Antifa in Mainstream Media & Twitter

Donate to my SubscribeStar  Subscribe to my BITCHUTE channel   My Minds     My Gab     Backup Youtube Justin Fidel
∴ Liberty ∴ Strength ∴ Honor ∴ Honesty ∴ Integrity ∴ Justice ∴ Truth ∴ Love ∴

Main Page


Antifa in Mainstream Media & Twitter

Here’s the video version of this webpage (episode 1)

Here’s the video version of this webpage (episode 2)

Here’s the video version of this webpage (episode 3)

Here’s the video version of this webpage (episode 4)

Here’s the video version of this webpage (episode 5)

Here’s the video version of this webpage (episode 6)

Here’s the video version of this webpage (episode 7)

Also see: Antifa in Media – Colin “Hack” Houck

Vox, Huffington Post, Al Jazeera, the Guardian, the New Republic, the SPLC and others apparently employ Antifa propagandists and activists as “journalists” and the guy that researched and reported on this was shut down on Twitter shortly after his report was published by Quillette.

Screenshot (4816).png

I am going to tell you that a lot of the media and Twitter are Antifa. That sounds like something “Jalex Owns” (* wink * wink *) would say but by definition they are Antifa. They engage in what they call anti-fascist action which can range from propaganda to bombs or anything in between. As many of our videos document, those whom they call fascist (and whom they attack and spread propaganda about) are almost always nothing of the sort.

Anyway, I told ya so. Almost every single article I have ever read about Antifa, Proud Boys, Patriot Prayer and so on contain lies and propaganda in service of Antifa. It takes a lot of time to try to get one of these propagandists on the phone. Usually I never get them on the phone. But I have got a few of them on the phone and confronted them about their lies while recording it.

May 15th 

Here is a Twitter thread by Lenihan that has since been taken down, but which has been archived here. I am tempted to go through it all but it’s very long and Lenihan will summarize all this in an article that we will look at anyway.

But we should note that he gives some examples of journalists who don’t just follow Antifa Twitter accounts but also proudly proclaim themselves to be Antifa (in some cases) or simply have a bias in favor of Antifa in their reporting. I mention this because as we will see, critics will argue that they labelled these journalists as Antifa just because they follow Antifa accounts on Twitter which is not correct as these critics can see just as well as we can.  

In response to this, It’s Going Down (arguably the largest English language Antifa propaganda and information outlet) tweeted…

May 17th

Lenihan’s writings were reported on by the Red State put on with “Journos From Prominent News Publications Found To Have Working Relationships With Antifa” by Brandon Moorse.

May 21st

PJ Media put out “Report Shows Online Ties Linking HuffPost, the Guardian, and SPLC to Antifa” by Tyler O’Neil.

May 27th

It’s Going Down put put “This Week in Fascism #11: Do You Troll Here Often?which is their attempt at damage control. As we have come to expect from IGD, they lie or otherwise attempt to mislead the reader with half-truths and so-on. I encourage you to read this and compare their claims to the actual evidence. 

But note that they write…

Lenihan’s evidence? That reporters and academics who cover the far-Right follow antifascist accounts on Twitter.

As we already saw, this is not correct as Lenihan made clear in his Twitter thread. This is what we expect from IGD; they make claims that are so very clearly not true as anyone who takes a minute to fact check can see. 

May 29th 

Though there was no official reason given, Twitter suspended or deleted (according to RT) or “permanently suspended” (according to One Angry Gamer) the account of the author of this article by Eoin Lenihan for Quillette shortly after it was published.

Remember, as we say in the title of one of our videos, “Twitter’s CEO Doesn’t Just Knowingly Hire Antifa Terrorists, He Follows Them“.

2018-09-15 Twitter's CEO Doesn't Just Knowingly Hire Antifa Terrorists, He Follows Them..jpg

Following Antifa or anyone else does not necessarily mean that you agree with them. You might just be keeping yourself informed of what they tweet. Twitter has a bias in favor of the far left in general and Antifa specifically as we have gone over in the past. Let’s have a look at some of this article.

It’s Not Your Imagination: The Journalists Writing About Antifa Are Often Their Cheerleaders

by Eoin Lenihan for Quillette

(archived here)

…Antifa often receives media coverage that is neutral or even favorable, with its members’ violence either being ignored by reporters or vaguely explained away as a product of right-wing provocation. What’s more, anecdotal evidence has suggested that many of the mainstream reporters who are most active in covering Antifa also tend to enthusiastically amplify Antifa’s claims on social media.

In October 2018, my research partner and I decided to investigate the truth of this impression by using a mix of network mapping and linguistic analysis to see which prominent journalists who covered Antifa also were closely connected to leading Antifa figures on social media. We then inspected the Antifa-related stories these journalists had written.

We created a data set of 58,254 Antifa or Antifa-associated Twitter accounts based on the follows of 16 verified Antifa seed accounts. Using a software tool that analyzed the number and nature of connections associated with each individual account, we winnowed the 58,254 Antifa or Antifa-associated Twitter accounts down to 962 accounts. This represents a core group of Twitter users who are connected in overlapping ways to the most influential and widely followed Antifa figures. Of these 962 accounts, 22 were found to be verified—of which 15 were journalists who work regularly with national-level news outlets…

I’d like to point out that if this is valid and accurate (and I am not claiming that it is or is not) note that ratio. 15 is approximately 1.56% of 962 so this would mean that a little over one and a half percent of those Antifa Twitter accounts are journalists. I would imagine that a lot less than one and a half percent of the general population of the USA (about 329 million) are journalists.

  • 1.5% of 350,000,000 = 5,250,000
  • If national level journalists were 1.5% of the general population then there would be 5,250,000 national level journalists. Obviously the percentage of the general population that are national level journalists is a lot lower than 1.5%.
  • So there must be some reason why 1.5% of Antifa Twitter users are national level journalists

This statistical feature would indicate, I think, that many people are attracted to what they call “anti-fascist” action and also attracted to infiltrating the media and passing off propaganda as news in service of what they call “anti-fascism”, apparently.

It should be stressed that a journalist’s close social-media engagement with any particular group should not be seen as incriminating per se. Many journalists follow—and even interact with—all manner of figures online, either out of personal curiosity, professional interest, or even as a means of developing sources. In identifying this group of 15 journalists whose engagement with Antifa is especially intense, our goal was not to accuse them of bias out of hand, but rather to identify them for further study, so as to determine if there was any overall correlation between the level of their online engagement with Antifa and the manner by which these journalists treated Antifa in their published journalism.

