Former Occupier Mark Bray Writes a Book in Defense of Antifa

It is no secret that the American universities are infested with socialists and other reprobates unfit to any honest labor (in Animal Farm parlance, they are “brain-workers” or pigs). The more well-heeled universities have been a breeding ground for technocrats and petty tyrants that have held the American Republic hostage for nearly a century while building a permanent government in Washington D.C., teaching them how to smile and spout talking points while binding once-free men in chains made of inscrutable law and inescapable debt.

Out of this morass of intellectual dishonesty steps one Professor Mark Bray, late of Dartmouth College, alma mater of such luminaries as Meredith Grey, to explain why Antifa (Communist) violence is acceptable because Fascists are just that much worse.

After decades of relative obscurity, the fringe “antifa” movement is becoming a household name after followers clashed with white supremacists at the Charlottesville “Unite the Right” rally where extremist Alex Fields is accused of murdering 32-year-old activist Heather Heyer in a car attack.
But the movement is still loosely defined and organized, making it difficult to get a grip on its size and aims.

Professor Mark Bray, a historian and lecturer at Dartmouth, has tried to fill the gap in his new book, “Antifa: The Anti-Fascist Handbook,” that chronicles its rise. While Bray doesn’t participate in the group’s protests, he nonetheless considers himself an ally.

President Donald Trump called out the antifa movement by name at an Arizona rally last week, but they’ve attracted criticism from conservative and liberal commentators alike for its use of violent protest to shut down public events featuring far-right speakers. Bray has attracted his own criticism: Dartmouth’s president put out a statement distancing the college from any “endorsement of violence” after Bray defended antifa tactics on Meet The Press.

Bray talked to NBC News about the antifa movement — and the role violence plays within it — on Friday. Our conversation, edited for length and clarity.

NBC News: How would you define the antifa movement?

BRAY: It’s basically a politics or an activity of social revolutionary self defense. It’s a pan-left radical politics uniting communists, socialists, anarchists and various different radical leftists together for the shared purpose of combating the far right.

It’s a bunch of socialists, running riot in the streets, looking for class enemies to lynch. Got it.

But don’t take my word for it. Take it from the OGs of Antifa and their pamphlet “Das Konzept Antifa“:

The anti-capitalist orientation was characteristic of the revolutionary Antifa in the 1980s. This approach went back to the K(Communist) groups and the militant fighting groups, which were defamed as “terrorists”. The corresponding contents were made unpopular by the partially original transference of the so-called “Dimitrov theory” of 1935. Dimitroff, in his capacity as Secretary General of the Communist International, represented the thesis that Fascism was “the open terrorist dictatorship of the most reactionary Chauvinist, most imperialist elements of financial capital.”

So the theory runs “kill capitalism, kill fascism.” Kind of like the plot of Terminator: Kill Kyle Reese in the past to prevent him from destroying SkyNet in the future.

Fascism is merely the label that Antifa as decided to affix to anything they perceive as “morally impure.”

This is a phenomenon that’s gotten more attention in recent months, but your book traces their history back decades around the world. What would you say are the main roots of the American version?

In its modern variant, we can see it with Anti-Racist Action (ARA), which formed in the late 1980s in the Twin Cities out in Minnesota among anti-racist skinheads who were trying to fight back against the growth of a neo-Nazi skinhead movement that was essentially exported from Britain. That’s the real germ of this. They didn’t call themselves antifa, but it was the same basic politics.

Placeholder.

Is the movement actually larger now or are we just paying more attention to it?

It is actually larger now. A lot of the groups I spoke to formed in 2015, 2016 and even 2017. There were hundreds of groups in the ARA network in the ’90s, then it went into a lull in the 2000’s and picked up a little bit again in late 2000’s and early 2010’s, but even in radical left circles was very far down the list of prominent activities. But with the Trump campaign revving up and then his victory, that made more people convinced of its usefulness.

The nationalist candidate wins, the internationalist candidate loses, and now the Communists are ready to crawl out from under their rocks and try to fight in the streets.

You wrote in your book: “At the heart of the anti-fascist outlook is a rejection of the classical liberal phrase incorrectly ascribed to Voltaire that says I disapprove of what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” What do you mean by that?

Anti-fascists are illiberal. They don’t see fascism or white supremacy as a view with which they disagree as a difference of opinion. They view organizing against them as a political struggle where the goal is not to establish a regime of rights that allow neo-Nazis and victims to coexist and exchange discourse, but rather the goal is to end their politics.

That is not a surprising admission. Communists are illiberal. Like the Antifa of the 1930s (Mark Bray insists that we must focus on the 1930s), the Communists are not fighting “Fascists” in defense of any personal liberty interests or universal principle at all.

Antifa is motivated by class warfare and political tribalism to silence its perceived foes with violence, or, as Bray said, “end their politics.”

The reason Communists refuse to engage so-called “Fascists” in rational discourse is not because they have successfully dispensed with their arguments; most of them have never read Mein Kampf or the Doctrine of Fascism, as they are too pure to sully their minds with such forbidden and profane texts. They can’t even be bothered to read “Rise and Fall of the Third Reich” which is probably the best book on the topic of Nazi Germany. Communists do not engage in reasoned discussion is because they cannot engage in reasoned discussion.

If you establish that so-called fascist speech is illegitimate, then who decides who will be targeted as fascist? Can’t it lead more mainstream politics to end up being targeted?

When anti-fascist groups successfully defeat the organizing of local neo-Nazis and fascists, what usually happens is their group falls apart and individuals go back to being labor organizers or environmentalists or whatever kind of leftist. The lifecycles of anti-fascist organizing rise and fall with the organizing of the far right.

Anti-fascists oppose anti-Semitism and Islamophobia and there is a certain political lens that — agree or disagree with the lens — there is an element of continuity in terms of the types of groups targeted. I don’t know of any Democratic party events that have been ‘no platformed’ (shut down) by anti-fascists. So there is a political lens, people will quibble about what the lens is, who designs the lens, but I don’t think the slippery slope is actually, in practice, nearly as much of a concern as people imagine it would be.

Bray is arguing that Antifa is a MORALLY RIGHTEOUS LYNCH MOB. When the shopkeepers and farmers and town hicks decided they were going to don white hoods and masks string up a black man for the unpardonable sin of violating a white woman, that’s evil and racist. When Antifa decides to string up anyone they deem to be “fascist.”

And Bray will see no problem with these extrajudicial punishments or Antifa installing itself as a cross between a lynch mob and a NKVD Troika.

To zero in a bit, though: Your book references actions targeting actual neo-Nazi groups, who were very visible in Charlottesville, but also general clashes with police and property damage as means of protest, like at the Berkeley rally which was about a controversial speaker. Doesn’t that extend the lens?

Antifa are revolutionaries and they are almost always anti-police. That’s partly why they organize how they do: If they were pro-police they’d be more inclined to say, ‘Hey, police, why don’t you take care of this.’ But as anti-capitalist with a sort of police-abolitionist lens, they view the police as problems, as defenders of the capitalist order, and also all too often as sympathizers with the far right. So they view both sides as being opponents, but once again opposition to police is fairly clear cut and comes from a political tradition stretching back 200 years — so it’s not arbitrary, even if you disagree with it.

You also mentioned property destruction. Yeah, property destruction is certainly part of the repertoire of what some of these groups will do to achieve their goals. Some say it’s violence, some say it’s not because it’s not against human beings, that’s a matter of opinion.

Weren’t the Cheka “police”?

When the police work for the “capitalists” it’s bad. When the police work for the people’s glorious revolution and run Gulags stuffed with class enemies and counter-revolutionaries, it’s a-okay.

Dear reader, please understand this, if you take away nothing else: Communists have only one principle and that is the acquisition and maintenance of absolute power over society. They wail and beat their chests about the capitalist, about the bourgeosie, about the police, but when power falls into their hands, they will murder, torture, rob, and destroy without hesitation or remorse.

The Communist is hostis humani generis.

You write that violence represents a “small though vital sliver of anti-fascist activity” and you mention that it’s not the only thing they’re up to. But what makes it so vital?

Even if a group does not intend for that to be the way to go about it, if you’re organizing against violent fascists, being able to defend yourselves can unfortunately come in handy. The other part of it is looking at the broader historical trajectory of the rise of and fascism and Nazism in Europe, the liberal playbook for stopping the advance of fascism failed.

The liberal playbook did stop national socialism. The national socialists’ allies attacked the United States. The national socialists declared war on the United States. The United States declared war on the national socialists. The United States & Co. proceeded to kick the national socialists’ collective teeth in. The national socialists surrendered. The liberals picked the former national socialists up out of the dirt, dusted them off, and taught them the ways of liberalism, and welcomed them back into the brotherhood of humanity.

Well, half of them, anyway. The other half became communist vermin.

Another book on protest movements out now is by Zeynep Tufecki, who takes the exact opposite view. To quote Tufecki: “Plainly: historically, anything that looks like street brawls helps fascists consolidate power. ‘Many sides’ is their core tactic. [It] works.” In other words, they often use violence to justify an electoral backlash which they then use that to justify a state crackdown.

The question is more what to do when you’re at the early stages of struggle, before you get to the point where there are tanks and airplanes. I agree most of the time, in most circumstances, non-violent means are effective and it’s really very fundamental to building a popular movement to influence public opinion. The question is how bad does it have to get before self-defense becomes legitimate.

Part of what happened in interwar period is there were a lot of people arguing against pulling the emergency brake and escalating resistance. And looking back on the history, those are tragic calls for moderation.

Bray is asking that his fellow Communists be excused from the rules of civilization because it’s REALLY important and given carte blanche to run roughshod over people they don’t like.

Do you consider Trump one of those emergency moments where potentially more violent tactics are necessary?

The anti-fascist argument is that any amount of white supremacist or neo-Nazi organizing is worthy of emergency consideration — by no means can we allow this to take one step farther. Trump in office obviously from their perspective exacerbates this situation and empowers them and helps them to grow, but even if Hillary Clinton were in office, anti-fascists would still want to block the advance of…any of these kind of small little Nazi groups.

Special pleading.

One concern is that a movement, especially one facing an emboldened far right and a president pouring fuel on the fire, could become more radical over time. In the 60’s and 70’s, they went from street protests to eventually splinter groups of terrorists, especially in Europe, some of whom used anti-fascism a rallying cry.

I don’t think so. You’re right to point out some of the armed-struggle groups of the US and Europe in 60’s and 70’s, such as the Red Army Faction (in Germany), for example, saw what they were doing as anti-fascist struggle against a West German state they considered to be insufficiently de-Nazified. But the more specific form of anti-fascism that informs the groups today is the antifa model of the 70’s and 80’s which grew out of street confrontations, not out of an armed struggle background.

The kind of profile of the armed struggle within radical left thought in the U.S. since the 80’s has basically disappeared. No one ever seriously considers forming a small cell with arms to attack the government. It’s, at best, a joke.

Yes, the Baader-Meinhof Gang, a bunch of Communists terrorists financed by the Stasi of East Germany, a puppet state of the Soviet Union.

Refresh my memory, who exactly appointed the Communists as the arbiters of sufficient “de-Nazification”?

If you answered, NOBODY, you would be correct.

And yet, the Communists felt morally justified in murdering 34 people in West Germany because they “perceived” West Germany as Fascist.

Fun factoid: One of the founders of the Baader-Meinhof Gang, Horst Mahler, is now a Neo-Nazi.

There really isn’t much daylight between a National Socialist and an International Socialist.

Dartmouth’s president put out a statement distancing the school from your remarks, saying they don’t support violence of any kind. You also faced a lot of criticism in the conservative press, saying you were defending offensive violence against fascists. How would you respond to that criticism?

I believe that the statement oversimplifies and distorts and decontextualizes my arguments. Because I’m not against free speech, I’m against those who are trying to shut down free speech, and I think it’s in the interests of humanity and diversity to try to prevent those who want to murder much of the population from being able to get anywhere near doing that. I wouldn’t characterize my political perspective as being “violent protests” so much as community self defense.

If Bray was against those who are trying to shut down free speech, he wouldn’t be penning defenses for Communists, who are trying to shut down free speech. In fact, he should pen a defense of Adolf Hitler; after Hitler was released from Landsberg after the Beer Hall Putsch, the Nazi press had been banned from publishing and Hitler was banned from publicly speaking for two years.

It’s almost as if curbing speech doesn’t kill ideas.

Bad ideas are not killed by fists, or bike locks, or urine balloons, or cans filled with cement, or by driving them from the public sphere; bad ideas are killed when they are dragged into the sanitizing light of reason and exposed for what they are.

Once again, socialists are ill-equipped to this task because they are irrational. Hitler was a socialist, surrounded by other socialists in Weimar Germany. Who was there who could have exposed his hucksterism for what it was without destroying their own political power?

When you say self defense, are we talking about guarding clergy members in Charlottesville who are under attack when the police aren’t there, or do you consider self-defense charging neo-Nazis with clubs even if they haven’t necessarily attacked you?

I’m doing a couple of different things. I’m trying to lay out the history and the perspective of the anti-fascists themselves who are doing this work, and I’m situating myself certainly ethically and politically in this context. What I’m trying to say is that the various differing ways anti-fascists go about resisting fascism are legitimate to be considered, that they are historically formed and ethically reasonable. I try not to wade too far into “What about this and what about this.” I like to leave it as general as “I support collective self-defense against fascism and Nazism.”

Mob rule has never been, and will never be, ethically reasonable. Bray is unwilling to articulate the principle he is advancing because it is appalling in nature:

“Violence against people I don’t like should not be a crime.”

If Bray was the historian he claimed to be, he would know and point out, that violence not only did not stop the National Socialists in Germany, it emboldened them. The anthem of the Nazi Party, Horst-Wessel-Lied was supposedly written by a Brownshirt who was subsequently murdered by Communist Party members and was elevated to a martyr by Joseph Goebbels.

Let’s go even further: Antifa are claiming they have to stop people they believe to be fascists and MIGHT oppress someone, somewhere, at some unknown time, by engaging in actions that ACTUALLY oppress people in the present.

As always, if you can suppress, harass, beat, and run Fascists out of public because they are going to kill lots of people, by the same token, Communists should be run out of the public sphere and beaten at every opportunity FOR THE SAME REASON.

So basically, you don’t want to take a clear position on that specific distinction (between self defense and preemptive attack).

In the abstract. I’m going to leave it at that if you don’t mind.

And here Mark Bray exposes himself for the pathetic, middle-class revolutionary weasel that he is. He is fine with others fighting his battles, but will not risk his comfortable position as a Dartmouth professor to advance the cause of the People’s Glorious Revolution.

At least the other weasel, Eric Clanton, had big enough balls to actually try and draw blood in the name of the revolution, even did wear a mask and run away afterwards. This cockless wonder Bray is just going to sit on the sidelines and offer golf-claps while the other middle class revolutionaries eventually get themselves into a fight that they aren’t going to be able to walk away from.

The answer to the Communist Spartacus League in Germany was the Freikorps.

Source

Advertisements

Feminist Equates Men with Terrorists

Another day, another Feminist writing garbage.

Today’s big winner Jean Hatchet, who would like to conflate “domestic violence” with terrorism and equate “terrorist” with “man.”

And then feminists wonder why some of us don’t like them.

Terrorism affects our lives with quite miserable regularity at present. Most days we wake up with the niggling fear that somewhere in the world a man will have driven a car or lorry into a crowd. Or a man will have walked into a pop concert with an explosive. Or a man will have reversed his car into a protesting crowd. We are afraid of men in airports. We are afraid of men while on demonstrations and marches. We are afraid of men on public transport. We are afraid of men while we walk around cities.

MUH FEELZ!

Your paranoia is neither my fault or my problem.

Some men, and some women, will be bristling angrily already while reading this. I am using the word “man” they will be thinking. They will probably be shouting in annoyance, “that is sexist!” “Women kill too” they will protest.

Yes, women do kill too. Mainly, they kill children and each other.

Truth isn’t sexist. All of the men who have committed all of the most recent acts of global terrorism are men. All of them.

Except for the ones who were female.

Britain’s first ‘All-female terrorist gang’ at Old Bailey – two allowed to hide faces

Female terrorists and their role in jihadi groups

Indictment against female terrorist who stabbed Israeli Arab in Jerusalem

Greece to Extradite Belgian Female Terror Suspect

Beware the Women of ISIS: There Are Many, and They May Be More Dangerous Than the Men

It was therefore frustrating to see Jason Burke in the Guardian at the weekend finding all sorts of different links between the perpetrators of recent terrorist attacks except the one that was blindingly obvious. They are all men. Violent men.

Cum hoc ergo propter hoc.

This is the same line of reason in which an abundance of Jews in Hollywood = Hollywood is controlled by THE Jews.

But okay, let’s ignore the culture, ethnicity, and the…religious ideology or political ideology of terrorists and just chalk it up to them having a penis.

By the way, who initiates the majority of the divorces in the Anglosphere?

70%+ women? That must mean vaginas inevitably lead to divorce.

Joan Smith wrote here about the other notable link amongst other recent male terrorists. They frequently, so frequently that it is impossible to exclude its relevance, have a history of violence against women. Often the violence is against women they are, or have been, in an intimate relationship with.

Cum hoc ergo propter hoc.

Unless the men in question hit the women in question over the head with a stick and dragged the women in question back to their man-cave, she knowingly selected this man to associate with.

Men present value; women accept value.

If a woman picks a man with a tendency for beating ass, that’s her fault.

Since that article one of the suspects in the Barcelona attack has been shown to have a history of domestic abuse. James Alex Fields Jr. the murderer in Charlottesville had a history of domestic abuse of his own mother.

Cum hoc ergo propter hoc.

James Fields is a diagnosed schizophrenic, but let’s leave that crucial fact out. Don’t want to fuck up this anti-male narrative we’ve got going on here.

The World Health Organisation report ‘Violence Against Women. Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Against Women’ in 2016, showed that globally 30% of women will experience physical or sexual violence from an intimate partner.

Let’s think about that. Terrorism is horrific. But 30% of the global population will not experience directly an act of terrorism that harms them physically. 30% of women will.

That’s a shame. Sounds like they should have picked a better dick.

On my project ‘Ride for Murdered Women’ the other day the woman I honoured on bike ride 72 was a 43-year-old, qualified solicitor by the name of Alison Jane Farr-Davies. Alison had been beaten to death and thrown downstairs naked by her boyfriend.

James Dean, her murderer, hit her like a rocket or a bomb. It could be said that he was her war. Being in a relationship with a violent man is similar to being in a war. It hurts like war. It is perpetual lived terror. It hurts like terrorism.

Ha. Now for some fact that are inconvenient to Hatchet’s narrative: First, the guy’s name is DEAN JONES, not James Dean. I’m not even English and figured that out in 30 seconds. Huffpo, tell your bloggers to step their game up.

Second, Farr-Davies was a drug addict. She was an addict prior to her relationship with Jones, who is also a drug addict.

Like attracts like. Farr-Davies met Jones, accepted the value he presented (fellow druggie), and consented to a relationship with an unstable drug addict who ended up committing manslaughter on her (the court agreed that he did not intend to kill her).

Feminists can blather on about “domestic violence” until they are blue in the face, but they cannot talk their way out of basic sexual economics and the fact that while men may express interest, ultimately, women choose men, especially in the world of the “liberated woman.”

And when a woman chooses a man who has some blatant, obvious moral defect, then she gets what are the reasonably foreseeable consequences of entering relationships and having sex with morally defective men, whether it is losing their money, getting their skulls cracked, or ending up dead at the bottom of the stairs.

Violence and abuse of women is committed in such numbers that it is, and should be seen as, terrorism. It is designed to create terror in women specifically and to stop them going about their daily lives in safety.

Interesting. Allow me to pull a few numbers.

From the 2015 Uniform Crime Report prepared by the FBI:

Total murders reported for 2015: 13,455.

Total number of male victims of murder: 10,608

Total number of female victims of murder: 2,818

From the UK’s Office of National Statistics for the year ending March 2015(Caveat: The UK jukes its murder stats so they aren’t really reliable)

Total number of male victims of murder: 331

Total number of female victims of murder: 186

Let’s try another. From Juristat in Canada for 2015:

Total number of male victims of murder: 428

Total number of female victims of murder: 175

Getting the point yet? Allow me to make it unambiguously. Men are more likely to be the victims of violence, up to and including murder, than women. And now feminists want to expand the already overbroad umbrella of “terrorism” to cover their demonstrated inability to pick a morally upright man? They want to raise the hue and cry when women are less likely to be murdered, both in total and per capita, than men?

Absolutely not.

It does. It should be tackled as a priority as high on the list of global governments as any extremist terrorist threat. There should be a COBRA meeting, or its global equivalent, called every day that a woman dies. A woman dies like this somewhere in the world every day.

Call the meeting.

When a woman dies, there needs to be a Cabinet-level meeting. When a man dies, just broom his corpse off the street and continue with business as usual.

Explain this feminist definition of “equality” to me again, because I, for the life of me, am not getting it.

Wait a minute, I think I’ve got it now: In Feminism, equality means that women are sacred and men are disposable.

Source

Feminist Rails Against Legalized Prostitution Based on Fundamental Misunderstanding of Economics, Criminology, and the Sexual Marketplace

Kat Banyard, a British Feminist and founder of UK Feminista, attempts to explain why prostitution is exploitative…and fails.

Right now, a global push is under way for governments to not only tolerate but actively enable the sex trade. The call is clear: decriminalise brothel keepers, pimps and other “third parties”, allowing them to profiteer freely – and certainly don’t dampen demand for the trade. This is no mundane policy prescription. The stakes are immense.

Feminists know everything under heaven except how voluntary transactions work and why they are preferable to involuntary transactions.

For all the ways it is marketed, the sex trade boils down to a very simple product concept: a person (usually a man) can pay to sexually access the body of someone (usually a woman), who does not freely want to have sex with him. He knows that’s the case – otherwise he wouldn’t have to pay her to be there. The money isn’t coincidence, it’s coercion. And we have a term for that: sexual abuse. Getting governments to facilitate a commercial market in sexual exploitation therefore requires masking it with myths such as: that demand is inevitable; that paying for sex is a consumer transaction, not abuse; that pornography is mere “fantasy” and that decriminalising the entire trade, pimping and brothel keeping included, helps keep women safe.

This is some top-shelf nonsense. By her standard of “coercion” every person who works a job for money is “exploited.” How many men throw garbage into trucks because they freely choose to dig into other people’s waste? How many people mop floors because it edifies their soul? How many men’s life long dream is it to be a truck driver, or a gravedigger, or any of a hundred more dangerous and lower paid jobs than being a whore?

In Pimp State, I set out to track down the reality behind these myths.

It took me to a multi-storey brothel in Stuttgart, where I accompanied Sabine Constabel, a local support worker, as she went room to room to let women know there was a doctor available for them to see that night. Thirteen years earlier, the German government had bowed to calls for pimping and brothel keeping to be decriminalised, so this one operated openly and legally, with fewer regulations placed on it than the restaurants we passed to get there. Constabel didn’t hesitate when I asked her who drove efforts for prostitution to be recognised as work. “It was people running the brothels … they wanted these laws that made it possible to earn as much money as possible.” Those laws have certainly delivered for some. Germany is now home to a chain of so-called “mega-brothels” and a sex trade estimated to be worth €16bn (£14.5bn) annually.

That sounds pretty civilized to me. People petitioned the government, the government approved of their petitioning, and they got what they wanted. No guns needed to be fired, no blood was shed, no one was beaten, or killed, or anything of the other events arise when political discourse breaks down.

The women Sabine and I met that night in Stuttgart lived and “worked” in their single room in the brothel. None spoke German as a first language, and all were young – most around 20 years old. The brothel owner charged each woman €120 a day for her room, which translated as having to perform sex acts on about four men every day before she could even break even. “I have women here, young women … They say: ‘I died here,’” Sabine told me. “I can empathise with what they mean. I believe them. I believe them that in reality the ‘johns’ can damage the women to the extent that it is not possible for everything to go back to normal.”

And now…it’s time for math!

€120 for four johns equals €30 per hour. That’s some pretty economically-priced pussy. I am assuming that the brothel-keepers, in line with industry standards in America, stipulate that the €30 covers the first hour or the first nut, whichever “comes” first, so whores are typically not getting railed for an hour straight. Four hours covers the expense of the room. If a whore works four more hours, she walks away with €120 in her pocket. According to Glassdoor.com a McDonald’s Crewmember in Germany earns €8.85 per hour. In the same eight-hour shift, our non-German speaking whore would gross €80.50 for the day. Our actual whore is grossing €39.50 more than our imaginary McDonald’s worker in the same period of time for less physically rigorous work.

In the feminist narrative, no female would WILLINGLY sell pussy. In reality, selling pussy is not only an economically sound decision for many women with few useful job skills, but it is a smart economic decision for an attractive woman who could easily clear €120 in an hour or less.

Researching Pimp State also led me to spend hours speaking to johns – sex buyers – after placing an ad in my local paper for men willing to talk about why they pay for sex. Based on the response my advert got, there is no shortage of sex buyers ready to ruminate about what they do. Indeed, the number of men who pay for sex in the UK almost doubled during the 1990s to one in 10, with a survey of 6,000 men finding that those most likely to pay for sex were young professionals with high numbers of (unpaid) sexual partners. I heard a range of justifications rolled out by the men I spoke to about why they pay women for sex: “I don’t have any option … At the moment I’m just single so I have to buy it”; “It’s just a male thing where it’s get as many as you can” … “I think it’s just a fact of ‘I’ve done my duty’,” for instance.

I’m not certain why it is more honorable to bid for pussy with food and entertainment than it is just pay for it with actual cash.

What united these men, however, was an overpowering sense of entitlement to sexually access women’s bodies. Some explicitly drew on the notion that they were merely consumers availing workers of their services. One complained about occasions that had been “poor value for money” – which he defined as “them clearly not enjoying it”. Another man described having paid for sex with a woman who obviously didn’t want to be there as a “very bad service, very”. He recalled over the phone: “We went upstairs and, how can I say, she was, like, very frigid. Very frigid. It was very disappointing in the sense I was paying … no touching in places like I would like. Even the sex was really, really crap. It was really, really disappointing.”

Yes, when you pay for prostitution, you are buying a service. If you paid for a massage and the massuese spent an hour beating you in the head with a stick, you would probably complain that it was a bad massage and you didn’t enjoy it. If you went to a restaurant and the waiter slapped you across the back of the head everytime he passed you, you would complain about the service, no matter how good the food was. If you hailed a taxi and the drive crashed into every lamppost on the way to your destination, you would complain that it was bad service, despite reaching your destination.

An “expectation” is not an “entitlement” but a customer in a freely-bargained for exchange of goods for services is entitled to complain when the services aren’t what he bargained for or expected.

Above all, the journey of unpicking the myths that surround the sex trade led me to the inescapable conclusion that change is possible, that we don’t have to live within cultural and legal lines laid out by pimps and pornographers, that there is an alternative. And it is the courage and compassion demonstrated by the many inspirational campaigners I met while writing the book that is required to get us there. Campaigners like Diane Martin CBE, who after being exploited in prostitution in her late teens, spent nearly two decades supporting other women to exit the trade, and now campaigns for an abolitionist law in the UK. First pioneered in Sweden, the abolitionist legal framework works to end demand for the sex trade. It criminalises sex-buying and third-party profiteering, but it completely decriminalises selling sex and provides support and exiting services for people exploited through prostitution.

Ah, the “Nordic Model.” And how is that working out?

Amnesty International published a report on May 23, 2016 about the effects of the “Nordic Model” anti-prostitution law in Norway where “buying sex is illegal, but selling sex is okay”. Let’s take a quick peek:

Police are required to enforce the ban on promotion, the law against trafficking and the ban on buying sex. The regulations are based on the legislators’ view on prostitution as an unwanted phenomenon, and a wish to stop all forms of organization of these activities. The tasks of the police when meeting with people in prostitution are, therefore, complex and challenging.

As a preventative measure against the establishment of the brothel run by foreign human traffickers, the police in Oslo for example enforce the Penal Law through their prohibition to rent out facilities for use in prostitution. People who sell sex from rented apartments risk being evicted, since the landlord may incur criminal liability based on current legislation.”

Prostitution by whores who don’t own their own premises are grounds to evict them. Good job, feminists.

The concept of “promotion” under
the law is broad enough to include sex workers working together or with any other person, such as a cleaner, receptionist or security guard, for the purposes of safety. Working together also increases the likelihood of raids and subsequent evictions as is likely to be viewed by police as “organized prostitution”.

Prostitutes can’t hire security or screeners or door guards, because that would be “promotion” and “organization.” Good job, feminists.

Amnesty International’s research found significant evidence that sex workers continue to be criminalized and penalized directly and indirectly in a variety of ways by the legal framework in Norway – whether they are selling sex from rented premises or hotels or working together or whether they are migrants and in the country on tourist visas. Sex workers also told Amnesty International that the threat of losing their livelihood meant they were unlikely to go to the police to report buyers unless they were extremely violent. In terms of seriousness, the threat and impact of forced eviction, deportation and loss of livelihood on people who sell sex far exceeds the implications of a 15,000 – 25,000 kroner (US$1,700–2,850) fine for buyers. Amnesty International does not consider that buyers now “have most to fear” from the police in Norway. The aim of the “Nordic Model” that the balance of criminalization should be shifted from seller to buyer -has not been realized for the majority of people selling sex in Norway, particularly the most marginalized, who are still penalized, and potentially criminalized, under the law.

Whores will only go to the police if a john roughs them up too much, and whores are afraid to report johns out of fear of losing their livelihood? Good job, feminists.

Here’s another place where the feminist narrative and reality part ways. There is a concept in criminology and economics called the “black market premium.” The more penalized a good or service is, the more expensive it becomes (evading law enforcement ain’t cheap) and the more likely it is to draw dangerous people into supplying and producing it (a person who willingly commits one felony for money will likely commit other felonies). In America, we saw alcohol prohibition turn portions of America into a war zone between law enforcement against criminals and criminals against each other. American and European drug prohibition has turned petty criminals into millionaires and warlords. Sex prohibition has created multimillion dollar human trafficking operations from Eastern Europe and South East Asia and parts of Africa.

But feminists will never let collateral damage happening in the real world tarnish their affection for plainly destructive and irrational policies.

Back to the article:

A trade based on men paying to sexually access women’s bodies is fundamentally incompatible with sex equality. It is up to us to make sure equality wins out.

The sexes are not equal. Pussy is expensive and dick is cheap. That concept is universal across all sexual species on Earth. Males demonstrate value, females accept value in exchange for access to sex. It doesn’t matter if it is a wedding ring, a house, or a €30 toss in the sack.

Until females are willing to buy dick, or stop trading pussy for resources, the sexes will never be equal. Men will play the game for sex, not by the “rules” that feminists articulate, but by the rules they see females actually playing by … which is pussy for resources and status.

Source

Aspiring Female Oligarchs Blame Bro Culture for Not Being Oligarchs

USA Today published an article today blaming the lack of “Women in the Boardroom” on Bro-Culture, or men associating in ways that feminists disapprove of.

“Bro Culture,” the exclusionary, male-centric vibe at some companies that’s led to a spate of powerful men such as Uber CEO Travis Kalanick losing high-profile roles is under heavy assault.

Misogyny is the new blasphemy.

However, many women remain skeptical that their complaints and the recent outcomes will make a dent in what they view as long-standing issues of inequality and harassment in the business world.

Women will rarely succeed in outperforming men, but they always succeed at out-complaining men.

Why is this?

Because females are rewarded for being weak.

A female’s tears and complaints get her what she wants.

A man’s tears and complaints get him scorn and derision.

“Will people stop sending memos about what kind of sex is appropriate at a company party? Likely,” says Jessica Rovello, CEO of interactive content company Arkadium, referring to a memo that Kalanick once wrote. “But will this change the way people operate? Probably not.”

Ingrained male habits die hard, Rovello says, recalling countless meetings where, as the only woman in the room, questions she asked were answered with the speaker addressing a male colleague.

I wouldn’t address her either. Females in the corporate setting have successfully turned every word, every glance, every gesture, into an actionable offense that could cost the offending party and the company millions of dollars and one or more people their jobs.

Origin of the species

The word “bro” is a white appropriation of the African-American greeting derived from “brother.”

But as a term describing an ethos, bro culture has come to represent a testosterone-charged group reminiscent of a sports team or frat house, and for some harks back to powerful white privilege that has caused women and minorities to struggle for equality since the founding of the country.

It’s a passive-aggressive slur used by Feminists and Social Justice Warriors against any white male who offends them.

Please, continue.

At its core, bro culture aims to create a space where boys can be boys, says Michael Kimmel, founder and director of the Center for the Study of Men and Masculinities at Stony Brook University and author of Angry White Men: Masculinity at the End of an Era.

What we mean when we say ‘bro culture’

“It’s a reaction against the entry of women into virtually every public space, which they see as an invasion,” he says. “Once upon a time, every place was a locker room.”

Why is the “locker room” such a magical, forbidding place to these feminists? Here’s a free clue from someone who has been in the locker room:

Locker rooms fucking stink. Sweat-stained clothes, sweat-stained gear, sweat-stained towels, dirt, grass, mud, and blood are the wonderful bouquet of smells you get to enjoy in a locker room. Showers that rarely get cleaned. A couple of vending machines if you are lucky. No normal person would just want to hang out in a locker room.

But when your friend and teammates are in the locker room with you, the guys who you have just played a three-hour game against another team, guys you have trained with, played with, fought with, laughed with, cried with, bled with, then the locker room is not that bad of a place.

When feminists sneer about “locker rooms”, the thing they are actually attacking is male camaraderie, friendships between men born out of mutual respect and shared experience. It is evident in the feminist attacks on male spaces. The desired world of feminists is one where men scramble for the approval of females rather than the respect of other men.

Echoes of Wall Street

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which battled Wall Street on the behalf of women decades ago, says women continue to come forward even though the agency hasn’t filed any major financial industry sex discrimination cases in New York City in recent years.

“That doesn’t mean similar discrimination is not occurring. We certainly have continued to see allegations like that,” says Raechel Adams, an EEOC supervisory trial attorney who worked on one such case 13 years ago.

Every female is a lawsuit waiting to happen. She is a frag grenade with tits.

Naturally, she runs to the biggest, baddest alpha male on the block to punish men who have offended her: The government.

“Culture at work is so long-standing, and it’s just impossible to beat it down,” says Allison Schieffelin, who won a Wall Street discrimination settlement a decade ago in a case that showed bro culture is hardly a new phenomenon.

Case-in-point: Schieffelin worked for Morgan Stanley and later sued the company for “sex bias” (wah! They aren’t promoting a strong, independent woman like me at the speed I deserve!). She ran to the EEOC to defend her feminine honor against Morgan Stanley. Morgan Stanley saw the writing on the wall and settled for $54 million of which Schieffelin received $12 million. Where did the rest of the money go?

If you answered “the government” you win the prize of…the pleasure of being right.

$42 million went to the government, thanks a female pointing the finger at the company she probably told an interviewer she would love to work for and would be an amazing employee of and it was her dream to be at.

A female protects no secrets but her own and holds faith with no one but herself.

Serious consequences for bad actors

Even so, women working in Silicon Valley have made men think twice about the potential consequences of indecent behavior.

Venture capitalist Justin Caldbeck was forced to resign from Binary Capital after being accused by many women of inappropriate advances during business negotiations.

Former Uber engineer Susan Fowler wrote a detailed blog post in February about the ride hailing company’s sexist environment. Her charges started a cultural tailspin that led co-founder Kalanick to resign in June after eight years of helming his $70 billion startup.

You continue doing business with females, you get what you get.

And Google fired engineer James Damore Aug. 7 after he questioned the tech giant’s diversity program.

Questioning the official narrative gets you shit-canned. Misogyny is the new blasphemy.

Emily Martin, general counsel and vice president for workplace justice at the National Women’s Law Center, a nonprofit organization that champions equality for women, says there is no question that sexual harassment is rife in all types of workplaces. Nonetheless, outrage over bro culture has not been unanimous.

Men and women in the tech industry stood by their embattled colleagues, characterizing their downfalls as witch hunts. “How is it that men should pay with their careers for a moment of weakness?” asks Michael Petraeus, a start-up entrepreneur who calls McClure’s ouster a “crucifixion.”

Loyalty? Surely not! Haven’t these infidels heard to the good news of “Listen and Believe Her”?

Wall Street’s cautionary tale

History suggests that it may take far more than a paper billionaire’s demise to clean up bad behavior.

A few decades back, Wall Street was riddled with the same sexual discrimination issues as junk bond and derivatives wizards reinvented investing much the way today’s tech entrepreneurs have disrupted the taxi and lodging sectors. Their success often bred a feeling of invincibility and supremacy.

But some women wouldn’t stand for it. In 1996, Pamela Martens and two other women filed a federal complaint against Smith Barney, which had doled out 95% of its brokerage jobs to men, according to the lawsuit.

The case became known as the Boom Boom Room lawsuit, after a Smith Barney basement party room from which women were barred. Because all employees had signed agreements to take any claims to mediation, trial revelations were avoided in exchange for mediated settlements for nearly 2,000 women.

Irony of ironies, the Boom Boom Room case came about because of women signing arbitration agreement, and then failing to abide by it.

The settlement in that case called for Smith Barney to hire and train even more women, which is akin to inviting even more snakes into your house after one bites you in your sleep.

Feminists complain mightily about Wall Street being a No Girls Club and not being invited to off-hours excursions with male co-workers. Surely such strong, independent creatures could start their own All Girls Club.

Why the hell would they? It comes back to loyalty. There are hundreds of articles of women triumphantly crowing about how they “stuck it” to their former employer for millions of dollars for the glory of womankind. Why would any man bring a female along when any part of a conversation might become the basis for her multi-million dollar EEOC discrimination lawsuit?

Females have become personal and professional liabilities to most men and men are limiting their liability by keeping their professional and personal contacts with females as limited and public as possible.

Source

Yvette Felarca/Yvonne Felarca Argues “Bash The Fash” as a Legal Justification to Assault; Communists of r/Anarchism Offer Support for Assaulting Wrong-Think

“Do you know what would happen if we pigs failed in our duty? Jones would come back! Yes, Jones would come back! Surely, comrades,” cried Squealer almost pleadingly, skipping from side to side and whisking his tail, “surely there is no one among you who wants to see Jones come back?”

– Squealer, Animal Farm

Yvette, or Yvonne Felarca, went to court to face charges of felony assault and inciting a riot for her role in a riot by Communists in Sacramento back in June 2016. Video shows Felarca punching a man repeatedly, despite him having his hands raised over his head during the assault, and was walking towards police to seek help.

Felarca made a statement with respect to her charges:

“Standing up against fascism and the rise of Nazism and fascism in this country is not a crime. We have the right to defend ourselves.”

That’s right. Beating up someone seeking police protection is “standing up against fascism” and “not a crime.”

Felarca is scheduled to return to teach at Berkeley Middle School at the end of August, because teachers cannot be fired unless they are convicted of a felony.

Yay, public unions!

Various breeds of Communists lurk on reddit, mostly on r/Anarchism. Aside from being revolutionary LARPers and Antifa fanboys.

