Overcoming Melanin Deficiency

Me, I’m your average white guy. Well, OK, perhaps below average, but definitely that kind of pinkish color that for some reason we call “white”. I hear the preferred PC term these days is “melanin challenged”.

Now, one oddity of our modern times is that average white guys are the one group that it’s still OK to abuse. You can’t tell Polish jokes, for example … but it’s common to hear something like “Well, of course the business is morally corrupt. It’s run by a bunch of white guys, what do you expect”?

This is the problem with identity politics. If you don’t own your own failures and successes, if you hold and aver that your problems are caused by somebody else … well, you need a scapegoat.

In past times, people blamed the Jews for all their problems, and some still do. And of course, black people were blamed for years for all kinds of imaginary sins of omission and commission.

But that has mostly vanished, gone with the wind, as they say. Well, no, it’s not gone, but it’s nekulturny to engage in blaming Jews and people of color. These days, there is one and only one group which is obviously to blame for everything that is wrong with today’s society.

Whitey. The Man. Honkies. Crackers. Peckerwoods. Rednecks. Hillbillies.

For example:

If you said “Black cuisine is generally bland and tasteless, it has no soul”, you’d have Black Food Matters or some other group camped out on your doorstep, pitchforks and torches to the ready.

But if you say “White cuisine is generally bland and tasteless, it has no soul”, you’ll likely get published and acclaimed for your gustatorial sensitivity.

And this same thing plays out in all the arenas, art, business, music, religion, and the rest. So these days it’s OK to take a dump from a great height on Christianity. It’s fine to take money from taxpayers for art and instead stick a crucifix in a jar of piss. That’s haute monde, shows you’re a modern person … but if you do the same regarding Islam, suddenly you’re Islamophobic and insensitive.

Say what?


charlotte riotNow, let me set that whole issue aside for a moment to discuss the recent tragedy in Charlottesville, where alt-right nutjobs, militia maniacs, and assorted skinheads on one side got into a riot with so-called “Anti-Fascists” and a variety of crybullies on the other side. One person was killed and a number on both sides were wounded.

Of course, I condemn the violence on both sides in the strongest terms, as any civilized human would. We have a society where we can settle this stuff without violence, and both sides need to dial back on the aggro. I don’t feel as badly as I might, in that everyone who showed up at the riot was there because they expected a fight … and tragically, some got more of a fight than they bargained for. But it is a shame and a stain on our nation, for both sides.

However, I have a different point to make about this appalling interaction.

There is one thing upon which virtually all of the skinheads and alt-right people and militia guys and Randy Weaver type survivalists and the folks that got burned up at Waco all agree on. They differ on lots and lots of issues, but on this one they are united.

Almost to a man, they all say that they are doing what they are doing because they feel that their way of life is under attack …

And sadly, while I disagree with their method of fighting back, I have to agree that yes, their way of life IS under attack.

Here’s the bottom line. There is a cost to this mad Democratic political push to blame the woes of every interest group on someone else … and the cost in this case is that the “someone else” will end up feeling very, very threatened by the constant attacks on their way of life, their religion, how high they can jump, their music, their dancing, their so-called “white privilege”, and the very beliefs that are the core of their lives.

And when they are threatened, each one of those who is attacked will fight back in their own way.

In short … why do you think Trump got elected? It wasn’t because the Democrats forgot about the white middle class, although that was bad enough.

It was because the Democrats were actively attacking the values of the white middle class.

And for good or bad, when melanin challenged folk are threatened, history shows that we don’t always take it well. Some of us will lash out. Some will lash out in words against those who demean and belittle them. Others will lash out by rioting, even killing others.

Be clear that I’m not saying that it is right to resort to violence. On my planet, that’s a clear sign that I’ve failed. As they say in kindergarten, “Use your words”.

I’m just clarifying that when skinheads and alt-right folks say their way of life is under attack …

… it is.

And we need to deal with that fact, although it likely won’t stop in my lifetime. It’s just too convenient to be able to blame everything that goes wrong on The Man.

Ah, well, the salmon don’t care about Charlotte, and the trees in my forest are uninterested in the doings of either the alt-right or the ctrl-left  … I must learn to emulate them both.

Best wishes to all, even the rioters on both sides, and my sincere condolences to the family of the woman who was killed.

w.

59 thoughts on “Overcoming Melanin Deficiency

  1. The White Ghetto reacts!

    Ghettos of all breeds react emotionally rather than rationally.

