Patterico's Pontifications

8/29/2017

Berkeley Mayor: We Need To Shut Down Free Speech Week Because Conservatives Provoke Criminal Thugs

Filed under: General — Dana @ 6:57 am

[guest post by Dana]

Berkeley, no longer a bastion of free speech:

In the aftermath of a right-wing rally Sunday that ended with anarchists chasing attendees from a downtown park, Berkeley Mayor Jesse Arreguin urged UC Berkeley on Monday to cancel conservatives’ plans for a Free Speech Week next month to avoid making the city the center of more violent unrest.

“I don’t want Berkeley being used as a punching bag,” said Arreguin, whose city has been the site of several showdowns this year between, on the one hand, the left and its fringe anarchist wing, and on the other, supporters of President Trump who at times have included white nationalists.

“I am concerned about these groups using large protests to create mayhem,” Arreguin said. “It’s something we have seen in Oakland and in Berkeley.”

Believing that the presence of “right-wing” speakers would cause left-wing, militant thug extremists to become violent and out of control, the mayor believes the only workable solution is to cancel events involving “right-wing” speakers. You know, as opposed to increasing the presence of law enforcement and arresting those who break the law:

I’m very concerned about Milo Yiannopoulos and Ann Coulter and some of these other right-wing speakers coming to the Berkeley campus, because it’s just a target for black bloc to come out and commit mayhem on the Berkeley campus and have that potentially spill out on the street.

And about that pesky issue of free speech:

“I obviously believe in freedom of speech, but there is a line between freedom of speech and then posing a risk to public safety,” the mayor said. “That is where we have to really be very careful — that while protecting people’s free-speech rights, we are not putting our citizens in a potentially dangerous situation and costing the city hundreds of thousands of dollars fixing the windows of businesses.”

Because more speech that challenges the status quo could never be a solution, or something…

On a side note, Ben Shapiro is scheduled to speak at UC Berkeley on Sept. 14. And UC Berkeley is charging the organizers $15,000 to exercise their First Amendment rights.

(Cross-posted at The Jury Talks Back.)

–Dana

97 Responses to “Berkeley Mayor: We Need To Shut Down Free Speech Week Because Conservatives Provoke Criminal Thugs”

  1. Heckler’s veto.

    Dana (023079)

  2. They should just make them resemble Trump rallies. Violence is just part of the show.

    Ben burn (3d526b)

  3. It is SOP; cause violence, blame it on your opponent, then use the resulting outcry to grab power to exert over your enemies.

    felipe (b5e0f4)

  4. Mayor Arreguin must think Obama is still President. I look forward to his indictment under the civil rights laws, if he keeps on ordering his police to just stand there and do nothing when leftie punks in masks mob peaceful gatherings.

    nk (dbc370)

  5. In a way, this is progress. The Left used to be able to be a lot more subtle about shutting down opposing opinions. Now they are out in the open and catching a certain amount of hell for being the self-satisfied fascist swine they have always been.

    C. S. P. Schofield (99bd37)

  6. it’s just for a week

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  7. Did you know that Berkeley is the birthplace of the Tax Sugar Movement? For reals. It was the first U.S. jurisdiction to place a tax on sugar, including sugar in soft drinks and other beverages.

    (It’s also the birthplace of the In Full Public View Bowel Movement but that’s too long to say.)

    nk (dbc370)

  8. “then use the resulting outcry to grab power”

    It may be that Arrequin has made an analysis of the total power gained by the little commie Madison, OWS, BLM, Antifa cosplay and come to the realization that it’s been an uninterrupted net loss since since initiation of the tactic. I hate to see progressive stupidity interrupted prior to complete self destruction.

    Rick Ballard (48cc19)

  9. How does the UC Berkeley fee differ from the Poll Tax?

    jim2 (1ade65)

  10. This Arrequin clown is said to be associated with Pantyfa… wouldn’t it be refreshing to see these useless politicians ask/order their law enforcement to actually go after the perpetrators of violence/destroyers of property and then the system prosecute them to the full extent of the law? Might set an example and send a message. But that’s not what they want to facilitate now, is it.

    Colonel Haiku (74754c)

  11. A few on the left are pointing out that the real hate and violence is coming from Antifa and their ilk but nowhere near enough and the ones doing the pointing out are being harassed.

