![Washington Post: Yes, antifa is the moral equivalent of neo-Nazis.](http://web.archive.org./web/20170920003106im_/http://fair.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/WaPo-Antifa.png)
Members of the antifa movement “are no different from neo-Nazis,” wrote Washington Post columnist Marc Thiessen (8/30/17). “Both practice violence and preach hate. They are morally indistinguishable.”
Since the Charlottesville attack a month ago, a review of commentary in the six top broadsheet newspapers—the Wall Street Journal, New York Times, USA Today, LA Times, San Jose Mercury News and Washington Post—found virtually equal amounts of condemnation of fascists and anti-fascist protesters.
Between August 12 and September 12, these papers ran 28 op-eds or editorials condemning the anti-fascist movement known as antifa, or calling on politicians to do so, and 27 condemning neo-Nazis and white supremacists, or calling on politicians—namely Donald Trump—to do so.
For the purposes of this survey, commentary that drew a comparison between antifa and neo-Nazis, but devoted the bulk of its argument to condemning antifa, was categorized as anti-antifa. There were no op-eds or editorials framed as condemnations of “both sides” that spent as much or more time condemning or criticizing neo-Nazis. The “both sides” frame—which was employed by Donald Trump in the wake of the attack, and endorsed by white supremacist David Duke—was almost always used a vehicle to highlight and denounce antifa, with a “to be sure” line about neo-Nazis thrown in for good measure. A breakdown of the op-eds and editorials can be found here.
While most “both sides” columns added a qualifier clarifying that there was no moral equivalency between antifa and neo-Nazis, this framing could not help but imply that there was. And a few explicitly argued that, yes, anti-fascism was just as bad as fascism:
- Marc Theissen: “Yes, Antifa Is the Moral Equivalent of Neo-Nazis” (Washington Post, 8/17/17)
- James S. Robbins: “Trump Is Right—Violent Extremists on Both Sides Are a Threat” (USA Today, 8/30/17)
- Alan Dershowitz: “The Hard Right and Hard Left Pose Different Dangers” (Wall Street Journal, 9/10/17)
Alan Dershowitz’s op-ed took it slightly further than the others, seeming to suggest “antifa” was actually more dangerous, though the famous litigator played coy with this implication:
The danger posed by the extreme hard left is more about the future. Leaders of tomorrow are being educated today on campus. The tolerance for censorship and even violence to suppress dissenting voices may be a foretaste of things to come.
The Washington Post* and New York Times published markedly more critiques of neo-Nazis than of antifa: the Post by five to two and the Times 13 to five. This was in contrast to the coverage in the Wall Street Journal—five antifa condemnations and no anti-Nazi ones–and USA Today, which featured seven anti-antifa pieces and only three opposing white supremacists or calling on Trump to do so. The LA Times and Mercury News were basically split down the middle, with the former publishing six anti-antifa and five anti-Nazi takes, and the latter publishing three against antifa and two against Nazis.
![WSJ: Behind the Bedlam in Berkeley](http://web.archive.org./web/20170920003106im_/http://fair.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/WSJ-Antifa.png)
The Wall Street Journal felt compelled to publish five pieces on the resistance to resurgent white supremacy—without publishing a piece criticizing the resurgence of white supremacy itself.
The Wall Street Journal seemed particularly averse to calling out Trump for soft-pedaling and dog-whistling white supremacists. A recent Guardian expose (9/10/17) documented how dozens of writers have left the Journal in response to corporate pressure to “normalize” the Republican president—an effort evident in the uniformly positive takes on Trump’s response to Charlottesville. In addition to Dershowitz’s red scare salvo, the Journal published these anti-antifa takes:
- Holman W. Jenkins, Jr.: “The Extremist Show Is Just Starting” (8/18/17)
- Editorial Board: “Behind the Bedlam in Berkeley” (8/28/17)
- Holman W. Jenkins, Jr.: “When the Truth Is Crazy” (9/1/17)
- Editorial Board: “The Free-Speech Battles of Berkeley” (9/4/17)
Holman Jenkins’ first piece, “The Extremist Show Is Just Starting,” began with a handwave toward an “unambiguous denunciation of white racism or neo-Nazis” that, like all “both sides” takes, ended up being almost entirely a critique of radical leftist radicals—a set of priorities confirmed by a supplemental “Opinion Journal” interview with Jenkins on the Journal’s website the same day (8/18/17) that skipped the token neo-Nazi condemnation altogether and got right to the real business of bashing antifa.
