The events at Berkeley Wednesday night have been a boon to Milos Yiannopoulos, of Breitbart News, and to Steve Bannon, formerly head of Breitbart News and now Trump’s consigliere.
I doubt this conspiracy theory from Reich. From everything that I have reed the agitators were anarchists who are often called the black bloc and have been causing havoc for almost 20 years. I think the first time they appeared was in Seattle in 1999. They are against the government whether it is right or left and believe in the rule of people. It is well known the right wing cannot stand American universities, institutions which are dedicated to finding the truth while the right wing is dedicated to hiding the truth and putting out propaganda based on lies. Of course our technological society is dependent on universities for research and higher education. Without them we would become a third world country.
I was at Berkeley from 1965-1967. The arrests in Sproul Hall happened the year before I arrived. It took almost 60 years to learn that J. Edgar Hoover was the one who ordered the police to drag students out of the building.
This "riot" is different because it happened in real time, out in the open, and there are strange connections going on.
The article by Reich points out the connection of Bannon to this incident which is part of an ongoing attack on universities.
Here is an article from The Intercept about the bloody face that got time in the press.
Amid the ensuing mayhem, however — as mace was sprayed, punches were thrown, a generator was set on fire and the talk was called off — one victim of the violence appeared to be enjoying himself, grinning broadly as he approached reporters for Buzzfeed and the Bay Area affiliate of CBS News to display his battered face.
The man, a 30-year-old podcaster who uses the comic-book-inspired pseudonym Eddy Brock online, seemed oddly pleased as he introduced himself to Blake Montgomery, who was streaming live video of the protest for Buzzfeed.
He was creating disturbances even before the march and threatening marchers. He got what he wanted -- publicity.
There are video clips and interviews in the article. Later on we find:
Last May, Brock attended a rally for Bernie Sanders in Vallejo, waving a “Trump 2016″ sign, with a camerman in tow. That night, he told followers of his podcast’s Facebook page that things had gotten “ugly.” Although he had escaped with “no punches, no black eyes,” he said, he was sure that footage of himself arguing with the senator’s supporters about race, the economy and gender studies, would cause a stir. “I’m sure it’s going to go viral somewhere, I don’t mind going viral,” he said.
That footage, of Brock trolling the Sanders supporters, did not go viral. It wracked up all of 45 views. Despite the fact that the footage began with his cameraman predicting, confidently, “someone’s gonna punch him in the face,” it contained no violence.
Looks like he practiced to get his face on the media and it worked.
The author of the article, Robert Mackey has been a journalist for years working at major outlets like the NY Times. He also did this
As a television producer, he has looked at the role played by soccer hooligans in the war between Serbia and Croatia for Britain’s Channel 4, and spent a year and a half making a series of video letters from refugees for a United Nations-sponsored program broadcast in Sarajevo, Zagreb, and Belgrade during the wars in the former Yugoslavia
Thus he is no stranger to hooligans.
Here is an article from a couple of weeks ago
This was a fake news operation directed against Hillary Clinton.
The comments to the first article show a lot of trolls trying to discount his article.
After spending years on dailykos in the past, I learned to spot trolls that are trying to divert people from taking something seriously.
Yes, these evil Seattle rioters - who in a single blow (and blows that followed on Quebec, Goteborg, Genoa, DC) ended the ability good progressive WTO to do whatever they wanted without even asking...
Regardless of their goals their tactics are wrong and should be condemned. There should be no place in US society for that sort of behavior by any group. They often get in the news while thousands of peaceful demonstrators at the same locations get ignored. They are an obstacle to free speech.
You are correct, sir. And The Intercept published an article that adds to your "conspiracy theory" - as RIGHT ON! >> here: https://theintercept.com/2017/02/04/amid-chaos-berkeley-grinning-face-covered-blood/
I think Bob has lost it.
Considering how much of Goebbels' play book we have seen Trump, the GOP and to a lesser extent, Democrats incorporate in their strategy to attain and hold power, Reich's concerns are NOT out of bounds.
"In an age of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act" - George Orwell
I wish there had been no violence used, it automatically discounts the arguments against this speaker. Now one has great difficulty saying why this man should not be allowed to speak
1st, let us not engage in the extremely false notion that free speech was stopped. It wasn't stopped. This man was being paid by the university to speak.
2nd The government did not say this man could not speak. The 1st amendment does not say that everyone must allow someone else to speak. It says the government is not allowed to prohibit someone from speaking. As long as the government didn't rule he couldn't speak, his 1st amendment rights are intact.
3rd There is no right to be able to open your mouth and let bullshit pour forth w/o any response from others. I have had idiots try to tell me that they have the right to say whatever they want to and I can't say anything in return or I am violating their 1st amendment rights. That is not how it works. You open your mouth, I can open mine. Otherwise you are telling me that only you have the right to say what you want and no one else does. That might work in alice in wonderland, but not in reality.
4th the protesters are well within their rights to protest, as long as violence is not used. Then it becomes illegal for those using violence.
5th While people have a right to their views, why are these schools inviting the worst among us to speak, the people who hate and spread hate? That is not an educational experience, that is a way to reach more people with the hate.
6th Conservatives claim they are being banned from colleges. I have seen the list of those who the students object to speaking at their school. If I was a conservative, I would claim these people are representatives of my beliefs. We are talking about the extreme far right people. There are plenty of conservatives out there to invite that are not assholes and haters. Who could advance the conservative argument while not showing hate against minorities or others. One cannot have a reasoned discussion with the likes of an Ann Coulter or others. There are others out there though one could talk with. You might disagree in the end, but at least one wouldn't walk away feeling dirty from being near these far right people.
The current regime in D.C. does not represent the best values of our nation nor do they possess legitimacy. Thank you Dr. Reich for unveiling the strange and unsettling timeline for the "riot" in Berkeley last week. Berkeley natives are tired of having our home and University threatened and derided based on the deliberate provocations of shadowy actors from outside. The idea that a newly anointed federal official would casually threaten de-funding our wondrous public education system is not to be tolerated. That he believed that making such a threat on Twitter is mind boggling... Solidarity in Opposition to Ignorance.
Gee, I have a novel idea. Why not get the scoop on the events at and surrounding U.C. Berkeley from someone who actually understands the beliefs, principles and motivations behind the black bloc's activities that night instead of someone who is getting paid to pretend he knows what it's all about?
Do you realize the property damaged was pre-selected?
Why was specific property targeted?
Of the property that was damaged, what were the common denominators?
While you have every right to disagree with the tactics of "revolutionary" anarchists, at least be accurately informed as to why they believe revolutionary direct action is necessary. It should also be pointed out that the "revolutionary" anarchists are just one faction of anarchism and are not an accurate and complete depiction of the whole.
When reading the following article, keep in mind that anarchists are anti-state (nation states or any type of centralized government and authority) and anti-capitalism. Yes, we are socialists.
For the record, I do not identify myself as a revolutionary anarchist. Rather, I am an anarcho-socialist/communist.
Yunzer, advocate of and apologist for, Black Bloc jerks.
Note to Black Bloc, don't dare bust his office's windows though, and don't harm his scooter.
Don your uniform and get busy being a royal jerk already!
Make sure that you invade a peaceful protest, the bigger the better, start busting windows and setting things on fire getting your violent revolutionary rocks off, and if things go really well, you and your fellow jerks can watch while the militarized police punish everyone but you!
If it is a really big success, you can share posts on Instagram of your fashionable revolutionary moment.
You and Yunzer should go practice burning a trash can somewhere to get ready for the next big event.
To Trump, your ultimate advocacy group if not entirely by proxy is Black Bloc and wannabe bad ass revolutionaries of the very confused "left". I'm certain Bannon is way ahead on this already. Birds of a feather and all.
And NO I didn't just insult all anarchists.
I've been waiting for this day. This is the first time I have ever agreed with a comment of yours and I actually agreed with both of them! Life is full of surprises.
I have posted a lot of negative things about Trump. Perhaps you didn't read them because I don't why you would not agree.
Doesn't ANY protest, if it is going to be effective, have to disrupt something? Why do you thing the massive actions going on right now in Romania are producing results?
I guess Reich hasn't heard about Ian Dabney Miller. He has been identified as one of the rioters and he is employed by Berkeley University.
First, I confess that I don't read the comments sections to every article, so I may have missed some of your comments. Also, I believe that there are far too many over-the-top negative attacks against Trump and do not approve of them for several reasons:
1) it can lead to outrage fatigue;
2) it makes it more difficult to focus on the really harmful acts, like abolishing the banking regulations;
3) Trump is mostly a buffoonish narcissist who is more moderate than most Republicans on most issues, and I believe he will likely only become an extremist in response to extreme criticism, so I don't see how the extreme criticism is helping; and
4) maybe the most important reason, the corporate MSM is leading the attacks against Trump and the MSM is always up to no good, so I expect it is part of a grand strategy to lower resistance to someone in the future like Paul Ryan, who they will support as the "good Republican."
I do not believe that Trump is a monster, though I think that relentless criticism may turn him into one. Paul Ryan, on the other hand, is a monster. He is the guy who would if he ever has the chance, without hesitation, pull out the social safety net as the population slips into poverty and helplessness, creating the conditions for massive depopulation and suffering that this country has never seen before. And the MSM would be praising him and supporting him all the way.
Wow. Are you for real? You still think that Trump some kind of moderate who counterbalances the likes of Ryan? If that is the case, then why is he filling his cabinet with billionaire thugs who make Ryan look moderate?