So reports the Los Angeles Times.
Some Trump supporters planned a protest; some others showed up in counter-protest. I will say up front, the rest of this post will shock you; not for what happened, but for the reporting when considering the source.
As I have mentioned, I normally don’t react immediately to such events. But the news here is the source as much as it is the event.
I will let the Times reporters speak (mostly) for themselves:
…it was soon punctuated by tear gas and a scattering of violent skirmishes. Some anti-fascist protesters, wearing black and with their faces covered, chased or beat Trump supporters and organizers…
Wait…who chased and beat whom? Who started the violence?
Officers reported 14 arrests, many of them for violations of the city’s emergency rules banning masks, sticks and potential weapons inside the demonstration area.
Some in Berkeley worried that Sunday’s chaos, captured on video and quickly disseminated through social media, would provide unwanted ammunition to Trump and his supporters.
…the demonstration of more than 4,000 people pulled heavily from area labor unions, church groups and liberal activists — but also scores of young people clad in all black, some carrying shields and others with bandanas pulled over their faces.
Those activists are sometimes referred to as “antifa”…
What were these “antifa” counter-protestors there to counter-protest?
The counter-demonstrators were in the city to protest the “Say No to Marxism in America” rally, police said.
I guess this means anyone who supports these counter-protestors is saying yes to Marxism in America.
Anti-fascist protesters also beat one person wearing an American flag.
Because, you know, Nazi fascists display American flags.
Some threatened to break the cameras of anyone who filmed them, including journalists.
Maybe this is why we get an honest report?
One counter-protester, in tears, said she worried that Sunday’s event would be tied to violence.
Why would that be?
Another, who helped break up a fight, was upset over the altercations. “We need to get antifa out of here,” said Jack Harris, 20, of San Francisco.
No, little Jack Harris, you just need to stop associating with criminals and thugs.
The antifa "protesters" steal cameras, phones, gold chains, and wallets. They mob people then loot them before the victim even realizes what is happening.ReplyDelete
In the case of Charlottesville where people were also accused of being "nazis" there was one single person with a swastika flag and none in Klan robes despite media reports and even photos of disseminated by the media of men in KKK attire (taken at an unrelated demonstration on another day).
To the antifa, but also now the mainstream left, there is no difference between a "nazi" and any white person that cleaves to traditional values because the enemy to them is not an ideology but any white identity, whether it be a specific identity of a white ethnic group or the broad white American identity.
Antifa is DaNewKKK!ReplyDelete
One overriding feature of the culture wars is that each sides justifiably fears the other will impose its way of living through a winner takes all political system.Violence is a natural and predictable response to this, a means of circumventing the ballot box.ReplyDelete
The political class makes its living from centralized power and the attendant division it causes. But why should ordinary Americans accept the false choice between one brand of centralized government and another, when the obvious solution is staring us in the face? Breaking up politically is far more practical, and far more humane.
Really, only one side has been forcing its choice on all Americans for 100 years - the side associated with progressivism, destroying the family and removing religion and tradition.Delete
As to the solution, I agree wholeheartedly. Unfortunately, while one side would consider that a win the other side would consider it a loss. So I don't see it happening easily.
Though Peggy Noonan at WSJ is almost full neocon, she made a great point one-time. On the 12-inch ruler, left always starts negotiating at 12. However, right always starts at 3-4 to be "reasonable". The best thing about anarcho-capitalism, we provide a logical way for rightists to start at Zero. Too bad even Peggy, or for that matter, Pat Buchanan, won't join us at Zero.Delete
>But why should ordinary Americans accept the false choice between one brand of centralized government and another, when the obvious solution is staring us in the face? Breaking up politically is far more practical, and far more humane.
The dialectic you present between centralization and Balkanization is also false for a few reasons
1. Despite some claims by certain nationalists, the true racial right is in favor of Balkanization and has been for some time.
2. Balkanization is the exact thing the USG wants to prevent
3. Balkanization does not occur through an ideology of "decentralism" but through the perceived loss of legitimacy of the central state and a turning to the more fundamental loyalties.
Ultimately I agree with you, not because it is ideal (ideal to me would be a restoration of American demographics from the early 20th century and the establishment of a permanent dictatorship dedicated to doing the same to Europe), but because necessity and survival demand it. However, the time for ideological debate is long passed. The only debate now is strategy.
This is accurateDelete
On this, and all the others fights, I found Wenzel to be completely right and accurate in his cover of those events..ReplyDelete
Dear Mosquito: You wrote:ReplyDelete
"I guess this means anyone who supports these counter-protestors is saying yes to Marxism in America".
Well this is old news because the establishment has been saying yes to Marxism in America since way back in the 50´s during a Congressional investigation to the Ford Foundation, is presiding person declared to the investigator that the "objective of the foundation was to introduce Socialism? Communism? in the USA"
For the precise details please read: Nelson Rockefeller Public Enemy N.1 by Emmanuel M Josephson who was a Congressman at the time. I do not have the book with me to give you more names and details. You will love that book. It is worth every page. I think you can get it in Amazon (till they find out what it says and declare it hate speech, ha haha).
Too many people support without knowing it Marxism in America,and knowingly particularly the elite who wants to dominate the Sheeple because Marxism morphs people into sheep, easy to manage with just a dog herding them.
NPIC - Non-Profit Industrial ComplexDelete
United States House Select Committee to Investigate Tax-Exempt Foundations and Comparable Organizations
In the Dodd report to the Reece Committee on Foundations, he gave a definition of the word "subversive", saying that the term referred to "Any action having as its purpose the alteration of either the principle or the form of the United States Government by other than constitutional means."
He then argued that the Ford Foundation, Rockefeller Foundation, and Carnegie Endowment were using funds excessively on projects at Columbia, Harvard, Chicago University and the University of California, in order to enable oligarchical collectivism.
Foundations: Their Power and Influence
Norman Dodd: Reece's Special Committee on Tax Exempt Foundations (1/6)
The left have Sponcers who are paying them 1- to show up and protest, 2- to print signs and banners, 3- to recruit other misfits 4- to protect them from prosecution by giving them positive spin in the media, and order the law enforcement people to leave them alone.ReplyDelete
With such great organization, the right has no prayers opposing them. Just look at what we have today 2% Jewish and 2% Muslim who are well organized and funded are completely in control of the narratives even if it is fake propaganda. The rest of us go to work, and go home to alt news? The right MUST GET ORGANIZED AND FUNDED.
I believe we are entering an American Years of Lead and there is no going back.ReplyDelete
I suspect the reason Trump has not condemned the communists beating his supporters in Berkeley (at least he has not yet as of writing this) is that it goes above him.
I believe the system (Big Brother, ZOG, deep state, whatever) has initiated the endgame. It is an absolute priority for them to kick this off in a way that benefits them.
This is what I believe is the plan:
>continue cultural revolution against symbols of white history
>provoke political protest
>censor political protest on the internet and on the streets
[YOU ARE HERE]
>deprive nationalists of legal recourse and force vigilante reprisals
>low-intensity civil war with assaninarions on both sides
>State sides with communists
>massive round-up of thought criminals
>creation of political prisons, gulag system enforced by "special" human rights commisars made up of non-whites who are permitted to rape and abuse political targets with full support of the system
To those of you on the fence:
You may have ideological disagreements with Fascists but know who your friends will be if you want to live through what is coming.
UC, if I read you correctly (and please clarify if otherwise), the mainstream media is pointing out the violence of the left in Berkley because the next step is to shut down all opportunity for peaceful protest. So blame all sides and then only the truly violent will continue.Delete
Is this what you are saying?
Somewhat, I will expound.Delete
Antifa functions as the street enforcers of the present order. The media isn't trying to cover it up so much as they are trying to rhetorically frame it so they don't have to cover it up.
"Violence broke out"
"Clashes between demonstrators and counter demonstrators"
(Always passive language)
In the case of the challenger incident "neo-nazi attack."
Make no mistake, antifa tactics require police complicity. They could easily just arrest anyone wearing a mask and keep both sides separate. They want the violence to occur because terrorism works. Who would bring their wife and children to a public event knowing they could be seriously harmed? The only people who will be willing to go are going to be people willing to fight.
The issue is that the state is outsourcing its suppression of the first amendment and this game can only continue for so long. They will be forced to either affirm or deny the first amendment.
The intimidation tactics come from 3 sources and they are all part of what I call "the system."
1. Economic intimidation from corporations (lose your job for bad-think)
2. Street level goons with clubs
3. High level goons with guns, clubs, and badges who will throw you in prison for standing up to #2
We are reaching a classic revolutionary situation where all peaceful means of addressing grievances are being cut off (or more accurately it is becoming obvious to more people they were cut off awhile ago).
As libertarians should know, magaged crisis is the greatest tool of power.
