Rules for rioters

I had business outside today. I needed to go in towards Philly, closer to the riots, to get a new PSU put into the Great Beast. I went armed; I’ve been carrying at all times awake since Philadelphia started to burn and there were occasional reports of looters heading into the suburbs in other cities.

I knew I might be heading into civil unrest today. It didn’t happen. But it still could.

Therefore I’m announcing my rules of engagement should any of the riots connected with the atrocious murder of George Floyd reach the vicinity of my person.

  1. I will shoot any person engaging in arson or other life-threatening behavior, issuing a warning to cease first if safety permits.
  2. Blacks and other minorities are otherwise safe from my gun; they have a legitimate grievance in the matter of this murder, and what they’re doing to their own neighborhoods and lives will be punishment enough for the utter folly of their means of expression once the dust settles.
  3. White rioters, on the other hand, will be presumed to be Antifa Communists attempting to manipulate this tragedy for Communist political ends; them I consider “enemies-general of all mankind, to be dealt with as wolves are” and will shoot immediately, without mercy or warning.

UPDATE: I didn’t mention white nationalists because I judge my chances of encountering any member of that tiny, ineffectual movement to be effectively zero, and I refuse to cooperate with the mass-media fiction that they are a significant factor in this crisis.

We don’t have a problem with white nationalists attempting to burn down our country using black people as tools and proxies. We have a problem with Communists doing that. I insist on naming – and if necessary, shooting – the real enemy.

780 thoughts on “Rules for rioters

  1. I hope that was just a hot-take……those ‘rules’ are not sound doctrine, and I doubt any firearm academy would affirm them.

    I appreciate your grit, but IMNSHO you should reflect & rethink….especially #3

    Caveat – maybe PA law allows you to do these things….but I’d be eyebrows-on-the-ceiling surprised.

    • The second word of #3 is “rioters.” That implies violent mobs behaving destructively upon property and person. That equates to imminent threat, and as such probably falls solidly under self-defense.

      • No. Unless the ‘rioter’ is threatening your (or an other) life…running around smashing & burning stuff doesn’t cut it.

        Maybe PA allows deadly force in such a situation? You can bet your freedom on it, but I won’t….I’ll just bug out ASAFP.

        As for #2 – my bullets are color blind. If you lawfully deserve to get shot, you’re getting shot.

        #3 in particular looks like a fast track to club fed.

        • > You can bet your freedom on it, but I won’t….I’ll just bug out ASAFP.

          A fair position to hold in these modern days. A person might argue that you would then be derelict in your responsibility as a citizen and thus member of the militia. A luxury of the modern age is the privilege of allowing others to do the dirty work (that is, we now have career praetorians), absolving us of our responsibilities.

          It’s like watching your neighbor’s house burn down, and rather than risk injury or lawsuit by trying to assist, you just walk away. Not your problem.

          • The problem is that in the current political climate if you defend yourself against Antifa you’re likely to get labeled a racist and slapped with a life sentence.

            At this point, we almost have to let the rabid left and the police state tear each other down the rest of the way before we can respond.

            Once there is no judicial system left to slap a life sentence on anyone that resists the bolshevik revolution, fighting back becomes a lot more plausible.

            • >The problem is that in the current political climate if you defend yourself against Antifa you’re likely to get labeled a racist and slapped with a life sentence

              Nah. The general run of Antifa is as white as library paste. Those clowns look noticeably more ofay than me, and I would disappear in a crowd of Pennsylvania Dutch.

              Maybe you’re thinking of Black Lives Matter?

              • Eric, you know better than to believe that accusations of “racism” have any connection to actual skin color. “Politically white” isn’t a term I made up, and Antifa claim to “speak on behalf” of those poor oppressed downtrodden false-consciousness minorities, therefore opposing them is white supremacy.

                • >Antifa claim to “speak on behalf” of those poor oppressed downtrodden false-consciousness minorities, therefore opposing them is white supremacy.

                  They would have you believe that, yes, but so far the prosecutors courts aren’t buying it.

                  • So far I think I’ve seen reports of three arrests of drivers trying to get out of an encircling mob in the last week.

                    • >So far I think I’ve seen reports of three arrests of drivers trying to get out of an encircling mob in the last week.

                      I’m not sure how this is relevant to your previous assertion. Are you claiming that the encircling mobs were Antifa-white and the drivers were nevertheless accused of anti-black racism?

                      Because otherwise there’s nothing much remarkable about this. The rioters are taking place largely in cities run by various hard-left political cliques that are quite willing to criminalize resistance to their pet mob. And the Antifa/BLM combination is definitely their pet mob.

              • Both Antifa and BLM are led and financed by Soros; they are not genuine grassroots movements. And it turns out the leader in Mpls was the same Sanders staffer who said the city would burn if his man lost. Any connection between the riots and George Floyd is phony; he is merely their “coup excuse” (if anyone else here plays the game Junta).

                As far as blacks having good cause — that’s BS, too. Police using unnecessary force are a real problem, and Floyd appears to be a good example of it; but it happens to all races.

                I wrote the President and said use all available force. New York and MN in particular are putting arrested rioters back on the streets without even asking for bail, so if the army doesn’t kill them there’s nobody to do it but us.

                I’ve actually been expecting this civil war since 2008, but I was afraid the bad guys would start it during a Democratic administration, thus forcing patriots to fight as the rebels while the bad guys controlled the White House and army. Instead, they picked now. Thank God for President Trump. (Unless he lets Esper talk him into chickening out, in which case we’re all hosed.)

                • >Any connection between the riots and George Floyd is phony; he is merely their “coup excuse” (if anyone else here plays the game Junta).

                  I have. And I don’t think you’re quite right.

                  Floyd’s death is a coup excuse for Antifa, sure. But I don’t think it’s that simple for BLM and the blacks on the street. Their anger is genuine, and a reasonable person can sympathize with it without believing the riots are anything but a self-destructive tragedy for them.

                  • Their anger is genuine

                    It’s as genuine as Antifa’s. Both come from sincerely held false beliefs. Both were inflamed by the media and Soros’s orgs.

                    Notice how these kinds of things always happen right before presidential elections.

                    • This is nonsensical and borderline paranoid.

                      I don’t believe Chauvin was intending to influence the election when he did what it did.

                      Chauvin’s action is exactly the kind of thing that BLM exists to protest about. Suggesting they’re only protesting because of the election cycle is truly weird.

                    • I don’t believe Chauvin was intending to influence the election when he did what it did.

                      I didn’t say that. Stop hallucinating. My point is that given the BLM are willing to go ape when a thug who once pulled a gun on pregnant woman’s belly while robbing her place dies of a drug overdose. An excuse to motivate them to riot at a convenient time can always be found.

                    • The only hallucination here is suggesting that “right before a presidential election” has anything at all to do with a group whose initial point was to protest police killing blacks protesting about police killing blacks.

                  • Their anger is genuine, and a reasonable person can sympathize with it without believing the riots are anything but a self-destructive tragedy for them.

                    They have a legitimate cause for anger, but Floyd’s death *ISN’T* it.
                    Floyd was not stopped for “driving while black”, nor for any number of stupid tax (loosies) or quality of life laws. He was being arrested for *a felony*–passing counterfeit currency. The whitest most middle class male in this country would have been irons for that.

                    Floyd and the arresting officer knew one another from working security at a “club”.

                    Also let’s quote from NPR here:

                    In addition to fentanyl and methamphetamine, the toxicology report from the autopsy showed that Floyd also had cannabinoids in his system when he died.

                    Other sources indicate that Floyd had an underlying heart condition.

                    Two of the three other officers there assisted in this to one degree or the other, and the third *DIDN’T* stop it.

                    Chauvin went from cop to ex-cop to suspect to arrested and charged with murder in 3 days.

                    The black community has reason to be upset by the other bloke who got shot for walking in the wrong place a couple months ago.

                    We *all* have reason to be incandescently furious over the death of the young woman who was shot when the police did a no-knock in plain clothes.

                    But Floyd? Something happened there that was NOT your normal cop kills black guy thing.

                    The black community has the right to demand answers. I’ll go further and state that *someone* has an *OBLIGATION* to demand answers.

                    But at least in this case the “authorities” are doing the right thing.

                    • As an older White guy I’m trying to imagine being arrested due to handing a clerk a counterfeit twenty, and I just can’t imagine it. I imagine the police looking at the other bills in my wallet, noting that those are not counterfeit, and asking me where I got the twenty. And it would end there, because I’m White and present myself well.

                    • @Troutwaxer Probably because the police rad his license plate and got his past record.

                    • Yeah, try that and let me know how it works.

                      If you’re wearing your Hugo Boss suit and tie and got your loafers on? Maybe.

                      If you’re wearing a well worn LED ZEPPLIN t-shirt, blue jeans and beat up workboots with a scruffy beard? Turn around and put your hands behind you please.

                      But guess what, if Floyd had been sober and wearing a suit and tie he wouldn’t be dead now either.

                      See, there’s a HUGE difference between j-walking, speeding and passing counterfeit currency.

                      Two of them are infractions, and one of them is a *major* felony.

                      You may tell the cop you have no idea where you got it, but that doesn’t mean the cop is going to believe you.

                • > Both Antifa and BLM are led and financed by Soros

                  Wrt. Antifa, the Soros connection I am aware of is that he donated money to the Tides Foundation, who are a “fund of progressive causes” charity; one of their many donations (according to Wikipedia they fund 130 organisations) was to the Alliance for Global Justice, who in turn once sponsored “Refuse Fascism”, which is an Antifa organisation.

                  If this is the basis for your claim, it is lazy conspiracy theory. Soros indeed is socially liberal and sympathetic to BLM, but he is pro-capitalist, which almost certainly means he is anti-Antifa.

                  • Soros has said flat out that he wants to see western civilization destroyed. (Yes, it makes no sense, but I saw him say it on an interview.)

                    Antifa is in thick with the Muslim Brotherhood, but don’t know whether funding flows that way.

              • The general run of Antifa is as white as library paste.

                Well, they do say ‘you are what you eat’…

          • The ‘neighbors house’ comparison is not fair.
            There are so many variables in the mix in any confrontation that to try to reductio the argument is simply meaningless.
            I was simply responding to ESR’s generic ‘rule’ regarding arson in general.
            If my neighbors are in their home, and some punk is trying to firebomb them….you’re goddamn right I’m filling them in (although I’d have to snipe them from hundreds of yards or sprint the same distance to get them).
            I have no idea of what my ‘currency’ is amongst the regulars here….but I have my doubts that I would be described as ‘derelict’ or a ‘coward’ in such a situation. I have been consistently forthright in my 2A stance.

            • > The ‘neighbors house’ comparison is not fair.

              Is it not? Here is what you wrote in more fullness, and what I was responding to:

              > running around smashing & burning stuff doesn’t cut it.
              >
              Maybe PA allows deadly force in such a situation? You can bet your freedom on it, but I won’t….I’ll just bug out ASAFP.

              A riotous mob, “running around smashing and burning stuff” seems to be rather equivalent to a neighbor’s house being on fire. The reason for the fire is irrelevant; the fire and one’s response to it is the fact in question.

              In the same way, the reason for a smash-and-burn riot mob is irrelevant to the reality of the rioters, and one’s civic responsibility (or lack thereof) to respond.

              Unless you are willing to abdicate your responsibilities as a free citizen and de facto member of the militia to a third party, i.e. law enforcement, fire department, et cetera, failing to respond would make one derelict and morally if not legally culpable.

              Note that I am not saying it is necessarily wrong to so abdicate this responsibility; the nature of our modern society strongly incentivizes doing so, and I fully understand why one would and make no claim that I wouldn’t as well.

                • But apparently not enough for you to resist saying so. +1

                  It’d have been fine if you’d ignored me; I’m just having a discussion, but your unnecessary and unwarranted catty response is like a damn laser pointer to me. Meow!

                  Anyway, I feel I’ve made my point adequately and don’t really see a need to continue pressing it, so aight.

        • Your belief that the use of deadly force to prevent arson is not justified is greatly dependent upon state law. Many states do permit the use of deadly force to prevent arson, specifically, or in more general circumstances that would include an arson.

  2. Thinking #3 will land you in the slammer for a while unless they are posing a direct threat to your life or the lives around you.

      • Only if directed at living beings.
        Firebombing an empty parked car doesn’t justify deadly force, unless you live in a state that authorizes such force in defense of private property (I think Texas might have such a statue).

        • I live in New York and only completed NY pistol permit classes, so I can only speak to New York. In New York, if you see someone committing arson, deadly force is justified, period. Regardless of whether it is directed at “living beings.” The reason the instructor(who was a lawyer specializing in self-defense) gave was that any fire could kill someone. The firefighters who respond could die or be seriously hurt. There could be people in the building being burned that you don’t see. The fire could spread to where it could injure people. Therefore all arson justified deadly force.

          As I stated, this is only in New York. However, New York is not known for being very pro-second amendment or pro-self-defense.

          • Yeah….I don’t live in NY nor do I ever intend on visiting (unless it decides to respect the RKBA of all US citizens….hahaha fat chance), but I really wouldn’t fancy your chances in court if you offered that defense.

  3. There are also non-white Antifa persons, that might introduce a great level of risk to you if you let your guard down for those types.

  4. Are you familiar with the statistic that more whites are killed than blacks by police per arrest? Which matches common sense giving police are automatically more law suit conscious interacting with black people, whereas no one cares if they rough up some random white meth head.

    Do you see any evidence whatsoever that the PD’s conduct had anything to do with race vs. general good old fashioned color blind corruption.

    Police brutality is a legitimate problem, one that isn’t going away as long as we have the war on drugs and the militarization of the police force. But the framing of this issue by the MSM is absurd, and it’s been weird to see intelligent people fall for it.

    Glad you’re staying armed. Just don’t be naive about how much hatred a lot of black people involved in these protests have for you for being white.

    • >Do you see any evidence whatsoever that the PD’s conduct had anything to do with race vs. general good old fashioned color blind corruption.

      My estimate on the odds that race was a factor in this killing went up when I learned that Floyd and Chauvin knew each other and had worked together. It’s not something I ordinarily assume – evidence has taught me to believe that plain police arrogance and poor training are usually the drivers in supposedly “racist” police killings – but it’s all too easy for me to imagine that Chauvin had some personal grudge and imagined he could get away with executing it because his victiom was black. Stupid assumption.

      • Maybe – having worked with him (security work) – the officer knew his history and thought he was a POS and simply didn’t care about him. That may have led him to not give a fuck as he knelt on his neck.
        That would be pretty depraved indifference to another human life, and worthy of significant jail time.

        • >Maybe – having worked with him (security work) – the officer knew his history and thought he was a POS and simply didn’t care about him. That may have led him to not give a fuck as he knelt on his neck.

          I agree this is plausible. I didn’t say that I was certain racial hatred mattered in in this one, just that the odds on that look higher to me than in the general run of police-bad-shoot scenarios – where it is often assumed as a motive but I think seldom actually present.

      • Floyd autopsy report:

        https://www.hennepin.us/-/media/hennepinus/residents/public-safety/documents/Autopsy_2020-3700_Floyd.pdf

        I’d rule it an accidental death, at worst negligent, not intentional.

        And you don’t have to be a racist to have a poor opinion of someone you know is a five-time violent felon and evidently doped up. Incidentally he was resisting (refused to get into the car).

        As to who cops kill, ratio of deaths to incident is 4/100k whites, 3/100k blacks, even tho blacks commit 5-8x more crime per capita, and naturally have relatively more interaction with police. And black cops are more likely to shoot black suspects than are white cops. So who really has a grievance here, and against whom??

        • > I’d rule it an accidental death, at worst negligent, not intentional.

          https://www.kiro7.com/news/trending/george-floyd-what-happen-last-30-minutes-his-life/KV3JWRCB6FE2DNJJFBFWVYLL3U/

          According to their own police report, after George Floyd lost consciousness, Keung checked for a pulse and “couldn’t find one”. Chauvin kept his knee on George Floyd’s neck not just on being informed of the lack of pulse, but “for the next two minutes and 53 seconds” after that until paramedics arrived, rather than immediately attempting resuscitation themselves.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-degree_murder#Minnesota

          Third-degree murder doesn’t require intent. It just requires not giving a shit whether the person lives or dies downstream of your actions — such as keeping a knee on their neck three more minutes after they no longer have a detectable pulse.

          > someone you know is a five-time violent felon

          In Texas, not Minnesota, felonies for which time had been served in prison. The allegation was of “passing a counterfeit twenty”, which is not a violent crime, even if the allegation was true.

          Where is this alleged “fake twenty”? After extensive googling I have been unable to find out anything about it past the store clerk’s claim of it looking “suspicious”. Some stories seem to hint Mr. Floyd refused to take it back when walking off, others that he did take it.

          This would be an important element of the State’s case, possibly the only such element (without it, there would be no grounds for the attempted arrest in the first place, let alone the resulting murder). If the store clerk kept it, the police should have recovered it at the scene. If Mr. Floyd did take it, it should have been recovered along with any other possessions taken from his body into evidence. Yet it seems to have disappeared entirely, almost as if it never existed.

        • >As to who cops kill, ratio of deaths to incident is 4/100k whites, 3/100k blacks

          Do you have a citation on that, kind Sir? Not that I don’t believe you, but I’d like to throw it around to people who wouldn’t.

          • FBI stats. Um, where the heck did I see a compiled set of stats for cop vs perp? Most recent I can recall, the Red Elephants channel on YT laid it out; don’t recall if cites were visible, but he’s pretty careful about sources.

            Meanwhile…
            https://www.amren.com/the-color-of-crime/
            Don’t recall what all stats are in these papers; they lay ’em out differently, but it’s enlightening.

      • I go the other way on it. It’s been my experience that most racists are “class not instance” racists. They hate the blacks they see on TV, but the ones they know are Ok.

        I *suspect* that Chauvin knew Floyd as a pretty tough guy, and not a small one, and they’d been in few scraps togther–on the same side–so when he Floyd got froggy Chauvin used what he thought was an appropriate level of restraint.

        Keep in mind that Keith Ellison is the AG here. That needs to figure in. If Chauvin is convicted of murder he wins. If Chauvin is found not guilty the black community AND Antifa get another looting session, and Ellison wins.

    • Also worth mentioning, a police officer is 18 times more likely to be killed by a black man than an unarmed black man is to be killed by a police officer.

          • I see at least two problems here. For starters let me fix your original claim by italicizing one word in the top post:

            “…a police officer is 18 times more likely to be killed by a Black man than an unarmed Black man is to be killed by a police officer.”

            So the first problem here is that you’re comparing apples and oranges (and I didn’t notice that on my first reading.) If you compare all Black people instead of unarmed Black people you discover that a police officer is 2.5 times as likely to be killed by a Black Person as vice-versa, not 18 times as likely. (It’s in the link you provided!)

            If you count unarmed Black people killed vs. unarmed police officers killed, then the police really, really look very bad indeed! Just to show you how ridiculous comparisons like this can be, if zero unarmed Black people are killed by police, and one police officer is killed by a Black person, a police officer is infintely more likely to be killed by a black person – even though that situation would be substantially improved over what exists today, regardless of whether you’re the Black person or the police officer!

            And all this completely obscures the fact that the number of unarmed Black people who should in fact be zero.

            But if you bring up questions of parity, the police are also about 2.5 times as likely to kill a Black person as to kill a White person. (And about twice as likely to kill a Hispanic person.)

            The statistic in the top post is utterly meaningless. Can I stop now?

            • > And all this completely obscures the fact that the number of unarmed Black people who should in fact be zero.

              Because nobody has ever killed someone with their fists, right? Nobody has ever been so hopped up on weird stimulants that he becomes an uncontrollable, wild, deadly animal. No one has ever died or suffered grievous injury from being simply pushed down, yeah?

              Are you actually this stupid? Jesus H.

              • Sigh. The idea that there should be no unarmed Black people killed by police is an ideal. It’s what everyone who’s sane on the subject is aiming for. But it would be enough if the percentage of unarmed Black people killed by police was the similar to the percentage of unarmed White people killed by police.

                And why are you referring to unarmed Black people as “uncontrollable, deadly animals?” That’s real jerk behavior in the current climate!

                • Wow, you actually just made me angry, Trout. Not annoyed, not frustrated. Cold Anger. Do you know how hard that is? I’m talking once-a-decade, here. You are in a very rare stratum.

                  > Sigh. The idea that there should be no unarmed Black people killed by police is an ideal.

                  Fucking shit, dude. My god damn point is that an unarmed human is still deadly dangerous. You say “unarmed black people” as a dumbfuck synonym for “peaceful, non-violent black people” because you are a rank coward incapable of understanding the difference. Or you are a racist.

                  > It’s what everyone who’s sane on the subject is aiming for.

                  Bitch, No. You cannot change human nature. Humans are dangerous great apes. Accept that fact and its ramifications, or admit that you don’t think black people are human, you piece of shit.

                  > But it would be enough if the percentage of unarmed Black people killed by police was the similar to the percentage of unarmed White people killed by police.

                  Oh, so then you’d be fine if more whiteys were killed, since it would even out the racial numbers. That’d sure learn ’em! (Look, I can deliberately take you in the least charitable way possible, too! What the shit is wrong with you?)

                  > And why are you referring to unarmed Black people as “uncontrollable, deadly animals?” That’s real jerk behavior in the current climate!

                  I’m not, you slimy weasel. This is beyond the fucking pale of lively debate. Point to where I said that, you pig-shit assclown. Nothing in my comment specified race, because I am not a fucking racist. That’s All You, Bud.

                    • And I didn’t say you called me one, you illiterate twat.

                      You deliberately characterized what I wrote as if I were referring to people of a specific race as animals, which I specifically didn’t do, and fuck you right to hell for implying that’s what I meant. May a few extra demons also have their way with you for trying to pull this gaslighting “Nyah-nyah I never said thaaat tee-hee” bullshit.

                      I’m dropping this here, because you are exposed for people to make up their own minds and I have nothing more to hurl but flame.

              • I’d have to find it again, but a couple days ago someone (mighta been Tucker Carlson, so none of our lefty friends will believe it) did a detailed rundown of all the “unarmed blacks killed by cops” incidents from a couple years ago, in total, ten.

                Eight had done something like charge the cop with a car, or claimed to have a gun, or did something else egregiously threatening or suicidally stupid.

                Two probably actually had a gun (unclear).

                In no case was it just gratuitous violence by the cops.

            • That 2.5 times stat is fucking useless, because it’s pure per capita and takes no account for crime rates, which is the single biggest predictor of being confronted by police.

              When I ran the numbers using 2018 NCVS for crimes and Statista list of police shootings by race, it’s about 1.21 times as many shot per violent crime. For 2017 it’s roughly parity at .97. If I used homicides known to police in the UCR instead of all violent crimes it’s a blowout with blacks being less likely to be killed, but the UCR homicide rates do NOT track with NCVS violen crimes by race.

              I can’t find solid numbers for non shooting deaths in a single year, but I did see 26.4% of all deaths for a range of years, which is a bit higher than their portion of the violent crime rate in 2017.

              Please note that unarmed is NOT the same thing as innocent. I would very much like stats on innocent people killed by police, and that number really should be zero.

  5. “presumed to be Antifa Communists”

    You’re hilarious. Of course they’re much more likely to be white nationalists attempting to heighten the contradictions than bored gutter punks fighting tha man, but I’m not going to lose any sleep if you make a mistake.

    • > Of course they’re much more likely to be white nationalists

      Oh, oh, I can play this game too!

      I say they’re more likely to be… um… Satanic child-murdering dog-men from Planet X! Yes! I do not need to provide evidence for my assertion! Evidence is a tool of the evil White-God Patriarchy! Rrrrah! Behold my virtue!

    • >Of course they’re much more likely to be white nationalists attempting to heighten the contradictions

      No they’re not, because if you gathered every actual “white nationalist” in the U.S. you might not even be able to fill a small school bus.

      The odds of any of them being within pistol range of me in a riot is too small to be worth considering.

      • Eric, as much as I’ve appreciated your technical contributions, you’re batty and getting worse, and your somewhat deserved arrogance doesn’t let you see it. Perils of age, I guess; I’m not far behind you and getting a bit less flexible myself.

        I wish you could see it.

        • > I wish you could see it.

          “I know you are good in your heart, but, Oh!, if only you believed in Jesus and that Satan’s hand truly does exist in our world! I do so wish you would come to the light; I myself know how hard it is to admit one’s own sin!”

          I find this mindset so damned fascinating.

          • Some never outgrow middle school, producing ‘arguments’ that consist entirely of baldly asserted personal aspersions. Just call them a poopyhead and move on with your day.

          • >You just have the feel of a troll here fishing for a ban….

            If I banned everybody who shows up here to tell me I’m batty and mentally rigid, I…might just be proving their point for them. Silly gits.

    • Utter nonsense. Repeating the debunked lies of Governor Tim Walz and Mayor Jacob Frey only results in ridicule.

    • You’re delusional. White nationalists don’t exist. (Though the vicious level of anti-white racism that animates the useful idiots of Antifa and BLM certainly tempts one to raise the flag of racism, until you’ve heard Larry Elder or Candace Owens speak.)

      • They do exist, in small numbers. (I’m not sure about Eric’s assertion they wouldn’t fill a small school bus, but I don’t think they’d fill a high school auditorium.) The MSM and Antifa, which defines everyone who dares say something they disagree with as a Nazi, are grossly inflating the numbers.

        • I recall reading somewhere that current estimates of the number of serious, credibly racist white-supremacist types as being towards the thick end of 10,000.

          I own more rounds of ammo than that. They’re not a concern. They’re a punchline to a crap joke.

          • >I recall reading somewhere that current estimates of the number of serious, credibly racist white-supremacist types as being towards the thick end of 10,000.

            That estimate is far too high. it would have consequences we’re not seeing, because with those numbers they could at least occasionally organize for direct action.

            These riots are revealing their inability to do that.

            • I think the number was around 8,000 or so…..which in a nation of 360+ million, means they’re a handful of frogspawn in an ocean.
              And they’re stupid enough to be easily identified and observed.

            • I used to live right down the road from one of these vaunted “white supremacist” compounds out in the middle of nowhere (15 miles from the nearest town).

              It was vacant, because the owner was in jail on unrelated charges (some sort of fraud on the order of bad checks, I didn’t care enough to pay attention).

              I expect this is typical.

              • >I expect this is typical.

                Entirely, even down to the check-kiting. I had actually noticed before your story that this particular crime is very common from white-trash terrorists. I have no idea why.

                • Cuz the attitude they have in common is “I ain’t payin’ and you can’t make me! And if you try, I’ll hurt you.”

                  It’s not about being a white supremacist; that’s just the trappings, using the most defiant self-label they can think of. It’s about pissing at authority, including anyone making ’em actually pay for stuff.

                  One might regard it as an ugly intersection of the libertarian ideal and the criminal mind. :(

                • I can’t help but notice how easy it is to commit check fraud, have it recorded, and cover the damages. Check’s gone, account’s closed, bank fee paid, merchant compensated, fraudster is pulled out of society’s view.

                  Which makes me wonder how many of these crimes are completely fabricated, in order to permit the safe exit of an undercover FBI agent from whatever white supremacist cell he’d infiltrated, rose to the top of, and effectively dismantled by pretending to be incompetent.

                  • Well there *is* the old joke about any meeting of a ‘white supremacist’ organization is 3/4 people paid by the Feds to be there.

    • they’re much more likely to be white nationalists

      Bullshit. The KKK types haven’t been a significant force in decades. It’s all they can do to even muster a hundred of them for a rally. They don’t have the money to pull off the kind of capers that Soros’ minions do.

      • I think of Antifa as the new KKK.

        Historically, KKK was a “militant arm” of the Democratic party, and was all about using and threatening violence to deter blacks/Republicans from registering to vote, voting, or speaking in “their” towns.

        Change “black” to “white” (but keep the parties the same) and that’s Antifa.

    • The *national* AG says it’s Antifa.

      The local police (around the country) say it’s Antifa.

      ANTIFA says it’s Antifa

      You say it’s white nationalists.

      After Rodney King cities got torched without the White Nationalists. After Ferguson Antifa did pretty good job of it. Every time the Left is out in force they light the town up.

      The only reason to bring them up now is to try to gaslight the rest of us.

    • Stomping on a neck is a deadly move. It is entirely reasonable to conclude that his heart failure – regardless of prior medical condition – was induced by the stress he endured.
      I don’t believe the officer ‘murdered’ him….as far as I know from available details…..but the officer was responsible for his death. That is an unjustifiable homicide.
      The officer – and the uncaring LEO derelicts that surrounded him – deserve to face a jury of their peers for a range of manslaughter charges.
      They fucked up severe.

      • Had they been civilians, those four cops would have all been charged with murder one under the felony murder rule. That they’re facing lesser charges is still blue privilege at work (although, honestly, right now I’ll take it, since the usual punishment for this sort of misbehavior by a cop is a desk job).

        • >Had they been civilians, those four cops would have all been charged with murder one under the felony murder rule.

          I agree that the behavior deserves murder one, but don’t think the felony rule applies here.

          You’d have to identify a felony in progress different from the violence done to Floyd for that to apply; the “felony murder rule” is not a self-licking ice-cream cone.

          Well, not as I’ve ever seen it applied, anyway. Caveat that I’m not au courant with the murder taxonomy in all 50 states.

          • > I agree that the behavior deserves murder one, but don’t think the felony rule applies here.

            You realize that in posting your three rules you established grounds for being charged with first degree murder should you actually need to shoot someone?

            First degree murder requires *premeditation*, an *intent* to kill. I have not followed this closely but I have seen nothing public to indicate an *intent* to kill, much less a “premeditated” one.

            There many comments about the two of them working together, but (thus far) NO ONE has come forward with any quarrel between them. In this media age *someone* would if the could get away with it.

        • No. Your assertion that they would “all be charged with murder one” is not legally defensible.
          You are jumping on the latest fashionable bandwagon.

        • point 1) Felony murder is Murder 2 in Minnesota
          point 2) Chauvin is now being charged with felony murder
          point 3) As ESR says, you need a predicate felony for felony murder. I’m not entirely sure how that squares with point 2 since i haven’t seen any evidence of a predicate felony but obviously the AG knows something that i don’t (which is completely unsurprising). I hope they’re not over charging to force a not guilty verdict.

          I think people calling for Chauvin to be charged under Murder 1 are misguided. Just because the family feels bad doesn’t make it Murder 1, It’s Murder 1 when you can prove both Intent and Premediatation and I don’t think either is a slam dunk. Given currently public evidence i believe he acted with reckless disregard, not intent.

          • Given that AG Ellison is a major fan of Antifa, I wouldn’t be surprised if he were trying to force a not-guilty verdict, just to provide more fuel for the fire–and more cover for his Antifa buddies.

          • Huh so apparently in Minnesota, Assault can be the predicate felony to a felony murder. Seems a little odd to me but hey if that’s how they want things to play out…

            • Aggravated assault is a felony in Pennsylvania, and likely would be in Minnesota as well. Pennsylvania defines it, in relevant part, as an attempt “to cause serious bodily injury to another, or causes such injury intentionally, knowingly or recklessly under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life.” 27 Pa. C.S. sec. 2702 (a) (1).

              • Oh it’s not the assault being a felony part, that makes total sense to me. It’s that the merger doctrine doesn’t get applied. As Eric says, “self-licking ice cream cone”. The assault that lead to the death is in and of itself the felony that makes it felony murder.

                • If an armed robber intends to use a gun to intimidate his victims, but there’s a shoot-out and his accomplice dies, he’s up for felony murder and that’s not a self-licking ice cream cone.

                  If a couple of thugs decide to beat up a guy for giggles, and one of them catches an unlucky blow to the throat and dies, then the surviving thug is still up for felony murder.

                  If a couple of thugs decide to beat up a guy for giggles, and the victim catches an unlucky blow to throat and dies, now the thugs shouldn’t be up for felony murder because they didn’t intend to kill him when they went to beat the hell out of him? If the other two incidents are felony murder, actually killing the victim needs to be felony murder, too.

                  • The point Jon is amused by, if I understand correctly, is: given an appropriately loose definition of felony murder, it would be very difficult to have a murder that isn’t inherently also a felony murder, since murder kind-of implies some form of assault.

                    Without digging into the nitty-gritty definitions, it seems silly on its face.

          • Considering the family hired Baden for a ‘second opinion autopsy’ (he’s shown he can be bought) …I expect they’re angling for a settlement.

            Agreed on it being reckless disregard, not intent.

            Also more’n likely had it been so argued up front, rather than all the OMG-Murder!! accusations, we wouldn’t be enjoying a long hot Riot Season.

            • >Also more’n likely had it been so argued up front, rather than all the OMG-Murder!! accusations, we wouldn’t be enjoying a long hot Riot Season.

              I wish I were that optimistic.

              Floyd’s murder was a real atrocity. But I think if it hadn’t happened, there would be riots over a manufactured one. And I’m not faulting black people for this, either. The fault lies on the manufacturers.

              As somebody else pointed out, it’s a wearyingly familiar pattern just before presidential elections when a Republican is in office.

              Crank up racial tension to keep the black vote corralled, yippee, we’ve seen this movie before. The major variable from cycle to cycle is how many square miles of black neighborhoods get burned down by black people in the process.

              This time it may not be working.

              • Some blacks are still buying it. But it looks like the riots are “corraling” much more of the white vote for Trump. When cities are burning, the people are going to demand the man who will stop it, even if he actually were Hitler.

              • > Floyd’s murder was a real atrocity.

                No, it isn’t. Some dude, high on fentanyl and maybe meth tried to pass a fake 20 (whether he knew it or not), was busted and at some point decided to *resist arrest*.

                His death was unfortunate, it remains to be seen whether it was actually murder.

                • Where are you getting the high part? Only thing I’ve heard that even suggested drugs in his system was some rather obvious wishcasting by the autopsy report.

                  • https://www.hennepin.us/-/media/hennepinus/residents/public-safety/documents/Autopsy_2020-3700_Floyd.pdf

                    As far as I can tell, this is the actual autopsy report. I’ve seen it posted in many places, and so far, no one has claimed that hennepin.us isn’t the real website of Hennepin County.

                    I draw your attention to page 2, section VI.

                    19ng/ml is a very low dose of meth. It almost certainly reflects either a usage one or more days in the past, or relatively slight inclusion (or heavy contamination) in with something else.

                    4-ANPP can mean either sloppy manufacture of the fentanyl, or it can be just a metabolite.

                    I have no idea what the THC numbers mean. I don’t think they are relevant.

                    But what the hell does 11 nanograms of fentanyl per mililiter of blood mean?

                    Here is some context: https://www.acsh.org/news/2017/02/02/fentanyl-overdose-dont-count-naloxone-save-you-10822

                    A dozen people taken to the ER from a single incident – people who thought they were taking cocaine, but were actually getting fentanyl. The people with 11 and 13 ng/ml were dead within hours. The patient with 9.5 ng/ml died a few days later. The survivors had no more than 4.6 ng/ml in their blood.

                    So Xanatos Gambit time – was George Floyd a dead man walking before he even set foot in the store because of his fentanyl overdose? Or was he a habitual opiod abuser who had developed enough of a tolerance to survive a dose that would have killed any of us? Or did he commit suicide by swallowing his stash when the police arrived?

                    I foresee some squirming and evasive answers when the defense lawyers start asking those questions in court.

        • > Had they been civilians,

          Probably not. Picture someone getting froggy on an airplane, 4 “civilians” restrain him and he suffers heart failure. That’s the closest I can come to what happened.

          I don’t see any other situation where one guy lets 4 other people put cuffs on him and *THEN* he decides to fight back.

          > That they’re facing lesser charges is still blue privilege at work

          No, that they’re facing lesser charges is that we don’t know the *facts* that the DA knows.

          Keith Ellison (https://www.snopes.com/tachyon/2020/06/Screen-Shot-2020-06-05-at-3.35.08-PM.png) is the AG of Minnesota, and the one that raised the charges from 3rd to 2nd degree murder.

          If there’s one left wing cop hating piece of offal AG out there, he’s it. If he could get away with charging all of them murder 1, he’d do it.

    • To quote the movie “Collateral”

      “….I didn’t kill him…the bullets and the fall killed him”

      (Great movie BTW…worth watching for TC’s failure drill alone)

    • Taking your comment as written… that probably doesn’t matter, legally speaking.

      There’s a standard doctrine (well supported with SCOTUS) called the “Eggshell Skull” doctrine. Basically, even if the person dies for a different reason, if you’re part of the chain of events then you’re culpable. In this particular case, the ME report puts Chauvin at no more than 3 steps removed which is very unlikely to remove culpability.

      • Yeah. Basically, you take your victim as you find him, and his physical problems do not excuse you from their results if you take action to precipitate his death.

      • Technically the eggshell skull rule is for torts, civil cases. You still get the same bill even if your victim was exceptionally fragile.

        But the real principle here is less of a rule, and more “lack of an exception”. And that holds true for criminal cases as well — if it satisfies the elements of the crime, you can be convicted, even if the victim was more fragile than average.

  6. Eric, perhaps it’d be helpful if you could define what you mean by “rioter” and how it differs from “protester”.

    Also, I suspect you will have a precise idea on what a “white nationalist” is & is not. Keep in mind that many others may have a different understanding of the term and will use it accordingly.

    • > Eric, perhaps it’d be helpful if you could define what you mean by “rioter” and how it differs from “protester”.

      Are you serious?

      > Keep in mind that many others may have a different understanding of the term and will use it accordingly.

      Four legs good, two legs better! Four legs good, two legs better!

      Post-modern philosophy is a fucking disease.

    • >Eric, perhaps it’d be helpful if you could define what you mean by “rioter” and how it differs from “protester”.

      A protester holds up a sign and yells a slogan. A rioter intends to commit crime against persons or property, and expresses that intent in behavior; e.g. persons equipped with incendiaries or street weapons are rioters, not protesters.

      >Also, I suspect you will have a precise idea on what a “white nationalist” is & is not. Keep in mind that many others may have a different understanding of the term and will use it accordingly.

      There are lots of different flavors of white nationalist doctrine, a surprisingly large number for a movement that has been numerically tiny ever since the disintegration of the Second Klan just before WWII. If you squint hard enough you can even jam neo-Nazis in that box, though you should not because they’re actually transnationalist.

      I’d say the defining characteristic of “white nationalism” is its program of creating white ethnostates that either outright exclude or legally subjugate nonwhites.

      It is also worth noting, because of the common equation of white nationalism with Naziism, that Jews are not necessarily considered nonwhite; in fact, I have read what I think was white nationalist internal argument that condemns Naziism as regressive and a drag on the movement.

      Any way you slice it, white nationalism is a tiny, frustrated gang that would love to be thought far more numerous and influential than it is. It gets enormous assistance from the Left and the major media (but I repeat myself) which have lots of reasons to inflate “white nationalism” into a giant bogeyman so they can feel virtuous and be righteously violent in opposing it.

      • So it seems that, on Monday, Emperor Trump had his Praetorians assault protesters in order to gain access to a filming location and insult Christianity and a church; for the making of an political advertisement.
        The rioters apparently returned to the streets later that night to continue the previous night’s misbehaviour.

        And what are the odds that the group of people who mistakenly think of themselves as a white nationalist (but fail the definition) outnumber the actual group of white nationalists?

        • > So it seems that, on Monday, Emperor Trump had his Praetorians assault protesters in order to gain access to a filming location and insult Christianity and a church; for the making of an political advertisement.

          This is not true. Blatantly not true. To my understanding, the protesters there were imminent violation of a curfew that had been enacted due to the previous violence. I acknowledge I may be mistaken in this; please give me a good pointer if this is so and I will amend.

          Regardless, unless you can show me hard evidence that your Great Satan gave an actual order to do this I’m going to assume you’re just either making shit up or repeating the catechisms given you by your Holy Journalist Priesthood.

        • >And what are the odds that the group of people who mistakenly think of themselves as a white nationalist (but fail the definition) outnumber the actual group of white nationalists?

          How would that work, exactly? Can you outline an ideology that would make people think they they’re “white nationalist” but not fit the broad-church definition I gave?

          Remember, the movement itself is fissiparous – not united, for example, on whether neo-Naziism belongs inside it. But there really isn’t any way to draw an ideological boundary that makes it more than tiny; even the Church of Satan probably has more members than the entire body of self-described white nationalists.

          • Because if you gathered every actual “white nationalist” in the U.S. you might not even be able to fill a small school bus, and so a similarly numerically tiny group of people who miscategorize themselves can outnumber it.
            Not understanding the sets of ideologies won’t prevent someone from applying the wrong label all over the place, including onto themselves.
            I could imagine it occurring. I see that type of thing when people self-diagnose medical conditions.

          • In Germany, my impression is that quite a high proportion of self-described white supremacists are what I might call “mystical white supremacists”, who don’t have much in the way of political discipline or agreement about what kind of world-order would be good, but do have strong beliefs in the spiritual superiority of the “white race”.

            It’s interesting that you mention Satanism, because these folk consume a lot of online Satanist material. This group in particular have been influential in Europe because of the amount of material they put together: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_Nine_Angles

            • >“mystical white supremacists”

              Analogues exist in the U.S., but they’re neither numerically nor ideologically dominant within white nationalism here. One reason is that there some very crazed forms of millenarian Christianity taking up the space that groups like the Order of Nine Angles occupy in Europe; this tendency is sometimes known as the “Christian Identity” movement.

          • > How would that work, exactly?

            Because most of the people in this world are *much* less facile with language than you are.

            If someone is white, has some sense that blacks *generally* less intelligent (based on, say, standardized intelligence tests), then looks around at cities run by black mayors or predominately black city councils, he could, with a bit of a stretch come to the conclusion that Whites tend to run things better, and the the US–his nation–would be better off if fewer blacks were in positions of power.

            Being in the zeroth standard deviation for intelligence, and a consumer of mainstream media, he then concludes he’s a “white nationalist”.

            Also, one could be like me–white and a fan of what this nation once was on the path to being and still could achieve if we could manage to engineer a virus that only attacked communists and consider oneself a white nationalist without realizing the implicit “whites are better” argument.

            I don’t generally think that those descended from Europeans are “better” in any real sense than those descended from Asians, Africans, Australian Aboriginals or American First (second, third, fourth, fifth) peoples. I do believe that the culture we were building here was better.

            • Sigh. The more prejudice you show the fewer people want to join your culture. Why isn’t this obvious?

              • Please point out the prejudice being shown here, trout. Point it out and explain it.

                I’m sure you won’t, but I’d sure like to see you try.

                • My point, which to judge by your reply, you’ve missed very badly is this: We do have a pretty good culture, all things considered. However, some of us argue very loudly that it’s necessary to exclude certain groups from that culture. Some actually take active measures to exclude certain groups from our shared culture.

                  So why are you so surprised when someone says, “Fuck you, American culture. I’m going over her to do my own thing!”

                  And when someone writes, like William did above: “If someone is white, has some sense that blacks *generally* less intelligent (based on, say, standardized intelligence tests), then looks around at cities run by black mayors or predominately black city councils, he could, with a bit of a stretch come to the conclusion that Whites tend to run things better, and the the US–his nation–would be better off if fewer blacks were in positions of power.” and you wonder why nobody with brown skin wants to join your culture?

                  Please don’t waste my time with complaints when I notice the obvious and call it out!

                  • And when someone writes, like William did above: “If someone is white, has some sense that blacks *generally* less intelligent (based on, say, standardized intelligence tests), then looks around at cities run by black mayors or predominately black city councils, he could, with a bit of a stretch come to the conclusion that Whites tend to run things better, and the the US–his nation–would be better off if fewer blacks were in positions of power.” and you wonder why nobody with brown skin wants to join your culture?

                    Except, America as a culture has been bending over backwards to accommodate blacks for the past 50 years. The result is that blacks are still less intelligent and Black run cities are worse then White run cities.

                  • Eric! I had a comment here that appears to have vanished minutes after posting. I imagine it will return to life soon, but just in case I’m leaving this note here.

                    (It was Comment # 2427333)

                  • Doing an alternate version of my comment that got lost.

                    > My point, which to judge by your reply, you’ve missed very badly

                    I certainly didn’t. You confirm later in your post that you straight-up failed reading comprehension, implicitly accusing William of prejudice for what he typed, which is a hypothetical explanation for how a low-intelligence person could end up with views resembling what one might call racist white nationalism. You instead decided to attribute this hypothetical to him directly, like a snake. You also, in a previous post, tried to attribute a disgusting racist thought to me that I never said. Like a snake. Sst.

                    > We do have a pretty good culture, all things considered.

                    Cool. If we like it, do we get to keep it?

                    > However, some of us argue very loudly that it’s necessary to exclude certain groups from that culture.

                    Who? Idiot white ethno-nationalists? Yeah, they’re powerless assholes. Can we move on?

                    > Some actually take active measures to exclude certain groups from our shared culture.

                    Who?? Who is doing this? What active measures? How successful are they? Support your assertions, ass.

                    > So why are you so surprised when someone says, “Fuck you, American culture. I’m going over her to do my own thing!”

                    First, why is this made-up person in your head (not you of course) lumping the minority of racist assholes with the entirety of “American culture?” That’s one pretty fuckin’ dishonest dude.

                    Anyway, that’s not what they’re doing, man. They’re not walking away, they’re trying to tear it down with the rest of us still in it!

                    > Please don’t waste my time with complaints when I notice the obvious and call it out!

                    Complaints? I asked you to back up your assertion. That’s not a complaint, it’s a request for you to support your bullshit.

                    Which, hey, you didn’t, because you fail reading comprehension utterly. What a shock!

                  • Dude, you JUST DID IT. You are accusing me of being a racist for *COMMENTING ON THE STATE OF THE WORLD*.

                    When someone points out that psychometric data demonstrates that blacks score 1/2 a standard deviation lower on intelligence tests. They are IMMEDIATELY branded a racist.

                    As for perception that cities with black leaders being less well run, well, New Orleans, DC and Philadelphia aren’t exactly shining examples of how to do it.

                    Then again (to be honest) Seattle and New York have set a pretty low bar in recent years.

                    Hell, in Baltimore Catherine Pugh is going to jail a former mayor–who resigned over corruption charges (though misdemeanor) actually *almost* won the primary.

                    And then there’s Chicago.

