The Berkeley riots is the story I cannot stop talking about because the Left will not stop trying to justify their Fascist-Like behavior. Stretching the limits of credibility The Daily California turned over their opinion section to those that wanted to justify violating people’s constitutional rights to free speech by condoning the “Violence as self-defense” argument. This of course makes the erroneous assumption that the act of free speech in of itself can be violent. Words are not violent. Words only have the power that we allow them to have and the culture of microagressions and safe spaces has led us to a place where the act of saying words strung together in a sentence can be considered a violent act if someone disagrees with them. Once we form the thought that words can be violent then it becomes acceptable to meet this “violence” with escalating aggression. This excuse did not work for me when I was fighting in the schoolyard back in the third grade and it certainly should not work for those that are supposed to be adults in a college quad.

If you read through each of the five opinion pieces you find people who are engaged in self-delusions where they are fighting true evil and saving society from itself. You know what other historical figure painted themselves as fighting evil and the savior of society… Hitler. Like these “so called opinionists” Hitler also justified violence against opposing speech and advocated passionately that the ends justify the means. No these rioters are not the new multicultural Marvel Avengers as these opinion pieces would have you believe, they are basement dwelling hipsters that are failing at the real world as reported here and are lashing out at society because they do not get their way. I digress so let’s look at some of this thought turds that The Daily California felt were groundbreaking insights into the Berkeley Riots.

Check your privilege when speaking of protests

I should have realized that I would not get three words into anything written in California before I already had issues with their point. It is this concept of “privilege” to which offends my logic and reason. The idea that my gender or my race makes my opinion less valid to any conversation flies in the face of what you claim to believe because it is both sexist and racist. Yes we experience different life paths based on these arbitrary attributes, but this does not mean that what I have to say is not true or accurate. This also does not mean that I am unable to understand and appreciate how your life path has impacted you. This is called active listening and empathy, both skills I used daily in my interactions with everyone I meet. You cannot claim tolerance for everything not white not male and still wear the mantle of being tolerant. No the “check your privilege” card has only two functions; to silence any opposition by devaluing their opinion and as victim status currency among the radical left where it virtue signals others that your opinion is worth more than theirs. The “privilege” argument is a crutch used when your arguments are empty of fact and reason.

In addition to the lazy “privilege” argument the author postulates several other ridiculous notions:

  • “No protest is non-violent” – There are actually many every year across the global where people gather to make their voices heard without violently attacking the opposition. The Tea Party for conservatives had multiple protests where they founded the grass roots structure required to select, champion and then get candidates that reflected their values elected to office.
  • “Police are the violent agent of the state” – There was no qualifier for this statement and I assume that the writers point is the mere presence of the police caused the protesters to turn to rioters because they certainly looked to be told to stand down and let the crybabies destroy property and perpetrate violence unchecked. You’re arguing that the mere sight of a duly appointed law enforcement agent who is not challenging their right to peacefully protest is enough to justify the breaking of windows, burning of private property and pepper spraying women. I am sorry, but this means that those people are unstable and lack all ability to control their emotions like adults.
  • Speech is a violent act – There is no such thing as Hate Speech. Let me rephrase this for clarity, what you classify as “Hate Speech” is protected by Free Speech. The left has pushed for the right to have certain types of speech labeled “Hate Speech”. Why? Because it then allows them to then erect laws around thoughts and ideas with which they disagree. There is speech that I find offensive and hateful, but classifying speech as “Hate Speech” means you are proscribing motives to that speech. Last I checked we were not living in the error of Minority Reports and we are still incapable of predicting the future or reading people’s minds.

Violence helped ensure safety of students

The next gem comes from a self-identified undocumented student. Now I could argue reasonably that “illegal alien” students should not be attending universities that are subsidized by the American tax payers in the first place. I could also point out the giant amount of hypocrisy in his willingness to choose which laws he is going to follow; like immigration, assault, battery, incitement and arson while at the same time railing against “…the hate speech that fails to respect the humanity of undocumented people.” I will instead focus on his two primary arguments:

