- The American Conservative - https://www.theamericanconservative.com -

Berkeley Students: Milo Had It Coming

Remember last week, after the riots on the Berkeley campus, we were told that the students were peaceful, and that the violence was caused only by the “black bloc” anarchists (sometimes called “antifas,” short for “anti-fascists”)? Well, Steve Sailer has compiled op-eds from the Daily Californian, Berkeley’s student newspaper, in praise of the violence.  [1] Here’s one from Juan Prieto, an illegal alien who said the rioters made him feel safe from the potential assault by Milo:

My campus did nothing to stand between my undocumented community and the hateful hands of radicalized white men — the AntiFas did. A peaceful protest was not going to cancel that event, just like numerous letters from faculty, staff, Free Speech Movement veterans and even donors did not cancel the event. Only the destruction of glass and shooting of fireworks did that. The so-called “violence” against private property that the media seems so concerned with stopped white supremacy from organizing itself against my community.

Everything else was an act of passive acceptance to the hate speech that was about to take place on our campus.

Here’s one from the same edition of the newspaper, written by a student who says he prefers to go to protests in women’s clothing (he’s a drag queen [2]), but joined the black bloc for the riot:

To those who hate Yiannopoulos and the alt-right but have a hard time condoning black bloc tactics and property damage, I understand that these tactics are extreme. But when you consider everything that activists already tried [3] — when mass call-ins, faculty and student objections, letter-writing campaigns, numerous op-eds (including mine), union grievances and peaceful demonstrations don’t work, when the nonviolent tactics have been exhausted — what is left?

Um, tolerance for the free exercise of speech?

Here’s one from a student who says that condemning the protesters is the same thing as condoning hate speech. [4]Excerpt:

If you call the left hypocrites for being “intolerant” of Donald Trump’s token gay, you may not know what censorship or homophobia or terrorism or fascism is, but you’re correct. I won’t tolerate queer or undocumented students students being outed and harassed in my home, no matter who’s perpetrating it. Don’t play “Who’s The Real Fascist?” with me because fascists win that game every time.

If you condemn the actions that shut down Yiannopoulos’ literal hate speech, you condone his presence, his actions and his ideas; you care more about broken windows than broken bodies.

And here is one from a Berkeley alumna who said those objecting to the violent protests need to check their privilege. [5] Excerpt:

[P]olice are violent agents of the state. They carry weapons, enforce laws that place our communities in danger and use excessive force in order to subdue and “protect.” Often, the people protesting are the same people who are at most risk for being violated by the police. Thus, the presence of police officers in riot gear — armed with less-than-lethal weapons they are more than happy to use on protesters — creates an atmosphere that perpetuates violence on community members.


To people with platforms who decide when a protest should and should not be violent: You speak from a place of immense privilege. As I recently wrote in a tirade against this brand of idiocy, asking people to maintain peaceful dialogue with those who legitimately do not think their lives matter is a violent act. Putting #LoveTrumpsHate at the end of a post is a privilege that many of you take advantage of, especially when there are those of us who know that our grandparents and parents survived hate only through the grace of violent action. No offense.

The California campus left, ladies and gentlemen. Here’s a link to the Daily Californian page that featured all the pro-violence op-eds. [6] They speak for themselves.

Sooner or later, this has to be confronted. Doesn’t it?


172 Comments (Open | Close)

172 Comments To "Berkeley Students: Milo Had It Coming"

#1 Comment By Giuseppe Scalas On February 9, 2017 @ 6:14 pm

I’m as reactionary as they come. That’s why I don’t mind the likes of Milo Yannopoulos getting a gentle shake now and then. The instruments of punishment may be evil, and their act unjust. This doesn’t mean that the punishment itself is undeserved.

Milo getting beaten by the students and the students getting beaten by the police: that would be the perfect balance, a practical instance of unicuique suum.

#2 Comment By SailorSteve On February 9, 2017 @ 7:53 pm

The NYT just published an article about the anarchists:


Every yahoo who conflates the anarchists with liberals or “the left” would do well to read the comment section, ordered by reader votes. You’ll be scrolling down for hours before you find one in support.

But let’s be honest – this blindingly obvious reality means nothing to those who need to believe, for emotional and ideological reasons, that the anarchists represent the left, liberals or Democrats. Meanwhile, these very same people won’t be found denouncing the alt right or rightwing violence. They do not see the world as it is; rather, they see it as they are.

