by:
Tim Brown
The "Student Revolution" of the sixties that began at a Berkeley are now bearing their rotten fruit in
attacks on free speech and now
attacks human life. Now, some of the
good little Communists of Berkeley are siding with the Islamists and calling for the beheading of Berkeley College Republicans (BCR).
The BCR was targeted by vandals through graffiti that were explicit death threats. The Daily Californian
reports:
“Various pieces of campus property have been vandalized with death
threats against BCR. The graffiti, which has been found in spaces like
the Unit 1 Housing sign and a pole by Crossroads, includes messages such
as 'KILL BCR,' 'BEHEAD THE B.C.R.’s' and 'LYNCH the B.C.R.’s.'
Recently, the group has had its contact list
stolen and signs
destroyed. Members of the BCR contact list have also been sent harassing emails by anonymous senders."
BCR spokesperson Naweed Tahmas has been a member of BCR for a year
and said that threats against the group have not increased or decreased
in the wake of the recent election of President Donald Trump. Tahmas
said, however, that the organization has faced constant threats. He
added that he believes some community members have projected their worst
ideological fears onto BCR, causing others to be more aggressive
against the organization.
Tahmas said that BCR takes these threats very seriously and they have
forced the group to be more cautious and constantly aware of their
surroundings. According to Tahmas, when BCR receives threats, it
immediately contacts UCPD to allow the campus police to document the
harassment.
“There isn’t much we can do about it beyond reporting,” Tahmas said.
“It’s up to students to manage their behavior towards us and understand
that we are students as well.”
“All members of our campus community have a right to feel safe and not
threatened based off political viewpoints or club affiliation,” said
ASUC President Will Morrow. “Vandalism does not speak to (campus) values
and my biggest priority is making sure everyone, including the Berkeley
College Republicans, feel safe on this campus and you cannot feel safe
with such incendiary rhetoric being vandalized around our campus.”
Members of the club
have been “
pepper sprayed
,
sucker-punched and verbally and physically assaulted for voicing their
opinions and beliefs,” according to one spokesperson for the group.
A UCPD detective is currently investigating the incident and anyone
with any information regarding the graffiti is urged to call the hotline
at 643-0890
So, if you don't think that Islam is having an impact in America, you
have stuck your head in the sand. Furthermore, not understanding that
Islam, as well as the militant homosexuals, are being used to undermine
the laws of our Republic and eventually bring in totalitarianism. This
is happening because the law is not being enforced.
Additionally, we know that the
Muslims have been using the same playbook as the homosexuals when it comes to
self-inflicted hate crimes to present themselves as victims. Now, those they have garnered sympathy from are siding with them and advancing as the tyrants they truly are.
My advice to the Berkeley College Republicans is to ignore a
tyrannical government that has declared your right to keep and bear arms
does not exist at Berkeley and make a pact to exercise your right to do
so. Stay in groups when you are on campus and be prepared to defend
your life and the lives of your fellow students against these little
Communists.
Ayn Rand
was able to see exactly what was to be spawned from the Student Revolution of the sixties. Pamela Geller
posted the following reminder (Yes, it's long, but worth the read).
The Cashing-In: The Student Rebellion
Ayn Rand The Objectivist Newsletter, 1965
reprinted in The New Left: The Anti-Industrial Revolution, New York, Signet, 1971
The
so-called student rebellion, which was started and keynoted at the
University of California at Berkeley, has profound significance, but not
of the kind that most commentators have ascribed to it. And the nature
of the misrepresentations is part of its significance.The events at
Berkeley began, in the fall of 1964, ostensibly as a student protest
against the University administration's order forbidding political
activity — specifically, the recruiting, fund-raising and organizing of
students for political action off-campus — on a certain strip of ground
adjoining the campus, which was owned by the University. Claiming that
their rights had been violated, a small group of rebels rallied
thousands of students of all political views, including many
conservatives, and assumed the title of the Free Speech Movement. The
Movement staged sit-in protests in the administration building, and
committed other acts of physical force, such as assaults on the police
and the seizure of a police car for use as a rostrum.
The spirit, style and tactics of the rebellion are best illustrated
by one particular incident. The University administration called a mass
meeting, which was attended by eighteen thousand students and faculty
members, to hear an address on the situation by the University
President, Clark Kerr; it had been expressly announced that no student
speakers would be allowed to address the meeting. Kerr attempted to end
the rebellion by capitulating; he had promised to grant most of the
rebels demands; it looked as if he had won the audience to his side.
