FBI And Homeland Security Recognize Antifa as Domestic Terrorists

The purposeless massacres perpetrated since the June and October events, the tedious offering of sacrifices since February and March, the very cannibalism of the counterrevolution will convince the nations that there is only one way in which the murderous death agonies of the old society and the bloody birth throes of the new society can be shortened, simplified and concentrated, and that way is revolutionary terror.

– Karl Marx, The Victory of the Counter-Revolution in Vienna

Yesterday, Politico published an article entitled, “FBI, Homeland Security warn of more ‘antifa’ attacks.”

The article cites internal government documents from April 2016, identifying Antifa as the primary instigators of violence at public rallies on various targets. This is a sensible conclusion. The German Antifa perfected this tactic as seen most notably in Leizpig where Antifa will arrive at demonstrations unmasked, blend into crowds before forming a “Black Bloc” and attacking their targets.

The “mostly peaceful”Progressive/Socialist demonstrators will never be forced to take responsibility for acting as a Trojan horse for Communist violence. Less than 5% of the participants in a “free speech” march bring NSDAP flags, and the whole thing is a “White supremacist rally.”

But, I digress.

The April 2016 documents also reported that federal law enforcement suspects that Antifa may begin bomb attacks similar to those committed by Communists in Greece, Italy, and Mexico.

Antifa is just another Communist movement, that has not yet flowered into full-blown terrorism, but they are inching ever-closer to that end. Antifa is the brainchild of German Communists who picked up their ideology from the Italian Autonomist movement.

Here are a few examples of where Communist “militancy” eventually end:

Action Directe

In 1977, Jean-Marc Rouillian, a French Marxist/Internationalist, created Action Directe for the purpose of carrying out, as the name suggests “direct action” (an anarcho-communist euphemism for political terrorism) in France. The group committed approximately 50 crimes, ranging from property destruction, to robbery, to murder before French authorities arrested and disbanded the group in 1987.

– May 1, 1979: Action Directe shoots up the headquarters of the CNPF (National Council of French Employers) in Paris.

– May 25, 1979: Action Directe bombs a real estate agency in Sceaux.

– March 16, 1980: Action Directe attacks the DST (Directorate of Territorial Surveillance) office in Paris.

– March 18, 1980: Action Directe shoots up the Ministry of Cooperation, hitting minister Robert Galley several times.

– August 2, 1984: Action Directe bombs the European Space Agency, wounding six.

– August 23, 1984: Action Directe leaves a 23-kg car bomb outside of the Western European Union office. Authorities defused the bomb before it detonated.

– January 25, 1985: Action Directe kills René Audran, Engineer-General of the Corps of Attainment, in front of his home.

– June 26, 1985: Action Directe attempts and fails to assassinate Henri Blandin, Comptroller-General of the military.

Japanese Red Army

In 1971, Shigenobu Fusako, founded the Nihon Sekigun, or the Japanese Red Army, after having been radicalized as a student at Meiji University. She traveled to Lebanon and allied with the Palestinian Liberation Front with the aim of creating a worldwide socialist revolution.

– May 30, 1972: Three members of JRA attack Lod Airport (now Ben-Gurion Airport) in Israel with guns and grenades, killing 26 people and wounding 80.

– July 20, 1973: Five JRA members hijack Japan Air Lines Flight 404 after takeoff from Schiphol.

– September 13, 1974: JRA members take the French ambassador and ten others hostage at The Hague, Netherlands.

– August 5, 1975: The JRA takes 50 hostages at the American Insurance Associates building in Kuala Lampur, Malaysia.

– August 11, 1976: JRA and PFLP members kill four people at Ataturk Airport in Istanbul, Turkey.

December 4, 1977: JRA hijacks and crashes Malaysian Airline System Flight 653, killing all passengers and crew aboard.

– April 12, 1988: A New Jersey State Trooper arrests JRA member Kikumura Yū on the New Jersey Turnpike with three pipebombs in his car.

– April 14, 1988: The JRA bombs a USO club in Naples, Italy, killing one and wounding four.

