"While I’m assigning blame, I shouldn’t leave out myself. Last October, when stories about Platner’s tattoo and Reddit posts first broke..."

"... I went to Maine to write about him. I tried to convey what I saw: a campaign that was electrifying angry Maine voters. But I deeply regret that, impressed by Platner’s political charisma, I wrote that he was 'nothing like the edgelord caricature I encountered online.' If anything, he seems to be significantly worse...."

Writes Michelle Goldberg, in "Lessons From the Graham Platner Disaster" (NYT).

That article she wrote and links to came out last October. It sets out to prop him up as he was falling long before the primary: "Platner is the oyster farmer and former Marine with a baritone voice and a Bernie Sanders endorsement who this fall came seemingly out of nowhere to capture progressive hearts nationwide. Recently, a barrage of ugly revelations made it look like perhaps all the hope invested in him had been misplaced...."

Hearts. Hope.

Here's Goldberg, back in October, explaining that Nazi tattoo:

"A decade ago, Republican voters, furious with their leaders... tossed out all conventional notions of presidential fitness to coalesce behind Donald Trump."

"Platner is still a contender because a similar alienation is building among Democrats, and party elites seem to have no idea what to do about it."

Writes Michelle Goldberg, in "I Thought Graham Platner Was Finished. What I Saw in Maine Changed My Mind" (NYT).

The headline doesn't say why Platner looks finished: He had a big Nazi tattoo on his chest. How does Goldberg get around that? She explains punk culture:

Highly organized to say not highly organized.

New talking point directive just issued #AntifaDoesntExist pic.twitter.com/1BbAe8ql0q

— Tom Elliott (@tomselliott) October 10, 2025

"I am pleased to inform our many U.S.A. Patriots that I am designating ANTIFA, A SICK, DANGEROUS, RADICAL LEFT DISASTER, AS A MAJOR TERRORIST ORGANIZATION."

"I will also be strongly recommending that those funding ANTIFA be thoroughly investigated in accordance with the highest legal standards and practices. Thank you for your attention to this matter!"

Wrote Trump, on Truth Social, last night.

ADDED: "What the law says as Trump tries to designate ‘antifa’ a terrorist group/The U.S. has no legal way to designate domestic terrorist groups. Experts raised fears of political repression because 'antifa' is a broad ideology, not a group" (WaPo)(gift link).

“It’s essentially a kind of coalition politics of all kinds of radicals, from different kinds of socialists to communists, anarchists and more independent radicals,” said Mark Bray, a historian at Rutgers University and author of “Antifa: The Anti-Fascist Handbook.”

“Sometimes I compare it to feminism. There are feminist groups, but feminism itself is not a group. There are antifa groups, but antifa itself is not a group,” he said.

"A couple of weeks ago, I was watching video of people fighting on the street in Washington. A group of Trump guys surrounded an Antifa kid..."

"... and started pounding the living shit out of him. It was three against one, at least. Jumping a guy like that is dishonorable obviously. It’s not how white men fight. Yet suddenly I found myself rooting for the mob against the man, hoping they’d hit him harder, kill him. I really wanted them to hurt the kid. I could taste it. Then somewhere deep in my brain, an alarm went off: this isn’t good for me. I’m becoming something I don’t want to be. The Antifa creep is a human being. Much as I despise what he says and does, much as I’m sure I’d hate him personally if I knew him, I shouldn’t gloat over his suffering. I should be bothered by it. I should remember that somewhere somebody probably loves this kid, and would be crushed if he was killed. If I don’t care about those things, if I reduce people to their politics, how am I better than he is?"

Tucker Carlson texted a Fox News producer on January 7, 2021, quoted in "Carlson’s Text That Alarmed Fox Leaders: ‘It’s Not How White Men Fight’ The discovery of the text message contributed to a chain of events that ultimately led to Tucker Carlson’s firing" (NYT).

I'm only seeing NBC News covering the "White Lives Matter" rallies that didn't happen.

Headline: "'White Lives Matter' rallies flop as hardly anyone shows up/The poor turnout underscores how the country's unpopular and disorganized extremist movements have been driven underground." 

Is it news when something doesn't happen? You need to establish the foundation that it was supposed to happen and something prevented it. Maybe most news organizations decided that to say these rallies didn't happen is to say that there are very few people dedicated to this cause, and that's not something they want us to believe.

The way NBC News dealt with that is to say that the failure to show up in person should be interpreted to mean that the movements have gone "underground." So a big rally would be bad, but a non-rally would be bad too: 

The poor showing underscores how the country’s unpopular and disorganized extremist movements have been driven underground by increased scrutiny from the media, law enforcement agencies and far-left activists who infiltrate their private online spaces and disrupt their attempts to communicate and organize.

How do you know that what looked like rally planning wasn't just the media, law enforcement agencies, and far-left activists  talking amongst themselves? 

"Some say the riots were caused by Antifa. There was absolutely no evidence of that. And conservatives should be the first to say so...."

"The President bears responsibility for Wednesday’s attack on Congress by mob rioters. He should have immediately denounced the mob when he saw what was unfolding. These facts require immediate action by President Trump, accept his share of responsibility, quell the brewing unrest and ensure President elect Biden is able to successfully begin his term. The President’s immediate action also deserves congressional action, which is why I think a fact finding commission and a censure resolution would be prudent."

Said House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, speaking on the House floor in yesterday's debate on the impeachment.

"The building block of antifa is what's called an affinity group, people you live and work with and trust and know in real life...."

"All the planning is done within that closed bloc, and they don't let everyone know [what they're going to do]. I didn't know that they were going to burn the Portland Police Association when I joined. What they did was put a call out that said, 'Anyone show up in black that night at this place, and you can join the action.' That's called a semi-open bloc.... Basically they're baiting the police into overreacting.... They come in, they attack the cops, they get out. Antifa goes for a certain type of violence, a mid-level violence. Most people aren't practiced in violence, and what they'll do is, they'll either back down or they'll overreact. Antifa basically as a group does the equivalent of just pushing someone on the shoulder, and again, and again.... But a big thing for them is they have convinced themselves that they're doing something good. They're very big about trying to maintain, at least in their eyes, the moral high ground. Part of that is not killing people. They want that moral high ground and they construct it. And that's kind of what they do by using that mid-level of violence. They want you to overreact because not being extremely violent is how they convince themselves they're better. And it's also great propaganda...."

From "The Conservative Trans Woman Who Went Undercover With Antifa in Portland/Confessions of a black bloc mole" (Reason)(a 10-day-old article I'm just getting around to reading).

Completely debunked?

Joe Rogan lies to his millions of listeners that left-wing activists are starting forest fires in Oregon. This dangerous claim has been completely debunked. pic.twitter.com/qbNK9GQB9h

— Alex Paterson (@AlexPattyy) September 17, 2020

I understand the fear of Joe Rogan, but don't overstate your factchecking. Business Insider says "Joe Rogan falsely blamed forest fires in Oregon on 'left-wing' activists":

Authorities and fact-checkers have repeatedly debunked the idea that left-wing activists, such as members of the loose-knit antifa movement, have been intentionally setting forest fires.

"FBI Portland and local law enforcement agencies have been receiving reports that extremists are responsible for setting wildfires in Oregon. With our state and local partners, the FBI has investigated several such reports and found them to be untrue," Loren Cannon, the special agent in charge of the FBI office covering Portland, said in a statement posted to Twitter by FBI Portland....

Joy Krawczyk, a representative for the Oregon Department of Forestry, told The New York Times "we're not seeing any indications of a mass politically influenced arson campaign."

But Joe Rogan didn't say there was a "mass... arson campaign."  He said, "They've arrested left-wing people for lighting these forest fires, air-quote 'activists'... people have actually been arrested for lighting fires up there."

While the FBI — as of 9/11/20 — may have "investigated several such reports and found them to be untrue" that doesn't mean that there couldn’t  be other reports that, if investigated, could be true. If you want to "completely debunk" what Joe Rogan said, you have to show that NO LEFT-WING ACTIVISTS HAVE BEEN ARRESTED for lighting any forest fires.

Is this article published yesterday in The Blaze — "At least 13 people have been arrested for West Coast arson crimes" — just a pack of lies? Even if it is, it's enough to make if wrong to say "completely debunked." It names names of 13 persons arrested.

ADDED: The worst problem with Rogan's statement is "these": "They've arrested left-wing people for lighting these forest fires." That could be understood to mean that all of the forest fires are attributable to left-wing arsonists. He talks for hours, so you can hardly expect him to hit rock-solid precision, but it would have been better to say "They've arrested left-wing people for lighting some of these forest fires." If you don't understand "these forest fires" to mean "some of these forest fires," then, of course, it's very easy to go big and proclaim that the claim that you're seeing is "completely debunked." It's 100% untrue that 100% of the fires were set by left-wingers. Duh! But no one is saying that. That's exactly what we call a straw man argument.

"Sometimes called paltering, the artful use of small, truthful statements to convince people of a much grander lie is a common propaganda technique..."

"... In reality, the existence of arsonists is non-controversial. To wit, arsonists do not cease committing arson simply because of naturally occurring wildfires. Indeed, while revenge, extremism, and profit are all recognized motivations for arson, other fire-setters seek 'thrills, attention and recognition,' according to FEMA.... Close to midnight on Thursday, Facebook said that its third-party fact-checkers had rated as 'false' the allegations of coordinated attacks, which had by that hour spread to hundreds of thousands of its users... Kyle Reyes, the national spokesman for Law Enforcement Today, emphasized in an email that while LET did cite a police source claiming fires may be part of a 'coordinated and planned' attack, LET did not attribute the claim to any specific group or political ideology...."

From "Debunked 'Antifa' Wildfire Rumors Spread on Facebook Overload 911, Spur Calls to Violence" (Gizmodo).

A new dimension of Portland woe: "The mayor of Portland declared a state of emergency as fires burned toward the city."

NYT reports.

The wildfire crisis on the West Coast grew to a staggering scale on Friday, as huge fires merged and bore down on towns and suburbs, state leaders pleaded for firefighting help from neighbors, and hundreds of thousands of people were told to evacuate, including about one of every 10 Oregon residents....

“We have never seen this amount of uncontained fire across our state,” said Gov. Kate Brown of Oregon, where the Beachie Creek and Riverside fires threatened to merge near Portland’s suburbs. Mayor Ted Wheeler of Portland declared a state of emergency on Thursday night, and residents of Molalla, about 30 miles to the south, packed highways as they fled from the approaching fires....

Several law enforcement agencies in Oregon said they had been flooded with inquiries about rumors that activists were responsible.

"Honestly, I hate to say it but I see a civil war right around the corner. That shot felt like the beginning of a war."

Said Michael Forest Reinoehl yesterday, quoted in "Suspect in fatal Portland protest shooting killed by feds during arrest attempt" (NY Post).

Reinoehl in the interview insisted he acted in self-defense and “had no choice” when he shot Aaron “Jay” Danielson, 39, after an evening of clashing protests in Portland on Aug. 29....

The ex-military man said he headed out into Portland that night to provide security for Black Lives Matter protesters, who had rallied against a pro-Trump caravan that was making its way through the city.

He did not state why he felt his life was in danger and strayed away from discussing specifics of the shooting. “Well honestly, those are…details that I probably don’t want to get into other than just simply saying I realized what happened,” Reinoehl said when asked about the immediate aftermath of the shooting. “I was confident that I did not hit anyone innocent and I made my exit.”...

Reinoehl..., had often posted about Black Lives Matter and related protests on his social media accounts, where he described himself as “100 % ANTIFA.”... “If you just look at the basic definition of it, it’s just antifascist – and I’m 100 percent antifascist,” he said. “I’m not a member of Antifa. I’m not a member of anything.... I used to really love this country and I respected the flag and everything that it represented,” he added. “But because of all this, every time I see a big truck, especially with the flag on it, I immediately think they’re out to get me.”

We don't yet have details on how Reinoehl died in his encounter with federal agents. The interview is evidence of his paranoia. He imagined a "civil war." There's no civil war, but there does seem to be some kind of national nervous breakdown.

At Wheeler's place.

Antifa rioters set off fireworks at @tedwheeler’s NW Portland condo. They’ve also started a large fire on the street. #PortlandRiots pic.twitter.com/A3KnDvCBCv

— Andy Ngô (@MrAndyNgo) September 1, 2020

Using bats, antifa black bloc rioters are smashing up property around @tedwheeler’s Portland condo. There have been no police at all tonight per Wheeler’s directive of “deescalation.” #PortlandRiots #antifa pic.twitter.com/D0RtQtGL6j

— Andy Ngô (@MrAndyNgo) September 1, 2020

And there's this from The Oregonian: "Man under investigation in fatal shooting of right-wing demonstrator in Portland was outside mayor’s condo night before with daughter": "Michael Forest Reinoehl, the 48-year-old man under investigation in the fatal shooting Saturday night of a right-wing demonstrator in downtown Portland, attended a Black Lives Matter protest the night before outside the mayor’s home. Reinoehl brought his daughter, who was carrying a baseball bat.... The Friday night protest had the feeling of an evening block party with a DJ and other musicians playing in the street as people danced, while about a dozen demonstrators sat inside the lobby of Wheeler’s residence in the Pearl District, locking arms with a list of demands for the city to address systemic police violence and racism..... Reinoehl calls himself an anti-fascist and wrote in mid-June on his Instagram page, 'I am 100 % ANTIFA all the way! I am willing to fight for my brothers and sisters!'"

"A federal judge said on Friday that there was enough evidence in Sarah Palin’s defamation lawsuit against The New York Times Company to send it to a jury trial..."

The NYT reports.

The suit, filed in June 2017, is centered on a Times editorial published that month under the headline "America’s Lethal Politics." In her complaint, Ms. Palin said the newspaper’s editorial board had wrongly and intentionally linked her to a 2011 mass shooting in which Gabrielle Giffords, a congresswoman from Arizona, was severely wounded and six people were killed...

The judge, Jed S. Rakoff of Federal District Court in Manhattan, dismissed Ms. Palin’s suit two months after it was filed, saying of the mistaken editorial: "Negligence this may be; but defamation of a public figure it plainly is not." Last year, a three-judge panel overturned that decision and reinstated the case. On Friday, weeks after lawyers for Ms. Palin and The Times made arguments at a hearing, Judge Rakoff denied a Times motion for summary judgment. In ordering the case to proceed, he said there was "sufficient evidence to allow a rational finder of fact to find actual malice by clear and convincing evidence."...

The editorial, as it was first published, argued that 'the link to political incitement was clear' in the 2011 shooting. It also suggested a connection between a map circulated by Ms. Palin’s political action committee and the shooting. The map showed 20 targeted electoral districts held by Democrats, including Ms. Giffords’s seat, under stylized cross hairs...

The disputed material had been added to the editorial by James Bennet, the editorial page editor at the time. The outcome of the case rests on whether he behaved with "actual malice," meaning that he knew what he wrote was false, or acted out of "reckless disregard" for the truth. ...

Mr. Bennet resigned from The Times in June, after the publication of an Op-Ed by Senator Tom Cotton, Republican of Arkansas, that called for a military response to civic unrest in American cities.

Palin needs to prove that it's clear that there was actual malice in saying that the connection between Palin and the shooting of Gifford was clear. It's clear that the connection was not clear, but for Palin to win, it needs to be clear that Bennet knew it was not clear or recklessly disregarded whether it was clear. What the trial judge said was that the question whether it was clear that Bennet knew or recklessly disregarded whether it was clear is unclear enough that a rational jury could find that it was clear.

Is that clear?!

Isn't it interesting to see Bennet in the center of things again? Here's what I wrote last June about the problem with what Cotton had written:

[Cotton wrote about] "left-wing radicals like antifa infiltrating protest marches to exploit Floyd’s death for their own anarchic purposes," but the NYT has not yet reported that the violent element was antifa. Its news story on June 1 had said "conservative commentators are asserting with little evidence that antifa, the far-left anti-fascism activist movement coordinates the riots and looting."

I was bothered at the time — and I'm still bothered today — that there isn't "more reporting in the NYT about who's responsible for the violence and disorder accompanying the protests." I continue to feel that the NYT is "not pursuing it or they are suppressing what they have because it impugns the left." By comparison, the Times was ridiculously eager to see a connection between a conservative — Sarah Palin — and one sudden act of violence.

Perhaps Bennet, in approving what Cotton had written, was thinking of balancing out the NYT tendency to blame conservatives for violence, which is what got the Times in trouble and made it vulnerable to Palin's lawsuit. But letting Cotton blame left-wingers for violence sparked internal dissension at the New York Times, and Bennet got booted out.

"Faizel Khan was being told by the news media and his own mayor that the protests in his hometown were peaceful, with 'a block party atmosphere.'"

"But that was not what he saw through the windows of his Seattle coffee shop. He saw encampments overtaking the sidewalks. He saw roving bands of masked protesters smashing windows and looting. Young white men wielding guns would harangue customers as well as Mr. Khan, a gay man of Middle Eastern descent who moved here from Texas so he could more comfortably be out. To get into his coffee shop, he sometimes had to seek the permission of self-appointed armed guards to cross a border they had erected. 'They barricaded us all in here,' Mr. Khan said. 'And they were sitting in lawn chairs with guns.' For 23 days in June, about six blocks in the city’s Capitol Hill neighborhood were claimed by left-wing demonstrators and declared police-free.... On Capitol Hill, business crashed as the Seattle police refused to respond to calls to the area. Officers did not retake the region until July 1, after four shootings, including two fatal ones.... Much of the violence [business owners] saw and the intimidation of their patrons came from a group these business owners identified as antifa, which they distinguished from the Black Lives Matter movement. 'The idea of taking up the Black movement and turning it into a white occupation, it’s white privilege in its finest definition,' Mr. Khan said. 'And that’s what they did."

From "Abolish the Police? Those Who Survived the Chaos in Seattle Aren’t So Sure/What is it like when a city abandons a neighborhood and the police vanish? Business owners describe a harrowing experience of calling for help and being left all alone" (NYT).

The top-rated comment over there — by a lot — is:

This is pretty amazing because I certainly don't recall the NYT reporting on the chaos while it was occurring. The NYT reports made it sound like Seattle was having a block party when in fact the opposite was true. I saw some reports of the chaos on Facebook, but figured it was just right wing propaganda. I guess I'll have to get serious about getting the truth from many news sources going forward. It's naive to think that news reporting is not influenced by political agendas of those reporting it. I'm liberal, but I still like to know the truth even if it flies in the face of my beliefs and forces me to rethink them rationally.

2 highly rated responses to that comment:

"I’ve been on the front lines of the protests here, searching for the 'radical-left anarchists' who President Trump says are on Portland streets each evening."

"I thought I’d found one: a man who for weeks leapt into the fray and has been shot four times with impact munitions yet keeps coming back. I figured he must be a crazed anarchist. But no, he turned out to be Dr. Bryan Wolf, a radiologist who wears his white doctor’s jacket and carries a sign with a red cross and the words 'humanitarian aid.' He pleads with federal forces not to shoot or gas protesters.... Maybe the rioting anarchists were in front of the crowd, where there are discussions about Black Lives Matter? I found musicians and activists and technicians, who were projecting a huge sign on the wall of a nearby building — 'Fed Goons Out of PDX' — that seemed a bit geeky for anarchists.... Sure there are anarchists and antifa activists in the Portland protests, just as there are radiologists and electricians, lawyers and mechanics. Report on the ground here and any single narrative feels too simplistic. The protesters aren’t all peaceful, nor are they primarily violent. They’re a complicated weave, differing by time of day....  [W]hile there’s violence from both sides, what I’ve seen firsthand is that the most violent behavior overwhelmingly comes from the federal agents, and indeed the most serious injuries have been suffered by protesters."

Writes Nicholas Kristof in "Help Me Find Trump’s ‘Anarchists’ in Portland/The president has his politically driven narrative. And then there’s reality" (NYT).

Maskless Nadler says the violence from Antifa in Portland is a myth.

I ran into Jerry Nadler in DC and asked him to disavow the Antifa violence/rioting in Portland.

His response?

“THATS A MYTH” pic.twitter.com/veImyE2rju

— Essential Fleccas 🇺🇸 (@fleccas) July 27, 2020

I can't tell what he's calling a myth — maybe only the role of Antifa — but he sure scurried out of there. Did not want to discuss any details.

He calls it "a myth spread that's being spread only in Washington D.C." That's plainly untrue.

IN THE COMMENTS: Earnest Prole said:

A month ago you were saying it was “horrible” to hold Antifa responsible for the violence and disorder accompanying the protests, and now you’re mocking Jerry Nadler?

I appreciate that he provided a link to my June 22nd post, but let's take a close look at exactly what I said, because there is absolutely no contradiction. It begins with a quote from the WaPo "Fact Checker":

"There has not yet been a single confirmed case in which someone who self-identifies as antifa led violent acts at any of the protests across the country. The president and his administration have placed an outsize burden of blame on antifa, without waiting for arrest data and completed investigations. This is not the first time Trump has pointed to antifa as a shadowy nemesis. But the misinformation created by his continued insistence of antifa’s involvement has led to more chaos and violence in an already turbulent moment. As always, the burden of proof rests with the speaker — and the administration has provided no evidence, only assertions that it has evidence. Trump earns Four Pinocchios."

Write Meg Kelly and Elyse Samuels at the Washington Post "Fact Checker," addressing the many statements by Trump that the Black Lives Matter protests involve antifa.

I go on to connect that to the recent problem at the NYT and quote an earlier post of mine:

This, by the way, was also the problem the NYT had with the Tom Cotton op-ed. As I said when the NYT first expressed regret for publishing the piece:

A particular problem with Cotton's piece was that it said "left-wing radicals like antifa infiltrating protest marches to exploit Floyd’s death for their own anarchic purposes," but the NYT has not yet reported that the violent element was antifa. Its news story on June 1 had said "conservative commentators are asserting with little evidence that antifa, the far-left anti-fascism activist movement coordinates the riots and looting."

Whether Cotton was right or wrong about the facts, there is a problem with factual assertions in op-eds. I've written op-eds for the NYT, and it was with a very short deadline and I was trusted to get the facts in order. I don't know how much the Times intends to change its process, but I assume it wants and needs to have some distance between itself and the writers it brings in from the outside to give a hot take on a breaking controversial story.

I added: "Why isn't there more reporting in the NYT about who's responsible for the violence and disorder accompanying the protests?"

I'm mildly glad to see the WaPo Fact Checker addressing this topic, but it's pathetic that this basic level of journalistic inquiry is coming so late. It is, however, horrible that Trump (and Cotton) have spread this meme. Maybe they are right and the Fact Checker is wrong, but it's not enough to luck out in the end and have said something that turns out to be the truth. We should care about the truth for the sake of truth and care about it all along. There's so little of that these days.

You see my use of the word "horrible." Earnest Prole wrongly paraphrased me as saying "it was 'horrible' to hold Antifa responsible." I clearly said that I didn't know one way or the other and I wanted the journalists and the politicians to focus on getting the facts. It's not horrible to hold Antifa responsible if Antifa is responsible.

In this post today, I said "I can't tell what [Nadler is] calling a myth — maybe only the role of Antifa...." I'm still showing you that I don't know who is doing the violence. The interview in the clip is cut off. I'd like to see the whole thing. Is Nadler denying that there is violence in Portland? It's very weird to say that, so I'm inclined to guess that he was only saying that it's a myth to say it's Antifa. Now, he's still plainly wrong — as I said above — to say that it's only in Washington that people are saying the violent element in the protests is Antifa.

So I'm completely consistent with my June 22nd statement. I want to know who is doing the violence! Is it Antifa? Where is the investigative journalism? Are there peaceful protesters who deserve recognition for their dedication to nonviolence, whose cause is undermined by a separate set of people? I still don't know. I would like Nadler to issue a clear statement telling us what he knows and what he believes is going on.

Is "Antifa" a useful word or concept? Is it a shibboleth of the right?

"Facebook on Thursday said it had take action against ads run by President Trump's re-election campaign for breaching its policies on hate."

"The ads, which attacked what the Trump campaign described as "Dangerous MOBS of far-left groups," featured an upside-down triangle. The Anti-Defamation League said Thursday the triangle 'is practically identical to that used by the Nazi regime to classify political prisoners in concentration camps.' 'We removed these posts and ads for violating our policy against organized hate. Our policy prohibits using a banned hate group's symbol to identify political prisoners without the context that condemns or discusses the symbol,' Andy Stone, a Facebook spokesperson, told CNN Business. The ads targeted the far left group Antifa, calling on Trump supporters to back the President's calls to designate the group a terrorist organization."

CNN Business Reports.

"... without barely a wimpier..."

Interesting how ANTIFA and other Far Left militant groups can take over a city without barely a wimpier from soft Do Nothing Democrat leadership, yet these same weak leaders become RADICAL when it comes to shutting down a state or city and its hard working, tax paying citizens!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 14, 2020

Quite a powerful phantom, Antifa.

Antifa is a bogeyman, little more than a figment of overheated right-wing imaginations. Also, they just declared an autonomous zone covering several blocks in Seattle, and are planning to expand their territory.

— Megan McArdle (@asymmetricinfo) June 11, 2020