    Ghettos are bounded by internal and external forces that build the walls surrounding them.

    With white people still running the show it is interesting to observe that they are still the responsible party. What will they do when their precedents are turned towards them when their non white minority colleges of the same motivation gain control and follow?

    We as a nation are no longer rallying around freedom. We rally around the right to live in privileged Ghettos.

    Divide and be conquered.

    Like

    • “react emotionally rather than rationally”

      That’s the problem; that leads to fights and wars. It’s nothing new, but somehow it seems to be getting worse. Almost to the point where the left-right dimension doesn’t matter any more. Now we have the feelers-thinkers dimension instead. The left thinks the right is fascist (which is a huge exaggeration) without seeing their own fascist tendencies.

      Liked by 1 person

    • “Ghettos of all breeds react emotionally rather than rationally.” Really? You attack people and expect them to simply take it? Wow. Just,,,,wow.

      Like

      • It’s too quite in here, and this is an important point.
        ““Ghettos of all breeds react emotionally rather than rationally.” Really? You attack people and expect them to simply take it?”

        I wouldn’t have said “Ghettos of all breeds” but I think I know what he meant by it.
        The fashionable word is “identity groups”, and this is just another way of saying “tribalism”, which is the “us versus them” concept. See also xenophobia, racism, bigotry, sexism. Although I can’t prove it, I would be very surprised if “us versus them” did not date back all the way to “Us versus the Neanderthals”. Animals have fear and can sense dangers and threats. They react with fight or flight. Whether that is an emotional reaction or a rational reaction, it is a simple reaction. Humans with that little extra helping of brain, can anticipate the future and plan for it, more effectively, with much more elaborate choices. This is good news bad news. We invent diplomacy, politics, deception, weapons, war, revenge, murder, and gods.

        “Men are rather reasoning than reasonable animals, for the most part governed by the impulses of passion” — Hamilton

        Thinking is too hard.
        http://postimg.org/image/3og9511gl/

        Like

        • Been busy, just getting to email. You appear to use a great many words to obfuscate the point that when you attack people they fight back. Not opinion, just reality. And lets address Charlottesville headon, Jason Kessler is not a white supremacist, he is a Democrat activist who worked on both Obama election campaigns and set out to create exactly what occurred by “recruiting” a bunch of racists to do a march, to which he also invited antifa and black lies matter, with the full intention that all of them come together and do exactly what they did. Notice how the political left and media use their tools deftly and effectively and then throw them away? They have moved on to attacking America and Americans with other “tools”, having been deprived of thousands of dead bodies in FLA and Texas, they have jumped right into StLouis and begun throwing gasoline on that fire. And the wheel turns round and round.

          Like

          • Oh no, I’ve said too much
            I set it up

            That’s me in the corner
            That’s me in the spotlight
            Losing my religion

            R.E.M. “Losing My Religion”

            “when you attack people they fight back” — I never disagreed with that. It’s Human Nature. It’s not a good thing. Religion has tried to control that human nature, with mixed results. Some religions anyway, one in particular which is losing popularity as we revert to our animal natures, weaponized.

            “throwing gasoline on that fire. And the wheel turns round and round.” — Exactly.

            Like

          • ” It’s not a good thing.” Yes, it is a good thing. If you don’t fight back you can’t destroy your enemy, you, in fact, lose. America is losing because far too many people won’t fight back.

            Like

          • I’m afraid we will try the patience of our host and any lurkers. It’s quiet in here though and you’ve given me yet another opportunity for me to make a point. It’s not that I am trying to convince you; you are welcome to believe whatever it is you believe, and I might even agree. It’s just that I don’t know what you believe.

            “when you attack people they fight back” and “Yes, it is a good thing”.
            How far do you want to take that? If a drunk in a bar doesn’t like your face and wants to fight, do you go for it right there, ask to take it to the back alley, call the cops, or just get out while you can? Maybe you can think of a better example. If Kim the Nork says he is going to destroy you, do you nuke him now, prepare to nuke him after he nukes you, or do you say he is only bluffing? If BLM says cops are murderers, should they murder cops? If a Muslim says the U.S. killed some Muslim civilians, should Muslims bomb U.S. civilians? “eye for an eye” is a vicious circle. “turn the other cheek” isn’t the universal answer either. Somewhere in between, hopefully, there is an appropriate response, on a case by case basis.

            “If you don’t fight back you can’t destroy your enemy, you, in fact, lose.”
            You don’t have to destroy your enemy to win. It doesn’t have to be a rout, it doesn’t have to be total humiliation. The best case would be to convert the enemy, make them believers in your ways. Examples: Apple used to have an Evangelist and Apple ads used to have the implied message that Apple users were cool. Scott Adams would call that Persuasion. Or take the Gay community, how did they swing the masses from viewing gays as perverts to be beaten up to viewing gays (and all the other letters) as being cool and even admired? They won without a fight.

            To solve problems you have to think outside the box. The box here is “fighting is the only solution”. As an example of that kind of thinking, I give you Scott Adams:
            http://blog.dilbert.com/post/162632490866/solving-the-north-korea-situation

            All the big wars can be seen as failures to fix a problem soon enough.

            Like

  2. I wonder if those supportive of removing/ destroying the statue of Robert E. Lee understand those actions are not different in kind than the Taliban destroying Buddhist images in their land? I surely disagree with violence. I surely support people speaking out about the injustices they feel. Do I believe the REL statue should stay or be removed? I’d say remove it to a museum. Otherwise, we accept destruction of history as acceptable political action. He who controls the past controls the future…

    Like

    • An excellent point. Or perhaps you could compare it to the weeping and wailing we have in Canada over a (planned) pipeline that will upset the spirit of the Great Bear. (Probably not quite the correct reference, but I haven’t got the details to hand.)

      I am constantly amazed at how little backlash there has been to the demonization of historical figures. You cannot judge yesterday’s people by today’s standards and you cannot airbrush people out of history without the most damaging repercussions. The joke that certain people are using 1984 (the novel that is) not as a warning, but as a blueprint is not funny anymore because it look like some people really are trying to do this. We have to remember our history as is was – warts and all – or we will repeat it, simple as that.

      Like

  3. “Numerous eyewitnesses alleged to The Daily Caller News Foundation that the vehicle was driven by a member of the white supremacist movement.” They can tell them at the first sight. This is probably an actual reporting, not Washington Post.

    A reminder, Ku Klux Klan sought to overthrow the Republican state governments in the South during the Reconstruction Era, especially by using violence against African American leaders. Guess what party it was affiliated with. Some things never change.

    Like

    • Curious did you miss the five cops killed at a BLM rally and Obama pretty much endorsing the BLM at the funeral. Oh wait you are a picker and chooser.

      Like

      • nc August 14, 2017 at 8:13 am

        Curious did you miss the five cops killed at a BLM rally and Obama pretty much endorsing the BLM at the funeral. Oh wait you are a picker and chooser.

        nc, thanks for your comment, but what’s with the attitude? Of course I pick and choose, because it is not possible to discuss everything in one post.

        Next, I have no idea what your point is. Indeed, the murder of the five officers at the BLM rally was a national tragedy … but surely you cannot expect me to discuss every national tragedy in the last year in every post, or any post.

        Next, I’ve asked you to quote the exact words you are discussing. The transcript of Obama’s speech is here. Please quote Obama’s words you are discussing that have you so upset.

        Finally, what are you trying to say? That Obama was wrong? That killing cops is wrong? That BLM is wrong? That I am wrong?

        From your comment, it’s impossible to tell just what is it that has your knickers in such a twist. Your upset may indeed be justified … but there’s no way to tell that from this side of the computer screen.

        So I invite you to get specific and clarify your position so we can understand your issues.

        Oh, and lose the ‘tude, OK? I’ve done nothing to deserve it.

        Best regards,

        w.

        Like

        • Of course you need to focus and can’t cover everything. I think his point may be that we are blaming the White Nationalist demonstration and Trump for the death of the women killed by criminal, but we don’t blame BLM and Obama for the 5 cops killed by a criminal. Love this article, I will be “plagiarizing” it.

          Like

          • Thanks, Don. While that may be his point, if so, it was certainly not clear. I trust he’ll clear it up.

            Plagiarize all you want, by the way. I throw my words to the electronic winds in the hope that they will be copied and discussed. Acknowledgment would be nice but not necessary … I found out early on that I could accomplish surprising things if I didn’t care who got credit.

            w.

            Like

  4. “We have a society where we can settle this stuff without violence, and both sides need to dial back on the aggro. I don’t feel as badly as I might, in that everyone who showed up at the riot was there because they expected a fight”

    For a calm analysis of the situation, RT comes though.
    https://www.rt.com/op-edge/399585-charlottesville-america-trump-violence/
    excerpts:

    The events that just rocked Charlottesville, Virginia are symptomatic of every ailment now infecting the US political body – extreme political correctness, intolerance of free speech, and a police presence that seems designed to promote violence rather than curb it.
    […]
    In considering the violent events that shook Charlottesville, where actual fatalities and numerous injuries occurred, it is important to consider what sparked this event, and that was the decision to remove Robert E. Lee’s statue from the city center. It seems a reasonable case could be made for both sides of the debate, yet that is exactly what is missing in America these days – healthy debate.
    […]
    Yet the question remains. Will removing Lee’s statue eliminate the stain of slavery from American history books? No, it won’t. So what is it exactly that we wish to accomplish by its removal? Should Americans be expected to tear down every physical reminder of those historical figures whose ultimate legacy was being on the wrong side of history?
    […]
    The willingness to remove statues from our main squares is just one step away, I believe, from demanding history books be purged from any reference to such events for fear of offending somebody. In both cases, we wish to remove the physical content because we find it morally offensive. Thanks to the toxic atmosphere of political correctness that has sanitized all debate and discussion, we already see the first signs of such extremism. It’s a sad day in America when university campuses, the very fountain of free thought, resort to violence every time a controversial guest speaker is invited to address a group of students.
    […]
    the Charlottesville police fueled the tension by driving the conflicting sides into something resembling a mosh pit. Indeed, by all outside appearances, it looked as if the police were willfully inciting violence between the leftist and rightist camps.

    Read the article for more details on that last point.
    Conclusion: America is stuck in a Civil War mindset. Or is that… stuck in another civil war mindset?

    Like

    • Russian tanks “helped” Czechoslovakia to get rid of a creeping democracy on */21/1968. Russia later apologized for the invasion, RT presents it today again as an act of brotherly love. Even WaPo is a better source.

      Like

      • I’d like to see a link to where RT presents the August 1968 invasion as an act of brotherly love. I found this one; it can’t be the one you meant:
        http://russiapedia.rt.com/on-this-day/august-21/

        I’ve read about that from the Czech side before, but not from the Russian side, although it wouldn’t surprise me that they thought it was an act of brotherly love at the time.
        Milan Kundera has novels about this, including “The Unbearable Lightness of Being”.

        I’m pro-diversity anti-echo-chamber in news sources. You have to take ALL of them with a grain of salt and use your own judgement about the content. It’s interesting to see what foreigners think and what they say that American sources leave out.

        As for the article I quoted, it was written by an American.

        Like

      • Curious George – Stay on topic, this isn’t your personal rank-box and ad hominem arguments (‘they were wrong 50 years ago’) doesn’t help your case either. Address what is wrong with the article –or the parts quoted– YMMV quoted above.

        Like

      • My favorite Czech blog has a post about the invasion, “Fraternal help 1968: an anniversary”, with good comments and links to a documentary video and newly published photographs.
        https://motls.blogspot.com/2017/08/fraternal-help-1968-anniversary.html

        The documentary is excellent, made in Georgia. Not the US one, the one where Stalin was born. It starts with a message from the Soviet Defense Minister to his top generals: “It was decided that Warsaw Troops will enter Czechoslovakia This decision will be made even if it leads to a third world war.”

        Immediately after the invasion the Kremlin issued a statement. “The troops were introduced to help the Fraternal Czechoslovakia People”. That was the official line. The real reason was that in putting a human face on socialism, Dubček allowed freedom of speech and assembly. Dubček was a Marxist communist; he was not introducing democratic reforms, he was simply reforming Stalin style communism. Brezhnev didn’t buy it. The documentary comments “Moscow quickly proved to Czechs and Slovaks that socialism cannot have a human face.”

        Like

  5. It’s not just that certain groups are under attack, but that the authorities can no longer be relied upon to provide protection against those attacks, and that basic constitutional rights are being undermined. If our government can no longer (or will no longer) protect its citizens from civil assaults, we are going to see this become much much worse. Factions will engage in open warfare against one another, and we are likely to witness the arise of civil vigilance groups that will protect their communities.

    These are the fruits of the multiculturalism tribalism the Progressive Movement has brought us. It is going to be a very difficult time ahead in this and other nations afflicted by this foul harvest.

    Like

  6. Another take on it – “Charlottesville is a fight between the national socialists and the international socialists, it is a family fight between close relatives, brothers under the skin, ideological twins who differ only in details.”

