Dear Daily Cal

 

Dear Daily Californian,

For an editorial that attempts to stray from simple “dichotomies”, April 18th’s take on the Antifa (Antifascist) presence does little to impart any complexity into the recent riots in Berkeley. For all its early wholesome message that, “Kids, there’s no clear right and wrong here,” the Antifa are swiftly named the heroes for their brave efforts to “protect” minority communities.

Amusingly, the dissenting opinion shows more clarity than the former, that this fight after fight has not wavered anyone’s ideological commitments, and that polarization further perpetuates this violence because we continue to fail to understand the violence itself. I mean, what is there to understand when you self-righteously embolden yourself as the acolytes of free speech or the saviors of minorities against the encroaching threat of fascism? Alternatively, the majority opinion does little to affirm any skepticism in a movement named after “Antifascist” yet rather eager to brutalize dissenters with U-locks, and then attempts to argues that the presence of neo-Nazis and white nationalists within the protests should conclude any remaining speech advocacy amongst onlookers. Was it not the American Civil Liberties Union that asserted, after their defense of groups such as NAMBLA and Neo-Nazists, that thedefense of freedom of speech is most critical when the message is one most people find repulsive”? Instead of this courageous slant against the violence, the Daily Cal editorial board doubles down, confident that the Antifa as a reactionary response to incendiary speech absolves it from its actions.

A more presumptuous conclusion is that not only should the Antifa be disassociated from its actions (not similar to when the Editorial rightfully associated Yiannopoulos to a history of “incendiary, useless harassment”), but that the “net consequences of its actions were that neo-Nazis and white-supremacist groups with violent rhetoric were denied a platform to speak in the city of Berkeley”. While this seems all dandy at first glance, it somehow insinuates that the incident happily results in the safety of minority communities; though I have yet to see how the feats of violence in Berkeley will defend immigrants from ICE, stall the present consideration of police practices that eventually fall under racial profiling, or the transgender communities in any way? Furthermore, in an earlier article by the Daily Cal, Sakura Cannestra reports that according to a campuswide email, the “damage inflicted upon campus property” during the Milo protest was, by no means, a small fee and “was estimated to cost $100,000”; the payment for this security enforcement on the behalf of the Antifa was not simply the refusal to allow speech, however repulsive it may be. There are clear, material costs to the violent protests; costs that don’t take into consideration  the average students’ payments and loans, the average Californian taxpayer’s contributions, or the federal funds we are using. If Yiannopoulos is to be considered not a “productive member of society” nor belongs here with his rhetoric, by the standards of February’s editorial opinion, then how do we go about Antifa-ing the Antifa?

A movement that splashed eggs on bystanders, including yours truly? A movement so brave in its protection of the communities that an alleged member of the Stein and Sanders camp was not only hounded for being on the “wrong side” but had his keys stolen and/or shattered on the floor whilst others cackled? A movement that has become conflated with ideologies such as communism and anarchism, which is amusing given the extraordinary amount of WWII rhetoric that few followers tend to interject? In short, what does anyone expect to “protect” when these security forces are massively decentralized to a fault, have little to say for the casual violence that falls upon bystanders or neutral parties, and then plays the role of the “valiant hero” or “downtrodden victim”  when the protest concludes with substantial damage costs, not including our valued reputation?

And if there’s ever an oversimplification, these are the heroes of the Bay Area? And all of this because a now jobless provocateur amongst others decided to hurt a few people’s feelings or march for their cause? Because that’s what it is. Hurtful speech. I don’t know what’s worse; having faith in the machinations of a group so devoted to the art of violent protest that their name seems no longer level-headed with their mission, or that minorities such as myself are considered so sensitive to the provocations that we have endured for centuries that we simply cannot function nor advance without crippling our liberal democracy in the process.

Juniperangelica X. Cordova-Goff’s “Campus must prioritize safety of marginalized over free speech” – Free Speech Is …?

