Probably Mostly Anti-Trump Violence In Berkeley

link
   The headline says, basically, that "hundreds arrested...as protesters clash..."...but I'm going to go ahead and openly and explicitly conclude, via induction, that:

The anti-Trump side started the violence

And also, as a kind of secondary conclusion: The L. A. Times is basically concealing that.
   I mean, look, we've got one reported pro-Trump rally, "antifa" psychos show up and, as always, there's violence. Simultaneously, allegedly large anti-Trump rallies are reported all over...no violence. This is hardly complicated stuff...
   If I'm wrong, I'll be happy to acknowledge it. But I think that the hypothesis above is obviously the reasonable one, given what we know about the two sides.
   For one thing, if the pro-Trump side had started it, that'd be the lede. It isn't. So they didn't. Probably.
   Here's one way that leftward bias operates in these cases: even fairly obviously fake stories about violence / "hate crimes" directed by right against the left get reported. Actual, verifiable, politically-motivated violence by the left against the right gets soft-pedaled, and/or represented as mutual, or ignored.
   The mass violence against Trump supporters during the campaign was reported...but did not cause anything like the kind of media freak-out that would have occurred if the polarity of the violence had been reversed. I expect this is just more-or-less more of the same.

[Also: Lauren Southern is alt-right?
That could be...but if so, then 'alt-right' doesn't mean what it's being said to mean.
I couldn't figure out what that was supposed to mean...then I thought it had become clear that the term was paradigmatically applied to some real whack jobs like Richard Spencer and Vox Day...but now here it is applied to Lauren Southern, who seems mostly pretty reasonable to me.]