Last Updated, Feb. 5, 1:15 p.m.
Several fans of the right-wing provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos were injured on Wednesday night in Berkeley, in scuffles with dozens of black-clad anti-fascist activists who managed to shut down a talk by Brietbart’s star writer on the University of California campus.
According to Julia Carrie Wong of The Guardian, about 150 anti-fascists — who call themselves Black Bloc or Antifas and justify the use of violence as pre-emptive self-defense — joined a larger group of perhaps a thousand peaceful protesters and quickly confronted fans of the writer who had arrived early for his talk.
@berkeleyside: Protestors dressed in masks and black clothing join demonstration against Yiannopoulos. Rocks thrown at @UCPD_Cal pic.twitter.com/JaH5AGtali
— Carlo David (@carlodavid1115) February 2, 2017
People in crowd are getting beat up by others. Numbers are small but parts of gathering are tense. #miloatcal pic.twitter.com/uNgpikNvnl
— Berkeleyside (@berkeleyside) February 2, 2017
Amid the ensuing mayhem, however — as mace was sprayed, punches were thrown, a generator was set on fire, and the talk was called off — one victim of the violence appeared to be enjoying himself, grinning broadly as he approached reporters for BuzzFeed and the Bay Area affiliate of CBS News to display his battered face.
The man, a 30-year-old podcaster who uses the comic book-inspired pseudonym Eddy Brock online, seemed oddly pleased as he introduced himself to Blake Montgomery, who was streaming live video of the protest for BuzzFeed.
Antifa are out of control attacking people and setting off fires. pic.twitter.com/3s3swrYSzf
— Just Call Me Mister (@MisterMetokur) February 2, 2017
“Yo man,” Brock said, drawing attention to his blood-stained face.
“What happened to you?” Montgomery asked.
“I got punched in the face by anti-fascist fascists,” Brock replied, evenly.
Minutes earlier, Brock had also burst into the local news coverage of the demonstration by walking in on a live shot and grabbing the hand of a CBS reporter, Phil Metier.
“Hey man! How you doing?” he asked the startled reporter. “Hi everybody!” he added, introducing himself to the viewers at home.
Apparently energized by the spotlight, Brock then launched into an explanation of how being battered by the anti-fascists seemed to confirm his argument that they were the real fascists.
“I decided to be for Milo, for freedom of speech,” he said, “and these anti-fascist fascists decided that that was too much, threw rocks at me, broke my phone, and they decided to steal from me and break my face.”
“This is not America,” Brock added, pointing to his injuries. “America is freedom, America is liberty, and,” he concluded, with a triumphant thumbs-up, “America is Donald Trump’s!”
Brock’s injuries gave him a measure of viral fame too, as images of his bloody face illustrated reports on the violence by the Los Angeles Times, NBC News, and Breitbart — “the platform for the alt-right” that made Yiannopoulos a star and propelled its former chairman, Steve Bannon, to the White House.
Sweet…
I made @BreitbartNews #MiloRiots #ucberkelyriots #MiloAtCalhttps://t.co/fCPoHlVCq1— Eddy Brock (@EddyBrock_YT) February 2, 2017
While images of Brock’s bloody face, and clips of other Yiannopoulos fans being assaulted with flag poles, bike locks, and pepper spray, did ensure that the radical minority of aggressive protesters dominated the news coverage, accounts of his own behavior prior to the attack suggest that Brock might have come to campus looking for trouble.
That seems clear from two video clips of Brock taunting peaceful student protesters early in the evening, recorded by a reporter for the Berkeley student newspaper, Malini Ramaiyer.
An individual in the crowd calls he protestors fascists, leading to some tension. #MiloAtCal pic.twitter.com/eAwxpctyoh
— Malini Ramaiyer (@malinisramaiyer) February 2, 2017
The scene, recorded and shared online before the black-clad activists arrived to storm the barricades, shows that Brock got in the faces of the protesters, mocked their chants, and berated them at very close range — in other words, engaged in trolling, in real life.
Tensions continue in the crowd with the individual. #MiloAtCal pic.twitter.com/nNNFoXinpd
— Malini Ramaiyer (@malinisramaiyer) February 2, 2017
Brock’s provocative behavior also caught the attention of another reporter, Michael Bodley, who was covering the protest for the San Francisco Chronicle. “I didn’t personally see him get hit,” Bodley wrote in an email to The Intercept. “I was too far away for that, but I did see a group surrounding him.”
“I do know that before, and after, he was provoking protestors, particularly anti-fa, all night — calling them the ‘real fascists,’ that kind of thing,” he added. “So, I was in no way surprised when I heard he got punched.”
Kitty Stryker, a writer and activist who took part in the protest, argued in an account of the night she posted on Medium that Brock appeared from the beginning to be acting as provocateur, “shoving protesters around” outside the student union, and “being very violent and aggressive.” None of those protesters, however, took the bait.
About 20 minutes later, she wrote, after the Yiannopoulos talk was called off and his supporters were being evacuated, Stryker wrote that she caught sight of Brock once again.
The crowd erupted in a cheer, and everyone broke out into a dance party in Sproul Plaza. I saw ‘Eddie’ again around this time, now pushing around the black bloc protesters who were holding perimeter near the fire. From the way he continually tried to start shit it was obvious he wanted to be martyred, and eventually, he was. Seeing him proudly talking about how ‘antifascist fascists’ threw rocks at him pissed me off immensely. He says ‘this is what they wanted’ — no. I was there. I watched him. This is absolutely what he wanted, which is why he ran right up to media, gave a false name, and tried to reframe the story.
Talk about a fucking coward.
Speaking to The Intercept by telephone on Friday, from his home in nearby Vallejo, Brock dismissed an internet conspiracy theory that tried to explain his upbeat demeanor by suggesting he had faked his injuries as part of a plot to discredit the protesters. According to Brock, he managed to get punched in the face by masked activists the old-fashioned way: by trying to obstruct them.
At the time of the attack, he said, he had inserted himself into the middle of a phalanx of Antifas, and was trying to prevent them from pulling apart metal police barriers outside the hall where Yiannopoulos was due to speak.
Video posted online by a fellow Trump supporter seems to confirm this account, showing Brock being punched in the head by a masked activist as the barriers on Sproul Plaza were taken apart.
Cowards, attacking an already injured man with his back turned #antifa #UCBerkeley #UCBerkeleyriots pic.twitter.com/96s51h0ZLF
— Patriotic Rosie (@almostjingo) February 2, 2017
Minutes later, those barriers were hurled, along with rocks and fireworks, into the glass windows of the Martin Luther King Jr. Student Union, leading to the cancellation of the talk.
Masked protestors just shot off fireworks and are tearing down fences at Berkeley. Milo inside. pic.twitter.com/3SRNLjuTVn
— Michael Bodley (@michael_bodley) February 2, 2017
Protestors hurling fences and fireworks at the building itself. Glass breaking. #Milo pic.twitter.com/OhWLRGxL6w
— Michael Bodley (@michael_bodley) February 2, 2017
Brock agreed that he was oddly happy right after the beating, but chalked that up to a combination of adrenaline, a sense of righteousness, and the thoughts that his bloody face would indeed make his political opponents look bad.
“I knew instantly that people were going to watch this, and they’re not going to be angry at Milo,” he told The Intercept. “You know, when you get hit for your speech, or you get hit for your defending of freedom of speech, no matter what happens, you’ve already won,” he said. “You’ve already won the case.”
Hey @CBSSF
Thanks for the interview
Antifas are still Commie cowards who are afraid of freedom#UCBerkeley should be ashamed#MiloAtCal pic.twitter.com/dFTxomffVn— Eddy Brock (@EddyBrock_YT) February 2, 2017
“More people are going to understand where I’m coming from,” he added, “than all these guys screaming about how they’re trying to stop violence and they’re trying to stop hate, and yet they use violent hate to attack somebody who’s just being, you know, off to the side.”
Another video clip, shared with The Intercept by Andrew Beale, a student at the Berkeley Graduate School of Journalism, showed that Brock was punched again later in the evening, after he placed himself in the center of a group of students and protesters outside the student union and berated them at length for stopping Yiannopoulos from speaking.
Looking at Brock’s political activism over the past year also suggests that he has been interested in creating potentially viral video of himself in conflict with those on the left. During that time, his podcast, formerly concerned with rambling discussions of professional wrestling, and bizarre theories about the relationship between race and intelligence, became increasingly pro-Trump.
Last May, Brock attended a rally for Bernie Sanders in Vallejo, waving a “Trump 2016″ sign, with a cameraman in tow. That night, he told followers of his podcast’s Facebook page that things had gotten “ugly.” Although he had escaped with “no punches, no black eyes,” he said, he was sure that footage of himself arguing with the senator’s supporters about race, the economy, and gender studies would cause a stir. “I’m sure it’s going to go viral somewhere, I don’t mind going viral,” he said.
That footage, of Brock trolling the Sanders supporters, did not go viral. It wracked up all of 45 views. Despite the fact that the footage began with his cameraman predicting, confidently, “someone’s gonna punch him in the face,” it contained no violence.
In the aftermath of the skirmishes in Berkeley this week that gave Brock the measure of viral fame he sought, there is an active debate on the left about whether or not the aggressive tactics of the anti-fascist activists can ever be justified.
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. pic.twitter.com/JnlJMUtgCj
— Occupy Oakland (@OccupyOakland) February 2, 2017
After the violence at Berkeley on Wednesday, some vocal Antifas, like Yvette Falarca, a teacher at the Martin Luther King Jr. Middle School in Berkeley, argued that the use of force was justified by the imminent threat Yiannopoulos posed to the safety of some in their community.
BUSD teacher Yvette Falarca says protest was "stunning victory" because it shut down white supremacist. pic.twitter.com/Hv9mYuLZTH
— Berkeleyside (@berkeleyside) February 2, 2017
The day before the event, Breitbart reported that its writer intended to use his speech to “call for the withdrawal of federal grants and the prosecution of university officials” at UC Berkeley who promised recently that the school and its police force would not help immigration officials hunt down undocumented students.
Through that lens, the forceful dispersal of Yiannopoulos supporters by masked activists was presented as a form of pre-emptive self-defense.
For others on the left, however, the video of Yiannopoulos fans being assaulted for showing up to hear him speak on the campus that gave birth to the Free Speech Movement in the 1960s was unsettling.
The doctrine of pre-emptive self-defense invoked by the Antifa activists also echoes the rationale George W. Bush laid out before attacking Iraq. “We must take the battle to the enemy, disrupt his plans, and confront the worst threats before they emerge,” Bush said in 2002.
On the right, though, no one seems at all concerned by the fact that Brock appears to have played an active role in baiting his attackers until they assaulted him.
That’s particularly strange, because, just a few months ago, the default explanation for all violent assaults on protesters at Donald Trump rallies was the conspiracy theory that supporters of Bernie Sanders or Hillary Clinton had been dispatched to those events specifically to incite attacks and drive news coverage. Now that the exact opposite scenario has taken place, Breitbart and Fox News seem uninterested in asking what, exactly, those images of Eddy Brock’s beaming, bloody face tell us about this point in American political history.
This post was updated on Saturday night to add Andrew Beale’s video. It was updated again on Sunday to add details about why anti-fascist activists took the planned speech by Milo Yiannopoulos as an imminent threat to undocumented members of the Berkeley community.
Top photo: A masked protester waved an anarchist flag during a demonstration at the University of California, Berkeley campus on Wednesday night.
The Politics of the Possible: 150 Federal Prosecutors Denounce Trumps Muslim Ban
Stingrays Provide FBI NSA Informal Federal “Oversight” for members of the Congressional Committees Providing Formal Oversight of the FBI NSA , Hampton Homeowners, Gun Owners, Anti War Activists and Intercept readers.
“A New Frontier in Police Surveillance”
Featuring Jason Chaffetz (R-UT), Chairman, House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform; Elijah E. Cummings (D-MD), Ranking Member, House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform; Adam Bates, Policy Analyst, Cato Institute; moderated by Julian Sanchez, Senior Fellow, Cato Institute.
https://www.cato.org/events/stingrays-new-frontier-police-surveillance
The tone of this article is very strange, it verges on trying to justify the guy getting assaulted because he was “trolling”. Seriously Intercept, you are better than this. Is there any evidence that the guy actually attacked or touched anyone that would warrant getting punched in the face? Also what about the girl who was being interviewed and got pepper sprayed for no reason other than ignorance? Or the other people who were beaten in the streets? This kind of journalistic rubbish doesn’t belong on this site, trying to justify violence against people because they have differing opinions is indeed fascist.
Why were the cops in full riot gear? The police at demonstrations around the country, at the airports, didn’t wear such gear. When over 100 agitators began to throw fireworks, Molotov cocktails, and rocks at the cops, why where none of them arrested? Since when do cops just stand by while violent provocateurs throw Molotov cocktails at them? It seems more likely that Milo and Breitbart brought the provocateurs with them, but since the cops decided not to detain a single one of them, how will we ever know. It seems more likely that the U.C. Berkeley cops knew in advance that Breitbart would be sending these provocateurs to cause a disturbance and decided to let it happen so Berkeley could get more funding for crowd control – Fuck the Police!
I suggest you have facts in hand before you post a statement that portrays you as an ignorant fool. Check out some OLD videos that show previous RIOTS in Berkeley. You will see that in the past, Berkeley police essentially declared WAR on the students. I think the Berkeley Police Department did a superb job handling that. No one REPORTED any injuries and no one was killed. I think the focus should be on YM and his links to these organised disrupters, as has been demonstrated by the violence accompanying nearly all of his previous ‘appearances’ in this country.
I made this very argument on another thread. The whole event seemed staged. However, there is no evidence that Milo or Breitbart were in the know. It could have been just as likely that law enforcement agencies were behind this violent charade. Such was the case in Seattle (1999), Toronto (2012), Montreal (2016) where it wss reveled that law enforcement officers were masquerading as black bloc. And yes, the police failed to lift a finger while their operatives were engaged in willful destruction of property.
In fact, I made that very argument lower in this thread
Try George Soros. It was NOT Milo or Breitbart. You couldn’t be more misinformed.
I suggest that you reread my comment where I said that “there is no evidence that Milo or Breitbart were in the know.” However, the entire event appeared to be staged as Cheryl Lu Buchanan adroitly observed. So, I ask myself:
1. Who had the most to benefit from casting the radical left in such a bad light?
2. Why did UCPD officers fail to engage with black bloc during their violent outburst?
3. Why is it that this scenario so closely mirrors those in Seattle (1999), Toronto (2012), Montreal (2016) where it was revealed that law enforcement officers were masquerading as black bloc at all three venues?.
No sir, you have it wrong. The debate on the right was only marginally about leftists showing up at Trump rallies to incite violence. They did do that, they were indeed paid to do it (watch the project Veritas videos to see a video confession of Leftist activists bragging about paying homeless people and mentally unstable people do these purposes) and very occasionally some Trump supporters took the bait… but only kinda. Trump supporters pushing and grabbing, not sucker-punching, spitting, beating people with bike locks, throwing eggs at people, or hurling steel barricades at them like you see these cowardly “Antifa” scum doing in mobs with their faces covered. Do your own research, look for videos of Leftists being attacked by Trump supporters on the street, or Trump supporters going to cause trouble at Leftist events. You will find precious few, if any.
Mostly the discussion on the Right was why it was Ok for Leftists railing against “hate” to physically attack Trump supporters. Much like you tried very hard to do in this article, 95% of “journalists” excused and even lionized the violence of these twits who attacked people who dared to disagree with them.
Watch the video of the woman wearing a Trump jersey at a Trump campaign rally in San Jose. She was wearing a Trump jersey at a Trump rally– which can hardly be called provocative. But there was a violent anti-Trump mob there who came for the explicit reason of causing trouble. She was first harassed verbally, then threatened, then spat on, then chased, then cornered and assaulted by a screaming, raging mob of dozens of mostly Latino men. It was getting worse and worse because the extremely brave woman refused to cower before her attackers. Finally she was rescued by hotel security before the mob did serious bodily harm to her.
Search all you want, there is no near equivalent to this violence anywhere on the right in the recent past. And this was only one of dozens of filmed violent attacks against Trump supporters just in that one day. Yet, like Berkeley, almost no arrests were made. And the Mayor of San Jose excused the violence, claiming it was Trump’s rhetoric that caused the violence.
Really?
I did not see you or any other journalist stand up for this woman or condemn the mayor for his support of violence against women.
Imagine if she was a black woman at an Obama rally wearing an Obama jersey, and white Romney supporters who came to the rally to cause trouble spat on her, chased her, screamed at her, cornered her, and attacked her. And then imagine that the police department refused to protect her, and the mayor of the town blamed her for being assaulted. What would have been the reaction from the media?
Journalists must quit excusing violence and attempting to blame the victims. You are perpetuating the violence by doing so, and blood will be on your hands.
So this jerk is likely a plant? Why was the speaker there? Milo?
My research on YM: He’s an upper-class British citizen. Maybe in this country on a visa? He is NOT an immigrant or a Jew. I suspect he is not gay either. His real last name is Hanrahan. I think that’s Irish? He is not a journalist, but a ‘personality’ or ‘sh*tshow,’ whichever you prefer. His ties to the ‘alt-right’ (racist and other offensive beliefs) is evident since he came to the US. Check out GamerGate and podcasts of Joe Rogan and Howard Stern. Keep your eye on the donut and not on the hole!!!!
I think Eddie is likely a plant. Note the ‘interviewer’ face or affiliation is never shown.
Many years ago (1980-ish) my mother helped organize a speaking event at her university about Palestinian human rights. They expected the event to be protested, they did not expect to be mobbed and shoved and cussed at and threatened. Luckily, the university police were on hand to get the situation under control so that the event went on.
Looks kinda different from that perspective, doesn’t it?
The guarantee of free speech is to the protect those we disagree with. Those we agree with don’t need protecting.
Seem to remember protesters at Trump events getting punched, knocked to the ground, and pepper sprayed. Guess that was ok.
Victim blame much? Brutally beating a stranger–even an annoying one–is illegal and absolutely unjustifiable. This is a basic tenet of the Rule of Law. Moreover, there’s a significant amount of irony in: (1) someone being beaten for their opinions at a free speech protest and (2) a journalist (presumably one who values free speech) engaging in apologetics for the masked thugs who perpetrated said beating.
What the author has said above is akin to a “men’s rights activist” arguing that women who talk back to their husbands are asking to get punched…or that women who flirt and drink publicly are asking to get raped. Think about that for a moment. But hey, if it serves the political agenda…
“Yvette Falarca, a teacher at the Martin Luther King Jr. Middle School in Berkeley, argued that the use of force was justified”
King is spinning in his grave.
well… the building the speaker was going to speak at was ALSO named MLK something something. Do you think he would feel honored or what? What an idiot.
Berkeley is, and has always been, a freak show.
This article is disturbing in its rationalization of violence.
If one man loudly protesting and agitating in the face of other protesters is “asking for it”, why not say the same thing about all of the protesters everywhere? I haven’t had the pleasure of facing off against any Trump protesters but were inconvenienced many times by Occupy protesters several years ago, where they blocked my path and screamed obscenities in my face as I simply tried to get to my office. Does that mean they are only asking for it if I decide to punch my way through?
Where does this dark line of justification end?
freedom of speech is all well and good
but Antifas is doing a great job keeping the peaceful college protesters safe from people who say bad things
by using all the tools in the toolbox, Antifas could extend their cultural influence and embrace jurisdictions that support open carry
only then will the safety and security Robert Mackey deserves be realized
Brevity is the soul of wit. You got a lot of soul, my man.
I watched original feeds about an hour after event. Brock’s injuries looked like stage makeup & his behaviour was bizarre. Also, girl in red cap (logo NOT visible) being ‘maced’ was photoshopped. It was like the attack of the alien in the first movie. Total BS. MY has been all over US and most appearances are marred by violence, which he the decries as ‘attacks on free speech.’ Phoney. This goes back to Gamergate when his ‘appearances’ were cancelled by bomb threats tweeted to the FBI. My concern is for the youth involed with College Republican groups, always the host of these events. Who is manipulating and exploiting these students??? Why on EARTH would they invite this guy?
I was left with exactly the same impression. And the heated dialogue between him and the black-clad clowns seemed so scripted – like street theater. I once attended a major anti-war rally during America’s war in Vietnam. While standing at the very back of a huge crowd I observed a hippie type speaking to the crowd through a megaphone. His green khaki army jacket was covered with antiwar and peace buttons and the threadbare seat of his torn Levi trousers was lined with an American flag. Everything that the man shouted through his megaphone was from a compilation of radical anti-war slogans that, by that time, had become hackneyed to the point of annoying. After what appeared to be a short eternity, the man was approached by two middle-aged men in dark suits who, after a brief scuffle, cuffed him and escorted him to an unmarked van and drove off. Hours later, I was siting in a Jewish deli waiting for a pastrami on rye when I noticed the same three men entering through the front door. For the next hour, I watched and listened as the three of them sat in a back booth and spoke about their shared experiences from various venues including New York, Boston, San Francisco, and Washington DC.
I am from the same era and have witnessed violent clashes between police and students protesting the VietNam war on the very Berkeley streets under current discussion. The police handled the YM protest appropriately. Of course, the view captured on the feeds were focused on the police withdrawing behind the doors, so I have no idea what they were seeing. Audio indicates there were ‘firecrackers’ and the escalating pressured voice of the ‘newscaster’ tells me the disrupters were moving forward from the rear of the group of student protestors. A expert in dance could definitively tell you that the disruptors were highly trained and fit. It’s like the entire movement was COREOGRAPHED. Also, it appeared there was a verbal cue from the ‘newscaster,’ something like ‘the [police or university] are waiting to decide if there is any danger before cancelling the event.’ Then BOOM. Police withdraw, disruptors are jumping over barricades, setting fires, smashing glass, etc. The tactics I saw are consistent as stated before. But here’s the rub- the organisation, wearing of a uniform, coordination, and growing numbers of these ‘gangs’ is growing in sophistication with EVERY event. These ‘gangs’ are NOT antifacists. It is not a logical relationship. Look at who their actions really benefit. Antifacists would look more like partisan groups who organise to benefit citizens and cripple fascists where it would really hurt- like food, logistics, supplies. Right? A couple days later, I saw sites like Breitbart circulating stories that the FBI was investigating the Berkeley Police Chief. OH COME ON!!
