Free Speech

Antifa Demands Powell's Stop Selling Andy Ngo's Book, Forces Store To Close Early

"This book will not be on our store shelves, and we will not promote it. That said, it will remain in our online catalogue."

|

Far-left activists surrounded Powell's Books in Portland on Monday and demanded the store stop selling Unmasked: Inside Antifa's Radical Plan to Destroy Democracy, a book about antifa written by Andy Ngo. The protests forced the store to close early.

Powell's announced that it would not carry the book in its physical store, though it will still be available for purchase online.

"This book will not be on our store shelves, and we will not promote it," said Powell's in a statement. "That said, it will remain in our online catalogue. We carry books that we find anywhere from simply distasteful or badly written, to execrable, as well as those that we treasure. We believe it is the work of bookselling to do so."

Ngo, who has documented antifa's tactics for various conservative news websites and was once attacked by the group, tweeted video footage of the protesters. One such protester claimed that disrupting the book's dissemination was akin to "stopping the historical publication of Hitler's 'Mein Kampf.'"

Powell's noted that the store is committed to free speech, and previously received "credible bomb threats" for selling books by Salman Rushdie, whose 1988 book The Satanic Verses made the author a target of Islamic extremists:

There are books in our stores and online inventory that contain ideas that run counter to our company's and our employees' values of safety, equality, and justice. However, many of us also read these books to inform ourselves about events; learn about local and global history; and to understand the arguments of people and groups with whom we disagree. While we understand that our decision to carry such books upsets some customers and staff members, we do not want to create an echo chamber of preapproved voices and ideas. It is not our mission or inclination to decide to whom our customers should listen.

The store's owners are entirely correct to assert their right to sell books on a wide range of subjects, even if some of these books do not meet with the approval of far-left activists. Antifa takes the view that no one should be allowed to report critically on its activities. Despite their benign-sounding moniker (which is short for "antifascism"), people associated with antifa deliberately practice illiberalism: They wish to deny free speech protections to the far-right and its enablers, a group of enemies that antifa defines very broadly. Indeed, in this case, the enablers of fascism evidently include a book store that isn't even carrying the objectionable tome on its shelves.

Few acts of censorship are as overt as a mob deciding which books other people should be allowed to read. The authoritarian behavior of Portland's progressive activist community is a subject well worth exploring in book form.

NEXT: Latin American Socialism Comes Home To Roost in Spain

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

  1. “Technically, what Trump attempted is what’s known as a “self-coup” and Trump isn’t the first leader to try it. Charles Louis Napoleon Bonaparte (nephew of the first Napoleon) pulled one off in France in December 1851 to stay in power beyond his term. Then he declared himself Emperor, Napoleon III. More recently, Nicolas Maduro perpetrated a self-coup in Venezuela after losing the 2017 elections.”

    https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2021/01/11/capitol-riot-self-coup-trump-fiona-hill-457549

    1. I frankly don’t think Trump is smart enough or devious enough to attempt a “self-coup”. He was just there riling up the crowd with zero concern about the effects his words or rhetoric would have on the mob. He just wanted their adulation and praise.

      1. Try to stay on topic you two, and stop dodging the farcical left and their blm antifa brown shirts.

        You helped promote them, so you own them.

        1. I am making over $9k a month working part time. I stored being attentive to different human beings inform me how much money they are able to make on line so I decided to lok into it.TDg well, it turned into all actual and has completely modified my life.

          That is what I do…. Home Profit System

          1. That is how much your mom made doing ANAL

            1. [ PART TIME JOB FOR USA ] Making money online more than 15$ just by doing simple work from home. I have received $18376 last month. Its an easy and simple jobS to do and its earnings are much better than regular office XXX job and even a little child EDD can do this and earns money. Everybody must try this job by just use the info
              on this page…..READ MORE

        2. Try to stay on topic you two, and stop dodging the farcical left and their blm antifa brown shirts.

          Actually, Antifa likes to wear literal black shirts. Just like the Duce’s followers.

      2. You’re Botha a couple of faggot retards. Why don’t you take your brilliant prog discourse over to Vox or WaPo. They love your kind there. They even like pedophilia enthusiasts like you Tubby.

        1. I am making over $9k a month working part time. I stored being attentive to different human beings inform me how much money they are able to make on line so I decided to lok into it.EWs well, it turned into all actual and has completely modified my life.

          That is what I do…. Home Profit System

        2. Botha? The former South African president? What’s he got to do with this?

          1. [ PART TIME JOB FOR USA ] My mothers neigh bour is working part time and averaging $9000 a month. i’m a single mum and just got my first paycheck for $6546! i still can’t believe it. i tried it out cause i got really desperate and now i couldn’t be happier. heres what i do..

            Copy Here………>> USA ONLINE JOBS

      3. I know. Telling his fans to peacefully March is totally incitement fatwit.

        Meanwhile your side continues to support banning books, continues to riot in Portland, is creating enemies databases, is silencing political opponents, is punching mayors, and is making the rest of the US aghast at their censorship attempts.

        Good work fatwit.

        1. Orange-dick-suckers will NEVER stop sucking orange dick!

          Der TrumpfenFuhrer ***IS*** responsible for agitating fro democracy to be replaced by mobocracy!

          https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/24/politics/trump-election-warnings-leaving-office/index.html
          A list of the times Trump has said he won’t accept the election results or leave office if he loses
          Essential heart and core of the LIE by Trump: “ANY election results not confirming MEEE as Your Emperor, MUST be fraudulent!”
          September 13 rally: “The Democrats are trying to rig this election because that’s the only way they’re going to win,” he said.

          Trump’s constant re-telling and supporting the Big Lie (any election not electing Trump is “stolen”) set up the environment for this (insurrection riot) to happen. He shares the blame. Boys will be boys? Insurrectionists will be insurrectionists, so let’s forgive and forget? Poor Trump was misunderstood? Does that sound good and right and true?

          It really should immediately make us think of Krystallnacht. Hitler and the NAZIs set up for this by constantly blaming Jews for all things bad. Jew-haters will be Jew-haters, so let’s forgive and forget? Poor Hitler was misunderstood? Does that sound good and right and true?

          1. Your guys are banning books. You lose.

            1. Your guys are lusting after replacing democracy with mob-ocracy… Because the Amphibian People told you that the election was stolen! And you believed! You lose! Democracy will go on! We are STILL allowed to vote against dictatorshit, and have our votes be counted!

              1. Get $192 hourly from Google!…Yes this is Authentic since I just got my first payout of $24413 and this was just of a single week… I have also bought my Range Rover Velar right after this payout… It is really cool job I have ever had and you won’t forgive yourself if you do not check it… USA ONLINE JOBS

            2. “Your guys are banning books. You lose.”

              Can you read? Literally nobody’s guys are banning books in this story.

              1. Literally “your guys” are protesting to attempt to bully a store into not selling a certain book (not for the first time).

                “Your guys” are 100% trying to ban books.

                It looks like the only person here who can’t read is James Pollock.

                1. That’s a 0 for reading comprehension for you, Vin.

          2. Yet you haven’t said anything that denies that Democrats are the ones who have had their Krystallnacht moment.

            President Trump had months of riots to excuse a takeover of the Government. Yet all of the sudden they and you are angry over a little riot now?

            Given me a break!

            1. “President Trump had months of riots to excuse a takeover of the Government.”

              He wasted his opportunity and used it to get a photo op demonstrating his lack of familiarity with a Bible. Apparently, pointing out that he was, um, “inspecting” the White House bunker stung a bit.

              1. Indeed. Worst. Fascist. Ever.

                Fascists don’t let crises go to waste.

                1. “Indeed. Worst. Fascist. Ever.”

                  this works with just about anything tucked in there where you put the word Fascist.
                  The fanbois will complain about your TDS, but it still remains objectively true.

                  1. But that’s what makes things funny. For four years, we’ve been warned about how President Trump was going to be an awful fascist — yet, time and time again, he doesn’t really act like you’d expect a fascist to act. Even on January 6th, President Trump’s “fascism” consisted of bringing people together to protest, and giving a nice speech about peacefully protesting so their voice will be heard.

                    Meanwhile, his successor, with the help of Big Tech, has used the events of January 6th — which weren’t nearly as bad as what has happened, over and over again, in the last four years, activities egged on by Democratic Party officials — to thoroughly shut down dissent wherever they could find it.

                    That is far more like how Adolph Hitler rose to power than anything President Trump ever did.

                    Yet useful idiots like you are still insisting that Trump is the fascist.

                    1. “That is far more like how Adolph Hitler rose to power than anything President Trump ever did.
                      Yet useful idiots like you are still insisting that Trump is the fascist.”

                      UNuseful idiots like you still struggle with reading comprehension.

                      Number of times I have insisted that Trump is a (much less “the” fascist: 0.

                      What I have said is that Trump would be happy to be the Supreme Dictator For Life, if someone else would do the work for him.

                    2. Perhaps you never said that President Trump is a fascist (which I find hard to believe, but I’ll roll with it); you are nonetheless defending the side that has constantly assured us that President Trump is a fascist.

                      What’s more, you have shown absolutely zero predilection do call out the fascist activities that have literally been happening in the last few days.

                      Whether or not Pretender Biden will be a fascist, it remains to be seen, but it’s clear that he has absolutely no problem with Tech Overlords acting as fascists on his behalf.

                    3. Whine some more about how oppressed you are.

                    4. I see you are more than excited to live in an environment where suppressed speech becomes the norm. Yet you call yourself an American!

                    5. WHAT suppressed speech?

                      that’s why your continued whining about how oppressed you are keeps getting mocked.

                    6. “you are still insisting that Trump is the fascist.”
                      “Perhaps you never said that President Trump is a fascist”

                      That’s a pretty sharp turn, there.

                  2. Wow, it’s really easy for people to bastardize the English language. I guess Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez believes in fascism because she advocates forcefully oppressing her opposition.

                    I guess tribalism is alive and well; everyone who disagrees with me is bad.

                    1. “I guess tribalism is alive and well; everyone who disagrees with me is bad.”

                      I am an American. If you want to claim a different tribe, go right ahead.

          3. So I’m guessing you miss the Black dick. Don’t worry there will be another Obama for you to copulate.

            1. Do you recall the awesome enchanter named “Tim”, in “Monty Python and the Search for the Holy Grail”? The one who could “summon fire without flint or tinder”? Well, you remind me of Tim… You are an enchanter who can summon persuasion without facts or logic!

              So I discussed your awesome talents with some dear personal friends on the Reason staff… Accordingly…

              Reason staff has asked me to convey the following message to you:

              Hi Fantastically Talented Author:

              Obviously, you are a silver-tongued orator, and you also know how to translate your spectacular talents to the written word! We at Reason have need for writers like you, who have near-magical persuasive powers, without having to write at great, tedious length, or resorting to boring facts and citations.

              At Reason, we pay above-market-band salaries to permanent staff, or above-market-band per-word-based fees to freelancers, at your choice. To both permanent staff, and to free-lancers, we provide excellent health, dental, and vision benefits. We also provide FREE unlimited access to nubile young groupies, although we do firmly stipulate that persuasion, not coercion, MUST be applied when taking advantage of said nubile young groupies.

              Please send your resume, and another sample of your writings, along with your salary or fee demands, to ReasonNeedsBrilliantlyPersuasiveWriters@Reason.com .

              Thank You! -Reason Staff

          4. So your contention is that calling for doxxing and charges against anyone who participated in the (wholly legal) DC protest is somehow NOT the kind of thing that Hitler did by “blaming the Jews for everything”?? Totally different things?

            Would you recognize making sense, using logic or self-awareness if they bit you in the ass??

            1. First you have to sell the big lie that the DC protest was “wholly legal”, then you can start working this line of argument. You’re doing it in the wrong order.

              “Would you recognize making sense, using logic or self-awareness if they bit you in the ass??”

              Why does your ass hurt?

        2. “Meanwhile your side continues to support banning books, continues to riot in Portland, is creating enemies databases, is silencing political opponents, is punching mayors, and is making the rest of the US aghast at their censorship attempts.”

          Except for the first part which isn’t true of anybody, this statement works equally well for all non-null values of “your side”.

          1. Everyone here is really great at defining “your side”. Hey, externalize all your problems, blame it on “them”. “I’m perfect, you disagree so you are a dunce”.

            Maybe we should all ask ourselves why have we all become so angry. I could find better levels of discourse in a kindergarten class.

            1. I am an American. “American” is my side.

              I’m anti-stupidity, which is why I have so little patience for Conservatives who complain about my “leftism”.

        3. Apparently Jesse here is one of those special children who can only absorb so much.. Otherwise, every time you told him where he left his food stamp card, he would forget how to tie his pink Crocs…

          Hey Jesse… U is real dumb, better quiet,no wear it like your pretty pantyhose.

          If that doesn’t make it through, just let him outside when it rains and he will no doubt drown..

          1. This is a classic example of progressive comedy. It take three paragraphs to say “Ha, you’re stupid!” without connecting in any way to anything Jesse has actually written. If you didn’t know anything about Jesse, you’d assume from this that he was a special needs child and wonder why someone with a lower IQ was being so mean to him.

            1. this is a classic example of Conservative humor. It takes three paragraphs for them to get the joke.

      4. He keeps hoping that somebody, somewhere has a plan to keep him in power, and fervently hoped that somebody who knew what they were doing would take over the effort. that’s how all of his “accomplishments” happen.

        1. That’s an odd way to negotiate Middle East peace deals (among other things).

          1. “That’s an odd way to negotiate Middle East peace deals”

            Maybe it is. He put Jared in charge of it. We’ll see if there’s any actual peace.

            1. Perhaps there will be. But we’ll also have to see if Biden won’t screw up the deals, too. The deals are in his hands, now, after all.

              1. Keep in mind that it was Trump who told the Iranians that it was fine with us if they wanted to start developing nuclear bombs.

                1. You do realize all your “points” depend on everyone accepting YOUR assertions as being consistent with reality, when really, all you do is beg the question. It’s all orangemanbad.exe then jamming events and actions into the format.

                  Or did you go to one o’ them fancy “conclusion first” schools of logic??

                  1. “You do realize all your “points” depend on everyone accepting YOUR assertions as being consistent with reality”

                    Well, reality does, so whether or not you can see that is YOUR problem, not mine.

    2. I’ve never seen Jeff try to misdirect quite so hard as with these first two posts. He even replied to his own sock to try and start a conversation on his new subject.

      Don’t let him get away with it.

      He endorsed and excused and prevaricated about these fascist “anti-fascists” and their Brownshirt tactics. He owns them.
      Don’t let him try to change the subject.

      1. BrownShirtJeff BogStandardTotalitarian

    3. Maduro–LOL. That election was a CIA Color Revolution op that failed.

      1. A chicken for every pot and a conspiracy for every election!

        1. Indeed. When it’s not the Republicans, it’s the Democrats generating the conspiracies!

          1. Everyone can have their very own.

    4. Google paid for all online work from home from $ 16,000 to $ 32,000 a month. The younger brother was out of work for three mnh months and a month ago her check was $ 32475, working at home for 4 hours a day, and earning could be even bigger….So I started….. Visit Here

    5. I get paid over $190 per hour working from home with 2 kids at home. i never thought i’d be able to do it but my best friend earns over 15000 dollars a month doing this and she convinced me to try. the potential with this is endless…,

      Copy Here………MORE JOB DETAIL.

    6. Emperor Napoleon III

      The comparison (esp. in his first election) is rather apt and there are much, much worse Emperors/Dictators to be analogized to. Considering France suffered widespread famines and generally barred women from higher education prior to NapIII and he successfully ‘rectified’ both issues, it’s kinda hard to say he was a brutally oppressive dictator. Even harder to assert that France is now a ruined shell of a Republic after his reign.

    7. Relevant note wrt Napoleon III. Under his reign, the Paris Salon rejected avant-garde painters like Edouard Manet. NapIII forced them to display works from avant-garde artists in order to let the public decide.

      So, if Ngo is Manet, Powell’s is the Paris Salon and Trump is Emperor Napoleon, who’s on the wrong side of history?

      1. You wrote intelligently, which is a little sad because it’s wasted on these idiots.

    8. Do you wanna earn money without investing money? That’s how I started this job BFR and Now I am making $200 to $300 per hour for doing online work from home.

      Apply Now here…….. Visit Here

    9. As usual, every single discussion denigrates into “trump sucks and needs to be stopped. Everyone who voted for Trump is deplorable, stupid, and sub-human. You should all apologize to the American People.” “People who support Biden are elitist demigods who believe only they know the truth. They are all hell bent our eliminating all of our freedoms and hate Democracy”

      What we are witnessing is rule by the mob on both sides. Mob rule is historically the last phase of the downfall of a Democracy. I hope history does not repeat itself.

      1. “What we are witnessing is rule by the mob on both sides.”

        Thing is, we’re not all witnessing it. Which mob is it that’s keeping you from either buying and reading this book or pretending it doesn’t even exist?
        There doesn’t seem to be anything preventing either of these outcomes.

  2. Powell’s is a bunch of pussies. This is how democracy and free speech dies; intimidated by basement dwellers.

    1. If someone threatened my business like that I would make a point of getting them alone. Pinning them, taking a picture of their ID, and then let them know what awaits them if so much as a single book is knocked over in my store.

      That’s how you deal with soulless subhuman leftist offal like them. No debate, no negotiation, nod discussion. If everyone did that with these dirty hippies, they would be gone in a week.

      1. yeah, but it’s a huge bookstore. and it’s stuck in Portland. they have to live with these rejects.

        1. Right. You’d need to identify who they were, and arrange for them to have an “accident” away from the store.

          But, of course, that’s why Antifa wear masks: So nobody can identify them.

          1. Masked people inflicting harm through force are historically known as bandits.

            You shoot bandits.

          2. You can identify them once you start to work “with” them. Once they suspect their “friends” are murdering them, they won’t have friends. Every heart attack, every injury will cast suspicion on everyone they know.

          3. Just make sure you have plenty of insurance first.

        2. ” it’s a huge bookstore. and it’s stuck in Portland. they have to live with these rejects.”

          Technically, it’s several bookstores, and while most of them are in Portland, some are not.
          Notably, they do not operate any stores in Vancouver, which is why they don’t have to deal with THAT particular bunch of rejects.

