Terrorism won yesterday in Berkeley and Portland. See these important stories.

Summary: Yesterday was a big day for political terrorism in America, with wins for the terrorists in Berkeley and Portland. Plus applause from many on the Left. Success is copied. Expect more threats of political violence and violence — until we no longer tolerate such behavior.

“This is the moment our generation decides whether we are a society of laws & freedoms, or violence & militance.”
— Jeff Giesea (on Twitter).

Seattle protest on 20 January 2017
Seattle protest on 20 January 2017. AP photo by Ted Warren.

Today was a big day for domestic terrorism in America, with two wins. These wins will embolden those using political violence, both Left & Right. No sanctimonious speeches can conceal this.

First, more craven behavior by Berkeley

Ann Coulter cancelled her appearance at Berkeley. The city and university routinely bow before threats of violence by the Left.

“{Berkeley} said it could not accommodate her on the date and time it had initially scheduled her because of threats of violence ….The school said she could speak only at a later date and an earlier time of day, when there were likely to be fewer students on campus and less of a likelihood for violent outbreaks. …

“Ms. Coulter was confronted with the dangerous prospect of setting foot unguarded on a campus that erupted in violence in February after another conservative speaker, Milo Yiannopoulos, planned to appear. The school canceled his event. …Administrators at Berkeley …offered a day next week when students are no longer in class ….”  {New York Times.}

Another liberal city similarly caved to Leftist terrorists: “Organizers cancel 82nd Avenue of Roses Parade, after protesters threaten to shut it down” by Jamie Hale in The Oregonian.

“Organizers of the 82nd Avenue of Roses Parade announced Tuesday that the event will be canceled, for fear that the east Portland parade could be disrupted by ‘the type of riots which happen in downtown Portland.’ Originally scheduled this Saturday, April 29, the parade is meant to highlight the local community and businesses along Southeast 82nd Avenue, aiming to turn around the negative perception many people have of the area. It started in 2007 and has since become a popular event on the Rose Festival calendar.

“This year’s parade was once again set to feature the Multnomah County Republican Party as one of the many groups slated to march, but that inclusion drew ire from some of the city’s left-leaning protest groups.

“At least two protests were planned for the day of the parade, one by Oregon Students Empowered and another by Direct Action Alliance. Both events were mentioned in an email sent to parade organizers on Saturday, threatening to shut down the event with hundreds of protesters in the street. …

“James Buchal, chairman of the Multnomah County Republican Party, said his group was ready to march despite the protesters. …After seeing the email last weekend, they had no plans to back out. ‘We weren’t willing to just walk away quietly,’ he said. ‘The next thing we knew the whole thing was canceled.’

“Organizers pulled out after contacting Portland police, according to Rich Jarvis, spokesman for the Rose Festival Foundation. When police said they couldn’t offer any additional security for the parade, organizers decided to cancel it due to safety concerns.”

I tweeted about this. The immediate response tweeted by a leftist academic: “Will you shut up!” Plus 5 unfollows. Politically disturbing facts produce the most unfollows. Why use Twitter if you get news that challenges your biases?

The threatening email

“Terrorism: The unlawful use of violence or threat of violence …to instill fear and coerce governments or societies in pursuit of goals that are usually political.”
DoD Dictionary.

A tactic that effective will be repeated by the Left, and perhaps by the Right. Tit for tat is one of the best game strategies. Here are the various emails leading to the event’s cancellation. Here is the key one, with an immense cost-result ratio.

Re: Subject: Don’t make us shutdown the parade.
Greetings.

Trump supporters and 3% militia are encouraging people to bring signs that bring hateful rhetoric to the parade and appears you allowed them to register and have a place in the march! You have two options:

1. Let them march (Here is their event page).
2. Cancel their registration and ensure they do not march.

If you choose option 1 then we will have two hundred or more people rush into the parade into the middle and drag and push those people out as we will not give one inch to groups who espouse hatred toward lgbt, immigrants, people of color or others. In case the message was not clear to you this is a sanctuary city and state and we will not allow these people to spread their views in East Portland.

You have seen how much power we have downtown and that the police cannot stop us from shutting down roads so please consider your decision wisely. Let us know your decision by tuesday by emailing back. We will also wheatpaste fliers across the march route naming sponsors and holding them accountable for backing an event with this type of rhetoric which may endanger future parades ability to get sponsors. We will also begin emailing groups who are participating in the march to inform them you are allowing a group of bigots to march in the parade.

