New Jersey Event Canceled After Threats From Anti-Free Speech Groups

We have been discussing the rising attacks on free speech across the country, including students and faculty who support the silencing of speakers who hold opposing views. What is most concerning is that these attacks are working. The latest example can be found in New Jersey where the Broadway Theater in Pitman cancelled an event because anti-free speech organizations and individuals threatened protests and some even threatened to burn down the theater. Among the speakers was journalist Andy Ngo, who suffered a brain hemorrhage after being beaten by Antifa supporters at an event in Oregon. My concern is not with planned protests but the coordinated effort to have the event cancelled to prevent others from hearing opposing views.

The one-day conference was set to discuss “combating racism, violence, and authoritarianism.” Sponsored by, there were 20 speakers planning to discuss a variety of issues. They included speakers who had once support but later became disillusioned with some leftist groups. This included im Tim Pool, who calls himself a “disaffected liberal” and Josephine Mathias, who has opposed sexual orientation as not equal to race or ethnicity. Mathias was the only black speaker in the line up. It also included Lauren Chen, a conservative blogger.

It also included British YouTuber Carl Benjamin, who has been accused of sexist comments about rape, and Mark Meechan, a Scottish YouTuber  who became a global figure when he taught a dog to give Nazi salutes (which he insisted was a joke with his girlfriend’s pug). He was convicted of a hate crime after the court deemed his motivation immaterial to the fact that it was offensive under hate speech laws. I have previously written critically of these laws in France, Germany, England and other countries.

Daryle L. Jenkins, executive director of One People’s Project, an activist group based in New Brunswick, N.J., called the lineup of speakers “the worst of the worst.” Holding such an event, he said, “is like picking a fight.” The statement was classic for the rising anti-free-speech movement. Allowing opposing views to be heard is now considered a provocation. Most of us would support Jenkins’ right to protest outside and contest the views of these people. However, the pressure was to get the theater to cancel the event so others could not hear the opposing views.

No Hate NJ, a coalition of organizations, insisted that the “hateful” event could not be held. In a statement right out of the Antifa handbook, the group said “The event is advertised as a ‘discussion,’ but it’s really just an echo chamber for far-right rhetoric that will bring hateful and violent people to Pitman.” In other words, no such discussion could be allowed between these speakers.

I know nothing about any of speakers beyond Meechan, but their specific views are immaterial if you truly believe in free speech. What Antifa wanted to do (and succeeded in doing) was to prevent opposing views from being heard.

 I have previously discussed how Antifa and other college protesters are increasingly denouncing free speech and the foundations for liberal democracies. Some protesters reject classic liberalism and the belief in free speech as part of the oppression on campus.  The movement threatens both academic freedom and free speech — a threat that is growing due to the failure of administrators and faculty to remain true to core academic principles.  Dartmouth Professor Mark Bray, the author of a book entitled “Antifa: The Anti-Fascist Handbook” is one of the chief enablers of these protesters. Bray speaks positively of the effort to supplant traditional views of free speech: “At the heart of the anti-fascist outlook is a rejection of the classical liberal phrase… that says I disapprove of what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” He defines anti-fascists as “illiberal” who reject the notion that far right views deserve to “coexist” with opposing views.

It only took a couple days for the campaign, No Hate NJ, to intimidate the theater owners. The venue’s Twitter account was also hacked. There was also a threat to burn the theater to the ground.

Once you declare opposing views to be a provocation and an attack, it is easy to mobilize to silence people on the other side. dam Sheridan of Cooper River Indivisible declared “We don’t want South Jersey being used as a platform for these far-right extremists. For us this is about community self-defense.” See? It is that easy. It is not censorship or intimidation. It is self-defense.

Once again, this is about the campaign to cancel the even and not to protest the event. One is about barring free speech and the other is about the exercise of free speech . . . on both sides.

154 thoughts on “New Jersey Event Canceled After Threats From Anti-Free Speech Groups”

  1. Proud Boys leader admits rallies all about brawling, costing ‘millions

    By Laura Italiano August 22, 2019 | 6:37pm | Updated


    Proud Boys rallies are all about brawling with anti-fascists and wasting the public’s money, the group’s leader has been caught on video admitting.

    The video was posted by on Thursday.

    “We’ve wasted all their f—ing resources to make this rally,” Proud Boys leader Enrique Tarrio was taped saying during the group’s latest rally, held Saturday in Portland, Oregon.

    “We want them to waste $2 million,” Tarrio boasts, referring to law enforcement tasked with policing the event.

    “And we’ll do it again in two months.”

    The video revealed Tarrio referring to a ranking system based in which members earn something called a “fourth-degree” rank by assaulting so-called “antifa” protesters.

    “This is a pure optics operation,” Tarrio is on film telling members as the rally kicks off. “If you’re looking for fourth degrees this is not the event to do it.”

    The Proud Boys bills its events as political freedom rallies. The events attract crowds of antifa members and other counterprotesters.

    Some 700 police from multiple jurisdictions were deployed to Saturday’s rally. There were at least 13 arrests.

    Afterward, the group issued a press release admitting, “The gathering was never about bringing carnage or violence to the city of Portland, it was about financially crippling the progressive hotbed until they take action against antifa.”

    Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler told the Huffington Post, “I have one clear message to anyone who says they’re going to continue wasting the city’s resources over and over again: Stop wasting our time. Stop wasting taxpayer dollars. Stop hurting our businesses. We have a city to run and lives to lead.”

      1. Emma, to my understanding there may have been a change in leadership and direction of the Proud Boys some months ago. Whether of not they have become a “new” organization is difficult to assess so until I know more I separate the group into two parts. One run by Gavin McInnes and the other run by other people.

        McInnes has credentials as a writer and commentator so I suspect the Proud Boys of today might be completely different than the Proud Boys organization he founded.

        People like anonymous are very superficial always looking for minor items they can sink their teeth into but are meaningless and end up meaningless. She doesn’t have a grasp of the ideas involved. Thinking is not her strong suit.

        1. What these Commie/Totalitarian blue areas govt, their offensive violent thugs/media buds are doing is attempting to sell American that it’s wrong here in the US to be able to “Defensively” defend ourselves against violence of Antifa murders/thugs.

          That Portland protest against Domestic Terrorism was planned for a few months, cooperated with police in advance to be peaceful on their part, it was & was wildly video taped by multiple new media groups start to finish.

          Even Sean Hannity got caught in lying about this Proud Boy Group. ( I think it was last Monday’s show. SOB)

          You see, the old dictionary definition of a patriot aka, a Nationalist, someone that is supportive of their nation no longer applies.

          You see, if you’re white & a Nationalist we all are White Nationalist & according to the Commies new definition means we must be racist even though white are joining with mixed races to protect civil liberties. And that’s what the Commies hate.

          They want the US people to be like the Chi Comms/UK/EU , to be unarmed, lay back get raped robbed or murdered & if we defend ourselves, or even report on crimes they’ll attempt to have us thrown into prison. (Tommy Robinson UK, still in for No Crime other the reporting on UK Islamic Rape Crimes)

          1. “Even Sean Hannity got caught in lying about this Proud Boy Group.”

            Oky, What date did he lie and what time? What was the lie? I don’t watch any of those shows regularly but sometimes I pull the up if there is something special.

            1. I don’t have anything directly to do with the Proud Boys or Patriot Pray Group, etc., but as I’ve got to know some of these people, Joe Biggs, former Infowars reporter, they are just out defending USA Civil Rights/Freespeech/2amd/ ablity to defend one’s self against offensive violence.

              There’s hours of new medias video available from last week.

              So Phk Hannity, he’s a liar, attempt associating a peaceful mixed race group show up to protest the cities support of Antifa Terrorist.

              Now I don’t know much about what bigotry is, personal ly I hate the lying/raping/robbing/murdering thieves & Elephant n Rhino killers,that hide in the cult Islam.

              If that’s what he’s suggesting he can double Ph himself & move to hell out of the US to Saudi Arabia or Iran as Islamic govt is completely incompatible with this type of govt.

              Here’s one vid, but there’s another showing Hannity pulled the same type crap when the traitor Sen Harry Reid his Chi Comm buddies called in the govt’s BLW to attack the Bundy Ranch in the Battle of Bunkerville.

              1. OKY there are white supremacists that are violent but they aren’t necessarily attached to the right or the left. They are bad people but he mentions nothing about the Proud Boys in the segment shown. He thinks violent persons should be shut down even if they are members of groups that are peaceful. I agree.

                I’ll wait for you to provide the date and time. I don’t watch him or any of those shows on a regular basis so I’ll await your providing the necessary times.

            2. Here’s the piece that piss me off at Hannity the other evening.

              I just started back into it: 6:45

              1. Oky, he is talk, talk and talk. I gave the video 5 minutes to say anything of value which is all I give since one only needs about 2 minutes to get the point across. Nothing about Hannity.

                One can’t listen to these talkers without actually listening to their sources when they make the type of claims you say he makes. They spin for their audience and most of the times are not accurate.