    People trying to photo the mayhem are being beat up and having their cameras stolen. Strange that those professing to be resisting nazis are the ones acting like nazis.

    This is scary s**t folks and it’s coming to a public square near you depending on your proximity to lefty environs.

    The left didn’t resist communism and they aren’t resisting Islamism; anyone to the right of Bernie Sanders is the enemy.

    harkin (a92711)

  12. I live close enough that I may go to the next one.

    Colonel Haiku (74754c)

  13. He’s a member of BAMN and the antifa. Only removed his public membership after conservative websites caught it.

    He’s a wimp and a thug at the same time. Wannabe bully.

    NJRob (925e5c)

  14. The longer I look at it, the stronger my impression grows that the Antifa nonsense (and all the other ‘Resist!’ bushwa) isn’t about shutting down opposition, or derailing Trump’s administration. Oh, the vermin behind it all would be happy is those results came to pass, but they aren’t the point.

    The Democrat rank and file damn near nominated Sanders. Shrillary was the elite’s hand picked Inevitable Winner, and they had to pull rules-lawyer shenanigans to get her nominated. And on the other side of the fence, Trump was nominated. Insiders are out of favor with the Unwashed, and that’s a very Bad Thing…if you are an insider.

    Thus far, outside of the kind of vote fraud so blatant it would get them caught (which considering what they get away with is a little mind boggling), the Democrats don’t have a hope in hell of getting the White House back in 2020. In fact I really looks to me as if, even if they managed to whomp up a scandal with some legs and bring a bill of impeachment, they’d still lose the general election. They don’t have anyone more appealing than Shrillary, and Shrillary is about as appealing as roadkilled skunk with a side order of fried toadstools.

    If the Democrat elite don’t distract the rank and file, the rank and file are likely to vote to nominate a real outsider in 2020. Somebody who will want his own people in place, and who might have enough clout with the voters to sort out the odds and sods among the Democrat establishment.

    This isn’t about holding onto or acquiring power in the Federal Government. This is about holding onto power in the Democrat Party.

    C. S. P. Schofield (99bd37)

  15. Mayor Arreguin must think Obama is still President. I look forward to his indictment under the civil rights laws, if he keeps on ordering his police to just stand there and do nothing when leftie punks in masks mob peaceful gatherings.

    Forget the indictments. Just send in the national guard to patrol the streets of Berkeley. I mean that’s how the left views the “police state” anyway, right? Instead of mollycoddling them with an emasculated constabulary let’s simply but armored men on the streets with powerful weapons. Make it very clear to His Honor the Mayor that they will stay until his police force is trained to handle domestic agitators who roam in mobs.

    JVW (dadb0c)

  16. We should really stay in this thread as the usual suspects would avoid it at all costs because it isn’t helpful to their cause.

    NJRob (925e5c)

  17. Mr Schofield wrote:

    Insiders are out of favor with the Unwashed, and that’s a very Bad Thing…if you are an insider.

    With the sole exception of 1988, the less establishment candidate has won every presidential race without an incumbent since 1932.

    The historian Dana (b04470)

  18. That’s not very many, honestly.

    2016, 2008, 2000, 1980, 1968, 1960, 1932.

    I’m not sure how much meaning we can extract from that data set.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  19. It’s also 1952, and we had incumbents tossed out in 1976, 1980 and 1992.

    The political historian Dana (b04470)

  20. You could extend it to 1912 without much effort.

    narciso (d1f714)

  21. NJRob (925e5c) — 8/29/2017 @ 4:33 pm

    I’ve noticed this, too. I shouldn’t jinx it, though.

    felipe (023cc9)

  22. How about the taller person? Probably a closer correlation there.

    nk (dbc370)

  23. Al Gore was taller than George Bush, Gerald Ford was taller than Jimmy Carter.

    The 6'2" tall Dana (b04470)

  24. Incumbents getting tossed out is a different thing (and I think 1976 was weird enough that I wouldn’t use it to generalize *from* — how often is the ‘incumbent’ a man who was never elected either President or vice President, running for re-election after he became President following the resignation-under-threat-of-impeachment of *both* the President and the vice President?)

