As I mentioned in an earlier post, Antifa’s attempt to intimidate a bookstore gave a significant sales boost to Andy Ngo’s Unmasked: Inside Antifa’s Radical Plan to Destroy Democracy. I probably wouldn’t have bought the book if it weren’t for that. If I’d seen it on a bookstore shelf, I would have noticed the endorsements by Tucker Carlson on the front and back covers and skipped over it.

It’s a book that I have to treat with caution. It’s hard to find any trustworthy information about Antifa, which isn’t a formal organization at the national level. Mainstream news seems to lie more about Antifa than about any other person or organization, claiming it’s an “anti-fascist” group. Every time I hear reliable reports about it, it’s trying to suppress the speech of others by tactics ranging from shouting down speakers to assault. That’s more fascist than anti-fascist. But just a few pages into the book, I started seeing indications that I should be cautious with Ngo too.

At the same time, I can’t dismiss him just because I disagree with some of his conclusions. I need to look at whether his research is reliable, he’s presenting all the important facts, he’s not using misleading words, he isn’t overestimating the movement’s importance, etc. He’s been the target of threats and physical assaults for his work on Antifa, and it’s hard for anyone to stay objective under such pressure.

Early in the book he discusses the death of George Floyd, which triggered protests and riots in Minneapolis. His facts mostly agree with other sources I’ve checked. He doesn’t mention that the medical examiner’s report says Floyd’s death was a homicide, though it does mention that Derek Chauvin was charged with murder. He says “It was later revealed that Floyd’s blood contained a fatal level of fentanyl.” Saying it was a “fatal level” implies that it was what killed him, but no medical report has presented that conclusion. It could have been a “potentially fatal” or “often fatal” level, but saying it was fatal is misleading.

Still, that’s no worse than the average news report. It’s a “proceed with caution” sign, not a red flag.

What does Ngo say about Antifa? He tells us:

… that antifa is a phantom movement by design. It is leaderless and structured to be functional through small and independent organizations, known as affinity groups, and individuals.

He consistently uses the lower case for “antifa,” perhaps to emphasize that it isn’t a formal organization. I’ll stick with the more usual capitalization for this article. The lack of centralization makes it difficult to say what is an Antifa position or an Antifa action. Ngo, though, is inclined to characterize any destructive rioting in support of black people and against police as an “antifa” action.

He ties the Black Lives Matter movement together with Antifa. From what I’ve seen, BLM groups vary greatly. The ones in my area appear to be interested in advocacy and education, and they’re more likely to be threatened than to threaten. A New Hampshire legislator recommended burning people’s homes just for displaying a BLM sign. (He got re-elected.)

The parts about the history of Antifa movements are especially interesting. The original ones were European paramilitary groups with Communist or socialist affiliations. They actually fought against fascists, even if they were only superficially different. It was gang warfare. The American groups who took on the name define “fascist” as any point of view they want to suppress, such as criticism of them.

They’re a surprisingly tech-savvy group. According to Ngo, they make heavy use of encrypted communications, proxies, and other means of avoiding detection. On at least one point, they’re more tech-aware than Ngo, who thinks that Exif is a way of removing metadata. (Exif is metadata.)

Antifa seems similar to QAnon in its mysterious center, giving instructions to dedicated followers. I don’t believe for a moment that it was behind the Capitol riot (nor does Ngo), but I can see how some people might have briefly wondered.

I still haven’t read the book as thoroughly as I should, but I wanted to follow up on my earlier comments. Can I recommend the book? Not very strongly, unless researching Antifa is a special interest of yours. If it is, take Ngo’s book along with other sources, checking them against each other, and it should help to give you a better picture of what the movement is about. But I’d be careful about trusting what he says. Even without outright falsehoods, selective presentation of facts can give a misleading picture.