College PC

Professor Injured By Crazed Mob at Middlebury Speaks Out: 'This Was the Saddest Day of My Life'

"They had effectively dehumanized me."

|

Middlebury
Screenshot via Phoebe Wiener

Allison Stanger, a professor of politics and economics at Middlebury College, says the mob of angry protesters who attacked her last week during Charles Murray's visit to campus "had effectively dehumanized me."

"They couldn't look me in the eye, because if they had, they would have seen another human being," she wrote in a post about the incident.

As I reported previously, Stanger had intended to serve as the moderator of the event: a discussion with American Enterprise Institute scholar Charles Murray, the controversial author of The Bell Curve and Coming Apart. In her post, Stanger describes herself as a Democrat who does not agree with Murray, but nevertheless believes campus is a place for a robust debate about a variety of viewpoints.

Stanger's firsthand account of what transpired can be found here. A few highlights:

I agreed to participate in the event with Charles Murray, because several of my students asked me to do so. They are smart and good people, all of them, and this was their big event of the year. I actually welcomed the opportunity to be involved, because while my students may know I am a Democrat, all of my courses are nonpartisan, and this was a chance to demonstrate publicly my commitment to a free and fair exchange of views in my classroom. As the campus uproar about his visit built, I was genuinely surprised and troubled to learn that some of my faculty colleagues had rendered judgement on Dr. Murray's work and character, while openly admitting that they had not read anything he had written. With the best of intentions, they offered their leadership to enraged students, and we all now know what the results were. …

I want you to know what it feels like to look out at a sea of students yelling obscenities at other members of my beloved community. There were students and faculty who wanted to hear the exchange, but were unable to do so, either because of the screaming and chanting and chair-pounding in the room, or because their seats were occupied by those who refused to listen, and they were stranded outside the doors. I saw some of my faculty colleagues who had publicly acknowledged that they had not read anything Dr. Murray had written join the effort to shut down the lecture. All of this was deeply unsettling to me. What alarmed me most, however, was what I saw in student eyes from up on that stage. Those who wanted the event to take place made eye contact with me. Those intent on disrupting it steadfastly refused to do so. It was clear to me that they had effectively dehumanized me. They couldn't look me in the eye, because if they had, they would have seen another human being. There is a lot to be angry about in America today, but nothing good ever comes from demonizing our brothers and sisters.

Stanger goes on to explain how she was attacked outside the event, resulting in a neck injury that landed her in the hospital.

Many have asked, on Twitter and elsewhere, whether the mob that attacked Stanger consisted of students. At this point, we don't know for sure (some of the attackers were apparently wearing ski masks to hide their identities). But the people who protested inside the building were students—some of them, at least. It seems likely to me that at least some of the people who followed Stanger and Murray from one location to another, and then assaulted them, were students.

Murray has written about the altercation as well. He notes that over the last two decades, he has spoken on campuses numerous times. Those appearances provoked protests, but—and this is the key point—never outright censorship. The protesters always maintained an understanding with the administration: they could have their demonstration, but they would be expected to fall silent when it was time for Murray to speak.

"These negotiated agreements have always worked," writes Murray. "At least a couple of dozen times, I have been able to give my lecture to an attentive (or at least quiet) audience despite an organized protest."

This seems like powerful anecdotal evidence in support of my growing suspicion that college campuses are indeed becoming more hostile to free speech. Murray writes:

In the mid-1990s, I could count on students who had wanted to listen to start yelling at the protesters after a certain point, "Sit down and shut up, we want to hear what he has to say." That kind of pushback had an effect. It reminded the protesters that they were a minority. I am assured by people at Middlebury that their protesters are a minority as well. But they are a minority that has intimidated the majority. The people in the audience who wanted to hear me speak were completely cowed. That cannot be allowed to stand. A campus where a majority of students are fearful to speak openly because they know a minority will jump on them is no longer an intellectually free campus in any meaningful sense.

To recap: some students and professors wanted to hear an expert present a viewpoint that isn't well-represented on campus. In response, a mob formed for the explicit purpose of prohibiting this exchange of ideas and punishing—with violence—the people involved.

Murray has called upon Middlebury to punish the students involved as a deterrent against future acts of illiberalism. He's quite right to do so. Administrators must not sit idly by as a minority of radicals destroy the intellectual foundations of the college.

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.

190 responses to “Professor Injured By Crazed Mob at Middlebury Speaks Out: 'This Was the Saddest Day of My Life'

  1. “the mob of angry protesters”

    Please stop calling them ‘protesters’. What they did was not a legal protest and therefore they should be labeled as ‘rioters’ or ‘criminals’. They should not be allowed to hide under the guise of ‘protester’.

    1. You’re right, they weren’t protesting at all. It’s not like they were there to shout down a person they didn’t like or anything.

      1. Heckler’s veto is not legal ‘protest’.

        1. Where are you going with those goalposts?

          1. You mean the ‘goalposts’ set up by the Supreme Court?

          2. I think what he is bleating is that they are not “protest” protests.

            1. Well, DanO., you would be in the best position to interpret “his” comments, wouldn’t you?

            2. They are not legal protests. I don’t understand how you don’t understand this.

              1. So you’re saying they are protests, right?

                1. No. They are illegal actions. If I were to kick in your door and then declare that I was protesting would the news label me a ‘protester’ or an ‘unlawful intruder’?

                  1. You should get a dictionary.

                    1. Are you being purposely dense or is this your natural disposition? Serious question

                    2. Are you being purposely dense or is this your natural disposition?

                      Silly question coming from someone who doesn’t know the definition of protest.

                    3. That was a very ironic statement. Why not let the big kids discuss this? It seems like you have a lot of reading to do, since you don’t seem to understand what a legal protest is. Why not begin by reading Terminiello v. Chicago?

                      You’ll figure it out, little guy

                    4. Dude, protests get violent all the time. Calling something a protest doesn’t imply that all related actions are legal, moral or in any way justified. It also doesn’t mean it’s not a violent mob or a riot as well. I really can’t understand why you can’t grasp this. Different categories can apply to the same thing. It’s not an either/or situation.

                      The protesters were violent assholes and should be punished. That doesn’t mean they weren’t protesting the talk.

                    5. When a ‘protest’ become violent it is known as a ‘riot’. There is a reason why there are two different words with two different meanings.

                    6. There is nothing in the definition of protest that says a protest cannot also be a riot. Your argument is just plain idiotic. Different words with different meanings can be used to describe the same events or objects in many cases. To make the point you are trying to make, you need to demonstrate why a protest cannot at the same time also be a riot or an assault. But instead you assume that as the basis of your argument, and also appear to assume that anyone defending the use of the word “protest” is also defending the actions of the protesters, which is even stupider.

                    7. One man’s ‘protest’ is another’s ‘riot’. When you see a ‘protest’ with something that is obviously violent, it speaks volumes about your biases.

                    8. One man’s ‘protest’ is another’s ‘riot’.

                      Again, you are stuck on this “one thing cannot be another” BS. You are the only one claiming it has to be one or the other. No one saying it is a protest is saying that that means it is also necessarily nonviolent, not a riot or a criminal assault.

                    9. There’s a reason some protests are qualified as “non-violent”. If all protests were non-violent, this would not be necessary.

                    10. calls for a .38 rejoinder or a .45 counter ar…gument

                    11. Why not begin by reading Terminiello v. Chicago?

                      OP may need this.

                    12. Did the Nazis “protest” the Jews? Curious.

                    13. I don’t understand why WakaWaka doesn’t realize this was a protest. Can someone explain?

                    14. Nothing that was done falls under the category of a ‘legal protest’. Ergo, it was not a protest. If I were to assault you and then say that I was ‘protesting’, that doesn’t make me a ‘protester’ just because I said so. The ‘heckler’s veto’ is not legal protest either. You cannot show-up somewhere and shout down the speaker and insist that you are also engaging in ‘free speech’.

                      Now, this is a private institution, so the rules are made by themselves. But, the action conducted by these provocateurs do not fall under any standard defining a legal protest.

                    15. You are conflating “legal protest” and “protest” for no reason. No one is claiming that protesting is always legal.

                    16. Then anything can be declared as a ‘protest’ if they say so.

                      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_JXPIBsxdk0

                      1999 ‘protests’ in Seattle

                    17. Not quite. Anything can be declared a protest if it involves people protesting something. Even if they resort to violence in their protests.

        2. Being illegal and violent doesn’t make it not a protest. “Protest” doesn’t imply that tactics used are excusable or legal or constitutionally protected.

          1. Wrong. Go with the government definition or get the fuck outta here.

            1. So then we should recognize riots as protests because they say so. This is beyond ludicrous.

              http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_JXPIBsxdk0

              1999 ‘protests’ in Seattle

          2. Zeb,

            Protest implies nonviolence. Protest means “express an objection to what someone has said or done.” That is necessarily nonviolent. If it is done in a violent way, it becomes terrorism or violence, not a protest.

            Can what begins as a protest, degenerate into violence? Sure. But the key here is the people came there to do violence. They didn’t come to express an objection. They came there to do violence. It wasn’t a protest. it was an act of violence.

            1. Protest implies nonviolence.

              I think you are wrong about that.

              But arguing about definitions like this is pointless and I regret even getting into it.

              No one here saying that “protest” is an appropriate word is trying to justify the violence. That’s what matters.

              1. If protests can be violent, why isn’t political terrorism just a form of protest?

                1. Probably is sometimes. At least if you leave out the “just”. My whole point here is that something can be an act of protest and an act of immoral violence at the same time. And that to say so is in no way saying that the end justifies the means or anything like that.

                  1. That is to give acts of political violence and terrorism a moral cache that they do not deserve.

                    1. So, we should refuse to be accurate if it happens to be of advantage to people we don’t like. Was the Boston Tea Party not a protest because it was illegal and property was damaged and vandalized?

                    2. The NAZIs were just protesting the presence of Jews in Europe…

                    3. That’s right! Yes, they were!

                      And if the Jews of Europe had all trotted out their illegal handguns, and bagged themselves a bunch of evil NAZI motherfuckers, that, too, would just have been protesting the presence of evil NAZIs…

                      Bring it ON!!!!