                1. The info was in the 1st hour & I was wanting to save that info to a file anyway.

                  If one knows who the players were then the 1st video that’s under 2 minutes of Hannity they can see Hannity is lying about the Proud Boys & The Patriot Prayer Group in Portland last weekend.

                  And the NYC scam case against the Proud Boys is a whole nothere political scam.

                  That can’t have these common people raising up, gaining followers for the USA 1st & Trump as their for now leader. Those at the top are still demanding Globalism instead of Nationalism.

                  How is Hannity’s Bosses/Advertisers? I know.

                  If they don’t know the players many will just be trusting of his info.

                  IE: Pete Santilli. I know of him & some about him from over the years.

                  But it isn’t that I have to trust his info as a single source since I already had multiple other sources of the same pieces of info, Santilli just confirms the info & shows Hannity’s past actions are as negative as his current actions.

                  Most people have so much info in front of them to choose from so we forget from years back.

                  I ran into that today, while watching Hanniy’s actions at FOX yesterday, today another News guy, Greg Hunter, he reminds us that it was FOX News that called the 2018 US House Election for the Dims 1 1/2 hours before the polls were closed.

                  1. Oky, I’m sorry but without listening to what Hannity said I wouldn’t even try to render an opinion. Some people wish him to be more extreme and some people wish the opposite. Thus when they talk about him both sides of the equation might say he lied even if he didn’t. This happens all over including with what people on the left say. Much that we hear is garbage or the interpretation of facts in a different way but that doesn’t represent lying. Show me the quote in context if you can. If you can’t then I would abstain from rendering an opinion.

                    1. Some people follow this type political stuff more the I do, some less. Matter fact I should be do some other things right now, but to a few things.

                      You’ll need to do some research for yourself & yourself some questions 7 if you really wish to know something closer to the truth.

                      I’ve seen hours of live video from Portland & hours + of commentary breaking down video segments.

                      And hell yes I’ll render opinions. Those aholes at the top & their Antifa/Islamic goon types are seriously attempting to overthrow the citizens Nation.

                      Listen to one of their chants, “No Trump, No Wall, No USA at All”.

                      But Nationalist are attempting to stop their complete overthrow from happening.

                      Back to a bit of what you were asking. Just start & stop the video below.

                      The 1st 7 seconds in, where is Hannity’s proof the Proud Boys (PB)or the Patriot Prayer Group (PPG) were Offensively Violent?

                      It’s Hannity’s BS story again, let him show you the proof that the PB or the PPG were acting unlawfully.

                      Maybe he should have investigated before he through his Lies out in public. Like interviewed the PB/PPG. or even Antifa any Agiprop that showed up.

                      Maybe more later.

                      Just start & stop the video thought the 2 min. & ask, what proof does he have & is his New York crap opinions about how the citizens need to defend our nation have validity.

                    2. Oky, you are not saying that the Proud Boys are white nationalists, are you? I don’t think so and Hannity in this short video was talking of Antifa and white nationalist extremists (whether from the left or the right). He didn’t mention the Proud Boys. His point was unification rather than division and that the extremists are the odd men out. I don’t think the Proud Boys was on his mind and if he mistook them for part of the white nationalist extremists then they should correct the record but I don’t think one can say this clip shows him aiming at the Proud Boys.

                    3. Well, I’ll be damned, CNN at least interviewed the head of the Portland Protest Against Domestic Terrorism.

                      I think he made a mistake though on who the ElPaso shooter was.

                      I’m not sure as of yet because conflicting reports.

                      Eyewitness right afterwards claimed on videos there were 3 shooters.

                      Then there is the shooter that’s in custody, there were reports that his internet profile. shows him posting that he also is Antifa.

                      But as also seems the case as soon as the FBI steps the public gets a PR package about don’t worry be happy. (that’s another issue)

                      Here’s CNN interview the ” White Nationalist” listen/watch for the BS off & on.

                    4. Excellent video Oky and puts the Proud Boys in a good light. Of course when Tarrio finished and left CNN distorted what was said. The interviewer was trying to provoke Tarrio and tried to spin. Tarrio was very good so the interviewer failed. She couldn’t seem to understand that he was standing up for his first amendment rights which Antifa was trying to prevent and the mayor, Wheeler was siding with what seems to be a terrorist group.

                      Tarrio’s statements were those that all Americans should adhere to.

        2. “She doesn’t have a grasp of the ideas involved. Thinking is not her strong suit.”

          What this guy Allan is really saying is this:

          “I don’t have a grasp of the ideas involved. Thinking is not my strong suit.”

          He operates by making baseless attacks on others.

          Swell guy. Not.

          1. I guess anonymous you have proven it once again. Thinking is not your strong suit. Such a statement about you isn’t baseless. All one has to do is look at your comments and see how they respond almost always to periferal ideas because you can’t make a cogent argument about substantial matters. You are very superficial and on the nice chart you don’t even register.

    1. Looks/Reads like Antfi, ( Anti-American/Anti-Free Speech), Portland’s Govt & Huffpost got the butts handed to them & attempting to paper over it can’t help but keep crapping on themselves.

      It’s good to see those cock roaches above know now the light is on their Commie Terrorist azzes.

  2. Here’s a long article but worth reading no matter which side (if any) you fall on. Is seems despite Turley’s assertion as fact that Andy Ngo suffered a “brain hemorrhage,” that fact is highly questionable and no evidence has been brought forward to document it. I also note for all the people rising up against Antifa, I haven’t seen one discouraging word about the Proud Boys or any right-wing groups who for the record have committed far more violent acts and actually killed people (which Antifa has avoided up to this point). I’m not pro-Antifa, if they disappeared today I would be good. On the other hand, if the anti-Antifa sentiment is only to clear the playing field for the right-wing hate groups. I don’t see that as a good thing.

    1. false that “proud boys or any right wing groups who have for the record” whatever whatever. but you are sure of this it seems.

      you can count them up however you like, but i doubt you are really counting at all. just asserting.

      What would be your specific evidence? I should like to know. And I suspect that then you would need to identify groups and classify them. that might not be so easy. secondly you would need a time frame that’s relevant to this. that would be another dubious matter.

      And then it will take us to that other troublesome issue, abortion. I am not strictly pro life anymore, but I think they would make the argument that abortionists have stopped a lot more beating hearts than Eric Rudolph ever did. By a factor of millions. So the counting will be difficult I am sure.

      For now I think it’s fairly obvious that Antifa are lawless anarchists. If you like I will dig out what Karl Marx and the Communists had to say about Bakunin and his undisciplined anarchist hooligans of their day, and it may serve to illustrate my point that they are a completely negative faction about on par with pirates.

      1. You took a left turn at abortion that lost me. Yes I’m asserting… with confidence because there is no time-frame in recent history that the right wing hasn’t committed more violence. Before somebody goes into a tizzy. That’s different than saying Republicans for example have been associated with more violence, the opposite is true. Democrats have a far higher body cound and Republicans are only slowly catching up. Republicans in their birth would have been considered the left wing. In my opinion they started drifting right around 1877 and never looked back. The Democrats didn’t get to be the left wing until the 1960’s. Anyway, if you pick a year (or a decade) in the last 100 years. I’ll be happy to document my assertion.

          1. Thanks for the interesting article about the events of 1919. Off the top of my head, in 1920, Democrats and the Klan shot and burned out the black residents of the City of Ocoee, FL after 2 black men tried to vote. Ocoee didn’t have another black citizen for 40 years (10 miles from downtown Orlando). I believe Rosewood was in 1923 where that community was burned out (you may have seen the movie. In 1921, white residents enlisted the help of the National Guard who bombed by air the Greenwood District of Tulsa, OK. They destroyed 35 blocks and killed an estimated 300 black people in what was known as Black Wall Street. That one was over the alleged rape of a white girl in a downtown elevator. In case you wondered it didn’t happen.
            In the 1960’s, “Bloody Sunday” played out on national television (bad move Bull Connor). 4 black girls attending Sunday school were killed in a Little Rock church bombing. What is your point?

            1. wow i never heard of that tulsa thing. no, didn’t see the movie. i cant remember what my point was, sorry. getting old, lolz

    2. Enigma – the Dayton shooter was arguably Antifa’s first mass shooter.

      The man who ran down and murdered a protester in Charlottesville was roundly condemned.

      Antifa engages in violence and the suppression of free speech. In addition, they claim that anyone they oppose is a Fascist or racist, without regard for the definitions of the terms. Sometimes, they actually are addressing racists, but many times not. One memorable occasion was when they ran down an elderly driver and dragged him out of his car because he was white and had Southern license plates. All of this is inexcusable.

      As I’ve mentioned before, my knowledge of the Proud Boys is quite limited. They have repeatedly been called a racist alt right group. The founder has repeatedly denied they are racist, and has had some success in court forcing labels like Nazis or Fascists to be removed. Since he won in court, this leads me to suspect that there is insufficient evidence that the group is a hate group, at least under those labels. I have no direct experience, however, and have heard contrasting things.

