A “Millennial Meltdown” or is it the Big Business of Anarchism at work?


February 4, 2017 by gregrabidoux2013



But a war on what?


Anarchism, the distorted step-child of peaceful, passionate protests has itself become big business. Profitable, sophisticated, dangerous and inherently insidious.

A senior business editor at Forbes recently opined that protesting, and even “calculated anarchism” has become big business. A multi-billion dollar business on both far sides of the political spectrum.

Make no mistake about it, what we recently saw at UC-Berkeley and NYU was at least in part, the big business of anarchism at work. The violence, brawls, assaults with weapons, burning fires, vandalism, damage to campus buildings, intimidation, attacks on security police and NYU and NYPD police, even looting, were all supposedly in response to the outrage, yes, the outrage against Breitbart senior editor Milo Yiannopulis and conservative comedian Gavin McInnes speaking at “their” campuses. But it was no mere spontaneous eruption of leftist sensibilities being inflamed beyond impulse control.


It, violent and massive protests from the extreme left, are becoming something else altogether. And while truly sincere, well-meaning liberals who simply abhor President Trump and everything he stands for and against can’t or won’t see it, they along with many of their fellow liberals who still pine for the return of Barack Obama are being swept up into a destabilizing and dangerous movement.



Resist intolerance and hatred with violence?


Certainly you have sincere students. Some NYU students interviewed said they came to show that they were “bigger and better” than any hate speech but had no idea so many other groups would show up with seemingly nothing but violence and destruction on their mind. Ditto at UC-Berkeley.

But you also have anarchist organizations claiming “victory” for these violent events and supposedly peaceful counter-movement organizations like “RefuseFascisim” blaming “hate speech” for “causing” the violent mayhem all the while they foment violence. And the money trace continues to land at the door step of big money financiers. Well, there is something very calculating and harmful going on and it’s not just the sting of pepper spray.

The hard Right of course is brandishing its own form of knee-jerk reactionism. They are simply asserting that “the Left” has lost its collective mind and is practicing intolerance, hate and coercion in the name of hippie-style peace and love. Many of the usual conservative suspects are simply concluding that we are just witnessing a “millennial meltdown” because their savior, Barack Obama has left the (White) House.



See this is why I jumped the Fox ship for NBC. Well that and sexual harassment.


Meanwhile, Clinton-era soothsayers like Robert Reich accuse the Breitbart organization of orchestrating all the protests to de-legitimize liberals.

Nonsense, and a pox to both your houses.

After watching several interviews with actual UC-Berkeley students whose intent seemed sincere in peacefully protesting Milo Y’s campus speech but not condoning the violence nor the damage that broke out, I am left with a question-

Did you really not think that other well-funded, well-trained and even well-armed groups whose sole aim is to disrupt, de-stabilize and silence any opposing conservative views wouldn’t and didn’t seize this chance to control the outcome?

Yes, I saw video of what surely looked like actual students involved in brawls and some stomping a supposed Breitbart supporter and those are simply criminal acts and should be punished. But I also saw many black-masked anarchists setting fire to parts of the campus and later shouting that this was just the first of many steps to “armed revolution.”



At least we aren’t just tweeting about it.


And to both UC-Berkeley and NYU students who stated that “they” and only “they” get to say who “visits” and speaks at their campus, I ask you all a question-

Isn’t diversity and tolerance supposed to be strong enough and secure enough in its foundations to at least allow for diversity of thought, ideas and speech?

Even when that “speech” is highly offensive and in Milos’ instance meant to be provocative to sell more of his books?

Here’s an idea: If you truly abhor a “guest” or a speaker then simply turn your back on him or her, reject their ideas, generate and promulgate your own ideas to show how utterly wrong, false, or illegitimate “they” are and move on (so to speak).

Isn’t the flame of hatred like what Milos spreads only burnished by violence and utterly dissipated by tolerant and peaceful opposition?



Resist opposing ideas at any cost?


