Leftist Riot Du Jour - UC Berkeley

[tattuchu]

Look L'emmy, let me explain it to you. It is quite reasonable, in every sense, for anyone to declare that their skin colour automatically marks them as superior to all others and that it duly affords them certain and particular rights, privileges and protections, including rights of dominion over others, the privilege of determining the status and life conditions of others, and protections which allow these ideals to be imposed by whatever means necessary. To demand an institution of the defacto racial, sexual, and/or political superiority of a self-selected group who, authorised by such selection, claim it a duty, placed upon both the individual and the state, to downgrade or remove the rights of those declared inferior, and to organise and agitate for such an institution, is similarly reasonable. What is not reasonable is for this underdog political position to be met with vehement opposition from the very people who's rights, privileges and protections should, by right, be dowwngraded or removed in favour of, and at the insistence of, the self-selectig group. For the community to vehermently oppose and round on the underdog in such a manner as to limit or stop them advocating, organising, and agitating for the institution of their ideals is fascism pure, plain and true (unless that self-selecting group are Muslims of course).

[Forty Two]

The rising tide of left wing violence - http://www.intellectualtakeout.org/blog ... nce-campus

[Forty Two]

Look L'emmy, let me explain it to you. It is quite reasonable, in every sense, for anyone to declare that their skin colour automatically marks them as superior to all others and that it duly affords them certain and particular rights, privileges and protections, including rights of dominion over others, the privilege of determining the status and life conditions of others, and protections which allow these ideals to be imposed by whatever means necessary. To demand an institution of the defacto racial, sexual, and/or political superiority of a self-selected group who, authorised by such selection, claim it a duty, placed upon both the individual and the state, to downgrade or remove the rights of those declared inferior, and to organise and agitate for such an institution, is similarly reasonable. What is not reasonable is for this underdog political position to be met with vehement opposition from the very people who's rights, privileges and protections should, by right, be dowwngraded or removed in favour of, and at the insistence of, the self-selectig group. For the community to vehermently oppose and round on the underdog in such a manner as to limit or stop them advocating, organising, and agitating for the institution of their ideals is fascism pure, plain and true (unless that self-selecting group are Muslims of course).

They can do and say whatever they want. They can't beat people up because they disagree with their view.

If someone is stopping leftists from organizing, etc, let me know who it is. Who is doing that? Charles Murray? Trump supporters?

The people violently shutting down peaceful organizing are lefitists. And they aren't "oppressed."

[Tero]

Racism, colonialism, war. All good things to protest and take up arms against if necessary.

Remember Oklahoma.

TULSA, Okla. — With their guns firing, a mob of white men charged across the train tracks that cut a racial border through this city. A 4-year-old boy named Wess Young fled into the darkness with his mother and sister in search of safety, returning the next day to discover that their once-thriving black community had burned to the ground.

Ninety years later, Mr. Young lives not far from where he lost his home that day. He is part of the dwindling ranks of the living who can recollect what may be the deadliest occurrence of racial violence in United States history — an episode so brutal that this city, in a bout of collective amnesia that extended more than a half-century, simply chose to forget it ever happened.

The Tulsa race riot of 1921 was rarely mentioned in history books, classrooms or even in private. Blacks and whites alike grew into middle age unaware of what had taken place.
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2011/06/20/us/20tulsa.html

[Tero]

Go lefties!

[Forty Two]

Yes, the lefisists rioting in Berkeley to shut down milo yiannopoulos and attacking people who want to hear Charles Murray talk are really fighting the good fight against the Kkk and Nazis: Such brave warriors for the down trodden....

[L'Emmerdeur]

It looks to me like your position comes down to "Will no one rid the country of these troublesome leftist scum?" You ducked my question regarding who you think would or could do the dirty work of laying a beating on the leftist scum, but whoever did it would have your support. Am I getting warm?

No. I was quite clear. Who could do the work (not dirty) of beating (in self defense) leftist scum who are attacking people? The answer is: the people being attacked and those around them.

When something happens, like at Middlebury, where leftist scum attack peaceful people under the rubric that the peaceful people are evil (or supporting evil), then the peaceful people need to rise up and kick the shit out of the aggressors.

I not saying all leftists are to be gotten rid of. I'm saying that when leftists attack people, they should be swiftly dealt with, hard.

This line of thinking seems to be nothing but fantasy. You still haven't defined who these "peaceful people" are who will rise up and kick the shit out of leftist scum. As far as I know, Charles Murray doesn't travel with a large entourage. If some group were to attach themselves to him, it would more than likely be a group like Heimbach's, and I think you're well aware of that. Charles Murray is infamous for putting forth the argument that blacks are inherently mentally inferior to whites, which dovetails perfectly with the thinking of people like Heimbach. You've been tiptoeing around the implications of your call for people to beat on leftist scum, and I expect you'll continue to do so. However, it seems obvious to me that unless Heimbach and his ilk grow in numbers, your fantasy isn't going to become reality.