>subjects notice what is being done to them
>their protests are shut down with violence
>they are forced to defend themselves
>state uses this as pretext to go full Gulag Archipelego
In the case of the years of lead, the man behind the curtain was the NATO occupation forces (see operation gladio) that used the violence between red and black to solidify their grip on Europe. This is what I fear in America.
I can expand further if this is still unclear.
I have never seen such a thorough and complete yet simple analysis of what is happening, where we arr, and where we're going. It is totally frightening but I'm lucky to have this site to help me open my mind to possibilities.
Your prescription for ideal change makes one cringe at first. When I ask myself why I feel this way the only real answer I can honestly make is that I've been force-fed propaganda saying, "dictatorship bad, democracy good:)"
I thought I was a libertarian before but now, not so much. It seems to offer a wonderful legal framework (only possible in the right cultural climate) but it offers nothing as a political strategy.
"We are at war, we are going to have to offend somebody!" John Adams threw the NAP away when the time came, and so will I. A different political strategy is warranted now. Striking first is against the NAP but it is most effective.
This would be an appropriate time to share my favorite quote from UC,
"I don't care much for Lew Rockwell. I much prefer neo-classical pillars adorned with spinning crosses and Roman eagles that the Imperial Legions march between on their way to greet the glorious leader-who will salute them from a balcony before giving them a speech on the ETERNAL GLORY of the NATION. All set to Wagner"
Me too UC, me too.
I seem to remember a time when you told BM of your journey from trolling natnl review to the present, you said you are an ambassador for your viewpoint/strategy politically. This isn't the place to expound further but I would like it if you could share some websites and books that are relevant; or possibly I could have an email address/fb or vk account/ etc for more correspondence if that would be ok.
UC(2.0) - Excellent explanation and insights. Very interesting. Please do expand.Delete
Thanks man, I appreciate that.
You can email me at email@example.com
One minor correction:
It wasn't Lew Rockwell I was referring to but Norman. Some guy was accusing me and BM of being stuck in a Norman Rockwell painting. I like Lew (tho I didn't like his recent article).
Look forward to hearing from you.
UC, this is playing out. The DOJ labeled antifa a domestic terrorist organization; California wants to label such groups as gangs - apparently the penalties are stiffer.Delete
The left won't complain because most of the left deplores antifa's violence. The right won't complain, because these actions are aimed at antifa.
This will all come back to bite the right: "look, we have to treat all players the same."
Sorry about that my mind read lew instead of norman, connecting your anti liberal views to disdain for LRC, which is slowly growing for me though I still frequent the site. Thnx for clearing that up the quote is still just as funny in a different context lol.
BM and UC. Good exchange.ReplyDelete
this is post for some neocons here:ReplyDelete
war as the destroyer of both social stability and liberty.
war as the social force above all forces in society that can lead, and has led, to the centralization of the state, which has made mass politics possible.
It undermines men's faith in local associations, which therefore undermines the cultural pluralism and localism that retard centralization and bureaucratization.
socialism is promoted during wartime.
Anonymous @ August 30, 2017 at 7:05 PMReplyDelete
I don't think there are any neoconservatives here. What are you getting at?
Antifa = Weimar JewsReplyDelete
Speaking of media. Here is the funniest thing you will read this week.ReplyDelete
>I've absolutely devoured the news on Houston, especially the amazing, precise, evocative, and thorough coverage by the NYTimes, but not only that: the thousands of dedicated journalists covering this disaster have been so brilliant. Then I remembered Trump's non-stop attacks on the media and threats and insults and truly vicious quarantining of them in his rallies (along with populist jeering) and his bullying tactics and smears. It's not just tiring. It's disgusting, and an actual threat/attack on an essential freedom. No surprise: he did this in the campaign too. Sorry alt-right but the American media is an amazing national treasure, regardless of your ideological outlook. The free market in information has produced the best media industry in history. And in tragic times of natural disaster, you see just why this is important to all of us.
-Jeffrey Tucker, https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=1584877358217898&id=466540190051626&ref=page_internal&__tn__=%2As%2As-R
Also, he is writing a book about how the real threat is "right wing collectivism." If BM doesn't review it maybe I will for my forthcoming site.
I can understand someone of Tucker's age having a significant change regarding political outlook.Delete
This does not describe Tucker. He had a very well developed political outlook when he left the Mises Institute; yet since then has done a complete 180.
He was very well read and wrote volumes while with Mises. When he left, he transformed.
He was not ignorant of such matters before. This only leaves one possibility - he is a man with no integrity.
What else were the media going to report, in depth investigations?Delete