Response to Juniperangelica X. Cordova-Goff’s “Campus must prioritize safety of marginalized over free speech”

There is no doubt that Juniperangelica X. Cordova-Goff’s article is narrow-minded. Of course, there is no doubt because she begins with the ever-clever affirmation that there is no warrant to worry about the loss of freedoms pertaining the violent riots in Berkeley. Of course, not because freedom of speech shouldn’t be an absolute priority for any liberal concept of a civil society, but because freedom of speech is (and has always) never been “alive”.

hand-977641_640
Source: BreakingTheWalls, Link

Predictably, Cordova-Goff fails to validate this perspective and instead, anxiously broods that the speech generated by minorities in America is not valued as would the speech by the majority. However, this is not an issue to have pertained in the first place because it assumes that there is to be an equality of worth within all spectrum of political thought or worse, that certain voices ought to be filtered through some mechanism to ensure this ‘equality’ of a sort. What is this assumption that African American female senators are discredited not on the basis of partisanship or merit but on the basis of their gender and race? Or that Trump supports white nationalism in the United States in the first place, and not that he is legitimizing the misguided concerns of his base support? Are these not remarks that are often confronted with embittered backlash, especially in this tense political climate? It is through our constitutional rights that Cordove-Goff is able to say such intellectually dull remarks without the fear of retaliation from an authoritarian state.

A resonating idiom from the comment sections, “A political activist calling for the suppression of speech is like a fish complaining about the dampness.”

You are not living in a genocide; circumstances are cruel, I know. I am a proud child of illegal immigrants who have worked day in and night out from the motels of East Los Angeles to the security forces of Las Vegas, Nevada to the highways of California itself. We face obstacle after obstacle, but this is natural; this is to be expected because our families came here illegally, knowing it will be tough. The natural response, for those born outside Mexico yet so familiarized with the sorrows of undocumented immigrants, is mutuality, but through what means? Of course, I support comprehensive, sensible amnesty and immigration reform, but if our means to that goal include the Antifa, a violent force conflated with the ranks of anarchism and communism, then I am happy to accept the status quo with open arms rather than invite forces who refuse to abide by the law and order that this “white supremacist, capitalistic and patriarchal” society follows.

However, the most presumptuous sentiment would that I, as a minority, would be any safer because radical left-wing authoritarians are safeguarding my delicate ears from controversial speech. Yes, I am not a fan of the rather rehashed accusation after accusation from rightwing pundits, but will these intimidating officers throws eggs (at times indiscriminately), a general pain in the ass to wash off the next morning? Will these intimidating officers heckle you for recording without their consent or for engaging with the “wrong side”, before smacking your keys on the floor and running away gleefully like a petulant child out of control? Will these intimidating officers assault you in daylight with a U-lock amidst peaceful engagement, and then have you, the bleeding man on the floor, then called the oppressor, the fascist, the villain of this reality?

18194609_10209209154042305_8146011662947043342_nThis sudden impression of state force is not a clever attempt to unpack your lifetime of “state violence”; it’s to rebuff the anarchists and communists who not only decide that my voice, my minority voice, is not only theirs to represent but that it’s worth destroying and whining at any cost, including our campus’ political climate that we so love to reference. After all, it was your “lighter fuel” that may cost me the quality of education and community support, when the protest is over and the bill is paid.

PS: To my amusement, I realized that I came out in one of those videos whilst searching for evidence to support my claims during the riots.

Shelley Garland’s “Could It Be Time To Deny White Men The Franchise?”: Umm, No…?

Response to Shelley Garland’s Could It Be Time To Deny White Men The Franchise?

A new addition to the diverse cast of the Huffington Post blog, Shelley Garland describes herself as “an activist and a feminist”, now debuting with the only article to her name: Could It Be Time To Deny White Men The Franchise?

Screenshot_408
End white women’s suffrage? (Link)

The article starts naturally by subscribing the faults of events clearly not beneficiary to her “progressive cause” to white men (what’s more “progressive” than a referendum of self-determination? I kid). Hilariously, Garland misplaces her confidence that the white men are alone in their support of the Republican candidate and now President Donald J. Trump, failing to consider that at least 25% of each racial demographic (with the exception of African Americans) were in favor of the candidate. Now, now, I am not discounting that of all the racial categories noted, the only majority in favor of Trump were white people and that this demographic makes up the majority of the United States, around 70% to 75% as of 2010 United States census. However, Garland seems to exempt women from the category. Wasn’t it the critique of the third-wave feminist movement that men often place women on a pedestal, where women can do no wrong as the guardians of moral standards? Interestingly, CNN exit polls not only shows that a sizeable portion of white women voted for Trump but also the majority of the white women – a sharp 52% – voted for the man now currently in the White House.