As we will see, critics of Lenihan’s study will write as if Lenihan did not write what we just read. He made it clear that they understand that the fact that a journalist follows Antifa accounts on Twitter does not necessarily indicate bias towards them. Right Wing Watch’s Jared Holt, It’s Going Down and others will write as if Lenihan does think that the fact that a journalist follows Antifa accounts on Twitter means that they are biased in favor of Antifa. Returning to Lenihan’s article…


That correlation turned out to be quite pronounced: Of all 15 verified national-level journalists in our subset, we couldn’t find a single article, by any of them, that was markedly critical of Antifa in any way. In all cases, their work in this area consisted primarily of downplaying Antifa violence while advancing Antifa talking points, and in some cases quoting Antifa extremists as if they were impartial experts.

These journalists include, for instance, Kit O’Connell, a self-identified “proudly Antifascist” “gonzo journalist,” whose work often reads like an FAQ that one might find on an Antifa web site. In one piece, for instance, he wrote that protestors wear masks so that they may “creat[e] a sense of unity and common purpose [as they] protect other activists from attacks by police and fascists.” Another article is bluntly (and somewhat ominously) titled “Nonviolent Activists Must Never Work With Police.”


Patrick Strickland, another journalist among the group of 15, specializes in reporting on the far-right in Europe, notably Greece. His book Alerta! Alerta! Snapshots of Europe’s Anti-Fascist Struggle has a blurb written by Mark Bray, author of Antifa: The Anti-Fascist Handbook, which reads: “As a fascist darkness descends over Europe, Patrick Strickland uncovers the bars, squats, fight clubs, and street corners where resistance burns brightest. Each page of his journey breathes with the tumultuous struggles of brave anti-fascists who risk imprisonment, assault, and even death to take a stand.” Unlike O’Connell, Strickland presents himself as a serious mainstream journalist, and has written for The New Republic and Politico. As of this writing, he is listed on Al Jazeera’s web site as a senior producer for Al Jazeera English.

A more prominent example is Jason Wilson, a Portland-based writer for The Guardian. One of his recent articles focused on a U.S. regional intelligence report whose authors concluded that Antifa and the far right share responsibility for street violence. “Experts say the report mischaracterizes the dynamics of the street violence,” Wilson complained.

One of Wilson’s main “experts” in the piece, it turned out, was none other than Antifa handbook author Mark Bray, who, predictably, denounced the report’s contents as “ludicrous.” In fact, Bray makes regular appearances in Wilson’s articles. So does fellow Portland resident and eco-extremist Alexander Reid Ross, who regularly writes for Antifa publications such as the It’s Going Down anarchist news site. (Ross also contributed to a 30-year-anniversary edition publication for Earth First!, an extremist environmentalist collective that advocates what activists euphemistically call “direct action.”)

In another column for The Guardian, this one about the 2018 “Occupy ICE” protest in Portland, Wilson quoted “local activist” Luis Marquez to the effect that “I think this occupation is a beautiful thing, a wonderful thing. Every single person here is a hero.” Marquez is in fact a prominent Antifa leader in Portland, and has been arrested on numerous occasions due to his militant behavior—including alleged theft and assault.

Interestingly, while other Portland journalists such as Genevieve Reaume of KATU NewsMaggie Vespa of KGW News and Quillette’s own Andy Ngo (who has voiced concerns about Antifa’s actions) have been harassed and assaulted by Antifa activists, Wilson seems welcome to mingle freely among Antifa, and has even been photographed standing close to Marquez. In one piece, titled “How the world has fought back against the violent far-right and started winning,” Wilson effectively drops the pretense that he is a neutral reporter, and approvingly outlines the Antifa tactics set out in Bray’s book. He also defends such tactics as doxing, stalking, deplatforming and shaming as valuable means to attack individuals whose views he dislikes. In doing so, he cites both Bray and Emily Gorcenski, who runs a doxing site called First Vigil, and an associated Twitter account, which shame individuals she deems to be fascists before they have received due process.

Make no mistake: The original professed goal of Antifa—to oppose fascism—is laudable. And there are no doubt many Antifa activists who still reject violent methods. Moreover, there is nothing inherently wrong with being a journalist who has strong personal views about Antifa (or about any other radical group). But Wilson is not simply a pro-Antifa activist who also happens to write for the Guardian: He actively leverages his role as a regular Guardian writer to promote Antifa, whitewash its violence, and signal-boost its leaders (whom he presents as “experts”)—often under the guise of neutral news reporting.

Christopher Mathias, a senior reporter for the Huffington Post, applies the same cynical approach. Like Wilson, Mathias’ byline seems to pop up whenever Antifa stages violent protests—and he always can be counted on to deliver a play-by-play that favors Antifa. But he goes even further than his Guardian counterpart. Unlike Wilson, Mathias actually doxes individuals whom he suspects of being right-wing extremists. His doxing sources for an article about suspected extremists in the U.S. military included Unicorn Riot, an anarchic Antifa journalist collective, and other shady sites that exist as a sort of in-house 4chan for the Antifa movement. (Mathias cited similar sources when he published identifying details of a Texas schoolteacher, and of a Virginia police officer.)

Mathias’ apparent modus operandi is to gather doxes of individuals whom Antifa or Antifa-friendly groups suspect of being right-wing extremists. He (or a colleague) at Huffington Post then reach out to the target’s employer asking for comment, leveraging the media outlet’s name to ensure the individual is called out. Then Mathias posts the doxes in his column while investigations are ongoing. As with Emily Gorcenski’s First Vigil site, Mathias broadcasts detailed personal information whose release seems designed to destroy the reputation of the accused, no matter the results of any subsequent investigation. It’s unclear how this behavior differs from ordinary, everyday Antifa-style online activism.

Of course, all investigative journalists rely on tips from the general public. But collecting tips isn’t what Wilson and Mathias appear to be doing. Like other prominent writers whose names appear among the 15 journalists most closely engaged with Antifa, they seem to function not at professional arm’s length from their sources, but rather as cogs in an activist enterprise that churns out both pro-Antifa propaganda and doxing information about real or imagined ideological enemies. Their allies in this mission include trolls such as AntiFashGordon, the pseudonym of a Twitter user who declares that “I expose fascists, get them fired, de-homed, kicked out of school etc,” and brags that he passes “dossiers” of doxes to national-level journalists, whom he refers to as “our contacts.” His entire online mission is to ruin other people’s lives, and it is a mission being supported by “contacts” like Mathias and Wilson. In providing such support, they are discrediting their publications and misinforming their readers.