Should any university only ever bring speakers to its campus that are pre-approved by an overwhelming consensus or is an exchange of ideas and philosophies not what we should be supporting on our campuses these days?

One seemingly informed and reasonable NYU student actually said “I did not pay tuition to be forced to listen to views I don’t support.”

Maybe this is all moot as though as the “big business de-stabilizing genie” may already be out of its bottle with no intention of ever returning.

Years ago, the Tea Party learned rather quickly that intimidation, coercion, even violence can make opposing views cower, or at the very least become scarce even silent.

Bullying and violent intimidation it seems works.

And when we traced the Tea Party money it landed us on the doorsteps of large financiers like the Koch brothers who support and subsidize a plethora of both open and shadowy organizations globally. Their clear aim was and is to de-legitimize and vanquish liberal movements that sought and seek a more globalized and borderless world.

And here we are now, a mere 15 days or so into the Trump Administration and the far Left it would now seem has learned the lessons of de-stabilization and even bullying well.

Groups like Move.On want to do anything but move on. They have publicly stated “resistance” against intolerance and the Fascists Trump supporters and have vowed to do “whatever it takes” to resist. They are heavily funded by George Soros and have at least tacitly joined forces with a number of groups that describe themselves as anarchistic revolutionaries.

So, to all the well-meaning, sincere folks out there that are anti-Trump, and wish Hillary had won and not the evil Trump, go ahead and protest and picket and keep on making it loud and clear why he and all he stands for is wrong. And if you get the chance go ahead and share a better way to fight terrorism, to secure our nation, to build our economy, to make our city streets and schools safer for people of any, all or no color.



Free Speech can be pretty awe-inspiring


But please don’t be blind to the fact that there are other forces here, very well-funded and trained forces at play. And they may not share your “peace and love” message but want something far more insidious and are far more ruthless than you might believe, conceive or accept.

And to those on the far Right, please stop being blind to your own bullying, intolerant and arrogant ways. Hatred and intolerance is never the answer. And can you once and for ever get over the fact that not everyone has the same sexual orientation as you?

And could both the far left and right please stop making stuff up?

Because honestly the facts especially these days really are stranger and more compelling than fiction.












15 thoughts on “A “Millennial Meltdown” or is it the Big Business of Anarchism at work?

  1. Brad Gernazian says:

    When I turn on the TV, whether it be CNN or FOX, and see people throwing bricks through a Starbucks window or setting a building on fire, I quickly change the channel. As bad as it sounds, I don’t care to hear what these protestors have to say. If this is their way of getting their point across then I have no interest to hear what their point even is. It’s a shame because it has gotten to the point where even peaceful protesting is losing its flavor with me. When I heard that officers were handing out play-dough, ice cream, and therapy dog sessions to calm down these protestors, all credibility went out the door. I am all for having your voice heard if there is an actual meaningful message behind what you are saying.

    Whether you are liberal or conservative should make no difference when you have a public speaker at your college. There is knowledge to be gained from this person regardless of your political ideals or else they wouldn’t be standing on stage speaking.

    In my opinion, everyone needs to take a few steps back and realize that the universe is not centered around them. Things are going to happen that we disagree with. Does that really warrant a massive protest? African-Americans not having the right to vote: YES PROTEST.
    President gets elected through the same system that has been in place since the countries existence: NO PROTEST.

    • James D. L. says:

      Amen to that. Hard to take protests seriously when they need to have play-dough and doggie therapy because they can’t take reality. Bunch of sheltered, pampered wimps.

  2. Nathan Daley says:

    This situation like many other violent protests over the last few years in this country has been very disappointing. It’s embarrassing and shameful that people are perverting their Constitutional rights because they don’t like the President. When I sit back and watch the foolishness unfold, It makes me wonder what President actually did that is causing people to throw temper tantrums in the streets of NY or in other cities. These are the same people that created the circumstances that made it possible for him to win the election.

