<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/trump-says-doj-should-spill-all-its-secrets-about-mar-a-lago-raid-after-repeated-leaks-to-media/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Former President Trump</a>’s disastrous dinner with Ye West last week <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/trump-meets-with-white-supremacist-and-holocaust-denier-nick-fuentes-trump-denies-knowing-him/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">was crashed by a pair of alt-right pariahs</a> out to make his “life miserable,” according to an <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/story-trumps-explosive-dinner-ye-nick-fuentes-rcna59010" target="_blank" rel="noopener">inside account by NBC News</a>.
Trump is being heavily criticized by Democrats and Republicans alike for the November 22 meeting at his Mar-a-Lago home in Florida. But the former president said he only agreed to meet with the embattled West, and did not know the two controversial men who tagged along&#8212;anti-Trump provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos and white supremacist and Holocaust denier <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/trump-meets-with-white-supremacist-and-holocaust-denier-nick-fuentes-trump-denies-knowing-him/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Nick Fuentes</a>.
In interviews with NBC, both Yiannopoulos and Fuentes all but confirmed it was a setup designed to tarnish Trump. Yiannopoulos told NBC News he was “the architect” of the scheme to slip Fuentes into the dinner with Trump.
“I … wanted to send a message to Trump that he has systematically repeatedly neglected, ignored, abused the people who love him the most, the people who put him in office, and that kind of behavior comes back to bite you in the end,” Yiannopoulos said, adding that he arranged the dinner “just to make Trump’s life miserable,” knowing the former president would draw fire for the get-together.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Milo Yiannopoulos was reportedly over $2 million in debt. 
He also vowed “vengeance” against President Trump and called for burning the party to the ground.
Explains why he’s now leeching onto Ye. <a href="https://t.co/oQpjmKr4HB">pic.twitter.com/oQpjmKr4HB</a>
&mdash; Greg Price (@greg_price11) <a href="https://twitter.com/greg_price11/status/1597441550266830848?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 29, 2022</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
The Anti-Defamation League has described Fuentes as a &#8220;white supremacist leader and organizer.&#8221; Yiannopoulos is a onetime Breitbart editor who has claimed on Parler he &#8220;lost everything&#8221; helping Trump get elected, but says he was &#8220;betrayed&#8221; and has vowed to exact vengeance.
After the NBC report was posted, Fuentes denied he was part of a plot to make Trump look bad.
&#8220;My intention was not to hurt Trump by attending the dinner, that is fake news,&#8221; Fuentes <a tabindex="0" href="https://t.me/nickjfuentes/9438" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener" data-t="{&quot;n&quot;:&quot;destination&quot;,&quot;t&quot;:13,&quot;b&quot;:1,&quot;c.t&quot;:7}">said on Telegram</a>. &#8220;I love Donald Trump.&#8221;
Trump had agreed to meet with onetime supporter Ye, whose anti-Semitic statements in several interviews have cost him lucrative business deals and his billionaire status, according to the report. But when Ye arrived at Mar-a-Lago with Yiannopoulos, Fuentes, Karen Giorno, a member of Trump’s 2016 campaign team, and a man West has described as a parent of a student that attended his now-defunct private school, the host appeared to be “walking into a trap,” the report said.
During the meal, Ye reportedly criticized Trump for not doing enough to help jailed January 6 riot participants and told Trump he might run for president against him, cheekily inviting Trump to be his running mate. Although the dinner conversation reportedly left Trump angry, West immediately went about publicizing it to his 32 million Twitter followers.
“Trump is really impressed with Nick Fuentes,” Ye said in a video posted to the platform.
One source close to Trump told NBC it was a stunt orchestrated to hurt Trump.
“Trump was totally blindsided,” the source said of Fuentes’ presence. “It was a setup.”
Many of Trump’s defenders reject the idea that he sympathizes with the views of the trio, but have nonetheless questioned how they were allowed to pull off what appeared to be a made-for-media ambush. Trump, who earlier this month announced a 2024 White House bid, has put in place new vetting procedures and gatekeeping efforts, NBC reported.
Trump reportedly reserved his rage over the incident for West, accusing the rap and fashion mogul of betraying him.
“He tried to f&#8212; me. He’s crazy. He can’t beat me,” Trump said, according to one confidant.

Former U.S. President Donald Trump  Makes An Announcement At His Florida Home

‘It Was A Setup’: NBC Report Details How West, Yiannopoulos ‘Blindsided’ Trump

'It Was A Setup': NBC Report Details How West, Yiannopoulos 'Blindsided' Trump

Donald Trump

Kanye West

Mar-a-Lago

Milo Yiannopoulos

Politics

Joe Rogan said that what it means to be a liberal has changed, arguing that the term had come to be all about &#8220;people that want censorship,&#8221; &#8220;people that are intolerant of other people&#8217;s ideas,&#8221; and more.
During &#8220;The Joe Rogan Experience&#8221; <a href="https://open.spotify.com/episode/69kcWr8DD5Ifbk1QdCNeu0?si=X8Z3eQi4Q_ScTxPhuNGu_w">podcast</a> on Tuesday, <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/f-that-joe-rogan-says-if-he-has-to-walk-on-eggshells-on-his-show-he-will-quit">Rogan</a> spoke to his guest MMA fighter Jake Shields, and Rogan definitely sounded like he was unsure exactly what group he belonged in anymore because he said he had identified his whole life as a liberal. He explained that being liberal now means thinking it&#8217;s &#8220;fine to insult people and to be like really aggressive&#8221; to them. It starts at the 1:27:16 minute mark <a href="https://open.spotify.com/episode/69kcWr8DD5Ifbk1QdCNeu0?si=X8Z3eQi4Q_ScTxPhuNGu_w">here</a>.
Shields agreed and said the &#8220;current liberals have turned really weird.&#8221; He explained he doesn&#8217;t consider himself &#8220;conservative still&#8221; but instead independent because he said these &#8220;parties they do things&#8221; he just can&#8217;t associate with.
&#8220;They seem a lot more intolerant,&#8221; Shields said.
&#8220;My parents were hippies,&#8221; Rogan explained. &#8220;It&#8217;s like there&#8217;s a difference between what liberal meant then and what it includes now. It includes now people that want military action. It includes now people that want censorship.&#8221;
&#8220;It includes now people that are intolerant to other people&#8217;s ideas,&#8221; he added. &#8220;And people that think it&#8217;s fine to insult people and to be like really aggressive and sh***y to people online.&#8221;
Shields interjected and said they appeared to believe it was acceptable to &#8220;physically attack&#8221; a person too. He said he first started following politics after a visit to Berkeley, California, recalling that &#8220;antifa were there&#8230;beating people up&#8221; over Milo Yiannopoulos&#8217; speech.
Rogan said during former President Donald Trump&#8217;s time in office, &#8220;antifa&#8221; and militant activists were &#8220;tolerated by people on the left&#8221; — and he added that at times they had seemed to be the &#8220;thug branch of the left.&#8221;
Later in the show, the host swung back around to the topic and pointed out another crazy thing these &#8220;lefties&#8221; wanted — to  &#8220;defund the police.&#8221; Rogan referred to calls to defund police as something &#8220;white liberals&#8221; thought was &#8220;cute to say.&#8221; It starts at the 1:30:10 minute mark.
&#8220;That&#8217;s the thing too, right, all this defund the police thing,&#8221; Rogan shared, noting the rise in crime in response. &#8220;That was one of the weird things about lefties, is that all of the sudden they wanted to defund the police. I was like, what are you talking about?&#8221;
&#8220;It was also a lot of white liberals, it was a cute thing to say,&#8221; he added after his guest said it was Black Lives Matter that was really pushing that narrative. &#8220;They wanted to say &#8216;defund the police.'&#8221;