This is nonnegotiable we already have two events setup ourselves and we will have enough people tools and tactics to shut down a parade in fact this is a walk in the park for us:

1. “Defend Portland from Fascists at the Avenue Of Roses Parade” by Direct Action Alliance.
2. “Shut down fascism! No nazis in Portland!” by Oregon Students Empowered.

We promise there will be no harm to anyone but we will shut this down and prevent them from marching using nonviolent passive blocking of their movement.

“…one reason the protesters cite as justification for dragging Republicans off a parade route is that they will otherwise “normalize support” for a sitting president.
— “A Chilling Threat of Political Violence in Portland” by Conor Friedersdorf at The Atlantic.

Here are the two Facebook pages cited above. They were explicit about their goals. Leftists get to decide who speaks in public and enforce their decisions with mob violence (just like fascists).

“Fascists plan to march through the streets of Portland in the Avenue of Roses Parade on 82nd. The fascists know that we’ll keep shutting their marches down, they are now planning to march within other parades to protect their message of hate and white supremacy – it WON’T work. Nazis will not march through Portland.”  {Direct Action Alliance.}

“We will not let nazis and fascists march in Portland, we will defend our city! We expect anyone against fascism and nazism to show up and shut it down!” {Oregon Students Empowered.}

This was predicted by me and many others. The Left’s definition of Trump and conservatives as “Nazis” was not only false (see here and here) but also encouraged extreme, even violent, responses (The Left steps across a line and embraces political violence).  Their encouragement of “punching Nazis” has inevitably led to real violence. No matter how horrific result, depend on them to refuse any responsibility.

“Headed to Berkeley to disrupt neo Nazi/white Supremacist circle jerk today. Nervous af but determined to bring back 100 Nazi scalps.”
Louise Rosealma on Facebook.

American Civil Liberties Union

The ACLU speaks

“The unacceptable threats of violence that have led to the ‘hecklers’ veto’ of Ann Coulter’s speech at Berkeley are inconsistent with free speech principles that protect us all from government overreach. …For the future of our democracy, we must protect bigoted speech from government censorship. On college campuses, that means that the best way to combat hateful speech is through counter-speech, vigorous and creative protest, and debate, not threats of violence or censorship.” {At their website.}

This is missing the point. Is the Berkeley government willing to maintain public order by stopping those using violence to suppress their foe’s speech? So far, no.

Alt-Right logo

Vigilantism by Former Breitbart Senior Editor Milo Yiannopoulos.

As with the recent Berkeley riot, the Right responded to threats with calls for vigilante violence. Given the dark history of vigilantes in America and Latin America, this is irresponsible. This sets in motion an escalation of violence, tit for tat, that might quickly spin out of control.

“My proposed Free Speech Week will proceed as planned later this year. I WILL BRING AN ARMY IF I HAVE TO. We will ensure that Ann {Coulter} and others can speak and we will publicly, ritually humiliate UC Berkeley for its failure to meet its legal obligations until conservative speakers no longer fear violent mobs just for exercising their First Amendment rights. Berkeley is going to become the free speech capital of the United States once again. I will make sure of it.”  {On his Facebook page.}

violence

Conclusions

America is sliding down a slippery slope, with both Left and Right cheering the violence of their thugs. Everybody chanting pious speeches while another crack appears in our political system. There is still time for us to stop them

It is a test. Do we care about the Republic enough to defend the principles of its foundation?

For More Information

Important — A report about political violence at American universities, the epicenter of the inflection: “Intimidation Is the New Normal on Campus” by Jonathan Haidt at the Chronicle of Higher Education — “From now on, any speaker who arouses a protest is at risk of a beating.”  It’s the modern equivalent of mobs of sheep in 1984 chanting “Two legs bad, four legs good” — with the dogs growling in the background.  For an example of this alarming trend see “Fordham University’s Suppression of Pro-Palestinian Views Shows Why Liberals Should Fight for Free Speech” by Jesse Singal at New York magazine.

If you found this post of use, like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter. Also see these posts about the Berkeley riot, about political violence, about reforming America – steps to a new politics, and especially these…

A reminder from the past. We should pay attention.

Dick Schumann: Political Violence in the Weimar Republic 1918-1933: Battles for the Streets and Fears of Civil War
Available at Amazon.

