Donald Trump

UC-Berkeley Protesters Set Campus on Fire, Shut Down Milo Yiannopoulos Event

Censorship wins again-and so does Milo.

|

Milo Yiannopoulos
Michael Mullenix/ZUMA Press/Newscom

Berkeley is burning tonight: the university campus that birthed the Free Speech Movement played host to a despicable display of violence and censorship Wednesday evening that culminated in the cancellation of a planned speech by controversial Breitbart tech editor Milo Yiannopoulos.

Anti-Yiannopoulos protesters wearing black scarves over their faces hurled fireworks at the building where he was supposed to speak. They also tore down barricades and smashed windows. They used gasoline to start a significant fire on the street that threatened to engulf a nearby tree, and forced police to push people back. Authority figures deployed rubber bullets and tear gas in an attempt to control the situation. A student who attended the event told me that it seemed like the majority of the violent protesters were not students, but older, masked rioters from the "antifa" movement.

"This is what tolerance looks like at UC Berkeley," said Mike Wright, a member of the Berkeley College Republican group that invited Yiannopoulos to speak. Shortly after he made this statement, smoke bombs were set off around him, and someone threw red paint at him, according to The San Francisco Chronicle.

Yiannopoulos released the following statement on Facebook:

I have been evacuated from the UC Berkeley campus after violent left-wing protestors tore down barricades, lit fires, threw rocks and Roman candles at the windows and breached the ground floor of the building. My team and I are safe. But the event has been cancelled. I'll let you know more when the facts become clear. One thing we do know for sure: the Left is absolutely terrified of free speech and will do literally anything to shut it down.

As I write this, at 10:00 p.m., the violence and chaos are ongoing. Yiannopoulos was forced to evacuate the campus.

Anti-Yiannopoulos protesters described themselves as anti-fascists and anarchists. "We reject fascist America," the said.

They don't so much reject it as enable it. Most people will watch the chaos unfold and wonder what's wrong with college students and social justice activists these days—why they must resort to violence and destruction to silence people they don't like.

By engaging in such tactics, anti-Yiannopoulos protesters effectively distract from the fact that Yiannopoulos's own views are loathsome. They turn Yiannopoulos into a free speech martyr, which is exactly what he wants. When Milo is censored, Milo wins.

"It was a 500 person event, that's like the max occupancy of the room," Kevin Quigley, a freshmen at UC-Berkeley, told me over the phone. "if it was just 500 people going to hear him talk it wouldn't be in the news, but when you have thousands of people gatheing in the streets… they're just making him more famous."

By the way, Yiannopoulos's old Breitbart boss, Steve Bannon, is now a top advisor to President Trump. I wonder whether Bannon would rather Yiannopoulos's speech go off without a hitch, or be shut down by violent protesters? Which outcome is better for the law-and-order policy positions of the Trump administration? It's not actually a question: the president's narrative is obviously better served when irate students resort to violence to silence an alt-right speaker.

NEXT: Can a county ban all gun stores? 9th Circuit amicus brief suggests not

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. These protests do exactly what Milo wants. It’s hilarious and sad.

    1. Whoa, no one is gonna comment how late Robby is working so close to the weekend??

    2. It’s beautiful!

      Kekistan rising!

      #VivaLaREEEsistance!

    3. My son is there now. He had a ticket to the event but it was canceled. He texted me some video of the birthplace of the FSM. Somehow I always pictured it differently.

      1. FSM?

        1. Free speech movement

          1. Yeah, where they did LDS in the 60’s.

            1. For God’s sake, let’s get our abbreviations correct.

              LSD

              As for FSM, Mario Savio must be smiling down proudly on all of his little violent, leftist followers.

              1. Maybe they slept with Mormons, too.

        2. Flying Spaghetti Monster

          May we all be blessed by his noodly appendages.

          1. +420 Pastafarians

          2. Does Flying Spaghetti Monster taste good? Or would it be sacrilege to eat it?

            Can we get SCROTUS & the lawyers to stew on these important questions of the day? I think that would be EXCELLENT for them to do that! As a result, they’d be less likely to cook up some other new shit, with which to butt-fuck us & steal our last few remaining freedoms!

            1. If you die a martyr to Pastafarianism you are rewarded with 72 Vermicelli in paradise cafe.

    4. It’s hilarious that these assholes call themselves the “antifascist” movement while they are using actual Nazi Brownshirt tactics to silence opposing views. Don’t expect any one of the MSM talking heads to notice that, though.

      1. Why is it hilarious?

        They ARE fascists. Not in the ‘everything I hate is fascism’ vein, but in actuality–look at the policies and programs they actually want and work towards.

        1. Exactly. And shame on Robby for not pointing that out.

          1. Forget it, Trumptard, It’s Robby.

            Incidentally, Robby’s just phoning it in. Milo’s lots of things, but he’s not exactly Alt-Right, unless your definition of Alt-Right is “people I don’t like”. Which of course, could be the case here.

            1. It’s “people I don’t like”, who are right of center, and weren’t famous 2-3 years ago.

    5. There was nothing wrong with the original peaceful –and constitutional– protest. What went wrong is that a group of self-identified “anarchists” infiltrated and subverted that protest with their signature vandalism and violence. (They did the same during some of the Black Lives Matter actions in the Bay Area.) This violence caused the protest to be widely discredited and condemned throughout the media. I’m wondering who those “anarchists” are working for.

      1. As a fourth generation Californian who grew up a stone’s throw from Bezerkely and lived through the 60’s activities there, I am sick of events at Berkeley making the news as though it is somehow representative of a majority viewpoint in the golden state let alone nationally.

        In the bigger picture of the nation, Berkeley is irrelevant. But you wouldn’t know that by the news coverage it receives.

        The home of the FSM is anything but and most of us have known that for more than 50 years.

        Berkeley is not even in the top ten cities by population in the nine county SF Bay Area. It is lily white and next door to Oakland which is gigantic in comparison and of much more representative demographics of the Golden State.

        Berkeley is smaller than my unknown suburban hometown of Concord and my current town of residency, Vallejo.

        I wish Berkeley would STFU and the news media would ignore the left wing insanity there. It in no way is representative of anything in California let alone the nation.

        Demographic profile[48] 2010

        Total Population 112,580 ? 100.0%
        One Race 105,586 ? 93.8%
        Not Hispanic or Latino 100,371 ? 89.2%
        White alone 61,539 ? 54.7%
        Black or African American alone 10,896 ? 9.7%
        American Indian and Alaska Native alone 228 ? 0.2%
        Asian alone 21,499 ? 19.1%
        Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone 170 ? 0.2%
        Some other race alone 503 ? 0.4%
        Two or more races alone 5,536 ? 4.9%
        Hispanic or Latino (of any race) 12,209 ? 10.8%

  2. Maybe UC isn’t giving these students all the resources they need to help them succeed

    1. Bigger rocks?

      1. Misread as “bigger cocks.”

        1. Big black cocks?

    2. Solid laugh on that one, thanks.

    3. NEEDZ MOAR TRUNCHEONS!

  3. Cool! Safe spaces with rocks, broken glass, explosions, and fire!

  4. Will Wilkinson proves himself an ass: http://tinyurl.com/jcwwbzr

    1. Someone needs to tell Will Wilkinson to shut the fuck up, as well.

      1. “Someone needs to tell Will Wilkinson to shut the fuck up, as well.”

        Oh hell no. We should give Will Wilkinson and the rest of the Vox columnists the biggest platform possible to expand on their views. That’s a much more effective approach.

      1. They both wrote about the libertarian case for Bernie Sanders. Wilkinson’s was exactly what you’d expect (smug, data-driven, pointless), and Robby’s was a lot shorter.

      2. I think Robby did well. Even brought in Shackford for double trouble. Wilkinson is just a schmuckapuck.

        1. Agreed.

          I do like that Serious, Moderate Man Wilkinson engages in the same kind of whining as us degenerates.

          1. Agreed? What exactly is a schmuckapuck? I want to know that before I form an opinion.

        2. Fucking hell, when you make Robby be the better writer, better debater and better man overall….

          FUUUUUUUUUUUU

    2. Does the commentariat follow the shit Robby posts on Twitter? From the apologizing for having to defend the free speech of supposed “alt-righters” to his picture of him with his foofy dog to drinking wine…the guy really is a disgrace. This asshole calls himself a “very object, just the facts…man.”

      The pinnacle of Robby’s career is owed almost entirely to the commentariat.

      1. Robby seems to be holding his own in that twitter exchange, including this:

        Robby Soave ?@robbysoave 14h14 hours ago
        More
        @willwilkinson I write interesting things ppl want to read. Maybe not important to you. But we cant all complain about Trump 100% of time

        Isn’t that what you chucklefucks have been saying what you want?

        1. What I give a shit about it is intellectual integrity and libertarian principles. I don’t really give a shit about Robby’s Twitter spat with some cunt from Vox who just wants to pretend there’s no issue with he or his fellow cultists.

          1. What I give a shit about it is intellectual integrity and libertarian principles.

            Lol

            1. Feel free to ‘lol.’ Bitter because I pointed out that there’s nothing libertarian about the government importing refugees from the third world on the taxpayer dime?

              Robby has lied about Milo’s views in this article. Robby consistently gives the snowflakes he covers every benefit of the doubt as individuals while throwing out ridiculous accusations against the likes of Milo. He apologizes for his lip wristed defense of free speech, and as Gilmore pointed out below, he makes it out like the real issue here is that they are making a reprehensible ‘alt-righter’ into a sympathetic figure.

              This article is at least half trash. And it’s the standard everyone here being honest has come to expect. Not just from Robby, but from the bulk of the staff these days.

              1. Lol

              2. I like the cut of your jib sir.

              3. ‘Let in’ means import like gov spending = investment.

                1. ‘Let in’ means import like gov spending = investment.

                  Except that the government doesn’t “let in” refugees – their relocation expenses are paid, along with a resettlement stipend, and they are given access to the full suite of federal welfare benefits immediately upon arrival. Every other class of immigrants is “let in”. Refugees are uniquely situated. They are given much more than permission.

                  1. I feel I must at least somewhat disagree about refugees. While it was 20+ years ago, when I was in the Navy, I was attached to a “gator freighter” (amphibious ship for transporting Marines) and one of our duties when not deployed to the Med was rounding up refugees and transporting them to Gitmo. We would have a squadron of riot control Marines to control them on board the ship (although they were kept in cages in our well deck). There were tent cities at Gitmo to house these refugees. This was long before being used to torture terrorists. Point is, yes refugees cost taxpayers money, but let’s not pretend we treat them like royalty. From my experience it barely humane and with dignity.

                    1. Bulky Bones – yeah maybe if we stopped bombing the crap out of their countries, there wouldn’t be so many refugees we would have to worry about in the first place. We never should have hontten involved in the ME from the get go.

                    2. yeah maybe if we stopped bombing the crap out of their countries, there wouldn’t be so many refugees we would have to worry about in the first place.

                      The refugees are from the one place we’ve not bombed. Oh, sure; President Red Line huffed and puffed, but per usual, did nothing. They’re being bombed by their own. Yes, we should get the hell out but pretending that if that were to happen then the ME would resemble civilized society requires ignoring the reality on the ground.

              4. Damn. That about covers it.

          2. I don’t really give a shit about Robby’s Twitter spat with some cunt from Vox who just wants to pretend there’s no issue with he or his fellow cultists.

            That cunt is the Ur-Cosmo, Morphed into a “liberaltarian” and then into a full on proggy douchebag.

            Behold the libertarian trajectory.

            1. Still likes to call himself a libertarian, which is hilarious.

          3. Show me on the doll where Robby touched you.

        2. I write interesting things ppl want to read.

          Wait, who wrote that? Robby, or Will?

          1. Robby to Will. There’s more to the conversation too. He tells wilkinson he’ll write about whatever he wants instead of bitching about Trump all the time. He also says that

            threat to free speech in elite liberal arts is the crisis

            I have no idea why people are giving him shit for this. If anything Robby has been becoming closer to what people are claiming they want him to be since Trump’s election.

            1. Robby to Will.

              I can only assume he’s basing his claim on “hits” , or something.

              But its an odd bit of hubris, considering WW wrote for this journal years ago, co-hosted a very popular blog @ the Economist for a number of years, pens policy-chinstrokers about a wide-range of issues for his own think-tank, as well as submits stuff for others….

              ….while Robby has – AFAIK – largely confined himself to a “Copy-Paste stuff reported by Campus Reform“-beat

              Maybe it made sense in context. Or maybe not; you know, “Twitter”

              1. Well go read the link to the coversation that started this thread. Wilkinson was being a little bitch and Robby and Shackford smacked him down. Wilkinson was basically saying that reporting on campus anti-free speech trends is fake news.

                1. . Wilkinson was basically saying that reporting on campus anti-free speech trends is fake news.

                  What, like dead-grandmothers?

                2. Jonah Goldberg utterly destroyed the loathsome Will Wilkinson on that bloggingheads one time. Watch it and you’ll be shouting “Worldstar!”

                  1. Jonah Goldberg utterly destroyed the loathsome Will Wilkinson

                    What was the topic?

          2. Fruit sushi

        3. ‘Member when the cosmos insisted Will Wilkinson was a True Libertarian? I ‘member.

          1. I doubt he could pass an intellectual Turing test as a libertarian. He (and his fellows at Niskanen Center) are progressives playing pretend.

            1. Dig into the sources of the Niskanen Center’s funding sometime. They’re almost all leftist foundations.

          2. Ha! If you’re willing to wade into the archives you’ll find cosmos defending Dave Weigel as a True Libertarian. Eventually the slow-learners realized they’d been had.

          3. Pepperidge Farms remembers too………..

        4. Admittedly, Robbys had some good stories lately.

          He even managed on a couple not to equivocate about his position.

        5. Yes, compared to Will Wilkinson, Robby is a libertarian hero. Not exactly the highest bar to set there.

        6. What exactly is a chucklefuck? I want to know that before I form an opinion.

      2. Robby actually has to live in the same social circle as these unhinged morons, under management that’s increasingly SJW, while writing stories that undermine and subtly mock them. I can’t fault the kid for having survival instincts.

        1. Robby, like most of Reason, is writing not to their general audience (libertarians and libertarian leaning conservatives), but to progressives in their social circle. I will fault them for it. Robby, whether he realizes it or not, it just as loathsome to the people he’s trying to appease as Milo is to him.

          1. Look at Miss Cleo the mind reader here.

            1. Look at Miss Cleo the mind reader here.

              Are you serious?

              You’re the ones endlessly prattling on about how Robby is secretly trolling the commentariat to expose the yokeltarians–insisting in a set of libertarian bonafides that never seem to actually make an appearance–unless accompanied by a properly virtue signaled disclaimer.

              The rest of us just read what he writes and accept that he’s not decided to make his writing career and life into one large piece of performance art.

          2. Maybe you are right. I can’t see to get through an article these days without a bouncing off a giant virtue signal in the middle.

    3. Christ, what an asshole.

    4. Wilkinson is a jackass. Kudos to Robbie and Shakford for defending Robo’s honor

    5. Hot damn! Every time I think Will Wilkinson couldn’t be more deserving of a punch in the face, he manages to prove me wrong! I don’t see how he manages to cross the street without ending up needing the services of a plastic surgeon and an orthodontist.

      1. I’ve never even heard of dude, but that twitter stream made me want to uh, punch a nazi or whatever the kids are doing these days. I mean, not really, but yeah.

    6. “Stop using isolated anecdotes to prove a trend.”

      “Here’s one a day for four years.”

      “ANECDOTAL!”

      1. “Stop using isolated anecdotes to prove a trend.”

        Unless the trend is climate change.

    7. He’s not still with Howley, is he?

    8. Stories like Robby’s UPenn story lead to stories like this UC-Berkeley story.

      1. WW: “It’s all anecdotal!”

  5. By engaging in such tactics, anti-Yiannopoulos protesters effectively distract from the fact that Yiannopoulos’s own views are loathsome.

    Shut the fuck up, Robby.

    1. It’s loathsome views all the way down!

      1. His views that countries ought to have control of their borders, that Islam is an ideology that teaches dangerous things and needs reform? That college campuses have become sewers of SJWism? That 3rd wave feminism is a fucking cancer?

        Those sound more like truths to me than loathsome views.

        1. Oh, very well. It’s *turtles*, then.

        2. He does, among other things, call for the extermination of muslims.

          1. Don’t quote me on that, I could be wrong. It was on the Rogan podcast and I sure as hell ain’t gonna listen to the whole thing to find that quote.

            1. I have never heard Milo call for the extermination of anyone or anything close to it. Google delivered nothing and such an inflammatory statement would likely be easy to find. So I’m definitely not going to quote you on it. I think you’re dead wrong or Rogan was.

              1. Fair enough. In Milo’s defense, he was probably trolling.

              2. Weev is the only person of any prominence I’ve ever heard call for genocide. And he’s more famous for being a troll than a Nazi.

            2. Have watched hours of Milo footage and have never heard anything approaching a call to violence. Lots of sassy, obnoxious verbal attacks about how horrible Islam is, but that’s about the extent of it.

              1. No, he never called for the extermination of muslims, but he did say in his interview on The Rubin Report that “that’s just what they [muslims] do.” When Dave mentioned something about terrorism. It was very early in the interview, you only need to watch 5 mintues or so to get to that one.

                I have to say I disagree with Milo on that.

          2. Unlike say, Jews, “Muslims” is not a race.

            You can call for the eradication of a religion while not wanting anyone physically to be harmed.

            Or even a culture. Baha’i is an indigenous religion to the Middle East (Iran, anyway) that doesn’t suck. Or they could go back to worshiping a Moon Goddess or Iran, back to being Zoroastrian (another religion that doesn’t suck). Indians and Pakistanis could go back to being Hindus or Sikhs.

            The world would be a heck of a better place without Islam. Saying that doesn’t make you racist or evil or loathsome.

            Same should go for Catholics, as far as I am concerned. It’s a crappy religion that should be gotten rid of.

            1. So one isn’t allowed to criticize Judaism because ‘jewish’ also describes an ethinicity?

              Also, when one talks of eradicating a religious group, it’s a pretty safe bet they’re talking about violent and coercive means to do so.

              1. Criticize any people’s beliefs and the way they act as much as you want.

            2. Props to you for posting this long after The Fusionist went to sleep.

            3. I advocate secularism. It’s great to peacefully sit down to barbecued pork with Indians and Pakistanis here in Taiwan. Especially on Friday.

            4. “Eradication”

              And what, pray tell, does that involve?

            5. Jews are a religion, not a race.

              Insularity does not make people who share a faith a distinct race.

              1. Being “Jewish” has a very close correlation to being descended form a certain ancient group of people. More than half today, according to polls, are atheists, so it’s a cultural thing.

            6. Jeremy, your dog-whistling dixie-crap would be better received by the neo-con nutbaggers over at the Federalist.

    2. Virtuous Robby cannot improvise.

    3. I’m not really up on what this Milo guy is about. What about him is particularly anti-libertarian?

  6. Milo is fucking fantastic. A grade-A troll, and these idiot Berkeley students are only proving his point. Leftists have been slowly equating opinions with violence, so that they will be justified when they respond to “wrong opinions” with violence.

    The man is brilliant.

    1. #FreeKekistan

    2. With the “Its okay to punch a Nazi” and a “Nazi is anyone I disagree with” meme running strong, I think some frightening (and entertaining) cell phone videos are likely to flood youtube in coming months. Namely, when people start to physically retaliate against antifa members who seem to be made up of middle class, white, Millennial punks who went to schools with zero tolerance policies for violence.

      Here’s a sample : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tqqefz7jOBc

      1. And remember, folks: feminism means it’s ok to hit a woman if she started it.

        1. Women always start it, so I’m cool with that, as long as she appreciates it.

  7. The fascists win again. Cancelling Milo’s event only emboldens the protesters. They should all be tear gassed and jailed

  8. Again, Robby, Milo isn’t alt-right. A guy that mocks Richard Spencer in a video and denounces white nationalism in his talks is not at all alt-right.

    1. Based on whose definition of alt-right?

      It’s sort of like neo-con or fascist, getting used broadly as an insult with no true definition, anymore.

      1. Based on Jared Taylor’s definition of alt-right, it refers to a very specific brand of nationalism that combines white identity and pseudo-scientific race realism. Here’s a video of him explaining it. In other words, it’s utter horse-shit lunacy that has nothing to do with Milo.

        1. pseudo-scientific race realism

          lulz

        2. He’s not the only one claiming to be alt right, so his definition isn’t more meaningful than the others.

      2. Based on whose definition of alt-right?

        if everyone already agrees there are multiple versions of the term in use, it probably makes more sense to stop using it in reference to someone *entirely*, and find a more-specific term for the person in question.

        Unless of course, the purpose is to dishonestly conflate people like Richard Spenser and Milo Y. in which case, why, you just keep doing your thing, media.

        1. You realize that Spencer claims to have coined the term “alt-right” way back in ’08, right? Alt-right is a very specific fringe movement that believes in “race-realism” and is tied to Spencer’s NPI, Taylor’s AmRen, and offshoots such as Red Ice TV. It’s a very David Duke-friendly sort of movement, if you know what I mean.

          1. Alt-right is a very specific fringe movement that believes in “race-realism” and is tied to Spencer’s NPI, Taylor’s AmRen, and offshoots such as Red Ice TV. It’s a very David Duke-friendly sort of movement, if you know what I mean

            That’s a helpful history lesson.

            When and how did Milo become one of the Alt-Right’s “Leaders”, as Robby mentioned above?

            1. He never had anything to do with the alt-right, he just helped to write a very comprehensive Breitbart article about them last year. Because he talked about their “youthful energy”, many people that didn’t actually read the article in full thought that he was glorifying all of their platforms. Based on speeches that he’s made this year, he clearly doesn’t.

              1. He never had anything to do with the alt-right

                So you’re saying Robby’s statement is…. inaccurate? this surely deserves a correction or something.

                Why, if that sort of lazy conflation persisted, people might start making even more absurd assumptions.

                Even worse, they might begin to suspect its *intentional*?

                1. I tend to believe that reporters that use the term “alt-right” have never actually read about the movement in-depth. In other words, they’re lazy but not dishonest, and label folks as alt-right white nationalists based on hearsay and not on actual research. To be accurate, Milo is a Breitbart reporter that occasionally covers stories about the alt-right, but is not a believer of any of their race-realism garbage. Robby and other reporters need to correct this and stop using the term “alt-right” for anybody except people that specifically brings up race-realism, like the aforementioned Spencer and Taylor.

                  1. Robby and other reporters need to correct this and stop using the term “alt-right” for anybody except people that specifically brings up race-realism, like the aforementioned Spencer and Taylor.

                    Well he reads the comments, and he cares, so I’m sure he’ll get right on that.

                  2. Well in this speech, while Milossays that he is not alt-right he also says that white nationalists like Spencer are a minority of the alt-right.

                    I don’t think I’ve personally ever seen a consistent definition of alt-right.

                    1. Spencer isn’t a minority at the deepest, most focused intellectual circles of the alt-right, but he is a minority if you compare his views to the average 4chan/Reddit troll that thinks that he’s “alt-right” because some of the stuff that he read on message boards sounds cool.

                    2. Well that’s my point, I’ve never seen a consistent definition whether it be from the left, the traditional right or self proclaimed alt-righters themselves. It seems to be an essentially meaningless term. And I was just pointing out that the subject of the article gives a more expansive definition than yours.

                    3. It seems to be an essentially meaningless term.

                      which brings it back to my very first point.

                      if its so vague and inclusive to cover everything from “Actual Hitler 2.0” to “Very Gay Conservative Guy”, it would make more sense to stop using it and be more specific.

                      Unless, of course, the point of using it is to purposely try and elide any distinctions.

                    4. *Very Gay Conservative Jew that sucks black and Muslim dick on the reg.

                    5. I’ve never seen a consistent definition whether it be from the left, the traditional right or self proclaimed alt-righters themselves.

                      I defer to Luther of alt-right and his 16 points. They are concise, clear, set up a philosophy that is distinct enough to argue, and are a 30 foot, neon colored sign that I should keep the fuck away from alt-right. Which I must admit, I appreciate.

                      Any alt-righter don’t like them, tough. Shoulda got your version out there louder and more clearly.

                    6. I was more referring to the intellectual center of the alt-right, as originally defined almost a decade ago, rather than the labyrinthine tentacles of trolls, memes, and the hundreds of conservative blogs and sites that alleged alt-right users like to comment on, such as Breitbart (when Bannon talked about Breitbart being a “platform” for the alt-right, that’s all that I really think that he meant; none of their writers seem to buy into race-realism as an actual argument). This is why I think that using the term alt-right should only ever be applicable to race-realists, rather than how it’s used now, which is “anybody with views that I don’t like”, i.e. the new “tea party”.

                    7. in this speech, while Milo says that he is not alt-right

                      which is odd, because Robby states pretty definitively that Milo is a “Leader” of the movement.

                      e.g.

                      protesters wearing black scarves over their faces hurled fireworks at the building where the alt-right leader was supposed to speak

                      Do you think that’s an accident, or intentional?

                    8. Neither. Just an excuse to go out and participate in mayhem. NTTAWWT.

                  3. Milo is a Breitbart reporter that occasionally covers stories about the alt-right, but is not a believer of any of their race-realism garbage.

                    LOL sure

                    1. You think that a race-realist would voice an opinion like this? I don’t think so.

                    2. Ummmm …. do you realize only a tiny percentage of race realists are ethnonationalists?

                    3. In the west I mean. East of Western Europe, damn near everybody is both.

                    4. Can you give me examples of “race realists” that are not ethnonationalists? I’ve only ever seen race realism used as a way to justify ethnonationalism.

                    5. infoproc.blogspot.com
                      westhunt.wordpress.com

                    6. Steven Pinker discussing Greg Cochran’s (westhunt) theory of Jewish IQ.
                      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1GexZF5VIMU

                      Fired from part time gig at NYT for being a race realist
                      https://twitter.com/razibkhan

                    7. Well, one vital and recent social change has been not only truly revolutionary but has occurred at almost dizzying speed. Namely: Until literally mid-October 1994, it was shameful and taboo for anyone to talk publicly or write about, home truths which everyone, and I mean everyone, knew in their hearts and in private: that is, almost self-evident truths about race, intelligence, and heritability. What used to be widespread shared public knowledge about race and ethnicity among writers, publicists, and scholars, was suddenly driven out of the public square by Communist anthropologist Franz Boas and his associates in the 1930s, and it has been taboo ever since. Essentially, I mean the almost self-evident fact that individuals, ethnic groups, and races differ among themselves in intelligence and in many other traits, and that intelligence, as well as less controversial traits of temperament, are in large part hereditary.

                      — some libertarian

                    8. Fucking Jew. NTTAWWT.

                    9. Ummmm …. do you realize only a tiny percentage of race realists are ethnonationalists?

                      Uhhm… no. No I don’t. In fact, I have no idea what a race realist is.

                      Does the existence of that term imply that everyone else is a race fake-ist?

                      So google is my friend…

                      Scientific racism (sometimes race biology or racial biology or pseudoscientific racism) is the pseudoscientific study of techniques and hypotheses to support or justify the belief in racism, racial inferiority, or racial superiority; alternatively, it is the practice of classifying individuals of different phenotypes …

                      Ok… c’mon now. Are there really enough of these people that it is useful to subdivide them? Oh, no.. he’s a scientific racist, but he’s no ehtno-nationalist!

                      Anyway…. saying that just because he rejects identity politics doesn’t mean he isn’t a flaming racist is pretty weak. I’ve heard him joking about his dating habits being multiracial, which wouldn’t fit with a “race realist” attitude at all.

                    10. +1 Yellow Fever ((hot Asian chicks).

                    11. Uhhm… no. No I don’t. In fact, I have no idea what a race realist is.

                      It’s no’s all the way down.

                      Ok… c’mon now. Are there really enough of these people that it is useful to subdivide them?

                      There’s billions of these people.

                      which wouldn’t fit with a “race realist” attitude at all.

                      Really? Where do sexual realists stick their dicks?

                2. ^@GILMORE +1e6.

                  From some reliable but anecdotal 2-degrees-of-separation evidence, My understanding is that Milo is someone you probably wouldn’t enjoy hanging out with for more than a few minutes, because he’s genetically disposed to being a pretentious troll.

                  But Robby’s being lazy (again) and relying on retarded sources for his background for the article.

                  Just because you think provocateurs are icky, doesn’t mean they’re literally Richard Spencer, OK?

                  Hitler is to Godwin as Alt-Right is to Soave.

          2. That’s not very convincing. Ever since the alt right became known as some powerful entity that installed Trump every right movement or group not aligned with the republican establishment claimed to be the true (and therefore powerful) voice and speaker of the alt right.

          3. Spencer also claims that he’s not a Nazi, so let’s take his claims with the mountain of salt they deserve.

            The ‘alt-right’ seems to be a confluence of numerous skeins of anti-SJW/feminist/leftist/prog shitposters who have been made into an ersatz ‘movement’.

            And they ARE a ‘movement’ in the sense that the crowd waiting to get in to Wal-Mart on Black Friday is a movement. Yes, they ARE all going in the same direction, and yes, they all DO kinda want the same things, but no, they don’t really know or care much for the people around them except the ones they personally know.*

            Spencer and Taylor, seeing the rancor towards PC attitudes on race, sex, and other prog issues, mistook the shitposting for fellow travelerdom and hitched their tired old national socialist wagon to the label–as these folk ALWAYS try to do. They are the same old racist assholes, in the same old dwindling numbers.

            Because the ‘right’, alt or not, does not harbor the innate collectivism these idiots require.

            *the thing that makes the non-Nazi hanger on ‘alt-right’ so terrifying to the left is that is a pervasive, highly invasive mindset that is spreading through society much like leftism did–only it’s doing so voluntarily–without needing the coercive control of media, education and politics the left used to get their POV everywhere. People are indoctrinating themselves.

    2. My son said that the alt-right hates Milo because he’s part Jewish and likes black dudes.

      1. Alt-righters like Spencer don’t tend to like the Jews very much, period. Spencer once used the term “soulless Golem” to describe the leftist media, and him and other alt-righters often talk about “the Jewish Question”. They’re not neo-Nazis (not nearly as violent and the forum circles are generally more “intellectual” than the average Stormfront commenter), but it’s sort of their own, unique take on racism.

      2. It depends on if he’s a pitcher or a catcher.

  9. Anti-Yiannopoulos protesters wearing black scarves over their faces hurled fireworks at the building where the alt-right leader

    #FakeNews

    Both Milo and actual Alt-Right leaders like Vox Day say Milo is not Alt-Right

    Why does Reason employ writers who get the basic facts wrong?

    #FakeNews

    1. You are Reason’s intellectual core.

      1. Then we are doomed.

    2. Alt-right is basically the new neocon.

      Rather than being used to describe a fairly specific set of people (in the case of neo-con, former liberals who switched to conservatism and who advocate spreading democracy by all means necessary), it’s just used a a slur

      1. That’s an excellent description.

        Reason is getting its shit ruined in the last week. They going to fold soon?

    3. +1 Chinese New Year Dragon Dance

  10. ” Authority figures deployed rubber bullets and tear gas in an attempt to control the situation.”
    Ok Mr Soave, can I call you Mr. or is that too gender definitive? You’re just trolling now right?

    1. My feeling was that rubber bullets were high theater. Not really trying accomplish anything, but have some contrary video in case the narrative went to criticizing the campus police department for not their inaction. I like the video that show the police sort of just standing there behind a glass window as “protesters” hit it until fails. Expect to hear calls for hiring more University of California police after current leftist authoritarian college administration is replaced by rightist authoritarian college administration.

  11. I’m pretty sure the people who at least passively side, Lindbergh-style, with the ideology that fights for the domination of a particular ‘race’ (terminology applied when convenient) over all others, to the extent of supporting global conquest, and leading in practice to war and wartime atrocities, ruthless police state tactics, genocidal violence against despised minorities, execution of gays and other “moral defectives”, oppression of all women and rape as a war tactic, I’m pretty sure those fuckers don’t get to call themselves anti-fascist. They definitely don’t get to do so while donning blackshirts and employing brownshirt tactics. If any “fascist” need a good punch in the face, it’s these worthless shitbags.

    1. In case you missed my link above, here’s one (only the first 30 seconds is worth watching) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tqqefz7jOBc

  12. “Steve Bannon, is now a top advisor to President Trump. I wonder whether Bannon would rather Yiannopoulos’s speech go off without a hitch, or be shut down by violent protesters? Which outcome is better for the law-and-order policy positions of the Trump administration? It’s not actually a question: the president’s narrative is obviously better served when irate students resort to violence to silence an alt-right speaker.”

    If memory serves, RC Dean posted in the very first thread on Hit & Run back in 2003. He’s been a daily contributor here ever since. Smart as hell. A practicing attorney. Excellent contributions to discussion. A donor to the Reason Foundation.

    Reason lost him as a commenter and a donor today because of stupid shit on the site like this.

    I wonder, does it serve Robby’s purpose to chase libertarian donors off the site? It’s not actually a question: Robby’s posts generally serve no purpose.

    1. Reason lost him as a commenter and a donor today because of stupid shit on the site like this.

      Is this really so, Ken? Got a pointer? 8-(

      1. R C Dean|2.1.17 @ 11:33AM|#

        Alright. I’m done.

        Reason is only worth my time when it doesn’t traffic in cheap emotional crap and serve as yet another conveyor belt for the DemOp Media’s horseshit. I’ll probably lurk to see if they snap out of it, but I’m not participating anymore. And certainly not donating without a real change of direction and increase in quality.

        https://reason.com/blog/2017/02…..nt_6726828

        1. Thanks, Ken.

          NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!

          1. Thanks, Ken.

            NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!

            Yeah, second-ing (3rd-ing, whatevs) this.

            If your time with Reason has truly run its course, RC*, happy trails and all. I (and others) will hate it, but whatever is best. That said, there’s always room for improvement, Reason. Maybe you should take heed of your readers’ concerns, and work on it. Just a bit, maybe?

            *and any/all others who are joining in.

        2. That doesn’t seem quite long enough for a “this is why I am quitting social media post.”

        3. “…and serve as yet another conveyor belt for the DemOp Media’s horseshit.”

          See I think this is part of the problem right here.

          I have not been an active contributor here very long (I made this account in 2011 or so, but it remained essentially dormant until a few months ago), but I do get the impression that a lot of commentors simply expect Reason to be another foot soldier in the “war against the Left”. Personally I don’t think that would be appropriate. I would rather Reason stand as a principled defender of liberty and oppose its infringement whether it comes from the left or the right – meaning, that from time to time, “the DemOp Media’s horseshit” is going to be correct in describing anti-liberty abuses coming from certain quarters – rather than simply become another tribalist footsoldier in Team Red vs. Team Blue.

          1. RC Dean didn’t expect that, and I didn’t either.

            But he expects them not to be foot-soldiers for the left.

            This article could have been posted to Salon. Why should a libertarian pay for that? You can get that shit anywhere.

            1. It’s fucking retarded to say that Reason is being foot-soldiers for the left just because they don’t show proper deference to the right though. This is the same bullshit we hear every election, if you aren’t for us you must be for the other team! Fuck that.

              1. But he expects them not to be foot-soldiers for the left.

                Why would he expect that?

              2. Or for our team. A pox on both their houses.

            2. Have you read the articles where the authors go to bat for Betsy DeVos? You will not find that at Salon. Or about reducing taxes and regulations? Or, say, criticizing rioters that are shutting down a conservative college speaker (alt-right or not)? How could Reason be “foot-soldiers for the left” when their authors are writing things that are so heretical to the viewpoints commonly held on the Left?

              I don’t think Reason is doctrinaire libertarian, no, but I do appreciate that their libertarianism is more serious than simply “Republicans who smoke pot”.

              1. Yeah. We do acid and heroin, as well as any pharmaceuticals that we may happen upon.

          2. We expect Reason to be leaders–not ‘foot soldiers’– in the war for liberty.

            And the left has no use for liberty whatsoever. Republicans and conservatives pay it lip service and little else.

        4. Because apparently only an open borders cosmo SJW would object to barring all immigration from a bunch of countries?

          Normally I’d agree about the staff, but it seems like much of the commentariat views it’s purpose as running interference for Trump. Any criticism not accompanied by equivocating reference to how much worse Obama is is suspect. Just more tribal bullshit. May as well be reading the comments at the national review.

          1. RC Dean was criticizing the article blaming Trump for killing a grandma. You think that’s a great article above reproach?

          2. In a fight between people giving speeches and people beating up and macing those people, using mob tactics to shut down those speeches, there’s a side that libertarians are supposed to support, if they believe in liberty. This isn’t running interference for Team Red. It’s recognizing that, if you claim to believe in libertarian principles, Team Red also has rights. Libertarianism that claims neutrality between aggressors and their victims or claims that their problem with the aggressors is merely tactics, isn’t libertarianism.

            1. Eat my shorts.

        5. I read RC’s comment with genuine disappointment. I too used to donate to Reason, but haven’t for some time, and I was never a big donor, but I can’t disagree with RC in any of his criticisms he’s made over the last few months.

          A family member suggested that there might be demand for the equivalent of an Instapundit-like link aggregator that concentrates on liberty-related articles from multiple sources, with Hit’n’Run-like member postings. It wouldn’t seem quite so improper to eviscerate this kind of article at a separate venue.

    2. Is there a link or can you point us to that one?

      The comment section is even getting pretty dim. There’s sure as shit no reason to come here for the articles at this point.

      1. It’s the article about Trump killing a grandma with his EO.

        1. Which was not only terrible, but also fake news.

      2. There does seem to have been a notable decline in the last 6 or so months, as people got more and more frustrated with the writers producing the most content… 🙁

    3. Please explain why what Robby wrote is stupid shit.

      1. Read it and figure it out for yourself.

        1. You don’t have to disagree with someones speech to defend their right to do it. No one here bitched when Westboro Baptist was called the pieces of shit they are but had their right to speech defended.

          1. Robby is free to call Milo a piece of shit. Right after he accurately describes just what it is Milo believes and what’s wrong with it. You know, as opposed to just basically using stupid and vague buzzwords to dismiss him.

            1. In the above block quote, where did Robby call Milo a piece of shit?

              1. No, Robby just called him loathsome and threw the derogatory label of “alt-right leader” on him. The “piece of shit” phrase is the one used by Apatheist, so if you find that description of Robby’s views so objectional, take it up with him.

              2. “loathsome”

            2. Why should Robby or anyone else give Milo free advertising for his views?

              1. And here I thought one of the things libertarians believed made free speech so important was that it allowed the refutation of bad ideas. You know, sort of like a marketplace of them where the good ones can stand on their own merits and the bad ones won’t. But apparently, Robby referencing what he finds so awful about Milo’s views for once or at least trying to accurately label him would simply be spreading wrong think.

                I must have missed it when I went to Slate with some of the shit I’m hearing.

                1. Hey guess what.

                  There really ARE some terrible, offensive, “loathsome” ideas out there. And neither I nor anyone else is required to serve them to you on a silver platter.

                  The difference is, however, that a SJW might seek to get you fired, or otherwise ruin your life, if you start reading or discussing these ideas. I don’t. Read them all you want. But that doesn’t mean I have to enable you.

                  The opposite to the SJW idea of “some ideas should be banned!” should not be, “all ideas are equally worthy of review!” No, that isn’t true either.

              2. Except calling the guy and his views loathsome is itself a view. If you want that view respected, it’s only reasonable to be expected to support that view.

            3. Homo alt right. Whatever.

          2. I agree. Why not analyze Donald Trump’s motives? He either wanted this riot or he didn’t!

            And if Hillary were in office, wouldn’t we speculate about why she wanted the riot?

            And then there’s the ancient aliens hypothesis to consider.

            But, nah, it’s all about Trump. “Law and Order”, he said he wanted it. And if Trump wanting law and order helps explain the riot, then we’ve got to consider the Trump-Bannon-Yiannopoulos connection. It’s the only rational thing to do.

            . . . if you work for Salon, I guess?

            1. Except its not all about it, its one small part of the article.

              1. That’s the kind of shit RC Dean was talking about.

                That’s the kind of shit I’m talking about.

            2. Way to miss the point of what he wrote, which is that the rioters are not helping their own cause. His point is valid even if the connections assumed among Trump, Bannon, and Yiannopoulos are not true, because for the point to be valid all that matters if the connections would be something the rioters would be likely to believe.

              1. Are you Tulpa?

                1. No, I’m a libertarian who has been on Hit & Run since the beginning, a major donor to Reason, and got tired of your whining.

            3. But there IS a connection between Milo and Trump, via Bannon. Milo actually used to work for Bannon you know. I don’t think it’s invalid to point out the connection. Something tells me that if the roles were reversed, and it was some lefty speaker who was shouted down, a speaker who had some connections albeit indirect to Obama or Pelosi or some such, that you would be demanding that Reason cover these connections and whether it was part of some orchestrated campaign or some such. And yes, the rioters’ insane response to Milo’s speech does play into the hands of Trump’s law-and-order philosophy.

        2. Guess I’m too stupid to read your mind.

          1. Among other things.

    4. Of all the stupid things to complain about, it’s telling that that is the section that you chose.

      1. Is there a worse part of the post?

    5. does it serve Robby’s purpose to chase libertarian donors off the site

      SJWs are parasites that suck the lifeblood from their hosts. If they kill their hosts, they move onto new ones. If they don’t kill them, they rule them. Destroy or control. Win-Win.

      1. For the record, I was just mocking Robby’s logic and verbiage.

        1. What was objectionable about the logic and verbiage in the section you chose?

          1. See post above.

            https://reason.com/blog/2017/02…..nt_6729197

            1. I don’t understand your logic, and please feel free to not expand any further.

        2. Give him a break. This guy has to deal with Left wing trolls who don’t want him showing their moral bankruptcy. I too have taken issue with the virtue signaling that Reason has adopted, but these guys are getting shit from everyone else, we should only playfully heckle them.

          Robbie is one of the only people that covers this shit and he gets crapped on by all sides.

  13. the president’s narrative is obviously better served when irate students resort to violence to silence an alt-right speaker.

    Are they students?

    1. “Students of the passing scene.”

    2. Specifically, are the organized, masked rioters Berkley students? I wouldn’t think so.

      1. Applaud

        You used the right word

        Rioters

      2. More than 50% of the actual Berkeley students are straight-A Asian kids, almost none of whom gets involved in things like this, they’re too busy preparing themselves for a successful future (yes, that’s an accurate and published demographic). Oh, there’s still some who’ve matriculated at Cal that still go for the protest stuff, but it’s such a damn hard school to get in to, and in such high demand by the middle-class and working-class families in California, that most kids wouldn’t dare risking their affordable high-quality degree. So it’s mostly the usual suspects, the perpetually aggrieved, the rabble-rousers, and professional disrupters that make the city of Berkeley their home (whether or not they actually have an indoor place to stay in the city).

        1. Hey come on! That is not fair, a good deal of the rioters live in Oakland.

        2. Berkeley is well under half Asian. It’s as white as it is East Asian, at least at the undergrad level.

        3. As a former Berkeley undergrad myself (Anthropology/Celtic Studies majors, Folklore minor), I can attest that the protests at Sather Gate (by Telegraph) like the one showed here were preponderantly full of non-students. If anything, they would disrupt us students trying to get to class.

          My trick to avoid them was to use the library tunnels connecting the older buildings ? the Berkeley campus is the Western Library of Congress Annex, so most of the central campus is full of tunnels filled with Cold War-era microfilms. As a folklore-department intern, I had a pass allowing me access, so I’d cut through the underground tunnels to get to classes when the campus above was full of screaming second-generation hippies!

      3. You wouldn’t? It is Berkeley, after all.

        1. I picture Berkley students to be somewhere on the continuum between Harvard and UVA students, so no.

          1. And I keep spelling it wrong

  14. I did mention in today in both the A.M. and P.M. links that the commies are clearly pushing the violence angle in their social circles lately. Starting to look like the rhetoric is clustering to form a trend rather than outliers.

    Fuck these people.

    1. And, yes, I am fully aware that the antifa dickwads aren’t all commies, but a lot of them are. There are some “anarchists” among them too. Not our idea of anarchists, certainly not principled ones, but they make the commies uncomfortable.

      1. the antifa dickwads aren’t all commies

        How do you distinguish the fellow-travellers?

  15. Yiannopoulos released the following statement on Facebook:

    I have been evacuated from the UC Berkeley campus after violent left-wing protestors tore down barricades, lit fires, threw rocks and Roman candles at the windows and breached the ground floor of the building.

    Even Milo isn’t immune from Leftist propaganda.

    Those are the actions of rioters, not protestors.

    1. “Protestor” has become yet another meaningless word.

  16. Just spitballin, but I’m not sure the upset little knuckleheads who seem itching for a fight with this shit really understand that if they manage to actually piss the grown ups off they won’t like the consequences…

    1. “Ouch! I thought these were supposed to be *rubber* bullets!”

  17. The Black Bloc jagoffs are going to be in for a rude awakening when regular joes start shooting them when they riot/hurt people. We’ve already seen one Antifa dumbass get popped with a 9mm by skinhead, but that is just gang violence between statist asswipes. Ain’t gonna be pretty when regular folks decide enough is enough….

    1. Reports that they were smashing windows of cars and pepper spraying the occupants. Anyplace other than California there might have been righteous gunfire in return.

    2. You know, I keep hearing this and have for quite a while. I’m beginning to wonder if it’s true. It’s pretty obvious after the repeated unanswered attacks on Trump rally attendees and repeated riots in blue states that those governments are accessories at worst and bystanders at best. I don’t see any reason for Antifa members to feel they cannot broaden their authority.

      Lotsa talk, talk, talk. Not much freedom securin’. Maybe all those grown ups have things to lose and that’s the limiting factor. I don’t know.

  18. “…Yiannopoulos’s own views are loathsome.”

    The riots prompted me to look up one of his speeches, and I found this.

    Sounds like a valuable contribution to the public debate. I won’t say I agree with every single syllable, but loathsome?

    1. The most offensive stuff is the sex jokes, but SJWs don’t that as offensive, do they?

      Oh, and he uses harsh language against his opponents. Awful!

    2. Leftists loathe Milo because he is effective

      1. Also, because he is openly gay, the Left feels like they should own him. Members of ‘victim classes’ who stray off the plantation tend to get it worse than others.

  19. This is what happens when an unreasonable force meets an irreverent object.

    I had no idea you could turn a phrase, Soave. Color me impressed.

    1. That is pretty good.

      1. He stole it.

  20. By engaging in such tactics, anti-Yiannopoulos protesters effectively distract from the fact that Yiannopoulos’s own views are loathsome

    See, there’s nothing inherently wrong with their intentions.

    Its that the unintentional consequences of their actions will be Objectively Bad.
    (“Milo Winning” = which naturally the writer assumes no one could possibly want.)

    They turn Yiannopoulos into a free speech martyr

    I find it odd that you’d concede he ends up a martyr, when sentences before you were asserting his views were wholly lothesome. Normally a martyr is someone who suffers for holding some righteous principle. If everything he believes is wrong, he doesn’t become a martyr simply because a lot of people hate him.

    something i’ve noticed =

    People who regularly assert someone’s views to be universally loathsome almost never actually specifically quote them to substantiate the claim. Instead they’ll just throw out generalizations. I assume the reason being that if they’re quoted, readers might actually go and check the source material to see if they’re being quoted accurately… and in so doing actually determine for themselves how loathesome the person’s views really are. Instead they seem to prefer that everyone just take their word for it.

    1. Bad enough?

      “All these preening poofs in public life do is make life more difficult for regular young gay people by reinforcing the stereotypes about gay behaviour: reminding a struggling child’s myopic dad that queers are uppity, in-your-face, camp-as-tits faggots who’ll rape you as soon as look at you.”

  21. re: the linked video in the tweet…

    the ‘rioters’ look like timid fans at a punk concert. they leave a huge gap between the stage and the first row, because they’re scared of being singled out as “that guy in the front”. Its a crowd behavior i’ve always noticed. It usually takes some booze and a few songs before people will fill the space.

    1. That’s a specific, intentional black bloc tactic that the organizers promulgate.

  22. If Trump really was Hitler, there would be streets full of dead citizens…from his Brown Bloc, of course.

  23. If Trump really was Hitler, there would be streets full of dead citizens…from his Brown Bloc, of course.

    1. And squirrelz. Lots of Nazi Squirrelz

    2. Wouldn’t that be the Orange Bloc?

  24. Look, anti-fascists behaving EXACTLY like fascists.

    Do they not teach irony on college campuses anymore?

    1. Horseshoe theory. The rhetoric has gotten pretty bad of late.

      The commies are spreading this supposed Trotsky quote:

      “If you cannot convince a Fascist, acquaint his head with the pavement.”

      I can’t determine if that was anything that Trotsky ever actually said or was just an invention of a TV program.

      Conveniently, none of them really know what a fascist is. They like to mold their definitions around whomever they happen to hate.

      1. Conveniently, none of them really know what a fascist is. They like to mold their definitions around whomever they happen to hate.

        #Akshually I think these commie types (tankies in the parlance …) are explicitly LARPing commie-fascist street battles in interwar Europe.

        Horseshoe theory

        Dumb.

        1. … someone’s been listening to Sargon of Akkad … :/

          1. Nope. Why do you say that?

            1. … the comment about these ‘anarchists’ being political LARPers was something he came up with about 3 months ago.

              1. Oh. Well that’s not really a novel insight.

  25. Where’s the story about the 8 year old little girl and US citizen Trump killed?

  26. alt-right leader

    LOL WTF

    This long ass book review/ essay is worth a read in light of recent events.

  27. Hey, can someone post that hot pic of Milo dressed up like the construction worker Village Person while he works on building the wall with Mexico. I want to jerk off to it– just like he does. Thanks.

  28. “It is a peculiarity of the development of American fascism that at the present stage it comes forward principally in the guise of an opposition to fascism” ? Georgi Dimitrov, in his report delivered at the Seventh World Congress of the Communist International in 1935.

    Taken horribly, horribly out of context, of course.

    1. Still, feel free to post that shit on Facebook or whatever you kids are jerking your egos off to these days.

  29. Who would be interested in seeing a ReasonTV-produced video where Robby debates Milo on the topic of “Campus Political Correctness”?

    I’d think that would be a quick and easy way of clarifying to the world just how awful and loathsome Milo is, and how much more insightful, tolerant, and liberty-loving the Reason Magazine approach to the topic is.

    Plus, commenters are rioting constantly @ H&R *already*. There’s not really much more trauma we could possibly cause.

    1. *upends GILMORE’s trashcan and shitposts in it*

      Vive la resistance! Down with GILMORE’s fascism!

      1. Down with GILMORE’s fascism!

        Look i simply *suggested* that Matt button the top button of his shirt.

      2. Down with Gilmore’s fashion?

        1. He’s color-blind.

    2. “Who would be interested in seeing a ReasonTV-produced video where Robby debates Milo on the topic of “Campus Political Correctness”?”

      Is nobody else going to take this? OK, I will…

      Maybe Milo’s hair could debate Robby’s hair.

      1. It’s the only way it would be a fair fight. Milo will quote some shoddy research in his arguments, but he’s simply smarter and wittier than Robby. A live debate would go horribly for The Hair.

        1. Any debate has to be done through proxies, or in teams. English accent gives an unfair advantage!

  30. This is getting pretty bad. I’m really starting to wonder how long until the first person dies, and more importantly, will we all be desensitized to the violent protests by then?

  31. Anyway, thank you, Berkeley “protesters,” without your prompting I would never have looked up Milo’s actual speeches.

    1. +1 Streisand Effect.

  32. Dear Mr. Soave: Facts Not In Evidence

    Please give some examples of Milo being loathsome so that we have something to debate.

    1. Loathsome is a matter of opinion. Milo is loathsome to proggie fake news scribes.

      1. This is true.

        @MaddoxTellsAll
        Progressives call Milo a ‘Nazi’ yet are using violence to squelch a differing political opinion. Oh the irony.
        ?@JulieDiCaro
        White supremacy is not a ‘differing political opinion.’ And throwing smoke bombs is not ‘violence.’

        The next response was a link to photos of a huge raging fire

        1. Killing bad people is not violence.

          1. Dey wuh awl bahd guys.

          2. Bombing Libya for weeks was not hostilities, because no US boots were on the ground (only bad people got hurt)

      2. Fact: Robby can’t have opinions.

        1. You seem upset that Robby got called out for being a clown.

    2. Well, he has said some pretty offensive things about transexuals. He believes they are mentally ill, equivalent to anorexics in their desire to destroy their own bodies, etc. I can see how some might be offended by his views.

      1. Some may be offended, but he may also be correct. Their response is they’d rather loot a Starbucks than let him be heard.

      2. Hell, anorexics don’t cut off functional body parts.

      3. While others would be offended by the view that transsexuality is legitimate and gender is a decision one makes.

  33. Wait until these Berkeley people find out the United States is at war with like 7 countries.

    1. Trump worked fast to end the pax Obama

  34. Check out the quote from the “man on the street” – Kevin Quigley. My son said it was basically a shit-show.

  35. If there is one thing you can say about Milo its that he doesn’t need you people to be offended on his behalf for being mean to him.

    He took violent protests in stride tonight but apparently if someone calls him loathsome you all need to rush to defend his honor.

    1. I’m not offended on *his* behalf, I’m offended on *my* behalf that I’m supposed to not like what seems like interesting performances.

      1. Not talking about you Eddie.

        1. Nonsense, *everything* is about me in some way or other.

          1. Whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.

    2. if someone calls him loathsome you all need to rush to defend his honor.

      Is he “loathsomeness” or not, in your opinion?

      1. sorry, “loathsome “. My spell check corrected… poorly

          1. What does Robby find loathsome? He certainly has the right to feel that way, but he would do well to elaborate.

            1. Apparently whatever he finds loathsome is the issue of the evening It’s beyond my comprehension why anyone cares, so I will go gentle into the good night.

              1. A tip of the hat to your above-it-all stance, sir.

          2. i don’t understand your question.

          3. “Subjective” is not a get-out-of-jail-free card. Subjective things can be objective too.

            You seem realllly butthurt about this. Milo turn you down?

      2. I think he is a troll. The fact that he is an effective troll says more about how easy it is to troll the left, especially the college left that is his primary target, says more about the left than it does about him. If he came when I was in college I’d probably go for the shits and giggles. I don’t think calling him loathsome is some kind of crazy opinion though, saying shit that pisses people off is his whole spiel and it seems that he revels in being called loathsome rather than refuting it.

        If he is truly a free speech radical basically doing performance art by pushing limits to show that all speech should be protected as he has sometimes claimed then I would think that being called loathsome would be a compliment not an insult.

        1. that seems like a long-winded and qualified “yes”

          You say he’s a “troll” – does that mean you mean you don’t think anyone should actually take anything he says seriously?

          1. I’m a cynic so I think he says shit to make money and get attention but I can’t read his mind.

            1. I think he says shit to make money and get attention

              I think that’s a definition that would probably include op-ed journalists/bloggers.

              I wasn’t asking you to read his mind, i was asking whether you thought his opinions worthy of serious consideration or not. Or have you never listened to his stock-speech (the thing he does at these speaking events)?

  36. What the fuck is with all of you Milo fanbois? Is he your SJW-fighting Moses?

    1. We all love a good cockfight.

    2. For my part, I just now watched portions of videos of him speaking, and what he said seemed funny and worthwhile.

      Perhaps I just came in with low expectations so I’m pleasantly surprised to find him interesting…or maybe there’s some clip of him saying something really nasty and I just haven’t seen that clip.

      1. I mean, yes, he has quite the potty mouth, and I would be happy to hear him criticized *from the right* for that, but not by SJWs, not after they stuff they say and do.

        1. I heard him tell a white female heckler “You’re just upset because I’ve had more black cock in me than you have!”

          1. I am aware of that, it’s an example of a potty mouth.

            Maybe I’m more indulgent of his antics because he returns the SJWs’ fire and isn’t ashamed to do so.

            1. Exactly. He says SJWs are full of shit and Muslims are taught to kill people like him.

              1. “He says SJWs are full of shit and Muslims are taught to kill people like him.”

                True and true.

    3. I admire a successful troll when I see one. But this, perhaps he was too successful.

    4. Milo is entertainment not to be taken too seriously or literally. He fully admits he likes to get a rise out of people – particularly the left. A large number of people in the comment section would disagree with Milo on a number of issues, I’d suspect.

      For my part, I’d simply like to see the guy get accurately described, or an article to appear about him that didn’t feel the need to condemn him dishonestly. He’s not a libertarian, but sure as shit isn’t ‘alt-right’ and he’s more culturally libertarian than most conservative Trump supporters.

      1. I don’t understand the seemingly undying devotion to an attention whore who gets a rise out of people. The morons who rioted were looking for reason to riot, but I can’t comprehend anyone else giving a shit beyond chuckling at the fact that he made an unfunny actress cry or something.

        1. If they weren’t rioting over him I wouldn’t care what he said. Since they *are* rioting, I naturally want to learn what they’re rioting over.

          1. Objectively speaking, it’s some standard populist and anti-SJW arguments delivered in an English accent with some wit laced with obscenity.

            It’s more mainstream than his bad language, and the SJW freakout, would lead one to expect.

            1. It’s more mainstream than his bad language, and the SJW freakout, would lead one to expect.

              My guess is that’s the problem

          2. My guess is they don’t really know. They’re like lemmings.

            “That Milo guy sucks!”

            “YEAH! What he said! Let’s kick his ass!”

            1. “Some people who like Milo also like Richard Spencer, so Milo is then a white supremacist! Burn down the city in protest! (Don’t forget to smash Starbucks and a few ATMs)”

        2. He makes very bad people reveal themselves for what they are. That’s a valuable service.

          1. Exterminate the brutes!

        3. “I don’t understand the seemingly undying devotion to an attention whore who gets a rise out of people. The morons who rioted were looking for reason to riot, but I can’t comprehend anyone else giving a shit beyond chuckling at the fact that he made an unfunny actress cry or something.”

          At this point Milo doesn’t even have to say a word; the rioting hordes who oppose his right to speak are the story.
          I really don’t care if he says he likes Hitler any more than I care about him as a person. AFAIK, I’ve never read anything he’s said or written (other than that link earlier).

          1. It’s significant that riotous mobs can mobilize against someone, not because he’s fascist, but because he holds the same views as millions of voters – who largely voted for Trump.

            (There is also the fact that he makes highly offensive, cruel and bitchy insults and taunts, which should be considered in the context of him being (a) English and (b) gay and (c) acting under provocation.)

            But you can find plenty of normal people who believe the government should protect American jobs, that Islam is a threat, that illegal immigrants should be deported – the President seems to have been elected by such people.

            1. But some people (apparently including Robby) seem to assume that such an over-the-top, riotous reaction by SJWs must be provoked by something truly offensive, not some guy uttering very common and unoriginal (and non-fascist) sentiments in a colorful and confrontational way.

              1. But a lot of other normal people look at it and think “WTF is wrong with these people? There’s no excuse”

        4. I can’t comprehend anyone else giving a shit beyond chuckling at the fact that he made an unfunny actress cry or something.

          KM-W making Ann Althouse cry (over freedom of association) earned her my undying love and devotion.

          1. When was this?

        5. It’s a super gay guy as conservative leader bashing the left. It’s hilarious.

        6. I don’t know that I would consider criticism of violence aimed at him, or asking for honesty in his description to be evidence of “undying devotion”.

        7. I’ve heard interviews and podcasts. He’s an anti-SJW gadfly, and I enjoy that he pisses people who I dislike off. I think of him as sort of a gay Gavin McInnes; I don’t necessarily agree with him, but I like that he antagonizes people I think are idiots. I tend to think that in both cases either one would engage someone with whom they disagreed in reasonable debate if that person was themselves reasonable.

  37. “Juvenile Bluster|2.1.17 @ 9:38PM|#
    UC Police, Berkeley
    ?@UCPD_Cal
    .@UCBerkeley Milo event cancelled. Shelter in place if on campus. All campus buildings on lockdown. #miloatcal”
    Vs.
    “UC-Berkeley Protesters Set Campus on Fire, Shut Down Milo Yiannopoulos Event
    Censorship wins again?and so does Milo.
    Robby Soave|Feb. 1, 2017 10:43 pm”

    Ain’t it a bitch to get scooped by the commentariat by AN HOUR?!

    1. Eh, it takes a while to write a copy, get photos, edit and upload. I don’t think Robby has a “rioters shut down Milo speech” Word template on his computer.

      Though, he should make one. This is gonna keep happening.

      1. “Eh, it takes a while to write a copy, get photos, edit and upload. I don’t think Robby has a “rioters shut down Milo speech” Word template on his computer.”

        I agree, but a template it does not take, and a reference to someone who beat your sorry ass off the starting line would seem appropriate.
        Robby, you snooze, you lose! For those who know of drag racing, a R/T of 1:10:00 means you go home. And you (and your sponsor) don’t get the interview.

        1. My Model A has a sad.

  38. Isn’t Reason on eastern? So it’s 8:43 Pacific for Robby.

    1. 9:43 (pedant)

      1. To be clear, J-B posted that at 6:38 Pacific, Robby posted the story at 7:43 Pacific. It is now 9:26 Pacific.
        Sorry about the “:43” mistake in my earlier response.

        1. You are correct. I arrived in Phoenix from Oakland a few hours ago and am now on mountain time so it threw me off.

  39. These people are so, so, so stupid.

    It’s not just that, politically, the violence will increase support for Trump and other law-and-order rhetoric politicians.

    It’s that if violence actually starts deciding policy questions in America, it is the Trump voters who will stand over the corpses of their foes and dictate the terms.

    The military is disproportionately Trump voters. The veterans are disproportionately Trump voters. The police are disproportionately Trump voters. The civilians with guns are disproportionately Trump voters. The only thing that makes it possible for progressives to ever achieve any policy aim is that these Trump voters respect the rule of law and the legitimacy of political institutions.

    If those institutions are overthrown, if anarchy comes, if we ever have a “revolution”, it is these Trump voters who will decide what new government will be built on the ashes. Not these idiot arsonists.

    1. “If those institutions are overthrown, if anarchy comes, if we ever have a “revolution”, it is these Trump voters who will decide what new government will be built on the ashes. Not these idiot arsonists.

      Exactly.
      The Soviet Union began by the ‘leaders’ assuring themselves of the police support in St. Petersburg, since that was enough to ‘lead the nation’. The rest of the nation had no organizational system at all.
      The Berkeley rioters do not have even that; they fancy themselves the ‘leaders’ of a group who will win out by the overwhelming righteousness of their cause! Quite a large portion of the US says “what in hell are you talking about?!”
      And that portion not only tends to be armed, it if comes to that, but is also organized in the interests of trade. We are not Russian peasants living in hovels.

    2. Is that the difference between our modern-day progressives and the erstwhile communist revolutionaries they’re so enamored of? It wasn’t too long ago that their counterparts in the sixties and seventies were bombing and shooting to get their point across. I wonder if that’s just not in their character. Maybe they’re so confident that they’ve got a hold of the reins of power that they think they can just pitch fits and get what they want. All I know is that everyone I know who agrees with them hates guns, people who own guns, and everything gun ownership stands for. On the other hand, everyone I know who owns guns thinks these people are, at best, insufferable busybodies, and at worst dangerous, aggressive lunatics.

      1. Hey Bill Ayers, Bernadine Dohrn, and plenty of others translated radical violence into cushy academic sinecures.

        Maybe they think they are simply following a well established career path.

    3. They may be stupid, but not for that reason. The rioting stuff is about building cred with their fellow faux-anarchist lefties, not about advancing the movement in the general population.

      The first goal of extremists is to get rid of the moderates. Always.

    4. Why do you choose the word “disproportionately”?
      Trump supporters are Trump supporters. Is there a standard somewhere that specifies what percentage of the populace must support any particular person?
      Not all who oppose fascism are Trump supporters. Not all who oppose violence are Trump supporters. Not all who support free speech are Trump supporters. Not all who oppose riots are Trump supporters. Not all who support the presidency are Trump supporters.

    5. Or, per Kurt Schlichter’s novel, we let then have the west coast and the north east corridor while we keep the rest.

  40. “They don’t reject fascism, they enable it.”

    WHAT. THE. FUCK. Robby.

    God dammit these thug assholes ARE fascists!!!!

    1. No, no, they aren’t! They just have bad tactics! If only someone would explain how bad those tactics are, they would never, ever interrupt speech they disagree with ever again!

  41. Ha, cars that got blocked drove through the rioters.

    1. We’ve had a few #BLM protests on narrowish commuter roads around me. Nobody’s driven straight through yet, but push hasn’t quite come to shove. I always wonder how long and how much it will take before people just start plowing through. I know if I had my kid in the car on the way home and saw a mob of people in front of me my inclination would be to gun it and just try to steer towards the fewest people I could.

      1. Don’t “gun it” just maintain a steady 10-15 mph and try to avoid high centering anyone.

      1. And you see in at least one of them the protesters trying to open the car door, presumably to get at the driver. At which point he would seem justified in running over as many people as needed to get away

      2. Funny how those situations always seem to arise in places that have disarmed their populations (NYC, DC, CA).

        I’d like to see the protest-rioters try that in TX or AL. Even NoVA would be risky.

      3. So if they are threatening you should have every right to floor it.

        you have no right to block a freeway, none. And if you are preventing me from moving anywhere, that is violence and false imprisonment.

        What losers.

  42. Am I correct in my understanding that this riot is still ongoing? I’m hearing something about the rioters moving onto vandalizing a Starbucks and possibly a bank?

    1. Yeah, let’s go destroy some local persons shop, that will make everyone love us

      1. “It is better to be feared than loved, if you can’t be both” – some dead white asshole.

    2. “UC Berkeley protest spills into city streets, buildings vandalized”
      http://www.sfgate.com/news/art…..902222.php

      As mention in the earlier thread, it seemed that once Milo was silenced, the focus changed to Trump, something, dad grandma, something and free tuition!!!!!
      And Starbucks is right there promoting free speech:
      “Starbucks had the perfect response to Trump supporters accusing the company of hiring refugees instead of veterans”
      http://finance.yahoo.com/news/…..47338.html
      So if the proggies burn ’em down, Starbucks will be, uh………?

      1. So if the proggies burn ’em down, Starbucks will be, uh………?

        Rebuild, using 100% organic immigrant labour!

        Hmmm…anyone want some certified fresh, from genuine Canadian mines, orphans? Price is bound to go up if Trump reopens NAFTA….

    3. At least three banks. Starbucks looted/destroyed.

      1. Got to have your coffee when you riot

  43. Oh god DO NOT read the facebook comments. Things like “oh too bad you got out”, etc.

    Robby, if you’re going to ‘call out Milo’, at least give us a damn quote and not your virtue signalling.

    These are the real fascists.

  44. And what is up with these dumb progs and their “resistance”? My roommate is doing that crap. Fuckin hero complex or something.

    Hey you idiots, you don’t have power and a big majority of people disagree with you. Great job!

    And as said before, if your ‘revolution’ comes, it’ll be red state america taking over, since that’s a majority of the people who own guns, a majority of law enforcement, a majority of veterans and active military, and a majority of decent fucking human beings.

    1. “a majority of decent fucking human beings.”

      It remains to be seen to what extent that will counteract the other things you mentioned. Or how long it can last in favor of… uh, temptation, let’s say.

  45. Yeah, facebook, ugh. My peers are deplorable. Not a single person cares one tiny iota for liberty, the bill of rights, any of it. The insistence that there is “hate speech”, whatever that means, and that it is a justified incitement to violence makes my blood boil.

    For fucks sakes, this is America! I think…

  46. It’s not actually a question

    No, it’s an unfounded accusation. Sad.

  47. Milo is not alt right you chuclehead.

  48. Tolerance means not tolerating intolerance. So the more intolerant someone is of intolerance, the more tolerant they are!

  49. Sorry, Robby, but a couple of points need correcting.

    They don’t so much reject it as enable it.

    No, Robby, they are modern day fascism in America. When you look and see one side calmly giving a speech and the other side setting fires and spraying mace into young women’s faces for no other reason than to silence their speech, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out who’s the fascist in this situation.

    By engaging in such tactics, anti-Yiannopoulos protesters effectively distract from the fact that Yiannopoulos’s own views are loathsome. They turn Yiannopoulos into a free speech martyr, which is exactly what he wants.

    As I’ve asked before, exactly which of Yiannopoulos’ views are “loathsome”? I’m open to being convinced. But, all I’ve heard from anyone making that characterization is just a repetition of the charge. And, yes, if he’s giving a speech and others are shutting his speech down, he is a free speech martyr. That kind of gets to the point of what a free speech martyr is. Sorry, this kind of shit isn’t wrong because it’s “bad tactics”. It’s wrong because decent, moral people don’t beat up people who haven’t done anything wrong. They don’t pepper spray young women for giving interviews. They don’t threaten speeches with mob violence.

    1. This really shouldn’t even be about whether or not they’re playing into Trump’s or Yiannopoulos’ hands. This is thuggery no matter the target. I understand that Soave identifies more with those opposing Yiannopoulos – and that’s not a criticism – but they’re in no way in the right here. Their actions invalidate any stance they are laying claim to.

      1. You clearly didn’t click through to the twitter feed that Robby linked to.

        Terry Dresbach ?@draiochta14

        @juliacarriew morons. This does NOTHING to help us beat Trump.

        make it snow ?@makeitsnowondem
        @draiochta14 @juliacarriew we don’t do it to beat trump, we do it because it’s the right thing to do

        Terry Dresbach ?@draiochta14
        @makeitsnowondem @juliacarriew what is the right thing to do?

        make it snow ?@makeitsnowondem
        @draiochta14 @juliacarriew making fascists afraid

        There are lots of discussions like this. Robby is in that milieu. The question isn’t whether Trump and anyone on his side is evil… the question is how much violence is acceptable in opposing them.

        Funny that Trump being the most evil President ever ( for the last 2 weeks) is now the excuse for violently silencing a gay quasi-conservative for the last couple of years.

        1. It’s only a matter of time before these black bloc lunatics get a lot of themselves shot by someone they’re threatening. I’m not saying that’s a good thing, just that it is inevitable, particularly when the cops sit back and let a lot of this happen. It isn’t going to be pretty at all.

      2. This really shouldn’t even be about whether or not they’re playing into Trump’s or Yiannopoulos’ hands.

        Precisely my point. Why anyone of good conscience would be yammering about the effectiveness of these tactics is beyond me. Where have we gotten to the point where even some libertarians aren’t condemning this simply because it’s wrong to beat up innocent people.

        1. Exactly.

        2. You’re never going to get away from horse race reporting, and this is part of that. What’s good for which side and who is winning and who is losing is what makes stories interesting.

          1. Standing O.
            Almost every story too; getting progressively worse here all the time.
            Cripe, trying to be consistently pro NAP, peace and property rights, analytically parse issues along an individual rights continuum, and support folks who just want to be left alone is just too damn hahhhd….

  50. Hey…anyone remember when Tea Party rallies resulted in this type of violence in opposition to Obama?

    Neither do I.

  51. From the SFGate article:

    Berkeley police said five people were injured and some people, including a man who said he had hoped to see Yiannopoulos speak, were seen with their faces bloodied. There were no arrests.

    So they throw brick at cops, tear down barricades in front of cops, set things on fire, surround and jump on cars…. aaaand nobody got arrested? They couldn’t even find one guy to arrest?

    Wow. Things have changed. When I was in college, you could get arrested for looking cross-eyed at the cops.

    1. It’s Berkeley. The local political masters probably leaned on the cops to not make arrests. They want a show.

    2. Over a period of several hours. Heads need to roll in police department management

  52. Oh, and for all of you wondering what makes Milo “loathsome” is that he is a campy gay man who is not on the plantation. The left don’t play that. They burn their apostates, rather than let them serve the enemy.

    And like most of you, I’ve only heard a couple of clips from speeches. But I did hear him when he was on with Adam Carolla on his podcast for an extended interview. He sounded pretty much like any other campy gay guy – making jokes about having sex with guys, making jokes about straight guys wanting to have sex with him. Normal “gay guy poking fun at the straight guys” stuff. He was reasonably funny. The politics sounded kinda normal right-ish in a socially liberal-ish kind of way, I guess. Although if I recall correctly, on politics he mostly talked about how nutty the other side is, not so much his own views. So maybe that’s what is so loathsome.

    1. Milo is a flamboyantly ridiculous person saying taboo things that are obviously true and everyone knows they are true. There is a long tradition in the West of lampooning the people in charge, especially the people in charge of public morality, which in the West, are often in charge of politics. Further, using a “fool” to ridicule the rulers is common. When Milo goes on campus and mocks feminists, as a ludicrously gay man, it insulates him, so he can say things about the womyn that are both true and forbidden.

      – The Z-Man

    2. “The politics sounded kinda normal right-ish in a socially liberal-ish kind of way, I guess.”

      Can’t be. That’s basically the 1990’s ‘New Democrat” that Clinton ran on, and which Reason has become. Robby said Milo’s views are loathsome, so either he’s lying or you gotta do your homework.

  53. Fucking newsmax advertisement directly over the button that allows me to view the Goddamn comments.

    Anyway, these people are scum and this has to end-pepper spraying attendees, beating them up, burning shit-fuck that.