Joe Rogan

Joe Rogan Slams Current Liberals Who Now ‘Want Censorship,’ ‘People That Are Intolerant To Other People’s Ideas’ And More

Censorship

Conservatives

Liberals

Joe Rogan said nothing drives him more crazy than people who are calling for censorship on social media, arguing that when people insist on removing thoughts they disagreed with that&#8217;s &#8220;not discourse, that&#8217;s propaganda.&#8221;
During &#8220;The Joe Rogan Experience&#8221; <a href="https://open.spotify.com/episode/0EGUBSTWebFwgzfr96q2Ci?si=ypa7AoRrR_G-MjosDRB8Aw">podcast</a> Tuesday, the <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/f-that-joe-rogan-says-if-he-has-to-walk-on-eggshells-on-his-show-he-will-quit">host</a> spoke with playwright and filmmaker David Mamet, and the two talked about what can be done to stop censorship on sites like Twitter, Facebook and YouTube. The two also discussed how people calling for censoring of things they disagree with are pushing toward an &#8220;authoritarian dictatorship.&#8221; It starts at the 44:24 minute mark of the show <a href="https://open.spotify.com/episode/0EGUBSTWebFwgzfr96q2Ci?si=S5ln5GF_T0qhQHpmIJqTDQ">here</a>.
The host and Mamet talked about how people celebrated &#8220;certain people&#8221; getting removed from Twitter — like Alex Jones and Milo Yiannopoulos. Rogan said that even back then he had warned people where this kind of thing would lead.
&#8220;Do you understand that once they start censoring for what they believe is something that&#8217;s objectionable &#8230; it&#8217;s going to keep going further and further,&#8221; Rogan shared. &#8220;And they are going to keep moving the goal post.&#8221;
&#8220;Then eventually it&#8217;s going to come to you,&#8221; he added. &#8220;And you&#8217;re not going to be Left enough. And you might be a really left-wing Democrat like Bill Maher. Like they&#8217;re coming for Bill Maher all the time now.&#8221;
Mamet added or like Sarah Silverman who thought &#8220;wait, wait, wait it&#8217;s my own party.&#8221;
&#8220;It doesn&#8217;t matter, you are on the censorship train,&#8221; the host shared. &#8220;And there&#8217;s only so many stops before it gets to your f***ing house.&#8221;
&#8220;But as soon as you start saying &#8216;I want to only hear thoughts that I agree with,'&#8221; he added. &#8220;Well, that’s not discourse, that&#8217;s propaganda. You want only your side to be represented, which is crazy, and that’s what&#8217;s happening on social media.&#8221;
Later in the show, the podcast host and his guest came back around to the conversation about how some want to rework &#8220;the First Amendment&#8221; and Rogan warned &#8220;the goal posts keep moving until you&#8217;re living in an authoritarian dictatorship.&#8221; That comment comes at the 1:29:14 minute mark.
&#8220;Where anything that you say if it doesn&#8217;t go with the party line you have grave consequences,&#8221; Rogan added.
Mamet and Rogan continued talking about censorship, and the host asked what could be done to stop censorship on social media sites — other than someone like <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/breaking-elon-musk-becomes-twitters-largest-shareholder-after-shakeup-tease">Elon Musk</a> becoming Twitter&#8217;s largest shareholder. That comes at the 1:43:09 minute mark.
&#8220;The worst thing we can do is just start deciding what can and can&#8217;t be discussed when people disagree about that,&#8221; Rogan said. &#8220;If you say &#8216;nope I&#8217;m in control. This is my private company and I&#8217;m not going to allow you to discuss certain political ideologies or social ideas. You can&#8217;t f***ing do that.&#8221;
Mamet followed that by saying that if the people didn&#8217;t have free speech, they didn&#8217;t &#8220;have anything in this country.&#8221;

Joe Rogan 406-2

‘That’s Not Discourse, That’s Propaganda’: Joe Rogan Blows Up On People Who Call For Censorship On Social Media