    There are many millennials that really don’t have a clue and they spend their time getting their information from others who don’t have a clue. Now we have a situation where people jump on the bandwagon because the people they are learning from are saying to hate President Trump. The sad thing is when you ask them why they dislike him, they all share the same response. No one is able to give a genuine answer or can really explain what his position is on politics. This is another reason we have to do better about the media and the information that they are feeding people who are quick to absorb information without proper research. This Nation is suffering with a bad case of, the blind leading the blind.

    I’m not an advocate of violent protesting because it’s wrong and blatantly inconsiderate to others. I believe if people are so angry about the outcome or about the policies, then they need to do something about it. People need to invest their time and energy educating themselves or take the initiative in going into politics so their voice can be heard. Going out and rioting in the streets doesn’t solve anything at all. It’s as simple as being a part of the solution and not the problem.

    Now I wouldn’t put anything past our government when it comes to orchestrating domestic protest in order to push an agenda. The CIA is known for conducting ops like these in collaboration with the media in order to sway people’s opinion. The media is a powerful tool used to manipulate the people. It’s as if those involved have the formula to human behavior and know exactly what’s required in order to get the reaction needed to achieve their objective.

    • Scott Blount says:

      Nathan, I couldn’t agree more with your comments. As you mentioned, many of these folks taking part in violent protests-whether it’s anti-Trump or the protests in Ferguson, MO, and Baltimore in response to police incidents-actually created the conditions that led to a Trump presidency. As crazy as our world is, and as many bitter, miserable souls as there are out there, there are still many people who value peaceful expression of support or opposition. Legitimate concerns on important issues have gotten turned into riots that resemble what many people associate with more uncivilized third world countries. Mindlessly destroying property in the name of opposition is, for lack of a better word, stupid. It undermines the message, turns many people off, and generally belittles the movement.

      Your point on the blind leading the blind is spot on for disheartening large segment of our population. People are too easily manipulated, as ignorance runs rampant. Those taking advantage of this ignorance include the media (left-wing and right-wing), those well-funded organizers of anarchistic protests/riots, and worst of all….politicians. I get a huge laugh every single time I hear a politician out on the campaign trail, usually speaking to a large gathering of willful sheep, who proclaims in reference to his/her opponent or the opponent’s party, “they think you’re stupid!”. That’s rich. Unfortunately, the business of manipulating is…well, big business. Our national level politics has devolved in such a way that the minority party spends all of its time discrediting and tearing down the party in power, rather than actually working on compromises. It’s all cyclical, and neither party is going to EVER get everything they want. Isn’t it funny how the party in power always says “let’s work together!”…until they’re not in power? That polarization has laid the foundation for the anger and narcissism that’s prevalent in many protests.

  3. Melissa says:

    My biggest issue with all of this is that the people “protesting” are committing crimes in the name of protest. Which is like a toddler pitching a fit because they don’t get their way. While they have their own principles per se, they need to learn that the right to freedom of speech is supposed to be peaceful. When you are committing crimes on a town, university or business that you claim to “love”, then you are becoming the biggest hypocrite of all. I saw a picture the other day of a protest against Starbucks and the protestor was drinking a Starbucks drink while doing so. I believe in protesting and standing up for what you believe in, but it must be done is a way that is peaceful and profound. These are criminals and the money behind these crimes need to pay for their actions. When the funds are cut and the support of these protestors is removed, then we can start moving forward. These protestors have to remember there were people who dealt with Obama being their president for 8 years and hated it. So now, they have to deal with Trump for at least 4 years. It is just the way the cookie crumbles. That is why there are term limits. And parents and teachers, did you not teach these people about the term limits and that eventually POTUS’ do change every 4-8 years?

  4. Toyia Barnes says:

    Sure self-interests have infiltrated passive resistance through protesting. But it is as American as apple pie. Punish the law-breakers without punishing those exercising the 1st Amendment right to protest. Public activism fuels voting participation which can negate the strength of big money interests.

