Sunday, February 12, 2017

The Left Must Become MORE Violent!

Thought the mindless violence that shut down Milo Yiannopoulos at Berkeley was bad? According to Yvette Falarca, the leader of "By Any Means Necessary" -- a name that evokes bloody, ruthless totalitarianism -- that riot was just a warm-up. The barbarism and chaos at Berkeley only whetted the appetite of Attila the Hen. According to Falarca, anyone who doesn't support the leftist agenda is a "fascist," and ANY means that stop the opposition are legitimate. (As the creepy name of her organization makes explicit.) As scary as this interview is, it's worthwhile watching it. At one point, Falarca complains that the "left has been too timid." Yeah.

Okay. We've been warned. Keep your powder dry, folks. The left has declared war on the entire Bill of Rights.


roho said...

This is pretty interesting after listening to some radio interviews on NPR by the same leftist community organizers.

Most use Nazi and Facist interchangably with the same logic. Their logic is that had the left started out with violent grass roots activism in the 1930's, neither Hitler or Mussalini could have come into power?..............They also see globalism as the detterent to Nationalism. They believe that the Holocoust could have been avoided had todays leftist protests taken place. (Globalist elites are using them like useful idiots.)

I'm not a Reagan Worshiper, but a review of how he handled the 1969 Berkley Riots is how I eventually think Trump will deal with it as well?

Anonymous said...

Storm's comin'.

Snaggle-Tooth Jones

Weaver said...

With the Internet here, it makes no sense today to riot. Write your local paper or post to your blog if unhappy.

And rioters depend on the mass media to spin their events.

Southerners "protest" by putting up Confederate battle flags. If a group of globalists wants to protest the lack of globalisation, it should just fly a little Captain Planet flag.

It should not be legal to host "riots". I have zero sympathy for these barbarians. Civilised people protest in a civilised manner.

Weaver said...

The "Left" claims to fight for "equality", which is similar to how a nationalist resistance would rally around populism, the common interests of a people. That isn't to say nationalists would want perfect equality but rather greater equality and a caring government. "Caring" doesn't suggest socialism but good governance.

Too often the "Right" out of blind reaction goes too far in embracing the opposite of what the "Left" wants. Or we blindly embrace a shadow of what laws previously existed.

All it would take to win politically would have been to embrace pursuit of a large middle class, the old Pat Buchanan formula which Trump is now using. Whites would have rallied around that. Instead, our side defended economic inequality and only mentioned race in a Social Darwinism context, rarely in an authentic nationalist manner.

An ideology has to serve the interests of the people who believe in it. Finally with Trump we have something closer to the old Buchananite movement. So, despite his faults, I believe Trump is vastly superior to many of the current alternative right wing movements.

The current globalism has divided society into rich and poor. The poor have limited opportunities due to how little they earn. When the federal government steps in to help, it's frequently only to create more problems, to exacerbate the situation, creating greater demands for government aid.

So, the way out is to promise less government but also to pursue a large middle class. This is how one would defeat international socialism if desiring to defeat it. Classical liberalism creates problems of inequality, which create not simply envy but power imbalance and loss of freedom. So the ideal then is to seek ways to promote greater economic equality without creating government dependence. This isn't to say such answers all problems but that it's a simplistic ideology that defeats international socialism.