Campus Free Speech

Antifa Shut Down a Planned Debate Between Yaron Brook and Sargon of Akkad at the King's College

"This was an act of violence...via a series of jackbooted totalitarian tactics."


Screenshot via Youtube

Antifa agitators shut down an event at the King's College in London featuring Ayn Rand Institute President Yaron Brook and anti-political-correctness YouTube personality Carl Benjamin (a.k.a. Sargon of Akkad).*

Violence ensued, and several security guards suffered injuries, according to a statement put out by King's Libertarian Society, the student group sponsoring the event.

"This was an act of violence, clearly intended to silence Yaron and Sargon's planned debate, via a series of jackbooted totalitarian tactics that unfortunately proved successful tonight," the group said.

On Twitter, antifa activists celebrated their victory.

The skirmish between masked antifa protesters and event organizers was captured on video. It's not clear who threw the first punch, though antifa obviously initiated the disruption. The shutdown was premeditated—activists organized it through a Facebook event. KCL Socialist Students, Intersectional Feminist Society, Kashmir Solidarity Movement, KCL LGBT+, KCL Action Palestine Society, KCL Justice For Cleaners, and the Demilitarise King's campaign were all involved, according to The Washington Examiner.

Yaron Brook is an Objectivist thinker with extremely hawkish foreign policy positions. He noted on Facebook that both the far left and the alt-right consider his opinions anathema. (In particular, he's a staunch defender of Israel, a view that often inflames extremists who agree on little else.) Benjamin has a history of making disgusting comments and defending unsavory characters. I'm not sure whether I'd want to sit through a discussion between these two, and there are many reasons one might object to both Brooks' and Benjamin's views on libertarian grounds.

Of course, King's College Libertarians should have the right to decide that for themselves—and other students have the right to choose whether or not to listen. Unfortunately, antifa has appointed itself the sole arbiter of what kind of speech is permitted on campus. Antifa is a decidely illiberal movement, according to Antifa: The Antifascist Handbook author Mark Bray, and that means the group only cares about its own side's free speech rights. Once again, it's hard to tell which guys are supposed to be the ones who are actually against fascism.

CORRECTION: I initially described Benjamin as "alt-right sympathetic," consistent with how mainstream news outlets have portrayed him. But upon further investigation, those reports seem misleading. Benjamin claims to stridently reject the alt-right and has quarreled with its members.

NEXT: Trump and Trial Lawyers Target Drug Companies Over Opioid Addiction

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 or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. …Demilitarise King’s campaign…


    1. Start earning $90/hourly for working online from your home for few hours each day… Get regular payment on a weekly basis… All you need is a computer, internet connection and a litte free time…

      Read more here……..

  2. Clearly, King’s college needs to employ far better security staff. These snotty little shits should have been cuffed, unmasked, and duct-taped to lampposts within three minutes of taking a swing at anyone.


    1. Needs to enroll more physically effective students, I would think.

    2. Duct-taped to lampposts upside-down, preferably.

    3. On Sargon’s post-mortem video, he shows footage of the security guards bum-rushing antifa out the doors (one gets his mask torn off!). Apparently, b/c the fire alarms were sounding, they didn’t want to detain anyone.

  3. I like Yaron Brook. He was a genial host for a showing of “The Fountainhead” I attended in the 1980s. Similar invasions were staged earlier before then at the U. of Texas in Austin. A group of campus conservatives invited a professor of nuclear engineering to address them. Antinuclear communists promptly snuck in and sucker-bombed the professor with a custard to the face–cutting his lip in the process. The campus paper published a photo of the attack with glowing encomiums for their sneaky initiation of force. A pro-nuclear objectivist later dispersed an antinuclear meeting by the simple expedient of inviting them to try it again at their meeting. The Soviet empire soon collapsed, but the Altrurian meme–like other superstitions–is still out there.

    1. You don’t meet many actual communists (rather than the strawman sort ginned up in conservative blog comments) in the US these days. Sure, they exist, but they’re quite rare. I’m amazed to hear that there are so many in Texas of all places! You’d think they’d mostly hole up in far Northern California, Oregon, or Washington.

      Btw… how did they announce their adherence to communism while sneaking in and giving the professor a pie to the face? That seems rather difficult, really, given the circumstances. You’d think they’d be chanting anti-nuclear nonsense rather than declaring their pro-communism ideology. That must have been really bizarre to watch.

      1. Marxism, or it’s bastard children, socialism, fascism, progressivism, etc.. it doesn’t matter. All of their leftist practitioners should be beaten down hard. They are an existential enemy of humanity

        1. Fascism is far-right.

          If socialism and progressivism are the “bastard children” of far left Marxism, then conservatism is the bastard child of far-right Naziism. So there’s that.

          Marxism, as practiced, is evil. So is Naziism. I see no value in trying to tar the Left as “marxist” while the right is embracing fascism other than as a distraction. Look to your own house, my friends. It’s burning. We on the left are dealing with our anarchist cousins in Antifa rather successfully here in the US.

          1. shawn_dude, you can’t be this dumb can you?

            1. The sockpuppet is right about conservatives. Right and Left are indeed looter altruist ideologies. Fortunately, the Soviet branch rejected invisible friend mysticism, so they initiate force against each other instead of joining in alliance as Bellamy and Howells urged. Communists assert that fascists and nationalsocialists “aren’t really” socialists (or altruists) and vice-versa. That both are clearly identical is evident to anyone who is neither. Even George Orwell realized this.
              While the communists controlled a government complete with tens of thousands of fusion bombs, it was cheap and effective to unleash religious conservatives against them. Now that there is a LP and no Soviet empire, mystical conservatives are useful for little other than alienating female voters.

          2. Nothing says far-right quite like National *Socialist*.

            Fascism and Socialism were competing Leftist alternatives to the bourgeois liberal order exemplified by the Anglosphere.

            1. Nothing says ‘historical analysis’ like restricting your assessment of the politics of Nazism to a face-value reading of the chosen name of an organsation famed for its opportunism and propaganda efforts.

              1. The national socialists of both Italy and Germany were avowed anti-capitalists and opposed to the tenets of classical liberalism.

                1. But don’t let that sort of factsplaining get in the way of your emotions.

          3. The political spectrum is best described as total authoritarian (far left) to total anarchy (far right). Communism, socialism, fascism all embrace limitless central authority. Capitalism, conservatism, libertarianism all embrace weaker, limited, central authority.

            1. I don’t agree. Both the left and the right can be authoritarian. See this website for a different take than your own.

      2. shawn_dude|3.5.18 @ 7:54PM|#
        “You don’t meet many actual communists (rather than the strawman sort ginned up in conservative blog comments) in the US these days.”

        Gee, next I guess you’ll tell us that communism has never really been tried.

        1. Or that places like Venezuela really failed because of capitalism.

          1. Please, if you’re going to build a strawman, try a little harder.

            Venezuela is socialist, and it’s failing because socialism gives all the power to a limited few and breeds corruption. Fascism, at least, is honest about that and starts out assuming the few ought to have the power and wealth in the first place. Socialism is the sort of paternalistic hug that means well but still strangles you.

      3. Stalinists are rather rare, communists are not remotely rare, particularly on a college campus.

  4. “alt-right sympathetic Youtube personality”

    Carl Benjamin / Sargon is about as “Alt-right sympathetic” in the same way Robby is “Title IX”-sympathetic.

    iow, he’s occasionally covered them as a topic. No where in that coverage could you find anything amounting to explicit support or sympathy. As recently as 1 year ago he was unsure wtf they even *were*.

    He has also openly stated he votes for the Green-party in the UK, and describes himself as left-liberal.

    ….but please, by all means, continue with the desperate rhetorical contortions and equivocations, pretending that “Disagreeing with the rhetoric and methods of Social Justice Warriors” somehow makes you “Alt-Right sympathetic”

    1. there are many reasons one might object to both Brooks’ and Benjamin’s views on libertarian grounds.

      “to be sure”

      of course you don’t actually provide any reliable characterization of what these people’s ‘views’ actually are…
      … nor do you provide any libertarian arguments against anything.

      its just cheap ad-hom, insinuation, and cherry picking

      I am not familiar w/ Brook, but given the absurd mis-characterization of the one I *am* familiar with, why should anyone assume its any more honest?

      i do think its telling that when needing evidence of someone’s gross-statements, that the citation turns out to be another secondhand characterization rather than the statements themselves.

      1. Even if he was, that qualification weakens his stance. Perhaps he does it to preempt disagreements. That is, he expects people to comment that the guy is alt-right and that it is justified, so he preempts them. But I think even in that case state it as an unqualified wrong is more powerful. It makes it sound like he doubts himself.

        Plus, as you said, if he’s not willing to cite libertarian issues with them specifically then it comes off as a nothing statement. Like saying everyone has something we could disagree with.

      2. Looking forward to Robbie’s criticism of Linda Sarsour, which will never happen because her antisemitism is condoned on college campuses and conservatives never shut down events.

        And that’s the point here- smear people by shutting down their event which brings attention and legitimacy to the exaggerated criticisms of the protesters.

        Also, Christina Hoff Summers also had a speech shutdown today, so expect “to be sure, Summers is icky” equivocations to be forthcoming.

        1. “”expect “to be sure, Summers is icky” equivocations to be forthcoming””

          “”She’s a known associate of Alt-right sympathizers!””

