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

Advertisements

The Modern Feminist Rejection of Constitutional Government by Dr. Christina Villegas

Dr. Christina Villegas of the University of California, San Bernardino published a report entitled “The Modern Feminist Rejection of Constitutional Government” for the Heritage Foundation. It’s a long read, but persuasive in its entirety. I’ve cut out certain parts below for comment and linked to the original document at the end.

Modern feminism, however, has strayed from this narrow mission, embracing instead a far more radical agenda. In the name of promoting “equality,” it has become a movement that seeks to promote women’s full autonomy by eliminating gender distinctions and forcing gender parity (statistical proportionality of males and females) in every area of academic, economic, social, and political life. Achieving these ends requires the vast expansion of centralized government, the redefinition of freedom, and the preferential application of the law to women based on their identity as a specially protected class.

There is no such thing as “full autonomy,” unless you live on an island or mountain, away from everyone else, with no connection to anyone else. If you live somewhere there are other people, you have an inherent duty to not interfere with them, just as they have an inherent duty to not interfere with you, which necessarily limits “full autonomy” (ex: “Kill my neighbor and take his stuff.”).

Feminists often accuse those who defend the U.S. Constitution and limited government of being hostile to the well-being and interests of women.[1] These charges have been so thoroughly imbedded in the public mind that many Americans who do not necessarily support feminist policy prescriptions still presume that the Constitution itself has been an historic impediment to the rights of women.

You mean…the feminists don’t actually deal in history? They’re peddling mythology and metanarrative? (ex.: “#YesAllWomen are the victims of all men since time immemorial because Patriarchy.”)

I need to sit down after taking this truth bomb.

Contemporary feminism, an ideological outgrowth of the second wave, has largely adopted the belief that constitutional forms, which pledge an objective application of the law without regard to sex and limit government power with a view to protecting individual rights, are patriarchal in nature and stunt women’s ability to develop into full and equal citizens. Thus, many prominent contemporary feminists oppose the notion that there are legitimate limits to political authority and that government action should primarily involve restraining individuals from trampling the equal rights of others while otherwise leaving them free to determine the course of their lives.

To oppose limitations on political authority is to oppose constitutional government itself. Until recently in human history, governments did not concern themselves with Constitutions or written limitations on state action.

A constitutional system based on the protection of equal opportunity and individual rights in which males and females alike are able to develop their natural talents and abilities free from artificial legal barriers is problematic for contemporary feminists. They assert that such a system fails to account for the way women are hindered by external discrimination and the internal restrictions that they unknowingly have been socialized to impose on themselves. As Jessica Neuwirth, founder and director of the Equal Rights Amendment Coalition, maintains, “The entrenched historical inequality between the sexes cannot be erased by the creation of a level playing field because the players themselves are at two different levels.

Did this goofy feminist (Newirth) just imply that men are inherently better than women, but that’s bad, so tear down the Constitution and give us freebies and preferential treatment?”

Outstanding.

Several prominent women have written well-researched accounts demonstrating that the feminist vision of what women should want from their lives (financial autonomy and career success) often conflicts with the goals and desires of many real women.[27] Contemporary feminists usually respond to such dissidents by arguing that women who desire to make their career a secondary or partial priority have been socialized by the cultural glorification of femininity and motherhood to participate in their own subordination. In other words, as Betty Friedan lamented, women adopt the values of the system that oppresses them, and because “the chains that bind [women] are often in [their] own mind.”

“Socialization” being the latest repackaging of the old Marxist ad hominem “false consciousness,” in that the opponent of the Feminism/Marxist doesn’t really believe what they are saying, therefore disposing of their argument without actually refuting it.

Modern feminists have further expanded their critique of limited constitutional government by arguing that the Constitution not only fails to grant women the positive rights necessary for self-actualization, but also exacerbates women’s subordination by insulating civil society—including religious and civic organizations, private associations, businesses, and the family—from state involvement or interference. For example, Sally Goldfarb, former NOW senior staff attorney and founder of the National Task Force on the Violence Against Women Act, contends that “[b]y sealing off civil society in general, and the home in particular, as a private sphere where the law may not intrude, the Constitution protects the stronghold of patriarchy.”

This critique of constitutional government has led politically connected feminist groups to support a common agenda of larger and more intrusive government that is more concerned with redistributing wealth and resources and regulating individual liberty than it is with protecting individual freedom, opportunity, and choice. Believing that group achievement for women as a class is more important than the protection of individual rights, feminist organizations rally in support of policies that severely restrict the liberty and property rights of individuals—men and women alike.

Further proving that feminists in general either don’t comprehend or don’t accept the concept of natural rights. They view “rights” as not rights at all, but licenses, to be granted or revoked by Mommy and Daddy Government.

Ultimately, an unfettered state that favors certain individuals based on their membership in a particular class threatens the equality and rights of all men and women. Such a system not only devalues those who are not part of the favored class du jour—whether it be women, racial minorities, homosexuals, transgender individuals, or others—but also deprives those in the protected class of their claim to rights outside of their identity in that class and subjects them to the arbitrary whim of those in power. Only in a regime that limits the scope and character of the law with a view to protecting individuals in the free use of their faculties, regardless of whether their choices lead to different outcomes, can men and women ever come close to enjoying true social, political, and legal equality and freedom.

And we come to the rub: Feminists aren’t interested in freedom; they want privilege. They want an all-powerful state to say “Women may have X, but men may not have X, until at least Y number of women have X.” They want to live in adult kindergarten where a bigger, stronger teacher distributes the juice boxes and toys based on an arbitrary notion of “fairness.”

Feminists are truly the handmaidens of tyranny.

Source