While the Washington Post editorial board condemned both antifa (8/30/17) and Trump’s non-response to neo-Nazi terrorism (8/12/17, 8/14/17) in equally scathing terms, the New York Times passed on the former and doubled down on the latter, issuing three separate editorials (8/13/17, 8/14/17, 8/15/17) scolding Trump and his tacit partnership with racists. Times columnist Charles Blow (8/17/17, 8/21/17, 9/7/17) was particularly consistent in calling Trump’s white supremacist support by name and shaming the broader Republican party for its role in their de facto partnership.
Strangely, two of the New York Times‘ five anti-antifa articles (8/17/17, 9/6/17) suggested, that people instead dress as clowns to combat neo-Nazis.
USA Today gave voice to a motley assortment of false-equivalency takes, the lowlights of which included “Media Reports on Antifa … Finally” by Rick Jensen (9/4/17) and “Alt-Right’s Despicability Doesn’t Make ‘Antifa’ the Good Guys” by right-wing provocateur Jonah Goldberg (8/18/17), who wrote a book-length “both sides” eight years ago: Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Change.
A month after a leftist protester was killed by a self-professed neo-Nazi, it’s notable that a slim majority of opinion in major newspapers focused on those devoted to combating racism rather than to those advancing it. Bear in mind that one side kills more people than any other ideology in the country and openly promotes genocide, while the other supports aggressive tactics to prevent the promotion of genocide, and hasn’t killed anyone. As FAIR has noted before, the media’s “both sides” fetish is uniquely unsuited for the Trump era, and their peculiar evenhandedness in the wake of Charlottesville illustrates this with stark clarity.
With a major publication like Politico expressly telling its reporters to avoid criticism of “physical attacks on journalists and white supremacy” on social media—so as to not appear “partisan”—one is compelled to ask, of what use is the pretense of “objectivity”? In an attempt to balance the scale, the media put their thumb on it, overemphasizing the threat of antifa while playing down an emerging far right that, in addition to having just killed someone, is in tacit alliance with the most powerful man on earth.
*Given the Washington Post’s sprawling blogging vertical, only published Post articles were included.
I think one of the worst parts of this is the ridiculous idea that the victims of hate crimes somehow have this secret ability to rely on safety in numbers at all times. This is absurd, and it is why in large part Antifa even exists, because the victims of this right-wing hate are NOT safe and they see themselves as the first line of defense. They are literally a reaction to a problem that the right-wing hate-mongers have created.
Whoever resists the right wing gangs is going to spend more time on agent provocateurs, the media, strategy, discipline, staying out of fights, choosing battles, training and testing and adhering to protocol – than ever actually fighting the right wing gangs directly.
Reducing Antifa to “Anti-Nazis” as this headline does, and thus denying all of their obvious baggage/bad behavior, makes it almost impossible to take Adam Johnson seriously. Literally just shamelessly slanted propaganda masquerading as media watchdogging. Yikes.
I don’t agree with calling them anti-Nazis too, but that’s because they’re not just fighting Nazis but various fascistic ideals. The article is – above all – about those writers of the editorials. Criticizing people who choose to ignore fascists in favor of slagging off anti-fascists does not mean excusing bad behavior of the anti-fascists. If you want to do an article talking about how Antifa is truly “just as bad,” go ahead and do it, but you’d just be proving Adam’s point further.
Also, word of advice: I understand you think writing in something like “Yikes” at the end of your statement emphasizes the point you make, but it just makes you sound like a tool.
Thanks! Your free “advice” definitely doesn’t make you sound like one.
I know, which is why I told you, so try harder not to be a tool.
Here, folks, you see a tactic as old as time.
Whenever you need to denigrate a specific group, just keep ballooning the very definition of that group until the parameters of such are so wide that you can then group anyone that remotely disagrees with you into the same category.
When you do it this way, you can use the most extreme actions of some people to vilify the reasonable actions of others.