Political Violence in the Weimar Republic, 1918-1933: Fight for the Streets and Fear of Civil War by Dirk Schumann (Professor of History at Georg-August University, Göttingen), 2009. From the publisher…

“This book provides a comprehensive analysis of political violence in Weimar Germany with particular emphasis on the political culture from which it emerged. It refutes both the claim that the Bolshevik revolution was the prime cause of violence, and the argument that the First World War’s all-encompassing ‘brutalization’ doomed post-1918 German political life from the very beginning. The study thus contributes to a view of the Weimar Republic as a state in severe crisis but with alternatives to the Nazi takeover.”

Advertisements

29 thoughts on “Terrorism won yesterday in Berkeley and Portland. See these important stories.

  1. The striking thing about this incident is the journalistic response: either ignoring the story altogether or presenting the conservatives as the oppressors. The closest I could find to balanced and accurate reporting from the New York Times (on the opposite side of the country!) with the headline “In Ann Coulter’s Speech Battle, Signs that Conservatives Are Emboldened.”

    All the Conservatives are asking for is the same rights that Liberals have exercised for years. The first step down the road towards civil strife occurs when large numbers of people to stop believing that everybody in the country should have the same rights. We haven’t reached critical mass on this yet but speed with which it is spreading makes me very concerned for the future.

    As the recent documentary on the 1992 LA race riot points out, the violence spread very quickly after 10 years of controlled strife between the blacks and the police. I fear something similar could happen across the nation in another year and would not be as easily contained.

    I didn’t expect that Trump would be the election that broke the First Amendment but his glaring lack of interest in anything besides himself has removed an important brake on the slide towards political violence. I cannot think of a President since Herbert Hoover who would allow this to happen. When will Trump wake up and what will he do when he realizes the scale of the mess he has allowed to fester? Perhaps he will rise to the occasion but his actions of the last 60 days do not provide much hope.

    P.S. – I think you meant “A reminder from the past” instead of “A remainder from the past.”

    Like

    1. Pluto,

      (1) “the violence spread very quickly after 10 years of controlled strife between the blacks and the police.”

      A hundred comments on the this series of posts, and yours is the only one seeing that key point. History shows that political violence acts like a virulent virus. The 1992 LA riot was more of a peasants protest, but illustrates how public order can vanish in a heartbeat.

      (2) “that broke the First Amendment”

      The rise of political violence is not, strictly speaking, a First Amendment issue.

      “Congress shall make no law …abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

      This is a State and local issue of the police maintaining public order — suppressing violence on the street.

      (3) “his glaring lack of interest in anything besides himself has removed an important brake on the slide towards political violence.”

      Maintaining public order is a responsibility of State and local governments. The Federal government has other responsibilities. The US runs better when each level does its job, rather than cities trying to make national policy and the president worrying about street violence.

      Like

  2. You’ve got it half wrong – which means you also have it half right. What you describe as violent vigilantism is the right response to these Leftists in these sorts of circumstances. As the government has either failed or refused to take action against the terrorists, it falls upon the American citizenry to defend their nation from our domestic enemies…and that defense should be through force, terror, absolute destruction of their movement, members, fellow-travelers, and anyone even remotely associated with them.

    Like

    1. jonolan,

      “As the government has either failed or refused to take action against the terrorists”

      Two city governments have not had the police defend public space adequately. One resulted in small riot, the other in an event cancelled. Your exaggeration is quite mad. Also, in a Republic it is the job of the citizens to make the government fulfill its responsibilities. Citizen action, including elections, is quite adequate to that.

      However, thank you for your forthright statement showing yourself an enemy of the Republic. Statements like your alert people to the serious danger, which is people like you (no matter what flag you fight under). We’ve beaten your kind before, and will again.

      Liked by 1 person

    2. Frankly, I see you and those like you as a more clear and present danger to the the Republic than I and my allies. You’re the ones whose hand-wringing and failure to act in defense of our nation has allowed these Leftists to flourish and for thing to reach the point where and when my sort need to act.

      Like

    3. jonoan,

      “You’re the ones whose hand-wringing and failure to act in defense of our nation has allowed these Leftists to flourish”

      That’s quite mad. The Left is at a multi-generational low in US politics. These two episodes are as minor. Only the willingness of both Left and Right to fight in the streets makes them dangerous. If the Left’s protests were dealt with properly there would be no problem. And that’s the most likely result.

      Your recourse to violence is antithetical to what this nation stands for. In our history you are the criminals. Good-bye.

