The Moral Confusion Of Julia Ebner

As of this writing, Julia Ebner is a Senior Researcher at Quilliam Global —

---

https://www.quilliaminternational.com/about/staff/julia-ebner/
https://archive.is/g6EZz

---

Quilliam Global is supposedly "the world’s first counter-extremism organisation" (emphasis added) —

---

https://everipedia.org/wiki/lang_en/Quilliam_(think_tank)
https://www.quilliaminternational.com/about/
https://archive.is/08fhI

---

Notice that the name 'Quilliam' comes from Abdullah Quilliam, a British convert to Islam, who argued for a global 'Caliphate' —
     https://www.google.com/search?q=Abdullah+Quilliam

But notice that a 'Caliphate' is an Islamic theocracy, and is therefore a form of religious extremism, since it requires religious oppression —
     https://www.britannica.com/place/Caliphate
     https://everipedia.org/wiki/lang_en/caliphate
     https://www.google.com/search?q=caliphate

So it is no surprise that a 'Senior Researcher' at an organization named for a follower of Islam, would make no attempt to criticize Islam.  For example, notice the absurd moral confusion from Julia Ebner in the quote below, and apply her thinking to WW II, as just one other example of extremist world views (the quote begins at about 5:20 in the video) —

---

https://youtu.be/GtZQsReyUiA?t=321

"... they are also consistent with the other extreme's world view.  Islamist extremists tell us the West is at war with Islam.  While the far-right tells us that Islam is at war with the West.  Well, they're perfectly complementary.  If we go back to our 'Star Wars' example, whether you are on the 'light' or on the 'dark' side of 'the force' doesn't really change the story. The only thing that does is the perspective.  The same is true for far-right and Islamist extremists — they are in the same movie, reinforcing the same story.  And thus helping each other as story tellers. ..."

---

Notice that "the dark side", using Ebner's reference to the 'Star Wars' movies, was synonymous with "the empire" and evil — that is, "the dark side" in Ebner's reference, is completely consistent with statism and tyranny, where an evil regime thought nothing of destroying entire planets as an exercise in coercing rebel leaders (like Princess Leia) —

---

https://youtu.be/lAAXorA4pg8

---

But that one side was fighting to enforce tyranny and create destruction, while the other was fighting for freedom, did not "really change the story" for Julia Ebner — it is just a story about a fight between two groups of extremists.

And notice that Julia Ebner was using her 'Star Wars' reference as a denigrating example of a cultural phenomena — that is, that people too readily respond to oversimplified world views, that eliminate confusing details, to create simple black and white assessments of world events (the image below appears at 3:30 in Ebner's TEDx video) —

---

https://youtu.be/GtZQsReyUiA?t=210

"... In an increasingly complex world, black and white narratives, that eliminate all confusing gray zones can be comforting.  We all love binary world views.  Just think about the most successful movies in history.  'Star Wars', you have the light and the dark side of the force.  It's simple.  I even understood the narrative at the age of 6 and thought it was great. ..."

---

Julia Ebner claims to have understood the "simple" 'Star Wars' narrative at the age of 6, yet she still is not able to keep the dramatic differences between the two sides straight, and that their goals, methods, and practices, completely contradict one another — as opposed to being "complementary".  That is the whole point.  That is, self-defense is not complementary with aggression — self-defense is a response to aggression to restore freedom, whereas aggression is the initiation of force to end freedom (whether from a petty criminal or a state).   The conflict in movies like 'Star Wars'  is extreme to make it simple for the audience to take sides.  This does not mean the conflict is simple, or that people have a "binary world view" — it means that any sane person can easily tell who the bad guys are — despite that Julia Ebner still seems to be having trouble with this.

Now apply Julia Ebner's thinking to WW II — since the Allies would have told us that they were at war with the Axis powers, while the Axis powers would have told us that they were at war with the Allies, they represent two extremist groups "in the same movie".  So according to Julia Ebner's perverse logic regarding "storytelling", the Allied and Axis powers (most especially Nazism under Hitler's Germany), would be "complementary", "reinforcing the same story, and thus helping each other as story tellers."   Should this make sense to any sane person?

And Notice that the definition of 'complementary' is:

 "combining in such a way as to enhance or emphasize the qualities of each other or another."

So can any sane person explain how Islamist "extremists" (with their support for religious theocracy under Sharia Law), and Western "extremists" (with their support for secularism, free speech, and free elections), enhance the qualities of one another?

Obviously, this is completely absurd — any religious theocracy (never mind Islam and its violent Sharia Law (e.g. death to apostates)) is completely antithetical to the Western value of freedom (especially religious freedom).   There is no reasonable way anyone could argue that the conflicts over such contradictory world views are somehow "complementary", as Julia Ebner has attempted to do.  But following Ebner, anyone who points out these obvious conflicts and contradictions, between the West and Islam, or the Allied and Axis powers, or the "light" and "dark" sides of "the force" in 'Star Wars', and takes sides against aggression, is a "far-right extremist".   And per Ebner, these "extremists" are all "... reinforcing the same story ... they're perfectly complementary" — the stories do not conflict.