    I was confused by 1952 because I remembered that the wording of the 22d amendment was crafted so as to allow Truman to run for re-election in 1952, and I’d forgotten that by the time 1952 rolled around that was a sufficiently bad option that he hadn’t.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  25. 16, 08, 00, 68, 60, 52 were expected party flips within the parameters of the 222nd amendmentwith 16, 00, and 60 close. 80 and 32 were transformative beyond the simple chasing of a failed incumbent.

    urbanleftbehind (847a06)

  26. It’d take a lot to extend it to 1912, due to Republican win in 1928, and Calvin Coolidge’s win in 1924 despite President Harding’s scandals.

    The reasonable Dana (b04470)

  27. CSP Schofield – I think you’re misunderstanding the internal dynamic on the left. In the internal debate, antifa and their friends are on the same side as the Sandernistas — far from being a cudgel to help the party establishment maintain power, they dislike the party establishment intensely.

    I don’t know who the Democrats are likely to run in 2020. It won’t be Hillary — there’s no way that could happen — but it’s really not clear to me who the alternatives are. I’m terrified it will be either Cuomo or Harris (both of whom I think are dishonorable), but it’s way too early to say.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  28. Harkin, at 11:

    I live in San Francisco. I went to the San Francisco protests on Saturday. Unlike the Berkeley protests on Sunday, they were peaceful. Antifa and black bloc didn’t show.

    So: what’s the difference? Why did one turn violent and the other not?

    A friend who was in both crowds suspects that it’s because the Berkeley crowd started angrier and, overall, was drawn from communities of people who feel they have less to lose than the San Francisco crowd did.

    I didn’t go to both; I can’t comment — but any explanation which is based on the liberalism of the participants is difficult to believe, because San Francisco protest attendees were not notably less liberal than Berkeley protest attendees.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  29. Oh, there are other comparisons which could be made: I’d say that the more charismatic candidate won in every presidential election since 1932, incumbent or otherwise. It kind of grates to say that Richard Nixon had more charisma than Hubert Humphrey or George McGovern, but he did, and there were as many people who loved him as hated his guts.

    The telegenic Dana (b04470)

  30. “So: what’s the difference? Why did one turn violent and the other not?”

    I think you answered your own question. Pantyfa and Black Bloc didn’t show.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  31. I don’t think using 1952 as an example of anything is valid. The Democrats would have happily nominated Eisenhower too, if he’d nodded their direction rather than to the GOP.

    SPQR (a3a747)

  32. Any rabble that feels the need to wear masks, perpetrate violence and destroy property needs to be put down like the rabid dogs they are.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  33. Why was the rally with Antifa violent? Because they came prepared to fight, with sticks, shields, shin guards and pepper spray.

    Funny thing about Charlottesville: a lot of the alt-right protesters carried firearms, yet not a single shot was fired. Whether it was discipline before the fact, in the form of empty magazines, or discipline during the rally, with loaded weapons not being fired — possibly both — discipline was maintained.

    The Dana who noted the difference (b04470)

  34. 27, based on labored breathing I see and hear at events, that might most closely match C.S.P. Schofields #14.

    urbanleftbehind (847a06)

  35. Mr Schofield wrote:

    The Democrat rank and file damn near nominated Sanders. Shrillary was the elite’s hand picked Inevitable Winner, and they had to pull rules-lawyer shenanigans to get her nominated.

    Yeah, can you imagine what a disaster it would have been for the Democrats to have nominated Mr Sanders? Why, he might have lost to the Republican!

    The wryly amused Dana (b04470)

  36. The black bloc is not new, it goes back to the 1999 Seattle disturbances around the two
    Meeting, they are inspired by many sources including a fmr associate of the red brigade, and like the baafer, those were from leftist student groups, like the sods in this country.

    narciso (d1f714)

  37. I’m thinking Phillipines.

    You could extend it to 1912 without much effort.
    narciso (d1f714) — 8/29/2017 @ 5:51 pm

    Elaborate for all our benefit.

    Steve57 (0b1dac)

  38. Because the M1911.

    Steve57 (0b1dac)

  39. 34.
    Not quite accurate. Unfortunately I can not find the article now, but… Probably a detailed explanation is best since it might be argued the use of a firearm was justified..
    The ACLU has been reviewing videos of Charlottesville taken by cellphones,etc. One video showed a member of the alt-right firing one shot into the ground, apparently as a wsrning, near an antifa protester. From the screenshot I saw, it was probably that black antifa who turned an aerosol can into a mini flamethrower (in the screenshot only the flame appears, but the steps, level of the flame, etc match the full picture of the antifa guy published in several places online. Enough places you have probably seen it.) The shooter then left in company with other alt righters. ACLU sent the video to the police, and either the police or ACLU was able to identify the shooter, who was arrested and charged with discharging a firearm with 1000 feet of a school. ACLU released the video and news of the arrest only after the man was actually arrested.

    kishnevi (10c258)

  40. Col Haiku at 31 – “I think you answered your own question. Pantyfa and Black Bloc didn’t show.”

    You beat me to it. He answered his own question.

    The bigger question is: when will thinkers on the Left realize that they could be next, before or after it’s too late?

    harkin (a92711)

  41. In 1924, Calvin Coolidge was an incumbent. If you say an incumbent president who succeeded to the presidency doesn’t count, then Truman in 1948 is not covered by the incumbent exception to the “rule” that the person who is more of insider always loses.

    In 1928, you could argue that Herbert Hoover was more of an outsider because Al Smith was backed by Tammany Hall. If someone can be an outsider despite being backed by a political machine, then why wasn’t Adlai Stevenson more of an outsider in 1952 than Eisenhower? He did come from the incumbent party, though.

    Both Herbert Hoover and Dwight Eisenhower could have declared themselves Democrats and were thought to be Democrats maybe, and could maybe have gotten or been given the Democratic nomination for president – Hoover in 1920 and Eisenhower in 1948. And Babe Ruth was a pitcher.

    Sammy Finkelman (aaadb3)

  42. 41… I thought for a bit that it might have been an intentional, genuinely funny observation, harkin. But then I realized aphrael was perplexed. This may be something that lefties struggle with: they have a difficult time recognizing reprehensible sh*tbags in their midst.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  43. …. they have a difficult time recognizing reprehensible sh*tbags in their midst.

    Probably because it’s their own reflection in the mirror, Colonel.

    Rev.Hoagie® (630eca)

  44. My mistake. These people are now family.

    Notice the 1911 in the foreground.

    http://atlantablackstar.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Knocking-Out-the-Moors-.jpg

    Funny how life works out.

    Steve57 (0b1dac)

  45. But of course the Antifa are the same bunch as the Sanders backers. Hence the necessity of distracting them with chasing after ‘fascists’, lest they do something awful….such as take the Democrat establishment to task for insisting on Shrillary, who ran an awful campaign and lost.

    C. S. P. Schofield (99bd37)

  46. Ah, I see. You’re speculating that the party leadership is whipping up an anti-Trump hysteria to distract the Sandernistas.

    That … doesn’t comport with the sense that I have of people on the left. I think the anti-Trump hysteria is largely organic and doesn’t need whipping up. Almost everyone I know socially was horrified by Trump’s candidacy from the moment it was announced (and this includes people in such varied states as California, Michigan, Texas, New York, and Georgia), and everyone can recall *specific* events which deepened their horror and outrage. The hysteria is reinforced more through social media interactions with other friends than it is through news reporting or whatever the political leadership is doing.

    The party leadership is following, in this case.

    aphrael (3f0569)

  47. SPQR, at 32: yeah, that’s also a good point.

    aphrael (3f0569)

  48. Yes like the did in the interval between 1968 and 1972, whole their cadres the weatherman and the panthers wreaked havoc and or extorted, similar things happened in western Europe among an almost sovietized labour party, corbyn is the fossil from that era. Conversely the iron lady was regarded as the worst provincial racist (read rushdie in the 80s, for just one sample)

    narciso (d1f714)

  49. Thank you for your comments, aphrael, as always, they are thoughtful and appreciated. You add a great deal of value to this discussion.

    felipe (b5e0f4)

  50. Almost everyone I know socially was horrified by Trump’s candidacy from the moment it was announced (and this includes people in such varied states as California, Michigan, Texas, New York, and Georgia), and everyone can recall *specific* events which deepened their horror and outrage.”