                    4. Given that it was illegal and everyone dressed up in costumes, we should probably start calling it the Boston Tea Rave from here on out.

      2. Yes! Just like Jeffrey Dahmer embraced diversity and liked a well-balanced diet!

    2. More Tulpical by the day, aren’t we.

      1. I understand that you so hate stories that portray your beloved Maoists in a negative light

      2. Do you think they are protesters? Is beating the shit out of an old lady what you call protesting? If not, then what are you saying here? If so, go fuck yourself.

        1. Of course it’s protesting. It’s also assault and is rightly criminal. They are not mutually exclusive things.

          I don’t understand at all why some people are having such a hard time with this.

          1. Apparently, the only reason for rioting is….because. Rioters aren’t objecting or dissenting to anything at all. They are really perfectly fine with whatever it was they are rioting about. (I guess some people actually believe this.)

          2. I’m sure the 19 protesters from 9/11 would agree with you completely.

            Labels matter when reporting on the nature of something. The first few protests that devolved into riots…fine, anomalies happen. At this point they are organizing explicitly to deny the rights of others and destroy people and property.

            Somewhere between sitting in the “wrong” spot on a bus and flying a plane into a building full of people there is a change in nature for the protestations against a grievance. The longer you ignore that the more painful it will be to pull back to sanity.

            1. M’kay, what the fuck are you all on about? Last I checked, assault does not fall withing the bounds of legal protest. It does not patter what the premise was, some of the people involved assaulted someone. Whether they were protesting or just acting like spoiled little bastards in the moments leading up to it is another matter, and entirely irrelevant. The lack of decorum is the college’s business. The fact that someone was attacked by ideologues is everyone else’s. Lets focus on that.

  2. “They couldn’t look me in the eye, because if they had, they would have seen another human being,”

    I love the optimism. Like a Nazi or a Brown Shirt was never able to meet anyone’s gaze. The entire war, nobody looking each other in the eye, just whistling while staring off into space or heads down kicking rocks.

    1. It’s wishful thinking on her part. They might not have been looking her in the eye, but I doubt they had any hesitation about looking Murray in the eye.

    2. Frankly, she is guilty of much the same. Collectivism is the abject rejection of the individual. It never looks at you, it is perpetually looking past you. For her, being on the left while professing to be an individualist, to fail to note the collectivists in her midst can only mean she has not been looking them in the eye either.

      1. Very true.

      2. *stands up and claps*

        1. sooo it’s ok to paste her one in the mush if you don’t like her flavor of politics?

      3. You’re right! You should consider the mob that’s trying to beat you up as individuals, each with their own special reasons for committing violence and mayhem! If you don’t, you’re as bad as they are!

    3. She is not that far off base. The Nazis and the Communists purposely dehumanized people to make it easier to mistreat and kill them. That is why prisoners got their heads shaved, were issued ill-fitting shitty uniforms, given numbers and tattoos instead of names, not allowed to bathe, etc. etc.

  3. But they are a minority that has intimidated the majority.

    The student minority understand their faculty and administrator allies will protect them. Even if they are arrested that arrest will enhance their future earnings potential a la Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn. But the majority know if they are targeted by the nuts they can expect no support at all – in fact they will be called crybabies if they admit to being intimidated.

  4. “Murray has called upon Middlebury to punish the students involved as a deterrent against future acts of illiberalism. He’s quite right to do so. Administrators must not sit idly by as a minority of radicals destroy the intellectual foundations of the college.”

    It would be great if this happened, but it doesn’t seem very likely.

    1. Murray should put his money where his mouth his.

      1. Not following. Why are you putting the onus on Murray?

        1. Murray should put his money where his mouth his.

          So…Murray should punish the students himself?

          1. Murray needs to pack heat and shoot some bastards in self-defense, if needed!

  5. Eventually they’re going to try this shit on someone with a gun permit. It will not end well for anyone.

    1. It already didn’t end well for one of them in Washington who tried to assault someone who was attending a talk given by Milo

    2. The media will cast this as a violent conservative attacking unruly but basically civil and well meaning protestors.

      1. See e.g. the morning links where an attack on a Trump rally is portrayed as “Protesters clashed”.

        1. You’re right, one side attacked and one side defended. Totally different from a clash. Or were you thinking of The Clash*?

          *Link to some well known The Clash song unhelpfully not provided.

          1. That is not a clash. That is an attack. If I show up and sucker punch you and start a fight, are we clashing? No. The word clash, when used as a verb, means “meet and come into violent conflict”. That implies that both sides took part in a mutual conflict. That is not what happened here. One side violently attacked the other.

            If you take your definition of “Clash” and say that one side which wasn’t violent but was forced to defend itself after being attacked by the other is them “clashing”, then the word “attack” has no meaning. Clash necessarily implies a mutual conflict.

            I know that the fact that the left is just wrong here and worse that Reason soft peddled that is a tough chew for you. But, sometimes life is like that.

