Maybe 99.7% of Boston Anti-Free-Speech Protesters Were Not There for Peaceful Purposes

by Steve MacDonald

Antifa- we will treadThis morning Chief Nick Willard asked me about the 99.9% (or 99.7%) of protesters whom the Boston Police commissioner claimed were in the city for a peaceful demonstration. I said (paraphrasing) he couldn’t possibly know that but if 40,000™ people showed up to a protest and a handful got violent (throwing rocks, urine, etc.) why aren’t you taking them aside and telling them to knock it off?

There’s 40,000™ of you and a few of them (so the story would have to go) so just do the right thing and reign in your hooligans.

Well, maybe they didn’t want to reign them in. Maybe they support them.

Here we see some AntiFA thugs given a very warm welcome by any number of “peaceful protesters” as they march into view.

I wouldn’t go so far as to say “most” because we can’t see all 40,000™.  And there are plenty of folks who have no clue what the cheering is all about. But there are obvious shouts and cheers of approval.

Too many.

So what’s going on?

Leftists who show up at events to suppress speech they are told to object too (even when they have no idea what the speech is) might be a lot like those “Moderate Muslims.” They are so scared of the violent factions in their midst they don’t dare speak against them.

Or, some number of the protesters did not object at all to members of their group showing up dressed as thugs tossing rocks at cops or throwing bottles of urine at them with the goal of reaching the actual event and using that same violence to silence them.

Now maybe, just maybe, this is all just a matter of Marxist thugs trying to silence racist thugs and why should we care?

Because they still have a right to choose their associations, to peaceably assemble, and to exchange their views in a public forum without fear.

AntiFA exists to instill fear. They appear to perpetuate intimidation and violence. Their job is to silence speech and end debate to which their side objects, and in the case of Boston, based soley on their preordained declaration of what the speech would be.

They defined it to justify their using force to stop it. That is not anti-fascist.

Now, we could tell AntiFA they are fascists, but they already know. Maybe not the people peeing in bottles before the big “peaceful” anti-free speech protest. But the people organizing them and handing out the bottles, they know.

One more point.

If you are on the left and you object to the violence perpetrated by BLM or AntiFA or whoever else is dressing up like a fascist to play anti-fascist in the name of your political beliefs — no one will believe you if you continue to applaud them.


Gateway Pundit

Leave a Comment

  • Bruce Currie

    Headline correction: “Anti-hate speech”. Fixed it for you. You guys are really reaching for material to write about, but this is a stretch, even for Groksters. Or maybe not, given the excuses I’ve read here for white supremacists and neo-Nazis.

    • 175jfs

      While you’re give for excuses for the violent left? Hypocrite. Fake Weatherman.

    • Michael

      “Hate speech” is still “speech” and is therefore, Constitutionally protected.

      • Bruce Currie

        And perhaps it’s time for a reconsideration of that view, given that those who hold such views do so on the basis of deeply rooted false facts and nonsense–tin foil beliefs such as white supremacy, the racial inferiority of particular ethnic groups, and fantastical paranoid nonsense like the “international (fill in the blank: Jewish/ Communist/ Socialist/ UN/ globalist) conspiracy. Falling prey to such nonsense is part of the divide and conquer strategies of the power elite. At this very moment, the Koch brothers and other like-minded oligarchs spending hundreds of million$$$ to gridlock and undermine our democratic republic are smirking and high-fiving behind their gated enclaves.

        • allen

          bruce, do you REALLY want government to have the power to define what “hate speech” is?

          eventually one side or the other will be in power, and define everything the other side has to say as “hate speech”. you know it, I know it…that’s how governments work.

          and then what do we do about the people who say “hate speech”? do we re-educate them? how about we put them all in once place, so we can re-educate them all at once? we could call it a “camp”. camps are nice, right?

          bruce, I would take up arms to prevent people like you (or anyone, really) from going to such a place, but I fear you would not do the same.

          • Bruce Currie

            Odd then that Germany seems to have a reasonably flourishing democracy, despite having restrictions on certain kinds of speech. And France does as well, but speech constraints there didn’t seem to bother Marine LePen, or those on the other side of the spectrum.

          • Annnnd, this isn’t France or Germany.

          • Bruce Currie

            Right. We’re the “exceptional” nation.

          • allen

            irrelevant bruce. you once again avoid the question.

            do you really want donald trump to be the arbiter of what speech the democrat party can use without going to jail?

            I know I do not want you to be the arbiter of what I can say without going to jail.

            you have no fear of me, I’m a “freedom of speech” kinda guy. I think everyone should be free to let the world know exactly how dumb they are, from the rooftops with a megaphone if they really want.

        • Michael

          Well, there are certainly globalist interests that would like to see the American experiment fail. That’s incontrovertible. If we chose to poke holes in the 1st Amendment, then “protected” speech becomes just a nominal designation.

          • Bruce Currie

            “‘Globalist interests’ that would like to see the American experiment fail.” Words fail at the number of debatable assumptions contained in that statement. Clintonite Democrats and Neo-Cons with “Putin Derangement Syndrome” pale in comparison.

          • Radical Moderate

            You can’t fool me Bruce. I know you know exactly what Michael is talking about. You have mentioned several times the game the Globalists are playing on the American people as well as on the Global stage. That’s one of the few things we have agreed upon during our debates.
            Don’t play dumb, it doesn’t suit you.

          • Bruce Currie

            But neither of you can see the forest for the trees. It’s as though you’re looking through the wrong end of the telescope. The “globalists” leading us all down the primrose path are those in both parties who accept the Neo-liberal dogma that markets rule, that privatization and “public choice” are social goods (when in fact neo-libs secretly express contempt for anything hinting at such a thing), and austerity via cuts to social programs and taxes. Every blogger on this site advocates for and believes devoutly (for it is a faith-based religion) in those notions, which Neo-liberals have been ratcheting up in bipartisan fashion for 4 decades. And in spite of all the evidence in plain sight in the US, which includes but is not limited to: a devastated blue collar middle-class, an industrial base sold off for scrap, and an immigration policy designed to assure a steady supply of cheap labor for those in the top income bracket, the only real remedy on offer right now–contra Trump’s campaign promises–is more of the same economic bunk that got us to this place. Because $market$.

          • Michael

            “Debatable assumptions”. Ah yes. Until they are officially branded as “hate speech”, of course.

          • HEY!
            That’s micro-aggressive, violent, hate speech.
            As opposed to Humpty Dumpty simply changing the definitions of “words”… to suit the occasion…and the latest “data supported poll”.

          • Bruce Currie

            No, simply put to rest by the facts. Which, as we see with regard to both global warming and Putin Derangement Syndrome, can afflict anyone when those facts inconveniently conflict with deeply held beliefs. Suffice to say, those who see “globalists” bent on destroying the nation fail to see the extent to which our nation is in thrall to the neo-Liberal consensus that markets must rule, and democracy must be subordinate to the corporation.

          • Michael

            And what facts are those exactly? Careful now. Chose your words carefully. You maybe reported to the Ministry of Truth.

Previous post:

Next post: