How you behave when somebody disagrees with you, especially in politics, says more about you than it does them. Especially when you try to punish people because of their relations with others or things that they say. And how you behave after you lose a debate.
The Democrats are proving exactly why they lost. Never mind all the economic punishment that the Party has inflicted on the country. Never mind the suffering of millions of people. In the end they lost because they asserted a moral authority while throwing away the moral strength they once had.
Apparently their high sense of moral authority gives them the entitlement to harass people they disagree with wherever they are and attempt ruin their lives.
Of course this little incident was just a tiny part of the picture. The actions have gone beyond the mere harassment and cultish in your face all the time morality that most of us who disagree with them have had to put up with since forever. It’s become clear though, in this last campaign and election, that that moral authority was nothing more than a sham.
If you say that violence is not the answer, then you have no moral grounds when you resort to violence. Which the radical left has gone and committed, in spades. You can’t say that you hate Fascism and then turn around and resort to the thuggery and violence that were a key part of fascist behavior.
The fact is that these acts are all the result of coordinated planned action. These people are setting out to conduct a street war to prevent dissent and expression of viewpoints that they do not agree with. This is who they are.
At the approach of the inauguration they attempted to disrupt the peaceful transfer of power that has been a part of the American experience since the founding. God administration or bad administrations, the American people have always used the peaceful process of the ballot to change the executive. But that did not matter to the Antifa.
While it’s been a long time this isn’t the first time that the American Left has taken the war to the streets. The radical Left has been conducting terror against the Bourgeois whatever they call them this week. Back in the early 20th Century they were tossing bombs all over the place.
The activism and bombings sort of slowed down in the 1930’s and through WW2, probably because the radicals were getting essentially everything they wanted without resorting to terrorism. That changed though with the Cold War. Backed by the NKVD, a new bunch of radical started spreading terror and explosives.
Most ’70s of the bombings were done as protest actions. Unlike today’s jihadists, ’70s underground didn’t try to max body count. And ’70s papers didn’t really give a shit. A Puerto Rican group bombed 2 theaters in the Bronx, injuring eleven, in 1970. NYT gave it 6 paragraphs.
Protest bombings started on college campuses. The guy who moved them off-campus was a dude named Sam Melville. Melville was an older radical (mid-30s). He’d thought idly about bombings before, but in February ’69 he hooked up with two Quebecois separatists on the run. Melville was fascinated by their knowledge of revolutionary tactics. He admired them so much, he even drove them to the airport so they could hijack a plane to Cuba.
Logical next step for Melville: emulate them. Specifically, find an explosives warehouse, steal dynamite, start a bombing campaign against United Fruit. Except United Fruit had moved their warehouse, so he bombed a tugboat company instead. Whoops. Next: a bank, injuring 20. A bombing spree ensued, but the FBI had an informer, and Melville was busted red-handed with a sack full of bombs. He became a hero to the movement, and later a martyr: he was one of the inmates shot in the Attica uprising.
After Sam Melville, bombings were A Thing.
One thing Burrough makes clear: the 1970s underground was not primarily focused on Vietnam. It was domestic. Focused on the black cause. Burrough traces black radicalism through guys like Robert Williams, Malcolm X, Stokely Carmichael, H. Rap Brown, and Huey Newton, but for me this particular thread really takes off when it gets to Eldridge Cleaver, whom I haven’t read and really feel I should.
Cleaver, born in Arkansas, moved to California, attained his fame based on two things: 1) he was a rapist and 2) he could write. Leftists have this weird thing about deifying criminals who can write. Norman Mailer and Jack Henry Abbot being the most famous example. In Cleaver’s case, he viewed the rape of white women by a black dude like himself as a revolutionary act.
Cleaver wrote to a radical attorney, impressed her, and seduced her; she secured his release & promptly set him up with a gig at RAMPARTS. White radicals fell hard for Eldridge Cleaver. This became an trend, part of a couple of uneasy dichotomies that you see a bunch of.
