Here's one of the principal organizers of the riots at Berkeley last weekend. She lies in her teeth repeatedly, and absolutely refuses to acknowledge the rule of law or civilized behavior. Listen to her carefully. This is the voice of an avowed enemy of freedom, liberty, and justice.
Anyone who's this dogmatically and ideologically fixated should be regarded in the same light as a cancer invading someone's body. It needs to be dealt with before it kills that body entirely. That can happen through the law and the courts. In many places, it will. The problem is, in a place like Berkeley (or Washington state, from where this woman hails), that's unlikely, because the authorities in those places are often themselves left-wing progressives.
If the rule of law breaks down to the extent that the authorities will not stop people like this (as is apparently the case in Berkeley), be aware that their violent demonstrations are likely to put at least your health, if not your life, and the health and lives of your loved ones, at risk. Therefore, if you should encounter such a demonstration and are forced to defend yourself, bear in mind who and what you're dealing with. These people know no logic, no reason, and no mercy. I submit that a legal, proportional and appropriate response to that threat will not be out of place. If anyone should question that . . . show them this video clip.
Peter
17 comments:
This sounds likes 60s and 70s rhetoric.
Felarca is a middle school teacher in the Berkeley public schools. The fact that KTVU (SF bay area local channel) just identified her as a "BAMN activist" is interesting. I case anyone wonders why the students are so on board with The Cause...
Give me the child for seven years and I will give you the man.
The world of sane people has no need for malignant cancers like this female in their midst.
She - and her ilk -should be expelled from our colleges along with the traitorous professors and politicians that encourage them, treated just like the anti-American enemies they are, and many need to spend time - in some cases, a lot of it - in prison. Others need to be returned to their native lands.
This smooth-tongued college-educated rabble-rouser is calling for war. Being the well versed radical feminist-progressive-liberal she is, she has NO idea what she is asking for. She may truly believe that eliminating 25 million Americans who disagree with her is actually doable, just as Bernadine Dohrn once stated would be necessary to achieve their goals.
There is one thing she is that she does not realize.... she is an utter fool. Far more than those 25 million Americans are armed and ready for whatever they think they can do. And those many millions of Americans are fed up.
She and her "tough" little band of Berkeley style window-breakers and fire starters are going to find out what they have started, something we Americans are going to finish. It will not be pleasant. For many, it will be beyond their worst nightmares.
Their decision to ignore the rule of law simply means we can - and will - act accordingly. Their foolish belief that we will continue to "turn the other cheek" is about to be exposed as a wishful fancy.They think we are not inherently violent? We are.... very, when pushed enough. Up till now, we have chosen not to react physically to their yelling, their screaming, their destruction, their physical attacks, their insanity.
Those days are over. The American male is awakening, and his woman is by his side.
Go get lots of popcorn.
Et Dona Ferentes, and we are getting down to the last stanzas of Kipling's poem.
Nice we have a face and an name now, perhaps the Sessions DOJ can start tracing links back to prepare to excise this tumor.
Google Rules for Radicals
By Saul Alinsky. Everyone of us should understand how this book is being used.
The exact same types of people as this woman gleefully organized the Killing Fields in Cambodia.
I happen to live in Berkeley, near the epicenter of all of this uproar. I absolutely can _not_ speak my truth, except in whispers -- and then with only two of my friends. Everyone around me assumes that I too am on board with the progressive agenda of hate-filled resistance, of window-breakers and fire starters and pink hats and rage. YIKES. The local paper, SF Chronicle, overflows with vitriol and snide invective.
Thank Heavens for sites such as Peter Grant's blog!!! May we all pray for peace. And, excuse me, law and order.
Someone in California needs to arrange a traffic accident. STAT.
I heard the same rhetoric in the '60s from the SDS, the Black Panthers, and the White Panthers in support of the Weather Underground.
The rhetoric hasn't changed; the ends will always justivy the means.
So...basically, the rioting was the fault of the University for not denying an unpopular view its moment.
She states that this is the "model" for future protests, that it is all the fault of "fascists".
In other words, violence is ok. That the voting system, the courts and free speech count for nothing.
It will be interesting to see how people react when the rioting starts causing more injuries, and deaths. I would never deny people the right to protest, but that right ends with rioting and destruction.
These people are the fascists. I see too much communist style rhetoric to believe otherwise. They are the ones who want to crush opposing views with violence, not the "right". (I recall a couple of years ago, seeing a young muslim woman do her evening prayers during a downtown celebration. She had the right to do that. I watched her back in case anyone tried to give her a hard time. She got a couple of startled, but not angry looks and no one said a word about it to her. This occurred in south Texas, you know, that land of oppression.)
These far left people are nuts. The are what they claim to be opposing.
A crazed fanatic. She talks as she does because she expects no resistance to her totalarian insanity. It'll be interesting to hear what she says after she and her idiot mates are on the receiving end of some biff.
These sort always remind me of the oddly spot on description of conservatives in one scene of the episode "A Good Man Goes to War" in Doctor Who:
Madame Kovarian: The anger of a good man is not a problem. Good men have too many rules.
The Doctor: [turns his head slowly to look at her] Good men don't need rules. Today is not the day to find out why I have so many. Hmm?
I'm afraid that they don't understand that reasoning, and they are going to still be trying to figure out what happened in the aftermath of the whirlwind they end up reaping by pushing the wrong person(s) too far.
Mike H
I've read that some of the Nazis on trial at Nuremberg were quite cheerful and chipper, thinking it was all a good show, right up until they realized the gallows they were being walked toward were all too real. It was only at the literal last minute they saw reality for what it was. And some of them who'd been smiling and joking before that point broke down utterly. A total divorce from reality. They don't get it. They won't get it until it smacks them with physical reality, hard, in the face.
In an orderly society it is expected that people, in general, will conduct their affairs in a rational and orderly manner and in approximate compliance with societal norms.
In an orderly society it is understood that not all will conduct their affairs in a rational and orderly manner and in approximate compliance with societal norms, hence the existence of such societal functions as police, courts, prisons, psychologists, psychiatrists, mental wards, et al.
In an orderly society it is also understood that a certain segment will not only not conduct their affairs in a rational and orderly manner and in approximate compliance with societal norms and, with deliberation and malice aforethought, that segment will ignore and circumvent the societal structures meant to establish approximate compliance with societal norms.
Therefore, in an orderly society, a substantial proportion will, with great reluctance, assume an increased level of personal responsibility regarding enforcing approximate compliance with societal norms as regards their individual and particular circumstance.
Should that substantial porportion be forced to engage the non-compliant portion to establish approximate compliance with societal norms it is reasonable to expect the segment insisting on non-compliance will not find the exercise enjoyable.
Or, in many cases, survivable.
Agreed, get the popcorn. But look at the side issues. Things that will be slid into law, under guise of we have to control the anarchists. I'll bet we lose association, press and speech. With that I'll bet guns also. Also the implication on voting rights. Not based on color, but legal status. Man, that's just the highlights. I wonder what they will do, if they did get a cconstitunal convention. Would we be that shining light then?
Shouldn't she be arrested for adding and abetting various injuries and
destruction that the libturds caused to uc bazerkely and other businesses in the area?
Heltau
@ anonymous with the Orderly society meme.
I loved your comment was it your own thoughts or a quote from someone else, if so who?. It was absolutely on topic and more than a little prophetic.
Post a Comment