Image 01 Image 03

Protesters at NYU Lose Their Minds over Gavin McInnes Speech

Protesters at NYU Lose Their Minds over Gavin McInnes Speech

11 arrested

As Aleister pointed out this morning, you don’t have to like or care about a speaker to be concerned about the willingness to shut down speech deemed “offensive.”

Co-founder of Vice media Gavin McInnes was speaking to a College Republican club at NYU Thursday night when protesters stormed the lecture hall.

The New York Post reports:

McInnes, who left Vice in 2008, had been scheduled to talk to the NYU College Republicans at 7 p.m., and was later spotted on Periscope live video speaking at the podium and shouting at protesters, who managed to make it inside the venue.

“Whose campus? Our campus!” demonstrators yelled as McInnes attempted to speak.

“Shame! Shame! Shame!” the crowd added.

“Why are you repeating the same nonsense over and over?” McInnes asked at one point, before riling up the protesters even more.

After a few more minutes of back-and-forth, the controversial comedian appeared to end his speech early — telling an NYU spokesperson, “You’re a dumb liberal asshole” and “You think these are rational beings” — before storming away, NYU Local reports.

“Gavin has left the podium, doesn’t intend to come back,” the news source tweeted. “Leaves with aforementioned scathing remark to University spokesman.”

McInnes almost didn’t even make it inside on Thursday night, on account of the “antifa” protesters rushing him at the entrance, according to Gizmodo reporter Anna Merlan.

“Cops shoved them back, took a guy to the ground,” she tweeted. “Guy in a MAGA hat threw a punch.”

As McInnes entered, the unruly crowd chanted things like, “Nazi scum, your time has come,” while also lighting “Make America Great Again” hats on fire.

Eleven people were arrested.

A scene from the protest:

I cannot stand anything anyone connected to the alt-right has to say, but that’s no reason to condone squelching of their speech. There is nothing wrong with peaceful protest (see also: March for Life), but as it’s been said repeatedly, this is why Trump won — people are sick of a small minority imposing ideological homogenization through less than kind means.

Follow Kemberlee on Twitter @kemberleekaye


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


These demonstrations are the death-throes of the liberals… they are the minority and the majority is awake…

Protesters at NYU Lose Their Minds…

Well, OK. It wasn’t…like…MUCH of a loss. They had a very thin, gossamer thread-like attachment to their ‘minds’, according to all evidence.

Like Mila, this guy is a provocateur, which is SUPPOSED to be all edgy, trendy, and transgressive…unless you’re provoking from the RIGHT. THEN it’s taboo and subject to being crushed.

Both McInnes and Mila are practiced assholes who advertise as such, but that NEVER gives anyone the right to shut them down.

    Zachary in reply to Ragspierre. | February 3, 2017 at 9:57 pm

    One is a far more practiced asshole than the other.

    McInnes is a strange dude but I can tolerate him far more than Yiannopolis. Once Milo started calling Trump “daddy” I’d had enough.

Protesters at NYU Lose Their Minds…

Well, OK. It wasn’t…like…MUCH of a loss. They had a very thin, gossamer thread-like attachment to their ‘minds’, according to all evidence.

Like Mila, this guy is a provocateur, which is SUPPOSED to be all edgy, trendy, and transgressive…unless you’re provoking from the RIGHT. THEN it’s taboo and subject to being crushed.

Both McInnes and Mila are practiced assholes who advertise as such, but that NEVER gives anyone the right

Nothing is going to change unless these people are not only arrested, but charged, prosecuted and punished as harshly as allowed by the law.

This is not about shutting down conservative or non-liberal speech. It is simply a violent attack upon American society in an effort to destroy it. This is a highly organized, well-funded operation to disrupt a peaceful society and to cause a backlash against “demonstrators” identified as being liberal.

Easily 80% of the people in the US have no idea who Milo Yiannopolous is or what he says. And, probably less than 10% know who Gavin McInnes is. This is not a spontaneous demonstration by dissatisfied liberals. It is a terrorist attack against our society, meant to destabilize our nation. These are the same “protestors” who turned out for Occupy Wall Street, Ferguson and all the other BLM “demonstrations”. It is an organization of professional anarchists, not aggrieved liberals.

I warned shortly after Trump was elected to watch for a significant increase in violence at anti-Trump “demonstrations”. It will get worse, as Trump’s popularity increases. Watch for it.

“I cannot stand anything anyone connected to the alt-right has to say, but that’s no reason to condone squelching of their speech.”

This is a childish and stupid thing to say. The demonization of the “alt-right” has become ridiculous, whether from the right or the left. (I’m not even sure what anyone means by “alt-right” aside from “people who say things I don’t agree with.” It’s the hate speech of political thought.) The author’s point would be better made if she were to articulate those positions with which she disagrees (if she even knows), for I rather suspect that she does, in fact, share positions with some of the people characterized as alt-right, her hyperbolic protestations notwithstanding.

    Ragspierre in reply to Anonamom. | February 3, 2017 at 5:54 pm

    This is a childish and stupid thing to say.

    Yes, your comment was both of those.

    The alt-right is clearly defined and well documented by its members. Nobody can PRETEND otherwise, unless you just want to engage in “fake news”.

      LastRedoubt in reply to Ragspierre. | February 3, 2017 at 7:24 pm

      Milo is called an alt right white supremacist – yet he, and many others called such, are clearly not under any reasonable, objective definition.

      Not even the alt right agrees what it is, even though some, the fringe, may fit something similar to what the critics imagine the rest is.

      starride in reply to Ragspierre. | February 3, 2017 at 8:04 pm

      Please enlighten me sir.
      I am a 50 year old man that has traveled all over the USA and the world. I have never seen or heard a definition of what the Alt-Right is that made any sense at all. All I have ever seen has been pretty much anyone that is not left and does not agree with socialists view as being called alt-right.

        Ragspierre in reply to starride. | February 3, 2017 at 9:47 pm

        Read the link from LastRedoubt.

        Of course, LastRedoubt dissembles as to what it is, but it’s members don’t.

        It has certain unquestioned positions.

      The term “alt-right” is simply a manufactured identifier for groups or individuals which express philosophies which main stream conservatism, in the US, does not wish to embrace. Interestingly enough, most of these philosophies are not conservative in nature, but rather liberal.

      Take Neo-NAZIism, for example. Though people have been taught to believe that the NAZI party was conservative, it was not. In fact, given the society in Europe in the 1930s, NAZIism was extremely liberal. NAZI stands for the National Socialist Workers Party. Ideologically, it substituted the PARTY, for the nation. Allegiance was to be given to the NAZI party, which was expansionist and international in scope. It closely resembled the Communist Party in that respect. Economically, NAZIism believed in the control of industry and business by the state. This was in direct opposition to the conservative idea of private ownership and control of business and industry, which was prevalent at the time. While it did not advocate state ownership of industry, as the Communist party did, it demanded de facto ownership of the means of production through total government control of industry. And, the NAZIs engaged in the persecution of any group who they felt might present a danger to their control. This included both ethnic and religious groups. The communists did the same thing, with religious persecution being one of their hallmarks.The main reason why “scholars” classify NAZIism as a far-right group is because it fought against communism, when it wasn’t allied with Communist states, that it. But, it had many more similarities to communism than it had differences.

      Now, if the NAZI party was, in fact, a liberal organization, then all of the ideals which it embraced; nativism, ethnic and religious bigotry, sexual discrimination [both sexuality and gender based], etc.; would also be liberal. And, we see many of these same ideals embraced and practiced by communism and most countries dominated by the religion of Islam.

      So, people espousing the ideals of the falsely labeled alt-right groups are largely moonbats, they are really liberal moonbats, not conservatives. Conservatives would be those who support the mainstream principles historically practiced in the US, which are almost uniformly tolerant of others.

        Ragspierre in reply to Mac45. | February 4, 2017 at 12:20 pm

        You’re typically full of shit, Mac. Right up to your eyeballs.

        And gassy as ever!

          So, how is my post inaccurate? I am always willing to learn.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | February 4, 2017 at 12:52 pm

          Ragspierre | February 3, 2017 at 9:47 pm

          Read the link from LastRedoubt.

          Of course, LastRedoubt dissembles as to what it is, but it’s members don’t.

          It has certain unquestioned positions.

          Go and read up on other links on the subject. I have. It’s not like this is a mystery.

          Notice this sentence from section 1 of the article you posted:

          “Socialists are not Alt Right. Progressives are not Alt Right.”

          Now remember that the name of the NAZI party was the National SOCIALIST Workers Party. See that? The NAZIs were self identified SOCIALISTS. So, Neo-NAZIs would not be an alt-right group. It would be a liberal group.

          But, if you accept that the 16 points listed are, in fact, an accurate depiction of what constitutes the “alt-right”, then this describes most of the 45 million people who voted for Donald Trump.

          Oh, one thing that I have to take exception with is the notion, put forth by Russel Kirk, and quoted in this article, that liberalism and totalitarianism are exclusionary and at opposite ends of the political spectrum. I would submit that the totalitarian regimes of many communist countries; Russia, China, Cuba, North Vietnam, North Korea, Cambodia, etc.; clearly show that the liberalism of communism and totalitarian regimes seem well suited to each other.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | February 4, 2017 at 5:10 pm

          OK, let’s be honest here. Your use of terms is idiotic.

          All forms of Collectivism (Nazi, Communist, and Socialist) are first cousins, and all share certain basic characteristics.

          NONE are “liberal” in the classic sense, and so that term should NEVER be used in association with any of them.

          Neo-Nazis would just be Collectivists in one form, and they would not be Alt-righters (though they share some common traits).

          “But, if you accept that the 16 points listed are, in fact, an accurate depiction of what constitutes the “alt-right”, then this describes most of the 45 million people who voted for Donald Trump.”

          Utter and complete bullshit. What an amazing liar!

          Virtually NOBODY who is a conservative believes ONE of those points if clearly understood.

          “The Alt Right is an ALTERNATIVE to the mainstream conservative movement in the USA that is nominally encapsulated by Russel Kirk’s 10 Conservative Principles, but in reality has devolved towards progressivism. It is also an alternative to libertarianism.”

          In addition to being ONE of the gobbledygook statements of pure nonsense by the Alt-right, conservatives take VIOLENT exception to the lie that we are “devolving towards progressivism”. That’s simply stupid.

          This crap is like your bloviations elsewhere on this thread. Nazis were viciously nationalistic where the Soviet communists were internationalists.

          I’m always impressed by your stupid.

          LastRedoubt in reply to Ragspierre. | February 4, 2017 at 6:23 pm

          How have I lied, Rags?

          First of all, NAZIism and Fascism are not collectivist. Private ownership is still the basis of the economic society. However, all of the society, including the economic sector, is rigidly controlled by the state government. Communism, while calling for total equality and collective ownership of property, proved to be nothing more than the ownership and control of all property and control of every aspect of society by an small elite. In practice, there was never much difference in Communism or NAZIism, as practiced.

          And, both are “liberal” in terms of the early 20th Century. By the 1930s, Western Europe and North America had solidly adopted the Capitalistic philosophy, in which, private ownership and control of property was a key component. And, it worked incredibly well. So, any philosophy which stresses either collective ownership of private property or state control of private property would NOT have been conservative, but rather liberal. What has happened in the late 20th Century was that “liberal” was redefined. Probably by liberals to make it more palatable to the masses. It meant and still means open to NEW ideas. Fascisim, NAZIism and Communism were all “new” ideas in terms of the thinking of the late 19th and early 20th Centuries. And none of them worked particularly well.

          Both Communism and NAZIism had international goals. Communism was supposed to be encouraged to erupt in various nations, through the use of violent revolution. But it was supposed to be controlled by the leaders of the Comintern in Moscow. The NAZIs took a more direct approach and simply set out to conquer the world through military might, ruling from Berlin. Not much difference there.

          Now, let’s take a look at American Conservatism. The 16 points in the article are almost pure Goldwater Conservatism. And that was the gold standard [pun intended] of American Conservative thought. And, these conservative attitudes had been in place in the US since the 1870s. Laize faire capitalism, small government, weak regulation and restrictions, patriotic nationalism, private ownership of property. etc., were all part of American Conservatism. Then came the Reagan Years. This began the co-opting of the American Conservative movement by the global progressives. Previously, the Democrat Party had been the traditional home of the Progressive movement [FDR was a notable example]. Over the next 30 years, the Democrat Party became the liberal wing of the Progressive movement while the Republican Party became the moderate wing of the Progressives. The Republican conservative leadership began to sound more like FDR every year. The true conservatives, in that party, were largely ignored and dropped from sight. A notable exception was the Tea Party movement, which was at odds with the Republican conservative leadership. The true conservative does NOT embrace Progressivism. He, or she, is largely focused on small non-intrusive government, low taxes, capitalistic freedom, low levels of regulation on the individual and business and FREEDOM. Yep, freedom is the big bugaboo for Modern Progressives. The basic tenet of modern Progressivism is that the common man is too stupid to take care of himself and, therefor, his life must be heavily regulated. Modern Conservatism espouses increased government, increased regulation, decreased personal responsibility. In short it supports a welfare state in one form or another. Don’t think so” Just look at all of the self-styled Conservative politicians in any government in the USA. All support these things. Not a one makes any attempt to reduce government, taxes, spending or regulation and all work diligently with their liberal counterparts to grow government, increase taxes, spending and regulations. So, you Concervatives can take “exception” to the statement that you are embracing Progressivism, but if it walks like a duck, sounds like a duck… You get it. Hence the rise of the Deplorables, the true conservatives.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | February 5, 2017 at 8:56 am

          Wow, Mac. ALLLLLLLLL that gassing, just to wind up with that farcical lie…!!!


          LastRedoubt in reply to Ragspierre. | February 5, 2017 at 10:11 am

          You call that a lie as well, yet merely make assertions about honesty and truth without backing them up.

          What have “conservatives” preserved- beyond “sort of” guns? The Panama Canal? Control of our borders we were promised decades ago? Health care? Freedom of association to not have bakers hounded out of their livelihoods, or tech CEOs driven out for contributing to a cause the president agreed with at the time? Freedom of speech? Our bathrooms?

          The government, the EPA, the ATF, the social services, the feminist assumptions about men informing them encroach into more and more of our lives every year.

          So what have they “conserved”?

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | February 5, 2017 at 10:27 am

          If you can’t read through Mac’s multiple bullshit assertions and identify them, I can’t help you.

          And, if you can’t separate events from principle, you wouldn’t get any part of what being a conservative is about.

          T-rump is a Progressive (Collectivist). He’s just one with a different emphasis.

          LastRedoubt in reply to Ragspierre. | February 5, 2017 at 4:43 pm

          Got it.

          You call me a liar.

          You call him a liar.

          I ask you to back up your assertions, and a couple other questions, and you answer none of them, but make more assertions.

          Go ahead and believe I’m stupid. You may want to consider that I’ve likely done far more reading than you, am likely an expert at more fields than you, and also that my family includes more than a few Birchers and Goldwater types, of which I count myself as one – so yeah, I know conservatives.

          In the meantime, since all you can do is assert, and cannot defend your claims, you can piss off.

FWIW – there’s the “alt right” and the alt right. Milo’s taxonomy on it is generally OK, and yes, there are some “alt white” types within it that think they are the original, true, and only “alt right”

and yes, they can be… overly focused… at times on just one or two topics. The predictable ones.

And even they don’t deserve to be slugged for speaking their piece. And since “slugging nazis” is being promoted as “OK” – well, to them we’re ALL nazis, even if we hate racists, and totalitarian leftist thugs.

The broader alt-right , call it “alt west” if you will, may still think that it’s important, given calls to “kill whites” that can easily be found on signage in heavily liberal areas, on twitter, and at BLM protests that are glossed over as “peaceful”, to remind people that yes, white people also deserve to be around and have kids, etc., but that’s just one of 16 or so issues they look at and share. The alternative, as uncomfortable as it is to say “whites have a right to be proud/survive too” when we’ve grown up being taught “white pride” is defined as racist and “black | mexican | whatever” pride as a good thing, is to then condone that whites do NOT.

For thought, the sixteen points can be found at vox day’s site –

Keep in mind, he’s part mexican, part indian feather, not dot).

Riot batons to theirs heads (bullets, if necessary) and then prison. Hey, those FEMA camps and all that ammo Obama made the feds purchase may come in handy after all.

    That would feel good, but that is what these anatifa types are all about – doing whatever feels good at the moment, not what makes sense or will actually help us in the long run.

    We always have to focus on what is truly important – that’s what any group that wishes to accumulate and hold political power has to do at all times. What is important is winning elections, holding offices, and controlling the flow of legislation,, judicial appointments, etc.

    What is NOT important are most protests, especially these. Protests are not important unless they truly threaten the things you need to accomplish your true goals. For example, protests in the 60’s against LBJ mattered because they were a revolt against him by part of his own base, which is what forced him to retire early. The current protests, however, unite the GOP even more while driving divisions into the enemy. They are not only useless to them, they may even turn out to be very helpful to us in the long run – so, let them go on.

    Similarly, what McGinns would have said last night, if he had been allowed to speak, would have attracted very little attention and been fairly meaningless in the big picture. However, the video of the way he was treated, combined with the Berzerkely madness, are pre-made campaign ads for every conservative running for a Senate seat in a red state in 2018. Simply run a short clip of that behavior, overlaid at the end with the logo “THIS IS WHAT YOUR DEMOCRAT SENATOR SUPPORTS”

    Hello, +10 senate gain in 2018, and hello, 62 seat GOP majority. I say that we should of course put on our sad faces and talk in apocalyptic tones about how terrible this is for our future – but in reality, this kind of insanity is a birds nest on the ground for us.

The problem with the idea that this violent Brownshirtism is centrally controlled and, basically, intelligently directed is that it’s entirely pointless.

The object of physical attack is to prevent a speaker from being heard, by—

• closing the venue before he hase a chance to say anything (riots)

• causing the venue to refuse to allow the speech for fear of the inevitable property damage (riots)

• driving off anyone who might hear the speech (riots)

• drowning out the speech with noise (other speeches, bullhorns, “rock concerts”, drum circles)

• injuring or killing the speaker so that he can’t say anything

The last of these—the full “Depression-era Germany” effect—might be the sort of fun which would bring the “grassroots” out, but it’s not terribly likely from even the Left here in America … maybe.

But the others are effective only in a world which relies on primitive word-of-mouth for all communication. Once newspapers, radio, TV, computer networks exist, mob violence can’t do the job that effective censorship requires.

Although there seems to be no benefit to these antics, there is a down side, and that is that we’ve seen it before. It may get some of our older voters all misty-eyed, reliving their misspent childhoods and pining for some sort of “happening”, maybe even dreaming that the WayBack Machine can take the world back to the Summer of Love … at the risk that others, who didn’t fry their intellects by “inhaling” the first time around, will realize that the machine’s controls aren’t set to 1967, but to 1933.

So … it seems unlikely that The Illuminati are behind this stuff. Even lesser lights such as, say, Soros must realize that it’s self-defeating for an essentially fascistic group to advertise the fact that it is indeed fascistic. And that leaves only smaller, dumber, and less dangerous groups—BLM, BDS, or, hell, I don’t know, PETA—behind it. The alternative is that it really is spontaneous; a fairly small bunch of people as dumb and nasty as Sarah Silverman but not so rich & lazy.

    Tom Servo in reply to tom swift. | February 3, 2017 at 6:54 pm

    With your talk of the 30’s depression era, and also all of this 2nd civil war discussion lately, I was suddenly reminded of Karl Marx’s famous observation about the hapless Louis Napoleon, comparing him to the original Napoleon:

    “History repeats itself, the first time as tragedy, the second time as farce.”

    Marx wasn’t always wrong.

    Well, your arguments not withstanding, these demonstrations ARE centrally organized and funded. The amount of central control is arguable, but there have been reliable documented sightings of the same people in a number of similar demonstrations nationwide, as well as reliable intelligence that many of these demonstrators are paid participants.

    While many, if not most, of the demonstrators at these functions are simply people who wish to march and make noise, either to protest an idea that they do not agree with or to find recognition as a part of a group; there is an organized and funded faction whose sole purpose is to create fear among the residents of the US. These we’ll call the anarchists, though their endgame is still murky. The purpose of their activities is to disrupt a peaceful society and to cause division among the populist. This did not start with the inauguration or even election of Donald Trump. It was going on all through the Obama administration [Occupy Wall Street, the WTO demonstrations, BLM demonstrations, etc.].

    The whole point of all of this is disruption. And, the “anarchists” will use any demonstration by the loony left to camouflage their activities.

Sorry to be off topic but can anyone weigh in here on the news that a Federal Judge in WA temporarily stopped Trump’s travel ban. Can he do that? What happens next? Thanks!

Trigglyprof is Rebecca Goyette, a low level artist best known for cheesy lobster porn videos, not a professor of anything. And look who did the legwork and found the answer. The Russians!