  54. To the dickheads who are rioting libertarians are alt-right and the only reason they aren’t trying to cave in our skulls and burn down our shit is that we’re irrelevant and don’t matter. Let libertarian ideas take hold (please yes, it’ll never happen) and they’d oppose us with the same fervor and violence.

    As you can see by the article, just because you don’t consider yourself alt-right doesn’t mean they don’t. Please Reason, stop making excuses for these cunts, even mild ones.

  55. And by the way, can we please stop calling these fuckers “anti-fascist”? They’re the ones going around beating people up in the streets. They’re the ones macing women for giving interviews. They’re the ones using mobs to shut down free speech. They’re the fascists.

    1. When people on the left throw around words like “fascist” I am reminded of a quote from Inigo Montoya.

      1. I really don’t even think it’s appropriate from a language standpoint to characterise what the antifa fuckwads are doing as “fascist.” Fascist isn’t really by definition synonymous with “violent asshole.”

        1. To wit, they are using the term “antifa” as vague cover so they can masquerade as violent turn of last century leftish agitators and beat up and intimidate people with an ideological bent they don’t like. Is this going to happen every 100 years from now on? FFS.

          1. They’re violent anarcho-communists, not fascists, and scum.

            1. I prefer the term “leftist retards”.

            2. anarcho-communists

              That’s always up for debate and commonly isn’t the case. I’ve found most anarcho-syndicalists to be just part of the “gimmie gimmie” free shit crowd and have no qualms about a government apparatus reallocating resources from the “haves” through force of arms and violence. Actual anarcho-syndicalist/communist types that aren’t full of shit are extremely rare.

              1. Actual anarcho-syndicalist/communist types that aren’t full of shit are extremely rare.

                This

                1. I would note that actual anarcho-syndicalists that aren’t completely full of shit wouldn’t be caught dead participating in these types of violent altercations.

              2. You know who else was an anarchosyndicalist?

            3. Other than lacking an appeal to some mythic storied cultural past they are entirely fascist.

            4. These black blocs are populated by all sorts of people, including anarcho-communists, but it’s a very loose confederation.

              I heard *somewhere* on the web an interview with an organizer whose political views I don’t remember, but who complained that once a black bloc ‘activates’ it’s disappointing that some of the members can’t resist smashing up banks and corporations, because it distracted the other members from their aims.

        2. Well a Venn diagram of “violent assholes”, modern socialists, and old-school fascists would have a pretty big area of overlap.

          1. Translation: yeah pretty much a conflation of terminology.

            1. The biggest difference this time around versus Italy and Germany 90 years ago seems to be competence at violence, not the willingness. Hitler, Mussolini and their goons were almost all WWI Veterans and quite capable when it came to using force. Their opposition back then seemed lightly armed and not very interested in a fight.

              Kind of an opposite situation now. Few Veterans, shooters, etc… on the Left, many on the right.

  56. You mean: “People Pretending to be UC-Berkeley Protesters Set Campus on Fire, Shut Down Milo Yiannopoulos Event”

    1. No. The editors meant what they wrote. Learn to read.

  57. why they must resort to violence and destruction to silence people they don’t like.

    This is what happens when one does not have any good arguments.

    1. The Left has always chosen volume over reason in their discourse.

  58. I see the night shift was hard at work

  59. ENB’s complaining about having to talk about this and implying both sides here deserve equal scorn. I like ENB, but c’mon.

    1. If your characterization is correct then that’s inexcusable. Someone showed up for a political event, the other side rioted and beat people up. Not even close to equivalence.

      1. Punching Nazis in the face is morally praiseworthy. Anyone who disagrees with me is a Nazi.

  60. You just cant help yourself, can you Robbie?

  61. Rico Soave at it again, this time with conspiratorial fantasies. Which views are loathsome, exactly?

  62. Serious question: I have read some, not all, of what Milo has to say. Aside from baiting third wave feminists, which I his favorite sport, most of it is standard “straight while male Christians are under attack in the current political climate” rhetoric. Aside from being true, it’s also pretty mild on the inflammo-meter.

    But every time I read one of these leftist riot articles, the SJW-lite writing it trips over his own purse to quickly throw out how “vile” and “loathsome” Milo’s views are (though his free speech should be defended!). And how by being violent thugs, they are validating his “white supremacist nihilistic hate speech”.

    So someone tell me, because I have obviously missed it, what exactly has Milo said or done that’s so “loathsome”? Don’t give me that he’s praised or failed to condemn some Neo-Nazi on Stromfront, I want to know specifically what Milo has said or done to make people like Soave have to throw in some sort of qualifier every single time the focus should be on the paid, violent, criminal fascist thugs who injure people, destroy property, burn things to the ground, and disturb the general piece.

    1. Shit, that should be “peace”

  63. It’s really just embarrassing how predictable these protesters have become.

  64. Rico Milo is a free speech marty. I know you have to equivocate to stay in the good graces if your friends at the Daily Beast, but when one party resorts to violence to shut down the speech of someone they disagree with, the content of that speech is irrelevant. These people are dangerous.

  65. I object to these idiots calling themselves Anarchists. If they were anarchists they would stay home because they don’t believe in any form of government right or left and let the stupid fools that do listen to any senseless nonsense they want to. Anarchists are the only true believers in freedom. The rest of you fools only believe in freedom for those that think like you.

  66. The larger scandal? No arrests. Tacit governmental approval. Makes me pine for the ’68 Democrat Convention.

  67. Rubber bullets?
    Not bullets; “less-than-lethal projectiles”.
    Protesters?
    Rioters. Criminals. Masked people throwing rocks = Muslim terrorists. (real Americans show their face)
    The free speech movement comes full circle to prove it was never about free speech, but about repression of other views.
    Back to the sixties.
    Thought for the day – will any of this matter after California secedes?

  68. Have you noticed how these violent demonstrations don’t happen at Southern colleges and universities, regardless of who comes to speak?

    1. Liberty University even welcomed Ted Kennedy. Talk about your tolerance.

  69. the fact that Yiannopoulos’s own views are loathsome.

    They might be loathsome, but if we can’t hear them, how should we know? Are we just supposed to take your word for that Robby, you bootlicking putz?

    -jcr

    1. “By engaging in such tactics, anti-Yiannopoulos protesters effectively distract from the fact that Yiannopoulos’s own views are loathsome.”

      Robby should provide some sort of example or citation at least to this loathsomeness. I find Yiannopoulos amusing, abrasive, a tiny bit statist/nationalist at times, and occasionally correct and circling some quality libertarian ideals.

      Some examples that I don’t find loathsome to my libertarian sensibilities, “America has spent too long interfering oversees in too many other people’s wars, and too much other stuff.”

      Go on Milo…

      “The government does a lot of stuff that it shouldn’t do – the Department of Education, for instance.”

      Ohh, please go on Milo….
      “Most of the federal government should be shut down.”

      Yes, that should all just be loathsome to a libertarian….because Robby?

  70. The wife was just watching “The View” in the other room.

    They took on the topic of Milo and the violence. Joy Behar is adamant that he should not be allowed to speak because he’s a racist and sexist (off of the Ghostbusters kerfuffle) and because he was banned from twitter. Some crosstalk and argument ensued and in the clutter someone acknowledged:

    He’s a racist and homophobic

    I was around the corner, so I’m not sure which one went there, but it was the general consensus.

    I really don’t think they know who he is other than a boogie man that deserves derision. At least Woopie had the position that you can protest all you want, but you can’t burn other people’s crap or prevent people from speaking. She was definitely the minority view though.

    I’m surprised that a panel of comedians failed to note the irony of calling a gay dude who dates black dudes a racist homophobe.

    1. Milo is abrasive, can be funny, apparently is racist in a preference for black d*ck, has betrayed the Blue Team (since homosexuals must stay in their camp), and voices some decidedly anti-government/small government ideas.

      I think it’s the latter that most offends the Joy Behar types.

  71. It seems like these anti-Fascist protesters are using Nazi like tactics?

  72. Leave Robby alone, he is just a cog in the machine, the one’s in charge are driving all these narratives.

    1. Robby is just following orders, eh?

  73. RE: UC-Berkeley Protesters Set Campus on Fire, Shut Down Milo Yiannopoulos Event
    Censorship wins again?and so does Milo.

    We had to burn down the university in order to save it.
    Otherwise the oppressive and counter-revolutionary belief system of free speech might gain traction at the very place of the Free Speech Movement was born.
    That would be too humiliating to any good socialist to tolerate.

  74. The best part was the people that said they were anti fascists that ended up attacking the other people over their ideas.

  75. I am so tired of this bullshit! which of his views are “loathsome”? That the wage gap is a myth? That the first amendment is better than Europe’s “hate speech” laws?That third wave feminism is loaded with misandry and anti-scientific gender nonsense?That nations have a right to defend their borders?That Brexit was a good thing?what exactly?

  76. Good film of the protests, with interviews, at: http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/01/…..-berkeley/

    I will say, given the response to Milo, it makes me want to hear him. If the left ignored him, I don’t think I’d care about who he is at all.

  77. “Yiannopoulos’s own views are loathsome.”

    I want evidence, not ad hominems.

  78. I’ve made $64,000 so far this year working online and I’m a full time student. Im using an online business opportunity I heard about and I’ve made such great money. It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it. Heres what I do,
    ============> http://www.moneytime10.com

  79. These protests do exactly what Milo wants. It’s hilarious and sad.iOS 10.2 jailbreak tweaks and pokemon go 1.25.0

  80. I’ve made $64,000 so far this year working online and I’m a full time student. Im using an online business opportunity I heard about and I’ve made such great money. It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it. Heres what I do,
    ===========
    ———>>> http://www.earnwithstyle.com

  81. My last month paycheck was for 11000 dollars… All i did was simple online work from comfort at home for 3-4 hours/day that I got from this agency I discovered over the internet and they paid me for it 95 bucks every hour… This is what I do

    =========================== http://www.4dayjobs.com

  82. I’ve made $64,000 so far this year working online and I’m a full time student. Im using an online business opportunity I heard about and I’ve made such great money. It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it. Heres what I do,
    ============> http://www.moneytime10.com

  83. I looked at the check for $8628 , I didnt believe that…my… father in law was like actualie taking home money in there spare time on there computar. . there sisters roommate haz done this for under 17 months and just cleard the morgage on there apartment and got a gorgeous Chevrolet Corvette . go to website

    ====================== http://www.cash-review.com

  84. My best friend’s ex-wife makes Bucks75/hr on the laptop. She has been unemployed for eight months but last month her income with big fat bonus was over Bucks9000 just working on the laptop for a few hours. Read more on this site…..
    +_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+ http://www.cash-review.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.