As if all this were not enough, notice that Julia Ebner suggests a moral equivalence between Donald Trump and the militant Sunni terrorist Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi —

---

https://youtu.be/GtZQsReyUiA?t=474

"... So yes, maybe after all it wouldn't be so absurd to see Trump and al-Baghdadi celebrate their triumphs together. ..."

---

Does Julia Ebner honestly believe that Donald Trump would like to establish some kind of Christian dictatorship, that is somehow equivalent with the Islamic theocracy that Al-Baghdadi would like to establish?  Or is Julia Ebner simply lying?

And does Julia Ebner think that such asinine hyperbole would embolden those like Trump and his supporters, or somehow make them go away?   Such irony — in a talk that is supposedly about "extremist" groups feeding off one another, the speaker casually drops extreme statements comparing the head of state of a free country, to a militant terrorist who wishes to establish a religious theocracy.   It is no surprise that someone like Julia Ebner would be too blind to see her own role in what she calls "extremism".

So much for being a "Senior Researcher" at an organization which is supposedly aimed at "counter-extremism".   Julia Ebner's work is best described by the phrase 'advocacy research' — research attempting to promote a political agenda, rather than the truth —
     https://www.google.com/search?q=advocacy+research

Liberal Dishonesty

Discussing government with co-workers recently, I commented that the often heard complaint that America 'is divided' is a kind of absurdity, given that so many view government as a kind of father figure that should be distributing economic benefits and special privileges.

Given that view, disagreement and a fight over who is going to be forced by government to give what to whom follows by necessity — so it makes no sense to complain about 'divisions' when you demand that government use one person for the sake of another.

One so-called 'liberal' minded co-worker looked at me quizzically, as if I had said something that was obviously false — but other than that, he did not respond to my point.  It was as if he believed that if someone did not agree with his chosen distribution of other people's labor, there was no point in even discussing it — never mind if there were any justification for an initiation of force from government to begin with.

There is a kind of dishonest denial here — it is as if many would throw a match into a large bucket of gasoline, and then complain about the ensuing explosion.  If you do not desire an inevitable outcome from a particular action that you engage in, it makes no sense to complain about that outcome, as if you did not participate in producing it.

If you do not like the divisions created by government from the exploitation of one individual for the sake of another, then you should stop supporting government policies that pit people against one another.  That is, you should be fighting to minimize government power, as well as attempting to educate people regarding their dishonest sense of entitlement to a particular quality of life — as if even bare subsistence is not a product of human labor, and so can trivially be provided without initiating force against others, and thereby violating their rights.

Here is a tweet which provides a good summation of the liberal mindset.  It supposedly contains a quote from John F. Kennedy, but for the purposes of this discussion who said it is not relevant — only that such statements resonate with many so-called liberal minded people —

---

https://twitter.com/PIWillia/status/840964106777694212
https://archive.is/PZuWQ

---

Notice that the tweet above, and the quote it contains, are perfect examples of moral preening — that is, posturing to create the impression in the minds of others of a caring, thoughtful person.

If you really care about the welfare of other people, like, say, their housing, for example, then you take action to facilitate the production of affordable housing, or you contribute to charities that take action in that regard.  You might contribute to, or volunteer for the 'Habitat For Humanity', as just one example —
     http://www.habitat.org/volunteer/near-you/find-your-local-habitat

That is, you actually do something yourself to improve the welfare of others — you do not just tell others that you care, because obviously that accomplishes nothing with regard to improving anyone's welfare — other than make you feel superior to others (and it is baffling why it would even do that).

And then you might tell others about your work with that charity (tweeting or otherwise), or the value of contributing, and how that charity actually helps real people.  That is, you show your concern for real action, and actual impacts, rather than attempting to create an impression in the minds of others that you care.

And certainly, you never try to use the political process to create an initiation of force from government to achieve your supposed goals regarding helping others, since that stands in direct contradiction to the supposed concern for 'the welfare of the people — their civil rights, and their civil liberties', as stated in the tweet above.

Of course, that is the liberal lie — the primary goal of a majority of liberals is to initiate force against others, in order to make a public display of their supposed caring — that is, to engage in moral preening.  The actual outcomes created by such attacks on individual rights and liberties are not a concern for the typical liberal — the public pretense of displaying their morals is what is key.

As demonstrated by the content of the tweet shown above, the goal is to posture to others as to what 'I am ...', and not to succeed at any actual achievement.  As the old saying goes: 'Actions speak louder than words.'   And it should be obvious why — nothing is easier than talking, but following through with action can take a great deal of time and effort — but only action proves an intention.

