Zionists and Pro-Palestinians at UCLA

Counter protesters, presumably Zionists and likely including many Jews, physically attacked the pro-Palestinian protests at UCLA. The result was that the pro-Palestinian sites were removed. Imagine pro-abortion protesters putting up an encampment at a university and attacked by right-to-life advocates. The police would arrest the attackers and leave the encampment in place.

Make no mistake, the powers that be will shut down these protests and heavily penalize them. Another win for the Zionists.

Surprisingly, this is from the LATimes daily email, by Paul Thornton, :

A lot gets blurred in protests. Simple acts that would be easy to judge in normal circumstances — say, who yelled at whom first — become muddled among crowds of people who are just as convinced of their own righteousness as onlookers may be of their depravity.

Which is what makes nonviolence so important. In the fog of mass protest, nonviolence is the clear, bright line we can all see that distinguishes free expression from hooliganism and assault. When that line is breached and peaceful protesters are attacked, even people who disagree wholeheartedly with their message or rhetoric must come to their defense. Beating up people whose views we find abhorrent is un-American — or at least it ought to be.

That line was crossed at UCLA on Tuesday night and Wednesday morning, when pro-Palestinian students camped in front of Royce Hall were attacked by counterprotesters (who, at that moment, became something besides counterprotesters). The attackers sustained their assault for hours and even targeted student journalists with the UCLA Daily Bruin. Questions are being raised as to why police took so long to subdue the violence.

The next day, police showed up in force — to dismantle the encampment that had just been attacked, arresting at least 200 protesters. The difference was jarring, and UCLA and law enforcement should account for why the institutional response appeared to have come down so hard in one circumstance but not the other.

As The Times’ editorial board notes, being arrested is a likely outcome of civil disobedience. What shouldn’t be a likely outcome, in a country that values free speech, is the kind of attack that happened at UCLA:

“Protesters in encampments on college campuses know they could face arrest over trespassing or failure to disperse, which is what happened Thursday morning as police cleared the UCLA encampment and arrested more than 200 people. That’s part of the deal when undertaking acts of civil disobedience. But protesters should not be subject to physical attacks from people who disagree with them.

“Free speech and protest are foundations of the United States — and it’s been a cornerstone of American university life for decades. It’s unacceptable for anyone to try to silence an opinion they don’t agree with through intimidation and violence.”

2 replies
  1. Rudolf
    Rudolf says:

    Speaking of universities: “Mr.” Marhoefer is one of those “neutrons” who pass off as “professors” in our oh-so “progressive & liberal” times. https://www.washington.edu/news/2024/04/23/video-uw-professor-on-the-boys-in-the-boat-nazi-germany-and-the-1936-olympics/

    But her field of expertise is not researching why she, in all seriousness, thinks she is a “man” (though unjust nature endowed her with vagina, uterus & mammae), but why madman Adolf and his ilk put incurable psychos like “him” in a straitjacket.

    Btw., how does she even know that “the boys in the boat” were not actually “binary” hermaphrodites? Will slime bucket Clooney (buddy of fake-“Mutti” Merkel) answer this all-important question? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laurie_Marhoefer


  2. Rudolf
    Rudolf says:

    The heaviest vehicle ever built: “The original name caused controversy due to Pieter Schelte Heerema’s service in the Waffen-SS during World War II. As a result, in February 2015, Allseas announced that the vessel’s name would be changed to Pioneering Spirit.”



    “The hidden powers that drove England into the first World War in the year 1914 were Jews. The power that paralyzed us at that time and finally forced us to surrender under the slogan that Germany should not be allowed to carry its flag home victorious was a Jewish one. Jews engineered the revolution by our Volk and thereby robbed us of our powers of further resistance. 199 After 1939, Jews maneuvered the British empire into a dangerous crisis. Jews were the carriers of the Bolshevik infection which once threatened to destroy Europe. At the same time, they were the warmongers in the ranks of the plutocracies. A circle of Jews in America once drove this country into the war against all national interest, simply and solely because of Jewish-capitalist motives. And President Roosevelt, lacking capabilities of his own, has the support of said brain trust, whose leading men I need not mention by name: they are only Jews.

    Through them, as in the year 1917, the United States of America was driven step by step into a war without reason and sense, by a Jewish-infected president and his completely Jewish cohorts, against nations which have never harmed America, and against people from whom America can never profit.” Could Adolf have been spot on with this? From bottom right https://archive.org/details/tcahs/page/n2553/mode/2up



    Addendum for Kevin: the book that supposedly inspired Adolf to become a “persuasive speaker” https://archive.org/details/tunnel00kell/mode/2upin in 1915.

Comments are closed.