          1. Funny that this would get brought up, because I just spent some time trying to understand this bit of our fair world’s sociology. I have pretty much failed spectacularly, but one of the few things I did manage to note is this: Aside from Ben Shapiro, I have never seen a figure so utterly, obsessively loathed on the alt-right as Carl Benjamin. The name “Sargon” is deployed almost ritualistically among them. If you didn’t know any better, you’d think it was some sort of fa?on de parler, some sort of fictitious generic nickname for the worst insult you could hurl at a person. He is like their Emmanuel Goldstein.

            That’s about the best I can say about him. I don’t care much that he’s politically essentially right-wing Labour; I accept him in that context. More importantly (I last listened about a year ago) he is a conspiracy theorist, a bum debater and kind of boring, and generally a model of a man whose ambitions and self-image greatly exceed his aptitudes. This is probably what’s behind his poor choice of associates and some of his half-baked articulations.

            1. “” his poor choice of associates and some of his half-baked articulations.””

              you make i think an accurate point about the fact that his political orientation is basically, “conservative Left Wing” in the UK, of which there are a few – because the left is ‘most’ of the UK.

              the stuff about “”poor choice of associates and some of his half-baked articulations.””?

              I don’t want to be in the position of ‘defending the unknown’ because i have no idea wtf you’re talking about, but this kind of “de facto determination” is exactly the shit i was complaining about robby doing.

              its this, “i heard the guy was X” ergo by process of reputation, you become tarnished as part of some discredited kook squad.

              if anything, what i’ve grokked from the few (overly long) videos of his that i watch is that he’s ridiculously scrupulous about trying to clarify his position as being a =

              “liberal critic of illiberal tendencies in popular culture”

              i think what you might mean by ‘poor choice of associates’ is the fact that he bothers to interview “alt right” people at all. But the thing so ridiculous about that is simply that you think he deserves guilt by association simply for talking to people declared “untouchable”.

              its this fucked up, ‘guilt by association’ tendency which i find so dishonest.

              1. I get into this elsewhere here. And this is bullshit. Robbie called him “alt-right sympathizing.” I did not. I did not refer to him as “tarnished,” I did not say he was “guilty.” I don’t know who you’re frustrated with, whose “de facto determination” you’re raging against, but don’t put those words into my mouth. All I said was “poor choice of associates,” which means…poor choice of associates.

                I have personal friends myself who are socialists, racists, whatever, by the way, as I’m sure you probably do too. Friendship is weird and messy like that. I don’t do guilt by association. I’m a New Yorker too. I know you meet all kinds of people in this world. And I certainly don’t mean who he interviews. I couldn’t give a shit who he interviews. I’d interview the head of ISIS if I could. Barbara Walters interviewed Farrakhan. Whatever. I like you Gil but this is bullshit.

            2. All I said was “poor choice of associates,” which means…poor choice of associates.

              yes. if you mentioned any examples of what you’d intended by this, i missed it.

              i’m not trying to beat you up (and i haven’t read your comments elsewhere), and i’m sorry if you took it personally…

              … i’m just making a point about the way people are fast and loose with character-denunciations without ever citing any evidence. I hate it.

              its this “pile on” effect where as long as one ‘source’ provides some (often weak) claim, then any anecdotal reference to that (often bullshit claims) suddenly turns into an excuse to go, “oh, *everyone knows that dude is [insert claim]*

              What’s (to me, at least) hilarious about this shit? i’m not even a sargon fan. Just as i wasn’t a Milo fan. both of their stuff tends to bore me after more than a few mins. If anything their type of stuff is nothing but barely-sensational-criticism of the same crap everyone complains about on twitter.

              I just think routinely parroting shitty character-denunciations sans any real evidence is shitty, hacktastic dicksucking non-journalism. And that post-facto going, “oh, sadly i was misinformed” (as he’s doing now) is even lamer than the initial bad-action.

              1. I did get too personally butthurt at the end there. But look at what I wrote! It was mostly a lighthearted anecdotal observation of the fact that Sargon is the alt-right’s enemy, followed by a characterization of him as a garden-variety prog, an offhand statement of my opinion that he’s a self-important, tedious lightweight, and at the very end a brief and very marginal observation of the thread of truth that the silly “guilt by association” people have probably been hanging on (not that, to be fair, they need even that). It was a character defense of Sargon, at least as far as racism goes, not a denunciation.

                Sargon is someone who (1) is willing to acknowledge the achievements of capitalism and openly refer to it as such; (3) defends freedom of speech; and (3) rejects identity politics. It’s become routine recently for such people on the Left and even the Center (e.g. Christina Hoff Sommers) to refer to themselves as “classical liberals” even though they are otherwise nothing remotely of the kind–certainly not by American standards (maybe by Euro “liberal party” standards).

                I give credit to Sargon for taking a position that has utterly no representation in mainstream British politics. But I think Milo is probably smarter than him, quite frankly, though surely far less genuinely interested in politics. I can take a few minutes of both.

                1. …Robbie has indeed suffered a pretty grave embarrassment here that he is trying to shrug off. So he writes–on what is hardly a grueling assignment schedule–opinion pieces for an alternative-politics think tank magazine, and he gets caught having relied lazily entirely upon the “mainstream news outlets,” whose dishonesty his outlet is specifically designed to investigate and counteract, without doing the most rudimentary homework before smearing a man as “alt-right”? This should be humiliating for him. Why do the unpaid commenters habitually outperform him at his own job?

                  1. …Anyway, again, I did nothing remotely close to what Robbie did; he did nothing but characterize the man as “alt-right sympathizing,” lazily asserted that he “says disgusting things” by linking to a paywalled article where he mildly if rudely (and uncharacteristically wittily) trolled a self-important blowhard POS MP, and asserted that he “defended unsavory characters” without providing any links at all. He says nothing else about Sargon’s content; it’s just the usual “even revolting POSs have free speech rights too” spiel, which of course Sargon did nothing to deserve.

                    I didn’t write a journalism piece, just a silly offhand comment. And I never said he “says disgusting things” or “defends unsavory characters,” just that he is not that smart, subtle, or interesting. (I didn’t defend these statements because it was just an offhand comment, not a piece of journalism or an essay.) And the gist of it was in defense of Sargon. Don’t compare me to Robbie! Wouldn’t you be horrified?

                2. i think we’re probably on the same page and have no idea why there’d be a spat in the first place.

                  “”he’s a self-important, tedious lightweight,””


                  he did much of the basic early-criticism of the “antifa” / anti-trump types that the MSM simply didn’t do. and he won 10s of thousands of followers for doing journalism that idiots like Robby “didn’t”

                  it wasn’t like he was right wing, but he was a “rational outside perspective” on the batshit political situation in the US. he’s not particularly smart, and he’s not particularly super-analytical. But he has won a large audience by being a trustworthy, “sane” perspective on otherwise ‘insane stuff’.

                  the reason he’s successful is is because the media in the US is filled with dipshits like Robby who simply repeat what they hear w/o the slightest critical consideration.

                  1. “i think we’re probably on the same page and have no idea why there’d be a spat in the first place.”

                    How many libertarians in the exchange? Two? =spat.


      3. He posted a registration required link which had no corroboration in the free portion. What more evidence do you need?

        Oh, and he’s not sure if antifa are really against facism.

        It is interesting to note that Robby’s characterization meshes perfectly with Vox.

        Nieman Journalism Lab,[28] Vice magazine,[2] and Mic[29] have described Benjamin as “right-wing”, and Redbrick,[6] The Daily Dot,[11] Salon,[16] Gizmodo,[30] and Vox[31] have described him as “alt-right” or “alt-right sympathizer”. Benjamin has rejected these labels[15] and has criticised the alt-right for collectivist, identitarian and authoritarian thinking.[11]

        1. Good comment.

      4. Robbie assured us that he believes the asshole King’s College Libertarians regrettably have the right to invite the alt-right”goat-fuckers” in an unfortunate and misguided demonstration of freeze peach.

      5. I’ve been subbed to Sargon for a couple of years now. His left wing sympathies can be frustrating sometimes and do rub against many of his positions that are libertarian-leaning. He is a British patriot and does take that to something of a nationalist level. He takes pride in much of what his culture has done and has become. Because of this, he opposes the EU and mass immigration to his country. This would put him at odds with the open borders stance of most of Reason, but not necessarily with libertarianism.
        His content is good and he tries to be thoughtful and reasonable (when not just shitposting)

        1. White people (esp. UK whites) are currently hearing the message from much of polite, powerful society that if they push back against a flood of collective guilt accusations and even more blatant racism from the “woke,” a flood of immigration of persons with questionable compatibility and loyalty to their host society that is often described by the Left as a deliberate demographic strategy to improve their future prospects, openly declared admissions and hiring racism, etc., that they are themselves racists. The only ones willing to openly tell them explicitly and openly that it’s OK to be white are the determinately, balls-out politically incorrect.

          Many of these people are dedicated anti-racists who despise the white identitarians if anything more than any other, and view their struggle with them for the hearts and minds of whites as they do that with the race-pimping Left for the hearts and minds of the (also aggrieved, let’s not forget) minorities. Last I listened, I was convinced that Sargon was indeed an anti-racist civic nationalist like (I presume) we are here. But I don’t think he always reacts to the above attacks in quite the proper way, which I attribute mostly to his limited aptitude…

          1. …For instance, to Joe Biden’s asinine celebration of the fact that whites will soon be in the minority, he didn’t simply say, “It is obnoxious and idiotic to care about such things”; he said that it’s understandable that whites wouldn’t want to become a minority in their own country. I don’t think that gets it quite right. And it’s important to, because “Why does every race but whites ‘get’ to defend their race demographically, whereas we are told it’s racist?” is a common identitarian cry that needs to be replied to with a firm, “Nobody ‘gets’ to do that. And that word ‘genocide’ that you always use–I do not think it means what you think it means.”

