Don't flatter yourself. You people on the far left aren't any better than the far right ones. In fact, I would argue that most of the time, you are worse, because your side of the political spectrum is far more insidious with their means of attaining their goals. At least the alt-right nutjobs are honest about their intentions and that makes them easy to spot and dismiss.

I'd be curious to see this claim substantiated. What led you to this conclusion?

That the far left is more insidious in attaining their goals?

Yes, in what ways is the far left more insidious and less up front than the far right?

Well, look at what each group controls, right? The alt-right basically controls nothing. They are a small, largely insignificant group of people, relative to the population. I'm talking about the actual alt-right, not the new left's definition of alt-right (ANYONE who disagrees with ANY of their political ideologies). Now when it comes to the left, what do they control? They certainly control the universities at this point. By controlling academia, you control the minds / behaviours of the next generation of adults in the West. The media is largely far left-leaning these days. The biggest one of all though would be Big Tech. ALL of the major tech platforms like Google, Twitter, Twitch, Facebook, YouTube, etc. are all far left. Twitter, for example is very selective with enforcing their own ToS and clearly favours people with liberal agendas and Google / YouTube deliberately alter their search algorithms in order to prop up liberal content. This is a huge problem, because the internet has become such an invasive, necessary part of modern society's life and very few people know what's actually happening behind the scenes.

So I guess my issue would be you have apparently defined the alt-right as only being avowed neonazis and the "far left" as a global conspiracy of academics and tech giants. In which case you are right, the left would be more insidious in that world view, but I would fundamentally disagree with the world view in the first place. 

It's not a "world view", it's a fact. It's not really a conspiracy, either, because it's so blatantly obvious. It's been proven time and time again that Google leans far to the left and their search algorithms are skewered to favour liberal agendas. They recently claimed in public that they have no internal "blacklist" only to have said blacklist leak out a few days later. So if you think that the tech giants are unbiased, you are very naive or simply not paying attention.

It's a question of scale. Even if the tech giants are biased the idea that they are as biased to the left as neo-nazis are biased to the right is just ridiculous. I guess you'd call it a false equivalency that you are equating gender studies professors (making some assumptions on who in academia you take issue with but I'd say that's a reasonable guess since I don't think it's the physicists) to the alt-right. Sure if you define your line there then the far left seems more insidious because everyone who is trying to push things towards the left is far left. What do you call those trying to push politics to the right through means other than nazi marches?

You are correct about a question of scale. However, it is also a question of context. Google is not as far-left as the Neo-nazis are far right - you are obviously correct about this. However, let's imagine the political spectrum as an actual line. Let's say that the neo-nazis are all the way (100%) to the right side, which is a fair assessment. Now let's place Google. I think it would be fair to put them about 50% of the way between the center and the far-left. So, not extreme far left, but certainly heavily left leaning. Now, take a step back and imagine which group has more influence and power over the population. Is it the 100% right Neo-nazis who collectively probably make up a group of a few thousand (or less) people? Or is it 50% left Google, which controls that vast majority (over 90%) of the world's internet searches?

They do have freedom of speech enshrined in their constitutions. You can badmouth or make fun of their politicians as much as you want for instance, but hate speech is still a no go.

Besides, it's not as absolute in the US as you might think, either. Try calling somebody a certain N-word for instance and see how that will work out. Or make fun of the cops while they're standing right in front of you. Or shouting fire in a crowded theater as a practical joke. Or curse on a forum like here, for that matter. And that list goes on: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions

Yeah, no. Just listen closely to the video. They were planning about their weapons, equipment, their numbers, their positioning, if they are well placed to throw their tear gas grenades (the discussion about the wind direction and making sure it wouldn't backfire)... there's more than enough evidence that they were planning to beat antifa (or other such protesters) up.

Also, he's hanging out with right-wing protesters (or counter-protesters) looking for a fight with left-wing protesters. Of course at some point he would become a target, too if both sides clash. But he only reported on what the Antifa did to him and left the whole rest out. That's the same as if in 1941 journalists would have said that the USA are attacking Japan, and conspicuously leaving out that Japan attacked them first at Pearl Harbour to paint the US as the aggressor.