And when liberal action is aimed primarily at initiating force against others, to make them pay, what intention does it prove?
A concern for the welfare of others does not come to mind.

David Brooks In His Echo Chamber

In a previous post I gave some examples of absurd and cowardly reporting regarding the recent riots in Berkeley, California —
      http://maxautonomy.blogspot.com/2017/02/the-craven-journalist.html

To further illustrate the same pattern, here is an opinion piece by 'The New York Times' columnist David Brooks —

---

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/17/opinion/what-a-failed-trump-administration-looks-like.htm
https://archive.is/G52uU

---

This is the main question that comes to my mind when I read opinion pieces like these:

Who does the author think is being fooled?

This is an opinion piece, so it is not expected to contain only a description of facts — but notice that Brooks does not provide a single fact to support his sweeping denunciations.  Brooks wrote his opinion piece in what is essentially code to credulous readers of 'The New York Times'.  If you are an ardent Democrat, and you are eager to dismiss the corruption of the likes of Hillary Clinton, then such writing resonates with you emotionally, but that is all.   Here is more on Hillary Clinton's corruption, in case you had forgotten —
      http://maxautonomy.blogspot.com/2016/07/mediamatters-hillary-clintons-shill.html
      http://maxautonomy.blogspot.com/2016/08/lying-about-hillary-clintons-lies.html
      http://maxautonomy.blogspot.com/2016/09/paul-krugman-and-hillary-clinton-birds.html

That is, if you are honestly trying to understand anything regarding Trump's administration, what Brooks wrote is completely unconvincing, and so it is pointless — no one who does not already despise Trump — or has any critical thinking skills — will be swayed by it.

Consider Brooks's first paragraph —

---

https://archive.is/G52uU

I still have trouble seeing how the Trump administration survives a full term.  Judging by his Thursday press conference, President Trump’s mental state is like a train that long ago left freewheeling and iconoclastic, has raced through indulgent, chaotic and unnerving, and is now careening past unhinged, unmoored and unglued.

---

What is Brooks communicating here apart from contempt?  There is a comedic aspect to this kind of adjective laden writing — it is as if the author is attempting to fool the reader into believing that the lack of substance is somehow sophisticated.

And how about this —

---

https://archive.is/G52uU

There are no longer moral arbiters in Congress like Howard Baker and Sam Ervin to lead a resignation or impeachment process.  There is no longer a single media establishment that shapes how the country sees the president.  This is no longer a country in which everybody experiences the same reality.

---

Brooks drops a mention of impeachment without even a suggestion regarding any possible grounds for impeachment — Brooks just expects readers to fill in the blanks.  Even if readers believe that Trump should be impeached, after only about one month in office, why would Brooks simply assume anyone would agree with his opinion regarding the justification?  The point is not whether you believe Trump should be impeached or not — the point is, why would a writer simply assume that readers would understand his reasoning regarding the supposed grounds for impeachment?

Of course, I am being ridiculous.  Again, this is code.  There is no need to substantiate anything inside of an echo chamber — Brooks is just throwing agreement at dull ignorant readers who want to delude themselves that they stand on principle, despite their complete inability to articulate or defend any principles.  That readers have no idea regarding the details of what Brooks is actually talking about is critical — Brooks and his readers just want to share their hatred.

And the last two sentences in the paragraph from Brooks quoted above are so transparently ridiculous they are laughable.  There is no doubt that Brooks longs for a society where all individuals are as credulous as his admiring readers, so he and his colleagues could have them all 'experience the same reality' — we should be thankful that Brooks is completely open in his view of the proper role of media in society.  It is a pity that David Brooks will not struggle to understand the significance and difficulty of actually understanding reality, before he anoints a 'a single media establishment' with 'shaping how the country sees' anything.

And the paragraphs from Brooks quoted below deserve to be repeated — notice how Brooks almost seems to relish a lack of rule of law in government, and that corrupt government employees will do whatever they want, regardless of the law (never mind their employment agreement) —

---

https://archive.is/G52uU

The likelihood is this: We’re going to have an administration that has morally and politically collapsed, without actually going away.

What does that look like?

First, it means an administration that is passive, full of sound and fury, but signifying nothing. To get anything done, a president depends on the vast machinery of the U.S. government. But Trump doesn’t mesh with that machinery. He is personality-based while it is rule-based. Furthermore, he’s declared war on it. And when you declare war on the establishment, it declares war on you.

The Civil Service has a thousand ways to ignore or sit on any presidential order. The court system has given itself carte blanche to overturn any Trump initiative, even on the flimsiest legal grounds. The intelligence community has only just begun to undermine this president.

President Trump can push all the pretty buttons on the command deck of the Starship Enterprise, but don’t expect anything to actually happen, because they are not attached.

---

Is that clear?   Part of this assessment from David Brooks of 'a Failed Trump Administration' is that government employees are corrupt at all levels, and freely ignore the law.

And to David Brooks, this is a denunciation of Trump.

Now I cannot tell who is more corrupt — David Brooks, or the lawless government he is describing.

The Craven Journalist

Reading the major newspapers today has become almost exclusively an exercise in studying cowardice and illogic.  And despite contributing to massive ignorance, irresponsible and incompetent journalists posture as if they are some kind of social benefactor.  Of course, craven journalists will never take responsibility for contributing to social problems.

For example, consider the dishonest and completely absurd language here in a piece by Dave Weigel of 'The Washington Post'.   Weigel would like his readers to believe that 'anarchists' (i.e. those who favor complete freedom of action, and no government), are rioting to stop people from hearing a talk —

---

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/02/03/milo-yiannopoulos-is-returning-to-white-house-briefing.../
https://archive.is/Fx4NR

...
The Leslie Jones incident was rocket fuel for Yiannopoulos's image. He toured college campuses ahead of the 2016 election, live-streaming each speech. Several speeches were canceled by security concerns; the ones that went forward often carried a whiff of danger, as students walked though metal detectors to enter and Yiannopoulos sometimes theatrically ripped off a bulletproof vest onstage.

But the situation in Berkeley, where anarchists using “black bloc” tactics turned a mass protest into a violent conflagration — with made-for-TV images of garbage fires — has been an even bigger boon to Yiannopoulos. On Thursday night, his trip to D.C. began with a friendly interview on “Tucker Carlson Tonight,” a show that has ridden anger at left-wing activism into best-in-class prime time ratings.

There was no discussion of what the peaceful protesters in Berkeley had objected to — namely, Yiannopoulos's kick off of a campaign against “sanctuary campuses.”  According to a promotional Breitbart story that ran before the event, Yiannopoulos was set to “call for the withdrawal of federal grants and the prosecution of university officials who endanger their students with their policies,” and the ex-radical David Horowitz would keep up the campaign on other campuses.
...

---

According to a professional journalist, the rioters are 'anarchists', as opposed to supporters of statist government policies, and extensive government control of the lives of individuals — such as, what can be said to whom, and when.

And notice the denigrating dismissal of the 'Tucker Carlson Tonight' show in the quote above — according to Weigel, the show's appeal comes from "anger at left wing activism", and has nothing to do with providing any useful content to viewers.  Perhaps the 'Tucker Carlson Tonight' show is bad, or perhaps it has ridden to "best-in-class prime time ratings", as Weigel put it, because it provides a refutation of incompetent journalists like Dave Weigel — whatever the reason, you will not learn what it is from the likes of Dave Weigel.

And, of course, you will certainly not get an acknowledgement from Dave Weigel of the possibility that the content he provides is much worse than that provided by the 'Tucker Carlson Tonight' show — however bad that show may be.

It is also fascinating that many seem to believe, including Dave Weigel, that public universities that are largely funded with tax dollars, should be 'sanctuaries' for violating immigration law — Weigel's description implies that any criticism of violating immigration law is somehow grounds for a protest.

Now consider this definition of 'anarchism' from 'Merriam-Webster' —

---

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anarchism

Definition of anarchism

1. 1 :  a political theory holding all forms of governmental authority to be unnecessary and undesirable and advocating a society based on voluntary cooperation and free association of individuals and groups
2. 2:  the advocacy or practice of anarchistic principles

---

If you believe Weigel, 'anarchists' now oppose freedom of speech and freedom of association.

It is so odd that all of the supposed 'anarchists' at the Berkeley protest forgot that anarchism is based on the belief that all forms of governmental authority are harmful, and that all human interaction should be voluntary.  The notion that any individuals who actually held those beliefs would violently protest a talk is absurd on its face.

It is polite to call Weigel's description here pathetic.  Who does he think he is going to fool?  Will any honest readers with any familiarity with left leaning protesters believe that violence was not their intention?   Protesters who are constantly attempting to silence those they disagree with, while also crying out for government to give them something at the expense of others?

As opposed to those 'anarchists' Weigel is so confused about, who want everyone to be able to freely associate without any government control.

Also notice that the supposed subject of the Berkeley riots — the journalist Milo Yiannopoulos — is a British national, and so has nothing to do with U.S. Government policy.   You could not make this up — there could not be a more absurd target for a protest regarding law or government policy in one country, than a foreign national from another, who is a journalist.

And notice Weigel's use of the phrase 'mass protest', as if the intention of these so-called 'protesters' was not to provoke violence — that is why they cover their faces Dave, so they can commit crimes while avoiding being identified, so they can escape penalty.  Of course, a journalist like Weigel would like readers to believe that a small group of rioters (Weigel's supposed 'anarchists') were able to take over "a mass protest" by "peaceful protesters", but how would that have been possible, if the rioters were only a trivial minority?

Here are photos from the 'East Bay Times' of that trivial minority, that supposedly took over a peaceful protest.   The original captions are included in the images below to show that they contain the usual level of dishonesty, in that they repeatedly refer to the rioters as 'protesters', as if those rioting are somehow victims, and that stopping a talk is somehow a legitimate goal for a protest, never mind a riot —

---

http://www.eastbaytimes.com/2017/02/01/uc-berkeley-cancels-breitbart-provocateur-milo-yiannopoulos-event/
https://archive.is/vXZIn

Rioters tear down a barricade at UC Berkeley, California, February 1, 2017.

Rioters about to tear down a barricade at UC Berkeley, California, February 1, 2017.

So-called 'peaceful protesters' surround a car at Berkeley, California, February 1, 2017, supposedly in response to Milo Yiannopoulos.

So-called 'peaceful protesters' march at Berkeley, California, February 1, 2017, supposedly in response to Milo Yiannopoulos.  Notice what looks like a woman on the left carrying a baseball bat.

A rioter dancing around a fire at Berkeley, California, February 1, 2017, supposedly in response to Milo Yiannopoulos.  Does it appear that the large crowd behind the fire approves or disapproves — or do they even know why they are there?

---

Perhaps all the protesters should be defined by their tactics and what they fight for, rather than what some of them call themselves (anarchist, or otherwise).   Perhaps all the protesters are more aligned with the typical Democrat, and even a good number of Republicans — that is, those who favor government subsidies and restrictions on free speech — i.e. statism.

Perhaps those, such as journalists like Dave Weigel, who wish to pretend that violent rioters are aligned with supporters of freedom of speech and association (i.e. anarchists), do not want to acknowledge that they themselves are most aligned with what the violent rioters are actually doing — trying to put down the people that they disagree with.

That is, associating a movement that supports freedom with violent rioting is an expression of an agenda.  It is an attempt to dissociate oneself from the most basic expression of one's beliefs — the pretense that your initiation of force is moral.  The rioters are perfectly aligned with all of the statists among us — they just have the consistency to commit the acts of violence required by their agenda themselves.

Statism requires the initiation of force, not anarchism, so it is no surprise that many would attempt to conceal the glaring fact that the rioters are an expression of statism.

In that regard, notice what happened to Eddy Bruck, who had the courage to challenge some of the rioters for trying to silence others.  Not surprisingly, Bruck was assaulted.

Eddy Bruck stated what may be the most insightful characterization of the Berkeley rioters that you will hear — good luck finding such honest assessments from most journalists —

---

http://www.eastbaytimes.com/2017/02/01/uc-berkeley-cancels-breitbart-provocateur-milo-yiannopoulos-event/
https://archive.is/vXZIn

Eddy Bruck — "They are afraid of free speech, so what do they do? They want to silence it all."

Notice the absurdity of the original caption from the 'East Bay Times' — it reads as if Bruck's face just happens to bleed.

---

To add to the absurdity of Dave Weigel's 'Washington Post' piece, partially quoted at the top of this post, here is a quote from Weigel's blog from January 2, 2017.  Notice that Dave Weigel fancies himself as dispensing some kind of wisdom to the rest of the world, and "rumbling their worldview" —

---

http://daveweigel.com/
https://archive.is/JDEyk

---

The arrogance in the quote above deserves to be emphasized —

"But 2016 was, as the documentarian Adam Curtis put it, a defeat for journalism, in which people like me were reminded how little people want to hear information that rumbles their worldview."

That is what it means to be inside the mind of Dave Weigel — he is 'rumbling those worldviews' with his dishonest euphemisms about world events, such as when people are assaulted, because they wanted to attend a talk by someone a group of rioters disagree with.

And notice that when you challenge Weigel's obvious ignorance, he wants no part of it.  I re-tweeted his misrepresentation regarding what it means to be an 'anarchist', and of course, just as you would expect from a craven, agenda driven journalist from a newspaper like the 'Washington Post', he immediately blocked me.   This from a journalist who fancies himself as 'rumbling worldviews' —

---

https://twitter.com/MaxAutonomous/status/823021137902780419

---

And it is no surprise that Weigel — a professional journalist at a major U.S. newspaper — is not alone in attempting to pretend that the tactics of the rioters are diametrically opposed to the political label being used to describe them.

