Chicago Boyz

                 
 
 
What Are Chicago Boyz Readers Reading?
 

 
  •   Enter your email to be notified of new posts:
  •   Problem? Question?
  •   Contact Authors:

  • CB Twitter Feed
  • Blog Posts (RSS 2.0)
  • Blog Posts (Atom 0.3)
  • Incoming Links
  • Recent Comments

    • Loading...
  • Authors

  • Notable Discussions

  • Recent Posts

  • Blogroll

  • Categories

  • Archives

  • Does He Know What He is Holding?

    Posted by Shannon Love on January 28th, 2005 (All posts by )

    Via Instapundit comes a link to a photo of a Leftwing professor who is so smart he went all the way out the other side to stupid.

    I couldn’t help but wonder if a contemporary radical-Left college professor actually knows how to maintain and shoot an AK-47? Does he own the weapon himself? Is it full auto? Is its collapsible stock legal?

    I mean, is this guy really a bad-ass revolutionary capable of taking the fight to “the man” or a 60s retread, Che Guevara-wanna-be poser?

    I think I’ll be taking bets.

     

    11 Responses to “Does He Know What He is Holding?”

    1. James R. Rummel Says:

      That guy? Bad ass?

      Put me down for $10 on him being a weepy crybaby when someone uses harsh language, let alone when the bullets start to fly.

      James

      PS The pic is on a website promoting all sorts of hippy-drippy causes. Right up there at the top it says “Vegetarianism, Environmentalism, Animal Advocacy, Social Justice.”

      And yet he’s holding an AK, which was invented and built in the Soviet Union.

      But that’s the modern Left for you. Violate your principals in the most obvious and absurd ways and wonder why your voter base is shrinking.

    2. Fred Boness Says:

      It’s just guerrilla theatre. Retro guerilla theatre at that since there are no large puppets as typically found in contemporary guerilla theatre.

    3. Jonathan Says:

      Never mind the props. Read the interview. He thinks that not only were the innocent people murdered at the WTC as evil as Eichmann, but that most other Americans are similarly evil. The man is depraved.

    4. Shannon Love Says:

      Jonathan G ewirtz,

      ” Read the interview”

      And this would be a good use of my time because…?

    5. incognito Says:

      Reminds me of many similar bad asses in Berkeley. I wonder what ever happened to them? Probably working at Starbucks.

    6. Shannon Love Says:

      “probably working at Starbucks.”

      Yeah, there’s a lot of Starbuck rage out there.

      Some people just can’t accept that having a degree in “post-feminist literature of the Yucatan peninsula” just doesn’t get them a lot money, respect and sexual opportunities.

    7. Jonathan Says:

      And this would be a good use of my time because…?

      Here are some time-saving quotes (emphasis added):

      [Q]Some people feel that those who abuse animals or people negate their right to consideration and open themselves up to physical violence. What’s your response to this?
      [A]The individuals who are perpetrators in one way or another, the “little Eichmanns”* in the background—the technocrats, bureaucrats, technicians—who make the matrix of atrocity that we are opposing possible are used to operating with impunity. If you’re designing thermonuclear weapons, you’re subject to neutralization, in the same sense that somebody who is engaged in homicide would be, in terms of their capacity to perpetrate that offense. One or two steps removed should not have the effect of immunizing. Otherwise, only those who are in the frontline—usually the most expendable in the systemic sense—are subject to intervention. None of the decision-makers, the people who make it possible, would be subject to intervention that would prevent their action in any way at all.
      [Q]That brings me to one question, which is, in general, people like to think they’re pretty decent. They don’t like to think of themselves as violent or complying with a system that is oppressive…
      [A]Heinrich Himmler viewed himself in exactly that way. He was a family man, he had high moral values, he’d met his responsibilities, blah, blah, blah—a good and decent man in his own mind.
      [Q]Do you think that applies to most American people?
      [A]In the sense that it applied to most Germans [during the Third Reich].

    8. Shannon Love Says:

      Jonathan G ewirtz,

      He a self-important childish little man who is probably holding an ak-47 for reason Freud would have appreciated.

      I really didn’t have to read the whole thing to know that. ;-)

    9. incognito Says:

      Geez louise… leftists have this fascination with equating anyone they don’t like with Hitler and the Nazis. Rather childish indeed. Maybe deep down they like the Third Reich and want to be like Nazis? It certainly is consistent with their social policies.

      Here’s an actual historical fact: Hitler was an ardent vegetarian. He didn’t mind killing people, but couldn’t stomach animals being hurt. Which by extension of the same logic applied by the good professor, would mean that leftists are partly responsible for Nazi Germany and the Holocaust. Hitler was also an ardent anti-smoker…

      Reminds me of that joke we told as kids: Love is blind. God is love. Ray Charles is blind. Therefore Ray Charles is God.

    10. Michael Hiteshew Says:

      And lets not forget that Hitler & Co, like most of the mass murders of the 20th century, were by, of and for the Left.

      Something they always seem to forget.

    11. Robin Burk Says:

      IIRC that photo dates back to the 70s. Churchill was associated with Peltier and the violent wing of the native American rights movements.

      There was a lot of that sort of thing going around — most of the people who posed in fatigue jackets grew out of it, though, even while retaining a nostalgia for their glory days …..