Bill Maher

Social Media Censorship

Without giving a warning or any specific reason, Facebook purged a number of &#8220;<a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2019/05/instagram-and-facebook-ban-far-right-extremists/588607/">far-right extremists</a>&#8221; from its platform this week. Paul Joseph Watson, Milo Yiannopolous, Alex Jones, and Laura Loomer were all summarily banished. Louis Farrakhan was also given the boot &#8212; though he is not, despite media claims, in any way &#8220;far-right.&#8221;
This ban reaches farther than anything we&#8217;ve yet seen. Facebook and Instagram will neither allow links to their content nor mentions of any events they attend. According to the <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2019/05/instagram-and-facebook-ban-far-right-extremists/588607/">The Atlantic</a>, the only Infowars content permitted on either platform is that which expressly condemns Infowars:
<blockquote>
Infowars is subject to the strictest ban. Facebook and Instagram will remove any content containing Infowars videos, radio segments, or articles (unless the post is explicitly condemning the content), and Facebook will also remove any groups set up to share Infowars content and events promoting any of the banned extremist figures, according to a company spokesperson. (Twitter, YouTube, and Apple have also banned Jones and Infowars.)
</blockquote>
The social media conglomerate offered only vague justifications for this move. It claimed that the targeted people are guilty of &#8220;hate&#8221; and &#8220;violence,&#8221; and are therefore &#8220;dangerous.&#8221; As for evidence of this dangerous hate and violence, it gave only a few rather bizarre examples. From the <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-48142098">BBC</a>:
<blockquote>
It said Alex Jones had hosted on his programme Gavin McInnes, leader of the Proud Boys, whose members are known for racist, anti-Muslim and misogynistic rhetoric. Mr McInnes has been designated a &#8220;hate figure&#8221; by Facebook.
Facebook said this year Milo Yiannopoulos had publicly praised both Mr McInnes and English Defence League founder Tommy Robinson, both banned from the network.
Laura Loomer also appeared with Mr McInnes, and Facebook said she also praised another banned figure, Faith Goldy, a Canadian.
Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan was banned for making several anti-Semitic remarks earlier this year.
</blockquote>
Apparently it is a violation of Facebook&#8217;s policies to speak positively anywhere in public about people Facebook doesn&#8217;t like. Yiannopolous has been banned not for promoting Gavin McInnes on Facebook, but for expressing positive opinions about him in public. Can I then be banned for writing this article questioning the decision to ban these newly dubbed &#8220;hate figures?&#8221; I suppose I&#8217;ll find out soon enough.
Indeed, it is impossible to know ahead of time whether you are operating according to the rules or in defiance of them, because the rules are intentionally obscure. What counts as &#8220;hate&#8221;&#8221; What is &#8220;extreme?&#8221; Which ideas are &#8220;dangerous?&#8221; Well, we can only try and narrow it down by the process of elimination.
Hamas and Hezbollah must not be considered &#8220;hateful&#8221; because they still have <a href="https://twitter.com/thealexvanness/status/1124337082594463745">Facebook pages</a>. This <a href="https://twitter.com/MattWalshBlog/status/1124116485109100545">burlesque performer</a> posted a picture of herself half-naked with a young girl stuffing dollar bills into her underwear while the girl&#8217;s parents watched and cheered. She still has a page, so I guess the exploitation and abuse of children is not &#8220;dangerous,&#8221; according to Facebook. Speaking of which, this <a href="https://www.facebook.com/DesmondisAmazing/">11-year-old drag queen</a> has a page, though dressing a child in drag seems both dangerous and &#8220;extreme&#8221; by any objective standard. PETA is extreme. The Animal Liberation Front is extreme. The National Abortions Rights Action League is extreme. Michael Moore is extreme. Sarah Silverman is extreme. Al Sharpton is extreme. Bill Maher is extreme. Everybody at the Daily Kos and Think Progress is extreme. All of these people and organizations, and the hundreds similar to them, are not only extreme but often quite hateful, yet their Facebook presence has not been interrupted by either bans or suspensions.
It seems that Facebook is operating with the same definition of &#8220;extremism&#8221; and &#8220;hatred&#8221; as the above-cited left-wing extremists themselves. If they were really interested in enforcing some objective and fair set of rules, they wouldn&#8217;t have waited to issue all of these bans at the same time, as part of one big P.R. spectacle. If Alex Jones were going to be banned for spreading the insane and evil Sandy Hook conspiracy theory, Facebook would have made that move five years ago. If Yiannopolous or Watson or Loomer really did something that violates the terms of service (and, in Watson&#8217;s case especially, I have no clue what that could possibly be), then they would have been kicked off the platform in response to that specific violation. Instead, Facebook handled it this way because the real &#8220;violation&#8221; is political. Whether these individuals can rightly be described as &#8220;extremist&#8221; or not, their only sin, in Facebook&#8217;s eyes, is that their alleged extremism falls on the right end of the political spectrum. The extremists and hateful bigots on the Left &#8212; of which there are many &#8212; have been granted full immunity.
Two questions now arise: (1) Is Facebook correct to censor people based on politics?; and (2) Does Facebook have the moral right to censor people based on politics?
The answer to the first question is obviously no. A social media giant with over a billion users suppressing speech is far more dangerous than a right-winger expressing his views in a blog post or a YouTube video. Facebook&#8217;s underhanded, dishonest, and absurdly biased actions should be condemned by anyone who cares about the free and open expression of ideas (an increasingly small group, perhaps).
The answer to the second question is more complicated. One thing I can say for sure is that Facebook does not have the right to smear and libel anyone. If they are going to publicly label someone like Paul Joseph Watson &#8220;dangerous,&#8221; &#8220;hateful,&#8221; and &#8220;violent,&#8221; they must provide evidence for that description. Otherwise they are baselessly defaming him, and that defamation, coming as it does from one of the most powerful companies in the world, will certainly have a negative impact on his life and professional career.
Leaving aside the libelous aspect of the matter, the question of whether or not Facebook has the moral or legal right to censor as it sees fit really comes down to category. What is Facebook? Is it a public utility, like a phone company? Is it just a &#8220;platform?&#8221; If so, what is a platform and how exactly can it be distinguished from a utility? Could a phone company claim that it is just a platform for phone calls? And if a platform makes editorial decisions about the content it publishes &#8212; such as allowing only negative references to Infowars &#8212; then hasn&#8217;t it actually become more of a publisher than a platform? And if it&#8217;s a publisher, then isn&#8217;t it responsible for everything posted to the site &#8212; such as that picture of the young girl and the burlesque dancer?
I don&#8217;t know the answers to all of these questions. But I do know that Facebook can&#8217;t weave around the cones forever, never defining itself or explaining what it is and how it operates. Facebook has to be one thing or the other or the other. It can&#8217;t be all three. And whatever it decides to be, ultimately, it must accept the responsibilties that come with that.

WALSH: Why Facebook’s War On ‘Hate’ Is Just A Thin Excuse To Censor Conservatives

Alex Jones

Facebook

Free Speech

Louis Farrakhan

Media

Technology

On Sunday evening, famed atheist Sam Harris fired off a tweet announcing he would delete his Patreon account on Monday to protest Patreon banning several content creators from using their platform. Harris wrote:
<blockquote>
Dear Patreon Supporters &#8212;
As many of you know, the crowdfunding site Patreon has banned several prominent content creators from its platform. While the company insists that each was in violation of its terms of service, these recent expulsions seem more readily explained by political bias. Although I don&#8217;t share the politics of the banned members, I consider it no longer tenable to expose any part of my podcast funding to the whims of Patreon&#8217;s &#8220;Trust and Safety&#8221; committee.
I will be deleting my Patreon account tomorrow. If you want to continue sponsoring my work, I encourage you to open a subscription at samharris.org/subscribe.
As always, I remain deeply grateful for your support.
Wishing you all a very happy New Year&#8230;.
Sam
</blockquote>
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
<a href="https://t.co/SKcydQJbYq">pic.twitter.com/SKcydQJbYq</a>
&#8212; Sam Harris (@SamHarrisOrg) <a href="https://twitter.com/SamHarrisOrg/status/1074504882210562048?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 17, 2018</a></blockquote>
</div>
Patreon has banned several personalities from the platform, including British YouTuber <a href="https://heavy.com/news/2018/12/carl-benjamin-aka-sargon-of-akkad/">Carl Benjamin</a>, better known as Sargon of Akkad, commentator James Allsup, and <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-12-07/patreon-bans-controversial-far-right-activist-milo-yiannopoulos/10595788">Milo Yiannopoulos</a>. In July 2017, Patreon <a href="https://www.canadalandshow.com/lauren-southern-banned-by-patreon/">banned</a> former Rebel Media personality Lauren Southern.
<a href="https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2018/12/far_left_is_raising_money_on_patreon_to_inspire_insurrection.html">The American Thinker</a> quoted <a href="http://farleftwatch.com/far-left-extremists-are-raising-money-on-patreon-to-inspire-insurrection/">Far Left Watch</a>, which reported, &#8220;There are several far-left users who appear to be blatantly violating Patreon&#8217;s <a href="https://www.patreon.com/guidelines">Community Guidelines</a>. These users are raising thousands of dollars each month and are actively using that money to organize and advocate for violent and often illegal criminal activity.&#8221; Far Left Watch listed Revolutionary Left Radio and The Guillotine Podcast.
After the banning of Sargon, Jordan Peterson, a fellow member of the Intellectual Dark Web along with Harris, <a href="https://www.patreon.com/posts/23325113">wrote</a>:
<blockquote>
I have been engaged in a series of intense conversations with many of the people in the so-called Intellectual Dark Web over the last two weeks because of the banning by Patreon of Carl Benjamin, colloquially known as Sargon of Akkad.
I am an admirer of Sargon, and he was a great friend of mine when I was in deep trouble two years ago. I think there is no excuse for deplatforming him (particularly when his fundamental crime was defending himself against neo-Nazis). I have been talking continually with the majority of members of the so-called Intellectual Dark Web, and we are determining what steps to take. We thought about moving to alternatively crowd-funding platforms such as SubscribeStar, but it isn&#8217;t obvious that will constitute a long-term solution. Dave Rubin and I (and others) have been discussing the establishment of a Patreon-like enterprise that will not be susceptible to arbitrary censorship, and we are making progress, but these things cannot be rushed without the possibility of excess error.
But I am seriously displeased about the removal of Sargon (and many other people) and will definitely do something about it. Rest assured, if you will (1) that I remain deeply grateful for your support and committed to ensure that the money you pledge will be devoted to the highest cause possible and (2) that none of this is being treated with casual disregard.
</blockquote>

