Understanding the UC Berkeley Protests

  • Posted on: 3 February 2017
  • By: Anonymous (not verified)

From CrimethInc.

On Wednesday, February 1, noted misogynist and Islamophobe Milo Yiannopoulos was scheduled to speak at the University of California at Berkeley. Fierce protests forced the university to cancel the event, prompting much handwringing about free speech. For more on the relationship between speech and action, consult our earlier text, This Is Not a Dialogue.

“There’s a big difference between words and action.”

Milo Yiannopoulos

Milo, things might have gone differently in Berkeley on Wednesday night.

If a Trump fan had not just murdered six people in a mosque in Quebec City,

If one of your supporters had not just shot a protester at your talk in Seattle,

If your fans had not deceitfully portrayed those attacks as the work of Muslims and “leftists” in hopes of inspiring more attacks like those,

If 28,000 security personnel had not been deployed in DC to impose Trump’s inauguration on an unwilling populace, attacking children and disabled people with tear gas and pepper spray and concussion grenades,

If Trump were not in the process of turning the US into a closed fortress, blocking US residents at the border and trapping millions of refugees in warzones created by US foreign policy,

If deportations were not already tearing families apart by the million,

If thousands of people had not already died trying to cross the US border to rejoin their loved ones,

If the police were not murdering over a thousand people every year in the US and imprisoning 2.5 million more,

If the CIA, FBI, NSA, and Department of Homeland Security were not conspiring to monitor all of our communications and identify dissidents to be weeded out at the earliest opportunity,

If there were no such thing as rape or misogyny, no queer-bashing or transphobia, no shootings in black churches,

And if you weren’t doing everything in your power to legitimize all these atrocities and mobilize people to support them,

Then perhaps people wouldn’t have gone to such lengths to shut down your speaking event at UC Berkeley.

If there had never been a Holocaust — as many of your loyal fans maintain — and there had never been a Third Reich at all, nor a Trail of Tears nor an East India Company nor a Congo Free State, if your precious Western Civilization had not littered the world with corpses and enslaved the survivors over and over again, then perhaps people wouldn’t take all this stuff so seriously.

But let’s be real: if not for all those things, you would never have had a speaking date at Berkeley in the first place. You would just be one more petty, prejudiced, forgettable schlub. If not for all the resources the super-rich have invested in fomenting conflict along lines of race and gender to distract us — resources which you admit are directly funding your operations — you would be nobody, nobody at all.

And then it wouldn’t be necessary to fight you.

But the fact is, there is a war on, and the ones who pull your puppet strings are the aggressors. Everything you’ve been calling for in barely coded language is taking place now: the deportations, the clampdown on international migration, the violent subjugation of women, the attacks against Muslims and queer and trans people. You know very well that your agenda can only be imposed by means of horrific brutality.

That’s why it’s not just a question of free speech.

Words are actions. You know this yourself. If you believed words had no effect, would you have invested your whole life in writing and speaking? No, you know your words have power, you know that you have the power to mobilize people to harass, to attack, to kill — or to fall in lockstep behind those who will. You know that you are accomplishing this, and you love it.

Not everyone who is complicit in violence and murder has to get their hands dirty. Spoiled brats like you have always been able to recruit for the death squads without ever touching a gun. The state needs bootlicking toadies as well as killers. That doesn’t make you less responsible.

“Milo encouraged people in New Mexico to call ICE on suspected immigrants. He planned to do the same here… and livestream it. A few broken windows is well worth saving some people’s lives, homes, and jobs.”

— Kitty Stryker, participant in Berkeley protests

Now let’s talk strategy, Milo. You feel on top of the world right now, but the game is changing.

You made your name by antagonizing liberals. Your shock jock antics took advantage of everything reactionary about liberal identity politics. Democrats who assumed they could take the gay vote for granted didn’t know how to respond to a self-described gay man who called Trump “daddy.” Under Obama, you could pretend to be a rebel taking on the establishment. It was your one gimmick — it still is — and you milked it for all it was worth.

It’s a different ballgame now. Your daddy is in the White House, controlling the same NSA and drones and economy that your fans resented under Obama. It will be hard to maintain that rebel image now that you’re just the low-ranking stooge of a reigning tyrant.