                    Now to be honest the problem in those cities isn’t really the color of the politician’s skin, it’s the democrat party machines that are corrupt as fuck.

                    But the thing is when you look at the news for these big cities that are burning and falling apart you see about 2x as many light skinned African American faces, or in California Latino faces/names as you do whites.

                    This may or may not be a baseline reality, but given what most people are going to see on CNN or read in the newspapers it’s NOT a big leap.

                    I think it’s mostly that the Democrat party is corrupt as hell, and the whites in the party just aren’t as fucking blatant about it because they know they can’t claim people are being racists by calling them out.

                    BTW, I’m not the person who keeps voting for the policies that shit all over blacks and latinos.

                    I’m not the one arguing for disparate treatment under the law.

                    I’m not the one who is advocating burning down the inner cities and then getting all panicky when the rioters head my way.

                    On the day Eric went close to Philadelphia I took an order of groceries (and cosmetics) into downtown Denver *AFTER DARK*, to deliver it to someone with the ultra white name of “Santiago”. And yeah, I went armed, but the only time I don’t go armed is going to the gym, when it’s open.

                    But I have watched the comments here and other places where people who question these things get branded RACIST because frankly you fucks have no valid arguments.

      • I read his comment as not actually caring about *your* definition of white nationalist. Rather, he was implying that *others* may well have a definition of white nationalist that includes *you*.

        IOW, it was a warning that the optics for you could well be bad if you had to enact your plan and the media got wind of it..

        Not saying you will or should care about this angle, given what I know about you from your writings. Hell, if things got bad enough I’d probably stop caring about this angle myself, but from where I sit in TX we’re very far from that point.

        • >Rather, he was implying that *others* may well have a definition of white nationalist that includes *you*.

          There comes a point in dealing with blithering stupidity of that kind at which one has to decide not to care.

          Yes, there are probably people who think I’m a white nationalist. You can’t reach people like that; there’s no point in modifying one’s behavior to mollify them, they’re too deeply stuck inside an ideological hall of mirrors.

        • A definition of “Nazi” which was popular (at least by volume; what hostile work environment?) when I worked at Google was “didn’t vote for Hillary [for President]”.

          I’ve pretty much concluded that no matter what my real views are, a bunch of people with the ability to “cancel” me will call me racist.

          • Yeah. Arguments from Hitler and arguments from Stalin are both crap. When someone starts talking about communism or fascism* my general response is that they’re trying me to stop thinking and react from my fears.

            * I’m taking arguments from fascism a little more seriously now that I’m hearing the “Grandma should die for the economy” crap from certain Republicans.

            • You complain about people trying to jerk you around by your emotions, and then pull out the “You’re killing grandma for evil money!” line?

              Are you trying for an award or something?

                • > * I’m taking arguments from fascism a little more seriously now that I’m hearing the “Grandma should die for the economy” crap from certain Republicans.

                  Texas’ lieutenant governor suggests grandparents are willing to die for US economy

                  Whoops, the headline isn’t “should”, it is “are willing to”. Here’s the text:

                  > “No one reached out to me and said, ‘as a senior citizen, are you willing to take a chance on your survival in exchange for keeping the America that all America loves for your children and grandchildren?’” Patrick said. “And if that’s the exchange, I’m all in.”

                  > “And that doesn’t make me noble or brave or anything like that,” he continued. “I just think there are lots of grandparents out there in this country like me… that what we care about and what we love more than anything are those children.”

                  > Patrick claimed after speaking to over a hundred people over the phone that there’s a consensus that they don’t want to “lose our whole country” over the current public health crisis and face an economic collapse.

                  Most humans will recognize these as entirely normal sentiments. I’m curious – was this quote from 81 days ago the only thing you could find when you tried to justify your claim just now? Or did you consider it so vile back then that you bookmarked it?

                  • He wasn’t the only one who said things like that, and of course was widely criticized. I found the sentiment appalling.

                    • > I found the sentiment appalling.

                      You find the sentiment that grandparents are willing to risk their own lives for a better future for their grandchildren “appalling”? Huh. Says a hell of a lot about you, man. Do you always treat the elderly like invalids? Does that go over well? So fascinating.

            • As opposed to all the “FUCK CAPITALISM! BURN IT ALL DOWN! WOOOO!” from the other side? Why is one more egregious than the other?

            • I’m taking arguments from fascism a little more seriously now that I’m hearing the “Grandma should die for the economy” crap from certain Republicans.

              We’re hearing numerous, credible reports from Portland of protesters being disappeared into unmarked vehicles by unknown federal agents. The left wasn’t fucking around when they were talking about fascism. The right laughed, and now fascism is here. The nightmare scenario libertarians and rightists were all scared of if the left really took power has arrived, and it was ordered by Republicans.

              I hope y’all on the right are proud of what you have enabled.

      • a surprisingly large number [of flavours] for a […] numerically tiny [movement]

        The Judean People’s Front‽

      • There’s an interesting boundary case. I would not mind at all seeing the discrimination laws go away, at least to the point that the owner of an apartment complex or work place could make it all one race, religion, ethnicity, or political leaning, just because people can trust each other more and work together better in such homogeneous environments. (I might point out that this is already being done, maybe illegally, by companies like Google.) Were this legal I might choose a home or job in an all Republican or Libertarian community. Does this make me a white nationalist?

        • >Does this make me a white nationalist?

          No, though it resembles some of the least obnoxious varieties of white separatism. What it’s missing is the white-nationalist emotional fixation on subjugating nonwhites.

          • Odd framing, Eric, for someone who should be able to make at least a theoretical distinction between “white nationalism” and “white supremacy”. In particular, the rhetoric is current that mass immigration from Africa into Europe is a “consequence” (i.e., punishment and thus presumably negative) for colonialism—and this rationale is applied explicitly to nations such as Ireland. There is room for a position between “nonwhites should be subjugated” and “a white nation historically as oppressed as any of the African colonies that never had colonies of its own should have the option not to admit hordes of foreigners whose stated goal is its destruction”.

          • ISTR it also resembles some of the philosophy of W.E.B. DuBois, and of the Nation of Islam.

            That is, insofar as it professes segregation. After that, the philosophies appear to part ways pretty fast.

          • One would be incorrect. White nationalism focuses on an ethnostate, emphasis on State, meaning a bunch of people deciding for others who they are or aren’t allowed to interact with and in what ways. Ethnostates just have the additional flavor of race-based customs, borders, and citizenship. It is a general characteristic of any state entity; the point is it’s foolish to hold up probably any kind of state as some sort of large-scale freedom of association.

  7. Below is the relevant section of the Texas penal code. Clearly only guidelines for the Lonestar state. Note the stand your ground language at the end.

    Sec. 9.31. SELF-DEFENSE. (a) Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect the actor against the other’s use or attempted use of unlawful force. The actor’s belief that the force was immediately necessary as described by this subsection is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:

    (1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the force was used:

    (A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor’s occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;

    (B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor’s habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or

    (C) was committing or attempting to commit aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery;

    (2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and

    (3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.

    (b) The use of force against another is not justified:

    (1) in response to verbal provocation alone;

    (2) to resist an arrest or search that the actor knows is being made by a peace officer, or by a person acting in a peace officer’s presence and at his direction, even though the arrest or search is unlawful, unless the resistance is justified under Subsection (c);

    (3) if the actor consented to the exact force used or attempted by the other;

    (4) if the actor provoked the other’s use or attempted use of unlawful force, unless:

    (A) the actor abandons the encounter, or clearly communicates to the other his intent to do so reasonably believing he cannot safely abandon the encounter; and

    (B) the other nevertheless continues or attempts to use unlawful force against the actor; or

    (5) if the actor sought an explanation from or discussion with the other person concerning the actor’s differences with the other person while the actor was:

    (A) carrying a weapon in violation of Section 46.02; or

    (B) possessing or transporting a weapon in violation of Section 46.05.

    (c) The use of force to resist an arrest or search is justified:

    (1) if, before the actor offers any resistance, the peace officer (or person acting at his direction) uses or attempts to use greater force than necessary to make the arrest or search; and

    (2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the peace officer’s (or other person’s) use or attempted use of greater force than necessary.

    (d) The use of deadly force is not justified under this subchapter except as provided in Sections 9.32, 9.33, and 9.34.

    (e) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the force is used is not required to retreat before using force as described by this section.

    (f) For purposes of Subsection (a), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (e) reasonably believed that the use of force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.

    • Thanks for that….but it’s irrelevant in other states.

      ( but when I visit Texas, I’ll be forewarned ;) )

  8. Again, only for Texas, but this code is a bit unusual. Deadly force IS allowed for defense of property. Not usually seen in state penal codes. Now, just because it is in the code doesn’t mean you won’t get prosecuted. Also civil suits are a whole different matter.

    SUBCHAPTER D. PROTECTION OF PROPERTY

    Sec. 9.41. PROTECTION OF ONE’S OWN PROPERTY. (a) A person in lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the other’s trespass on the land or unlawful interference with the property.

    (b) A person unlawfully dispossessed of land or tangible, movable property by another is justified in using force against the other when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to reenter the land or recover the property if the actor uses the force immediately or in fresh pursuit after the dispossession and:

    (1) the actor reasonably believes the other had no claim of right when he dispossessed the actor; or

    (2) the other accomplished the dispossession by using force, threat, or fraud against the actor.

    Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.

    Sec. 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:

    (1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and

    (2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:

    (A) to prevent the other’s imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or

    (B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and

    (3) he reasonably believes that:

    (A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or

    (B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.

    • Montana has a similar stand-your-ground law, allowing protection of both persons and property, even in public. No duty to retreat. Far as I know it has not yet been tested.

  9. Pingback:

    Vote -1 Vote +1ESR uses anti- #antifa rhetoric of #orangenazi Threatening to shoot… | Dr. Roy Schestowitz (??)

  10. Reverse Racism?
    Judge not on the actual conduct or “content of character” but color of skin?
    Mel, Can’t stop the (virtue) signal.
    You didn’t say what you would do if you saw a cop engaging in police brutality, perhaps lethal, but perhaps blue privilege suffices. Would you have stopped Officer Chauvin?

    • >Would you have stopped Officer Chauvin?

      So how would that work, exactly? If I draw on Chauvin, the other cops on the scene gun me down and Floyd probably still dies. If I don’t draw, I’m just another bystander pleading for the brutality to stop.

      I don’t see any winning outcome here, so I won’t play.

      • > I don’t see any winning outcome here.

        I said something essentially the same about the actual bystanders over in the Final Warning thread. I’m glad to see my assumptions about how that would play out match yours.

        • Can I ask what you’re basing that on? Bystander rushes group of four cops, one kneeling but with hands free, the others standing but with hands already on holstered weapons. At least one of the four cops shoots the bystander before they can do anything of importance, and Chauvin doesn’t even have to lift his knee.

          What’s your scenario for the bystander “saving” Mr. Floyd, even at the expense of their life?

          • With a firearm, ideally a rifle, from sufficient range to go unnoticed by the police before opening fire. You could, in theory, yell at them to order them to surrender or be shot, but there’s no way they’d actually surrender… Which means gunning down all 4 before they can get to cover. The problem is, if you did that, and saved their victim, the media would paint you as the bad guy (and, to be fair, I’m assuming you magically *know* they will murder their victim if you don’t intervene). If you were very lucky, you might escape the scene, but not likely. You’d probably be “accidentally” killed while awaiting trial.

            • Well sure, we could save everybody from anything if we had magic snipers posted everywhere in advance.

              This isn’t frigging Minority Report, the question is what someone actually on the ground at the time could do.

      • Winning move is to call 911 and get EMTs out there as soon as it appears he is being harmed. Let the EMTs deal with the cops and hope the individual gets medical treatment in time.

    • Your comment gave me pause, and I had to re-evaluate our generous host’s point to make sure I actually understood it. (PS: After writing this, then reviewing the OP, I realize that Eric covered all this very tightly, and I doubt I’m adding much of anything. I’m still going to post, though, in case someone finds any value in it.)

      If I were to take the line Eric is taking here, I might explain my reasoning like so:

      (To Be Clear: I am speaking hypothetically, and not endorsing Eric’s ROE per se.)

      In the event I encounter rioting mobs in the act of engaging in destructive violence, I will preferentially seek to avoid lethal force in attempting to stop said mob if the members so encountered appear to be rioting for the publicly stated reason for the riot and stand down when confronted.

      Due to the claimed, possibly accurately, racial nature of the initiating offense and the event’s consequently assumed connection with the Black Lives Matter movement, black rioters will be given the benefit of the doubt that they are angered to violence and rioting for this reason, which while still reprehensible is understandable if the reason presented is true.

      (Compare this to, for instance, ghetto Jews rioting against their German oppressors.)

      It will further be assumed that any non-black rioters acting under this flag have less or no claim on this grievance, and are therefore rioting for reasons other than the one publicly stated.

      To the extent that AntiFa is present in the riots (being an explicitly anarcho-communist revolutionary paramilitary organization that regularly engages in mob violence to sow chaos and dissension in furtherance of their goals), to the extent that I believe communism is a scourge of mankind and those who would wield violence to achieve it are in fact enemies of mankind, like pirates or slavers, I will assume that any non-black rioters in the act of engaging in destructive violence are members of AntiFa there for their own calculated political ends, thus engaging in terrorism and do my human duty to remove this threat.

      Again, I am not endorsing this line of reasoning, just working through it hypothetically to aid my own understanding of it.

      • ghetto Jews rioting against their German oppressors

        They engaged the Nazis in combat. Nothing to do with rioting at all.

        • Thank you for the correction. My intent was to give a hypothetical case not a strictly historical one, but I acknowledge I did not make that clear.

    • Wouldn’t ‘reverse racism’ mean believing that your race is inferior to others?
      A form of self loathing?

      • No, “reverse racism” used to be an occasional term for racist attitudes directed by minorities towards whites. Or institutional bias in favor of minorities.

        Nowadays the politically correct line is to deny that this constitutes racism at all, because racism is necessarily driven by structural inequality.

        • I know how the term is used. I offered an alternative meaning because the contemporary one is gibberish – it implies that racism flows in one direction (from white to black) and that the direction can be ‘reversed’.
          (Go to Malaysia for some ear-ringing racism)
          Quite frankly, any time I hear “structural blahblah” I know I’m listening to an asshat ;)

  11. It gets more complicated in the “Identify as” world. We have transgender. But we have transracial. How do you know they are black or white? You would have to ask them what race they identify as.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rachel_Dolezal

    At least you are gender neutral.

    (I’ve considered taking enough colloidal silver until I’m literally blue in the face – Argeria – and being a superminority so I can waltz in anywhere or they would face a lawsuit).

    Even more fun is if there are more antifa than you have bullets or there are actual police. Your white suprivilege makes you a target (another reason for going blue).

    • >Even more fun is if there are more antifa than you have bullets or there are actual police. Your white suprivilege makes you a target (another reason for going blue).

      Don’t be silly. I do want to shoot the totalitarian scumbags that are trying to burn my country down, but that doesn’t mean I’d go all Yosemite Sam where cops are watching.

      I can only maximize my expected number of Communist riot agitaters killed by not getting jailed or shot while I’m doing it. I’m committed to defending civilization, not to playing stupid.

  12. Blacks and other minorities are otherwise safe from my gun; they have a legitimate grievance in the matter of this murder, and what they’re doing to their own neighborhoods and lives will be punishment enough for the utter folly of their means of expression once the dust settles.

    If you look at the statistics for crime and police killings, you see that they really don’t.

  13. You are *such* a cos-player, Eric.

    How come you’re not leading an elite team to take out the clearly overreaching federal government? The streets of the capital are being “guarded” by paramilitary troops who refuse to identify themselves or their affiliations. This is exactly the kind of thing you insist the 2nd amendment is for so… why exactly are you not getting on with it?

    • >why exactly are you not getting on with it?

      Well, for one thing, I’m not there. For another thing, those troops are not presently a threat to my liberty, and I’m not yet certain they’re a threat to anybody’s liberty. For yet another thing, I have lots of things to do with my life besides shooting people, and I’m a bit on the old and on the physically impaired side for “leading an elite team” of violence specialists.

      Note that the OP was not about me looking for trouble. It was about my policy if trouble finds me.

    • Ah yes, we must be on the internet right now…..where soft-handed snideness reigns supreme.
      Don’t waste too much time online, else your mommy will have to reheat your hot pockets.

    • Riots are one of the very few situations where military force is justified against civilians. Not coincidentally it is also one of the few situations where group guilt is applicable.

      The military would be entirely justified plopping down sandbags and belt-feds, and clearing the streets with lead. That police and military have barely even opened fire (rubber bullets and tear gas don’t count) shows the degree to which the rioters are allowed to do as they please.

      • Also, the second amendment exists to defend against TYRANNY, not to defend against government. The two do not always, or even usually overlap. The KKK, the SS(originally), the Blackshirts are examples of this.

        • > TYRANNY, not to defend against government.

          While I understand the distinction you are making, from my (libertarian) perspective it is without a difference.

          A tyrant is someone assuming the arbitrary power to dictate to me what I am or am not to do, regardless if that person is chosen by a bunch of other people (President, Congresscritters), or chosen by a bunch of people chosen by a bunch of other people (administrative bureaucrats, law enforcement agents), or acting on their own initiative.

          A government is necessarily a tyranny to the degree in which it upholds, or fails to uphold, the individual liberties of the citizens it claims to represent. Any government that expands beyond very narrow prescribed powers allowing it to safeguard those liberties immediately becomes a tyranny. One can argue about degrees of acceptable tyranny, but since that is a personal value determination it isn’t a very useful debate.

    • > How come you’re not leading an elite team to take out the clearly overreaching federal government?

      Because it’s currently not the Feds that are overreaching.

  14. If you had written it “White rioters, on the other hand, will be presumed to be White Nationalists attempting to manipulate this tragedy” nobody would have had a problem.

    • >If you had written it “White rioters, on the other hand, will be presumed to be White Nationalists attempting to manipulate this tragedy” nobody would have had a problem.

      But that would have been a hollow gesture – what Andrew Molitor calls “cosplaying” – because my odds of ever encountering an actual white nationalist are epsilon.

      We don’t have a problem with white nationalists attempting to burn down our country using black people as tools and proxies. We have a problem with Communists doing that.

      I insist on naming – and, if it comes down to it, shooting – the real enemy, not cooperating in the mass-media fiction that “white nationalists” are of any significance in this crisis.

      But you do raise an interesting point. Anybody who is upset by my intent to shoot Communists if the riots reach me should honestly answer the question “Why do you consider a plan to shoot Communists upsetting but a plan to shoot white nationalists not?”

      Any such answer should be justified by squarely facing the comparative casualty figures of Communism and white nationalism over the last 120 years. I’ll be unreasonably generous and allow the Nazis onto the “white nationalist” side, even though they were actually transnationalist and in most ways ideologically closer to Communism than to their neo-Nazi successor groups.

      (Yes, I meant that. Neo-Nazis have kept Nazi racialism but discarded Nazi political economics.)

      • “Why do you consider a plan to shoot Communists upsetting but a plan to shoot white nationalists not?”

        For myself because I don’t think Communists have the slightest chance of making significant political inroads in the U.S. At this point worrying about Communists is about as useful as worrying that Kaiser Wilhelm’s army will show up. And oddly enough, I think you’re right about White Nationalists as you’ve defined them. What I do worry about are those racists who fall somewhere between “White Nationalist” and “neutral-about-race.” I think that particular subgroup is growing in number and is increasingly dangerous to our democracy.

        Where I think you’re getting it wrong is this: you imagine a neat, simple politics with only two or three sides, when in fact there are lots of factions out in the field right now trying to exploit the protests, not counting the assholes who’ve come out just to make trouble. Any looter/rioter you shoot could be of any faction, anywhere from far-left to far-right. They might even be a member of the government acting as an agent provocateur. Getting caught up in these games would be really stupid and would not end well. You were correct above when you wrote “the only way to win is not to play.”

        Here’s the winning strategy: If you see a rioter use the video camera built into your phone, then come home, blog about it and publicize their picture.

        • I don’t think Communists have the slightest chance of making significant political inroads in the U.S.

          Academia and the media are maggoty with them. The Soviets set out to undermine American institutions, and they succeeded in several cases.

          • It might be more appropriate to say that the Soviets set out to exploit our already existing divisions, which makes the racist right into useful idiots.

        • > because I don’t think Communists have the slightest chance of making significant political inroads in the U.S.

          You’re saying this when AntiFa, a communist organization has political backing from large city mayors and cover from interference if not actual support by law enforcement in those cities?

          I guess you can quibble on the word “significant,” but I think we can shortcut the Scottish Veritables game if that’s all you’ve got.

          > What I do worry about are those racists who fall somewhere between “White Nationalist” and “neutral-about-race.” I think that particular subgroup is growing in number and is increasingly dangerous to our democracy.

          That… seems like a pretty broad brush for marking someone “dangerous to our democracy.” I think you’ll need to either get a lot clearer about exactly who you’re talking about and why them, or explain what you specifically mean by “dangerous to our democracy.”

          Hell, I wouldn’t mind you explaining what you mean by “our democracy.”

          • >You’re saying this when AntiFa, a communist organization has political backing from large city mayors and cover from interference if not actual support by law enforcement in those cities?

            You forgot most of the national media serving as its PR arm.

        • “What I do worry about are those racists who fall somewhere between “White Nationalist” and “neutral-about-race.” I think that particular subgroup is growing in number and is increasingly dangerous to our democracy.”

          Hillary Clinton’s “basket of deplorables”, eh? Just how broad is that brush you’re using?

          • Not exactly. I was noticing that Eric had narrowed the field of “what is a racist” by only considering White Nationalists. I was more pushing back on that than trying to go Clinton’s route, (which I disagree with pretty strongly.*)

            I think what we’re going to learn, maybe 3-5 years from now after people have carefully analyzed what’s happened over the past 10 days is that as many as half-a-dozen largish groups have been strategizing around what to on the streets when the next big wave of Black Protest hits, possible bad actors including the boogaloo racist fringe, Black Block kids, Antifa,** criminal looters (as opposed to spontaneous looting after order broke down) and maybe some Black revolutionary groups testing the waters.

            * It was both an inappropriate statement and poor strategy.

            ** The original antifa was a group of Jewish gangsters in the lead-up to WWII. They had a lot more credibility than Antifa. You can read about them below.

            https://allthatsinteresting.com/meyer-lansky-punch-a-nazi

            • >Not exactly. I was noticing that Eric had narrowed the field of “what is a racist” by only considering White Nationalists

              That’s because garden-variety bigots don’t have the doctrine or organizational capacity to incite riots nationwide. Whoever is having pallets of bricks shipped to street corners in targeted zones, it could theoretically be organized white nationalists if the movement were orders of magnitude larger than it actually is, but it’s not random individual bigots.

              Which, mind you, I don’t think are a common phenomenon these days in any case. They were in my childhood, but progress does get made.

              • “Whoever is having pallets of bricks shipped to street corners in targeted zones, it could theoretically be organized white nationalists if the movement were orders of magnitude larger than it actually is, but it’s not random individual bigots.”

                That’s definitely one of the most interesting aspects of the whole thing… With the forklifts passing dozens of security cameras while en-route, not to mention the question of whether the forklifts used were rented, because rented lifting equipment tends to have big identification numbers all over it, as does municipally-owned equipment. That’s not even considering the question of whether someone might have been clueless enough to use their equipment without a mask… At some point an investigator will run this stuff down, and I’ll be very interested in what they find!

                The other issue here is that you have to be pretty tied into the other side’s plans to know where to put the pallets of bricks. At the very least someone is monitoring the BLM Facebook posts (or similar) and at worst it’s another non-violent movement infiltrated by a TLA.

                • One crew who left a pallet of bricks along what turned out to be a planned route of protest was from Home Depot. They called law enforcement and the media and said that it was a load ordered over the phone and pair for with a prepaid credit card. The crew really, really didn’t want to be associated with Antifa thuggery.

                • At some point an investigator will run this stuff down, and I’ll be very interested in what they find!

                  Will one? Remember, we’re still waiting for the security footage from the Las Vegas shooter.

                  Or for that matter for someone to investigate WTF happened with that ISIS training camp whose leadership was mixed up with a lot of prominent democratic politicians, where the cite ended up being completely demolished by someone in the FBI before it could be properly investigated.

                • >At some point an investigator will run this stuff down, and I’ll be very interested in what they find!

                  Some of the results are already landing. I chased a link from a conservative blog to a Fox News story: Feds investigating whether ‘professional’ Antifa-linked agitators exerting ‘command and control’ over unrest

                  Notable quotes:

                  ‘Another DOJ official said the feds have seen signs of “very organized” coordination from “professional” agitators, some linked to Antifa.’

                  “I’ve seen very little in the way of far-right groups, but we are looking and that may be out there.”

                  This is completely consistent with what we see in the riot videos: pretty pervasive Antifa presence, no sign of “white nationalists” at all.

                  • Faux News? Please Eric, choose a source with some credibility. On the other hand, The Nation is reporting that the FBI didn’t find any evidence of antifa, but does expect violence by the far right.

                    Personally, I wouldn’t trust either source without cites; I don’t know where Faux is getting their information, but the Nation has pictures of someone’s screen; God only knows if they’re real – what The Nation is showing could be faked up by anyone who knows how to use a word-processor.

                    We’re in the hall of mirrors now, and I am not happy!

                    • Faux News? Please Eric, choose a source with some credibility.

                      Says the person who cites CNN. The source which compares unfavorably to the scrawled ravings on the inside of the average insane asylum.

                    • I cited CNN in agreeing that Eric was right about the Boogaloo!

                    • Sorry Ian, I should expand on that. What starts my radar moving is when someone is following the party line a little-too thoroughly. Then I’ll inspect their cites and sources… I do this for both the left and right, which is why I’m also skeptical about The Nation’s coverage in this case.

                      What’s happening right now is that nothing is very clear about those who are rioting. The seem to be young and white, but beyond that not much is clear. So everyone is projecting. What makes me sad is that nobody is waiting to see what get’s uncovered – and minute-to-minute coverage is all over the map. My current theory is that lots of different groups are exploiting the current protests, which if you think about it is very, very scary.

                    • What’s happening right now is that nothing is very clear about those who are rioting.

                      Yes it is. It’s just inconvenient for your narrative.

            • Not exactly. I was noticing that Eric had narrowed the field of “what is a racist” by only considering White Nationalists.
              This is indistinguishable from calling anyone who is not in lockstep with the orthodoxy of today a racist. You know, like Antifa and BLM do.

              I was more pushing back on that than trying to go Clinton’s route, (which I disagree with pretty strongly.*)
              * It was both an inappropriate statement and poor strategy.

              Yeah. It showed what she really thinks about us rubes out here in flyover country.

              boogaloo racist fringe
              Well, there you go again. Free clue: not everyone who talks about boogaloo is a racist – unless you adopt the Antifa/BLM definition of “racist”.

              • This is indistinguishable from calling anyone who is not in lockstep with the orthodoxy of today a racist. You know, like Antifa and BLM do.

                Jay, don’t be an ass.

                • >Jay, don’t be an ass.

                  Jay is not being an ass. A bit defensive and twitchy, yes, but I can’t blame him. Every conservative and libertarian has learned the hard way that people who talk like you do usually have the agenda of equating any dissent at all from the establishment line with racism.

                  • And your side thought Obama was a Mooslim who’d been born in Kenya…

                    But I know better than to do the whole “you departed from the party line so you must be a racist” thing. It’s far too easy to get hoist by your own petard that way – which is why I told Jay not to be an ass!

                    This is also why I don’t believe you to be a racist; I think your heart is in the right place even though the sources of information you see as credible are about 90 percent crap. I like to think I see a little deeper than that.

                    • Sorry, a little deeper into people, not into information sources.

                    • What’s this “your side” shit, kemosabe? I thought no such thing.

                    • Unfortunately I can no longer tell what’s crap and what isn’t.

                      Only semi-relatedly: regardless of your politics, you’d probably “enjoy” Matt Taibbi’s book _Hate Inc_, which blames both Crossfire and Roger Ailes for this sorry state of siloing. Not clear to me that the old way of manufactured consent was better, exactly, but at least both sides weren’t passive-aggressively trying to tear each other apart.

                  • P.S. I’m trying not to take a particular view of all this (beyond the idea that Black people have some legitimate differences.) I just see it as really, really interesting!

              • >Free clue: not everyone who talks about boogaloo is a racist – unless you adopt the Antifa/BLM definition of “racist”.

                Some things to note about when I was involved in organizing the Lobby Day protest in Richmond back in January:

                1. The word “boogaloo” got thrown around a lot. Usually humorously (“Today’s forecast: Sunny, cool, and breezy with a chance of boogaloo”), but with an underlying realization that this shit could get real.

                2. Racists showing up and the resulting bad optics were a major topic of concern. We didn’t want them at our demonstration, but since we had made a point of saying “open to anyone” it was unclear what we could do if they did.

                3. It was hilarious watching the presstitutes combing through the crowds for racists/fascists who weren’t there, getting more and more visibly depressed when they couldn’t find any. (And, of course, they erased the black gunfolks who were there. Not narrative-compliant, therefore nonexistent.)

                4. A local group called Seven Hills Antifa had announced that it was going to show up at the demo in support of gun rights. This gob-smacked everybody, but I explained about the communist/anarchist mix in the organization, and that the anarchists occasionally win their internal arguments, and that pretty much had to be what had happened in this case.

                5. As a result, the channel crew designated me their liaison to Antifa. Which was reasonable, as the rest of them together couldn’t muster as much knowledge about Marxist theory and left radicalism as I already had by 1979. But Antifa never showed up.

                • I just learned that from a CNN story. At the very least there’s a divide in that group over whether to hate cops more than Black people or vice-versa, and it seems to be happening (per the CNN story) along the lines of age. I suspect the younger people have a better grasp of the implications of everyone carrying a high-def camera, and thus accord things like the George Floyd video more credibility than their elders.

                  BTW, I’m betting on a massive use of cell-phone video in court over all this, with some very interesting results 2-3 years down the road.

      • > my odds of ever encountering an actual white nationalist are epsilon.

        IDK you used to have one posting here. Maybe not a “nationalist”, but certain the white supremacist part.

        And you can find a few of them on the street if you know where to look–jackanapes with swastika tattoos etc.

        > Yes, I meant that. Neo-Nazis have kept Nazi racialism but discarded Nazi political economics.

        A lot of the lower level shitheads may have, but like the socialists, the Nazis are in it for *control* and that ultimately means the state dictates the economy.

  15. Let me point out Larry Correia’s excellent “fuck you” to the leftards who are calling for the NRA to fight the cops:

    https://www.facebook.com/larry.correia/posts/4131113506899547

    “Then you did everything in your power to chase gun owners out of your sainted liberal strongholds. You passed laws. You banned everything we like. Forced all the shooting ranges to close. Forced most of the gun stores to close. And just generally let us know that our kind is not welcome there.
    But now you’ve started some shit, YOU want US to go into democrat cities, with democrat mayors, and democrat police chiefs enforcing democrat policies which cause strife among democrats, in order to get into gun fights on your behalf?

    How fucking gullible do you think we are? :D Like holy shit. Damn dude!

    Because we all know that literally 30 seconds after a gun nut blows away a government employee on your behalf, then all the national media coverage of the riots will instantly cease (sorta like the Corona Virus coverage did) and it’ll be back to the news breathlessly reporting about right wing extremist gun nuts, and all you useless fucks would go back to whining for more dumb ass gun control.”

    • Somewhat related, but one of the chats I lurk in recently had screenshots of a conversation posted, wherein someone confessed to being scared, and asking to borrow a gun for protecting their home until the country calms down. The person asking got upset when the person asked pointed out that any such lending had been made illegal by the policies the asker had supported.

      I am mildly curious how many will review and abandon their previous support for “gun control” during this time, as they begin to experience first hand the actual goals and consequences of such. I am not as hopeful about that as I would like to be.

      • I suspect they’ll start agitating for the return of “may issue” gun permits, so that they and their friends with pull can get guns when they need them, but it will still illegal for me to loan a gun to one of my friends unless I do it at a gun range.

      • I remember reading an interview with Charlton Heston some years back when he was talking about his leftard acquaintances calling him up to ask to borrow a gun during the LA riots. He told them to get fucked.

  16. Are you claiming that the encircling mobs were Antifa-white and the drivers were nevertheless accused of anti-black racism?

    Yes. Specifically, the drivers are regularly accused of “white supremacy” and the entire scenarios framed as “hate crimes”. This is precisely what happened to James Fields in Charlottesville: Despite unambiguous video evidence that he both was actively being attacked and tried to stop and push (rather than ram) his way through the crowd, he got a sentence of over 400 years, mere weeks after the Berkeley mobs had been dragging drivers from their cars and beat one into a coma.

  17. I’m surprised you’re not a fan of people who are fighting against the large government that’s murdering people. Seems like your interests are aligned? I’m generally in favor of anyone who protests against the government for more liberties (covid lockdown protests in wisconsin, the current protests, even the weird environment protests from nyc a few years ago), since they’re exercising the first amendment – “the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

    I figured you would be a pretty big fan of others fighting for your rights. Is the issue that you’re sick of the stupid trolling around it? or just how big of jackasses some of the BLM people are?

    • >I figured you would be a pretty big fan of others fighting for your rights.

      Nobody in these riots is fighting for my rights. It seems to be Free Shit Army and Communists all the way down.

    • What esr said. Smashing a store window and walking off with a cheesecake is hardly “fighting against large government”.

    • > I’m surprised you’re not a fan of people who are fighting against the large government that’s murdering people.

      Because there isn’t anyone doing that.

      The last *Republican* mayor in Minneapolis left office in 1974. Two generations ago. Minnesota is so generally left that they have the “Democrat-farm-labor” party. The state AG is is a *hard* left democrat and fan of Antifa. The left has run the schools, the police and basically everything for well over 2 decades.

      Are you going to suggest that every time someone being arrested starts to fight back the police should just let them go?

      • The state AG is is a *hard* left democrat and fan of Antifa.

        …with a penchant for beating women. Of course, the Democrats give him a pass for that because he’s black, and it would be totally racist to expect him to conform to basic human decency standards.

    • Impressive. While that would seem to support the “3D chess” theory of Trump’s actions, it still bugs me that all those myriad federal departments have that many tactical teams to begin with.

      • Except for one thing; there are only a few, actual, Antifa organizations which are active, but they’re like Eric’s White Nationalists – altogether they probably couldn’t fill the “convention center” of the Fresno, CA Ramada Inn. But the philosophy of “antifa” – that is, “we’re against fascism” – is something 99 percent of the U.S. population agrees with. In fact, if you think in terms of WWII, where we sent an army of millions to Europe to – what did we do? Oh yeah, we fought fascism!

        Just how well do you think this “brilliant plan” cooked up by Trump/Barr, who’ve been talking non-stop about Antifa being the terrorists who caused the riots, is going to go over? The counters are obvious and very simple; “Your honor, do you expect me to be pro-fascism?” And in the political arena, “Trump loves fascism.”

        • > But the philosophy of “antifa” – that is, “we’re against fascism”

          That is not the philosophy of AntiFa, you fool. The philosophy of AntiFa is Capitalism is evil, Communism is good, Capitalism is Fascism, if you are not anti-Capitalist you are Fascist, prepare for violent revolution against you whom We have declared to be Fascist so that we may move on to our Communist utopia!

          I guess you believe that the philosophy of “nazi” is “we want social services in our nation.”

          • I’m not mistaking anything; I understand the complexities. I’m just saying the approach Jeremy and Anonymous (writing above) are impressed by has a lot of inherent weaknesses. And what happens if you declare BLM to be a terrorist organization? Do the politics of that play very well?

            • > And what happens if you declare BLM to be a terrorist organization? Do the politics of that play very well?

              I suppose the question would be: “How many people have to die at the hands of the organization/philosophy in question before society at large realizes they are dangerous?”

              Except that Communism already has a death toll so high the Nazis only achieved a fraction of it. So why the ever-loving fuck is AntiFa not treated with the same if not greater automatic loathing?

              • You’ve dodged the question I asked (and you’re also confusing BLM and Antifa.) So try answering it this time: “…what happens if you declare BLM to be a terrorist organization? Do the politics of that play very well?”

                • I didn’t dodge, I was just oblique to a fault.

                  I’ll rephrase my answer: it depends on how many people have been killed or had their livelihoods destroyed by BLM before such a declaration is made.

                  Since the discussion was about AntiFa, I was addressing that. I wasn’t confused, I was bringing it back on topic.

            • BLM is and has been a criminal shakedown operation with racist roots. I first heard of it during the Furgeson melee, “hands up don’t shoot” bullshit. It’s got a great propaganda wing in the press, and is suckering a lot of weak people into this “protest”. I think it could at this time legitimately be called a terrorist organization.
              No excuse for bad cops, but no excuse for racist and anti-American outfits like blm and antifa either.

              • It started during Ferguson, based on a lie created by an anti-police activist in St. Louis who got to the scene before the police had it under control, and coached a couple witnesses who lied to the police and the press, but recanted in sworn testimony.

                • I was wrong about this.

                  It was started after Trayvon Martin jumped and beat up wassisname and got shot for his stupidity.

        • Antifa claims to be “against fascism”.

          The only problem is that their definition of “fascism” is “anything that does not bow down strictly to today’s hard-left orthodoxy”. Not just any, but today’s. If the orthodoxy changes and you don’t, poof! you’re a Nazi.

          So their claims are ringing increasingly hollow to the average American as their cries of “but we’re against fascists! Really!” get more and more plaintive.

          Antifa is just a bunch of hard-left thug shock troops. Fuck ’em and whatever it is they actually ride in on.

          • > Fuck ’em and whatever it is they actually ride in on.

            I’d guess either their mom’s Lexus or their professor’s twenty-year old Civic.

          • Jay, how this is perceived will depend on what the Feds do. I suspect, Trump being in charge, that they will overreact and get damn-near everything wrong, including accusing the wrong people. At that point the nation’s sympathies will point the other direction, as they did when McCarthy overplayed his hand. We’ve seen this movie before.

            The other thing you’re missing is that the left is at least as angry right now as the right, and probably more so. Things are not necessarily going to end well.

            Lastly, I think maybe you don’t understand the political brilliance of the Republican Party in steering the country to the right over the last forty years. They’ve played a really careful, excellent game of pushing things to right just a little, waiting out the outrage, then pushing a little more, then waiting out the outrage, and it’s produced both a nation that’s far-further to the right than it was when I graduated high school, and which is also suffering from “outrage fatigue.”

            Trump plays this game really poorly. His presidency has been a matter of “all outrage all the time,” and he has no clue about actually governing. Right now he has the country turned up to “simmer” and it will only take a couple more mistakes to turn the knob to “boil” and even though I think the left will win this round I really, really don’t want to see it play out!

            • > it’s produced both a nation that’s far-further to the right than it was when I graduated high school

              Could you define what you mean by “the right” here? Because this sounds like delusional lunacy that I genuinely don’t understand.

              • Thinking about it, depending on his age maybe he’s referring to how belief in glorious socialist future of humanity greatly crashed following the collapse of the Soviet Union. Although that was more the result of a sudden quasi-Black Swan event rather than a gradual process.

                • Sorry Eugene, I’ve never been a socialist, however much I like the idea of a well-regulated capitalism.

                  • I’ve never been a socialist, however much I like the idea of a well-regulated capitalism.

                    Except, capitalism can’t be well regulated. Look at the idea of “creative destruction”. Look hard.

                    What I suspect you and I (and maybe even OGH) can agree on is – crony capitalism (that is, favors being cut for those who have captured the regulatory or legislative machinery) needs not to be “regulated”, but abolished.

                    In the Real World, I suspect this will realistically happen only when the 103rd Porcine Interceptor Squadron is recognized as a legitimate fighting element of the USAF.

                    • What I suspect you and I (and maybe even OGH) can agree on is – crony capitalism (that is, favors being cut for those who have captured the regulatory or legislative machinery) needs not to be “regulated”, but abolished.

                      That will certainly do for a start!

              • Starting with the meta, it’s obvious that there’s social movement in all political directions all the time. For example, we’ve allowed Gay marriage, but many states have restricted abortion rights – both sides got something and both sides lost something.

                The question then becomes, “Which side is losing more?”

                I’d do the math like this: Both Democrats and Republican’s have an economic/defense policy and a social policy. They’re essentially united on the defense and economic policies. The defense policy is to build up the national security state, (neither Obama nor Bush nor Trump has a record of reducing government surveillance, for example.) And of course neither Obama/Clinton nor Bush/Trump ever met a rich person they wouldn’t give government money to. But Obama/Clinton tend to do it with more subtle policies, after all the i’s have been dotted and all the t’s have been crossed, while Bush/Trump are more comfortable with the “just write them a check” approach. But the ultimate result of either approach is that the bills get harder and harder to pay with each administration.

                All of these are essentially rightwing policies. There’s no support for unions on either side. (The Democrats pay lip-service, but Obama failed to sign a pro-union bill when it was presented to him, which I found very telling.) Abandoning Glass-Steagal in 1995 was bipartisan policy if you can imagine that and it led to the 2008 recession.

                But the end result of all this is that costs at a community college are now close to two orders of magnitude higher than they were forty years ago. The cost of homes has increased by something like 400 percent, (due to a change in the law to make money-laundering easier) and the cost of servicing that debt as a percentage of family income has increased dramatically.

                So if you only think in terms of social policy, the Liberals are a little ahead, but if you start to think in terms of economics/defense/personal liberty the liberals are losing badly, because the Democrats gave up on supporting the middle class a long time ago. If you want to know more about why I feel this way, fill in the following blank:
                “Obama repeatedly stated that __________ was his favorite president.”

                Democrats are “good” for the middle class. Instead they’re “less bad.” I’m going to hold my nose and vote for Biden,* but I’m not happy about it!

                * Biden is from Delaware. He made his bones by pretending to be a nice guy while never voting for anything a Delaware corporation objected to!

                • Abandoning Glass-Steagal in 1995 was bipartisan policy if you can imagine that and it led to the 2008 recession.

                  Sure, one would naively think it was the left-wing but sadly bipartisan policy of encouraging banks to lend to people who were realistically unlikely to be able to pay back because to do otherwise was racist, but yeah let’s blame Abandoning Glass-Steagal.

                  But the end result of all this is that costs at a community college are now close to two orders of magnitude higher than they were forty years ago.

                  Because of the ballooning of the number of non-teching administrators. Originally to deal with all the regulation the Left imposed, eventually it became self-sustaining as bureaucracies tend do. Nowadays there main purpose seems to be to provide sinecures for leftist activists.

                  The cost of homes has increased by something like 400 percent

                  Are you sure this has nothing to do with all the zoning, environmental, and other NIMBY regulations that made building new houses much harder?

                  because the Democrats gave up on supporting the middle class a long time ago.

                  Here’s a hint: they gave up supporting the middle class long before you graduated high school. Heck, their pretense of supporting it was already wearing thin by WWII. Not surprising since the middle class was the Republican base.

                  They cared about the working class for significantly longer, but are currently in the process of throwing them under the bus. Largely because they can no longer deliver on their promises and the costs of their earlier short-sighted pro-worker policies are coming home to roost. For example, a lot of their pro-union and general workplace regulation benefited workers in the short term, but long term caused American factories to become uncompetitive. Or their various underfunded pension schemes, in the sort term they make workers without spending from the budget, but eventually the literal bill come due.

                • Hoo boy. Alright. I asked: “Could you define what you mean by ‘the right’ here?” So, I’m going to evaluate what you said based on that.

                  > Starting with the meta,

                  A bunch of blah-blah-blah….

                  > The question then becomes,

                  Changing the question…

                  > I’d do the math like this:

                  More blah-blah-blah…

                  > All of these are essentially rightwing policies.

                  Asserting your blah-blah-blah is “rightwing” without actually defining it…

                  > There’s no support for unions on either side.

                  And now we get to the only time you get close to defining what you mean by “the right,” which as far as I can see is just “Pro-Union = Left Wing, !Pro-Union = Right Wing”

                  That’s a pretty fucking narrow, arbitrary, and borderline useless definition, man. Can you do better than that, so we can actually have a god damn discussion with you?

                  The rest of your comment is just more blah-blah-blah that gives no further insight into what your working definition is, just a bunch of assertions.

            • Lastly, I think maybe you don’t understand the political brilliance of the Republican Party in steering the country to the right over the last forty years. They’ve played a really careful, excellent game of pushing things to right just a little, waiting out the outrage, then pushing a little more, then waiting out the outrage, and it’s produced both a nation that’s far-further to the right than it was when I graduated high school, and which is also suffering from “outrage fatigue.”

              Something I’ve always wondered about liberals. Do you guys feel guilty about lying this blatantly or do you get some kind of thrill from it?

              • Eugene, the scary part is that Troutwaxer is not lying. He really believes that lunacy about the nation having moved rightward.

                I think this is because to him every leftward move – including stuff like drag queen story hour at the local library – instantly becomes the natural moral order with which no reasonable person could cavil, and therefore invisible in any calculation of left vs. right movement.

                Yes, this is a stunning failure of self- and historical awareness, but it’s not lying.

                  • There’s always a [good schools] moment. Conquest #1: everyone is conservative about what he knows best, such as where his house ought be located.

                    • You also get some true believers. These are the people you hear about in the “woman gets murdered by the ‘peaceful refugees’ she took in” type stories.

                    • I deny even this. Nobody takes tours of American ghettoes to prove that the slaves aren’t as violent as “racists” claim they are, as they would if they were true believers. They travel to the opposite side of the world because they have to travel that far before there’s enough ignorance to smother the cognitive dissonance. “I don’t know anything, therefore it’s good.”

                      The population of such lethally vociferous signallers is small enough that they may be genuine morons, which can be found in any group.

                • First, see my reply to ktk above.

                  Also, I don’t see “Drag Queen Story Hour” as the “natural moral order.” It happens that I’m glad we’ve stopped demonizing sexual minorities, but I’m a lot further from that very foofy side of Liberalism than you might think.

                  Politically there are three things about me that matter. The first is that I really dislike the idea that our society will hurt people or nature unnecessarily. The second is that I have a strong belief in individual liberty. The third is that I consider myself a realist.