      Here is a Youtube video that I found recently when I looked for information on what the Proud Boys is all about. In the founder’s own words, membership requirements is that applicants be male, born a male, and believe that “The West is the Best.” He claims that they bring weapons because Antifa keeps trying to kill them, and the police are told to stand down.

      I suspect that Proud Boys rose up as the anti-antifa, in defense of Western civilization.

      (NSFW – language)

      I would like to find more unbiased information about such groups. I’ve found biased coverage against them, and the founder’s remarks, but would prefer to find some information without a slant. It”s really too bad that journalism has morphed into political activism, because it’s getting quite difficult to find straight news on fraught issues.

      Anyway, if you have time, please watch Gavin McGinnes’ rebuttal video, and let me know what you think.

      1. That would be quite an argument to make the Dayton shooter an Antifa member; pease state your case? I did read a New York Post article making that suggestion and I have to say I wasn’t impressed.
        Here’s a video of Proud Boys talking to each other in Portland. They were urged not to commit any violence at this event (which earns them the “Fourth Degree”). So much for the fun loving male bonding and drinking club.

        1. Enigma – it would be difficult to prove definitively that the Dayton shooter was Antifa. After all, there are no membership rolls that I am aware of. So, what makes someone an Antifa member? Do they have to show up to an Antifa event? Multiple events? Is supporting and identifying with them all it takes? It’s more of a movement than a controlled organization.

          Arguments in favor of him being considered an Antifa mass shooter were made based on his internet profile in support of Antifa and their goals.

          I don’t think the question will ever be answered to everyone’s satisfaction, however.

          1. By that standard am I a member of Antifa? I am against fascists and right wing militia groups and the Klan. I’ve defended Antifa to some degree although mostly pointed out the people who condemn them seem to have no problem with the ones they’re pitted against.

            1. @enigmainblackcom

              So it’s ok to do violence to people with whom you disagree?

              Yes or no?


                1. As our “friends” in the antifa say, “Your speech is violence and my actions are self defense” So I guess, yes, it is justified to oppose this type of “violence”.


            2. enigma – you should never defend Antifa. They are thugs and are indefensible.

              1. In a world where apparently no right wing thugs exist in the mind of most here. I am inclined to point out they are the lesser evil. I have kids and grandchildren who have little to fear from Antifa. On the other hand, they have great reason to be concerned about those who don’t even get a mention here.

                1. enigma – when you look on YouTube, it is Antifa that is doing most of the damage. Remember, they just tried to close down a progress townhall by violence. They are not God’s gift to free speech by any means. They are on the verge of being made “domestic terrorists.” Do you really want to support scum like these?

                  1. If I looked at the YouTube channels you do or listened to the Fox News 24/7 tirade against them I might share your opinion. I don’t support them as in being a fan. I wish they’d go away. But if that means leaving the playing field to those who they oppose. I wish they’d go away more.
                    The following is from Wikipedia which you can believe or not. I provided a video earlier of Proud Boys talking about the “fourth level” which backs it up. You can’t reach the highet level of being a Proud Boy without being in a major fight, “for the cause.”
                    “The Proud Boys say they have an initiation process that has four stages and includes hazing. The first stage is a loyalty oath, on the order of “I’m a proud Western chauvinist, I refuse to apologize for creating the modern world”; the second is getting punched until the person recites pop culture trivia, such as the names of five breakfast cereals; the third is getting a tattoo and agreeing to not masturbate; and the fourth is getting into a major fight “for the cause.”[24][17][50][51][52][53].”

                    1. enigma – when I was teaching I would not allow my student to use Wikipedia as a source.

                    2. Fair enough, would you allow a video of the members of the organization saying the words to demonstrate it’s what they believe? I provided the video, if you don’t want to scroll back you could Google it with no effort. How do you get to the fourth level of the Proud Boys? Kick some ass (I suppose getting your ass kicked would also qualify) for the cause.

                    3. enigma – do you believe everything Rachel Maddow tells you? I have heard what they have they have said and taken it with a grain of salt. I know what “jumping in” actually is. I know the origin and derivation of third and fourth degree. They are just playing games with you.

                    4. I have never known Rachel Maddow to say this. I have heard (and seen) video of Proud Boys saying it in context. First you say you don’t accept Wikipedia, then you try to pin it on Rachel Maddow out of the blue. I take the Proud Boys at their word.
                      As to your original question, do I believe everything Rachel Maddow says? I understand the difference between facts and opinions. I share many of her opinions but don’t agree with a large number as well. As to things she states as facts, she has an outstanding record of being right but does make mistakes from time to time. When she does, she will make corrections which I’ve never seen Hannity do for example. If she describes a situation before interviewing a guest, I’ve never heard her fail to say, “Did I get that right?” “State that correctly,” or something to that effect. She goes to great length to be truthful. Would you rather I believe the President who has no relationship with the truth?

                    5. enigma – Maddow spent two years trying to convince her audience that Trump was involved in a great Russian plot. Has she apologized for that yet? I know her numbers have dropped south close to zero. BTW, I am right about Wikipedia.

                    6. enigma – the vaunt Mueller Report (written by Trump’s enemies) could not find it. 2 Congressional investigations could not find it. Judicial Watch could not find it. Please, please, please offer your unsolicited testimony to the neutral Jerry Nadler so he can finally impeach Trump.

                    7. That sounds like an excuse to ignore anything you choose by dismissing the site. There are specific claims. Are there any you believe to be false? You should be a Republican Senator, you’d fit right in.

                    8. Paul, Laura Ingraham offered to debate Maddow one on one. Maddow has never accepted because though she is bright she knows how much spinning she does and knows she will be torn apart.

                    9. Enigma writes ” I take the Proud Boys at their word.”

                      If you do take the Proud Boys at their word then listen to what the present leader had to say on CNN. He clarrified at least one or two points that you earlier seemed to be a bit confused on. (Hat Tip Oky) If you truly take them at their word you will find significant agreement with them.

                    10. “enigma – the first thing is to not believe Wikipedia.”

                      Paul, when it comes to politics you are entirely correct about Wikipedia. I decided to check Wikipedias sources included in Enigma’s posting. The first came from the SPLC and the second stated: “And if the rumors are true, theirinitiation proceedings include getting a tattoo and abstaining from masturbation, getting jumped in in a ritual that looks a lot like a pile of puppies, and beating up an antifascist.”

                      Imagine using a source to prove a contention that says “if the rumors are true.”

                      I stopped there because sometimes Wikiepdia is as bad as Enigma.

                    11. they sound swell but i don’t like tatts and I’m not paying any fool dues.
                      er, except a bunch of bar associations. lol

                      also if i have free time, I”m not spending it with a bunch of dudes who take a solemn oath against whacking off, wth , don’t tell me why i dont want to know, this is hilarious

                2. Nothing to fear from antifa? Actually you and yours have much more to fear from other young black males than from 99% of whites out there. But of course you will never mention that. That’s why black lives matter is such a fraud. They only care about black lives when the perpetrator is a cop or white person.

                  While most crime is inter-racial, when one chooses a victim of another race, 75% of the time a black chooses a white, not the other way around. These are facts, inconvenient ones, but facts nonetheless.

                  That’s why many whites do not want a large number of blacks as neighbors, sorry it isn’t “the color of your skin” as blacks usually claim.

                  I would suggest you read the “Color of crime” which can be downloaded for free online but of course you won’t. Doesn’t fit the template.

                  I bet you won’t condemn the wildly disproportionate black on white crime rate, will you?


                  1. “While most crime is inter-racial, when one chooses a victim of another race, 75% of the time a black chooses a white, not the other way around. These are facts, inconvenient ones, but facts nonetheless.”

                    I think you meant to say most crime is intra-racial as opposed to inter-racial in your first example. Most people of all races tend to commit crimes against the people they are around.
                    When you say when black people commit crimes against other races it’s 75% against white people. What would you expect that statistic to look like? If white people have a different statistic when excluding whites it’s because they spread the love/hate.
                    Please define the “wildly disproportionate black on white crime rate” you speak of. It can’t really mean as you suggest that when black people commit crimes against people other than blacks their victims are mostly white?

                    1. in jail they have a cool rule that if you have to give a special disciplinary beatdown punishment to a person of one’s own race, you cant do it with the other races around. seems like a good rule, i guess? and don’t go in the other race’s yard space. or cafeteria table. all though it apparently varies a little by the facility.

                      also: if own race members violate the rules, they have to take an own race beating to keep the peace, or else then a race riot may ensue,. i find these jailhouse rules a very interesting topic of late. no, I’m not up for sentencing either. sorry to disappoint.

                    2. I apologize for my grammatical mistakes since English is not my first language.

                      Ok, here are various “hate facts” Facts because they are undeniably true but inconvenient. From FBI crime statistics.

                      The evidence suggests that if there is police racial bias in arrests it is negligible. Victim and witness surveys show that police arrest violent criminals in close proportion to the rates at which criminals of different races commit violent crimes.

                      Both violent and non­violent crime has been declining in the United States since a high in 1993. 2015 saw a disturbing rise in murder in major American cities that some observers associated with depolicing” in response to intense media and public scrutiny of police activity.

                      Crime rates

                      There are dramatic race differences in crime rates. Asians have the lowest rates, followed by whites, and then Hispanics. Blacks have notably high crime rates. This pattern holds true for virtually all crime categories and for virtually all age groups.

                      In 2013, a black was six times more likely than a non­black to commit murder, and 12 times more likely to murder someone of another race than to be murdered by someone of another race.

                      Interracial crime

                      In 2013, of the approximately 660,000 crimes of interracial violence that involved blacks and whites, blacks were the perpetrators 85 percent of the time. This meant a black person was 27 times more likely to attack a white person than vice versa. A Hispanic was eight times more likely to attack a white person than vice versa.

                      Urban centers

                      In 2014 in New York City, a black was 31 times more likely than a white to be arrested for murder, and a Hispanic was 12.4 times more likely. For the crime of “shooting”—defined as firing a bullet that hits someone—a black was 98.4 times more likely than a white to be arrested, and a Hispanic was 23.6 times more likely.

                      If New York City were all white, the murder rate would drop by 91 percent, the robbery rate by 81 percent, and the shootings rate by 97 percent.

                      In an all­-white Chicago, murder would decline 90 percent, rape by 81 percent, and robbery by 90 percent.

                      Police shootings

                      In 2015, a black person was 2.45 times more likely than a white person to be shot and killed by the police. A Hispanic person was 1.21 times more likely. These figures are well within what would be expected given race differences in crime rates and likelihood to resist arrest.

                      In 2015, police killings of blacks accounted for approximately 4 percent of homicides of blacks. Police killings of unarmed blacks accounted for approximately 0.6 percent of homicides of blacks. The overwhelming majority of black homicide victims (93 percent from 1980 to 2008) were killed by blacks.

                      Even the great anti-racist activist Tim Wise admits that 85% of intra-racial crime is black on white, not the other way around.


                    3. “Even the great anti-racist activist Tim Wise admits that 85% of intra-racial crime is black on white, not the other way around.”

                      Maybe I’m just obtuse today but that statistic seems to represent absolutely nothing except perhaps common sense. A statistic for you. Drug use is considered to be approximately equal between whites and blacks. Yet black people are arrested at a far higher rate than whites. Why? Because that’s who is targeted for arrest. Has “Stop & Frisk” ever been conducted in a white neighborhood? There are lots of reasons for some of the statistics you cite. Just not the ones you believe.

                    4. The supposedly “equal” rates of drug use is based upon self reporting which is notoriously unreliable.

                      As for not understanding the statistics herein, they were particularly complex or complicated.

                      The fact remains is that black crime rate is disproportionately high and you can spin that any way you want. It’s still a fact though I admit an inconvenient one.

                      Btw – I’m Hispanic and I would not want to live in a most US majority Hispanic neighborhoods. Doesn’t make it ok because the perpetrator’s name ends in a vowel.

                    5. The particular rate you pointed to was related to when blacks commit crimes against other than black people they are usually white. Duh… Now if you want reasons why the overall crime rate is high; there are many, how much time do you have?

            3. Enigma – most people in the United States oppose the KKK. I think most do not understand the definition of Fascist. While you might refer to actual Fascists, others like in Antifa seem to believe it refers to anyone they disagree with.

              That does not make you an Antifa member. Antifa espouses violence against people they disagree with. They misunderstand what Fascist actually means, and use Fascist techniques themselves, including silencing opponents through force.

              On paper, a lot of people would defend Antifa if they did not know much about them. Who wouldn’t oppose Fascism? But when you learn about Antifa, it becomes clear that they are a domestic terrorist organization. It is a loose organization without any real leadership or control. They also oppose capitalism. It is sad that so many do not understand the inherent freedom in capitalism, and the inherent tyranny in Socialism. They include anarchists and those against the police and ICE.

              The Dayton shooter expressly supported Antifa’s violent methods, in addition to their extremist ideology.

              Hopefully, you don’t condone Antifa targeting Andy Ngo, who was working to expose their violence.

              As long as you aren’t out there in the street, punching old men waving their flags, dragging old guys out of their vehicles because they had Southern plates, or espousing Antifa violence, I don’t think you could ever be confused as an Antifa terrorist.

              Here is another video, in which Whoopi Goldberg approached a group of Proud Boys. She was curious about them, and they had a conversation.


              The Proud Boys is also a rather loose organization, which means it could contain members all along the spectrum of beliefs.

            4. no you’re not antifa. you have to wear black raglike clothes, advocate acts of terror to fight the system, and act like a total idiot to be antifa. For them, they appear to attract a lot of dyed hair and skinny heroin addict looking limbs also. So, if you were a basketballer then I bet you are way to too big for them. mostly just a bunch of sickly wimps. LOL also for some reason they are mostly white punks and one rarely sees blacks alongside them in their unruly “demonstrations”

              i think they sit around puzzling over that a lot. i wish i could be a fly on the wall when the antifa bozos are trying to figure out why its a bunch of white trust fund brats out there fighting the power and the POC join up elsewheres.

        2. Enigma – thanks for the link on the Proud Boys. I’m rather on the fence about them. There is conflicting information. No matter what I read about them, there is polar opposite information from the other side.

          Here is the PB rebuttal argument about what 4th degree means. I am posting this to show the other side of the argument. I do not know where the actual truth lies on this one.

          “The 4th degree is for someone who has “endured a major conflict related to the cause.” In the past I’ve joked about “kicking the crap out of antifa” This obviously doesn’t mean you go to someone’s house or even pick a fight with one at a rally. If you do such a thing, that’s 100% on you and has nothing to do with the groups tenets. It’s about defending yourself. We don’t start fights, we finish them. 4th degree is a consolation prize for being thrust into a shitty situation and surviving.

          Here are some good examples…

          On election night, some lunatic was whipping empty glasses at a Proud Boys’ Girl because she had a MAGA hat on. Shawn and Michael got in between them and pushed the perp away. They were arrested (along with the glass thrower) and spent the night in the tombs. When Trump was announced president, these two guys were behind bars (it’s quite possible this night is when the 4th degree was invented). Nobody picked a fight. Two men went to a woman’s aid and protected her. They then suffered.”

          My suspicion is that PB arose as an opposing force expressly against Antifa. Since Antifa is violent, and attacks opponents, then the PB group is prepared for violence. This can easily turn into the Avenging Angel bully syndrome, which I believe that Antifa is already guilty of. From their own statements, I believe that Proud Boys rather enjoy triggering Antifa, and fighting back.

          This is the inevitable result of the loss of law and order on the streets. When the police are told to stand down, Antifa assaults people with impunity. A great many conservative speakers have had their events cancelled due to extremists threatening violence. Those threats are not sufficiently pursued by the police, who are discouraged from going after them. They just cancel the event. Another example was Charlottesville, where Antifa left their designated protest area and deliberately clashed with protestors in another area, some of whom were indeed racist.

          I have remarked before how many people are afraid to voice support in public for Trump, eat at a restaurant if they are associated with Republicans, let alone wear a MAGA hat. There is no confidence that the law would apply to those who would commit politically motivated violence.

          Vigilantism arises when the law fails. Out of frustration, people fight back. What can end up happening is then you have two groups of people fighting.

            1. it sounds fun. i havent made a trump rally yet. I’m not into rallies. I don’t like lines either. hated disneyland. but for DJT i may make an exception once the election gets a little closer. Bill, if you go to one, post your pictures here, I bet it would be fun for you. consider this an exercise in expanding your diversity

              1. I elected not to go to his campaign kickoff in Orlando, or the nearby Proud Boy demonstration. I didn’t want to be bored by the recitation of his great victory in 2016 and chants of, “Lock her up.” I do have a picture shaking hands with then Senator Obama when he was running for President the first time.

    3. Enigma,
      Regarding Ngo:
      “Skepticism about his motivations has led some on the left, in a perfect inversion of Ngo’s own hate crimes activism, to question whether he is exaggerating or fabricating the extent of his injuries. Recently, in the interest of addressing these doubts, I asked Ngo to show me proof of the brain hemorrhage he has said he suffered in the attack.

      “I don’t feel obliged to share my personal medical records publicly to satisfy internet trolls,” he wrote. Nevertheless, Ngo sent me a copy of his discharge paperwork from the hospital. The document confirmed his claim that he had suffered a subarachnoid hemorrhage — a brain bleed.”

      1. Prairie, thanks for the article. I read it and surprisingly found it very informative on many different plains of thought. I don’t know how much one can trust the author but he seemed realtively accurate without much spinning, if any. I have to read the article again.

      2. PR,
        That was a good article and the author seemed to be balanced in his perspective. What’s troubling me is this morbid need to verify the extent of his injuries, as if somehow a lack of brain trauma somehow mitigated the extent of the violence Ngo was reporting. We have a right to peacefully assemble, but we do not have a right damage property or commit acts of violence on others. It would appear the extremists have been given tacit approval to extend themselves beyond their rightful limits to operate in a space limited only by the capricious oversight of local government and the protester’s blood lust. This is third-world style protesting and that rarely ends without people being killed as a result.

        1. “as if somehow a lack of brain trauma somehow mitigated the extent of the violence Ngo was reporting. ”

          Olly, this is how the left has been arguing. They have no principled and factual understanding of the discussion so they try to skip the required intellect and shift the conversation to a point that is not important. This is how anonymous responds to virtually all issues. It’s an empty headed way of debating used by those without the intellectual power to actually discuss complex problems. Take note how she relies on articles with weird headlines or relies on discovering a minor point without significant meaning.

          1. I honestly don’t pay much attention to anyone that refuses to distinguish their ID from the others. It’s a tool to get eyes on what they write and I’m not interested if they cannot bother to have a unique ID. There are others who do have a unique ID, that have extreme views, and I typically won’t read their nonsense either. Overall, Turley’s blog has been dominated by less than intellectual contributions, akin to what one might find anywhere else. That’s a shame, as this used to be a blog that encouraged thoughtful commentary.

            1. Entropy.

              However, Olly, you can provide intellectual contributions that might stimulate more discussion at a higher level. One depends on knowing a bit about another individual to adequately interpret what they write. Teachers in particular should know that but some do not have enough spine to even use a consistant randomly picked name. The Peter Shill’s are not to be taken seriously for they have no serious principles and childishly enjoy the ability to copy another’s writings without having to think. One doesn’t really respond to Peter the individual, rather all the Peters with a similar mindset.

              1. Allan said: “The Peter Shill’s are not to be taken seriously for they have no serious principles and childishly enjoy the ability to copy another’s writings without having to think. One doesn’t really respond to Peter the individual, rather all the Peters with a similar mindset.”

                Allan is compelled to respond and attack. It’s impossible for him ignore…or simply respond to the content without attacking the messenger.

                1. Frequently the messenger becomes an expression of a certain type of viewpoint. They become so synonymous with such a viewpoint that the mere mention of their name tells everyone else the subject. Some of these messengers are quite hateful and express their hatefullness in what they write without providing context and fact. When they do that they tarnish other people that may suppport the one being hated. Therefore, there is no reason to withhold a similar type of disregard for their feelings.

                  Of course, you, as an anonymous who is criticizing one for attacking another, are doing exactly the same thing you are complaining about. The only thing is you are worse because at least with people like Peter we know something of the persona we are responding to but with people like you we have to guess. I respond based on what the other person is saying and how he is saying it. If I attacked another without cause all that person has to do is ask why such an attack was made. If I have no answer then I have to appologize, but this blog seems to deal more with attacking people and groups than to think of where they may have ideas in common.

                  I think you are the anonymous that is a teacher. I guess you like students to posess multiple persona’s so that you don’t have to understand where they are coming from and therefore not have the burden of thinking.

                2. it helps keep track of conversations when everyone is not called anonymous

                  its inhuman to just pretend that we are all depersonified ideas. for my part, i am a man of flesh and blood, who was born and lives in flyoverland

                  at least give yourself a fake name. i find that a worthy suggestion

        2. Olly,
          The pictures of NGO’s swollen, bruised eyes should have been enough to cause concern.

          Enigma brought up the concern that no one seems particularly concerned about the Proud Boys. While I do find the reactionary identity politics game-playing on the right concerning, it is currently not the loudest, most pervasive voice. Far too many people on the Left are pushing identity politics in vast elements of society: media, business, medicine, education, politics, religion. It is all identity politics all the time. If it wasn’t being not only emphasized but pushed, then I doubt the Proud Boys would even exist.

        1. I like this Ngo fellow. I generally don’t like Vietnamese guys but we play cards regularly. I am partial to Chinese people and the two groups are not big fans of each other. I sometimes wonder if some of them are gay because some have really nice polished nails but i figure they prolly just work in a nail shop. I tell you, it’s clear they are a very tough people. the Chinese invaded north vietnam around 80 and the Viets pushed them back hard.

          I did have a Viet buddy a long time ago and he chewed betel nut. Or at least he did back home. Teeth were nasty. He always stood too close to me when he talked. Breath smelled like rotten fish. I learned that was this stuff called ngoc mam they put on all their food. yuck. You don’t get much of that in these “pho” shops i gather

          1. Like a whole lot of people in the news. He has a hustle and he’s making the best of it. He has to figure every beatdown he takes is worth 10 more appearances on Fox News and a hundred thousand or so.

            1. yes they call that earning ink. and salesmen get the idea that they have to face a lot of rejections to make a sale. pickup artists say that too. personally i am too congenial to act like that which is why i am not a politician nor a saleman and instead like to have fun posting under a fake name on the internet, I know, lame! off to the card game now

        2. Enigma,
          I am still uncertain about Ngo. I do not think he is a grifter. He seems to aspire to be a ‘brave hero’. However, he does not quite seem integrated in himself in some way. I have not yet read enough of his work to get a good sense of his perspectives and personality. I will read more and update as soon as I can.

          His injuries do seem legitimate and the attacks by Antifa seem unprovoked outside of his decision to be present.

          1. Provocation (as opposed to justification) was linked to his activities prior to the event. They didn’t jump some unknown reporter, they went after Ngo because he was Ngo. We can compromise and say he aspires to be seen as a brave hero. A true brave hero wouldn’t run to Fox News to exclaim how brave he is.

            1. “They didn’t jump some unknown reporter, they went after Ngo because he was Ngo. ”

              Enigma seems to like labelling people. Maybe they should have lynched him. I think Enigma is trying to recreate the racist south except this time the target is a Vietnamese gay guy named Andy Ngo.

            2. enigma – Unless you can prove otherwise, my understanding is that Andy Ngo was ASKED on Fox News. I don’t remember him being interviewed by any of the rest of the Lame Stream Media.

                1. enigma – thanks for the video. At least CNN carried it. I take back what I said about CNN in this instance.

      3. antifa on tweeter says that ngo was lying. so that means, antifa was lying. big surprise!

        i play cards with Vietnamese dudes regularly but i bet they never heard of andy ngo. doesn’t seem like a good topic to raise at the table and most don’t speak much english anyhow

  3. The Feminazi Gaystapo White Shirts!

    No, seriously!

    They are real and really dangerous.

  4. You should be concerned. It’s a wake up call on who NOT to vote for.

    Even though they claim to be Democrats they are by no means democratic and haven’t been since 1909 when the socialist progressive liberals took over no thanks to Woodrow Wilson. From there it’s just gotten worse.

    What they are is now getting close to pure Marxist-Leninist who among other things have redefined the center as theat dash IJ just placed between the two names.

    Doesn’t matter if they are national, international or regressively progressive their center is not the center of our Representative Constitutional Republic and ‘they’ includes some things called RINOs and DINOs.

    In Our system The Center IS The Constitution.

    1. Mike I like you but the Constitution is a piece of paper. The center of our nation is people. People have ideas, ideas are words, they go on paper. But people change, words, ideas change. The Left understands this and the “right” in this country perpetually underestimates the relevance of facts and particular things to regular people instead focusing on vague ideas and the totem of rights and constitutional etc etc. Vague ideas do not win elections and elections are a huge factor in where it all goes from here. Trump is focused on facts and things and less so on vague ideas and all that jive. That’s why people love him. And those who loathe the “Right” hate it that we finally have a guy out front for us whose feet are firmly on the ground and not thinking too much and talking about abstractions all the time

      Martin Heidegger understood this and if I get him a little bit, the key word about this was “Facticity”

      Leftists love Heidegger even though technically yes he was a Nazi. He continues to be revered by academic philosophers even as regular people have almost never heard of him. And yes he was probably the greatest philosopher of the 20th century.

  5. Just want to know the location because the actions of Antifa will be tried again.

    I have gone to a lot of functions with law abiding people hated by the left. We are always surrounded by armed guards and police something one doesn’t require with similar events on the left.

      1. Liberalism is a system of rights. It is grounded in individualism as an ideology. American law firmly integrates liberalism to its very core. And yet, people are naturally forming into groups, based on where they find themselves in life. Groups and the meaning we take from belonging in them are very important. The American politicians who focus on individual rights for sloganeering, only win on specific issues like guns or abortion, where individual choice is paramount. But, more often, politiicans win on relating to the interests of groups.

        This is being derided by many right wing type pundits as “identity politics.” I say embrace it. Trump understands identity politics and relates to the common person on that level, Intellectuals often ponder abstractions alone which is why they are pulled more to individualistic notions from whatever direction.

        Most of all people with money love individualism, because it is important for them to be able to have the freedom to keep grow and use their money. Without money, what does one have? Identity.

        Trump is called a rich man’s candidate but what is closer to the truth is that he appeals to working class interests and uses working class language to express himself. Trump has his firmest footing on that group and when he appeals to its interests. This is his path to win. Call it economic nationalism, or populism, whatever. It is not always in tune with liberalism that’s for sure and that is actually his strength.

        Now antifa is illiberal just because they are criminal hooligan anarchists. There is not much complexity in their approach nor logic. Nor do they represent Democrats or the average Democrat voter. Most folks are not crazy like them. They are nutjobs.

    1. I’m gonna take a wild guess that the communists are prepping the proletariat for the potential to allow felons to vote while in prison, on parole and on probation. Democrats (i.e. communists) need voters.

      Funny thing, not only are felons appropriately restricted from voting, “birthright” citizens are also. The 14th Amendment requires “…all persons born or naturalized in the United States,…” to be “…subject to the jurisdiction thereof,…” in order to become “…citizens of the United States…”

      Children born in the U.S. of illegal aliens were/are not subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. and were/are not citizens and were/are not eligible to vote. To demonstrate, were there a military draft, illegal aliens would not be subject to that draft because illegal aliens are not subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S.

      14th Amendment
      Section 1

      All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

      The inmates have taken over the asylum. America is in a condition of hysteria, incoherence, chaos and anarchy. The entire American welfare state is unconstitutional. Congress has only the power to tax for “…general Welfare…,” Congress has no power to regulate anything other than trade, exchange or “…commerce among the several States…” and private property is possessed and disposed of “…in exclusion of every other individual.”

      President Abraham Lincoln seized power and ruled by executive order and proclamation to “Save the Union.” President Donald J. Trump must seize power and rule by executive order and proclamation to “Save the Republic.” The restricted-vote must be restored as the restricted-vote has been the case since the inception of “democracy” in Greece, its perpetuation by the Romans and its perfection, in the form of a republic, by the American Founders. Generations of illegal aliens, illegal citizens, etc. must be deported. The “manifest tenor” of the Constitution must be re-implemented.

      1. @george

        The 14th Amendment was intended to protect the rights of the Freedman after the War Between the States. If it had been intended to apply to everyone born in the United States, congress would never have passed the Dawes Act in 1887 or Indian Citizenship Act in 1924, both would have been superfluous.

        I’m Hispanic myself and am greatly offended at virtue signaling White Anglos who assume or like to tell me what I should think about certain issues.


  6. Leftists, as they have throughout history, are once again going after individual liberties in an effort to create a very powerful authoritarian government “for our own good.” They have targeted the 1st Amendment, 2nd Amendment, and they also target religious Christian conservatives, systematically targeting businesses to destroy who do not want to be involved in gay weddings, prohibiting their freedom of religion. It’s not about the right of a loving, committed gay couple to enter into a legally recognized partnership, but rather destroying people who don’t agree for religious reasons.

    Beating Andy Ngo was not enough. They must silence him, too. When you can’t debate facts, try to silence or dehumanize the speaker.

    Terrorist threats to burn down the theatre or engage in violence should be referred to law enforcement and prosecuted. Having domestic terrorists arrested would actually be self defense.

    I sympathize with the venues that cancel. This is a business, and they do not want their employees threatened or injured, or for their venues to be torched by arsonists. The police need to protect businesses and residents from such terrorists.

  7. Professor Turley, face it. The Democrats used to protect freedom of speech but no longer do so. They have been absorbed by the far left.

    1. No, they didn’t ever, Allen. Free speech discourse was a tool made use of by people like Edward de Grazia and Wm. O Douglas to undermine the extant public manners such as they were in 1962. They wanted to make the world safe for pornographers, Communists, and cretins like Madelyn Murray O’Hair.
      The liberty aluminum siding salesman who ran the North Carolina Klan didn’t interest them and liberals have never protested the continuous FBI infiltration of outfits like his.

      See Paul Greenberg’s brief account of his time as a graduate student at Columbia ca. 1960. Academic disciplines were already being redefined to exclude dissenters. Alan Charles Kors has a different take (and, to my mind, a less plausible one), maintaining that research universities were most open to competing perspectives ca. 1974 and it’s been downhill since.

      1. I had to look her up. She was a founder of the atheist activism schtick. Absurd is awesome. You’re a vexatious curmudgeon but I learn from you. Thank you for information on “cretins” of note

      2. DSS, I know you don’t like some of the free speech that was permitted but I have to disagree. You cannot use your opinion or the opinion of anyone else to decisde what speech should be free. That advocates behind free speech went to far might be repulsive but free speech is better than the alternative.

        Where we went afoul was not in peritting free speech rather permitting government to become so involved in societal functions that government aided in the creation of one type of speech.

        1. i think the legalization of obscenity was really overdone. so too are the endless lawsuits against mangers and nativity displays and prayers at football games. leave the religious expression effort by the modern court aside for a moment.
          just understand that the core value of free speech under the First amendment is not only religious but political and socially oriented speech. now that is under attack but all the obscenity in the world is permitted.

          forty years ago, if an adult showed a porn to a minor, that would lead to an arrest

          in theory it still can. even in California!

          AND YET. Apple, google, and the other “silicon valley” companies have made it so that they can sell cell phones to kids who use the phones to look up the most disgusting forms of pornography imaginable, such as poop sex stuff. and none of them will ever be charged as minors have their “morals corrupted” now by the millions. See, Silicon Valley makes billions off of this, so it will continue.

          I understand section 230 immunity is important. i also understand that this situation is really ,really wrong.

          Right now, section 230 has been curtailed because there is a fear of sex workers using the internet to advertise their services, which could be used wrongfully to exploit minors aka sex trafficking which used to be called pimping. Well, that happens, but a lot less than the daily consumption of disgusting porn by minors off the internet every day around us with real negative social effects. So the FOSTA and SESTA laws ignore this and elevate a comparatively weak concern to “curtail” section 230 but nobody ever asks about this other problem. It is too big, like an elephant in the living room.

          It’s utterly pathetic that Silicon valley gateway providers like google and their lesser cousins in the porn industry uses the “First amendment” carve-out they have engineered for their billions of dollars worth of seedy commerce, which is consumed widely by minors, but the average poor adult woman trying to make some money in the oldest and simplest way possible with another adult voluntary customer, is guilty of a crime.

          Am I for legalizing voluntary adult sex work, and at the same time in favor of restricting obscenity? yes, absolutely that is exactly what i am suggesting. it would be a saner world if that were the law

          1. You are at odds with yourself.

            The ability of “sex workers” to make use of the internet has dramatically REDUCED violence, drugs, and “trafficking” particularly of minors.

            It empowers the participants in “sex work” at the expense of pimps and “traffickers”.

            The efforts of assorted loons – left and right – including Kamala Harris to shutdown the use of the internet has demonstrably decreased safety and increased the risk of the things you worry about.

            The internet has virtually killed of the “porn industry” – the over whelming majority of porn today is “free”. The days of getting rich in porn are over.

            BTW you cant legalize prostitution and criminalize obscenity without making a mess.

            Freedom is messy, and scary, and sometimes ugly. But the alternatives are worse.

            1. I am not at odds with myself at all. However i am not surprised a libertarian friend would advance that notion.

              You can start by rereading what I said about section 230 liability and SESTA and FOSTA. I oppose SESTA and FOSTA.

              I do believe however that sec 230 should not be used to justify any amount of obscene publications and circulations of smut to minors whatsoever. That is how Silicon valley has taken it.

              Silicon Valley is who reaps the profits of porn now more so than the former smut production makers and vendors, perhaps. Not that I care. A pox on both of them. and in any case selling vcr cassettes is not the only way they make money,. you can figure that out on your own.


              It’s the individual sex worker who needs more “liberty” now not the smut industry. In this regard, my sympathy lies with the worker and not the billionaires.

              In most places throughout history, prostitution has been lawful, however contained by geography or licensing. Whereas, obscenity has almost never been as lawful as it is now.

              Nevada is an example of how legal prostitution got along just fine in the “bad old days” when obscenity was still prosecuted.

              Prostitution happens in PRIVATE. The harm if any is limited to the venue and participants, mostly. Obscenity is by definition, a publication of some sort. One that affects, the public. And can be reproduced a million times over at a miniscule cost, unlike the performance of the private sex worker which is on every occasion, handmade.

              These are key qualitative differences. Prostitution, while illegal, is not a major threat to anybody.
              Obscenity, while legal, corrupts the mind and habits of tens of millions of young people.
              Social harm matters. Free speech is not any speech.

              Defamation and criminal speech such as plans to commit a crime like a bank robbery, are unlawful speech. Speech which violates trademark and copyright is unlawful speech. Speech which breaks contracts gets people sued. Speech is being “judged” by courts every day. Liberterians and free speech extremists seem to fail to grasp that simple reality.

        2. The US almost alone in the world treats free speach as a right.

          In the US the same laws that protect expressions of communism, pornography and athiesm also protect the speach of those critical of one religion or another, The Left in the US advocates for BDS – in much of Euope and canada BDS has been deemed hate speach.

          Limits on speach almost always come back to bite those who impose them.

          Whatever speech you wish to limit – there is always someone who wants to limit yours.

          Governments shift from one ideology to another – but they do not cede power no matter which Ideology has gained control.

          1. Communists have been limiting speech in China very effectively for decades. Does not appear to be biting them too much. Obscenity is illegal by the way.

            The Hong Kong protests are mostly about reasonable fears of extradition from HK to the mainland’s horrible corrupt court system, not the right to view porn.

            Nor the rights of religious people, either. China doesn’t give freedom on that and the Chicoms appear to be doing just fine in spite of it.

            The notion that “freedom” is irrepressible somehow according to nature, is just fantasy, however popular in our country, but a fantasy nonetheless.

            In reality, government is used as a tool by political and social factions in every place and every time, to fight their adversaries, foreign and domestic. It is always thus. Right wingers should wake up to this and dispense with all the punctillious sloganeering and fight back at the factions that would do in the regular people of this country who have few real defenders among the elites.

      3. “If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence.”

        [Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 (1927)]”

        ― Louis Brandeis

        Douglas was not on the court at the time.

  8. The theatre owners are poseurs. The ‘protests’ provided them with an excuse they wanted but hadn’t had prior to that.

    Again, these antifa LARPers are inconsequential arrested development cases. The real problem is college administrators, local politicians, and sundry smarmy bureaucratic microbes in the NGO sector. What you don’t want to acknowledge is that an obtrusive fraction of people among our bourgeois element are contemptible and not fit to hold the positions they do, and every time you cross the GW campus, you have a mess of them within spitting distance of you.

    1. they are not LARPers a lot of them are what is really called just petty criminals

      absurd is exactly right and says it with his typical verve, that they are just the tools, it is their HANDLERS which are the more real problem

      “obtrusive fraction of people among our bourgeois element are contemptible and not fit to hold the positions they do”

      the use of the word bourgeois is apt. see my comment below about the conflict between international capitalism and nationalism

    2. The theater owners agreed to the event voluntarily. They did not change their minds until threatened with violence.

      They are not ever obligated to host any event. They always get to choose.

      In this case they said yes. The only rational presumption is that they had no issue with the event until they were threatened with violence. Not that they were looking for an excuse to get out of something they were never obligated to agree to in the first place.

      But yes we have an enormous body of “Intelectual Yet Idiots”.

      1. What the antifa goons are doing is called “intentional interference with a contract.” but they will not be sued, you see, because they have no money. they are a bunch of losers. who can be sued? oh, let’s say, groups like SPLC that encourage them and participate in such like “actions” to interfere with contracts by spreading defamation about participants.

        It is possible and it’s happening. It will be slow but some keen personal injury lawyers will get the idea as it emerges as a “Thing.”

  9. Daryl Jenkins has been doing “Doxxing” for decades since before it was called that. One Peoples Project was his “thing” to get money donations in exchange for “Tracking haters” etc

    When right wingers finally roll out of bed and decide to fight back, they too will take donations to “Track ANTIFA” and “track haters of America” and then it will get interesting

    For now they are still asleep, fat and happy in the suburbs

    Daryl’s fat too, but it doesnt stop him from running a successful extortion racket

    1. @bob

      The left is already “burning” books figuratively speaking through internet and social media censorship, deplatforming and speech codes.

      Even cucked mainstream conservatives do not wish to disturb the “free market” and fight internet censorship.

      Most on the left never supported free speech as a matter of principle but only when leftist protesters were being harassed.


  10. From brown shirts to black outfits with face masks. I fear history is repeating itself.

    1. IB:

      Don’t be fooled by a color scheme. The Nazi’s enjoyed tremendoous popularity among the downtrodden Germans after WW1. The antifa clowns are more loathed than loved. They’ll fade. If not, they’ll rot in jail.

      1. Very few of them have even been arrested. Look at Andy Ngo’s attackers. No arrests. The leaders of cities like Portland don’t care to see the laws enforced.

        1. very many have been arrested, for things like heroin possession, vagrancy, vandalism, assault, battery, etc. they rarely have the charges pressed against them, for the usual reasons

          the key thing is they have not been prosecuted as a group for organized violence. they mass media aids and abets this by reinforcing the message that “they’re not a centralized group” etc etc which was probably also true of the Mafia (outside of Chicago at least) but that doesnt really stop the govt from pressing racketeering charges

          Which is what they should face

          now here is the thing. ANTIFA is rife with informants and sometimes undercovers.

          Do they participate in the violence?

          The nature of informant and undercover operations is that they are secret. So we just don’t know

          I want to know. I’m haunted by how the Boston FBI participated in two murders organized by Whitey Bulger. I’m haunted by the rumours that the ZETAs drug cartel were actually a breakaway drug interediction unit trained and supplied by US antidrug money. I’m haunted by the COINTELRPO program that had the KKK of the 60s stocked with as many as 1 out of every two kluckers as an informant or undercover, according to Roy Frankhauser’s estimation (he was a big klansman and a big informant too.

          Call me paranoid. But I want to know how much some errant LEOs are “investigating” antifa and actually misusing the phenomenon to suppress free speech by conservatives, alt right, whatever.

      2. For 3 decades they have grown,. They are not fading. They they, they proudly take their origins, in the Spanish civil war of the 1930s. They identify with the same group of hooligans that dragged nuns out and raped them and started shooting priests and confiscating church properties in Spain around the beginning of the CIvil War

        Observe that the Civil War in Spain, the Leftists were the Republic, actually, the side that had government power and “legitimacy” whereas the Rebels were Franco, the Army of North Africa, the Phalangists and the assorted Carlists and conservatives who ralled to their side.

        Until Franco restored order, the “antifa” anarchist types ran amuck. Here’s a famous story by the French existentialist set in that time, people may have read. A lof of folks never even heard of “Franco” and think that is a brand of meatballs

        Now if you read the diaires of Geo Orwell, from Catalunya, according to him the anarchists were all wonderful comrades who were wrongfully smashed by the Stalinists, first. IF that is true then I would thank Stalin for this service to civilization because no place, no where, no how, could ever have a functioning government under the black flag of “anarchy”

        which is exactly what the ANTIFA flies

        various “establishment” sources “inform us” that “there is no unified group” and “their origins are in the 1960s

        well true in some literal sense. but not true in this sense the forces of total anarchy go all the way back to prehistory before the dawn of government itself when brute tribes ruled by random violence.

        the ordered force that is government is always preferable. somehow, right wingers in America became confused about that when liberterianism became trendy and such like as Murray Rothbard muddied the waters with nonsense like “anarcho capitalism”

        at the end of the day, there is order and disorder, and people will have to chose

      3. The Nazi’s enjoyed tremendoous popularity among the downtrodden Germans after WW1.

        Only after 1929. Prior to that, they were a modest sect even when Gen. Ludendorff was collaborating with them. Under the Empire, the electoral performance of anti-semitic and volkisch organizations bounced around 2.2% of the vote. During the Weimar period prior to 1929, they typically garnered 3.5%.

        The election returns in 1932 suggest that support for them was faddish, and had the German establishment gotten its act together, they might have faded away quite rapidly.

        1. I dont agree. The NSDAP as a party were insignficant until the Army sent in Hitler, whose leadership took them in a more effective direction. But Freikorps the German post world war one veterans’ groups, like the Stahlhelm, were not insignificant. They were in the streets fighting the Reds. The Reds were not insignificant. They were violent and powerful and growing in force. The veterans fought the Reds, and the Nazis were seen, eventually, as the very same kind who could protect the nation. Simple as that.

          The conservatives were ineffective at this. That’s the Establishment you refer to perhaps?

          Yes, the situation has presented itself that way many times in many places. When anarchy rasises the black flag, it has to have its head broken. Either the government will do it, or not. But people can feel the danger these kinds of hooligans represent. It’s as simple as that.

          I content the ANTIFA are not “as bad as” the garden variety jihaadist, I say they are worse. At least the jihaadist has a coherent religious viewpoint informing his wrongful ends and means. However confused, however heretical, however wrong, there is a certain order inherent in radical violent actors emerging from Islam.

          By contrast, the anarchist is, in a word, Satanic, not a partisan of a different form of order, but an enemy of order itself. They are like the Joker in Batman. Just like that. Watch the recent movies folks if you don’t get it. That is the antifa. They are just not as competent as the Joker. Yet.

        2. “Only after 1929. Prior to that, they were a modest sect even when Gen. Ludendorff was collaborating with them.”
          That starting point is true but they were a dominant party in the Reichstag by 1930. A meteroic rise from their “refounding” in 1925. The ’32 election was the height of German despair ushering in Hitler in 1933. They were the largest party but had fewer seats. Figure that out in Germany’s s multi-party political salad.

          1. They won and important bloc of votes in 1930. They weren’t the plurality party, much less the dominant party. They were not pre-eminent until 1932 and not dominant until 1933.

            Had the Bruening ministry devalued the currency, provided ample liquidity to German banks, suspended reparations payments, run deficits, and set up public employment programs, the course of events might have been quite different. For example, Britain began its recovery at the end of 1931, having suffered a y-o-y decline in real income per capita of 6.6% over the previous two years and change. Germany suffered a 17% decline in real income per capita over the period running from 1928 to 1932, before its recovery began under Hjalmar Schacht’s efforts. (NB, it was only in 1927 that real income per capita in Germany had surpassed pre-war levels). Britain devalued its currency in September 1931.

  11. Many Americans are concerned about the possibility of a civil war. Well, friends – you HAVE one happening now, it just hasn’t been formally declared. It may be the most polite civil war in history as well – so far, no guns, but lots of other weapons. You have violent battles between opposing groups, and people attacking government facilities. You have politicians and others scrapping every day, with those on the left demanding that much of what makes America what it is be torn down.
    What would you call this, if not a war?
    To this point, the right has not really fought back against Antifa and these other fascist organizations – since that’s precisely what they are.
    When the right decides to truly fight back however, people will die and the left will scream its outrage as it runs to its hidey holes. Because that’s what the left wants – for the right to fight back, to justify its outrageous and illegal behaviour. To this point, it’s only the far right that is responding.
    If the greater part of the right can hold off until after Trump’s re-election before fighting back – the ensuing debacle will be bloody, but the far left will be put back in its place – under rocks, and in many cases, under the ground with a stone above them.

    1. Canuck Sailor:

      “Well, friends – you HAVE one happening now, it just hasn’t been formally declared.”

      It’s not a civil war. No antagonistic armies are in the field. No terror groups are engaged in urban warfare. No governments are in exile seeking recognition. In fact, there no countervailing domestic organizations operating against the lawful government of the United States.

      It’s a leftist temper tantrum. It’s a bunch of aging hippies and their most recent obsequious herd of bovine brains causing trouble and intimidating the weak and the weak-minded. That a few cowards are exposed is a good thing. These groups will fade as soon as the Soros money fades. Ever hear of The Weathermen anymore? How about the Students for a Democratic Society? No war, no draft, no movement. People grow up and move on. It’s immaturity not rebellion.

      And even if it were rebellion, do you think the owners of 300 million forearms would sit idly by while their home was attacked by a poorly masked gang who can’t shoot straight. Read some US history. Take our guns, liquor or freedom and pay the price. You forget we are all revolutionaries not just the rabble in the streets with the good press.

    2. You are correct sir.
      Working within the prescribed political and legal avenues and demanding that the politicians follow the will of the People is the way to change things WHEN, the politicians are there to work for the People who elected them.
      However the fact is our current leftist infested government is not there for that purpose.
      Deep state Democrats have stated and proven as much a thousands times by now.
      The government is no longer a government that is there to serve the People with their consent.
      The government is there to rule over the People without their consent or participation and with no choice in the matters that affect their lives.
      The thing about Communism the Democrats are implementing in this country is, death is an essential component of it’s success.
      Communism cannot rise and come to power without the death of any and all who oppose Communism’s slavery and tyrranny. It’s too dangerous to absolute power and control to let them live.
      The fact that Democrats are openly implementing and forcing Communism on this country means Democrats have already made the decision to kill American Citizens.
      The easiest, most efficient way to do that is to disarm them.
      Democrats deRp state has moved the country into a position where:
      1. They control the People with a treasonous anti-Constitutional Congress.
      2. They have empowered and insinuated Google and other tyrants of silicon valley and social media into the mores, values, norms and critical operations of every day life as surveillance and control mechanisms and replaced Rights and Laws with their policies and socially engineered people to submit to them and empowered them with a mission to force others to do so while silencing any and all questioning or opposition.
      3. Democrats use illegal unConstitutional laws to govern against the will and interests of the People.
      4. They are attempting to nullify the election to seize the power of choosing who runs the country for themselves.
      5. They have created, promote and use an illegal corrupt two tier judicial system that strips Americans who hold views different than the Communist liberals of Rights and Due Process and convicts them by designating them guilty of crimes that are not crimes, but legitimate Rights.
      6. At the same time the two tier justice system glorifies and elevates to the pinnacle of moral virtue their own treason and heinous crimes against humanity and reward things like Ex-Presidents, Senators and Congressmen calling for the murder of a sitting President and Citizens who exercise their Rights and demand from the halls of the U S Capitol a full fledged Genocide be conducted in the United States to wipe millions of Americans of certain races from the face of the earth.
      Democrats have brought the abuse of power over peoples lives they were trusted with to an unprecedented dangerous level not seen in the history of this country since It was founded.
      Now they have to finish the job by completing the necessary murder of millions in a reign of terror to cement by terror their hold on power.
      The only way Democrats can subdue and govern a Rights Rich People who have lived lives of Freedom up to now, is with the threat of terror and death.
      Democrats must kill people to prove they will not tolarate anyone that does not submit.
      There has never been a Communist government that has come to power without murder.
      And there has never been a country that has remained Free in the face of tyrrany, without fighting and dying to do so.

    3. @bob

      We have a “civil war”. It’s often referred to as a cold civil war. Two groups of people who mutually cannot stand one another. Mostly white with various minorities as auxiliaries. The “good whites” vs. The “bad whites”, if you will.

      I want a divorce. And hopefully a peaceful, amicable one. But Americans do few things “peacefully”. Our Puritan forefathers and their descendants had to be “right” and were willing to use force to ensure this. I am not an Anglo-Saxon, don’t have the Puritan curse.


      1. well antonio you put your finger on why white nationalist and white racial organizations perpetually fail. because too many white people hate their own kind and the incentives are quite purely and simply, financial. Many white folks understand that white-ethnic nationalism is a force that is potentially hostile to capitalism and since that is what organizes everything here, most white folks are chary about coming anywhere near it.

        Capitalism in its bones, not free enterprise and private property, but capitalism in the sense of the international organization of finance of productive capital, which has a strict agenda of “the free movement of people (labor) and money (capital) is now completely at odds with nationalism as such. Ayn Rand made this point. A lot of people didn’t understand here on that issue. Individualism as the ideology behind capitalism, is ever at odds with every form of tribalism, big or large.

        We see capitalism and its ideology of individualism in play against the Communist control of Hong Kong, but it’s also in play against the immgration regime of the US.

        It’s funny, the US is encouraging the protests in HK,. which is patently not just about “Freedom” in the civil rights sense but very much freedom of capital, and yet, the US suffers from its own failure of nationalism in that all these folks here don’t want ICE and a border and detention of illegals and so forth. International Capitalism explains both.

        The Chinese communists are not confused about this. They only seek to use capitalism to make money. Money they need so they can stay in power. Money is only a tool to them. Bulletes are a tool, there are many tools, and they will use any of them as they see fit. But their own control is the key shared goal. So, money and capitalism as a system, they use, but they will not tolerate it depriving them of national control. they will be careful with Hong Kong but at the end of they day if they have to crush the resistance, they will. They will put their own national control over money interests at the end of the day. THat’s why they won the Chinese civil war in the first place and why they still get support from a lot of Chinese people all over including inside Hong Kong.

        But the US was a “creedal nation” from the start, opposing ties to Mother England. Since then the US is the foremost global agent of capitalist change. But because it has these blood ties, to mother England, and the white folks who are the majority (for now) retain some shreds of tribal affialition, the US has got a split personality problem.

        In Trump, it’s on full display

      2. I’m a little confused, but apparently not as badly as all you Trump would be street fighters. Just above you seemed to agree it was the left causing the trouble and spoiling for a fight, and now you’re all making threatening noises and looking for a “divorce”. Not the first time all of you have expressed your lust for a fight, but that makes you the trouble making revolutionaries, not the left. Internet tough guys are indeed fearsome and I’m sure you all are eager to trade in your fat ass American lives and jobs to take the ramparts – well, not really. Count me as skeptical. Hey, it’s the weekend. Set up your tent in the backyard, get your AR15, and perform unnatural acts with it until Sunday morning and you’ll probably feel better.

        Antonio, you should read “Island At the Center of the World”. It argues that our national heritage and character are at least a large part not the weird religious nut Puritans, but more like the polyglot capitalists, slave traders and slaves and hookers in New Amsterdam.

  12. Truth always sounds like hate to those who hate truth.
    Welcome to
    N̶e̶w̶ ̶J̶e̶r̶s̶e̶y̶ ̶2̶0̶1̶9̶
    Nuremberg 1938

  13. More of the famous leftist tolerance and understanding for which they are well known.

      1. Allan – I am not sure. Tim Pool is really in charge of organizing the event and the list of speakers is 2-1 progressives to conservatives. If you are interested in going, follow Tim Pool on YouTube.

Comments are closed.