I don't support people on the left who are willing to adopt violence any more than I support those on the right who are willing to adopt violence, and I see a problem with response you've proposed. It's simple-minded lex talonis thinking; you're encouraging more mayhem in the public sphere. Raging about leftist scum who resort to violent protest falls flat when your answer is nothing but more violence.

[Forty Two]

I have been quite clear in defining who would do the ass kicking - people acting in self defense and defense of others. When leftist scum start swinging, people around them swing back.

I am not talking about lumping leftists together as a group and declaring any leftist as worthy of being beaten. That's progressive thought, and not rational. It's only the leftists who are being violent that I'm referring to and I'm talking about the people being attacked finally standing up and fighting back.

Violence in self defense is not the same as initiating violence. And there is now a common leftist principle espoused that violence against people expressing evil ideas is moral and even morally required. That's the most disturbing thing - you've got college professors advocating censorship and violence against people expressing evil ideas.

[L'Emmerdeur]

Look L'emmy, let me explain it to you. It is quite reasonable, in every sense, for anyone to declare that their skin colour automatically marks them as superior to all others and that it duly affords them certain and particular rights, privileges and protections, including rights of dominion over others, the privilege of determining the status and life conditions of others, and protections which allow these ideals to be imposed by whatever means necessary. To demand an institution of the defacto racial, sexual, and/or political superiority of a self-selected group who, authorised by such selection, claim it a duty, placed upon both the individual and the state, to downgrade or remove the rights of those declared inferior, and to organise and agitate for such an institution, is similarly reasonable. What is not reasonable is for this underdog political position to be met with vehement opposition from the very people who's rights, privileges and protections should, by right, be downgraded or removed in favour of, and at the insistence of, the self-selecting group. For the community to vehemently oppose and round on the underdog in such a manner as to limit or stop them advocating, organising, and agitating for the institution of their ideals is fascism pure, plain and true (unless that self-selecting group are Muslims of course).

I don't have a problem with vehemence. Vehemence is not enhanced by the overzealous few who adopt violence as a form of expression, though. In all of the situations that Forty Two has cited, the protesters on the left had numbers on their side. A lack of internal discipline which results in hotheads going overboard serves only to discredit their position, and encourages people like Forty Two to advocate for more violence.

[Forty Two]

Those who initiate violence should be responded to. People ought not have to do what has become the norm: turn the other cheek to these leftist scum fuckers. Fuck them. Their ideology is shit. But that's ok. It's only when they become violent in trying to enforce their ideology and squelch others that they really poss me off. And what makes it worse is when they try to justify their ridiculous violence as good because they are the righteous fighting against Nazis, white nationalists and Trump supporters.

[Brian Peacock]

Look L'emmy, let me explain it to you. It is quite reasonable, in every sense, for anyone to declare that their skin colour automatically marks them as superior to all others and that it duly affords them certain and particular rights, privileges and protections, including rights of dominion over others, the privilege of determining the status and life conditions of others, and protections which allow these ideals to be imposed by whatever means necessary. To demand an institution of the defacto racial, sexual, and/or political superiority of a self-selected group who, authorised by such selection, claim it a duty, placed upon both the individual and the state, to downgrade or remove the rights of those declared inferior, and to organise and agitate for such an institution, is similarly reasonable. What is not reasonable is for this underdog political position to be met with vehement opposition from the very people who's rights, privileges and protections should, by right, be dowwngraded or removed in favour of, and at the insistence of, the self-selectig group. For the community to vehermently oppose and round on the underdog in such a manner as to limit or stop them advocating, organising, and agitating for the institution of their ideals is fascism pure, plain and true (unless that self-selecting group are Muslims of course).

They can do and say whatever they want. They can't beat people up because they disagree with their view.

If someone is stopping leftists from organizing, etc, let me know who it is. Who is doing that? Charles Murray? Trump supporters?

The people violently shutting down peaceful organizing are lefitists. And they aren't "oppressed."

So you're just tone policing those who oppose white supremacists. OK.

In the meantime...

The Terrorist Threat America Ignores: Racist Right-Wing Extremists

This is About Race

The white nationalist militia movement views themselves as a mixture of 19th century southern confederates and 1930s Nazi Germans. Unapologetic white men, of few words, no feelings, and a psychological mother-lode of repressed, indignant anger. They believe they're noble freedom fighters and rugged individualists. They think their idea of what this country should be like is the only valid vision. Just under the surface, it bubbles up if one pushes them, they're trying to preserve 'the white way of life'. This is the mindset that Donald Trump's Presidential campaign appeals to.

A white way of life so narrow-minded and bigoted, that even most white folk would passionately resist it.