Here is an article from the 'San Francisco Chronicle', dated February 5, 2017, entitled 'Why UC police let anarchists run wild in Berkeley' —

---

http://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/matier-ross/article/Why-UC-police-let-anarchists-run-wild-in-Berkeley-10908034.php
https://archive.is/AvgFw

---

Here is an article from 'The New York Times', dated February 2, 2017, entitled 'Anarchists Respond to Trump’s Inauguration, by Any Means Necessary' —

---

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/02/us/anarchists-respond-to-trumps-inauguration-by-any-means-necessary.html
https://archive.is/NPkEp

---

At least the article from 'The New York Times' included a photo of a rioter painting the anarchism symbol on the wall, indicating that at least one rioter actually thinks he is supposedly fighting for an end to state power, even though the photo was taken at a protest to end freedom of speech — so obviously that rioter is either lying, or profoundly confused (not to mention the journalist that wrote the title for the article).

And this article from a local television station, 'CBS 6' in Richmond, Virginia, is even more ridiculous.  Here a government employee — a female firefighter — is described as being a member of an 'anarchist group'.  I guess she still has not discovered that anarchists oppose all government —

---

http://wtvr.com/2017/01/26/henrico-firefighter-reassigned-after-being-arrested-for-rioting-in-dc/
http://archive.is/8oubH

---

If you are at all interested in the truth in any of this, you will not get it from journalists at any of the major newspapers — and certainly not from someone such as Dave Weigel at 'The Washington Post'.

If someone built a large Peace sign with steel pipe, and attached it to the end of a baseball bat, and then went around clubbing people to death with it, would journalists at all the major newspapers describe that person as a 'protesting pacifist'?

Here is the story from two victims, of what intrepid journalists like Dave Weigel like to call 'anarchists'.  Notice that one woman was pepper sprayed while giving an interview to a journalist — she was fortunate that she was turning away just as it happened, so the spray largely missed her eyes.  But did anyone among those 'peaceful protesters', or the journalist and his crew try to stop it, or express any concern afterward?   Well, of course not —

---

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CIFYTYNl7ng

---

And here is J.D. Tuccille, Contributing Editor at Reason, pointing out that the tactics of the rioters at Berkeley align them solidly with Nazis — as much as that label has been projected onto Milo Yiannopoulos, among others —

"It’s tough being a heroic anti-Nazi street fighter when you’re the closest thing to a Nazi around."
http://reason.com/archives/2017/02/07/thugs-indulge-their-weimar-dreams-and-be

The Women's March 2017

On January 21, 2017, there was a 'Women's March on Washington' to protest the election of Donald Trump as the 45th President of the United States.

Here is the 'Mission & Vision' statement for the 2017 'Women's March on Washington' —

---

https://archive.is/WXbcs

---

Notice this sentence from the 'Mission & Vision' statement shown above —

'We stand together, recognizing that defending the most marginalized among us is defending all of us.'

And this —

'We will not rest until women have parity and equity at all levels of leadership in society.'

Very well.   What reasonable person who would disagree with such statements?

Here is the 'Unity Principles' statement for the 2017 'Women's March on Washington' —

---

https://archive.is/hXlI6

---

Notice this sentence from the 'Unity Principles' statement shown above —

'We believe that Women’s Rights are Human Rights and Human Rights are Women’s Rights.'

It would have been clearer to write that there are no separate categories of rights — there are only individual rights, and which all women share with everyone else.  As written in the quote above, the implication is that only women have rights — and from the behavior of many women, I do not doubt that many of them believe this.

And notice the element of confusion in this sentence —

'Women deserve to live full and healthy lives, free of all forms of violence against our bodies.'

'Living a full and healthy life' depends on a long list of factors, most of which cannot be provided by government (even with no restraints on taxation), and as such are not a legitimate subject of a protest.  Obviously, health, as just one example, is primarily a product of nature — even with advanced medical care, the physiological processes of the human body are largely beyond the control of medical science (see the survival rate of pancreatic cancer, for example).   And of course, 'a full life' depends primarily on one's own choices — this makes it especially telling that it would be included in a statement of protest principles, as if such individual choices are somehow to be dealt with as a matter of government policy.   Even if some form of government could provide complete protection from any crime or violence, this would in no way ensure that any individuals 'lived full lives'.

And of course, again, no reasonable person would disagree with ending 'all forms of violence'.   Though it is not clear why the qualifier 'against our bodies' would be added — the implication is that forms of harassment are acceptable.

