The Battle for Berkeley 3.0 Was a Fight Against Antifa

Rum, beer, women, movies, nice websites, gaming, etc., without interrupting the flow of martial threads.

Re: The Battle for Berkeley 3.0 Was a Fight Against Antifa

Postby Steve James on Fri Apr 28, 2017 8:42 am

Your points are irrelevant because of the videos I've presented that show peaceful protesters being violently attacked by Antifa, who rationalize their violence by labeling their victims as fascists, nazis, neo-nazis, etc., and the people they're attacking in the three events I've focused upon do not belong to any of these groups.


So, I'm confused. Are you arguing that violence against fascists, nazis, and neo-nazis would be justified?

Anyway, I don't belong to Antifa (actually, they remind me of the Weather Underground). But, they have their own website which probably leads to their own videos. https://nycantifa.wordpress.com/ Personally, I don't think throwing bricks, bottles or molotov cocktails actually combats much. I'm not opposed to combating injustice. Well, when I hear people complaining about "social justice," I wonder what their idea of justice is, and how a just society is a bad thing. I know it's irrelevant in relation to the videos you've posted.
"A man is rich when he has time and freewill. How he chooses to invest both will determine the return on his investment."
User avatar
Steve James
Great Old One
 
Posts: 15579
Joined: Tue May 13, 2008 8:20 am

Re: The Battle for Berkeley 3.0 Was a Fight Against Antifa

Postby Michael on Fri Apr 28, 2017 8:50 am

Steve James wrote:
Your points are irrelevant because of the videos I've presented that show peaceful protesters being violently attacked by Antifa, who rationalize their violence by labeling their victims as fascists, nazis, neo-nazis, etc., and the people they're attacking in the three events I've focused upon do not belong to any of these groups.


So, I'm confused. Are you arguing that violence against fascists, nazis, and neo-nazis would be justified?

Anyway, I don't belong to Antifa (actually, they remind me of the Weather Underground). But, they have their own website which probably leads to their own videos. https://nycantifa.wordpress.com/ Personally, I don't think throwing bricks, bottles or molotov cocktails actually combats much. I'm not opposed to combating injustice. Well, when I hear people complaining about "social justice," I wonder what their idea of justice is, and how a just society is a bad thing. I know it's irrelevant in relation to the videos you've posted.

Steve, I'm also confused by your two posts and your questioning whether I think violence against these would be justified. Here's something I said that should answer:

The problem that's being addressed is how to prevent things turning violent when the problems we've both described are occurring. Politics and free speech mean you should remain non-violent, allow your political opponents the opportunity to speak, counter them with ideas and then reset after any conflict in order to prevent continual escalation. If the police won't keep the peace, that's another hurdle.


By another hurdle, I mean it would be necessary to use political pressure to get the police, or help the police to keep things as non-violent as possible in public spaces.
User avatar
Michael
Great Old One
 
Posts: 11169
Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 7:05 pm
Location: Guangzhou, China

Re: The Battle for Berkeley 3.0 Was a Fight Against Antifa

Postby BruceP on Fri Apr 28, 2017 9:24 am

Steve James wrote:So, the claim has become that Antifa, Ian, and the Left are the enemies of free speech. And, when Ian says that he isn't opposed to Coulter or Milo speaking, he's contradicted. He's asked how a peaceful discussion could go on with people who throw bricks, but Ian is discussing --even if you disagree-- and not throwing bricks. No one in this thread has thrown them or promoted doing so. Now, if I'm wrong, and there are brick-throwers in this conversation, they should make that clear.

Anyway, afa "free speech," I remember students in NY (at Columbia and NYU, etc.,) protesting the speaking engagements of people who'd made anti-Semitic and anti-Jewish statements. This isn't an issue of free speech; it's an issue of using violence. It's an outright lie to say that it is a political principle of "the left" and by association the Democrats and by association to anyone against Trump. But, fine, that's ok.

What's really interesting to me is the amount of effort used to condemn Antifa, Blac Bloc, BAMN, but not a single thread condemning fascism, nazism, neo-nazis, white supremacists, or white supremacy.


More glib deflection
BruceP
Great Old One
 
Posts: 1430
Joined: Sat May 31, 2008 3:40 pm

Re: The Battle for Berkeley 3.0 Was a Fight Against Antifa

Postby Ian C. Kuzushi on Fri Apr 28, 2017 9:42 am

What's really interesting to me is the amount of effort used to condemn Antifa, Blac Bloc, BAMN, but not a single thread condemning fascism, nazism, neo-nazis, white supremacists, or white supremacy.


Cheers Steve, this is what I was initially pointing out. Although, "interesting" is quite euphemistic.

And, no Mike, I'm not going to bother google searching and posting what should be completely obvious. It is also "interesting" that often times it is conservatives (I am not lumping Mike in with that, FWIW) who now defend Nazis and people inspired by them. Although, Mike, you did earlier say that you didn't think these people were either Nazis or Fascists.

There also seems to be confusion as to what free speech is and how it is defined by the Constitution and legal precedent. I don't have time to write a lecture about what should be understood already.

As Steve kindly pointed out, I have made my opinion on free speech clear. But, I wouldn't expect the arguments of people who are strangely concerned with the rights of people whose entire ideology is denying rights of others to be coherent.

I have shared my opinion as well as anecdotes of others. Those were purposefully mixed and disingenuously used to carry on a nonargument. This makes clear what should have been clear from the start: this is not about free speech, it's about defending and supporting hate speech and racism. Also, some people here probably have a lot more time than I do to try and argue points that are ridiculous on their face. Have at it.
文武両道。

Lord Li requires one hundred gold coins per day!
User avatar
Ian C. Kuzushi
Great Old One
 
Posts: 1567
Joined: Sun May 15, 2011 10:02 pm

Re: The Battle for Berkeley 3.0 Was a Fight Against Antifa

Postby BruceP on Fri Apr 28, 2017 9:43 am

Ian C. Kuzushi wrote:
I think this is an excellent, but difficult question.

I think that having a structured debate (is that what you are proposing in the above?) would be much more appropriate for a college campus


Agreed. Something I mentioned earlier: ..ask them to join a discussion without debate, because debate isn't the path by which we really understand one another.

In this thread, you've shared some of your personal experiences from your younger days which gives me a better appreciation of your perspective. While it isn't something I can really relate to, being that yours aren't my experiences, it does give me a better understanding and fresh respect for your points of view. It helps move the discussion forward in a constructive manner.

About those questions I asked?
BruceP
Great Old One
 
Posts: 1430
Joined: Sat May 31, 2008 3:40 pm

Re: The Battle for Berkeley 3.0 Was a Fight Against Antifa

Postby Ian C. Kuzushi on Fri Apr 28, 2017 10:07 am

BruceP wrote:
Ian C. Kuzushi wrote:
I think this is an excellent, but difficult question.

I think that having a structured debate (is that what you are proposing in the above?) would be much more appropriate for a college campus


Agreed. Something I mentioned earlier: ..ask them to join a discussion without debate, because debate isn't the path by which we really understand one another.

In this thread, you've shared some of your personal experiences from your younger days which gives me a better appreciation of your perspective. While it isn't something I can really relate to, being that yours aren't my experiences, it does give me a better understanding and fresh respect for your points of view. It helps move the discussion forward in a constructive manner.

About those questions I asked?


Hi Bruce, I'm going to bow out as I have a typically heavy workload this weekend, but I wanted to make it clear that I was not trying to ignore your questions. Honestly, and keeping in mind the difficulty of the situation, my solution to all of these questions was what I proffered: a structured debate. What I mean by that would be something akin to the timed exchanges between, say, Christopher Hitchens and William Lane Craig. In these exchanges, there is no interruptions, and the speakers can respond to the other speaker's points or not. It gives a chance for people to say whatever they want, and there is no interruption from the other. These are also usually held in contained and securable locations where security could eject hecklers. I am not saying this is the best or only way to proceed, I merely offer it as an idea of a way to move forward. I think the fringes of both sides have moved beyond reasonable discourse, but that doesn't negate the value of what I am proposing.