The Boston Globe reports:

• "And if Trump doesn’t win, some are even openly talking about violent rebellion and assassination, as fantastical and unhinged as that may seem.
  
  “If she’s in office, I hope we can start a coup. She should be in prison or shot. That’s how I feel about it,” Dan Bowman, a 50-year-old contractor, said of Hillary Clinton, the Democratic nominee. “We’re going to have a revolution and take them out of office if that’s what it takes. There’s going to be a lot of bloodshed. But that’s what it’s going to take. . . . I would do whatever I can for my country.”

These angry man-boys are having their energy harvested by high ranking right-wing political/economic interests like the Trump and the tea-party. They’re told to be mad, who to be mad at and who’s going to fix it for them. Everything that they deem 'wrong' can be rectified if they can just keep their guns, lots and lots of guns. Their freedom, liberty, their very sense of manhood is derived from firearms. They're now being prodded to aggressively resist any societal progress. They caress their firearms as a protection against social progress, they view that progress as threatening to their white way of life. They lack the vision, the mental acuity, to embrace progressive change.

You’ve heard the saying – “When all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.”

The NRA, which is simply the public relations arm of gun manufacturers, has conditioned them with repetitive right-wing rhetoric, these guys speak in bumper-sticker. They can't effectively defend any of their ideas to any reasonable thinking person. They exist in an information bubble, among themselves. These bigots are trained, programmed and conditioned, to believe the government is their dire enemy. This started right after the 1964 passing of the civil rights act, and the 1965 voting rights act. The patriot militia's pedigree is the slave patrols of the eighteenth and nineteenth century pre-civil war south, the Ku Klux Klan and the mid-twentieth century citizen councils of the post-civil war south.

Their operating emotion is fear, fear that is disguised as indignant anger, false bravado and fake 'pride'....

http://hubpages.com/politics/The-Immine ... Extremists

[L'Emmerdeur]

Some familiar rhetoric in this story:

In March 2013, Heimbach crashed a Conservative Political Action Committee (CPAC) event on racial tolerance where he arrived, wearing a Confederate flag, representing all the “disenfranchised” white citizens. Earlier this year, he again went viral for getting caught on video shoving a Black Lives Matter protester at a Trump rally, and yelling at her for being “leftist scum.”

On Sunday, his group, in conjunction with the Golden State Skinheads, held a pro-white/pro-Trump rally in Sacramento where at least five people were stabbed and several others wounded. Heimbach himself was not at the chaotic, violent event; he and his followers blamed the “anti-fascist” counter-protesters for the mayhem. The stabbing victims were on both sides of the fight, police told reporters.

“They attacked each other without hesitation,” 50-year-old counter-protester Chandra Zafra told the Los Angeles Times. “It was a war zone.”

And the “Traditionalists” declared their victory.

“We will not be intimidated,” Parrott wrote online in a fundraising pitch, following the incident. “We will not stand down. Our event was a victory by all metrics. We won the physical fight. We provoked the leftists into showing their true colors.”

[source]

[L'Emmerdeur]

And what makes it worse is when they try to justify their ridiculous violence as good because they are the righteous fighting against Nazis, white nationalists and Trump supporters.

Why does that make it worse?

[Tero]

Leftist Scum....good name for a band in the Trump era.

[Forty Two]

And what makes it worse is when they try to justify their ridiculous violence as good because they are the righteous fighting against Nazis, white nationalists and Trump supporters.

Why does that make it worse?

It turns their movement from a political position to a religion. They are no different than "....onward Christian soldiers...marching as to war...with the cross of Jesus, going on before!"

They clothe themselves in (self)righteousness, declare themselves to hold the true morality, and then grant themselves not just the right, but the moral duty, to violently suppress heretics and infidels.

They have lost the ability to view individual rights in any objective sense. To them, not everyone has the same rights. THEY determine who has greater rights to express their opinions and views peaceably. If they think an idea is dangerous, or hateful, or "anti immigrant" or racist or xenophobic, or homophobic, or trans phobic, or any other phobic, then they grant themselves carte blanche to violently suppress the idea. They've come up with a moral claim to doing so.

It makes it worse, because not only do they do it -- but they do it because they think they are doing what is right and good and moral when they pepper spray a girl in a Trump hat in the face, when they punch a "white nationalist" (alleged) who is committing the offense of talking to a reporter, or when they dump piss on people who are peacefully walking in the street. It's one thing to do those things despite knowing it's wrong to do so. It's quite another to do those things and truly believe that one is doing right.

It usually takes religion to make good people do evil things. However, we can add Progressive Leftism to Steven Weinberg's quote. “With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil - that takes religion.” We should just as "...or Progressive Leftism" to that quote, because they seem to be able to turn thuggery and unprovoked assault and battery into a moral virtue.