This is the webpage version of this video.
My BITCHUTE My Minds My Gab My backup Youtube Channel Justin Fidel
The sources below may or may not be honest/accurate. I certainly do not take their word for it. In fact, I post some things to demonstrate how dishonest/inaccurate they are.
– Billie Murray
It seems an other Antifa professor is calling for physical violence from Antifa against people exercising their First Amendment right to free speech which they mislabel hate speech. No, not Mark Bray, the author of Antifa – the Anti-Fascist handbook. No, not Eric Clanton, the “bike lock professor”.
This time it’s Dr. Billie Murray who according to Academia.edu is a “rhetorical activist scholar” who teaches a course on “rhetoric and social justice” (see page 1 of the curriculum vitae) and who attends Antifa riots and who is against civil rights according to Vice.
“As a scholar who studies community responses to hate speech, she gravitates toward incendiary confrontations.” according to the Chronicle of Higher Education.¹
This source also says that in her classroom, she teaches that arson is a justified form of resistance and thinks that destruction of private property is justifiable too.
Some, like myself, say that the best answer to bad speech is good speech, but, according to Vice, “She doesn’t buy that “more speech” argument.”
On the Villanova University Campus Events page we see that there is an upcoming lecture by Dr. Murray titled, “Reimagining Activism as Combative” for April 24th, 4:30-5:30pm ET at Villanova University at 800 E. Lancaster Avenue, Villanova, PA 19085 [(610) 519-4500]. They write;
In this presentation, Dr. Billie Murray will challenge the violence/nonviolence binary that limits our understanding of activist practices. Drawing on examples from her fieldwork with anti-fascist activists, she will argue that we should reimagine activism as combative. Such an expanded understanding will allow us to better discern the efficacy and ethics of combative tactics and how they work in concert with traditional, nonviolent activism. The lecture will be held in Driscoll 134. ACS Approved
So it does seem almost certain that she will be advocating for violence. Has she changed her position on that or is she duplicitous? According to the bio piece on her from just November of last year by the Chronicle of Higher Education she has said “As an activist, I support antiracist action and antifascist organizing, but I draw the line at engaging in violence.” She understands, though, why antifa groups engage in what she calls symbolic violence.” they continue.
One might wonder what sort of University Villanova is. According to the Wall Street Journal (according to the American Conservative²), the administration encourages students to report on professors who engage in wrongthink (that is, for not being progressive enough. In other words, they want students to report on teachers who are not part of the regressive left).
Without paying you can still see enough of the Wall Street Journal article headlined A Mole Hunt for Diversity ‘Bias’ at Villanova – An atmosphere of fear-imposed silence makes it impossible to achieve a real liberal-arts education to read;
Like many colleges in the U.S., Villanova University has launched an effort to monitor its faculty for signs of “bias” in the classroom. As Villanova professors, we believe this mole hunt for bias undercuts our ability to provide students with a liberal education.
By the way, it is not that we are for bias or that we like hate speech or real Nazis and so on. It is that the regressive left, Antifa and so on label things as biased, hateful, racist, or label people Nazis or fascists when they are not. At any rate, even actual neo-Nazis or neo-fascists have civil rights. Don’t like it? Fuck you. Don’t like that? Good.
Princeton Professor Robert P. George tweeted this on April 16th;
Look at this response;
It seems this will not be the first time she gave a lecture calling for violence. On her curriculum vitae at Academia.edu (page 6) it says she gave a lecture titled Is it OK to Punch Nazis? Faculty Congress Teach-In Series at Villanova University on March 24th, 2017. One might wonder if she has been becoming more radical since in her paper from 2016 titled, Words that wound, bodies that shield: Corporeal responses to Westboro Baptist Church’s hate speech (page 2) it seems she argues for non-violent tactics.
As far as I can tell from what I have read by her and what I have heard her say in videos and in lectures, she changed drastically after Charlottesville.
One might shudder to think of what she may be writing in a book she is writing tentatively titled, Allied Tactics: Public Responses to Hate Speech and what she wrote in her journal article (still under review) titled #GetWokeNova: Combating Bias on Campus through Micro-practices of Allyship or what she said in her presentation Who’s Allowed to Punch a Nazi? (page 3) in 2017 or what she said at the convention Putting Bodies on the Line and Words Into Action: Celebrating the Joys of, Challenges in, and Opportunities for Civic Engagement. Now where have we heard the phrase “Put your bodies on the line” before?
Oh, that’s right, Dwayne Dixon told people to put their bodies on the line, to get into traffic and to get ready to get hit at Charlottesville shortly before Heather Heyer was killed. Hmmmm is that a trope, an oft-said phrase among the far leftists?
In this talk (Putting Bodies on the Line and Words into Action), she uses the phrase many times. She recognizes how horrible it is that Heather Heyer was killed in Charlottesville and yet she thinks people should engage in the sort of action that got her killed – to put their bodies on the line.
We can see that she also has written and lectured about disruption a number of times, what she calls “social justice”, activism, “hate speech”, protesting, the Occupy movement and so on.
Under “Professional Development” we see (page 7) we see “Safe Zone volunteer training“.
Look at this Tweet by her University;
The tweet links to the video, “Hate crimes are on the rise. What can we do to stop them?”
On the Academia.edu page for Murray we see that her…
current research explores public responses to hate speech and issues of allyship in activist communities as she participates with other activists in counterprotests against white supremacists and other hate groups.
As a rhetorical activist scholar, Dr. Murray believes that her research should contribute to social justice and the public good.
Looking at a list of papers she’s written, I clicked on one and saw right away that she cites the SPLC as if it were a credible source! As a student just a few years ago, I would never have been so sloppy as to use a bad source like that, even for a homework assignment. One the one hand, the SPLC has falsely accused people and groups. For example, they libeled – er, um – they labelled moderate liberal Muslim Maajid Nawaz an “anti Muslim extremist” and lie about the Proud Boys while saying that Antifa is not a hate group and so on. On the other hand, there are allegations of racial discrimination and sexual harassment leveled at their co-founder who has been fired.
“Has a Civil Rights Stalwart Lost Its Way?” by Politico
“Antifa isn’t a ‘hate group,’ Southern Poverty Law Center claims” by the Washington Times
“Southern Poverty Law Center condemns antifa, but won’t call hate group” by the Washington Times
“Southern Poverty Law Center Fires Co-Founder, Declines to Say What He’s Alleged to Have Done” by the Washington Post
“Southern Poverty Law Center Bias Exposed” by the Daily Signal
“SPLC fires founder Morris Dees; internal emails highlight issues with harassment, discrimination” by Alabama Political Reporter
“Is it OK to Punch Nazis? Faculty Congress Teach-In Series” at Villanova University, March 24th, 2017.
“When Neo-Nazis and Antifascists Clash, This Professor Wants to Be in the Thick of It” by the Chronicle of Higher Education
If indeed this Antifa professor calls for violence then wrap your head around this – she wants the government to take away your free speech by undoing the First Amendment and yet she engages in the only kind of speech that is not protected by the First Amendment.³ That’s a bit askew, don’t you think?