A paragraph in this New York Times article, “Maine U.S. Senate Candidate Says He Covered Up Tattoo That Had Nazi Imagery,” caught my attention. I posted about this on Facebook on Wednesday morning, defending the man—not the Nazi tattoo, but something he posted on social media. Later in the day, I learned that the most interesting thing about this article and other reporting (e.g., CNN) is what is not being widely reported on, which the title of this essay announces. I will come to that later. It will suffice to say for the moment that some outlets are reporting on it now. But before getting to that, I want to discuss what moved me to share the NYTimes article. So, a little suspense.
The candidate is Graham Platner. He’s a Democrat vying for the US Senate in Maine. He’s a former Marine running against Governor Janet Mills, also a Democrat, for the party’s nomination. (You will remember Mills from February 2025, when she was humiliated by Trump after publicly defying the President’s executive order banning transgender athletes from female sports teams.) Platner is a star among progressives. Above is a photo of Platner with Maine Gubernatorial candidate Troy Jackson and US Senator Bernie Sanders, a self-described socialist, at a Labor Day rally. Platner has been endorsed by the United Auto Workers union and Sanders.
The subject of the initial controversy appeared on the podcast hosted by former Obama aides about a tattoo he got in 2007 in Croatia, which he has since covered. He and other Marines had chosen a “terrifying-looking skull and crossbones off the wall,” he explained, because “skulls and crossbones are a pretty standard military thing.” Turns out the tattoo is Nazi symbology. That figures since it was acquired in Croatia, which, like Ukraine, is a country teaming with Nazis. But did these Marines know that? A lot of progressives don’t know about Eastern Europe and the ubiquity of fascist and Nazi beliefs there. I’m sure readers are aware of the ubiquity of Ukrainian flags in social media bios on the left. Then again, maybe Platner did know what the tattoo represents; Democrats don’t seem to have an actual problem with fascism, given their supplication to corporate power, restrictive views on civil liberties, and support for political violence, as evidenced by their defense of Antifa.
But that’s not what grabbed my initial attention. From the NY Times story: “Among the posts that have drawn criticism was one from 2013 in which he responded to a thread asking users what questions they have for people of other races. Mr. Platner asked why Black [sic] people do not tip, something he said he observed while working as a bartender. On the podcast, Mr. Platner said he had been ‘legitimately asking the question,’ because he thought there might be a cultural explanation.”
People are free to criticize others for their views for whatever reasons, of course, but there’s a significant body of academic research that would support the premise that, on average, black Americans tip less in restaurant settings than white Americans. These differences persist even after controlling for education, income, and service quality. Perhaps it overstates the difference to say blacks “do not tip” (although this may have been Platner’s experience), but that they tip less on average is a documented fact. And since it is not due to several control factors, it’s reasonable to wonder if there might be a cultural explanation.
So why is that a problematic question? One hears such problematization in criticism of those asking why there is significant black overrepresentation in the most serious crimes. We know that this phenomenon is not attributable to poverty, since there are more poor whites than blacks, yet whites not only don’t murder or rob at the same rate as blacks, but half of all murders, and more than half of all robberies, are committed by blacks, overwhelmingly male. It is, therefore, entirely reasonable to ask whether there are cultural differences that explain this phenomenon. Yet one risks being accused of racism for asking.
Here’s another example: Suppose one were to ask why recent data show that students identified as Asian and non-Hispanic whites graduate at rates above the national average, while American Indian, black, and Hispanic students graduate at rates below the national average. The racial gap is especially pronounced between non-Hispanic whites and blacks. In Wisconsin, for example, the graduation gap between non-Hispanic whites and blacks is around 25 percentage points. The gap is largest for black males. It’s not that people don’t ask why this is the case; it’s that they demand that we only restrict the answer to “systemic” or “structural racism” or other pre-approved explanations. But is it cultural? Asking that question can get you into trouble.
Platner said of his question about tipping, “It was certainly not meant as a malicious thing.” I can’t know whether there was any malice in his asking the question, but I do know that there is no malice in my asking the question. Sociologists ask questions like this all the time—at least we used to. However, today, many are terrified to ask questions like this—even if they allow themselves to be curious about such things in their heads—because they know they may face criticisms if they do.
What is objectionable are other things Platner has written, posts that shine a light on affiliations that inspire his other posts, those disparaging police officers and calling white Americans living in rural areas (MAGA) racist and stupid—posts that the NY Times and other legacy media outlets don’t dwell on.
Investigative journalist Steve Robinson has found in newly uncovered social media posts that Platner instructs, among others, members of Maine’s Socialist Rifle Association (SRA) in paramilitary tactics. In an August 8, 2020, post, Platner brags about having provided advanced firearms instruction to the far-left paramilitary organization shortly after the Black Lives Matter riots erupted nationwide. Photos Robinson has uncovered show a group with the flag of the anarchist organization Industrial Workers of the World (IWW), another of a group with one member wearing a Transtifa shirt, the one with the Pride Progress flag with an AR-15 across the front, and a photo of pamphlets about anarchism, community defense (a euphemism for armed antigovernment resistance), and instructions on using burner phones.
According to Robinson, the SRA first drew national attention following the assassination of Christian activist Charlie Kirk, amid reports that the alleged shooter, Tyler Robinson, may have had ties to the group. The SRA claims to have more than 10,000 members and has faced media scrutiny over its alleged involvement in armed confrontations with law enforcement. Platner’s loathing of law enforcement and the deplorables is a central feature of progressive Democratic politics. So is supporting Ukraine in its war with Russia, noted above, which I have shown on this platform, was provoked and is prosecuted by an alliance of neo-Nazis and other Ukrainian ultranationalists funded by transnational corporate power and the Western intelligence apparatus.
Robinson isn’t the only investigative outlet plumbing the depths of the left’s affinity with domestic terrorists. While the legacy media dwells on the tattoo and questions about tipping, Axios has uncovered a 2020 comment in which Platner refers to having an “antifa supersoldier” label on his “armor,” a remark he now characterizes as a misguided joke. But it’s no joke, Jack; his affiliation with domestic terrorism is not just a remark. This and other revelations, Axios reports, have thrown his campaign—a progressive effort to unseat Republican Senator Susan Collins—into turmoil.
As noted, Platner’s bid for the Democratic nomination pits him against Governor Mills, the preferred candidate of party leaders and establishment donors. For progressives, Platner embodies the movement’s faux populist and alleged “outsider” energy; for the establishment, his candidacy threatens to hand Republicans ammunition in a crucial Senate race. More than this, it brings the Democrats’ affinity with left-wing domestic terrorism to the fore. Readers must consider whether the idea that there is a gulf between the moderate and progressive wings of the Democratic Party is a perception the Party has manufactured.
The stakes are high for Democrats: Collins remains one of the GOP’s most entrenched incumbents, and Democrats view Maine as a must-win seat in their effort to maintain Senate control via that body’s rules constraining the Republican majority (that’s how Democrats shut down the government). But Platner’s online history—spanning from leftist organizing forums to inflammatory political commentary—has complicated his image and provided fodder for Republican attack ads. It’s not just the “antifa supersoldier” label on his armor. In that same post, Platner encouraged Antifa to “Keep up the good fight.” It’s not the author of this essay associating Platner with Antifa. Platner associates himself with that organization. Platner is Antifa.
As readers know, Antifa has been designated a domestic terrorist organization. Following the assassination of Charlie Kirk, President Trump signed an executive order designating Antifa as such. Democrats dispute this, of course; to many progressives, Antifa is a decentralized, anti-fascist movement unfairly caricatured for political gain. Antifa is just “an idea.” The reality is dark and dangerous. Today’s Antifa is rooted in Antifaschistische Aktion, founded in 1932 in Germany. It was initiated by and under the command of the Communist Party of Germany (KPD). The KPD organized violent street action through Antifa. The constant denial of the true character of Antifa testifies to a progressive alliance not only with domestic terrorism but with an anarchist-communist organization determined to overthrow the liberal capitalist order. Among the things Bolsheviks and Nazis have in common is this objective.
Platner’s posts go far beyond the “shit posting” he claims he intended. As noted earlier, he promoted the SRA, a left-wing firearms group that encourages gun ownership as a means of “combating right-wing and exclusionary firearm culture.” In another forum, Platner described participating in his local SRA chapter, noting that many members were military veterans and firearms instructors. In a 2018 comment reported by Politico, Platner wrote that those who expect to “fight fascism without a good semi-automatic rifle” should “do some reading of history,” adding that “an armed working class is a requirement for economic justice.” This is the writing of a revolutionary. The Democratic Party, finding itself increasingly impotent at the ballot box, is turning to street-level violence and color revolution, as evidenced by the “No Kings” protests, which, as has been documented, are funded by the NGOs of the transnational elite. Observers could not have missed the “I am Antifa” shirts and signs worn by attendees at the last “No Kings” rallies.
“I’m not a socialist,” Platner said in a statement. “I’m a Marine Corps veteran.” His campaign declined to say whether he ever attended any Antifa-related events, but readers should be mindful in discussions of socialism. Progressivism is not a species of socialism. Bernie Sanders is not a democrastic socialist. Progressivism is an expression of corporate statism and globalism. (As I observed years ago, one knew Sanders and his ilk came over to that side when they flipped on the open borders questions.) Indeed, progressivism is a species of the same corporatist arrangements that underpinned Nazi Germany, a totalitarian monopoly system that, as I have shown, was neither nationalist nor socialist, but established by financial and industrial power to suppress democracy and liberal freedoms, thus denying the working class their right. Such arrangements are transnational in their ambitions. And they are, as Walter Benjamin explains in the epilogue to “Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction,” intrinsically warmongering.
Predictably, the true believers in the progressive movement have rallied to Platner’s defense. Representative Ro Khanna, a California Democrat, reaffirmed his endorsement, accusing the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) of engaging in “the politics of personal destruction” to boost Mills’ establishment-backed campaign. The perception being manufactured here is that Platner’s case highlights an ongoing struggle within the Democratic Party between its activist base and institutional leadership. For progressives, the backlash against Platner reflects a double standard—one that tolerates establishment missteps but punishes grassroots candidates for past mistakes. For moderates, the former Marine’s rhetoric embodies the political risks of nominating candidates who carry unvetted or radical baggage into general elections. What is really at issue is whether Democrats should openly embrace what the KPD embraced before them: open resistance to the republic they seek to overthrow in pursuit of a global corporatist order.
Are Democratic Party elites preparing to jettison Platner to conceal their ties to the left-wing paramilitary and domestic terrorist organizations attempting to disorder major US cities at the behest of globalists? It seems so. But they need to be careful. Since they can’t openly cut ties based on what Robinson and others have uncovered, the Inner Party appears prepared to throw under the bus a Democrat asking what progressives regard as racially insensitive questions (as well as some posts that appear based on reporting to downplay the problem of sexual assault). Democrats cannot walk back their support for Antifa. They are on the record on that score. But they can attempt to obscure what that support means.
The Trump Administration should make a big deal out of this. The Department of Homeland Security should follow up. For the rest of America, this is not a matter of whether Platner should leave the race to quieten the media about the issue. It is about exposing what the Democratic Party has in store for America if it ever makes its way back to power. As I have been arguing for years now, the political struggle is populist-nationalist versus progressive-globalist. Only one party represents the American Republic. The other party is prepared to use the same tactics to achieve those ends that elites used against Third World countries to secure the planet for transnational corporate power and profit.
freedom and reason 