But now notice the national co-chairs of the 2017 'Women's March on Washington', and that a prominent supporter of Sharia Law, Linda Sarsour, is among them —

---

https://www.womensmarch.com/team/
https://archive.is/h9hfs

---

Here are a number of tweets from Linda Sarsour from 2014 and 2016, promoting Sharia Law —

---

https://twitter.com/lsarsour/status/483624197931806720
https://archive.is/OcW0P

https://twitter.com/lsarsour/status/484513285921046529
https://archive.is/Ga2Fx

https://twitter.com/lsarsour/status/534073703588700160
https://archive.is/twVRD

https://twitter.com/lsarsour/status/719301817771892737
http://archive.is/w6ood

---

Here are two more tweets from Linda Sarsour from May, 2015, extolling a supposed virtue of Sharia Law — interest free debt.   This begs the obvious question, who would be doing any lending when it only cost them to do so —

---

https://twitter.com/lsarsour/status/598327052727615488
https://twitter.com/lsarsour/status/598326262218813440
http://archive.is/Tepny
https://archive.is/bGUtO

---

And here is a tweet from Linda Sarsour from March, 2011, denouncing two women who are vocal critics of Islam, Brigitte Gabriel and Ayaan Hirsi Ali.   Note that Ayaan Hirsi Ali was raised Muslim, and suffered the customary Islamic female genital mutilation at the hands of her grandmother.  Ayaan Hirsi Ali may know slightly more about the practice of Sharia Law than Linda Sarsour.   I guess Linda Sarsour did not feel the need here to be restrained by the 'Unity Principles' statement of the 'Women's March on Washington', that women should be 'free of all forms of violence against our bodies' —

---

https://archive.is/ZdFSI

---

Here are replies from a Saudi Arabian woman to one of Linda Sarsour's tweets — she did not appreciate the false statements that Linda Sarsour has made regarding the supposed benefits of Sharia Law —

---

https://archive.is/68JAd

---

So much for those mission and principle statements of the 2017 'Women's March on Washington' —

'We stand together, recognizing that defending the most marginalized among us is defending all of us.'

'We will not rest until women have parity and equity at all levels of leadership in society.'

'We believe that Women’s Rights are Human Rights and Human Rights are Women’s Rights.'

But it gets even worse.

Now notice the honorary co-chairs of the 2017 'Women's March on Washington', and that a prominent Communist, Angela Davis, is among them —

---

https://archive.is/TXzui

---

The photo below is of Angela Davis with Erich Honecker in 1972.   Honecker was the Communist leader of East Germany from 1971 until the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989.   Keep this quote from the profile of Angela Davis above in mind, as you ponder the picture below, showing her being friendly with a brutal dictator —

'Through her activism and scholarship over the last decades, Angela Davis has been deeply involved in our nation’s quest for social justice.'

---

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angela_Davis
http://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/women-on-fbis-most-wanted-list/3/

---

Also, notice that Angela Davis was the second black woman to make the FBI’s Ten Most Wanted list —
     http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/meet-nine-women-fbi-s-10-most-wanted-list-n552631
     https://archive.is/80upV

In August of 1970, Davis was a fugitive wanted on murder and kidnapping charges, as a result of acting as an accomplice in an attack on a courtroom in Marin County, California.  Guns which were registered to Davis were used in the armed escape of the three murder defendants, 'The Soledad Brothers', from the Marin County courtroom.  The three defendants and the case judge, Harold Haley, were killed in a shootout with police, as they were transported away from the courtroom.  Davis was arrested two months later at a Howard Johnson Motor Lodge in New York City, and was later acquitted by jurors of kidnapping and murder, since she was not directly involved in the attack.  Angela Davis is now 'Distinguished Professor Emerita' at the University of California, Santa Cruz —
     https://feministstudies.ucsc.edu/faculty/index.php?uid=aydavis
     https://archive.is/WhIG

Those on the political left have a consistent pattern of defending tyranny in general — including Islam.   Linda Sarsour is a perfect demonstration of the pattern — as is the 2017 'Women's March on Washington', which Linda Sarsour helped to organize.

That a noted Communist with a checkered past like Angela Davis would be featured prominently as an 'honorary co-chair' of the 2017 'Women's March on Washington' further demonstrates that point.

Here are more examples —
     http://maxautonomy.blogspot.com/2015/06/progressive-infatuation-with-totalitarianism.html
     http://maxautonomy.blogspot.com/2016/02/the-courage-of-charlie-hebdo-the-cowardice-of-john-semley.html
     http://maxautonomy.blogspot.com/2016/04/garry-trudeau-charlie-hebdo-cowardly-conformity.html

If either of the ideologies that Linda Sarsour and Angela Davis promote were put into practice in the U.S., a 'Women's March' would not be possible, and they would be among the first to be imprisoned.

Methodologies Do Not Lie, But People Do

---

"The first thing a man will do for his ideals is lie."
    — Joseph A. Schumpeter, 'History of Economic Analysis (New York: Oxford University Press, 1954)', p. 43n

---

Some scientists would like you to believe that the methodology they supposedly practice has intentions, and can be trusted to have invulnerable integrity.

Science is a methodology and cannot do anything — including such things as tell the truth, or lie.   Only human beings, such as scientists, can lie.