      Liked by 1 person

  3. Sadly this is simply another feature of a society that has slipped its rope at the mooring. It was wound securely but has loosened and now the ship is wandering and floating adrift. Terribly the harbor authorities have neglected this reality again.
    Your important point was printed in RED.
    Can we stop this?
    Unlikely if the people who we have entrusted with the defending the moorings of society are unwilling to guard the numerous Ropes securing the written and even older underpinnings of civil society and democracy and will not protect us from these adolescent and mad forces evidenced by the “left” then surely These trends and events will at least continue.

    Shame on the police and the City authorities of Berkeley and Portland and where ever this has happened or will occur. The adults have once again left the room. No longer is this a bug but rather a feature of contemporary society. Look no further!
    Sanctuary City? Please, this Country is beginning to look ungovernable. And mainly that is a result of very poor generational Leadership…..at many levels. Place the blame where it rightfully lays and perhaps we can weather a spell of storms. Until that starts to be a feature of discussion, the best one can do is get your own act together and act like a citizen with responsibilities to other citizens.

    Disgusting times.

    Like

  4. I do not think it can be stressed enough how willful it has been at many levels of the local governing Authorities to not respond with power and an easily organized police presence against these left and right militias. That is what these agents provocateurs are. Ad hoc anarchic Militias assembling, threatening and intimidating the legal daily doings and events in a City.
    Somebody or some group of people in charge simply told the Police to stand down. These are just disturbed children in adult bodies throwing a civil public tantrum in an unlawful way and they need to be disciplined and held to the standard of the law. Arrested. Incarcerated and tried in civil court.

    And if Berkeley and Portlandians wish to allow this then…….pox on your houses, if you allow the civil authorities to abrogate their basic duties then what do you have to lean upon?

    Like

    1. Breton,

      “I do not think it can be stressed enough how willful it has been at many levels of the local governing Authorities to not respond with power and an easily organized police presence against these left and right militias. ”

      I think that’s too harsh. Those who survive in the jungle of local American politics tend to do so by responding slowly and mildly to events. Conserve scarce political capital, watch and learn before acting. “Think twice then do nothing.” The bold activists tend to blow themselves up.

      What happens from this point is significant, however — now that the problem has been identified and the consequences of inaction are clear.

      Like

  5. Whilst I agree with much of your sentiments, I have to take issue with this increasingly loose use of “terrorism”, which serves no-one any use. Labelling what is merely, as someone else has pointed out, violent vigilantism as “terrorism” is as foolish as Antifa labelling anyone with whom they disagree “Nazis” – and thereby using that as justification for using violence against them.

    Your resort to a cherry-picked and ridiculously simplified definition of terrorism is as transparent as the left’s pea-and-shells sophistry when they try and label everyone as Nazis.

    I must say, though, that I’ve been otherwise seriously impressed with your post-Berkeley commentary, which I’ve referred to positively in my own writing.

    Like

    1. Lushington,

      “Your resort to a cherry-picked and ridiculously simplified definition of terrorism”

      As is stated in the post, I use the Department of Defense’s definition of terrorism. DoD definitions are the standard used here. They provide an internally consistent framework, are based on a deep foundation of research (see FM 3-24, the counterinsurgency field manual), and have been used by practitioners in the field over many years in many circumstances.

      The definition used by FBI is quite similar. See the Code of Federal Regulations:

      “The unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.”

      Article One of the EU’s “Framework Decision on Combating Terrorism” (2002) has a long definition of terrorism, which includes:

      {offences against persons and property} “where committed with the aim of …seriously intimidating a population; or unduly compelling a Government or international organization to perform or abstain from performing any act; …”

      Almost all definitions of terrorism by experts are broadly similar: the threat and use of both psychological and physical force for political goals in violation of law (national or international).

      That you dismiss all this as a “cherry-picked and ridiculously simplified definition of terrorism” tells us quite a bit about your ignorance of the subject, and your willingness to boldly comment anyway.

      Like

    2. Sorry about the delay in replying to this – for some reason, I’m not getting email follow-ups. Anyway …

      Dear, dear, getting on one’s high horse, and sneering about “ignorance” to people you know nothing about – particularly their qualifications or expertise – is always a bit of a bad move. Just because someone has disagreed with you, and taken you to task, doesn’t make them “ignorant”.

      Especially when your own research appears to be a bit of hasty Googling.

      But, yes, your definitions are most certainly cherry-picked – because what you, and everyone who likewise gloms onto the first congenial Google result they find, ignore is that, using the simplistic definition you do, a ridiculous range of political activities can be construed as “terrorism”: everything from someone throwing a brick through a window to two people having a biffo down the pub over politics.

      Clearly such a reductio is indeed absurd, so “terrorism” must have something that distinguishes it.

      And it does.

      Firstly, terrorism is almost universally recognised as having an agenda. That is, the terrorist, as opposed to the mere rioter, say, has a political, religious or ideological cause. Antifa, frankly, has no coherent cause, apart from “stopping fascism”; Antifa have no coherent agenda to establish a caliphate, end British rule, or bring about a separatist state. Their only stated objective is “smash the fash”.

      Secondly, and most importantly, terrorism is distinguished by not just its criminality, but by the heinousness of its acts. To use legal jargon, terrorism is “mala in se” – inherently evil. Antifa, revolting as they are, have not even killed a single person. Setting a generator on fire is certainly illegal, but is not heinous, like blowing up a building.

      Thirdly, “seriously intimidating a population; or unduly compelling a Government or international organization”. It’s arguable whether Antifa have achieved either. While their threat has been felt on segments of the right, most people are barely aware they exist, let’s be honest. As for “seriously destabilising or destroying the fundamental political, constitutional, economic or social structures” of a country: in their dreams.

      If anything can be terrorism, then nothing is terrorism. This is why we have to be extremely circumspect with carelessly tossing around lazy accusations of “terrorism”.

      Antifa are thugs. But they’re not terrorists.

      Like

    3. Lushington,

      “Especially when your own research appears to be a bit of hasty Googling.”

      I stopped reading there. As I said, this website uses the DoD dictionary as its reference point. I cited the definitions of other US and global agencies for comparison, showing that they all broadly agree. These are the people who actually deal with terrorism.

      As for the rest of your comment, whatever dude.

      Like

  6. While they have not done so yet, it will be interesting to see if the ACLU files suit against either city on behalf of the parties that were denied their first amendment rights.

    Like

    1. Steve,

      The rise of political violence is a freedom of speech issue. But it is not, strictly speaking, a First Amendment issue. No government laws or regulations are involved.

      “Congress shall make no law …abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

      This is a matter of police allocating resources and district attorneys choosing who to prosecute. Courts have consistently, I believe (I’m not an attorney), ruled that both have broad discretionary authority.

      Like

  7. If Milo returns to Berkeley “with an army”, and the purpose of “the army” is to protect him as he speaks, is that vigilantism? I thought vigilantism was to seek your own justice after a crime is committed. I would think Milo would be bring “an army” for self defense.
    If a man in a bar threatens to rape a woman who comes into a bar in a miniskirt, and she leaves the bar and she comes back, still in her miniskirt, but with a big man by her side, is that vigilantism?

    Like

    1. Perpetuaof,

      “If Milo returns to Berkeley “with an army”, and the purpose of “the army” is to protect him as he speaks, is that vigilantism?”

      Your phrasing is too vague. It depends on what they do. If it means hitting girls standing there watching events, then that is assault. If protect means attacking people who have done something, that is criminal vigilantism. If it means forming a barrier, then replying in self-defense when they are attacked, then that is legal.

      Are you really not clear about this? Most people learn all this in grade school.

      “is that vigilantism?”

      You’re trolling us. Please don’t be stupid.

      Like

  8. Hi E of FM,
    Exactly. It depends on what they do.
    The section of your post was titled: Vigilantism by Former Breitbart Senior Editor Milo Yiannopoulos.
    The section began: As with the recent Berkeley riot, the Right responded to threats with calls for vigilante violence.
    Then the section cited Yiannoupolis saying: “My proposed Free Speech Week will proceed as planned later this year. I WILL BRING AN ARMY IF I HAVE TO.”
    You appear to be using the ” I WILL BRING AN ARMY IF I HAVE TO.” as the evidence of your claim that the Right has made a threat of vigilante violence.
    You appear to be jumping to the conclusion that he is threatening to use the army to attack people. The more obvious possibility is that he is saying he will bring the army to protect his right to speak, just as the woman in my analogy would return to the bar with the big man by her side to protect her from the man at the bar who threatened her.

    Like

    1. Perpetual,

      “Exactly. It depends on what they do.”

      Duh. Your recognition of the blindingly obvious is noted.

      ”I WILL BRING AN ARMY IF I HAVE TO.” as the evidence of your claim that the Right has made a threat of vigilante violence.”

      No need to guess. We just saw how that worked out in Berkeley. Also, to speak of an “army” implies violence, esp in a context in which we just saw violence. That’s what armies do.

      Like

  9. E of FM
    Definition of Army
    1a : a large organized body of armed personnel trained for war especially on land
    1b : a unit capable of independent action and consisting usually of a headquarters, two or more corps, and auxiliary troops
    1c often capitalized : the complete military organization of a nation for land warfare
    2 a great multitude, eg, an army of birds
    3 a body of persons organized to advance a cause
    Armies do not necessarily act violently (eg Salvation Army) and certainly do not necessarily initiate violence.
    I took the Yiannopoulis statement to mean a large body of people organized in support of Yiannoupolis’s cause (free speech) and with the potential to provide defense in case of attack.
    You apparently took it to mean a threat of initiating violence.
    I looked through your old posts and do not see one about Yiannoupolis’s canceled speech in February.
    FYI: We had a riot that started on campus and spread out into Berkeley. Neither the campus police or the Berkeley city police did anything to stop it. The people in line to go in to the auditorium to attend the speech were violently attacked and then the violent attackers broke the windows of the auditorium building. They set fires and continued to attack people. The non-violent crowd cheered on the violence by the black bloc makes Antifa group. The speech was canceled and Yiannouplis was escorted to safety somehow. Rioting went on all night in a celebratory way. No one was arrested all night long. Finally, the next morning, a man was arrested as he attacked another man crossing the street wearing a Trump hat.
    http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/01/us/milo-yiannopoulos-berkeley/

    Like

  10. I do know about the history of this kind of thing, having attended UCB. I also have an extended family member that was at the Peoples’ Park riot where there was the famous fatality. Prior to that (day of the fatality) was lots of violence involving police and protests (days/weeks leading up to the big riots). I have spoken to people that were on campus during the days of the protests with tear gas, etc., about what happened in the ’60’s. As far as Portland’s “historical baggage”, I don’t know.

    The UCB Police and Berkeley Police (If I recall correctly), have actually made statements publicly going back several decades about not getting very directly involved in such mob violence based on what happened in the ’60’s. Law enforcement was blamed for the whole thing, basically. I think you can go to the www and read about the actions of protesters, and law enforcement/UCB admin responses, that led up to the big ’60’s riots. I also believe the UCB administrators don’t care too much about what gets destroyed because they know they have lots of taxpayer money to fix it.

    If you are a protester there, I suggest you have a way to protect yourself. The police leadership has decades of tradition where they behave just as they did during the recent violence.

    Like

    1. wkeview,

      “have actually made statements publicly going back several decades about not getting very directly involved in such mob violence based on what happened in the ’60’s.”

      That sounds unlikely, imo — a public admission by the police that they deliberately will not maintain public order. That would get nationwide publicity. Do you have an example?

      The statements I’ve seen say exactly the opposite. For example, the police said that they planned to deploy hundreds of officers at the planned Ann Coulter speech to maintain order.

      Like

    1. “Days of Rage is important, because this stuff is forgotten and it shouldn’t be. The 1970s underground wasn’t small. It was hundreds of people becoming urban guerrillas. Bombing buildings: the Pentagon, the Capitol, courthouses, restaurants, corporations. Robbing banks. Assassinating police. People really thought that revolution was imminent, and thought violence would bring it about.

      One thing that Burrough returns to in Days of Rage, over and over and over, is how forgotten so much of this stuff is. Puerto Rican separatists bombed NYC like 300 times, killed people, shot up Congress, tried to kill POTUS (Truman). Nobody remembers it.

      Also, people don’t want to remember how much leftist violence was actively supported by mainstream leftist infrastructure. I’ll say this much for righty terrorist Eric Rudolph: the sonofabitch was caught dumpster-diving in a rare break from hiding in the woods. During his fugitive days, Weatherman’s Bill Ayers was on a nice houseboat paid for by radical lawyers.”

      Like

    2. Dayton,

      Thanks for the reminder! I have often mentioned how Americans have amnesia about the late 1960s and early 1970s. The National Guard occupying our inner cities each summer, as they burn in massive riots. The bombings.

      Once accepted as legitimate, domestic violence can quickly spin out of control.

      Like

Leave a comment & share your thoughts...

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s