Anyhow, I need to read a couple monographs today and then work on translating the Yuzu Nembutsu Engi Emaki over the weekend, so I'm going dark (with the occassional fb break ;) until next week. On Monday we are getting a private, behind the scenes, showing of the original 14th century scroll. Geek mode engaged.
文武両道。

Lord Li requires one hundred gold coins per day!
User avatar
Ian C. Kuzushi
Great Old One
 
Posts: 1567
Joined: Sun May 15, 2011 10:02 pm

Re: The Battle for Berkeley 3.0 Was a Fight Against Antifa

Postby BruceP on Fri Apr 28, 2017 10:13 am

Fair enough, Ian
BruceP
Great Old One
 
Posts: 1430
Joined: Sat May 31, 2008 3:40 pm

Re: The Battle for Berkeley 3.0 Was a Fight Against Antifa

Postby Steve James on Fri Apr 28, 2017 10:14 am

Politics and free speech mean you should remain non-violent, allow your political opponents the opportunity to speak, counter them with ideas and then reset after any conflict in order to prevent continual escalation. If the police won't keep the peace, that's another hurdle.


When have I or anyone on this thread said that opposing political, social, racial, or economic points of view should not be allowed to be expressed? But, let's be clear, that means "any" point of view on those issues. If you look back at my posts over the last decade, I've consistently encouraged people to express whatever view they had on any subject. I never knew of Milo, but he's not saying anything new.

As I've said, I don't that someone should be pelted with rocks for having an idea; nor do I promote hooliganism. I certainly don't endorse innocent people being attacked. I can join with those who are against Antifa because of acts that its members commit, especially if its leaders endorse or encourage violence. I can unite with those who want justice for all. I think that hooligans should be arrested and charged as criminals.
"A man is rich when he has time and freewill. How he chooses to invest both will determine the return on his investment."
User avatar
Steve James
Great Old One
 
Posts: 15579
Joined: Tue May 13, 2008 8:20 am

Re: The Battle for Berkeley 3.0 Was a Fight Against Antifa

Postby Michael on Sat Apr 29, 2017 2:31 am

Steve James wrote:If you look back at my posts over the last decade, I've consistently encouraged people to express whatever view they had on any subject.

As I've said, I don't that someone should be pelted with rocks for having an idea; nor do I promote hooliganism. I certainly don't endorse innocent people being attacked. I can join with those who are against Antifa because of acts that its members commit, especially if its leaders endorse or encourage violence. I can unite with those who want justice for all. I think that hooligans should be arrested and charged as criminals.

No surprise to me. I feel the same.
User avatar
Michael
Great Old One
 
Posts: 11169
Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 7:05 pm
Location: Guangzhou, China

Re: The Battle for Berkeley 3.0 Was a Fight Against Antifa

Postby Michael on Sat Apr 29, 2017 7:23 am

Ian C. Kuzushi wrote:Here's some "constructive dialogue" from the man who coined the term, Alt-Right.



He is blatantly quoting Nazi leadership and eliciting just the kind of response one might expect.


This was from an article and interview by The Atlantic and the speech was from the National Policy Institute in D.C., where a few of the NPI members were attacked as they exited by protesters outside. Nathan Damigo (Moldylocks puncher) was also at the lecture.

From what I see, Richard Spencer is a non-violent activist for a white racial superiority and European identity movement that taps into perceived discrimination against white people, white males and Western culture. Apparently they advocate some kind of white ethno state, not sure of those details, didn't go very far into it.

Richard Spencer and Damigo were both at the April 15 event in Berkeley and I can understand concerns about their presence and why people would want to protest against him at every opportunity. According to the organizer of the Berkeley event that day, none from these groups were permitted to speak or be on stage in any way.

