I really find it interesting how Zionists have no issues constantly using words like "Islamic" or "Islamist" or "jihadist" to describe the people they're killing without any fear of being accused of Islamophobia or that they're being bigots.

Because they know that we live in a world where anything or anyone remotely "Muslim" are automatically portrayed as inherently evil and deserving of death, especially in the US and other Western countries where Israel gets most of its support from them. So therefore, no one can be mad at them for killing all of these people, right? After all, they're only killing scary radical "Islamists" and "jihadists," NOT innocent people.

Meanwhile you would never hear any pro-Palestine people calling IDF soldiers "Jewists" or "Jewish extremists," even when they're literally branding the star of David onto Palestinians' faces and houses, instead we have to be very careful to not associate Judaism with Israel's crimes and are obligated to write a long essay about how we in fact do NOT want to kill every Jew in the world before we're allowed to show a shred of sympathy toward the thousands of Palestinian civilians being murdered as we are speaking.

Yet somehow that's not enough and they still hit us with the "when you say Zionists you actually mean Jews!" all while ignoring how they themselves aren't putting any effort into not demonizing Islam and Muslims with their words, because demonizing Islam and Muslims isn't an issue to them and the only way they can justify all the killing they're doing.

War on Comcisgate...or rather Richard Meyer and the Very Bad Horrible No Good Day

First of all thanks to @majingojira for making screencaps of this, since I could not get the whole thing due to being blocked by the main clown of this spectacle.

So for quite few days idiots of comicsgate are screaming how Eve Ewing has been hired to write new Ironheart series despite having no prior comics experience and more and more industry professionals bring up that they have gotten jobs at Marvel or DC despite having no prior experience writing comics. Neil Gaiman was the last one to chime in and say that when DC hired him to write Black Orchid he had no comics experience and was hired for his work as a journalist.

And then Richard C. Meyer a.k.a. Diversity & Comics decided to go “well actually” on Neil Gaiman and butted in saying Gaiman had published works before Black Orchid. I kid you not, he tried to explain to Neil Gaiman his own career. And Gaiman rather patiently pointed out that yes, he had other comics published before Black Orchid but he was hired by DC before any of them seen the light of day because making a 144-pages fully painted graphic novel takes fucking time. So yeah, Meyer apaprently thought that the time when he was humilated by Jim Jefferies wasn’t showing that he has replaced his brain with his own cock enough and needs to top it by making an even bigger fool of himself.

As someone on twitter put it, basically the real-life equivalent of this has happenned

But that is not all my dear friends. Because, in what might be the greatest display of irony, certain person entered the picture. For some time there were rumors that ComcisGate and Ethan Van Sciver in particular are getting close with Vox Day. You might have heard of Vox Day as an anthor of Arts of Dark and Light novels (which are so awfull there is an entire thread on Sufficient Velocity going through everything wrong with them) or that time he launched Sad/Rabbid Puppies movement to rig the Hugo Awards to not award works he deemed as too political or made by women or minorities (and failed as whenever he managed to domiante any nomination with his picks people would just vote for No Award) or as creator of shady foundraiser for an alt-right comicsbook Alt-Hero. He is so bad that when antifa put him on a list of Alt-Lite, people maisntreaming nazi views in media, they made a note “we’re not sure if we should just call him an outright alt-right at this point”. Meaning they found him more radical than fucks like Milo Yiannopoulous or Sargon of Akkad. To prove connection between Day and Meyer or Van Sciver would be pretty damning for their claims Comicsgate is not a hate group.

So how does Day enter the picture? He just launched a comics publishing company, which he named Comcisgate Comics. And he promptly trademarked (or copyrighted I’m not sure) the Comicsgate name.That’s right, a bigger, nastier bigot just fucking robbed these morons. I don’t know if Meyer or EVS invited him into them house and he promply robbed them them or if he just saw how they’re making fools of each other and decided they’re worthless allies but can be used for his next get-rich-quick scheme. I don’t know which I’d find funnier. 

Comicsgate wanted their world work like fiction they consume so much that their wish come true and they got hit with a fictional trope. This is a real-life equivalent of being Hijacked by Ganon.  I think there is one word to describe my feelings about it: schadenfreude.

So here we have the big bad boogey man, the supposed rising power that will change comics forever - face of the movement humilated by one of the most respected creators in the industry and their very name stolen by a white supremacist. As certain clown put it:

- Admin

4tWorldRadyo // Which Way is Up? - The US Left in Ideological Crisis

Current News You Should Know: - David Duke Compares Trump To Jesus Christ, Calls Him A ‘Hero’ For Remarks On Putin - inquisitr.com - #US and #EU #SeparatistGroups to Gather on #Moscow’s Dime - The upcoming conference will feature guests from #Catalonia and #Texas, but no #Chechens or #Uyghurs. By Casey Michel / July 26, 2016 / http://tinyurl.com/ybglspkq - Steve Bannon plans right-wing group in #Brussels – POLITICO - Trump's ambassador lobbied Britain on behalf of jailed right-wing activist Tommy Robinson | Reuters - Trump ambassador lobbied UK over jailed Tommy Robinson: report | USA News | Al Jazeera - Let Nigel Farage help build a bridge with Donald Trump, says Katie Hopkins | Daily Mail Online

//

SUMMARY: This delayed broadcast from the @TheAngryindian and 4th World Radyo goes further in questioning the Russiagate Scandal and asks how Indigenous and Afro-American populations fit into the Trump Administration's painfully obvious programme to 'Make America Gammon Again' through the state-sponsored utilisation of racial-profiling against non-European citizens and residents within the United States; the indefinite detention of persons according to arbitrary legal and extralegal means and once brought into the system against their will(s) these people are subjected to physical and psychological including the reported use of psychotropic drugs and sedatives aimed and reducing resistance to what is happening to them and the social media influence of Russian-backed hacker-factories situated in Eastern Europe and the Russian Republic. @TheAngryindian also takes a hard look at some of the voices of the US Left angrily dismissing allegations of Russian-meddling as American Paranoia and asks why these 'experts', when appearing on alternative news media, seem to be more interested in fighting harder for Trump and Putin than they are for Black and Brown America. Is there a reasonable explanation for their questionable behaviour, especially following Trump's treasonous performance in Helsinki? And after the Trump Administration decided to support British neo-Nazi Tommy Robinson with diplomatic pressure, (after supporting neo-Nazis at home) why, in a logical world, would US Leftists choose to thrown their lot in with the US Republican Party which is directly connected to the violent far-right? Is this the 'new' American Left? And how will Progressives and authentic Democratic Socialists deal with this while working to build a functional political party in the United States under Democratic Fascism? EXTRAS: The usual mix of politically progressive PSAs; anti-commercial quirks; political sounds and archived news items; a brief corporate news clip with the Rev. William Barber, including illuminating commentary from independent broadcasters Benjamin Dixon, Joe Rogan and Mike Malloy. All this and much more on, 4WR. The official Internet radio broadcast of the Aboriginal Press News Service Listen/ Download: (mp3) / (ogg) Further Reading:

The Communist Party USA and African Americans - Wikipedia

The Problem of Equality: Black Communists and the Women’s Charter – AAIHS

Pompeo, Religion, and Regime Change in Iran – LobeLog

Trump's Latin America Policy: Send in the Troops - FPIF

Trump pressed for Venezuela invasion, US officials say | WTOP

Trump Pressed Aides About Invading Venezuela: U.S. Official | Time

Trump’s Threat Against Maduro Unites Latin America, Against U.S. - The New York Times

Arsalan Iftikhar: Mike Pompeo said all Muslims are 'potentially complicit' in terrorism. He's unfit to be secretary of state.

Here’s John Bolton Promising Regime Change in Iran by the End of 2018

Arsalan Iftikhar: Mike Pompeo said all #Muslims are 'potentially complicit' in terrorism. He's unfit to be secretary of state. ( http://twitthat.com/Bv2lB )

What's Behind Trump’s Assault on Europe - FPIF

How Russia Used Racism to Hack White Voters

Obama hit by racist memes on Russian social media over hacking row | Daily Mail Online

Why Won't The Far Left Acknowledge Russia's Fascism? - The Daily Banter

Inside the Russian effort to fuel American secessionists – ThinkProgress

David Duke praises Trump for Putin press conference | TheHill

Donald Trump Did Get Some Praise for Putin Comments—From Former KKK Grand Wizard David Duke

The Evangelical Case for Voting for David Duke

Inside Bannon's Plan to Hijack Europe for the Far-Right

The Jewish State in Israel and the Levant | SocialistWorker.org

Democratic Convention: Bernie, the Kurds and Lack of Moral Clarity on Syria | HuffPost

What’s Become of the Russia-Friendly Californian Secessionists? | The Diplomat

Neo-Confederates reach out to their ‘Russian friends’ in new project – ThinkProgress

US, Britain warn of Russian campaign to hack networks - Daily Nation

Racist Russian Propaganda Still Going Viral On Social Media

The Fake Americans Russia Created to Influence the Election - The New York Times

Exclusive: Fake black activist social media accounts linked to Russian government

12 Russians indicted in hacking of Clinton's campaign and computers handling voter registration

White supremacists' disturbing outreach to 'Russian friends' shows why Trump's fondness for Putin is even darker than it seems

Israel Cements Right-Wing Agenda in a Furious Week of Lawmaking - The New York Times

Ecuador Will Imminently Withdraw Asylum for Julian Assange and Hand Him Over to the U.K. What Comes Next?

How Pizzagate Pusher Mike Cernovich Keeps Getting People Fired | HuffPost

Sheriff who backed Roy Moore allegedly had sex with an underage girl

Lavrov tells Pompeo: free Russian woman accused in U.S. of espionage | Reuters

Trump suggests season suspension as punishment for NFL players who protest during anthem.

Mother and son arrested outside a domestic-violence hearing | Charlotte Observer

Mark Janus quits state job for conservative think tank gig after landmark ruling | Chicago Sun-Times

Article: Migrant Children Detained in Shelters Being Drugged, Told Not to Hug, Forced to Bathe in Sinks | OpEdNews

Russian operatives used Facebook ads to exploit America’s racial and religious divisions - The Washington Post

//

View On WordPress

Nietzsche’s “Thus Spake Zarathustra” (part II/II)

❍❍❍

Iran between Zoroaster (زرتشت) and Islam

Last Thursday night (June 20th), Trump approved an attack on Iran after a US drone was shot down, yet he suddenly changed his mind and pulled back from the attack. (5) While Trump almost attacked Iran and started a new area of war and misery in the world, Iranians inside Iran and around the world are frightened by this escalation. Today, Iran’s Jewish community is the largest in the Mideast outside Israel – and feels safe and respected. (6) 

Iranians in the diaspora have a variety of ethnicities, languages, religions, and political views but with different intensities, they all share the common Iranian-something else identity. There are many different political oppositions to the current Islamic Republic which in itself is one of the most straight-forward opponents of the United States hegemony and its imperial projects. Politically, Iranian Left has a wide spectrum; from the ultra-radical MEK which is supported by no one else but John Bolton, to Tudeh Party of Iran. Iranian right-wing opposition has also a wide gamut from ultra-right nationalists such as Persian Renaissance, Jason Reza Jorjani who hangs out with American white-supremacists Richard Spencer, to the good old monarchists, and of course the recent infamous Mohamad Tawhidi a fake Muslim cleric educated in Iran who is now a hero for the white-nationalists and Islamophobes. (7) (8)

Iranian nationalists see themselves as Caucasian or white. This might be in part due to the fact that etymologically the word Iran means “land of Aryans”. The Avestan name Airiianəm vaējō "Aryan expanse", is a reference in the Zoroastrian Avesta (Vendidad, Fargard 1) to the Aryans’ mother country and one of Ahura Mazda's "sixteen perfect lands". (9) Before the Islamic Revolution of 1978, Shah of Iran was seeing himself as a descendant of the great ancient Persian kings. In 1971, Shah decided to organize a huge event on the 2500-Year Celebration of Persian Empire (officially known as the 2500th year of Foundation of Imperial State of Iran). Many historians argue that this event resulted in the Iranian Revolution and eventual replacement of the Persian monarchy with the Islamic Republic. If you fancy watching some part of the event, there is good propaganda video narrated by Orsen Welles. 

Before the Shah, for a short period, Iran had a cozy democracy in 1951-1952. Iran democratically elected its 25th prime minister Mohammad Mosaddegh (محمد مصدق‎), who was a supporter of secular democracy and resistance to foreign domination. He nationalized the Iranian oil for the first time in 1951. The oil industry had been built by the British on Persian lands since 1913 through the Anglo-Persian Oil Company (APOC/AIOC -later British Petroleum and BP). Mosaddegh’s government was overthrown in a coup d'état (28 Mordad 1332) orchestrated by the United States' CIA and the United Kingdom's MI6. (10)

Nietzsche and Postmodernism

Zoroaster [Zarathustra as its older form] was the ancient Persian prophet who lived in Iran at some point between 1500 BCE - 1000 BCE. Nietzsche chose the older version of Zoroaster’s name “Zarathustra”. Before publishing the book, Nietzsche included the first paragraph of Zarathustra’s prologue in his previous book Joyous Science (1882). There are two differences between this paragraph and the opening in Thus Spoke Zarathustra. (1) The title Incipit Tragoedia [tragedy begins] and (2) in Joyous Science the lake of Zarathustra’s home is mentioned as “lake Urmi” [today’s lake Urmia] compare to the prologue in Thus Spoke Zarathustra where the name of the lake is left out. We know that the real birthplace of Zoroaster is uncertain. (11)

Nietzsche’s anti-Christian and anti-majoritarian views (it's reversals of Christian morality and values) are picked up by white feminists and queer theorists for obvious reasons. As Michael Hardt wrote in the forward for Deleuze’s "Nietzsche and Philosophy”, postmodernists didn’t just use these concepts to get away from the dominant French Philosophical establishment of ’50s and ’60s but they were also genuinely interested in Nietzsche’s anti-universalities views.

Although very similar in methodology, there are some differences between the Nietzschean concept of solitude (which is very predominant in this work) and postcolonial marginalization and anxiety. Words such as "happiness” and “joy” has a distinctive meaning for Nietzsche which wasn’t unpacked in this book but was the main topic of his previous book Joyous Science (1882). Nietzschean Dionysius is more tonal in this book rather than descriptive and maybe has giving its chair to the bigger umbrella of Eternal Return as the "fundamental conception" of Thus Spoke Zarathustra. (-Ecce Homo, 1888)

Importance of writing as an activist

“Of all that is written I love only that which is written with blood. Write with blood: and you will discover that blood is spirit. It is not easy to understand the blood of another: I hate the reading idler. He who knows the reader does nothing further for the reader. Another century of readers – and spirit itself will stink. That everyone is allowed to learn to read will in the long run ruin not only writing but thinking, too. Once spirit was God, then it became man, and now it is even becoming mob[populace].”

At the end of chapter 4 in Joyous Science, Nietzsche inserted the opening of the Zarathustra’s prologue. He is making his readers ready for a transformation. For understanding Thus Spoke Zarathustra, it is essential for the reader to read Joyous Science first. Nietzsche wants to prepare his readers for his philosophy, so in a way, he is selective about who is he talking to.

“We not only want to be understood when we write, but also just as surely not to be understood. It is by no means an objection to a book that someone finds it unintelligible: perhaps this was precisely the author’s intention – perhaps he did not want to be understood by ‘just anyone’. Every individual with a distinguished intellect and sense of taste, when he wishes to communicate himself, always selects his listeners; by selecting them, he simultaneously excludes ‘the others’. All the subtler laws of style have their origin here; they simultaneously ward off, create distance and forbid ‘entrance’ (or intelligibility, as I have said) – while allowing the words to be heard by those whose sense of hearing resembles the author’s. And between ourselves, may I say that, in my own case, I do not want my ignorance or the vivacity of my temperament to prevent me from being understandable to you, my friends; certainly not the vivacity, however much it may compel me to come to grips with a thing quickly, in order to come to grips with it at all. (The Joyous Science - Book V, 381 On the Question of Intelligibility”)

Anti-Nietzsche writers

Anti-Nietzsche writers usually refer only to Nietzsche’s text from his early period (before the break with Wenger) without taking his later works into consideration. Taking his works out of context is a sign of dismissal of his philosophy and art. Nietzsche met Wagner at the home of Hermann Brockhaus an Orientalist who was married to Wagner’s sister, Ottilie. Brockhaus was himself a specialist in Sanskrit and Persian whose publications included an edition of the Vendidad Sade—a text of the Zoroastrian religion. (12) It was only after the publication of “Richard Wagner in Bayreuth” that he realized who Wagner really was (an anti-Semitic coward). After completion of “Human, All-Too-Human” (1878) and continuation of his friendship with Jewish philosopher Paul Rée, Nietzsche ends his friendship with Wagner, who comes under attack in a thinly-disguised characterization of “the artist”. (12)

“Nietzsche had long hymned the sublime power that Wagner’s music exercised over his senses but now he realised how it robbed him of his free will. The realisation filled him with a growing resentment against the delirious, befogging metaphysical seduction that once had seemed like the highest redemption of life. Now he saw Wagner as a terrible danger, and his own devotion to him as reeking of a nihilist flight from the world. He criticised Wagner for being a romantic histrionic, a spurious tyrant, a sensual manipulator. Wagner’s music had shattered his nerves and ruined his health; Wagner was surely not a composer, but a disease?” 

(Sue Prideaux, “I Am Dynamite!: A Life of Nietzsche”)

To even start talking about Heidegger and Nietzschean metaphysics, is to miss-read Nietzsche, just as taking "Will To Power” as something that Nietzsche actually published is wrong. Will to Power was never meant to be a book, it was put together by Nietzsche’s Nazi sister Elisabeth Förster-Nietzsche and Heinrich Köselitz. They have selected, added and subtracted parts to Nietzsche’s notes in order to compile a book that is accessible to their average readers. (See Will to Power introduction by R. Kevin Hill, Penguin Classics 2017). Sue Prideaux described this perfectly in Nietzsche’s biography "I Am Dynamite!: A Life of Friedrich Nietzsche”. And Carol Diethe’s wrote a biography on Elisabeth Förster-Nietzsche which gives us more insight into her proto-Fascist mentality.

The Will to Power book, did everything that Nazis wanted, hugely swerving from Nietzsche’s philosophy, the book starts with "European nihilism" and ends with the forceful sentence “This world is the will to power – and nothing besides! And even you yourselves are this will to power – and nothing besides!”. No other philosophy could do better justice to the Nazi cause than this fabricated assemblage.

Majority of Nietzsche’s work can be hijacked by ultra-right and the new alt-right, expect his fundamental critic of Christianity which is at the heart of his philosophy. Fascist and racist white writers such as Jordan Peterson, Oscar Levy (who wrote the introduction to Untimely mediation in 1909 and according to Walter Kaufmann, forged a fake autobiography of Nietzsche titled “My Sister and I”), Richard Spencer and others have tried to utilize Nietzsche in their hatred of brown and black peoples, religious minorities, Muslims and Jews, Queer people, and liberals. (13)  

Methodologically, Nietzsche doesn’t throw away, archaic classical concepts such as; nobility, civilization, and barbarism, he appropriates and instrumentalizes them for his philosophical end. He didn’t have everything perfect, after all, we are talking about a dude who lived his mature period 140 years ago and was using a “writing ball” to type. (14) He has comical and outdated stuff as well. His rejection of vegetarianism is one of them.

Who is living in Nietzsche’s world

It seems to me the worst thing that we can do when reading Nietzsche is to put his philosophy into a functionalist and majoritarian (national) use. He argues in Joyous Science concerning consciousness (which he perceives as a communal category rather than an individual one):

“the growth of consciousness is dangerous, and whoever lives among the most conscious Europeans even knows that it is a disease. As one might have guessed, it is not the antithesis of subject and object which concerns me here; I leave that distinction to the epistemologists who have remained entangled in the snares of grammar (the metaphysics of the people). Even less is it the antithesis of the ‘thing in itself’ and the phenomenon; for we do not ‘know’ enough to be entitled to make such a distinction. We have absolutely no organ for knowledge, for ‘truth’; we ‘know’ (or believe, or imagine) exactly as much as may be useful to us, exactly as much as promotes the interests of the human herd or species; and even what is called ‘useful’ here is ultimately only what we believe to be useful, what we imagine to be useful, but perhaps is precisely the most fatal stupidity which will some day lead to our destruction.”

Nietzsche’s critique of European Universalism and Western Humanism is still valid and timely, yet if we stay within the hegemonic “white domain“ (White-main) our theoretical understanding of Nietzsche, will be centered somewhere between the Alt-right racism, white phenomenology, European Modernist and localists, Silicon Valley accelerationism and Nick Land (which is equally racist). The only way to get out of this binary is to step out of White-main and find Nietzsche in between the lines of the second-generation non-European Nietzsche intellectuals (Fanon, Derrida, Aimé Césaire, Muhammad Iqbal, Ali Shariati) and the third-generation intellectuals (Spivak, Bhabha). At this time in history, Europeans can’t (and shouldn’t) any longer teach or perpetuate Nietzsche’s philosophy for any end. Not for Germany, not for any other white-majority nation. This is simply because they are already living in Nietzsche’s post-God reality.

Bib.

1. NIETZSCHE, FRIEDRICH and HOLLINGDALE, R. J. . Ecce Homo. s.l. : PENGUIN BOOKS, 2004. 9780141921730. 2. Sandis, Constantine. Nietzsche’s Dance With Zarathustra . philosophy now. [Online] 2012. https://philosophynow.org/issues/93/Nietzsches_Dance_With_Zarathustra. 3. Ashouri, Daryoush. Nietzsche and Persia. http://www.iranicaonline.org. [Online] July 20, 2003. http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/nietzsche-and-persia. 4. Nietzsche, Friedrich. the joyous science . s.l. : Penguin Classics, 2018. 5. Michael D. Shear, Eric Schmitt, Michael Crowley and Maggie Haberman. Strikes on Iran Approved by Trump, Then Abruptly Pulled Back. nytimes.com. [Online] June 20, 2019 . https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/20/world/middleeast/iran-us-drone.html. 6. Hjelmgaard, Kim. Iran’s Jewish community is the largest in the Mideast outside Israel – and feels safe and respected. msn. [Online] 8 29, 2018. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/iran%E2%80%99s-jewish-community-is-the-largest-in-the-mideast-outside-israel-%E2%80%93-and-feels-safe-and-respected/ss-BBMAVgX. 7. Mackey, Robert. How a Fringe Muslim Cleric From Australia Became a Hero to America’s Far Right. theintercept.com. [Online] June 25, 2019. https://theintercept.com/2019/06/25/mohamad-tawhidi-far-right/?fbclid=IwAR25hr0TV8w0erffRrGhccVkC5G0KFwjR3y7tM7n2j-4nx4pp_b5PssuFzo. 8. Schaeffer, Carol. ALT FIGHT Jason Jorjani Fancied Himself an Intellectual Leader of a White Supremacist Movement — Then It Came Crashing Down. theintercept.com. [Online] March 18 , 2018. https://theintercept.com/2018/03/18/alt-right-jason-jorjani/. 9. ĒRĀN-WĒZ . Encyclopedia Iranica. [Online] http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/eran-wez. 10. Kinzer, Stephen. All the Shah's Men: An American Coup and the Roots of Middle East Terror . s.l. : John Wiley & Sons, 2004. 11. Nietzsche, Friedrich. Joyous Science. s.l. : Penguin Calssics, 2018. 12. Wicks, Robert. Nietzsche’s Life and Works. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. [Online] 2018. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nietzsche-life-works/. 13. Illing, Sean. The alt-right is drunk on bad readings of Nietzsche. The Nazis were too. www.vox.com. [Online] Dec 30, 2018. https://www.vox.com/2017/8/17/16140846/alt-right-nietzsche-richard-spencer-nazism. 14. Herbst, Felix. Nietzsche’s Writing Ball (Video). felixherbst.de. [Online] https://vimeo.com/43124993.

(Part II/II)

______________________

Did Ann Coulter Really Want To Speak at Berkeley?

A few weeks ago, when Berkeley was slated to have back-to-back appearances by David Horowitz and Ann Coulter, I asked my students if they knew who either one of them was. For Horowitz, the answer was a universal "no". For Coulter, the mode answer was also "no", though one student offered that she was "like an older Tomi Lahren?" My how the mighty have fallen. But of course, even long-since faded stars are entitled to attempt a comeback. So what better way to do so than through a high-profile act of martyrdom? Fortunately, despite their unknown status to the average Berkeley student, the Bay Area has an active "black bloc" community happy to oblige them. And so threats are made, and talks canceled, and somber reflections on illiberal universities published, and Horowitz and Coulter get to bask -- if briefly -- in the glow of being the bold truthsayers too raw for Berkeley snowflakes to handle. A return to the glory days, if you will. But what if things didn't go according to that script? Neither Ann Coulter, nor David Horowitz, were prohibited from speaking on campus. In both cases, they were offered a time and a place to speak at Berkeley; in both cases, it was they who declined that invitation. The statement from Chancellor Dirks -- who in my estimation has done a great job navigating very choppy waters on this issue -- provides a useful corrective to the prevailing media narrative and is worth reading in full. But an excerpt helps set the tone:

The strategies necessary to address these evolving threats [to free speech] are also evolving, but the simplistic view of some – that our police department can simply step in and stop violent confrontations whenever they occur – ignores reality.  Protecting public safety in these circumstances requires a multifaceted approach.  This approach must take into account the use of “time, place, and manner” guidelines, devised according to the specific threats presented.  Because threats or strategic concerns may differ, so must our approach.  In all cases, however, we only seek to ensure the successful staging of free speech rights; we make no effort to control or restrict the content of expression, regardless of differing political views. 

This is a University, not a battlefield. We must make every effort to hold events at a time and location that maximizes the chances that First Amendment rights can be successfully exercised and that community members can be protected. While our commitment to freedom of speech and expression remains absolute, we have an obligation to heed our police department’s assessment of how best to hold safe and successful events.

[...]

If UCPD believes there is a significant security threat attendant to a particular event, we cannot allow it to be held in a venue with a limited number of exits; in a hall that cannot be cordoned off; in an auditorium with floor to ceiling glass; in any space that does not meet basic safety criteria established by UCPD.  This is the sole reason we could not accommodate Ms. Coulter on April 27th, and the very reason we offered her alternative dates in early May and September, when venues that satisfy safety requirements are available.

Contrary to some press reports and circulating narratives, the UC Berkeley administration did not cancel the Coulter event and has never prohibited Ms. Coulter from coming on campus.  Instead, we received a request to provide a venue on one single day, chosen unilaterally by a student group without any prior consultation with campus administration or law enforcement.  After substantial evaluation and planning by our law enforcement professionals, we were forced to inform the group that, in light of specific and serious security threats that UCPD’s intelligence had identified, there was no campus venue available at a time on that date where the event could be held safely and without disruption.  We offered an alternative date for the event (which was rejected) and offered to work with the group to find dates in the future when the event could occur. Throughout this process our effort has been to support our students’ desire to hold their event safely and successfully. 

Now to be 100%, crystal clear: Violence or disruption, or threats thereof, to prevent Ann Coulter's speech is wrong and unjustifiable (and was unjustifiable when used against Milo). Ditto had Berkeley sought to cancel Coulter's speech outright (which again, it did not do). The people who engage in such violence are engaging in a wrong -- a serious wrong, a wrong that is antithetical to norms of free speech and free inquiry -- even when the subject is someone like Ann Coulter. One can believe that while simultaneously believing that Ann Coulter is a repulsive White supremacist who deserves naught but our scorn. And so the threats that Chancellor Dirks refers to are threats that cut to the heart of a free academic community. They should be investigated, and they should be dealt with. But UC-Berkeley did not make those threats. UC-Berkeley did not engage in that censorship. And the way Berkeley, as an institution, treated Coulter seems eminently reasonable. Clearly, Berkeley has an interest in ensuring the event goes off safely. Clearly, and as an institution committed to free speech, it has an interest in creating conditions where her speech occurs without incident, obstruction, or unlawful disruption. Clearly, it can impose reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions to try to limit the damage and obstruction that might be caused by those persons making unjustified threats and promising unlawful riots. Surely this is them taking the responsible course of action, yes? Placing Ann Coulter "in a venue with a limited number of exits; in a hall that cannot be cordoned off; in an auditorium with floor to ceiling glass" is a recipe for free speech disaster (not to mention the budgetary disaster for Berkeley when the -- quite literal -- damage has been done). And while there are limits to what sorts of venue-restrictions one could impose without violating free speech -- obviously they couldn't stick her in a broom closet and "allow" the speech to proceed freely -- that's not what happened here. Berkeley made a reasonable effort to reasonably accommodate Coulter's speech while reasonably insisting that the speech occur in a time, place, and manner that didn't cause chaos. That's entirely consistent with our free speech tradition. That's Berkeley behaving responsibly in the face of community members who were threatening to behave irresponsibly, even criminally. That's Berkeley seeking to facilitate, not censor, Coulter's speech. So why is it being interpreted otherwise? The argument seems to be that when Berkeley institutes any sort of specific procedures or guidelines to facilitate the free speech of controversial speakers likely to face illegitimate obstruction, it's "giving in" to threats -- or worse, tacitly endorsing them. To quote my old college buddy Jim Kiner: "This is America. Someone giving a speech shouldn't have to worry about the size of the windows." (Of course, it's not Coulter who has to worry about the windows -- they aren't hers to worry about. Ann Coulter can be blissfully indifferent regarding their fate. It's Berkeley -- the property-owner -- who's concerned, and it seems clearly reasonable for them to take limited steps to ensure that their property isn't destroyed in the wake of their indifferent houseguest's visit). Can we say that, in a good world, Berkeley wouldn't need to have these procedures for managing threats to outside speakers because everyone would respect everyone else's right to speak unmolested? Yes (though in such a good world nobody would be inviting repulsive trolls like Coulter to speak in the first place). But the Berkeley-blame for all this is strange, bordering on bizarre. In a good world nobody would try to hijack an airplane. Sadly, we don't live in that world, and so the TSA has certain procedures designed to manage the threat of terrorist hijackings while allowing us to travel freely -- procedures we only need because some people behave unlawfully, wrongfully, terroristically. Those procedures can be debated as too lenient or too harsh, but I've yet to hear anyone say that by having them the TSA was tacitly endorsing or normalizing terrorism. Responding to the reality of an unjustified threat is not the same thing as justifying or legitimizing that threat. Berkeley has to live in the world that exists, not the world of its dreams, and when it does so it doesn't endorse our fallen state. Rioters are wrong for rioting, but Berkeley is not wrong for taking reasonable steps to account for living in a world where rioting happens. Which brings us back to the question in the title: Did Ann Coulter really want to speak at Berkeley? Does she really want Berkeley to succeed in creating a space for her to speak without obstruction, disruption, or incident? I'm dubious. She came to Berkeley because she wanted to be a martyr -- either canceled outright or censorially disrupted. For Berkeley to succeed in offering her a space where none of that would happen thwarts her goals. After all, accepting Berkeley's terms would mean that her speech would likely not be shut down, or disrupted, or even been particularly noteworthy. It would have to attract attention solely by the merits of her ideas. No wonder she found it unacceptable. This, in fact, is what happened with Horowitz. He too was offered a different venue -- one which promised that his speech would be able to occur freely, without incident or disruption, and receiving only so much attention as was warranted by his fame, merit, and talent. And once that became the deal, his booking agent decided (I know this from first-hand sources) that the new offer to speak -- one which was unlikely to spark massive protests or demonstrations, but would simply allow his talk to occur in peace -- was unworthy of his time. What's the point of coming to Berkeley if you're not going to get run out of town? And so here were see the horns of the dilemma Berkeley finds itself in. On the one hand, it is facing a community (often not primarily comprised of students) which behaves in ways which are censorial and intolerable towards particular viewpoints (that these viewpoints are fairly characterized as racist ones does not justify said censorship). And so it takes steps to counteract these violent tendencies and ensure that its doors nonetheless remain open to speakers of all sorts, even the most repulsive ones, without incident. But then it discovers that actually, many of these speakers desire nothing more than to be "censored", to be "shut down", to be the proof of the intolerant liberal campus and the censorial lefties who can't handle their ideas. The worst thing that could happen to them is a Berkeley which successfully manages to enable their speech without incident. The whole point is for there to be an "incident". The whole point is to become a martyr. And so if they're not "censored," they'll just drop out and say they were anyway. And their gullible followers will eat it up. via The Debate Link http://ift.tt/2pobwd4