Famed Atheist Deletes Patreon Account Over Banning Of Anti-Leftists

Jordan Peterson

Sam Harris

A months-long study by a commission tasked with studying the issue of free speech on the University of California, Berkeley campus blames conservative speakers for deliberately &#8220;inciting&#8221; leftist violence. By insisting on speaking on campus, the commission says, conservative and right-wing speakers deliberately &#8220;incite[d] a violent reaction&#8221; from the radical left.
&#8220;Although those speakers had every right to speak and were entitled to protection, they did not need to be on campus to exercise the right of free speech,&#8221; the commission states, as reported by <a href="http://&#8203;https://www.politico.com/story/2018/05/03/berkeley-free-speech-report-conservative-speakers-516476">Politico</a>. &#8220;Indeed, at least some of the 2017 events at Berkeley can now be seen to be part of a coordinated campaign to organize appearances on American campuses likely to incite a violent reaction, in order to advance a facile narrative that universities are not tolerant of conservative speech.&#8221;
Since the motives of the speakers, including Milo Yiannopoulos and Ann Coulter, are suspect, the report suggests, their right to free speech is &#8220;hard to defend.&#8221;
&#8220;Many Commission members are skeptical of these speakers&#8217; commitment to anything other than the pursuit of wealth and fame through the instigation of anger, fear, and vengefulness in their hard-right constituency,&#8221; the report states. &#8220;Speech of this kind is hard to defend, especially in light of the acute distress it caused (and was intended to cause) to staff and students, many of whom felt threatened and targeted by the speakers and by the outside groups financing their appearances.&#8221;
In addition to resorting to what amounts to a blame the victim argument and a rather clear assertion of the &#8220;rioters veto,&#8221; the commission downplayed the anti-free speech presence on the campuses, relegating the violence and speech-suppressing tactics to a &#8220;very small group of students working closely with outside organizations.&#8221;
&#8220;Contrary to a currently popular narrative, Berkeley remains a tolerant campus,&#8221; the commission concludes, citing as proof a poll finding three-quarters of students supporting the idea of the university providing equal access and protections for speakers no matter how offensive their speech.
Politico notes that the commission was composed of &#8220;Berkeley faculty, students and staff and was chaired by Prudence Carter, dean of Berkeley&#8217;s Graduate School of Education, and R. Jay Wallace, a professor of philosophy.&#8221; Among its recommendations are new &#8220;free speech zones,&#8221; offering &#8220;counter-programming&#8221; during events deemed controversial, and more heavily vetting student organizations.
Just as the Berkeley commission released its report concluding that the campus was extremely tolerant of free speech, the Berkeley student government began deliberations over <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/30240/uc-berkeley-student-government-considers-stripping-hank-berrien">stripping the funding from the Berkeley College Republicans</a>. Meanwhile, the BCR and Young America&#8217;s Foundation have <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/20671/shapiro-berkeley-series-unfortunate-illegal-events-bradley-devlin">filed a lawsuit</a> against the university for &#8220;discriminatory application(s) of a policy to restrict conservative speech on the UC Berkeley campus, in violation of YAF and BCR&#8217;s constitutional rights to free speech, due process, and equal protection under the law.&#8221;
Daily Wire Editor-in-Chief Ben Shapiro, who spoke on the campus without incident in 2016, experienced firsthand the change in Berkeley&#8217;s &#8220;tolerant campus&#8221; in September of the next year in a speech for the College Republicans, the venue for which the administration <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/20638/course-uc-berkeley-now-wants-half-2000-seat-hall-daily-wire">moved to a smaller location</a> for fear of violence and then surrounded by barricades and a massive police force. <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/21115/5-things-i-learned-berkeley-last-night-ben-shapiro">Read Shapiro&#8217;s response to the event here</a>.
Related: <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/30222/how-politically-biased-are-universities-new-study-james-barrett">How Politically Biased Are Colleges? New Study Finds It&#8217;s Far Worse Than Anybody Thought.</a>

UC Berkeley Panel Blames Conservative Speakers For ‘Inciting’ Leftist Violence

Alt-Right

Ann Coulter

Antifa

Ben Shapiro

Conservatism

Education

Leftism

University of California Berkeley

Just when you think the University of California, Berkeley can&#8217;t be any dumber, wham, they do something even dumber.
Conservative activist Joey Gibson, leader of a group called Patriot Prayer, who canceled a rally at San Francisco&#8217;s Crissy Field last month after threats of violence, spoke Tuesday at UC Berkeley&#8217;s Sproul Plaza. Only about 50 people showed up, so no big deal, right?
Wrong. As Berkeley has done repeatedly, they over-prepared. They had an &#8220;empathy tent&#8221; set up as a place where protesters could find a calm place to unwind amid the expected chaos around them.
And as always, things didn&#8217;t go as planned. A fight broke out in the &#8220;empathy tent,&#8221; with conservative students and leftist activists clashing to the point where the tent almost fell over, the <a href="http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-patriot-prayer-berkeley-20170926-story.html">Los Angeles Times</a> reported.
<blockquote>
A few counter-protesters from the the liberal group By Any Means Necessary confronted and shouted at the Trump supporters. Scuffles broke out.
At least three people were arrested as the crowd marched from the campus to People&#8217;s Park. Among them was Yvette Felarca, an organizer with By Any Means Necessary.
Trump supporters cheered at the arrests and continued to People&#8217;s Park, where Gibson climbed onto a wooden stage and spoke to the crowd without interruption.
He declared that he and his group, Patriot Prayer, would keep returning to Berkeley until they &#8220;respect free speech.&#8221;
</blockquote>
The <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4924386/Four-arrested-fight-inside-EMPATHY-TENT.html">Daily Mail</a> reported that &#8220;anti-fascist counter-protesters&#8221; tried to shut down the event. And the Mail said that four people were arrested, including left-wing activist Yvonne Felarca, for battery and resisting arrest.
There have been four violent protests on the campus in recent months, prompting college officials and local police to step up security. The university reportedly spent $600,000 to make sure protests didn&#8217;t turn violent earlier this month when Daily Wire Editor-in-Chief Ben Shapiro spoke on campus.
Tuesday&#8217;s protest came after Milo Yiannopoulos&#8217; planned &#8220;Free Speech Week&#8221; at the campus was canceled.