Saying 'Science does not lie' is itself a kind of lie — it is an attempt to deceive others that a process that requires the actions of human beings, can never be corrupt, when that process can only be as valid as the human beings who engage in it are honest.

Especially when monetary reward is possible, the invulnerable integrity implied by the statement 'Science does not lie' is obvious propaganda — of course, a method cannot lie, but scientists, like most other humans, can and will, when it suits them.

Supposed 'scientists' marching on Washington with such obvious propaganda is just one more reason not to trust them —

---

https://twitter.com/i/moments/824382457570996224
https://web.archive.org/web/20170128023006/https:/twitter.com/i/moments/824382457570996224
https://archive.is/2p47s

https://twitter.com/TimKarr/status/824302160859037696

---

Happily Biting A Helping Hand

An associate editor at Reason, Elizabeth Nolan Brown, posted a tweet pointing out protesters she encountered in Washington DC, who purchased goods at a business that is a product of capitalism and free markets, while simultaneously protesting capitalism.  Not surprisingly, her tweets generated some controversy, confusion, and dishonesty (mainly dishonesty) —

---

https://twitter.com/ENBrown
https://twitter.com/ENBrown/status/822535666441613317

https://twitter.com/ENBrown/status/822583329849544704

---

The dishonesty in the responses is almost too ridiculous to be believed.  One tweet in reply was that somehow one is forced to patronize capitalist businesses as a result of living under free market conditions — as if freedom compels interaction with businesses.  How many people expect any other even remotely sane person to be convinced by such nonsense?

"surely you understand that fighting against capitalism doesn't change the fact that we currently must exist under capitalism"    https://twitter.com/ENBrown/status/822535666441613317

It is hard to believe, but one person seemed to not understand the original intention of Elizabeth's tweet — as if the hypocrisy of the supposed 'protesters' was not obvious, and the business they had patronized was not a product of what they were protesting.  What is going on here?  Do some people actually believe that businesses like 7-Eleven are some kind of government run, socialist enterprise — i.e. that they are not a product of a free market and capitalism? —

---

https://twitter.com/ENBrown/status/822582930723766273

---

To those who honestly do not understand, perhaps part of Elizabeth Nolan Brown's original intent was to point out the very common hypocrisy among people of denouncing that which they happily use and receive a benefit from.

Notice the completely nonsensical, and even aggressively stupid reply from Michael Curry.   Curry did not address the original comment that someone would patronize a nationwide business that only exists because of capitalism and free markets, while simultaneously protesting capitalism and free markets — but instead Curry implies that it is absurd to think that people should not take benefit from that which they think is harmful, as if there is no other way for them to satisfy a particular need —

      Curry: "If capitalism is so bad, why do you eat food?  Checkmate!"

Notice the explicit idiocy here, relative to Elizabeth Nolan Brown's original tweet — you either buy some food at a nationwide, capitalist business, or you starve.

The point is not what was being purchased, but that the mechanics of the production and distribution of the product (i.e. private property and free markets) was being denounced, and yet still patronized.

This is exactly like protesting a slaughterhouse, while simultaneously eating a steak.
This is exactly like protesting slavery, while simultaneously buying a slave at auction.

This is exactly like protesting a violation of individual rights, while simultaneously destroying the private property of individuals.

That the good was food was incidental — the same point would have applied if the protesters had been buying any number of other things — lug nuts, fertilizer, tennis balls, etc.

In an attempt to pretend that he has a point, Curry (like many others) drops the context of Elizabeth Nolan Brown's original comment — in this case, a purchase from an institution that is a product of what what was being protested.

If you fill in the details that Curry conveniently leaves out, in his attempt to sound reasonable, you see that he has no point —

If capitalism is so bad, why would you buy anything (including food) from nationwide, or even global institutions that are a product of capitalism?

In short, if capitalism is so bad, why do you happily take its benefits, when you are not compelled to do so?

And notice the absurd irony of those who claim 'we must exist under this capitalist system', when a free society (i.e. one that has free markets and is actually capitalist) is the only society under which one could actually establish a 'commune' with like minded individuals (or whatever one calls their supposed non-capitalist paradise).  It cannot be done under communist dictatorships like North Korea or Cuba, for obvious reasons — completely socialist governments (i.e. governments that own the means of production), will not allow anyone to produce anything without their control.

Perhaps that is what is revealed by all of this willful blindness in the responses to Elizabeth Nolan Brown's original tweet — that many wish to force everyone else to operate under their dictates.

Many seem to have some bizarre delusion that they will be the ones controlling the initiation of force in their twisted socialist dream, and that somehow, magically, they will be able to control the power they are dreaming of, but only at the expense of everyone else.

As Elizabeth Nolan Brown replied in a tweet to a dishonest responder: "you're willfully misreading what I say.  Why?"

When you prefer a lie, that is what you do.