Portland Rose Parade Cancelled Amid Violent Threats From Anti-Fa: "You've Seen How Much Power We Have... Police Can't Stop Us"

Authored by Mac Slavo via SHTFplan.com,

For a bunch of peace loving, tolerance spewing social justice warriors, it sure does appear that the new “progressive” movement in America is rapidly turning to Bolshevik tactics to force their will upon a free and non-violent people.

The latest example of a society on the brink of civil war comes to us from Portland, Oregon, where every year the 82nd Avenue of Roses Business Association kicks of the city’s annual Rose Festival with a family-friendly parade.

Except this year, there will be no parade. Organizers have cancelled the event amid threats of violence from groups referring to themselves as “Anti-Fascist.” According to The Washington Post, the reasoning behind the threats is reportedly outrage over the fact that the county’s Republican Party was given one of the nearly 100 spots in the parade.

Then came an anonymous and ominous email, according to parade organizers, that instructed them to cancel the GOP group’s registration — or else.

“You have seen how much power we have downtown and that the police cannot stop us from shutting down roads so please consider your decision wisely,” the anonymous email said, referring to the violent riots that hit Portland after the 2016 presidential election, reported the Oregonian. “This is nonnegotiable.”

The email said that 200 people would “rush into the parade” and “drag and push” those marching with the Republican Party.

“We will not give one inch to groups who espouse hatred toward LGBT, immigrants, people of color or others,” it said.

Earlier this month we reported that members of the so-called anti-fascist, left leaning progressive movements are preparing for war by organizing combat fighting classes and even going so far as to suggest it’s time to start bringing guns to such protests as a show of force:

In short, as predicted, they are turning to militancy and mob action by mobilizing individuals and groups to attend combat training seminars, acquiring better equipment like baseball bats and helmets, and of course, if things really go bad… guns.

Yes, we seemed to have lost today. The alt-right held their ground. If we wanna take action against them, we need to be better organized and better trained. It doesn’t help that it’s only the far left opposing them, any trump supporter can be radicalized far easier than any liberal.

I hope we learn from today

…

A shocking number of our comrades went in there with absolute no combat training. We need to set up seminars or something of the sort.

…

We also need better equipment

Full report: There Will Be Blood: Left Prepares For War After Berkeley Beat Down: “Combat Training, Better Equipment, Guns…”

While these folks may think silencing the free speech of political ideologies contrary to theirs through violence is a means to a worthy end, it was the Bolshevik ideology, similar to what we’re seeing from “comrades”  in the anti-fascist movement, that eventually gave way to one of the world’s most brutal dictators and was responsible for the deaths of, quite literally, over 100 million people in the 20th century.

On another and perhaps equally interesting note, we’ll mention the fact that for years the Department of Homeland Security and domestic law enforcement agencies had warned Americans that it was lone wolves with conservative values who stockpiled guns, food, bibles and peacefully protested government overreach who were, by officials and congressional members, deemed terrorists.

In fact, there were a variety of identifiers used to qualify an American citizen as a potential domestic terrorist:

So how does a person qualify as a potential domestic terrorist?  Based on the training I have attended, here are characteristics that qualify:

• Expressions of libertarian philosophies (statements, bumper stickers)


• Second Amendment-oriented views (NRA or gun club membership, holding a CCW permit)


• Survivalist literature (fictional books such as “Patriots” and “One Second After” are mentioned by name)


• Self-sufficiency (stockpiling food, ammo, hand tools, medical supplies)


• Fear of economic collapse (buying gold and barter items)


• Religious views concerning the book of Revelation (apocalypse, anti-Christ)


• Expressed fears of Big Brother or big government


• Homeschooling


• Declarations of Constitutional rights and civil liberties


• Belief in a New World Order conspiracy

We wonder if similar classifications will be assigned to those who threaten families and children at parades?

"As Ye Sow..."

Submitted by Robert Gore via Straight Line Logic blog,

Our deranged world is a product of deranged minds.

Philosophy begins with invariably difficult questions. Why am I here? What is the purpose of life? Is there a god or gods? What is right and what is wrong? How should groups of people be organized and function together? Ironically, when such questions are infrequently asked, when philosophy is generally ignored or disparaged, as it is now, is when it’s needed the most.

Political philosophy is the branch that addresses the question of how coercive power is to be distributed in a society. It’s a knotty issue, but one question provides clarification, enabling further analysis and leading to useful conclusions. Who owns a political unit’s resources? This question differentiates between governments that protect individual rights and property and those that don’t. It also highlights a key problem: on planet earth, every government falls into the latter category.

The United States’ founding documents pay tribute to individual rights and private properly. Some of the founders may have thought they were establishing a government subordinated to protection of individual rights, which would have been an historical first. However, none thought such a government would be easy to maintain, and their fears were borne out. The US government places prominently on the inglorious list of governments claiming ownership over everything within their dominion, defined as any place where they can exercise their coercive power.

To those who say the institution of inviolate private property still exists in the US, what asset can the US government not seize? The income tax gives it first claim on income. No real estate is exempt from eminent domain. Intellectual property claims are at the sufferance of the patent, trademark, and copyright authorities. Financial assets held within the banking system can be “bailed in,” and plans are afoot to ban cash. The already extensive range of assets subjected to civil asset forfeiture continues to expand. More ominously, assets can be seized from parties never adjudicated guilty. Conscription grants to the government the lives of the conscripted. The US government is no exception to the general rule, nothing is inviolate expect perhaps a person’s thoughts, and undoubtedly it’s working on that.

Individuals who assert the right to initiate aggression against whomever they choose are philosophically unhinged, candidates for an asylum or a penitentiary. Rejecting the first principle that must guide human interaction—that no one may rightfully initiate force against another person—such individuals have no rational foundation for their thoughts or actions. The “garbage in” of their philosophical premises produces “garbage out” emotional states, mental processes, and ultimately, lives. Having abandoned reason for coercion and violence, reality becomes a chaotic, incomprehensible void.

Governments’ coercive power allow them to take: might makes right. A philosophy that recognized a right of some individuals to steal from others fails on first principles; there is no logical distinction possible between the privileged and the subjugated. Does the aggregation of individuals into a unit which calling itself a government give them a right which none of them have individually? One could say that the aggregate was for the protection of its constituents’ persons, property, and rights, but a government so limited is acting as their constituents’ subordinate agent, exercising and enhancing their right of self-defense. Efforts have been made, notably the American experiment, but no government has ever been restricted in this manner.

No matter its guiding “ism,” every government has granted itself the power to initiate violence against its citizens. Just because the ruling agglomerate asserts this privilege doesn’t render it philosophically valid. What it does is legitimate the initiation of violence for any and all causes—domestic and foreign—the government deems proper.

Having violated the first principle of nonaggression, nothing can stop that philosophical default from trickling down to the subject population. The ragged thief who holds up a liquor store lacks the polish and articulation of the politician who asserts the government’s first claim on a nation’s production, the central banker who depreciates its currency, or the general bent on global dominance who wages offensive wars, but philosophically they’re soul mates. In fact, the thief has a moral one up on the others: he doesn’t claim to be protecting the values he destroys.

Millions have decried the violence that prevented Milo Yiannopoulos from speaking at the University of California at Berkeley, just as millions on the other side decried mostly illusory violence among Trump supporters during the campaign. However, not one in a thousand of those denouncing the violence as violations of fundamental civil liberties denounce the daily violations of fundamental liberties visited upon them by their own government. America’s corruption is so complete that those who insist that they are not fodder for the government, that their lives are their own, and that the only proper government is one subordinated to the protection of their individual rights—and maintain positions consistent with those principles—could hold a convention and not fill a high-school gym.

This small group is the victim of a terrifying pincer movement from above and below. When a society abandons itself to violence, “legal” and otherwise, it abandons itself to mindless irrationality driven by hate and antipathy towards every positive value. Violence is not a means to any end other than destruction and death; violence itself is the end. Humanity has been fed the same tripe for centuries: noble ends justify evil means. Violation of the first principle—the stricture against initiated aggression—bars consideration of the purported ends. A “discussion” with a gun is no discussion. Violence exercised in self-defense protects positive values, but when violence is initiated, destruction, death, and the depraved pleasure of loathsome minds are its only ends.

An individual who claims by word or deed the right to initiate violence - and the consequent rights to subjugate, injure, and kill - is a rabid, deranged, and dangerous animal. A government that asserts that right is a pack. In self-defense, the virtuous, if they are to protect their liberty, rights, and lives, must quarantine or kill the rabid. A necessary corollary of the stricture against initiated aggression is that we have the right to use all means necessary to defend ourselves from it—with pity, perhaps, but no remorse.

The chaos, the terror, of our deteriorating world is a true and faithful reflection of souls abandoned to hate. The free mind and its methods—intrepid curiosity, truth, and logic—stand as their ultimate enemy. If those who would oppose this destruction and death abandon their souls, they become the mindless evil they opposed. Those who defend their rights, values, and lives without surrendering their morality will rebuild from the rubble the kind of world in which they deserve to live. They will do so unobstructed—hate inevitably leads to its own destruction.