Posted on 12/24/2014 11:26:53 AM PST by rightistight
In a CUNY newspaper editorial written earlier this month, the “Advocate’s” Editor-in-Chief called for violent protests against those opposed to “justice” for Michael Brown and others.
The piece, called “In Support of Violence,” contains several chilling passages.
“The time for peace has passed, indeed it never existed in this country,” the editorial explains. “It doesn’t matter if Brown robbed a convenience store, or even if he assaulted Wilson. What matters is that the case highlights the depths to which the capitalist state and its police forces will protect their own and attempt to stifle any sort of dissent.”
The editorial continues, saying that the destruction of “mom and pop stores” were not because of protesters, but were caused by “the decades long, the centuries long, daily oppression people experience at the hands of the capitalist state.”
Protesters need to be both violent and armed, it continues. “The problem with the protestors’ violence in Ferguson is that it is unorganized,” it explains. “If the violence was to be organized, and the protestors armed – more so than the few that sparingly are – then the brunt of social pressures would not be laid onto middling proprietors, but unto those deserving the most virulent response of an enraged populace.”
...In its final paragraph, it says that, when the time is right, people need to murder police officers. “When the state comes down on its citizenry violently, we must resist, with equitable violence if necessary,” it says. Again, this writer believes that the police are killing its citizens and is proposing “equitable violence” in response. You can figure out what that means.
(Excerpt) Read more at thepunditpress.com ...
The editor in chief is a communist.
It doesn’t matter if Brown robbed a convenience store
Exactly, facts don’t matter to leftists, only advancing the agenda. This is no different than Gore-Bull Warming; facts are not needed.
exactly.
Facts and truth are not important.
is that protected Free Speech?
Of course not silly! Free speech applies only to liberals and the laws apply only to us.
Dear Editor:
If you want violence, bring it on. We will obilige you. Just make sure that is what you want before you start. Because you will find with us as the Germans found out with the Russians in 1941, once you grab hold of us we are hard to turn lose. So let your conscious be your guide.
Au contraire, it is the OUTCOME of said Freedom of speech that should be prosecuted.
Just as it IS viable to shout ‘Fire’ in a crowded movie theater; it is punishable if there are damages/death/etc. if there is no fire. If one would to shout ‘fire’ and all got out peacefully, quickly and orderly...is that a crime?
Our Founders, (CYA??) writing under a pseudonym, would be as guilty...or the pastors of the time, calling for revolution!
Now, Al Sharpton RE: two dead cops in NY...
Close the school down.
Exactly....The problem here is that its tax funded...imo
What would an Oppressive state look like?
Who would do the Oppressing?
Wouldn't it be...the Police?
Isn't that what we were told was evil about the Soviet Union...the pervasive police state?
If the KGB wasn't a police force, what was it?
The police ARE the visible, physical manifestation of the State. So it's natural for "revolutionaries" to oppose them - but the reality is that they supposedly don't make the rules - the politicians behind them do!
Genius Boy here is advocating a war against what he perceives to be a "capitalist State". Since he's just parroting crap that Russians wrote 100 years ago, he has no idea what it all means.
But the front line of "oppression" is the police, at least in the U.S. since the passage of Posse Comitatus.
So is the State behind the police Oppressive? Are their actions reflective of a tyrannical, dictatorial state, accountable to no one?
Lotta people here might say so but for different reasons then this guy who just repeats crap other people wrote.
If so, we have a right to change this State. Says so in our Declaration.
The Black people are basically saying at this point in history that they don't want to be part of this state.
I agree with them. I think Integration has been a failure. There's a few high points, but it's just not working. They have the Presidency, the Attorney General, the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security....and they are dismantling Federal law enforcement as we know it.
But it's not enough. Apparently, until Angry Black Men can shoot police at will for any perceived slight, it's not enough.
Put it another way: they don't want to live under White Men's Laws. ANY law enforcement on them they see as illegitimate.
IOW: they are not part of the Nation, and nothing they are given - political office, extra privileges under law - will suffice. It's not their world.
So to them, it's "oppressive", and they want something different.
Well, I agree now. Time for a divorce. The only question is, who gets to live where? Do we have a two state solution - they live among us, but are not governed by our laws? Or vice versa?
Do we go back to legal segregation? Or take it a step further and say only Black people can make laws for Black people?
That's where this is going. The 14th Amendment is wonderful Egalitarianism, but...it doesn't work in practice.
Maybe too much history between two peoples.
And we are letting in historical enemies - the Mexican nation - and assuming that somehow, that's all gonna work out too - they will go along with living under laws they consider Somebody Else's.
Ain't nevah worked in human history. Ain't gonna work now without....a Police State.
They can't distribute MRAPs fast enough to hold this back.
That's true. The school or the legislature would be completely within their rights to shut him down, unless he has some contract that protects him.
Write his own stuff, put it on the web? Sure! That's what the 1st Amendment is about!
Like these guys: Revolutionary Communist Part, Online!
I can find nothing to disagree with in what you wrote.
Oh I get it! Leftists hate the police in the US cause the US is a quasi capitalist country but they love Che tho he slaughtered many cause Che was the “police” for Communism.
Wonder what this guy would think if a mob of enraged police and their families were to vandalize his office and burn his house down around his ears?
Sorry bub, but advocating violence goes both ways.
When the Continental Congress met to plan war, what was that?
It was part of the rebellion against a government that gave no free speech rights to its people.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.