In the fall of 1964 a small group of "rebels" (antifa today) rallied thousands of students of all political views. The "rebels" has sit-ins in the administration building and committed other acts of physical force such as assault on police and other students in the name of "free speech".
In an article in the Columbia University Forum (1965) entitled "What's left at Berkley" By William Peterson, professor of sociology at UC Berkley.
" The fact one must know about this Free Speech movement is that it has little or nothing to do with free speech. If not free speech, what then is the issue? In fact, preposterous as this may seem, the real issue is the seizure of power..
That tiny number, a few hundred out of more than 27,000 was able to disrupt the campus is the consequence of more than vigor and skill in agitation. This group could not have succeeded in getting so many students into motion without other sources of support. Off campus assistance, University Administration and the Faculty."
The reports
The general tone of the media was this; "The New student left: movement represents serious activists in drive for change"
What kind of change? No answer given.
Some of the activists wanted to be called radicals, but more wanted to be called just "organizer"
Organizers for what? No answer given.
Most of the students were as skeptical of Communism as of any other ideology. Even though some associated with communism. The central theme and basic ideology of all the activists is anti-ideology. They are militantly opposed to all "labels" definition and theories.
Interesting. This is the same anti-ideology we are seeing today at campuses. No one can know what a snowflake millennial identifies as. A helicopter? A man? A dog? A child? Don't assume! Don't thrown your white privilege label on me!
Ayn Rand writes in her book The Return of the Primitive
" These activists are so fully, literally, loyally, devastatingly the products of modern philosophy that someone should cry to all the university administrations and faculties; Brothers, you asked for it!"
*" Mankind could not expect to remain unscathed after decades of exposure to the radiation of intellectual fission-debris such as;
- Reason is impotent ti know things as they are
- Reality is unknowable
- Certainty impossible
- Knowledge is mere probability
- Truth is that which works
- Mind is superstition
- Logic is a social convention
- Ethics is a matter of subjective commitment to an arbitrary postulate.
As a result of Kantian theory, a student comes out of a modern university with nothing but uncertainty, fear and a permanent state of skepticism and cynicism.
On June 14th 1965 CBS televised a incoherent documentary called "The Berkley Story"
" Our generation has not ideology!" declared the first boy interviewed.
" We learned that there are absolutely no rules" Said a young girl, "We make the rules for ourselves"
Again..the gender-thing. We make up our OWN genders! And common core corriculumcum.
They are simply just not as creative and mature as someone like for example myself...
Ayn Rand continues
" So they scream their defiance against "the system maaan" not realizing that they are its most consistently docile pupils, that theirs is a rebellion against the status quo by its archetypes, against the intellectual "establishment" by its robots who have swallowed every shopworn premise of the "liberals" of the 1930´s, including the catchphrases of altruism, the dedication to "deprived people" to such a safely conventional war as "the war on poverty"
Here comes the fun part
What would happen if the technique of the Berkley rebellion, in 1965 or today, because it is the same thing - were to happen on a national scale? No matter how badly demoralized and philosophically disarmed a country is, it has to reach a certain philosophical turning point before it can be pushed from semi-freedom to dictatorship. How you do it?; "To condition the country to accept FORCE as the means of settling political controversies.
Yes, Force. Ring a bell? HIT A NAZI!? Nazis everywhere. Hit them! They're not humans! Omg! Everyone are nazis! Ban everything offensive! (Couldn't even find a funny nazi gif on giphy? "Sure you didn't mean nasa?" No, i didn't fucking mean nasa, you nazi!"
Allright..I'm back. I just had to take my pill
I have to qoute my girlfriend again here
- The main issue is to make the country accept mass civil disobedience as a proper and valid tool of political action. This attempt has happened before in connection with the civil rights movement. But there the issue was confused by the fact that Negroes..(at least she's not calling them ni**** like Felix aka Pewdiepie is..) or I'm sorry, who am I to tell them which color they are. I mean..people of color or no color - WERE the victims of legalized injustice. The country took it as a fight for justice, not as an assault on the law.
Civil disobedience may be justifiable in some cases, when and if and individual disobeys the law in order to bring and issue to court and test a case.
The forcible occupation of another mans property or the obstruction of a public thoroughfare is so blatant a violation of rights that an attempt to justify it becomes an abrogation of morality.
The attempt to solve a social problem by means of physical force is what a civilized society is established to prevent.
- The Berkley rebels attempted to establish a special distinction between FORCE and VIOLENCE. Force, they claimed is a proper form of social action, but violence is not. For instance, if the rebels occupy a building that is "force". If the police drag them out, that is "violence".
Consider this. If you come home one evening and find a stranger occupying your house and you thrown him out - he has merely commited a peaceful act of force, but YOU are guilty of violence, and YOU are to be punished.
If the freedom to express ideas were equated with freedom to commit crimes, it would not take long for a society to corrupt. Therefore they are not anarchist at all, but the exact opposite.
Ayn Rand drops the mic with this one;
" In the absence of intellectual opposition, the rebels notions will gradually come to be absorbed into the culture. The uncontested absurdities of today are the accepted slogans of tomorrow. They come to be accepted by degrees, by precedent, by implications, by erosion, by default, by dint of constant pressure on one side and constant retreat on the other- until the day when they are suddenly declared to be the country's official ideology. That is the way welfare statism came to be accepted in this Country"