  5. Zack Saunders says:

    Two quotes from this post stick out to me:
    “Should any university only ever bring speakers to its campus that are pre-approved by an overwhelming consensus or is an exchange of ideas and philosophies not what we should be supporting on our campuses these days?”
    “Bullying and violent intimidation it seems works.”
    My senior seminar in my undergrad degree focused on a book called “The Closing of the American Mind”. In short, it explained how the tyranny of democracy and the overwhelming force of the majority opinion shut out outside thought. If the ideas were not of the majority, they were suppressed, sometimes violently. The main issue that the author found with this tyranny was that it had crept into the universities. These were no longer institutions of knowledge where truth was sought, but houses of propaganda where students are fed information according to that university or professor’s agenda. When there is no outside thought besides the majority, then there can not be true learning, which is a failure of the education system.

  6. gljackson33 says:

    Once again non-peaceful protests doesn’t gets us nowhere, throwing bricks or anything in that nature will solve any of those problems. Didn’t anybody see the LA riots, they still have to look at the destruction of there city. Don’t tear up your own neighborhood and think that it will change the outcome overnight. Seems like protesting doesn’t even carry any weight when it comes to solving problems. Seems to me that it only causes the problem to get worse.

  7. Elizabeth says:

    Agreed wholeheartedly. This big business of anarchism is absolutely ridiculous. It makes me sick that the students or individuals involved in these protests espouse independent thought, and rebuke big business and capitalism. They don’t take the time to figure out who is coordinating these rallies, who is inciting the ideas, they just adopt them and participate. And yes, I agree that if all of the campuses have the control to allow certain speakers, shouldn’t they be welcoming those with opposing views? Isn’t that the point of higher education – to learn every aspect of a subject and then be able to make your own educated decision based on the knowledge you’ve gathered? Certainly this is better than just adopting someone else’s ideas. Protests are an effective tool, even when they are managed by a bigger force, if they allow ideas being discussed. But seriously people, do you really think destroying personal property is going to do anything but make the people around you shut down and not listen to your ideas?

  8. Morrisa Rogers says:

    I really appreciated this post. It has been a question I continue to ask myself as news unfolds. There is always a cry for freedom of speech but such intolerance exhibited when opposing views are shared. I recently watched Accidental Courtesy, a PBS documentary that shares the journey of Daryl Davis. Daryl likes to meet and befriend members of the KKK, many of whom have never met a black person. When some of these same people decide to leave the Klan, Daryl keeps their robes and hoods — building his collection piece by piece, story by story, person by person. However, the aspect of the documentary that really caught my attention was the heated interaction that transpired when Daryl met the young, Black Lives Matter activist, that vehemently disagreed with Daryl’s tactic. The display of intolerance for an opposing view of another African-American was shocking as I anticipated the interaction was be similar to other conversations with Klan members, which were civil. On the contrary, when Daryl expressed his views calmly even thought they was pointed and challenging, the activist became so heated he walked out. Why do we uphold freedom of speech when it is convenient but seemingly want everyone to conform to our personal views without dialogue and debate? Can we not agree to disagree and let the majority win? Unfortunately, freedom of speech as become a political pawn used to influence the intended or preferred outcome. The real question is how do we get the genie back in the bottle.

  9. Yvonne S says:

    I honestly believe that opportunists whether anarchists, hate groups, or extremists take advantage of peaceful protests to push their agendas. This happens across the spectrum whether it was Occupy Wall Street, Black Lives Matter, or in this case at the college campus. It may be difficult to truly get a pout across when outside factions with their own agendas spoil the cause by doing extreme things like damaging property. I am unsure of how damaging property ever solved anything. It adds to the blight of communities, causes economic setbacks to property owners and workers, and likely increases insurance premiums.

  10. I cannot for the life of me understand vandalism as a form to bring about change. When action like that takes place protestors are hurting their community and eliminating any chance for change. Dr. King’s nonviolent approach took years before minorities saw any real change as a matter of fact after his death but it worked. Common sense when as win over stupid tempers.