There is no doubt in my mind that many of the individuals targeted by Antifa trolls and protestors do indeed harbor noxious, hateful, bigoted and even fascistic opinions. But the intellectual dishonesty and disreputable methods being used to target these individuals is an example of the cure being as bad as the disease.

Eoin Lenihan is a Stuttgart-based analyst whose work is focused on online extremism. Follow him on Twitter at @EoinLenihan.

Feature photo by Andy Ngo.

Unfortunately he doesn’t give us the means by which we can verify his claims. I hope that this does become available in the near future. But supposedly the details do exist and some of that has been shown to Quillette and other media companies (according to the Daily Caller).

Not that Jared Holt (of Right Wing Watch, a blatant propaganda outlet) is reliable, for what it is worth, he would later write;

Lenihan tells CJR via email that his methodology consisted of labeling Twitter users as “highly connected” to Antifa if they had “8 or more connections” on Twitter to either accounts run by antifascist activists, or one lecturer at Dartmouth. He also said he had provided “snippets” of his work to journalists to support his claims. “Those who received them were asked not to make them public as peer review demands exclusivity on publishing said data,” he told CJR. “Who received that information is, obviously, confidential.” Lenihan did not specify which peer-reviewed journal was considering his work for publication.

“Due to the limited information presented in his tweets, the conclusions that we can confirm are also limited,” social media researcher Erin Gallagher tells CJR in an email. “The network graphs as they’ve been presented appear to show a network of Twitter follows, so from that we can only really say that journalists who report on the far right follow antifascist accounts [which often publish the given names of far-right activists and other material useful to reporters seeking interviews] on Twitter – which is not really a groundbreaking revelation.”

Gallagher also points to larger concerns about data visualization literacy among reporters.  “How could any media—right, center or left—verify his claims is a larger issue,” she says. “Unfortunately, the lack of literacy in this area opens windows of opportunity for people to present network graphs in deceptive ways because they know there are few people who can confirm or falsify their claims.”

– “Right-wing publications launder an anti-journalist smear campaign” by Jared Holt for Columbia Journalism Review

In the article, Holt also writes that Lenihan…

…identified himself as an online extremism researcher, despite having no association with any previously known organization that researches extremism….

despite, the Daily Caller would later claim, the email Lenihan sent to Holt in which he wrote;

“Alongside my doctorate I have been investigating left and right extremism since 2016. In 2016 I was hired by a left-leaning charity to create a set of curriculum documents for educators that present interventions for those at risk of drifting into online far-right extremism. At the moment I am involved with a research centre into far right extremism and I am designing a platform for their curriculum documents. I also study the far left. Antifa specifically. I have been interested in them since 2018 when I spoke on the topic at the Konrad Adenauer Stiftung in Berlin. I am scheduled to present the finding of our Antifa study at an international extremism conference this summer.”

This reporter would also write;

As for the charge that Lenihan is “far-right,” it is an accusation that Lenihan disputes, and one that he told Holt he disputes. The only evidence cited by Holt is a vague reference to Lenihan getting banned from Twitter for violating its terms, and the fact that a Nazi publication approved of and circulated his findings.

We will return to that article later.

Later that day, Human Events published this by their managing editor Ian Miles Cheong;

Twitter Bans Analyst Who Revealed AntiFa Connections With Journalists

Twitter banned a researcher dedicated to mapping out AntiFa’s connections to journalists and the SPLC.

Former teacher and analyst Eoin Lenihan has been banned from Twitter after revealing major links between so-called “anti-extremism” campaigners and the hard-left AntiFa group.

Lenihan published his findings in Quillette, revealing links between journalists who write for the the Guardian newspaper, HuffPost, Al Jazeera, and various other publications to the hard left group.

Lenihan was suspended early Wednesday morning, prompting speculation about the ban.

Andy Ngo, a Wall Street Journal contributor and editor at Quillette, alleges that Lenihan was suspended following mass reports by members of AntiFa on Twitter.

Skipping over parts that would now for us be redundant…

…Following publication of the report and subsequent coverage from conservative outlets like PJ Media, Lenihan faced a barrage of insulting remarks and attacks from AntiFa-affiliated accounts.

They go on to report that…

…It’s Going Down, a far-left publication dedicated to AntiFa activism identified Lenihan as the proprietor of the @ProgDadTV satirical Twitter account created years ago…

Well, well, well. That sounds like something that I d’uh – that I might do. Look at this picture from a tweet by It’s Going Down.

Screenshot (4814).png

Unfortunately, if you go to the Progressive Dad Youtube channel, all you get is this;

Screenshot (4815)

…and this video clip…

It seems Progressive Dad is not on Bitchute as far as I can see. But I did see this;

Progressive Dad Is the Best Troll on the Internet Right Now” by Megan Fox for PJ Media.

In this article for Big League Politics Tom Pappert by reports that Lenihan “consults with educators on the topics of curriculum development, international education, EdTech and online extremism, was banned from Twitter on the same day he published an article in Quillette

In a related vein, if you don’t already know, as this article reports;

This latest ban comes only one day after another prominent journalist, Nick Monroe, was banned from Twitter after he painstakingly detailed examples of mainstream journalists parroting a fake quote written by a TIME columnist, in which he claimed President Donald Trump said North Korean dictator Kim Jong-un would make a better president than former vice president Joe Biden.

May 29th

The Red State put out “Analyst Who Found Journalists Connected To Antifa Now Suspended By Twitter” by Brandon Morse in which they conclude;

The media’s defense of Antifa is hardly a secret, however. CNN’s Chris Cuomo has stood in favor of the violence practiced by Antifa because it’s violence against people he disagrees with. He’s done this more than once.

The following day, May 30th, Billy D wrote for One Angry Gamer that…

…the article angered Antifa, and in result they mass-reported his account to get him suspended from the social media platform…

At this point you may be wondering, as did I, how this writer would know that, however likely it may be. But he offers an explanation in the article which we will come to. At any rate, further into the article he writes;

Many Leftists and journalists continue to praise Antifa, even going so far as to celebrate their destructive behavior with things like game jams, or publicly endorse their behavior on social media. Many people found this to be hypocritical given that promoting domestic terrorism is a dangerous road down public anarchy, especially when major platforms like Facebook have been quick to shutdown Conservatives for “dangerous” ideas but continue to leave Antifa groups up and operating on the platform.

That’s not to mention that Antifa has no qualms about making up lies in order to deplatform and shut down groups and people they don’t like, which recently happened with some black metal bands.

Nevertheless, shortly after the Quillette article went up the Antifa-section of Twitter latched onto the news and proceeded to mass report Lenihan after they caught wind of an old parody account he operated called ProgDadTV. Since they couldn’t attack Lenihan’s argument, they decided to attack Lenihan directly.

According to Human Events, Antifa did some deep-diving into the researcher’s Twitter history to discover his old parody account, attempting to smear him as a fascist and a racist.

So it seems that Lenihan has had more than one Twitter account shut down for wrongthink. The One Angry Gamer article continues further down…

Following the Antifa outing, Lenihan locked down his parody account for “Progressive Dad TV” on Instagram. Some of his trolling antics are still visible on the #ProgDadTV hashtag, in case you were wondering what kind of antics got Antifa so triggered.

Further on…

You’ll find various threads about the article or Lenihan where supporters of Antifa have openly acknowledged reporting his account to get him suspended.

So there’s the authors support for his claim that Antifa mass reported Lenihan. Some of you may be thinking that of course Antifa would mass report him. Sure, but it’s good to verify these things.

Again, this source says that Lenihan has been permanently suspended from Twitter and reports that, “As per Twitter’s rules, once you get permanently banned from the service you’re not allowed back on in any capacity.” and the report concludes;

The real telling part about this whole scenario isn’t that Lenihan was suspended for what some might consider to be a “ban evasion”, but rather that when Antifa and the journalist overlapping affiliations was broadcast to the public, Antifa immediately moved to have Lenihan censored. The so-called “Anti-Fascists” seem quick to use tactics to silence dissent and stifle the speech of their opponents… just like actual fascists. It really makes you think.


May 31st

Breitbart published, “Twitter Suspends Researcher Who Exposed Antifa-Journalist Connections” by Allum Bokhari in which they note;

Breitbart News has previously covered the mainstream media’s sympathy for Antifa (see CNN: Antifa’s Violence Against ‘Bigots’ is ‘Right’ and New York Times Glorifies Antifa With Style Guide, Tactical Advice) as well as the violent movement’s allies in Silicon Valley (see Wikipedia Editors Seek To Downplay Antifa Violence and Far-left Ideology and Damore Lawsuit Highlights Google’s Links to ‘Antifa’ Domestic Terrorists).

Libby Evans reported for the Post Millennial that journalists that Lenihan “identified as probably pro-Antifa” reached “out to his other outlets, and ask them to pull Lenihan’s work”. They also report that “his video at Al Jazeera News on a completely unrelated topic has been pulled down and is pending review.”

If you don’t already know, as reported in this article;

In 2018, before a hearing with the House Energy and Commerce Committee, as reported by David Marcus at The Federalist, Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey revealed that “his company’s policies had in fact resulted in bias against conservatives.” While at the time Dorsey claimed that this was unintentional— “the result of a faulty algorithm no longer in place”—the truth is that over a year and a half since that hearing, the company has continued to not have any clear, discernible standard as to what should be banned and why.

The article continues to report that after Lenihans article about Antifa journalists…

…his account was targeted by Antifa activists, such as @antifashgordon. The revelation, presumably, that Lenihan’s current handle had remained active while his former @progdadtv handle had been silenced was the reason that @eoinlenihan was suspended.

The latter handle, however, was the first one created, which means that, because it wasn’t created as a work around to the previous ban, Lenihan should have a shot at an account reinstatement.

The Post Millennial included this interview with Lenihad which we will quote in part;

TPM: What was your impulse to start research into this story?

EL: I have been involved in researching online extremism since 2016. I am interested in both the far left and the far right but I decided to study Antifa after I did a round table talk on extremism with several of Germany’s leading extremism experts in October of 2018. At that conference, several individuals bemoaned the lack of evidence on far left extremism and so I thought I would look into it. This work on journalists was completely accidental. Our work was to create a classification of Antifa accounts on Twitter much like other extremism experts have done for ISIS and the far right. What we never expected was to see so many Twitter verified journalists appear in our subset of the most connected Antifa accounts on Twitter. It singled them out for manual inspection.

TPM: It seems your point was mostly about journalistic integrity. Do you feel like that’s an issue across the board?

EL: That assumption is correct. I think in the post-Brexit and post-Trump era, public faith in the media is at an all time low. Too many news outlets left and right have become hyper-partisan and are contributing to the increased polarisation of people in the US and in Europe. This is dangerous. I would be horrified to find out that certain journalists and publications were leveraging contacts in the far right to spread their ideals and narratives to an unsuspecting public. The same is true of our findings. It is now clear that certain journalists and prominent publications have working relationships with Antifa to promote their ideals and downplay their illegal activities. That is dangerous.

TPM: There’s been a huge push, by the progressive left, for people who have a platform to be more activist, to infuse their activism into every aspect of their work. Comics, artists, writers, have all taken up the charge, and party lines are being toed all over the place. Is the problem here that you feel that journalists have not been transparent in their views?

EL: This is a very interesting question. The journalistElizabeth Kingwho was banned for abusing me, who is close with Jason Wilson of “The Guardian” and who appeared on anarchist podcast “It’s Going Down News” with the SPLC’s Michael Hayden recently wrote a piece on exactly this: how journalists should cover the far right from an activist perspective.

It is an Antifa guide to reporting riddled with Antifa talking points and ideology.

June 12th

Jared Holt of Right Wing Watch (which is about as dishonest as the SPLC) tweeted;

Later that evening Claire Lehman, the founding editor of Quillette, responded with;

Then she added;

The Daily Beasts’ Will Sommer responded to this with;

She replied;

On this day the piece we read from earlier was published – “Right-wing publications launder an anti-journalist smear campaign” by Jared Holt for Columbia Journalism Review

In this piece Holt more-or-less whines and bitches that he and his fellow far leftist propagandists are being exposed. I encourage you to read his article to see that it suffers from a lack of objectivity and credibility.  For example, he says that the reports that tech platforms discriminate against conservatives is baseless. I also encourage you to read a detailed rebuttal of this piece by the Daily Caller headlined “BEHIND THE CJR’S HIT JOB ON A RESEARCHER EXPOSING ANTIFA-JOURNALIST CONNECTIONS” by Rachel Stoltzfoos which we looked at earlier.

June 13th

In this article for Big League Politics (“Quillette Attacked by ANTIFA/Journo Mob After Publishing Report Exposing ANTIFA/Journo Mobs)” Shane Trejo reports that Quillette who published Lenihan’s report “is being targeted by a mob of journalists and ANTIFA members working in tandem“. The report also states;

Because Quillette published this research, the independent media outlet is now being targeted by left-wing activists such as Jared Holt of Right Wing Watch who are attempting to cast doubt on the findings.

Qullette editor-in-chief Claire Lehmann is getting pilloried by a digital lynch mob, activated by ANTIFA-sympathetic journalists, in a display that lends even more credence to Lenihan’s work…

June 14th

The New Republic put out this;

Quillette’s “Antifa Journalists” List Could’ve Gotten Me Killed

What a harassment campaign reveals about a darling journal of the intellectual dark web.

…In one close-up graph, those 15 accounts were highlighted in green. Mine was one of them.

This apparently unmasked Antifa propagandist goes on complain about Lenihan’s report and writes things that one would expect a stereotypical Antifa NPC to write. For example, she finds Lenihan’s claim to be against fascism to be “hard to swallow”. Would a sane and honest journalist put something like that in their article? But wait, there’s more. As I read this, keep in mind that this person who is writing along the lines of the typical Antifa NPC script wants you to also believe that she is just a journalist and is not Antifa at all!

…He peppered the piece with tired references to Berkeley, where antifascist activists have often clashed with far-right extremists, and wrung his hands over instances of alleged antifascist violence.

She writes that the people that Lenihan says churn out pro-Antifa propaga and who dox their real or imagined ideological enemies “are doing their literal jobs by exposing neo-Nazis.” and journalists with “possible sympathy for people who dislike Nazis”

Would a sane journalist seriously claim that the people Antifa oppose and attack generally actually are Nazis? Would they claim without evidence that he “has long been associated with the alt-right”? Would they insist that Jared Holt of Right Wing Watch is a real journalist? Would they write that, “his “study” fits so neatly into its Trump-friendly “the media is the enemy of the people” narrative?”

OK well a lot of the media would write that last thing.

She goes on to write about a video she says was produced by a neo-Nazi that, “showed “imagery of mass shooters intercut with images of the reporters mentioned by Lenihan under the heading ‘Sunset the Media.’” My face was there, next to those of a dozen other writers, activists, and friends.”

She claims that Lenihan’s study…

…was never meant to start a conversation about journalistic integrity, or ethics, or anything of the sort. It was meant to target leftist journalists, and this is exactly what the right-wing propaganda machine, including Quillette, enabled it to do on a broader scale… …None of us should have been targeted in this way. I shouldn’t have to worry about being murdered by a neo-Nazi… …Others shouldn’t have to worry about violent threats while they’re doing the important work of tracking right-wing extremist movements, either.

June 15th

On this day, the Daily Caller put out this article we looked at earlier –  “BEHIND THE CJR’S HIT JOB ON A RESEARCHER EXPOSING ANTIFA-JOURNALIST CONNECTIONS” by Rachel Stoltzfoos. She points put many important flaws in Jared Holt’s criticism of Lenihan’s research. I put what I think are the most important parts in bold.

The Columbia Journalism Review, widely considered an arbiter of the journalism profession, published a piece from left-wing activist Jared Holt earlier this week purporting to expose a “smear campaign” by researcher Dr. Eoin Lenihan. In the process of reporting the piece, however, Holt himself committed several violations of common journalistic practice that editors at CJR either overlooked or gave a pass.

Lenihan’s original study and follow on analysis marshaled evidence from Twitter networks to show that several journalists had disturbingly close relationships with antifa groups, which are known for violence, deplatforming and doxing. He then wrote an article for Quillette publicizing his findings. The central claim of Holt’s piece was that Quillette didn’t properly vet his study, which would indeed be troubling if true. But it’s not.

“The CJR piece is not a critique, it’s more of a hit piece,” Lenihan told the Caller. He has a doctorate in education, but came to fame on the internet as the man behind a progressive parody account, Progressive Dad. That account was shut down by Twitter in 2018 over a tweet mocking a white nationalist. His personal Twitter account was shut down shortly after he named prominent journalists who write about antifa as enthusiasts of the group.

Lenihan told the Caller his work is under review for publication in the peer-reviewed journal Social Networks, which prevents him from making the details public. But he did provide editors at Quillette with all of the data and a draft of the paper that is under review, so they could vet it before publishing the story. Editors at Quillette confirmed they received the study. (RELATED: Biden Gets A Pass For His Sons Ties To China, Ukraine)

“Given Mr Holt’s connection to a hyper partisan organization and his history of cynical political journalism, we don’t fault others for not engaging with him,” Quillette founder and editor in chief Claire Lehmann told the Caller. “As expected, the piece meant to ‘fact check’ Mr. Lenihan’s writing failed to do so and in fact made a number of factual errors itself.”

CJR declined to defend its decision to publish Holt, who works for the liberal activist organization People For the American Way as an investigative reporter at Right Wing Watch, and also declined to comment on its own processes for vetting and editing Holt’s story. CJR is a media watchdog published by the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism, and describes itself as an “intellectual leader” of reporters. “It is the most respected voice on press criticism, and it shapes the ideas that make media leaders and journalists smarter about their work,” its website states. Both CJR and People For the American Way have received money from George Soros’s Open Society Foundation. Holt also declined to comment. (RELATED: CJR Chooses Sides In Transgender Athlete Debate)

The CJR piece contains errors in fact, misleading and erroneous characterizations of Lenihan and his work, and baseless attacks on the outlets that reported its existence. Holt sought information from Lenihan, then left the important parts of his responses out, according to screenshots of their email conversation obtained by The Daily Caller. Importantly, the e-mails show that Lenihan told Holt that he shared his data with Quillette, but that point didn’t make it into Holt’s article.

Lenihan told Holt in an email that he had shared, “our scripts, datasets, and snippets of our full study” with Quillette and other journalists. Instead of reporting that, Holt reported instead that Lenihan “had shared ‘snippets’ of his work with journalists to support his claims.” He did not make it clear that Lenihan had shared the data with Quillette.

Holt says the Quillette article, and the coverage of Lenihan’s research by RedState and others, is “the latest example of unreliable information circulating rapidly through an ecosystem of fringe outlets without even the appearance of due diligence.” In fact, Quillette did do due diligence, they just refused to talk to Holt about it.

Holt also characterizes Lenihan as a “far-right” troll who is not qualified as an extremism researcher. He omitted entirely Lenihan’s professional work on extremism, writing instead that Lenihan has no association with any “previously known” organization that researches extremism.

Here’s how Lenihan described his work in an email to Holt:

“Alongside my doctorate I have been investigating left and right extremism since 2016. In 2016 I was hired by a left-leaning charity to create a set of curriculum documents for educators that present interventions for those at risk of drifting into online far-right extremism. At the moment I am involved with a research centre into far right extremism and I am designing a platform for their curriculum documents. I also study the far left. Antifa specifically. I have been interested in them since 2018 when I spoke on the topic at the Konrad Adenauer Stiftung in Berlin. I am scheduled to present the finding of our Antifa study at an international extremism conference this summer.”

None of this made it into Holt’s article. In response to Lenihan’s answers to his questions, Holt wrote, “Thanks Eoin, I’ll include your responses in our article.” But the vast majority of what Lenihan told Holt did not make it into the story.

Holt also insinuated that Lenihan was hiding something, because he did not specify which journal was considering publishing his study. But Lenihan says he was never asked.  The screenshot below confirms that the article is under review by the journal Social Networks:

As for the charge that Lenihan is “far-right,” it is an accusation that Lenihan disputes, and one that he told Holt he disputes. The only evidence cited by Holt is a vague reference to Lenihan getting banned from Twitter for violating its terms, and the fact that a Nazi publication approved of and circulated his findings. It is a guilt-by-tenuous-association standard that has become favored among political operators on the far left, and CJR did nothing to vet the characterization and offered nothing but opacity to the Caller’s queries on the matter.

Holt also claims someone posted a video on YouTube titled “Sunset the Media,” which splices together images of mass shooters with some of the journalists identified in Lenihan’s study, but does not link to the video. Upon request, CJR refused to share the YouTube video with Lenihan. The video was, as of this article, nowhere to be found on the web.

Lenihan told the Caller he reached out to CJR for more information about the video when he saw it mentioned in the CJR piece, but was told by editor Samuel Thielman, “We don’t share our reporters’ underlying work with the subjects of our stories.” Thielman told Lenihan he and the managing editor at CJR had seen the video. Lenihan doesn’t believe it exists.

In an email exchange with Holt, Lenihan said he doesn’t operate from a particular political stance, and has been researching extremism on the left and right since 2016. He described his parody account as aimed at poking fun at outrage culture on the left and the right, and said his Twitter accounts were banned over a tweet making fun of a white supremacist who had been harassing him.

“Please make sure to include the reason for my suspension in anything you publish,” he told Holt. “I have attached caps as evidence.” The screenshot Lenihan included in his response to Holt is below, and backs up his version of events.

Holt also omitted the tweet, which does not appear to favor his version of reality.

Holt instead simply noted Lenihan was banned for violating Twitter terms. A spokeswoman for Twitter declined to comment on the reason Lenihan was banned. (RELATED: Twitter Suspends Another Prominent User For Stating Basic Truths About Transgenderism)

Holt also did not include Lenihan’s response about his political views, or evidence Lenihan provided to back up to the assertion that his account had fans on the left and right. He simply labeled Lenihan “far-right.” Neither CJR nor Holt responded to questions about Holt’s lack of evidence for the “far-right” label in the piece, or whether they distinguish right from far-right.

There are more problems with Holt’s piece. He quotes a social media researcher extensively and cites a guide to news industry best practices in order to characterize the conservative outlets who wrote about Lenihan’s work as uncritical journalists. The insinuation was that those outlets reported on his study at face value, without bothering to vet it.

“For conservative media, the endorsement of peers within its narrow confines is all the expertise necessary for publication,” he wrote. This claim, which he supports in the piece only by stating that several outlets declined his requests for comment, contradicts what Lenihan told Holt in the email, and doesn’t hold up to further scrutiny.

As already noted, Quillette reviewed the entirety of his work prior to publishing, albeit on the condition that they not republish it. Lenihan also told Holt he had provided a number of reporters with more information at their request. Holt’s sweeping assertion that these stories are “the latest example of unreliable information circulating rapidly through an ecosystem of fringe outlets, without even the appearance of due diligence,” is not grounded in facts.

Holt devotes just one sentence in the piece to a description of Lenihan’s methodology and ignores the lengths Lenihan went to in the Quillette post and in his emails to Holt to explain and qualify his study.

“His methodology consisted of labeling Twitter users as ‘highly connected’ to antifa if they had ‘8 or more connections’ on Twitter to either accounts run by antifascist activists, or one lecturer at Dartmouth,” Holt wrote.

Holt’s description makes it seem like Lenihan simply mapped which journalists follow a few antifa accounts on Twitter, and then labeled those connections as nefarious. But Lenihan’s study consisted of much more than simply flagging which journalists follow antifa accounts on Twitter.

He was careful to note in Quillette that, “A journalist’s close social-media engagement with any particular group should not be seen as incriminating per se.” The network mapping was used as a jumping off point to later analyze certain journalists. Lenihan manually reviewed the reporting of the journalists shown to be the most connected to antifa. What he found was striking.

“Of all 15 verified national-level journalists in our subset, we couldn’t find a single article, by any of them, that was markedly critical of antifa in any way,” he wrote in Quillette. “In all cases, their work in this area consisted primarily of downplaying antifa violence while advancing antifa talking points, and in some cases quoting antifa extremists as if they were impartial experts.”

Again, Holt’s piece includes none of this context.

CJR did update the piece to address one especially egregious error — Holt wrongly referred to an antifa activist Lenihan identified, Mark Bray, as a professor at the University of Hong Kong. In fact, Bray is a lecturer at Dartmouth who published, “Antifa: The Antifa-Handbook.” CJR noted it changed the University of Hong Kong to Dartmouth in an editor’s note, but the piece still does not mention the professor’s antifa handbook, nor that they previously identified a completely different person, who is a professor at the University of Hong Kong.

The problems with the piece are severe in any case, but really stand out as endorsed by the nation’s supposed top arbiter of journalistic ethics. It’s the second time in a month that the self-described media watchdog has published a liberal activist. The first, Media Matters editor Parker Molloy, openly advocated against journalism norms, and here in the second, Holt flouts them. In both cases, CJR has refused to engage questions about their work, or to talk about their editorial process.

June 18th

Quillette published “A Black Eye for the Columbia Journalism Review” by Jonathan Kay in which he shames the Columbia Journalism Review along with the SPLC and other “watchdog organizations that once prized themselves on fastidious neutrality” and ” now lend their voice to fashionable ideological postures.” More specifically, he describes in some detail how Jared Holt’s propaganda piece “contains important mistakes and intellectually dishonest reporting. Worst of all, Holt doesn’t appear to understand Lenihan’s methodology. ”

Kay also wrote “Notwithstanding the dramatic CJR headline, Holt didn’t even pretend to identify any real errors in Lenihan’s analysis.”

Kay goes on to defend Lenihan’s methodology in some detail. Kay then summarizes…

In other words, the analysis that Holt characterizes as some kind of dangerous plot against progressive journalists is basically just a study of media bias—the sort of subject that, until recently, CJR was known for covering dispassionately.

Kay concludes…

Essays attacking the left- or right-wing bias of this or that media outlet are, of course, old hat in my business. But CJR is a special case. It is a respected and venerable institution. We need outlets such as CJR—and, yes, the CAJ and SPLC—to act as voices of authority when writers, editors and broadcasters go astray. One hopes that this cautionary tale, and others like it, help lead them back to their original mission.

June 19th

The Daily Caller published Lenihan’s opinion piece headlined, “If The Columbia Journalism Review Has Any Integrity, They Will Retract Their Article Smearing Me” in which he writes that the chairman of the Columbia Journalism Review is the editor-in-chief of Reuters. I fact-checked this and this is true according to the Columbia Journalism Review itself. His name is Stephen J. Adler. 

Lenihan writes that the Columbia Journalism Review “is considered an arbiter of ethics in the journalism profession” and therefore

That means it’s important for them to adhere to those same high standards in material published under its auspices. In a piece published last week by Right Wing Watch researcher Jared Holt, they did not.

He then goes on to point out the inaccurate and misleading (to put it lightly) nature of Holt’s article, some of which I already pointed out. He continues;

The errors in his piece are substantial and his decision to disregard relevant information that I told him myself, adds up to defamation with substantial professional and personal consequences. Since the publication of the piece, I have been subjected to harassment and my livelihood is under threat. Therefore, I am calling on the CJR to retract the article.

I asked the journal for a retraction, and here is the reply I received from Kyle Pope, their publisher and editor in chief:

Dr. Lenihan,
Thanks for writing. We are going to decline your request to retract the piece. If, however, you would like to write a letter for publication outlining your grievances, we’d happily consider it.
Kyle Pope

Let’s go through all the reasons why the CJR’s piece should be retracted. In his opening paragraph Holt states that I, Eoin Lenihan, am a “far-right social media user” and “an established right-wing troll.” He states definitively that I am not an online extremism researcher and that I have “no affiliation with any previously known organisation that researches extremism.” He even claims that I am using my research as cover for the supposed reality that I am a far-right figure. That is a major claim for the CJR to put into print.

Holt is referring to my satire channel ProgressiveDadTV which aimed at puncturing online outrage culture using humour. Joe Rogan, among many liberals, was a fan of the account and this write up from PJMedia from last year points out that the account poked fun at outrage merchants from across the political spectrum equally. Holt doesn’t have to find it funny but he does need to provide evidence when he accuses it of being far-right.

Need I point out here the ludicrousness of Holt conflating the character Lenihan plays on Twitter with Lenihan himself?

The likely source of Holt’s accusation is It’s Going Down News, a revolutionary anarchist news outlet which I linked to several journalists in my Quillette piece. It’s Going Down also provided no evidence that ProgDad was far-right  not a single tweet or Instagram post. But not only does Holt take them as a credible source, he even parrots their narrative almost verbatim. In this pieceIt’s Going Down stated that I am a “well known racist far-right troll … who has now rebranded as an ‘online extremism expert’.”

As if to prove my initial thesis about journalist and antifa connections correct, Holt has used an anarchist antifa mouthpiece as a reliable source for me being right-wing. He also ignores the fact — which I supplied in our email interview — that Progressive Dad was suspended from Twitter for mocking an actual far-right extremist. I had specifically asked Holt to mention this fact should he talk about my suspension.

Contrary to Holt’s claims, I have been involved in studying online extremism since 2016 when, after a lengthy and competitive interview process, I was asked by the Tony Blair Faith Foundation to produce a series of curriculum documents that focus on providing interventions for youths at risk of drifting into online extremism. (RELATED: Columbia Journalism Review Endorses One-Sided Journalism In Transgender Athlete Debate)

Further on he writes that he

…explained this to Holt in the interview he conducted as preparation of his article. He ignored it and instead perpetuated antifa-led conspiracy theories about my professional integrity. And CJR published them as fact. Holt did not follow up on any of my responses before publishing. More concerning, his editor at CJR further peddled these conspiracy theories on Twitter, posting a number of defamatory and mocking tweets…

In our interview I also provided a detailed break-down of the methods of my study. Holt, again — through incompetence or malice — completely oversimplifies that method in paragraph six of his article. He says, “Lenihan tells CJR via email that his methodology consisted of labeling Twitter users as ‘highly connected’ to antifa if they had ‘8 or more connections’ on Twitter to either accounts run by antifascist activists, or one professor at the University of Hong Kong.”

Holt is trying to imply that the individuals in our dataset were connected to eight random antifa accounts on Twitter. This is not the method I explained to him in response to his questions.

Importantly, Holt’s attempt to minimize the significance of the in-group connection demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of how networks are mapped. The actual methodology goes far beyond that, as laid out in this recent article by Quillette.

Later in his piece, Holt quotes Erin Gallagher who states, “we can only really say that journalists who report on the far right follow antifascist accounts … on Twitter – which is not really a groundbreaking revelation.” (RELATED: Lone Antifa Member Attempts To Lock College Republicans Into Campus Speaking Event)

My point exactly. Network mapping is only a first step in any research project. I myself was at pains to point that out in the Quillette article, to Gallagher herself on Twitter, and to Holt in the email interview. Our data merely provided us with a list of individuals who have demonstrated a conscious and strong in-group preference in our antifa dataset. 15 of these accounts were verified journalists. In a second step we manually turned to their body of written work for evidence of critical reference to antifa. We couldn’t find a single case. Holt and Gallagher have continued to ignore this part of our study.

The most embarrassing part of Holt’s criticism of our method is his mention of “a professor at the University of Hong Kong.” He claims this random professor was one of our seed accounts.  In my my interview with Holt, I clearly mention Mark Bray, author of “Antifa: The Anti-fascist Handbook” twice. There is indeed a professor at Hong Kong called Mark Bray. But Holt got the wrong Mark Bray.

He has included an error so egregious that it can only be surmised that he did not read my interview.

…or read the second tweet in the thread that started all this in which Lenihan referenced, “Mark Bray who chose not to confirm if he is a member of Antifa but whose book makes a solid case for inclusion”

Screenshot (4877).png

(and having read the book, I concur) or read this tweet in the thread…

Screenshot (4876).png


Or he did not conduct even cursory research on the topic (Mark Bray, author of the Antifa Handbook, comes up immediately on Google). Or else, if he did, he intentionally published false information. Either way, this, surely, cannot be how CJR intends to become the “intellectual leader in the rapidly changing world of journalism.” CJR have now simply changed the wording “a professor from Hong Kong” to “a lecturer at Dartmouth university,” without mentioning anything about the error ⁠— or the Antifa Handbook.

To fact-check, we can see here that Mark Bray, one of the so-called ‘Antifa professors’ is listed as an associated visiting scholar at the Gender Research Institute at Dartmouth. By the way, it should come as no surprise to learn that (according to Dartmouth), “He completed his PhD in Modern European and Women’s and Gender History at Rutgers University” (in other words, gender studies).

Lenihan goes on to explain in detail why he can not release his study while it is under review for publication in peer reviewed scientific journals. As Lenihan notes, “Holt’s criticism about fact checking is ironic, to say the least.”


He then notes the lack of evidence for the video Holt placed so much importance on. He concludes…

In a last unabashed effort to link Quillette and me to the far-right, Holt claimed the article was well received by people on Stormfront. As with ProgDadTV, he is trying to link by association. In fact, I turned down the opportunity to appear on InfoWars with Alex Jones and I also rebuffed media requests from Big League Politics because I did not want to be associated with the far-right nor have my research dismissed as partisan. I chose to publish with Quillette and I am very thankful I did. The fact-checking and editing is most certainly of the standard that the Columbia Journalism Review aspires to, and well above the standard they actually practice.

I’d like to point out that in my research I have found that Berkelyside and Willamette Week (Katie Shepherd in particular) are blatant propagandists for Antifa and Eugene Weekly and no doubt many other sources can be counted on to sell us pro-Antifa propaganda as well. Here are some videos of me exposing journalists who lie in service of Antifa and are therefore Antifa including videos in which I shame them on the phone.

In “They are Not Far Right Rallies – the Media & Politicians are Lying” I expose Julie Johnson of the Press Democrat.

In “Lack of Racism Means you ARE Racist – Exposing Fake Journalists 1” I prove that the Daily Dot publishes lies regarding Antifa and the Proud Boys. In “Confronting ‘Journalists’ Who Lie About the Proud boys and More – Exposing Fake Journalists 2” I get the editor in chief of the Daily Dot on the phone and own him up one wall across the ceiling and down the other wall.

Also see my videos “Freedom in Exile – Today’s Rally & Press Conference Go Undeground“, “New Lies From the Media About the Proud Boys/NY Brawl“, “We Were Doxxed & We Were Lied About by the Daily Best

In “Exposing Journalists – Alyssa Jeong Perry Lies About Patriot Prayer & I catch Her” I – well, you can guess. There may be other such videos that I am forgetting but you get the idea.

I wish I had enough time to get a lot of these propagandists on the phone but it takes a lot of time and I have very little time. Still, however infrequently, look forward to more of that in the future.

But let us return to the point. Even if Lenihan’s research is bogus or faulty, I know from personal experience that some propagandists pass off propaganda ass news and insert a bias in favor of Antifa and against groups like the Proud Boys and Patriot Prayer. However accurate and honest Lenihan is being, it seems that it is not some crazy conspiracy theory that they have infiltrated mainstream media and pass of pro-Antifa propaganda as news but rather that it is a true fact – Mainstream media voices are Antifa.

Told ya so!


Also see “Breitbart Called Patriot Prayer & Amber “White Nationalists”


Liberty, Strength, Honor, Honesty, Justice, Truth & Love


Sources in chronological order

May 15th

(Lenihan’s initial Twitter thread about this)

May 17th

Journos From Prominent News Publications Found To Have Working Relationships With Antifa” by Brandon Moorse for the Red State

May 21st

Report Shows Online Ties Linking HuffPost, the Guardian, and SPLC to Antifa” by Tyler O’Neil for PJ Media

May 27th

This Week in Fascism #11: Do You Troll Here Often?” by It’s Going Down

May 29th 

It’s Not Your Imagination: The Journalists Writing About Antifa Are Often Their Cheerleaders” by Eoin Lenihan for Quillette

Twitter Bans Analyst Who Revealed AntiFa Connections With Journalists” by Human Events

Twitter Bans Researcher Who Documented Journalists Who Cheer Leaded For Antifa” by Big League Politics

Twitter bans researcher who exposed journalist ties to Antifa” by RT

Analyst Who Found Journalists Connected To Antifa Now Suspended By Twitter” by the Red State

May 30th


May 31st

This writer exposed collusion between Antifa and the media and was mobbed for it” by the Post Millennial

Twitter Suspends Researcher Who Exposed Antifa-Journalist Connections” by Breitbart

June 12th

Right-wing publications launder an anti-journalist smear campaign” by Jared Holt for Columbia Journalism Review

June 13th

Quillette Attacked by ANTIFA/Journo Mob After Publishing Report Exposing ANTIFA/Journo Mobs” by Big League Politics

June 14th

Quillette’s “Antifa Journalists” List Could’ve Gotten Me Killed” by the New Republic

June 15th


June 18th

A Black Eye for the Columbia Journalism Review” by Jonathan Kay for Quillette

June 19th

If The Columbia Journalism Review Has Any Integrity, They Will Retract Their Article Smearing Me” by Eoin Lenihan for the Daily Caller


Also see

Antifa in Media: Colin “Hack” Houck


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s