            1. You doesn’t understand language or logic when it pertains to his Leftist brethren. You have to argue feelz with him

              1. Oh noes, John and Waka ganging up on me. How will I ever go on?

                1. $park? don’t care bout yo mom|3.6.17 @ 11:04AM|#

                  Oh noes, John and Waka ganging up on me. How will I ever go on?

                  So, you admit that my position is correct and you have no response? If you have anything substantive to say, why are you not saying it?

                  Shall I stomp on your face more in this argument? I really kind of enjoy it. Or maybe you should just admit how stupid your argument is?

                2. John finally found someone to team up with him in his clashes with the commenters.

                  1. ‘commenters’ = Tupla and his many socks.

            2. So what you’re saying is that the Trump folks didn’t fight back against the anti-Trump folks, right? Because then it’s an attack and not a clash. If the Trump protestors fought back, then it changed from an attack into a clash.

              You should also get a dictionary.

              1. So what you’re saying is that the Trump folks didn’t fight back against the anti-Trump folks, right?

                No one is saying that that I can see. What happened was the Trump people showed up and conducted a peaceful demonstration and were attacked by the fascist mobs. The fact that some of them no doubt defended themselves, doesn’t make it a clash. A clash means two sides showed up intending violence and then engaged in it. And that is not what happened.

                The reason why the word “clash” was used rather than the accurate work attack is to imply moral equivalence between the parties. And that is not what happened.

                I get it, you hate the Trump people and it makes you feel good to think they are the same as the Progs running around beating the shit out of people. Sorry, but they are not. Stop fucking lying and making up absurd meanings to words.

              2. And from now on, every time the cops beat the shit out of some poor bastard or someone gets maimed and it ends up on reason, the response is going to be

                Sparky says (insert victim here) clashed with (insert attacker here)

                This will be the gift that keeps on giving. But hey, don’t let me stop you from dying on this hill.

                1. every time the cops beat the shit out of some poor bastard or someone gets maimed and it ends up on reason

                  If the “poor bastard” fights back, it will be a clash.
                  If the “poor bastard” doesn’t fight back, it will be a beating.

                  I know language is fluid and ever-changing, but I’ll still stick with the dictionary definitions if that’s ok.

                  1. If the “poor bastard” fights back, it will be a clash.

                    So you do plan to die on this hill. Good.

                2. Yes. In Sparkyworld, the police cannot POSSIBLY be guilty of abuse. They are just dealing with clashes, after all.

            3. “meet and come into violent conflict”

              This was a clash, though it’s deceptive phrasing. Any meeting that results in “violent conflict”, there is always an attacker and a defender, unless there are predetermined rules for the conflict that both sides agree to such as in a boxing ring. How things evolve from there varies.

          2. Do you think Kelly Thomas clashed with six cops in Fullerton?

            1. No, because he didn’t fight back.

              1. The police say he did. And he likely did to some degree. And who could blame him?

                Your position is absurd. By your logic, Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman “Clashed” with their murderer, because the evidence shows they resisted the attack.

                So, a headline that read “Ron Goldman and Nicole Simpson were killed in a clash with a knife-wielding assailant” would have been an honest portrayal of their murders? Really? Is that your final answer?

                1. Your position is absurd.

                  I blame the dictionary.

                  1. Yes Sparky, The dictionary shows how stupid your position is.

                    Meanwhile, would you like to explain why your position isn’t absurd? You can’t of course. But why are you too dishonest to do that? Do you think anyone reading this doesn’t see how you were wrong, got called out on it, and are now too pigheaded to stop digging?

                    You are not fooling anyone. So why are you trying?

                  2. I blame the dictionary.

                    Sparky and the dictionary to square off in a no-holds-barred cage match! No love lost between these two rivals! This clash of titans should be epic.

                    1. This clash

                      It won’t be a clash, it will be a protest.

                    2. The pedantry of this comment section is amazing. This is why libertarians never win elections.

                    3. Look, I came here for an argument.

                    4. “That wasn’t an argument…”

                    5. I demand a Claymation Death Match 3000…

                  3. Dictionaries don’t give you the full meaning of a word. “Clash” doesn’t just mean “engaging in a physical conflict”, it also implies that the two parties to the conflict have comparable justifications and strengths, something the dictionary doesn’t tell you.

  6. As the campus uproar about his visit built, I was genuinely surprised and troubled to learn that some of my faculty colleagues had rendered judgement on Dr. Murray’s work and character, while openly admitting that they had not read anything he had written.

    That would have been their equivalent of looking Murray in the eye. Academic curiosity, she is finding out, is becoming a thing of the past. Outrage addiction is replacing it. And I wonder what those colleagues were telling their students about the Murray’s appearance and what should be done about it.

    1. Forget the faculty; does anyone think any of the protesting students have a read a word of his either?

      1. At this point, I wonder if any of the students can even read at all.

        1. reading, that’s soooo last century

    2. If you were genuinely surprised by the actions of your colleagues you have not been paying attention for the last 10 years

    3. Any bets that she isn’t questioning her colleagues views on OTHER topics?

      If a colleague is willing to be a fascist on this topic, why would anybody assume that they wouldn’t be the same way on other topics? Especially since, in the end, they basically got what they want (he did have to evacuate and go to a smaller venue).