Maybe it takes a dispassionate, seasoned eye to spot these incongruities in behavior. The suggestion that this was a staged, violent interplay of political extremes is lost on those whose bias blinds them to all but that which confirms it. Thank you for sharing you perspective.
If Freedom means anything it means telling people something they don’t want to hear.
Mona? Now STFU please.
Would you say that ‘Mona’ is Mr. Greenwald’s lap she-dog?
Like numerous commenters here, Mona is a Stasi collaborator. Greenwald is her beard.
Anyone seen The Intercept‘s article on John Yoo today? They mention that he is …… a law professor at Berkeley! Wikipedia confirms it, and cites a reference that he has been since 2010.
And these people are out there using the so-called “language of the unheard” to protest Milo Yiannopoulos. While their tuition goes to give Yoo a distinguished podium to keep pushing the president’s right to unlimited use of torture. Geniuses!
Oh, yes, last I heard he was teaching Constitutional Law. It’s okay, things aren’t too bad, UC doesn’t have William F. Calley, Jr. on the faculty.
BTW, the TI story on Yoo says that Yoo thinks Trump is going too far on torture.
Yoo’s hiring was protested very strongly at the time, but the university didn’t listen. There’s a huge difference between the assholes who run the university on the one hand, and the faculty and students on the other. Just like the staff of government agencies are usually cool, but their political bosses are assholes who often do the wrong things.
Does anybody know what Yiannopoulos’ own immigration status is?
It’s not obvious what sort of visa he might have that would allow him to get paid for speaking on top of his Breitbart job. There certainly isn’t one that would allow prostitution. (https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2016-america-divided/milo-yiannopoulos/)
Would be interesting to know, given his ugly rhetoric…
He is from the UK. Incidentally, the Guardian archives has a 2016 story where Milo’s own school in Kent barred him from speaking to the sixth form. (Milo as a British public-schoolboy? Let us not think about that).
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/nov/21/milo-yiannopoulos-talk-at-kent-school-cancelled-over-security-concerns
Of course, the UK doesn’t have a 1st Amendment, so it’s a different scenario.
Thanks for the reply.
UK citizens need visas to do any sort of paid work in the US. I expect Breitbart sponsors a visa for him, but foreigners on work visas are not allowed to do any other kind of paid work, or to work for any employer other than the visa sponsor. So I’m wondering if his activities and sources of income in the US are legal.
Unless he has some sort of “extraordinary ability” visa, which would be nauseating and a pretty clear instance of corruption, since as far as I know he does not remotely meet the requirements.
Louis Brandeis’ opinion in California v. Whitney is worth quoting at length. It’s really kind of astonishing.
Key statement ….”….Recognizing the occasional tyrannies of governing majorities, they amended the Constitution so that free speech and assembly should be guaranteed…..” and I ask who is the governing majority in this country ? And who’s rights to be heard are being violated ? When we are not being accurately given the story behind the story I would suggest a true open speech, press and assembly does not exist for all. Is there are reason protestors are labeled as such with the connotation of the word such as it is ? Who is not being served justice ?
At the moment, no “majority” owing to the peculiarities of the electoral-college system. Even more reason to guard the liberties of the individual, stated in the Constitution, against who ever happens to be in charge at the moment. If the story isn’t coming out than the press — in whatever medium, print, on the air or on line — needs to come forth, and the incentives, moral, economic or whatever, may compel it.
Young aggro activists need to realise that many people are disgusted by seeing people beaten up, and this deeply discredits the aggressors and their cause. Regardless of who provoked whom, it always looks bad.
Activism is effective when the activists can show that they’re the civilised ones; they’re the sane ones; they’re the ones who are happy in their own skins, who are fundamentally kind, beautiful and joyful human beings.
This is a great article.
Gil G, if you are arguing in good faith please say why, otherwise it seems you are not.
Ridiculous comments seem to ignore human nature. The guy was aggressively provocative and finally got someone to hit him. No one here has ever seen this before? The person who hit him is not “the left” and remains unidentified. The crowd used mild scare tactics against bullies who cultivate scare tactics. It worked this time to stop a speech, but perhaps not so much in other ways. I am a pacifist by conviction but have a hard time imposing that on others and feel it is important to recognize that the right to self defense is a universally extolled intrinsic belief and where the lines are is subjective. Every revolutionary movement has included both violence and non violence as a tactic. I am for non-violence but the hype here is unrealistic.
The state has a compelling interest in not allowing individualized, specific attacks on student members of protected classes
The College Republicans have every right to invite the Grand Wizard of the local Klavern in to speak. He should be allowed to speak. Should he, however, be allowed to do this in a crowd of adoring fans?
Well? Do the College Republicans and the Wizard have a free speech right to do that to Jamal Smith?
“-Mona-” .. correct me i’m wrong … this guy was going to verbally target a student in the audience during his talk, this was the issue and not free speech regarding his ideas?
and UC Berkeley, ground zero for every left-leaning law weirdo and gender disparities activist in the united states, couldn’t prevent him from speaking on those grounds?
so they fall back on a punch in the face from the “black bloc?
Berkeley used to have an intellectual edge … but they seem to have become the land of mush-brains
—————-
“I do know that before, and after, he was provoking protestors, particularly anti-fa, all night — calling them the ‘real fascists,’ that kind of thing,” he added. “So, I was in no way surprised when I heard he got punched.”
I don’t accept your use of “they,” or who supposedly “fell back” on what.
well yes that was the clumsy slur part of the post
but aside from preemptive punching, there’s a preemptive aspect to limiting this fellow’s right to speak that’s based on your “reliable sources”, or whatever
so we just consult with your friends before letting anyone speak? to keep any scarey bad stuff from happening?
Well, no — you seem confused. Based on Milo’s past actions it is reasonable to suspect he is interested in more than merely “speaking.” He has a known and demonstrated agenda of harassing specific, identified individuals. It is literally part of his shtick, both when speaking in public and online.
“Based on Milo’s past actions …”
no, you seem confused … Milo’s past actions have not been established in court, yet you want to take legal action against him
Oh no, I don’t want to take any legal action against Milo. I simply advocate that state universities have proper grounds to prohibit his speaking on campus.
I suggest you read and ponder my hypothetical posted just above. Having done that once, is that man properly denied a platform at a state university — especially if he will not agree this will not again happen?
universities involve minors so they can probably prohibit anything … this of course is the royal road to creating dumb-ass graduates
Universities — at least state ones — cannot and should not prohibit “anything,” most especially when it comes to speech. Few are more emphatic on that point than I. (If the topic is “safe paces,” “trigger warnings” and all of that shit, I’m also as disdainful of that as anyone.)
The United States has (properly in my view) distinguished between individual defamation and notions of “group libel.” An action for the latter cannot lie here.
Harm to specific individuals is often and reasonably held to be outside of free speech protections.
Milo never did anything remotely similar to your hypothetical, and in fact I would be very surprised if you can provide evidence of a single racist thing he has every said. But even if he was a racist, and he clearly is not, it would still be completely wrong to use violent protests (or any form of protest) for the purpose of silencing him. The only proper remedy for bad speech is more speech. Racists are as a general rule stupid people, and if you allow them to speak and debate they will prove the general rule correct almost every time.
Please see this below with the documentation what Milo did.
To draw an inference, it may be that Milo’s speech was possibly breaching torts law regarding defamation, personal harassment or some such. At least at that point it’s a form of civil (or criminal) law with considerable precedent. But it would have required the victim to sue after the fact or press charges then. This may not be what Mona was getting at but it is where free speech has a well-known limit. Crowded theater and all that.
That is along the lines of my reasoning. Defamation laws and actions, as you know, delimit speech rights. So do pre-tort or pre-crime personal protection orders.
Speech, especially vis-a-vis specific individuals, is properly prohibited when it crosses over into what good faith, reasonable people would deem to be the behavior of harassment. Add in the dangerous mix of an angry crowd focusing on a specific person — of whom the speaker is projecting a picture on he wall — and this, then, is no longer only about the rights of the speaker.
“So do pre-tort or pre-crime personal protection orders.”
wow … not being a lawyer, i though pre-crime was just something in that movie Minority Report
did anyone on campus have a restraining order on this guy?
restraining orders on people who might make threats or who might utter trigger words at a college could be a huge growth market for lawyers during the trump adminstration
“Pre-crime” is part of why restraining orders (tho not especially useful for the purpose) are issued. Someone malevolent who is reasonably considered to be menacing a specific individual has his contact restrained before any actual crime is committed.
Milo, of course, does not indicate which individuals he is going to harass in advance. For that and other reasons a personal protection order would not be appropriate. No, it is rather the legal reasoning that permits interference with the speech rights of the restrained that is also applicable here.
your inference is based on a characterization of this Milo dude that not everyone accepts
so we are left with the GROOVY REASONABLE PEOPLE banning BAD ACTORS due to IMMINENT THREAT of GROOVY PEOPLE being CRAPPED ON by BAD ACTORS
fine with me, i didn’t go to Cal, i went to UCLA … which used to be a real haven for all sorts of bad actors …
he’s a known bad actor, everyone knows he’s bad and will say certain things that will be determined to be illegal later in court so just stop him from speaking now
really mona? am i missing something?
He’s a known harasser of specific individuals on the basis of their vulnerable, protected-class status — including doing so on campus.
One way to solve this would be for the university to restrict his speaking unless he agrees not to identify specific, individual students on the basis of protected class status. The contract should have a liquidated damages clause if he violates it. If he won’t sign, he cannot speak.
(Milo could, of course, then sue for alleged violation of his free speech rights. Then a court could reach a determination on all of this.)
if the harassment is on the basis of protected-class status, then the same comments would not be harassment of, say, me?
this protected-class thing is interesting … problems of identification and all that … maybe we all need to wear color-coded hats when visiting colleges, so that administrators know who is allowed to speak that day
I’m thinking of “known bad actor” only in the context of a restraining order, in known situations like domestic abuse. It’s about the only permissible form of prior restraint, on speech or association, that I can think of off-hand.
If Milo or the campus Republicans did negligently say or do something to help trigger this riot, then there should be a civil proceeding to see if they’re liable. (And, no, this does not let off the people on the street for their parts in it).
It’s the difference between banning cross-burning as a form of speech (see R. A. V. v. City of St. Paul, 505 U.S. 377 (1992)) and prosecuting it as form of vandalism or arson.
A great American, the pornographer Larry Flynt, said, “If the First Amendment will protect a scumbag like me, then it’ll protect all of you. Because I’m the worst.” That goes double for Milo Yappypoodle.
That’s prior restraint, and for a number of reasons that’s not permissible in a constitutional society. Closest I can think of is the apartheid practice of “banning” people.
And what bureaucrat would you entrust with the power to single out and stop someone from speaking? Because I know of no court process in U.S. jurisprudence to do that, other than the narrow processes like restraining orders.
Macky, like the brown-shirts of old, salutes violence against those he disagrees with. He stands with all the liberals that threatened electors with death threats. He applauds violently attacking and censoring anyone from speaking that doesn’t toe his fascist neoliberal line.
Imagine if Trump had lost and his supporters had acted like liberals are now!
Increasingly hostile commentary from the SF Chronicle, notably their East Bay correspondent, Otis Taylor.
http://www.sfchronicle.com/news/article/Is-there-a-place-for-peaceful-protest-anymore-10910021.php
Worth noting that the Bay Area has had a history of street violence going back to the 49ers and the Committee of Vigilance. Politics was sometimes a reason, notably the 1934 Bloody Thursday labor clashes, but not always — the VJ Day riot was perhaps the worst.
I have participated in a number of anti-Nazi and anti-Klan demonstrations. Basically what the fascists want is to control the streets. Nor is a fascist spouting his rhetoric really an ‘intellectual’ topic to be discussed. I think they can be shut down.
However, you have to do it carefully.
It sounds like this particular individual wanted to prevent the protesters from dismantling a barrier around the hall, so he was not just there to ‘hear’ the guy, but physically got involved.
That’s a lot of words spent on victim-blaming and excusing terrorism (“the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims”).
The Nation glorified and celebrated Richard Spencer being punched by the Black Bloc. This event was the natural escalation. Perhaps we’ll be able to celebrate The Intercept for the next escalation when someone is killed.
Trolls get exactly what they ask for, especially when they push polite people too much. It’s like the bully/troll on the playground who pushes that nice kid too much. What happens? The bullied kid waits until the teachers and authority aren’t looking, and then punch that bully right in the nose and make it cry like a baby. Sure, the troll will make a scene, but it will think twice before coming after the nice kid again.
I smile everytime one of these children get exactly what’s coming to them. Richard Spencer getting punched in the mouth and crying like a baby. Shrekli getting dog crap smeared on his face when he and Milo tried to troll the UC Davis campus. They act strong online to hide their weakness and cowardice. Funny how they ask to be attacked and then try to play the victim. Clearly they were spoiled bratty kids who never got the swift kick in the teeth when they needed it. They never learned to share the playground then, so they gotta learn it now.
Funny how those who like to sling mud don’t like to get dirty. “Eddie Brock”(Venom) got what he deserved……..RESIST!
These days, the fact-free simply string together words they think are pejorative and stop only when they exhaust themselves.
“Fascist” is being used as a buzzword by people that have no idea of the definition of fascism. Hillary supporters that are stupid as the right wingers that called Obama a “socialist” when they had no idea what the definition of socialism was.
Here is a good overview for those who’s definition needs an update
http://www.pegc.us/archive/Articles/eco_ur-fascism.pdf
Feel free to draw parallels at your leisure.
Black Bloc violence helped kill the Occupy movement. Peaceful people won’t show up for marches if they know masked anarchists will show up and riot.
If activists cannot keep the toxic Black Bloc away from their protests, their violence will kill the Anti-Trump resistance.
If anarchists continue rioting, they will bring Trump Martial Law down on all of us.
I urge The Intercept to do an investigation. WHO are the Black Bloc? WHY are they allowed to repeatedly trash Berkeley with no arrests?
I suppose it’s possible these “Black Bloc” are government provocateurs; god knows it’s been done before in U.S. history. But anarchists have always been with us, some of them endorse violence. Some do not.
Not an anarchist myself, but the country would be a worse place without the influence of anarchists such as Emma Goldman.
I’m sick of watching the self-righteous ‘liberal’ American left denounce and blame anti-fa and anarchists for every set-back. Sure, there’s certainly a case to make for strategic non-violence. But the recognition that there’s also a case against it does not disqualify a group from legitimate activity.
If anything, it’s these groups which realize the historical necessity of violence to counter fascism before it’s too late – read: Spartacist Uprising, Spain 1930s, etc., where anti-fa did not receive enough support thus enabling the empowerment of fascism; it’s these groups who have alone been in support of those oppressed among us without consideration of which party was waging war or deporting millions.
Where were all of these suddenly visible uncomfortable democrats when president Obama became the flying-killer-robot deporter-in-cheif?
I’ve had enough. History will will show what happens when we refuse to step in the way of evil, wielding whatever means necessary.
Indeed, and as I referenced somewhere below. After the Holocaust many younger Jews were contemptuous of the older ones who survived Hitler’s purge of Jews. The young often despised them for what they regarded as meekly going to their slaughter, confident until the gas chamber door locked behind them that the civilized institutions would save them.
That’s not my own view, but it does indicate how multi-layered and complex these tangled issues are. At times like this, I’m wary of any who claim to have *the* right answer(s).
“…the forceful dispersal of Yiannopoulos supporters by masked activists was presented as a form of pre-emptive self-defense…”
Wow, just wow. Soooo… would beatdowns of black masked activists then be considered pre-pre-emptive self-defense?
No matter both are illegal. Free speech is not a contact sport. I in my time have had a beer with both Clansmen and Black Panthers. Not my views but they have a right to say. Never could get us all together, maybe for the best.
American maiden – Please somebody put Soros in jail!
is anyone really surprised that donald trump supporters are bloody hypocrites?
No more so than the fact that the word Dumb begins with the letter D.
UC Berkeley gave Milo a forum/format to speak. I’m sure there would be a Q&A session. But, Milo brought these guys in to attack the Berkeley students. It was deemed out of control and cancelled. He has a clear pattern of doing this. This pattern is of Milo’s, not Berkeley.
I hardly see how those two clips show him provoking violent response. He’s pissed because they broke his phone…as I would be too.
Hang on, so these people dressed in black, already equipped with mace spray, and masks, suddenly materialized out of nowhere because of provocation by one idiot?
Is this grasping at straws?
I’d have preferred an investigation into the identity of these violent rioters, who I suspect (hope) weren’t representative of the majority of peaceful protesters, and who I doubt (and hope) weren’t even students from Berkeley.
Presumably, they are part of the black bloc. They shouldn’t be hard to identify the next time around.
“propaganda by the deed”?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_of_the_deed
Yes. Getting people to turn up for anything is difficult. These “spontaneous” rioters who are so angry about the urgent issue that is… Milo that they come en masse, armed and costumed: that’s something worth investigating. If the Black Block are who they say they are then Milo Y would be the last thing they’d care about. So who are they?
They should have chased Brock around the block a few times, he looks like he needs the exercise.
That litte piggly wiggly fat kid Brock, is literally Eric Cartman manifested into human form. It’s really amazing. I didn’t know we had that sort of technology… the funniest/saddest part of it all is that the people who punched little miss piggy here were probably shills bought and paid for by George Soros.
Just a ridiculous defense of violent bullies. Nice work.
Mackey’s essay centers on Brock and antifa, but Milo Yiannopoulos is a provocateur par excellence. Queen of the trolls.
“Yiannopoulos puts on a whole show to provoke students. He says his tour will cost $1 million, only some of which is going to his wardrobe. While on the road, he’s giving a women-in-tech talk at Stanford about female biological inferiority in science. He’s going to Yale shortly before Halloween, where, dressed in traditional Native American garb, he’ll address last year’s campus protests about mocking other cultures via culturally insensitive costumes. ‘I’m a perpetual 14-year-old,’ he says. ‘Maybe not 14. I’m 7. It’s my USP [unique selling point].'”
https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2016-america-divided/milo-yiannopoulos/
Milo has a troll-orgasm with every anti-Milo protest, every bloodied Brock, every antifa intervention.
Students need to grow up and start being more quietly silently strategic and rejecting. Don’t give Milo any satisfaction. :-)
Yeah, great idea: just sit down and shut the fuck up when you hear hate speech.
“Yeah, great idea: just sit down and shut the fuck up when you hear hate speech.”
I can’t define ‘hate speech’ but I know it when I hear it.
The Left is losing steam in protesting so many issues and is not focusing on a hierarchy of what is most important. It seems they want to dress up and play street theater protest more than define their focus.
This is by design–organized and orchestrated by the Oligarchs, who are the one important battle.
Seems to be getting to a direct confrontation between Donald and the courts.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-doj-legal-argument-for-immigration-order_us_589761e3e4b0406131375da7?c1czdkd9pn32wewmi&
At some point TI should review the definitive case on Art. II presidential power, Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. 343 U.S. 579 (1952).
My goodness, they’re bold fellows, aren’t they? They’ve obviously decided to go big, early. If they get away with this, the sky is clearly the limit.
So, since whatever the Robart and/or the Ninth Circuit ultimately rule, this is going to the Supremes. What will the Court look like when it gets there?
There will be at least one, possibly two, stolen seats.
Probably not two. This is likely to climb the ladder quickly and I doubt that either Kennedy or Ginsburg is going to leave while this is pending, if either is willing to leave, alive, at all, with Trump in the White House.
Stolen seats? Scalia was assassinated with a pillow left over his head, and not 24 hours later a giggling Obama wants to introduce America to its newest Jewish leftist SCJ?
Nuh uh.
No, it was the chalice from the palace, from Colonel Mustard in the lavatory. Get a Clue.
http://www.lifezette.com/polizette/anti-trump-protesters-block-ambulance/
Progressives like cordons, restrictions on movement.
Looks to me like cops deploying snarling dogs on protesters is a bad idea.
So the progressive left got the police state that its own hyper-state Big Government tax revenued. Who woulda thunk?
The “progressive left” in the United States established the ACLU, the arch enemy of a police state. You are an irrational devotee of bizarre conspiracy theories, including notions that many are “mind-controlled” by a conspiracy of Satanic Illuminati plotters. Rational and reasonable thinking are arrows missing from your mental quiver.
This is only being reported on the political conspiracy sites, like the one you provide, AND it’s a repeating headline from last year. Can you provide a valid source, Communete?
I must say that’s the first time I’ve seen Laura Ingraham’s LifeZette.com referred to as a “political conspiracy site.”
Will this do it for ya? This paper won 12 Pulitzers:
http://www.tampabay.com/news/politics/anti-trump-protesters-delay-ambulance-while-blocking-connecticut-highway/2312149
Re – LifeZette:
“Laura Ingraham’s new website will be called LifeZette and will brand itself as ‘a cultural and political web destination for conservatives and independents,’ the On Media blog has learned. … Ingraham, a radio host and Fox News contributor, launched her political career as a speechwriter in the Reagan administration.”
“As a Fox News contributor, Ingraham frequently appears on the network and often fills in for top talent like Bill O’Reilly. The talk show host is a devout supporter of Clinton’s opponent, Donald Trump.”
http://www.businessinsider.com/laura-ingraham-lifezette-hillary-clinton-bill-2016-10
“The website has been criticized for promoting conspiracy theories in the run-up to the 2016 United States presidential election.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LifeZette
Re – your link:
Interesting, Communete! Mona’s link covers the very same incident, but the New Haven Independent reports witnesses saying the police caused the riot. We’ll have to see how this unfolds.
“Kane said state police were acting in a hostile manner toward the demonstrators. ‘The trooper with the dog frightened everybody. The dog jumped on me. Shades of Selma.’ … Attorney Kane, who also represents Clement, said Clement ran because a police dog ‘lunged at him.’ She said officers chased him and pepper-sprayed him three times. She said she has video — which she doesn’t want to release yet — of a state police dog snarling at protesters and of cops knocking over an elderly woman. She called it ‘a police riot.’ In the confusion, state police dogs got ‘rambunctious’ and ended up biting two city cops and a state cops, according to New Haven Assistant Police Chief Tony Reyes. He said the three cops had minor injuries.”
Associated Press
Sunday, February 5, 2017 1:08am
Just so you don’t get confused by all those headlines with “Ambulance” in them.
Laura Ingraham’s LifeZette:
“The website has been criticized for promoting conspiracy theories in the run-up to the 2016 United States presidential election.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LifeZette
“Laura Ingraham, a close Trump ally currently under consideration to be Trump’s White House press secretary, owns an online publisher called Ingraham Media Group that runs a number of sites, including LifeZette, a news site that frequently posts articles of dubious veracity.”
https://theintercept.com/2016/11/26/laura-ingraham-lifezette/
Mona’s link (dogs attack police) provides different details of the ambulance incident. Several witnesses accuse the police of rioting them and causing the mayhem. We’ll have to see how this unfolds.
Glenn Greenwald ?@ggreenwald 6h6 hours ago
Glenn Greenwald
Publicly proclaiming that you regard the US as superior to Russia has been the supreme test of American patriotism for 6 decades.
It hasn’t changed. Trump only challenged a lefty media type who wanted to embarrass him be suggesting Trump wants to improve relations with a country led by a “murderer,” with the healthy response that no country is clean.
Sheesh.
Gloating, bragging, chest-thumping claims of being superior to everyone else on earth — especially an arch-enemy — isn’t unique behavior.
Blind, militant nationalism has been around since Alexander the Great brought Greek culture to the rest of the world.
What would be unique is a civilization that says of itself, “yeah, we’re all a bunch of losers.”
Read any intro to Anthropology text.
SMH
Oh yeah, a doctrine of “American exceptionalism” that has facilitated obscene crimes all over the world is absolutely the only alternative to declaring ourselves “a bunch of losers.” What the hell is Glenn thinking!?
I wouldn’t know.
I read what people say and respond to their words. The mind readers here at The Intercept seem unable to keep themselves from projecting their own thoughts as objective reality.
I suppose you could ask GG rather than relying upon your own rather half-assed clairvoyance.
After all, you often talk about your close relationship with him. Why don’t you ask him what he’s thinking. I’m sure he’ll be happy to explain.
(btw — when you find common cause with Heru, you should consider therapy.)
Why, other than lazy habit, would Russian be an “arch-enemy,” in your opinion?
Besides lazy habit?
Let’s distinguish among the USSR, Russia, Russian leaders and Putin. They are not the same.
When I was a kid, the capitalist States of America used the Soviet Union as its primary foil. When Sputnik orbited, the R’s went crazy. Everyone went crazy. The space race, arms race, nuclear testing, Cuban missiles, Berlin Wall, and virtually everything else pitted Russia against the US.
The USSR viewed the US as its arch-enemy. I recall Krushchev banging his shoe on the podium at the UN while ranting about “burying” the US.
Subsequently I started reading Russian novels in college — the usual — Tolstoy, Dostoyevski, Gogol — and the less well known (at the time) — Nobel winners like Paternak, Sholokhov, Solshenitzen and others I don’t recall now. I have a fascination with Russia and the grand Russian soul, I suppose.
Now, I don’t consider Russia an arch-enemy of the US. I consider Putin an arch-enemy of Russia itself (and of the US), using police state tactics and soviet ideology to become a czar for the 21st Century. He’s certainly not a Bolshevik and probably not a Stalin, but he also isn’t a Thomas Jefferson or Franklin Roosevelt.
Any country with thousands of nuclear missiles aimed at the US is an arch-enemy.
By definition.
Your turn.
Why do Trump supporters think Putin is so admirable? Why do you challenge me about this?
I challenge you because you’ve (still!) provided exactly no evidentiary basis for your contention that Putin is an “arch-enemy.”
You shared some of your undergraduate reading list (you should have checked the spellings), and told us that you consider Putin a czar — again, without citing a rational basis for your belief — and you’ve told us, in adjacent paragraphs, that you don’t consider Russia an arch-enemy and that it is so by definition.
You simply make no sense.
And then you ask me why Trump supporters think Putin is admirable. Silly fellow.
One of the most fascinating corollaries to the mind readers here at The Intercept is their complete inability to self-correct. Once chiseled, you deep thinkers cannot adjust for new information — like explicit statements.
I doubt I had any of the authors I mentioned on any reading list in college. I don’t remember a course on Russian literature although I might have taken a course in World Literature. Maybe Dostoyevski because of “Crime and Punishment.”
But saying so will just prove I’m lying to you geniuses here at the Intercept. After all, why should someone tell the truth when they could easily lie? Therefore they must be lying. (I think that rigid inflexibility says more about you than me.)
So think what you want.
Evidence of bad deeds by Putin. There are plenty. Google “Putin Cheknya” or “Putin Crimea”.
Here’s an excerpt from a long analysis by Gary Kasparov, a bitter Putin foe, former world chess champion and current chairman of the Human Rights Foundation..
You can fawn over the cuddly Putin all you want. He’s still a dictator who murders his enemies.
Can’t prove it?
Here’s the NY Times:
When Russia has a free press, an independent judiciary and free and open elections, then we can talk about evidence. Until then lack of evidence isn’t evidence of innocence. Particularly when Putin’s enemies flee the country in fear of him.
Evidentiary basis? You are sounding more and more like yourself these days Mona…
Yes….how many countries has “Russia” invaded and f’d up in the past half a century compared to the U.S.?
How many military bases does Russia have all over the planet compared to the U.S.? Like 3/700?
Compare military spending between Russia and the U.S. Off the charts for the U.S.
Which country over the past 60-70 decades has been the “aggressor” nation of Earth? The United States of America or
Russia?
Give us all a freakin’ break already!
And enough about Ukraine! Anyone with half a brain and the internets could quickly see the U.S. was clearly behind the coup in Ukraine.
I hope Trump and Tillerson (and the moron Haley at the UN) will do some serious “truth and reconciliation” work regarding “who” has destabilized the world and why quickly.
Cause it ain’t Russia!
I think there is someone still unconscious, and several still injured.
Has TheIntercept no human decency?
People might have been blinded or killed with the actions of the antifa but TheIntercept DOESN’T CARE ABOUT DEATH OR MAIMING.
SHAME ON YOU.
Do all your reporters think it is fine (Greenwald)? See Stefan Molyneux videos about those who suffered concussions and pain from pepper spray.
At this point I want to take a bottle of bear-spray and blind and choke the entire Intercept office simply because they dont’ think it is a big deal
I think you should probably be taking deep breaths, or maybe a Valium or two.
Absolutely, especially if he’s been subjecting himself to Stefan Molyneux videos.
Yes, yes: focus on Brock, not the antifa blackshirts running amok, stomping people at-will, destroying property while cops pleasure themselves.
Of course, if Trump-supporters had attacked females with poles, punching and pepper-spraying THEM for beingt “femi-Nazis,” the liberal press would have lost its stool.
Hypocrites!
You’re the reason Donald won! You’re also the reason he will serve 8 years, then Ivanka another 8…the first US female president!
Thanks Hilligula! American’s loathing of you and the former Rapist-in-Chief starting righting the ship-of-state.
A few decades back Mackey would have focused on Jews “rioting” in Warsaw, ignoring the Holocaust.
It’s very disturbing and scary to think that this is taking place especially the these people are calling Trump supporters fascist where as their behavior and actions display fascism at its worst. There are many definitions but one aspect of fascism states” Use of violence or threats or threats of violence to impose views on others,both fascism and Nazism employ street violence and state violence.
I respectfully disagree with you. We live here and Brock is a local idiot local for some news coverage.
The alt-right neo-nazis are advocating genocide. And actual fascism of which Nazism is but one flavor.
You should drop the “cops pleasure themselves” from your lexicon. You are clearly not from here. Not colloquial and not the cops that work hard here. I don’t have anything against you, but you sure don’t sound like a local, and I’m a true lefty.
The Berkeley and UC departments were actually models of restraint. Smart enough to figure out that fewer than one in ten protesters were “causing trouble,” they held back, and even retreated, rather than making a bad situation worse.
This is a major improvement over their actions at, e.g., Occupy protests. Other cop shops, please take note.
Agree with you. The cops made a lot of good decisions. and, even better prepared for the next non-violent protest, which is what we locals want it to be too. Well done and thank you to the local cops.
You definition of “non-violent” is lacking
@Milton Wiltmillow
Milton, you are not posting rationally. You’ve repeatedly said I am a “Trumpette,” which no reasonable person remotely familiar with me would ever believe. You were greatly displeased with those of us who have been righteously critical of Hillary Clinton, and like so many other Democrats you absurdly insist that makes us pro-Trump. Glenn and other writers have also been widely accused of that by Democrats.
That’s illogical and utterly unreasonable.
More to the point actually at issue, you have failed to explain why Vladimir Putin’s domestic assassinations have any bearing on whether the United States is as violent as Donald Trump stated, and as people like Greenwald, King and so many others, have long documented.
Of all the issues that should be of priority at this time to Americans, why would Putin’s domestic atrocities even be on the top half of our list? America has long made common cause with rancid tyrants, and indeed imposed or propped up many. So why all the angst now about Putin in particular?
(Hillary Clinton is a close friend of Henry Kissinger who, on behalf of the United States, has committed horrible crimes in many parts of the world. Including supporting foreign despots who commit mega-levels of domestic assassination.)
Did you vote for Clinton? No.
Do you attack those who did? Yes.
Do you employ Republican tactics of smear the person, ignore the facts? Yes.
Do you lack an independent mind? Yes.
You spread the same lies about Clinton the Republicans spread.
You’ve convicted her of crimes for which you have only assumptions, hearsay, circumstantial evidence, and a broad ideological antipathy.
Walks, quacks, swims, flies, and lays eggs like one … must be one.
You can clear it up by telling me you didn’t vote for Trump. Remember? You demand that others to prove their bona fides to you.
Why not prove your own?
“You’ve convicted her of crimes for which you have only assumptions, hearsay, circumstantial evidence, and a broad ideological antipathy.”
Dude, this sort of sentiment is just as delusional and just as damaging to our species collective cohesion (and redemption) than that of the racist, bigoted Trump lover. The Clinton’s are monsters, and arguing theres only “circumstantial evidence” shows a deep and steadfast type of ignorance.
Just like you said – “lack of evidence isn’t evidence of innocence.” Although in the case of Hillary Clinton there is a fucking MOUNTAIN of evidence. But you’re probably the type of person who believes wiki leaks is all fake…
“Milton, you are not posting rationally. ”
That is pot calling the kettle black. Mona you are ranting, Obama and Bush are mass murderers.
“I’m really good at killing people.”
– Obama, on Terror Tuesdays
Take your meds … .
Looks like a set-up. Unidentifiable hooded provocateurs. An avowed racist speaker at a predominantly populated liberal state university, Berkeley. A much larger group of very passionate, non-violent protesters assembles with slogans and signs – ALL PREDICTABLE so far. A person with serious mental issues shows-up. Uh Oh. And what’s with the hoods and attitudes? This almost ready stew just needs to be stirred-up. Eh, voila! Grist for the news mill.
Looks planned like some “psy-ops” used time-and-again against protesters, since Woodstock days and still. Using our Rights, protects these Rights – against losing them to those in power. Today, those in power may be hiding criminal activity that breaks Constitutional protections – that we as citizens have a duty to know, and will know through lawful investigation and/or protest. Critical thinking tells us that laws can be skillfully changed, sometimes to hide selfish agendas by a minority cabal of wealthy “owners”. When policy creep goes to far to the right or to the left, and begins to resemble the Nazis, Rome or The Kahn – we must protest. The hoods were probaly planted, along with the SMI individual. Why? Easy. Plans are unfolding. And Our Planet burns. Anti-Science is not sustainable.
Bob Zavoda: > “An avowed racist speaker”
You mean Milo, the Greek-Brit homosexual into black males? THAT racist?
African-Americans come is many different shades, often quite light. This is the result of centuries of whit men who were “into” raping black women, both enslaved and otherwise. Many dare to suggest that the slave-masters so into these women were racist.
Yiannopolous calls Trump his black daddy. Maybe Melania is Trump’s beard.
(Violence left) X (Violent Right) = Exponential increase in state power
Who has the most to gain from this formula?
This article reminded me of some right-wing sites which try to excuse rapes by saying the victims asked for it by acting slutty.
If Berkeley’s receiving federal funds, it’s a free speech issue.
Harassment of individual students is not protected speech. It’s behavior.
Assaulting people is not speech either you subhuman pig.
Brock’s pushing and shoving to get into a fight, which he eventually got, isn’t a free speech issue, it is brawling and attention mongering. And Milo targeting people is not a free exchange of ideas, as is protected, but rather is calculated to make people afraid, that maybe they or their kids will be the next target. As a parent and a family that pays a lot of state and federal taxes, I think the threat to withdraw federal money from a state university that has been supporting the free flow of ideas for decades is beyond ridiculous. Again, I don’t support violence, but Brock was there to brawl and be seen on broadcast, and that seems to be all. The peaceful demonstrators didn’t get enough attention, which encourages this type of violence too.
Marian, show where Brock pushed and shoved anywhere to get into a fight.
That was reported by those present. And, if you only live by video pixels as proof, then there is no actual proof to his being punched. The punch isn’t on video. In theory, while pushing and shoving he could have tripped and fallen and hurt himself. I won’t make that argument, but you can see the problem of requiring video. You can start to understand why no arrests were made.
Interesting. Do you think this particular guy on his way to work got arrested on inauguration day?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u3H3aoBjnxM
Yet you can’t even vaguely support your argument against Brock.
> “Brock’s pushing and shoving to get into a fight, which he eventually got, isn’t a free speech issue, it is brawling and attention mongering.”
Like when female shove, spit on, and punch men…and get knocked out?
Did Brock shove anyone? Proof?
The is video proof of BAMN bonehead Ferlaca pushing, punching, and inciting a riot in Sacramento.
> “And Milo targeting people is not a free exchange of ideas”
Define “targeting.”
> “make people afraid”
Like blackshirted goons beating people randomly, at-will, for wanting to hear “diverse” views?
> “As a parent …I think the threat to withdraw federal money from a state university …is beyond ridiculous.”
You mean from a university that failed to protesty its students?
> “I don’t support violence, but…”
BUT negates all that proceeds it.
> “Brock was there to brawl”
Like uppity women who get battered because they asked for it?
Shunn, you’re full of rhetoric! Your argument fails with your pathetic metaphorical analogies. Sounds like you have problems with women.
“…Brock’s pushing and shoving to get into a fight, which he eventually got, isn’t a free speech issue, it is brawling and attention mongering….”
So the Clinton supporters that went to Trump rallies and got into people’s faces shouting obscenities at them and spitting on them with the intention of provoking them deserved a beat down, right? Surely you must agree. Of course you won’t, because ” don’t support violence, but….” you do when it’s for your cause. Dare I say, hypocrite.
More on my position on free speech v. harassing specific, individual students. A speaker who cannot communicate their “ideas” without isolating a particular student is not as much interested in expounding his/her views as s/he is in harassing and inciting hatred against an individual.
Personal protection orders from courts also disallow speech directed at an individual whom the restrained person seeks to harass; they do not have a “right” to speak harassment.
I agree with you, but given that there are men (or at least one man) from out of the area eager to get into a fight and gain notoriety, what can the parents urge and support in the future replay of this event at UCB? I support peaceful protest and free speech, but NOT looking for a fight. In planning ahead, what can non-violent protesters do to stay in control of the situation?
Below, jancsika made a good start thinking about that kind of organizing to maintain control.
Agree. See the link Mona provided on jancsika comments. As a Californian and local, I also suggest that bonfires and breaking windows is NOT good visual public relations. Night time generally is not good for visual PR, just because it suggests there are things off to the edge that aren’t seen. If Milos is invited to talk again, let’s keep it to a lunchtime engagement and even the grannies can show up, peacefully.
If you want to organize a peaceful demonstration, you need to take steps in advance to insure public safety:
1. Obtain a legal permit to assemble in a public area.
2. Purchase liability insurance for the duration of the event.
3. Publicly identify your organization as sponsor of the event.
4. Recruit and train a team of on-site security monitors.
5. Meet with the local police to coordinate crowd control in advance.
In the case of Black Bloc, I would publicize in advance that the event is not open to those unwilling to publicly disclose their participation. Similar policies would apply to drug use, weapons, and violations of the law.
Was he convicted of something? At what federally funded public venue does Milo get to redeem himself?
Is Berkeley pre-crime?
No, non sequitur and non sequitur.
Milo is beyond redemption.
Milo is not a free speech issue
He should not be allowed to speak on any campus, not becasue of his ideas but becasue of his specific attacks on private individual students. Last November, while speaking at the University of Wisconsin- Milwaukee:
He put a target on this trans student’s back. That student was in the audience. She wrote a public letter to the University chancellor, saying in part:
At Berkeley, credible sources report that Milo had planned to publicly name undocumented students. This is not speaking ideas; it is targeting individual students for harm and harassment.
“He should not be allowed to speak on any campus, not becasue of his ideas but becasue of his specific attacks on private individual students.”
How many students has he attacked in the past? Only one?
swisscheese As a parent, a specific attack on an individual is very disturbing and no longer just sharing ideas, because it can literally destroy a life both directly and indirectly, depending on how the community reacts. It could be my kids next. By targeting one person for one feature or trait publicly, he is attacking the other students who might be a little out of the usual run of the mill stereotypes, which is most of us, one way or another.
That I know of, it was so far only the one at UW-Milwaukee. I shouldn’t have pluralized student because the other case I was thinking of was not a student — his other notorious attack was leading a campaign of harassment of African-American actress, Leslie Jones, which got him banned on Twitter. Milo gleefully insists on the “right” to attack individuals and lead harassment campaigns.
He left UW-M and continued to attack the same student in speeches at other universities. He has zero regret or remorse for what he did at UW-M; he delights in it. And can be relied on to continue with other students or individuals.
He could be chained him to the podium, so that he would be free to speak but not wander into the locker rooms.
Hm, it’s a muddy slope. Was a restraining order issued? At what federally supported public place does Milo get to redeem himself? Where can he speak now?
Is this pre-crime?
No, no, non sequitur, non sequitur and non sequitur.
Milo did NOT out anyone who had not previously outed herself. The UWM student had gone to the media a few months before Milo’s talk, demanding unfettered access to the women’s locker room and sauna. She did TV interviews as a very early stage transgender woman. She put her image out there in the public domain.
I suspect Milo’s ‘list of undocumented students’ would be a list of those Cal students who have publicly identified themselves to the media as Undocumented and Unafraid. I could spend a few minutes on google and create such a list — is it worth burning down Berkeley to stop a person from publicizing info already in the public domain????
Attacking a student of that university, holding up pictures to incite harassment and hatred, should not be allowed. Fighting for her legal rights should not make her eligible for such harassment.
You cannot know that, and it doesn’t matter. Launching harassment and intimidation campaigns against specific students should not be protected.
Milo should be allowed to rant his views to his heart’s content. But not as against individual, specific students. If he can’t abide by that, that rather reveals what his actual agenda is.
Oh how convenient that you have determined what is and is not free speech, and what Milo is allowed to talk about.
When people publicly identify themselves to the media as undocumented and unafraid, or as an early-stage transgender woman demanding unfettered access to the women’s sauna, they open themselves up to discussion by anyone who cares to do so, including odious performance artists like Milo. That’s reality, and no amount of Black Bloc vandalism will change it.
Black Bloc violence WILL build support for Trump Martial Law, however. Is that what liberals want?
Stephens: “Trump puts US on moral par with Putin’s Russia. Never in history has a President slandered his country like this.”
That’s really funny. And pathetic.
Only the most blinkered flag-waver, or a pol trying to appeal to the lowest common denominator of a blinkered, flag-waving populace, could say such a thing with a straight face.
“Only the most blinkered flag-waver, or a pol trying to appeal to the lowest common denominator of a blinkered, flag-waving populace, could say such a thing with a straight face.”
One day you will learn how to attack the argument and not the commenter.
There is massive difference between self criticism and putting oneself on moral par with Putin’s Russia:
What happened to US citizens (including TI’s journalists) who challenged and demonstrated against America’s war crimes in Iraq?
What happened to Russian citizens who challenged and demonstrated against Russia war crimes in Chechnya?
What happens to US citizens demanding equal rights for gays/lesbians in America?
What happens to Russian citizens demanding equal rights for gays/lesbians in Russia?
The US does have killers. It has a history of causing death all around the world. But US citizens can stand up and fight against those killers, against their own government. The moral equivalence that many of you are attempting to establish is not only ignorant, but also dangerous. There would be no need for journalists in Russia to fight to obtain a level of press freedom similar to the West if we are telling them US and Russia are the same. There would be no need for human rights activists to obtain a level of legal standards similar to the West if we are telling them the judiciary in the US and Russia is the same.
No one is arguing for “moral equivalence.” Advocating that we sweep our own side of the street does not entail stating which side has the most or worst dirt.