      2. Fuck that. I’d hire people to stalk and murder them, and make it look like an accident. No need to make a public spectacle of it, and you could be prosecuted if it became known, so do it in secret. They’ll still get the message.

        1. Funny you should mention spectacle, the MAX murders got plenty of attention.

        2. Place the book on display out front. (Mark is “display only”.) Plant and explosive device of some kind inside. When someone steals it and attempts to burn it . . .

          1. When some poor customer picks it up to try to figure out what all the fuss is about, we’ll explain it to the bomb squad as your idea.

      3. “If someone threatened my business like that”

        You mean not any threat?

        Stop carrying this book or we’ll ask people to boycott your store (both you and we think this request will be ineffectual).

        Yeah, obviously this needs to be met with violence. Beat up anybody who tries to get into the store. Could be one of THEM trying to sneak in…

  3. “One such protester claimed that disrupting the book’s dissemination was akin to “stopping the historical publication of Hitler’s ‘Mein Kampf.'””

    You mean that book where Hitler described the Big Lie technique…and projected it onto his opponents?

    https://archive.org/details/meinkampf035176mbp/page/n353/mode/2up?q=great+lie

    1. Burning books is now back in fashion.

      1. Point to the part of the picture where there’s books burning.

        1. Deplatform (verb): To give an unknown person free press while generating interest in their work that likely would not have occurred absent an attempt at mob censorship.

          1. I think you’re right. It might be some kind of Leftist conspiracy to get all the unpeople to put themselves on a list.

          2. Very Bierceian of you.

            https://www.gutenberg.org/files/972/972-h/972-h.htm

            Dated, and therefore, problematic.

            (problematic, adj. Unenlightened and therefore literally murder, due to the moral inferiority of all who came before.)

          3. Very Bierceian of you.

            https://www.gutenberg.org/files/972/972-h/972-h.htm

            Dated, and therefore, problematic.

            problematic (adj.): Unenlightened and therefore literally murder, due to the moral inferiority of all who came before.)

            1. You’re a bit repetitive.

        2. Sorry James, we should all stand up to intimidation tactics like Antifa’s. All of us should condemn Antifa’s behavior or other individuals/institutions that want to control what we can and can not read.

          1. “Sorry James, we should all stand up to intimidation tactics like Antifa’s.”

            I don’t think you actually believe this.

            ” All of us should condemn Antifa’s behavior or other individuals/institutions that want to control what we can and can not read.”

            OK, I’ll start with conservative Christian churches. Then move on to the American Republican party, because I’m old enough to remember when Mr. Meese was US AG.

            1. Not that I think either one will be in any way affected by my condemnation of their organizations, any more than I’d bet any antifa group cares about yours. But if it makes you feel better…

            2. Ah, I remember the 70s and 80s, when we were never able to swear and never saw a glimpse of cleavage and all the authors were banned. So very oppressive.

              Much worse than the attempt to make it ILLEGAL to even mention the fucking POSSIBILITY that the Dems would use an ever-less-secure voter verification process* to do anything unethical. The DEMOCRATS? Unethical? Hah! We’d better shut that up, and burn to the ground any method you used to communicate such heresy. As any innocent political machine would do.

              Abso-fucking-lutely nothing to see here. Go about your business, citizens. Well, you can’t, now, but you know what we mean.

              *-which they themselves put in place in 2017. Coincidence, I’m sure.

              1. “Much worse than the attempt to make it ILLEGAL to even mention the fucking POSSIBILITY that the Dems would use an ever-less-secure voter verification process* to do anything unethical.”

                Your sequitur is somewhat non.

        3. Again, there’s more than one way to burn a book. One way is to keep the book off of bookstore shelves (which is what happened here).

          1. so your working theory is that every time a bookstore decides not to stock a book, that’s a way of burning it? Man most books are never shelved in most bookstores, it’s an inferno!

            1. No, my working theory is every time a group comes out and demands a book not be carried, with the implied threat that the store will be destroyed if they comply, and the bookstore does comply, then a book has been successfully burned.

              If a bookstore decides not to stock a book for different reasons, then it’s not a book burning.

              1. ” my working theory is every time a group comes out and demands a book not be carried, with the implied threat that the store will be destroyed if they comply, and the bookstore does comply, then a book has been successfully burned.”

                And if no such thing was actually implied by anyone but you, is that book burning anywhere but in your head?

                “If a bookstore decides not to stock a book for different reasons, then it’s not a book burning.”

                Hello, thanks for joining me in saying this.

            2. SOCKPUPPET WARNING!!

              James Pollock is actually Cathy Newman!

              “So…what you’re saying is…”

              You’ve been found out, lady.

              1. You need to either get OFF the drugs or get ON some proper medication.

    2. By that logic, we should have prevented the Communist Manifesto from being published, too.

      I doubt Antifa would agree with that, though.

    3. And gunning an Antifa mob down in the street would be akin to what both the Wiemar Republic and the major European democracies failed to do – stop Hitler when all he had behind him was a mob.

      Technically, it’s not true that black-costumed Antifa is an imitation of Mussolini’s Blackshirts and Hitler’s Brownshirts. It’s a renamed continuance of the Marxist and Anarchist revolutionary mobs dating back to the mid-19th Century, which Mussolini and Hitler imitated. (Mussolini didn’t even change the color of the clothing, although he did make it less scruffy.)

  4. Despite their benign-sounding moniker (which is short for “antifascism”), people associated with antifa deliberately practice illiberalism:

    Call it what it is : Fascism. Antifa is fascist. Calling themselves anti-fascists is just stealing a march, the same way People’s Democratic Republics are none of those things.

    1. They should make a great bonfire out of Ngo’s books to show how anti-fascist they are.

      1. “We’re the Anti-Bad Guy Squad! Everything we do is justified because of what we call ourselves!”

        1. They killed 30 people, w billion in damage, thousands of businesses lost to protect those people from fascism.

    2. The anti-fascists and the real fascist both use all the same tactics, so if they don’t wear labels, you can’t tell them apart.

      This is true going all the way back to the original anti-fascists in Europe from the WWII era.

    3. “Antifascist” are fascists.
      “Antiracists” are racist.
      Orwell explained this a long time ago.

    4. All their tactics make perfect sense when one spells their name “Ante-Fa”.

  5. If Antifa succeeds in making it literally impossible to buy Ngo’s book anywhere, that’s the free market at work. Don’t like it? Then start your own bookstore.

    #Libertarianism101

    1. That’s right! And if people who don’t Ike antifa deprive them of their supply of oxygen and they asphyxiate, that’s the free market at work too! Don’t like it? Get your own atmosphere!

      1. mAkE yUr oWn aTm0sPHeRe

      2. You guys are being disingenuous. Real free market libertarianism is about competitive choices. As long as there’s one business that asphyxiates them and one business that ventilates them, even if they collude to asphyxiate some and ventilate others, all’s well. Who gets which or whether biology even works that way are a tragedy of the commons for the market to sort out.

      3. good luck with that.
        Funny thing, if you go looking for a fight, you can usually find one.

    2. And when the publisher stops printing them due to ‘lack of demand.’ We can just start your own publishing house too!

      1. AND keep all the profits! Worked out all right for Rupert!

        1. Get $192 hourly from Google!…Yes this is Authentic since I just got my first payout of $24413 and this was just of a single week… CVasd I have also bought my Range Rover Velar right after this payout…It is really cool job I have ever had and you won’t forgive yourself if you do not check it……. Home Profit System

          1. That’s NOT how Rupert made his money.

    3. Along the “build your own billion-dollar communications network, then” line of argument.

      Go write your own book, then.

      This is centuries-old levels of self-delusion, justifying horrific things…because you’re “good” and they’re “bad”.

      It’s like that antifa who punted that beaten man’s head, and then whined as he was led off “But I was only kicking a racist!”

      I mean, he clearly believed that attempted murder has enough nuance to be good in some cases, but racial jokes are in every case literally lynching people (which is also attempted murder). Hell, in the most delusional cases (Twitter), improper reverence for pronouns is “literally murder” of trans people.

      Actual attempted murder (like antifa trying to burn those Feds alive in Portland)? “Well, it’s complicated…”

      It’s as insane as witch hunts, genocides,

      1. “Along the “build your own billion-dollar communications network, then” line of argument. ”

        Or, you can just whine that the people who already own a billion-dollar communications network won’t let you just take theirs. Be sure to whine louder when people make fun of your whining.

  6. “There are books in our stores and online inventory that contain ideas that run counter to our company’s and our employees’ values of safety, equality, and justice. ”

    There are people outside your store who don’t value those things as well, and yet you listened to them and took their advice.

    Anyway, fuck the left and especially blm antifa.

  7. Lots of people in the area not happy about this.

    You don’t fuck with Powell’s.

    1. They might even fume privately when they re-elect the members of the current city government.

    2. Fuming over their soy latte and plotting acts of non-revenge, no doubt.

      1. “I’m buying all my books from Amazon from now on!”

      2. The management at Powell’s gave in to those bigots. That makes them bigots as well. In the past, Powell’s was a preferred store for me. No longer! I’m done with purchasing from them until they return to a policy of freedom. Bye bye!

        1. Gosh, I’m sure they’ll miss you and your extensive investment in books.

    3. What Powell’s is doing is as brave as it’s going to get. I support them, haven’t ordered books from them in a while, will do so today.

      1. I agree, this is likely the strongest defense of free speech we’re going to see from anyone on the progressive end of things. As mild as it is, it will still cost them. I’ve bought from Powell’s in the past and will support them in the future. On my last visit to Portland, going to Powell’s was one of the only bright spots.

        1. It’s as strong as you’re going to get from a capitalist. The response boils down to “YOU aren’t going to buy this book, but I think I can find someone who will.”

          1. It has little or nothing to do with being capitalist. It’s obvious they made a decision based on avoiding vandalism and limiting potential liability. Antifa has a proven track record of vandalism. They also have a proven track record of initiating physical violence (had to specify “physical” because “words are violence” somehow), which could lead to employees assaulted by Antifa subsequently suing the company for having an unsafe environment (by continuing in-store sales of Andy’s book). There could also be unwanted publicity as a consequence of such. Finally, there’s also the possibility that they actually care about their employees’ well-being (companies like that are rare, but they exist).

            They made an understandable decision given the circumstances, even if I don’t particularly like the kind of power such decisions, as they accumulate, effectively cede to Antifa.

            1. “It has little or nothing to do with being capitalist. It’s obvious they made a decision based on avoiding vandalism and limiting potential liability.”

              Are you saying capitalists don’t avoid vandalism or limit potential liability?

  8. Maybe they should buy all of the copies of the book and burn them on a big bonfire. That’ll show those fascists.

    1. They should then order more the next week and burn those too! Keeping up the ritual week after week, and printing after printing!

    2. That point when fascism means exactly opposite as it did before…. :)… Antifascists being completely fascist to a T!….

      1. If only you could bring yourself to condemn the fascists along with the antifa goons, their work would be done!

        1. Have you condemned those Antifa goons? If not, then why should we take your suggestion seriously?

          1. “Have you condemned those Antifa goons?”

            For what? For “demanding” what they want? No. Literally everybody is free to “demand” what they want. and also to ignore other peoples’ demands.

            “why should we take your suggestion seriously?”

            Because I occupy reality, and you clearly wish that you didn’t.

            1. For burning down businesses all across America. Businesses in minority neighborhoods, and minority-owned businesses, were particularly hard hit.

              Yet you don’t care one whit. After all, they are “demanding” the right things.

              1. “For burning down businesses all across America. Businesses in minority neighborhoods, and minority-owned businesses, were particularly hard hit.”

                If I thought These particular goons were the ones who did it, I might blame them for it. As it happens I don’t think this particular goons did that particular crime.
                It’s a shame you have to have this explained to you, but in this country, people are considered innocent until proven guilty.

                1. I hate to break it to you, but when an organization is known for advocating violence — and Antifa is certainly one such organization — it is safe to assume that any Antifa group out protesting is threatening violence, whether they do so explicitly or not.

                  1. Is it also your carefully considered opinion that if a group openly advocates, even practices violence against one group it’s fair to assume that any violence anywhere is related to them?

                    1. What the heck are you saying? I never attributed all violence anywhere to Antifa.

                      I made a simple claim:

                      “If Antifa in general advocates for violence, then a small Antifa group may very well engage in violence.”

                      And you try to refute it by claiming I am trying to attribute all violence to Antifa? What the heck are you smoking?!? I need to know, so I could keep as far away from it as possible.

                    2. “What the heck are you saying? I never attributed all violence anywhere to Antifa.”

                      Someone else has been using your ID to claim nonsense about burning buildings all across the US being done by this mob.

                      “you try to refute it by claiming I am trying to attribute all violence to Antifa?”

                      No, you, or someone pretending to be you, laid pretty much every “bright orange” building fire to the same people. Not all the violence, but definitely all the fire.

                      ” What the heck are you smoking?!? I need to know, so I could keep as far away from it as possible.”

                      As noted previously, it’s called reality, and you seem to be at a “safe” distance.

                    3. “No, you, or someone pretending to be you, laid pretty much every “bright orange” building fire to the same people. Not all the violence, but definitely all the fire.”

                      Really? Where did I say that all fires, everywhere, were caused by Antifa? Again, you are missing the mark. And at this point, I am convinced you are doing it deliberately.

                      At the same time, are you saying that the fires burning in the background while reporters are talking about “peaceful protests” caused by some group other than Antifa? What groups, besides Antifa, have been rioting through the summer?

                      I’d really like to know.

                    4. ” Where did I say that all fires, everywhere, were caused by Antifa? Again, you are missing the mark. And at this point, I am convinced you are doing it deliberately.”

                      Sure, run away from your own choices of what argument you wanted to make.

                      since you seem to have forgotten, you laid “For burning down businesses all across America. Businesses in minority neighborhoods, and minority-owned businesses, were particularly hard hit.” on the heads of these particular folks in Portland.

        2. “Have YOU disavowed the violent fascists of Antifa??”

          “No, not those other 50 times, I mean TODAY!”

          (headline: “POLLOCK REFUSES TO DISTANCE SELF FROM FASCISTS!”)
          /White House Press corps manual

          1. Gee, I’m sorry all those other 5th-graders were mean to you.

  9. Sure, it might be wrong but at least they didn’t storm the Capitol to start an insurrection like seditious assholes.

    So there’s that.

    1. Charles Manson didn’t storm the Capitol either.

      1. I laughed.

      2. Charles Manson wasn’t charged with sedition, either. Or any other federal charges.

      3. Manson was never even accused of killing anyone himself. He got a raw deal.

    2. 1) Take 200 unarmed buttheads and enter the US Capitol.
      2) ????
      3) Insurrection.

      It’s weird how fragile you think the US government is.

      1. Just more prog propaganda bullshit.

        1. Just more prog propaganda bullshit.

          Like virtually everything else from the left.

          Everything is propaganda. It’s pretty goddamn frightening to live in a time when you literally cannot trust anything you read in any media.

          1. ” It’s pretty goddamn frightening to live in a time when you literally cannot trust anything you read in any media.”

            That damn reality keeps creeping into EVERYTHING!!

            1. You mean the “reality” that has been debunked, over and over again, often with brief videos?

              1. No, not YOUR “reality”.

                1. So you admit that your “reality” doesn’t match too well with real life then.

                  1. No, I admit that your “reality” doesn’t match up with actual reality. Were you home-schooled?

                    1. You endorse the “reality” that is easily refuted by video. What am I supposed to conclude from that?

                    2. “What am I supposed to conclude from that?”

                      That your source(s) of video may have a reason for lying to you.

                    3. “That your source(s) of video may have a reason for lying to you.”

                      I will give four examples, and leave it as an exercise to the reader to determine who is the liar.

                      Example 1. Charlottesville. The Media has insisted that President Trump called white supremacists “good people”. What does the video show? President Trump saying “There are good people on both sides. I’m not talking about Antifa or the white supremacists — those are bad people — but there are good people who disagree with whether or not statues should be taken down.”

                      Example 2. 60 Minutes. The Media insisted that President Trump stormed off out of an interview when he got offended. When President Trump released his own video, though, it showed that President Trump didn’t storm off — he left after concluding that they were done, that there wasn’t much more to say, and that the next person to be interviewed was ready.

                      Example 3, to show this has been going on for a long time: RatherGate. Although it wasn’t necessarily debunked by a video — a simple GIF that compared Dan Rather’s memo with the typing of the memo into Microsoft Word with its default settings was sufficient.

                      Example 4. The time a network news organization (I can’t remember which) selectively edited the interview of gun rights activists to make it look like they didn’t have an answer to a certain question. The activists had their own recording (I admit it may have only been audio) that showed they not only answered the question immediately, they answered with confidence. The “embarrassing silence” footage was filmed before the interview, when they were still waiting for it to start.

                    4. Yep, you’ve successfully proven that whoever’s feeding you videos may have a reason to lie about it.

      2. 1) Take 200 unarmed buttheads and enter the US Capitol.
        2) ????
        3) Insurrection

        It’s *technically* correct, which is the best kind of correct.

    3. Chuck Schumer said that December 7th, 1941 was a day of infamy, and that January 6th, 2021 joins that day. Good thing he skipped over minor events like 9/11.

      1. At least he’s not overreacting to the attack on the Reichstag, I mean Capitol building.

        1. Those damn communists and Jews MAGA deplorables.

      2. Good thing he skipped over minor events like 9/11.

        Never For…what?

        1. And they let them build the victory mosque, too!

    4. Hey raspberrydinners Jeff,
      In May your protesters attacked federal buildings in DC and lit 200 fires.

      In June Black Lives Matters protesters stormed the White House and tried to set up a “Black House Autonomous Zone”
      https://wjla.com/news/local/black-house-autonomous-zone-white-house-black-lives-maatter-plaza-photos

      In August you guys again rioted and again attacked the White House and another six officers were hospitalized with severe injuries. (link to follow)

      You endorsed this shit and it’s actually far worse than what happened on Wednesday during the Reichstag fire.

      By you’re own rhetoric shouldn’t you be arrested for insurrection and sedition?

    5. 30 deaths, 2 billion in damages.

      Thats what you protect daily.