  • He claims that the violence was necessary to stop MILO from using “…the power of the state (immigration officers) to deport some of the most outspoken of us, therefore threatening our freedom of speech with the power of state.” The lie that MILO had planned to “Dox” or out illegal aliens has been debunked as shown here. So essentially you are condoning violence over a fake news story, seems reasonable. Even if that were the case you as an illegal alien can freely express your displeasure at our government, but if the government uses their power to enforce the law that is not limiting your free speech and if you use violence to resist the lawful application of the rules then you should be charged with incitement on your way out the door. I am not heartless, I understand you are in a bad situation, but the government should not be granting noncitizens extra constitutional protections not available to citizens with selective enforcement of the laws.
  • He goes on to state that “The so-called ‘violence’ against private property that the media seems so concerned with stopped white supremacy from organizing itself against my community.” Now I could have written paragraphs on the entirety of this statement, but will instead focus on what he calls “so-called violence against private property”. People were not nearly as upset about the breaking of windows and the burning of private property as they were about the actual violence against people. Yes pepper spraying and hitting women with flag poles is violence. Mobs of people chasing people who are trying to engage in freedom of speech and beating them with sticks is violence. The fact that you would willfully overlook these incidents as if they did not occur certainly makes me wonder if you have what it takes to one day become a citizen or if you would willingly continue to promote the restriction of my rights on the grounds that I disagree with you.

Black Bloc did what the campus should have

Despite Berkeley and many media outlets claiming that the violence was mainly caused by outside agitators not affiliated with the school, this writer claims that many students, faculty and local residents were directly involved with the actions of the masked thugs. He further laments the petition that is currently being circulated that would label ANTIFA as a domestic terrorist organization.  Well when you act like a terrorist then you need to be labeled as such. Yes when you use violence to intimidate or silence opposition when they offered no violence in kind then you are a terrorist. The fact that you “…went out to make good on your promise to revoke Yiannopoulos’ gay card…” only proves the point that identity politics is destroying the progressive movement in America. So is your argument that the school should immediately sanction the pepper spraying of women and violence against those with whom you disagree? Should the school immediately and forever close the halls of learning to any voices that disrupt your world view? You can dress up your actions as self-defense and claim it was not violent, but only those that are living in your deluded little bubble are convinced by this. Just because the prevailing thoughts at Berkeley are radical leftist in nature does not give you the sole right to censor intellectual diversity.

Condemning protestors is the same as condoning hate speech

In case you did not see my opening statement let me reiterate so we are absolutely clear on where I stand on this issue… There is NO such thing as “hate speech”. If we begin parsing out our language in terms where we have what is acceptable versus what is defined as “hate speech” then it is only a short hop, skip and a jump until we allow the government to put some teeth behind those thoughts and begin outlawing speech and various forms of expression. Additionally, by equating ideas that you disagree with to “hate speech” we also pave the way to make those logical jumps to claiming that this type of speech does violence to a person and this becomes a justification for violence. No you are just playing a game of semantics three card Monty because you desperately need a reason to excuse this behavior. If we follow the bouncing ball we are not very far from the day when your identity group is on the outside looking in because other groups can claim more victim status. At that point will it be ok for those groups who may disagree with you to label your thoughts as hate speech and then proceed to perpetrate violence against you? No there were some who were protesting at Berkeley, but there were a contingent of Fascists there as well dressed in black who came with the express purpose of rioting and intimidating any opposition.

Plurality of tactics contributed to cancellation of Milo Yiannopolus event

This is the simplest to dispute. No it was not multiple tactics that stopped the event, it was the violent rioting. You protested, begged and petition the University to try to stop the event in advance of the day, but freedom and liberty were upheld when the school refused to cave to your belly aching and whining. It was not until the masked Fascists arrived and began burning, breaking and hurting people that the event was cancelled. You wear masks to protect your identity because you know what you are doing is wrong and illegal. You know that what you are doing makes you a Fascist. You may think you have won a major victory at Berkeley, but all you really did was show the world what a bunch of crybabies you have become. You could not stop Milo with the strength of your logic and reason so you resorted to the only tool you had left, fascism.

Posted by redstateronin

One Comment

  1. […] for the rest of us because it was self-defense. I wrote about this in detail in my blog If it Looks Like a Fascist and Quacks Like a Fascist, Then it is Probably a Fascist, but of course you can only buy this argument if you also believe that words in of themselves can […]



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s