his Patriot Prayer group are based in Vancouver, WA across the river from Portland. They could have their little “rallies” in Vancouver, but they wouldn’t get the psychotic opposition they get in Portland. It’s almost like neighborhood kids playing Sharks and Jets with all of the little territorial pissings that go along with that. If “Patriot Prayer” would fuck off, “antifa” would would be left hilariously bereft of bait to take and many would just go back to their morose little vegan lives.

      • Kauf Buch says

        TO SaR
        BLAME THE VICTIM…it’s always the other guy’s fault…JUST FOR SHOWING UP.
        Your disgraceful contempt disgusts me.
        You and your Domestic Terrorist antifa belong behind bars.

      • PBW says

        Antifa wouldn’t go away, they’d just take the fight to local coffee businesses or burrito carts, though the moderate members seem to able to destroy businesses using only the pen — still, the sword is so much more fun right?

  59. Antifa are a joke in every way. First, they are picking a fight with the side of politics that has most of the M16s. Second, they are making us real Leftists look like violent thugs who want to bash anyone who disagrees with them. Third, they are utter cowards who would soil their panties if they ever had to face something like the Brownshirts. Fourth, if they were sincere about being anti-capitalist they would be targeting the homes of CEOs, not workplaces filled with ordinary schmucks just trying to survive in a brutal capitalist society. This is a group with literally no redeeming features.

  60. Richard says

    If you forget the terms left and right for a bit, and terms such as ‘liberals’ too and then just analyse it from there, it becomes clearer what is happening.

    The police were stood down. This has the support of the State in this case represented by the Mayor who in turn has general support from the media (which is owned by Oligarchs). Therefore Antifa IS the police (not that I think there were actual police involved although who would know) for the duration of that stand down as they have the official ok to use violence on behalf of the State. This policy is also approved and enabled by the oligarchs who lets face it have been running this supposed democracy for a while anyway.

    Albeit some/most of Antifa might be racist or homophobic Andy Ngo was much more likely to have been deliberately targeted due to his breaking of this media coverage. Also note how the mainstream media chose not to show the punches and kicks but just the ‘milkshaking’. Twitter, which is now as mainstream as any other media, has also censored a fair bit of the coverage, probably much more than we realize. Facebook is so cordoned off into tightly controlled ghettoes that coverage there is not as much of an issue but these days it too is heavily censored. Both platforms support Antifa and its allies the anti-women ‘pronoun’ movement who are falsely (because they’re overwhelmingly straight) aligning themselves (forcibly more often than not) with the LGB community. So the wish is to enable a para-military group that can carry out state sanctioned violence without that violence being recorded. There’s also plausible deniability. I don’t think many will miss where this has happened before and therefore the term ‘Antifa’ (an-ti-fa-scist) seems almost a deliberate attempt to obfuscate as is the current pronunciation by many from the media with the ‘I’ not being pronounced as an ‘e’ as it is in ‘anti’. In addition Antifa’s (an tee fa) origins are a little murky although I personally suspect that the SLPC knows them. Regardless if we let Antifa continue in this vein they will one day soon have very nice uniforms. Black like their predecessors.

    Therefore at this stage I think the terms left and right and any variation of the term liberal are redundant. The State is showing very clearly that it is no longer in the hands of the people. I’d say at this stage that it is ripe for a tyrant to take over. And America has a ready made tyrant already ensconced in the White House by the name of Trump (whether Clinton or Sanders would have been just as bad is irrelevant at this stage as they wern’t (s)elected to the role). The fight is not between left and right but between tyrant and democrat (note the small d). If the tyrant wins then the next debate could be which tyrant but I think this has already been won as well. Any tyranny even if it is yours is at the end of the day most likely going to work against the interests of the majority.

    These challenges are being faced by everyone in the anglosphere (i.e. Canada, the UK, New Zealand and Australia as well as the US) more than they are being elsewhere. Hopefully it leads to a more participatory democracy not just in these countries but everywhere else but that’s not the intent of those who are raising this beast at the moment. They want an undemocratic state or world.

    There are related issues to do with causes (climate change being an accelerant due to the fear of it in the upper echelons of society) and algorithms and whether they act on people as a virus would and whether in fact they are still controllable. Who, if anyone, has agency and I certainly did not see it in evidence with some of those who Andy Ngo’s GoPro recorded.

    Some final questions. Whether capitalism is compatible with democracy. Whether capitalism is compatible with a world that doesn’t put 40 or 50 gigatonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere each year, potentially scorching it in the process. And why is our current society so biased against women and when was such a policy decided on.

    • codadmin says

      Sorry, the way the both describe the situation…the movie ‘The Purge’ comes go mind.

  61. michael spurek says

    How do we know these are leftists? Peaceful leftists are appalled their message is perverted by these thugs. These are more like the tactics of white supremacists damaging the left from inside.

    • Kauf Buch says

      TO ms
      Why don’t you suggest a UNICORN CONSPIRACY, while you’re at it, moron?!?

  62. Pingback: How Antifa’s Apologists Fell in Love With Street Violence | The American Tory

  63. David V says

    All you have to read is Saira Rao’s obscenity comparing Andy Ngo to Hitler. This woman was a Democratic primary candidate last year. Let that sink in.

    • David V says

      I strongly suspect that liberals may find that the radicals – Communists and Islamists – behind all this will find them dispensable. There is a certain tension between liberals’ supposed democratic and human rights commitment, and the priorities of their allies.

      • Kauf Buch says

        TO David V
        Liberals >> Radical Leftists = Moderate muslims >> Radical muslims … AS IN:
        “A Radical muslim wants to cut your head off; a Moderate muslim wants a Radical muslim to cut your head off.”

        SPARE US ALL the faux distinction between so-called “liberals” (which MAY have made sense in the 1960s Kennedy era) and Radical Leftists. THE FORMER ENABLES THEM AND RATIONALIZES THEIR DOMESTIC TERRORISM.

        • David V says

          I wasn’t trying to make liberals look good at all. My whole point is that liberals have a habit of being useful idiots.

  64. The Headless Prophet says

    They are singularly focused on identity politics. Is dispelling transphobia more urgent than mobilizing to prevent a war against Iran, or providing universal health care?

    The priorities of Antifa seem to coincide neatly with those of an establishment that wants a population distracted by petty strife. How did that happen?

  65. Azathoth says

    Sometimes I don’t think Robby understands what he reads–or writes.

    “In any case, the idea that certain people do not deserve free speech protections is now as popular among the far left as it always was among the far right. But it didn’t use to be this way: Leftists were once firm defenders of free speech for all, even for Nazis. Amazingly, in fact, when the Nazis came to campus in the 1960s, they did so at the left’s invitation.”

    The ‘far right’ that he suggests “always was” enamored of limiting speech is that same ‘far right’ that was most of the Axis in WW2. They are to the ‘right’ of the communists–and nothing else.

    But is the popular descriptor, so let’s just perpetuate it while trying to educate and inform people.

    The ‘free speech’ leftists defended during things like the Berkeley Free Speech movement was their own. And they were ‘defending free speech’ in much the way they defend it today–THEY get to speak, and you get to listen. And shut up.

    And does THIS really surprise anyone?

    “Amazingly, in fact, when the Nazis came to campus in the 1960s, they did so at the left’s invitation.”

    International Socialists invited the National Socialists to speak.

    Robby doesn’t appear to be able to say anything critical of the left without slipping something in that let’s his readers know that he thinks that the right was worse–or, at best, just as bad.

  66. Rudi Van Desarzio says

    Antifa are basically the kamikazi pilots of the left. A last desperate attempt to throw everything at the fight to preserve leftist hegemonic control of the culture that they’ve enjoyed for 50 years.

    I expect it to get worse before it gets better and they abandon politics for hedonism like the 60s radicals did in the 70s.

    The only question is what will be the disco of 2021? That, and how many young leftists will actually survive to see it.

  67. Kim Allison says

    Thank you Quillette for keeping up your unswerving diatribes against the unspeakable obscenity called “Antifa”.

    Antifa undeniably is the single greatest threat to our livelihoods, homes, and families, even our pets. (Antifa activists in Georgia have recently begun inciting the local governments to intrude on private property to investigate cases of excessive “dog barking” if you can believe it)

    Crushing Antifa has clearly become a “categorical imperative”, as the great German philosopher Immanuel Kant once pointed out.

  68. Candy says

    First of all this article paints antifa with the same brush as the alt right, which is far from true. Antifa is not violent, I repeat it is not violent. It’s a known fact that quite often provocateurs will show up and do act of violence and because no one carries ID, its attributed to antifa. Antifa is no threat to anyone except the alt right. It’s strange to me that so called intellectuals don’t get that. I guess it’s because they are getting their information from articles like this one, and Fox, and an assortment of people who are echoe chambers for fake news. Most of you don’t know what Antifa is or what they stand for. “Squashing antifa?” I am laughing so hard I can’t sit up straight instead of leveling your focus on the one biggest threat to this nation that ever existed, you blame a bunch of kids, teachers, and regular everyday folks who decided to stand up to the violence of the alt right who have been emboldened by the current lack of leadership in this nation. I believe this hatred and ignorance of antifa stems almost directly from the various police forces around the nation that create their own boogymen. I have been witness to at least two to three situations where antifa was present and never saw one person from antifa start a fight. In fact I witnessed antifa step up and protect women, and others who had been victimized by the alt right, while the police who are there supposedly to keep the peace did nothing. There are many layers to this complex issue, to say antifa is the problem is like saying Native Americans are the problem with the pipeline problems.

    • Fuzzy Headed Mang says

      Read “The Anti Fascist Handbook” by Mark Bray, a supporter and historian of the movement. “Antifa violence is a form of collective self defence.”

    • Ted says


      Stop and think for a moment, assuming you’re as sincere as the tone of your post makes you seem, and consider tactics. Antifa has, as you appear to be aware of, many tactics, but only one is associated with physical violence; black bloc.

      Were Antifa’s aims legitimately within the bounds of lawful activity, and they found themselves being discredited by agents provocateur, why would they not cease participating in black bloc tactics and disavow those breaking the law in their name?

      Ask yourself and your associates how the threat assessment of risk from the “alt right” is formulated. Were Antifa being honest about their aim of being a force for good, why would they not do as every other sincere radical organization since the 1950’s and require anyone acting in their name to show their face and identify themselves?

      In any mass movement, there is an element of risk. In this case, that risk appears to be confined to being identified as advocating for particular political goals. Ask yourself how an advocacy can win the hearts and minds of the majority of voting citizens when its unique participants are unwilling to be seen taking a stand?

      However sincere you may be, I have to wonder if anyone you know participated in the peaceful, non-violent mass marches and demonstrations in protest of the drive into Baghdad and the erasure of civil rights and liberties enshrined within the “patriot” act? Watching armed troops on the roof tops pointing their automatic weapons down at the peaceful citizens of this country was truly terrifying for those that stood up, showed their faces and demonstrated their right to be free from tyranny. Despite the very real threat of being shot, they stood up and were counted. Any that were arrested showed their identification and faced their hearings. It’s what honest citizens do.

      If you truly think that black bloc tactics and underhanded denunciative attacks on people’s livelihoods are legitimate and effective in promoting positive change, I urge you to study the history of mass movements and decide if those whose tactics Antifa emulates were truly on “the right side of history.”

    • Yendys says

      I read Candy’s comment, above, and wonder if she’s the top-right useful idiot (see photo), or the bottom-right useful idiot.

  69. Kauf Buch says

    “Antifa is not violent…”
    OK, stop right there. You are an abject (though bad) LIAR.

    And repeating lies – no matter how much you think you learned from Joseph Goebbels – doesn’t make it true.

  70. dirk says

    Antifa is violent, at times, of course, we have seen it, and so were the Bolsheviks, the Rote Armee, the army of Fidel Castro, the Vietcong, in the NLs even the animal rights activists (shot and killed politician Fortuyn some yrs ago).

    But…. if I may believe our Dutch newspapers (thats how they report on it, overseas): the casualties(severely wounded, deaths) due to street violence of the (alt)right in the USA is 12x (imagine the margin!!) as high as the one of the left (Antifa and others).

    Anybody surprised about that? Maybe only here, and that’s because, just check the Youtube as advertised here above by Codadmin, on the interview of Weinstein with Andy: – there is a left….. and a right narrative-, and never the twain shall meet, there is no reconciliation, never!!

    Would it be possible that some Antifa guy or girl responds here and explains his views of the case??

  71. Charles Richard Brown says

    “if America is indeed so irredeemable and hypocritical that violence is the answer, then what exactly are you fighting to preserve?”

    You should recognize the fallacies in this argument.

    1) It is not irredeemable
    2) violence is not an answer to its redeemability. It is a response to violence perpetrated against themselves.
    3) They aren’t trying to PRESERVE anything. They are fighting to end fascism and RESTORE some sense of democracy.

    Tolerance of intolerance is acceptance.

    • dirk says

      OK, Kauf, we know it now, the Antifa boys and girls are no nice and sweet kids! And nobody believed that (except Candy, of course)

      • Kauf Buch says

        Hey, dirk…ya never know who drops by this site.
        Some may not look at other “news” sources outside of MSM.
        Most posting here I assume do know; I did it less so for them as “for the record.”

  72. Pingback: Counter Revolution / United Against Domestic Terrorists – Portland, June 29th, 2019 – Media Coverage, Video & Photos – Justin Trouble

  73. Douglas Levene says

    Not surprisingly, you don’t see Antifa marching in New York City, because New York outlaws wearing masks to public demonstrations. This law was enacted to fight an earlier anonymous terrorist group, the KKK, but applies equally to the Antifa. Outlaw masked demonstrations, and the cowardly left slinks away.

    • Kauf Buch says

      You also don’t see them where CONCEALED CARRY is policy. (are you “shocked! SHOCKED!”?

  74. Pingback: How Antifa’s Apologists Fell in Love With Street Violence | TrumpsMinutemen

  75. Once upon a time the Antifa people might have had a political agenda but now they are just doing it for fun. Or, more specifically, to feed an addiction. That’s the trouble with absolutist politics: after a while you can’t stop, you simply find more and more justifications for more and more violence. But … Starbucks!!??
    That said, there is actually something comical about the (non-Antifa) Resistance. Since they model themselves on the resistance to the (actual) Nazis in WW2, maybe they should take to getting around in berets and trenchcoats. Speak in atrocious French accents (“I vil sey zis only once!”). Blow up some railroad tracks or something. Smoke awful Gitane cigarettes. Eat croissants.

  76. Pingback: How Antifa's Apologists Fell in Love With Street Violence | CauseACTION

  77. Pingback: How Antifa’s Apologists Fell in Love With Street Violence – Now Online News

  78. Pingback: How Antifa's Apologists Fell in Love With Street Violence - Market Research Foundation

  79. Alx says

    Here is the problem. It must suck to have all this white priviledge and still be total losers, so hit the streets, act morally superior and break something. Problem solved.

  80. Alx says

    The right: Guns do not kill, people do.

    The left: Words kill.

  81. Charles Martel says

    At the heart of the left is violence. It has always been there. Unfortunately, the past has proved that the violence of the left is only defeated by violence.

  82. Pingback: Fact Check: Antifa Is for Angry White Fascists | VodkaPundit

  83. JA M says

    “Masked protesters known simultaneously as the “black bloc” (because they wear black clothes and hoods to mask their identities) and “antifa” (as in anti-fascist)”

    The Black Bloc is one portion of Antifa. It their forward facing “shock troop” portion, and is primarily the lower echelons who have not moved up the ranks. They are the ones who are being asked to be willing to risk everything and bear the consequences, while their leadership directs from the rear (or makes plans and doesn’t bother showing up).

    All Black Bloc are Antifa, but not all Antifa are Black Bloc.

    It should be noted that they are slightly different from black bloc tactics (though they adopt all black bloc tactics as their own). Black block tactics were more or less mainstreamed into the more violent left alongside the Occupy Movement, but Antifa adopted them as the front-line “wing” of their movement.

    It should also be noted that they consider property damage, destruction, and vandalism to be a “greater good” due to their “righteous” destroying of the idea that there are any legitimate individual property rights. Antifa’s twin flags literally stand for communism and anarchy.

  84. Pingback: Fact Check: Antifa Is for Angry White Fascists - Conservative News & Right Wing News | Gun Laws & Rights News Site : Conservative News & Right Wing News | Gun Laws & Rights News Site

  85. Pingback: Antifa: The Fascist Terror Organization -

  86. Pingback: Barnorama WebLinks Collection Vol.263 - Barnorama

Comments are closed.