There’s something else, too. You’ve made some enemies who play by different rules. Yes, I’m talking about the anarchists who shut you down in Berkeley.

The liberals you love to antagonize are a lot like you: they want to use the state to accomplish many of the same things, only more politely. You accuse them of wanting a “nanny state,” but you want a daddy state, a state just as invasive and controlling. You complain about liberal censorship out of one side of your mouth while calling for more policing out of the other side. Both you and your liberal adversaries are counting on men with guns to do the dirty work for you.

As long as Obama was in office, you could count on the Democrats to go on expanding state power, while blaming them for everything unpopular about the state. Now, you are the one associated with state power, and you’ve run afoul of people who actually oppose the state — people who are accustomed to taking matters into their own hands rather than running to daddy. People who recognize that the violence and oppression you are recruiting for will only be stopped by direct action.

Your gamble is that a little anarchist resistance will galvanize the passive citizenry into supporting a state crackdown. You take it for granted that most of the people you are trying to hurt will stick to protesting powerlessly while you organize violence against them.

Maybe this strategy will work, and maybe it won’t. The fact is, things are getting more and more difficult for more and more people. We have less reason than ever to behave ourselves or rely on liberal solutions. Right now, anarchists remain a small minority. But if society continues polarizing — if people recognize that the only way to defend themselves against you and the puppeteers who pull your strings is to take direct action — then there may be a lot more people alongside us soon.

It might even be too many for the authorities to control — just like it was in Berkeley.

And if that happens, the daddy state won’t be able to protect you.

From YouTube.

Further Reading

An account from the protest that shut down Milo’s talk at UC Berkeley



Oh, mimethinc. You tumble down the rabbit hole with Alex Jones & Milo. I wish all of you well, down there.

It is a bewildering phenomenon. It makes sense in hindsight, but it continues to surprise me. I hesitate to even call it right wing, because 'right' & 'left' don't really mean much in the modern context. These words have lost their connection to the past.

Regardless, it follows the formula of the 60s counterculture & sexrev. And the formula of revolutionary processes, generally. Successful or otherwise.

-discontented population has an awakening of sorts
-loss of faith in institutions
-perception of corruption
-re-evaluation of norms ("you've been lied to all these years")
-formation of new ideology, tenants

Just like the 60s, really. In the US terrain, these sorts of things become soft revolutions—relatively seamless changing of the guards. The flavor of the rev has to be right wing this time around, because the 60s rev won and US culture became broadly more liberalized. A leftist response couldn't have achieved much more, and in fact it did not—the diminished energy of left wing radical groups, from the 70s-2010s, reflects this. There was no real energy behind them, nothing really to backlash against authentically, because they had too many friends & comrades in academic & political positions of power. The rebellions became ceremonial extensions of past victories, achieving nothing more than what had already been gained.

So there is somewhat of kneejerk response from the more fringe/radical elements of the left, because their turf is being tread upon by newcomers. But honestly, they have squandered their decades of holding the radical terrain, and a new group with more vigor, intelligence & humor have supplanted them. And their President is in office.

How much of this, whether the 60s or the 2010s, is a natural process, or a result of propaganda & agitation, remains a question for me, and is ultimately hard to prove one way or the other.

Was the 60s cultural revolution a result of Soviet subversion? Or a natural process?
Was the 21stc. alt-right revolution a result of Russian subversion? Or a natural process?

I think there's an interesting chronological correlation to add to all this.

Trump's election and the rise of a right wing counterculture corresponded with high speed internet & cellular data access penetrating into the most rural parts of the country. This happened only within the past 5-10 years. For the first time, the entire country was equally connected to the internet.

Previously, priviliged access (high speed & cellular) to the internet was limited to urban areas, and correspondingly that era preceded Obama's election.

Both could be false correlations, I'm ready to admit. But I find it an interesting coincidence, regardless.

Especially interesting is the Kremlin then and now connection. I think in both cases it was/is state propaganda to blame them but the connection is interesting to point out. For me these are natural thematic changes within the Western zeitgeist. Strauss and Howe's theories of generation cycles and saeculums is very interesting to look at.

On the issue of mass high speed internet the Kek phenomena(which is a fascinating thing to study in its own right as its basically the right wing take on something like the church of the subgenius) certainly could not have taken off without it.