  11. Liz McLean says:

    I am a Millennial but I will never understand the purpose behind this kind of destruction. Protesting – yes; destruction because something offends you – no. To me, it doesn’t help further an agenda or message; rather, it makes me doubt the integrity and sincerity of the message the protestors are attempting to convey. An academic institution is supposed to be an environment in which people can freely discuss and disseminate ideas and schools of thought. Not every student will agree with all ideas found on your average American campus, but the advantage of free speech is the ability to speak out with different opinions and ideas. As you mentioned, you can “generate and promulgate your own ideas.” This firebrand and destructive form of protest makes me lose interest and diminishes a group’s credibility, regardless of what side of the political spectrum they are on.

    As it has been a couple of months since large protests like this, I hope protestors are starting to realize there are more effective methods for promoting their messages.

  12. Joe Pennino says:

    To begin with, I’m not convinced labeling anarchism as “distorted” and “inherently insidious” is necessarily a fair characterisation. Anarchism is frequently misunderstood outside of academic circles. In fact, Thomas Jefferson is frequently categorized as a philosophical anarchist. He warned that “law is often but the tyrant’s will,” and that citizens must be wary of any law that “violates the rights of the individual.” One of the core tenants of the anarchist traditions is that authority should always be questioned and is deemed illegitimate unless it can be proven otherwise. It is the responsibility of those who exercise power to substantiate its legitimacy.

    Many think that mainstream anarchists are prone to violence and destruction. While it is true that some anarchists do promote violence, most just want to see the federal government reduced in size or eliminated and replaced with local authorities like villages and communes. Anarchism is often referred to as the purest form of democracy, and many believe there should be total democratic control of communities, the workplace, and local governments. Anarchists usually oppose any institution that requires people to conform to a particular behavior or way of thinking such as schools, labor unions, religions, and indeed governments. They perceive the government (and its administrators) as part of a bloated institution that taxes the citizenry, reduces personal freedoms and is answerable only to special interest groups.

    There are several theories of anarchism in regards to how anarchists view relationships. Social anarchism aims to free people so that they can make the greatest contribution possible to society. Conversely, individualist anarchists desire personal freedom for the sake of the individual. They loathe welfare programs and subscribe to the notion of the survival of the fittest. In the United States, anarchism is connected to survivalists on the extreme right, and with extremists who fear the effects of globalization on the left.

    I obviously disagree with the violence that occurred at UC-Berkeley and NYU. I agree that diversity, tolerance, and free speech should be protected equally whether it be at a Tump protest, a Black Lives Matter march, or when Milo Yiannopoulos or Betsy DeVos addresses university students. There cannot be separate rules or guidelines for different groups, ideologies, or people. Allowing this will only serve to reinforce division and stereotypes and increase intolerance. As the author of this blog states, if you don’t like the speaker, turn your back, leave, or promote your own ideas. Universities especially should be a place where all points of view are welcomed and spiritedly debated.

  13. Levi says:

    The actions we have seen in Berkeley and more recently Charlottesville are simply not mere protest. They are violent insurrections by far-left zealots. They are outraged over people from the far-right being allowed to speak and even set foot onto their liberal bastion, the college campus. There is no problem with having disdain toward right and far right ideology, or even protesting against it, peacefully. But when you trade in your signs for sticks and raze the town and begin looting the stores, we’re onto something completely different. If anything, it undercuts your message and turns off any people who may have been willing to listen to why you feel so unhappy.
    In my city, a certain person who has been dubbed a “white nationalist” is set to speak at our local university. I don’t condone what he says, but he does have the freedom to say what he wants. But I am fearful over the backlash that will come. The city is having to pay half a million dollars for security for the event. Having seen what happened in Berkeley and Charlottesville, I’m nervous that these professional protestors will show up and star burning down my city.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: