Eric Striker

Daily Stormer

February 28, 2017



The only reason a tiny minority of 20 something latte-sippers are able to veto a wide array of opinions through violence is because institutional forces either support them, or are unwilling to confront them.

A “respectable” publication read by college administrators nation-wide recently gave a platform to one of these crybullies, where she warns campuses across the nation that her rag-tag left-wing militia will continue attacking public facilities that host speakers she personally doesn’t agree with.

The person interviewing her, Peter Schmidt, offers no condemnation or pro-First Amendment context in the interview. He even plays their tune by referring to fairly unremarkable conservatives like MILO as “white supremacists.” Schmidt even goes as far as positing that it is the “speech” of violent anarchists which is “unsafe,” which is a lie since most of their opinions on cultural issues (they rarely protest economic ones anymore) line up perfectly with the media, corporate and academic elite.

The speech that these lemmings shut down revolves around issues big business and the rich think are beyond the pale: immigration, sexual perversion (transsexualism, pedophilia, etc), white working class advocacy, speech taboos, nationalism, etc.

Chronicle of Higher Education:

Lacy MacAuley, a member of the D.C. Antifascist Coalition, has been a public face for such militants. In January, for example, she was a spokeswoman for DisruptJ20, the group that organized Inauguration Day protests, without permits, at which black-bloc activist destroyed property in downtown Washington and skirmished with the police. On a national level, she has provided media representation for anarchist and leftist activists for about 12 years.The Chronicle last week asked Ms. MacAuley about this month’s chaos at Berkeley and the likelihood that other campuses will see similar activity. Following is an edited and condensed transcript of that interview. … Q. When protesters this month smashed windows and started fires at Berkeley, the university blamed such actions on “black bloc” members who had “invaded” the campus. Do you have any reason to believe that students were among the people who caused destruction there? If not, how would they have been drawn there? A. The black-clad anarchists who were present at UC-Berkeley were a blend of students and nonstudents. The group was there in response to someone who was a vitriolic fascist, Milo Yiannopoulos. There didn’t have to be a huge system of organization under that action. There was some organization, but I really think that most people were responding to the obvious signs, in front of everyone right now, that the fascists are starting to really gain a foothold and that represents a danger to all of us. That is why we responded in force. … Q. How much of a presence are militant anarchists on or near college campuses? Are there specific places where we are likely to see them become active in the coming years? A. The level of militancy will go up while we see our government, at this moment, actively impinging upon the rights of everyday people. We have already seen the U.S. government make reality policies like the Muslim ban, a “military operation” that enforces immigration law, and violation of trans youths’ rights. To a lot of people, the only logical response is to make a strong stand against that. Q. Back in the Vietnam War era, colleges themselves became the targets of militants. Are there specific actions by colleges that are likely to prompt actions against them? A. Colleges that really protect platforms for individuals who are already rich, white males — who already have their voices amplified and valued much more than other people’s voices — are going to see, probably, much more resistance. … Q. You have tweeted about being barraged with anonymous harassment and threats as a result of your political activities. Are college students who publicly espouse views and tactics similar to yours going to be safe? A. We need to realize that, right now, that is going to happen to people who have the hope and the will to stand up and resist. Should you let it dissuade you from taking actions you need to take to protect what you love? No. Absolutely not.

Here is the person being interviewed, Lacy MacAuley.



As you can see, Lacy’s smug expression and trendy asymmetrical haircut is a testament to the fact that she probably comes from money, which is the real reason police and security forces are afraid to hold these people accountable.

But why isn’t she being investigated under federal RICO or paramilitary laws? This person is bragging about leading a group that commits violent felonies in pursuit of the violation of other people’s right to free speech in publicly supported campuses.

Yet Peter Schmidt’s only advice to administrators is “Woah, be careful, don’t let people Lacy MacAuley doesn’t agree with speak on your campus, because she might get mad and attack you.”

Personally, I hope these people continue to escalate and overplay their hand by rioting every time some corny black metal band comes to town or toothless MILO-tier speaker comes to campus.

Leftists only advance as far as society tolerates them or the benefactors can support them. Even the superpower Soviet Union had to be bailed out at the 11th hour by the Lend-Lease and British colonial resources.

As America’s elite weakens, alternative forms of media replace the Judenpresse, and fence riders grow tired of tolerating these sheltered little despots, then they’ll know what it’s like to fight in the street with real National Socialists, many who don’t even fear death, much less a gliberal in need of an attitude adjustment.

So far, they have only had one skirmish with actual “Fascists” and pro-whites in recent years – the Battle of Sacramento – and that was an astonishing rout. Wait until beating up those friendly Trump supporters just trying to debate you turns them feral.

This is only the beginning alright. The beginning of their end.