    I don’t agree with his placing it in the context of eugenics, but his conclusion is worth thinking about.
    http://skellmeyer.blogspot.com.au/2017/08/thoughts-on-charlottesville.html

    Is it another in the ancient brawl between nomads and town dwellers, between the Anywheres and the Somewheres. Can the farmer and the cowboy be friends?

    Liked by 1 person

  7. A similar take to yours. Willis
    https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2017/08/the-violent-product-of-identity-politics/

    I agree that identity politics is a very dangerous game to play, and those that pushed the ideas are seeing the backlash.

    Unfortunately it is going to be difficult to put the genie back in the bottle. There are too many people on all sides with a vested interest in stirring up feelings that someone’s way of life is under attack. It is how populists through the ages have got elected.

    Like

  8. In all the condemnation of “hate groups”, there is a curious exclusion for one prominent organization which has acted as a major enabler of hate groups. I’m speaking of course of the American Civil Liberties Union, which has gone to court numerous times to prevent “sensible” public safety measures such as denying assembly and parade permits for groups such as the KKK, the American Nazi Party, and pretty much every other despicable group you can think of. In 1977 they sued Chicago and Illinois over the denial of a parade permit to the National Socialist Party of America. The group then announced plans to march through Skokie, a Chicago suburb with a significant population of holocaust survivors, wearing Nazi uniforms and carrying the swastika flag.

    The ACLU sued on their behalf and ultimately prevailed in the US Supreme Court in National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie See here. The court ruled, among other things, that:

    .. the use of the swastika is a symbolic form of free speech entitled to First Amendment protections and determined that the swastika itself did not constitute “fighting words”.

    Dissenting from the majority opinion were Justices Burger, Rhenquist and Stewart (all nominated by Republican presidents).

    So if marching in full Nazi regalia through a town heavily populated with recent victims of the Nazi regime is “protected free speech” according to the SCOTUS, and as argued by the ACLU, I fail to understand why protesting the removal of a Confederate statue isn’t every bit as protected.

    Like

    • That was back when the ACLU actually followed their stated mission. I have serious doubts if they would do the same thing today.

      Like

      • According to one article, the ACLU did support the rights of those protesting the removal. I was commenting more on all the people condemning “hate groups” who fail to mention the ACLU and SCOTUS decisions which bear directly on the issue.

        As far as I know, the ACLU has been quite consistent on rights of assembly, regardless of the group.

        Like

  9. Wrestled for days whether to comment here or not, because I see these general things differently. Finally decided to do so out of respect for WE personally, hoping my nuances might influence some here.
    There is really no defense of extremes either alt-right or ctrl-left under the Declaration of Independence, the Preamble to the Constitution, or the 14th Amendment section 1. Period. The First Amendment has limitations including Shouting Fire in a theater not on fire (SCOTUS case), and the proximity of your ‘first amendment speech’ fist to my nose (an old law school teaching saw based on several SCOTUS opinions),
    But it also follows that those feeling aggrieved by whatever have a right to express themselves. WE perhaps enumerated some of the ‘melanin deficient’ “legitimate” grievances. But they are not “legitimate”, on either violent side. The female who took down the Confederate soldier memorial statue in NC yesterday is a Communist Party person who supports Kim of NoKo. That view is constitutionaliy permitted, but does not deserve any general legitimacy. That single example proves the main comment point. Legitimacy is a body politic voting majority in a constitutional republic designed by our wise forefathers. Not some extremists passiinately held view.
    The first ammendment preserves freedom of speach, not action. No matter how aggrieved some ‘white feeling minority’ might feel, they have no rights to action other than vote. Not clubs. Nor Antifa clubs.
    Me, I vote to uphold the law, and to nail all those who for whatever personal reasons choose not to. On either side, for whatever reasons.

    Like

    • Rud, thanks as always for your reasoned and reasonable reply. My only disagreement is an unspoken assumption that both sides are to blame.

      There is really no defense of extremes either alt-right or ctrl-left under the Declaration of Independence, the Preamble to the Constitution, or the 14th Amendment section 1. Period. The First Amendment has limitations including Shouting Fire in a theater not on fire (SCOTUS case), and the proximity of your ‘first amendment speech’ fist to my nose (an old law school teaching saw based on several SCOTUS opinions),
      But it also follows that those feeling aggrieved by whatever have a right to express themselves.

      Let me suggest that you consider the lead-up to this situation.

      The right-wing fascists were exercising a legitimate right to assemble. They had a lawful permit for the parade. If the left-wing fascists humorously called “Antifa” hadn’t shown up, no violence, no harm, no foul.

      The left-wing fascists, on the other hand, went to the rally determined to stop it or disrupt it by violence.

      I’m sorry, but that is not the ‘neither one nor the other, or else both sides equally’ that you are expressing. The right-wing fascists went to legally march. That is a Constitutional right, the right to assembly.

      The other side came determined to disrupt a legal march by violence if necessary. That is a crime, intimidation by violence.

      Not the same … not the same at all.

      w.

      Like

    • “hoping my nuances might influence some here.” I need some help with those nuances.

      “There is really no defense of extremes either alt-right or ctrl-left under […]” What kind of extremes are we talking about here? Actions. speech? I’m assuming your are saying that there is free speech but with limits. The limits you mention are all metaphors, which don’t give much clarity. Interpretation of law is hard enough; interpretation of a metaphor is limited only by the imagination.

      “Legitimacy is a body politic voting majority” — so Trump is legitimate, since he has been elected. “legitimate right to assemble” — legitimate as in legal. But “legitimate” grievances, I don’t think that’s a good word here. “constitutionaliy permitted, but does not deserve any general legitimacy” — legal but not legitimate. The word legitimate just muddies the waters.

      “The first ammendment preserves freedom of speach, not action.” Sounds simple. It’s not. What if that speech’s purose is to incite a mob to violence? and what if it does so in a clever way which a lawyer can present in a different light?

      What about a march which is protected by free speech and freedom of assembly, but is really a deliberate provocation? I’m not saying this does or does not apply in the Charlottesville case, just looking at the Marching Season in Northern Ireland as an example.

      Like

      • What about a march which is protected by free speech and freedom of assembly, but is really a deliberate provocation?

        See above. What could be more provocative than marching in Nazi uniforms and carrying the swastika flag through a small town full of holocaust survivors?

        Like

        • it’s still protected speech.

          The “Incitement to Violence” limits on free speech are extremely narrow, and the “fighting words” limits are getting so narrow that lawyers are questioning if that exception still exists.

          The First Ammendment is not needed to protect popular speech, it’s needed to protect unpopulat speech, which someone is going to take offense to or see as a provocation.

          So, like it or not, the First Ammendment is designed to allow unpopular/bad groups like the KKK and Nazis to march down main street in a jewish town. You cannot limit them without eliminating the right of everybody else to march.

          Remember, the Civil Rights marches of the 60’s were possible only for this reason.

          Like

          • davidelang:

            The First Ammendment is not needed to protect popular speech, it’s needed to protect unpopular speech, which someone is going to take offense to or see as a provocation.

            It’s not an issue of “popular” vs. “unpopular”, although infringements occur far more often when someone tries to say something unpopular. It’s a matter of being able to participate in debate and dissent on government policies and actions that is the core of the First Amendment

            In Britain at various times the treason statues covered such acts as:

            … to refer to the Sovereign offensively in public writing; … to refuse to abjure the authority of the Pope; … denying the Sovereign’s official styles and titles; and refusing to acknowledge the Sovereign as the Supreme Head of the Church of England.

            Under Elizabeth I it was high treason for “a Roman Catholic priest to enter the realm and refuse to conform to the English Church.”

            The excessively broad definition of treason led directly to the very restrictive definition in the US Constitution. The First Amendment was intended as a further bar to in any way criminalizing debate or dissent. Every citizen has an absolute right to criticize the government, its actions and policies and its elected and appointed officers. And that right includes any actions needed to publish that dissent and communicate with others, in person (“…the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances …”), in letters and publications. There is certainly no shortage of people exercising that right with respect to President Trump and his administration — say “thank you” to the authors of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights (even though they were all melanin deficient persons of diverse chromosomes).

            In this case the City Council of Charlottesville decided to remove a statue from a city park. I believe they absolutely have the legal authority to do so. But anyone who disagrees with that decision has an absolute right to protest it. What they can’t do is disrupt council meetings, block access to council chambers, assault council members, or damage public or private property. This should sound familiar — it’s a common tactic of BLM and the laughably-called “Antifa” thugs. The original protest group went through the normal process and obtained a permit to assemble and protest.

            Similarly, people who agree with the Council decision have a right to show their support in exactly the same ways as are allowed for the protesters. And likewise they are also prohibited from blocking access to a lawful assembly or march, or assaulting protesters or damaging property. I don’t believe the counter-protesters applied for or obtained a permit; they just showed up.

            I firmly believe there would have been less violence if the Charlottesville officials had made it clear that laws against disorderly conduct and breach of peace would be strictly enforced against all offenders. If you don’t do that, it only encourages the ctl-left to be more aggressive and the alt-right to be better armed.

            Like

  10. Luv your work Willis but don’t comment on any blog very often out of a sense of futility &/or to avoid going OTT, but ….

    So sad to see the US consuming itself from within – we have mobs he with names like “Wreck the Joint” working to the same end. No plan other than to destroy. I think if Trump hadn’t won you folks would have Russian style demoligocracy – one dominant party, revolving chairs to comply with the Law. Deep breath….

    Any’ow, I smiled at the irony of the inclusion of “Rednecks” in your list …”To distinguish themselves in the fight, the miners tied red handkerchiefs around their necks and would be immortalised as the Red Neck Army”. Them durn lefties.

    If anyone isn’t aware of the Matewan uprising check the story here:- http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-11-04/us-election-trump-working-mans-hero-in-logan-county-coal-country/7993230.
    How this piece ever got on the website of the Australian Belligerent Communist taxpayer funded propaganda machine is both surprising and a little heartening.

    Kind of OT, but in away related, we were taught at school that the Poms started sending convicts here after the War of Independence when you folks no longer wanted them. I recently read that prior to the WoI, undesirables like the Irish, prostitutes, street kids were rounded up and sent as indented labour to the American Colonies. Criminals were offered remission, to go to work in the American Colonies. These people weren’t officially slaves, they were indenture workers, but rounding them up and delivering them was apparently very lucrative to the middle person. They were an inexhaustible supply of $free labour to the plantations and hence were of no value. Average survival time for these people was 2 years. Apparently after WoI when slaves had to be purchased through a system that had existed in the Caribbean for many years, these slaves were treated a little better as they had a market value. If you’re interested search America’s White Slaves or similar.

    Thing is, there must be people in the US now who are descended from those poor buggers – what an insult to them that one group has assumed a monopoly on injustice.

    And of course the Civil War was initially about State’s rights, not slavery, but Abe saw a political and strategic opportunity when the war was going badly for the North and took it….

    Just how it looks from the Antipodes

    Like

  11. Rud, you say above:

    The first ammendment preserves freedom of speach, not action.

    I fear you’ve misread it. It also preserves Freedom of Assembly, which is assuredly an action. And that was precisely what the right-wing fascists were doing. Assembling in a LEGAL MARCH.

    YMMV, you say:

    What about a march which is protected by free speech and freedom of assembly, but is really a deliberate provocation?

    Sorry, still protected. Provocation is LEGAL and is PROTECTED SPEECH. There is no right to not be provoked.

    For example … if you punch someone in the face for saying something you didn’t like, and he falls over and dies, do you think you’ll get off by saying “He provoked me!”?

    w.

    Like

    • I believe in the rule of law, the alternatives are worse. Yet, it’s impossible to write those laws. The founding fathers did as good a job as possible, but they could not possibly even imagine what those laws would have to cover in the future. They did an amazing job, working with rational philosophy and balancing the religious furore of the times. Flash forward, none of the men or women writing laws now deserve to be commemorated by statues. More like “the law is an ass” (popularized by Dickens):
      http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/the-law-is-an-ass.html
      Now you would say, the law is an ass, written (ridden?) by ******.

      So I believe in rule of law, but have no faith in it. Beyond the laws themselves, there is the flawed enforcement system and the flawed justice system. Top it off with out-of-control ideologies. “Rights” — good concept for 2017; maybe we will agree what they are by 2117. So I don’t put much faith in rights either.

      Legal restraints should be for the exceptions, not the general rule. Maybe this is what ristvan meant by legitimacy. We don’t (as a rule) murder each other and we don’t restrain ourselves because there is a law against it, we try not to because of something like morals or decency. Not to be confused with religion; religion is just an attempt to write “laws” about common sense (usually with some non-common sense ideology thrown in).

      So, regarding marches, even legal ones need permits. The permits are the extra step needed to insure public safety. If public safety cannot be ensured, what other crimes are likely?

      Like

      • Free speech is dead. “Toronto university cancels ‘free speech’ event after Charlottesville”
        http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-40956141
        “A Canadian university has cancelled an event on the “stifling of free speech”, citing safety concerns following the violent protests in Charlottesville.”

        After the predicted riots at Berkeley and other places, from now on every time a conservative wants to make a speech, the fear of protests going bad will cancel the event. Free speech, R.I.P.

        Like

  12. Next, I’ve asked you to quote the exact words you are discussing. The transcript of Obama’s speech is here. Please quote Obama’s words you are discussing that have you so upset.

    Finally, what are you trying to say? That Obama was wrong? That killing cops is wrong? That BLM is wrong? That I am wrong?

    I read through Obama’s speech (thanks for the link). This is about as strong as he gets on groups which openly called for the murder of police officers:

    When anyone, no matter how good their intentions may be, paints all police as biased, or bigoted, we undermine those officers that we depend on for our safety. And as for those who use rhetoric suggesting harm to police, even if they don’t act on it themselves, well, they not only make the jobs of police officers even more dangerous, but they do a disservice to the very cause of justice that they claim to promote.

    I don’t know if it was nc’s point, but considering how outraged everyone is that Trump has not condemned a whole laundry list of alleged white supremacist groups by name, multiple times, it does seem the same standard was not applied to Obama. BLM held rallies and led chants: “Pigs in a blanket. Fry ’em like bacon!”. Obama merely noted that such calls “do a disservice to the very cause of justice that they claim to promote”. I’d call that a few yards short of a first down where condemnations are concerned.

    Let’s re-write Trump’s press conference:

    And for all those who feel that their cherished symbols of a tragic episode in American history are being disrespected or threatened, if they seek to harm those they perceive are the source of that disrespect, well they only do a disservice to the memory of the very symbols they claim to cherish.

    Just how well would that play?

    Me, I vote to keep the peace. People can believe whatever they like, say whatever they like and display whatever flags or other symbols they like. But if they initiate violence or incite others to do so, there should be consequences.

    Like

  13. Once again, I find reading Scott Adams’ blog really helps expand my perspective.

    How to Know You’re in a Mass Hysteria Bubble:

    The tricky part here is that any interpretation of what happened could be confirmation bias. But ask yourself which one of these versions sounds less crazy:

    1. A sitting president, who is a branding expert, thought it would be a good idea to go easy on murderous Nazis as a way to improve his popularity.

    or…

    2. The country elected a racist leader who is winking to the KKK and White Supremacists that they have a free pass to start a race war now.

    or…

    3. A mentally unstable racist clown with conman skills (mostly just lying) eviscerated the Republican primary field and won the presidency. He keeps doing crazy, impulsive racist stuff. But for some reason, the economy is going well, jobs are looking good, North Korea blinked, ISIS is on the ropes, and the Supreme Court got a qualified judge. It was mostly luck.

    or…

    4. The guy who didn’t offer to be your moral leader didn’t offer any moral leadership, just law and order, applied equally. His critics cleverly and predictably framed it as being soft on Nazis.

    One of those narratives is less crazy-sounding than the other. That doesn’t mean the less-crazy one has to be true. But normal stuff happens far more often than crazy stuff. And critics will frame normal stuff as crazy whenever they get a chance.

    I think Adams is on to something. Some people really expect their President to be a higher being; others just want a guy who will do the things he promised when they voted for him. I’m satisfied with that, but I do think with a good speechwriter Trump could do a credible job of faking the higher being shtick.

    Like

  14. It seems in today’s world, almost everyone has assumed the right to be offended by just about anything they want to be offended by. This is a state of mind that has become the backbone of liberal social policy. It is encouraged by liberal leaders, it is supported by liberal media and is tolerated by everyone out of fear of being labeled racist. The basis of a civil society is to have the emotional control to accept differences of opinion with respect to the freedom of all to exercise their rights as you would exercise your own. Left wing liberals preach tolerance but in reality they are intolerant of everything that they do not agree with. They are so convinced in their own nobility of cause that they justify any action against the opposition as needed and necessary. Make no mistake about it, they cannot be be bargained with, they can’t be reasoned with. They don’t feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And they absolutely will not stop… ever, until those in opposition are gone!

    Like

  15. Two points:

    1) All politics are identity politics. It is the job of the politician to balance the demands of various “identities” into a compromise. It may not be one that some find palatable, but it should be one all can live with.

    2) The First Amendment guarantees free speech and assembly. It does not say that the speaker is guaranteed an audience, nor does impose upon anyone a duty to listen. So, one way to throw cold water on the self-righteous “wings” is to go somewhere else, do something else, and just ignore the speaker as a waste of time, and the assembly as boring (unless it provides good barbecue – then praise the barbecue).

    Like

You are invited to add your comments. Please QUOTE THE EXACT WORDS YOU ARE DISCUSSING so we can all be clear on your subject.

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