Example #1: Huey Newton, Malcolm X used the idea of violent resistance mainly as a recruiting tool. Eldridge Cleaver believed that shit.
Example #2: Some white leftists (like SLA) worship black revolutionaries, crave their leadership. Others (like the Weathermen) want to lead.
Cleaver hooked up with the Black Panthers, so we’ll see him again when we talk about them. For now, let’s look at Weatherman.
The Weathermen (technically, the name of the group was Weatherman, singular) came out of a group called Students for a Democratic Society (SDS). SDS was a college organization with a bunch of campus chapters. That meant existing machinery that worked, and membership numbers. A fantastic resource, if you want to mine it to build a guerilla movement.
SDS started radicalizing in ’66. By ’67, Burrough notes, an SDS leader is saying in the New York Times, “We are working to build a guerilla force in an urban environment.” He backed down quickly, but the genie was out. And then 1968 happened, and things went completely batshit.
You have to understand: in 1968, many radicals absolutely believed that the United States was getting ready to collapse. One Weatherman puts it: “We actually believed there was going to be a revolution. We believed 3rd World countries would rise up and cause crises that would bring down the industrialized West, and we believed it was going to happen tomorrow, or maybe the day after tomorrow, like 1976.”
They believed the revolution was imminent. BELIEVED IT. Like Alex Jones’s audience believes in chemtrails. That level. Absolute, apocalyptic. The SDS got angrier and angrier, and wound up doing an occupation at Columbia University, which got attention. At the same time, they read up on the foco theory of Che’s buddy Regis Debray: that small guerrilla groups could overthrow the US.
If you think this sounds completely insane and crazy, you’re absolutely right. But think about it this way: who’s in SDS leadership?
SDS leadership is disproportionately well-off Jewish kids at elite universities. The kind of people who create Facebook.
Well, in 1968 you can’t go to the Bay Area & create a killer app, so if you want to disrupt stuff you literally have to start a revolution. And that’s the equation: Paranoid fervor of chemtrail-sniffers + Silicon Valley’s faith in its ability to change the world = the Weather Underground.
When it shakes out, two of the big SDS movers and shakers are John “JJ” Jacobs and Bernadine Dorne. Their goal: to take over SDS entirely. Because, remember, organization is critical. SDS is a nationwide organization. And college campuses are receptive to radical messages.
How receptive? In fall of 1968, there were 41 bombings and arson cases on college campuses. We’re not talking letters under doors or vandalism, here. We’re talking about Molotov cocktails setting shit on fire. Here’s how radical SDS was: Burrough notes that Weatherman’s opponents for leadership in SDS elections were “Progressive Labor,” who were literal Maoists. To distinguish themselves, Weatherman called for white radicals to live like John Brown: ie, to kill the enemies of black liberty.
Like the spoiled crybabies of the weathermen a new bunch of wannabe radicals has emerged. At first they tried to disrupt the inauguration, but when it looked like they would be dealing with people that would inflict them with consequences, they moved to softer targets.
Breaking window and burning businesses in cities that are friendly to their cause .
And suckerpunching random people in airports.
This week though it seems as if the big push is to use terrorism and street rioting to shut down the speeches of Breitbart gadfly Milo Yiannopoulos. Frankly I can’t think of anything in these days that would help spread Milo’s message than demonstrating that that message is so horrible that extreme violent methods are needed to shut him up.
Who are the antifa. Well here’s a pretty good explanation.
After Seattle, the black hooded heroic stormtroops of the modern left are treading down an all too familiar path. This path does not end well.
John Ringo posted in Facebook recently why trying to appease those who resort to violence to gain their political goals is a very bad thing.
But there is a particular issue to any form of terrorism (and we’ll get into why rioting IS a form of terrorism below.) Terrorism is a form of war. And war is an attempt to change policy through violence.This is what makes the deaths on 9/11, and all the other deaths, and the damage from riots, so very important compared to all the other violence. Why San Bernardino is more important than Sandy Hook, though the latter was an equal or greater tragedy.Terrorism is about trying to change politics. It is about trying to destroy the democratic process by the use of violence. To frighten people into voting or acting a certain way. And by using illegal violence to secure the legal violence of the state to be UNDER THE CONTROL OF THE VIOLENT. (Big emphasis there.)The terrorists on 9/11, and at the inauguration, at San Bernardino and at the Orlando nightclub, want us to put their people in charge of the government and thus in charge of our lives. They want to control us by their actions. Crips shooting at Bloods in drive-bys aren’t trying to get the Mayor to declare the Crips as the only allowed gang in LA. They’re just trying to kill Bloods.The state has a need and a right to use violence, preferably as a last resort. The term is ‘force majeure’. It is, by the way, one of the legal definitions of a functioning state vs a failed state. If a state (country) cannot enforce its laws by force in any particular area, that area is a failed state by definition. And I’m not going to get into a debate about the need. It is real. I’m sure that no-one would say that a mass murderer should be allowed to wander around if he or she just disagrees with being put in jail. How much it should be used is worth debating possibly at another time.But the ability of the state to use violence to enforce the laws agreed upon by the controllers of the state is why people, at the end of the day, care about politics. Every argument from a husband and wife wrangling about the dishes to global thermonuclear war is about control. If you don’t pay your property taxes, the sheriff takes your house and land. If you don’t follow the rules, the police can knock down your door. If two nuclear armed countries REALLY don’t agree they can wipe each other out and poison a shit-ton of real estate. At many times in history, and even presently in places as diverse as Atlanta and Tehran, laws exist against sexual actions that most consider common-place. (Unless the Georgia legislature have changed the laws against any sex but missionary. Seriously, I’ve had the law broken on me alot on Georgia. Who knew?)(PS: If the pussy-marchers win out, does that mean only men do the dishes? Will they send the sheriff to the house to enforce that?)In a democracy (short-hand, I know we’re a liberal democratic republic, okay?) the way that those rules are supposed to be created is through the will of the people. In democratic republic we elect representatives who then pass those laws. (And I’ll agree, but it is another debate, that too many are passed by faceless and unaccountable bureaucrats.)If those representatives represent the will at the ballot box, or even their strongly held beliefs that were professed during their campaign even if they fly in the face of temporary public opinion, then they are following the path of democracy.If those representatives change their votes based upon violence, then they are not. They are succumbing to tyranny.(CF: Ferguson, Baltimore…)All political violence is, therefore, an attempt to get the force majeure of the state to work in favor of the violent.Which is why 9/11 is so much more important than how many people died of smoking related illnesses in the months afterwards. Cigarettes don’t give a shit about policy. Cigarettes are not going to use the FBI to kick your door in if you have an American flag flying out front. Or, conversely, if you have a Rainbow flag. Or if you’re gay. Or if you’re Christian or Jewish. Or if you believe the moon is made of green cheese vs blue cheese. Cigarettes don’t send people to the gulag or the many many other camps. They don’t induce famine for political reasons. They don’t deliberately kill millions for political ends.That is why accepting or abetting violence to advance a political cause is such a very bad idea. It accepts the arguments of tyranny.
The problem is that all too frequently we live under the curse of Santayana. History does repeat and yes, it can happen here.
Last night, there were violent protests at Berkeley University against guest speaker Milo Yiannopoulos of Breitbart News. Occupy Oakland tweeted “We won this night. We will control the streets. We will liberate the land. We will fight fascists. We will dismantle the state. This is war.” What was so interesting was the “we will fight fascists.” Occupy Oakland, and many left wing groups, appear willing to have a revolution to halt a supposedly imminent fascist takeover of the country.
Which begs the question: how do fascists take over? The answer can be found by looking at the three major fascist countries in history: Italy, Spain, and Germany.
Under the leadership of Benito Mussolini, the Fascist Party of Italy seized control of the country in 1922 with the “March on Rome.” Before marching on the nation’s capital, Italian fascists committed violent acts across most of northern Italy. The king of Italy, fearing more bloodshed, appointed Mussolini Prime Minister of Italy. No election took place, and the Italian fascists used violent tactics to achieve power.
Spanish fascists came to power through a military coup, after the military leadership did not like the results of the most recent election, and the coup resulted in a civil war lasting from 1936 to 1939.
In Germany the fascist path to power was longer and more complicated for the National Socialists, or Nazis. Hitler attempted to mimic Mussolini in 1923 with the Beer Hall putsch, an attempt to overthrow local authorities. It did not succeed and resulted in a few deaths and the arrest of several Nazis, including Hitler. After the failed coup, the Nazis decided to use the democratic process to take over Germany. Yet not until the election of July 1932 did the Nazis become the largest party in the German Parliament. Despite winning a plurality of votes (37 percent), the Nazis did not receive a majority of the votes needed to form a government. The Nazis refused to join any coalition, which resulted in another election in November 1932. In that election the Nazis again won a plurality but not as large as before (only 33 percent). Despite the loss, the Nazis refused to form a coalition until Hitler was made chancellor, which occurred in January 1933. Once Hitler was chancellor, he ordered another parliamentary election.
In March 1933, the election was held and the Nazis again received only a plurality of the votes (43 percent). This would be the last open election until after World War II, because Hitler decided it would be easier to consolidate power through terror, fear, and even political murders, rather than trying to work with other parties.
So, what’s the pattern? How do fascists take power? First, they are angry with election results or how the country is being run. Then fascists use militant tactics to force the population into supporting, or acquiescing in, their cause, even though most citizens don’t actually support the fascist agenda.
Watch the videos below and watch the all too familiar patterns emerge.
It a path that cultures have been down all too many times. It’s ugly when people replace the rule of law with the rule of the club.
For all of the important, albeit hyperbolic, conversations about “white supremacists” and the “alt-right,” we would be well served to confront the very real reality of a dangerous dynamic of liberals in an “honor brigade” who lash out aggressively at others with the false claim they are defending the “honor” of American values of tolerance, diversity and pluralism. For the self-confessed crime of my vote for Donald Trump, a liberal Georgetown University professor told me, “I’ve written you off as a human being,” and hurled insult after insult at me, including “F–k off. Go to hell,” and “Gloves off.”
For many, the protests at UC Berekely came out of the blue. The Socialist Alternative Bay Area, an organization of left-wing activists in the San Francisco Bay area, and the Berkeley Socialist Students had posted an innocuous Facebook “event,” inviting protesters to the campus Student Union to “unite against oppression” and “racists, Islamophobes and misogynists” who are “emboldened” by the “election of Donald TrumpDonald TrumpThe Trump opposition: Hell hath no fury like Democrats scornTrump: ‘My responsibility is to keep’ Americans safe Massachusetts judge won’t renew order halting Trump travel ban: reportsMORE.”
“We have to shut them down,” the invitation read, ominously.
A Facebook user then shared the details with the hashtag #ShutDownMilo.
But, underscoring how social media is used not only by terrorists but by “social justice warriors” as well, the violent protests were long ago predicted.
Eric Feinberg, founder of GiPEC, a New York-based cyber intelligence company, tracked a first use of #ShutDownMilo to two months ago from the Twitter handle for a self-described “revolutionary anarchist news website,” ItsGoingDown.org, or IGD. The site says it seeks to “uplift and build capacity for a wide range of social struggles, movements, and revolutionary groups”; of course, it “accepts monetary donation via the anonymous digital currency bitcoin and … through regular Credit or Debit Card / PayPal.”
Says Feinberg: “This is the American intifada,” an Arabic word for an uprising. “Just like ISIS and Hamas have found the use of unique hashtags on social media to recruit and radicalize, unique hashtags are now being used by groups here in the U.S. that call for violence, protest, resistance and anarchy. By the use of these unique hashtags with a call to action to a specified group and location, the online mob becomes a real world-mob that can cause damage, disruption and violence, like we just witnessed in Berkeley.”
We are facing a cyber jihad, the Arabic word for “struggle,” in America, with the Internet used to mobilize mobs.
In Berkeley, protesters slammed Robles and her friends against a barricade. Unable to breathe or see from the pepper spray, rioters surrounded her, some of her friends getting stomped on. “I thought I was going to die,” Robles, who is gay, told me.
One call to action says “come out, mask up….” Another: “Smash Trump,” with a masked avenger punching Trump in the back of the head. There are yet more tip sheets for “combative resistance movements” and “black bloc tactics,” an “anarchist tradition” in which rioters appear in “black clothing and masks,” with layers of clothing to strip into to conceal identities, and “engage in some level of illegal activity.”
When I asked the group, via email, about its role in protests, it responded: “IGD is a news website, we are not organizers of, nor located in, Berkeley.”
Another “independent media center,” IndyBay, rebroadcast the IGD messages to celebrate last night’s violence.
“#Antifa came through on their promise to #ShutMiloDown at UC #Berkeley. “#miloatcal,” it wrote at 10:09 p.m.
It bragged about destruction of ATM machines, windows at an Amazon Prime store and the image of a man, facedown on the street, surrounded by a mob, with the message, “Greetings from Berkeley” and the hashtag, #keeppunchingnazis.
The school said in a statement “about 150 outside masked agitators” caused the violence that night.
— Indybay (@Indybay) February 2, 2017
Another #antifa #ShutMiloDown tweet showed knives at the necks of Trump supporters in red hats. Yet another one had a red Trump hat, burning on a stake.
When I asked IndyBay, via Facebook, who led the violence, it responded, “Milo, Steve, & Donald,” referring to Yiannopoulos, Trump chief strategist Steve Bannon and Trump.
In fact, while the Trump administration must of, course, lead from a place of compassion and moderation, intolerant tolerance-loving people are threatening the very safety of Americans, fomented by irresponsible Democratic Party leaders who refuse to accept the election results of 2016, fear-mongering “social justice warriors” who behave as if they are on the set of the “Hunger Games,” the movie about a “resistance” against a tyrannical dictator, and reckless social media outlets, media companies and alt-left “fake news” sites that amplify the “agit prop,” or agitation propaganda, of these political leaders and activists.
And who stands on the frontlines? Police officers, some of whom jumped barricades last night in UC Berkeley.
Dallas police officer Sgt. Demetrick Pennie, president of the Dallas Fallen Officer Foundation, and a plaintiff in a lawsuit regarding cyber agitation against police said: “These radical protests are creating a dangerous precedent for homeland security in this country. Not only are they facilitating the widespread manipulation of people using radical ideologies, but they are also laying the framework for a domestic terrorist attack of immense proportions to occur. From a critical incident management standpoint, these protest are too large and unpredictable for police to control, which creates an opportunity for a domestic terrorist to intercede and carry out an attack that could potentially result in mass casualties; a terror that would shock the nation similar to 9/11.”
He added: “As we have seen over the last two years, these protests have become more violent and radical in nature, which has placed police officers lives at risk. It is now time that law enforcement be given the legal authority and resources to quell these protests before they destroy this country.”
As the young women in the pepper spray incident nursed their wounds last night, @OccupyOakland posted a message at 11:14 p.m., stating, “We won this night. We will control the streets. We will liberate the land. We will fight fascists. We will dismantle the state,” attaching a photo of protesters, carrying a banner with the battle cry, “THIS IS WAR.”
In the end though, we the people cannot afford to surrender to the thugs and the people behind them. That way, while it may seem to lead to peace, instead leads straight to hell. It’s a path that we humans have been all too frequently and it always ends the same way.
When you do away with the rules the only rules left are those imposed with a club.
There’s more stuff on this showing up as the situation is very fluid.
A couple of posts from Ace of Spaces HQ.
Zombie was at Berkeley.
Some stuff from the Ralph Retort.
Steffan interviews the woman who was pepper sprayed.
A Daily Caller piece on who is behind all these protests.
Those airport protests were not a “spontaneous” as portrayed.
For more on the dysfunctional economy click Here or on the tag below.