A Reply to “Breaking the Siege”

The Daily Californian opened its editorial page to the black-masked revolutionary cosplayers of Antifa to “set the record straight” on why they have a love affair with the idea of tormenting and killing their class enemies.

We would like to preface this statement by saying we do not represent every group involved in anti-fascist demonstrations here in Berkeley, or in the Bay Area. While many of our comrades may share our beliefs and opinions, we are not a unified group and we do not intend to speak for anyone but ourselves.

With that out of the way: Hello, UC Berkeley! We are those anti-fascists you’ve heard so much about recently. Let us introduce ourselves. Some of us are your fellow UC Berkeley students, while others are Berkeley City College students, UC Berkeley alumni or members of the Berkeley community.

Hello, Commies of Berkeley!

For security reasons, we don’t usually talk to the press. But the media coverage of our actions against the current wave of far-right mobilization in Berkeley has inspired us to express to the public why it is that we do what we do.

You may have never heard of Antifa until we marched onto Sproul Plaza on the night of Feb. 1. Our struggle is global and ongoing, with a history that stretches as far back as there have been fascists to resist.

Unfortunately, I had heard of you, but you were thankfully a largely European phenomenon, a pack of Communism-fetishists convinced that everyone not enthusiastically in your camp is a “fascist” in need of a good “bashing.”

The current visibility of militant anti-fascism is due to the Trump-era resurgence of open, violent white nationalism. They’re more than just 4chan trolls spouting racist rhetoric online. Last June, when the Traditionalist Workers Party and the Golden State Skinheads attempted to rally in Sacramento, they stabbed nine people in the ensuing confrontation with Antifa. Identity Evropa leader Nathan Damigo sucker-punched a woman on camera at the rally April 15.

According to the police, Antifas got stabbed after they initiated violence against the Traditionalist Workers Party, throwing water bottles at them and beating them with sticks. Imagine that: People, fascist, people accused of fascism, non-fascists, etc. don’t like being assaulted and will defend themselves from armed attackers with whatever they can lay their hands to, including knives.

Nathan Damigo punched Moldylocks aka AFTER she threatened to claim “100 Nazi scalps” (I’m no expert, but I’m certain that scalping people is a violent and criminal act) and AFTER she threw glass wine bottles at Trump supporters and threatened to strike him with one.

Never trust a Communist to tell the truth; always trust a Communist to misrepresent the truth.

Our opponents push the misconception that, by militantly confronting them, we are stifling their free speech. We may be a bunch of leftists and anarchists, but we’ve still read the Constitution.

Read it and probably understood none of it.

The First Amendment protects you from government censorship. It does not allow you to impose on the 14th Amendment rights of others, prevent other people from using their freedoms of speech and assembly to hold you accountable for the things you say, or guarantee you a right to a paid speaking gig on a college campus.

There is no interpretation of “Freedom of speech” or “freedom of assembly” include assaulting people with sticks, bottles, bike locks, and bear mace.

And who precisely the fuck are you Middle-Class revolutionaries that anyone must “account” themselves to you?

Ultimately, the bloc’s actions against Milo Yiannopoulos were not in response to the things he says, but the things he does. Yiannopoulos has a history of targeted harassment of transgender, Muslim and undocumented students at his campus speeches. On the night of Feb. 1, he planned to use his platform to teach the crowd how to report undocumented students to the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. It was also rumored he planned to out undocumented students.

Notice the Doublethink in this paragraph: They opposed what Milo Yiannopoulos does, not what he said, but the only thing he did was speak.

It could be argued that Milo planned to hold illegal immigrant students “accountable” to American law.

This is not protected speech. You can’t yell “fire” in a crowded theater and you can’t out undocumented students on a sanctuary campus.

Hate to burst your Antifa bubble, but this analogy was stupid when Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. wrote it in 1919, and it is just as stupid nearly 100 years later when excreted from the pen of a black-clad pansy uses it out of context.

First, the quote itself in full:

“The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre AND causing a panic.”

Falsehood + Speech + Panic/Danger.

But the case itself (Schenk v. U.S., now thankfully overturned) had nothing to do with fires or panics; it was about a Socialist who distributed flyers (IN YIDDISH) encouraging men not to enlist in World War I.

But censors and moral busybodies for a century have been stroking themselves silly to that ill-thought bit of dictum.

Despite all of this, the UC Berkeley administration chose to put their students in danger. We decided this was unacceptable. You may disagree with our actions, but if it protected even one student from being targeted, then we are not ashamed.

This is the Communist/Antifa mentality in a nutshell: We don’t care if you disagree; we are not amenable to discourse on the legality, rationality, or utility of our actions; we are morally pure, therefore whatever we do is beyond reproach.

In dealing with Antifa, America is not dealing with a political movement, it is dealing with a cult.

Bay Area Antifa did not have any militant action planned for Ann Coulter’s event. While her views are disgusting and deserve to be protested, nobody wants to get attacked with a nightstick or go to jail over Ann Coulter. If any action had been taken, it would have been because of the extremists in attendance and looking for a fight at her speech.

Nobody wants to get beaten with a stick, hit with a glass bottle, sprayed with bear mace, or hit with a bike lock over Communism, yet here we are, all because Communists are self-righteous twats who imagine they have a right to assault people for disagreeing with them.

But these speakers know now to expect resistance. We didn’t have to shut Coulter down — she canceled once her financial backers and the administration recognized that her presence was unsafe and unprofitable.

Amazing how Communists have the marked inability to call anything by its proper name. They have half a dozen euphemisms for “violence” (direct action, resistance, militancy, protest, accountable) but the threat is always present and understood with them. Communists threaten the safety of speakers and people who want to hear the speaker and then call the person they oppose the problem.

Or, as a wife-beater would put it: If you would just behave, I wouldn’t have to beat you. Yes, Communists are the social equivalent of a domestic abuser.

You may have wondered where the masses of people in masks were April 27. We shut them down March 4 and April 15 because they wanted to prove they could rally in Berkeley. On April 27, they came from far and wide to fight Antifa. Instead of giving them what they wanted, we let them stand around in the park in their Spartan helmets, pretending to enjoy their open mic and getting sunburned.

Our ideology is not tethered to masculinity and strength — we don’t ever have to fight on their terms. We are also aware (because again, we live here) that on a Thursday afternoon, high schoolers and middle schoolers were in class in the area where the fascists wanted to hold their street fight.

Another Commie offering alternative history and flushing inconvenient facts down the memory hole.

The good Communists of r/Anarchism are at least honest enough to admit that they got BTFO on April 15th.

As for the 27th, and this is merely speculation, after the shellacking Antifa et al. took on the 15th, the Black Bloc decided not to combat Trump supporters for control of the streets again, at least not until they have a strategic or numerical advantage.

You’re probably sick of feeling like Berkeley is a warzone. We are, too. We’re tired of seeing Identity Evropa propaganda on campus and up and down the streets we grew up on. We’re tired of hearing about kids at Albany High using Nazi salutes in the hallways.

And we’re tired of fighting a second front against public apathy and misinformation.

As the great Ludacris once rhymed:

“If you tired, be quiet and go to sleep, ho.”

Your fatigue and low energy is not an argument in support of your position.

We are anti-fascists. We are not paramilitary, outside agitators, or punks looking for a fight. We are members of this community who are invested in its safety.

We understand that not everyone can join us in this fight. All we ask is that you understand why we take to the streets.

At least the writer got one thing right: Antifa isn’t looking for fights; they are looking for lynchings. They are looking to isolate and overwhelm their enemies with surprise, anonymity, and superior numbers. Stripped of their advantages, they slink away and write letters to Dailycal pleading that they are “the good guys” and begging people not infected with this social/political cancer called Communism to rally behind them.

Fortunately, people are paying attention Antifa’s actions and not their crocodile tears and realize that these people are engaging in violence for the sake of violence and that their definition of “Fascist” means “anyone who does not swear allegiance to Antifa.”


Archived Source


Hoes Gon’ Be Hoes: The July 4th Freedom Edition – Featuring Eugene Robinson

The only reasonable response to the massacre in Orlando is to ban the sale of military-style assault weapons. All else, I’m afraid, is just noise.

Oh really? Please, enlighten me, Eugene.

If this ensconces me in an ideological corner, I’m fine with that. If it insults the Constitution, so be it – any other response would do far greater harm to our freedoms. Or we could argue for a while and then do nothing. We’ve tried that course of action many times, and it doesn’t work.

Glad to see you’re fine with shredding up the Constitution. While we’re at it, let’s get rid of those pesky 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments, you know, the ones that were passed and signed by racist white men.

An Islamic State sympathizer was able to go into a gun store and buy both a pistol and an AR-15-style semiautomatic assault rifle, which he used to kill 49 men and women at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando. Had he been armed with the pistol alone, he still would have killed people – but not so many. Keeping military-grade combat weapons out of the hands of maniacs should not be a controversial idea.

An Islamic State sympathizer with no criminal record, who was on at least one of the so-called “terror watchlists,” was interviewed multiple times by the FBI, but no one in the federal government took action against him. This is not an indictment of the right to keep and bear arms; it is an indictment of this comical and dangerous national security kabuki theater that tramples on the rights of the law-abiding while failing to stop criminals.

And the AR-15 semiautomatic rifle and the semiautomatic pistol fire rounds at the exact same rate, Eugene. That’s what semiautomatic means; every time you squeeze the trigger, the weapon discharges a round. You can only fire a semiautomatic weapon, rifle or pistol, as quickly as you can squeeze the trigger and how tight the trigger pull is.

The Second Amendment enshrines the right to keep and bear arms, and the Supreme Court has ruled that this is an individual right, not a collective one. The court has made clear, however, that this does not preclude reasonable gun control measures. Not all weapons must be considered suitable for private hands.

Eugene, it’s an individual right as a matter of simple logic. The first ten amendments were drafted by the same people and passed at the same time, hence the name, “The Bill of Rights.”To accept the disarmament set’s argument that it is a “collective” right, would mean that “the people” mentioned in the Second Amendment, are an entirely different “the people” than “the people” in Amendments 1, 4, 9, and 10.

When the framers wrote of “arms,” they were thinking about muskets and single-shot pistols. They could not have foreseen modern rifles or high-capacity magazines. They lived at a time when it was impossible to imagine one man barging into a crowded room and killing more than one or two people before having to reload and surely being subdued. Today it is not only imaginable but tragically commonplace.

Ah, the blatherings of the blissfully ignorant. At this time, I draw your attention to a weapon known as the Kalthoff repeater, engineered and constructed in the 1650s by the famous Kalthoff family of gunsmiths. This rifle was well-known because it could discharge 20-30 rounds per minute in 1650. The Kalthoff did not enter popular use because of its expense to construct and maintain compared to a muzzle-loading musket.

So despite being evil racist, white men, with their tiny pea brains that were able to fight and defeat the greatest empire of their day, and construct an experiment in republicanism personal liberty that was unheard of its time, and the fact that the type of weapon you claim they could not have conceived of existed in a costly and primitive form for 130 years prior to their enshrinement of the Second Amendment, it is impossible that they could have conceived of a weapon that more or less already existed in their own time. And this is without mentioning the existence of grenades, sniper rifles, mortars, cannons, and warships, some of which were owned privately by early American citizens and loaned to the government.

Okay, Eugene.

No hunter needs an AR-15 to bring down a deer. None of us needs such a weapon to defend our families against intruders. And for those who believe assault rifles offer protection against a tyrannical government, I have sobering news: If and when the black helicopters come, they will be accompanied by tanks.

Eugene, we live in a racist white society. I live in mortal dread that the KKK might decide to come lynch me. How could you deny me my right to life and try to legally bar me from the tools that could mean my survival against a lynch mob of hateful white racists?

30 rounds sounds just right for controlling a homicidal racist mob. Nothing puts the fear into a rioting mob more than the threat of taking a few of them with you. Because nobody wants to be the one of the ones you take.

And tanks are your escalation point, huh? You think a tank is a trump card? Okay then.

Why focus exclusively on the guns? Because other proposed solutions would violate the letter and spirit of the Constitution – and surely wouldn’t work anyway.

Wait a minute, now you are worried about violating the letter and spirit of the Constitution? The guy who wrote this in his second paragraph:

If it insults the Constitution, so be it.

What the fuck? Can you keep your argument going in a straight line, Eugene?

One of the presidential candidates has suggested a ban on Muslim immigration. The idea would be laughable if it were not so dangerously un-American.

May I direct your attention to the 1798 Aliens Act, which gave the President the power to expel aliens “judged dangerous to the peace and safety of the United States” or suspected of “treasonable or secret machinations.”? How about the 1903 Immigration Act which gave legal grounds to bar and/or deport Anarchists? How’s about the Smith Act of 1940 which allowed for the barring and/or deportation of any alien who USED to be an Anarchist? Maybe the 1960 Internal Security Act which codified the barring and deportation of communists, fascists, and totalitarians?

Now, the federals have relaxed immigration based on ideology since then, but America has spent more years barring people for holding certain ideological positions inherently antagonistic to the United States government than it has allowing them entry.

First, it would be useless. The Orlando murderer – I don’t want to use his name – was born not overseas but in New York, just like the presidential candidate in question. And in the San Bernardino killing spree, also inspired by the Islamic State, the wife was an immigrant but the husband was born in the United States. The self-radicalization of American citizens is not going to be solved by banning all believers in Islam from entry.