The Red Brigades

In 1970, Renato Curcio, Margherita Cagol, and Alberto Franceschini. Curcio and Cagol were radicalized at the University of Trento. Franceschini was the grandson of the founder of the Italian Communist Party. In the beginning, the Red Brigades satisfied themselves with industrial sabotage of factories in Milan and burglarizing factory and union offices. In 1972, the Red Brigade kidnapped a factory foreman and photographed him with a placard declaring him to be a “Nazi.” Despite the arrest of the founding members in 1974, they continued to direct terrorist activities to members outside of prison until 1988 when the majority of its members were either dead or in jail.

– April 18, 1974: The Red Brigades kidnaps Assistant State Attorney Mario Sossi.

– June 17, 1974: The Red Brigades attack the headquarters of the Italian Social Movement, killing two.

– November 16, 1977: The Red Brigades shoot and kill Carlo Casalegno, deputy editor of La Stampa, in Turin, Italy.

– March 16, 1978: The Red Brigades kidnap and murder Aldo Moro, president of the Christian Democratic Party, along with five of Moro’s bodyguards.

– May 20, 1981: The Red Brigades kidnap and murder, Giuseppe Taliercio, an chemical engineer and manager of Montedison.

The Red Army Faction

The Red Army Faction was a West German Communist militant group, originally supported by the East German Stasi (State Police). The group was inspired by various murdering “revolutionaries” such as Mao Zedong, Ho Chi Minh, and Che Guevara, and based its thinking on the Italian Autonomism, as well as Gramscian and Frankfurt school culture criticism.

All of that “thinking” they imbibed led to them blowing up a lot of stuff, robbing a lot of places, and killing a lot of people.

The surviving members of the group rationalized their campaign of violence by arguing that former Nazis, real or perceived, were in positions of authority in Germany and came to the conclusion that any negative they saw in German society was akin to “Naziism.” There was also an element of “sinfulness” in their actions and the need to purge themselves of the taint of their parents’ sin of being Nazis, or complying with Nazi rule.

The fall of the Soviet Union and the reunification of Germany cut the RAF from its primary sources of funding. Many of the RAF members fled Germany with new identities, supplied by the Stasi in its last days, to Yugoslavia, Poland, and the Middle East.

– October 22, 1971: The RAF kills Sergeant Norbert Schmid.

– December 22, 1971: The RAF kills police officer Herbert Schoner during a bank robbery.

– May 11, 1972: The RAF kills US Army Lt. Paul A. Bloomquist in a bomb attack in Frankfurt am Main, Germany.

– May 24, 1972: The RAF kills three Army personnel in Heidelberg by bomb.

– April 24, 1975: The RAF kills two in an attack on the West German embassy in Stockholm, Sweden.

– April 7, 1977: The RAF kills Attorney-General of Germany Siegfried Buback by shooting into his car at a stoplight.

– July 30, 1977: The RAF kills Jürgen Ponto, chairman of Dresdner Bank, in the course of attempting to kidnap him.

As the above quote and history indicate, Communism is a political philosophy of unjustifiable political terrorism and all Communist movements eventually end up engaging in terrorism in service to it.

Antifa, and its various American organs and derivations, drink from the same philosophical well as Action Directe, the Japanese Red Army, the Red Brigades, and the Red Army Faction. They already have their justification in place when they giggle to each other about “Bash the Fash.”

It’s a short leap from beating a man in the name of politics, to killing him for his politics.

Source

Archived Source

Advertisements

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

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.”

Source

Archived Source

The Women’s March on Washington; Guiding Vision and Definitions of Principles with Commentary

The Women’s March group has released its terrorist demands…I mean guiding vision and definitions of principles (which offers no guidance, defines nothing in any meaningful way and appears to contain no principles at all).

Because I’m stuck inside thanks to all of that global warming going on outside today, I’m going to try and pick apart this nonsense.

Light a candle for me as I stare into the heart of feminist darkness.

OVERVIEW & PURPOSE

The Women’s March on Washington is a women-led movement bringing together people of all genders, ages, races, cultures, political affiliations and backgrounds in our nation’s capital on January 21, 2017, to affirm our shared humanity and pronounce our bold message of resistance and self-determination.

Recognizing that women have intersecting identities and are therefore impacted by a multitude of social justice and human rights issues, we have outlined a representative vision for a government that is based on the principles of liberty and justice for all. As Dr. King said, “We cannot walk alone. And as we walk, we must make the pledge that we shall always march ahead. We cannot turn back.”

Our liberation is bound in each other’s.

Liberation from what?

The Women’s March on Washington includes leaders of organizations and communities that have been building the foundation for social progress for generations. We welcome vibrant collaboration and honor the legacy of the movements before us – the suffragists and abolitionists, the Civil Rights Movement, the feminist movement, the American Indian Movement, Occupy Wall Street, Marriage Equality, Black Lives Matter, and more – by employing a decentralized, leader-full structure and focusing on an ambitious, fundamental and comprehensive agenda.

#WHYWEMARCH
We are empowered by the legions of revolutionary leaders who paved the way for us to march, and acknowledge those around the globe who fight for our freedoms. We honor these women and so many more. They are #WHYWEMARCH.

Bella Abzug • Corazon Aquino • Ella Baker • Grace Lee Boggs
Berta Cáceres • Rachel Carson • Shirley Chisholm
Angela Davis • Miss Major Griffin Gracy • LaDonna Harris
Dorothy I. Height • bell hooks • Dolores Huerta • Marsha P. Johnson Barbara Jordan • Yuri Kochiyama • Winona LaDuke
Audre Lorde • Wilma Mankiller • Diane Nash • Sylvia Rivera
Barbara Smith • Gloria Steinem • Hannah G. Solomon
Harriet Tubman • Edith Windsor • Malala Yousafzai

The pantheon of the Feminist Saints. I can’t help but notice that Valerie Solanas is conspicuously absent from this list.

Must have been a typo.

VALUES & PRINCIPLES
● We believe that Women’s Rights are Human Rights and Human Rights are Women’s Rights. This is the basic and original tenet from which all our values stem.

A pithy little piece of sloganeering which ably forecloses the rights of Men from being considered “Human Rights.”

It also neglects to mention what “Women’s Rights” are specifically.

● We believe Gender Justice is Racial Justice is Economic Justice. We must create a society in which women, in particular women—in particular Black women, Native women, poor women, immigrant women, Muslim women, and queer and trans women—are free and able to care for and nurture their families, however they are formed, in safe and healthy environments free from structural impediments.

To begin, this hyphenated/qualified Justice is not Justice. “Social Justice” is not justice. “Gender Justice” is not justice. “Racial Justice” is not justice. “Economic Justice” is not justice. Justice, by its very nature, takes no notice of the race, sex, wealth, poverty, or culture of the parties in conflict, but seeks to give both parties such treatment and outcomes as their actions deserve.

The Oppression Olympics promoted by “intersectionality” on full display. All women are the victims of all men in the form of “The Patriarchy.” However, some women are just a little more “oppressed” than other women. Black women are always more “oppressed” than White women. Poor women are always more “oppressed” than middle-class women who are more “oppressed” than rich women. Muslim women are always more “oppressed” than Christian women. immigrant women are always more “oppressed” than native women. Lesbians are always more “oppressed” than heterosexuals.

● Women deserve to live full and healthy lives, free of violence against our bodies.

How so, when men do not “live full and healthy lives, free of violence against their bodies?”

One in three women have been victims of some form of physical violence by an intimate partner within their lifetime;

Men, across time and geography are the primary victims of violence. Even narrowed to the sliver of violence feminists obsess as “domestic violence,” the numbers of men and women who are the victims of such violence are about 60-40.

and one in five women have been raped.

An outright lie, as pointed out by the researcher WHO COLLECTED THE DATA.

Further, each year, thousands of women and girls, particularly Black, indigenous and transgender women and girls, are kidnapped,

Okay.

trafficked,

Male sex trafficking is widely underreported and fewer services are available for boys who have been forced into prostitution.

or murdered.

Pick a year. ANY year. The number of male homicide victims (10,608 in 2015) will not even be close to the number of female homicide victims (2,818 in 2015).

We honor the lives of those women who were taken before their time and we affirm that we work for a day when all forms of violence against women are eliminated.

Meanwhile, the amount of violence against men is just fine where it is.

Now, tell me again how “Feminism means equality.”

● We believe in accountability and justice for police brutality and ending racial profiling and targeting of communities of color. Women of color are killed in police custody at greater rates than white women, and are more likely to be sexually assaulted by police.

Intersectionality. In the Killed in Police Custody event, black women take the gold medal, “women of color” take the silver, white women take the bronze medal.

We also call for an immediate end to arming police with the military grade weapons and military tactics that are wreaking havoc on communities of color.

Fucking feminists. Even when they approach a good point (military surplus and federal grants as an end-run around the Posse Comitatus Act) screw it up by stating that it is the police “wreaking havoc on communities of color” (code for Black people).

No, it isn’t the police wreaking havoc in the black community, it’s thugs and the Black Matriarchy that is wreaking havoc in the black community.

There were over 700 murders in the city of Chicago in 2016. Chicago is ground zero of the Black Matriarchy. The CPD is damn near a criminal enterprise, but not even the most successfully sued police department in America killed over 700 people in 2016. Most of those 700 were black people. Most of them were killed by other black people. And most of those, both the killers and the victims, were raised by Black Matriarchs, single black females, chanting the holy, head-wagging, finger-shaking “sassy” mantra of “I don’t need no man” ever since LBJ offered them a nice government teat to suck off of. AFDC. TANF. Section 8. Housing Vouchers. SNAP. WIC. Black Matriarchs have been wards of the state for damn near 60 years and the results are in:

“Communities” without Men in general, and fathers in particular, are complete shit. No need to add cops to the mix, single mothers can wreak havoc on communities without any help from John Law.

No woman or mother should have to fear that her loved ones will be harmed at the hands of those sworn to protect.

The police have no legal duty to protect you as an individual or keep you alive. See Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1,3 (U.S. App. D.C. 1981)

● We believe it is our moral imperative to dismantle the gender and racial inequities within the criminal justice system. The rate of imprisonment has grown faster for women than men, increasing by 700% since 1980, and the majority of women in prison have a child under the age of 18.

Oh my God, stop the presses! Women are actually being punished for their crimes! It’s the end of civilization as we know it!

But I like the part that the majority of women in prison have a child, as if popping out a baby, before or after committing a felony somehow sanctifies a felon.

If there is to be no leniency in sentencing or parole for fatherhood, then why should there be any for motherhood?

Incarcerated women also face a high rate of violence and sexual assault.

And yet, prison is one of the places where a man is more likely to be raped than a woman.

But, “Feminism means equality.”

We are committed to ensuring access to gender-responsive programming and dedicated healthcare including substance abuse treatment, mental and maternal health services for women in prison.

Translation: Send more money.

We believe in the promise of restorative justice and alternatives to incarceration.

Once again, “Qualified Justice” is not justice; it is an unjustifiable bias in favor of one person over another.

We are also committed to disrupting the school-to-prison pipeline that prioritizes incarceration over education by systematically funneling our children—particularly children of color, queer and trans youth, foster care children, and girls—into the justice system.

The State subsidizes the irresponsible Black Matriarch to breed with the worst mates she can select. The State subsidizes the Public Miseducation System to warehouse and “Socially Promote” the products of the Black Matriarchy and acclimate them to a prison-like environment.

Feminists are now surprised that all of this subsidization of mediocrity as produced felons and miscreants.

● We believe in Reproductive Freedom. We do not accept any federal, state or local rollbacks, cuts or restrictions on our ability to access quality reproductive healthcare services, birth control, HIV/AIDS care and prevention, or medically accurate sexuality education. This means open access to safe, legal, affordable abortion and birth control for all people, regardless of income, location or education. We understand that we can only have reproductive justice when reproductive health care is accessible to all people regardless of income, location or education.

Translation: White Daddy, we’re broke. Send more money.

● We believe in Gender Justice. We must have the power to control our bodies and be free from gender norms, expectations and stereotypes. We must free ourselves and our society from the institution of awarding power, agency and resources disproportionately to masculinity to the exclusion of others.

Once again, “Qualified Justice” is not justice; it is an unjustifiable bias in favor of one person over another.

As for the rest of this insidious gibberish about gender norms, how does one free themselves from “expectations” or “stereotypes”? By stamping out dissent, perhaps? With the power of the State?

Feminists are the handmaidens of tyranny. They would rather deprive you of your right to speak than exercise their right to not listen.

● We firmly declare that LGBTQIA Rights are Human Rights and that it is our obligation to uplift, expand and protect the rights of our gay, lesbian, bi, queer, trans or gender non-conforming brothers, sisters and siblings. This includes access to non-judgmental, comprehensive healthcare with no exceptions or limitations; access to name and gender changes on identity documents; full antidiscrimination protections; access to education, employment, housing and benefits; and an end to police and state violence.

Healthcare with no exceptions or limitations? Even if the provider of healthcare disagrees with doing so?

So not only do Feminists want the State to “send more money,” and free them from “expectations and stereotypes” (through the use of force), but now, the State must corral and enslave some medical professionals for the unfettered and unlimited use of the LGBTQWTFROFLMAOBBQ people (Note: I don’t care what hole you stick what in [consensually], but you got too many damn letters and they change frequently).

● We believe in an economy powered by transparency, accountability, security and equity.

Which rock have you been hiding under for the last eight years during the most transparently opaque Presidency in history?

We believe that creating workforce opportunities that reduce discrimination against women and mothers allow economies to thrive.

Glad you think so.

Nations and industries that support and invest in caregiving and basic workplace protections—including benefits like paid family leave, access to affordable childcare, sick days, healthcare, fair pay, vacation time, and healthy work environments—have shown growth and increased capacity.

Translation: Send more money.

I hope, dear reader, that you’ve noticed a recurring theme by now.

● We believe in equal pay for equal work and the right of all women to be paid equitably. We must end the pay and hiring discrimination that women, particularly mothers, women of color, lesbian, queer and trans women still face each day in our nation. Many mothers have always worked and in our modern labor force; and women are now 50% of all family breadwinners. We stand for the 82% of women who become moms, particularly moms of color, being paid, judged, and treated fairly. Equal pay for equal work will lift families out of poverty and boost our nation’s economy.

The Labor Theory of Value in a pair of panties with “Equal Pay for Equal Work” printed across the butt, rearing its ugly, Marxist head. The value of a product is not determined by the amount of work that went into producing it, but by its value to a purchaser.

Two people with the same job requirements may not produce equal or same results in doing the same job.

● We recognize that women of color carry the heaviest burden in the global and domestic economic landscape, particularly in the care economy.

In the Oppression Olympics, Black women take another gold medal in the Care Economy Event! I tell you, Bob, if they keep this up, this year’s Oppression Olympics will be a clean sweep!

We further affirm that all care work–caring for the elderly, caring for the chronically ill, caring for children and supporting independence for people with disabilities–is work, and that the burden of care falls disproportionately on the shoulders of women, particularly women of color.

“Disproportionately”?

We stand for the rights, dignity, and fair treatment of all unpaid and paid caregivers. We must repair and replace the systemic disparities that permeate caregiving at every level of society.

Moralistic horseshit.

● We believe that all workers – including domestic and farm workers – must have the right to
organize and fight for a living minimum wage, and that unions and other labor associations are critical to a healthy and thriving economy for all.

A cartel is a cartel.

No cartel, whether it be a cartel of labor sellers or a cartel of licorice sellers is good for an economy.

Undocumented and migrant workers must be included in our labor protections, and we stand in solidarity with sex workers’ rights movements.

Compound sentences make for bad drafting.

● We believe Civil Rights are our birthright.

You believe wrongly. “Civil rights” (a misnomer) are purely statutory are entirely dependent on your choice of domicillary. “Civil rights” would more accurately be categorized as “privileges and licenses.”

“Natural rights” are your birthright as a human being and which all human beings should recognize in one another.

Our Constitutional government establishes a framework to provide and expand rights and freedoms–not restrict them.

The federal government does not “provide” rights. It recognizes certain individual rights and refrains from interfering with those individual rights.

It does not subsidize the exercise of individual rights.

To this end, we must protect and restore all the Constitutionally-mandated rights to all our citizens, including voting rights, freedom to worship without fear of intimidation or harassment, freedom of speech, and protections for all citizens regardless of race, gender, age or disability.

Great. Have fun with that.

● We believe it is time for an all-inclusive Equal Rights Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Most Americans believe the Constitution guarantees equal rights, but it does not. The 14th Amendment has been undermined by courts and cannot produce real equity on the basis of race and/or sex.

Ah, now we get to some real Feminist saltiness. For the sake of analysis, I’m going to assume that the authors of this document are referring to 14th Amendment Equal Protection jurisprudence.

For those not in the know, here’s a super-abbreviated version of 14th Amendment Equal Protection Doctrine:

U.S.Const. Amend. XIV Sec. 1: All persons born or naturalized in the United States are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside…No state shall…deny any person equal protection of the laws.

In the wisdom of our nine Nazgul aka the United States Supreme Court, different classifications of parties receive different scrutiny. For example, in Korematsu v. U.S., the court said that “all legal restrictions which curtail the civil rights of a single racial group are immediately suspect.” For the law in question to be held constitutional, the government would have to prove that the law was passed for an extremely important reason and that reason could not be achieved through less discriminatory means, otherwise known as The Strict Scrutiny Test, which is applied in all instances of racial/national origin cases alleging violation of the Equal Protection clause.

When it comes to sex/gender, a lower standard is used, known as “Intermediate Scrutiny,” which is something more than “Rational Basis” but less than “Strict Scrutiny.” Intermediate Scrutiny, as described in Craig v. Boren requires that the law in question “serve important governmental objectives and must be substantially related to those objectives.”

What chaps the collective ass of Feminists is the argument against Strict Scrutiny for sex/gender cases. Feminists argue (wrongly) that women have been just as put upon by the law in America as black men (ignoring the distinction between femme sole and femme covert). One arguments against is the intent of the government in passing the 14th Amendment (to protect the newly freed former slaves). Another is that women are not now, nor have they ever been, a discrete and insular minority as laid out in footnote 4 of the Carolene Products case.

Interestingly, Intermediate Scrutiny has helped the feminist cause. The Equal Protection Clause is a double-edged sword. Laws passed in favor of a particular classification (race or sex) must meet the same level of scrutiny as those passed against that classification. For examples, see Michael M. v. Superior Court (upheld CA statutory rape law that allowed prosecution of the 17-year-old boy who had sex but not the 16-year-old girl); Rostker v. Goldberg (Men must register for Selective Service, but not women); Califano v. Webster (Social Security calculation can be used for “redressing our society’s longstanding disparate treatment of women.”); Nguyen v. INS (Unmarried citizen fathers face harder requirements when seeking to nationalize their foreign-born children)

Warning: That was the super-abbreviated version. 14th Amendment jurisprudence has a lot more wrinkles than described above. For more information, take your ass to law school.

And in a true democracy, each citizen’s vote should count equally.

Good thing the United States isn’t a democracy. It’s a republic.

All Americans deserve equality guarantees in the Constitution that cannot be taken away or disregarded, recognizing the reality that inequalities intersect, interconnect and overlap.

Didn’t the 22nd Amendment take away the right of the American people to vote to elect the same candidate to the Presidency more than twice?

● Rooted in the promise of America’s call for huddled masses yearning to breathe free, we believe
in immigrant and refugee rights regardless of status or country of origin.

“The New Colossus” is a sonnet used as an advertising slogan to raise funds for the Statue of Liberty (written by wealthy Jewish women, OF PRIVILEGE). It is not now, nor has it ever been, government policy.

It is our moral duty…

Everytime someone argues “moral duty” to me, I put a protective hand over my wallet.

…to keep families together…

NOPE.

…and empower all aspiring Americans to fully participate in, and contribute to, our economy and society.

And as for the migrants who don’t aspire to be Americans? Or contribute to America?

We reject mass deportation, family detention, violations of due process and violence against queer and trans migrants.

Good for you.

Immigration reform must establish a roadmap to citizenship…

You can strike this one from the list. I have a roadmap to citizenship right here.

…and provide equal opportunities and workplace protections for all. We recognize that the call to action to love our neighbor is not limited to the United States, because there is a global migration crisis.

No, you have a welfare state crisis, as in people are leaving countries that are not welfare states, and MIGRATING to countries that are welfare states.

We believe migration is a human right and that no human being is illegal.

But certain actions are illegal, such as migrating to a country in violation of its statutes.

● We believe that every person and every community in our nation has the right to clean water, clean air, and access to and enjoyment of public lands. We believe that our environment and our climate must be protected, and that our land and natural resources cannot be exploited for corporate gain or greed—especially at the risk of public safety and health.

Translation: Send more money.

ABOUT THIS DOCUMENT
The guiding vision and definition of principles were prepared by a broad and diverse group of leaders. The Women’s March on Washington is grateful to all contributors, listed and unlisted, for their dedication in shaping this agenda.

Monifa Bandele, Vice President, MomsRising

Zahra Billoo, Council on American Islamic Relations – San Francisco Bay Area

Gaylynn Burroughs, Director of Policy & Research, Feminist Majority Foundation

Melanie L. Campbell, Convener, Black Women’s Roundtable, President & CEO, NCBCP

Sung Yeon Choimorrow, Interim Executive Director, National Asian Pacific American Women’s Forum

Alida Garcia, Immigrant Rights & Diversity Advocate

Alicia Garza, National Domestic Workers Alliance

Carol Jenkins, Board of Directors, ERA Coalition

Dr. Avis Jones-DeWeever, President, Incite Unlimited, LLC

Carol Joyner, Director, Labor Project for Working Families, Family Values @ Work

Janet Mock, Activist and author of Redefining Realness and Surpassing Certainty

Jessica Neuwirth, President, ERA Coalition

Terry O’Neill, President, National Organization for Women (NOW)

Carmen Perez, Executive Director, The Gathering for Justice

Jody Rabhan, Director of Washington Operations, National Coucnil of Jewish Women

Kelley Robinson, Deputy National Organizing Director, Planned Parenthood Federation of America

Kristin Rowe-Finkbeiner, Executive Director and Co-Founder, MomsRising

Linda Sarsour, Founder, MPower Change

Heidi L. Sieck, Co-Founder/CEO, #VOTEPROCHOICE

Emily Tisch Sussman, Campaign Director, Center for American Progress

Jennifer Tucker, Senior Policy Advisor, Black Women’s Roundtable

Winnie Wong, Activist, Organizer and Co-Founder, People for Bernie

And I’m grateful that this shit was just five pages.

What to make of all of this ballyhoo?

This is a funeral of sorts.

It’s a funeral for Hillary Clinton’s presidential ambitions and all of the carnage she intended to continue from Bill Clinton’s term as president. All of these idiots are mourners, wailing and gnashing their teeth that their chosen female president’s career was sacrificed on the Altar of Kek by Donald Trump.

Let the feminists cry out and shake their fists impotently at the heavens. Let them rend their garments. Let them weep and sob and chant and whatever other meaningless gestures assist in their catharsis.

While you have your solemnities, I’ll probably be having pizza.

Source