Outside the remarkably low creativity, the article is honestly nothing but an entertainment piece, fashioned by a follower of a boring brand of identitarianism. The rest of her work not follows that the white men in the United States should be dealt justice for the crimes of white South Africans in the South Africa, but that the course of justice is acceptable as if disfranchisement should beget disfranchisement in spite of our country’s now general consciousness of disfranchisement as a breach of universal human rights. Unsurprisingly, the author does nothing to credit liberalism with its celebration of ideas and programmes such as freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, civil rights, etc. Instead, she champions a society where membership of a group is met with marginalization and/or bounties. An example of a society such as this would be Garland’s fantasy of a United States that decides to disfranchise its majority based on the crimes of their ancestors and/or people of similar race.

aHZSj3AaNM2z7w29jFTrMJrxHowever, in the end, Garland makes the supposition that her radical ideology is not only necessary albeit “unfair” but also implicates that the literal disfranchisement of the majority in favor of the minority is an acceptable choice. Whether this is through violent revolution or legislation is made vague, but the plan seems largely implausible, given the United States’ violent ties with “taxation without representation”. It was because of this, that I had trouble distinguishing whether the article was satirical or not, reducing an entire social movement to a page only championed by out-of-touch, likely privileged, and self-described “feminist” college students midst their completion of a Gender Studies MA degree.

Then, I read Garland’s bio.

tumblr_ogppinl6b31ux1dn3o1_500I certainly hope that Huffington Post, if they continue to employ the ramblings of left-wing authoritarians, does not quickly degenerate into a hotspot for Garlands of the Western world to tinker on to produce more unproductive, aggressive solutions to global inequalities. Regardless of whether Caucasian men are responsible for the atrocities worldwide, I thank the Lord that the United States is still a functioning constitutional republic in protection against these crazed ideologues.

DNC, Democracy, and Deputy Chair – Oh My

You see, the genius behind this long-standing, strong position, it is that if the DNC chairman Tom Perez doesn’t want to enact Keith Ellison’s agenda that swarms every Democrat’s senses with fear and disgust – a $15 wage and universal health coverage, for example – then he doesn’t have to because clearly, he was chosen by the people who fund the political association.

The DNC has always been friendly to ideas outside the mainstream as a minority political party; it’s been three months since Trump has been office, right? Take the example of Representative Tusi Gabbard and how the DNC reconciled progressive ideals and Democrat ideals (and in a friendly way, too):

“Representative Gabbard, We were very disappointed to hear that you would resign your position with the DNC so you could endorse Bernie Sanders, a man who has never been a Democrat before. When we met over dinner a couple of years ago I was so impressed by your intellect, your passion, and commitment to getting things done on behalf of the American people. For you to endorse a man who has spent almost 40 years in public office with very few accomplishments, doesn’t fall in line with what we previously thought of you. Hillary Clinton will be our party’s nominee and you standing on ceremony to support the sinking Bernie Sanders ship is disrespectful to Hillary Clinton. A woman who has spent the vast majority of her life in public service and working on behalf of women, families, and the underserved.

You have called both myself and Michael Kives before about helping your campaign raise money, we no longer trust your judgement so will not be raising money for your campaign.”

Source: Podesta  Email, FW: Disappointed

If that doesn’t scream “unity” behind Democrat ideals, I don’t know what does. But I know what screams “hope” in light of a federal government flooded by the Republican Party in every level from the local to the White House: Keith Ellison’s emails. Substance and reflection. Perhaps.

Screenshot_323.png
I am not in the mailing list for the DNC, sorry…

I trust the DNC, without the guidance of those dime-a-dozen progressives, to weave Democrat legislation that will benefit the working class in the United States who complain of “representation”, or the humiliating submission to transnational powers who bleed American citizens in a race to the bottom with impoverished nations or the immense impact of lobbyists who act as brokers between special interests and the Congress. Especially refuse to yield to conflicts of interest that they keep parading in their site.

homeless-2090507_1280.jpg
Source: Josemdelaa, Link

Update, 1:15 PM: I have learned that Washington Post released headlines, “DNC rolls back Obama ban on contributions from federal lobbyists.” Alternative news? Russian invasion? Third parties? Sexism?


This is a satirical piece; I am shit at satire, okay?