      Murray Gell-Mann Amnesia Effect in full effect.

  7. In her post, Stanger describes herself as a Democrat who does not agree with Murray,

    This makes me wonder if she’s read him either. Someone should ask exactly what she disagrees with.

    1. She’s making the point that other professors haven’t read him; for her to not have read him either would be pretty embarrassing for her case.

    2. What counts as “reading him”? Murray has written a lot more than The Bell Curve, and it doesn’t look like he was invited to discuss the book he co-authored in the 90s.

      1. What counts as “reading him”?

        Understanding his actual thesis. Most Democrats wouldn’t have much to disagree with since it is fairly limited and describes a building circumstance they also believe is a problem. The “disagreement” is generally based on what other people have said or claimed about the book or the underlying research.

        1. Which thesis and which book? Murray is a libertarian and his last notable book was about the economic divide among white Americans. He also writes plenty of op-eds.

          I’d go on, but looking at Stanger’s post, I don’t see where she says she does not agree with Murray. It’s maybe sorta implied at the end, when she says the two of them do agree that this event is a “metaphor for what is wrong with our country.”

          1. UPDATE!!!1 From Murray’s account of the event:

            A few months ago, AEI’s student group at Middlebury College invited me to speak on the themes in Coming Apart and how they relate to the recent presidential election. Professor Allison Stanger of the Political Science Department agreed to serve as moderator of the Q&A and to ask the first three questions herself.

            As she’s a professor of politics and economics, I think there’s a good chance she at least glanced at Coming Apart. It was a hot book in 2012.

          2. Which thesis and which book?

            They aren’t much different. Here’s a summary from the Coming Apart wiki.

            Much of his argument is centered on a notion of self-selective sorting that began in the 1960s and 1970s, when he argues that cognitive ability became the essential predictor of professional and financial success, and people overwhelmingly began marrying others in the same cognitive stratum and living in areas surrounded largely by others in that same stratum, leading to not only an exacerbation of existing economic divides, but an unprecedented sociocultural divide that had not existed before in America.

            What is inherently antithetical to a Democrat?

            I don’t see where she says she does not agree with Murray

            I was relying on Robby’s statement, probably not a good idea.

            1. As a Democrat, she might think that he’s severely discounting transfer payments (he burst onto the scene by saying welfare caused more poverty than it relieved, after all), too much emphasis on ‘moral’ and ‘family’ values in determining success, too much emphasis on IQ differences.

              1. she might think that he’s severely discounting transfer payments (he burst onto the scene by saying welfare caused more poverty than it relieved, after all)

                He doesn’t “discount” transfer payments, he says (correctly) that they have negative effects on the recipients.

                too much emphasis on ‘moral’ and ‘family’ values in determining success, too much emphasis on IQ differences.

                Luckily, this isn’t a question of opinion but statistics and facts. Yes, growing up in a traditional family and founding a traditional family yourself (after completing high school) is one of the best predictors of life success. IQ makes up much of the rest of variability in life success.

            2. What is inherently antithetical to a Democrat?

              How can statements about social facts (whether right or wrong) be “antithetical” to a political program?

              1. How can statements about social facts (whether right or wrong) be “antithetical” to a political program?

                Are you serious? The Democratic party (and their close cousins, progressivism, socialism and fascism) are based on lies about economics, culture, and justice. Nobody who understands basic economic and social facts can rationally follow those ideologies or political programs.

  8. Administrators must not sit idly by as a minority of radicals destroy the intellectual foundations of the college.

    Administrators sat idly by for 50 years while a majority of radicals destroyed the intellectual foundations of pretty much all colleges.

    Jesus, Soave, do you talk to anybody older than 24?

    1. The admins, nowadays, consist of those radicals who did it in the 1960’s. It’s not like higher education hasn’t had serious fascist tendencies only recently.

  9. What happened there was a crime and a criminal conspiracy. This is a law enforcement matter. The way to stop this is for the not only people involved to be arrested and prosecuted but the organizers of these riots arrested and prosecuted as well. Make it clear that doing this stuff will get you a felony conviction and years in an actual pound you in the ass prison.

    And if the campus or local police refuse to do that, bring in the feds to do it. Conspiring to deprive someone of their civil rights, which free speech is one, is a federal crime.

    1. So, has no one actually been arrested over this yet? Are the Middlebury police not investigating? What the fuck?

      1. Not that I can see.

      2. How many have been arrested over the Berkeley riots?
        How about the DePaul students ambushing Milo on stage and assaulting him on stage early last year?

        Universities are complicit in the stifling of free speech. They are WORSE than the bus lines in Alabama that refused to allow blacks to ride in the front of the bus because, in the end, the bus lines had to abide by the law.

  10. Why does everyone call the Nazis, aka National Socialists, an extreme right wing party? Of course they were, like all other riotous thugs, a bunch of Marxists nationalist idoit meatheads masquerading as SJW.

    Point being that all psychotic socialists and oppressive proggies are just Marxists moronic savages deep down.

    name one violent protest ever carries out by liberty minded, free market capitalists.

    1. I’m no historician but it seems to me that “left” and “right” don’t really mean anything specific; instead they are intended to convey an expectation in the reader’s mind – dog whistles, if you will. Whenever I hear “far right” in the news I just roll my eyes and move on.

      1. “Good” socialism= left, Bad socialism= right.

      2. The Nazis were a left wing movement. And they were supported by a lot of left wing people. Back in the day you were either an international socialist make you a communist or you were a national socialist making you a fascist. The difference was whether you thought the socialist revolution needed to be based on an international proletarian revolution or based on blood and soil nationalism.

        It was only after Hitler attack the USSR and later the crimes of fascism were finally revealed that the left rewrote history and made fascism a “right wing” movement. Fascism was anti-capitalist and believed in the total state. It was anything but right wing.

        1. Correct all. Of course anything that was thrown up in defiance of the successes of the industrial revolution and the movement of people towards capitalism was simply Marxist class warfare.

          There are two systems. Capitalism and everything else. Capitalism equals opportunity and liberty.

          Everything else seeks to control those two things.

        2. The common definitions of Socialism and Fascism is this: Socialist states restrict your economic freedom, and Fascist states restrict your personal freedom. Authoritarian states have a mix of both.

          High taxes, regulation, minimum wage, central banks, licensing, mandatory unions, etc, are “socialist” policies. Government surveillance, hate speech laws, anti-prostitution laws, drug prohibition, anti-homosexuality laws, anti-abortion laws, etc. are “fascist” policies.

          1. The common definitions of Socialism and Fascism is this: Socialist states restrict your economic freedom, and Fascist states restrict your personal freedom. Authoritarian states have a mix of both.

            That is just completely wrong. Fascism has always rejected capitalism and economic freedom.

            1. Yes, but I think he means the definitions used by any given layperson who doesn’t have enough interest in history to actually know the Nazis’ Marxist heritage (or any given leftist who is willfully ignorant of such).

          2. The common definitions of Socialism and Fascism is this: Socialist states restrict your economic freedom, and Fascist states restrict your personal freedom. Authoritarian states have a mix of both.

            Nonsense. Both socialist and fascist states restrict both your economic and personal freedoms.

            High taxes, regulation, minimum wage, central banks, licensing, mandatory unions, etc, are “socialist” policies. Government surveillance, hate speech laws, anti-prostitution laws, drug prohibition, anti-homosexuality laws, anti-abortion laws, etc. are “fascist” policies.

            Again, utter bullshit. Socialist states don’t have high taxes, minimum wage, central banks, licensing, or unions. Many socialists states in reality were vehemently anti-homosexual and anti-abortion.

        3. “Right wing”, you forget (or perhaps never knew) does not connote ‘limited government’ a la American conservatism. Historically, the ‘right’ meant the traditionalists, the theocrats, the supporters of aristocratic governance; those types were also perfectly happy to control over society via the state, including the economy (the aristocratic conservatives often teamed up with the socialists against capitalists to support protectionism and price controls, because the former, being agrarian land owners, benefitted from those policies)

          So, while the Nazis weren’t thorough-going traditionalists, they were intensely agrarian, ethno-nationalists who relied heavily on (albeit distorted) traditionalist ideas in their ideology. They did have a ‘left wing’ in people like Gregor Strasser (and originally Josef Goebbels) but they were quashed in the night of ling knives. It is also the case that many traditionalist conservatives enthusiastically sided with the Nazis.

          Statism or aspiration toward a total state is not an exclusively left wing idea. If that’s what you think then you must consider Bismarck, Francisco Franco, Metternich, and Louis XIV to be left wing (obviously none of them were left wing, but rather ‘right wing’ traditionalists). Of course, in Germany, the far right had a particular fascination with statism (‘social conservatism’ one might call it) going back to the Prussian empire. It was Bismarck, decidedly a conservative, who was the father of the German welfare state.

          1. This. You can also make a case, and the left used to do this back when they knew history, that Stalin was actually fairly conservative, on European terms. Stalin was also an ethno-nationalist, who promoted traditional gender roles, conservative public morality, and strict hierarchies. There is a reason the Russian “right” still adores Stalin.

          2. If the Nazis were “right wing”, they’d have been demanding the restoration of the Hohenzollern monarchy.

            THAT was the right-wing position in Germany.

        4. No, the Nazis were very much a right wing movement, and it is just stupid ahistorical nonsense to claim otherwise. Libertarian and “right wing” are pretty much antithetical in Europe.

      3. They also mean different things in Europe than they do in the US. In Europe the right is also pretty socialist, just in more nationalistic ways.

        1. And in Europe, the word ‘liberal’ still (more or less) suggests classical liberalism and is seen as distinct from Left and Right.

      1. and don’t you forget it, buster

      2. mmmmm, Boston Massacre? but only from a colonial perspective

      3. Was the tea party violent? Or just destruction of property?

        1. Being a tea party supporter/member, no on both counts.

          1. Methinks he speaks of the maritime shenanigans of 1773.

    2. Off the top of my head, and in America specifically, anti-draft riots and tarring and feathering.

    3. The Nazis allied with “rightists” against the socialists. This does not mean they were right-wing, but merely saw that alliance as politically useful. Rightists saw the Nazis as a lesser of two evils.

    4. Because liberals write history.

    5. Why does everyone call the Nazis, aka National Socialists, an extreme right wing party?

      Because the Nazis were virulently anti-socialist and anti-communist (i.e., “the left”) and kept railing against “atheistic communism”. On the other hand, the Nazis got political support in parliament from Christian and conservative parties (“the right”) and kept talking about Christian heritage and family values.

      Now, I’ll grant you that the Nazis overlapped with socialists and communists on some of their policies, but then you could say the same thing about conservative Christians and theocrats. What unites Nazis with socialists, communists, and conservatives is that they are all statist and illiberal.

  11. Frankenstein’s monster attacks him.

  12. my growing suspicion that college campuses are indeed becoming more hostile to free speech.

    (gasp)

    what gave it away?

  13. Our 230-year constitutional democracy depends on it, especially when our current President is blind to the evils he has unleashed.

    ^that part of her facebook post strikes me as fantastic, i.e. remote from reality

    1. She is a Democrat.

  14. Nice post by Stanger. I hope this story gets bigger and she gets on TV, maybe that’ll shame a few idiot teenagers from participating in this kind of thing in the future. Thanks, Robby. Keep up the good work.

  15. “With the best of intentions, they offered their leadership to enraged students, ”

    WTF?

    1. Noticed that too; must be the same good intentions with which Samuel Johnson’s road to hell is paved.

  16. evidence in support of my growing suspicion that college campuses are indeed becoming more hostile to free speech.

    Becoming? That ship sailed a long long long time ago Bob….

  17. So an opinion or idea that is not sanctioned by the progressive agenda is not tantamount to advocating for slavery or genocide? It would seem so.

  18. ..now tantamount…

    1. on top of ol Tanatamount, all covered in cheese…

  19. I find it interesting that we are finding more and more of these cases where the person uses “I am a democrat” as part of their defense as to why they shouldn’t have been assaulted. If only we all had arm bands to denote which of us are of different assault worthy status. What could go wrong?

    1. I think people mention it almost as code, so if people are still going to be critical, they can’t call that person a racist, etc. because, well, they already said they were a Democrat.

      1. “they can’t call that person a racist, etc. because, well, they already said they were a Democrat”

        Funny, I take membership in the Democratic party as an indication that a person is racist.

  20. Seems to me that if I were a college Republican organizing an event like this, I would recommend that anyone who actually wanted to hear the speaker should come armed and prepared to defend the speaker and any other innocent party.

    -jcr

    1. Vermont carry is a thing.

    2. + 1 A polite society

  21. “…I was genuinely surprised and troubled to learn that some of my faculty colleagues had rendered judgement on Dr. Murray’s work and character, while openly admitting that they had not read anything he had written. With the best of intentions, they offered their leadership to enraged students, and we all now know what the results were. ?”

    I’m surprised that SHE was surprised.
    Has she not been reading the news recently?

  22. We dont know they were students.
    Ok, who here has been to the town of middlebury?
    Lets look at how addison county voted.

  23. RE: Professor Injured By Crazed Mob at Middlebury Speaks Out: ‘This Was the Saddest Day of My Life’

    Oh please!
    Being attacked by a bunch of clueless, over-educated, emotionally immature children can only make one a better person and appreciate the intolerance the socialist academic cadre has built in our country.
    How could life get any better than this?

  24. She wrongly directly spoke to the “protesters” to defend herself, big no no. If you listen to the archived Reason interview, Murray is actually a big railer against the elite and out of touch rich people.
    I’d love to have taken a poll on how many of them actually read any of his books before going full Red Guard

    1. Same with Milo. Most who are against him haven’t really paid attention to most of what Milo has stated.

      This is the age of narrative programming. If you question the narrative you are the enemy. Suddenly I’m a racist because I don’t support black lives matter. I am joined by blacks who are called ‘coons’ and ‘uncle toms’ for not supporting the BLM. Everyone must be fit neatly into categories of left/right, black/white, and ALL white people are racist bigots and all black people are victims and can’t be racists because only white people can be bigots.

      THE WORLD IS GETTING DUMBER BY THE SECOND.

  25. It’s a strange moment as a libertarian when you realize there is currently a bigger threat to your freedom of speech than the government

  26. After only a cursory look so far, this response made me giggle:

    “…I caught my breath when you referred to “their” seats (read: students interested in CM) being taken up by someone who was angry. It feels like a micro-aggression. Should the angry student of color give up said seat to that person who came too late to claim it? I think Rosa Parks might have something to say about that. I was a student at Midd the last disastrous time CM was allowed to speak on campus. He literally brought into question whether black students belonged at Middlebury. He suggested they attend community college or HBCUs, where they wouldn’t fail out. He suggested Black students only attend elite schools due to affirmative action, in true Antonin Scalia style. I remember college leadership providing lip service that people who suggest such racist thought would not be invited to speak at the college, again. What a difference 10 years makes. I am sorry and shamed things got physical — I would like to believe the violence came from the “outside agitators” rather than students. I am glad you were able to see your son perform jazz and that no one kept you from hearing him partake in a tradition born from the African American experience. Unfortunately, I believe you interviewed, “shielded,” and dined with a man who might not see any problem with barring our black students from the tradition of a Middlebury education…”

    1. If you truly love your fellow man, look for the good and praise it. Maybe start with our bill of rights. Why is everything either a black or white perspective/position? Scalia style is a good thing!

  27. 18 to 22 years old is the new 5 year old! Not as attractive as 50 being the new 40!

  28. Individuals discipline? It has to be taught and administered. It is supposed to be higher education, proof is, it isn’t. It is lower standards. You want to improve? Start at the administrators of the faculties’.

    1. Colleges are 90% brainwashing institutions. I leave 10% because I know of at least one course that is head by an awesome professor who stresses EVIDENCE BASED research and I’m being optimistic hoping there are more. But when I heard there was a Beyonc? inspired feminism course? Critical race theory? A professor pushing PTSS (post traumatic slave syndrome) and a host of other non scientific narrative driven PROGRAMS I can’t put much faith in academia. And that was before the violent silencing of free speech and free thought that I’ve observed going on. When black YALE students threw a hissy fit (literally) over Halloween costumes and forced two professors out of their jobs over it- I knew the shit show was just getting started. Sadly I was correct. Chaos hostility and violence is the fruit born out of these endeavors nothing even remotely resembling ‘social justice’. Half the population now cringes when you say those words ‘social justice’ which is unfortunate and has only served to hurt the cause. But guess what a-holes? You don’t get to go around breaking stuff and being violent and expect reasonable rational people to agree with you. I’m as radical as radical gets and I’m disgusted with the tantrum throwing brats. Two steps forward fifty steps backwards. Great job fucking things up.

  29. College is supposed to be a place of free discussion, not a fascist suppression by one group to prevent differing viewpoints. Disruptive yelling and physical violence is emulating the jackbooted thugs of the Hitler/ Mussolini regimes. Where is the open mindedness, love, intellect that the left professes to have? I have seen none, not from students, faculty, nor the democrat party (as a whole). They ate the antithesis of every thing they claim to possess.

  30. Wallace: My total earnings for first month was very low… Just little over $250, but it was then when I realized this is the real deal and not yet another scam you see all over the internet! There are no words to describe the feeling you get when your first paycheck arrives and what excitement I felt at that moment realizing that making money from home is in fact very possible. After my first month I dedicated more time and put more effort in working this and my second month was already much more better (2nd paycheck I got was for $990)… Now, 6 months later, I am earning just over $2500 a month . I am a little slow with my work and I am not that good with computers and that’s why I think a younger person could be able to earn much much more than this…
    ____________________ https://www.cashneways.com

  31. The professor blaming Trump for the students’ rage was endlessly amusing.

    1. People aren’t responsible for their own behaviors these days didn’t you hear?

  32. If only the prof and students could arm themselves. Pull my hair, taste my hot lead, proggy-fascists!

  33. I wonder what the whining fucktard, fudge packing, idiot “Tony” has to say about this. He’ll probably go into full DERP mode and somehow blame “evil libertarians and right wingers” I wish these fucking people would just kill themselves already, wastes of fucking space.

  34. From her fb entry: “…For those of you who marched in Washington the day after the inauguration, imagine being in a crowd like that, only being surrounded by hatred rather than love. I feared for my life.”

    Funny she doesn’t realize they were the same people.

  35. These are the people amongst those calling Milo a nazi right? Working to silence voices and narratives they do not agree with thru violence? Physical and verbal violence.

    I see who the ‘brown shirts’ are. Pathetic jerks. I am thoroughly disgusted. It’s all going to backfire and it already is.

    Social justice MY ASS. tantrum throwing brats. So gross.

  36. Any institution that permits this sort of thing to go on, will be turning out graduates who, by nature of their connection to the institution during the time of trouble, are unhirable in the workplace.

  37. In response, a mob formed for the explicit purpose of prohibiting this exchange of ideas and punishing?with violence?the people involved.

    They were physically assaulted, as they left.

    The speech was over. The mob was just physically assaulting the Witch. Thou shalt not suffer a Witch to live.

  38. The real failure is of the authorities.

    Where were police as people were being assaulted for exercising their constitutional rights?

    The same story everywhere. The authorities willfully refuse to fulfill the prime responsibility of government.

    Speakers should come armed, and fire if assaulted.

  39. If only there were a constitutional right to keep and bear arms – – – – – –

  40. just as Phillip implied I am alarmed that someone can get paid $6887 in one month on the computer . published here…………. https://tinyurl.com/2dayjob-com

  41. Tolerance is so important that intolerance will not be tolerated.
    Inclusion is so important that those who threaten it, even indirectly, must be excluded.

  42. “All of it began the first time some of you who know better?let young people think that they had the right to choose the laws they would obey as long as they were doing it in the name of social protest.”

    And here we are still….

  43. Middlebury will do nothing to the rioters, unless and until Murray and Stanger sue for millions, and demand criminal charges, as well.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.