Fight In ‘Empathy Tent’ At Berkeley Leads To Arrests

After DePaul University allowed College Republicans to invite Gavin McInnes to speak last fall, the administration decided to ban McInnes from campus today. This decision came after the university apparently allotted $10,000 for the event and allowed the group to go into the final stages. The event was scheduled for May 30.
The administration justified the disinvitation because McInnes supposedly &#8220;supports violence&#8221; and because he associates with the Proud Boys and the Fraternal Order of Alt-Nights.
Here is the letter DePaul&#8217;s President Rev. Dennis H. Holtschneider wrote to the student body:
<blockquote>
Dear Members of the DePaul Community,
Last fall, DePaul granted permission to a student organization to host Canadian entertainer and provocateur Gavin McInnes. Since that time, we have observed with alarm his statements encouraging violence &#8211; in particular, violence aimed at protesters who disagree with his positions.
In discussing his recently formed group, the Proud Boys, with a news organization, he said the last step of the initiation process involves &#8220;a major fight for the cause. You get beat up, kick the crap out of an antifa.&#8221;
After clashes outside his February event at New York University, McInnes told his followers: &#8220;We&#8217;re the only ones fighting these guys and I want you to fight them, too. It&#8217;s fun. When they go low, go lower. Mace them back, throw bricks at their head. Let&#8217;s destroy them. We&#8217;ve been doing it a while now and I gotta say, it&#8217;s really invigorating. Even when you lose, you feel great about yourself.&#8221;
We also took note when McInnes found common cause with the newly created Fraternal Order of Alt-Knights, or FOAK, a military wing of the Proud Boys. In announcing its existence, the group said it was &#8220;seeking able bodies and strong-minded men who can keep a cool head under pressure, comfortable in fisticuffs&#8221; and that it will serve as &#8220;a force to protect and serve when the police are told to stand down.&#8221;
The group, which has pledged to meet protests with violence, was directly endorsed by McInnes on Twitter: 
Happy to announce the military division of #Proudboys&#8221; headed by @BasedStickMan_#AltKnights
DePaul University works to ensure that student organizations can host speakers and events of their choosing. The encouragement of violence, however, has no place here. This is not about the content of McInnes&#8217; speech, but about his public endorsement of violence and the establishment of a military division of his own group, the Proud Boys.
Our students&#8217; well-being remains our highest priority, and therefore DePaul is rescinding McInnes&#8217;s invitation to speak on campus.
Sincerely,
Rev. Dennis H. Holtschneider, C.M. 
President
</blockquote>
According to Rev. Holtschneider, McInnes&#8217; stalwart belief in self-defense in the event that cops fail to do their job or when Antifa fascists attack those who disagree with their communist viewpoints advocates &#8220;violence.&#8221; Therefore, it would be corrupting and problematic for DePaul to invite McInnes to speak and explain his point of view on why self-defense is sometimes necessary. As for the Fraternal Order of Alt-Knights, the <a href="http://www.dailywire.com/news/14134/7-things-you-need-know-about-lefts-favorite-attack-aaron-bandler">far-left propaganda machine</a> known as the Southern Poverty Law Center <a href="https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2017/04/25/new-alt-right-%E2%80%9Cfight-club%E2%80%9D-ready-street-violence">compares</a> them to neo-Nazis.
What remains ironic about Rev. Holtschneider&#8217;s statement is the inclusion of a statement that &#8220;DePaul Uiversity works to ensure that student organizations can host speakers and events of their choosing&#8221; despite the University <a href="http://www.dailywire.com/news/7864/breaking-depaul-university-bans-shapiro-john-minster">banning</a> both Milo Yiannopoulos and Daily Wire Editor-in-Chief Ben Shapiro before the current school year began. When asked about his thoughts on DePaul banning McInnes, Shapiro said the following:
<blockquote>
They&#8217;re idiotic. How can they ban him for his support for self-defense and cite his supposed support for violence, while banning people because their own students are violent? They banned me because their students got violent with Milo &#8212; and I spoke out forcefully against rhetoric approving violence from both right and left. Total fig leaf.
</blockquote>
So much for ensuring free speech and the marketplace of ideas.
Follow Elliott on <a href="https://twitter.com/ElliottRHams">Twitter</a> and <a href="https://www.facebook.com/ElliottRHams/">Facebook</a>

EXCLUSIVE: DePaul University Approves Speech By Gavin McInnes, Then BANS HIM

DePaul University

Gavin McInnes

One of the great tragedies of mass media is the left&#8217;s ability to influence the right&#8217;s choice as to whom ought to be seen as a spokesperson. In the 2016 election cycle, the left focused on Donald Trump to the exclusion of other people on the right; the right, fixated laserlike on reacting to the left&#8217;s focus, embraced Trump; Trump became a spokesperson for the right, even though his policies are a bizarre admixture of Buchananism, Keynesianism, and reactionary knee-jerkism. By the same token, the left chooses figures it wishes to highlight as &#8220;conservative,&#8221; smearing the conservative movement with them &#8211; and conservatives react to the left&#8217;s visceral hatred of those same figures by embracing them.
This week, we saw the media drop blanket coverage on Richard Spencer, an alt-right white nationalist leader, who went to Virginia to protest the possible removal of a statue of General Robert E. Lee. He showed up with some of his friends, all of whom carried torches in the night, looking like something out of an old KKK photo shoot sans hoods. &#8220;What brings us together is that we are white, we are a people, we will not be replaced,&#8221; Spencer stated. He then showed up at a second rally at which people chanted &#8220;Russia is our friend.&#8221; Here&#8217;s The Washington Post:
<blockquote>
Once an obscure Internet figure promoting white identity, Spencer coined the term &#8220;alt-right&#8221; &#8212; referring to a small, far-right movement that seeks a whites-only state &#8212; and rose to prominence during Donald Trump&#8217;s presidential campaign. Although Trump denounced the alt-right, Spencer&#8217;s followers counted his victory as a win for the movement as Trump espoused hard-right stances on undocumented immigrants, Muslims and political correctness.
</blockquote>
What made Spencer a famous figure? Two things: the rise of Trump, who embraced members of the alt-right on Twitter, whose campaign spokesman, Steve Bannon, talked about using Breitbart News as a forum for the alt-right, and whose lead cheerleader, Milo Yiannopoulos, <a href="http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/03/29/an-establishment-conservatives-guide-to-the-alt-right/">praised Spencer at Breitbart</a> (he called his website &#8220;a gathering point for an eclectic mix of renegades who objected to the established political consensus in some form or another&#8221;); and the mainstream media, who decided to reward Spencer with coverage and more coverage. Spencer was a nobody until last year. Now, the media cheer him being punched on the street and cover him incessantly, despite the fact that Spencer has an incredibly small but active base.
Meanwhile, blanket coverage has accrued to other fringe figures of the right as well &#8211; some of whom have increased their visibility thanks to fellow-traveling with Trump, but all of whom represent conservatism poorly. That&#8217;s the common factor here: the left has an interest in continuing to promote even those anti-left figures the right has largely abandoned. The media glommed onto Yiannopoulos as a rising star thanks to his provocative appearances and love of Trump, even though he openly ripped the Constitution and conservatism; the right responded by embracing Yiannopoulos. But now, even after the right largely excised Yiannopoulos following emergence of tape of him praising pedophilia, the left&#8217;s still pushing him. NBC&#8217;s Today Show, for example, promoted Yiannopoulos with a full interview, based on Yiannopolous&#8217; problems on campus:
<iframe loading="lazy" allowfullscreen frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/3yK5pxa4VgI" width="560"></iframe>
Now, The Today Show could have featured Charles Murray, an actual conservative intellectual; Christina Hoff Sommers, a conservative intellectual on feminism; Ayaan Hirsi Ali; Jason Riley; the list goes on and on. Instead, the Today Show pulled Yiannopoulos. Why? Because the left knows that if it can help choose for conservatives who their thoughtleaders should be, they&#8217;ll have an easier time pillorying them. It&#8217;s easier to pretend that the left&#8217;s hatred for the right is legitimate when the right stands behind an apparent pedophilia-endorser than when they&#8217;re standing behind the resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. 
The same holds true in talk radio and on the internet, where the left has decided to tout the rise of conspiracy theorist and kook extraordinaire Alex Jones. Yes, Jones&#8217; bizarre association with Trump should raise eyebrows. And yes, Infowars is a highly-trafficked website. But to pretend that Jones is leader of a mass movement, when he remains a fringe player by the numbers, is to promote him actively. The left knows this. It&#8217;s why the left has been trying to push Jones since Piers Morgan had him on his show to talk about gun control after Sandy Hook.
Here&#8217;s the point: political partisans always have an incentive to promote the most outrageous examples from their enemies&#8217; camp, and promote them as indicative of the mainstream of that camp. The left has its Keith Olbermanns; the right has its Alex Joneses. But it&#8217;s up to actual conservatives to pick their leaders. Being trolled into fandom for silly, pathetic and ridiculous provocateurs simply because the left shines a spotlight on them will end up rewarding the left and corrupting conservatism.

Leftist Media Push White Nationalist Richard Spencer. There’s Only One Reason Why. And The Right Shouldn’t Fall For It.

Richard Spencer

Dartmouth College recently conducted a study of the &#8220;political landscape&#8221; of its student body — and ended up finding an alarming degree of intolerance and groupthink, particularly among the liberal students.
The study was a campus-wide survey conducted from April 9 to April 13 that asked a total of 432 students a range of questions, including their opinions of Donald Trump, their willingness to room with people of another political ideology, and their views on allowing conservatives to speak on campus. The campus paper, <a href="http://www.thedartmouth.com/article/2017/04/a-survey-of-dartmouths-political-landscape">The Dartmouth</a>, provided a summary of the results.
Of the students interviewed, only 23 percent identified as Republican, while 63 percent identified as Democrat and just 14 percent as independent. Asked how they felt about Donald Trump&#8217;s handling of the presidency so far, an overwhelming 85 percent of the students said they strongly or somewhat disapproved. Only 11 percent said they strongly or somewhat approved of Trump. The Dartmouth notes that the 85 percent result ends up being exactly the same percentage that said in a previous survey they intended to vote for Hillary Clinton in the 2016 election.
<div class="image"><img decoding="async" loading="lazy" src="https://www.dailywire.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/dartmouth_study_1.jpg" alt="" width="780" height="585" /></div>
In a question gauging students&#8217; tolerance of opposing views, Dartmouth asked students how &#8220;comfortable&#8221; they would be having a roommate of &#8220;opposing political views to your own.&#8221; Out of the three political affiliations, the students who identified as Democrats were by far the least tolerant, with a plurality of 45 percent saying they would be &#8220;uncomfortable,&#8221; 39 percent saying they would be &#8220;comfortable&#8221; and 16 percent answering &#8220;neither.&#8221;
Republicans were the most tolerant of the three groups, 69 percent saying they would be comfortable rooming with someone with opposing political views, only 12 percent saying they would be uncomfortable and 19 percent saying neither. Independents were slightly less tolerant than Republicans, 61 percent saying they&#8217;d be comfortable, 16 percent uncomfortable and 22 percent saying neither.
<img decoding="async" src="https://s3.amazonaws.com/media.drt/21001_roommatef.jpg" />Alexander Agadjanian | The Dartmouth Senior Staff
The paper provides a quote from the president of the Dartmouth College Democrats, who said she was not surprised that Republicans were more open to rooming with a Democrat because they are surrounded by Democrats at the college. &#8220;It&#8217;s unfortunate — I wish we had more political diversity,&#8221; she said. The vice president of the Republican student group agreed that fellow Republicans were far outnumbered and more likely to be tolerant.
The survey also addressed the issue of freedom of speech on campus, and found additional, troubling evidence of intolerance from students who lean left.
The study asked students what they thought about allowing certain figures from the political right to speak on campus. A stunning 22 percent said they did not believe President Trump should be allowed to speak. Only 75 percent said the President of the United States should be allowed to appear on campus, while 3 percent were &#8220;not sure.&#8221;
The percentages were worse for more controversial conservative figures. A total of 38 percent said conservative provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos should not be allowed to speak on Dartmouth&#8217;s campus, only 54 percent defending his free speech rights. Twenty-six percent said white nationalist <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_B._Spencer">Richard Spencer</a> should not be allowed to speak, while only 65 percent said that <a href="http://www.dailywire.com/news/14060/anti-free-speech-protesters-shout-down-dr-charles-james-barrett">Charles Murray</a> (who has been vilified for saying that I.Q. might have some relationship to race) should definitely be allowed to speak. Only Mitt Romney was given near unanimous permission to speak.
<img decoding="async" src="https://s3.amazonaws.com/media.drt/21002_speakersf.jpg" />Alexander Agadjanian | The Dartmouth Senior Staff
The study is yet more evidence that the number of students on college campuses who defend fee speech and embrace ideological tolerance is rapidly shrinking. As the recent protests erupting over the presence of conservatives on campus have made frighteningly clear, the next generation is being raised to not only fear honest debate, but to brand those who disagree with them politically as being disqualified from First Amendment protections and worthy of censorship, even by violent means.
More from The Daily Wire on ideological intolerance on college campuses:
<a href="http://www.dailywire.com/news/14060/anti-free-speech-protesters-shout-down-dr-charles-james-barrett">Anti-Free Speech Protesters Shout Down Charles Murray, Pound On His Car As He Tries To Leave</a>
<a href="http://www.dailywire.com/news/15729/nyu-professor-defends-free-speech-campus%E2%80%A6-saying-elliott-hamilton">NYU &#8216;Defends&#8217; Free Speech On Campus&#8230;By Saying There Should Be None</a>
<a href="http://www.dailywire.com/news/15842/ann-coulter-everyone-who-shouldve-defended-free-james-barrett">Coulter: Everyone Who Should&#8217;ve Defended Free Speech, &#8216;Ran Away With Their Tails Between Their Legs&#8217;</a>
H/T <a href="https://pjmedia.com/trending/2017/04/28/study-finds-democrats-least-tolerant-of-opposing-views/">PJ Media</a>

