Hateful Scrawls, Misinterpretation, or Provocation?

Correction (April 28, 2025): A previous version of this article questioned whether swastikas appeared in graffiti photographed around West Hollywood. Unobstructed versions of the images have since confirmed that the graffiti did include identifiable swastikas.

At the West Hollywood City Council meeting on April 21, two residents raised alarm about hateful graffiti scrawled across the city. Anniejump Vicente described the graffiti as a disgrace and tied its appearance to a conservative rally planned for Sunday, April 27 at the intersection of Santa Monica and Robertson Boulevards.

Another speaker, Tsukuru Fors, voiced similar fears, stating they no longer felt safe in West Hollywood and warning that the rally’s location deliberately targeted LGBTQ+ spaces.

The urgency and emotional weight of these comments struck a chord with many.

Then yesterday, Vicente contacted WEHO Online with a letter titled “West Hollywood Is Under Threat” and a separate email with the subject “evidence, a thread,” linking to her Bluesky account.

A Bluesky post by Vicente from April 9 reads: “🚨 ALERTA ALERTA ANTIFASCISTA — Nazis are attempting to claim West Hollywood (WeHo).” In the thread, Vicente alleges “no less than NINE sw*stikas” on sidewalks, curbs, and old payphone shells. Some markings, she said, were accompanied by a Star of David. The post has been shared 36 times and liked 57 times.

Yet images of the alleged hate markings appear to show stylized words, abstract symbols, and scribbled shapes—in short: standard, regular old graffiti. Vicente also draws pink arrows over the images, but they’re drawn over the graffiti rather than pointing to it, and sometimes obstruct the view. Though the writings may not be high art, they also don’t appear to form identifiable swastikas or overt hate symbols.

So what’s going on here? Misinterpretation or deliberate alarm?

With heightened fears over extremist activity — including the upcoming rally featuring far-right figures — one possibility is honest misinterpretation. Residents may be primed to see threatening symbols even in ambiguous graffiti. Cognitive bias can influence perception, particularly if shapes have similar features to recognizable and meaningful symbols.

Misinterpretation could be exacerbated by ideological conviction. Vicente might be so committed to her beliefs that she sees hate symbols everywhere, even where they don’t exist. This isn’t intentional fear mongering but rather a cognitive bias, where her worldview shapes her perception.

Alternatively, these could be false alarms sounded willfully for other motivations.

Vicente might have exaggerated or misinterpreted the graffiti to gain attention, either for herself or her cause. By claiming swastikas, she could draw more eyes to her post, increasing her visibility and influence within West Hollywood’s activist circles. Sensational claims can amplify reach on social media. Her Bluesky post’s alarmist tone (“ALERTA ALERTA ANTIFASCISTA”) and the call for antifascist action suggest a desire to be seen as a community leader or whistleblower.

Or perhaps the motivation is the act itself: the thrill and power of incitement—getting a “rise” out of some people.

It’s equally possible that Vicente sincerely believes she is helping to protect the community. Committed activists often view sounding the alarm — loudly and early — as a duty, even at the risk of overstatement. Her comments’ emphasis on action and urgency could resonate with those who feel under siege politically and socially. The dramatic claims and use of alarmist language such as “Nazis are attempting to claim WeHo” and calls to “organize community defense networks” may be an attempt to mobilize community resistance to the event.

The rally is indeed meeting in West Hollywood — gathering at the Chase Bank at the corner of North Robertson Boulevard and Santa Monica Boulevard at 1:00 PM, according to the event’s registration page.

However, the starting location is on West Hollywood’s border with Beverly Hills. The protesters then plan to march away from West Hollywood, culminating at Beverly Gardens Park in Beverly Hills.

Make no mistake: LGBTQ rights and human rights are under attack by the current federal administration. But drawing heightened attention to ambiguous incidents only serves to distract from the serious threats the president and his allies are actually perpetrating.

Perhaps the biggest clues are the pink marks. It’s not just that she added pink — it’s what the pink covers:

If the purpose were merely to highlight or point out the graffiti, you would expect arrows next to the marks, circles around the marks, and text labels beside the areas of concern. Instead the pink often obscures the graffiti making it harder — not easier — for an outside viewer to assess what was really painted. That implies she either didn’t trust the viewer to interpret the graffiti her way without help, or she knew the graffiti didn’t strongly resemble hate symbols, and tried to cover that fact by layering over it.

Whatever Vicente’s reasons for ascribing hateful intent to the graffiti — honest mistake, personal gain, personal pleasure, an attempt to mobilize, or a combination of these — West Hollywood is preparing for a volatile four years. Residents must focus sharply on real dangers. West Hollywood cannot afford to waste energy chasing shadows while true threats loom.