Back in late January, Richard Spencer was giving an interview on a sidewalk and was punched by a black-masked antifa attacker, a story that made the news because many leftists took up the slogan "Punch a Nazi" and began presenting ridiculous arguments about why it's okay to punch someone because of their political ideas. More than a few people with large social media followings lamented that the left's failure to denounce this kind of violence forced them to defend someone like Spencer, with whom they have no agreement on his stated goals. This is a good example of how violence against non-violence often backfires and earns sympathy for one's enemies.

Atlantic: Rebranding White Nationalism: Inside Richard Spencer's Alt-Right



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kVeZ0_Lhazw


Richard Spencer - NPI 2016, Full Speech 32 minutes



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xq-LnO2DOGE


Richard Spencer Responds to His Hail Victory Speech & Roman Salutes at Alt-Right



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yFalXA-RNjI


The violence after the NPI meeting, 2 minutes



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jcZiHo1U3Z4


White nationalist Richard Spencer talks to Al Jazeera



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ni_6sISHnqQ


Richard Spencer punched while giving an interview



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFh08JEKDYk
User avatar
Michael
Great Old One
 
Posts: 11169
Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 7:05 pm
Location: Guangzhou, China

Re: The Battle for Berkeley 3.0 Was a Fight Against Antifa

Postby Ian C. Kuzushi on Sat Apr 29, 2017 2:36 pm

Oh, okay. So promoting forced sterilization is non-violent. right.

By your logic, Hitler was non-violent. Hey, he wasn't the one actually shooting people and later putting them in "Holocaust Centers."

If you can spend the time it took to watch all the videos you just posted defending a racist piece of shit, but can't find anything wrong with his ideology or violence in his ideology, I don't know what to say.

Also, you are acting like the National Policy Institute is something other than a fancy name for a pseudo-intellectual group of neo-Nazis. You should check out some of the titles of their publications. I hope you don't read it though, as you seem to be unable to avoid indoctrination from despicable sources. Alex Jones and now Richard Spencer.

The link I posted was of one of their meetings. The Atlantic, like many other rags, covered it. It's not "from the Atlantic." Whipping a crowd of neo-Nazis into a fervor by quoting Goebbels is not peaceful. Calling for state-run forced sterilization of minorities is not peaceful.
文武両道。

Lord Li requires one hundred gold coins per day!
User avatar
Ian C. Kuzushi
Great Old One
 
Posts: 1567
Joined: Sun May 15, 2011 10:02 pm

Re: The Battle for Berkeley 3.0 Was a Fight Against Antifa

Postby Michael on Sat Apr 29, 2017 9:00 pm

Ian, your sanctimonious style of swooping into a conversation, refusing to engage usefully, failing to follow the logic of what is being posted, all in order to put people on the defensive, is just a way of protecting your existing viewpoint. Your constant over-the-top accusations are ridiculous. I've asked you to share what you know because this could be a mutually beneficial exchange instead of a head-butting contest.

Your condemnation of my last post and your repeated whining about how I spend my time on topic X instead of Y does not allow me much room to respond and is the logical fallacy called tu quoque, or whataboutism. According to you, I can not comment upon the specific violence of Antifa at three recent Berkeley events unless I also comment on things that you think are relevant, but you are not willing to engage about what you think is relevant or necessary for context because you and the extreme left think that any discussion about this is some kind of tacit approval or weakness in the face of, as you have mentioned, Hitler. Everyone who disagrees with you is Hitler or a Nazi, KKK, probably all three, and that reflexive condemnation is what underpins your rationalization for the legitimacy of physical violence and why you have such a difficult time understanding my purpose in this thread.

The only thing you've said that I can specifically respond to is that in two videos where I've seen Spencer confronted with physical violence, he remained non-violent. The point I made about this is that when a non-violent person is physically attacked it is likely to earn him sympathy or make his cause look superior. Can you not figure out why I am saying this and how it fits into the theme of this thread? I'm sure you could if you stopped being so reactionary and disappointed that not everyone sees the current events through the same lens as you. Your take-away that I'm defending Spencer shows this. My main point is that physically attacking people because of their beliefs is a mistake.

"But Hitler didn't start by killing people, he started with words." Yeah, that's why it's a difficult topic and won't be solved by punching everyone you think is a Nazi until they're too afraid to speak.

Is Spencer's ideology violent? I don't know because I've only just started looking into him and his group since yesterday.

Ian C. Kuzushi wrote:Calling for state-run forced sterilization of minorities is not peaceful.

Source?
User avatar
Michael
Great Old One
 
Posts: 11169
Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 7:05 pm
Location: Guangzhou, China

Re: The Battle for Berkeley 3.0 Was a Fight Against Antifa

Postby Michael on Tue May 02, 2017 7:46 am

Antifa and BAMN have recently declared in Berkeley their right to initiate violent attacks against whomever they label fascists, racists, nazis, etc., and have done exactly that, as I have documented in this thread. On the Berkeley campus Feb. 1 they carried a banner with a declaration of war and that is how they have behaved, as if they are at war, eventually throwing small explosives indiscriminately into crowds of people, luckily not causing many serious injuries or deaths.

If their attitude is related to past situations of self-defense against right-wing violence, that does not in any way excuse the specific violent attacks in Berkely since February 1 of this year against innocents, bystanders and other non-violent people, nor does it answer the growing awareness of Antifa as merely a group of hooligans who smash windows, as they did in D.C. at President Trump's inauguration, where over 200 of them were arrested and have since been charged and arraigned on felonies.

Antifa and BAMN claim they are allowed to take it upon their own discretion to violently attack those whomever they consider fascists because the fascist uprisings in Italy, Germany and elsewhere in the 20th century started with words too. It is ironic that everyone else is more familiar with those events than most members of Antifa, most of whom are barely articulate when spoken to and seem to know almost nothing of history.

I made a mistake earlier when I said Richard Spencer was at Berkeley on April 15; he was not. However, citing him and the organization NPI as a cause for concern, for which Spencer is the president, is understandable. I think we should be concerned about it, but I believe attacking them physically is a political mistake and also shows that Antifa is really just a group of pretentious hooligans. Their recent violent attacks on Spencer and NPI at the D.C. Mall on April 9 just earned NPI more publicity and probably sympathy, which shows how inept Antifa are.

I did not find anything about Spencer or NPI related to the forced sterilization of minorities, but what I did find most commonly refered to as evidence of their unworthiness for inclusion is a speech Spencer gave, where he talked about the "peaceful" creation of entirely new nations for one ethnic group after WW1. It is one of the basis for his dreams of a white, European ethno-state located in North America in the somewhat near future.

If you really want to fight against this kind of ideology, you will have to understand it enough to argue against it on the battle field of ideas, so I suggest you read his speech for yourself in its entirety. I watched many videos of Spencer and those around him, and some are eloquent and highly intelligent, and they know, probably better than Pres. Trump, what are the cultural touchstones, omnipresent grievances and hopes that can connect with an audience.

Facing the Future as a Minority
by Richard Spencer

the most often quoted passage wrote:There is, I admit, a certain pie-in-the-sky quality to these proposals, as if a map-maker in his study could create new countries. But we should remember that in the last century, racially defined nation-building was a major “progressive” cause. We now think that the so-called “liberal elites” have always been dedicated to multiculturalism and race-mixing. This is not quite the case, as liberals have a history of adopting “national determination” and even “ethno-nationalism” as their causes. In 1919, following the Great War, the world’s statesman met in Paris to (for lack of a better term) re-map the world after the dissolution of the defeated empires. New countries were invented (the Kingdom of Croats, Serbs, Slovenes), old ones were reborn (Poland), and ethnicities got their day in the Sun (Czechoslovakia). Related to this process was the Balfour Declaration and British mandate for a homeland for the Jews in Palestine. Nationalists of many stripes captured the hearts and minds of political actors.

Today, in the public imagination, “ethnic-cleansing” has been associated with civil war and mass murder (understandably so). But this need not be the case. 1919 is a real example of successful ethnic redistribution—done by fiat, we should remember, but done peacefully.
User avatar
Michael
Great Old One
 
Posts: 11169
Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 7:05 pm
Location: Guangzhou, China

Re: The Battle for Berkeley 3.0 Was a Fight Against Antifa

Postby Steve James on Tue May 02, 2017 7:55 am

It is one of the basis for his dreams of a white, European ethno-state located in North America in the somewhat near future.


Do you think he means a "state" like North Carolina or a "state" like the United States? What do you think about his dream?
"A man is rich when he has time and freewill. How he chooses to invest both will determine the return on his investment."
User avatar
Steve James
Great Old One
 
Posts: 15579
Joined: Tue May 13, 2008 8:20 am

Re: The Battle for Berkeley 3.0 Was a Fight Against Antifa

Postby Ian C. Kuzushi on Tue May 02, 2017 8:24 am

A brief response to Michael:

First, I don't think punching despicable people is the way to go, but I understand why people would do it. Thought I made that clear a few times.

Also, I understand that you and some other people think that Spencer and his ilk are intelligent and well educated. It's a funny thing. These traits are possessed on a spectrum. People on the lower end of the spectrum will often think people smarter than they are brilliant--others might be impressed by a suit and slicked hair. The internet seems to have hugely exacerbated this phenomenon. Everyone thinks they are just as smart and just as educated as everyone else.

I already mentioned that the things you keep asking me to cite, prove, etc...are all easily found.

Finally, do you really think that "ethnic redistribution" following the Great War was A) successful, or, B) peaceful? See, that's just a case of you buying what a guy who is better educated than you, but not as educated as the people you should look to for information on such matters, says.

Spencer's academic pedigree looks nice at first blush, but it's even more deceptive than his very thinly veiled calls for racial violence. He got his MA from one of the top History schools in the world, but notice it was in "Humanities." History is a social science at UC. That means he was admitted to the pay your way MATH program which is not particularly impressive. Some of them get into the PhD at UC from there, but he didn't. He did manage to get into Duke, another fine school. But, he washed out before even getting to the hard stuff (comps). So, not only are you taking Spencer's public declarations to be his true intent (which is absolutely ridiculous, especially for someone generally prone to conspiracy theories), but you are taking his extremely unqualified historical declarations as truth.

Claiming that my insistence on context is fallacious is about as sound as if you were to call my attacks on Spencer a fallacious use of ad hominem. I am addressing his testimony. Also, you have completely misused the term Tu quoque as well as whataboutism.

Edit: As for "swooping in" and being "sanctimonious," I thought this was a discussion board. I engage with people who are interested in honest dialogue. Your refusal to recognize Spencer and the Alt-Right as a racist and inherently violent movement means that you are not having anything close to an honest dialogue on this subject. I have also stated unashamedly that when I see people posting blatantly racist or bigoted things on here, I will call it out. So, yes I will "swoop in when you or WW paint people like Spencer as victims." You have continued to ignore the very obvious and real problems I have brought up above, btw. You are acting just like Spencer: you claim that you only want to have an honest dialogue and that everything should be measured and well thought out. Of course, this is not true with Spencer or you.

I would also add, my views are certainly not fixed. They change all the time and are constantly challenged by people much brighter and better educated than me. But, the more I study history, philosophy, economics, sociology, religion, and anthropology, the more repulsed I am by the Alt-Right or really most conservatives (you can throw liberals in there too--both in the classical sense and the current). You know what? I bet Trump thinks that all the historians calling him out for his recent ignorant comments on Jackson are sanctimonious, too. Although he would use a smaller word.
Last edited by Ian C. Kuzushi on Tue May 02, 2017 8:39 am, edited 1 time in total.
文武両道。

Lord Li requires one hundred gold coins per day!
User avatar
Ian C. Kuzushi
Great Old One
 
Posts: 1567
Joined: Sun May 15, 2011 10:02 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Off the Topic

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest