By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy alleged that the upcoming “No Kings Day” protests are affiliated with the antifa movement, suggesting they are organized by paid protesters. Duffy questioned the funding behind the protests and implied Democratic figures like Chuck Schumer and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez might be involved. The “No Kings Day” demonstrations, planned for Saturday, aim to protest the Trump administration. While the protest’s website doesn’t explicitly list “antifa” as a partner, Schumer participated in the initial June protests.
Read the original article here
Duffy claims ‘No Kings’ protests are ‘part of antifa’ and the immediate reaction is a healthy dose of skepticism and, frankly, disbelief. The very notion that protests against the idea of a king are somehow aligned with a movement against fascism, when the core principle of not wanting a king is inherently anti-fascist, feels… backwards. It’s like saying breathing is part of the problem with air.
The accusation that these “No Kings” protests are orchestrated and funded by “antifa,” and that they’re somehow anti-American, feels particularly rich, considering the very foundation of the United States was built on the rejection of a monarchy. The whole point was to create a government “by the people, for the people,” a concept directly at odds with the idea of a king, a fascist leader, or any singular figure of absolute power. It’s worth pointing out that there’s a clear, almost comical, disconnect between the principles the country was built on and the rhetoric coming from some quarters.
Then there’s the whole Antifa angle. The term “antifa” itself is simply short for “anti-fascist.” Therefore, it’s a movement against, well, fascism. So, when someone claims that a protest that’s literally *against* a king is “part of antifa,” it almost becomes self-parody. It’s like claiming someone who opposes slavery is somehow *pro*-slavery. There’s an inherent logical contradiction at play.
The suggestion of paid protesters adds another layer to the story, with the implication that these demonstrations aren’t genuine expressions of public sentiment. The issue of paid protesters, on either side of the political spectrum, is a valid one, it does raise questions about the authenticity of the movement. But when that charge is leveled without any concrete evidence, and coupled with the “antifa” label, it just feels like an attempt to discredit the protests and anyone involved. And it opens the door for some very concerning scenarios.
What’s even more concerning is the implication that the administration is trying to redefine dissent as “domestic terrorism”. That’s a scary road to go down, because it gives a government enormous power to shut down any kind of opposition. Labeling any protest as “Antifa” gives the government the justification to use excessive force, and that’s a serious erosion of the rights that are supposed to be guaranteed.
There’s also the question of why the Secretary of Transportation is even weighing in on this. It’s a valid question. Why is someone whose job revolves around the movement of goods and people suddenly making pronouncements about political movements and ideologies? It appears that this is just part of a broader strategy of spreading a narrative.
There’s the claim that conservatives are the baddies and that MAGA rallies are part of the Nazi Party which is a pretty extreme take, of course. The very strong reactions to Duffy’s words, it seems, underscore how charged the political climate is. The response is a defense of fundamental American values of freedom, democracy, and anti-fascism, while the opposing side is a pro-fascist takeover. It is a lot to take in.
Then there is the idea of Antifa itself. If “antifa” is just a group of people against fascism, then by definition, anyone who values freedom and democracy is “antifa”. It’s a really, really big club, which would mean that a lot of people who are probably just concerned citizens are also going to be targeted for expressing their opinions.
The accusations and counter-accusations paint a picture of a deeply divided nation, where even the basic definitions of terms are up for debate. It’s a sign of the times, where the ability to communicate effectively and to have civil discourse is crumbling.