#3 Comment By Anna On February 10, 2017 @ 12:33 am

Annie @9:21

exactly; thank-you

#4 Comment By M_Young On February 10, 2017 @ 12:52 am


Actually Milo was invited by the Berkeley college Republicans.

You’re absolutely right, but College Republicans don’t own Berkeley either.”

But they are a recognized group, and as such apparently have a right to invite guest speakers.

I actually don’t know who technically ‘owns’ Berkeley. The UC is a strange duck (we used to ask ‘who are these ‘Regents’ that we write the checks to’) But I am a California taxpayer, and a UC (system) grad, so I guess I have some ownership of Berkeley too. And as owner I give Milo permission to speak. BTW he was at my alma mater, with little argy-bargy and to my knowledge, nobody bashed a tranny or deported a Mexican.


PS. apparently his visit to UCSB *this year* was canx, but looks like more scheduling issues than anything else.

#5 Comment By Rick On February 10, 2017 @ 3:01 am

Deplorable Me- “Rick mentioned Trigglypuff. I wonder what ever happened to her? After her 15 seconds of fame, she dropped from sight.”

Her 15 minutes is not up. She’s still an unwitting shill for vapid mediocre provocateur and remains the poster child of the “hysterical” liberal.


“I can’t overstate the crisis enough, that these type of SJW’s are in the process of infiltrating and occupying every seat of government, financial and cultural power and influence in the country. They will not be tolerant or merciful towards any obstacle in their path.”

This is nonsense.

They’re protesting Milo Yiannopoulos. Milo Yiannopoulos!

Black lives matter? There’s this:


Angelo Mozilo and his reckless organization — Countrywide Financial — helped damn near bankrupt the world. They targeted black and latino families convincing them to take on very risky loans.

“Countrywide’s employees were paid extra commissions to hand out more expensive mortgages. Brokers could earn fatter fees for convincing borrowers to take out an exotic subprime loan than for a plain-vanilla 30-year-fixed mortgage. And of course, the more borrowers paid in interest and fees, the more money Countrywide made.”

Angelo Mozilo walked away with an estimated $250,000,000. Of his $67.8 million dollar settlement he made with the government, Bank Of America had to pay $20,000,000 of it due to his “employment agreement.”

“Countrywide’s former president, David Sambol, agreed to pay $520,000 in fines and $5 million in restitution. Bank of America will reimburse him for the latter also. Eric P. Sieracki, former Countrywide chief financial officer, agreed to pay $130,000 in fines.”

These folks ruined thousands of lives — many black lives — like we would throw a way a coffee cup.

But they’re protesting Milo.

Angelo Mozilo, David Sambol, and Eric Sieracki should have been Gitmo’d and summarily executed for domestic terrorism — along with hundreds of others responsible for 2008.

But they’re protesting Milo.

These myopic, vapid morons will never take power over anything. They’re protesting pablum amid a soul crushing oligarchy.

#6 Comment By JonF On February 10, 2017 @ 6:08 am

Re: But Berkeley accepts government funds (if it is not public to begin with) and at least a quasi state actor, and champions itself as the founding place of free speech. At worst, it is violating free speech; at best it is a hypocritical indoctrination asylum.

So is Berkeley obligated, whether legally or morally, to allow provide a platform at its facilities (and payment as well) to speak there? If I wished to do so and was turned down could I cry that my First amendment rights had been violated?

#7 Comment By MM On February 10, 2017 @ 10:14 am

“But let’s be honest – this blindingly obvious reality means nothing to those who need to believe, for emotional and ideological reasons, that the anarchists represent the left, liberals or Democrats.”

Right, of course, it must’ve been Martians perpetrating those 20+ incidents of partisan political violance since late 2015, which led to 40-50 conservatives and Trump supporters being physically injured sent to the hospital.

And Cal Berkeley students didn’t really write op-eds supporting the violence, despite I guess what’s literally quoted above…

#8 Comment By l’autre J On February 10, 2017 @ 1:47 pm

For a certain demographic, it’s always 1964…sorta like they peaked or sumtin.

Says the guy whose worldview is rigidly pegged to 1963 in Hawaiian Gardens, California.

#9 Comment By VikingLS On February 10, 2017 @ 2:39 pm

Dear Liberals,

It does not matter one bit if you find being associated with the Black Blok insulting. Either you stand up to those making excuses for them here, or your opinion really doesn’t matter. Telling third parties we are supposed to give you unearned respect is not going to cut it.

Grow a spine.

#10 Comment By VikingLS On February 10, 2017 @ 2:47 pm


We have numerous liberal posters here who are arguing some version of Milo had it coming. You have said NOTHING to them. You expect us to believe you’ll stand up to the anarchists in the real world when you won’t stand up to their apologists here?

No, you put your money where you mouth is here and now pal.

#11 Comment By Siarlys Jenkins On February 10, 2017 @ 3:37 pm

MM: Are you serious? If it wasn’t liberals, it must have been Martians? What does that say about the composition of the human race? (And we all know better).

So is Berkeley obligated, whether legally or morally, to allow provide a platform at its facilities (and payment as well) to speak there? If I wished to do so and was turned down could I cry that my First amendment rights had been violated?

JonF, there is a great deal of jurisprudence on this, which is not hard to find on any good Supreme Court web site. You might start with Rosenberg v. Rectors of the University of Virginia. Also Healy v. James about a university’s efforts to suppress a local chapter of SDS. Free speech on a public university campus is primarily exercised by those who are students, faculty, etc., but there is some limited public right of access because, it is public. But a campus organization definitely has a right to function, and invite speakers, whether the administration, or some mass of fellow students, approves or not. Private colleges have considerably greater rights to regulate what happens on their private property.

Healy v. James is one of the cases cited by Justice Alito in his sterling dissent from the court’s ruling in Christian Legal Society v. Hastings, which does, erroneously in my opinion, run contrary to a whole line of similar cases.

Angelo Mozilo, David Sambol, and Eric Sieracki should have been Gitmo’d and summarily executed for domestic terrorism — along with hundreds of others responsible for 2008.

But they’re protesting Milo.

Now that’s what the white working class, or any component of the working class, should be concerned about.

#12 Comment By jg On February 10, 2017 @ 4:11 pm

You leftists aren’t thinking this through.

Just how long do you think we’re going to sit back and let you riot and physically assault us? Huh? Do you think you’re the only ones who can commit violence against those with which you disagree?

You will reap what you sow, and you’ll have no one to blame but yourselves.

#13 Comment By MM On February 10, 2017 @ 5:09 pm

Siarlys: “Are you serious?”

Absolutely 🙂 Since the Left defines itself as non-violent, and there have been no instances I’m aware of where conservatives, libertarians, or centrists engaged in political threats, intimidation, and violence against Trump and his supporters, who else but Martians could’ve been responsible? For example:


“When Thomas DiMassimo tried to rush Donald Trump’s stage in Ohio over the weekend, he had a clear goal in mind… ‘I was thinking that I could get up on stage and take his podium away from him and take his mic away from him and send a message to all people out in the country who wouldn’t consider themselves racist’… When asked who he voted for, DiMassimo said he voted for Democratic candidate Bernie Sanders.”


“Robert Creamer, founder of Democracy Advocates and the husband of Rep. Janice D. Schakowsky, Illinois Democrat, stepped down from the campaign Tuesday, a day after Scott Foval was fired from his post as national field director of Americans United for Change… Video shows Democratic strategists discussing how they hire agitators – including union members, homeless people and the mentally ill – to incite violence by provoking Trump supporters on camera at campaign stops.”


“Police said Michael Sandford, a Briton, struck up a conversation with a Las Vegas Metropolitan Police officer… During the conversation, police said Sandford tried to pull the officer’s service weapon… He was in the country illegally, his visa having expired… Sandford claimed he had been planning to kill Trump for about a year but decided to act on this occasion because he finally felt confident about trying it.”

Nothing remotely left-wing about any of these folks…

#14 Comment By jonf311 On February 11, 2017 @ 12:52 pm

Siarlys, the issue is not Milo’s right to say what he wants. Of course he has that right! The issue is whether any institution is obligated to pay him provide various perks for his speech. If there’s a prior contract to that effect, then yes. But otherwise no

#15 Comment By E. Schrag On February 11, 2017 @ 1:04 pm

I have no use for Milo and his fellow alt-right types, but anger and violent tactics are the wrong way to counter them. Humor,irony and sarcasm are the best weapons. The young, unfortunately, demand instant solutions and as a member of the 60s generation, I can understand that. To counter Milo and Co. will require Machiavellian patience.

#16 Comment By Siarlys Jenkins On February 11, 2017 @ 1:22 pm

MM, you really must try to keep your comments consistent from one post to the next. First you say that if anarchists are not liberals then they must be Martians. Then you offer three anecdotes about individuals who may or may not be liberals committing or planning acts of violence. I would never suggest that liberals are pacifists — liberals have killed too many socialists for me to accept that.

#17 Comment By Shiny On February 11, 2017 @ 7:10 pm


The highest-rated comment on your article insinuates that the violence was perpetrated by Republican infiltrators and the second-highest says that violence is necessary and speech is irrelevant.

I didn’t have to scroll down at all, let alone “for hours.” The very first comment was a conspiratorial dodge and the second was explicitly fascistic.

[NFR: I think you might be mistaking “SailorSteve” for the blogger Steve Sailer. — RD]

#18 Comment By MM On February 12, 2017 @ 3:22 am

Siarlys: “You really must try to keep your comments consistent from one post to the next.”

Who needs to be consistent? 🙂 I’ve seen no such consistency in commentary on this story, here or elsewhere.

Arguments against Milo’s free speech rights would never be made by the people making them if it had been a provocative left-wing speaker targeted with violence at Texas A&M. And arguments in favor of violence as a legitimate response would never be made by the people making them if even one rioter was a registered Republican. Additionally, the press reaction wouldn’t be so muted to very clear partisan violence; editorialists across the country would be invoking Smedley Butler, Huey Long, and Sinclair Lewis, which ironically they did before the election to describe the nightmare scenario posed by Trump and his supporters should they lose.

Hypocrisy has never been easier to shine a spotlight on than in the digital age…

#19 Comment By Jane On February 13, 2017 @ 1:35 am

This reminds me of a discussion thread on a video of police aggressively cuffing them. Some kid was being snarky to a cop, and he bodyslams the kid to the ground and then proceeded to cuff him with a knee to his back. Some of the comments were horrified, saying, there is no excuse for violence against someone for just saying something, no matter how disrespectful. Some of the comments were like, when you talk like that to a police officer, you deserve what’s coming to you.

So what does everyone think? Forget who’s saying and doing what… is there is situation where someone should be restrained, violently if need by, from saying something? There’s the rules against shouting “Fire”, but anything else?

#20 Comment By Siarlys Jenkins On February 13, 2017 @ 2:16 pm

MM, you are now wandering so far afield from YOUR OWN comments that occasioned a conversation between us, that I can make no coherent sense of your latest offering.

I will note that I admire General Smedley Butler, I understand why Huey Long was popular in Louisiana in his time, albeit I am glad he did not live to become president, and Sinclair Lewis was a bit melodramatic, but not wrong about the possibilities. On the other hand, Trump is no Brzeelius Windrip.

#21 Comment By MM On February 13, 2017 @ 5:30 pm

Oh well, irony lost.

The Smedley Butler analogy may not be so farfetched, though not from the usual conspiratorial perspective. One could argue that a poorly-prepared “progressive putsch” was attempted in order to overturn the outcome of the election. For example: attempts by legal scholars, Lawrence Lessig comes to mind, to declare the Electoral College retroactively unconstitutional, further efforts at popular vote interstate compacts in exclusively blue states, and of course threats of violence and intimidation directed at individual electors in those blue states that Trump won.

I can only imagine what kinds of escalation will occur on the left the next 2-4 years.

#22 Comment By Siarlys Jenkins On February 13, 2017 @ 10:37 pm

Yes, I’ve read a few facile ex post facto arguments that the Electoral College violates the constitution. They are all terribly weak, and rely on vague inferences that later amendments have implicitly changed the explicit provisions detailing how the Electoral College shall work. Dangerous stuff if taken seriously. But it wasn’t. Nothing in the constitution actually prohibits interstate compacts to provide that a state’s electoral votes shall be cast for the winner of the national popular vote… after all, the constitution envisions a college of electors who are free to vote for anyone, not pledged delegates, and nobody questions that slates of electors can be run by parties and candidates. Otherwise, we’d have to still vote for electors by name, with no reference to who they might support for president.

I’d like to see what you misnomer as “the left” shipped to a tropical island with Trump and his cabinet, for some sort of long-running reality show. That out of the way, we might find we actually have a lot in common.