As an individual I’d much prefer to live with the U.S. Bill of Rights and (corroded) rule of law. But that does not mean pretending that my country has not committed a great deal of violence and evil. Martin Luther King correctly said we are “the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today.” People who do not enjoy the civil liberties scheme in America have died at our hands in great numbers; I doubt they were clutching copies of the Bill of Rights when they were shot, gassed or blown up, or when the dictator we supported tortured them.
Swisscheese is right in his or her observations above, but there are holes in this argument. One must consider that our own oligarchs are so secure in their power they can afford to be so magnanimous, not least because they have divided all potential opposition through identity politics with the help of an ignorance of historical revolutionary precedent among the masses. Some examples of such ignorance are represented on this thread.
If there were ever a truly united opposition that might actually seriously threaten that control, you can be sure of not only a crackdown on the liberties Swisscheese describes, but between the militarized police, the national guard, the army and right wing militias using the unprecedented surveillance powers of the state, we are ripe for roundup and delivery to our sports stadia and eventual processing like the murdered and tortured and disappeared of America’s pseudo colonies in Latin America.
Tell us, please. Be specific and include citations.
“Tell us, please. Be specific and include citations.”
You classify Stephens’ comment as “funny” and “pathetic”, and you are unaware (or obviously pretending to be) of what is going on in Russia.
November 09, 2004: During a protest against Russia war in Chechnya
Anna Politkovskaya: “Someone has to stop shooting first in this war. The residents of our country should demand this of the Russian authorities. Only in this way can we create peace in the Russian Federation.”
October 7, 2006 Anna Politkivskaya killed.
https://cpj.org/killed/2006/anna-politkovskaya.php
http://humanrightshouse.org/Articles/6193.html
December 14, 2014: Human Rights Watch “License to Harm: Violence and Harassment Against LGBT People and Activists in Russia”
“Russian authorities have failed in their obligation to prevent and prosecute homophobic violence.”
1) In October 2012 the UN Human Rights Committee issued a ruling against Russia in a case involving the conviction of an LGBT activist under a regional anti-LGBT “propaganda” law. The committee ruled that Russia was in violation of the right to freedom of expression (article 19) and labeled provisions in the “propaganda” law “ambiguous and discriminatory.”
2) In November 2012 the UN Committee Against Torture expressed concern at the Russian police’s failure to “promptly react to, or to carry out effective investigations and bring charges against all those responsible for violent attacks against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) persons.”
https://www.hrw.org/report/2014/12/15/license-harm/violence-and-harassment-against-lgbt-people-and-activists-russia
@milton wiltmillow
Then Glenn Greenwald is not a “normal actual American.” In response to WSJ pundit, Bret Stephens, tweeting: “Trump puts US on moral par with Putin’s Russia. Never in history has a President slandered his country like this,” Greenwald tweeted:
Further, Greenwald tweeted that dozens, probably hundreds, of “Dem pundits” were approvingly retweeting Stephens. (Go see his Twitter TL to see some of the specif pundits such as, e.g., Keith Olbermann.)
And really, Putin’s “bloody mask?” Mr. Wiltmillow, let me quote the apparently abnormal American, Glenn Greenwald, writing about Martin Luther King:
Was Martin Luther King not a “normal American,” Mr. Wiltmillow?
Establishment Democrats are a rotted, nationalistic force for bad in the world. Trump stated the absolute truth (no doubt accidentally, and in defense of another bad actor), and Democrats are appalled at his uttering it. Nevermind that MLK was far more specific and emphatic on the same point — at a time when Democrats ran the White House and were destroying a place called Vietnam.
“Was Martin Luther King not a “normal American,” Mr. Wiltmillow?
King was an American patriot who believed in self criticism to improve his nation. Dr. King was not stating that his nation and the Soviet were the same.
Dr King’s argument was we are killers, but we can and must do better than that.
Your president is not criticizing himself.
He is argument is Putin is a killer, so what? We are killers too!
The “so what?” is bad. The admission of American crimes is not.
The Soviet Union spent decades deflecting criticism in one long, extended whataboutery campaign of: “America has Jim Crow and lynches Negroes.” That was true, and it was a truth that far too many of the fiercest anti-communists in the U.S. were not especially concerned with.
American crimes against African-Americans did not redeem Stalin and his Gulag. But neither did it mean crimes against African-Americans did not merit at least the same amount of domestic denunciation and attention as we collectively spent focusing on Stalin’s evil.
Mona is living in fact free world. Obama bombed the Libyan state into rubble then transferred arms to jihadists in Syria to destroy that state. He also armed Nazi groups in the Ukraine to overthrow a nation two months before an election. Yet all Mona can do is rant about Stalin.
How about the two million we killed in Vietnam Mona? Or the million we killed in Iraq?
What a denier.
Exactly.
But Mona knows this.
She is trying to twist and turn away from her own words.
The old two-step lie with a flair of outrage — the Trumpette toots! (Also slyly separating my post from your citation. You want to keep the source away from easy access so your bad faith distortion can’t be compared easily compared with the original.
First, I agree entirely with Dr. King: ““the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today”. Not only was it true then, during the Vietnam War (an ongoing horror show which I protested many times in many ways,” but it has become even more true 50 years later.
Yes, absolutely America thrives on violence — in wars, “defense” spending, NRA policies, television and movies, political impetus …” Show me someone who disagrees!!
But that isn’t what I was talking about, was it, liar?
I was talking about the assassination of political opposition by an authoritarian government.
Since you apparently couldn’t respond to my explicit challenge: “Name one American opposition leader — ever! — murdered while walking down the street “in the US capitol.
I then presented not one but two examples of Russian opposition leaders whom Putin attempted to assassinate three times in the last 2 years. Full public display was part of Putin’s point assassinating Nemtsov in so public a manner. It was a message.
These political assassinations are virtually unheard of in America — except in various cases as I noted.
Imagine Hillary Clinton walking down the Washington mall and being shot four times by (apparent) Trump stooges. Imagine it happened six months ago so she couldn’t stand for election. That scenario is what Trump referred to when he said that America isn’t innocent. Not only is he wrong, he’s attempting to switch topics in exactly the same manner you do.
But since you can’t respond to my argument, you must make up one to suit yourself — and then post it far enough from the original that anyone wanting to compare scroll to see it. When you amputate citations from their context, that’s tantamount to lying because you confuse and mislead.
Trump uses this little rhetoric abracadabra frequent. Muslims aren’t “banned” — just certain countries almost entirely Muslim.
Or like calling Clinton “crooked Hillary.” A slanderous, malicious distortion of truth — which is she was legally exonerated by the FBI and the Republican Congress.
Of course a little Trumpette like yourself would adopt his tactics.
Shame on you!
{If I can, I’ll repost my original beneath this post so anyone wanting to check can do so easily.]
[my original post, distorted by Mona.]
Twisting, twisted Trumpettes telling tales of truthlessness.
1. Where are Democrats “having seizures” about the heresy of Trump’s clumsy attempt to hide behind Putin’s bloody mask? If anything, normal actual Americans of any political persuasion find his comment comparing America with Russia appalling. Even one of the most strident Republicans in the country — Bill OReilly — responded with disbelief.
He says, “But he’s a killer though. Putin’s a killer.”
2. Name one American opposition leader — ever! — murdered while walking down the street in Washington D.C. like this:
Or take the case of Mr. Nemtsov’s deputy and successor, Vladmir Kara-Murza. Kara-Murza was poisoned by Putin a couple of years ago, taken to the West, recovered and vowed to continue his opposition to Putin. He returned to Russia:
From Feb 2, 2017 report:
Again, find any sort of parallel in American history.
3. The political people assassinated in America — those obviously killed for political reasons — are all on th e left side of the political spectrum — the Democrat’s side: Kennedy, King, Kennedy. (Not the only ones shot at, but the only ones killed.)
One can speculate about (say) Michael Hastings, John Tower, Paul Wellstone or Malcolm X.
But except for Tower who apparently had damning information on Iran-Contra, the others were left leaning political opponents.
4. Apparently, the rather unjournalistic but very partisan O’Reilly didn’ t follow with the very obvious question after Trump’s blithering assertion by asking, “for example?”
5. Here’s one prominent Democrat apparently outraged:
‘
“Putin’s a former KGB agent. He’s a thug. He was not elected in a way that most people would consider a credible election. The Russians annexed Crimea, invaded Ukraine and messed around in our elections. And no, I don’t think there’s any equivalency between the way the Russians conduct themselves and the way the United States does,” McConnell told CNN’s “State of the Union.”
Oh my gosh. My mistake.
Mitch McConnell isn’t actually a Democrat, is he?
But you keep it at it Princess.
Eventually Trump will say something true and then you can boast about your political bestie being so entirely misunderstood by those mean ol’ partisan Democrats.
Putin’s alleged involvement with Nemtsov’s killing and Kara-Murza’s possible poisoning is based on speculation, nothing more. It’s simply dishonest to cite these events as if they were examples of anything in particular, because there is no evidence. . . of anything in particular.
I considered getting into that evidentiary matter, but pulled back in dread at the thought of the thread getting bogged down at it. Even if Putin did all of those things, it is not relevant to what should be of most concern to Americans.
“Even if Putin did all of those things, it is not relevant to what should be of most concern to Americans.”
Make sure you remember that sentence when an American president says receiving refugees running from a tyrant or a war should not be of most concern to Americans.
From 2000 to 2016, 34 journalists have been murdered in Russia. (Commitee to Protect Journalists, Glanost Defense Foundation)
“Of the 34 killings in Russia, many of the suspected perpetrators are military officials, government officials or political groups. The vast majority of cases remain unsolved.” Politifact, Jan 2016
Natalya Estemirova, human rights activist critic of Kremlin
Seigei Yushenkov, FSB, Kremlin critic killed.
Anna Politkovskaya, Kremlin critic killed.
Sergei L. Magnitsky, Kremlin/corruption critic killed.
…and more.
When so many of Putin’s critics keep getting killed, then as the head of the executive he is either directly responsible for their death or he has created the environment where killing critics is acceptable.
Kennedy was almost surely killed by the CIA. Wellstone, Bobby Kennedy, Black Panthers, MLK. Proof is hard to establish considering the enormous power of the deep state, but I am inlined to think that if you are really a threat you can be killed, thrown in prison , have your wife’s CIA status revealed. The problem is not that Trump was comparing US violence to Putin’s violence. The problem is that Trump believes Putin can kill his critics and wants that same power.
Milton the Hilllary devotee translated: “You love Donald Trump and, yes, Glenn Greenwald is not a normal American.”
You now want the sole issue to be domestic assassinations. Unfortunately for you, that is not the sole evil at issue. And “normal Americans” have always realized that, ones with names like King and Greenwald. And me.
Unable to defend her previous lies, she hopes to distract from them with more lies.
People who cannot be truthful with themselves have difficulty being truthful with others.
Although comparing what seem to be different things (reasons for war-making, i.e., the Iraq War vs reasons for violence at protests, or simply slugging a “Nazi”) we’re really talking about the same thing.
Preemptive violent acts done in the name of mitigating perceived harm.
Understandable why it’s done; in almost all cases it’s not defensible. That said: humans.
No, not the same thing, at all, really.
Invading Iraq was the result of long, calculated planning and manipulation, and the pretense of mitigation was a central element of the plan.
I won’t deal with violence at protests, generally, for the moment, except to say that I don’t like using the term to describe property damage. I think doing so creates a false equivalence between breaking things and hurting living beings.
As for slugging the provocateur, whether it was justifiable or not, in theory, it was also probably nearly inevitable. That behavior is, as you suggest, entirely human, and it is usually mostly automatic. Confronted by someone or something who/that provokes anger or fear, adrenaline flows and the fight/flight/fear response takes over.
That’s why provocation works as it is intended to.
It will also be inevitable then, that the right uses this as an excuse to physically destroy the institutions of the left.
I’m gonna’ stick with this:
The caveat being that I’m describing physical violence, and that it happens on a spectrum with varying degrees of rationalization; Iraq War with a bunch of it, both before and after; and with the more immediate, ‘fight-or-flight’ response, we have that rationalization occurring after the incident.
As far as Milo and public speaking are concerned, I agree where Mona indicates above that, based on past experience with Milo specifically, it’s know (and in this case suspected) that he targets individuals for harm and harassment, and that to use a public space to those ends is not acceptable.
(Leaving aside that this is what our Presidents and Congress have been so fancied with.)
The American Bar Association puts it this way:
As a society, I think we do have a responsibility to take reasonable efforts to mitigate speech such as Milo’s for the reasons stated, although I’d rather see it done this way (but Milo’s past actions preclude it here). From the ABA again:
Milo’s speech has surpassed the threshold of “just free speech” and has now become “fighting words—those words without social value, directed to a specific individual, that would provoke a reasonable member of the group about whom the words are spoken.”
Therefore he has abrogated his free speech rights in this specific case, and the public response to it is disallowing him the public square.
Just as a point of information I professionally defended Matt Hale’s free speech rights against several government attacks. (As did Glenn Greenwald — more extensively than I did. Both of us did this pro bono because of our ardent belief in free speech.)
My position would have been different, however, if Hale had been seeking to give university speeches holding up a picture of a black, Jewish or other minority students there and specifically ridiculing and inciting hatred against these individual students.
Thanks for that. We need folks like you. As Doug, you and others have noted, it’s going to take a lot of legal intervention from both advocates and the courts to slow down the Trump-train.
The law, and those who wrangle it are overdue for some much deserved appreciation.
We don’t have fundamental and insoluble disagreement. ;^)
But:
It’s not rationalization in those cases. It’s biology.
We are running the risk of irreducibly sharpening this pencil, but we are still on the same page.
I have reflected on this story and the folks that commit or provoke violence without absolute necessity. See the Asshole Song, not name calling we all get some Asshole stick time while flying through life.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IU_y9FB0QKk
“the use of force was justified by the imminent threat to the safety of some in their community posed by Yiannopoulos.” This by a teacher. Nice.
“pre-emptive self-defense”
Really? Just reporting the facts here? The author has no comment whatsoever on the legitimacy of these arguments?
But yet finds space to opine on unrelated conspiracy theories of attacks during Trump rallies? Trump on the brain 24/7.
This stuff is like claiming rape victims deserved it by the way they dressed.
It is possible to be so blinded by ideology that these type of arguments start to make sense I suppose.
“The libertarian aspect of the Republican Party is presently the only useful political voice really in the U.S. Congress. It will be the driver that shifts the United States around. It’s not going to come from the Democrats. And it’s not going to come from Ralph Nader. It’s not going to come from the co-opted [neocon] part of the Republican Party. The only hope as far as electoral politics are concerned in the United States presently is the libertarian section of the Republican Party.”
–Julian Assange, August, 2013
Thank you for that bit of info. I didn’t realize Asante said that and he is one voice I can trust. Few others unfortunately. I’m an ex-lefty myself who voted for dems a lot in the past. Never again.
Surely The Intercept has the resources and talent to write a historical analysis of the bankruptcy of Black Bloc tactics. Propaganda of [or by] the deed adherents invite infiltration, in part simply by virtue of the anonymity of the protesters. Of course, their actions invite the focus of the mainstream media on smashed windows or burning vehicles instead of the political message of the larger mass of demonstrators. Again, one doesn’t have to go too far back in history – check out the huge amount of material available on the Toronto G20 summit demonstrations and mass arrests.
And a caveat – I am not prone to conspiracy driven claims of false flag activity.
That’s a conspiracy theory.
This is a well-known and documented activity in the recent past; infiltration of progressives has always happened. Indeed, it’s a cliche among activist protesters that the first person to suggest violence is the FBI plant.
Infiltration almost certainly occurred when the government successfully conspired with the banks to destroy Occupy.
According to the San Jose Mercury, we may be having a replay of this whole provocateur saga again, if it is true the right-wing provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos is scheduled again to speak at UCB. I haven’t confirmed that he is actually scheduled. Planning ahead for non-violence will be tough though, given what happened.
It’s positively Soviet how the progressive left violently quells free speech on campus. But no surprise given how NYT, and Salon.com, and the Guardian, etc., actively extinguish or prevent opposing political thought in their comments sections. Or the leftist state tries to silence leaders of Chick-fil-A, Hobby Lobby (Progressives thy names are Emanuel, Menino, Annise Parker,….).
The progressive left hates the Bill of Rights. “Don’t let them, hear, don’t let them know other political ideas!i,” they squeal.
I don’t think you read my comment, which says planning ahead for non-violence will be tough. I didn’t say, “let’s have violence”. I said, planning for non-violence will be tough in a replay. More violence will just play into the rights provocateur plans though, so let’s hope the left gets wiser. I don’t support hate speech at all, from a community point of view, because although protected it is counter productive, but so is violence counter productive. But, realistically, my bumper stickers “no ban” “no wall” and impeach Trump lawn signs aren’t making it into the news anywhere.
Why would you write something so straw man? I only replied of the left’s history of opposition-speech intolerance and (in the case of Menino, Emanuel, Parker, Cuomo, et al.) official abrogation.
And BTW, notice your signs still are on your lawn. That’s because, unlike progressive sign-vandals, conservatives respect your property and the Bill of Rights.
Of all the places he could speak at, it absolutely makes sense to ask why Berkeley. The venue is designed for maximum probability of backlash, and the protesters are walking right into it.
“On the right, though, no one seems at all concerned by the fact that Brock appears to have played an active role in baiting his attackers until they assaulted him.”
This style of provocation has been going on since the early days of Breitbart.com (when Andrew was still running things) and O’Keefe was tricking ACORN workers. Back then, the trick was just to get liberal activists to say something that could be edited and spun. I experienced the tactic first hand. It seems thcost of going viral these days must have escalated.
Hhmmm…how easily Trump supporters forget the days leading-up to the election, with Trump encouraging violence and anarchy.
“Donald Trump calls supporters’ violence against protesters “appropriate,” says “that’s what we need more of.”https://t.co/N28Wj5l3Ji”
“Trump in NC on Weds: “In the good old days this doesn’t happen because they used to treat them very, very rough.” pic.twitter.com/vccazscgjT”
“Try not to hurt him. If you do, I’ll defend you in court, don’t worry about it.”
“Trump: If you see someone getting ready to throw a tomato, ‘knock the crap out of them’ pic.twitter.com/100AA2Bjww”
“I think bad things would happen, I really do,” Trump said. “I believe that. I wouldn’t lead it but I think bad things would happen.”
“I think you’d have riots [if I’m not elected], I think you’d have riots. I’m representing a tremendous many, many millions of people.”
Nowhere did he advocate violence, and nowhere can you demonstrate that Trump supporters behaved violently.
Besides, Mother Jones affirmed during the campaign that he’s really a liberal:
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2015/08/donald-trumps-top-ten-liberal-heresies
Plus the left reassured us Trump is best buds with the Clintons.
lol lol lol lol lol Robert Mackey, you are becoming a national treasure in the mold of Richard Cohen: consistently, reliably, always absolutely wrong about everything. In your case, from the muddled left part of the center rather than the muddled right part of the center. Your career will be long and unsinkable.
Progressives only know the playbook:
1. “If the public eventually finds us in disfavor (again), point fingers away from ourselves.”
. a. “…even when the Socialist Workers Party (National as in NPR) attracts only liberals to the doorbell, and its cult leader never removes Socialist and Workers from the organization name”
. b. “…even though history’s most notorious fascist edited Italy’s premier Socialist newspaper of the day, Avanti! (‘Forward!’)”
. c. [Amended 2009] “Obama (and his own solar symbol) is really a rightie. Yeah.”
2. “Liberty is authoritarian.”
It’s been in regular use since Nuremberg (see item 1), but dates from the Wilson era.
Well, you’ll be pleased to know that Assistant to the President and Chief Strategist, Steve Bannon, is a self-described Leninist, which is a Marxist form of Socialism.
Too bad for your argument that no less than Snopes calls it “Unproven.” No less than Time Magazine calls him “a Democrat by heritage and Republican by choice.”
What isn’t uproven is that Obama’s CIA head refused to use a Bible upon taking his oath and also voted for the Communist Party.
like the poor fat guy in the story (who couldnt even attract wrestling viewers!) desperate for ANY attention why don’t you beat your head against a brick take a picture of it and claim a liberal did it to you.
It’s unproven, because Bannon doesn’t want to talk about it now. The WaPo quote certainly provides insight in Bannon’s own words and I’d say it comes extremely close to Leninism.
The excerpt from a conversation between Radosh and Bannon:
” …we had a long talk about his approach to politics. He never called himself a ‘populist’ or an ‘American nationalist,’ as so many think of him today. ‘I’m a Leninist,’ Bannon proudly proclaimed. Shocked, I asked him what he meant. ‘Lenin,’ he answered, ‘wanted to destroy the state, and that’s my goal too. I want to bring everything crashing down, and destroy all of today’s establishment.’ Bannon was employing Lenin’s strategy for Tea Party populist goals. He included in that group the Republican and Democratic Parties, as well as the traditional conservative press.”
Snopes continues:
“In January 2016, for instance, Bannon was quoted by the Washington Post’s referring to him as ‘virulently anti-establishment':
‘We call ourselves ‘the Fight Club.’ You don’t come to us for warm and fuzzy,’ said Stephen Bannon, Breitbart’s executive chairman and one of its guiding editorial spirits. He adds, ‘We think of ourselves as virulently anti-establishment, particularly ‘anti-’ the permanent political class. We say Paul Ryan was grown in a petri dish at the Heritage Foundation.’
In 2013, Bannon said that he didn’t believe that the United States had a functional conservative party:
‘We don’t believe there is a functional conservative party in this country and we certainly don’t think the Republican Party is that,’ he told a gathering of conservatives in Washington, D.C. ‘It’s going to be an insurgent, center-right populist movement that is virulently anti-establishment, and it’s going to continue to hammer this city, both the progressive left and the institutional Republican Party.’
http://www.snopes.com/bannon-leninist-destroy-state/
“… Paul Ryan was grown in a petri dish at the Heritage Foundation.’”
hard to dispute that.
The “Fight Club” attitude is just what the fascists used against the Communists in post WW Germany.
They would open beat Communists before eventually just walking in to Communist offices and shooting. Germany had a judiciary that was quite powerful until Hitler came to power.
Gosh, mike, it sounds like the Tea Party is now at the console of the West Wing. Or the Paulists. Or Lew Rockwell.
Damn I used to like the intercept…..it now reads like the New York times and CNN. well i just bookmark Glenns page.
@Robert Mackey
You are doing exactly what the idiot Trump apologists were doing when his idiot people were violent for no justifiable reason. If what you are trying to suggest is that it is somehow justified for this guy to get punched in the face merely because he was “berating” protesters, then you are as stupid as the Trump people are. No. Scratch that. You are being more stupid than the Trump people because in this case, these people were actually being violent beforehand. They were wearing black masks, destroying public property, and had already been beating up other people. This dude had all the right in the world, and even good reason, to shout at these people’s faces, to shame them for being such violent savages, as long as he didn’t throw the first punch. And he didn’t throw the first punch. Never. So the fact that you are trying to insinuate that his motives have anything to do with what happened to him, and that they somehow make him share in the blame for him getting punched in the face, is egregious, irrational, and only comparable to the most i-liberal cases of victim blaming.
Nonsense. If you — with full knowledge of where you’re going and what you’re doing — go to a raucous, energy- and tension-filled demonstration, with the goal of provoking a confrontation, you’re very likely to succeed. If you do, without any doubt, you share responsibility for the outcome.
Understanding the above is not the same as justifying the actions of the person or people who hit the provocateur. Of course, it would be unwise to rely on a jury convicting that person or persons, which is one of the many reasons that no prosecutor would bring charges.
If you don’t understand these things, you may not live in the real world.
Hey Dougie boy,
I noticed that you had no response to my follow-up to your cowardly hit-and-run accusation that I was a “despicable, lying asshole” in claiming that Jesse Jackson lied about his role in the aftermath of Dr King’s death in consideration to his own political ambitions. And yet here you are, in the immediate aftermath of having to eat crow, presuming that your opinions warrant serious consideration by others.
Anyone who cannot humbly admit that they were mistaken cannot be taken seriously.
Doug Salzmann quote of the day: “Do you know who I am?”
You sir are a fucking joke. But hey, keep on presuming that your uniformed opinions carry weight… we all need a good laugh now and again.
Of course, not all ‘raucous, energy- and tension-filled demonstrations’ are the same.
It all depends on what Doug approves of.
On the other hand are ‘racists’ who beat i.nnocent protesters
This will not end well.
This comments section is a hellhole. Christ.
The right would smear any protestors (or simply black people) at any of their rallies who got harassed or assaulted, as being out to provoke, this peaceful protestor was asking for it, happened again and again. The whole point of the article. This viral-fame whore who you people admit wants to be “martyred,” gets… punched in the face and goes and basks in the glory of the television cameras beaming for all he’s worth, and it’s “so what. The other side did it. Therefore. Fuck yourself.” If you had any kind of cohesive moral framework or intellectual integrity you wouldn’t be able to so predictably and automatically frame everything you see to fit your own agenda.
anitfas is learning quickly
pre-emptive self defense is just one of many tools in the toolbox
lord vader will be pleased
“pre-emptive self defense is ”
working well for the Israelis
oh come on
please mention thermite and rotational force vectors too
“rotational force vectors”
the force vectors have orthogonal components that behave independently
bringing them all together takes skill and timing
that said, a force acting at a perpendicular distance will rotate like your mother did last night
and yes, it was I took your lunch money off your mother’s nightstand this morning
the instantaneous slope at any given point is just some tilting vector
like you, about 20 minutes into the super bowl
my football vector went tip to tail with Atlanta 2 weeks ago
it got bent up as they clenched
I feel the message of the article is muddled. Is it capitulating to the idea that “peaceful protest” is desirable, and “violent protest” is bad because “delegitimises” the protest?
Seems like some liberal bullshit, if so.
He may be a dangerous clown, but give him credit where it’s due
PREVIEW: Trump Tells O’Reilly He ‘Respects’ Putin in Super Bowl Interview
In 8 years, Obama could never bring himself to admit/see what Trump acknowledges less than a month into office.
Regrettably, it’s quite easy to substantiate Mr. Trump’s assertion that the “we’ve got a lot of killers.” and, to boot, that we have killers of journalists as Mr. Putin is accused by O’Reilly. Indeed, it take just two words.
Michael Hastings.
LF
Not even the people close to Michael Hastings believe he was killed by the government, and there is no evidence to support such a claim.
Predictably, Democrats everywhere are having seizures about how sacrilegious it is for Trump to “compare” America to Putin and Russia. Nevermind whether what Trump (accidently?) said is true or not.
A good example of The Outraged would be Keith Olbermann, who spent the Bush years denouncing W as a fascist and the Iraq war as monstrous. But to Keith, now it matters that W didn’t kill American pundits like him — so it’s just oh-so-wrong to focus on all the foreign people our country has slaughtered.
Partisan Democrats are utterly sickening.
Twisting, twisted Trumpettes telling tales of truthlessness.
1. Where are Democrats “having seizures” about the heresy of Trump’s clumsy attempt to hide behind Putin’s bloody mask? If anything, normal actual Americans of any political persuasion find his comment comparing America with Russia appalling. Even one of the most strident Republicans in the country — Bill OReilly — responded with disbelief.
He says, “But he’s a killer though. Putin’s a killer.”
2. Name one American opposition leader — ever! — murdered while walking down the street in Washington D.C. like this:
Or take the case of Mr. Nemtsov’s deputy and successor, Vladmir Kara-Murza. Kara-Murza was poisoned by Putin a couple of years ago, taken to the West, recovered and vowed to continue his opposition to Putin. He returned to Russia:
From Feb 2, 2017 report:
Again, find any sort of parallel in American history.
3. The political people assassinated in America — those obviously killed for political reasons — are all on th e left side of the political spectrum — the Democrat’s side: Kennedy, King, Kennedy. (Not the only ones shot at, but the only ones killed.)
One can speculate about (say) Michael Hastings, John Tower, Paul Wellstone or Malcolm X.
But except for Tower who apparently had damning information on Iran-Contra, the others were left leaning political opponents.
4. Apparently, the rather unjournalistic but very partisan O’Reilly didn’ t follow with the very obvious question after Trump’s blithering assertion by asking, “for example?”
5. Here’s one prominent Democrat apparently outraged:
‘
Oh my gosh. My mistake.
Mitch McConnell isn’t actually a Democrat, is he?
But you keep it at it Princess.
Eventually Trump will say something true and then you can boast about your political bestie being so entirely misunderstood by those mean ol’ partisan Democrats.
“In 8 years, Obama could never bring himself to admit/see what Trump acknowledges less than a month into office.”
“In the middle of the Cold War, the United States played a role in the overthrow of a democratically elected Iranian government.” Obama, June 4, 2009. Cairo
“Instead of building a durable framework for the struggle against al Qaeda that drew upon our deeply held values and traditions, our government was defending positions that undermined the rule of law. ” Obama, National Archives May 21, 2009
“Whether those methods met the legal definition of torture is one thing; they certainly met the common usage definition, “to cause intense suffering.” Obama, CIA, April 20, 2009
“Over nine years — from 1964 to 1973 — the United States dropped more than two million tons of bombs here in Laos — more than we dropped on Germany and Japan combined during all of World War II. It made Laos, per person, the most heavily bombed country in history. Villages and entire valleys were obliterated. The ancient Plain of Jars was devastated. Countless civilians were killed. ” Obama, Laos September 2016
Obama always ran it like a history lesson from the professor, instead of as something he was actively pointing at people to exterminate them
In other words:
“We occasionally misjudge, blunder, and even make mistakes that sometimes inflict a terrible toll – on others. But these are strategic and tactical errors, committed with the best of intentions and out of genuine concern, drawn from our deeply held values and our moral authority.
When these things are done by official enemies, they are terrible crimes and evidence of moral depravity.
When these things are done by the US, innocence and guilt are hardly relevant because we meant well or were worried.
We are exceptional.”
What sense does it make to publish a piece about how much Eddy Brock craves attention and give this to him? To interview him? Brock should be, at best, mentioned in a paragraph about something larger, such as the nature of “resistance.” Include that a Trump supporter SHOT an unarmed anti-fascist protester in Seattle.
The Eddy Brocks and their antics simply make no sense as a journalistic priority.
Just FYI, it’s not clear that the person shot in Seattle was unarmed, although he doesn’t seem to have had a firearm. The report of at least one witness — who apparently was in physical contact with that individual, restraining him, before the shooting — is that he was “firing” pepper spray (or pepper pellets) at others before the shooter stepped forward and fired his handgun.
The shooter turned himself in to police, claimed self-defense and was released. I don’t know whether charges were later filed, if the investigation is ongoing, etc.
nice to know it is now ok to shoot to kill a man for shooting pepper spray into the air
Moron.
Off the top of my head here are five things that would have turned this into a story about the “nature of resistance”:
1. The woman with the microphone instructs the crowd to sit quietly and listen intently to Brock. He either becomes the object of sarcastic ridicule or he leaves.
2. Someone from the crowd brings him some peroxide and band-aids. He must either accept the medical help or reveal himself as a provocateur.
3. The protesters join hands whenever he walks into somebody’s personal space. This would have made it more difficult for him to make it appear that a protester started the scuffle.
4. Some protesters start a pattern of turning their backs to him as he approaches.
5. Someone “mic checks” him and the entire crowd tries to repeat everything he says as a group.
Instead I saw a woman with a megaphone letting him set the tone, escalating the situation with him, and then lowering herself to match his crude insults.
The “nature of resistance” is a lot like the “nature of playing the violin”. If you forget to practice for eight years straight, you tend to get a little rusty.
Yes, any or all of those would be lovely, peaceful responses. You and others who prefer to demonstrate in that manner are encouraged to do so and can expect accolades if and when you do.
On the other hand, you don’t get to decide how everyone may or should demonstrate or respond to provocation. And your moralizing suggests that you may be another who doesn’t live in the real world and doesn’t accept the reality of human nature.
> Yes, any or all of those would be lovely, peaceful responses.
Exactly. Kind of like the image that is forever burned into my memory of Egyptians in 2011 chaining arms around the museum in Cairo to protect it from more looters. The point isn’t that it is peaceful– it’s that it was an *effective* response to looting.
> And your moralizing suggests that you may be another who doesn’t live in the real world and doesn’t accept the reality of human nature.
The commenter above me thinks this piece based on eye-witness accounts and videos should have instead been a piece on the “nature of resistance”. I gave five reasonable, reality-based examples of tactics that would have lended themselves to such a narrative. The person with the megaphone didn’t employ any of those tactics and instead got caught up in a scuffle that resulted in bad optics. Or at least worse optics than a person who has a megaphone and the crowd on her side should have ended up with.
That’s too bad. I hope those protesters immediately realized that didn’t work and that they practice responses to third-rate provocateurs next time. I do not hope they go watch youtube videos on the “nature of resistance” and sit around belly-aching about the reality of human nature.
Ha. Well, we can’t have that!
If only Sam Adams and the Sons of Liberty had thought of the bad optics, they would have had sense enough to call off that Boston Tea Party.
I read you and jancsika as talking past each other. It’s true that protest tactics have to be thought out and implemented with some intelligence. But it is also true that human nature means some protesters are going to lose their shit — especially if they are among the vulnerable populations most under current attack.
This whole debate reminds me of when Hannah Arendt went to Israel for the Eichmann trial. She had not been a Zionist but had friends who were and were now living in Israel. Several told her the younger generation of Jews there had contempt for the olds who survived Hitler’s European slaughter, because they were seen as meek lambs cooperatively going to their slaughter, stupidly trusting that civilized institutions would save them.
i think you missed the part ” Black Bloc or Antifas and justify the use of violence as pre-emptive self-defense”.
and it is also great to see YOU have stayed in practice and kept up your resistance by typing comments onto web sites the last 8 years.
The only thing a Mackey Type Journalist cares about is the CLICK COUNT .
You two appear to have much in common.
;^)
WE need more freedom loving individuals infused with righteous zeal to take the slings and arrows of the unrighteous. MLK
This right wing slob knew exactly what he was doing.
lol, making fun of a person’s weight-challenged condition?
Hmmm… what are your views on diversity and LGBTQ rights? Should microaggressions such as your post be tolerated? Remember all women are always beautiful even if 400 lbs overweight and, by extrapolation, this man person is beautiful too, with or without blood on his face.
Apparently you are making fun of a person’s weight-challenged condition, Arth. According to Webster’s, slob means:
” a slovenly or boorish person; an ordinary person ”
You seem to be riddled with micro-aggression yourself, Arth.
Yes, he was arguing with words. Something that frustrates the vocabulary-challenged, boundary-oblivious progressive left no end.
Yes, the left has definitely been upset about the false facts and alternative facts coming from the right. One can always win with words, if the words of accusations are fictitious. Trump and his supporters confer a new definition of bogus, much like Brock’s alleged victimization.
Says the guy who claims Adolph Hitler was a man of the left and that North Korea actually is a democratic republic.
A whole article about how someone attacked had it coming to him?
Mackey is the worst. Ridiculous opinion pieces promoting establishment, neoliberal agendas with a flood of inaccuracies, half-truths, and out right misrepresentations. This guy is more harmful to the left-wing than the right-wingers he angrily reports on.
If you want to be an ass best to know the law draws a line between words assault, punches, sticks and stones assault & battery and knives and guns deadly weapons. When one resorts to violence you never know where the ball stops bouncing. Yes one might wall away with a smile or end up locked up with felony charges to get you jail time and /or destroy future employment. Once the ball starts bouncing some one can die or just end up in a basement, listening to bombs fall, keeping you family close so you can all die together.
What Makey seems to say here is that the victim was guilty of a ‘micro aggression’ because the Antifa monkeys deserved their safe space while burning things and smashing windows. That micro aggression triggered the just and righteous Antifa reaction of smacking him in the face.
By the way, do we know of any Antifa messing up things and people in places like… I don’t know… Florida? We have a vacation home there and we are so happy with the ‘stand your ground’ rule because we rarely lock our doors and we never fear assaults or molestations in public spaces. Everybody is so nice and respectful… it’s almost heart-breaking.
Never a big fan of stand your ground, can get someone buried in it. I live in Maryland with strict gun laws, duty to retreat, within a few miles of PA with the opposite, not much difference in crime. Guns in the hands of the law abiding cause little crime but may prevent a small fraction of it and criminals got their own gun code mostly a danger to themselves.
But he is a funny liberal clown. Don’t be too mean to him!
This article is disingenuous on how it immediately focuses in on this one Eddie Brock fellow and ignores the peaceful Milo supporters who received concussions from the violence as well as the man who was beaten almost to death in the street with flagpoles after he was knocked unconscious. If I had to guess, Brock is happy because of “a sense of righteousness” he stood up for what he believed in, whether or not you agree with his views. The lens this article takes on in writing about the event is odd, I would expect The Intercept to have better
Mackey implies that this unsympathetic guy had it coming. This is debatable, but what’s not debatable is that Mackey’s staggering hypocrisy wouldn’t let him write a similar article about a non-white victim.
Violence is the currency of hate not reason, “Nobody’s right if everybody’s wrong.”
http://www.ask.com/youtube?q=nobodies+right+if+every+bodies+wrong&v=f5M_Ttstbgs&qsrc=472
BUFFALO SPRINGFIELD 1967, “For What Its Worth” . I was there. Look on a man’s face that throws a rock at a cop or pulls trigger on a M-16 same, same. I was in Special Forces came home shoot a deer and quite hunting ( not anti-hunting just not for me anymore). Anyone either side beaks the law should stand good for in court. I support demonstrations not arson and free speak but not assault. All had better take a knee. Their are folks that are really good at violence. How do you know when you have meet one, you will not come away smiling.
I can think of fuckteen different ways the kids could find their voice without randomly vandalizing their own campus. They could have wrapped the entire Student Union building in a giant pink pussy hat. They could have smashed those ever-spying smart phones of theirs and rigged up a campus pirate packet radio network. They could have started a competitor to Facebook, just to find out how such attempts are stopped. They could have simulated a high quality VR video of Donald and Milo making love. They could have held a teach-in on how modern methods of brain mapping are going to be used in interrogation and torture. Or created a fast, beautiful, comprehensive site giving step by step help and instructions for all manner of immigrants to enter the country both legally and illegally. If they wanted to be aggressive but get more favorable coverage, they could have held a “spit-in”, circling around the student union building before Milo spoke spitting on the sidewalk as frequently as possible with the help of various foods or for the die-hards even (shudder) chewing tobacco. Or a “shit-in” where they queue up for the toilets in advance and take half an hour each, until Milo fans desperate for relief get routed on a wild goose chase halfway across campus. Or dozens of people could compete to be as fabulous as Milo Yannopoulos in a speaking contest (a “skit-in”?), then they all try to get admitted to the hall as the speaker. (It would help if a confederate asked to “see his ID to figure this out” on the way in, then pass it to one of the impersonators. I should add I don’t *want* to see his free speech denied, but if something is funny enough it is hard to resist…) But how much better it would be if they could simply find among their number a modern philosopher who can write down the principles of liberalism in a persuasive logical derivation that is approachable to the masses, then publicize it to the world! They say philosophy majors can’t get a job, and when we look around at what’s going on in the world that certainly appears to be the case – yet the students could create one.
I am no where near out of ideas – why are they?
@JB: The generation gap is that when Berkeley first gained its reputation, college in California was free. Now it costs something like $28,000 a year for kids to live on-campus (though I don’t know if all those expenses were covered before). Though scholarships and aid still exist, they grow ever stingier, and as a result, universities are reverting to being upper-class institutions.
Yes in my youth I almost moved to California for free education. I believe room and board was extra but education was affordable and I had a GI Bill of more value than today. Yes education has become a class thing. Tuition needs to be reigned in campuses are much too luxury oriented and fund activities that do not directly benefit students. Education can be Spartan but effective. I would also like to see some of Bernie’s ideas for funding education along with a scholarship program that bases repayment on a small percent of salary thus weighting repayment to when you are well established not a start-up. Both society and individual should have skin the the education game.
Universities are all just NOW becoming elite institutions? …………. THIS is your argument? Buddy. You should think on this.
I love the smell of instant karma in the morning.
I had to check twice to see that this wasn’t the MSNBC or FOX news site.
You can’t justify violence b saying you were provoked. Milo’s book sales are going to go through the roof again, just like after the last protest.
Set up a podium across from the guest speaker and talk about the success of the women’s rights movement and civil rights and free speech.
This kind of protest only helps people like Milo and Brock and defending it in print hurts the Progressive movement.
Please don’t confuse the peaceful protest of the progressives with Antifa…the article clearly differentiates them. Same mistake is made when those declare the white-supremacists as everyone on the conservative right.
i’m not confusing anything,read the article Mike. “he was seen taunting the protesters”. this is not a reason to attack someone. this not the first time that this has happened, twice at berkley and once in NYC. this only makes progressives look like lunatics and racists look like reasonable people.
Meanwhile, what actually occurred, and the coverage of the events that took place on the UC Berkeley campus involve a wide chasm. A typical rendering, by pseudo journalists, is that a violent grouping of Black Bloc protesters went ballistic with the employment of violent tactics, while in reality, an individual in the Black Bloc hit a fascist Milo supporter. Somehow the decision, of an individual in the Black Bloc, to hit a neo fascist Milo supporter has been taken by various reporters to be a stark instance of anarchist violence. It’s unfortunate that many people project blame onto fellow protesters as the reason for distorted portrayals by corporate media when, indeed, the real sources of falsity involve the protection of special interest agendas. Resistance, even when being on the best of its behavior, cannot avoid lies by journalists who blindly transcribe the government script of the unruly crowd.
“…accounts of his own behavior prior to the attack suggest that Brock might have come to campus looking for trouble.”
Ah, so it was the victim’s fault. He was asking for it, right? What a courageous article. Way to shine a light on the dark underbelly of Eddy Brock.
You’re welcome. Trump’s obese fanatic deserved to have his skull busted for getting in the face of the antifascists. Couldn’t happen to a more deserving Trumpanzee. Stop watching Hannity.
This is the appeal of fascism.
For instance, in (Minnesota)
Sometimes you blame the so-called “victim” because he/she knowingly provokes a violent response. The violence itself becomes the argument, thus defining the fascists’ terrain — streets, blood, and guns.
This happens.
What’s the difference between a provocateur and a victim?
It isn’t the blood.
And that’s the point of militancy.
It’s entirely about the blood.
This article seems more partisan than principled – not what I expect from the Intercept.
I had the same impression. Reminded me of when I read the N.Y. (com)Post.
What about their focus was false.? The author focused on Brock. I think their reporting was truthful, given the context of the article. There are enough articles about the violence, no need to be redundant. For instance, if I’m a reporter covering a murder but choose to focus on the story of the murderer leading up to the crime, although some may find that focus distasteful, doesn’t mean it’s false. That said, from a partisan perspective, I can understand why this article rubs some of you the wrong way.
There is a concerted effort by the right to discredit liberals but it’s not the right’s fault that these idiots fall for their childish trolling and strategic traps. Liberals claim to love facts; we claim to be smarter than the right. If they are constantly falling into these weak, predictable traps, then, I have to question these claims.
That said, liberal protesters need to be smarter. Agent provocateurs are everywhere now. Propaganda is rampant and more dangerous because it seems many Americans have no interaction with groups or lifestyles outside of their immediate world. You can easily distort anyone’s worldview who has limited life experience. It’s the 80s again. There are literally people in this country who can’t imagine how other cultures live. I’ll never understand how anyone can be comfortable with such ignorance. I guess if you don’t know, you don’t know, then, you won’t be interested in knowing.
