Milo To Bring "16-Man Navy SEAL Security Detail" To Berkeley

Authored by Nikita Vladimirov via CampusReform.org,

Conservative provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos pledged that “nothing will deter” the organizers from hosting the “Free Speech Week” at the University of California, Berkeley later this month.

In a statement posted to Facebook Wednesday, Yiannopoulos criticized UC Berkeley Assistant Vice Chancellor Dan Mogulof for “spreading rumors that Free Speech Week might be canceled.”

“Ignore him, it"s fake news,” Yiannopoulos wrote.

“Ironically, Berkeley is fighting Free Speech Week the same way they fought against Mario Savio"s Free Speech Movement in the 60"s - by spreading fear, uncertainty, and doubt.”

Mogulof told Politico Tuesday that the student group Berkeley Patriot “still has not completed the critical steps” required for arranging the “Free Speech Week” on campus, putting the entire event in jeopardy.

“Mogulof has a long history of hostility, leaks, and lies when it comes to conservative speakers,” Yiannopoulos alleged.

“His efforts will not be successful, and Berkeley Free Speech Week will [be] a fabulous, and peaceful, celebration of free speech including more than 20 speakers from diverse viewpoints.”

In a statement to Campus Reform, Yiannopoulos further blasted the reports of possible cancellation, calling Mogulof’s comments “balderdash and piffle.”

Following his August pledge to spend “hundreds of thousands of dollars” on security at the event, Yiannopoulos also revealed that he is bringing a Navy SEAL team to assist with protecting the speakers.

“Our efforts are moving ahead at full speed to put together the best free speech event Berkeley has ever seen,” he said.

“I am sparing no expense, including a 16-man Navy SEAL security detail for me and our speakers.”

“UC Berkeley has claimed that this will be a year of free speech, but they"ve quickly gone back to their old tricks,” Yiannopoulos observed. “They seem committed to the course of excluding speakers who don"t share their progressive authoritarian mindset from campus. It won"t fly, there is too much at stake for America, and too many eyes on both the university administration and the city of Berkeley.”

Yiannopoulos concluded his statement by pledging that the upcoming event “will go on no matter what Berkeley says,” adding, “Nothing will deter us. We will not yield.”

A representative for the Berkeley Patriot likewise told Politico that the group still intends to go through with the event, saying, “we are working diligently to answer any requests that the university might have...we will work to get all of this clarified in a good faith and collaborative manner.”

Berkeley Police Plan "Unprecedented Security" For Ben Shapiro Event

Berkeley, California was the purported birthplace of the American “Free Speech” movement during the 1960s. But in 2017, it has become singularly associated with liberal oppression. A place where conservative speakers and demonstrators have been confronted with violence and threats, and where the active repression of the doctrinaire has been aided by city and university officials’ troubling willingness to appease and accommodate the left.

But in a surprising and encouraging development, the University of California at Berkeley has revealed that it is ramping up security tonight ahead of a lecture by the Daily Wire founder Ben Shapiro. The Associated Press reports that campus authorities plan to seal off the campus" central hub, Sproul Plaza and enforce a "closed perimeter" around several buildings, including Zellerbach Hall, where Shapiro is scheduled to speak to a sold-out, 1,000-person audience.

Berkeley officers have been authorized to use pepper spray to control violence for the first time in two decades after the city council modified a 1997 ban at an emergency meeting this week, the AP reported. To be sure, Shapiro appeared on campus last year without incident. But that, of course, was before President Donald Trump defeated Hillary Clinton, leading to a country-wide wave of political violence. Until recently, University officials had discouraged conservatives like Anne Coulter from speaking – prompting the cancellation of several events for security reasons – after Antifa protesters violently disrupted an appearance by conservative speaker Milo Yiannopoulos in February, causing $100,000 in damage. Police and UC Berkeley officials were criticized for their reluctance to intervene, giving demonstrators wide latitude to destroy the university’s campus.

This time, Berkeley’s chief of police is taking extra precautions.

“Berkeley city police chief Andrew Greenwood said officers would make "very strong, rapid arrests" of protesters wielding weapons and wearing masks.”

And as the Associated Press plainly states, the significance of this shift in relation to the broader repression of conservative voices cannot be understated.

“The city and campus at UC Berkeley have become a flashpoint for the country"s political divisions, drawing extremist groups from the left- and right-wing. Four political demonstrations have turned violent in Berkeley since February, prompting officers to come up with new strategies to control rowdy and sometimes dangerous crowds.”

Even the city’s mayor is acknowledging that the left is also capable of committing violent acts.

"We have seen extremists on the left and right in our city," said Berkeley Mayor Jesse Arreguin, a Democrat who backed the police request to use pepper spray. "We need to make sure violence is not allowed."

Shapiro was invited to speak by campus Republicans, who say the liberal university stifles the voice of conservative speakers.

Shapiro’s speech is the first in a series of conservative speakers. Later this month, Yiannopoulos plans to hold a "Free Speech Week" on campus with a lineup that includes Ann Coulter and Steve Bannon.

According to an activist who spoke with the San Francisco Chronicle, there is no official counter protest planned for the Shapiro event.

""There is no counterprotest planned for Ben Shapiro,’ said Meleiza Figueroa, a doctoral student at UC Berkeley whose protest cred dates back to the Occupy movement in 2011, when campus police struck her in the ribs with a nightstick as she linked arms with peaceful students hoping to set up tents."

Still, as the Chronicle points out, Antifa doesn’t always “check in” before showing up.  
 

Mike Rowe Eviscerates "Smug" Snowflake Who Calls Him A "White Nationalist"

If you ever plan to attack Mike Rowe over Facebook then you better bring more than just a few "smug and snarky" comments to the table because anything less than a well-sourced, reasoned, fact-based argument might just earn you the same public humiliation that Rowe just dropped on Chuck Atkins.  Oh, and your grammar better be spot on too.

Unfortunately, Chuck didn"t follow any of the guidelines above when he decided to write on Mike Rowe"s Facebook thread accusing him of being at "white nationalist" for having the audacity to suggest that a $200,000 college education may not be the "best" option for all American high school graduates. Apparently Chuck is convinced that helping people get high-paying, stable trade jobs is just racism at it"s worst...

In any event, here is what Chuck Atkins made the mistake of posting on Rowe"s Facebook page:

"One of the tenants of white nationalism is that college educated people are academic elitests. Comment? No? I"m not surprised. You never take a political stand because you don’t want to alienate anybody. Its bad for business. I get it. But there is a current of anti intellectualism in this country - promoted by Republicans. Those people love you, and they think your initiative is their initiative. Meanwhile, the rest of the world is kickin our ass academically."

Which prompted an epic, multi-page response from Rowe that started out as follows:

Hi Chuck

Since we’re being candid, allow me to say how much I dislike your post. Everything about it annoys me – your smug and snarky tone, your appalling grammar, your complete lack of evidence to support your claims, and of course, the overarching logical fallacy that informs your entire position. What really bugs me though, is the fact that you’re not entirely wrong. It’s true; I haven’t shared any political opinions this week, in part anyway, because doing so might very well be “bad for business.”

Rowe goes on to beautifully explain how logical fallacies, much like the one presented by Chuck Atkins, are largely to blame for the toxic political climate in the country right now. 

You say that White Nationalists believe that everyone who goes to college is an “academic elite.” You then say that Republicans promote “anti-intellectualism.” You offer no proof to support either claim, but it really doesn’t matter – your statements successfully connect two radically different organizations by alleging a shared belief. Thus, White Nationalists and The Republican Party suddenly have something in common – a contempt for higher education. Then, you make it personal. You say that Republicans “love” me because they believe that my initiative and “their” initiative are one and the same. But of course, “their” initiative is now the same initiative as White Nationalists.

Very clever. Without offering a shred of evidence, you’ve implied that Republicans who support mikeroweWORKS do so because they believe I share their disdain for all things “intellectual.” And poof - just like that, Republicans, White Nationalists, and mikeroweWORKS are suddenly conflated, and the next thing you know, I’m off on a press tour to disavow rumors of my troubling association with the Nazis!

Far-fetched? Far from it. That’s how logical fallacies work. A flaw in reasoning or a mistaken belief undermines the logic of a conclusion, often leading to real-world consequences. And right now, logical fallacies are not limited to the warped beliefs of morons with tiki torches, and other morons calling for “more dead cops.” Logical fallacies are everywhere.

As I type this, a Democrat on CNN is making an argument that says, “because Thomas Jefferson owned slaves, those Republicans now opposed to tearing down his memorial are “pro-slavery,” and therefore aligned with the modern day KKK.” That’s a logical fallacy.

Over on Fox, a Republican is arguing that “any Democrat who has not yet condemned the Senator from Missouri for publicly wishing that Donald Trump be assassinated, is guilty of wishing for the exact same thing.” That’s a logical fallacy.

Meanwhile, there were many other pearls of wisdom in Rowe"s epic rant.

Here"s a great one demonstrating how pretty much everything can be misconstrued to develop whatever narrative is convenient for any given party at any given time...

Want to hear another one? Imagine something like this, unfolding over on MSNBC.

"Good Evening, America, our top story tonight… Chuck Atkins is a racist! Why? Because he can’t spell. Just look at his grammar! In a recent post on Mike Rowe’s Facebook page, Mr. Atkins, while bemoaning America’s global academic standing, not only misspelled “elitist,” he used “tenants” when he meant “tenets.” He neglected to use a hyphen in “anti-intellectual,” and he misplaced several commas and apostrophes! But why is he a racist, you ask? Simple. Because everyone knows racists are ignorant. Chuck Atkins is clearly a poor speller. Poor spelling and grammar are signs of ignorance. Ergo - Chuck Atkins is a racist! Boom! The matter is settled!"

...and another on celebrities forcing their political opinions in our face...

What can I say? I work for half-a-dozen different companies, none of whom pay me to share my political opinions. I run a non-partisan foundation, I’m about to launch a new show on Facebook, and I’m very aware that celebrities pay a price for opening their big fat gobs. Gilbert Gottfried, Kathy Griffin, Colin Kaepernick, Milo Yiannopoulos…even that guy from Google who just got himself fired for mouthing off. There’s no getting around it – the first amendment does not guarantee the freedom to speak without consequences. And really, that’s fine by me.

So no – I’m not going to share my personal feelings about Charlottesville, President Trump, or the current effort to remove thousands of statues of long dead soldiers from the public square. Not just because it’s “bad for business,” but because it’s annoying. I can’t think of a single celebrity whose political opinion I value, and I’m not going to assume the country feels any differently about mine.

Conclusion:

Below is the full rant from Mike Rowe:

* * *

Hi Chuck

Since we’re being candid, allow me to say how much I dislike your post. Everything about it annoys me – your smug and snarky tone, your appalling grammar, your complete lack of evidence to support your claims, and of course, the overarching logical fallacy that informs your entire position. What really bugs me though, is the fact that you’re not entirely wrong. It’s true; I haven’t shared any political opinions this week, in part anyway, because doing so might very well be “bad for business.”

What can I say? I work for half-a-dozen different companies, none of whom pay me to share my political opinions. I run a non-partisan foundation, I’m about to launch a new show on Facebook, and I’m very aware that celebrities pay a price for opening their big fat gobs. Gilbert Gottfried, Kathy Griffin, Colin Kaepernick, Milo Yiannopoulos…even that guy from Google who just got himself fired for mouthing off. There’s no getting around it – the first amendment does not guarantee the freedom to speak without consequences. And really, that’s fine by me.

So no – I’m not going to share my personal feelings about Charlottesville, President Trump, or the current effort to remove thousands of statues of long dead soldiers from the public square. Not just because it’s “bad for business,” but because it’s annoying. I can’t think of a single celebrity whose political opinion I value, and I’m not going to assume the country feels any differently about mine. So, rather than blow myself up, or chime in with all the obvious observations about the cowardly scum in the pointy hats, I’m going to talk instead about my belief that comments like yours pose a far greater threat to the future of our country than the existence of a memorial to Thomas Jefferson, or a monument to George Washington. Ready? Let’s start with a closer look at your claims.

You say that White Nationalists believe that everyone who goes to college is an “academic elite.” You then say that Republicans promote “anti-intellectualism.” You offer no proof to support either claim, but it really doesn’t matter – your statements successfully connect two radically different organizations by alleging a shared belief. Thus, White Nationalists and The Republican Party suddenly have something in common – a contempt for higher education. Then, you make it personal. You say that Republicans “love” me because they believe that my initiative and “their” initiative are one and the same. But of course, “their” initiative is now the same initiative as White Nationalists.

Very clever. Without offering a shred of evidence, you’ve implied that Republicans who support mikeroweWORKS do so because they believe I share their disdain for all things “intellectual.” And poof - just like that, Republicans, White Nationalists, and mikeroweWORKS are suddenly conflated, and the next thing you know, I’m off on a press tour to disavow rumors of my troubling association with the Nazis!

Far-fetched? Far from it. That’s how logical fallacies work. A flaw in reasoning or a mistaken belief undermines the logic of a conclusion, often leading to real-world consequences. And right now, logical fallacies are not limited to the warped beliefs of morons with tiki torches, and other morons calling for “more dead cops.” Logical fallacies are everywhere.

As I type this, a Democrat on CNN is making an argument that says, “because Thomas Jefferson owned slaves, those Republicans now opposed to tearing down his memorial are “pro-slavery,” and therefore aligned with the modern day KKK.” That’s a logical fallacy.

Over on Fox, a Republican is arguing that “any Democrat who has not yet condemned the Senator from Missouri for publicly wishing that Donald Trump be assassinated, is guilty of wishing for the exact same thing.” That’s a logical fallacy.

Yesterday, on The Science Channel, Neil DeGrasse Tyson, a noted astronomer, tweeted that the ability of scientists to accurately predict the solar eclipse, was proof that predictions of global warming were also accurate. That’s a logical fallacy.

Want to hear another one? Imagine something like this, unfolding over on MSNBC.

"Good Evening, America, our top story tonight… Chuck Atkins is a racist! Why? Because he can’t spell. Just look at his grammar! In a recent post on Mike Rowe’s Facebook page, Mr. Atkins, while bemoaning America’s global academic standing, not only misspelled “elitist,” he used “tenants” when he meant “tenets.” He neglected to use a hyphen in “anti-intellectual,” and he misplaced several commas and apostrophes! But why is he a racist, you ask? Simple. Because everyone knows racists are ignorant. Chuck Atkins is clearly a poor speller. Poor spelling and grammar are signs of ignorance. Ergo - Chuck Atkins is a racist! Boom! The matter is settled!"

There’s not much we can do about the news, but here on Facebook, I think we can do better. This isn’t Twitter. We’re not limited to a few inflammatory sentences and a flurry of emojis. Take a moment, Chuck. Think. Make a rational argument. Otherwise, just link us to a cat video. People love those, and they’re almost never “bad for business.” (Unless of course, the cat gets hurt. People hate that.) Just don’t assume that people will care about your beliefs, if you’re not willing to back them up with some relevant facts and a rational conclusion. Here, for instance, are a few facts that matter to me, with respect to my foundation and the recurring charge of “fostering anti-intellectualism.”

mikeroweWORKS is a PR campaign for the skilled trades. For the last nine years, we’ve partnered with numerous trade schools, raised millions of dollars for work-ethic scholarships, and called attention to millions of jobs that don’t require a four-year degree. But that doesn’t mean we’re “anti-intellectual.” We"re not even “anti-college.” We simply reject the popular notion that a four-year degree is the best path for the most people. And we’re hardly alone.

Millions of reasonable people – Republicans and Democrats alike – are worried that our universities are doing a poor job of preparing students for the real world. They’re worried about activist professors, safe spaces, the rising cost of tuition, a growing contempt for history, and a simmering disregard of the first amendment. These people are concerned that our universities – once beacons of free speech – now pander to a relatively small percentage of students who can’t tolerate any political opinion that challenges their own. And they’re concerned – deeply concerned - that millions of good jobs are currently vacant that don’t require a four-year degree, or any of the catastrophic debt that comes with it.

Again - these are not the concerns of “anti-intellectuals." They are the concerns of people who care about the future of the country. I don’t know how many of these people are Republicans, but I can assure you that no one who actually supports my initiative is remotely confused about my feelings on education, because I’ve been crystal clear on that topic from the very beginning. To quote Thomas Jefferson, (while I still can,) "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free and live in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be." On this point, my foundation does not equivocate.

In other words, Chuck, I have no idea what The White Nationalists think about my efforts, or the Republicans, the Democrats, the elitists, the Italians, the Presbyterians, the unions, or the self-proclaimed anti-intellectuals. And really, I couldn’t care less. My question is, why do you?

Mike

PS. Ok, I’ve just re-read this, (in a desperate search for typos,) and I want to apologize for pointing out that you’re a lousy speller. This is probably not the time to trot out The Grammar Nazi, but your tenor and tone pissed me off, and I responded in my own snarky way. Sorry.

PPS Maybe this is how political correctness begins? Maybe we start by correcting each other’s grammar, and then move on to the business of correcting everything else? Today a missing hyphen, tomorrow a missing monument. Or, maybe not.