Yeah, because writing the name, OMAR MATEEN, is a mystical totem that will summon him like the Candyman to enter the world through your computer screen and shoot you with an AR-15. If you are going to bag on early Americans for being too ignorant and stupid to be able to conceive of a weapon that can discharge a round every time you squeeze the trigger, can you restrain your urge to indulge in supertitious peasant nonsense?

Also, I couldn’t help but notice in your comprehensive list of Islamic terrorists, you omitted Muhammad Youssef Abdulazeez, the Kuwaiti-born Chattanooga, TN shooter; The Chechnya-born Tsarnaev brothers; The Egypt-born Yusuf Ibrahim who shot and decapitated two Copts in New Jersey; Nigeria-born Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab who tried to blow up a flight from Amsterdam to Detroit on Christmas. I’m sure these omissions were just oversights, not purposeful dissimulation in service to a narrative.

And “Self-radicalization,” is the statists’ new buzzword to strip the people of what few rights they have in the name of “safety.

Which would be impossible, of course. I suppose immigration officers could ask every foreign visitor whether he or she is a Muslim, but then what? If the answer is no, wave them through? Stop them for further questioning if they “look” Muslim, whatever that means? Don’t you think Islamic State operatives might be smart enough to have Bibles in their carry-on rather than Qurans?

Aww, look. Eugene is attempting to be flippant. But I am glad Eugene, in a rare moment of honesty mentioned that Islamic State operatives might be smart enough to carry Bibles instead of Qurans, since that touches on the Islamic notion of Taqiyya in which Muslims may lie, or commit otherwise prohibited acts if they “fear” persecution. Jihadists have expanded the concept of Taqiyya to “the West is persecuting us, therefore we may Taqiyya them in the form of deception to commit terrorist acts.”

That notion of deception in service to the Jihad is a point in favor of the unnamed “New York candidate,” not against.

Nice work, Eugene.

Attempting such a prohibition would also be obscene in a nation that enshrines religious freedom in the First Amendment.

The same nation that enshrines the right to keep and bear arms in the Second Amendment?

Another possible response would involve more vigilant surveillance. The Orlando shooter had been interviewed by the FBI at least twice because of alleged extremist leanings or connections. He was apparently on a terrorism watch list for a time, but was removed after authorities decided there was no need to keep him under suspicion.

More surveillance, more security theater, less rights. By logic, the people with the fewest rights in America (prison inmates) should be the safest. Reality tells a different story. And as Eugene himself mentions, the security theater failed in the case of OMAR MATEEN.

By all means, Congress should immediately ban gun sales to anyone on such a watch list. But that wouldn’t have helped in Orlando. No level of surveillance remotely permissible under the Constitution would allow authorities to detect all instances of self-radicalization and act on them. We put people in jail for what they do, not what they think.

Yeah, you see Eugene, in your stunted understanding of the constitution, there’s these two parts, one called the Fifth Amendment, and the other called the Fourteenth Amendment which state, in part, that no one shall be “deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law.” The so-called terror watch lists have no due process mechanism. And there are more ways to deny a person their liberties than putting them in jail, such as denying them their rights to liberty or property because a bureaucrat arbitrarily put their name on a list. I know you don’t give a damn about any part of the Constitution that isn’t the First Amendment (since that’s how you make your money) but try and expand your knowledge base a little.

Should there be universal background checks for gun purchases? Yes, of course. But the Orlando killer passed a background check. It is not possible to have a free society without the presumption of innocence.

And he passed the background check, why? BECAUSE HE DIDN’T HAVE A CRIMINAL RECORD! Ding-ding-ding! Tell the man what he’s won, Johnny!

Freedom is possible, however, without the right to buy military weapons designed for killing sprees. Banning them would not end mass killings, but it would mean fewer deaths. If we do not act, the blood of future victims will be on all of our hands.

For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of THE VICTIMS…by not actually shooting them themselves? Every man is responsible for his own crimes, not the person standing next to him. Everyone is a law-abiding citizen until they break the law. It is nonsensical to strip law-abiding citizens of their rights on the speculation that they might, at some unforeseen date and time, engage in a criminal act. It’s as tyrannical and asinine as suggesting that “freedom is possible, however, without the right to privacy which terrorists use to plot killing sprees.”

P.S. I am fascinated every time a black person gets on the gun control bandwagon, considering that the original gun control laws in America were specifically intended to keep blacks disarmed and unable to defend themselves against lawful and unlawful violence. Guess house negroes got to eat too, even if it means siding with racists, and slavers, and tyrants against your own people.

Archived Source