So provo ‘Brock’ got all the attention ! Then provo ‘Mackey’ also wants attention : he writes a piece on how provocation works….but forgets to add a bloody picture of himself !
From the title, drained in blood, I suspected another comical story (Batman sort of like) of Mackey, which I decided not to read. From the comments I understand that Mackey is blaming a victim in his article.
Why should I read Mackey’s article?
Why dit Mackey write this article?
Is there anything that can be learned from this article? Or does the article’s content only lead to more anger between people without an apparant cause, as I suspect?
Sick minds. They seem to be everywhere.
FYI-None of these protestors causing violence or destruction are either educated intelligent activists or true Left progressive or socialists or whatever etc…
They are either infiltrators or agitators trying to disrupt things or sabotage the progressive/left movement and make truly progressive people look like nuts. Either that and I’m slightly leaning towards this myself as a true lefty, the modern liberal/pseudo left is actually quite ignorant and like most modern young Americans full of entitled delusional theories they have only heard about so uh…maybe that’s why so many movements now are seething with dangerous rabid so-called progressive liberals willing to hurt people to further their agenda and unwilling to consider another perspective. Not only that but many of them are anti-free speech and free discourse unable to discuss things openly. But they NOT left/progressive or even true liberals from what I’ve read/heard about liberalism. These people, are just assholes. Period.
Blechhh…..really sad to watch this happen. Maybe we’ll balance out after it runs it’s course.
Progressive leftist philosophy in a nutshell: “We think you have things we want.” An all-consuming materialism.
Learning how to protest is part of the university experience and it can be considered a responsibility of citizenship to protest against the representatives of fascism and white nationalism. Such protests should be peaceful, although some members of the left think violence is justified against right-wing fascists because it is the only authority that they understand.
The leftist product- and purchase-mandators, and effective self defense restrictors, and ‘Climate Science’ harpies, and employment law overseers, …call liberty “authoritarian.”
Look at the violence minded way that The Intercept’s progressive leftists write about this in comments. It’s a whole mindset.
God i really wish you right wing nut jobs get to secede so you can finally live in the redneck white trash dystopia you wanna live. Someone who supports a fascist demagogue who is destabilizing the nation and ruining it bit by bit with a stroke of a pen and who is about to turn it into an authoritarian crap hole, coming here whining about alleged violence by leftists who are protesting Der Fuehrer’s fascism has got to be one of the most blatant cases of projection ever.
You are projecting onto protesters (and brown people like Mexicans and muslims) the intent to harm which actually is the central tenet of Trump’s presidency.
You people are dangerous.
The irony, Ellen, is that after all that mocking and cajoling, it’s the leftists’ own back yard, California, that’s signing up to get Lincolned.
Lincolned?
You mean shot in the back of the head? Where’s the irony?
California isn’t the “leftists'” back yard anyway. It’s the Democrats’ back yard which offers the 6th largest economy in the world. Rather than carping like a fascist about the superiority of moderate policies compared to that of the Republicans, you should rethink your own ferocious idiocy.
Leftists prefer Che Guevera and Fidel Castro to Steve Jobs and Jerry Brown while the always militant Republicans admire Ayn Rand and Benito Mussolini.
Lincoln would have disowned today’s Republican party for the same reason he opposed slavery. He would repudiate any economic system based on coercion and systemic human indignity.
If you must remain ignorant, at least acknowledge you don’t know what you’re talking about.
But that’s the problem, init?
We understand progressives don’t do context without difficulty, but Lincolned means a seditious California and its West Coast confederates get roped back into the fold.
Republicans never changed, just as Democrats didn’t magically switch sides. The odds, wiltmellow.
Democrats are the party of crony capitalism to health “mafia,” and mandates and coercion, and territorial invasion domestically and abroad, and serfdom to an elite. Democrats are the advocates of TPP, of proletariat Peoples delegates, of borderless wage erosion, and black genocide via PP. Democrats are for the infantalization of inner cities rendered unemployed by low wage imported labor. Democrats are collectivism and control. Democrats hate the individual.
This is some of the most repugnant swill I have ever seen. The man wanted to get martyred? So fucking what. He knew he would get martyred because his opponents are the martyring type. How you swine can’t see that striking anyone for what they say, whatever they say is wrong at all times and in all circumstances unless their words are a direct call to violence. Brick is clearly not guilty of this and the Maoist bastards that did this are the worst of the worst.
Mao and his ilk are responsible for more death and destruction than the Nazis. Totalitarian leftists killed roughly four times the number Hitler was responsible and it is this holier than thou social justice shit that leads down that path. “I can kill him, he’s a fascist,” is not far from “I can beat him because he’s a Trumpist.”
Glorifying these leftist fuck sticks, justifying their violence is far, far, far beyond the pale.
I can understand what the Trump supporters motivations are, volunteers and probably out of sense of defensiveness of media constant attacks. Can The Intercept report goes more depth on the side who started this, who are they? Who fund them? Who are the leaders?
This entire incident, and others like it, is the direct consequence of a culture of martyrdom and enshrined victimhood that permeates every aspect of modern American politics. If cheap emotional appeals to sympathy are the most effective means of persuasion, it only makes sense to try and create situations where you might be exposed to danger, consciously or unconsciously. As the patience and rationality of the American mind has slowly been eroded away by years of being force-fed substanceless popculture drivel, contextless pictures of bloodied faces with short sensationalist headlines will become the rule rather than the exception.
Is the author saying hitting this guy was justified?? Because ‘he asked for it’? Aren’t you condoning violence based on another person’s legal and non-violent self-expression? Ghandi ‘asked for it’ too.
Isn’t it time for Mackey to find a new job? Fer christ’s sake. . . It’s not even news. Unless this is what Pierre Omidyar wants. Guess he doesn’t want any stories about EBay tax avoidance schemes – gosh, wouldn’t Trump deregulation help that out?
http://www.smh.com.au/business/comment-and-analysis/ebay-base-laid-bare-in-court-case-20151001-gjzemk.html
Investigate that one, Mackey. Snarf. Who do you think you’re fooling?
why are you reading the article if you don’t think it’s news? can you explain that one a bit, for everyone to better understand your contribution to the conversation? at this point, I am a little lost.
I only read Mackey to find out what kind of PR his boss wants fed to the public. Sort of a waste of time, but interesting in that respect.
Are you paid to do that? How is that fun? Seriously, I’m curious.
http://www.blackagendareport.com
How the left got conned into supporting the globalist neocon agenda via DNC identity politics…
“Leave it to Barry” with Brother Glenn Ford, Sister Hillary Clinton, Brother in Arms Chris Hedges and Step Brother Barak Obama as “the Barry…”
https://www.rt.com/shows/on-contact/374680-obama-wars-corporate-interests/
http://www.blackagendareport.com
So in summary, a fucking asshat Trump and *shudder* Milo supporter, known for starting shit for YouTwitFace fame and for generally being a dick and a troll, decides to start more dick-trollish shit and gets punched for it?
Yay! I’m cool with that.
Good article, except for one major point: Antifa and Black Bloc are absolutely not the same thing. The BB has been a thorn in the side of Antifa groups for ages, as they have only a nihilistic ideology aimed at thwarting every other communities solidarity and meaningful progress. Antifa has the goal of promoting respect, unity and understanding between all people, while the Black Bloc does its damnest to tear it all down again and destroy the message. Also, in the photo of a protester, that flag being carryied is Antifa, not the Anarchists, or the Black Blocs.
Well, I seem to have run out of friends here at the Intercept.
Perhaps I can finally quit this place!
In closing, y’all should check this out. No, it isn’t entirely right (what is?), but it makes some very good points:
Chill, America, not every Trump outrage is outrageous.
Don’t let the barn door hit you on the way out.
This is a barn? I suppose I should have known, since you’re such a horse’s ass.
Now that is funny stuff – Johnny Carson
Read your WaPo link…I have to agree with comment “wkncoz”
9:47 PM CST
“Mr Nichols you mistake panic for anger. Anger which will not abate. The pure anger that a truly reprehensible, failed and deceitful businessman with no public service record is now president.”
Well, good luck with that.
Why, I sympathize your views.
I wouldn’t classify pro-corporate gov that cracks up on liberties and workers’ rights, as farthest on the fascist spectrum. It needs to establish control over all branches of power to be rightfully called so.
Back in the days, 1920-1930, economic crisis years, this sort of governments tended to have loyal violent street orgs that used terror tactics against a poor majority.
Social-democrats followed this route too, employing pro-bourgeouis street militants. German marxist socialists branded them as ‘nazis’.
Dropping a WaPo link that tries normalize the incompetent President is nothing more than road apples on the trail. It seems you stepped in it.
Well, I got the link from here, so you should tell Glenn about the ‘road apples':
Glenn Greenwald Twitter
Interesting article Maisie. It certainly calls a lot of the left’s anti-Trump hysteria into question.
Promises, promises….
This place is full of loonies. I wrote Greenwald and Scahill, asking if anything could be done about that. I was ignored. Maybe they like it that way? Maybe Omidyar’s luring Greenwald here was an effort to neuter him? After all, Omidyar is part of the Oligarchy. I’ll still read Greenwald’s articles, because they’re still spot-on, for the most part. But the destruction of the comments sections really limits their effectiveness, IMO.
Oh, and I agree with many of the comments here–this article is trash. Mackey’s articles are often trash.
When you claim to fight violence and intolerance by being violent and intolerant, you’re sort of missing the point. These ‘anti-facists’ seem very similar to certain fellows in 1930’s Germany, who would show up at their political opponents rallies specifically to start fights. They chose brown for their color, these morons prefer black. Absolute fools, so dense they can’t see the raging hypocrisy of their actions staring them in the face. The only partial excuse is that they may be too young to have learned better- I certainly had some goofy ideas in my early 20’s, but they never involved beating up my political opponents, either….
“But the destruction of the comments sections really limits their effectiveness, IMO.”
The “destruction”, as Mona has noted as well, is that people are no longer able to bitch-slap every person with the claim a disturbance has occurred in someone’s moral compass.
Character assassins are not happy.
I hope you’ll stay; you’re a woman with intelligence, passion, and humor. I look for and read your posts.
It’s frustrating to see the Deep State so clearly while it remains hidden in plain sight from many others, but that makes your insights all the more valuable.
You’ve earned my respect and admiration.
Maisie’s gotten frustrated before and said she’s leaving for good. I don’t think she will.
Sometimes I disagree with her — I didn’t know what she expected a lot of us to say when she denounced older people as older people. (Something to the effect of not having properly assumed the progressive mantle, dropping the ball.) But she ascribed it to her “mood.”
To be sure, at times she’s very insightful. I think she’ll stick around. She just gets upset from time to time and takes a brief break.
Thank you for exposing Eddy Brock. Moving forward, we must be expect more provocateurs of division and violence. We have to remove the platform of extremism at home by further denouncing its divisive and hate filled tactics. The most important word in what I just wrote is, ‘we’.
What Makey seems to say is that “he asked for it” and the implication is that he deserved it. This is the EXACT line of reasoning used by those, let’s say, defending a Muslim rapist by blaming the victim because the way she was dressed or the way she moved made the rape inevitable. I believe that the do advise women in places such as Germany and maybe Sweden to dress modestly if planning to be in areas frequented by Muslims so Makey’s expectation that normal people do not ‘provoke’ the Antifa creeps seems to be following one of the more absurd twists that the PC and social justice ‘thinking’ has recently adopted.
For someone who claims to be ‘a journalist’ to do this is beyond repulsive. Is there a good explanation why Makey and his ilk are still employed by The Intercept?
Um, ask the proprietor.
Yeah, I’m wondering how Makey would cover, let’s say, a Queer or cross-dressers parade in… I don’t know… Utah? if one of the ‘demonstrators’ was as much as yelled at by a normal person who happened to be in the area.
Nowhere in the article did I read where Robert MacKey suggests that the provocateur deserved anything other than what the provocateur clearly desired and promoted. You really go overboard with the non-sequitur and straw-man.
Arth is a provocateur here at The Intercept sent over from Breitbart comics.
You mean like a woman who, in the overheated mind of a Muslim rapist dresses provocatively by… I don’t know… showing her ankle, deserves to be raped?
Seriously, the very nature and purpose of street demonstrations is provocation: people gather together and do things they don’t normally do like shouting/screaming in unison or carrying signs that read ‘Dykes Rule’… whatever. So for a ‘journalist’ like Makey ‘exposing’ the unheard and unbelievable incident where someone dared to provoke the provocateurs and imply that he got what he deserved when he got punched in face is, I am sorry for having to say it, as idiotic as idiocy gets. And assuming that Makey is an idiot is giving him the benefit of the doubt because the alternative is placing him into the same basket with those despicable and irremediable subhumans who justify rape by blaming the victim.
Your Muslim rapist comments are ironic considering you voted for a USA president that states he sexually assaults women by grabbing them by their carpets.
Read the quote from Makey I provided on my first comment. you want me to quote it again? Okay, here it is:
I believe you do recall – oh well… attention spans are short these days – how horrible Drumph was accused of tolerating the use of violence against those attempting to disrupt his rallies which, by the way, were NOT street demonstrations. That was considered unacceptable, nay frightening. Of course, now we know that it was Clinton’s campaign or affiliated orgs paying the disruptors for disrupting and even promising to pay their medical and possible legal bills if needed. Anyways, to make the story short, Drumph and his staff were VERY aware of possible physical violence at their rallies and were constantly reminding the audience to NOT use violence against any disruptor, even violent disruptors but call the security staff instead.
No wonder Drumph got elected and the Antifa creeps are among the losers. Probably because ‘losers’ is part of their nature so they are going to continue to live their loser miserable lives, occasionally brightened by opportunities where they could break a window or overturn some peaceful person’s car or punch a counter-provocateur in the face.
Resist!!! lol
Arth: “What Makey seems to say is that ‘he asked for it’ and the implication is that he deserved it. This is the EXACT line of reasoning used by those, let’s say, defending a Muslim rapist by blaming the victim…”
No, the typical rape victim is not planning to create an incident in which she can portray herself as a martyr, while Eddie Brock was DEFINITELY attempting to create an incident so that he could portray himself as a martyr. Thus, the underlying intentionality between these two cases is completely different.
“This is the EXACT line of reasoning used by those, let’s say, defending a Muslim rapist by blaming the victim because the way she was dressed or the way she moved made the rape inevitable. ”
Actually that’s not an appropriate parrellel to this situation. The woman you describe is not dressed that way and acting provocatively in the hopes of getting raped so that she could get video evidence that condemns all men as rapists. She is just wearing what she wants.
Regardless clearly Brock wanted to get hit. I wish that folks would have recognised that and deprived him of his moment by ignoring his antics. That would have ruined his day.
Way to let your xenophobic flag fly with your “Muslim” rapist example…like it’s not easy enough to find “Christian” rapists right here at home.
No one ever defends the rapist. This is the black and white argument the right uses to fuel their insanity and justify their hatred. It infuriates me that Americans are so gullible, especially when reasonable people, who know how to think try to wake them up out of their stupor. Here’s a perfect example that worked, which everyone can see now.
We all remember Iraq. Leading up to the war, millions of clear thinkers were pleading with the right, telling them that it was all a lie. For their efforts, they were called terrorist sympathizers. It infuriates me that people can never read between the lines. They just latch on to an emotional issue to smear entire groups or confirm their bias. Politicians are constantly exploiting such weak minds.
People assume the holocaust and slavery will never happen again. But, if you add up all the human trafficking, wars and genocides since WW2, we’ve surpassed all those events. Too many of us are willfully ignorant, always choosing tribalism, greed and power rather than rational thought or respect for our fellow man. We will always repeat history because oftentimes, the people in power recreate history for those who never make an effort to know, which is the majority.
I wish I could exist indefinitely in a parallel universe to observe whether or not humanity makes it. I think our demise will either come from lack of clean water, climate change (which will destroy a fragile ecosystem) or some idiot will actually convince the public that nuclear war is winnable. Smart, educated people promote this insanity, which I can never understand.
There we go again :)
So., in your twisted logic – smoking stuff? – you MUST go into the victim’s mind and determine whether ‘she asked for it’ and, IF she KNEW that it’s unsafe to show ‘face’ or ‘ankle’ in an area where Muslims live then, like the guy Makey is exposing here, she DESERVED it because she PROVOKED it.
Following your logic, Queers and cross-dressers deserve to be trashed just for showing their assets in public an are absolutely ‘asking for it’ if they enter a bikers bar. Oh, and whitey better not walk unescorted in a so-called ‘black’ neighborhood because ‘being white’ is offensive there. You WOULD defend the aggressors in all of these cases, right? Because the victims ‘asked for it’.
Again, let me explain this to you one more time and I will use caps for that:
ORGANIZED STREET DEMONSTRATIONS ARE PLANNED PROVOCATIONS
So accusing a provocateur of ‘provoking’ the provocateurs is as stupid as stupid can possibly be. Or, like I said, Makey may have a hardon on Antifa and does this idiotic ‘expose’ because he loves those creeps so much.
Just to explain, again, for the feeble-minded, where I stand. Women should NEVER be raped, no matter whether they act provocatively nor not and people’s freedom of speech is ABSOLUTE in this country when exercised in public spaces. Your attempt to defend the Antifa creeps violence is stupid, disgusting and ill-advised and your near-infinite hypocrisy is proven by your hysteria over Drumph’s supporters allegedly ‘beating’ the provocateurs that Hillary’s campaign was dispatching to their rallies.
For those of you who can follow a 16-minute fact-based investigation that proves what I stated in the paragraph above, watch the video below. Six million others watched it so it’s probably safe but caution is advised because it may shatter your programming.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IuJGHuIkzY&t=5s
It is quite possible that it was the video above that triggered Makey’s pique and jealousy and made him produce his sorry little post at the Intercept.
Oh, and as I am watching RT (of course) now, I see that the Antifa monkeys also set on fire as ‘a power generator’. I also see one smashing a store window. Did the generator and the window provoked them too?
Seriously, WHAT are you defending here?
By the way, the RTs are making fun of them. “It’s okay” to break things they say “for as long as you recycle the debris”. LOL and I’m sure you agree with the RT in this instance. Right?
Resist!!!!! and, of course RECYCLE!!!
Trump worries about Mexican rapists.
It should be Okay for the Mexican rapists to rape Trump’s supporters. Because they are asking for it by supporting someone who opposes the admission of Mexican rapists into the country.
Yes, Arth…that’s why we are building a fabulous, giant wall across the Mexican border…”we”, the American tax payers, our children, and grandchildren, will be paying for the anti-rape fortress. That’ll teach those Mexicans!
If you’d rather be raped by Mexicans, moving to Mexico well… it’s not so easy. They are a lot stricter when it comes to dealing with ‘undocumented furryners’ than we are.
Hey Bob,
I do believe that you got this story right – Eddy Brock was clearly seeking the very response he got. If fact, his behavior immediately reminded me of a Black Lives Matters activist, Mercurio Southall, who attended a Trump rally with the purpose of disrupting it for the purpose of provoking a violent response – all with the intention of further fostering the BLM claim that Trump’s supporters were violent racists.
Inspired by the violence inducing, fame seeking actions of Mercurio Southall, the Intercept’s own resident racist and plagiarizer, Juan Thompson, attempted to pull a similar stunt at a subsequent Trump rally. In the failed attempt to provoke a story-worthy violent response by dint of his own presence, he was reduced to fabricating an elaborate story about himself being verbally accosted by racist trump supporters. And although he purportedly attended the Trump rally with the express intention of recording the response of Trump supporters to the intended disruptions of Black Lives Matters attendees, he inexplicably failed to make even a cell phone recording of his own alleged experience.
Oh, and then there was the PBS interview of Mayor Andrew Young who told the story of a fame seeking Jesse Jackson sticking his hands in a pool of MLK’s blood and wiping it on his shirt with the intention of nurturing a false narrative of MLK dying in his arms.
Yes there is no depth to which fame seekers will sink in pursuit of their fifteen minutes.
While I have your attention Bob. I am curious as to why the actions of Black Bloc got so little attention in your article. As various agent provocateurs have been repeatedly caught posing as violent black Bloc radicals while actually working with Canadian Polices forces, I am curious as to why their current actions were not scrutinized and reported with equal interest by you.
You despicable, lying asshole.
Here’s what Andy Young actually said.
1. Was Jesse Jackson on the balcony with Reverend King when he bled to death as he originally claimed?
2. Did Ralph Abernathy lie when he wrote these words about Jesse Jackson in his autobiography: “Yes,” Jesse was saying, “I was the last person he spoke to as I was cradling him in my arms.”
3. Did Jesse Jackson appear before the Chicago City Council wearing a blood-stained shirt and declare that he had been wearing it the previous evening when he “held a [dying] Martin” in his arms?
4. Was Atlanta City Council Member Hosea Williams lying when he said, “I saw the blood on Jesse’s shirt and I know Jesse had not been near Dr. King.”
5. Was the Washington Post lying when it gave this account of the controversy surrounding Jackson’s repeated false claims of cradling a MLK in his arms:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1988/04/03/jackson-and-king-examining-the-legacy-after-20-years/84005843-6a27-44e6-ad2f-87f70ed8e1e0/?utm_term=.6a317d16cb75
Do you write for the Black Agenda Report?
The Black Agenda Retort?
Act like a target and you’ll get shot, eh?
Engaging in physically aggressive behaviors against an organized group of anti-fascists who have a history of employing violent black bloc tactics is a surefire way of inducing an intended violent response. There are elements on both ends of the political spectrum who believe that their intended ends can be realized through the incitement of violence. However, the predictable outcome of such violence will be the further empowerment of law enforcement agencies and the passage of more repressive laws. Georgetown historian Carrol Quigley once wrote that the level of democratization of any society was determined by the ratio of arms held by its citizens vs those possessed by their government. The amount of fire power that our government has at its immediate disposal suggests that a severe erosion of democratic institutions is inevitable. A widespread use of violence in the pursuit of political change will be reflexively labeled as terrorism and therefore set the stage for a level of repression that more accurately reflects the insurmountable level of power that is currently held by those who truly make and enforce policy. As a point of fact, false flag, reactionary political violence attributed to the left has been affected by agent provocateurs from the right for decades throughout much of the world. Law enforcement agencies in the US and Canada have repeatedly used agent provocateurs to incite the type of violence which allows for the uncontested passage of evermore repressive legislation; Seattle in 1999, Vancouver in 2012, Montreal in 2016 are examples we actually know about. Of course the British used the same tactics against the Irish. And Operation Gladio set the stage for political violence that shaped the political landscape of a significant number of European countries from 1945 to the present.
The world needs a museum of fascism so that the term can, at long last, be retired.
That can happen after tribes that divorced armies from citizens so they could whore for plutocrat filth become the vague memories of curators’ elderly great – grandchildren, which will never happen.
OK, so maybe this fat guy is a troll. Still doesn’t justify physical violence.
McKay completely ignores the woman who got pepper sprayed on live TV for wearing a ‘Make Bitcoin Great Again’ hat. (link: http://www.fox5ny.com/news/233358586-story)
If that doesn’t show that some of the antifas were resorting to needless violence then I don’t know what does.
Calling these morons Nazis is crying wolf.
Nazis don’t give a hoot about niceties, and the alt-right are no more actually Hitlerian than socialists are Trotskyites.
Y’all sound like mirror-versions the morons who think Bernie Sanders wants a Marxist utopia.
Well, just as some socialists are, indeed Trotskyists (the preferred, non-disparaging term)*, some of the “alt-right” are certainly neo-Nazis.
Richard Spencer, who coined the term, loves quoting Nazi propaganda and the elements of the “movement” who are committed to white supremacism, white nationalism, etc. share important key characteristics with the Nazis.
* Very smart Trotskyists publish sharp and interesting analysis, here, almost every day.
Sure. And Barack Obama was a Kenyan Muslim socialist with a far-left agenda that helped the Bolsheviks.
Sharing traits with Nazis – well, it’s the traits of murder, torture and flagrant totalitarian oppression that actually matter and warrant aggressive histrionics.
Stop crying wolf, or you’ll have no resources if actual fascism surfaces and you need the assistance of people who no longer take you seriously.
In fact, the Deep State and the military-industrial complex that Obama and Trump both support shares more of the atrocious traits of Nazis – why is no one aggressively opposing that directly?
Partisanship and agendas. Brainwashed by the media, that’s why.
Have you forgotten whom you’re addressing, Maisie?
More than “who,” Maisie?
Excuse me? I think you may need to pay better attention.
Go read the WSWS site I linked to for you. It will be time better spent than hanging around here yelling at the wrong people.
Empty, patronizing comments are unworthy of you, or should be. But I’m not surprised that’s all you’ve got.
Of course I know whom I’m addressing. Who you are doesn’t exclude you from being wrong!
The Deep State and military-industrial complex share more traits with Nazis than the alt-right does, certainly at this point.
Linking to the World Socialist website proves what, exactly? That you consider yourself a Trotskyite, presumably. At no point did I suggest you weren’t, so why you bring the site up is unknown to me – unless you are also mistakenly assuming I believe sober Marxist analysis is irrelevant.
Again, angrily and vociferously crying wolf about these pretentious twits (or even about some of the less antagonistic behavior of Trump and his administration) at this juncture is counterproductive and wastes energy. Virulent protest will lose needed momentum if expended at mere upstarts – and if something truly outrageous should need widespread resistance in the future, proponents of current hair-on-fire, sky-is-falling “they must not speak” radicalism are going to be asked rightly if their objections are on a par with this lesser degree of alarm.
Grow up, Maisie. You’re acting like a spoiled and defiantly-ignorant brat.
And now your patronizing tone swells into inflamed superiority! At least you resisted threatening me with a spanking… Well, since I’m not the one in a mood right now I’ll overlook your ageist pomposity just as you kindly allowed my “eat the old coots” fanfare the other day.
But you should really make an effort to be less full of yourself; sometimes you
belligerently regard your opinion as infallible, but no amount of bluster can substitute for actual critical thinking – which in this regard you appear unfortunately lacking.
Steve Bannon prefers the term Leninist, which comes from Marxism and is a variant of Socialism.
Oh, you’re just trying to make me stay, you sweet-talker.
I think the ‘alt-right’ doesn’t actually see the difference between Trotskyites, Socialists, or democratic socialists, but thanks for the heads-up about Bannon’s preferred terminology.
Often Democrats don’t care whether someone on the right is a libertarian, a paleo-conservative or a neocon or even a reactionary (ultraconservative), but similarly puts them all together even though there really are distinctions.
Partisanship does these sorts of things, and the establishment loves the blunt divisiveness, as it helps them rule the duped masses with simple dogwhistles.
I’m pretty sure that riots and street fights were pretty common in interwar Germany and if anything helped the Nazis eventually take control. So yeah this is not really the best solution.
Riots and street fights were very common, but the Wehrmacht, Krupps, Seimens, I.G. Farben, and voters were much more helpful. Oh, I almost forgot to credit The Union Banking Corporation. Sound familiar to you, American?
Siemens
For me the masked Americans are heroes and freedom fighters. The “violence is never justified” BS goes against nature itself, and plays directly into the hands of the right wing (who don’t typically get punished for their violence). Rome took all the weapons away from Carthage, and then after Carthage had foolishly complied, the Romans erased their genome from history. The second amendment was written in recognition of this law of nature (not that guns can help the left wing now). Right wingers understand this and indeed are aroused by this knowledge. It’s why they think leftists are all sissies (no offense to our LGBT brothers and sisters). As the great Pancho Villa said “Muerte a pie, antes de vida en rodillas.” For the NSA readers, I am not myself part of the resistance to your rule, I am a count, not a saint, and choose not to die or be imprisoned in a last ditch attempt to save America and possibly humanity. Hate me for my selfishness, not for my rejection of the anti-violent swill. MLKJ and Ghandi were both assassinated and never achieved their goals of course.
“Fascism, the more it considers and observes the future and the development of humanity quite apart from political considerations of the moment, believes neither in the possibility nor the utility of perpetual peace. It thus repudiates the doctrine of Pacifism — born of a renunciation of the struggle and an act of cowardice in the face of sacrifice. War alone brings up to its highest tension all human energy and puts the stamp of nobility upon the peoples who have courage to meet it. All other trials are substitutes, which never really put men into the position where they have to make the great decision — the alternative of life or death….”
You sound like Mussolini.
Source: http://legacy.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/mussolini-fascism.asp
MLK and Ghandi certainly did achieve much; Dr. King ended legally sanctioned segregation and Ghandi got England out of India eventually. You’re wrong that nonviolence never works. Each situation is different and must be analyzed as such in order to determine whether violence or nonviolence is the proper way to go. The Soviet Union and its satellites were not overthrown by violence, for example.
A few things:
1) Fascism is dangerous and harmful. These protests are NOTHING compared to the real damage and harm fascist Trump and his authoritarian administration will do to this country and its people.
2) This country was not founded on peaceful means. Let us not forget that.
3) Maybe I missed that part in the history books where peaceful demonstrations and diplomacy stopped the Nazis.
4) Please, folks, educate yourselves on what Free Speech and the first amendment is: . Free speech is the right to speak your mind without government censorship and without fear of legal consequences by the government and its agents when you do so. Free speech does not include the right to be believed or to be taken seriously. People may mock, ridicule or laugh at what you say, or they may reject it outright and even protest it. Free speech doesn’t include the right to be listened to. People who don’t desire to hear your opinion can hang up on you, change the channel, block you, throw tomatoes and lettuce at you, close the browser tab or boycott you.
In other words, private citizens can protest someone’s speech or attempt at speech all they want. That is THEIR first amendment right.
Finally, free speech doesn’t include the right to suffer no consequences whatsoever for your expressed opinions. The state cannot come after you for doing so, but private citizens can. No one OWED that fascist Milo a platform to express his opinion.
Thanks for that.
Well said Ellen. #3 should resonate with even the thickest skulls.
While nonviolence might be a great tool and might be the moral high ground (though not always), it’s unnatural and takes a lot of self-sacrifice if not martyrdom. All animals defend themselves with violence when attacked, that’s the natural thing to do. And in situations where nonviolence doesn’t work, it’s the only thing to do.
> People may mock, ridicule or laugh at what you say, or they may reject it outright and even protest it. Free speech doesn’t include the right to be listened to. People who don’t desire to hear your opinion can hang up on you, change the channel, block you,
throw tomatoes and lettuce at you, close the browser tab or boycott you.all of that is ok. but the invited speaker was prevented from speaking, and that IS a denial of free speech
> No one OWED that fascist Milo a platform to express his opinion.
the platform was granted by the university. a sizeable audience was interested in hearing milo speak. if we don’t respect someone’s right to speak under those circumstances then the right to free speech is meaningless
The government did not deny the fascist to talk, people did by protesting it. That is not free speech violation. Throwing lettuce at someone may not be very neighborly, but 1) such is the nature of PROTESTS and 2) it is still not the government prventing anyone from exercising their right to speak.
And yeah, the university allowed it, people protested it. That is how it goes. Again, not a first amend violation. The government didnt say you cant talk or we’ll lock you up if you do. That the university decided not to pursue this due to safety reasons is also not a first amendment violation.
You are holding the torch for the wrong people and are on the wrong side of history too. Unless you learned nothing from the Third Reich. Politicial disagreement is one thing but Republicans and the neo fascists that make up our Administration should be the last ones talking about denial of rights when their entire platter is designed to not only do just that to swatch of people but to also harm them. Let’s put this in perspective here.
> And yeah, the university allowed it, people protested it. That is how it goes. Again, not a first amend violation.
they did more than just protest it, they shut it down. but you’re right, there was no 1st amendment violation. i never said there was. i said there was a denial of free speech. i said ‘ if we don’t respect someone’s right to speak under those circumstances then the right to free speech is meaningless’. does it make a huge difference if the censorship is performed by the government or a self-righteous mob? i don’t know. i condemn both types of censorship. if you believe in free speech you defend the right of ALL speakers to be heard and object to all forms of censorship
It absolutely makes a difference who censors. I mean that is sort of the whole point of free speech and First Amendment, namely that the GOVERNMENT does not get to stop you from saying what you want or, as you say, deny it to you. What other entities do, such as private citizens or even a corporation, that is not denial of free speech. They dont owe it to give us a platform to say what we want.
A corporation, for example, cannot deny you the right to free speech because it is not theirs to deny to begin with.
Like when you are on a blog, the blog owner can delete your comment if they dont like what you say. They can even block you as well as impose rules with respect to the way you may conduct yourself. They can do that because they are a private entity. But the government cannot do such thing. They cant go after you for saying what you want to say and punish you. Everyone else can, and that is THEIR first amendment right. For example, customers can boycott your products or protest you or criticize you or hold a press conference embarrassing you or say you cannot speak at their rally.
But you know what a First Amendment violation is? Stopping people from protesting and criticizing others. Fascist Trump threatening to cut off funding to Berkeley, now THAT is a First Amendment violation. He cannot deny government funding on the basis that Cal students are protesting, even if those turn violent.
Trump’s Twitter response will be a violation, if he acts upon it:
“If U.C. Berkeley does not allow free speech and practices violence on innocent people with a different point of view – NO FEDERAL FUNDS?”
No one prevented him from speaking. All they did was make his speaking engagement more expensive for all contracted parties. If they couldn’t shell out for more guards, or generally pay to “plan better” with a more secure venue or a plan B, then why does he get to speak? He’s a very privileged guy, yes? This is all about his “brand”? lol It shows in his laziness to properly plan this out. Is he a capitalist or a socialist? What’s he want, tax-funded police at his beck and call? That’s not how it works in a democracy.
No one prevented him from speaking? Have you never heard of the “Heckler’s Veto”? Who is to decide who is allowed to speak and who isn’t? Violence will only beget violence. Is that really what you want?
Lets just say you have something to say and I don’t want to hear that and I give you a very serious warning, that if you say that I will highly likely physically (maybe breaking all your teeth) hurt you very badly. I will blame it on your “laziness” and “lack of planning” or “just being plane annoying”. I might even say that the thing you are about to say is all about your “brand”, which clearly gives me the right to break your teeth. Honestly I would have loved if the world worked that way, imagine all the idiots that I could have just shut down with just my fists. No discussion and logic necessary, just my emotional need…I truly hope that people who think your way get a taste of their medicine sometime.
Congrats! You just described the way our world actually works. Did you only post to agree with me? If you personally don’t feel like your voice is being heard, then maybe you should just try harder.
How come nobody is asking why anyone would want to listen to that human make sounds with his vocal chords? Seriously, why? I guess its like the people who slow down to look at a car accident? I guess a better metaphor would be that we like to look at non accidental car crashes more than real “accidents”. That dude is trying to piss people off, it’s not by chance.
Finally someone said something coherent.
Just take responsibility for being or supporting violent idiocy – whether you’re the “left,” the “right,” or “anarchists,” or agents provocateurs, or the State.
Just be honest, jackasses of the USA – you don’t mind violence being perpetrated against people you don’t like, because you’re defective mentally and morally.
You could be President Obama or President Trump, or a writer or commenter for the Intercept, but come on, admit you like seeing people you find inconvenient being assaulted, and things being smashed up the way a toddler having a tantrum explodes on its surroundings.
Admit it.
Yes, schadenfreude can be a balm to the brain.
Let me get this right… it’s okay for PROTESTORS to use speech and numbers to block protected speech… but because this dude BROCK did it… and was taunting protesters… he DESERVED to be attacked.
I suppose if this story was about a woman being RAPED… the author would be talking about the provocative attire of the woman who was raped… and how she had it coming to her for provoking horny violent misogynists.
Mackey has a simple equation: only the right-wing deserves criticism.
Use common sense. He asked for it. Why? Because the footage gives him deceptive YouTube video thumbnail fodder, and that imagery, selected and taken out of context to make him look like a victim (lol quite hard imo), are then used to promote poorly produced anti-government clickbait vids to his (apparently?) right-wing followers (Can’t say for sure, never heard of him until today, and obviously won’t bother searching for his crap based on this shit).
The protestors aren’t fighting for Google ad dollars …. Get it? Common sense tells me that makes their actions authentic, and therefore based in pride, which appeals to me. The big bleeding boy? He does not appeal to me. He’s fake, and arrogant, and wreaks of FEAR …. lol of course he’d get trampled and bleed. That’s what happens when fake meets real.
Just deserts…”a punishment or reward that is considered to be what the recipient deserved.” Brock was rewarded.
The intercept is no longer reporting news objectively. You’ve strayed into the biased world of CNN, the Daily Beast, Fox News. You have failed. I guess the pressure was to great for you to maintain objectivity.
The person who became violent is at fault. Nothing anyone says can force another to act. If that were so it would be magic. Maybe you believe magic exists? I don’t. It is always the fault of the actor. I see no evidence of Brock attacking anyone.
The Intercept has never pretended to “report news objectively.” That’s not what the site is about. Sorry you were confused.
Or at least fighting words.
“Nothing anyone says can force another to act. ”
Sure, pull the tiger’s tail until he turns … effin brilliant.
And as an interesting counterpoint, the “professor watchlist.”
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/dec/02/us-universities-professor-watchlist-free-speech
Long ago, on a university campus Somewhere in America, a small group of us were discussing the fact that our antiwar activities had resulted in efforts by some horrified bureaucrats to deny us access to student loans. The federal loan program was then known as the “National Defense Student Loan” program.
A nearby student, overhearing the discussion, snarled, “You’re lucky you aren’t in the USSR. You’d be shot for treason!”
The fellow sitting next to me: “Right. In America they’ll just starve us to death, very, very slowly.”
The USA government did manage to maim and kill a number of protesting students back then.
Since the piece you linked touched the religion study subject, I’ll expand the topic. Official religious orgs can try to hijack studies of their own respective religions in universities, as it is currently happening in contemporary “Russia-of-liberal-democratic-choice”.
Russia to produce divinity specialists
Berkeley is spiraling out of control. This is what happens when you turn a world-class research university into a safe place: Folks are just NOT open to listen to different opinions.
“pre-emptive self-defense”. ha, what a great excuse for violence. They are just fueling conservative and the alt-right groups. I expected UCB students to be smarter than this. When the counter-offensive starts, it will be too late.
Berkeley is spiraling out of control?
Perhaps Bezerkley was never “in the control of” wallstreet thieves, the dumb&dumbers, the whore media and the mil war profiteers after National Guardsmen shot and killed James Richter.
Et to Julius?
It was specifically the Black Block that spiraled out of control here Jules not Pat Browns, Ronald Reagans or Ed Meeses UC Berkeley or genuinely progressive Berkeley as a whole you revisionist swine.
What? Oh, I guess you forgot to consider the facts.
Berkeley is not spiraling out of control; I live here and it’s just fine.
Hate speech is not a legitimate opinion that anyone needs or should be forced to hear. This is all the fault of the U.C. Berkeley Republicans, who invited this idiot in order to provoke the sane people on campus and in our town. And BTW, how much of an asshole do you have to be to be a Republican when you’re in college? It’s bad enough later in life, but really, in college?
Julius is probably the very last “conservative” in America to notice that looong “spiral.” ;^)
We’ve had occasion to quote Mario, here, fairly often recently. Here we go again:
How do you square that with the fact that John Yoo has been affiliated with Berkeley for over 20 years?
And Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory for more than 60 years.
Your banana republic-empire swirled down the tube some time ago. Berkeley is just a tiny chunk that got flushed down with Yoo.
How do you end up insinuating it was a conspiracy to de-legitimize the protesters when you show evidence in your own article that proves that assertion wrong. Plus there actual video proof from project veritas of Hillary Clinton operatives planning disruptions.
Mr. Brock has a nice man-bun.
One’s belief that “Ends justify ANY AND ALL MEANS” can come back to haunt with unexpected ENDS!!
The so called “anti-fascists” are more like “GOONDAS”. Their mindless violence against property/person should not be tolerated by anyone.
What kind of world it is where an individual’s provocation ends in retaliation with violence!! And the “violent ones” are pretending to be the guardians of …. whatever!!
AND, I thought, “freedom of speech” was someone else’s RIGHT to say something which I do not want to or do not like to hear!!!
Everything is standing on its head!
AND a reminder, there are “checks and balances” STILL in place….
if one does not like what the Prez does….
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/state-dept-reverses-visa-revocations-allows-banned-travelers-to-enter-us/2017/02/04/0ab5880a-eaee-11e6-bf6f-301b6b443624_story.html
The whole thing is pathetic, on all sides. If this was Berkeley in the 1960s, they’d be protesting Obama and Trump’s support for Saudi assault on civilians in Yemen, not some stupid right-wing blogger’s talk.
As far as so-called ‘Black Block’ they’ve been associated with COINTELPRO activiites ever since the Seattle WTO protests of 1999. For example:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D5RaaM3-YYk
“Canadian Police Caught Trying to Start a Riot @ Montebello 2007″
Follow the shiny ball!
You’re so right about what college students would be protesting in the 1960s, but this is true of all college students in the U.S., not just in Berkeley. Parents stopped parenting in this country 30-40 years ago, so now we have a bunch of self-centered assholes who either protest nothing or only protest things that affect them personally, like high college tuition. This country would have burned if Cheney and his band of war criminals tried to launch the Iraq War II in the ’60s.
“Every generation imagines itself to be more intelligent than the one that went before it, and wiser than the one that comes after it.”
George Orwell
I agree generally with this very general comment, but it doesn’t address the facts I mentioned or the issue I raised. When I was a kid we were taught to consider others at all times. I haven’t seen parents do that for decades, and the results are horrifying.
So….this guy Milo writes a book published by no less than Simon and Schuster and it rockets to number one on Amazon:
https://www.google.com/amp/www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/12/30/milo-rockets-to-2-spot-on-amazon-bestsellers-list-one-day-after-announcing-book/amp/?client=safari
He hasn’t even started the book tour yet and the MORONS at Berkeley (it doesn’t matter if they are Soros stooges/Hillary supporters, fascists, anti-fascists or just stoned students looking for their next Instagram posts), decide to STOP HIM FROM SPEAKING with violence and destruction of property.
As a result he goes on with Tucker Carlson for a half an hour and his book sales will now go even higher!
Heck, I think I will buy the damn book just to find out what the guy has to say!!
Let’s give all the KOOKS at Berkeley a great big “way to go!!!”
They all have it coming!
How many Berkelely student “kooks” were actually involved in the violence?
I honestly do not know how many “students” were there creating mayhem. It would be very interesting to know the breakdown of all the protesters though.
I believe anyone can walk onto the campus and I would bet that a sizeable number of the “protesters” were actually agents provacateurs, probably paid by “someone” to create havoc.
When I attended college the vast majority of students were intellectuals who would be open to listening to ANYONE give a speech just to have one more thing to dissect, discuss and to debate.
We feared NO words.
I am VERY disappointed in ANY “students” either at Berkeley or any other U.S. college campus who don’t have the class (no pun) and base intelligence to listen to ANYONE giving a speech on campus.
I actually felt the same way about buying the book. I wonder if the feel stupid when they understand that by their actions this guys is now more famous then he was before and now more Americans will know and hear his speech because of their actions.
So tired of stories consisting largely of Tweets. This is all news seems to be these days. Someone said this on Twitter, someone said that on Facebook.
Are Brock and Jeremy Scahill close?
Just asking.
Nice writing, mackey.
Maybe Eddy Brock wanted to be the next Horst Wessel.
“Some day, they’ll sing my song!”
“An eye for an eye makes the whole world go blind ” -Mahatma Gandhi
Where are righties assaulting anyone?
By contrast have a look at any number of progressive assaults on those who disagree with the left. If you doubt it do a YouTube search on terms: SEIU punch.
where are righties assaulting anyone?
did you forget the dude shooting up a black church or that dude shooting up a mosque? where da fuck do you live? the left will never catch up with the bodycount of right wing terrorism in north america.
Expand the way you define assault, and you may answer your own question. Here’s a link to get you started: http://www.dictionary.com/browse/attrition
You’re dealing with a troll, don’tcha know?
Honestly, I did. Seen it before. But we’re all technically anonymous here, so we’re all technically trolls… Good comment is still good comment. What can ya do.
I pretty much just laugh at them, with the occasional request for rationality.
I have the time, thank goodness.
This whole episode started with a deliberate provocation by Milo Yappypoodle, which means that this, of course, was a false-fag attack.
“…false fag…”
Hee-hee!
But seriously, I understand. There is no “bad publicity”. Mr. Yappypoodle is reveling in the attention.
Oh well that does it. How else is a black clad progressive leftist going to respond without getting violent?
Surely The Intercept believes Brock deserved to be physically assaulted because progressives never have a vocabulary to respond in kind.
Someone needs to seriously eff-up that obese ahole.
Can’t help but remember COINTELPRO, J. Edgar’s program of infiltration and disruption. So, how many in the crowd were informants or agents-provocateur?
How many TI commenters are JTRIG operatives?
An interesting question as well. Other commenter-provocateur suspects might include FSB, GRU, FBI and the odd bot.
No doubt but I suspect we could broaden that list of foreign intelligence services.
You were greatly missed and welcome back.
That term, “intelligence” services, is a tired old joke, like jumbo shrimp. Anyway, the ones with the most incentive are American and British, but I understand the need to deflect attention.
I agree. The ones with the most incentive are American and British.
I should qualify that and say Brits and Israelis are tied for 2nd place.
The perps are easily identifiable and well known to their long term targets.
Interesting that, this semester, it’s the anti-fascists that wear the black shirts (camiccie nere), and the GOP who are pro-Russia.
Black-Shirts are anti-fascists now? The majority of the GOP is now pro-Russia? I must not have been paying attention. Thanks for setting me straight on that.
But you are changing the subject. Is it because you have never been attacked by the US Stasi and know so little about their habits? There is only so much you can learn about the American Stasi from books, newspapers, and blogs. In fact, there is extremely little information in the public domain about the DDR’s Stasi, and only targets of the US Stasi can clue you up on what they have been up to. But I understand your incuriosity. You are American, right?
I’m starting to feel a little guilty for not feeling provoked.
And how many JTRIG operators are members of local law enforcement as Glenn’s original 2013 articles asserted?
Some of us who have committed most JTRIG tactics to memory remember that set of reveals to be more deeply buried deeper than ANY other Snowden disclosures by the political class, the MSM and most on line news aggregators.
E.S. and G.G. protects torturers’ identities. Those two are pampered, treacherous fucks to we who have been attacked. They are admired only by the ignorant or masochistic.
And the $$ is good enough to compensate for not being admired by the perps they are protecting.
Sucking it up is an admired trait among masochists and the voyeurs spending little or no time on the playing field.
Go Falcons. Go Stan.
That remark is typical of chicken-shit patriots who never dare step onto a level playing field.
I’ve been tortured in a medical lab, barber shops, a motel room, and not allowed to sleep in my own (bugged) home. I’ve confronted those who have delivered death threats. I’ve been robbed of thousands of dollars, harassed for years in workplaces, and black-listed. Then there’s the constant stalking — on the street and via the internet. The perps who committed these crimes are cowards: a euphemism for “patriots”.
And speaking of JTRIG rats in hiding… One of their street-level associates said to me: “You’ve got a lot of balls coming here (US)”, a few years ago. Can you make up youre mind? Oh, I forgot… others need to do the thinking for you.
I wonder what it is about me that drives you guys just crazy enough to give yourselves away once in awhile. (Actually, I do know exactly why, but the hiding yellow filth has not come up with anything better than “for certain reasons”.) You just can’t help it, and after all those “man” hours spent posting bullshit. At least you got paid, eh?
You people are inconsistent. That’s what exposes you on the JTRIG playing field. Intelligence will never be your strong suit.
The German Nazis didn’t hide; they had far more integrity than the American version.
Intercept editors need to get Robert Mackey to stop littering his articles with tweets – very irritating to read.
can I ask a question. Is this like a new thing in america? Because in germany both the antifa as well and the black block have been active since the early eighties and are quite well known.
no, it isn’t new here. but the press frequently goes out of their way to ignore them, or refers to them in as non-specific terms as possible. the police are certainly well aware of them and i’ve seen them pre-emptively targeted and aggressively arrested at otherwise peaceful demonstrations since before 9/11. not that they wouldn’t have gotten around to trashing something, but the police are happy to give them a beating without waiting, and then the press usually says nothing about it.
That’s not at all true. What the corporate media does is obsess on Black Block property destruction during demonstrations as an excuse to ignore or minimize the actual points of the demonstrations. They are far from ignored.
they are frequently ignored when they are on the receiving end of the violence. that is not contradicted by their disproportionate place in the media portrayal at other times.
how many Americans could define “antifa?”
Not new, no. Once in a while you can find a report that will try to contextualize their presence within an otherwise peaceful demonstration, but it seems rare. More often than not their antics will result in the entire protest (of which they are a tiny segment) being described as a riot and all participants being equally and universally condemned.
After a long day of participating in their righteous struggle to “liberate the public spaces” they will pile into the mid-size luxury sedans their parents handed down to them, return to their loft apartments in gentrified neighborhoods (they moved their ‘for the diverse culture’…which they displaced upon arriving), and spend the rest of the evening complaining about how “ungrateful” the other protesters were.
Thank you for answering.
I just wanted to correct a mistake I made earlier, “Black Block” is not group or movement, it just the strategy used to dress alike to make it more difficult to distinguish between participants of a group.
And I have another question. So, I know you have anarchist groups in the US (like at the 1999 WTO protests), but do you have Autonomist groups? I’m asking because that’s what the antifa is.
Anyway….
People going on about free speech re: this whole situation seem to forget the 1st Amendment only protects you from the state; your fellow citizens, however, are free to drown out your bigotry. Get used to it, snowflakes~
Ridiculous. I’m all for the rights of anti-Trump protesters who are abused, no matter how much they “bait” the candidate or even stand in the way of… progress, such as it is. Well, sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander!
There’s no putting lipstick on this pig — the “Black Bloc” “antifa” bullshit is an utter disgrace. It is the walking, talking counterexample to anarchism that tore apart the entire philosophy by means of a) demonstrating that “anarchism” could become law enforcement and b) the anarchists have demonstrated no persuasive means to stop that. Until they are solved — by anarchists — the very term is meaningless.
Your analysis is so binary! Yikes. You’re all like, “Either you’re this neatly packaged political philosophy label I read about in a book one time, or you’re this other one I heard about from my grandpa, no gray areas, and no take backs.” *puts fingers in ears and shuts eyes* Jeepers man. This is complicated shit. MLK succinctly analyzed it with, “a riot is the language of the unheard”. That’s the truth of it. Anything further is just biased icing on your opinion-cake. So, were these riotous actions “an utter disgrace” as you called them? Or just a group you don’t politically agree with speaking up, and you not liking it? … Seems like the latter.
First and foremost, it wasn’t “Berkeley students” who began and comitted the violence and property destruction (I don’t consider property destruction to be violence; only harm to living things rises to that level). These were self-described Black Block people, who consider themselves anarchists, which is probably an incorrect description of them. This group is a combination of government agents provocateurs and people willing to commit property destruction during demonstrations sponsored by other groups (basically hijacking the demonstrations).
Both violence and nonviolence have worked, it totally depends on all of the circumstances. Of course nonviolence is highly preferable, but if only violence works then that’s what will be used.
But in this country, if there were a violent revolution anytime in the near future, it would come from the right, not the left. Anyone on the left who advocates a violent revolution in the U.S. had better think about that.
The Berkeley students were peacefully protesting. Why do you or anyone else assume that the masked miscreants were students?
Yeah, yeah, I should delve deep into the political philosophy of the sort of people who burn an American flag to show that radical speakers like Milo Yiannopoulos can find no safe place to speak…
Rioting by poor blacks in the Old South might be the language of the unheard, but a bunch of rich college kids taking selfies of themselves watching rioters burn down the campus recreation building is not. Nor is a group of people dressing in black in order to smash whatever shop window happens to be near a site of potential political demonstrations. It’s all bullshit, pampered people mimicking the desperate because they can’t be arsed to think of a political philosophy. There are so many things that they could DO that would MATTER and instead they choose to make themselves, their campus, liberals and educated people in general look like idiots.
I mean, even within the realm of uneducated violence against property, there are options. A Black Bloc that goes out to smash up the Trump Taj Mahal is at least revolutionary, and you can debate whether those kinds of tactics can be justified. But when they go out to trash Berkeley? Am I supposed to believe they don’t have cars or bus tickets, that they have to do that?
Pampered! … Rich!! … Selfies?! Man that’s some THICK icing, and your cake’s practically three-layered. smh I think you’ve dug a generation gap in your heart so nasty, one might call it a moat.
> Or just a group you don’t politically agree with speaking up, and you not liking it?
but they didn’t speak up, they rioted. and they rioted to prevent someone else from speaking up, someone whom they “don’t politically agree with.” that is what is disgraceful
If you read the kitty stryker article, you see she quite clearly delineates that she was there and it was organized and thus, not a riot, whether or not you agree with the politics of the thing.
that’s semantics. the point is that their goal was to prevent the invited speaker from speaking – at a fucking college – and they succeeded. that is disgraceful. and that an intercept writer would be sympathetic to such an action is even more disgraceful
shouting firm in a crowded theater is considered illegal and beyond the bounds of free speech. that is the accepted standard. the speaker is putting vulnerable populations in danger with his speaking, and meets that burden. his right to free speech is not at issue, because the right arises through reciprocity and respect for other’s free expression, which he has none of. it’s not that complicated if you are willing to debate in good faith, if you want to run away from any kind of logic or rationality and call it “semantics”, or a million other things, go ahead. cowardly imho, very much so.
fire**. (obviously to anyone who knows the history of us law on this issue.)
The history of the analogy “falsely yelling fire in crowded theater” is that it was used to support the supreme court ruling that made protesting the draft during WWI an act of sedition. It was used to prevent free speeh.
Not relevant to the issue at hand. The point is only to say that the spirit of what the speaker is doing is itself aggressive and qualifies as aggression, from the point of view of many people. The original commenter was obscuring that, from my point of view, either through ignorance or willingly.
Wrong, the original comment said it didnt matter if the shutting down the speech was done via riot or organized manner, it was still shutting down free speech. That is correct. You tried to make the same excuse as the the supreme court did when they prevented protests against the draft. You just want to prevent speech you dont like. You term a speech that didnt take place as aggressive while defending violence as orderly. I dont like this Milo guy but you sound like a facist yourself.
It seems like you like “this Milo guy”. Are you arguing in good faith or just pretending to believe something you don’t actually give a crap about? It’s not that easy to tell. What exactly do you not like about “this Milo guy”?
I don’t want to prevent speech I don’t like. The question is, what is the relationship between speech and aggression? If there is aggression in progress and the speech is planned to encourage that, there is some relationship, most people would agree. Especially people of whatever group is being marginalized. I never said speech should be shuttered anyhow. I only pointed out what is the *government* standard which is widely known for doing so, so as to point out that such things have been considered with regards to so called civil society and civilization before and those are what the previously established practices are, AS A REFERENCE point for later debate.
You go ahead and attack me ad hominem and misrepresent if you want but that’s not helping the quality of the comment section on this particular day, as far as I can see, and is not going to in the future.
What “ad hominem” did I use? How does it seem I like Milo?
Justifying violence to prevent speech certainly sounds to me wanting to prevent speech you don’t like.
You do not appear to be arguing in good faith as you have failed to clarify anything whatsoever regarding your apparently being of the same mind as the speaker, yet simultaneously denying and confirming this.
I am not justifying violence to prevent speech, I am pointing out that the speaker in engaging in violent speech. You refuse to address and continue to evade GilG. I can only conclude you are trying to derail the conversation, unless you can provide evidence of good faith which would suggest the contrary, and so far you have very much been doing the opposite.
> the speaker is putting vulnerable populations in danger with his speaking, and meets that burden.
crying ‘fire’ in a crowded theater creates an imminent danger. inciting imminent violence is not protected speech. otherwise, advocacy of violence – or speech that may lead to violence – is protected. hate speech is protected. you and others who support this action are just finding excuses to censor speech you dislike
You are a blatant hypocrite and it’s become obvious. After my first comment you objected to me calling it not a riot based on that being “semantics” and here you go and do the same thing, even, to a greater extent. Adios drogue
You don’t have a right to NOT be drowned out if louder people disagree. lol That’s how it works at every level, from the street on up. It’s why Coke buys ad time on NBC, and you complain about how dumb the commercials are while you drink it! Welcome to America. You must be new here. Sorry your precious snowflake miko yakatori just wasn’t all that precious after all. ¯\_(?)_/¯
> You don’t have a right to NOT be drowned out if louder people disagree. lol That’s how it works at every level, from the street on up.
you’re defining the right to speak in a way that’s meaningless. if you prevent a speaker from being heard then you are preventing him from speaking in any meaningful sense of the word
and this is NOT how it works at every level. this is something relatively new and unique to a certain small segment of the ‘left’. i use the quotes because i think these assholes are helping to destroy what remains of the left. some of them are open about their contempt for free speech, maybe you should be also
Fascists are intimidated by violence. Gangs wandering the streets, beating up anyone who disagrees with them, is the best way to ensure we maintain a tolerant society that respects everyone’s civil rights.
I’m reminded of Giacomo Matteotti, for some reason, Duce.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giacomo_Matteotti
That, too, was a case of anti-fascists pushing back, albeit unsuccessfully. Odd, also, that today’s antifas are wearing black.
Italy, gentlemen, wants peace, wants tranquility, wants labor calm; we will grant it with love, if possible, or with force, if necessary. Rest assured that in the 48 hours following my speech, the situation, as they say, will be totally clarified. We all know that my intentions are not driven by personal quirks or by the unbridled desires of government, but by an immense and powerful love of our homeland.
Speech of 3 January 1925, of course, Duce.
Your comments are always so funny…lol. Please keep it up.
I get this sentiment! I really do, but I gotta ask, do you equate attrition with violence? Does THIS sound violent? A Congressman submits a lobbyist-written, pro-industry, deregulation-heavy health care bill that raises profits for the large insurers, aka his campaign financiers, at the expense of his constituents knowing full well that MANY WILL PREMATURELY DIE to increase his financiers’ profits …. lol And that’s the point. If you have the imagination to speed time up, bad policy looks more like a big fucking club taking out millions in one swipe. Can’t you see it? To me, that’s the real violence. It isn’t some right-wing windbag trying to get his nut cracked on camera for Google ad dollars. It’s the big shit – the long grind of bad policy that kills millions. It’s like vinegar trickled into our eyes. So, that’s my question to you – if attrition = violence, and bad policy can = a swinging scythe for some, and if you don’t possess the resources for decades of legal battles (“nice violence”) to defend your life, and livelihood, and hey you’re not getting any younger …. if all that’s true, is the sarcastic ivory tower act still as fulfilling?
WAKE UP!
And answer yourself on what it would have taken to nip the bud of the war in vietnam.
and dont give me any crap about a vote by the pimped out whores for war of the dumb&dumbers in congress.
Absolute trash piece. Anyone who doesn’t condemn those cowards actions who stopped the troll from speaking are cowards themselves (including this writer). I am progressive and the actions of that scam at Berkley is what fascism is really like. Snowflakes who are terrified of speech are running the show and this gutless “reporter” is trying to defend them.
I have to agree. That said, the author is correct about Brock. But, I’m embarrassed to know how easy it is to goad people who claim liberalism.
It’s a myth that liberals today are the thinkers. The right have worked hard over the last 20 years, while corporate Neocon Dems put liberals to sleep. Obama got elected appealing to liberalism, then, embraced many of the same policies, which reduced the quality of life for many Americans and people abroad.
Liberals need to be smarter. ACORN went down due to their naivete of tactics, which the right used against them. BLM will suffer the same fate for not being aware of the broader world if they keep their focus and tactics narrow. Like the Black Panthers in the 60s, the narrative is that they are a terrorist group. Occupy was full of similar, righteous stupidity as well. They think they live in a bubble and need no strategy to get their opposing views heard.
It’s an information war, which many liberals don’t engage in. Already, we have someone from the GOP calling for another Kent State. I’m pretty sure he can find agreement, that’s why he said it. He’s reflecting the thoughts of many Republicans.
We need more thoughtful, sincere activists who are truly honest about the human condition, warts and all. There are very few Noam Chomsky types who have a perfect grasp of history, communication and policy. Liberals need to get back to ideas and avoid being goaded into stupid situations. The tactics aren’t smart at all, just a variety of backward Bs (A Republican student tried to claim Obama supporters carved a B on her face during the elections in 08).
Many liberals think only tinfoil hat wearers worry about the dangerous games that are being played. It’s not a game. ALEC is serious, Breitbart is serious, Fox is serious, even corporate Neocons who reside at MSNBC and CNBC are serious. They all hate liberals and are committed to the destruction of liberal values. Remember, even Rahm and Obama had more harsh words for liberals than most Republicans.
Get it together! For college students who should be invested in thinking, they failed. Violence is a primitive reflex. Are you telling me liberals are too stupid to outflank nationalists, corporatists and white supremacist? That’s not a good look.
an entire article . . . about a troll?
This is a template which the author used in earlier articles. He wrote articles about obscure European right wingers, ties them to Trump, and then blows the horn of outrage. I expect the next hard hitting article to be about Billy Bob Joe of Hooterville, Alabama who painted a Confederate Flag on his pickup before a Trump rally. Vote for Hillary!
The author is looking for justification for left wing radicals who destroyed property and caused violence.
Whatever “Brock” may have done – it does not justify what out of control rioters did.
Stop making excuses for these people.
California is out of control and actively encouraging sedition
Aspiring fascists goad Pro Clinton Rabble Rousers to paint target on free speech in Sproul Plaza.
Mario Schmario…
Brock is a brave man.
“call themselves Black Bloc or Antifas”
Why isn’t this group equated with the KKK and arrested?
Because they disagree with the KKK. Also the KKK doesn’t get arrested.
KKK members get arrested?
Absolutely! They twitch the wrong way and the FBI arrests them, but not Soros funded provocateurs.
Just for twitching you say?
oh gosh. The dumb&dumbers that run the US Gov and the thieves of wallstreet and the corpo rat cons that overcharge the public and the mil war monsters for wars for profits have to do something about all this. All the dumb&dumbers need to get paid. They do nothing for a living except rob the public and now the dumb&dumbers and corpo rats and wallstreet thieves and mil war monsters want more money. Oh gosh, what are they to do to get that money from the people they use and abuse and pay less and less? This is a real problem.
People who are now servants to the dumb&dumbers (used to be the other way around) are known to light themselves afire – as in Tunisia – because not only have they nothing to lose, but also a torturous future of having to serve the dumb&dumbers and corpo rats and wallstreet thieves and the mil war monsters for wars for profits.
Why are you writing for The Intercept? Go back to the New York Times…
Everybody who was there already knows Milo’s Mini-me. “Violence” at protests is always the excuse for these RW twinkies. They stand for nothing; ask one of them about people murdered by racists and they immediately change the subject. They abuse the First Amendment in service of an ideology that will stamp out *your* free speech — and jail and kill you — the moment they get power.
https://itsgoingdown.org/rubber-bullets-maga-hats-account-miloatcal/
You can’t “abuse” the first amendment, nitwit. Ask The Intercept founder Glenn Greenwald; that’s his whole raison d’etre.
You certainly CAN abuse the First Amendment; the courts started doing it by granting First Amendment protections to commercial speech, and by expanding protections to propaganda and lies, the large majority in the service of the ruling elite and their establishment.
As to this issue, spewing hate speech is also an abuse of the First Amendment, because it adds nothing to the political discussion. The sole purpose of the First Amendment was to allow all points of view in order to come to the most informed decision possible. Hate speech like this has nothing to do with that.
> The sole purpose of the First Amendment was to allow all points of view in order to come to the most informed decision possible. Hate speech like this has nothing to do with that.
No, there’s no “hate speech” exception to the First Amendment
I’m not talking about the law, I’m talking about the original reason for the law. I never said there was an exception for hate speech, I said there should be one, along with exceptions for commercial speech and lies.
violence at protests is often caused by the police state themselves. The govvy of wissy consin can attest to that.
No decent person can claim to have been provoked into violence by comments.
Uh, really? You honestly, truly believe that someone could be in your face, screaming hostilities and personal attacks at you, and you, under absolutely no circumstance, would ever get mad enough to want to strike back? Let’s say you are a Jew with family that fled the Holocaust and others that died in it. If some alt-right idiot got in your face, saying you are a “Jewish dog” and that he hopes your ancestors were raped by SS guards and burnt alive in ovens, you would just blow it off?
This is the problem with trying to equate everybody to a Nazi. This guy wasn’t going up to Holocaust victims and shouting slurs at their faces. He was shouting at them for being violent savages, for trying to curtail the freedom of someone to exercise his speech, and for destroying, and condoning the destruction of public property. He had every right in the world, and incredibly good reasons to shout at these assholes faces.
This whole article is an exercise in smug victim blaming. Shame on The Intercept for publishing this garbage.