Whereupon, Mario Savio, the rebel leader, seized the microphone, in an
attempt to take over the meeting, ignoring rules and the fact that the
meeting had been adjourned. When he was — properly — dragged off the
platform, the leaders of the F.S.M. admitted, openly and jubilantly,
that they had almost lost their battle, but had saved it by provoking
the administration to an act of violence (thus admitting that the
victory of their publicly proclaimed goals was not the goal of their
battle).
What followed was nationwide publicity, of a peculiar kind. It was a
sudden and, seemingly, spontaneous out-pouring of articles, studies,
surveys, revealing a strange unanimity of approach in several basic
aspects: in ascribing to the F.S.M. the importance of a national
movement, unwarranted by the facts — in blurring the facts by means of
unintelligible generalities — in granting to the rebels the status of
spokesmen for American youth, acclaiming their idealism and commitment
to political action, hailing them as a symptom of the awakening of
college students from political apathy. If ever a puff-job was done by a
major part of the press, this was it.
In the meantime, what followed at Berkeley was a fierce,
three-cornered struggle among the University administration, its Board
of Regents and its faculty, a struggle so sketchily reported in the
press that its exact nature remains fogbound. One can gather only that
the Regents were, apparently, demanding a tough policy toward the
rebels, that the majority of the faculty on the rebels side and that the
administration was caught in the moderate middle of the road.
The struggle led to the permanent resignation of the University's
Chancellor (as the rebels had demanded) — the temporary resignation, and
later reinstatement, of President Kerr — and, ultimately, an almost
complete capitulation to the F.S.M., with the administration granting
most of the rebels demands. (These included the right to advocate
illegal acts and the right to an unrestricted freedom of speech
on campus.)
To the astonishment of the nave, this did not end the rebellion: the
more demands were granted, the more were made. As the administration
intensified its efforts to appease the F.S.M., the F.S.M. intensified
its provocations. The unrestricted freedom of speech took the form of a
Filthy Language movement, which consisted of students carrying placards
with four-letter words, and broadcasting obscenities over the University
loudspeakers (which Movement was dismissed with mild reproof by most of
the press, as a mere adolescent prank).
This, apparently, was too much even for those who sympathized with
the rebellion. The F.S.M. began to lose its following — and was,
eventually, dissolved. Mario Savio quit the University, declaring that
he could not keep up with the
undemocratic procedures that the
administration is following (italics mine) — and departed, reportedly to
organize a nationwide revolutionary student movement.
This is a bare summary of the events as they were reported by the
press. But some revealing information was provided by volunteers,
outside the regular news channels, such as in the letters-to-the-editor
columns.
An eloquent account was given in a letter to
The New York Times (March 31, 1965) by Alexander Grendon, a biophysicist in the Donner Laboratory, University of California:
Quote:
The F.S.M. has always applied coercion to insure victory. One-party
democracy, as in the Communist countries or the lily-white portions of
the South, corrects opponents of the party line by punishment. The
punishment of the recalcitrant university administration (and more than
20,000 students who avoided participation in the conflict) was to bring
the university to a grinding halt by physical force.
To capitulate to such corruption of democracy is to teach students that
these methods are right. President Kerr capitulated repeatedly.
Kerr agreed the university would not control advocacy of illegal acts,
an abstraction until illustrated by examples: In a university lecture
hall, a self-proclaimed anarchist advises students how to cheat to
escape military service; a nationally known Communist uses the
university facilities to condemn our Government in vicious terms for its
action in Vietnam, while funds to support the Viet-cong are illegally
solicited; propaganda for the use of marijuana, with instructions where
to buy it, is openly distributed on campus.
Even the abstraction obscenity is better understood when one hears a
speaker, using the universitys amplifying equipment, describe in vulgar
words his experiences in group sexual intercourse and homosexuality and
recommend these practices, while another suggests students should have
the same sexual freedom on campus as dogs
Clark Kerrs negotiation — a euphemism for surrender — on each deliberate
defiance of orderly university processes contributes not to a liberal
university but to a lawless one.
David S. Landes, professor of history, Harvard University, made an interesting observation in a letter to
The New York Times
(December 29, 1964). Stating that the Berkeley revolt represents
potentially one of the most serious assaults on academic freedom in
America, he wrote:
Quote:
In conclusion, I should like to point out the deleterious
implications of this dispute for the University of California. I know
personally of five or six faculty members who are leaving, not because
of lack of sympathy with free speech or political action, but because,
as one put it, who wants to teach at the University of Saigon?
The clearest account and most perceptive evaluation were offered in an article in the
Columbia University Forum
(Spring 1965), entitled Whats Left at Berkeley, by William Petersen,
professor of Sociology at the University of California at Berkeley.
He writes:
Continue Reading: http://freedomoutpost.com/vandals-call-for-beheading-berkeley-college-republicans/