Take for example…the term “communist”. When the cold war was in full swing, an easy way to ruin someone’s career was to try and associate their beliefs with “communism” in some way, shape, or fashion. Thus, McCarthyism. It’d be a bit like accusing anyone remotely associated with capitalism, nowadays, with being a “Libertarian”, regardless of what their actual beliefs were. Yet…you see this sort of thing all the time on the left.
Or, for a more contemporary example, take the term “SJW”, an extremely vague insult that, these days, tends to simply describe any person that remotely harbors a left-wing code of ethics, about any topic, for any reason whatsoever. Similarly “Black Lives Matters” quickly mutated, via this propaganda method, to paradoxically describe a pro-violence organization, which is utterly Orwellian.
We can play this game all day. It wasn’t too long ago that a mainstay of church doctrine was that homosexuality was tantamount to pedophilia, as well. The tactic is simply played out. Balloon the definition of something until you reach a vague definition that is sufficiently evil, and then use these falsehoods to suppress the group in question.
Look at what the poster is implying here…Antifa is, somehow, not about being opposed to fascists…but instead is some vague, sinister cabal of presumed evil, even though they don’t back up these heavy claims with any real evidence. The IMPLICATION is what’s important, and as a group, the right wing will simply repeat this falsehood until people believe it…just like they did with Black Lives Matters.
Meanwhile, neo-nazis call for blatant genocide, and it’s literally impossible to think of an organization that is MORE EVIL, and proud of it. That being said, which group did the poster take time out of their day to condemn? That should tell you a lot about them.
Some things will never change
See “Abraham Lincoln Brigade”
Meanwhile, a lot of Americans went over there because they believed that Franco was the real deal (Socialist). IIRC.
Maybe because Antifa is also attacking Minorities just for supporting Trump. Or for questioning the violence they employ. An example is found in the title photo you used. Wherein a Latino father and son came to the Free speech rally, because they believe in the Bill of Rights… for all. Not just for a select few. Then they’re quickly kicked, punched, knocked down on the ground and kicked some more. Brown folks, you know the people these majority White Antifa characters allege to protect as “poc” or as “at risk” communities. Before we get emotional and haughty, here’s my qualifier… Latino, NOT a Trump supporter/voter, atheist, and much more.
Lastly, let’s be completely honest here… Antifa and the absurdity of their contradictory philosophy of Anarcho-Communism is simply an arm of Communism. Wherein, Authoritarians have historically dominated the party, enriching themselves, killing millions of innocent dissenters, silencing and controlling media, and oh… soooo much more. They wave sickle and hammer flags for christs sake… Lest we forget the plethora of public and private property they’ve destroyed which has held up commerce for people of color as much as Caucasians, by forcing stores to close while damages are repaired. Destroying tax payer funded public property, who’s maintenance and replacement costs fall on we the people.
“Before we get emotional and haughty…” Too late, it sound like you beat the rest of us to it.
Firstly, your first paragraph is worded a bit strangely. Are you saying the minorities are being attacked for supporting Trump or not?
Another thing I want you to do is to look closer at that t-shirt the Latino son is wearing. In case you still didn’t notice, it has the picture of Augusto Pinochet and says “Helicopter,” which are blatant allusions to the many executions of dissidents and suspected leftists during the Argentine Dirty War, including the tossing of suspects out of flying helicopters. It doesn’t matter what their ethnicity is, they’re still advocates of fascism and genocide, and as such these so-called “free speech” rallies are nothing but facades for their real goals. Are you saying they should be excluded because of such?
Third, I would suggest you go and read up on the actual history on Antifa, but as with the shameful articles Adam pointed out, you seem far more concerned about crapping all over them than the fascists. I also find it funny that guys like you love accusing people on the left of race baiting and authoritarianism, yet here you are trying to turn people of color against white Antifa members, and broad-brushing a ragtag collective to direct attention away from the REAL proponents we KNOW who are authoritarians.
I don’t know what you’re playing at, but take your bill of goods somewhere else.
Whatever, Republican
you people rail against ‘identity politics’ but you think we’re all going to shrink into silence because that pisspants POS in a pinochet shirt is a latino
as if we don’t have a school in georgia dedicated to producing latin american fascists
i wish that punk and his father were dead. they’re scum
A few years ago I heard Ann Coulter endorse literally killing people who disagreed with her. I thought to myself “Just imagine conservative reaction if pseudo-liberal Paul Krugman had said such a thing”. Now the right wingers actually have killed someone in Charlottesville and who does the press go after? Their opponents. Should have seen it coming, I guess.
This seems both equivocation and ignorance of history. For the first—the goal post you choose of recent antifa actions being lesser than neo-fascist actions is whether either has killed anyone. Yet, both have injured innocent people during protests, with no valid claim of self-defense. All who do so is a threat and should be jailed if found out. If a month from now an antifa kills a neo-fascist, would you abandon this point, or double-down and make another attempt to rationalize why “sure both kill innocent people, but here are why neo-fascists are worse”.
And duh, at least for moral people their ideology is worse. But that has nothing to do with protesting or violence. Nothing at all. No ideology could justify violence against a non-violent person. I say that not even as an NAP libertarian. More the law and basic morality. Someone saying something or marching with a sign or being someone should never justify violence upon them. Even if they call for general violence against others (which is, of course, protected speech).
Plus antifa is about 100 years old, and at least early-on had a slight continuation with anarchism. Both anarchists and early antifa movements bombed and killed people. Just bad people? Hard to say really. Bombing and killing due to an actual self-defense/i.e. imminent threat? Rather doubtful. Your: “while the other supports aggressive tactics to prevent the promotion of genocide, and hasn’t killed anyone.” only works if you include a limited time-line. Or believe violence including a death is some kind of real divide, vis a vis violence in the first place. Is a wife-beater who just breaks her bones and rapes her every day better than one who does that and then also murders her? You’re actually seeming to defend such a “better” wife-beater?
So to sum…your post may have merit if it only covers a very recent period; and if it only assigns a value of good/bad based on level of violence done. Not by ideology. That is—your posts meaning to impugn other media to make one movement akin to the other. Of course they aren’t, ideologically. That doesn’t matter, as long as the 1st Amendment and laws are still in effect. If instead of Heather Heyer being killed an antifa had killed one of those fascists, and if the media as it does now still would compare the two movements, your judgement of “worse, no equivalence” would seem to require you to impugn the media for (again, only recently, as you’ve shown that only recent antifa murder counts) making a false equivalence, except this time you’d claim the fascists were the more peaceful.
If tomorrow an antifa kills Richard Spencer, and another bombs a fascist compound killing scores, would that mean in a week you’d write an article about how terrible it is that the media judges fascists worse or even equivalent to antifas? You’re being way too ideologically biased here. Violence, the 1st Amendment, completely non-biased, or should be. BLIND. Nor obviously should an individual’s violence be used to reactionarily apply it to all of such a movement. If a self-declared BLM or BDS member kills a white person or Zionist tomorrow, that doesn’t mean BLM or BDS is suddenly worse than cops, or Israel. Or is BLM only worse if it kills exactly 1 more innocent cops than the cops have killed innocent black people?
I just can’t quite understand your criticism here. Logic due to statistical violence? That has to be narrowly time-lined due to past antifa groups violence including killing; you should state that. Logic due to ideology? Ideology doesn’t matter, ideology is legal. Violence and murder isn’t.
I read this site because you and others are great at pointing out faulty logic, or ideological motives, or terrible bias, to the media. Here though, in exposing possible such by them, you may have instead exposed your own.
“Yet, both have injured innocent people during protests, with no valid claim of self-defense.”
Please provide citations of antifa doing this. I have yet to see any examples of this.
“Both anarchists and early antifa movements bombed and killed people.”
Please provide citations. But be careful here. It was (and still is) common for covert CIA operatives to infiltrate dissident groups and incite violence in order to discredit them in the eyes of the public.
The rest of your comment is just one big mess of straw man faulty logic (of which you accuse the author, ironically). ‘What If’-ing is irrelevant because it hasn’t happened.
I’m not going to provide citations for something you can easily look up yourself, if you desire to educate yourself rather than be spoon-fed. You also are falling into Adam’s trap of not defining any dates. “Both have injured people in protests”. In the last week? The last year? The last century? The answer AFAIK is no, yes, yes.
The CIA did not exist when early antifa forces existed. I actually need to be more careful than someone who doesn’t understand that time, at least perceived and as reality to ourselves, is linear? Was Guy Fawkes actually a CIA operator?
I don’t think TeeJae wants to be spoon-fed. I think he just wants to see whether you’re getting your information from reputable sources (i.e. NPR, Encyclopedia Britannica, Snopes, etc…) or “reputable” sources (i.e. Stormfront, WorldNetDaily, Your butt, etc…)
Also:
“Believe it or not there are actually neo-fascists who are against violence; and black nationalists for violence, and liberals for violence, and conservatives against violence, etc. Should we put every self-described black nationalist, neo-fascist, liberal, and conservative in jail because one or more other self-described members have committed a crime? Should we be free to punch them, to murder them first instead of waiting for them to do anything individually violent?”
To be fair, we waited for them to make the first move and now they – at the very least – have a great portion of a branch of federal government. Maybe look at their main goal too. A neo-fascist may be against violence, but their end goal is the subjugation and/or eradication of their “inferiors”. An embezzler may not use violence to commit a crime, yet they can still hurt many people, effectively ruining their lives. The ideology of someone like a fascist is not one that was corrupted to serve the corrupter, it itself IS corruption. Why do you think they never like outright admitting they are who they really are?
I mean, waiting for the opposition to make the first move towards violence often is a good plan, but aren’t there times where there should be an exception? Especially, when their main collective goal it to cause harm against the innocent?
Antifa has a right to yell at Nazis – free speech, 1st Amendment.
If the Nazis violently attack them because the free speech is offensive to the Nazis, then there are state laws protecting legitimate self-defense.
the Nazis are promoting racism, genocide, fascism, and misery.
the left is for health care, education, the environment, peace, and equal rights.
Are you agreeing or disagreeing with me?
“And duh, at least for moral people their ideology is worse. But that has nothing to do with protesting or violence. Nothing at all. No ideology could justify violence against a non-violent person. I say that not even as an NAP libertarian. More the law and basic morality.”
Is another “duh” needed? It should be every person’s right to defend themselves against being violently attacked. It is no one’s right to violently attack without a self-justification defense.
“Nor obviously should an individual’s violence be used to reactionarily apply it to all of such a movement.”
“The Nazis” isn’t something to take to court. Individual humans are, if they call for imminent violence against a particular person (not a group, so not 1st Amendment protected), or obviously individually cause non-self-defensive violence.
I hate Nazis. Also hate bad logic. Believe it or not there are actually neo-fascists who are against violence; and black nationalists for violence, and liberals for violence, and conservatives against violence, etc. Should we put every self-described black nationalist, neo-fascist, liberal, and conservative in jail because one or more other self-described members have committed a crime? Should we be free to punch them, to murder them first instead of waiting for them to do anything individually violent?
killing neo fascists is good
killing minorities, or protesters seeking to protect them, is bad
anyone who thinks nuance is necessary in addressing nazi-intensive paradigms is a useless liberal coward
take your discourse-venerating anodyne garbage to ben shapiro
the constitution is archaic white supremacist trash. powdered wig patrician slave rapist scum consecrating their own property rights
shove the first amendment up your pretentious ass. we’re not pro constitution, we’re anti racist and anti fascist
What I don’t get about this whole nonsensical “false equivalency” gambit is how the 2 groups can even be compared. We keep hearing about antifa being “just as dangerous” and “hate-filled” as the neo-nazis, but no specific examples are ever given. Until I see specific examples cited, I will keep dismissing it as more divide-and-conquer propaganda nonsense.
How is a liberal Muslim who criticizes the institutional violence against Muslims under Shari’ah jurisprudence supposed to respect privileged, white (mainly) children using violence to silence her criticisms?
White Antifa members should feel a moral obligation to live as someone with the least amount of institutional power under Shari’ah (a Muslim girl, perhaps, or an LGBT Muslim, or a Muslim contemplating leaving Islam) before they use violence to silence the people standing up for those Muslim minorities.
If you erase a minority’s sufferings, then you should feel that suffering yourself. Maybe then you’ll change your mind.
The only muslims you Nazi-loving conservatives defend, are the Wahabbis who actually attacked us on 911.
I understand your guy Trump just got a boatload of free gifts, including gold bars – from the Saudi Muslim Wahabbi King.
The pictures of Bush kissing the Wahabbi Muslim King.
And the pictures of Trump getting a rope around the neck from the Wahabbi Muslim King.
Are online, google it.
I’m a lesbian liberal Muslima. Your entire post is hateful towards me and the rights I defend in my fellow Muslims.
I would like an apology.
I for one don’t believe OH should apologize to you, because both of your post are confusing gobbledygook.
Why are you saying Antifa is attacking Muslims when the ones who are are the very people Antifa is fighting? How is Antifa erasing minority suffering by saying not all Muslims are bad? Last I checked, they don’t like the right-wing religious extremists who attempt to hijack beliefs either.
Plus, any Muslim, liberal or lesbian worth their neurons would know that Wahhabism is an ultra-conservative branch that gives Islam a bad name and hates liberals and members of the LGBT community. How is it that OH knows that and yet you – a Muslim – seems not to recognize that?
OH shouldn’t have assumed you were automatically conservative. However, by reading your posts, I have a feeling that you are either, a.) not who you claim to be, b.) has no idea what the hell they’re talking about, or c.) completely insane.
shut up
I will shut up when racist whites stop erasing the brown victims of religious violence.
BTW, for a Muslim you seem to be painting your own faith with a very broad brush. For some who condemns “racist” anti-racist whites for ignoring the brown victims of religious violence, you seem to get very upset when someone picks on an ultra-conservative sect of Islam, who ARE the perpetrators of such religious violence.
antifa is the moral champion of this sick country
I have not heard James A. Fields profess one word. Just hear say. The alt-right are not “Neo-Nazis.” The are Americans sick and tired of a multiculturalism that starts with Israel first, more for Israel, who is the best friend of Israel fake democracy we have had since WWII, if not long before. Charlottesville was about double standards. Erase and replace the whites and expect the whites to like it. Open borders for the USA, no open borders for Israel. Same people behind both of those policies.
What program do you use to translate the diarrhea that comes out of your mouth into words on the computer?
Whether its climate change, Israel-Palestine, and anti-facist/anti-globalization fighting against white supremacy and the hideous violence of globalization the media constantly has to put fake fairness on everything. They did it all the time when Obama was president they even go out of their way to say Bernie Sanders and Jeremy Corbyn are exactly like Donald Trump. And God forbid anyone says the US and Israel or the UK are the main forces of violence we are called Anti-American, Anti-Semitic or apologists for whoever is deemed the enemy of the day. and remember Free Speech is important unless its BDS, calling Trump a white supremacist asshole, or if your a left-wing academic like Norman Finkelstein or Ward Churchill or Chelsea Manning that’s where we draw the line and show people we aren’t part of the PC Police Bill Maher complains about lol.
I remember Bill Maher recently chastising the left for not “going for the right-wing’s jugular,” and he once said something like, “Don’t become so tolerant that you become tolerant of intolerance.” Yet when he wags his finger at the people protesting and interrupting white supremacists and the alt-right, not for not choosing their battles more wisely, but for the nerve for protesting and shouting down white supremacists and the alt-right who preach intolerance. Bill usually makes great points but he can be such a dillweed.
sad thing is even Chris Hedges and others truthtelling left-wingers are joining in on this, must be permanent scarring from the likes of the Daily Show and Colbert and other controlled opposition people.
The Times and Post are in the original list of news outlets who have condemned the antifa people, but then in a later paragraph, you state that the same two papers “published markedly more critiques of neo-Nazis than of antifa: the Post by five to two and the Times 13 to five. ”
Sorry, but at least on the surface, this seems contradictory. If there is a reason to believe this is consistent, then please state so, in the same paragraph.
The first paragraph talks about the aggregate. As in, the sum total of those 6 chosen news outlets. The later paragraph is breaking down that aggregate. This is not a contradiction… some parts of the aggregate will be different than the others. That’s why the later paragraph is there, to clarify the differences between the named sources. Some of them slant more one way or the other.