            This same mistake is also made by the (rather visibly) Puerto Rican vlogger Chris Ray “Gun” Maldonado, who runs in that same general crowd, so I think it’s less a matter of any white-identitarian sympathies than it is of just not thinking things through right.

            1. “Nobody ‘gets’ to do that

              That would be a lie though. Japan does it. Korea does it. Uganda does it (expelled a bunch of Pakistani folks from Uganda that ended up in England). China does it. While I am neither racist nor identitarian, you can’t have replacement level immigration and not end up with a fractured society. There are too few people to assimilate to at that point.

              1. you can’t have…at that point

                You just articulated the civic nationalist position against uncontrolled immigration that plenty of liberals, including myself, constantly make. There is absolutely nothing racist about wanting to limit immigration to high aptitude immigrants, to immigrants who are likely to accept the host country’s political culture, and to limit them to numbers that will make it likely that they will assimilate to us rather than the other way around..

                1. …What on Earth this has to do with what I actually said, however, which was about biological races “defending” themselves, including from miscegenation, isn’t clear. Even in the case of Japan, where (unlike the U.S., which has no moral right to do so) nationalism has an “ethnic” component) they say, “Japan for the Japanese.” They do not in the slightest bit say, “Japan for the yellows,” as any ethnic Korean there could testify. The biological races have no foundation as a focus of historical nationalisms. The “white nationalists” aim to, at least partially, displace traditional nationalisms with an ersatz “European ethnic nationalism” without historical precedent. In (the hard Europhile) Mosley’s time they were at least still honest about it; nowadays they masquerade (with eager help from the leftist media) as “traditionalists,” whereas they thrive as a substitute for weakening national identity and only compete demographically with civic nationalists like UKIP, who are for that reason their archenemy. This is just scraping the surface of why white identitarians are full of shit…

                  1. …As for Uganda, well, I was talking about who “gets” to defend themselves under liberalism. If we’re talking about who “does it,” well, the white race “got” to do a rather thorough “cleansing” themselves at one point. And I’d hardly say Uganda is good evidence that nonracialism is a suicide pact. Expelling the Asians is widely regarded as an economically idiotic move for Ugandans of all colors.

        2. Just a disclaimer: an unreconstructed non-vidiot, I have never heard of Sargon. I cordially smile when I see Yaron, whom I met briefly at events when there were some 30,000 soviet fusion bombs pointed in our direction. In any fistfight instigated by looters, my tendency is to side with Yaron.

      1. So he’s got your goat?
        Hmmm. Maybe there is something to recommend him.

      2. This actually does a good job of chronicling how Sargon is, in fact, rather half-baked and not really that bright (especially when compared to his ambitions, whose comic outsizedness only provides further evidence that he’s not bright). It also does an excellent job of chronicling how RationalWiki is itself not really that bright–even though this is one of the highest-quality articles (apart from a few pseudoscience-debunking ones) on the entire site. It’s not so good at revealing anything that the guy’s alt-light or whatever you call it or anything.

        1. Wow, if that qualifies as one of their good articles…yeah, does of good job of deflating both Sargon AND RationalWiki.

          The thing I don’t get, and I’m sure it’s because I’m just fucking dim, is

          a) What the fuck is the alt-right? I can get a half-dozen definitions in a half-dozen tries. Is it just one of these magical miscellanies like “Celtic” or “post-Modern” where an actual definition would be “The kind of thing I mean when I say Celtic/post-modern/alt-right”.??

          b) Can “alt-right” possibly always and only be something that is 100% anathema? So black stinking vile as to be unmentionable in polite society? That any association with anyone who has ever been accused of being alt-right, be it secondary, tertiary, or mere failure to adequately denounce on demand, causes one to be declared equally anathema? Tha fuck? (And these judgments coming from people on both sides who are a little squeamish about the whole Good/Evil thing in general?)

          Something really, really doesn’t add up here and I’m beginning to suspect it may not be because I’m dim. I’m sure there are bad people with ugly, stupid ideas associated with the alt-right, but to pretend that nothing they think, no position they have, has any legitimacy? I’d say the odds are highly against that, but then, some people seem to have a lot of practice drawing clear, bright lines between acceptable and unacceptable thought.

    2. Gilmore, Robby doesn’t have the desire to actually research anything. He thinks the Right (which Sargon isn’t a part of. He has clearly stated he is classical liberal and simply recognizes trolling for what it is) is icky and anybody who isn’t as opposed to it as he is is clearly part of the problem/ I doubt he’s seen a single video of his.

      1. Sargon is not a “classical liberal”. He uses the phrase to describe himself, but it is an inaccurate descriptor. He is a big-government leftist who happens to hate feminists and believe in free speech.

        1. Sadly, nowadays, 2-out-of-20 ain’t bad.

  5. The backward and bigoted should have rights, too.

    1. Arty, that you have your rights is why you are still around. We all tolerate a leftist bigot, such as yourself. Your Antifa friends will not do the same with whom they disagree.

      1. ‘Democrats are the real racists’

        ‘We’re colorblind’

        ‘Liberal schools are the real threat to free expression’

        ‘We’re not bigots . . . we just prefer traditional values’

        ‘Libertarians are closer to conservatives than to liberals’

        ‘My fairy tale can beat up your fairy tale’

        1. Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland|3.5.18 @ 9:30PM|#
          “‘Democrats are the real racists’
          ‘We’re colorblind’
          ‘Liberal schools are the real threat to free expression’
          ‘We’re not bigots . . . we just prefer traditional values’
          ‘Libertarians are closer to conservatives than to liberals’
          ‘My fairy tale can beat up your fairy tale'”

          Do you think spouting nonsense in semi-quotes somehow protects you from the laughter of those who read your bullshit?

          1. I think his pathetic hope is that he can spew more bullshit than we can effectively mock, so that some poor fool actually takes him seriously.

            1. No, seriously, I think they believe those are magic words. They are things they have assigned a certain negative value to, the repetition of which has magical power. It’s like a substitution for argument.

              To which the magical reply spell is “Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur”

              POOF! You’re gone, Rev., petarded by your own tool there.

            2. Come on guys… The poor guy (OR GIRL) probably doesn’t have any support for his (OR HER) ideas in his (OR HER) own circle. Probably doesn’t even HAVE a circle, so sad… So coming here to educate us all is his (OR HER) only outlet. Damn, now I feel bad for him … or her.

        2. The dark cloud of fascism is always descending upon Republicans but it always turns out to be composed of progressives and Democrats.

          Racist goons are targeting the FCC chief ? and his family

          … The FCC’s chairman, Ajit Pai, became the subject of almost daily persecution.

          HBO host John Oliver was among the first mainstream cultural figures to organize a net-neutrality campaign, which he dubbed “Go FCC Yourself.” He encouraged followers to bombard the FCC’s website with comments supporting the regulation.

          Those comments were peppered with claims that Pai was a pedophile, a “dirty, sneaky Indian” who should self-deport and reminders that anonymous online hordes maintain the “power to murder Ajit Pai and his family.”

          “Resistance” groups began distributing fliers and door hangers around Pai’s Arlington, Va., neighborhood, featuring a black-and-white photo of Pai with his height, weight, age and professional background.

          “Is this really the world you want Annabelle and Alexander to inherit,” read a handmade sign affixed to a lamppost outside Pai’s residence in November, making a point to emphasize the names of Pai’s two children.

          Last week, Pai was forced to cancel a scheduled appearance at the Consumer Electronics Show after receiving credible death threats.

          1. This is sickening. It’s not just the threats and actual violence these “resistance” groups employ, it’s the attitude of moral superiority. I hope somebody tracks them down and shoots them. Or at least their dogs.

            1. And if it was the alt right, it’d have been blamed on Trump.

              But because it’s the Left, it is NOBODY’S fault.

              Seems to always be NOBODY’s fault.

              I mean, a dude shoots up a school, it’s the NRA’s fault. A Bernie bro shoots up Republicans and, well, who can say who is to blame for that?

          2. Ross Perot made the same complaints after successfully defeating Holy War Bush and scaring Clinton into cutting spending. Looter media dogs fueled by Nixon’s anti-libertarian subsidies attacked his family, personality, habits, you-name-it. It’s the rough-and-tumble of politics wherever looter parties are involved. Nataniel Branden warned us in 1987 that this was not going to go away. I’m used to it.

          3. “Online harrassment by internet trolls” and “online death threats” are the new last resort of the scoundrel (most cynically deployed in defense of Kathy Newman recently), but somehow, this very credible. There are specifics about the nature of the doxxing and the actual involvement of actual law enforcement.

            Though I guess if one were going to be driven to racist violence by anything it would be the total destruction of the Internet so you can’t even say anything anymore.

          4. Wow, wait till you guys find out about Sargon’s association with Gamergate. You’re going to be so disappointed in him.

          5. Oh Kevin where was your wise equivocation and tu quoquery and and whataboutery during Gamergate? Were you in the trenches posting links to women saying rude things about people who sent them rape threats and claiming they were proof that there were nasty people on both sides? Course you were!

        3. Arty, you and your friends work hard to keep non-whites down while race baiting everyone to being at each other’s throats. You’re evil, pure and simple.

          The rest of us just want to be left alone. But you will never stop, so you will be stopped. Tread carefully. You really are at a massive disadvantage, should conservatives and libertarians choose not to tolerate progressive kind any further.