In terms of the broad comparison one imagines that when the alt right counterculture eventually have their comedown you will see similar things like the right to left Jerry Rubin, Eldridge Cleaver, David Horowitz ect. I'm thinking their window of opportunity is between now and 2025 or so. Should be an interesting 5-10 years.

What could come out of this is a sort of 21st century settle down conservatism to some degree. The liberalism of the 60s will not go away as much of it's change is permanent to the point that you have members of the queer bloc that have conservative views(Milo, Blair White ect) However I get the sense that like the post 1945 generation there is a coming generation of people in the West that just want to settle down for historical family time. This might not entirely be a bad thing, for one thing I suspect that the disenfranchised groups of the 60s will become fully apart of this new deal neo familial situation. It will also birth the new bohemian values of 2048 in this case though virtual and robotic reality will replace the televised late analogue reality of the 20th century. It's scary to think of the levels of domestication to come from this but then again the post 45 period was already a significant period of domestication.

You mention saeculum, I believe the phenomenon of cyclic reproduction/regurgitation is an organic process, sure, certain national and cultural types divert and retard the phenomenon by introducing ideological institutionalized impositions such as wars, conflict, fear and ultimately stultifying mass anxieties. In itself and if left unhindered the saeculum is the organic rebirth of a pristine social potentiality.

It is interesting to see how much the internet has absorbed conflict. People seem more interested in fighting over control of it, than of land. And it is spoken about as such: wills to hold spaces online, and the wanting of ownership of internet-based influence. One reason might be the diminishing value of land in an industrialized, overpopulated era. Another may be the intractable nature & supertech empowerment of modern landholders. Regardless, virtuality is here. 2016 was the first real internet-era election affected by the first fully internet connected populace. And it threw everyone for a loop.

Regarding queer conservatives: there have been gay men in positions of authority & governance for thousands of years, so this should not come as a surprise, althout it will to many—mainly the mystified & brainwashed leftists. The fracturing of the left is happening because it was founded on a lie. A lie about unity. The 60s counterculture & aftermath attempted to bind together as many so-called marginalized groups as possible, claiming that there was a common experience among all of them, of being marginalized. This was an ideological power grab and it was pretty effective for fifty years. They are, or were, fully convinced that they were marginalized, oppressed people, regardless of myriad factors affecting one's comforts & access, and regardless of the endless diversity of experience which bore these supposed brothers & sisters, comrades & allies, which the left attempts to ignore via intersectionality, dialectics & class analysis.

The spell is wearing off though, from within and without. For insiders, the infighting, backstabbing, & disingenuousness they witnessed or befell made it impossible to hold ranks; disaffection was inevitable. Many people got their taste of what revolutionary groups are really like behind-the-scenes and decided to leave the Marxism, the Stalinism, the Maoism, behind. The return was back to the relatively idyllic republic & republicanism which they came from. No surprise really. For outsiders, the hypocrisy of the left is clearer than ever before.

Did you mean that the "endless diversity of experience" negates their status as marginalized/oppressed people? Or rather that it depends more on unique individual context and experience than just identity?

Can't speak for that jerk you're responding to but I definitely have to go with the latter. I say this as someone who constantly gets straw-manned here (and elsewhere) as an identity-leftist: Individual context and experience is always primary, especially for an anarchist perspective. Identity however, is just a lens through which to view certain social dynamics to help clarify who wields disproportionate influence.

I didn't express my question clearly in that it wasn't meant to be an either-or type. I was just sort of trying to restate it differently. I'm not taking sides, but your post is interesting because it occurs to me that if we each can consider individual context, why revert to the non-individual, less precise, lens-method? Also identities are labels, no matter how historically relevant or topical they may seem. Why don those lenses if one can avoid it (outside of the self-affirmation of who we are and where we com from obviously)? I mean imperialists and colonialists are not afraid of being called racist. Perhaps it's best not to reinforce our own internal contradictions if we would rather not be inconsistent at best, or hypocritical at worst.

I was making a point about the myth of commonality. Within any purported segregation of humanity, there is a diversity of experience too complex to represent with language or art. Attempts to sell people on an idea about their sameness is delusional at best, manipulative at worst.

Oppression analysis is a superstition which explains personal inadequacies, which we all have, and local conditions, which we all suffer, in a way that comforts & empowers the ego. Similar to astrology & divination. It is a very obscured, academic & pretentious form of feeling sorry for one's self. Such mindsets are destructive & psychotic, leading the person to endlessly seek justifications for personal failures outside themselves. Their war is forever directed at others and lacks introspection.

Indeed, "there is a diversity of experience too complex to represent with language or art". Political discourse is oversimplification, blunted homogenized categories, (an understatement perhaps) and often descends into babble, buzzwords, jargon, drivel.... Yet perhaps you would agree that strains of commonality need not be ignored or disregarded altogether? Assuming it serves not the interests of some authoritarian identity sect seeking to impose injury or ill-will onto other comrades?

of real comradery are not found in common ground, nor presupposition. Specify the strains you mention. Do any of them reveal the nature of a person? Their personality? Their creativity? Their love? I find this never to be the case. Book clubs, car clubs, fan clubs, church services, political organizing, communalizing, dating services, social media; these all offer the same illusions of common ground based upon similar-interest superficiality. But the chances of finding sublime kinship or comradery is exceedingly rare regardless of the circumstances one seeks.

What one seeks to find through category & shortcut, can only be found in the vague, slow, & unspeakable process of existing. Thus one cannot say what they want, they can only find it manifesting about them. This is what the old words used to describe as a blessing, or a gift. And in lieu if those, it was curse, or damnation; life & death.

Try, try as we may, we cannot force god, the aether, the vivid unknown, indescribable uncertainty, the endlessness of chance; to give us gifts. We must only be so lucky or deserving to recieve them. Life is not fair, nor can we make it fair.

I hope you find the courage to exist in the world in humble patience. We all need it, for the world and all hope of the sublime manifesting is destroyed in the fervent pursuit of myths & misunderstanding.

Ok...so...I get your point about diversity of experience being too complex for language. It's crap, but it's a point. What i don't get is how you go from that position of hopeless vagueness to one which makes colossal judgmental generalizations like, "oppression analysis is a superstition which explains personal inadequacies". I guess the endless diversity and complexity of life takes a backseat when you have an axe to grind?

This was a reply to "***•••..." not "Waldemar" btw.

Converse in good faith, avoiding slurs, and you may find yourself receiving more, better responses.

Different person here.

I find this line of discourse very interesting. Please, continue. So, if I understand... you're saying that anti-oppression analysis is... somewhat invalid, lets say... by virtue of the infinite complexity and diversity of actual lived experience? Perhaps I'm oversimplifying. I admit I haven't really read all of your posts yet but rather skimmed over them somewhat. Pretty exhausted at the moment... but I intend to review it later.

I agree with what you wrote. You summarized one of the points I was making. I'm not sure what you would like me to expand upon. Exhausted as well...

your observation is on target that;

"Within any purported segregation of humanity, there is a diversity of experience too complex to represent with language or art."

in the physical reality of our actual experience, we are each uniquely situationally included in a complex web of dynamic relations. as far as our 'actual experience goes', 'epigenetic influence inductively actualizes 'genetic expression'. 'genetic expression' is 'appearances', but we use language-and-grammar to depict 'genetic expression' as 'real'; i.e. as in the actions of 'notional local independent material beings, notionally with their own genetic agency'.

we describe storms by way of common property based categories, differentiating between a 'category 5 hurricane' and a 'category 1 hurricane', implying that the former is 'more powerful' than the 'latter' in the same fell stroke as making them members of a common category. this gives us the sense that 'the power is theirs' when the physical reality is that these purportedly 'independent things-in-themselves' are relational features in the flow.

We, as 'observers', SEMANTICALLY ATTRIBUTE this power to relational forms in the flow when it is not their power at all; i.e. their size and strength derives from the relational dynamics in which they are included. We categorize businessmen and nations in the same way. the differential power and size of 'holdings' of a category five businessman and a category one businessman is based on what the observer measures and attributes to each one. the businessman is just a figurehead [not a fountainhead' for the power attributed to him, just as in the case of the storm-cell. 'Subject-and-attribute' are a semantic contrivance.

"Is this belief in the concept of subject and attribute not a great stupidity?" -- Nietzsche

the category five farmer is like the category five hurricane; i.e. they are figureheads of power and productive agency and not fountainheads; i.e. their productive agency derives from epigenetic influence that is inductively actualizing their productive agency.

There are no local jumpstart fountainheads of 'creative agency' other than in the 'subject-and-attribute' fabrications of semantic reality.

" Necessity is the mother of invention" -- Plato

[epigenetic influence is the inductive actualizer of genetic expression].

what hasn't changed is the abstract idea of 'the independence of nations' and 'the independence of individual humans'.

this is a far-from-reality idealization that is sourcing incoherence in the social dynamic.

"America first!" and "me first" follow from this abstract and unreal assumption that men and nations are 'independent things-in-themselves'. When the greedy-guts cult monopolize resources/means-of-production, the actualization and development of those who are non-monopolizers is stifled and suffocated.

The 1960s saw a shift in common values associated with rising consciousness of the inherent INTERDEPENDENCE of men and nations rather than their 'independence'. the values shift towards 'peace and love' (mutual support) marked a 'softening' of the abstraction of 'independence' and a commensurate 'softening' of the 'me first' and 'America first' Darwinist winners and losers outlook.

However, the articulate leftist rebels of the sixties bought into the system and became an other layer of the wealthy middle class and the 'voices of change' went silent. The articulate leaders of rebels are elected to serve as negotiators and they get 'bought out' at the negotiating table. In post-apartheid South Africa, most blacks are still living below the poverty line while one in 10 are now living in a black middle class. In all of these cases, the voice of the rebels 'sells out' so that the apparent success of the rebellion degenerates to window dressing.

In the shift to the left, businesses and businessmen like Trump have been 'hold-outs'. Liberals wanted repairs for a broken system but they were not bold enough to touch capitalism. Many economists [including Greenspan] have come to the conclusion that the 'invisible hand' of free-market capitalism is not necessarily going to deliver what is best for everyone, which suggests that something is wrong with it, but liberals and leftists in general chose to leave capitalism alone and to make repairs after-the-fact, by making corrections to the allocation of the wealth produced by free market capitalism.

This has left business and businessmen with the bit in their teeth to play an unadulterated cut-throat, dog-eat-dog 'me first' game that engenders massive 'externalities' (worker stress/health problems, injuries/deaths from unsafe workplace environments, pollution, erosion of mom&pop community services, brewing of market instabilities and more), the costs of which are picked up by john q. public because government and the law encourage the aggressive actions of business and covers their backs (allow them to engender externalities with impunity).

Trump is a winner in a 'me first', dog-eat-dog competitive sense.

This is not the profile of a national leader. Within the nation, the police and the courts protect businesses and businessmen from liability for the damage they leave in their wake ['externalities']. If cut-throat 'me-first' policies are rolled out from the office of the presidency to 'make America Great again', it will have to be the US military that indemnifies the US from the repercussions of such aggressive one-sided 'me first' and 'America first' policies and actions.

Because the liberals of the sixties have done a 'me first' and 'sold out', like the new black middle class has sold out in post-apartheid South Africa, ...this takes the wind out of the sails of the revolution as those 'advancing' are 'bought' and turned into 'window-dressing' [poster people wearing Che/Mandela tee-shirts].

this may explain the apparent resurgence of racism in SA

the egotist 'me first' belief in the 'independence' of the person and nation underlies the period of intesified degeneration of the local and global social dynamic that we are currently entering into with the Trump presidency.

If it takes a gay misogynist douchebag like Milo to fuck up this ultra-corrupt institution that is UC Berkeley, than THANK YOU, MILO!!!

"A few broken windows is well worth saving some people’s lives, homes, and jobs.”

Well, at least trump & crimethinc can agree on one thing: the importance of having jobs. If Trump decreases the unemployment rate, I wonder if crimethinc will soften their rhetoric against him. Although they may stipulate that it is only for those born outside the united states that they seek to keep in employment. You know, 'cause, mexicans sure love to work, or something.

Seeing the ungovernable-ones come out for domesticity, though, that is a little surprising. Always with the curvebricks, these totally-not-liberals.

Fuckin' right man. Jobs are for normie bourg poseurs. So what if Milo gets a bunch of Mexicans fired, it's not like they're gonna starve. They can just sponge off their rich parents like we do, right?

Stop using latino wage slavery as an excuse for your minor property destruction & arrest fetishes. It's a serious problem and your adolescent tantrums do not aid the struggle.

Aww you mad bro? Sorry I wasn't serious enough enough about the super-serious subject that is Latino wage-slavery while trolling some wanker (you?) for not taking the subject seriously enough?

"if people recognize that the only way to defend themselves against you and the puppeteers who pull your strings is to take direct action"

"Direct Action"? My how concepts quickly lose their meaning.

If you are against someone's ideas and what they stand for, then wouldn't 'direct action' be 'directed' at that person? Why not attend Milo's talk and confront him directly? Why not argue against him directly? And if you really think he's dangerous, why not quietly bump him off directly? (This is what governments do behind the scenes. It's much more effective, has built-in plausible deniability, and unlike riots, doesn't attract a lot of negative attention).

Smashing windows isn't smashing Milo directly. Setting garbage cans on fire isn't hurting Milo directly. Pepper-spraying a Trump supporter in the face isn't any sort of 'direct action' against Milo. Nothing that happened at Berkeley was 'directed' at Milo directly or personally. In fact, everything that happened, all the rioting, street battles, the smashism, only helped INCREASE Milo's popularity. His book is now #1 at Amazon. He's now considered a hero of free speech!

Berkeley used to be at the forefront of the free speech movement. We can safely now conclude that free speech is dead. The anti- Milo riots just confirmed it. Want to get more people to hate college students and universities? Keep this kind of shit up.

Direct action isn't about rioting, confederate flag burning, smashing bank windows (did Milo own those bank windows?), it's about confronting who or what you are against directly. If Crimethinc thinks this is a war, then who or what is the war against? ATM machines?

An anthropologist from Mars certainly wouldn't be able to tell from the riots what this supposed 'war' was actually about. The anthropologist would be forced to conclude it was some sort of spontaneous tantrum. When tribes, villages or states go to war, they directly attack who they are against, they don't throw a tantrum and start randomly smashing things or engage in symbolic property destruction. Why is this simple thing so difficult to grasp?

Crimethinc, like most leftists, liberals and anarcho-communists (there were a lot of hammer and sickle signs at the riots) have all completely lost the plot.

Tend to be the intellectual man to man kind. If you look at this video at the 5:50 mark you see the true level of weakness that makes up a shit stain like Spencer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d2IOpeLyPec

You'll notice that it's a composed older man as well not some young dumb antifa retard who's numbers end up making the individual speaker look impressive. You could also have some clever individualist who can simply ask the the easy put down Q for any reified collectivist ideology, who's we? This is what helped to make the 68 counter culture eventual winner over US culture. You had someone like Harlan Ellison who was actually shot at one stage by a member of the conservative majority and basically kept on speaking. Compared to that you have the leftists and their footsoldiering for tolerance.

What is for certain though is that if you go to the last part of the video where he gets to his end game the leftists are the last ones to admit that it was THEIR colored identity politics that caused this reaction to begin with. That's also part of what's and who's lost the plot.

Maybe i'm just not a good anarchist buuuttt?????? This just seems like reactionary whining....i dont even think rioting is 'wrong' but this wasnt a very good context? milo only holds sway bc he opposes liberalism...he is very very easy to debate from anarchist point of view.

Proof of Soros command please.

anti-fa are not "paramilitary", unless you have your own special snowflake definition of 'paramilitary' that you just made up. They had no weapons, no swords, no camo, did not drive Toyota jeeps, and had no ISIS flags. But yeah, other than all of that, they were just like ISIS fighters.

anti-fa are just silly idiots. And you just went off the deep end into political woo.

Don't embarrass yourself. Back "in the day" the death squads of Latin America and in Mexico now look just like these antifa fucks. http://www.globalresearch.ca/occupy-wall-street-and-the-american-autumn-...
The link talks about the globalist agenda, which I guess, the black clad thugs can't wait to enforce.

Yeah, didn't think so. Death squads? Who have antifa killed?

Take your own advice and don't embarrass yourself. Let me guess, you're an Info warrior? Trumpanzee? alt-reich nutjob?

I am a Hillangutan, xenanist cuntrapezista intersectraordinaire. A volley of arrow-v-wades upon you!

OMG could this troll be actually serious!?

OMG seriously WTF lol :P #disavowsuperbowl

Man … several of you fools love to sound off about something in way that completely discredits your own position. Antifascism is at best, a political tendency and mostly just a huge set of tactics just like black bloc or doxing but wider in variation. Making categorical statements about it makes you sound like a clueless jackass and I suspect, indicates that your only references to the subject are through the mediation of the spectacle. Either you're deliberately misrepresenting for your own reasons or you're walking around with a head full of cartoonish strawmen and trying to pass it off as analysis.

Antifascist organizing can take hundreds of different forms and people of wildly different levels of analysis and ability can all claim to be "antifascist" or call it something else entirely, the completely incomparable manifestations over the last 7 or 8 decades leave no doubt that it's pretty stupid to generalize. It's either intellectual laziness or else you have some axe to grind for fuck-knows-why.

Yes, you are a legend in your own mind.

Please do tell us how we all misrepresented those poor antifa's. Then tell us why you care so much.

… Are you serious? I just fucking told you. Reading comprehension problems?

Let's try this again...

"Man … several of you fools..."


"love to sound off about something in way that completely discredits your own position..."

What do you mean sounding off? Who's position and what position is being "discredited"? How is it being completely discredited?

" Antifascism is at best, a political tendency..."

No.... really?

"and mostly just a huge set of tactics just like black bloc or doxing but wider in variation."


"Making categorical statements about it makes you sound like a clueless jackass .."

What 'categorical statements? By whom? How do such and such whatever categorical statements make who look like a jackass?

"and I suspect, indicates that your only references to the subject are through the mediation of the spectacle."

What makes you suspect this? Who's reference? You've heard of Debord's spectacle...ok, so?

"Either you're deliberately misrepresenting for your own reasons..."

Deliberately misrepresenting what? How? WTF are you talking about?

"or you're walking around with a head full of cartoonish strawmen and trying to pass it off as analysis."

Who is? What cartoonish strawmen?

"Antifascist organizing can take hundreds of different forms and people of wildly different levels of analysis and ability can all claim to be "antifascist"

Who said otherwise? How do you know the different forms number in the hundreds?

"the completely incomparable manifestations over the last 7 or 8 decades leave no doubt that it's pretty stupid to generalize."

Who's generalizing? About what?

" It's either intellectual laziness or else you have some axe to grind for fuck-knows-why."

Intellectual laziness about what? What axe is being ground? By who?

The complete utter lack of any specific argument addressed to unknown and unnamed person(s) regarding some unspecified points is so vague and general as to be totally meaningless. It's precisely why I asked my question. And you have the nerve to call me out on MY lack of reading comprehension? Holy shit buddy, look in the mirror.

We've already been through this fool. I don't owe you anything, stop pretending anyone here owes you some arbitrary standard of explanation according to you, as if we're handing in papers for you to grade. You're absolutely one of the people I'm referring to with your pedantic tone but nobody cares if you a. like it b. accept it or c. live or die. Fuck off.

No we haven't "been through this". You posted a bunch of vague general hazy shit, and I called you on it.

So stop pretending that you "explained" something.

Because different people try to solve a problem using different methods, to the best of their abilities or lack thereof. Like you trying to understand this topic for instance ...

And it doesn't warrent this much of a counter tendency.

you are a pedant, fucking.clueless.
i hope you're happy with your lifestyle.

You continue the fine tradition of: "If you're not this, then you must be that."

As such, I will courteously reciprocate your conventions and deem that you are merely a cryptohegelian metachristian with binary tubercles impinging upon your prefrontal cortex. Time for a stirnerian lobotomy or boat load of sodomy, depending upon how much of your spongy leftist brain is worth preserving. For, you too could one day be a multinary spookbuster extraordinaire, so long as the crystallization of arbitrary class structures has not yet torn its way through too many neural pathways, and barring that struggle concretization has not yet cemented your neuroplasticity. Otherwise, we might just be left to commune with our genitals, pending approval by tindr corporation patented algorithms and individual assessment of high resolution crotch shots. What do you say? Are you ready to come to the dark side? It's us or them...

Add new comment

Filtered HTML

  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <blockquote> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Enter the code without spaces.