                  So I caucus with the Liberals and vote Democratic because they are more likely to vote along with the scientific consensus and less likely to unnecessarily hurt people or nature.

                  But ultimately I’m neither a Liberal nor a Democrat. What I’d really like is a form of Libertarianism that espoused a much better means of dealing with bad actors, and a much, much smaller history of acting as useful idiots for spoiled people with too much money. And by the way, I despise both the communist economic philosophy and the idea of the spoiled rich that they can control reality/physics because they have money!

                  • > First, see my reply to ktk above.

                    Which will avail him not, since you completely whiffed defining your terms. Do you do this just to make it more frustrating for people to debate you?

                    > The first is that I really dislike the idea that our society will hurt people or nature unnecessarily.

                    Based on your evaluation of what constitutes necessity.

                    > The second is that I have a strong belief in individual liberty. The third is that I consider myself a realist.

                    I roll to disbelieve.

                    > So I caucus with the Liberals and vote Democratic because they are more likely to vote along with the scientific consensus

                    Said as though “scientific consensus” is synonymous with “the truth.” Because science is all about consensus, right? You might as well call it “clerical consensus,” because it amounts to the same faith-based belief in self-appointed group authority.

                    > and less likely to unnecessarily hurt people or nature.

                    Citation needed. This is an assertion of faith. You are as religious in your political positions as the Christian right.

                    > What I’d really like is a form of Libertarianism that espoused a much better means of dealing with bad actors

                    You say this as if it’s even possible for there to be full agreement on what defines “bad actors.” That you are so vague in defining shit, I can’t help but read this as “What I’d really like is a way to cull the people I don’t like without feeling bad about it.”

                    • Do you do this just to make it more frustrating for people to debate you?

                      Of course, he’s a leftist. That is their main debating tactic.

                  • So I caucus with the Liberals and vote Democratic because they are more likely to vote along with the scientific consensus and less likely to unnecessarily hurt people or nature.

                    That is SO MUCH BULLSHIT.

                    570 buildings (at last count) were burned in Minneapolis over “Justice for Floyd”.

                    Floyd died on Monday (25th). Chauvin was fired on Wednesday and charged with murder on Friday. These are the people you caucus with–people who want it to be arrest, execution, trial?

                    Do you mean the people who SCREAMED about Trump being a racist for blocking flights from China because the WHO stated that the Wuhan Virus was not easily transmittable to humans. Which leads to:

                    The ones screaming that calling it the Wuhan Virus is RACIST, unlike Rocky Mountain Spotted Fever, Ebola, Lyme Disease, West Nile Virus etc. etc.

                    Or the idiots who say the current insurrection is perfectly ok, but that protests *against* the state wide house arrests were not Ok, and that going to church is DANGEROUS?

                    You’d also be “caucusing” with people who believe that GMO foods are “bad” based on limited to bullshit evidence, that “organic” food is better for you based on nothing more than the emanations from their crystals, etc. etc. etc.

                    You do know that the *actual* temperature data is “underperforming” against 96% of the GCMs, right? The exception being one or two *Russian* (oh man how it hurts to say that) models which have carbon sensitivity at 1/2 rather than 2x (as I understand it).

                    The scientific “consensus” is whatever Ezra Klien’s New Model Journolist (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JournoList) has decided is the message of the day.

                    You’re basically siding with Big Brother because “that’s what everyone believes”.

                    • Allow me to predict a response that will, predictably, not be forthcoming or if it does it will not actually address the subject.

                      (Trout-Mode Activate! Sha-sha-sha! Ka-Shing!) “Read what I wrote. I said ‘more likely’ and ‘less likely.’ This means that no matter how many arguments you throw at me, I will be proven right because I will endlessly hedge on what ‘more likely’ and ‘less likely’ means. Now watch me act smug and superior to you non-Prog troglodytes, who actually think that words mean anything more than what I decide they do at any given moment.”

                    • And with all that, much of which is either true or at least a defensible argument, the left has less warts than the right!

                    • > the left has less warts than the right!

                      Nice assertion. Care to justify it? No?

                      Still waiting on that definition, trout my boy. Still waiting…

                    • > Definition? Remind me please.

                      Cute.

                      I asked here for you to define what you mean by “the right.”

                      You failed to do so here.

                      I responded to and explained your failure here.

                    • Oh yeah, not going to play silly guessing games like this. We all know who the right is and isn’t.

                    • > Oh yeah, not going to play silly guessing games like this.

                      Bwa-ha-ha! Silly guessing games? What? I’m pretty sure my question was very clear, and you are now refusing to answer it. Why? Because it’s “silly!” That’s some rhetorical magic there, bub! I am slain! You have defeated meeee!

                      Wait, no, you’re just a slimy weasel. Never mind.

                      > We all know who the right is and isn’t.

                      No, we fucking don’t, Trout.

                      I don’t know what YOU mean by it, because the shit you say doesn’t at all match my understanding of it, which is why I was asking, so we can actually have a discussion.

                      It’s called setting terms, but I guess the ground-rules of reasoned debate are just too fucking “silly” for you.

                      I’m realizing now that you actually don’t think I’m communicating with you in good faith, and you don’t think I’m asking you to clarify with honest intentions. You seem to think my confusion with the shit you say is a put on.

                      I’m guessing this is because you, yourself, are a dishonest, pus-spewing boil of a man only capable of debating people you make up in your own head. Like every other Prog-Left asshole I have ever known.

                • On reflection, I believe the trick has to do with dissociating leftist stated intentions and leftist results. Same American habit that takes Lenin’s rhetoric seriously.

                  “Accordingly, in jokes Lenin is often depicted as sneaky and hypocritical.”
                  “One day Lenin is shaving outside his dacha with an old-fashioned razor when a small child approaches him. “Grandfather Lenin,” the child begins eagerly. “Buzz off!” replies the father of the Russian revolution. What a kind man: after all, he could have cut the kid’s throat.”

                  Similarly:
                  “General Turreau’s career demonstrates how easily a thirst for blood can be harnessed to the pursuit of noble ideals.” The Terror was driven by nobility? Yeah, nobly skinning people. Sure.

                  Naturally America has drifted further and further away from stated leftist intentions.

                  If your neighbour came to your house every day and smashed a plant pot with a hammer, saying, “But I was trying to squash a mosquito,” eventually you’d figure him out and have him arrested for vandalism.

                  Leftists, similarly, repeatedly do things which destroy American livelihoods, especially those of the poor and the nonwhite. They never retract. They never adjust. A normal person eventually decides either they’re too stupid to live or their true intentions must be evil. An American continues to buy their excuses.

                  A Troutwaxer believes their Fascist rhetoric (point 4): “It wasn’t our fault! It was the Plot of the State Enemy! Oh, woe!” The wreckers, the kulaks, the Jews, the Capitalists, etc etc. As leftist rhetoric and leftist results become ever more dissonant, obviously the White Nationalists must be winning. Even though it’s always leftist policy that’s written into law, and never wignat policy.

                  The simple fact: every time a leftist initiative is implemented, things become worse, in exactly the way rightists said it would. The more perfectly it is implemented, the more disastrous the damage. The leftists then defend the policy; again, the more perfectly implemented, the more fiercely defended. At what point do you admit the policy must be working as intended? What if (SJW rioters aside) they are not all eight-year-old children, but instead foresaw the exact thing the rightists foresaw, but went forward anyway?

                  The Progressive perfectly understands collective guilt when it comes to their political enemies. But with their ‘friends’ the slaves, they somehow fail to understand? Or, perhaps, the proggie is not in fact a drooling retard and still understands it perfectly. They know if they allow the slaves to riot and loot all the time, they will get a reputation for being barbarous thugs, no matter what excuses are mouthed for them. That reputational vandalism is part of the plan. Point deer, make horse. Can’t play [point rioter, make citizen] if you don’t have any rioters. If they won’t riot spontaneously then they will riot on command.

                  If you’re a leftist for whatever twisted reason, obviously you admit that leftists are liars at no point. E.g. all your friends are leftists, so you can’t admit it without becoming friendless. Cast out of your tribe. This norm of being a fuckin’ liar also makes the self-deception seem normal and prosocial.

                  Notably there are historical roots in the Sophists of Athens. Being liars is not some kind of coincidence or provincial pragmatism.

              • Eric, why did you remove your reply to this comment? Yes, I made a minor criticism of it, but I mostly agreed with it.

                • I am not aware of having removed anything.

                  I’ve been blogging from my phone, though. Still trying to recover from the blown PSU on my main computer. it is possible that I inadvertently deleted something through the phone interface, though I can’t think how that would happen.

            • I suspect that you wrote “I suspect” when you really meant “I hope” up at the top of your post.

              Put another way – what historical basis is there for expecting an overreaction? Is it because of that time he nuked North Korea? Or that time he invaded Iran? That time he had those “journalists” arrested? Or maybe that time he pardoned his friends who had been persecuted by his enemies? Or that time he had Hillary jailed?

                • That article is hilarious. Anyone who is familiar with the Flynn case, the Roger Stone case, or the “Mueller” investigation will be familiar with the cast of characters, and the tactics. Oh, or the Ted Stevens case, or the Enron case.

                  I literally howled with laughter when I got to the part where the author whined about all of the resources assigned to the case. One full time prosecutor and one full time investigator. Can you imagine? That must have cost the taxpayers something like 32 million dollars.

                  So yeah, totally an overreaction by Time Travelin’ Trump, that sneaky scoundrel went back and convinced Clinton, Bush and Obama to hire these goons, just so they could overreact in 2017 (literally the very day that he takes office) and 2020.

                    • There certainly were some rant-like elements in it, but it still refuted both branches of your argument. Sorry if you missed the serious parts.

                      First, I mocked the idea that the inauguration prosecutions was an overreaction compared to “normal”, and second I mocked the idea that President Trump had hired the people involved in your one example of a purported overreaction.

          • I’ve had self-identified AnTifa folks call me a Nazi for having the temerity to ask them if they had and due process amongst themselves to avoid false positives when identifying Nazis.

            • It’s not a terrible question. I’ve had the experience of being called a commie in mainly-right environments and a CIA-plant in mainly left-wing environments. I just might be doing something right.

        • >are only a few, actual, Antifa organizations which are active, but they’re like Eric’s White Nationalists – altogether they probably couldn’t fill the “convention center” of the Fresno, CA Ramada Inn.

          You might not be that far wrong, but the two-, maybe three-order of magnitude difference means one crucial thing: the white nationalists lack the numbers to engage in street-level direct action, but Antifa has those numbers.

          The result is extremely visible in the recent riot footage. Antifa is everywhere, white nationalists nowhere to be found.

          • Eric, the problem here is that you’re skipping a step, which is finding out the actual motivation of the White rioter – and we don’t know that yet. The right-wing media is saying “Antifa,” but they’re presenting very little evidence. (At least in Portland Antifa’s MO is to go after neo-nazis using violent tactics.) Minor property damage is more a Black Block phenomena.

            Also, you’re hedging on the racism issue. There may not be many White Nationalists, but there are plenty of ordinary racists out there, and of course the use of provocateurs is a very old tactic.

            • The motivation of the white rioter is to a) chimp out and b) become the next Billy Ayers. Kill some people, get a comfy job. That’s just how America works, and how it has always worked.

              • This is way more true than you might think. The initial violence part of the rioting (not the opportunistic stealing) is being done by the same sort of people who brought us OWS. And there was some analysis regarding those people at the time. Like:

                http://volokh.com/2011/10/31/the-fragmenting-of-the-new-class-elites-or-downward-mobility/

                It’s hard being a privileged grievance studies major who can’t find the cushy white collar high status no work position they were led to expect. (For instance, university diversity bureaucracies simply can no longer keep expanding to keep up with employing the supply of incoming drones.)

            • When you can explain to me what would motivate a while female “white supremacist” to dress up in a burka and steal a cheesecake in the middle of a riot, I may start to take the claims of it not being antifa seriously.

              Not before.

            • Eric, the problem here is that you’re skipping a step, which is finding out the actual motivation of the White rioter – and we don’t know that yet.

              So if you actually believed the White rioters were WN, shouldn’t you be upset at all the Democratic DAs mass releasing rioters and all the celebrities and Democratic politicians offering to pay their bail?

              The reason you’re not is that you know perfectly well their “Quantum White Nationalists”, i.e., their only White Nationalists for the exact second their looting and arson is generating bad PR for your side. Afterwards they go back to being good leftists worthy of being bailed out and to be celebrated for “smashing the system” via the exact same actions that they temporarily transmute into “white nationalists” when they’re criticized.

            • Less flippantly, when I try to put myself in the world-view of a “white supremacist”, or racist in general, and try to predict what they would do in the present situation… I can’t come up with any _possible_ reason for them to join in on the mayhem and city-burning.

              I can make sense of it from the _left_ worldview very easily: if you strongly favor authoritarian central government, if you are an inheritor of the cultural capital of the Soviet secret police and gulags, the Nazi brownshirts and concentration camps, then the LAST thing you want is a bunch of “pig ignorant” libertarian types saying that the incident that triggered all this is _exactly_ what you can expect from an authoritarian central government, and an Elite police force shielded by that government and given power and authority no “civilian” could ever hope for black _or_ white. On the contrary you NEED to keep all of the “optics” focused entirely on the issue of race. Private property gets destroyed and burned down, bystanders beaten and killed? Great, the terrified public will sheepfully go along with the calls for stronger government intervention and increased police powers. Any _white_ folks murmuring that maybe a tiny bit of the rioting and destruction might not be completely called for? You can quash that immediately as racist hate-mongering — thus silencing any possible political opposition to step one.

              But some “white supremacist” “redneck” “racist”? The more stereotypical you make him, the _less_ I can see any way he would stand shoulder to shoulder with “them coloreds” out there burning down some blue city. (Mostly their own neighborhoods in those cities, as esr has already pointed out.) Why would they bother lifting a finger, when it’s already being burned down for them? If you had huge crowds outside the Minneapolis jailhouse, with signs and shouting declaring Chauvin a hero and demanding his release, I would agree that was pretty obviously racially motivated garbage. But if that’s happening I haven’t heard about it. (Union chief Kroll has of course stepped forward to defend Chauvin, but I claim that’s explained at _least_ as much by the Blue Line as by racism. That is, I would need a bit more from you or Jeff Read just saying “no you’re stupid, of course it’s just racism” to be convinced, like actual evidence or a model of some kind.)

              The only thing that could possibly be claimed is that, well, the white supremacists are dressing up like antifa to make antifa look “bad”. Which… again, doesn’t really fit the stereotype of the “unsophisticated redneck” “white supremacist”. I talked about the “cultural capitlal” of the left… what’s the equivalent here, the KKK? Yes, the scary white hoods and robe… but they wore those because they were _afraid_ of getting caught, to hide their “private” identities (much like the burka-wearing bitch cheesecake thief, I’m not saying this particular tactic is limited to one side), not because they were trying to look like some “other” violent group, let alone a left-leaning one.

              tldr: it’s not enough to say “gotta be dem racists.” There needs to be some kind of explanation for _why_ one of them would don a burka and paint “police=KKK” signs all over downtown stores.

              And steal a goddamn cheesecake.

              • > I can’t come up with any _possible_ reason for [white nationalists] to join in on the mayhem and city-burning.

                I can. Not the city-burning – no point in that. But if I were a white nationalist mastermind and had the troops to deploy on direct action, I would be fielding response brigades to stop arsonists. And I’d give them banners like the Battle of Thermopylae insignia used by European identitarians, or a hoplite helm – carefully avoiding all fascist and Nazi symbolism.

                Think about it. What more perfect way to gain legitimacy? I’d even film some rescues of black-run small businesses from the rampaging ferals of their own skin color, and make that part of my propaganda. Getting to beat up Antifa and black criminals would be just a bonus. Hashtag:#WeStandForCivilization.

                This won’t actually happen, because there aren’t enough white-nationalist troops to make it work. But it’s a possible reason, if there were.

                • Well, yeah But by “join in the mayhem” I meant more what Troutwaxer seems to be imagining: a bunch of “white supremacists” going in and helping to _cause_ some of the burning, not putting out fires.:D

                  • You send agent provocateurs to make the other side look bad. If you’re the “White Supremacist Mastermind” you try to get some violence and property damage going. The advantage of this is that it’s very inexpensive.

                    This tactic used to work because the media would cover the burning and looting far more than they’d cover the issues of the protest. But the tactic doesn’t work anymore due to cellphones with video cameras, plus social-media/twitter.

                    I think we’ll find, 2-3 years from now when someone has done the research and gotten it published that we have a far-deeper look at how a protest evolves into a riot than we do now.

                    • You send agent provocateurs to make the other side look bad. If you’re the “White Supremacist Mastermind” you try to get some violence and property damage going.

                      You mean like all the laughably obvious fake “hate crimes” your side keeps staging.

                    • > The advantage of this is that it’s very inexpensive.

                      Hypothetically, perhaps. In the real world, expense is unimportant, because _it’s never going to fucking happen_.

                      You completely failed to do what I asked when I was still trying to be polite, which is not just slap your claim down as an axiom (“of course it would be to the white supremacists’ advantage to sneak around in disguises and pretend to actually be left-wingers”), but provide a model for _why_ and _how_ they would do that — especially the part where the “Mastermind” _gets their white supremacist underlings to actually go and do that_.

                      Less politely now, I am telling you that if you ask a “white supremacist female” to put on a burka, you will get a face full of buckshot. You won’t even get to the “steal a cheesecake” part of your “Mastermind’s” master plan.

                      Once again, while the KKK _were_ hiding under white hoods from the consequences of their actions, they certainly _weren’t_ trying to make it look like those actions were carried out by, I dunno, Frederick Douglas or something. When they did some horrible shit like burning a cross on somebody’s lawn they damn well wanted everyone to know that it was the KKK doing that dumb horrible shit, they _owned_ it.

                      Still too abstract for you? Looting stores and destroying private property (even down to the cheesecakes) requires no justification or incentive at all, if you _already hate capitalism_ axiomatically. This neatly explains why both “white” and “black” owned homes and businesses are getting trashed IF it’s antifa doing the burning and trashing. For a white supremacist, you can only explain the the black-owned businesses being destroyed, and you _can’t_ in any way explain how you would get a “redneck racist” to squeeze into a burka and spray paint “viva la revolucion” on a looted storefront instead of “n* go home” or what have you.

                    • Looting stores and destroying private property (even down to the cheesecakes) requires no justification or incentive at all, if you _already hate capitalism_ axiomatically.

                      Yes, we must posit elaborate theoretical justification so we can imagine why theft might be tempting and breaking stuff might be fun.

                      I take it you never jumped on frozen puddles as a child? It is well-known (well, until recently I guess) that mobs are not civilized. You can make a mob out of any crowd, and once it’s a mob you’re lucky if the surroundings aren’t razed to the ground. Humans are poorly adapted to gatherings of more than 150 individuals.

                    • @Alrenous:
                      > Yes, we must posit elaborate theoretical justification

                      Ok, I kinda get what you’re saying, and thanks for the extra snark, but… no offense but were you following the context? If the question is whether “redneck racists” or antifa are more likely to be the main component of the fray, then it seems a little justification ought to be required from both sides of that debate. (Not sure how “communists are self-proclaimed anti-capitalist, therefore less respective of private property” rises to the level of “elaborate” , but whatever.)

                      If you’re sincerely convinced that negligible numbers of _either_ fraction are present, you could have saved time and directed that comment at Troutwaxer’s initial claim of it being “white supremacists”. (Of course that claim was presented without any justification, let alone “elaborate”, but that was kinda the point of my replies to Troutwaxer in the first place.)

                      > I take it you never jumped on frozen puddles as a child?

                      Oh I jumped in plenty of puddles, frozen and unfrozen. But I managed to do it without causing tens of thousands of dollars of property damage or attempting to burn down a building with a child trapped inside while I prevented fire trucks from approaching the scene.

                      Or stealing a fucking cheesecake.

                    • I think what everyone’s missing here is that I was responding to Eric’s post above that it couldn’t possibly be White Supremacists because they would use a particular set of tactics. I noted that the use of agent provocateurs was also a very standard tactic, and far more in line with what’s been done previously.

                      For myself I don’t think there’s much good evidence yet as to who’s doing what (and I think there are lots of factions in the field doing all kinds of things – which I’ve said in about six different posts so far on this thread!)

                      I haven’t changed my mind on that one, but was specifically objecting to Eric’s construction of possible White Supremacist tactics by pointing to the tactic which is much more common!

                    • They stopped being proper cheesecake when people stopped putting lemon in the top layer of cheese! I haven’t had good cheesecake in a restaurant in years, Cheesecake factory included!

          • Remember the joke from about 15 years ago, what is the difference between a radical muslim and a moderate muslim?

            You might not be that far wrong, but the two-, maybe three-order of magnitude difference means one crucial thing: the white nationalists lack the numbers to engage in street-level direct action, but Antifa has those numbers.

            The other thing that Antifa has that the White Nationalist/White Supremist types (lumping the two together) don’t is *massive* support and assistance from “moderate” leftists.

            You have mayors and professors *supporting* Antifa, while the white nationalist/supremist types are considered odious by almost everyone.

            Like the moderate muslim the moderate leftist doesn’t want to kill you. He wants the radical to kill you.

  18. My insight into US Antifa is mostly gleaned from Twitter, so far from reliable, but my impression is that the political makeup of Antifa in the US is not hugely different to that here in Germany. In Germany, while communists are very active in Antifa, it is a dominantly anarchist movement, and while it revolves around the anti-capitalist equation of capitalism and fascism, there are both Marxist and non-Marxist arguments made for this thesis.

    If you shot an anarchist, you might rationalise that your victim was a useful idiot of communists, but I guess you would be uncomfortable about that.

    • There are two types of anarchists:

      1) anarcho-capitalists/anarcho-feudalists

      2) someone’s useful idiots

      • Not true. The Makhnoists, for instance, agitated with some effect against the Bolsheviks, and Stalin saw the left-anarchists who took part in the Spanish Civil War as a serious threat to the Comintern’s goals. Communist thinkers today get attacked all the time by left anarchists.

        I’d also point out that right-anarchists were a bigger ideological influence on fascism than the Marxists.

        • >I’d also point out that right-anarchists were a bigger ideological influence on fascism than the Marxists.

          That is utterly false. The theoretical foundations of Fascism were laid down by Georges Sorel, who wanted to rescue Marxism from the decline he saw coming because Marx’s immiseration hypothesis had failed.

          Mussolini’s “Everything for the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State” is not where you land if you’ve been “influenced” by any kind of anarchism at all.

          • I follow Zeev Sternhell in making this claim, who is arguably the most well-regarded historian of the ideological roots of fascism – if he’s wrong, I’m wrong, and of course I could be wrong due to my own failure to master the literature.

            But to summarise: there is a well-documented split between Proudhon, founder of the French school of anarchism, and Marx. While Sorel described himself during one period as a Marxist, he was never conformist and he was much more influenced by Proudhon. One of the short-term influences of Sorel’s work was to make the boundaries between socialist, ultra-nationalist and anarchist thought very permeable for many people: this was the environment in which Italian fascist thought developed. As with all new revolutionary movements, the ideas didn’t really crystalise until they seized power.

            Sorel is still regarded as a “to-read” thinker by many anarchists, although with a warning labels.

            • >I follow Zeev Sternhell in making this claim, who is arguably the most well-regarded historian of the ideological roots of fascism

              Dear Goddess. If he’s the “most well regarded”, I can only conclude this is an academic specialty especially well stuffed with high-grade idiocy.

              The most charitable interpretation I can make of your report is that this Sternhell is particularly sloppy about confusing the early phase of Fascism, when Gabriele D’Annunzio was running things, with what it became after Mussolini took control of the movement.

              If Sternhell said that right anarchism had influenced the Republic of Fiume I could take him seriously. I don’t know that it’s true, but it’s not crazy. All kinds of things influenced D’Annunzio’s live-action role-playing game, up to and including medieval necromancy.

              But Mussolini changed everything. Once he successfully reinvented fascism on the premise of totalitarianism – “Everything for the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state” – there was no way in which either right or left anarchism could in any way be said to still be an influence on Fascism, or in anything less than total opposition to it.

              If Sternhell claims otherwise, he’s either delusional or grinding some kind of political axe, and I don’t really care which it is. It means I don’t need to waste any time on him.

              Unipolar state centralism and anarchism – they’re like matter and antimatter. Which is why Stalin wiped out the Spanish anarchists.

              I speak with particular authority on this, being what you would think of as a right anarchist myself. And I think this is one of a very few matters about which I would get instant agreement from a left anarchist.

              • Dear Goddess. If he’s the “most well regarded”, I can only conclude this is an academic specialty especially well stuffed with high-grade idiocy.

                I think that probably nails it.

                The biggest problem with this area of study is that there is so little difference between how the Fascists implemented their plans and the Communists implemented theirs that the academics get all spun around trying NOT to be fascists and wind up incoherent.

                Like the people who claim that leftists *can’t* be authoritarian.

    • >In Germany, while communists are very active in Antifa, it is a dominantly anarchist movement

      That’s reversed in the U.S. Antifa here is Communist-dominant, though the minority anarchist faction occasionally wins some of their internal arguments.

      >If you shot an anarchist, you might rationalise that your victim was a useful idiot of communists, but I guess you would be uncomfortable about that

      The kind of anarchist that joins Antifa is Marxist/nihilist. I wouldn’t be rationalizing. About the only good deed Stalin ever did was exterminating the nihilist-anarchist faction in the Spanish Civil War.

  19. I was thinking today that we could have so many ways of bringing back James Bond movies with believable villains, if Hollywood was not already owned and operated by enemies of America.

    • Unfortunately, these days its also not believable that MI6 would send its agents to fight such villains.

  20. Oh dear. Prog doctors and academics are blatantly trying to turn public health into a skinsuit. Their open letter is a load of drivel and hand-waving assertions about “white supremacy”, which is meant to excuse cheering the protestriots for being progressive while still suppressing other assemblies that are not progressive because they might spread the ‘rona. To boot, they’re demanding that everyone else must support the cause of the protestriots.

    It feels kinda like reading blood libel from a mid-tier antisemite.
    ‘The Jew White lives longer than us. Biological disparities do not explain this, so he must be poisoning our wells. The Jew White is evil for not wanting to stay in his house when ordered to, but we are righteous for ignoring that same order to draw attention to how the Jew White is oppressing our people. Our illness is the fault of Organized Jewry White Supremacy.’
    Mildly paraphrased for brevity. Example of a literal quote:

    > COVID-19 among Black patients is yet another lethal manifestation of white supremacy.

    What a bunch of cloacas.

    Also, drastically short on self-awareness:

    > Infectious disease physicians and public health officials publicly condemned these actions and privately mourned the widening rift between leaders in science and a subset of the communities that they serve.

    • They’ve been doing this for decades. This is why the CDC was prohibited from using funding to advocate for gun restrictions. And look at the fruits of their labor: an organization which ostensibly has as its core mission the prevention and control of communicable diseases completely unable to do so. To the point that Covid-19 is running around the country with economically-disastrous results.

      But, hey, at least they managed to get great press coverage about their concern over vaping.

  21. As a point of tactics, I suggest that openly announcing point #3 beforehand is unwise, quite orthogonally to the wisdom of the policy. An unfriendly prosecutor would jump right on that and spin it into “he was deliberately hunting Antifa”. Apologies if someone else already made this point.

  22. The slaves were never freed.

    I have previously stated that the slaves had become tired of acting as shock troops for the Progressive hegemon. I guess I was fuckin’ wrong!

    You can tell the slaves were never freed because nobody asked if they wanted to stay on the plantations. Yes, perhaps 99% of them would have wanted to leave, but: nobody asked. We have to guess, because they went from being forced to stay to being forced to go. Nobody cared what they wanted. It continues to be the case that nobody cares what they want.

    Ferguson increased the rate slaves are murdered in Ferguson by 30%. This is considered a success. ¯\_(?)_/¯ You can tell for sure because they did it again and again. At some point you have to admit that is in fact one of the main motivations of these actions.

    Reminder that you can donate to Planned Parenthood for specifically slave abortions.

    When civil rights destroyed the slave family and slave business district, this was considered a success. Having these forms of independence affected the slaves’ willingness to perform their slave duties.

    Fascism diagnostic point 3: the exploitation of social frustration, frequently that caused by the Fascism itself. In this case, the slave’s frustrations at being enslaved is exploited to direct them at the slavemasters’ enemies. (Sort of. There’s a shortage of riots in red cities, given the mayors won’t order the cops to stand down. See also: Canada.)

    (As should be obvious but as I doubtless have to explain: a small number of slaves, then as now, have purchased their emancipation.)

    Most of the rioters are on public assistance or have government jobs? (But I repeat myself?) Well, naturally. Since the 14th made direct slavery illegal, the slave must be retained using a bankshot manoeuvre. The slave knows today’s meal depends on their Progressive master, and thus dares not go against his wishes. Naturally if they ditched their masters they would find it much easier to get a dignity-granting job, but the master is deft at ensuring this two-step inference is one step beyond the slave’s grasp.

    By happy coincidence, this also allows the master to disavow responsibility for the slave’s actions, even though they almost never oppose the master’s wishes. (Any that do immediately shouted down; that’s just [social consequences], see.)The master can always point to an emancipated slave or the odd defiant one. “See, I’m not coercing compliance!” However, he who pays the piper…

    I begin to think Rhodesia and South Africa were destroyed due to jealousy.
    Can we assume the hegemon has power in DC? If so, then it’s the model they wish to aim for. Ruled from Georgetown et al, supermajority European and all minorities Uncle Toms, but ruling over something 50% slave with homeopathic levels of European. Soft, deniable apartheid. A much less affluent America, but an incredibly obedient one, with a clear distinction between upper class and under class.

      • Just remember two facts. Put them to the Science test: they’re predictive.

        Nobody hates n****** more than Progressives do. Everything they do is calculated to produce maximum Bantu suffering.

        Every American riot is a pro-Establishment riot. They are (indirectly, deniably) State-funded.

        E.g. directly torturing Bantu wouldn’t be stable, so they strip them of jobs and families instead. Use honey instead of vinegar. Then they offer to ‘save’ them by stealing all their natural leaders for Georgetown. Trust me on this: goes back to Lincoln.

        Progressives knew damn fine that ’50s conservatives were correct: their initiatives were likely to destroy families. The problem: that was their goal. They were hearing it was going to work, so they went through with it and then doubled down at every opportunity. Poor blasted Detroit is no more an accident or some kind of misfortune than Stalin’s gulags were an accident. “Jokes about Stalin usually refer to his paranoia and contempt for human life.” Under Fascism, only samizdat comedians can tell the truth.

        E.g. New York missed the memo and de Blasio didn’t immediately order his cops to stand down. Result: the riots stalled and petered out for a night or two until someone frantically called de Blasio and brought him in line.

        The Weathermen killed people and that got Billy Ayers a snug job, which he still holds today. Presumably there’s another round of sinecures up for grabs, so it’s time to rustle the slaves again.

        The 60s and 70s were about the Old Left being overthrown by the New Left. Presumably there is also an element of SJWs attempting to overthrow the New Left this year. Problem: SJWs are genuinely as stupid as the New Left pretends to be. Also, New Left trying to overthrow that usurper, Trump. How dare he take POTUS’ power away from the regnant monarch? The nerve. Doesn’t he know his job is to do nothing and then take the blame? Trudeau understand this perfectly.

        (The problem with responsibility laundering: finding someone who won’t interfere with your public messages when it comes time to make them public. If your patsy refuses to play along, you can’t stop them without pulling back the curtain.)

        • The drive to re-culture former slaves by putting their children in your schools has always been a New Englander puritanical religious left thing. The same folks who were radical abolitionist fringe Republicans, then Progressive fringe Republicans, then, finally, Democrats.

          That the ‘school up the blacks and bring them to our idea of god’ thing only worked for a small subset of the people it was tried on, the most talented members of that community, its potential leaders was, I suspect, an unhappy failure until the re-alignment.

          Note that Democrats have always been the horrific racists, but it only seems they thought to OWN their slaves again after the Progressives joined the party and brought some lovely ideas about indoctrination and the power of the state.

          Anyone paying attention knows about LBJ and the horrifically cynical establishment of the Permanent Free Shit (Vote Farm) Army, paid for by his enemies.

          Woodrow Wilson had no use for black people in any capacity. He hated them, segregated them and put them down but at least he didn’t *use* them.

          Me, I wonder exactly when the attitude of owning and using started in Dem higher ups. For example, did FDR *intentionally* remake (read “ruin and destroy”) prosperous and orderly at least somewhat Republican industrial cities by encouraging the mass migration of rural blacks into them? Because that’s what wound up happening. (Note that that migration had already been happening on a smaller scale, but was greatly accelerated.)

          • FDR probably intended to change their voting demographics and political machines. I don’t think he intended to ruin and destroy them. He was quite willing to mess with industry and the free market and fervently believed in the power of central planning, but because of that idiotic belief, he didn’t believe that his various interventions had any relationship to the economic disruptions they were causing.

          • You mean Blacks didn’t flee the Jim Crow south whenever they got the chance? Damn that Roosevelt!

            • Do you read what you write?

              Jim Crow was a Democratic institution. Why would anyone want to flee the loving arms of Democrats?

              What DID happen, however, was what often happens when you get very large scale immigration of groups with major cultural incompatibilities with the area they were migrating to.

              That always leads to trouble.

              One of the major troubles, is that the black immigrants committed a lot of crime. (They were not the first, or presumably last, immigrant group for which this is true. Cultures differ, and matter.) Back home it was just the way things were done, but it alienated pretty much everyone in the big cities.

              Law and order was not sufficiently enforced for various reasons. Which made everything much, much worse as usual.

              As immigrant groups with a sufficient critical mass do, instead of assimilating to local conditions the rural blacks forted up and formed their own islands of ‘our way’ in the new environment. And responded to the hostility of outsiders (to the violence and crime, much the same way everyone responded to new Irish immigrants back in the day) by turning for support to the one group that was sympathetic to their plight – would be Democrat machine politicians.

              The rest is inevitable enough.

              • So with a little slight of hand FDR took Republican constituencies and used them to ruin each other, starting the process of turning one into a permanent Dem client dependency along the way.

                Democrats used to be very enthusiastic about assimilation, quite violently so – what my father’s side of the family (and many other German immigrants) went through during the Woodrow Wilson era was pretty bad.

                But after this enormous triumph, encouraging mass immigration while undercutting any attempt at assimilation became staples of Democratic strategy.

                I’ll also add that shielding black populations from the effects of the anger of their crime victims is when ‘anti-racism’ really took off.

              • If you imagine that I approve or support of the Southern Democrats in the middle of the last century, all I can say is that you have a splendid imagination. Political parties do change over time, and if you can find a single Democrat under sixty who supports Jim Crow I’d be very surprised. Also note that Roosevelt wasn’t a Southern Democrat.

                • > if you can find a single Democrat under sixty who supports Jim Crow I’d be very surprised.

                  Man, this is way easier than you seem to think. They don’t call it Jim Crow any more, they call it Social Justice, and it’s aimed at whitey now, while still presuming “people of color” are incompetent, irresponsible children.

                  • I’ll add, Trout seems to support various planks of the Jim Crow platform even now. And he’s far from alone.

                    Hint: A big one is gun control.

            • > You mean Blacks didn’t flee the Jim Crow south
              > whenever they got the chance? Damn
              > that Roosevelt!

              Dude, how fucking ignorant of history *ARE* you?

              No, blacks did not flee the Jim Crow laws in the post civil war era because they had no skills that were marketable in the north until there were labor shortages in factories during WWI.

              • The factory labor shortage in WW2 is what turned it into a flood of migration. FDR’s command war economy pushed hard to induce rural Southern blacks to relocate to industrial cities desperate for labor, any labor.

                Mind, a lot of poor rural white folks followed the same path but their record for assimilation, while less than perfect, is somewhat better.

    • There’s a running joke in modern conservative circles that goes “The Democrats haven’t been this mad since Lincoln freed their slaves”.

      I’ve made the point elsewhere that it’s telling that these riots always destroy minority-owned or minority-employing businesses. This was put into sharp focus in Detroit where Antifa encountered a black man renovating a house and responded by burning down the house, his work truck, and his tools. It’s clearly a tool for the establishment/deep state/whatever you want to call it to keep blacks in line.

      The problem they’re having is that Trump isn’t playing along with their games. With criminal justice reform passed and signed and the pre-COVID economy he’s provably done more to help blacks escape the DNC’s plantation than any President since Lincoln. A new poll indicates that black likely voters support Trump at a 40% rate, which is a disaster of epic proportions for the DNC if it’s even half of that. The media keeps pushing polling showing Biden winning based on national popular vote, but that’s not how the game is scored and from their behavior we know their more honest internal polls must be really alarming.

      Rush Limbaugh had a conversation with leftist black radio host Charlemagne Tha God last week that was aired on both shows. He audibly vapor locked Charlemagne by discussing in some detail how the Democrats (including Obama) have utterly failed to do anything for blacks and asking why they vote for them. The question was not answered, not surprisingly. A lot of conservatives jumped on Limbaugh for “wasting his time”, but I think strategically it’s brilliant to get Charlemagne’s audience to hear that.

  23. People killed by right-wing white nationalist extremists in the US in the last 25 years: around 240 (168 in Oklahoma City bombing, 70 or so since then: https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2017/08/white-extremist-murders-killed-at-least-70-in-u-s-since-1995.html )

    People killed by left-wing extremists in the US: not very many. There was one attack on a congressman in 2017 that led to a fatality, maybe. a few more. Of course there were more in the 60s and 70s, though still nowhere near the scale. of the other side.

    • >People killed by right-wing white nationalist extremists in the US in the last 25 years: around 240 (168 in Oklahoma City bombing, 70 or so since then.

      This claim exemplifies what’s wrong with media talk about white nationalists. Timothy McVeigh wasn’t one. Search as you will, there is zero sign of racist ideology in his back trail – significant, because actual white nationalists can’t shut up about that shit.

      It shames me to say this, but we have McVeigh’s manifesto and he was actually a violent libertarian – much closer to my politics than to any white nationalist.

      Poof, there went 70% of your “white nationalist” casualties.

      If you dig further, you’ll find the connection of many of the remaining 70 killings to white nationalism is equally nonexistent.

      All you have to do to get thrown in that bin, really, is be a white rural gun owner who has been seen in camo and commits suicide by cop. Bonus points if you once posted something on social media that some snowflake thought was racist.

      If I had to make an educated guess at how many of those killings were done by an actual white nationalist based on their observed other activities? Um, three. Possibly as many as six. Equally possibly, zero.

      • McVeigh’s actions were inspired in part by The Turner Diaries, which “depicts a violent revolution in the United States which leads to the overthrow of the federal government, a nuclear war, and, ultimately, a race war which leads to the systematic extermination of non-whites.” (wikipedia) That doesn’t exactly make him a white nationalist, but close enough for me.

        You. say he’s really more of a “violent libertarian” but of course libertarians and white racism have been conjoined at the hip since approximately forever.

        I’m guessing you don’t make such fine distinctions on the left, between eg Antify and Trotskyites and Maoists and christian socialists etc. You are perfectly happy to lump them into together into one movement. Why is that?

        • >You. say he’s really more of a “violent libertarian” but of course libertarians and white racism have been conjoined at the hip since approximately forever.

          OK, now that you’ve established your malignant idiocy, you can go away.

          • No no he’s perfectly correct. In this instance ‘white racism’ refers to anything which suggests Bantu might be able to stand on their own two feet or in any way take care of themselves, instead of being maternally nurtured by blessed Baizuo with special handouts like affirmative action and disparate impact.

            Libertarians are perfectly ‘racist’ in this sense.

            You see, if Bantu can stand on their own…why aren’t they? Why do they keep grovelling at the feet of the DNC?

        • > That doesn’t exactly make him a white nationalist, but close enough for me.

          The motto of the Democrat party.

      • If this is the SPLC data, they’ve even been caught trying to pass of Islamist and Hispanic gangsters as White Nationalists. Heck, they’ll probably classify all the people killed by Antifa in the current riots as white nationalist victims. As well as any rioters killed by people defending themselves and their property.

    • Slate is a bad source to begin with and Slate doesn’t even support the assertion you’re making. Slate says “white extremism” in its very broad count, not “right-wing white nationalist extremists”. Did you think people wouldn’t read your sources, or did you just come to troll?

      Either way, fuck off, you stupid liar.

      If you read McVeigh’s own words, such as here and here, you find he’s not going on about whites, blacks, or race. He’s going on about the murderousness of the US government.

      • >Slate says “white extremism” in its very broad count, not “right-wing white nationalist extremists”. Did you think people wouldn’t read your sources, or did you just come to troll?

        Probably to him all these categories are indistinguishable and blur together into one big BOOGA BOOGA. It’s not dishonesty, exactly, just a dimwitted inability to make relevant distinctions. I have encountered this before.

  24. You know, if we can trust Charlie Hebdo’s coverage of that big storm that flooded Houston, it is heavily implied that Fascist is a synonym for African-American. If Antifa means Fascist as a pejorative for African-American, then it would would be explicitly a white supremacist aligned organization. Of course, if you find that argument entirely persuasive, then you might believe an essay on Mexican Politics that cites only Punch, Mad Magazine, and Harvard Lampoon.

    More seriously, Obama mainstreamed critical race theory (CRT), and pushed forward the program of protest and riot to address alleged incidents of police misconduct. Furthermore, CRT purists who think that Asian and Hispanic are too white were legitimized. CRT basically assumes that whites are evil.

    African-Americans are around an eighth of the population. That is not enough for rule or bilateral power sharing when combined with an untrusting ideology of racial conflict. So insofar as African-American CRT advocates have political power, it is because they have white political allies. Some of those political allies have also internalized CRT.

    How might a white who has internalized CRT behave? Might they act evil and racist, even while believing that they are less evil and less racist than other whites?

    The arsons of black and minority property does not seem all that functionally different from arsons of black property in 1921. Will this break apart the political coalition that has made the recent arsons possible? What might such breakdown look like?

    Hearsay of the riots leads me to suspect that a lot of these white ‘allies’, communist or otherwise, are going to find themselves converting to a white supremacist belief system.

    If CRT does not have a way to forgive non-allied whites who do not think that they are racist, and do not think they have done anything wrong, how can it insist that CRT’s white allies be forgiven for burning down minority neighborhoods for kicks and giggles? When those white allies have their faces rubbed in the fact that their acts differ from the KKK only in having black cheerleaders, what will they do? Are they going to choose to live with that guilt, despite their current philosophy not equipping them to do so? Or are they going to convert to a philosophy that legitimizes it?

    • You underestimate their skill in sophistry. CRT believers will just declare that the people whose businesses were destroyed in the riots were not really black, whatever their apparent ethnicity, because by opening a business and running it at a profit they had joined the system that oppresses all minorities and thus incurred its guilt. That is, they will say that the violent thug is the true black American, the ideal to which all such ought to aspire, and any black American who tries to live within civilized norms is a traitor to his race.

      In other contexts, they already do say that. Acquiring self-discipline, taking thought for the future, and being educated are already called “acting white”. If carrying out that concept allows CRT believers to escape the realization that they’ve personally ground the faces of the poor, they’ll do it and never look back.

      • It’s cover for perfectly normal ingroup vs. outgroup stuff.

        The nonproductive Bantu is a slave. They are dependent on Progressive gimmiedats and thus feel strong pressure to do whatever a proggie feels politically benefits the DNC. If the RNC wins too many elections the Bantu might have to get a job.

        The productive business-owning Bantu is an enemy. They have the freedom to vote Republicant. They must be reduced to poverty and dependence ASAP. Occasionally you get a Sowell who actively speaks out against Progressive tyranny. Preposterous! Definitely cannot be allowed.

        If they were true believers in critical race theory, they would occasionally do things which are politically nonsensical. They don’t believe in CRT, they believe in “I get mine,” and their favourite theory is whichever can be most deftly twisted to justify that.

      • Alt-Right are the ones who left the reservation early. Less strongly selected for willingness to sacrifice self in advancement of violence.

        But if even a low percentage of the current white ‘allies’ involved in the riots convert later to white supremacist terrorists, we would see a several times increase in the number of white supremacist terrorists. And maybe also organization.

  25. Eric, allow me to properly thank you for being willing to stand up to these thugs and communists.

  26. Several comments:

    First and foremost: If you shoot and kill a rioter in Philadelphia, you will be crucified. The actual circumstances won’t matter, unless you have absolutely unambiguous video of the rioter attacking you.

    The district attorney in Philadelphia, Larry Krasner, is a Soros product. He’s probably never heard of you – but after such an event, he’ll be flooded with calls from your SJW enemies in SF fandom and open source, labelling you a notorious alt-right agitator, open racist, and “gun nut”. Cherry-picked quotations from your writing here (and from commenters here (think James A. Donald) – no distinctions will be made) will be used as “proof”. The national media will happily pile on. So Krasner will railroad you with the greatest enthusiasm. You will be fortunate if you (and Catherine) are merely bankrupted by legal costs and forced to move to another area by continual just-short-of-violent harassment.

    Those same enemies will use the event to justify your complete expulsion from all open-source related activities and venues. Anyone associated with you, such as Dave Taht, will be expelled as well, unless they “atone” by groveling apologies and joining in the lynch mob. Projects and tools with your name on them will be purged as well: GPSD, NTPsec, RepoSurgeon.

    You will likewise be barred from all fannish activities. Any convention which allows you to attend will be labelled “alt-right”, “racist”, etc, and threatened with violent disruption; hotels will refuse hosting rather than risk attack. Penguicon will probably be closed down – unless the organizers submit completely to SJW demands.

    I don’t think I’m exaggerating at all. I wouldn’t be surprised if the SJWs are already planning some of this. Some of them have read this post. They probably imagine you are “going hunting”, and are salivating at the prospect of your scalp as a trophy.

    Second point: there is some very good analysis of the situation at National Review Online.

    Former Federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy notes that MN AG Ellison has grossly overreached: the “felony murder” charges against the other three officers stand only if the act of subduing a recalcitrant arrestee is considered criminal assault.
    https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/06/new-floyd-murder-charges-will-be-tough-to-prove-and-may-imperil-good-cops

    Former LAPD officer “Jack Dunphy” notes that much of the body-cam video has been withheld, and that it has become commonplace for any criminal resisting arrest to shout “I can’t breathe” the moment police put their hands on him.
    https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/06/the-george-floyd-killing-a-police-officers-view/

    More will follow.

    • > Projects and tools with your name on them will be purged as well: GPSD

      That would be one hell of a feat.

      • Nah, for tools like gpsd that they can’t do without, they’ll just write Eric out of the history of those projects so that they can declare victory. Have you seen the wiki article about him? Apparently he’s just the “administrator of the project page” for gpsd; and no mention at all of libpng, giflib, reposurgeon… they’d rather focus on CML2 so they can make him sound like a washed-up nobody.

      • Fucking idiots think this will save them when the Grievance Mob comes for their asses. Hope they don’t enjoy running the con, because when the hard demands come for them to give it up, and they will, they’ll have already painted themselves into a corner without any chance for defense. PenguiCon is lost. Now soon-to-be “FuckWhiteyCon,” with special access areas for the Chosen People and arbitrary rules specifically for punishing the Jews white folk.

        Argh, this is so infuriating. Does nobody have a god damn spine any more?

        • Chief Engineer: Captain! Shields are down to 10%, Klingon SJW’s are still demanding more!

          Captain: Initiate self-destruct sequence…..

  27. Holy shit.

    I have been bashing repeatedly on the cheesecake-stealing bitch in Seattle, and had not bothered questioning my underlying assumption that this was not really a controversial stand to take. Because, really, who the fuck _does_ that when a man has been killed brutally and unjustly?

    Uh, nope. Stupid me. The fucking internet LOVES her. She is a god-damned HERO as far as they are concerned.

    https://junkee.com/cheesecake-looted-prostests-seattle/255750

    Choice quotes (sorry I only have stomach for a few; if you want to subject yourself to more you’ll have to follow the link).

    The first and foremost:
    > @_cinnamonro11_
    > For everyone who’s confused on the concept of looting and what it has to do with/does for the movement— we live in a society where goods and material items have more value than black lives. It’s a profound and legitimate form of protest

    I had been holding on to a lot of respect for BLM in light of the horrible incident that sparked all this, and had been trying to maintain sympathy even when the riots turned ugly (private businesses instead of police + govt targets). For everyone who downvoted me in the FInal Warning thread when I said (http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=8685#comment-2424402) this was a symptom of Gramscian Damage, that the communist mentality had “seeped in deeply and congealed far beneath the surface”, there’s the horse’s mouth for you, not my fault I fucking called it.

    > @yammuune
    > YALL RLLY ??????? THE CHEESECAKE FACTORY GOD I LOVE THIS. LETS GOOOOOO FUCK ??????????

    Hmm. Yeah. We got ourselves a real hotbed of “white supremacist alt right” agitation here, boy I tell you wut. Makes sense, you see a buncha hammers ‘n sickles course ya think of flyover country.

    There follows a _huge_ outpouring of praise for the “fellow queen” female news reporter who, as the thief struts by, declares that it’s “unclear where she might have gotten that.” (Damn, if only Jeff Read had been there: “SHE GOT IT AT A KKK RALLY! GET HER!”) Yeah somebody “walk me through it, step by step” here: why would the media support a “white supremacist” in their midst? This isn’t Fox News, it’s Seattle’s local KIRO, they’re gonna _support_ this “white supremacist” thief in her thievery and praise her as a hero? Let me guess, they know it’s a redneck racist, but they’re gonna pretend it’s really antifa (they probably paid her to wear the burka?), but they’re gonna praise her as a hero so antifa looks good, and the lady who is secretly a redneck white supremacist (so secret that everyone knows it) is ok with that because _they_ are secretly there to make antifa look _bad_ because… yaddita yaddita what the FUCK. Man I have been trying to not pay too much attention to all this “Deep State” blather but that’s the Marianas Trench of nutjob conspiracy theories there.

    Finally the capper, from the article itself not another Twiitter quote:
    > But while this brief moment of hilarity in a very dark time was fun, it shouldn’t distract you from the reasons these protests are happening.

    Hmm. Yeah. Fucking HILARIOUS. I’m so sure George Floyd would be pleased with the “seriousness” with which people are taking his horrible fate to heart. “Don’t be DISTRACTED by us burning down all your shit, we got some _really_ good reasons for doing it… oh but that doesn’t mean we have an elaborate theoretical justification for it, like being a bunch of fucking communists taking advantage of a man’s murder to justify burning up some dumb capitalists’ shit, no no any groups systematically burning any shit gotta be them redneck racists.”

    Tell you what, why don’t you pussies show some real courage and steal a fucking _bundt_ cake, _then_ I will start taking you as seriously as you deserve. (“Reliable (wink wink) sources say the bundt cake store was actually run by Nazis who fled here after WWII, so yeah don’t worry about what the peaceful protesters (wink wink again) did to the place.”)

    • Uh, nope. Stupid me. The fucking internet LOVES her. She is a god-damned HERO as far as they are concerned.

      I mostly agree with you on this, with one caveat; BLM is not to blame for Cheesecake theft. It’s dumb enough to loot, dumber still to have your picture taken while looting, and dumbest of all is to be treated like some kind of movement hero.

      I guest it’s really true; every movement has three kinds of people; leaders, followers, and idiots!

      On the other hand, don’t let yourself become too distracted from the fact that the cops became over-agitated and killed someone who was already handcuffed. That’s worth protesting against even if people are dumb!

      • I guest it’s really true; every movement has three kinds of people; leaders, followers, and idiots!

        Well, except right wing protests never seem to have these kinds of problems. Almost as if left wing followers are really a bunch of thugs and wannabe thugs who real just want to loot and burn things, and leadership consists of letting them of their leash and pointing them vaguely in the “correct” direction.

      • I never said anything about “blame”. Provide support for your claim that this is orchestrated by “racist white supremacists” or fuck off.

        > don’t let yourself become too distracted
        FUCK YOU. I am not the one who is distracted or distracting. Show me a video of Chauvin hanging from a lamppost, not a girl of “privilege” (ooh, that’ll set em off! “Only we can use that word!” amirite! fuckers) strutting off after looting a store.

        • I don’t think this is orchestrated by White Supremacists. I’ve said two things consistently throughout this thread.

          1.) I suspect that lots of political factions are involved with the rioting, (probably 3-5 major groups in all.)

          2.) I don’t think we’ll know who did what for some time. (At the very least we’ll need to wait a month or two for indictments to come out, then for someone to analyze the numbers, and after that we’ll have some idea of what’s really going on.)

          Just to clarify: Do I believe that Antifa or Black Block types are responsible for at least some looting or rioting? PROBABLY (I’m more inclined to think Black Block types are involved than Antifa. I’m having a hard time keeping an open mind on the Antifa side of this, because very little evidence of Antifa participation has so far shown up, but that evidence might be sitting in some DA’s outbox, so I’m waiting for actual evidence to make a final judgement.)

          Do I believe that White Supremacists are responsible for at least some looting or rioting? YES (There’s been at least some evidence of this from arrest reports, but it might be widely separated individuals. A number of Boogaloo types have been arrested, but the exact racial ideas of these individuals is not yet known.)

          Do I believe that jerks of some/no political beliefs are responsible for some of the looting rioting? YES

          Do I believe that there are people who are looting/rioting due to purely criminal motives such as stealing stuff? YES

          Do I believe that some looting/rioting has taken place purely as a response to police violence against non-violent protestors? YES – This is a well-known phenomenon.

          Do I have any idea of the relative numbers of, for example, Antifa vs. White Supremacists vs. Criminals? NO. I HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO CLUE ABOUT THIS.

          And yes, I have definitely argued with people about some of the side issues. But I’m not wedded to a particular theory because I haven’t seen enough evidence. None of this simplifies down to “Antifa against the nice, good police departments of our nation” – or the opposite! The true measure of someone’s cluelessness where these protests are concerned is to try to shove them into a particular box when much of the evidence isn’t available to us yet.

          • > the nice, good police departments of our nation

            If you’re claiming that in any way characterizes _anyhting_ I’ve posted here over the past week or so, let alone my position, you are a lying sack of shit.

            • No, I’m just pissed because my actual, repeated-multiple-times position keeps getting ignored. Argue with Troutwaxer. Don’t argue with Troutwaxer-in-your*-head.

              *Not your head in particular, darrin.

  28. > > @yammuune

    Ah crap, I failed to notice the text got mangled by their fancy dumbass Twitter fonts. The quote reads:

    > ALL RLLY LOOTING THE CHEESECAKE FACTORY GOD I LOVE THIS. LETS GOOOOOO FUCK CAPITALISM

    • One must keep in mind, as well, that AntiFa is not a monolithic organization but rather a loose confederacy of independent groups operating under the same flag. To be a “member of AntiFa” one need only claim it to be so.

      Black Bloc as operating uniform is about the only thing externally common among the groups, to such a degree that using a metric of “Black Bloc == AntiFa” is probably correct within a reasonable margin of error, at least in the U.S.

      The folks who will claim “you don’t know that’s AntiFa!” are trying to convince us not to believe our lying eyes. If it looks like AntiFa, talks like AntiFa, and acts like AntiFa, well…

  29. Wow, just saw a bunch of Russian news stories [*] about the rioting that has broken out from the George Floyd protests, not here in the US, but…

    In the UK.

    In BELGIUM, for crying out loud.

    If anything, what I saw of the crowds attacking police (and destroying stores of course) was _more_ vicious than anything I’ve seen locally. Which I’m trying to wrap my little walnut around.

    Is there that much police brutality, let alone racially motivated police brutality, in the EU? I thought it was the disgusting little US of A that had all of those problems? Does the EU actually have a conservative right-leaning government, and Winter (plus the entire mass media) has been yanking my chain for decades?

    I claimed before that complete disregard for “private” property, and inability to distinguish destruction of said “private” property from actions against the “state”, was symptomatic of communist i.e. left-leaning political thought. This was pooh-poohed as being stupidly naive, because of course it’s much more likely that redneck white supremacists would _dress up_ as dumbass “antifa” wannabe college kids and do exactly the set of things you’d expect an antifa rioter to do, in order to “make antifa look bad”… even though, as I just cited above, the media LOVES what these burka-clad “FUCK CAPITALISM YEAH WOO!!!” white supremacist looters are doing.

    So… the liberal paradise that is the EU is actually chock full of white supremacists, who have adopted the same ass-backwards idiotic tactics as the American white supremacists by dressing up as leftist “bored now, let’s burn down capitalism!” red guarders? Despite, again, the media actually having a field day about “how splendid it is to see the flower of European society wiping itself out with such pluck and tenacity”?

    Boy, when the chickens come home to roost, they REALLY roost, all over the place.

    [*] My wife is Russian, so we have a few Russian channels added to our cable TV package.

    • > Is there that much police brutality, let alone racially motivated police brutality, in the EU?

      I’m sure you’re being rhetorical here, but, well, yes. Have you seen the footage of French police putting down the yellow vest protesters? (for most people probably not, since the international media has tried so hard to ignore it) Holy crow! Or the Spanish forces bashing folks during the recent Catalonian independence movement?

      Frankly, I’ll take U.S. policing as it is now over EU policing any day of the week. Those guys are brutal.

      • > Have you seen the footage of French police putting down the yellow vest protesters?

        TBH, no, I hadn’t. But then my other question stands: either all the rhetoric I’ve heard here over the years about the EU being a left liberal paradise is a lie and it’s actually an alt-right conservative enclave…

        … or else a brutal police force actually _is_ a direct consequence of leftist government policy.

        (Waiting for Winter or whoever to rush in and explain to me how Belgium is a hotbed of ultra-conservative ideology. Can’t possibly be anyone _else’s_ fault now can it?)

        If it weren’t for all the death and destruction, it would be kinda fun to watch the experiment play itself out. From an engineering perspective, “when the shit hits the fan” is the best time to get a detailed perspective on the various failure modes of the fan.

        • My knowledge here is more sketchy than I would like, so take this with a salt lick. I am open to correction. As I understand it, there is a part of EU-wide policing (not necessarily the local level stuff maintained by each country internally) that utilizes national transfers for handling law enforcement. That is for example, Spanish forces would get sent to, say, France or Belgium or whatever, and French forces would get sent to Germany, etc. These police in particular are known for their intense brutality and disregard for the citizenry. The little direct research I have done (vs. the info I’ve picked up by osmosis following EU-related stories from EU sources) says that only certain countries are party to this arrangement; I’m not sure which ones. I’m probably confusing multiple situations, though.

          > or else a brutal police force actually _is_ a direct consequence of leftist government policy.

          I suspect it’s more cultural, i.e. general authoritarian disregard for the peasantry, than necessarily political.

          • >That is for example, Spanish forces would get sent to, say, France or Belgium or whatever, and French forces would get sent to Germany, etc. These police in particular are known for their intense brutality and disregard for the citizenry.

            You are almost certainly not talking about the European equivalent of U.S. civil police, but about what are generically called gendarmes – that’s the French word, it’s “carabinieri” in Italian, other places they may be called “Civil Guard” or “National Guard”.

            These are paramilitary police units originally tasked with bandit suppression and low-level counterinsurgency; in recent times they tend to own domestic counterterrorism. Sometimes they report to the national chief of civil police, if there is one. Sometimes they are an arm of the military. They are not like the U.S. National guard in that they don’t report to provincial governments, they’re more like an FBI with uniforms and armored cars.

            In some countries they are the most prestigious and least corrupt arm of law enforcement; in others they are notoriously brutal. The closest U.S. equivalent I can imagine would be if the Texas Rangers operated nationally.

            It is not plausible that EU countries would second civil police to each other, the work they do relies too intensely on localized knowledge and connections. It is on the other hand very plausible that they might swap gendarmerie units in any situation where they’re dealing with widespread civil unrest.

            • That jives with my knowledge, yes. The info I’m pulling on comes from commentary during the first six to nine months of the yellow vests. Some folks were claiming that the forces being brought to bear were not necessarily French but at least some were EU gendarmes, as explanation for why they were being as unrelentingly violent as they were. I cannot speak to the veracity of the claim, and I don’t really care about the exact makeup of those forces. The police response to that protest before AntiFa types and their nationalist analogues started to take advantage of it was awful enough.

              But hey, that’s Macron’s France for you. “Let them drive Teslas!”

            • I researched this topic myself once, it can be confusing to a US reader because we have no really similar institutions.

              These paramilitary police are medieval holdovers with very convoluted institutional histories. (I specifically looked at France.)

              • I’m not as familiar with their history as you, but they strike me as the kind of thing that would date back from the age of absolutism, rather than the medieval period.

                • I didn’t really dig in too much, this sort of thing can lead to really, really extended random link walks….

                  But the modern gendarmerie traces its roots back to the organizations under both the Marshall of France and the Constable of France (position established 1060 AD), with various mergers and repurposings and renamings along the way.

                • >the kind of thing that would date back from the age of absolutism, rather than the medieval period.

                  That’s broadly correct. While he original French gens d’armes had traditions going back further, their modern functions and organization were lain down during the early modern period of state formation.

                  What spread the idea around was the brief period of Napoleonic puppet kingdoms in Europe. The conquerors imposed the Code Napoleon and French-style police organization, including gendarmeries, where they could. After the Peace of Vienna the restored monarchies found both too useful to give up.

            • “It is not plausible that EU countries would second civil police to each other…”

              That didn’t bother the producers of The Mallorca Files, a new cop buddy show from the BritBox streaming channel. The protagonists are a British detective (uptight woman) and German detective (laid-back dude) “seconded” to the Spanish police on the island of Mallorca. They are even issued Spanish badges.

        • > … or else a brutal police force actually _is_ a direct
          > consequence of leftist government policy.

          It’s a consequence of *government* policy. Sometimes leftist, sometimes not leftist.

          There’s two different “brutal policing”, one is when the police are outnumbered by a violent crowd–when police have less force at their disposal than the crowd (should the crowd decide to use it).

          The other is when police are dealing with a criminal or group of criminals have have parity to overwhelming force.

          In the former you are “brutal” because you cannot afford to lose. You have a lot in front of you and you need to sort it out as fast as possible.

          In the latter it gets more complicated. Some things look brutal because it really *IS* the safest way to handle the problem. Kneeling on someone’s neck that way *generally* doesn’t kill them. In this case *as I understand it*, part of the problem was how the other officers were restraining Floyd–it wasn’t just the pressure on the neck, it was the alignment of the body. Had Floyd been in a slightly different position he probably wouldn’t have died and the Democrats would have had to find some other excuse.

          And of course sometimes there are cops who just like causing pain, or who are genuinely racist pricks. Generally that’s hard to hide though.

      • Frankly, I’ll take U.S. policing as it is now over EU policing any day of the week. Those guys are brutal.

        In 2011, the German police fired eighty-five rounds of ammunition.

        Total.

        For the entire country.

        For the entire year.

        An average Tuesday in a single large American city can well exceed 85 shots.

        I don’t know about other countries, but compared to American cops, the Germans are models of restraint.

        • To put these 80 shots by the German police in perspective, with four times the population, the US police killed over 1100 people in 2018.
          https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-02601-9

          From the same study, where the US police was involved in 996 fatal shootings, with a fifth of the population, the evil French police, was involved in 26 fatal shootings.

          Indeed, the US police is not your friend. And whomever they protect and serve, it does not seem to be the people in the street.

        • > In 2011, the German police fired eighty-five rounds of ammunition.

          Because Germany is all of Europe, right? Are you actually an idiot or do you just pretend to be one on the Internet?

          • @ktk
            ” Are you actually an idiot or do you just pretend to be one on the Internet?”

            Collecting this data for the EU is not easy, just as it is for the USA. But I have added the numbers that I could find. Go to the link and add the killings for Europe:
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_killings_by_law_enforcement_officers_by_countries

            On a combined population of 320 million there are 53 killings by law enforcement officers in these countries.

            The countries are: Malta, Luxembourg, Finland, France, Netherlands, Norway, Germany, Portugal, Sweden, United Kingdom, Poland, Denmark, Iceland, Switzerland

            This is pretty close to the total population of the USA and three quarters of the population of EU+Switzerland. If anyone can add numbers for the missing countries, please feel free to do so.

  30. I’m going to toss this out before I head for home, then when I get home I may go back and read everything that’s accumulated in the last couple days, (or may not if I’m tired) but I was thinking about the connections between racism, the War on Drugs, and police brutality, and I’m wondering whether there might be some working-together possible between leftists wanting police reform and Libertarians wanting decriminalization of various substances and behaviors? Any thoughts?

    • So long as leftists keep banging the disarmament drum, and the big government drum, and all the things about leftists that are on the polar opposite to libertarian thought, I pretty much doubt it. Further, the idea that police reform is a leftist ideal and not a classic-liberal/libertarian one in the first place is a fuckin’ laughable co-opting.

      From the perspective of a libertarian, you’re asking us to willingly work with people who hate us and who we perceive as lying snakes, to accomplish things that are already in our bailiwick, thus using us to give them more power. No thanks.

    • >I’m wondering whether there might be some working-together possible between leftists wanting police reform and Libertarians wanting decriminalization of various substances and behaviors? Any thoughts?

      I’m not willing to ally on anything with what leftists have become in 2020.

      After years of being the relative moderate who said to other gunfolks that talk of American Civil War 2.0 was overheated nonsense, I’m now living in a world where the hard Marxists of BLM and Antifa are literally burning down American cities and forming “autonomous zones” in the ones they haven’t torched yet.

      Ten thousand dead Communists from now might be a plausible time to build bridges with the remains of a shattered, humbled, and decimated left wing. Now isn’t.

      • Also, they’re not even being honest about what they want, e.g., if you press them on what they mean by “defund the police”, they’ll admit it means some vaguely worded “reforms”. Given their history I suspect they mean make our police more like the British police, i.e., the ones who won’t do anything to stop Muslim grooming gangs, but will arrest you for “hate speech” if you criticize said grooming gangs on social media.

        • I was watching DarkHorse Podcast #22, which is really creepy because they were at Evergreen, and they’ve been warning people that Evergreen disease was spreading.

          One of the things they talk about is coming up with a proper name for this. It isn’t quite like the traditional Motte & Bailey, but it isn’t super far off. I think they settled on “Above and Below” which is apparently used online a bit by or about communism, but is hard to find (try searching for it – I dare you).

          The basic idea is that they make a phrase ambiguous by intentionally picking an extreme, but then letting some people say that it isn’t serious, it really means something much less crazy. This creates a spectrum, and each person can, in their own head, set the slider where they are comfortable. This lets the extremists take advantage of a huge mob of useful idiots, very few of which are necessarily in agreement with the extreme position.

          And can you imagine the coming cognitive dissonance when millions of chumps wake up in Mogadishu and figure out that they really were marching to abolish the police after all?

          • I don’t think the people running the protests are dumb enough to let their people actually abolish the police. They need some force to protect them from retaliation form all the conservative gun owners they’re pissing off.

              • True. As I was saying, they’re only interested in defunding the police departments if they can replace them with their own.

              • Bingo. The deep love for cancel culture on the part of the ctrl-left shows they would be setting up a Stasi, and volunteering for it, in a heartbeat.

        • I think “defund the police” means different things to different people, but there are some common ideas:

          First, demilitarize the police. Get rid of the armored cars, the battering rams, the automatic weapons, etc. Police should be understood to be civilians.

          Second, move things like containment of crazy people and handling drug users/sellers (and possibly other social problems) to some other department (along with some of the police budget.) The police don’t have the training to de-escalate a situation with a schizophrenic/hallucinating patient, but if you sent a couple psych nurses instead… the logic of this should be obvious.

          Third, get rid of “warrior”-type trainings and instant demands for compliance and teach cops to de-escalate problems instead of making them worse. I’m aware that this can be both difficult and dangerous, and it’s not always the answer, and I think everyone else understands that too, but an attempt to de-escalate to be the default. (Consider how much not de-escalating costs the U.S. annually – NY alone pays out around 70,000,000/year in “bad cop” money.)

          Fourth, get rid of “Qualified Immunity.”

          Fifth, change the way cops are investigated after a violent incident. Right now, due to the rules police unions have negotiated, all the advantages are with the officer who committed the act, and this needs to change (you can find the particulars elsewhere; I don’t have the time to dig them up right now.)

          Sixth, change the level of influence the policeman’s union has over policy. My own take on this is that the union should have influence over wages, working conditions, relations with supervisors, how it should be handled when someone is given an illegal order, etc., but remove union influence from the process of investigating illegal/violent acts on the part of cops.

          Seventh, get cops out of schools and use the money to replace them with guidance counselors, school nurses, psychologists, etc. Nobody should be jailed for ordinary kid stuff, which is what happens when a “school resource officer” is pressed to justify their existence. (Or far worse, turns out to be racist.)

          Eighth, if your police department absolutely refuses to reform, disband it and start from scratch. (The number of people advocating anarchy is vanishingly small.)

          Attached to all this, and driving all this, is the idea that it should be much, much easier to both fire bad cops and make sure they never work in policing again. Consider Chauvin; not only did he have something like twenty complaints against him, but he was also allowed to train other police officers. This makes no sense and never, ever should have been allowed to happen.

          • Two points:

            Not one of your policy proposals here actually involves reducing the police department’s budget. So, if these are what’s meant by “defund the police”, the people using that slogan are idiots. I choose to believe that “defund the police” means exactly what it says, and the people saying it really do want fewer police, or less capable police.

            And, of your seven things to change, 2), 5) and 6) are direct results of Democratic initiatives; 7) is an indirect result of such initiatives, largely in public education; 4) is a judicial creation, crafted to protect the police from politically driven lawsuits, which the Democrats have otherwise expanded and encouraged; and 1) and 3) have been – well, a bipartisan effort. That makes 5 out of 7 that your friends are chiefly responsible for, and none that they’ve opposed.

            For instance, to implement 2) we would have to reopen the insane asylums, and reinstate the laws that allowed people to be kept in them indefinitely if they weren’t capable of caring for themselves or were a threat to others. Read up sometime on who was responsible for closing the asylums, and kicking the patients out to live on the streets.

            It’s not that anything you suggest is a bad idea. The problem is that most of it can’t be done by Democrats, because it would involve repudiating most of the party’s activities since John Kennedy’s presidency.

            • First of all, these aren’t my proposals. I’m relaying the proposals of others. I’m not sure what my own policy prescriptions would be – this is clearly a very hard problem I’d like to think things through before endorsing anything.

              Second, all of the proposals I’m relaying would be funded by removing funds from the local PD and moving the money to other programs.

              So the idea is to have smaller police departments with better skills and less prejudice, and invest the savings in programs which work better. Once again, I’d like to think things through before deciding I like any ideas.

              Closing the asylums was probably the worst Democratic policy of the last fifty years. It was well-intentioned, but the ability to give people medication and retrain them in the community didn’t materialize due to Nimby-ism – for which most of the people involved are blameless, and I can certainly understand the concerns with having a halfway-house for psychotics in a neighborhood filled with children.

              On the other hand, spending the rest of one’s life in an asylum isn’t something I’d wish on anyone, and brain-chemistry is one of those very hard problems which we can’t quite solved yet.

              As for the rest of it, we’re a spoiled society where the major concern is the bottom line and we’re unwilling to accept that being decent human beings involves an element of risk. Enough said on that, I think… getting morose.

              • Of all those proposals, only reopening asylums would require spending any money. Everything else is a change in policy or law, and wouldn’t cost the taxpayer a dime.

                And if anyone shouting “defund the police” actually means “let’s build insane asylums and put the homeless in them”, I am Marie of Romania.

                • And if anyone shouting “defund the police” actually means “let’s build insane asylums and put the homeless in them”, I am Marie of Romania.

                  I didn’t think I said that and I don’t think anyone else did either. And once again, I’m reporting, not advocating.

            • If it were done properly the reduction in police arsenals would actually increase their revenue.

              There is a ton of pent up demand for machineguns.

              • Shortly before I left the area, there was a small local controversy over the Wayne, NJ police department ‘losing’ a full-auto MP5.

                It seems the department *had* three such lovelies on the books, until one of them could no longer be accounted for.

                So far as I know they never did find the misplaced item. I wonder how much whoever it was got for it. Must have been a lot.

                What’s mine is mine, what’s yours is negotiable. Closing the books (the full-auto registry) was a compromise with the forces of ‘reasonable gun control’. Needless to say it was never enough.

          • The (2) and (3) and to a certain extent the other that point in a similar direction were tried during the late 1960s and 1970s. The result was a massive spike in crime, and ultimately a backlash. This is the era from which the phrase “a Republican is a Democrat who’s been mugged” come from. The people pushing these demands seem determined to relearn the lessons of that era the hard way.

          • I think “defund the police” means different things to different people,

            No, it doesn’t. It’s three words.

            The people on the streets chanting it want police GONE.

            Their neighbors do not, but they do. The Democrats at the top of the food chain want to spin that as something else because they know that 90 percent of the people in this country–if you sat down with paper and crayons and spelled it out for them–would want nothing to do with it.

            The other 10 percent are the criminals.

            First, demilitarize the police. Get rid of the armored cars, the battering rams, the automatic weapons, etc. Police should be understood to be civilians.

            I used to think police were Civilians, but in many ways they are not.

            It is not that they *have* the armored cars and the battering rams, for any large metropolitan area those things have a legitimate purpose–counter terrorist response.

            The problem is that they are *used* way too often because police *are* a paramilitary and many of them like to play those games.

            Same for automatic weapons.

            Second, move things like containment of crazy people and handling drug users/sellers (and possibly other social problems) to some other department (along with some of the police budget.) The police don’t have the training to de-escalate a situation with a schizophrenic/hallucinating patient, but if you sent a couple psych nurses instead… the logic of this should be obvious.

            Your ignorance in this area is STUNNING. Seriously.

            Do you know any psych nurses who are willing to go into East LA at 10:30 on a friday night because there’s a call of some dude acting like he’s dusted?

            Police get that job because *NO ONE ELSE WANTS IT*. The cops don’t want it. The two cops in my current roster of associates both *hate* fighting naked people in 7/11. They would LOVE to give that job over to someone else, but guess what? NO ONE wants to fight naked people in 7/11.

            Third, get rid of “warrior”-type trainings and instant demands for compliance and teach cops to de-escalate problems instead of making them worse. I’m aware that this can be both difficult and dangerous, and it’s not always the answer, and I think everyone else understands that too, but an attempt to de-escalate to be the default.

            Again, your ignorance is amazing. Police are taught “verbal judo”, how to control situations and how to “de-escalate”. Some cops think this is bullshit, and all of them know that it only works when the guy they’re dealing with doesn’t really want to fight.

            But too many subcultures have “beat a cop” as a status symbol.

            How about this, how about you teach people NOT TO PICK FIGHTS WITH ARMED POLICE?

            How about we start telling “gansta rappers” that they’re fucking unacceptable, that starting shit with cops is NOT cool?

            The thing is that de-escalating won’t have the consequences you think it will. There are probably 1 to 2 million police/citizen interactions every day that are relatively polite, that do not involve force or threats of force, and have non-violent outcomes.

            It is only about 2-3 percent of people who are *violent* criminals. If you try to de-escalate with them they will either see it as a sign of weakness and stomp you, or won’t notice it and will get in the first punch. This is just how it is.

            (Consider how much not de-escalating costs the U.S. annually – NY alone pays out around 70,000,000/year in “bad cop” money.)

            There is a way that NYC could cut that in half in about 3 weeks.

            Simply state that from x date forward *EVERY* case has to go in front of a judge and jury. You’d see the number of cases cut in half.

            See, here’s what big cities do–they calculate the cost of the trial, add some “we could lose” fudge factor and then any time a lawyer sues for less than that number they take a quick look at the case and if it’s not *complete* bollocks they pay it out. They think it’s way cheaper that way.

            The problem is that the local lawyers know what that number is, and know what they can get away with. In San Jose in 2002 that number as 35k. If you could get a cop on video pushing you out of the way–even if it was for your own good–you could get 25k paycheck (the lawyer got 10k).

            Make every case go to trial and you cut that in half.

            Fourth, get rid of “Qualified Immunity.”

            Yeah, the blind pig occasionally finds a truffle.

            Fifth, change the way cops are investigated after a violent incident.

            This is another Chesterton’s Fence thing. You don’t understand why those rules are there but you want to tear them down.

            The police who are actually out there on the street enforcing the laws have *always* had a difference of understanding with the guys who ride to work from gated communities and rich neighborhoods in chauffeured limousines. Those rules exist because *way* too often the Politicians are willing to throw the cops–who are just enforcing the laws the pols made–under the bus. You find similar rules with most unions, including teachers unions and bus drivers unions.

            Sixth, change the level of influence the policeman’s union has over policy.

            So no one gets to be on the cops side.

            Seventh, get cops out of schools and use the money to replace them with guidance counselors, school nurses, psychologists, etc. Nobody should be jailed for ordinary kid stuff, which is what happens when a “school resource officer” is pressed to justify their existence. (Or far worse, turns out to be racist.)

            Just how divorced from reality are you? The schools already have massive numbers of counselors and psychologists. They already have nurses on hand.

            The “School Resource Officers” are often there *AT THE SCHOOLS REQUEST because they’re having gang and drug problems. And no, a kid shouldn’t be arrested for “ordinary kid stuff”, but it’s often the *school* administration that insists on it, because that “ordinary kid stuff” is something that offends their politics–like the idiot teacher who noticed a *bb gun* over a home school video session and called the police.

            Hell, let’s de-fund the *schools* and start sending checks to the parents to arrange their own schooling.

            • The people on the streets chanting it want police GONE.

              They change their tune remarkably fast when someone armed starts defending himself or his property from them or otherwise threatens *them* with violence.

      • > I’m not willing to ally on anything with what leftists have become in 2020.

        I’m sure they’ll return the favour; the Left cannot even make workable alliances with themselves. Their purity-spiral games and Twitter oneupmanship will not allow that to happen. You gain currency on the Left by showing other people how much purer you are than some other person. You gain bonus points if you talk about how someone has “erased” some person’s identity, and you go home with a fuckin giant teddy bear if you close the loop by stomping on someone who hints that purity wars are totally counter-productive (look up “Nathan Taylor” combined with “knitting” for more of that).

        Effective political movements work by quickly organising over one issue, and disbanding as soon as their work is done. From an outsider’s perspective, this is why the gun rights movement in the United States is so damn effective; people from every possible socioeconomic background with every possible kind of political difference outside of “I like my guns and I want to keep them” can organise to get laws struck down or new ones enacted or to do a bit of good ol’ civil disobedience, and nobody in that temporary coalition is going to worry that they’re going to be cast out because one time they missed out one of the bytes from “LGBTQIA+” on Twitter, or that they said that women have periods. (If anyone is unfamiliar with why I said that last one look up why the Left currently hate JK Rowling.)

  31. >I’m wondering whether there might be some working-together possible between leftists wanting police reform and Libertarians wanting decriminalization of various substances and behaviors? Any thoughts?

    The fundamental political axiom of libertarianism is that government is inherently evil, and the only possible argument in favor of government is that it’s a necessary, lesser evil. The disputes between libertarians are about just how little government is necessary, with answers ranging from “a lot less than what we currently have” to “none at all.”

    The fundamental political axiom of left-wing progressivism is that government is inherently good, and that government only does evil when captured by evil anti-government forces. Since government is good, then more-government equals more-good, at least as long as that capture by the anti-government forces of evil can be avoided.

    That means any alliance between libertarians and progressive leftists will be at best tactical and temporary. Given the current state of affairs, this libertarian’s answer is Nope to the Nope, and any libertarian who answers differently has to be considered a dangerously poisoned kool-aid drinker.

    • >The fundamental political axiom of libertarianism is that government is inherently evil,

      I think you are mixing anarchists and libertarians. I think most libertarians want the government to enforce contracts and protect property.

      >any alliance between libertarians and progressive leftists will be at best tactical and temporary.

      Is that bad? IMHO, one of the practical failings “Movement Libertarians” has long been their inability to cooperate politically with others. All too often, they act like they prefer failure to any compromise.

      • In my experience, “compromise” with prog-left types means giving them everything they want and getting spit on in return. I can see compromise with conservatives and the modern Republicans, but never the left.

      • > their inability to cooperate politically with others

        Obviously the leftists in Chicago have no need at all to “compromise” with me, since they outnumber me about three million to one.

        But even supposing you could somehow convince them to come to the table and attempt a compromise in the first place… what form would that compromise take? “Ok, you can keep strong gun control, but in exchange… uh.. could I have… um…”

        Which other of my rights oops, sorry, which of my _privileges_ (http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=8643#comment-2405354) should I beg back, and what _else_ am I losing in order to bring about this “compromise”?

        Of course I get that “a good compromise leaves everybody mad” as Calvin said. But asking the left for “police reform” while not even the Bill of Privileges is upheld basically unpacks to “please don’t beat us, we’ll be good.” If you want to call that a “compromise”, then thanks, we’re _already_ kind of compromising in that sense.

        • None of my rights – which I assert beyond debate – are up for negotiation.
          Any attempt to assault my standard is an act of war.
          Period.

        • > what form would that compromise take?

          Repackaging something you want into a form that fits a major party’s current obsession. Every special interest group around (but libertarians) is out there doing this right now to advance their political goals. The major party mobs desperately want to ‘do something.’

          If you can get 80% of what you want right now, don’t say no to the deal just because it’s not 100% (a typical “L”ibertarian bargaining strategy) Take the easy money and move on. Ditto if the deal is only 80% good, 20% bad… it’s still a net positive deal for you. For now, I’m just asking that “L”libertarians not be losers.

          And note, none of this means you need to work with the same party on the next silly thing that comes down the pike.

          • > If you can get 80% of what you want right now, don’t say no to the deal just because it’s not 100% (a typical “L”ibertarian bargaining strategy)

            Uh, I’m not being offered “80% of Constitutional Carry” (whatever that would even mean), I am being “offered” (read “imposed and enforced”) 0%. Calling that me “saying no to the deal” is kind of a weird use of the word “deal” in my opinion.

            Oh wait, I see now, I just need to “repackage” Constitutional Carry into a form that fits the Democratic party’s “current obsession” with strong gun control. That’s actually a clever idea. I have to work out a few minor design flaws in my perpetual motion machine first, but after that will get right on it.

    • The fundamental political axiom of left-wing progressivism is that government is inherently good, and that government only does evil when captured by evil anti-government forces.

      This is an awful parody of leftwing thought. Consider that there are multiple sets of freedoms. Some subset of all possible freedoms give advantage to business owners. Some subsets give advantage to governments. Some subsets give advantage to ordinary people. Some subset gives advantage to religious authorities…

      The thing governments do is decide who gets the advantages and who doesn’t. The leftwing ideal isn’t that “all government is good” or that “we will use the government to impose complete communist control” (another awful parody of leftwing thought) but that government should be used to give ordinary people – voters and taxpayers – the maximum practical number of advantages while they navigate a difficult world.

      Thus unions. Thus laws against prejudice. Thus laws against anonymous campaign contributions. Thus laws which state that your employer can’t fire you for attending a demonstration. Etc. The idea isn’t to take complete control of everything. The idea is to make sure everyone experiences the minimum amount of oppression and has the maximum freedom. So there’s no leftwing argument against getting rid of a law. If a law is creating disadvantage for the ordinary person, you throw it out.

      So stopping the drug war isn’t a problem for the left. Stopping the War on Whores is a little more problematic, because there’s a huge faction which is of both the sex=yucky and the whoring=sexually_oppressed opinion and they’ve got a certain amount of power – but the idea isn’t remotely outside leftist thought.

      • > Consider that there are multiple sets of freedoms.

        Um, no? Would you like to provide your definition of “freedoms”? Because it sure sounds a lot more like “privileges.”

        > Some subsets give advantage to ordinary people.

        What is an “ordinary people”? Oh, I see you define it below.

        > The thing governments do is decide who gets the advantages and who doesn’t.

        You are, therefore, asserting that it is governments de facto job to pick winners and losers? Fascinating, but not surprising.

        Governments are tools used by one group of people to violently coerce other groups of people into doing what the group in power want. That’s it. Attempting to wrest control of this power for your own noble (pfft) ends is just attempting to claim the One Ring for yourself. Altogether evil, even with desire for good.

        > The leftwing ideal … [is] that government should be used to give ordinary people – voters and taxpayers – the maximum practical number of advantages while they navigate a difficult world.

        Huh. You actually defined something! But, wouldn’t “voters and taxpayers” be, well, all citizens? Which puts paid to your ridiculous claim of “multiple sets of freedoms.” The way you talk, I guess Some People Are More Ordinary Than Others. Not at all surprised.

        > Thus unions.

        When union membership (or payment of administration fees) is non-voluntary, this resolves to “no freedom of association, no freedom to enter into contracts.”

        > Thus laws against prejudice.

        Outside of government policy, this resolves to “No freedom of association or expression.”

        > Thus laws against anonymous campaign contributions.

        “No freedom of speech, no right to privacy.”

        > Thus laws which state that your employer can’t fire you for attending a demonstration.

        “No freedom of association, no freedom to enter into contracts.”

        > Etc.

        Wait for it…

        > The idea isn’t to take complete control of everything.

        Could have fooled me! No, it’s just to take control of “Etc.” Don’t worry, we run the government with what we, right now, decide is the bare minimum of et cetera! Sure, that may change in the next minute to suit our trendy social engineering goals, but hush, child, your betters are talking.

        > The idea is to make sure everyone experiences the minimum amount of oppression and has the maximum freedom.

        By maximizing the amount of oppression from the government and removing as many liberties as they can get away with. Uh-huh. Ash nazg durbatuluk!

        > If a law is creating disadvantage for the ordinary person, you throw it out.

        Which I have yet to see someone on the “left wing” actually do. I mean, I’ve seen conservatives/Republicans try to do it, but every time they do so, the Democrats and their media cronies screech like howler monkeys. So, I dunno. Best I can figure is, you really do believe some people are more ordinary than others.

        > So stopping the drug war isn’t a problem for the left.

        So much so that they haven’t bothered to do it, even given ample opportunity. I call shenanigans.

        • When union membership (or payment of administration fees) is non-voluntary, this resolves to “no freedom of association, no freedom to enter into contracts.”

          Oh yes, the “freedom” to enter into contracts with binding-arbitration clauses that guarantee that large, powerful corporations will always prevail over individuals, who must either assent to file their grievances singly and individually and accept whatever outcome the corporate-sponsored arbitrator decides, or not take the job to begin with. Pardon me while I laugh.

          Collective bargaining protects individuals. It should be protected.

          • Jeff, use the brain i know you have. I specified non-voluntary. If a person doesn’t have a choice to be in a union or not, they lose their autonomy and must work at the pleasure of the union. This has a whole host of really shit failure modes for individuals.

            Unions are fine, I support the right to unionize. What I don’t support is the apparatus of the state being used to coerce membership or payment into one.

            • Then you have the problem of free-riders; people who got a better deal but didn’t actually make a contribution and people who aren’t union members make collective bargaining much harder.

              • So then, if the union isn’t able to be persuasive enough to get people to sign up, we just have to let them force people to comply? Yeah, no, fuck that. I am not a slave.

                This also assumes the union is acting in my best interest, which is not necessarily true.

              • OTOH, in states where union shops are allowed – that is, where paying union dues is a condition of employment – the unions are invariably useless when it comes to protecting workers, and frequently corrupt. You see, they don’t actually have to do anything to earn dues, so they do whatever strikes their fancy. Often that turns out to be agitating for Left causes that have nothing to do with workers’ problems, and which the dues payers strongly oppose.

                The existence of employees who didn’t agree to the collective bargain keeps the union honest, and focused on its proper mission.

              • > Then you have the problem of free-riders; people who got a better deal but didn’t actually make a contribution and people who aren’t union members make collective bargaining much harder.

                After pondering this more, it has occurred to me that this concern reveals something rather sinister.

                Unions are, ostensibly, about worker protection, yes? Collective bargaining to stem abuse by management, yes? Ok.

                If this is true, then an Ideal Union should not care that a given worker is or is not a member, because their mission is to also protect even them!

                If someone claims that others are being “free-riders” or “making collective bargaining” (aka “the existence of the union”) more difficult, they are implicitly subordinating all workers to that abstract union corporate entity! It therefore is simply not about the workers, but rather the existence and perpetuation of the union itself!

                You would be tearing down one false idol (the employer-employee contract) and raising another in its place (a specific union membership), and then declaring that no others may be raised! Pretty fucking evil shit, really.

                • I was about to post much the same argument, but I can summarize it into one word: “monopsony”. When union membership is mandatory, economically there is no difference between the [employee / union / employer] relationships versus those of [contractor / agency / client]. Therefore, as a contract agency controlls what tasks its’ contractors will work by buying their labor, a legally mandated union should likewise be viewed as the buyer of its members labor (and then apportions this to the putative employers).

                  As you point out, not mandating membership then breaks this monopsony position of the union and restores it to the intended relationship.

      • Except notably absent from your “thussing” is “oh but no you may _not_ possess a tool to actually defend your person from violence, that is the job of the Very Strong and Authoritative Police Force with which we will provide you to help you keep track of which freedoms you still have. (And don’t start whining about that silly old piece of paper claiming you used to have that right; it’s OUR job as government to decide “who gets advantages and who doesn’t”.)

        Man, your “awful parody of leftwing thought” sure does sound awesome compared to the ones folks here are coming up with. “Who do I make the check out to” as Morty said.

      • >This is an awful parody of leftwing thought.
        I’m sure you think so, but they are still more accurate assessments of the _results_ of left-wing thought. Meawhile, what you’re saying is the naiive brochure view of leftism, the ‘sounds good’ part, and even that is ‘sounds good until you think about it a little more’. Of course, most leftist footsoldiers think they are in service of these ideals, but in practice, what you call parody always seems to happen ultimately. See also: ‘useful idiots’.

        Someone said under another post here IIRC, that it’s like people playing with fire, people who don’t know fire is dangerous. Yes, government power could theoretically be used to do some good, at least on the surface, but you have to think about failure modes, and not just plan for the happy path.

        • I don’t expect every policy to be successful, particularly when the next person to be elected to same post might reverse/sabotage that policy. But Trump’s current plan is to have a rally in Tulsa Oklahoma on Juneteenth. I’d accept this as one of those stupid, incompetent Trump-style coincidences except that he’s also planning to formally accept the GOP nomination on the anniversary of Axe-Handle Sunday in Jacksonville. At that point the dogwhistles get much too loud to ignore!

          I’d expect him to follow up with a barnstorming tour of Rosewood Florida, Colfax Louisiana, Elaine Arkansas, and East St. Louis…

          Yes, the Democrats fuck up sometimes – governing is famously difficult – but so do the Republicans, and I’ll take the party which dropped the dogwhistle in the 1960s and hasn’t again picked it up!

          • So you’re more concerned over a supposed “dog whistle” than the actual affect of policies, for example, the fact the Democrat mayors are currently letting their radicals burn down their own cities?

          • I’m morally certain that everyone in Jacksonville has forgotten that episode, since I never heard of it before you mentioned it. So the only people who would read any significance into it are the ones already inclined to see Racism! in anything a Republican politician does. You know, crazy people.

            If you hear a dogwhistle, you’re a dog. If you see allusions to racism in something when the intended audience doesn’t, it shows you are obsessed with race, not the intended audience.

            • It took me a second to work through the implications of all this, but you do realize that you just insisted that Trump’s schedule is being made by crazy people. (Hint: I’ll settle for an admission that whoever makes his schedule is incompetent!)

              • No, you twit. I said you are a crazy person, for claiming that Trump’s schedulers were thinking of an obscure episode in civil rights activism that almost everyone in the USA has long since forgotten when they prepared his schedule.

                Are you getting enough sleep before you post? Or drinking heavily? Those can cause problems with reading comprehension.

                • > Are you getting enough sleep before you post? Or drinking heavily?

                  Nah, he’s just a religious lunatic repeating the Holy Truth of his priesthood.

                  I mean, unless he can provide some actual, you know, evidence of his assertion that the event was planned on that date for that reason. But we all know he bloody well can’t.

                  It’s like a bizarro-world version of Christian numerology. “The event is on The Date! This is a Sign!”

                  • I’m sure you guys are having fun, but I didn’t make the schedule – and you might ask yourself who did? There is (or at least there should be) a whole White House operation aimed at making sure stuff like this doesn’t happen.