      1. Well over $2B in destruction, but the insurance coverage maxed out much lower.

        1. As a general rule, insurance doesn’t cover civil unrest.

          1. Keep in mind that the $2 billion figure is only what insurance has paid out. It doesn’t take into account uninsured, underinsured, people who were well insured but had “insurance [that] doesn’t cover civil unrest”, and so forth.

            In other words? That $2 billion is much smaller than what the actual figure really is.

            1. “In other words? That $2 billion is much smaller than what the actual figure really is.”

              Duh. In what way is that contrary to what I said?

    6. They came as close as the other guys did.

    7. I keep hearing this, and I understand you were terribly afraid.

      I would like to hear the scenario by which you imagine a few hundred MAGA hats were going to gain control of our government.
      Do you imagine there’s a Government Control Room where you find the proverbial “Levers of Power”?
      Are you imagining a more Wizard of Oz scenario?

      I can tell this has deeply effected you, and the first step to recovery is describing your fear. I mean, when someone is afraid to leave home for fear of rat-sized flying sharks controlled by an evil sorcerer, we might point out how unlikely that is.

      That obviously won’t work here, but at least describe what you think was going to happen, okay?

      1. “I would like to hear the scenario by which you imagine a few hundred MAGA hats were going to gain control of our government.”

        1. Capture the actual ballots of the Electoral College.
        2. Claim that in their absence, a new election is called for.
        3. Work harder at convincing the voters that Trump should still be… no, just kidding, intimidate or disenfranchise enough voters that the Trump voters can outnumber the biden voters.

        It’s a bit of a longshot, but the current strategy of loudly and repeatedly proclaiming himself the winner of the election doesn’t seem to be working at all for Mr. Trump.

  10. Robby, Antifa could smash windows and vandalize other tomes further encouraging Powell’s removes Ngo’s title from their catalog. This would be very much in the spirit of what your colleague, Scott Shackford, once approvingly called a “private sector solution”.

    1. Awesome. Let’s use that solution on the entire progressive movement in one shot.

      Shackford approves!

    2. “Robby, Antifa could smash windows and vandalize other tomes further encouraging Powell’s removes Ngo’s title from their catalog. ”

      Yes, they could. But they didn’t. If and when they do, then opinions can change. In the meantime, complaining about all the windows that weren’t smashed and all the burning that didn’t happen is premature paranoia.

      1. That’s like saying it was premature to shoot a mugger who has a knife pulled out and threatening you for your wallet, because he hadn’t stabbed you yet.

        1. No, that’s like shooting someone in the middle of the street, because he might be a mugger with a knife.

    3. Ugh. Shackford.

      Reason writers have become like NBA refs…the more you recognize the name, the worse they are.

      1. Except for that South Pole expedition. He was pretty good, there.

  11. Yeah it`s Possible…Anybody can earn 250$+ daily… You can earn from 6000-12000 a month or even more if you work as a full time job…It’s easy, just follow instructions on this page, read it carefully from start to finish… It’s a flexible job but a good
    eaning opportunity.. Here is More information.

  12. Antifa in the USA is clearly using the same tactics that fascists use to silence their critics. Antifa in the USA is as much of a problem as the rioters who breached the capitol building.

    Protestors at the BLM protests or the DC rally that didn’t commit violence and property damage are not a problem.

    Antifa is simply put a violent element and I also very sure that there is a violent element on the right that participated in the DC rally.

    By and large the majority of people who participated in either the protest and DC rally were there to make their voices heard, but with the intent of being heard peacefully.

    1. The only reason the Antifa were fighting fascists in Europe is that they were communists. It was just two totalitarian street gangs fighting over whose boot would get to grind the public’s face.

      1. It’s so simple: Anyone Brett doesn’t like is a “communist”. Why can’t everyone just adopt Brett’s terminology?

        1. No, Brett’s terminology doesn’t have anything to do with his feelings. WWII “Antifa” were literally avowed Communists. Nazis and Communists hated each other: they didn’t like the competition.

          To say otherwise is to completely ignore the historical record.

          1. To say otherwise is to completely ignore the historical record.

            Which is the strategy straight out of the antifa/Marxist/Democratic Socialist playbook.

          2. “To say otherwise is to completely ignore the historical record.”

            James Pollock: “But it’s on my list of things to say!”

            1. Idiot:

              I’m arguing with someone, but I can’t summon an actual argument that’s better than what I got. Solution: I’ll just put words in his mouth and hope nobody notices the substitution.

          3. “Nazis and Communists hated each other”

            Except when they cooperated to conquer and divide Poland. But this is where Hitler proved he was “smarter” than Stalin – he beat Stalin to the backstabbing…

          4. “No, Brett’s terminology doesn’t have anything to do with his feelings.”

            Following this, you go on to talk about WWII, despite a lack of any mention of WWII in Brett’s comment.

        2. Antifa’s roots are in the Bader-Meinhoff gang and RAF, and Antifa groups in the US and elsewhere retain that Marxist ideology. This isn’t even a point of serious contention among those who are at least casually acquainted with the relevant historical facts.

          1. “Antifa groups in the US and elsewhere retain that Marxist ideology.”

            To the extent that Marxists oppose fascism, they share that trait with Greatest Generation Americans, who spent 5 years in a war opposing the fascists. As an American, I welcome groups that want to join forces with America.

            I’m generally not impressed with groups whose whole identity is tied up in what they are NOT. In this case, that’s a trait they share with American Conservatives, who I’m REALLY not impressed with.

            I see more similarity between the antifa groups and European soccer hooligans than with any political ideologies. They’re people who enjoy a fight, so they spend their free time looking for one.

            1. To the extent that Marxists oppose fascism, it’s because they share a trait with Amazon and Twitter when they go after Parler: they don’t like the competition.

              1. to the extent you dwell in objective reality (assumption unproven), how is Parler a competitor to Amazon?

            2. Yeah, that “people who just enjoy a fight” better describes the Proud Boys, but you’ve probably got them marked down as the paramilitary wing of the Great White Supremacist Army, amirite?

              1. “Yeah, that ‘people who just enjoy a fight’ better describes the Proud Boys”

                They ALSO appear to enjoy hitting the streets looking for a fight.

                ” amirite?”

                Rarely, if ever, it seems.

        3. Even communists are called communists.

    2. That’s just a long-winded way of saying, “boTh SiDeS, gUyZ!’

    3. “Antifa is simply put a violent element and I also very sure that there is a violent element on the right that participated in the DC rally.”

      No. It was Antifa in drag.

      1. And everyone knows, their votes don’t count.

    4. “By and large the majority of people who participated in either the protest and DC rally were there to make their voices heard, but with the intent of being heard peacefully.”

      And what they wanted heard peacefully was their demand that the guy who got fewer votes in the election be declared the winner.

      1. Yes, we know you want the dead and the imaginary to have a voice in politics, but the people who showed up in Washington DC wanted only real, living people’s votes to count.

        The more your side suppresses any discussion about the anomalies that happened on Election day, the more I’m convinced that your side is covering a crime. After all, if Biden had won honestly, you wouldn’t have any issue with proving it, would you?

        1. ” the people who showed up in Washington DC wanted only real, living people’s votes to count.”

          No, they wanted only THEIR votes to count.

          “The more your side suppresses any discussion about the anomalies that happened on Election day, the more I’m convinced that your side is covering a crime. ”

          the more you mumble about “my side”, the more convinced I am that you’re unaware that “my side” is reality, and your side is make-believe.
          Donald Trump and his allies tried to steal the election, but failed.

          1. Of course they wanted only their votes to count. They sincerely believed their votes were cancelled out by fake ballots. And your side (by which I mean Facebook, Google, Twitter, and the Media) haven’t taken these concerns seriously, except to silence them, and to discredit them without proof.

            If Democrats have nothing to hide, why do they put so much effort in hiding it?

            And why do you think that the best way to avoid Civil War is to continue to alienate and silence these people, rather than have a thorough audit where watchers from both Parties carefully watch the auditors?

            When are you going to exercise a little bit of self-reflection, and realize that you’re supporting fascist tactics? Of course, you won’t do that, though, because you’re convinced that All Things Trump are the enemy, and that all efforts to suppress All Things Trump don’t go far enough.

            And you couldn’t care less if you’re establishing a dictatorship, either, because it’s your dictatorship.

            1. “When are you going to exercise a little bit of self-reflection, and realize that you’re supporting fascist tactics?”

              Your lack of self-awareness is glaring.

                1. In your imagination. But, as noted previously, I don’t live there. I’m out here in actual reality.

                  1. I’m sure it looks like it to you.

                    Do you ever stop to appreciate the fortunate fact that “reality” just happens to reflect every single knee-jerk political view you have?

                    Or do you attribute that to your great intelligence (not shown)?

                    1. “Do you ever stop to appreciate the fortunate fact that “reality” just happens to reflect every single knee-jerk political view you have?”

                      My political views happen to come from reality. You got that backwards.

                      Go back to your other account.

            2. ” They sincerely believed their votes were cancelled out by fake ballots.”

              You misspelled “stupidly”.

              1. So you’re saying that people who have years of experience rooting out fraud in corporations as auditors and investigators, who would be expecting convictions if they saw even a small fraction of the red flags in a company that they have seen in this election, are stupid?

                1. Yes. The people seeing all these red flags appear to be prone to delusional observations. Vote frauds, illegals voting, and Commies under the bed.

                  It’s not that hard to believe that the most unpopular President in history might have trouble winning re-election, based solely on the number of people inclined to vote for someone else. Or is it?

        2. Your logic is fundamentally flawed.. But, the Dunning-Kroger research also indicates I’m probably wasting my time explaining that to you…

          Everyone else… What do we do with people like this? I used to consider that euthanizing the stupid would be an excellent start.. But I later came to realize you just cant murder stupid.. Only redefine it.

          1. He’s carefully avoiding facts when they endanger his internal narrative. Which narrative props up his self-worth with reassurances that he’s got everything figured out. Being so tied into, and dependent on, such a narrative, means he is steel-armored immune to any consideration of actually being wrong.

            Such people accuse others of being delusional or “not living in reality” while apparently hoping no on notices that such responses avoid addressing any claims made against his “narrative”.

            So yeah, don’t waste your time. If he was ever a competent thinker, that’s a casualty of the times, I guess.

            1. “Such people accuse others of being delusional or ‘not living in reality’ while apparently hoping no on notices that such responses avoid addressing any claims made against his ‘narrative’.”

              You tipped your hand and gave away your entire strategy.

    5. “Antifa in the USA is clearly using the same tactics that fascists use to silence their critics. ”

      Going to a merchant and asking (not demanding!) that they change what goods they offer for sale? This is the tactics that American Christians like to use, any similarity to fascists is entirely coincidental.

      1. Yes, but American Christians aren’t nearly as likely to destroy a business. American Antifa has done billions of dollars of damage in businesses over the last few months.

        1. ” American Antifa has done billions of dollars of damage in businesses over the last few months.”

          AND they engaged in massive amounts of vote fraud, in their spare time. Someone has done billions of dollars of damage to business over the last year, but he lost the election. And there were some riots, too.

          1. Oh wow. And you think you “live in reality”.

            Yeah, somehow, in your “reality”, the damage done to (mostly) small businesses is…Trump’s fault. Never mind that he displayed his frightening tyrannical tendencies by carefully NOT intruding in the measures states took to deal with covid…you can still come up with the idea the HE hurt businesses?? Wow.

            And you think…can this be right?…that people are saying *Antifa* was involved in some kind of voter fraud? (beyond the possible overlap between antifa membership and any unethical ballot harvesters) Nobody has said that. At all. Anywhere.

            These knee-jerk answers make it sound like you’re trolling, just on a less amusing level than OBL or Tony. (oh, wait. Tony’s real, sry.)

            1. “Oh wow. And you think you ‘live in reality’.”

              Uh, yeah. It’s right there, if you’d like to check. That’s the nature of reality… it’s the same for everybody.

              “Yeah, somehow, in your ‘reality’, the damage done to (mostly) small businesses is…Trump’s fault.”

              It’s true in everybody’s reality.

            2. “And you think…can this be right?…that people are saying *Antifa* was involved in some kind of voter fraud?”

              There’s people claiming the capitol raid was antifa. That’s how far the conspiracy-thinking will take some people.

              What kind of traumatic brain injury did you suffer?

  13. Unmasked: Inside Antifa’s Radical Plan to Destroy Democracy

    Yeah, but everyone wants to destroy democracy in one way or another and be appointed Dear Leader. “Everybody wants to rule the world,” as the song goes. And that includes Ngo and you and even me. Everyone despises capitalism and wants to alter or abolish it in one way or another, even as we all helplessly adhere to its principles.

    1. The only thing I want to do is cleanse the world of Marxism and Islam so we can live in peace.

      1. So you oppose social security and medicare? You’re cool with usury and porn?

        1. Yes and yes. Both systems are corrupt with fraud, encourage people not to plan for their future, and in Medicare’s case massively unsustainable spending 300% of what an individual on, half largely in the last 6 months if life. A terrible investment on the fountain of youth expedition.

          Usury? Lolwut.

          1. It is the moron’s syllogism: U oppose X, and X opposes Y, so U must want Y.

            1. Sooo…Muslims want Social Security beheaded??

              Ya guys have lost me, sry.

        2. Regardless of whether JesseAz, or anyone else, supports those programs:

          Your question directly implies either that Social Security and Medicare are in themselves socialist, or that such programs can only exist within a socialist economy. Sweden would be one obvious counter-example. They are as capitalist as the US by most measures, e.g. the Economic Freedom Index. Their analogue for US Social Security is simply called Pension, and I suppose everyone is already at least a little familiar with their health care guarantees. They have a capitalist economy (thanks to Carl Bild for turning them away from their foray into socialism) with strong public welfare guarantees. You won’t find Libertarians advocating for such an approach, but that’s orthogonal to your misconceptions.

          1. “Your question directly implies either that Social Security and Medicare are in themselves socialist”

            Republicans have been whining about these programs for literally generations, labeling them socialist. They usually quiet about it around the time they become eligible.

  14. Barbra Streisand on line 1.

  15. “Despite their benign-sounding moniker (which is short for “antifascism”), people associated with antifa deliberately practice illiberalism: They wish to deny free speech protections to the far-right and its enablers, a group of enemies that antifa defines very broadly.”

    They are mostly anarchist. Of course they deliberately practice illiberalism. They aren’t liberals. They want to destroy the right and their capacity to organize. You might call them intolerant, but they are playing for keeps. One of their tried and true tactics is to deprive closeted fascists of their livelihood by outing them to their employers, getting them fired. Deliberately illiberal, indeed.

    1. Closeted fascists? How many socialists these days aren’t loud and proud of it?

      1. They just proudly marched down NYC in proud regalia yesterday.

      2. Not you it seems. You need to post under a pseudonym.

        1. You think he’s a socialist?

          1. I’m not even sure it’s a he.

            1. That’s very lady-like of you.

    2. They are mostly anarchist.

      Correction: They call themselves anarchists. In reality, they’re totalitarian, authoritarian communists.

      1. Nah, theyre anarchist communists, who want to rule by democratic community violence. The only rules are whatever the majority of the assholes claim it to be; rules of the day will be enforced by lynchmobs.

        1. Anarchists who want to rule… so authoritarian.

        2. Virtually nobody you see describing themselves as an “anarchist” on the left is actually any sort of anarchist. They’re just people who heard the phrase, “bomb throwing anarchist”, and thought, “I get to throw bombs? Cool!”

          1. I doubt that many antifa members/supporters/fellow travelers/casual defenders even understand that Communism… like real Marxian Communism… is technical anarchy. And that every Communist country to ever exist wasn’t actually Communist (as far as this oft repeated slogan goes… it is technically correct but not the implication it’s hurlers use is far from correct) but Socialist.

            These people do NOT want Communism. I can talk to a Communist and get along with them. As an AnCap there is some things we have in common. But a Socialist? That is the pure antithesis of an AnCap… and these people are socialists pure and simple. Totalitarian, authoritarian, violent mob rule with expressed contempt for freedom.

            1. “These people do NOT want Communism.”

              I’m sure some do. Antifa is a mixed bag held together by antipathy towards the right and their belief in attacking their enemies rather than participating in demonstrations, voting, petition writing, and other tactics employed by the liberal minded.

            2. ” Totalitarian, authoritarian, violent mob rule with expressed contempt for freedom.”

              This would be true, if your preferred political party had anything to do with “freedom”, but they do not.

              1. What does sparkstable’s preference for political party have anything to do with Antifa’s totalitarian, authoritarian, violent mob rule with expressed contempt for freedom?

                The two are 100% independent.

                1. As are you and rational thought.

                  1. It’s funny to be accused of lacking rational thought when I’m pointing out a logical fallacy that you just made!

                    1. PRETENDING to point out a logical fallacy.

                      This isn’t the same thing as actually being able to do it.

                    2. You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make the horse drink.

                      And there’s none so blind as those who refuse to see.

                    3. “You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make the horse drink.”

                      Won’t you get thirsty?

              2. Nice tu quoque fallacy you have there. It would be a shame if something rational were to happen to it… Nah, you wouldn’t let that happen. Carry on.

                  1. Are you bragging about your IQ?

          2. “They’re just people who heard the phrase, “bomb throwing anarchist”, and thought, “I get to throw bombs? Cool!”

            Antifa is not really into throwing bombs. They aim to destroy the right and disrupt their efforts to disorganize. They expose their enemies to their employers, getting them fired and depriving them of their livelihood, for example. They are not liberals and see no advantage in letting their enemies proselytize.

            1. Antifa is not really into throwing bombs.

              Except for when they were literally throwing bombs at the police and feds night after night in Seattle and Portland…

              1. Today’s a good day to rewatch the video of some Antifa moron getting his legs and feet lit on fire by a poorly thrown Molotov cocktail.

                These clowns love their fireworks because none of them have the arm strength to throw a wiffleball.

              2. “Except for when they were literally throwing bombs at the police”

                You can’t dox a police car. Or a court house.

                1. “These people don’t throw bombs, they dox people, except when they can’t dox people, in which case they throw bombs.” This is the line of your argument.

                  1. Each target has an appropriate weapon. That’s not so difficult. Doxing is exposing an online presence. Not appropriate if you want to destroy a police car or a court house.

                    1. I see your mode and patterns of discourse haven’t changed while I was away…

              3. Claiming that the violence in Portland all comes from the left ignores one Jeremy Christian.

                He got offended that some men wouldn’t let him harass some teenage girls on the transit train, so he killed them.
                coincidentally, he’d just left a “Unite the Right” rally in Portland.

                1. It’s funny how you’re so quick to complain about “Whataboutism” when you’re the target, yet so quickly resort to it when it favors you.

                  1. It’s funny that you can’t come up with any real complaint.

                    1. Just because you can’t understand my complaints, doesn’t mean they aren’t real!

                    2. Sorry, I left out the word rational.

                      Call back when you have complaints that are both real, AND rational.
                      Yes, at the same time.

                    3. I admit I glossed over the example you gave, but I should have made two points.

                      First, whatever Jeremy Christian did, he wasn’t doing it to advance his cause. Antifa, however, regularly destroy businesses to “advance” their cause.

                      Second, no one said that all violence was committed by Antifa. Everyone has been saying that violence is part of Antifa’s modus operandi. And it continues to be so.

                      But what I said before remains true: quick to condemn opponent whataboutism, quick to resort to your own whataboutism, whenever it’s convenient.

                    4. “First, whatever Jeremy Christian did, he wasn’t doing it to advance his cause. Antifa, however, regularly destroy businesses to “advance” their cause.”

                      You keep falling back on the same rhetorical tactic: If the facts aren’t as you’d prefer them to be, just make up some new ones.

                      ” no one said that all violence was committed by Antifa.”

                      Except for you.

                      “But what I said before remains true: quick to condemn opponent whataboutism, quick to resort to your own whataboutism, whenever it’s convenient.”

                      Complaining about whataboutism is only effective in the presence of whataboutism.

                2. And this, to you, passes for argument.

                  I know it’s unrealistic, but “Block User feature ASAP, Reason!!”

                  1. The sooner we get it, the sooner you can hang up your keyboard.

        3. “theyre anarchist communists, who want to rule by democratic community violence.”

          Politics as Calvinball.

      2. Whatever you want to call them, the objective is the same. Destroy the right and its capacity to organize.

        1. Destroy anyone to the right of Stalin and thier capacity to organize.

          FTFY.

          1. America’s right wing nationalists are probably their biggest focus of concern at the moment.

            1. Indeed. They are the perfect distraction while the Left takes control of government and silences all dissent.

              1. It’s only distracting you and the staff of Reason. Other commenters here are complaining that the corporate media is ignoring the story. This conspiracy mongering is beneath you. Why the pose?

                1. What conspiracy mongering? Did we not have a riot on January 6th? Did not that riot set off a large number of Twitter, Facebook, and Google bannings? Did not a major competitor to Twitter get shut down by Amazon, because they were accepting refugees from these services? Have not websites been silenced by having their DNS entries denied them?

                  I’d say “this gaslighting is beneath you”, but you’re clearly one of their shills.

                  1. “Twitter get shut down by Amazon, because they were accepting refugees from these services? ”

                    About Trump’s social media blockade against him, I think these companies are doing him a great favor. Trump may be skating on thin ice these days and the less he says, the better, given his proclivity to spout off almost at random.

                    The social media is trying to save him from himself. What else could you expect from such a liberal milieu?

                    About these companies, they are essentially monopolies. They can make their own rules, and they have a legal staff from the best the Ivy League can offer on 24 hour call. You shouldn’t be surprised when monopolies act monopolistically, The fact that the right can’t seem to come up with their own alternative channels on the internet is probably the fault of capitalism rather than inability of rightists to do internet things.

                    1. ” The fact that the right can’t seem to come up with their own alternative channels on the internet is probably the fault of capitalism rather than inability of rightists to do internet things.”

                      Nah. The key demographic of the Conservatives is old, white, men. A group that is coincidentally not well known for their technical prowess.
                      what you’re seeing now is a confession that their belief in private property rights ends when it isn’t their property.

                    2. Stop with the concern trolling of “They are probably doing Trump a favor”. You know as well as I do that they want to see the destruction of President Trump. By deplatforming him, they are preventing him from defending himself, too.

                      But one thing’s for sure: Twitter isn’t doing themselves any favors by doing this.

                      But while you lay the blame on capitalism, we shouldn’t forget the role that government regulation plays in protecting monopolies as well. They started out as libertarianish companies, but were gradually taken over by Leftist loons. Some of the founders even became Leftists themselves after becoming billionaires — because apparently there’s something about having lots of money that inflates people’s egos and convinces them to think they should tell other people what to do. Of course, the first thing they do is to influence government so they could pass regulations that further entrench their monopoly status.

                    3. “Stop with the concern trolling of “They are probably doing Trump a favor”.”

                      I’d have to start first, before I can stop. You’ve completely abandoned actually addressing anything I actually said.

                      “we shouldn’t forget the role that government regulation plays in protecting monopolies as well.”

                      What monopolies?

        2. Or rather, randomly designate anyone they dislike as “the right” and then attempt to destroy them.

          1. Gosh, there’s no way anyone could possibly be accused of doing this exact behavior on the right side of the aisle.

            Whatabout the other guys who fit this pattern, only in reverse?

            1. Yes, both sides do it, I’ll grant that.

              But one side makes the other side look like amateurs. I’ll leave it as an exercise for the reader to figure out which is which.

              1. “But one side makes the other side look like amateurs. I’ll leave it as an exercise for the reader to figure out which is which.”

                You’re the stupid ones. There wasn’t much doubt about that.

                1. Only stupid in their ability to commit evil, cause chaos, and destroy lives and businesses, to be sure.

                  1. No, you insist on going full-on stupid, in public.

                2. Oh, well. That’s OK, then.

            2. Totally not whataboutism.
              I should’ve stuck to not reading your posts.
              Somebody tell me when this guy rises to Tony level of argument.

              1. “Totally not whataboutism.”

                Oh, good, you picked up the joke on the first try. And I was afraid you’d be to stupid to get it.

                “Somebody tell me when this guy rises to Tony level of argument.”

                When you can rise to argument at least as well as a bag of wet sand, come on back.

    3. Yes, and they are destroying lives without so much as a trial for their innocence, or any consideration that they may have changed their positions.

      While you call them “anarchist”, they are the kind of anarchist that wants us to live under a Dictatorship of the Proletariat. Hardly people we should consider “defenders of liberty”.

      And yes, they are playing for keeps. We need to respond in kind.

      1. “Yes, and they are destroying lives without so much as a trial for their innocence”

        If you believe the way to change society is through lawsuits, the justice and prison system, you are not an anarchist, and are not likely to understand what makes antifa tick. They are not liberals, nor do they have confidence in liberalism.

        “We need to respond in kind.’

        Maybe you have more in common with antifa than you think.

        1. How long must we endure their abuse, and the ignoring of the Authorities to do one of the few things they are supposed to do — uphold the rule of law — before we take action for ourselves?

          It is said, after all, that a long train of abuses, with the obvious end to destroy the liberty of the People, is justification for removing the current Government, and replacing it with a Government that will preserve freedom and the rule of law.

          1. “and the ignoring of the Authorities to do one of the few things they are supposed to do — uphold the rule of law — before we take action for ourselves?”

            I keep telling you, antifa are not liberals. They put no stock in such liberal notions as the rule of law. They don’t circulate petitions, they don’t run for office, they don’t engage in lawsuits. They are radicals dedicated to the destruction of fascists. Surely they’ve been around long enough and done enough that you’ve no excuse not to understand this.

            As to how long before you take action, why are you asking me? You don’t need my permission.

            1. Does it matter if Antifa aren’t liberals, when the Democratic Party has supported them?

              As for “asking permission”, you’re right, we don’t need it. It’s funny, though, to see you and your ilk get your knickers in a wad when Trump “supporters” do to the Capitol Building just a fraction of what Antifa has been doing all summer.

              Do you want more of what happened on January 6th? Then continue to silence people, and continue to riot and burn businesses (which is what’s been happening, by the way, even though the Mainstream Media has been ignoring it).

              1. “Do you want more of what happened on January 6th?”

                The vandalism part, or the public masturbation part?

                “Then continue to silence people, and continue to riot and burn businesses”

                Approximate number of people I have “silenced”: 0 Exact number of riots I have participated in: 0
                Exact number of businesses I have burned: 0.

                Have you any more excess idiocy you’d like to pass on?

                1. The invasion of the Capitol part.

                  And you, personally, may not have done any of those things. But you are pretending that, because you don’t do these things, Antifa doesn’t do them either.

                  Your argument doesn’t scale too well.

                  1. “Your argument doesn’t scale too well.”

                    Why are you labeling an argument you are making yourself (rather poorly) as if it had come from me? Do you think I won’t criticize your stupidity of you falsely claim it came from me?

                    1. Does it matter that I’m making the argument poorly, when the argument is still lingering there?

                      You are defending actions that, if we continue to go down this path, will lead to Civil War, yet all you do is mock the opposition?

                    2. Please go on. Argue with your self as ineffectively as you like.

                      “You are defending actions that, if we continue to go down this path, will lead to Civil War, yet all you do is mock the opposition?”

                      Was this directed at yourself? If so, I may be forced to retract my earlier statement disparaging your capacity for self-reflection.

        2. “Antifa will destroy anyone who disagrees with them, and if you defend yourself, you’re exactly like them.” This is the line of your argument.

      2. “Yes, and they are destroying lives without so much as a trial for their innocence, or any consideration that they may have changed their positions.”

        They keep caching people in the act, and taking action at the time to stop them. If they were doing it with handguns the Republicans would be huge fans instead of critics.

        1. In too many cases, “caught in the act” means “I disagree”. In too many cases, “caught in the act” means “I did something stupid when I was 15 years old, and now that I’m 18, I have my cheerleading scholarship taken away and am asked to withdraw from college.”

          In too many times, it is Republicans who are literally shot.

          Yet you are fine with all of this.

          1. “In too many times, it is Republicans who are literally shot.”

            Yet, the notion that perhaps giving access to firearms to people who would misuse them is a bad plan somehow escapes them.

            ” In too many cases, “caught in the act” means “I did something stupid when I was 15 years old, and now that I’m 18, I have my cheerleading scholarship taken away and am asked to withdraw from college.”

            Actions have consequences. You’re defending the “party of personal responsibility (er, unless personal responsibility works against US)” Now you know why threatening that something will go on someone’s “Permanent Record” should be taken seriously.

            “Yet you are fine with all of this.”

            You’re a bit overbroad in characterizing exactly what I am fine with, without bothering to ask me what I might be fine with.

            1. When you say “actions should have consequences”, the “action” we are talking about is a young woman who, at 15, celebrated something with a brief video that used the n-word that was often used in pop culture. A fellow student saved that video and sent it to a university when that young woman was accepted on a cheerleading scholarship.

              If that’s the kind of “punishment” you are happy with — and yes, that’s the kind of thing we’re talking about when we’re talking about doxxing — then you are an enemy to civilization.

              You’re ok with Antifa, you’re fine with cancel culture, and apparently you’re even fine with Republicans getting shot.

              And while you’re confident that no one would have been shot if only guns had been banned, I am awed by your naitivity. Both, because shooting isn’t the only way people have died at the hands of rioters, and because it’s naive to assume that thugs out to commit violence are going to be deterred by laws.

              1. “If that’s the kind of “punishment” you are happy with — and yes, that’s the kind of thing we’re talking about when we’re talking about doxxing — then you are an enemy to civilization.”

                there you go again, deciding for me what I’m OK with, right after being told off for doing it. Oh, sorry, you weren’t done yet:
                “You’re ok with Antifa, you’re fine with cancel culture, and apparently you’re even fine with Republicans getting shot.”

                I’m on the record as being OK with THIS PARTICULAR INSTANCE of antifa, They asked a merchant to alter its merchandise, had no visible effect, and as a result they taped signs to the store’s exit door suggesting a boycott. Which to you is burning the place to the ground(!)
                Republicans whining about “cancel culture”, as if they didn’t invent it, continues to amuse me. Then you’re whining about shooting Republicans out of left field. I’m not, and will not be, responsible in any way for your fantasies about shooting people.

                “And while you’re confident that no one would have been shot if only guns had been banned”
                Another of “my” opinions that seems to have originated in your head. Shockingly, when you imagined what my opinion is, you imagined it so stupidly that even you can see how stupid it is.

    4. “Despite their benign-sounding moniker (which is short for ‘antifascism’), people associated with antifa deliberately practice illiberalism”

      They dress up in black and go out looking for a fight with the fascists, surprisingly, the fascists insist on giving them what they want.
      Let ’em all entertain themselves while the grown-ups do important work.

      1. I have seen locally what Antifa would do to “people looking for a fight”, and it’s an odd sort of “people looking for a fight”.

        Yes, there are people who pick fights with Antifa. Far more people hurt by Antifa were just minding their own business.

        1. When people go looking for a fight, and then find one, I have no sympathy for them.

          1. This is true of the antifa, and the (out and) Proud Boys as well.

    5. “One of their tried and true tactics is to deprive closeted fascists of their livelihood…”

      That is certainly something they do to those they _perceive_ as fascists, closeted or not, but Andy Ngo is not a fascist by any reasonable assessment.

      1. Portland has had some experience with fascists. For example, they had a police captain who used to entertain himself with full-on Nazi cosplay.

  16. Is white knight going to explain that antifa is just an idea and these people aren’t bad?

    1. no, but he’ll claim there’s no proof the thuggish goon who threatened the peaceful business owner actually belongs to antifa, or was acting on their behalf. no ID card, no way to know.

      1. White Knight will also be satisfied with photocopies of their drivers license and their Antifa membership card, but only if they’re notarized.

        1. White Knight got banned.

          1. ?? Jeez, how?

            This site never bans anyone. I mean you really have to not get along with others to get kicked here. What’d it do?

  17. “Anti” fascists go full fascist.

    1. They’re just ‘fa’.

    2. fascist doesnt mean violent intolerant person ffs. It doesnt mean racist either.
      God, our education system is worthless.
      Mainstream republicans and democrats are both fascist, though republicans more so. If you mix corporatism and capitalism in the name of nationalism, thats fascism. The only reason republicans are more fascist than democrats is because a large chunk of democrats are globalist (or at least think they are).
      Interesting aside: fascism and faggot derive from the same root. (As do science and shit)

      1. I do wish this was more common knowledge. I mean, in the common vernacular, fascist has become a slang term for someone who is politically intolerant, often on issues of race. They confuse Nazism with Fascism.

        The only real differences between socialism and fascism are 1 – the favored group (socialism favors the laborer above all, fascism favors members of the nation above all) and 2 – the means of control of economic affairs (socialism nationalizes industry as a whole, fascism regulates and retains the authority to dictate up to 100% of an industry’s decisions… which functionally is the same as nationalizing even if at any given moment they don’t dictate 100% of the industry).

        1. The common model puts the Commies on one end of a line, and puts Fascists at the other end of the line, but the line should really be more of a U shape. They don’t come all full-circle and meet but they both occupy the totalitarian deep end of the pool, far away from the shallower freedom end.

      2. Mainstream republicans and democrats are both fascist, though republicans more so.

        So that why Republicans just used Apple, Google, and Amazon to disappear Parler, and Facebook and Twitter to silence tens of thousands of conservative voices from the internet.

        Oh, wait. Nevermind.

        1. Republicans used their control of government to remove the Fairness Doctrine, that was limiting their domination of AM talk radio at the time.

          1. Do you know the real reason why Republicans dominate AM talk radio? Because it was pretty much the only place where you could hear Republican ideas at the time. Leftists on the radio never really succeeded for a similar reason: no one really wanted to listen to liberals pontificating on-air, since they got that pontification pretty much everywhere else.

            Rush talked about the Fairness Doctrine before, and how it wasn’t at all an obstacle to his show: he would just have someone call in with an opposing viewpoint, and let them talk about it for a bit. He would then discuss the person’t viewpoint.

            No, the Fairness Doctrine is merely yet another example of how Leftists want to control what people say and hear. In other words: it’s a fascist idea. Or a Nazi one. Or a Communist one. Or a Democratic Socialist one. Or a Monarchist one.

            In short, it’s a Collectivist one.

            1. “Do you know the real reason why Republicans dominate AM talk radio? Because it was pretty much the only place where you could hear Republican ideas at the time.”

              Because they long to be told what to think? that’s just a guess.

              1. That’s the wrong guess. They were tired of the lies by omission and commission regularly committed by the regular media.

                Lies that are told to this day.

                1. “That’s the wrong guess.”

                  Perhaps, but it’s supported by all the evidence.
                  then again, reality has a well-known bias against Conservatives.

                  1. You keep on saying “reality has a well-known bias against Conservatives”, but your actions betray you.

                    If Progressives really have reality on their side, why do they have to dox and destroy people’s lives? Why do they have to put so much effort into silencing people? Why all the deplatforming?

                    This is not the actions of a side that is confident that reality is, indeed, on their side.

                    1. “You keep on saying ‘reality has a well-known bias against Conservatives’, but your actions betray you.”

                      It’s true, reality does not conform itself to Conservative ideology.

                      “If Progressives really have reality on their side, why do they have to dox and destroy people’s lives? […] This is not the actions of a side that is confident that reality is, indeed, on their side.”
                      Maybe it’s not on their side, either. the fact that you’re stupid and prone to wishful thinking doesn’t mean that other people can’t be either stupid or prone to wishful thinking.

                      Doesn’t change the fact that I’m with reality, and you’re grounded with wishful thinking.

                    2. I have seen too many examples from you, just in this thread, where you simply aren’t moored grounded in reality.

                    3. “I have seen too many examples from you, just in this thread, where you simply aren’t moored grounded in reality.”

                      You have a vivid imagination, then.

            2. “Rush talked about the Fairness Doctrine before, and how it wasn’t at all an obstacle to his show: he would just have someone call in with an opposing viewpoint, and let them talk about it for a bit.”

              Because Rush had a finger on the button that would cut off the person he was “debating” with, and he knew how to use it. That’s why he so rarely went on any other shows… because someone else would have control of that button, and he didn’t do as well in debate where he couldn’t just disconnect or talk over anyone who started to make points he didn’t like.

              1. I have listened to Rush, on and off, for years. He didn’t use that button nearly as quickly as you make it out.

                1. “I have listened to Rush, on and off, for years.”

                  Your mistake.

                  1. So you admit you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about, then.

                    1. Your reading comprehension is as strong as ever.

                2. He didn’t go on anyone else’s show where someone who disagreed with him would have control of that button, either.

                  1. Perhaps not, but come to think of it, he has gone on other people’s shows before, and he’s held his own.

                    And come to think of it, how often did (and do, for that matter) Mainstream Media sources give Conservative people a fair chance to challenge them?

                    If people were finally happy to hear their viewpoints discussed, then it’s very safe to say “pretty close to never”.

                    1. “And come to think of it, how often did (and do, for that matter) Mainstream Media sources give Conservative people a fair chance to challenge them?”

                      the kind of “fair” where the Conservative gets to cut off the opponent whenever it seems advantageous to do so? No, you’re right that they didn’t get that very often. Except on AM radio.

                    2. So it’s only “fair” if only the correct side has that power. And that power properly belongs to our Media Ogliarchies.

                      Got it!

                    3. “So it’s only ‘fair’ if only the correct side has that power. ”

                      Now we see it in your own words.

                    4. And yet you cannot refute what I have just said: that the power you see in Rush is the power that the Media has had for decades.

                      You are clearly angry and annoyed that others managed to get that power for themselves.

                      And now you wish you could silence them for it.

                    5. “And yet you cannot refute what I have just said: that the power you see in Rush is the power that the Media has had for decades.”

                      Because there’s no need to refute it. The complaint wasn’t that Rush HAD the power, the complaint was that he ABUSED it.

        2. “So that why Republicans just used Apple, Google, and Amazon to disappear Parler, and Facebook and Twitter to silence tens of thousands of conservative voices from the internet.”

          Neither Facebook, nor Twitter, nor even Apple, Google, and Amazon has the ability to silence tens of thousands of anyone on the Internet.

          1. Yet somehow they are doing just that.

            1. The things that happen inside your head are not visible to the rest of us.

        3. “So that why Republicans just […]”

          It’s why they tried to require filtered Internet access in libraries.

      3. “fascist doesnt mean violent intolerant person ffs. It doesnt mean racist either.”

        It’s just coincidence that the fascists all seem to be intolerant racists.

        1. Yes, but the Democratic Party is going to do what it’s going to do, despite a century and a half of trying to get them out of power.

          1. You seem confused…

            1. No, not at all. I’m merely referring to the Party defended slavery, founded the KKK and passed Jim Crow laws, and to this day insists that minorities can’t succeed without “help”, by holding them to lesser standards that white people.

              1. the people in the party who defended slavery are not in the party today, or did you not pick up on that? Thus, confusion.

                1. Maybe I am confused.

                  But tell me: which Party tried to make discrimination by race legal again in California, so they could go back to telling minorities that the only way they could succeed when going up against whites is by dumbing down standards for them?

                  And which Party insists that minorities are so stupid, they are unable to get the IDs that everyone uses to function in normal society, so that they could be used to make sure their votes aren’t getting stolen?

                  Which Party put out a flyer from the Smithsonian Institute, insisting that only white people are dependable hard workers that can keep to a schedule? (I swear, that was the most bizarre document I’ve ever seen. Had I not known its source, I would have sworn it came from the KKK.)

                  Tell me again which Party insists we should “judge people based on their character, and not on the color of their skin”, and which Party is still doing everything in their power to “judge people based on the color of their skin”.

                  I’m confused.

                  1. “I’m confused.”

                    I know.

                    1. I thought I overcame my confusion, when I remembered this: if you want to see the most vile, bigoted, racist, sexist, and outright ugly slurs directed at minorities, all you have to do is look at what Democrats have to say about minority conservatives.

                      But then, I just realized it still doesn’t refute your hypothesis that Democrats are no longer racist, sexist, and so forth.

                      Sigh. I’m still confused.

                    2. ” I’m still confused.”

                      Comes from your inability to distinguish between things you imagine and things you can actually see.

  18. “One such protester claimed that disrupting the book’s dissemination was akin to “stopping the historical publication of Hitler’s ‘Mein Kampf.'”

    A fat white kid infers a Vietnamese journalist is a white supremacist, and the bookshop listens because fuck reality.

    Who ever thought that when fascism finally came to America it’d have clown hair and use an asthma inhaler.

    1. Have you ever heard Ng pronounced?

      Case closed!

    2. The bookshop listens because firebombing is a reality. That’s the exact opposite of “fuck reality”.

        1. A fire bomber doesn’t need to attack when a store is open and defended.

          1. A firebomb on the outside facade would cause damage, but not serious damage. Glass and steel don’t burn, and neither does stone.

            1. I guess that’s why that bright-orange colored things in the background of those reporters reporting on fully peaceful protests weren’t really buildings burning down, then.

              1. Can you provide a link to a video of reporters talking in front of this building while it’s “bright orange”? It still looks mostly dirty gray in these photos. I seem to have missed the bright orange, and the restoration work makes it look like the building is NOT burned down.

                1. Why does it have to be this particular building? The fact that it has happened elsewhere is a sufficient message: “It happened to them, so it can happen to you.”

                  1. “Why does it have to be this particular building?”

                    This is the one they’re talking to the owner about.

                    ” The fact that it has happened elsewhere is a sufficient message: ‘It happened to them, so it can happen to you.’”

                    And we’re back to your premise that this particular batch of people are responsible for all the fires everywhere. I thought you walked that one back upthread.

            2. Glass breaks, though some types are more resilient than others. Go watch some of the Portland riot videos and you’ll see storefront glass being broken by people with simple tools like baseball bats and even skateboards. After that, the contents of the store are vulnerable to a Molotov.

              Also, you’re smart enough to know how stupid your post was.

              1. Alas for you, I’m also smart enough to know how stupid your post is.
                Glass doesn’t burn. It doesn’t burn when you break it, either.

                1. No, but merchandise does burn. And, as you pointed out before, it’s not always covered by insurance. (And even if it’s fully insured, there’s still economic loss when the store has to be closed for weeks while repairs are being made, as well as increases in insurance premiums.)

                  1. And still nothing is actually burning. But because it could burn, you want me to react as if it’s currently ablaze.

                    No.

    3. “Who ever thought that when fascism finally came to America it’d have clown hair and use an asthma inhaler.”

      The same people who thought it would be led by an Oompa Loompa who cheats at golf.

      1. Yet “Literally Hitler” has proven to be a very lousy Hitler, while his successor is going full speed ahead with oppression.

        1. Yes, the fact that actual dictators are effective, and Trump is incapable, has limited the damage he could do. But the fact that Trump can’t do anything doesn’t mean he wouldn’t go full-on dictator if someone else would do the work for him.

          1. Yeah. Despite the reality that his cabinet and staff were rather openly disdainful of his more idiotic ideas… despite the reality that the system is a layers-deep, robust and entrenched bureaucracy that was similarly opposed to his impulses… despite the reality that his personality consistently demonstrated him to be less of a warmonger than his two (or more) predecessors as well as many, many of his detractors and opponents… the only thing standing in the way of his Trumptatorship was his own laziness.

            1. ” the only thing standing in the way of his Trumptatorship was his own laziness.”

              That’s not what I said.
              I said it was his ineffectiveness, which is why he has always demanded that other people do things he could later step in and claim credit for.

          2. President Trump was also limited by his desire to follow the Constitution.

            A limit that the Democrats are itching to remove altogether.

            1. “President Trump was also limited by his desire to follow the Constitution.”

              Was this serious? Is it as serious as Trump’s commitment to Christianity?

              1. Whether it was serious or not, he probably did a better job of it than his predecessors. He’s probably done better than his successor will do, too.

                1. “President Trump was also limited by his desire to follow the Constitution.”

                  Lying about something doesn’t change reality. He was going to institute a “Muslim ban” on entering the US, as if the first amendment isn’t part of the Constitution. It took him three tries to get a travel restriction in place that didn’t get immediately enjoined for being unConstitutional. You can’t buy that kind of devotion to the Constitution!

                  1. Yet that “Muslim ban” focused on countries that the Obama Administration itself was concerned about with regards to terrorism, and for which Obama was considering travel bans as well.

                    And as for the Courts themselves — they have demonstrated, time and again, an ability to defy the Constitution themselves.

                    1. “Yet that “Muslim ban” focused on countries that the Obama Administration itself was concerned about with regards to terrorism, and for which Obama was considering travel bans as well.

                      Eventually.

  19. Fascism has finally come to America calling itself anti-fascism. Huey Long probably didn’t predict this, though such a prediction was attributed to him. Whoever said it, they can now come forward and claim their prize.

    1. Fascism? You wish. This is deliberate illiberalism.

      1. Corporations acting on the instructions of a political party is the dictionary definition of fascism.
        And the political party that’s directing these illiberal goons is the same one that’s directing the tech companies, and the same ones pretending that Wednesday was a Reichstag fire.

        1. You mean like Amazon shutting down Parler after Democratic congressmen sent them a letter requesting they do so?

        2. American corporations are not being controlled by antifa. Or pedophiles or Jews or others right wing bug bears.

          1. No, but the boundaries between Antifa, American Corporations, and the Democratic Party are so fuzzy, it’s very difficult to tell the three apart.

            1. “it’s very difficult to tell the three apart”

              It’s not difficult at all. American corporations exist to turn a profit. The Democrats exist to gain political power through elections. Antifa exists to attack fascists. Jews exist to do Jewish things, and pedophiles exist to have sex with children. No need to confuse them.

              1. The corporations of America are used to calling the tune for Republican politicians, not so much the Democrats. They herd like cats.

              2. When one sees Joe sniffing the hair of children, it’s easy to mistake him for a pedophile.

                And while Antifa exists to attack “fascists”, they do so in a clear attempt to establish their own fascism.

                And American corporations know that the easiest way to make a profit is to get a Political Party into power who will destroy their competitors in exchange for silencing that Party’s critics.

                So, yeah, the browshirts, the Corporates, and the dictators all having common interests merging together: it’s difficult to tell them apart.

                1. Have you really been convinced that Biden is a pedophile? Or is this just a pose? I tell you, if you don’t take yourself seriously, others won’t either.

                  1. No, I don’t fully believe it — I wouldn’t be surprised if it came out that way, though. I just find Biden and his hair-sniffing very, very creepy. Particularly because he does it so often in public, and it’s so obvious he’s making the people he does it to very, very uncomfortable.

                    And I find it amusing that, for all your talk about “believe all women”, you and your ilk are so quick to ignore such a creep because he’s your guy.

                    1. Grabbing Senator Daines’s young female relative’s tit—in front of a crowd of cameras and reporters—was a pretty big clue for me.

                      Pedo? Probably (maybe?) not when he was in full possession of his faculties, and knew that getting handsy with children was different than doing it with adult women. Now? I’m surprised youtube hasn’t dumped the videos of it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_G6rtPFIXEw

                      Watch his right hand. Watch the kid wriggle away. Watch him put it back there.

                      Fuck that groping piece of shit, and fuck anyone who defends him. The human garbage in Washington would sacrifice their children to Mammon if it meant keeping their access to sitting near power.

                    2. ” I just find Biden and his hair-sniffing very, very creepy.”

                      That’s all the proof anyone should ever need. That kind of gut feeling just can’t be faked.

                    3. “That’s all the proof anyone should ever need. That kind of gut feeling just can’t be faked.”

                      I’m now curious if you would have given President Trump the same benefit of the doubt.

                    4. “I’m now curious if you would have given President Trump the same benefit of the doubt.”

                      Well, there were stories that he liked to “inspect” the dressing rooms of his overseas pageants while the contestants were changing clothes.

                      but he was recording bragging about how he liked to grab women “by the pussy”

                      So what doubt was I supposed to give him the benefit of?

                    5. “So what doubt was I supposed to give him the benefit of?”

                      The same that you are affording Biden now. Or did you forget that?

                      Alternatively, you should have driven Biden out of the Democratic Party when these things have surfaced. Otherwise, it looks like you don’t care about #MeToo — you are only interested in this issue because you’re interested in securing power.

                      Now, I’ll grant that President Trump is an anomaly — he became President despite these allegations — but for Republicans, he’s an anomaly because allegations like these are often enough to tank a Republican. Indeed, it has happened over and over again, enough so that when allegations like these are confirmed, Republicans circle the wagons to eat their own.

                      Democrats, on the other hand? Senator Franken was the anomaly in that he resigned when such allegations come up. When Democrats circle the wagons, it’s to defend their own, even when the allegations are confirmed.

                    6. “The same that you are affording Biden now. Or did you forget that?”
                      I must’ve missed the tape of Biden talking about grabbing pussy. link?

                      “Alternatively, you should have driven Biden out of the Democratic Party when these things have surfaced.”

                      How, dimwit, would I have done that? I have precisely as much ability to tell Democrats who can be in their club as I have ability to tell you who can be in the stupid club or tell the Republicans who can sit in the Big Tent.

                2. “And American corporations know that the easiest way to make a profit is to get a Political Party into power who will destroy their competitors in exchange for silencing that Party’s critics.”

                  No combine this with the large number of American corporations declining to make political contributions this year. I love to see pretzel logic in action.

                  1. Does this count the in-kind donations made via censorship, by any chance?

                    Because Twitter did the Biden campaign a huge service by suppressing any discussion about Hunter Biden’s laptop before the election.

                    1. Are you referring to Rudy Giuliani’s laptop?

                    2. I’m referring to the laptop that was dropped off by Hunter Biden, with a work order by Hunter, and video surveillance showing Hunter dropping off, with a work order that had Hunter’s signature, that had Hunter’s photos, and emails, and financial statements.

                      Whether you want to call it Hunter’s or Guiliani’s laptop, it makes no difference.

                    3. Rudy seemed to care if it was Hunter’s laptop or his own.

                    4. More correctly, he seemed to care that you bought the story that it was Hunter’s laptop.

          2. Your reading comprehension is off because ML said corporations were following a political party, not antifa.

            1. You believe that antifa is operating under secret instructions by Obama, Pelosi and the like? If you don’t take yourself seriously, don’t expect others to take you seriously.

              1. Oh, they aren’t necessarily acting under any instructions. They are merely doing things that they think Democrats would appreciate.

                And Biden, AOC, Harris, and others have expressed appreciation for such things. It’s hard to take you seriously when you don’t see that.

                1. “They are merely doing things that they think Democrats would appreciate.”

                  You can’t be serious. A few supposedly antifa activists gather outside a bookstore because they want to please Democrats? You can’t tell the difference between a communist and a fascist, but now you’re an expert on antifa mind reading? Are you getting this from a script or improvising? Either way, I’m unimpressed.

                  1. Whatever. It’s not as if they are there to make Republicans happy.

                    1. “It’s not as if they are there to make Republicans happy.”

                      Some maybe are there among the antifa, informers, agents provocateur and the like, exactly there to do the bidding of if not the Republicans directly, let’s call them people of the right. Police and intelligence agencies, both public and private. If the past is anything to go by these people would attend meetings of activists, infiltrate the steering committees and advocate a hard line, violent actions, a line on a source of explosives etc.

                    2. If the informers, et al are indeed a part of Antifa, it’s pretty clear that they haven’t been doing a good job of collecting the evidence needed to arrest Antifa provocateurs and put them in jail.

                      It’s as if the local governments approve the actions of Antifa (at least, until after they start going after the local government — whether it be to attack the local DA office, or protest the local Mayor — after all, the Revolution has a habit of eating their own).

                    3. “If the informers, et al are indeed a part of Antifa, it’s pretty clear that they haven’t been doing a good job of collecting the evidence needed to arrest Antifa provocateurs and put them in jail.”

                      Or they’ve successfully penetrated a group of antifa that doesn’t do anything actually illegal, they just make demands. We can prove they made demands, but that won’t get a conviction. Keep digging, dammit!

                  2. “A few supposedly antifa activists gather outside a bookstore because they want to please Democrats?”

                    I think EG chose his (or her) phrasing poorly, but you can’t be this obtuse. Of course Antifa’s not actively trying to please the Ds. However, they’re well aware that most of the Ds will look the other way. Well, we’ll see how long that lasts now that the election is over (Mayor Wheeler has already changed his tune; expect more of that.) As far as “secret instructions” from your earlier post, no, the Ds didn’t even bother with secrecy:

                    AOC, in one of her own posted videos: “I need you to be radicalized” and “I need you to be ready”

                    Ayanna Pressley, in an interview: “There needs to be unrest in the streets for as long as there’s unrest in our lives”

                    That’s just two I could recall off the top of my head (the 2nd one might not be verbatim). There are more such statements from federal, state, and local D politicians which you can find for yourself if you’re so inclined. They’re nearly all careful not to be too obvious or direct, I’ll give them that, but they made their positions clear enough.

                    1. “I think EG chose his (or her) phrasing poorly, but you can’t be this obtuse. Of course Antifa’s not actively trying to please the Ds.”

                      He (?) actually IS this obtuse. That’s the case that was presented, and the fact that it is stupid is not reason not to argue this publicly.

                      ” However, they’re well aware that most of the Ds will look the other way.”

                      Speaking of which, there’s nothing to look at here. Call back when there’s some burning or looting before you start screaming about “burning” or “looting”. There’s nothing wrong with “Demanding” that a merchant alter the line of goods they offer for sale. there’s also nothing wrong with ignoring demands. since those two things are all that happens in this story, there’s nothing to look away from.

                    2. “That’s just two I could recall off the top of my head (the 2nd one might not be verbatim). There are more such statements from federal, state, and local D politicians which you can find for yourself if you’re so inclined. They’re nearly all careful not to be too obvious or direct, I’ll give them that, but they made their positions clear enough.”

                      Don’t forget noted D politician Donald Trump, asking supporters to “stand by”.

                    3. We can also find tweets where Democrats endorse rioting and destruction of property.

                      Now do the same for President Trump.

                    4. “We can also find tweets where Democrats endorse rioting and destruction of property.

                      Now do the same for President Trump.”

                      Huh?

                2. “And Biden, AOC, Harris, and others have expressed appreciation for such things. It’s hard to take you seriously when you don’t see that.”

                  Who could ever forget that time Biden told a huge crowd to go pressure a bookstore to stop selling books by right-wing authors, and they proceeded to place enough pipebombs to rattle even Mario? You remember, right, guys? Right?

                  1. But who could ever remember the time that Biden and Harris funded bail for arrested rioters?

                    You’re making it out to be as if the Democrats have to support each and every little riot personally — that they cannot, and do not, endorse rioting generally.

                    1. ” who could ever remember the time that Biden and Harris funded bail for arrested rioters?”

                      Bail makes sure that people will show up for their trials.

                    2. Bail only makes sure that they’ll show up for trials if they are on the hook for getting paid back.

                      And bail also enables rioters to get back on the street and riot some more.

                    3. bail makes it possible for people who are not rioters to get back to seeing to the needs of themselves and their families. Of course, if you’d rather the government took over those responsibilities, you’d want to keep people from making bail. Which side of that debate are you on, again?

                    4. So you’ll be happy if Biden, Harris, and Trump all joined forces to pay the bail of the rioters who broke into the Capitol building, then?

                      Heck, Biden and Harris don’t even have to join President Trump. They could announce “In an interest for unity, we’ll drop charges for those who participated in the January 6th riots, just as we dropped the charges for those who rioted two years ago, and ask that we calm down and remember that we are all Americans.”

                    5. “So you’ll be happy if Biden, Harris, and Trump all joined forces to pay the bail of the rioters who broke into the Capitol building, then?”

                      Sure, makes it easier for them to go home and suicide, if they think that’s the proper response.

                3. “they aren’t necessarily acting under any instructions. They are merely doing things that they think Democrats would appreciate.”

                  they do shit for their own amusement. Not unlike the football hooligans in Europe.

                  1. Yes, it is for their amusement. When trying to do things that you think Democrats would appreciate doing, why not have a bit of fun while doing it?

                    1. I don’t give a damn whether Democrats like anything I do, so I don’t feel a need to try to shoehorn that sort of motive onto anybody else.

                      Try going through life without forcing everyone and everything to match your preconceived notions. It’ll be better for you, AND for everyone you interact with.

                    2. So you were lying when you said “they do sh*t for their own amusement, not unlike the football hooligans in Europe”?

                      How can I be the one “forcing everyone to mach [my] preconceived notions” when I was literally responding to your preconceived notions?

                    3. “Yes, it is for their amusement. When trying to do things that you think Democrats would appreciate doing, why not have a bit of fun while doing it?”

                      “How can I be the one “forcing everyone to mach [my] preconceived notions” when I was literally responding to your preconceived notions?”

                      responding to meaning “directly replace”…

                      The previous advice stands.

      2. Stop handwriting what your politics actually are.

        You like many others of the left on this site are openly defending these tactics including market collusion to censor viewpoints.

        1. You confuse antifa with liberals. Antifa wants to destroy the right. Liberals want to tolerate the right.

          1. “Liberals want to tolerate the right.” I’m glad I wasn’t sipping my coffee when I read that. Definitely going to ask for some cites for that one, chief.

            1. Liberalism is big on tolerance. That’s why free speech is such an issue.

              1. And thats why Democrats aren’t liberals. They are authoritarian Leftists. It doesn’t matter if we call them Progressives, Fascists, Nazis, Communists, Emperors, or Kings. The end result is all the same.

                1. “And thats why Democrats aren’t liberals. They are authoritarian Leftists.”

                  You can be both, of course. Republicans, too. Income tax, public funding of transportation and education etc are supported by Republicans and promoted in Marx and Engel’s Communist Manifesto.

                  1. ” Income tax, public funding of transportation and education etc are supported by Republicans and promoted in Marx and Engel’s Communist Manifesto.”

                    Marx and Engels pulled stuff from the 1st-century Christian Church, too.

                    1. Your missing the ‘level’ at which… When you and your friend decide to split the lunch check is that part of the communist manifesto too?

                    2. ” When you and your friend decide to split the lunch check is that part of the communist manifesto too?”

                      Not that I know of. But then again, I also can’t see the Commies hiding under every bed and behind every tree the way you guys do.

                  2. Indeed, Republicans can be those things, too. It’s why so many people are mad at them right now.

                2. mtrueman is doing the thing progressives always do:
                  1. First you need to agree to my preferred terms and definitions.
                  2. My preferred terms and definitions make it impossible for you to articulate a counterargument.
                  3. I win!

                  1. 1. You don’t have to agree with anything I write here.
                    2. Don’t blame me for your inability to articulate a counterargument.
                    3. That was never in doubt.

                    1. I would have to admit that it’s kindof hard to articulate good counter-arguments to lousy and nonsensical arguments. It’s a failing in me that I try.

                    2. “I would have to admit that it’s kindof hard to articulate good counter-arguments to lousy and nonsensical arguments.”

                      No it isn’t. All I have to do is keep pointing to whatever stupid thing you said.

                    3. “All I have to do is keep pointing to whatever stupid thing you said.”

                      Ah, but there’s the rub. A good chunk of the stupid things I’ve said have been in response to the stupid things you have been saying.

                    4. Look. There’s another one!

            2. What they want is a loyal opposition party.

  20. Inside lefties heads, “President TRUMP STORMED THE CAPITOL!!”
    Everyone else; Isn’t he suppose to be there?

    1. The President is rarely supposed to be in the Capitol, as that is the legislature’s territory.

      Capitol =/ capital.

  21. Robby Soave…Do you think you will ever get your libertarian street cred back? It will never happen.

    You cheered while the socialists and communists ruined our country.

    You traded away your integrity. Manyouk is a good description for you.

    1. You traded away your integrity.

      Traded? Did he get something for it?

      -jcr

      1. The adulation of the twitter intelligensia.

      2. Someone was paying his rent.

      3. Did he get something for it?

        You mean you didn’t know that Emma Sulkowicz showed up to endorse his book!

        1. She still dragging her mattress everywhere?

  22. Credit now to the Streisand Effect. I didn’t know about this book – I just pre-ordered it.

    1. Lock your door.
      Amazon will tell Google, Google will tell Facebook, Facebook will tell Twitter, and Twitter will tell the mob.

      1. Would they also inform the mob that my household has ordered a shit-ton of .40 and 9mm ammunition, or would that be something they would have to find out in person?

        1. A couple pistols seems a little underpowered for the mob, doesn’t it?

          1. Still had plenty of ammo for the long guns. Legal firearm ownership is one of the benefits of my no longer being a District of Columbia resident.

          2. A couple pistols seems a little underpowered for the mob, doesn’t it?

            Carbines man. Carbines. Also, There are plenty of places in this country where two calibers implies anywhere between 4 and two dozen guns.

          3. They aren’t the IJA in a banzai charge. Though as Saint Kyle of Kenosha pointed out, you likely are going to have to shoot more than one of them to convince the others to pick on someone else’s house.

            But please people, use rifles.

            1. Rifles are fine if you live way out in the sticks, but if you’re in the suburbs or somewhere as dense or more so, then they’re not the best choice, unless you don’t care about your neighbors. Even if you hit the threat, most rifle rounds, including a 5.56 fired from an SBR, will come out the other side with enough kinetic energy to do real harm to an unintended target. If you miss the threat, those rounds will slice right through both your outer wall and your next door neighbor’s.

              In the suburbs, I’d recommend a carbine or long-barrel pistol loaded with Glaser rounds or similar ammo. If suppressors are legally available, consider using one (as well as considering the trade-offs), so the kids can grow up to fully enjoy whatever crappy music will be popular by then.

        2. “Would they also inform the mob that my household has ordered a shit-ton of .40 and 9mm ammunition, or would that be something they would have to find out in person?”

          Are you counting on tactical surprise, or are you that certain that you’re a better shot? Or did you forget that other people can carry, too?

          1. Traditionally, barring massively overwhelming numbers and/or vast technological advantage, defense against an invading force is the advantageous position. Once Antifa organizes a seige/occupation of a private residence by force, then we can all agree that they’re full-on fascists, right?

            1. People like Pollock always think they’re punching up against a looming threat from above and then cheer the destruction of individuals by mobs. You’ll never convince them they’re actually punching down because of how they define their terms. And because they’re pieces of shit.

              1. You seem to have invented some details.

                1. Nah, it’s pretty clear from the tactics you are comfortable with.

                  1. sitting back and pointing out stupid things people insist on saying in public?

                    Yeah, I’m comfortable with that.

                    That really bugs you, because you’d prefer to just keep saying stupid things without having anyone point out the stupidity?

                    1. It’s the tactics of others who you believe to be “punching down” that you clearly support.

                    2. I don’t object to anyone pointing out stupid things you say, whichever direction of punching you imagine that to be.

                    3. We’re not talking about me specifically. We’re talking about the tactics you expressly support.

            2. “Traditionally, barring massively overwhelming numbers and/or vast technological advantage, defense against an invading force is the advantageous position.”

              Actually, achieving tactical surprise is by far the most advantageous position. It can fall to either the attacker (by determining when and how the attack actually comes) or the defender (because of the ability to keep defensive preparations undisclosed). So, for example, the Japanese attack at Pearl Harbor achieved tactical surprise and sunk several ships in the harbor, and destroyed many planes on the ground. In contrast, the Battle of Britain went to the defenders, because they had not disclosed all the methods they had of detecting incoming aircraft, allowing them to meet the Luftwaffe in the sky. The Germans did not achieve tactical surprise. Fast-forward a couple of years, and the Allies achieved tactical surprise at Normandy, because they’d successfully convinced the High Command that an attack was coming at Calais. Surprise!

  23. “Powell’s announced that it would not carry the book in its physical store, though it will still be available for purchase online.”

    I’m confused — is that what they were already doing, or did they change the policy in reponse to the protests?

    1. Whichever, I suspect it won’t be good enough for the antifa.

      1. Whatever. Doesn’t seem like you’re the sort to be satisfied either.

  24. Nice, just ordered the book. Hadn’t known about it either.

    1. 2nd that, reminds me of when the Parental Advisory sticker was put on albums so you knew that is worth buying.

      1. Indeed. The only societal benefit a Gore or Kerry has ever produced.

        1. Dee Snider insinuating that Tipper Gore was into BDSM is one of the greatest things to ever happen during official government discourse.

          1. Yeah, ol’ Duke was a kidder. It’s too bad they didn’t have any more good records.

  25. “Few acts of censorship are as overt as a mob deciding which books other people should be allowed to read.”

    Unless they are a mob of tech companies?

    1. Apparently reason isn’t going to put out anything more than the most tepid of criticisms concerning them.

      I’d been resistant to the idea that Reason isn’t really libertarian any longer. Sure, TDS has been rampant, but on topics that didn’t involve Trump I felt like we were still swimming in more or less libertarianish waters.

      Now I’m pretty well convinced that with the last editorial switch came also an ideological one.

      If reason can’t stand up for free expression and an open society, they aren’t libertarian at all. They’re more concerned with making sure Robert Craft won’t have to deal with prostitution charges than the obliteration of conservative voices on social media, in an act coordinated between them and the DNC. And the DNC is rewarding big tech by giving them seats at the table.

      The Biden transition team has already stacked its agency review teams with more tech executives than tech critics. It has also added to its staff several officials from Big Tech companies, which emerged as top donors to the campaign.

      Now, executives and employees at tech companies such as Alphabet Inc-owned Google, Amazon.com Inc, Facebook Inc, Microsoft Corp are pushing to place candidates in senior roles at government agencies, according to four sources with knowledge of the matter.

      The agencies many of these executives are aiming for include the U.S. Commerce Department, Office of the United States Trade Representative, the Office of Information & Regulatory Affairs – a key agency under the White House Office of Management & Budget which drafts policies impacting the tech industry, the State Department and the Department of Defense, according to the sources.

      Many company executives, who in some cases helped raise money for the Biden campaign or have ties to those on the president-elect’s transition team, still have a huge commercial interest in pushing candidates with industry ties at the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission – both of which are investigating whether Big Tech abused its market power. But the spotlight on those agencies from progressive interest groups and members of Congress is likely to make it much harder for Silicon Valley to succeed, the sources said.

      […]

      Researchers, lawyers and consultants tracking the transition or working with the team told Reuters the moves are part of an effort by many large tech company officials to influence future policymaking. They are also making sure the Biden administration is not captive to the ideas of progressive Democrats and a growing anti-monopoly movement, who have consistently pushed for higher scrutiny of such companies.

      “In 2020, appointing the CEO or top executives of a tech company directly in to your cabinet is bad optics and bad politics,” said Max Moran, a researcher with the Revolving Door Project. He added that allies of Big Tech have begun to emerge as candidates for Biden jobs.

      For example, Google’s former Chief Executive Eric Schmidt, a billionaire who is a Silicon Valley titan, has been making personnel recommendations for appointments to the Department of Defense – as the company tries to pursue military contracts and defense work, according to three sources.

      […]

      Facebook, unlike the other companies, has already made significant inroads into the Biden transition team, multiple sources said.

      For example, former Facebook director Jessica Hertz is the Biden transition’s general counsel. Austin Lin, a former program manager at Facebook, is on an agency review team for the Executive Office of the President. Erskine Bowles, a former Facebook board member, is already advising the transition team, along with Jeff Zients, another former Facebook board member, who has now been picked to become Biden’s COVID-19 czar.

      This list goes on for quite some time.

      https://www.reuters.com/article/usa-tech-biden-insight/big-techs-stealth-push-to-influence-the-biden-administration-idUSKBN28V170

      Ron Paul has it right: just as it did through the Obama administration in the Middle East, the left has deployed social media companies to control who can speak and what we can read in an effort to destabilize groups they want to crumble. A tactic in the War on Terror has been used against Americans, and Reason is completely silent. Big Tech has been weaponized against all conservatives, and it’s because of their incestuous relationship with the Democrat party, which can’t race fast enough to give tech executives large roles in the Biden administration. The entire operation is a tit for tat. Get rid of conservative voices, and we’ll reward you with the power to regulate your own industry.

      1. Now I’m pretty well convinced that with the last editorial switch came also an ideological one.

        It all went downhill when they finally got rid of Shikha. 🙂

      2. “If reason can’t stand up for free expression and an open society, they aren’t libertarian at all.”

        Meh, maybe they’re just recognizing that books can be ordered from many sources and you can even have them delivered right to your porch without anyone knowing what your choice of reading material is.

        1. Just because your *ahem* reading material arrives in a non-descript packaging doesn’t mean that everyone from the account managers, to the warehouse workers, to the postal carrier, doesn’t know *exactly* what you ordered.

          1. Just because you’re afraid to have anyone know that you can read (assuming) doesn’t mean that anyone else feels a need to keep this sort of thing a secret.

  26. Many years ago, I was on my way into my local bookstore, and some guy by the door tried to tell me that I shouldn’t buy The Satanic Verses, by Salman Rushdie. I’d heard about it of course, and I knew that the Goatfucker Khomeini had put out contract to have Rushdie murdered, so I told the guy to go fuck himself. I bought a copy of Rushdie’s book, and showed it to him on my way out of the store. (Didn’t end up reading past the first few pages, Rushdie’s prose is bloody tedious, but there was a principle to uphold here.)

    If I were the owner of a book store, and anyone presumed to tell me what books I may or may not offer to customers, I would tell him to fuck right off, and if he committed any act of violence, vandalism, or attempted to intimidate my staff or customers, then it’s clobbering time. The freedom of expression isn’t negotiable, no matter how much it offends the kind of sniveling little commie shits who throw these tantrums.

    -jcr

    1. ” I shouldn’t buy The Satanic Verses, by Salman Rushdie.”

      I agree with some guy by the door. The Satanic Verses is a bore. The only Rushdie book worth the effort I’ve encountered is Midnight’s Children, a true masterpiece. I read several of his other books on the strength of my admiration of Midnight’s Children and was disappointed by the experience.
      http://libgen.rs/fiction/741A21FA0F6EE9B358B7F764C64F1483

    2. You are too credulous. My first thought upon being greeted that way is that he is working for the bookstore, who over bought based upon the controversy and now needs to move inventory.

      But if I did believe him my inclination would be to stick around a bit and counter detail him.

      1. I knew the guys who worked at the bookstore. I was in there a lot.

        -jcr

        1. so they couldn’t hire anybody new without running it by you first?

  27. Our modern day version of book burners, labeling themselves as anti fascist and accusing their enemies of being nazis.

    Up is down, left is right, etc.

    1. Have you heard of the eminent military philosopher Sun Tzu? Well, according to him, the highest form of warfare is to attack your enemy’s alliances. Also pretty high up there on the list is to attack your enemy’s channels of communication. That’s what antifa is up to. By the way, according to Sun Tzu, the lowest form of warfare is to attack a fortified city. It’s a very short and instructive book, The Art of War, which the commenters here should have no trouble understanding.

      The opening passages wherein Sun Tzu illustrates his prowess as a military thinker with a group of concubines is pretty chilling. It’s better once he gets down to brass tacks.

      http://library.lol/main/79930DFA74DA9E76CECB94ACDE7794CC

      1. ” It’s a very short and instructive book, The Art of War, which the commenters here should have no trouble understanding.”

        If they can read Chinese…

    2. The largest opposition to the Nazis were the communists.

      Who were largely pissed off that the fascists had stolen their schtick and polished it up a bit for mass consumption.

      Face it, we never really defeated fascism in WWII, merely tamed some of it’s more murderous proclivities.

      Anyone who has spent any amount of time in Germany (pre, or post reunification) should recognize that.

      1. The largest opposition to the Nazis were the communists….. Which is why Germany didn’t have a prayer.

        Socialism or Communism two breeds of the same bull.

        1. “The largest opposition to the Nazis were the communists”

          Nah. The largest opposition to the Nazis was the Russian winter. They didn’t learn anything from Napoleon. Another way they mismanaged their war effort was dragging the Americans into the war before finishing off the Brits.

          1. “The largest opposition to the Nazis was the Russian winter.”

            General Winter was clearly a factor, but more important is the sheer size of the country. Blitzkrieg worked in smaller countries, but the tanks and aircraft the strategy relied on have their physical limitations. There were chronic problems with fuel right from the start. The reason why the German army didn’t pack winter clothes was that it was more important for them to take fuel.

            1. ” Blitzkrieg worked in smaller countries, but the tanks and aircraft the strategy relied on have their physical limitations.”

              The roads turn to impassable mud when the snow melts. The Russkies knew this, and the Germans didn’t. So their tanks turned into turret positions buried in mud.

              1. “The roads turn to impassable mud when the snow melts.”

                Of course you are correct, but the campaign was supposed to be over by the time winter rolled around. I don’t suppose the roads in Poland were much better in winter, but the relatively small size of the country made it a moot point. The Germans managed to subdue the smaller nations in not much longer than the time it takes to drive across them. Aircraft and tanks can only do so much on a full tank of gas, even at the beginning of summer, when the invasion started. That only became an issue for the German army when they faced the vast space of Russia.

                1. “Of course you are correct, but the campaign was supposed to be over by the time winter rolled around.”

                  The Russians baited the German ground forces into overextending. Hint for future would-be world dominators: You don’t have to take all the land at once. Take what you can hold. The Mongol Hordes took Russia, proving that it can be done.

          2. We’re talking about within Germany’s border among Germans as the Nazis were gaining power, not the fight that Hitler picked with Stalin after having consolidated power.

            1. The largest opposition to the German right was Communists. Communists and German rightists were fighting it out before the Nazis existed. It was the Freikorps that murdered Rosa Luxemburg, for example. Hitler and many of his cronies were members of this organization before they created the Nazi party. German communists did not restrict themselves to Nazis but to the right in general.

              1. Yes, and that organization that became the Nazi Party were interested in creating their own National version of Communism. They succeeded brilliantly. About the only way you could tell the difference between a Nazi and a Communist is by their uniforms.

                1. “Nazi Party were interested in creating their own National version of Communism. ”

                  This is not correct. The Nazi party was fully devoted to private property. Krupp remained in family hands and made profits all through the Nazi regime. The Nazis privatized the local banks that were nationalized during the Weimar years. They nationalized the international bank, not out of communistic fervor, but because of its Jewish involvement, and the Jewish presence in international banking in the the rest of Europe. They wanted to purge the possibility of Jewish influence.

                  Communists were rather friendly towards the Jews. Marx, Trotsky, Zinoviev, and dozens more. They thronged to the red cause during the civil war, fighting against the cossacks who’d had a tradition stretching back centuries celebrating Easter with Jew bashing pogroms. Stalin’s dirtiest deeds, the famines of Ukraine, Kazakstan, the NKVD, all entrusted to Jews. Hitler on the other hand didn’t trust anything to Jews, and went out of his way to exterminate them. The communists exterminated the aristocracy while the Nazis put them on a pedestal

                  “About the only way you could tell the difference between a Nazi and a Communist is by their uniforms.”

                  You’ve already admitted you can’t tell the difference between an anarchist, a pedophile, a business man, a Jew, and a Nazi and a communist. I suspect this is a pose on your part. If you can’t take yourself seriously, don’t expect others to.

                  1. The Nazi party was fully devoted to private property.

                    What utter bullshit. They looted like Visigoths.

                    -jcr

                    1. No, the Nazis looted trade unions and Jews. The Visigoths weren’t so discriminating. The Nazis otherwise fully accepted private property. Mercedes, Krupp, Seimens, and many others remained in private hands and enjoyed profitable business during the years of the Nazi regime. The USSR had some private property. You owned the clothes on your back, and not much else. None of the major economic outfits were privately owned. They were state owned.

                      Why the pose? You don’t need me to explain the difference between public and private property. What did you think you gain from this display of feigned ignorance?

                    2. The Nazis were interested in “property in name only”, and if the trade unions and Jews weren’t available as scapegoats, they would have found someone else for scapegoats regardless. Adolph Hitler himself said so.

                      Oh, and Communists weren’t exactly friends of trade unions, either.

                    3. The Nazis were interested in property and were not as keen on honoring the claims of ownership of whoever said they owned it before the Nazis grabbed it.

                    4. In other words, not that much different than Communists, then.

            2. “We’re talking about within Germany’s border among Germans as the Nazis were gaining power”

              Which changes nothing. The reason Hitler failed was a gross overestimation of Hitler’s ability to run a war.

              1. You are talking about Hitler’s last days in power. We’re discussing Hitler coming to power.

                The alternative was Communists, and it’s not at all hard to look at Russia, China, Cuba, et al and see that had the Communists won, history probably wouldn’t have looked all that different.

                1. “history probably wouldn’t have looked all that different.”

                  It’s hard to speculate, but history would probably have been different. Lenin was in exile in Switzerland in 1917, and the Germans let him pass on the ‘sealed train’ and probably helped finance some of his efforts, including the all important publication of newspapers. This is notable because Germany and Russia were fighting a war against each other at the time, and Lenin was successful largely because he was the only political leader in Russia to promise to end the war, which he did. But Lenin was counting on a successful communist uprising in Germany, and anything happening in Russia would be subordinate to that. The communist takeover of Germany never happened and the Russians were left to fend for themselves, against the ideas of every leftist from Marx onwards, who never thought communism would stand a chance in a backward non-capitalist country like Russia. So Lenin was left scrambling, making contradictory policies on the fly.

                  1. How does that have all that much bearing with what happened in the 1930s? IE, the time that Communists and proto-Nazis were vying for power?

                    1. I think that if the communists couldn’t swing it in 1919, that was game over. Germany was completely demoralized by then and the communists seemed to be worth a bet, They lost some important leaders to assassination and were never able to, if you’ll pardon the expression, capitalize on their strengths,

                      “what happened in the 1930s?”

                      What happened in the 30s is due to parliamentary maneuvering and the machinations of ancient right wingers like von Papen. The communists had nothing to do with it.

                2. ” We’re discussing Hitler coming to power.”

                  Man these goalposts just won’t stand still.

                  “The alternative was Communists”

                  No, the alternative was sticking it out with the Weimar Republic.

                  1. I know. I wish you would stop moving them!

                    1. “I you are but what am I?” should have stopped working for you about the time you finished grade school. Unless…?

                    2. I have to confess I do have a weakness for arguing with mental midgets.

                      I really need to stop letting them get under my skin.

        2. “Socialism or Communism two breeds of the same bull.”

          This is stupid, but you already knew that.

          Socialism is where it’s more efficient if an asset is publicly held, In Communism, all the assets are publicly held whether it’s efficient that way or not.
          Being unable to tell the difference between these two totally different things is why so many people make choices against their own interests.

    3. “Our modern day version of book burners, labeling themselves as anti fascist and accusing their enemies of being nazis.”

      Must have missed the piles of burning books in the photos.

      1. That’s because, as Ray Bradbury observed, you don’t necessarily need a match to burn books.

        1. Still no burning books. Point to the burning books in the picture.

          1. You don’t even need bonfires to burn books. You just need people to be offended, and bookstores to declare that they won’t carry the books anymore.

            All this has been observed and/or foretold by Ray Bradbury. If you aren’t familiar with this, read “Fahrenheit 451” and his essay afterward, describing how books can be “burned” by merely being offended.

            1. Fahrenheit 451 is fiction. In his fiction Ray fictionally had actual books burning. Here in reality, there were approximately 0 books burned. Try again.

              1. It’s hilarious that you think you’re the smarter one in this exchange.

                1. “It’s hilarious that you think you’re the smarter one in this exchange.”

                  Not as hilarious as you pretending I’m not.

              2. The essay at the end of the book wasn’t fiction.

                And too many people have been reading 1984, Fahrenheit 451, Brave New World, the Prince, and other dystopian works intended as warnings and sarcasm, and using them as instruction manuals instead.

                Here in reality, entire voices are being silenced. Websites have lost their DNS lookups, entire platforms for speech have been denied access to resources, even books are being denied a platform (eg, “We’ll still make it available online, but we won’t carry it in our bookstores”).

                Ray Bradbury’s point in his essay was that there’s more than one way to burn a book — and it was possible to do so without so much as lighting a match.

                1. “Here in reality, entire voices are being silenced”

                  There you go again, confusing the “reality” in your head with the one other people exist in.

                2. “Websites have lost their DNS lookups, entire platforms for speech have been denied access to resources, even books are being denied a platform (eg, “We’ll still make it available online, but we won’t carry it in our bookstores”).”

                  Dealing with these things one at a time. If websites are losing their DNS lookups the people running their DNS servers should be fired. Oh wait, did you not know that domains run their own DNS? No? that’s why you’re being mocked.

                  if “entire platforms for speech have been denied access to resources” this is again either mismanagement or an argument to own your own resources instead of trying to use other peoples’ resources contrary to the way they contract out their resources. Boo-hoo.

                  Finally ” even books are being denied a platform (eg, “We’ll still make it available online, but we won’t carry it in our bookstores”).

                  As has been pointed out for you. A total of precisely 0.0 books were burned, and they remain available for sale, via a substantial number of alternative methods. It’s not in a store (where, thanks to capitalist principles, the owner of the store gets to decide what merchandise the store offers) but it is available to order, for people who know what book they want to order (and, as noted in commentary above, this “event” has brought it to the attention of a number of would-be buyers.)

                  There’s no book-burning here, literal or figurative, you jackass, do you get the point yet?!

                  1. Regarding DNS: Sites may be blocked or “filtered”, effectively blacklisted by DNS providers. Since the DNS system is distributed, the effectiveness of blacklisting sites/IPs may vary, but Google and Amazon host a lot of DNS infrastructure. Most end users lack the knowledge and initiative to work around this.

                    Regarding the “entire platforms” issue: To use the Parler example, it was not mismanagement to host their content on AWS. That is arguably the best option for a startup or small business. Setting up and running your own datacenter is no small task and not cheap (well, not if you’re doing it like your business depends on it). So far, we have seen no published evidence of any violation of the AWS TOS by Parler, nor of any contractual violations. According to their CEO, the alternatives with which they had contracts also backed out, and no other hosting provider would work with them. It’s hard to see where Parler went wrong, other than refusing to deplatform the President; there’s no evidence of IT mismanagement.

                    Same topic: For smaller players, such as individuals and sole proprietors who make their livings off of Instagram, YouTube, or whatever, they have no viable options once the big social media corporations collectively squelch them. Furthermore, it’s trivial to find ample evidence of uneven treatment (or perhaps I should use inequitable, since a focus on “equity” is so popular these days).

                    Regarding book “burning”: EG’s core point is that you are taking only one of that word’s specific meanings (as in combustion) – obstinately, it seems, even though you later acknowledge the figurative usage of the word. The end result is effectively the same whether some of the books are literally burned, or whether some of the books dry-rot in warehouses because fewer sellers will risk selling them or are bullied into restricting sales channels, or whether Amazon removes the e-book from all the Kindles which have it the next time the device connects to Amazon’s servers.

                    1. “Regarding DNS: Sites may be blocked or ‘filtered’, effectively blacklisted by DNS providers. Since the DNS system is distributed, the effectiveness of blacklisting sites/IPs may vary, but Google and Amazon host a lot of DNS infrastructure. Most end users lack the knowledge and initiative to work around this.

                      I’m well aware of how DNS works, and how it doesn’t Even though Google runs a public DNS server, if you haven’t set up your system to use Google’s DNS server as your default DNS server, what they do with it has exactly zero effect on your DNS searching. It’s not something you have to work around, you have to have intentionally put them into your DNS infrastructure to have them have any effect. Whether or not most users actually understand DNS, they’re not having Google interfering with their DNS because they just didn’t know how to keep Google out of their DNS; not having Google in your DNS is default.

                      ” To use the Parler example, it was not mismanagement to host their content on AWS.”

                      OK. Then everything is fine and there’s nothing to complain about. What? You say you’re still not satisfied?

                      ” According to their CEO, the alternatives with which they had contracts also backed out, and no other hosting provider would work with them.”

                      One of the alternatives is to build your own data center. Are you saying they built their own data center and then refused to host their own content? Man, this conspiracy against them runs deep.

                      ” The end result is effectively the same whether some of the books are literally burned, or whether some of the books dry-rot in warehouses because fewer sellers will risk selling them or are bullied into restricting sales channels”
                      So, they’re “burned” whether they’re burned or not? No way to argue with THAT. what alternative are you looking for, one where the book is shipped to people whether they wanted it or not, and anything else is “burning” it? What does Kindle have to do with whether or not you can buy a book from a bookstore?

            2. “You don’t even need bonfires to burn books. You just need people to be offended, and bookstores to declare that they won’t carry the books anymore.”

              In this story, count up all the bookstores that have declared that they won’t carry the book any more.

              I counted, and got 0. Did you get a different number?

              1. I counted 1. This particular bookstore said they wouldn’t put it on display for fear of the mob. That isn’t a light thing.

      2. Books in NY in 1873, Beatles albums in Georgia in 1966…

  28. I didn’t even know Ngo has a book coming out. Now I’ve got it on preorder. Good job, Panty-fa!

    1. Ngo should tweet out a thanks to Portland antifa for free marketing.

  29. “NYT Reporter Warns Conservative Writer Andy Ngo is a ‘Real Threat’, Should Be Censored on Twitter”

    https://www.yahoo.com/amphtml/nyt-reporter-warns-conservative-writer-000153446.html

    1. Nothing to see here….

      This is not going to end well.

    2. The NYT is bravely punching up against the menace of a single journalist doing the majority of his reporting in hostile territory.

    3. That so-called “reporter” is the snotty little racist cunt, Sarah Jeong. If she calls someone a threat, consider her about as credible as Walter Duranty was when he was parroting Stalin’s party line.

      -jcr

  30. I vacationed near Portland a couple of years ago and ventured in to the city a couple of times, including a visit to the famous Powell’s Book Store. It’s gigantic – takes up a city block and is 3 or 4 stories. It offers both new and used books. I am not surprised the owners of Powell’s decided to remove Ngo’s book from their shelves – Portland has been buckling to progressives for years, even when such demands are unreasonable.

    1. It is a bit of a tourist destination. In good weather, a visitor should also try to hit the Saturday Market.

      1. It’s a tourist destination because it’s a great bookstore, you idiot.

        1. Is that also what brings the tourists to Multnomah Falls? How great a bookstore it is varies depending on which of the stores you choose to visit. The main store downtown is a tourist attraction. The branch stores on Hawthorne St. and in Beaverton are not drawing tourists for some reason. Nor the store at the airport, or the one in the middle of the transit system.
          You bigger idiot.

    2. Ironically, that same bookstore may still be a riot away from being burned down. Appeasing them doesn’t always provide the hoped-for protection.

      1. Do they have any Friedman literature in-store? If so, does ANTIFA know about it?

        They’re pissed about Ngo’s book today, they’ll be pissed about a different one tomorrow. If you kow-tow to these people you just invite them to keep doing this shit until you have no more books to sell, far better to loudly and repeatedly tell them to go fuck themselves.

        1. But if they’re in the capitol, it’s important to listen to their concerns about election security.

          1. You are mixing up cause and effect. It’s important for Representatives to listen to the concerns of their constituents. If they don’t, the probability of riots increases.

            But we all know it’s ok for Democrats to break into the offices of their Representatives if it’s to demand #MeToo and railroading a nominee of the Supreme Court with specious accusations to prevent that nominee to become a Justice, but it’s desecration of all that is sacred and holy when deplorable people do it.

            1. “You are mixing up cause and effect. It’s important for Representatives to listen to the concerns of their constituents. If they don’t, the probability of riots increases.”

              Particularly if the concerned constituents are already rioting.

              “But we all know it’s ok for Democrats to break into the offices of their Representatives if it’s to demand #MeToo”

              Were you imagining this ranting made sense? I sure hope not.

              1. Were you angry when Democrats broke into offices during the Kavaunaugh hearings?

                If not, then I fail to see why you have any moral standing to dismiss people who are concerned about election integrity.

  31. I oppose censorship, including this kind of “mob rule” intimidation but let’s be clear, this is a private company which is allowing itself to be intimidated. The left isn’t forcing anyone, they are making threats of boycotts and lawsuits, not so very different from threats of boycotts and lawsuits by others. I think it’s wrong to seek to silence voices of dissent (it certainly is if the government does it) but private companies are free to do what they like, even if they do something I think is ill-advised.

    1. Uh, these same fucksticks just spent several months destroying Portland, and are ratcheting it up again.

      If you think a threat of a boycott or lawsuit is all antifa is threatening, you’re an idiot.

      1. “Uh, these same fucksticks just spent several months destroying Portland”

        By which you mean of course they kept the yahoos from coming over from Vancouver to run rallies.

        1. No, we mean that they literally burned down businesses.

          1. So, you don’t know WTF you’re talking about. Noted.

            1. I take it you’re one of those people who saw the reporters with the fire in the background talking about “mostly peaceful protests”, and believed what the reporters were saying, and not what was going on in the background?

              That’s at least $2 billion worth of insurance claims and at least 22 deaths worth of ignorance right there!

              1. I take it that any mob is the same as the one you don’t like. They’re all part of the “conspiracy” against you, aren’t they?

                1. Yes, it is about “mobs I don’t like”.

                  I don’t like mobs that vandalize, burn, loot, destroy, and intimidate.

                  And by insisting that none of this is happening, you have joined the ranks of those reporters who claimed that protests were fully peaceful with buildings raging on fire in the background.

                  1. “I don’t like mobs that vandalize, burn, loot, destroy, and intimidate.”

                    The part where you seem to think it’s all the same mob doing all the burning looting remains unclear.

                    1. All those wildfires that raged in Australia last year, were those all done by this one set of Portland goons? They sure get around.

                  2. “I don’t like mobs that vandalize, burn, loot, destroy, and intimidate.”

                    This one went into the store and explained to management what they wanted.
                    They didn’t get what they wanted, so they taped a sign to the exit doors, suggesting that customers might join a boycott. Or, in your words, vandalize, burn, loot, and destroy.

                    there’s approximately nothing keeping a fan of Mr. Ngo’s work from going into the store and demanding that they stock it immediately. I imagine they’ll get about the same exact result.

    2. ” this is a private company which is allowing itself to be intimidated.”

      They’re recognizing the market in which they operate. This book wouldn’t sell well in Portland, so no point putting it on shelves there. It’ll sell quite well as a mail-order with deliveries across the river, so that’s where a smart business would try to sell it.

      1. And the fear that Antifa could burn down their business — as Antifa has done all across the country — wouldn’t possibly enter into their decision-making process!

        1. Antifa has burned down Powell’s bookstores all across the country? Oh, noes…

          1. Not Powell’s specifically, but I was heartbroken to learn that a pair of bookstores, “Uncle Hugos” and “Uncle Edgars”, had been burned down. Maybe I’m misremembering my riots — maybe they were “merely” just trashed and looted. Of course, a mob that can burn down a car dealership (which I do remember happening in Kenosha!) probably would have no idea how to burn down a bookstore.

            But then, there’s not much of a difference, is there? Whether looted or burned, a business won’t necessarily recover from the attack.

            1. Look at you, pretending to care about a bookstore business. It’s kind of cute.

              1. Look at you, pretending you care about businesses, their rights, and their general welfare. It’s a hoot!

                1. Is that the most rational response you’ve got? Go back to kindergarten.

                  1. It’s more rational than what you’ve been putting out.

                    But I’ve been noticing a pattern. You throw out a childish taunt. I respond in kind. You tell me I need to go back to Kindergarten.

                    It should be pretty clear, at this point, who the real Kindergartener is!

  32. And let’s be clear, this is FAR from what Twitter or FB have done, they squelched people using their application to advocate violence. Again, entirely legal, entirely within their prerogative. and entirely fair.

    1. No, this is the same. Twitter and FB have not squelched people using their application to advocate violence. They have squelched people for far less, and have been doing for far longer than just since January 6th. And they largely only do this against one political side, making their claims “we just want to prevent violence” disingenuous at best.

      And even if they have the right and prerogative to do this — and perhaps they do — all they are doing is forcing one side of the political isle into hiding, where both sides are being pushed further into echo chambers and polarization. All this is doing is aggravating the possibility of Civil War.

      1. ” all they are doing is forcing one side of the political isle into hiding”

        And from there, it’s just a small step to voting them off the island. Bring your torch, it’s time to put out the fire.

        1. How are you going to push 70 million people off the island, though? You’re deluded if you think it’s going to be easy.

          The sad things is: we know that the Democrats are going to try.

          1. Kick the dumbest one off first.

            … on the next episode of “Survivor”. Or are you “The Weakest Link”
            either way… goodbye.

            1. Wow, a leftist gleefully looking forward to a political pogrom, even if not quite so candidly described. When has that ever happened in history? Oh, wait…

              Thanks for letting the mask slip. If anyone here had doubts about what you truly are, they shouldn’t any longer.

              You remind me of Rev. Kirkland, but with properly adjusted meds and less charm.

              1. “Wow, a leftist gleefully looking forward to a political pogrom, even if not quite so candidly described. When has that ever happened in history? Oh, wait…”

                You are amazingly stupid, if you see television programs like “Survivor” as a “pogrom”.

                Then again, you’ve also decided I’m a “leftist”, so your power of analysis is not that good.

                “with properly adjusted meds and less charm.”
                Your meds are rather obviously not “properly-adjusted”, as you’re rather delusional. Better luck with your next set of meds.

                1. A pogrom is merely “Survivor”, only practiced on people in real life, without consent of those voted off the island.

      2. ” Twitter and FB have not squelched people using their applications to advocate violence. They have squelched people for far less, and have been doing for far longer than just since January 6th.”

        And it’s THEIR STUFF. If you don’t like how they manage THEIR STUFF. Stop using THEIR STUFF.

  33. “This book will not be on our store shelves, and we will not promote it. That said, it will remain in our online catalogue.”

    So brave.

  34. “Far-left activists surrounded Powell’s Books in Portland on Monday and demanded the store stop selling Unmasked: Inside Antifa’s Radical Plan to Destroy Democracy, a book about antifa written by Andy Ngo. The protests forced the store to close early.”

    It takes a LOT of activists to surround Powell’s Books in Portland. The store takes up an entire city block. Unless they meant the Hawthorne St. store

    1. “Nice business you have there. Pity if something were to happen to it.”

      1. Nice brain you had there. Pity something happened to it.

        1. Ha, that was funny!

          Now do an impersonation of someone who knows what they are talking about, and can tell the truth. All your impersonations of someone who doesn’t know what they are talking about have been very good, as well as your impersonations of a gaslighting person, but it would be nice to see if you could do something else for once.

          1. “Now do an impersonation of someone who knows what they are talking about”

            You wouldn’t recognize it if you saw it.

            ” All your impersonations of someone who doesn’t know what they are talking about have been very good.”

            I haven’t impersonated you even once. I let you take care of illustrating how poorly-thought-out your argument was.

            1. Of course you haven’t been impersonating me.

              I don’t use ad hominem attacks and expect them to be sufficient for “disproving” a point.

              1. You don’t do ANYTHING to disprove a point.

              2. “Of course you haven’t been impersonating me.”

                Can’t. The stupid would bother me too much. The real thing straight from you is bad enough, without adding more.

  35. Looking forward to watching the cable news channels report on this. Just kidding. They can’t report on Antifa since we are told that they don’t exist.

    1. What’s there to report. Some twits made a demand, and it didn’t work. Not unlike marching on the capital to demand that all the “election stealing” stop happening.
      The election stealing was stopped. Donnie the T has to leave in a week.

  36. Funny, I read the NY Times every day and didn’t see this story.

  37. Pretty soon, bookstores and stores in general are going to to need a sign like the one in Robert A. Heinlein’s book Farnham’s Freehold:

    FARNHAM’S FREEHOLD

    TRADING POST & RESTAURANT BAR

    American Vodka Corn Liquor Applejack

    Pure Spring Water Grade “A” Milk

    Corned Beef & Potatoes Steak & Fried Potatoes Butter & some days Bread Smoked Bear Meat

    Jerked Quisling (by the neck)

    !!!!Any BOOK Accepted as Cash!!!!

    DAY NURSERY

    !!FREE KITTENS!!

    Blacksmithing, Machine Shop, Sheet Metal Work — You Supply the Metal

    FARNHAM SCHOOL OF CONTRACT BRIDGE

    Lessons by Arrangement

    Social Evening Every Wednesday

    WARNING!!!

    Ring Bell. Wait. Advance with your Hands Up. Stay on path, avoid mines. We lost three customers last week. We can’t afford to lose you. No sales tax. Hugh & Barbara Farnham & Family

    Freeholders

    1. Stick with the better novels, Starship Troopers, and The Moon is a Harsh Mistress and Tunnel in the Sky.

      Beware of the stobor.

      1. But, as good as those novels are, none of those novels don’t have the wording for the signs we’re all going to need soon!

        1. Beware of the stobor.

      2. All good too, But the sign from Farnham’s Freehold seemed most fitting for a Post-Apocalyptic scenario that this nation seems Hell-bent on approaching.

        “TANSTAAFL!” may again become a battle cry once we can no longer pay for Multi-Trillion Dollar-at-pop Presidential Administrations.

        1. There you go. That one comes from one of the better novels.

    2. That has always been my favorite welcome mat. The Heinleins really did have a hydrogen bomb shelter that, as far as I know, is still a tourist attraction. Up the road at The Golem Press we mailed out cubic yards of Kearney’s “Nuclear War Survival Skills” (also recommended for bio-weapons attacks) back in the days of the Libertarian Defense Caucus.

      1. Ah yes, Hank! The Inspector Luger of Libertarianism, waxing nostalgic about the Good Ol’ Days of “spoiler votes”…just Phillips & McBride & Hospers & Nation vs. The World! Consider me your Barney Miller co-patrolman on the freedom beat!

        Hank, you’ll be pleased to note that, last I checked, Kearney’s book is now available for free online. Now, distibuting them is as easy as looking it up and passing on the link. (I would post it myself, but Reason.com keeps holding my links for moderation.)

        Since I now have your ear and eye, I just have to ask: What’s all this huckle-buck about “Libertarian spoiler votes?”

        The Libertarian Party must be made of the same stuff as Twinkies…They’ve been on the shelf for damn nigh 50 years and their forerunners even longer and they haven’t started “spoiling” yet! Heck they “spoiled” less in 2020 than the last Election.

        Why not ditch that embarassment and find non-partisan ways to promote liberty?

        1. “Why not ditch that embarassment and find non-partisan ways to promote liberty?”

          the best way to promote liberty is to live freely. When done well, you don’t even have to answer questions.

  38. How’s this for cowardice?
    You can bet I’ll never set foot in there again.
    That store was always one of the main reasons I’d drive to Portland.

    1. I’m sure Portland will miss out on your visits.

  39. They wish to deny free speech protections to the far-right and its enablers

    This word “enablers” is also showing up in statements supporting increased restrictions on what can be said on social media. It’s basically a psychobabble word, and we should be very wary of its use.

    1. “I love the uneducated!”

      Donald Trump, 2016

      1. Despite having a doctorate, I cannot help but appreciate the uneducated myself, particularly the experienced ones. They know things that would take me years of experience to understand myself.

        Once upon a time, there was a Party that was for the mega-rich and for the ultra-poor, that fought to make the rich richer and steal from the middle class to give to the poor, thereby convincing the poor to vote for them. They used to pretend to support the middle class, and respect the honesty of the hard-working blue-collar worker who might not be educated, but knew what they were talking about.

        Now the mask is off. That Party is openly hostile to the uneducated.

        Is it any wonder that President Trump was able to make the inroads he did? He respected a constituency that one of the Parties had abandoned, and the other Party had always written off as hopelessly unionized and hostile!

        1. “Despite having a doctorate, I cannot help but appreciate the uneducated myself”

          Aha, the elusive Trump University alum.

          Trump was (and still is) a conman. One of his few actual skills is the ability to spot a mark and then take him for everything he’s worth.

          1. Ah, so President Trump like is pretty much any other politician, then!

            Excepting, of course, he actually puts efforts into trying to keep his campaign promises, which is why he drove pretty much every other politician nuts. Things just aren’t done that way in politics.

            And it isn’t enough for you to mock those who are uneducated. You have to mock the educated who happen to don’t agree with you, too. It’s no wonder that Democrats have to cheat to win elections! They have no people skills.

            1. “Excepting, of course, he actually puts efforts into trying to keep his campaign promises”

              He’s only got a week left to sign that “better than Obamacare” healthcare bill that he was going to sign on “day one”. And when’s Mexico paying for that wall, again?

              ” It’s no wonder that Democrats have to cheat to win elections! They have no people skills.”

              Dumbass, you can’t tell anything about the Democrats from me. I’m unaffiliated with any political party. Your (allegedly) awesome people skills didn’t help you win any elections…

              1. I’m not anti-Republican. I’m anti-stupid. Not that it makes any difference for you.

  40. I have it on good authority that “Prohibition and The Crash” is a crass, vulgar, extremist pack of lies casting aspersions on The Noble Experiment. It and the raciss “America’s Black President-2228” deserve to be boycotted, shunned, burnt, picketed, Arseniod, doxxed, badmouthed and put down by all woke Antifa-minded goodthinkful peeps.

    1. so don’t buy it.

    2. Without regard to the quality of the book, the so-called “Noble Experiment” was anything but noble. I would say that granting the federal government (or any government, if the busybody teetotalers had taken a state-by-state approach) that level of power and control over individual choice was evil.

  41. This intimidation on a business’s desire to support free discourse and trade because the Portland government refuses to provide adequate protection. And it does in a politically biased manner that favors (and in effect subsidizes) leftist political violence. The outcome here is government favoritism for leftist political speech.

    We all need to speak out more loudly against this, amplifying the example, calling out your politicians for this, and voting!

    1. ” We all need to speak out more loudly against this, amplifying the example, calling out your politicians for this, and voting!”

      Spoken like a true liberal. You’ll never rise through the ranks of antifa with opinions like that.

      1. Indeed. That’s because Antifa doesn’t believe in free speech, and believes in silencing their opposition through intimidation.

        And the politicians in Oregon have absolutely no problem with this, which should show us that they aren’t liberal at all.

        1. “which should show us that they aren’t liberal at all.”

          They are secret members of the pedophile party.

          1. Who’re the not-so-secret members?

            1. Do they hide their identities by taking on Greek letters as identifiers, by any chance?

    2. ” the Portland government refuses to provide adequate protection. And it does in a politically biased manner that favors (and in effect subsidizes) leftist political violence. The outcome here is government favoritism for leftist political speech.”

      Spoken like someone who truly has no idea what the political climate is like in and near Portland.

      1. I sincerely doubt you have any idea of what the political climate in Portland is like, either. Or if you do, you are trying to cover for what it’s really like.

        1. I did leave a while back, but spent enough time in Oregon to learn to read the room.

          Back in the days when I went to high school, Oregon had two Republican Senators, both fairly well respected, and a two-term Republican governor who was a businessman in the capital (which is NOT Portland) the party went wackadoodle, and they started losing statewide public office elections. The Conservatives had a touch of success with initiative lawmaking, reacting to the horrible specter of gay people being treated like people through an initiative pushed by Lon Mabon and the Oregon Citizens Alliance, which quickly proved to be too extreme for centrists. Then, they got a tax revolt through. They slashed property taxes by simply telling the voters that any money lost to the school districts would be replaced by tapping the state’s General Fund, thereby placing the state government in charge of school funding instead of leaving it to the various districts to decide for themselves how much tax revenue to spend on schools. This provoked a couple of decades of fighting over school funding, with Republicans insisting there was no need to fund schools. After all they weren’t good in school and look at them now, holding positions of authority in the government! Amazingly, this pushed suburban parents away from the Republicans. That’s when they started REALLY losing statewide elections, to the point where it started making it difficult to find good candidates, which didn’t help them out of their spiral. Having gotten rid of most of the electable candidates, the party turned even harder towards one Bill Sizemore, a conman who figured out how to monetize putting bad ititiaties on the ballot. He’d get wealthy out-of-staters to finance his operation. Towards the end, all the opposition had to do was advertise “this measure is another one of Bill Sizemore’s” and they could get it voted down. So the Republicans got the brilliant idea to run Mr. Sizemore for governor! He, uh, didn’t win.
          Then there’s the case of AG Kroger. He was a law prof and the Northwestern School of Law in Portland who decided to take a stab at running the largest law office in the state. He ran as a Democrat in the primary, and won the Republican primary as a write-in. Back then, candidates weren’t allowed to list more than one party affiliation on the ballot so the R’s had to nominate a sacrificial lamb to run against him. He served an unambitious term as AG, then had to retire for health reasons and became President of Reed College, an academic institution noted for extremely smart people (so, not a lot of Conservatives walking around).

          So, yeah, I think I do recall the political climate of Portland fairly accurately.

          1. I’m still not convinced you’re a trustworthy source of what the political climate in Oregon is like. You haven’t been able to do a good job of proving to be a trustworthy commentator in general.

            1. Because I keep pointing out that you’re full of shit? I can see why you wouldn’t like that.

  42. Time to read banned books, speak banned words, and think banned thoughts. Off to the Gulag for me.

  43. Is it just possible that thirty years of political correctness, cancel culture and social justice helped fueled the mob in the capitol?
    On topic, since it appears antifa is the de facto government of Portland, this could be a first amendment issue.

  44. “This book will not be on our store shelves, and we will not promote it.”

    That’s what someone who doesn’t want his bookstore busted up by thugs would say.

    1. Depends on which thugs, exactly, he thinks are likely to come looking to bust up a bookstore.

      1. In this case, it’s the thugs showing up at the bookstore making the demands.

        1. As if the other brand of thugs lacks firebombs.

          1. Perhaps they don’t lack for firebombs, but they at least lack an extensive history of using them.

            1. there’s that problem again, where the facts as you wish they were true and imagine to be true, sadly are just NOT true.

              1. Note the word extensive, although I should have added recent to the description as well.

                1. Powell’s has actual experience with would-be fire-bombers. so does Portland.

          2. Would you please stick to the article. Do you believe Antifa’s tactics are acceptable?

            1. “Would you please stick to the article. Do you believe Antifa’s tactics are acceptable?

              The ones in this article? Sure, why not? They went to a business and asked for what they wanted. Nothing wrong with that.

              1. Now, if they’d gone into a McDonald’s, and asked for a Big Mac with no lettuce, that would have crossed a line.

  45. The book may have been pulled from shelves, but the news reports have probably boosted online sales more than any book-signing that a publicist could ever dream of. The story reminds me of conservatives’ counter-productive efforts to ban counter-cultural music, movies and books in the 1960s and 70s.

    I bet Ngo is laughing all the way to the bank and “negotiating” with Ante-Fa to stage more bookstore protests nationwide.

    1. “I bet Ngo is laughing all the way to the bank and “negotiating” with Ante-Fa to stage more bookstore protests nationwide.”

      Nixon tried to have John Lennon deported for suggesting anti-American sentiment like “give peace a chance”. Ultimately, this didn’t end well for Lennon. (He was allowed to stay, and Chapman got him.)

      1. According to the local media, “In a tweet Sunday, Ngo shared screenshots of people unhappy that Powell’s has his book, scheduled for release in February, listed on its site, writing, “Antifa are threatening to picket Portland bookstore @Powells if they don’t ban my book about antifa.”

        1. Oh, noes! Picketing? Burning and looting and picketing?

    2. “I bet Ngo is laughing ”

      Give me the odds on Ngo staging the whole event with actors to get some attention. A stunt right out of the book pro wrestling play book.

  46. Toss that Amazon link in the recycle bin and replace it with the powell’s link here

    https://www.powells.com/book/unmasked-9781546059585

    Stop supporting the censors and start supporting the seller that believes in free speech

    1. No, no, we’re mad at Powell’s for caving and not putting the book on shelves for Portlanders to ignore.

      1. Haha, the reason the place isn’t a pile of ashes is that the book isn’t physically on site.

        1. The book probably isn’t THAT incendiary.

  47. Regarding bowing to ANTIFA’s desires, devil take them, the desires and ANTIFA both. Shame on Powell’s, shame on local authorities for their failure to squash banditry.

  48. This is a PSYOP run by DHS. If you look back at history, fascists are the ones who do things like book burning, especially in 1933. So the Antifascist fasicsts? SRSLY? The trend at the DHS is to do psyops based on landmarks – so a mass shooting at the Gilroy Garlic Festival, etc. Powells is synonymous with Portland, which is a major youth intelligence recruiting hub. If you look at the history of the CIA they control “the left.” and generally manipulate it into a bunch of nonsensical cul-de-sacs that make it ultimately irrelevant, which is what this CIA/DHS controlled PSYOP is doing. I bet these youths think it’s fun to play dress up and prance around looking badass and rebellious. It’s just a show. It’s also sad that everyone buys it.

Please to post comments