dartmouth_study_1

Dartmouth Study Highlights Widespread Intolerance And Groupthink Among Liberal Students

Charles Murray

Democratic Party

First Amendment

Liberalism

New York University English Professor, Vice Provost for Faculty, Arts, Humanities, &amp; Diversity, and leftist hack Ulrich Baer <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/24/opinion/what-liberal-snowflakes-get-right-about-free-speech.html?smprod=nytcore-iphone&amp;smid=nytcore-iphone-share">wrote</a> an article in The New York Times claiming to &#8220;defend free speech.&#8221; However, the article advocates a completely different view of the First Amendment that does not reflect any meritorious defense of free speech. The article, titled &#8220;What &#8216;Snowflakes&#8217; Get Right About Free Speech,&#8221; starts by talking about how free expression shifted from talking about logical arguments to conversations about people&#8217;s feelings.
<blockquote>
During the 1980s and &#8217;90s, a shift occurred in American culture; personal experience and testimony, especially of suffering and oppression, began to challenge the primacy of argument. Freedom of expression became a flash point in this shift. Then as now, both liberals and conservatives were wary of the privileging of personal experience, with its powerful emotional impact, over reason and argument, which some fear will bring an end to civilization, or at least to freedom of speech.
</blockquote>
Baer implored his readers to &#8220;not rehash those debates&#8221; because it would be problematic for a generation grown up in a tradition of expressing their traumatic experiences in response to issues of fact. Using the extreme case of Holocaust denial as an example of positions people take without much basis in reality, Baer argued that certain conversations and topics should be censored to help the public, especially those who are &#8220;not open to debate.&#8221; He specifically alluded to issues of illegal immigration and racism, insinuating that minorities are incapable of arguing along rational, logical lines on tough topics.
What made Baer&#8217;s article particularly asinine was his praise for the efforts of students who attempted to or successfully shut down individuals like Richard Spencer, Milo Yiannopoulos, and Charles Murray. In Baer&#8217;s warped perspective, these students are the true advocates of free speech:
<blockquote>
The recent student demonstrations at Auburn against Spencer&#8217;s visit &#8212; as well as protests on other campuses against Charles Murray, Milo Yiannopoulos and others &#8212; should be understood as an attempt to ensure the conditions of free speech for a greater group of people, rather than censorship. Liberal free-speech advocates rush to point out that the views of these individuals must be heard first to be rejected. But this is not the case. Universities invite speakers not chiefly to present otherwise unavailable discoveries, but to present to the public views they have presented elsewhere. When those views invalidate the humanity of some people, they restrict speech as a public good.
</blockquote>
He also used this op-ed to talk about how the leftist &#8220;snowflakes&#8221; attempts to silence non-progressive voices are helping to heal a racist and sexist nation:
<blockquote>
What is under severe attack, in the name of an absolute notion of free speech, are the rights, both legal and cultural, of minorities to participate in public discourse. The snowflakes sensed, a good year before the election of President Trump, that insults and direct threats could once again become sanctioned by the most powerful office in the land. They grasped that racial and sexual equality is not so deep in the DNA of the American public that even some of its legal safeguards could not be undone.
</blockquote>
This is not a defense of free speech; this is an unapologetic defense of liberal fascism masquerading as social justice. The &#8220;snowflakes&#8221; that Baer champions as free speech advocates bastardize the First Amendment and rationalize their bruised feelings to act savagely toward those who disagree with them. Much of this behavior is normalized and encouraged by the Communist hacks in the ivory tower in which Baer and many of his colleagues reside; it directly correlated with President Trump&#8217;s rise to the presidency. The American people are sick of seeing spoiled brats coming out of prestigious colleges and universities acting morally superior to people who have every legal right to express their opinion in a cordial, rational manner.
<blockquote>
This is not a defense of free speech; this is an unapologetic defense of liberal fascism masquerading as social justice.

</blockquote>
However, the Left has no intention of stopping its fight against the First Amendment. As Daily Wire Editor-in-Chief Ben Shapiro <a href="http://www.dailywire.com/news/15610/former-dnc-head-howard-dean-hate-speech-not-free-ben-shapiro">wrote</a> in response to Howard Dean&#8217;s asinine tweet regarding hate speech: 
<blockquote>
But the Democrats have long wanted to gut the First Amendment: they want to prohibit political spending from their opponents, they want to prohibit people from using biologically correct pronouns to describe transgender people, they want to ban &#8220;hate speech.&#8221; They hate the First Amendment because they see its protections as incompatible with the collective good &#8211; the collective good protecting &#8220;non-offensive&#8221; speech only.
</blockquote>
It is for conservatives, libertarians, and classical liberals to take the Left to task and protect the First Amendment from the intellectual and moral cowards that run college campuses as fascist dystopias.
Follow Elliott on <a href="https://twitter.com/ElliottRHams">Twitter</a> and <a href="https://www.facebook.com/ElliottRHams/">Facebook</a>

NYU Professor ‘Defends’ Free Speech On Campus…By Saying There Should Be None

New York Times

New York University

One of the most bizarre aspects of President Donald Trump&#8217;s <a href="http://www.dailywire.com/news/15211/syria-flip-3-reasons-trumps-2017-syrian-strike-ben-shapiro">airstrikes</a> against Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad was watching Trump&#8217;s most hardcore supporters suddenly turn on him.
After labeling anyone who dares to breathe a critical word of Trump as a neocon globalist cuck, it was truly amazing to observe their horror unfold at the realization that Trump was apparently the exact neocon globalist cuck they had been howling about.
Here are seven Trump supporters who had meltdowns over the president&#8217;s airstrikes.
1. Milo Yiannopolous. The flamboyant alt-right defending provocateur who has repeatedly referred to Trump as <a href="http://www.thewrap.com/steve-bannon-daddy-donald-trump-silent-milo-yiannopoulos-meltdown-pedophilia/">&#8220;Daddy&#8221;</a> was not pleased:
<div class="image"><img decoding="async" loading="lazy" alt height="233" src="https://dw-wp-dev.imgix.net/2019/09/milo_meltdown.jpg" width="720" /></div>
Yiannopoulos also told <a href="http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/04/trump-alt-right-syria-war-214998">Politico</a> in a text message that the airstrikes were &#8220;FAKE and GAY.&#8221;
2. Mike Cernovich. Cernovich, who has promulgated <a href="http://www.dailywire.com/news/11343/heres-everything-you-need-know-about-pizzagate-aaron-bandler">the Pizzagate conspiracy theory</a> and believes that <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/alt-right-civil-war-twitter-cernovich-milo-alaska-2016-12">&#8220;date rape does not exist&#8221;</a>, received <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2017/04/07/how-mike-cernovichs-influence-moved-from-the-internet-fringes-to-the-white-house/?utm_term=.e2af3e32fc0d">compliments</a> from Donald Trump, Jr. and White House counselor Kellyanne Conway earlier in the week. Now Cernovich is venting about Trump&#8217;s actions in Syria:
<div class="image"><img decoding="async" loading="lazy" alt height="313" src="https://dw-wp-dev.imgix.net/2019/09/cernovich_tweet_1.jpg" width="720" /></div>
<div class="image"><img decoding="async" loading="lazy" alt height="281" src="https://dw-wp-dev.imgix.net/2019/09/cernovich_tweet_2.jpg" width="720" /><img decoding="async" loading="lazy" alt height="311" src="https://dw-wp-dev.imgix.net/2019/09/cernovich_tweet_3.jpg" width="720" /></div>
According to Politico, Cernovich lamented on his livestream that the media are &#8220;trying to con Trump into believing the people want war&#8221; and bizarrely stated that &#8220;ISIS did it to themselves&#8221; to frame Assad.
3. Michael Savage. Savage called Trump the <a href="http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/Michael-Savage-Donald-Trump-winston-churchill-supports/2015/07/29/id/659542/">&#8220;Winston Churchill of our time&#8221;</a> in July 2015. On his Thursday radio show, Savage <a href="http://www.michaelsavage.wnd.com/2017/04/i-am-a-conservative-peacenick-do-you-want-war-with-russia/">complained</a>, &#8220;The generals have gotten to him and turned him from peace with Russia. And the people standing in the way of war, like Steve Bannon, are being shown the door. This beating of the war drums with Russia has to stop.&#8221;
4. Ann Coulter. Coulter has been an ardent Trump supporter since early in the Republican primary to the point where <a href="http://www.dailywire.com/news/4751/fact-check-did-cruz-flip-amnesty-building-border-aaron-bandler">she spread blatant falsehoods about Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX)</a> and wrote a book titled, <a href="https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01FEQHVLA/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&amp;btkr=1">In Trump We Trust: E Pluribus Awesome!</a> 
Apparently Coulter didn&#8217;t find Trump&#8217;s airstrikes to be under the category of &#8220;E Pluribus Awesome&#8221;:
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Those who wanted us meddling in the Middle East voted for other candidates.
&#8212; Ann Coulter (@AnnCoulter) <a href="https://twitter.com/AnnCoulter/status/850233049430097920">April 7, 2017</a></blockquote>
</div>
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Trump campaigned on not getting involved in Mideast. Said it always helps our enemies &amp; creates more refugees. Then he saw a picture on TV.
&#8212; Ann Coulter (@AnnCoulter) <a href="https://twitter.com/AnnCoulter/status/850233131328184320">April 7, 2017</a></blockquote>
</div>
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Christians who live in Syria are terrified of what will happen if Assad is gone.
&#8212; Ann Coulter (@AnnCoulter) <a href="https://twitter.com/AnnCoulter/status/850233340011487232">April 7, 2017</a></blockquote>
</div>
She also re-tweeted this:
<div class="image"><img decoding="async" loading="lazy" alt height="201" src="https://dw-wp-dev.imgix.net/2019/09/coulter_rt.jpg" width="720" /></div>
5. Nigel Farage. Farage seemed to be befuddled by Trump&#8217;s actions: (<a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/04/07/nigel-farage-right-wing-populists-turn-donald-trump-missile/">H/T:</a> UK Telegraph)
<blockquote>
Mr Farage said: &#8220;I am very surprised by this. I think a lot of Trump voters will be waking up this morning and scratching their heads and saying &#8216;where will it all end?&#8217;
&#8220;As a firm Trump supporter, I say, yes, the pictures were horrible, but I&#8217;m surprised. Whatever Assad&#8217;s sins, he is secular.&#8221;
He said Britain should not get involved in any further strikes, commenting: &#8220;Previous interventions in the Middle East have made things worse rather than better.&#8221;
</blockquote>
6. Paul Joseph Watson. The <a href="https://www.facebook.com/paul.j.watson.71/about?lst=1650529699%3A686031170%3A1491586942">Infowars editor</a> seemed to renounce Trump altogether: (<a href="http://www.vox.com/2017/4/6/15215376/alt-right-trump-syria">H/T:</a> Vox)<img decoding="async" loading="lazy" alt height="329" src="https://dw-wp-dev.imgix.net/2019/09/pjw_1.jpg" width="720" />
<div class="image"><img decoding="async" loading="lazy" alt height="265" src="https://dw-wp-dev.imgix.net/2019/09/pjw_2.jpg" width="720" /></div>
These tweets warrant the following response:
<div class="image"><img decoding="async" loading="lazy" alt height="508" src="https://dw-wp-dev.imgix.net/2019/09/pardes_response.jpg" width="720" /></div>
7. Alex Jones. The <a href="http://www.dailywire.com/news/12834/did-trump-give-infowars-press-credential-here-are-aaron-bandler">conspiracy theorist extraordinaire</a> said in February that he was <a href="https://www.infowars.com/alex-jones-im-ready-to-die-for-trump/">&#8220;ready to die for Trump.&#8221;</a> Now that Trump launched airstrikes against Syria, Jones <a href="http://gizmodo.com/with-attack-on-syria-trump-alienates-the-alt-right-1794099968?utm_campaign=socialflow_gizmodo_twitter&amp;utm_source=gizmodo_twitter&amp;utm_medium=socialflow">said</a> on a Friday livestream, &#8220;Trump is really disintegrating in my eyes on many levels.&#8221;
<div class="embed tweet"></div>
<a href="https://twitter.com/bandlersbanter">Follow Aaron Bandler on Twitter.</a>

Menu