    Almost all my liberal friends were delighted by his nomination. They believed it guaranteed a Hillary win. Some went so far as to claim the media engineered Trump’s success with massive coverage for the same reason.

    But I do agree with you on the delusional power of social media. The hysteria there makes MSNBC look mild by comparison.

    harkin (a92711)

  51. No disrespect meant to anyone, but it seams obvious that harkin and aphrael know different types of liberals. Just as there are different types of conservatives, libertarians, and independents.

    felipe (b5e0f4)

  52. The Democrats are beginning to speak out against Pantyfa, which must be polling badly, as there apparently isn’t any other reason for the tepid denunciations.

    Democracy Dies in Farkness.

    Colonel Haiku (74754c)

  53. Remember, a lot of hard Sanders people didnt automatically cascade for Hillary, so why suffer for their sins? The dockless NT-RINO contingent may seem like a more pleasant merger from their view.

    urbanleftbehind (a0b3f4)

  54. …That … doesn’t comport with the sense that I have of people on the left. I think the anti-Trump hysteria is largely organic and doesn’t need whipping up. …

    aphrael (3f0569) — 8/29/2017 @ 11:33 pm

    Can you find someone in your social circle that hasn’t been horrified by the choices in at least the last four presidential elections?

    Steve57 (0b1dac)

  55. I guess I know the Obama, John Oliver, Bill Maher, Colbert, Maddow etc. type who were not horrified at all and actually thought it was a hilarious supposition.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6Oczyk6nCw

    harkin (536957)

  56. Hey Pfc

    Don’t be afraid. Patterico won’t bite.

    Ben burn (3d526b)

  57. I guess I know the Obama, John Oliver, Bill Maher, Colbert, Maddow etc. type who were not horrified at all and actually thought it was a hilarious supposition.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6Oczyk6nCw

    harkin (536957) — 8/30/2017 @ 7:02 am

    If she couldn’t handle Trump…

    https://www.cbsnews.com/news/hillary-clinton-links-donald-trump-effect-to-rise-in-bullying-harassment-schools/

    …how would she have handled Putin?

    Steve57 (0b1dac)

  58. NK and cohort…

    Time to choose your poison.

    Ben burn (3d526b)

  59. I mentioned universal rule of military acquisition. But I believe it applies to to everything.

    It’s always too early, or too late.

    Steve57 (0b1dac)

  60. aphrael,

    You may be right. I really do get the sense that while the “oh migod Trump won!” reaction is spontaneous, it has also been supported and to an extent directed. That the Democrat establishment would much rather the rank and file be worked up over non-essentials than thinking seriously about a party elite who insisted on a candidate as awful as Shrillary turned out to be.

    One of the things that reinforces this feeling in me is that Shrillary’s ‘popular vote’ victory is by a margin smaller than the number of probable fraudulent votes in California alone. So Shrillary was an even worse candidate than is generally acknowledged. And she got the nomination because the Democrat elite decided to override the popular vote in the nomination.

    That says ugly things about the Democrat elite, vis-a-vis Democracy. Nothing that surprises those of us who have been paying attention, but we aren’t anyone the Democrat elite expects support from.

    C. S. P. Schofield (99bd37)

  61. Tepid condemnation like this? http://www.democraticleader.gov/newsroom/82917/

    Believe it or not, this is an active debate on the left. There’s a crowd that thinks antifa is reasonable and right; there’s a crowd that thinks that antifa are violent bullies; and there’s a crowd that isn’t sure where they stand. While there’s always a bit of performative art in public statements by high ranking politicians, there’s a real degree to which the performative art is staking out a position in an intra-left debate.

    People not of the left who dislike antifa should be glad of this.

    aphrael (3f0569)

  62. Steve57, at 56: easily. I mean, my social circle didn’t vote for Romney, and didn’t particularly like him, but if I were to rate the relative reaction, Romney would be a -2 and Trump would be a -20; there simply is no comparison.

    Harkin: the people who cheered Trump because they thought he would be easily beaten were idiots. Not because he won, per se, but because of the risk they were wrong — even if he had lost, they would still have been idiots.

    aphrael (3f0569)

  63. CSP Schofield – I agree that Hillary was a bad candidate, but I don’t agree that she won because the Democratic party elite decided to override the popular vote in the primary — Hillary *won* the popular vote in the primary, and here in California, she won it by a large margin. But the process revealed a large rift in the party that still hasn’t healed, and which honestly may never heal.

    But, again, if you think this is all about the Democratic party elite trying to hide from its voters, then I think you really aren’t listening to what non-party-elites on the left are saying.

    I think it’s true that if the Democratic party elite were *ignoring* the grassroots anti-Trump (and, honestly, anti-alt-right) revolt on the left, the Democratic party elite would find itself out of a job. But that’s not because there would be a rehash of Sanders vs. Clinton; it’s because the left simply won’t tolerate leadership that isn’t anti-Trump, right now.

    It’s not quite the same, but a Democratic party leadership which cooperated with Trump today would be in a *worse* position than McConnell would have been in if he’d cooperated with Obama in 2010. The anger is strong, and the anger is widely shared.

    aphrael (3f0569)

  64. Why hasn’t someone sued in federal court over one of these shakedowns by a public university? This is an obvious First Amendment violation based on the speaker’s point of view and should be aggressively attacked in the federal courts every time it pops up.

    M Scott Eiland (3a0fd3)

  65. 45-Steve57, the publication you attributed the .jpg to mis-spelled moros as “moors”. Is that simple lack of spelling skills or the Atlanta Black Star agitating its base readership (in re Moors from Africa, National Moorish Science Temple etc as opposed to muslim natives of the Phillipine Islands.)?

    urbanleftbehind (5eecdb)

  66. “Harkin: the people who cheered Trump because they thought he would be easily beaten were idiots. Not because he won, per se, but because of the risk they were wrong — even if he had lost, they would still have been idiots.”

    I agree. Everybody in that video I posted is an idiot, from John Oliver to Rachel Maddow to Chairman Zero.

    harkin (9803a7)

  67. This is the intersection of two themes on the blog – add Mr. Jer to the list of idiots and also an illustration of why Palin needed a jury trial in Watertown or Plattsburgh to have any chance.

    urbanleftbehind (5eecdb)

  68. M Scott Eiland – this isn’t my area of expertise, and it seems likely that assessing fees to cover the actual cost of the event is legitimate and content-neutral, EVEN IF it turns out that the actual costs vary wildly because of the different amount of police protection needed depending on how the local community reacts to the content.

    I’m *not* saying that’s what’s happening here, because I don’t know; I’m saying that’s a plausible route to end up in the place we currently are.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  69. aphrael (3f0569) — 8/30/2017 @ 8:49 am

    I agree that Hillary was a bad candidate, but I don’t agree that she won because the Democratic party elite decided to override the popular vote in the primary — Hillary *won* the popular vote in the primary, and here in California, she won it by a large margin.

    They Hillary people also “cleared the field” and got other people not to run. She would have lost to Joe Biden. She probably will lose to him if she runs again in 2020.

    With Biden, first she let him think he had more time, (there was the fact that his son died – that postponed a decision) then she argued to him he couldn”t raise enough money. She also had hored away some political consultants.

    The DNC also changed the rules for the debate so that Lawrence Lessig was kept out of them, and thy tried to sabotage Bernie Sanders and he sued.

    https://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/12/18/sanders-campaign-disciplined-for-breaching-clinton-data/?mcubz=0

    The whole thing was probably a dirty trick.

    Now actually, Bernard Sanders was not collecting more votes in most places than Hillary Clinton (he did a lot better than she did in caucuses like Washington State) but he was a Vermont Independent and self-styled Socialist! And wouldn’t ordinarily be a top presidential candidate.

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  70. The reason Antifa and black bloc didn’t show in San Franscisco, is that only in Berkeley did have a possibility of controlling the public square (although it’s really defending the bubble)

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  71. I wonder why, in more tahnn two weeks, nobody has mentioned the events of 1980 in Greensboro, North Carolina.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greensboro_massacre

    The Greensboro massacre is the term for an event which took place on November 3, 1979, when members of the Communist Workers’ Party and others demonstrated in a Brown Lung in Textile Workers march in Greensboro, North Carolina, United States. The CWP, which advocated that Klan members should be “physically beaten and chased out of town”, engaged in a shootout with members of the Ku Klux Klan and the American Nazi Party.[1] Four members of the Communist Workers’ Party, and one other individual were killed and eleven other demonstrators and a Klansman were wounded. The CWP supported workers’ rights activism among mostly black textile industrial workers in the area.[2][3]

    There again, the neo-Nazis and the Klansmen were worse, and there were bad people on both sides, and there were some fine people on the leftist side (although much fewer than in this case.)

    At least maybe Dr. Michael Nathan, chief of pediatrics at Lincoln Community Health Center, was OK. He was not a member of the CWP (he was supporting his wife, Dr. Marty Nathan, who was)

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  72. Somebody remembered it:

    https://triad-city-beat.com/greensboro-city-council-apologizes-citys-role/

    Greensboro City Council apologized in a 7-1 vote on Tuesday for the city’s role in the 1979 Greensboro Massacre at the urging of several speakers. The unexpected vote came three days after the murder of an anti-racist counter-protester at a white supremacist rally in Charlottesville, Va.

    “Instead of saying Charlottesville might or could happen in Greensboro, we need to say that it did happen here,” speaker Marcia Fouteh said.

    But actualy what happened this year was much less violent.

    The neo-Nazis and Klansmen probably got aquitted because they hadn’t started the fight. But who got killed probably shows who was more violent.

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  73. Believe it or not, this is an active debate on the left. There’s a crowd that thinks antifa is reasonable and right; there’s a crowd that thinks that antifa are violent bullies; and there’s a crowd that isn’t sure where they stand. While there’s always a bit of performative art in public statements by high ranking politicians, there’s a real degree to which the performative art is staking out a position in an intra-left debate.

    People not of the left who dislike antifa should be glad of this.

    aphrael (3f0569) — 8/30/2017 @ 8:41 am

    Those who support antifa are no different than old Democrat Klan supporters.

    NJRob (e5669b)

  74. Mitt Romney says antifa has the moral high ground and that President Trump was wrong not to say so.

    I disagree with Mitt Romney, but I probably read a lot more than he does, so maybe he just needs time to learn more.

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  75. narciso @77 I don’t think taht’s agood link. At first I saw only ads popping up.

    Anti-fascist is a word coined by Stalin era Soviet propaganda.

    The artivle says exactly what I said:

    The term “anti-fascist” is of Soviet origin, and it was used before and during World War II to make the aggressive, murderous, war-criminal regime of Joseph Stalin seem more palatable.

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  76. Mr Finkelman wrote:

    They Hillary people also “cleared the field” and got other people not to run. She would have lost to Joe Biden. She probably will lose to him if she runs again in 2020.

    There is only one rule in an election: win! If you can ‘persuade’ other people not to challenge you, that’s smart politics. Deterrence is the basis of our entire military, and we think that’s smart; why wouldn’t it be smart politics?

    Besides, she learned that from the guy who beat her in the 2008 nomination race.

    Hillary Clinton or Joe Biden running in 2020? Mrs Clinton would be 73 years old, and she showed just how frail she was last year; she won’t be any stronger in 2020. Mr Biden will be 77 years old, and Bernie Sanders 79.

    The Dana who can count (b04470)

  77. …Deterrence is the basis of our entire military, and we think that’s smart; why wouldn’t it be smart politics?

    A small nit to pick. And it looks like it’s turning out to be small. Deterrence is not a military mission; it’s political. The basis of our forces, to use the term, is combat effectiveness. Why is this distinction important? Iran, China, and the NORKs are showing us. They’ve figure out that we think the purpose of our military is to scare them. It’s a showpiece. And if they aren’t sufficiently scared we’ll build more aircraft carriers and parade around until they are. Wash, rinse, repeat.

    Eventually you have to quit with the dog and pony shows and actually do something.

    Steve57 (0b1dac)

  78. Paper tiger, anyone?

    Steve57 (0b1dac)

  79. more like a tranny tiger

    named cynthia

    what has a penis

    much to General Mattis’s delight

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  80. Oh, and we’re not even good at building aircraft carriers anymore. We began construction on the Ford in 2005. What year is it now? Maybe that thing will deploy in 2019, if it’s electrical system doesn’t explode. Oh, by the way, the last time it’s electrical system exploded the Navy only performed temporary repairs. So the plan is after its post shakedown availability in 2019 they’ll fully repair it.

    And maybe it will be fully mission capable in 2021. But given how many times the project has missed the targets I’m not optimistic.

    I ask you, and your amateur opinion is just as valid as any other citizen’s, is this any way to build a Navy?

    Steve57 (0b1dac)

  81. “Believe it or not, this is an active debate on the left. There’s a crowd that thinks antifa is reasonable and right; there’s a crowd that thinks that antifa are violent bullies; and there’s a crowd that isn’t sure where they stand. While there’s always a bit of performative art in public statements by high ranking politicians, there’s a real degree to which the performative art is staking out a position in an intra-left debate.

    People not of the left who dislike antifa should be glad of this.”

    aphrael (3f0569) — 8/30/2017 @ 8:41 am

    I guess if only one half of the Democrat Party is clinically insane, it could be characterized as a “glass half full”.

    Colonel Haiku (485617)

  82. Coronello, I didn’t see aphrael’s original comment. All I can say is, the difference between me and the rabid left is I would at least talk to him. H3ll, I’d invite him and his partner to a barbaque.

    That would be a problem for him because the gay mafia would kick him out of the community. As I’ve already noted the gay NY hotelier couple that lowered themselves to inviting Ted Cruz over for a talk had to issue a groveling apology to avoid getting kicked out.

    Steve57 (0b1dac)

  83. Steve57: Thank you for the statement that you’d invite me to a BBQ; that could be fun. (This is also the difference between me and the rabid left, and I think it’s the difference between you and the rabid right).

    That said … my friends and family would not “kick me out of the community”; they wouldn’t care. But then again, they all know that I voted for Cruz in the primary. :)

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  84. Has anybody seen the antifa meme making the rounds among “mainstream” Democrats, including various CNN commentators and Hillary’s spokesman?

    I’m talking about the one that compares antifa to the Allied troops who staged the D-Day Invasion – because, as we all know, both sides were out stop to the Nazis.

    Deuce Frehley (7654f5)

  85. People are different in private, with their friends, neighbors and relatives, people they know face to face, than they are in public discourse with virtual strangers and even more so when it’s on the internet.

    Take me, for instance. One time, I found out that my daughter’s baby-sitter drove a Prius. I paid it no never mind. She’s a nice person in other respects, and she deserved tolerance.

    nk (dbc370)

  86. Colonel Haiku, at 84 — would you prefer for your opponents to be uniformly insane, or to have a faction that isn’t insane and wants to keep their tribe from going off the rails entirely?

    I assume as a threshold matter that anyone would prefer non-insane opponents.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  87. NK – the fact that people are more willing to be hostile, caustic, disrespectful, and intolerant of people online is one of the things that is pushing us into mutually hostile tribes.

    Online people deserve decent treatment every bit as much as your daughter’s babysitter.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  88. Well Barbara boxer proved her clueless back in the 80s, Diane Einstein shows flashes ifcsamity then most self cruticusm holds and Barbara lee, well enemy agent is too kind, although hard to tell for which faction.

    narciso (d1f714)

  89. and douchebag freak meg whitman proved she could blow a 150 million dollars on a handful of warm poop

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  90. Well, that goes to the same cause as tribalism. The monkey reflex: See the stranger, fear the stranger, hate the stranger, kill the stranger. It’s built-in. Maybe it’s a survival instinct, or at least an instinct that has managed to survive societal evolution. Hard to change.

    nk (dbc370)

  91. Yes, aphrael, sanity is preferable and I commend people who try to steer their tribe away from anarchy and toward acceptable behavior The propensity for violence exhibited by these masked vermin on the left and whether it is acceptable in some instances or circumstances shouldn’t even be up for debate. That it is surely is more evidence that our society is crumbling and the malevolent are finding it to their liking.

    That question you asked yesterday… the one you unknowingly answered… is an example of the confusion that is a growing phenomenon.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  92. 88… yes, I have. How insane is that.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.3279 secs.