Why are they worthy of any consideration?

Because they argue that National Socialists are terrible people to whom violence must be done on sight without any protections or due process.

International Socialists on the other hand, are a-okay, despite having engaged in more wars, killed more people, expropriated more wealth, and conquered more land by force of arms than the National Socialists could ever hope to.

/u/FreeSocietyAnarchist 826 points

McCarthyist witch hunts are not a thing of the past! Remember, this is a charge from the protest where multiple people were stabbed by neo-nazis who have not been arrested for the attempted murders: https://torchantifa.org/?p=568

Attempted murders? Try self-defense.

From June 27, 2016

“Neo-Nazis didn’t start the violence at state Capitol, police say”

“If I had to say who started it and who didn’t, I’d say the permitted group didn’t start it,” said California Highway Patrol officer George Granada, a spokesman for its Protective Services division. “They came onto the grounds and were met almost instantly with a group of protesters there not to talk.”

The Communists showed up looking for a fight and are now crying crocodile tears for sympathy when they actually got one? Nah.

/u/AutumnLeavesCascade 170 points

I was an Antifa street medic in Sac and saw the aftermath of the Neo-Nazis stab at least one black Anti-Fascist and one trans Anti-Fascist, they had been chosen specifically as targets of hate, the black man for instance had had the n-word shouted at him by the Nazis and his intestines were hanging out, I provided auxiliary first aid support for him with two primary medics until he could get to the ER. Up to 6 people were stabbed by the Nazis at that rally, I have been doing therapy do help process the level of violence I saw that day. Being 12 inches from spilled intestines in an attempted hate murder will definitely fuck you up.
http://www.trbimg.com/img-5770402c/turbine/la-5-stabbed-at-neo-nazi-rally-in-sacramento-20160626/650/650×366
EDIT: I think the above pic is the other black man the Nazis stabbed, since he is closer to the paved area. Here is a full article about the individual I was talking about, not going to post any of the grisly photos just going by the article: http://www.davisvanguard.org/2016/06/stab-victim-neo-nazi-rally-remains-unidentified/

That’s your own fault. You wander around looking for a fight, and want someone else to feel bad because it didn’t go your way? Not going for it.

Next time, bash your dick instead of the so-called “fash.”

/u/Empiricalknowledge 301 points

400,000 American soldiers died to stop the spread of Nazism. Did we forget the mission of the Nazis is to see most of us dead?

400,000 American soldiers died BECAUSE the Congress of the United States declared war against Germany on December 11, 1941 AFTER the Germany declared war against the United States on the same day.

/u/nuthernameconveyance 186 points

And 60 million Russians.

There are few things more beautiful than one group of socialists killing another group of socialists in large numbers.

/u/FreeSocietyAnarchist 201 points

I wish the liberals would realize that comprehensive anti-fascist arguments are based on the historical study of fascist movements, and are not comprehensively explainable in 1 or 2 sentences on reddit comments.
Here is an interview with someone who explains the full argument, if anyone who doesn’t understand why anti-fascists are against letting nazis publicly organize wants to try and actually understand it, before spouting kneejerk platitudes about non-violence at us like we wouldn’t also prefer non-violence: https://www.democracynow.org/2017/8/16/antifa_a_look_at_the_antifascist

The principle of actual liberals is “non-aggression” not “non-violence.” We, as liberals, do not attack people for their words. We attack people who have initiated the attack against us, or we can reasonably perceive as an immediate threat.

But it is revealing of what Communists actually think of Liberals, that, despite their excuse of 400,000 Americans dying to destroy Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, and the Empire of Japan, that we are, to their view, a bunch of pacifist pussies and pushovers.

/u/darlantan 90 points
Hey now, it’s not Nazi enabling to want everybody to get along, it’s the good ol’ Centrist way! You guys stop punching Nazis and we all compromise in the middle. We’ll give their platform a voice and let them recruit a little bit, and then we’ll politely ask them to step it back a little bit. Maybe let them kill just the jews, or the blacks, or maybe it’d be fair to just pick a minority at random. See! Compromise is clearly the way.

…or, you know, you can just go shove a Nazi back into their box today and call it done.

Again, Communists conflate “non-aggression” with “pacifism” or, more accurately “martyrdom” and think that Liberals are a bunch of pussies who are unwilling to defend their principles with force. It’s also their ardent hope that Liberals are pussies so that they can forcibly impose Communism on people without the liberals fighting back against them.

I have no problem putting Nazis in a box, so long as there is plenty of room in there for the Communists. Two murderous philosophies that deserve to be buried on top of each other and walk through the gates of Hell arm-in-arm.

/u/Nihht anarcho-communist 1245 points
The riot cops grabbed her by her hair and threw her onto the pavement. They did more damage to her than she did to that Nazi. Not to disparage her, because her actions are absolutely admirable, but she is pretty small and it really didn’t seem like she hurt him much if at all. And she’s the one being charged over this.
Say it with me folks:

MONOPOLY ON LEGITIMATE USE OF VIOLENCE

She does violence to others, but I’m supposed to be upset that violence was done to her, because she’s a female and she’s small, and she didn’t hurt him much if at all.

Nope.

Don’t want to get hit? KEEP YOUR DAMN HANDS TO YOURSELF.

How hard is that principle to understand? Keep your hands to yourself. Oh, but I forget myself. Communists don’t operate on principles, they operate on desires, as in “I desire the People’s Glorious Revolution, NOW!” “I desire the wealth of the Capitalists, and the Bourgeosie, and the Kulaks, and the Landowners, NOW!” “I desire absolute power over the nation-state, NOW!”

/u/Hulabaloon 112 points

I’d like to know when it became not ok to punch a Nazi in the face.
They’re fucking Nazis man.

V-E Day, May 8, 1945, when the German government signed the Instrument of Surrender of Germany, giving the Allies jurisdiction to try Nazis for acts committed before and during World War 2, rather than just “punching them in the face.”

Communists are creatures of desire, not reason. They have no respect for the rule of law, or even civilization. “Me want punch Nazi, NOW!” “Me want sleep, NOW!” “Me want woman, NOW!”

Communists are just animals that can lie.

/u/SolidWookie 516 points

If you ever wondered how the Nazis took power just look at how this person is defending them now.

The Nazis didn’t “take” power. The Nazi Reichstag was the duly elected parliament of the German people. The Communist Party of Germany (KPD) couldn’t win an election because they were paid stooges of the Soviet Union and everyone in Germany knew it.

Also, the Nazis were really good campaigners.

/u/LothartheDestroyer 437 points

They won an election on rhetoric playing to nationalism.

They won because the opposition wasn’t doing enough to stop the rhetoric.

Half right, but not accurate. The Nazis’ 1930 campaign was based on repudiating Versailles, ending government corruption, increasing jobs, and bringing the so-called money barons of Weimar Germany to heel (especially if those money barons were Jewish).

/u/IAmARantallionAMA 140 points

Wow wow wow what?? You go read a history book! The context for those elections was a Germany wracked by 10 years of street violence, perpetrated by Nazis, and Hitler used the Nazis control of the streets to win the election. Furthermore once Hitler won the election he used the threat of violence to take powers for himself contrary to the German constitution and centralise power in his own political office.

Also are we going to conveniently forget Italy where Mussolini didn’t even need the support of the majority let alone to win an election to ascend to power? He just needed 30’000 marching fascists and he was handed power by the Italian government. Fascists don’t need to win elections, Hitler just used electioneering as a tool, but it wasn’t necessary for his rise. A bit like dictators around the world nowadays use elections despite the fact they don’t need to win them.

Here is another example of a Communist with a fetish for violent revolution and bloody murder. The Nazis did not “control the streets” but the Brownshirts surely fought the Communists for them. Interestingly, the Brownshirts were originally created to protect Nazi meetings from disruption by Communists.

The Nazis winning elections was necessary because the Nazis could not overthrow the Weimar government from the outside without arousing the ire of France and England before it was prepared to fight them, the German Army and the Freikorps would not have stood for another armed overthrow of the government after the Spartacist Rebellion and the Kapp Putsch.

/u/ThisPlaceIsToxic 2 points

Hitler confessed in retrospect: Only one thing could have broken our movement – if the adversary had understood its principle and from the first day had smashed, with the most extreme brutality, the nucleus of our new movement.”
Kindly fuck off* Nazi Sympathizing Scum.
http://www.snopes.com/adolf-hitler-smashing-the-nucleus/

/u/LothartheDestroyer 4 points
Wait. Is the fuck off directed towards me?
I hope not.
Because I’m not a sympathizer. It feels strange having to type that out.

This is so wonderful it almost brings a tear to my eye. Socialists having to prove their purity to each other by who can rend their garments, tear out their hair, and denounce “Nazi-sympathizers” the loudest.

/u/mosneagubeat 88 points

Through the very existence and proclamation of their ideology fascists are violent.

Hitting fascists is self-defence, not violence.
Bash the fash!

And when the fascists open your intestines up on the Sacramento pavement, what’s your next move, cupcake?

Also, better dead than red.

/u/Free_Bread 32 points

This is some 3rd grade playground shit
Right, you don’t hit people just because you simply disagree with them. You do attack when they threaten your safety and right to exist

Seriously, do you think we all just go around attacking anybody who disagrees with us? No, because that’d be dreadful. Obviously we understand that concept, and there’s a reason we only advocate for attacking fascists. Despite that we vehemently disagree with liberals, we don’t attack them, and will even work with them.

This isn’t some fine line, it’s as thick as it gets. Once you start advocating and organize to violently remove people from society based on inherent traits like race, ability, or sexual orientation, you will be shut down.

Do you go around attacking anybody who disagrees with you? No. Is that your likely aspiration to do so? Yes. On what evidence do I base that statement? Nearly every socialist revolution of the last 200 years has involved some massive purging of its ideological foes, whether those foes are named “Girondins”, “Whites”, “Kulaks”, “Roaders”, “Bourgeosie”, “Capitalists”, “non-jurors”, etc.

And no, I do not hold the mass murder of people based on their political or social or economic characteristics to be morally superior to mass murdering people based on their race or ethnicity.

/u/clean_void 45 points

advocating for a racially “pure” ethno-state is violence. “it’s not okay to murder people or advocate the wholesale slaughter of others you don’t like” is some pretty basic shit.

Speech is not violence. Speech, by its very nature, cannot be violent. Speech may incite violence, but the act of uttering words is not an act of violence against anyone.

/u/dreamgirl777 23 points

why do people pretend like nazis should be regarded the same way as other citizens that are not preaching a white ethnostate through genocide?

Why do people pretend that Communists should be regarded the same way as other citizens that are not preaching a proletariat state through mass murder?

MakeGenjiGreatAgain 21 points

Violence against nazis is always okay imo

Violence against Jews is always okay imo – Hitler

Violence against Kulaks is always okay imo – Stalin

Violence against landowners is always okay imo – Mao

Violence against intellectuals is always okay imo – Pol Pot

Violence against infidels is always okay imo – Muhammad

/u/Random_CommieBut 57 points

Dear centrists:
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—
and there was no one left to speak for me.
“nazi’s should be allowed to organize”
“obviously they won’t get violent”
“but muh free speech”
Get fucking real.

Blah, blah, blah, take it to the poetry slam. Communists do not hold freedom of speech to be an idea worthy of defending. They cannot defeat Fascism or Naziism in an exchange of ideas because Communism and Fascism are built on the same foundation (Class Struggle), and in practice result in the same outcomes (absolute state control of the economy, mass murder, deprivation of natural rights).

The Communist does not wish to “bash the fash” because the Fascist is an enemy of the peoples’ freedom. The Communist and the Fascist are rivals in the same industry, tyranny, and they are busy trying to eat each other’s lunch.

This is getting tiresome now, so here’s the archived link to the reddit thread, peruse it at your leisure or desire and remember.

Oh, and remember: Better dead than red.

Berkeley Teacher Filmed Punching Neo-Nazi Arraigned

r/Anarchism

Amanda Marcotte: Male Fragility Is The Root Cause of “Terrorism”

Amanda Marcotte sat down with fellow Feminist shit-shoveller Fiona Helmsley to try and link a fat chick getting hit by a car with “toxic” masculinity. Let’s enjoy.

When author Fiona Helmsley stopped by Salon to talk about her book “Girls Gone Old,” it was shortly after a pack of white supremacists rained terror on the Virginia town of Charlottesville. Helmsley writes about toxic, violent masculinity in her book and naturally, the conversation turned to what that has to do with the events in Charlottesville.

The people who actually bothered to take the legal and required steps to exercise their right to peaceful assembly are responsible for the violence caused by the people who did not (illegal mob of SJWs and counter-protesters)? The legitimate demonstrators are responsible for being pelted with cement-filled soda cans, urine ballons, and glass bottles?

The people who bothered to take the legal and required steps to exercise their right to peaceful assembly are guilty by association for the actions of an unrelated, unassociated schizophrenic man, despite loud insistence that it is wrong to associate Jeremy Christian with Bernie Sanders or James Hodgkinson with MSNBC-junkies?

“It’s your own fault for wearing that short, free-speech skirt, you fucking slut” is answer given when a mob of socialist censors show up intending to do violence.

And the root cause of it all, of all terrorism must be … toxic masculinity.

On the dangers of male fragility:

I think the single greatest threat, and I’ll say to humanity, at the moment is male fragility, and men just not being able to process their feelings of insecurity, their feelings of anger. I mean, when men get mad, they lash out.

You see it in school shootings. You see it in terrorist activity.

Most of the solutions to problems, I think, are simple. You know, like kindness and empathy: The basic things that your mother teaches you. But I think if men could be more honest and reflective about what them feel insecure.

Question: Didn’t James Fields have a mother to teach him “kindness and empathy”? Didn’t he likely have a life full of female teachers to teach him “kindness and empathy”?

This is the feminist narrative: Any act of violence, done by a man, is the result of “male fragility” and “toxic masculinity” which can only be cured by being “kind and empathetic” which are traits inherent in females (have you tried being more like the girls?).

Meanwhile, when a woman engages in violence, as many do, it is because some man made her do it, or she was under stress, or she was mentally ill.

When a man engages in a bad act, it is a result of his inherent male inferiority (toxic masculinity). When a female does a bad act, it is because of outside forces interfering with her natural feminine goodness.

Only by refining the “toxicity” out of men through feminism does a man gain “kindness and empathy” and become New Feminist Man (a beta pussy).

On what men are afraid of:

What they were chanting in Charlottesville: ‘You will not replace us.’ Who is trying? Who is trying to replace you? We’re just trying to make things more of an equal playing field for everyone.

I think it’s just the way that society raises them. Women are raised to have some concern about the way that they look, and they’re encouraged to be more sensitive. A lot of men aren’t.

They were actually chanting “JEWS will not replace us.”

As per the World Jewish Congress:

Your premise is wrong. So I can ignore the rest.

On the performance of masculinity:

And it’s that performance thing, too. Men perform for other men. When you get men alone in a group, it’s always very different than when you get a man one on one. There’s definitely, like the performance of manliness.

It’s also like the scariest thing, for anyone probably. For being a woman, for being somebody who’s gay, for being somebody who’s Muslim, to walk down the street and there’s a pack of guys, because it’s just, you know, the performance of masculinity can be so dangerous.

Even talking about this….Men get so mad when they hear women talk about them this way. They get so defensive.

And yet, women get so mad when they hear men talk about hypergamy, or AWALT, or Feminism, or alpha fucks, beta bucks. They get so defensive.

I guess that just part of the performance of femininity, which I define as making sweeping moral pronouncements against men and offering no proof sufficient to implicate men in general of being what Feminists claim that we are.

Source

Dianne Feinstein Champions the Heckler’s Veto Against Patriot Prayer in San Francisco

Dear Superindendent Muldoon:

As we discussed on our call yesterday, I strongly oppose the Golden Gate Recreation Area’s decision to grant an event permit to Patriot Prayer for an August 26 demonstration at Crissy Field. According to the Southern Poverty Law Center, Patriot Pray attracts white nationalists and other hate groups to its rallies with the intent to provoke unrest between those groups and counter-protesters. I am alarmed at the prospect that Crissy Field will be used as a venue for Patriot Prayer’s incitement, hate, and intimidation.

It appears that “counter-protester” is the new code word for violent SJW and Communist mobs engaging in illegal activity. Let’s not mince words: Unite the Right’s permit was not intended to cover the mob that showed up to disrupt their demonstration and assault them. Patriot Prayer’s public permit is not intended to cover the SJW and Communist mobs that will appear at their planned demonstration in San Francisco.

Unless the “counter-protesters” (SJWs and Communists) have their own permit, then they have no business being there. Let them stew in their “provoked” state of mind from the comfort of their own homes if they cannot get one.

As you know, Crissy Field is a public recreational area, which draws hundreds of families who enjoy the beach, trails, and picnic areas each weekend. Because of Crissy Field’s open design – with beaches, open grassy areas, and no fences – the proposed demonstration poses very real threats to the public should the protest devolve into racial violence and clashes with law enforcement.

The City of San Francisco can afford millions in public pensions, but it can’t afford barricades? Surely there are hundreds of plastic or metal barricades in storage from the dozens of alternative lifestyle demonstrations that are attracted to San Francisco annually. Is the City of San Francisco that incompetent at crowd control?

And the “violence” previously caused at Patriot Prayer rallies was more of a “political” nature than a racial one, specifically, violence directed by socialists against non-socialists.

While I understand from you that the U.S. Park Police is working with other law enforcement agencies to assess the public safety risk, I believe there is a strong potential for violence during this demonstration. I was mayor of San Francisco for nine years. I know the area well, and I know the very significant challenges an event like this at Crissy Field will pose for law enforcement. In fact, Patriot Prayer’s recent demonstrations in Seattle and Portland both involved physical altercations, resulting in several arrests.

Ah, now we have some meat to cut in to. Let’s look at those “altercations” from Seattle and Portland.

Trump supporters’ rally in Seattle met by counter-protesters at Westlake Park

Still, some anti-fascist and anti-Trump counter-protesters made it to the plaza and surrounded the prayer rally at the plaza. There were speeches and a lot of swearing. Some attending the rally donned protective vests and helmets, and waved American flags or signs with slogans like “Christian Values.”

Leaders and others attending the prayer rally condemned the violence by white supremacists in Virginia, many showing support for President Trump and his vision of America. The counter-protesters weren’t making much of a distinction between the two.

The SJWs and Communists cannot or will not distinguish between “white supremacists” and non-white supremacists? Interesting. It’s as if their politics are dualistic and completely intolerant of anyone outside of their ideological bubble.

Continuing:

“This powerful country needs to be waving high — red, white and blue — and never back down. Why? Because we are the patriots, and we’re going to fight for what’s right,” speaker Tiny Toese, of Vancouver, Washington, told the crowd. “It all comes down to respect.”

All the while, hundreds of counter-protesters booed, yelled expletives and held signs such as “Strength through diversity” from behind a fence separating them from the pro-Trump group. Organizers of that crowd said they were there to stand against hate. A few wore all black and masks.

Antifa? At my “peaceful counter-protests?” Surely not.

Continued and buried in the middle of the story:

Seattle police reported making three arrests: a 40-year-old man for obstruction, a 37-year-old man for assault and a 25-year-old man for assault. Officers also observed some people “infiltrating” the rally at Denny Park carrying ax handles, two-by-fours and balloons containing an unknown liquid substance, according to the Police Department’s online blotter.

When Communists and Antifa show up to commit violence at an illegal counter protest, they have “infiltrated” the illegal counter protest. When some guy from Ohio, unaffiliated with anyone present, crashes into a mob of illegally counter protesting SJWs and kills one, then it is a “violent white nationalist hate rally.”

Got it.

Let’s see what these “mostly peaceful”, illegally counter-protesting demonstrators had on them.

From the Seattle Police Department Blotter:

Seattle Police arrested three men as officers worked to facilitate two planned demonstrations in Seattle today: one in Westlake park and a separate, larger counter demonstration in Denny Park.

As hundreds of peaceful counter demonstrators gathered in Denny Park, police observed some individuals infiltrating the crowd carrying axe handles, two-by-fours, and balloons containing an unknown liquid substance. Still others wore dark glasses, goggles and bandannas to conceal their identity.

Axe handles and two-by-fours of peace.

Some members of the Denny Park counter demonstration tried to circumvent police by running down an alley between 5th and 6th Avenues and Lenora. These individuals tried to use a makeshift shield to force their way past police bicycle line. Police used pepper spray to move them back. There were reports of rocks thrown at officers.

Rocks of peace.

Soon after, some in the crowd lobbed fireworks at officers. Police issued a dispersal order, using pepper spray and blast balls to move the crowd.

Fireworks of peace.

If you click the link to the archived police blotter page, you’ll notice that among the items seized from the arrested are a couple of Communist flags.

I’m sure that’s just a coincidence.

Let’s go to the Portland, OR rally back in June.

14 arrested during competing protests in Portland in wake of train stabbing

Police arrested 14 people Sunday and confiscated several weapons during a day of opposing rallies in downtown Portland, Ore.

The crowds in downtown Portland swelled to several thousand as people gathered for a free speech, pro-President Trump rally and an opposing group demonstrating at the Portland Stands United Against Hate Rally near City Hall.

Police detained a large group of protesters and others who were marching after being removed from Chapman Square where a separate protest designated for an anti-fascist group was eventually closed.

Protesters threw bricks, mortars and balloons filled with “unknown, foul-smelling liquid,” according to police. They said only the protesters at Chapman Square had engaged in criminal behavior. The crowds at Terry Schrunk Plaza, where the pro-Trump rally organized by conservative group Patriot Prayer occurred, and City Hall where the counter-protest organized by immigrant rights, religious and labor groups, were not involved, police said.

And who was at Chapman Square? SJWs and Communists, i.e. Antifa? Yep, that is correct. The pro-free speech people, the pro-Trump, were, and this might be a shock, more interested in speaking than fighting. Meanwhile the crowd that giggles about “bash the fash” and strokes their Marxist chodes to “is it okay to punch a Nazi?” were there attack and destroy (hint: If the Nazi didn’t punch you first, or isn’t making a credible threat to punch you, or the federal government hasn’t issued a declaration of war against Nazis, then no, it is not okay).

Dianne Feinstein is terribly concerned about “incitement” and “violence.” And yet, as we see above, the parties being “incited” are SJWs and Communists. What incites them appears to be anyone supporting Donald Trump or free speech (or “Freeze Peach” as they snidely refer to it). And the violence that Senator Feinstein is so worried about originates from SJWs and Communists.

Back to Dianne Feinstein’s letter:

Given this track record, there is a very real potential that Patriot Prayer will use its permit to demonstrate at Crissy Field as a free pass to incite violence. That is not what Crissy Field is about, and I urge you to reconsider your decision to issue this permit in the name of public safety.

Here we come to the crux of the argument: Dianne Feinstein wants to curtail the free speech and and peaceable assembly rights of the Patriot Prayer group to prevent SJWs and Communists from responding to speech with violence. Or, as Harry Kalven called it, the Heckler’s Veto. The Heckler’s Veto, in its precise form, occurs when the government suppresses an individual’s speech on the grounds that the government anticipates a strong negative reaction from another person or group of people.

It seems to fit this situation snugly.

More disturbing is the implication in this letter that the “counter-protesters” (SJWs and Communists) are justified in being incited by words alone to attack the speaker of those words or anyone who voluntary listens to speaker.

The narrative is that your words justify their violence.

U.S. Senators pledge to support and defend the Constitution and bear true faith and allegiance to the same. Arguing that it should set aside because a group of self-appointed Communist outlaws take umbrage with the content of speech is neither support or defense; it is complicity in the Constitution’s destruction.