          1. Liberals and libertarians have been crammed their preferences down conservative throats — or perhaps up conservatives’ asses — for decades in America, along a multitude of fronts. Sometimes sideways, which might explain all the bitter, butthurt right-wing muttering.

            Race. The environment. Treatment of gays. Prayer in schools. Gender. Civil rights. Abortion. Creationism in classrooms. The drug war. Medicare. Education. Censorship. Consumer protections. Voting rights. Medicaid. Public accommodation laws. Abusive policing. Health care. Labor laws. Social Security. The Federal Reserve. Food stamps. Separation of church and state. Mine safety. Torture. Public transportation. School lunches.

            Is there an issue, other than the relatively recent advances by gun advocates, on which conservatives haven’t been getting thoroughly waxed for the better part of a century? Heck, black men are no longer compelled to lower their gaze in the direct company of white women, for Christ’s sake! Even in Alabama and Mississippi!

            Carry on, clingers. With more boasting about how tough and successful you are, maybe.

            1. Fuck off, slaver.

            2. “Medicare”, “Education”, “Consumer Protections”, “Medicaid”, “Public Accommodation Laws”, “Health Care”, “Labor Laws”, “Social Security”, “Food Stamps”, “Mine Safety”, “Public Transportation”, “School Lunches”.

              I don’t think Libertarians are the allies you think they are.

    2. The antifa protestors do indeed have rights, but not the ones they think they have.

    3. “The backward and bigoted should have rights, too.”

      And lefty ignoramuses like you, too!

    4. Yes, you have those rights too.

    5. Rights, not powers. The more backward and bigoted, the less clearly they grok the distinctions.

      1. I grok that.

  6. Wait, it was a debate against an objectivist and alt-right… which side of the debate was Antifa taking?

    Also, no blue checkmark on that tweet so, just some dude named “Nate” blasted some text out on the internet.

    1. It most certainly was not. The alt-right despises Sargon of Akkad.

      Pull your head out, Diane. Go to the sources themselves, not the truly-mindless smears of their political opponents, and try to think for yourself.

        1. Needs less acid/meth/bathsalts?

          Brilliant refutation, btw.

  7. Just saw the video. Come on, Security, it was a bunch of kids in skinny jeans for chrissakes.

    1. Agree. Take the noisemaker/bullhorn from the masked idiot and hit him over the head with it. Hard. More than once. What do they think would happen if people in MAGA hats came in to one of THEIR symposiums and started blasting noise on a loudspeaker. (Yes, I know it’s the UK, but it’s the same principle)

      1. Thing is, colleges could stop this instantly. Kick all of them out.

        That they will not shows that the college supports this. Explicitly so.

        1. They also explicitly promise to provide a safe environment for EVERYONE, and also charge, in the students’ tuition, for “security”.

          Breach of contract? Can’t the schools be sued over privileging protest over discussion/debate/learning? Over not supplying a safe environment? You’d think…

  8. Sargon of Akkad’s YouTube channel is an excellent way to keep up with SJW kooks…check it out

    —Colourism is the New Racism

  9. I would pay good money to see a meeting between the Antifa twerps and, say, the Pinketons of 1892.

    1. Or even the Hell’s Angels circa 1970. Or even those biker vets that broke up that progtards student flag burning a few years ago.

      1. That particular tiny handful of noodle-armed progtards, unlike these, were doing utterly nothing wrong (meekly burned American flags in barbecues–to comply with park rules–all alone in a tiny corner of a Prospect Park); and the “biker vets” (i.e. massive, masked off-duty cop “pretend outlaw” biker gang–not that it matters who the fuck they were) that tracked them down and attacked them with hammers and stole their private property for exercising their free speech were universally praised to the heavens in both the conservative and “liberal” press and by every local politician including de Blasio. Absolutely no one, including their fellow leftists, objected to this or defended their rights–except, of all people, the NYPD police commissioner. This was the summer where “flag burning” meant “Dylann Roof,” so it was proggy to wave the flag. (Perversely enough, these particular idiots had been protesting Dylann Roof.) If I were one of them and I heard a prog defending Kaepernick just two years later, I would have spit in his fucking face.

        Anyway, I would pay good money to see the cops from that incident, Antifa, and the resurrected Pinkertons all met by Genghis Khan or Vlad the Impaler or a ship filled with Greek Fire or something.

        1. Addendum: Ignore what I wrote; sorry! I can’t keep track of all the dramatis personae around here–who are the left- and right-wingers and who accept liberal premises, and so forth–and I keep forgetting them. Obviously I didn’t successfully argue from the premises you accept.

          1. While the progtards weren’t breaking the law, it was amusing to have them turn to the cops they were protesting against for protection.

      2. I would pay folding money to watch the Hell’s Angels beat the living shit out of Antifa.

        1. I think a girl scout troupe could do the job just as well.

  10. Robby Soave. Correct your story.

    Sargon of Akkad (Benjamin Carl) is not “alt-right sympathetic.” At all.

    Truly, Robby Soave, if you’re incapable of doing the most basic independent research, whilst simultaneously applying a modicum of critical thinking, you should not be employed by a magazine calling itself “Reason”.

    Benjamin Carl is not “alt-right sympathetic.” The alt-right HATES him, as you’d know if you did 30 seconds of REAL research. Your mischaracterization is either lazy idiocy, or you’re lying to your readers to justify the fascist thuggery of Antifa. Neither looks good for you and Reason.

    CORRECT YOUR STORY, Robby Soave.

    1. New here?

      1. Have some sympathy for the rookies – – – –

    2. you should not be employed by a magazine calling itself “Reason”.


      Look, on a serious note, when someone gets labeled ‘alt-right’, I think it behooves people to determine for themselves if they’re really ‘alt-right’ and it really, really helps to get a definition of terms because I’m still not sure what alt-right is.

      1. I feel like alt-right has fallen into a “I’ll know it when I see it” category.

      2. Alt-Right is still a pretty nebulous term. But it tends to be characterized by race realism and white identity politics. Those are things that Benjamin absolutely rejects. People like myself mock him for it. He’s Alt-Right in the same way that Jared Taylor is a “We Wuz Kangz” Black Supremacist.

        1. Alt-right is the Breitbart/Stormfront/Neo-Nazi crowd.

          1. Q: What do most of those people have in common?

            Race Realism and white identity politics. Well, at least Stormfront and Neo-Nazis. I can’t speak for Breitbart. I don’t think I’ve visited that site in 3 years, and I never once read comments there.

      3. Even the “alt-right” can’t agree on their own definition. Just try having an argument with one. You’ll immediately get the Eternal Strawman (Well I don’t support THAT, so THAT guy isn’t REALLY Alt-Right.)

        Best definition I can put to them, is they’re an army of online trolls who either genuinely hate non-white people (with some justification when it comes to mass-demographic-destroying immigration) or they’re trolls spending most of their lives posting racist memes “for the Lols.”

        The “Alt-Right” calls both Benjamin Carl and Yaron Brook “Cucks”, for operating on principals that are (and should be) utterly agnostic in terms of race/gender/identity.

        1. Even the “alt-right” can’t agree on their own definition.

          This is something that they share with the libertarians. Common ground!

          1. Lulzy. “Common uneven, squishy, mist-covered ground!”

        2. Principles, not principals. (The Principal should always be a “pal”.)

          1. Right, Paloma, thanks. & I called him Benjamin Carl, when his name is clearly Carl Benjamin. My brain knew these things, but my fingers just fucked them up. Stupid short attention span…

      4. I’m still not sure what alt-right is.

        Anyone who believes in less government than Megan McArdle does.

        1. That is certainly how the progs use the term; it’s basically their phantom menace. There are basically no more white-identitarians–or Internet edgelord shitposters–than there ever have been.

          Nonetheless, they also use the term “Nazi” pretty much as you describe; doesn’t mean National Socialism isn’t an ethos.

          I’d say using “alt-right” to refer to people who tie the fate of Western culture and civilization to the strength of the white biological race is just about the best working definition you can use with people (yes there are some) who identify as such. So Vox Day is alt-right because he believes this, even though he describes himself as mixed-race. (He modifies the Fourteen Words to “white people” instead of “our people” to make it a non-speaker-indexed proposition that anyone can assert.) I think Jared Taylor is also alt-right, even though he is the exceedingly rare one who is “neutral” on anti-Semitism. (All others seem to share white identitarianism’s nearly utterly universal obsession with Jews, something that consequently continues to make an excellent litmus test.)

          1. I define it as “not part of a group traditionally classified as right-wing (aka conservatives, evangelicals, libertarians [don’t fucking debate me here, not the point]), generally believes in some form of white supremacy, very anti-PC, and loves pissing off lefties.” Admittedly, it’s basically become a catch-all term the media/the left uses for “nontraditional-platform conservatives we hate”.

            1. What I will fucking debate is your use of the alternating square-round brackets system. Save squares for their dedicated purpose; use em dashes (or even, in a pinch, a second nesting of rounds).

              1. Motherfucker do you fucking math? I fucking math, fucker, and math has you use round on the outside, square on the inside.

                Also what are em dashes?

                (Not trying to be an asshole btw, just wanted to run with the conversation. :))

            2. Well, you guys have probably come closer to a real definition than I’m used to hearing (before you got into the {needless} bracket question).

              I’m starting to see that the most shameless misrepresentation is what gets characterized as “White Supremacy”. It’s used more inappropriately than “Nazi” or even the still-semi-undefined “alt-right”. The term seems to be used in ways that proudly emphasize rather than diminish the charming progtard quality of “reality-denial”. More meta-entertainment.

    3. called him a white nationalist. It must be true (sarcasm).

    4. I was there with you until “fascist thuggery of Antifa.”

      You make good points regarding critical thinking and understanding your topic, which is why I’m flabbergasted that you’d make the error of calling a left-wing group “fascist” which is itself a right-wing ideology that is largely associated with the far right and naziism.

      Antifa are anarchists. The Alt-right are fascists.

      (Although, in fairness, some fascist groups, especially from France, like to wrap themselves in socialist language to try and appeal to the working class. That wrapper doesn’t make them actual socialists.)

      1. Shawn, this is the problem with not operating with an agreed-to definition of terms. You are factually wrong, in any case.

        Fascism (uppercase-F) has historically been a movement of the Left. Both Hitler’s National Socialists & Mussolini’s Fasci di Combattimento (which coined the very term) sprang DIRECTLY form earlier Socialist movements. The membership of both the Sturmabteilung (Hitler’s Brownshirts) & the Fascist Arditi (Mussolini’s own mob of paramilitary thugs) had been breaking heads for Marxist movements just years before. They were exactly the SAME thugs. You are in denial of history when you claim left-wing groups can’t be fascist. They have been from the very start.

        Antifa suckerpunched & overwhelmed security personnel outside; jumped the Administration-ordered barricade (which succeeded only in keeping out hundreds of ticket-buying non-students) charged into the building screaming obscenities; pulled the fire-alarm & (by multiple accounts) lobbed smoke grenades; (by one account) even tried to burn the building down; attempted to tear the microphones from the hands of all three designated speakers on stage; & generally tried to drown-out, harass & intimidate all who attended into going home.

        1. That is FASCIST THUGGERY, committed by left-wing anarcho-COMMUNIST douchebags, who, by the modern interpretation of the word, are absolutely small-f fascists. There’s nothing “anti” about their fascism. & the attendees MOST CERTAINLY weren’t fascists, for listening to a polite & principled discussion between an Objectionist Libertarian & a Classical English Liberal.

          It’s clear to anyone with functioning grey matter who the fascists & antifascists REALLY are. Both Hitler & Mussolini would’ve wholeheartedly approved of the tactics of Antifa, which they re-pioneered for the modern era. A young Stalin would’ve been in there breaking heads for the Revolution, too.

          1. If it were possible for me to upvote you here, I would. Well done.

            1. Thanks!

              Because those who forget history…

            2. A hard-learned lesson: “Don’t reach for the upvote/like/ button on REASON threads”. Done it a hundred times.

              Kind of retro charming. I imagine their servers steam-powered and made of wood, brass and leather, wheezing and sparking, attended by “difference-engine wranglers”…

    5. ‘Truly, Robby Soave, if you’re incapable of doing the most basic independent research, whilst simultaneously applying a modicum of critical thinking, you should not be employed by a magazine calling itself “Reason”.’

      Of course he shouldn’t!

      Most of Reason’s staff are now Progressitives setting fire to Reason’s brand as they send resumes to HuffPo and Salon.

  11. In Antifa, we have a “political” movement with no platform, no philosophy, no bylaws, no organization, and not one in charge. It is pure mob violence against whoever they can stir up the mob. This is very dangerous. The only thing limiting them is in fact their lack of organization.

    1. ..and the fact that a lot of the people they don’t like have guns.


      1. They’re OK with that. Crowder’s bit going undercover with them in Berkeley was fairly chilling.

    2. They seem to be limited to college campuses, and other places where the authorities are sympathetic to, if not outright collaborating with their activities.

      I’m not sure they don’t have any organization. Somebody is paying the bills, and somebody is convincing the social media giants to aid and abet their activities. They also have a very specific group of people that they target.

      1. The dark cloud of fascism is always descending upon Republicans but it always turns out to be composed of progressives and Democrats.

        Look Who Funds The Group Behind The Call To Arms At Milo’s Berkeley Event

        The left-wing group that helped organize the violent shut down of the Milo Yiannopoulos event at the University of California, Berkeley is backed by a progressive charity Alliance for Global Justice that is in turn funded by George Soros, the city of Tucson, a major labor union and several large companies.

        The call to arms succeeded. Yiannopoulos’ talk was cancelled after demonstrators lit fires, vandalized businesses, and assaulted Donald Trump and Yiannopoulos supporters. One Trump backer was attacked with shovels by a group of men clad in black. He was shown laying unconscious in the middle of the street.

        Alliance for Global Justice (AfGJ) received $2.2 million in 2016.

        One of the group’s biggest donors is the Tides Foundation, a non-profit funded by billionaire progressive philanthropist George Soros. Tides gave AfGJ $50,000.

        Other donors include the city of Tucson and the United Steel Workers labor union. The former gave $10,000 to AfGJ while the latter contributed $5,000.

      2. And, a couple of months back, the NY Times did a fashion piece on them. How much more mainstream can you get?

      3. ” other places where the authorities are sympathetic to, if not outright collaborating with their activities ”

        Antifa are the street thugs that Leftist authorities use in lieu of official security forces to maintain a pretense of deniability.

        Antifa can only really operate where the local authorities let them get away with their violence without consequence, while preventing their victims from defending themselves.

        1. ::Ding ding ding ding ding!::

    3. They need regular beat downs to dissuade them. Just like every dirty hippie.

      1. Hippies don’t need beat downs
        Bolsheviks do

    4. I would investigate very carefully before assuming they have no one in charge. When you’re running a criminal organization, (And make no mistake, the Antifa are a criminal conspiracy.) you don’t exactly publish an organizational chart.

    5. Antifa are Anti-Fascist anarchists. Note: “anarchist.”

      So “…no platform, no philosophy, no bylaws, no organization, and not one in charge.” is largely true. (minus “no philosophy–it’s right there in their name!)

      1. Anarchist has for over a century meant violent communist. Look at news reports. The ragged teenager lifts a pistol, pulls the trigger, and as the bullet leaves the muzzle Transubstantiation occurs. At that instant the creep never was a communist and is now exposed as a shape-shifting anarchist who was simply impersonating some poor commie, but is in fact, is now, and ever has been, a commie anarchist. The theology is as clear as any other theology.

        1. Just curious about why you call it a theology as opposed to a philosophy. Is it because they claim to have no philosophy? Personally, I think that having no philosophy is a philosophy. Again, purely curious.

        2. Or because of their zealotry/fanaticism?

      2. Yet they never direct their ire and violence against the statists of the left.

        Dude, you’ve vomited your pig ignorance all over this comment section. Maybe you should begin to question your preconceived notions, or why your educators have left you so ill informed about reality..

        Or at least give it a rest.

      3. Well now, they do SAY they’re anti-fascist, so it goes to follow…

  12. “I’m not sure whether I’d want to sit through a discussion between these two, and there are many reasons one might object to both Brooks’ and Benjamin’s views on libertarian grounds.” Robby, it’s possible to write articles about this stuff without the unnecessary disclaimer that you think these guys are icky.

  13. Hmmm, maybe it’s me Robby, but the ones I actually saw throwing punches were the right wing goons. Oh well, nevertheless, racist crackpots will probably be passing this video on to each other for decades and showing up to rallies like the ones I have personally attended equipped with brass knuckles. I guess it’s all good.

    1. Conservatives fought back? Good! Your kind have no right to exist. Slaver pieces of shit that you are. Though you’re probably lying. As you are a known liar and cheat.

    2. Why are you attending rallies with brass knuckles?

      1. The Right to Keep and Bear Knuckles

    3. The “right wing” was not represented here at all. Stop being so intellectually-lazy. An Objectivist Libertarian was to debate a Classical Liberal, which a mob of Communist morons calling themselves Antifa stopped from taking place, via threats of violence and the heckler’s veto.

      Almost every Antifa member willing to speak on camera are proud Revolutionary Communists. If their Glorious Worker’s Revolution ever DID sweep into power, they’d be the first group of Vladimir Lennon’s “useful idiots” to be Stood Against The Wall and Shot.

      This was a Libertarian debating an English Liberal, shut down by a mob of NeoMarxist Brownshirts. The only racists here were the self-hating white Antifa NEETs. I’d wager whatever you “personally attended” is absolutely irrelevant to this event at King’s College.

      Racist crackpots will certainty be passing this video around, but so effing what? Everyone else will spread this vid – and so they should.

      Behold the intelligent and honorable “Resistance” of these wonderful “Anti”Fascists!

      1. I saw nothing in this video that justified what I saw at 0:19.

        1. I’m trying to figure out what justified what happened at 00:00

        2. Robespierre, the Antifa douchebag knocked his girlfriend over.

          Here is the justification from the attendee himself. Explanation starts at 1:32.

          Honestly, if one of these masked emaciated thugs pushed MY fiancee’ to the floor, he’d be lucky if got out that room with all his teeth.

          How do YOU justify initiating this violent encounter, Robespierre?

          Don’t run away. Let’s hear an intelligent answer.

          1. “Don’t run away. Let’s hear an intelligent answer.”

            You’re addressing commie kid; a slimy piece of shit who bailed on his mortgage, by self-admission.
            You think a pathetic excuse for humanity like that is going to respond to being caught red-handed?
            Good luck!

          2. I saw nothing in this video that justified what I saw at 0:19

          3. By the way the explanation that was given by these two– that they were pushed and that the guys tranny girlfriend was pushed– is total bullshit. You can watch the whole thing here:

            Violent fanatic started throwing punches without provocation

            1. Yeah, it doesn’t look like the attendee’s account holds water.

              I’ll concede he was ready to throw fists. But that sure as shit doesn’t make him a “violent fanatic,” nor did he act “without provocation.” The masked thugs charged into the room to PROVOKE a violent reaction. They suckerpunched & overwhelmed security personnel outside, jumped the barricades & rushed in screaming obscenities; tried to tear the microphones away from all three speakers, & generally intimidate everyone into going home.

