9 Stupid Things People Are Saying About Antifa
By: President Donald Trump
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
A terrorist organization? A fiction? All Democrats? None of the above.
Cathy YoungOct 15, 202520723Share
ANTIFA IS IN THE NEWS AGAIN, designated a "domestic terrorist organization" by President Donald Trump and touted by his party as an all-purpose bogeyman. The Trump administration's strategy—aided by congressional Republicans and a stable of right-wing propagandists—is a bald-faced ploy to weaponize the "Antifa" label against its political opponents, specifically those organizing and attending the "No Kings" rally on October 18.
The pushback against this noxious narrative has been hampered by some nonsensical claims from critics of the administration.
Let's look at some myths and facts about Antifa now making the rounds.
1. Antifa is a domestic terrorist organization.
To start with: Antifa simply isn't an "organization" in any traditional sense of the word. (Trump labeling it a "domestic terrorist organization" is a bit like the Russian Supreme Court designating the "International LGBT Movement" as an "extremist organization.") What does exist is a loose network of activists and groups that use the label "Antifa." But these groups do not have a centralized or unified structure, and there's no evidence of coordination among them. The Armed Conflict Location & Event Data group (ACLED), which monitors conflict and crisis situations, notes that "Antifa-affiliated activists are also rarely armed and do not exhibit a pattern of recruitment, training, and integration into a chain-of-command, like most militia and armed groups." A lot of those activists are kids LARPing as revolutionaries—mostly anarchists, anarcho-communists, left-libertarians, and radical socialists. Some may call themselves "antifascist" without being affiliated with any group.
As for "terrorist," Antifa activists and groups have certainly engaged in politically motivated violence, harassment, and vandalism—nearly always low-grade but still reprehensible (and dangerous not only in themselves but in encouraging mainstream political violence). However, on the very rare occasions when people involved with Antifa have committed acts that may legitimately qualify as terrorism—e.g., 69-year-old Willem van Spronsen's attempt to firebomb an immigration detention facility in 2019, which resulted in van Spronsen himself being fatally shot—these perpetrators acted as lone individuals with no collective backing.
Share
2. There is no Antifa.
"There's no Antifa. This is an entirely imaginary organization. . . . This is no different than if they announced they rounded up a dozen Decepticons," jeered Jimmy Kimmel the other day, in response to a statement by Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem that "one of the individuals we arrested recently in Portland was the girlfriend of one of the founders of Antifa." But, in fact, Portland's Rose City Antifa is very definitely real. It was founded in 2007 and claims to be active throughout the Pacific Northwest. Peter Beinart reported on the group in a 2017 article in the Atlantic titled "The Rise of the Violent Left." (Beinart, himself a left-wing progressive, expressed alarm at the group's willingness to use violence to target what it regarded as bad speech and "to decide which Americans may publicly assemble and which may not.") Other Antifa groups have been identified in New York, Philadelphia, and Atlanta. Claiming that Antifa is a figment of right-wing imagination looks pretty silly when people can easily point to websites and social media accounts using the label—or to photos and videos of people marching with Antifa banners.
3. Churchill and Ike were early Antifa or proto-Antifa.
According to this notion, "Antifa" means simply antifascism—which means that Winston Churchill, Dwight D. Eisenhower, and the American soldiers who fought in World War II were also Antifa or "militantly antifascist."
This one is a favorite trope on the left, partly because it easily lends itself to seemingly cool memes.
Actually, it's super-cringe, if only because it is very bad history. While Eisenhower and other American leaders sometimes spoke of fighting "fascism" during World War II, it's extremely doubtful that any of them would have used the terms "antifascism" or "antifascist." In historical context, this language was associated with Communist politics. The German group Antifaschistische Aktion, formed in 1932—which pioneered the term "Antifa" and the logo on which modern Antifa imagery is still based—was basically the militant arm of the country's Communist party, a Soviet-aligned Stalinist outfit.
In other words: Please don't do this, folks.
4. Being antifascist (i.e., Antifa) is good, while being anti-Antifa means you're pro-fascist.
There's a term for this fallacy: "honor by association," whereby something that has a noble-sounding name must actually be noble. By this standard, anyone who opposes the pro-life movement must hate life, and the Anti-Defamation League must hate Christians (as Elon Musk charged in a recent freakout) because it classifies "Christian Identity"—an antisemitic race-war pseudo-theology—as an extremist ideology.
For what it's worth, Antifa in 1930s Germany were emphatically not the good guys; they arguably facilitated the Nazis' rise to power, not only by helping create a culture of political violence but by directing a lot of their energy toward undermining anti-Nazi moderates and centrists, whom they regarded as fascist-lite. Modern-day American Antifa, which has little similarity to its vastly larger and well-organized German forebear (it's a bit like comparing your neighborhood basketball league to the NBA), nevertheless does share a somewhat similar outlook. In his 2017 Atlantic piece, Beinart pointed out that Antifa's violent disruptions of pro-Trump events in Portland not only amounted to attacks on the right of peaceful assembly, but also helped fuel local far-right militancy. Also that year, reviewing Antifa: The Antifascist Handbook by Rutgers University historian Mark Bray for the Washington Post , Carlos Lozada noted Antifa's hostility to freedom of speech for anyone its activists label a fascist or white supremacist—and its intolerance toward "conservatives or even moderate liberals who oppose fascism."
Support our work and be part of our growing pro-democracy community—sign up for Bulwark+ today:
Join
5. Antifa was a driving force in the violent protests and riots in the summer of 2020.
It's true that Antifa-linked groups and activists were involved in the violence in Portland and, to some extent, Seattle (particularly in the so-called "Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone") in 2020. But nationally, their role appears to have been negligible—and the first Trump administration was already trying to inflate it. In a particularly absurd example, after an elderly demonstrator who approached a police line in Buffalo, New York was shoved by a cop and fell backwards, injuring his head, Trump tweeted that the man, 75-year-old Martin Gugino, could be an "ANTIFA provocateur"—a totally evidence-free claim based on a segment on the ultra-MAGA One America News Network.
6. Antifa is currently unleashing a wave of riotous violence against Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
In fact, the anti-ICE protests have involved no serious violence. (Joshua Jahn, who opened fire on the ICE facility in Dallas last month, was a lone gunman with no ties to Antifa or any other group and no connection to the protesters.) There is also no evidence of significant Antifa involvement in these protests. Julio Rojas of the Blaze , who participated in Trump's "roundtable" on Antifa last week after "embedding" with ICE alongside other right-wing influencers in Portland, has shared clips from his time in the city that show the following:
-
a protester throwing a tear-gas canister back toward federal agents after the agents release tear gas to disperse a crowd blocking the entrance to the facility;
-
a protester getting arrested after he "dumped red paint on the federal building property"; and
-
two men arguing with an agitated fellow protester draped in a Mexican flag and an American flag, apparently over the question of whether protesters should stay out of the roadway.
Rojas identifies these four individuals as "Antifa," apparently based solely on the fact that they are wearing black or dark-gray clothes, and the ones in the first and third clips are also wearing motorcycle helmets. (Antifa activists have sometimes used the "black bloc" tactic of wearing black clothing and ski masks or motorcycle helmets to avoid identification, and also perhaps for intimidation purposes; it is not, however, exclusive to Antifa.)
Join
7. Antifa resorts to violence only when necessary and for the just cause of thwarting white supremacist organizing, a far greater threat that leads to far more extreme and deadly forms of violence.
Mark Bray made this argument on NPR in 2020, citing such dangers as shootings by white supremacists in black churches and synagogues. But there is actually zero evidence that Antifa has helped curb far-right violence or extremism.
There is also no question that on a number of occasions, Antifa activists have used violent tactics to attack basic freedom of expression. In March 2017, they escalated a student protest at Middlebury College against an appearance by Charles Murray (best known as the author of The Bell Curve , the 1994 book that argued racial differences in intelligence are at least partly innate) into a raucous mob outside the venue; Allison Stanger, the professor who had interviewed Murray during the event, was pushed around, had her hair pulled, and suffered a concussion while trying to leave the venue with him. You don't have to like Murray to see that this is outrageous and unacceptable.
Moreover, people who decide that they're entitled to initiate violence in a righteous cause rarely stop at targeting the "baddies." In 2018, during a counterprotest against a rally by the far-right Patriot Prayer in Portland, "masked antifascists" beat up a fellow counterprotester, a Bernie Sanders supporter, for carrying what they called a "fascist symbol"—the American flag. The same year in Philadelphia, two out-of-uniform U.S. Marines visiting the city for a Marine ball were punched, kicked, and maced by a trio of Antifa activists who mistook them for participants in a nearby right-wing rally. (In an ironic twist, the "antifascists" used ethnic slurs against the Marines, who are Hispanic.)
Terrorists? No. Good guys? I don't think so.
8. Antifa is connected to the Democratic party and financed by Democratic funders.
That makes sense if, like many MAGA types, you are convinced that Democrats and Communists are the same. In reality, as mentioned above, Antifa types have a blend of backgrounds but generally oppose liberals and hate mainstream Democrats only slightly less than they hate Republicans. Exhibit A: Ironically, a photo the Blaze 's Rojas posted to prove to a Democratic congressman that Antifa is a real organization—so real, in fact, that soon after Rojas got his picture, the group (according to his own post) "attacked the Democrat office in the city." And notice that the Antifa banner in Rojas's picture is an anti-Biden banner. But sure, JD Vance and Stephen Miller: Antifa and the Democrats are all in cahoots somehow. Pfff.
There is zero evidence that any money from the Ford Foundation, the Open Societies Foundation, or any other liberal funders goes to Antifa. But don't be surprised if the Trump administration turns up evidence that these organizations have given grants to progressive groups that may have been involved in protests that also had an Antifa presence, and on that basis tries to establish guilt by association.
9. Antifa did January 6th.
And, saving the dumbest for last: the theory that members of the "violent terrorist group antifa" (in the words of then-Congressman Matt Gaetz) infiltrated peaceful pro-Trump demonstrators and instigated the mayhem has been voiced by a number of Republicanlawmakers and Republican state officials, and amplified by prominent right-wing pundits. The Antifa-J6ers theory doesn't have a shred of evidence to support it. But in a February 2021 Suffolk University poll, 58 percent of Trump supporters agreed that J6 was mainly "an Antifa-inspired attack."
But wait . . . if it's true, does that mean Trump pardoned, by his own definition, a bunch of domestic terrorists?
Share The Bulwark
20723SharePreviousNext
Trolling, taunting, spamming, and off topic comments may be removed at the discretion of group mods. NT members that are known plagiarists, repeat comments, or continue to disrupt/deflect the conversation risk having all of their comments deleted. Please remember to quote the person(s) to whom you are replying to preserve continuity of this seed. Any use of the phrase "Trump Derangement Syndrome" or the TDS acronym in a comment will be deleted. Any use of the term "Brandon", "Traitor Joe", or any variations thereof, when referring to President Biden, will be deleted. Right wing trolls can expect to have their irrelevant questions and comments deleted. Posting debunked lies will be subject to deletion. Use of the terms "leftist" or "lefty" will also be subject to deletion. ©
Tags
Who is online
71 visitors
Ook, I won't be calling Grampap and his brothers antifa any more. Sorry Grampap
I can hardly wait for that trump civil war the christo-fascists want so bad ...
Mr G assured me he would come visit me in the gulag every month
start putting everything in your name and tell him you want a deep 6x3 barbecue pit dug in the backyard ...
America is having an "I am Spartacus" moment.
On Saturday all across America, "I Am ANTIFA!"
And, "NO KINGS!"
[✘]
[✘]
Is Pete Hegseth antifa? Since requiring all news agencies to get approval, by him, of any articles that they put out from the Pentagon is the most blatant a violation of the 1st Amendment yet from the Trump administration.
KAPOW!
Meh.
He didn't tell them what they could or couldn't write. He set a new standard for getting a press pass. The Pentagon doesn't have to issue press passes at all.
You are a useful apologist.
The press walked out of the Pentagon yesterday at 1600
[✘]
Sure. They clearly aren't interested in operating under the new rules, and I'm not sure I blame them.
But today they're still free to write whatever they want.
I'm not defending the rule, BTW. I'm not sure it's a particularly good idea. I'm just saying I'm not sure it's a violation of the 1st Amendment.
There is also precedent for limiting press access. Biden was pretty much hidden from the press for the last couple years of his presidency. They even closed the WH to visitors. I understand why, and I think it was the correct decision. If it's OK to limit access to the Commander in Chief, it seems OK to limit access to a few colonels.
My litmus test is generally "If somebody from the other party did this, how would I react?" If Biden's SoD had issued new press pass rules over concerns about leaks with national security implications, I wouldn't have batted an eye.
Yeah... I haven't reached the point where I outsource my thinking.
There was thinking involved?
We'll find out when the lawsuits are filed which I expect soon. Personally I think this is another jab at the press in order to look good for the boss (Trump) than to have any real operational security.
that's a good theory
Yeah. Exactly.
Absolutely.
This is what it looks like, BTW.
No, but by his agreement he has the final say as to whether they would be allowed to publish what they write.
that's the maga version of free speech ...
No. He told them the rules for getting and keeping a Pentagon press pass.
They are free to report whatever and write whatever. They're just going to have to do it from outside the Pentagon.
Your spin is lacking. Try harder.
In other words I'm inconveniently correct.
Yes you are but not in the way you are trying. Hegseth's policy does not prevent the journalist from reporting on anything else, just not on the Pentagon briefings that they used to attend.
This is what is violating the 1st Amendment. When you attend a news briefing as a reporter, you report the information you received from that briefing. Hegseth's new policy states that they cannot report on anything from that briefing, even if it is not classified, without his approval.
The Constitution does not guarantee access to press briefings. There are a thousands of new "journalists" created every day in this country, not all of them get access. (Not everyone should have a podcast, but that's a different topic.)
As I already said, I'm not a fan of the policy. To me they're just announcing they're too inept to keep secrets.
It's like they're too stupid to figure out what should be classified or not, so they've put a "just in case we realize later we should have classified that" clause in the thing.
Alternatively, it's a tacit admission that some of their people leak things they shouldn't, even if it's not technically classified.
But I'm just not sure this violates the Constitution. There is precedent for the DoD to restrict information for the sake of national security.
Hegseth doesnt want incompetence and corruption in the defense department uncovered.
Possibly.
It's also possible he doesn't want left wing lunatics shooting at people because they don't like the decisions being made.
I suspect you are willingly ignoring the facts of the matter in your really really poor attempt to spin it. It isn't about access to press briefings it is about what you are allowed to report from the press briefings you were already allowed access to.
Also he just doesn't want anything bad reported about his position. It must be complimentary or he wouldn't authorize it.
Meh.
He isn't trying to control what they write about briefings they've already been to. He's telling they can't come to any more unless they agree to the new rules.
It's kinda like how they couldn't just rescind Jim Acosta's WH press pass when he pushed the intern and wouldn't give the mic back. The SCOTUS said they had to issue rules for conduct, and then they could rescind privileges for violators.
Not nearly as much as you're ignoring alternative views because they interrupt your current one.
You'll notice I keep saying "I'm not sure", while you're not willing to entertain any other view than the "Trump=fascist" one you came in with.
I have to agree. This isn't a free speech issue. Perhaps a freedom of information issue since news organizations won't be given access to the military for interviews and other updates unless they allow the Trump Administration to pre-clear their story which is, of course, pure bullshit and should be resoundingly rejected as every reputable news source did, and even a few unreputable sources and even admitted liar media companies like Fox News. But it's not a first amendment issue.
As for ANTIFA, anti-fascism should exist in every patriotic Americans heart. It isn't something you can bring before a court; it isn't some organization you can arrest the heads of and shut down. There is no bank account of ANTIFA you can close. Trying to confront and control ANTIFA is like asking our military to catch a fart and paint it green. It's monumentally stupid, just like those dumb fucks out trying to turn ANTIFA into some sort of overall brand straw man for liberals and progressives. But that's the real danger here, the lawless authoritarians on the rise using their self-proclaimed authority to crack down on American citizens doing nothing more than using their constitutionally protected rights to protest and voice their opinions.
This rightwing regime is attempting to criminalize protests by claiming any protest where some rando throws a bottle or a rock is now an ANTIFA riot that needs to be stomped out by the rightwing supported violent Gestapo. This isn't a slippery slope, this is a fucking slip-n-slide and we're already halfway down and frankly, we're completely fucked when we hit the bottom if some on the right don't wake the fuck up and put a stop to this out-of-control executive and demand oversight from congress. All I want of congress is to DO THEIR FUCKING JOBS! The constitution DEMANDS that they perform their role of oversight but none of that is happening right now, the Republican controlled congress is in a fetal position sucking its fucking thumb while letting Trump and Steven Miller do whatever the fuck they want. Why is ANYONE afraid of a few dumb shits who threw rocks? Go fucking arrest them! If someone commits an act of violence, arrest them! What real patriotic Americans should be afraid of are the goosestepping Gestapo with masks and no id marching through their neighborhoods arresting anyone that they want demanding papers of any brown person they see.
That's an interesting perspective. I hadn't thought of that.
That whole thing is predicated on the idea that the "they" who keeps coming for everybody is well organized enough to know what day it is. That was undoubtedly true of the Germans back in WWII.
There is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that anybody running any govt institution in America could organize a Starbuck's run, much less the systemic persecution of a significant size group of people.
Just as anti-communism should. And as "ANTIFA" is a communist movement, every patriotic American should be anti-ANTIFA.
me is attempting to criminalize protests
As hundreds of thousands of senior citizens are preparing to protest this weekend without any threat of repercussion (assuming, of course, they avoid being murdered by their own security as happened last time). They can all stand around and tell themselves how brave they are for standing up to the fascists and then go home and back to their regular lives without any consequences.
But sure, its a fascist takeover. Don't mind everyone's ability to say and post whatever they want against the government and to protest peacefully to their heart's content....
Wow. That's some nutty circular logic right there. So, we should all be anti-fascist, but also anti-communist, which makes us anti-anti-fascist? WTF?
Not at all. You understand the difference between being anti-fascist and the ANTIFA movement, don't you?
One is proclaiming their hate of fascism by peacefully protesting against the rise of rightwing conservative fascism in America and the other is proclaiming their hate of fascism by punching those they believe are fascists in the face. So, while they both wish there were fewer fucking religious fascists in the world, only those who are using violence should be arrested and prosecuted for any crimes they committed. Should the other several thousand peaceful anti-fascists feel guilty simply because some violent dick hole tried punching someone they also hate in the face? Of course not, that would be ridiculous. Those who are peacefully protesting should feel zero guilt over the rando instigators and agitators who are either trying to start the next civil war or just too fucking stupid to understand what they're doing.
I'll explain it for you. 98% of Americans are anti-fascist. ANTIFA is a movement of Communists and anarchists trying to violently overthrow the government of the US government and are named after a group of communist gangsters who terrorized moderates in the Weimar Republic, and through their stupidity, helped bring the Nazis to power. Today, they are only supported progressives, who either agree with the movement and want to overthrow the government or are useful, gullible idiots who fell for the dumbest manipulation possible and conflated the concept of anti-fascism with ANTIFA.
maga isn't the topic of this article. please stay on topic.
Anti Anti Fascist are Fascist. It is that simple...
Lines are drawn. Who'd think it controversial?
People who don't worship communists.
wasn't your savior a socialist? the RCC's continued support of fascism is documented in history. uh oh, the new pope doesn't seem to be maga and it's looking like that RCC glacier of hypocrisy is getting ready to calve again, don't it ...
You mean Jesus wasnt a prosperity televangelist ? What the hell.
maybe he wore a money belt under his robe ...
you know, I've been wondering. since JC was a jew, when he shows up for the 2nd coming, are evangelicals going to make him bend a knee and convert first to keep from being tacked up on another cross?
Riiiiight.
Well... when in doubt, the people attempting to shut down free speech are usually the fascists.
Oh, and....
On the whole, this is pretty decent article, just a couple of comments that stand out as very strange.
This is just crazy. I can only imagine she just forgot about the Alvarado ambush or the LA riots. Any time there is a firefight or a mandatory curfew, we have "serious violence".
Not good guys, no. And probably not all of them are terrorists, but there is definitely some guilt by association here. When you're physically attacking people who disagree with your politics, you definitely meet the definition of terrorists. Not to mention the armed attacks on law enforcement, the death threats, attempts to intimidate, etc. That's pretty clear.
tell everyone here what antifa has done to threaten the US constitution so far this year ...
So, Antifa and MAGA share some superficial similarities. MAGA is not an organization, either. But that hasn't impaired the rhetoric against MAGA. (Ask Google if you think MAGA is an organization.)
Antifa seems to have more in common with anarchists than anything else. Antifa actions seems to be more about agitating, inciting conflict, stirring unrest, and engaging in political violence rather than pursuit of some political or social goal. Antifa is not attempting to strengthen democracy, lift up the disadvantaged, or promote equality in society (a socialist goal). Antifa, as a movement, seems to only exist to terrorize civil society. Antifa has the appearance of being a political 'Fight Club'.
Only if you define fascism as "civil society".
Well look at that, another bingo. Although it should read..
Only if they define fascism as "civil society".
That would be more accurate of an anarchists position, don't you think?
That would certainly be the perspective of the fascist.
Somebody asked about proof that Kegsbreath orchestrated the new rules at the Pentagon. From The Hill:
[✘]
looks to me like he demanded that all the journalists comply. It's up there in the paragraph I C & P'ed from The Hill. Did you even read my comment?
And I know you were the one asking if Kegsbreath required all stories to go thru him.
goddammit, my uncle pete told me 63 years ago that he and his friends had killed off all the nazis ...
I guess they missed a few
he probably meant the ones that only spoke german ...
[✘]