              Antifa started the violence, hoping to be met with violence, & as far as I’m concerned, they’re lucky none of em took a REAL beatdown, which is what LARPing as violent savages SHOULD get you.

              Almost every last soyboy crusader would QUIT – the first time he took the pummeling he deserves as a vile Communist douche. Despite what your 1st Grade Teacher said, violence can solve EVERYthing. & if it comes to it, who’re the ones who believe in & practice the 2nd Amendment? 120 lb Antifa NEETs won’t even be a speedbump.

              1. I guess we just see different things here. I haven’t seen what the attendee claimed, but the video seems very clear: Antifa goon bumped him good with a shoulder–apparently by accident as he came off the stage. Dude in the suit steadied him, said something, and then antifa goon shoved him. After the shove, suit guy proceeded to give him a beatdown.

            2. Guys busting into a room wearing masks and acting aggressively are a legit perceived threat.

    4. I don’t think assembling with the other hobos at the bus station counts as a rally.

  14. It would be awesome if some can mservatove group publicized an event that Antifa couldn’t resist attacking and set them up for a savage beat down. Going to the extent of ho,ding the commie trash, unmasking, photographing and taking. Copies of ID from any of them with a wallet.

    Antifa leftists must learn to live in fear. They have no right to exist. If they start suffering real casualties, they will think twice about some of their activities. Just like any bully when they get hit back enough.

    1. Might not work out as you hope. Antifa only seems to act in areas where they know the authorities will protect them if they bite off more than they can chew. You have to admire the deviousness of Berkeley’s trick of only arresting people afterward who they could identify in the video, i.e. people not wearing masks, i.e. conservatives. You don’t see them attacking conservative rallies in Dallas or Birmingham.

      1. So bring in masked conservatives to beat the Antifa thugs and had them disperse quickly. It would need some careful planning, but very doable.

        1. Yeah um, you get right in that.

      2. “Antifa only seems to act in areas where they know the authorities will protect them if they bite off more than they can chew. ”

        They only attack when they have collaborating Leftist authorities to protect them from security forces, and use the security forces against their victims
        Occasionally they get stupid and hit a cop and then they get fucked
        A little friendly fire is inevitable
        No biggie

    2. Also recall the Berkeley protest where the cops sat back and watched as the antifa attempted to beat up conservative demonstrators, then when the antifa cowards had to retreat because they were getting their asses kicked, the cops finally intervened.

      1. Yep

        Antifa attacks where they have the local security forces taking orders from people on their side
        I don’t think too many cops are that sympathetic to them, but orders are orders

    3. they will think twice about some of their activities

      You mean showing up at a political meeting?

      1. …in order to beat up the participants. Yo forgot that clause.

        1. Where’d they do that?

          1. They turned on sirens and bullhorns. When told to back up, they didn’t. Non Aggression Principle means whoever INITIATES force can and should be met with force. Entitled little Antifa clowns think that their opposition has to turn the other cheek. That’s stupid because they don’t.

  15. At least those conservative snowflakes are just as bad, eh?

    “Benjamin has a history of making disgusting comments and defending unsavory characters. I’m not sure whether I’d want to sit through a discussion between these two, and there are many reasons one might object to both Brooks’ and Benjamin’s views on libertarian grounds.”

    You presume to be in a position of ‘objective centrist’ to make such an assertion but I’d argue that’s misplaced.

    Big fricken shit and provide specifics. People object to all kinds of things.

    It doesn’t detract from the fact they’re entitled to speak.

    “Once again, it’s hard to tell which guys are supposed to be the ones who are actually against fascism.”

    I hope this is you just trying to be cute. You just – correctly – said Antifa is illiberal.

    How about campuses start to press charges and have the police actually arrest these jerk offs? Every time they get away with this shit, they’re emboldened. Put an end to this pathetic, violent group of left-wing idiots.

  16. No its not hard to tell…Robbie. Sometimes you can be such a little Pissant. It’s the “whatever” attitude…I can picture the rolling of the eyes. You’re an intellectual the way pop culture is art.

  17. Once again, it’s hard to tell which guys are supposed to be the ones who are actually against fascism.

    It’s real easy to tell which ones are the fascists, though. Maybe we could get some pacifist group to beat the shit out of them.

    1. The racists are always the ones on the left. As fascism is a leftist construct (another bastard child of Marxism).

      1. Nazis, fascists, and other white nationalists are your conservative brethren, pal.

        1. National socialists are still socialist. This is antithetical to conservatism. Again, Nazis are a leftist construct. That they are evil is only more proof of their leftism. Just as you are evil. Seriously, do you see a dishwasher nest slaver statist piece of shit such as yourself as a good person? You’re not.

          You’re an evil, nasty piece of garbage. Own what you are.

        2. There’s nothing “conservative” about a fascist total state. Leftists, such as yourself own fascism, communism, socialism and all of the associated horrors therein.

  18. This is terrorism and I CONDEMN IT. Still, it happened in the UK where they don’t have free speech or freedom of association. Their government bans ‘extremist’ groups and so they resort to thuggery. We should not use this event as a pretext to criminalize dissent in our own great country. Remember, the people who disrupted Trump’s rallies will be remembered as heroes. They were booted after a few minutes and the event proceeded. No need to make them martyrs and radicalize their followers. Our country was founded on free speech and that extends to the listener as well. There is no ‘right’ not to be interrupted. And if anyone responds to my comment I will consider that an interruption and will prosecute you to the fullest extent of the law:

  19. Antifa agitators shut down an event at the King’s College in London featuring Ayn Rand Institute President Yaron Brook and alt-right sympathetic Youtube personality Carl Benjamin (a.k.a. Sargon of Akkad).

    Robby, I know it’s hard to find time to actually do any journalistic work, and I know that Reason has given up any sort of semblance of intellectual standards for the shit they publish, but this is low for even you.

    Carl “Sargon of Akkad” Benjamin is hated by the Alt Right and has an ongoing feud with them. He’s gone so far as to trying to creat a “Classically Liberal” Movement to counter the Progressives and the Alt Right. This is all available by even a cursory look into who he is. You are so intellectually dishonest that you can’t be bothered to even look up the most basic facts about the people you are going to smear.

    Why don’t you do the world a favor and an Hero. Maybe someone with a modicum of honesty could take your place.

    1. Who cares? All these crazies are the same and if you disagree then just post another comment explaining the difference and hope someone actually cares:

      1. That’s the point. Reason doesn’t care about intellectual honesty and will publish any made up fake story that crosses their desk.

        Also, Dajjal, I want to offer you the same sage advice I offered Robby. An Hero. You should look into it.

        1. You first, Kivlor:

  20. See, Robby? Articles like this are why I don’t cave when Reasons asks for money. You claimed Mr. Benjamin sympathized with the alt-right, but that’s not true. You see, I follow him on YouTube, and he bashes the alt-right all the time, because they are just as identitarian collectivist as Antifa.

  21. Lazy, sloppy writing. What the hell does alt-right even mean? Sympathetic? Just lazy, sloppy writing. How about doing some homework rather than lazily defining someone with an ill-defined “alt-right”. It erroneously lumps Sargon as maybe white supremacist. How about “liberal Sargon of Akkad” as he defines himself or classical liberal Sargon of Akkad? How about defining it as a debate between a small ‘l’ libertarian and an objectivist?

    Defining Sargon as alt-right sympathetic shows you either know nothing about Sargon, or have a very different definistion of alt-right than google, or you’re just a sloppy lazy writer.

    1. Fine but then why does “North London Antifa” say he is? At least put in the effort to read the article before you accuse the author of being ‘lazy’.

      1. Because to most people in Antifa, anyone to the right of Chairman Mao is Alt-Right. Because they’re insane. Pretty easy to understand.

        1. Like I said, all these crazies are the same. Including the ones who get all worked up about the differences.

        2. Yeah, illiterate thugs wearing masks whose sole goal is to attack people and shut down speech aren’t really rational.

  22. “Once again, it’s hard to tell which guys are supposed to be the ones who are actually against fascism.”

    It’s pretty darned clear which guys aren’t actually against fascism: The fascists calling themselves “anti-fascists”.

  23. What a disappointing fight. People should really take some MMA lessons.

    1. Needs more text so I can tell if it’s a joke account.

    2. During the violence at Berkeley, MMA fighter Jake shields intervened to stop some Antifa cowards from beating an unarmed Trump supporter. When police did nothing.

  24. The University of Miami School of Law is similarly shutting down ‘dissent’ and will not allow the scary Charles Murray on campus without billing the hosting student organization over $8,000 for ‘security’.

    1. ” billing the hosting student organization over $8,000 for ‘security'”

      You can get yourself a whole law degree for half that from the ‘University of Bangkok.’

      1. mtrueman|8.30.17 @ 1:42PM|#
        “Spouting nonsense is an end in itself.”
        You can look it up.

        1. Or just continue nipping at my heels. You can do that too.

    2. I’d pay it — only if I got to choose the security. And then allowed them to wound any asshole who wanted to cause a problem.

      1. Hire the Hell’s Angels. It worked for the Rolling Stones.

    3. It’s funny how when it comes to police protection for the Right, universities all of a sudden go all ancap and expect the right to pay to have their rights defended.

  25. Curious how Twitter let’s these clowns operate without the ban-hammer. I’ve seen guys banned for simply calling a feminist a liar.

    1. A whimpering conservative is among my favorite conservatives.

      1. A slimy lefty is among my least favorite pieces of shit.

      2. I get it now! You are the Stephen Colbert of the Right! You are GOOD at it too! Had me going for a while… lol

    2. See: Robert Stacy McCain, who’s been writing about the evils of feminism for a while now and has been banned from Twitter twice. Their ban-hammer rules don’t apply to anyone left of center.

  26. But – the real issue here is Israel. And eventually Reason will have to wade into that battle…..

  27. Haven’t looked into the comments yet, but I don’t care if I repeat what others are saying.
    Fuck you, Robby, you disingenuous lying twat!
    Sargon is not an “alt-right sympathizer.” He is a self-described leftie who gained popularity by calling out the excesses of modern feminism and SJW politics. He has repeatedly called out the alt-right even if he does attempt to not salaciously mischaracterize them.
    Stop pandering to the SJW and socialist crowd. Antifa is once again on the wrong side of things. In this case, I think it’s fair to say that they are objectively the aggressors as well as proponents of worse ideas.

  28. Thanks for calling me out, people. It does looks to me like the mainstream outlets reporting on Sargon’s view did not paint an entirely accurate picture, so I’ve made a correction.

    1. Vox is a “mainstream news outfit” ?

      I hate the mainstream fake news media but I hardly think they deserve that.

    2. This is your error, Robby–

      Once again, it’s hard to tell which guys are supposed to be the ones who are actually against fascism.

      The one you never correct.

      You know damned well that neither Carl or Yaron supports anything that remotely resembles fascism while the only thing that’s anti-fascist about antifa is the “anti” misnomer.

      Why do you endlessly give the people determined to crush liberty the benefit of the doubt?

    3. Well, it was good while it lasted.

    4. Working the ref does pay off after all.

    5. “I initially described Benjamin as “alt-right sympathetic,” consistent with how mainstream news outlets have portrayed him.

      (“Mainstream” = Vox, Salon, Mic?)

      But upon further investigation, those reports seem misleading. “

      “sadly i was compelled to denounce people whose work i have zero personal familiarity with, because repetition of left-wing denunciations is standard operating procedure for me until someone actually complains and pwns me on it. LOL well at least i tried, suck it, lozers”


      1. What i actually find most implausible in this whole thing?

        Is that you pretend ignorance of who the guy is. and that your denunciation was based entirely on parroting the claims of others.

        He’s not quite TYT, but Sargon has 2X the subscribers Reason magazine does on Youtube. He’s not exactly an unknown, obscure item.

        You should damn well know who he is, and what his content is, and if you’re throwing out damnations of a person, doing so without any personal, firsthand reference? you’re either incompetent, or willfully pumping untruth.

        1. “You should damn well know who he is, and what his content is,”

          Why? Speaking only for myself, I have only barely heard of the guy. It sounds like just from the comments here that his main claim to fame is that he hates SJW’s, not that he is particularly libertarian.

          1. Although in fairness, I don’t watch a lot of Youtube, hardly any at all. So if his main thing is to broadcast on Youtube then that’s probably why I have no idea who he is.

          2. “” It sounds like “”

            1. Because that’s the impression I’m getting from the comments here.

              What impression would you like me to have of him?

              1. I have zero interest in what your “impressions” are,

                …and would prefer you, like any rational human being, based your opinions on firsthand experience mixed w/ healthy doses of skepticism

                but this is a vain hope, because i already know you.

      2. Robbie,

        You gave in to this uncouth right-wing fanatic? Why? Fuck him.

        1. …probably because Robby saw blowback, looked into it, realized he was wrong, and corrected himself? It’s what intelligent people with enough humility to admit they sometimes screw up do.

          Nevermind. I forgot who I was responding to.

          1. “Nevermind. I forgot who I was responding to.”

            Commie-kid is still supporting an ideology which caused more deaths of innocent people (in absolute terms) than all the 20th century wars.
            And still (s)he claims thereby some sort of morality. Some *sort* of morality…
            I’m not sure what sort of mental issues would allow or support that sort of delusion, but suffice to say it is an issue which probably needs professional help.
            Personally, I propose that commie kid go die in a fire to the benefit of humanity.

          2. A,Soc would never give up the con. No matter how busted he was.

            1. Always double down. ALWAYS. Busted? Proved wrong? Factually refuted? Doesn’t matter…that’s what ad hom and strawmanning and ‘guilt by association’ are for.

    6. Robby Soave|3.5.18 @ 9:31PM|#
      “Thanks for calling me out, people. It does looks to me like the mainstream outlets reporting on Sargon’s view did not paint an entirely accurate picture, so I’ve made a correction.”

      I do not recall beating on you, but for pete’s sake, you wait for the great unwashed to comment before you do research?
      Not cool. Not cool at all.

    7. Robby, are you reading the msm and just reporting on what they report? I mean, you are reporting on their reporting? I am confused. Should I just stop reading Reason and hang out on CNN or something?

  29. “The shut down was premeditated?activists organized it through a Facebook event. KCL Socialist Students, Intersectional Feminist Society, Kashmir Solidarity Movement, KCL LGBT+, KCL Action Palestine Society, KCL Justice For Cleaners, and the Demilitarise King’s campaign were all involved, according to The Washington Examiner.”

    Hey Rubes! Just be thankful they didn’t unleash the Gurkhas on your sorry fascist asses!

    1. mtrueman|8.30.17 @ 1:42PM|#
      “Spouting nonsense is an end in itself.”
      You can look it up.

      1. We support any escalation in the culture wars. Bring the chickens home to roost.

  30. Here’s the actual debate & disruption: . It’s an interesting discussion, but the illiterate Antifa thugs break in at 13:13.

    Behold the intelligence & bravery of “Anti”Fascists.

    1. They must really be sure in the logic of their position…..

    2. The Antifa thugs should have been beaten within an inch of their lives, then hauled off to jail.

  31. “. . . it’s hard to tell which guys are supposed to be the ones who are actually against fascism.”

    Try thinking a little harder.

  32. the next time I show up to a place where A libertarian anti-political correctnesss speaker is going to give a talk I’ll make sure to bake a cake with pink frosting and rainbow sprinkles to prophelatically prevent myself from being punched in the face, hit over the head with a metal bar, or run over by a car. I want to spread the love, you know.

    1. Robespierre Josef Stalin Pot|3.5.18 @ 10:41PM|#
      “the next time I show up to a place where A libertarian…”
      Please, make the world a better place and jump off a high bridge. We will all thank you and I’d bet your dog will too.

      1. Let’s be real. His dog is actually a dead squirrel, stuffed into a dead rabbit, sewed onto a Tonka truck.

    2. You don’t really think the guys in the black masks were just there to listen to the lecture?

      1. It was cold?

  33. Real fascists wear masks.

    1. Real fascists would beat the hell out of these jackasses.

  34. Oh lord, he labeled Vox as a mainstream outlet. He’s just trolling everyone now.

  35. I find it amusing that so many here seem to be upset that Robby isn’t evidently immediately familiar with who this Sarkon fellow is. Why should he? What are his views that are particularly libertarian?

    1. “”Robby isn’t evidently immediately familiar with who this Sarkon fellow is.””

      Just for laughs,

      please explain how a writer can both be

      1) “not be familiar with someone’s views”

      and then write

      2) –“there are many reasons one might object to… Benjamin’s views on libertarian grounds”

      I eagerly await your explanation of how this is “very-responsible and mature journalism”, rather than “shitty, knee-jerk hackery”

      1. I’m not defending anything. I am simply asking why this Sarkon guy is supposed to be, evidently, the modern-day version of Milton Friedman and Ayn Rand at least as far as libertarianism is concerned.

        1. Christ, what an asshole

          1. Gilmore, why should I or any libertarian-minded person care about this Sarkon guy?

            Can you at least answer that question without being a smug asshole?

            I’m not going to sit through hours of Youtube video by a guy who, up to this point anyway, hasn’t mattered a whit to me one way or another.

            But hey, maybe someone like you, who is evidently familiar with his work, can persuade me that his videos are worth watching without being a condescending prick about it.

            1. (Taking you at your word that you want an explanation)

              Honestly, he is not particularly libertarian (I’m not convinced Robby is particularly libertarian either). He is a UK liberal that makes (I think) entertaining rant videos about feminists, SJWs, progressive lunacy, etc. His critiques are succinct but usually more “preaching to the choir” than persuasive. Just a thumbnail of his positions, he is:

              -staunchly free speech
              -Viruliently pro-capitalism
              -anti PC
              -anti feminist
              -anti collectivist
              -pretty nationalist on immigration
              -sympathetic to entitlements (welfare, single payer healthcare)

              He’s not that much different politically than most of the “skeptic” community on YouTube: Chris Raygun, SomeBlackGuy, Rubin, etc who all tend to be center left liberals who don’t go for proggie silliness.

              I tend to enjoy him, I think his philosophy is grounded in enlightenment liberalism but there are some positions that he has not thought all the way through and completely disagree with him. We all have blind spots. If you want and angry-fun y YouTube ranter, he’s is pretty good. Just listen to one of his “this week in stupid” segments and that should give you all the flavor to tell if it is your bag or not. If you like it or don’t, there is nothing wrong with you

              1. Why thank you Texasmotiv for the explanation. (See Gilmore? That wasn’t so hard.) I will be honest, I guess I am an “old fogey” now since when I think of Youtube I tend to think of cat videos and playing music, and I don’t think of political commentary. So I don’t know who those other Youtubers are either. But it sounds like this Sargon guy isn’t exactly some libertarian luminary that we all should be intimately familiar with, a la Milton Friedman or even John Stossel, but just some random guy who occasionally finds common cause with libertarians on some issues, but on other issues, is pretty far off the reservation.

            2. Gilmore, why should I or any libertarian-minded person care about this Sarkon guy?

              You don’t have to care about him or anybody else but if you are going to write a fucking article about the guy and slime him with a label you should probably have at least some fucking clue what you’re talking about so that you don’t look like an ignorant asshole. It’s okay that you never have a fucking clue what you’re talking about and habitually look like an ignorant asshole because nobody is paying to read your drivel and don’t expect you to have any standards. Robby Soave holds himself out as a journalist and is employed by a news magazine. It’s his fucking JOB that he gets fucking PAID FOR to do some basic fact-checking before he libels someone under the banner of his employer. Do you get it now, you stupid piece of shit? Or do you need it broken down into mono-syllabic words for you?

              Oh and you can stop intentionally misspelling his internet alias to signal how above this type of thing you are. It’s in the heading of your browser screen.

              1. Uh-oh, looks like I triggered someone!

                Would you like a binky?

            3. I’m not going to sit through hours of Youtube video by a guy who, up to this point anyway, hasn’t mattered a whit to me one way or another.

              That’s perfectly fine, unless you’re planning to write an article about him slandering his character and/or political stances. Then maybe, just maybe, you might want to actually do a little research into the subject matter, rather than parroting the opinions of people who hate him.

            4. “why should I or any libertarian-minded person care about this Sarkon guy?”

              Had you led with that argument you might not be looking like a total asshole.

              Instead you chose otherwise.

              So, exactly what was it that you found “amusing?” Tell me again?

          2. Look, G, Robby obviously did a quick Google search and went with what he found. When he got blowback, he looked deeper, realized he was wrong, and corrected himself. Now pull that stick out of your ass.

            1. Nope, Jeff tried to affect some sort of ‘above it all’ pose, got shot down for his own rhetroical sloppiness, then wanted to deflect rather than defend his – otherwise indefensible – position that it was the readers who were the problem here (nothing more than a variation on the ‘republicans overreach’ media response to democrat malfeasance.)

              This shit gets old.

        2. “I’m not defending anything.”

          Especially not yourself, having been neatly called to the carpet.

          No, you are just deflecting.

    2. Chemjeff:

      I think my explanation above was pretty straight forward: it is journalistic malpractice to write and publish an article about a person and their “deplorable” views when you haven’t even done as much as a simple Google search into the guy.

      I’m not upset Robby made a mistake.

      I like some of Benjamin’s work, but I recognize that he’s not mainstream. I don’t expect anyone to know who he is. However, if you are going to write an article about someone, at least bother to spend an hour figuring out a little bit about the guy.

      1. -“”Robby made a mistake.””

        Exactly the same sort of ‘mistake’ he makes in all of his writing, going back to soon after he was hired

        Its not a ‘mistake’. Its method.

        1. Not sure ‘lazy as fuck’ counts as method.

          But the ‘parrotting whatever the Vox line is’ surely is.

  36. The other guy:

    Without physical and spiritual support by these states, the Islamic Totalitarian cause would be a hopeless, discredited one, with few if any willing to kill in its name. Thus, the first order of business in a proper response to 9/11 would have been to end state support of Islamic Totalitarianism?including ending the Iranian regime that is its fatherland. -Yaron Brook

    What a kook! What kind of libertarian group invites this guy?

    1. Last I checked he hasn’t killed 60 million people.

    2. I’m not seeing the problem here… I would think ending state support of any type of totalitarianism would be a good idea, no?

  37. What is the alt right, you ask? So glad you inquired!

    Hint: Includes some anti-Christian neo-paganism. The philosophical kind, not the goat-sacrificing kind.

    1. Actually a pretty interesting article. I’m an Atheist and am not a racist but interesting nonetheless.

    2. To be clear, the article is *about* the neo-pagan connections of the alt-right, the article itself isn’t neo-pagan.

    3. Yep. There’s some neo-pagans that are covered under the label. The label is not particularly useful if it includes far-right Christians, atheists and neo-pagans. People who would otherwise be at each others throats except they have their backs against the wall and a much more pressing enemy at their collective throats.

  38. ” anti-political-correctness Youtube personality”


    “Yes! totally a nazi”

    oh wait, they’re a leftist. well… they don’t like speech codes.! But…
    well.. isn’t that what does too?

    *(handwave vigorously) “probably associated with known associates of alt-right quasi nazis!!”

  39. Why the 2nd Amendment is important.

  40. How do these fucking masked terrorists get away with shit? Unfuckingbelievable!

    1. They get away with it because they only attack there the authorities who control the local security forces are on their side and won’t enforce the law against *them*

  41. anti-fascist

    They keep using this word. I do not think it means what they think it means.

    1. They know what it should mean. That is why they are trying to remove that thought from the political arena.

    2. They say “we’re anti-fascist”, therefore, whoever they attack, no matter the tactics they use, the people they attack will be instantly labeled fascists. Maybe that’s what. That is going by the assumption that the general public will only retain the last thing they hear.

  42. alt-right, like assault rifle is a made up word with no actual meaning, that is used solely for political diatribe.

    1. I’d say there’s two basic definitions:

      (a) Certain real-life people who believe in some form in white nationalism/separatism (eg, this Spencer guy)

      (b) Someone a progressive doesn’t like.

      Which definition is in use depends on the context.

      1. That seems to fit with what I’ve seen too.

  43. i am happy and i want to share that My PREVIOUS month’s on-line financial gain is $6500. i am currently ready to fulfill my dreams simply and reside home with my family additionally. I work just for two hours on a daily basis. everybody will use this home profit system by this link.


    1. You should stay happy and we will all ignore you so that you can make even MORE money by having less competition!

  44. The sick part is that the governments over in Europe seem to be on the same side as these thugs in their opposition to free speech, and the tech giants that now rule the Internet are firmly in agreement as well: YouTube/Google, Twitter, FB, etc.

    Never heard of this guy before, but reading about this event on Twitter the speaker “Sargon of Akkad” just had his YouTube account disabled, videos are blocked completely in the UK and restricted in the U.S. . . . and for what?

    1. I like some of what Sargon has to say and so drop by his channel occasionally. He’s too progressive for me, and actually rather boring/conspiracy theorist-ish…Sorry man! I do hope that both his channel and Mr. Brooks get more attention from this disgusting display of university sanctioned thuggery and that people judge for themselves since the media couldn’t care less about the truth. Most certainly, neither of them are threatening characters/fascists. Absurd.

  45. In the Google play newstand app, this article calls Sargon an “alt-right sympathetic YouTube personality”. Strange that the content on both platforms differs from one another.

    The author of this article needs to do the bare minimum of research before putting out a piece with their foot stuffed in their own mouth.

    Go watch Sargon on YouTube. He isn’t a facist. He is very liberal, close to a classical liberal. But not quite there. He defends unsavory characters not for their unsavory actions but based on the principles that Sargon believes in.

    Sargon is not alt-right. He debates against the alt-right often. The alt-right despise Sargon because he makes them look like a bunch of circus monkeys.

    Reason, do a better job of checking your writer’s content. This is just pitiful.

    1. Honestly, I’m being reading Reason less and less lately.

      1. Same here. They’re really gone off the rails in the last year and a half. Fascists attack a liberal and they call the liberal alt-right.

        That’s okay though, gotta go to those cocktail parties, right Reason?

      2. I like the comments section… Smart people in there.

  46. “…I’m not sure whether I’d want to sit through a discussion between these two” said the guy who talked with May Koss. –…..s-of-rape/

  47. If they’re anti-fascist, then why are they wearing black shirts?

  48. Who’s a thunk the looter mainstream news outlets could possibly be wrong or lying about anything?

    1. I’d say! Call the…. media?

  49. “Once again, it’s hard to tell which guys are supposed to be the ones who are actually against fascism.”

    Actually, it is very easy to see which guys are really opposed to fascism.

  50. The only appropriate way to counter this is with force, with violence. Ideally the institution should be protecting the speakers (i.e. providing sufficient force) and both identifying and ejecting the people trying to shut them down.

    But if they will not do that, then the organisers need to do so. That is unfortunate, but it is also just the way it is. Unmask them and beat them until they leave. And if you are not prepared to do that, then don’t hold the event. That is where we are now sadly. Fight back.

  51. “CORRECTION: I initially described Benjamin as “alt-right sympathetic,” consistent with how mainstream news outlets have portrayed him. But upon further investigation, those reports seem misleading. Benjamin claims to stridently reject the alt-right and has quarreled with its members.”

    “I get my information about YouTube personalities to the right of Mao from the MSM, because I have personal experience about how completely accurate they have been when characterizing Reason.”

    Funny, I don’t recall The Hair ever calling anyone “Antifa sympathetic”, “Marxist sympathetic”, “socialist sympathetic”, or “communist sympathetic”.

    Keep in mind that Sargon is a classical liberal. Reason now trots about calling classical liberals “alt-right sympathetic” when they are attacked by mobs of Marxists.

    If not for Ron and Ed, this place would be HuffPo.

    1. “Benjamin claims to stridently reject the alt-right ” He CLAIMS… umhm…

  52. I initially described Benjamin as “alt-right sympathetic,” consistent with how mainstream news outlets have portrayed him

    Glad to see the correction, but jeez, how irresponsible to hang a label on a guy just b/c that’s how others describe him. Is that the standard of this news site?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.