Saturday Morning Ethics, 5/30/2020: Burn, Baby, Burn Nostalgia

1. Bulletin for Gov. Walz: Derek Chauvin has civil rights too, you irresponsible fool. I have just watched Minnesota’s Governor repeatedly refer to George Floyd’s “murder.” An elected public official cannot and must not do that. If he wants to guarantee that a fair trial in the case becomes impossible, this is the way to do it. There has been no trial, and however horrible the video of Floyd’s  death may be, Chauvin and the other officers have the right to the presumption of innocence. Now a St. Paul’s mayor is at the podium calling for Chauvin to be held “accountable.” Well, he’s under arrest and will face trial, and for now, that’s about it.  All of this outrage porn and virtue-signaling now enables the rioters by pretending that there is anything productive to be done but to wait for the justice system to play out.

2. One more time, let me make the unpopular observation that show-boating signers for the deaf in public events are a distraction, and permit narcissistic would-be mimes pull focus from the speakers who need to be heard. The signer at the Minnesota officials public statement just completed was particularly self-indulgent: a non-binary, flamboyant signer who mugged, grimaced and generally made it difficult to pay attention to the speakers by employing unrestrained antics more appropriate to a circus act. Less than .4% of the public is deaf, yet that population is allowed to dictate the format of an important public announcement.

3. More unconscionable grandstanding: On HLN this morning, the designated female eye-candy the network employs as a news-reader on weekends showed a still photo from the video of Chauvin kneeling on Floyd’s neck, and said, “I searched his face for any hint of empathy or humanity, and could find none.”

Fake news, psychic variety. Utter hackery.

4. Be proud, Democrats. Lori Lightfoot, Democratic Mayor of Chicago, yesterday: “I will code what I really want to say to Donald Trump. It’s two words. It begins with F and it ends with U.” Nice.

5. In a 5-4 ruling, SCOTUS rejected two Illinois churches and a California church’s claim that their states’ restrictions on religious gatherings is a First Amendment violation. Here is  a portion of Justice Kavanaugh’s dissenting opinion :

To justify its discriminatory treatment of religious worship services, California must show that its rules are “justified by a compelling governmental interest” and “narrowly tailored to advance that interest.”… California undoubtedly has a compelling interest in combating the spread of COVID–19 and protecting the health of its citizens…. What California needs is a compelling justification for distinguishing between (i) religious worship services and (ii) the litany of other secular businesses that are not subject to an occupancy cap. California has not shown such a justification. The Church has agreed to abide by the State’s rules that apply to comparable secular businesses. That raises important questions: “Assuming all of the same precautions are taken, why can someone safely walk down a grocery store aisle but not a pew? And why can someone safely interact with a brave deliverywoman but not with a stoic minister?”…

Once again, the Chief Justice played the role of swing-man. In his majority opinion, he opined that the relief that the churches had asked for, an order blocking the state from enforcing the restrictions on gatherings,  faces too high a bar for the churches to meet.  He said that the current restrictions appear to be constitutional as they limit  non-religious gatherings like plays, concerts and sporting events. The state treating activities like grocery stores and banks differently is justified, Roberts continued, because those activities are in fact different. They do not, Justice Roberts said, involve large groups of people coming together in close proximity for extended periods of time. “The precise question of when restrictions on particular social activities should be lifted during the pandemic,” Roberts concluded, “is a dynamic and fact-intensive matter subject to reasonable disagreement..while local officials are actively shaping their response to changing facts on the ground,” it is not sufficiently clear that the  Supreme Court should step in.

6. Wait for it… Let’s see who the first pundit is to criticize President Trump for not using his “bully pulpit” to urge calm in the cities. This is one more crucial Presidential function that “the resistance” and the news media has removed from this President in contrast to all others. The critics who will attack the President for not speaking are the ones who have effectively prevented him from speaking: he is literally not allowed to represent the entire nation even in times of crisis. The nation is the weaker for it.

If the President condemns the rioters, he will be accused of  siding with the forces of white supremacy and racist law enforcement. If he declines to criticize the rioters, he will be implying that “good people” are on “both sides.”

Let’s be clear: one party and one ideological movement is responsible for crippling the office of the President this way, and both should be held accountable.

7. So much for that “in sickness or in health” thingy…Chauvin’s wife chose this moment when her husband is most isolated and in need of support to file for divorce. She, of course, has no more knowledge about his actual guilt than anyone else. I am reminded of the counter-examples like Christina Ferrare, the celebrity actress and model who stood by her husband John DeLorean during his prosecution for drug-trafficking until his acquittal. Then she divorced him, after duly remaining by his side during the trial.

67 thoughts on “Saturday Morning Ethics, 5/30/2020: Burn, Baby, Burn Nostalgia

  1. There has been no trial, and however horrible the video of Floyd’s death may be, Chauvin and the other officers have the right to the presumption of innocence.

    It would not change the fact that excessive and improper force brought about his death, but the facts seem to be that Floyd had existing health conditions, abused drugs, was intoxicated when he had the altercation. It is conceivable that he was having, or would have had, a heart-attack simply in the course of his arrest.

    He did not die (according to the coroner) from strangulation but from a complex of other factors. (I wonder if it had more to do with limiting blood flow — the man had a heart condition apparently).

    Chauvin’s wife chose this moment when her husband is most isolated and in need of support to file for divorce.

    That is very interesting. His wife is Asian and since everything seems to be falling out along racial lines it would be a good move for her to distance herself from him.

    Here is some background:

    • Aliza said:

      That is very interesting. His wife is Asian and since everything seems to be falling out along racial lines it would be a good move for her to distance herself from him.

      I agree. If she stands by him, she will be an unemployable social pariah no matter what happens to him.

      • This comment is not related to any of the topics Jack has brought up, but it is the question that I cannot seem to answer satisfactorily: What is going on today in the United States of America? Here, there is a great deal of conversation about topical events but — unless I am not reading thoroughly — very little interpretation of what is going on, what it means, and where this goes.

        So my question is: What is going on in America today?

        If I said that all these *protests* do not in truth seem related to the killing of Floyd George, I would seem to contradict reality. But this is what I think. This man’s death is a convenient pretext for the unleashing of forces that I do not understand.

        And I can see no way forward to contradict or restrain the forces that are agitating. Everything hurdles toward events which I can vaguely distinguish but cannot quite make out.

        Why is there no sufficient analysis offered? Where is the key to understanding?

    • “It would not change the fact that excessive and improper force brought about his death, but the facts seem to be that Floyd had existing health conditions, abused drugs, was intoxicated when he had the altercation. It is conceivable that he was having, or would have had, a heart-attack simply in the course of his arrest.

      He did not die (according to the coroner) from strangulation but from a complex of other factors. (I wonder if it had more to do with limiting blood flow — the man had a heart condition apparently).”

      I think the important part is before the first comma. Floyd’s death is a tragedy, but the manner of his arrest was an outrage, and it would be whether or not he had died. Now, because he died, we get to dissect every iota of the experience and argue over things that don’t really matter, at the end of which there will be a trial and a verdict.

      I’ve had literally hundreds of experiences with the police, usually to pick up shoplifters or vandals, and I have only seen great examples; servicemen that have been cursed at, spit on, and attacked either taking the abuse, or stopping it with what is fairly obviously a measured show of force. The idea that someone like Chauvin exists, and that his fellow officers would just stand around while he existed, is foreign to me. I suppose even in the best of forces, this can happen, but what bothers me is that people are spilling an ungodly amount of ink to try to mitigate the situation…. It’s unmitigatable. Literally nothing that comes out can justify what we saw with our own two eyes: An officer, literally kneeling on the neck of a non-combative, handcuffed man, until he died.

      “It’s not that bad because it wasn’t racist”
      “It might matter that he had an underlying health condition”
      “He had a record”
      “He resisted arrest”

      Who cares? None of this explains why Chauvin was kneeling on the guy’s throat!

      As much as the left’s rush to condemn vast swathes of America for the bad actions of an individual is incredibly tedious, it’s only outdone by the idiotic bumrush to plaster the situation with ancillae from the right. Call the balls and strikes guys, or lose credibility.

      • And to be clear: This isn’t necessarily aimed at Alizia, or anyone commenting here. I’m seeing these comments make the rounds, and I just have to take a step back and comment in frustration at the festering deterioration of values. When did a portion of the right become so pro-police abuse? Or was it always there and I’m just seeing it?

        • What are the odds of having 4 cops who are bad apples – 1 to do the deed and 3 otuers to do nothing to stop it?

          Assuming 1 in 2 cops are dirty, then it’s 1 in 16.
          Assuming 1 in 10 are dirty, it’s 1 in 10,000.

          To get a 50/50 chance, it’s over 84%.

          I am perfectly willing to believe that 15% of the force are honest and decent. Ethical. There’s a 50% chance of that, anyway, and they deserve the benefit of the doubt,

          Now I’m assuming the variables are independent. There are good reasons to believe that dirty cops stick together, so clusters may be far more probable. It might be that 50% of the force are not dirty. In which case there is a systemic failure as they are unable to clean the dirty ones out.

          • It was a action that, under normal circumstances (a healthy person) would likely not have resulted in death. Excessive, yes. Condemnable, yes. Unnecessary in that situation, obviously.

            But the larger issue — and this is a fact — is the disproportionate violence of Blacks against Whites which is far in excess of White on Black violence. There are people who have looked into this, I have seen their studies and though I have not verified them myself I am inclined to believe their results as accurate.

            The actual issue here is a will to create a general uprising in the United States. This is *spearheaded* by people, interests & factions with the US with international connections as well (globalism) who are now using these events to further their goals. Not the least being to undermine the Presidency of Donald Trump because his uncouth populism, and what it inspires in others, in other countries for example, is dangerous on may levels to the larger, global plan.

            Everything must be seen in a larger context.

            However, given what I understand of your own politics I would imagine that you support, in general terms if not in specifics, the *general rebellion* as I call it.

            • ”But the larger issue — and this is a fact — is the disproportionate violence of Blacks against Whites which is far in excess of White on Black violence.”

              Would you be so kind as to cite this; asking for a friend….

              • I don’t know how one would even start to figure out what “disproportional” is. You have a larger demographic and a much smaller one. Obviously, the larger group is going to engage in violence against members of the smaller group less frequently than against its own, larger pool. Obviously, the smaller one will have opportunities to engage in violence against the larger group because of its sheer size. Then you have the factors of community: people tend to commit crimes where they live…and socio-economic factors. As Willy Sutton said, you rob banks because that’s where the money is. White America is richer than black America. Poor people rob richer ones.

                The “disproportionate” argument is a rabbit hole, and a misguided one that conflates so many factors that it can be manipulated to “show” just about anything.

                • The assertion is that Black-on-White violence is far more common than the opposite — proportionally. Another aspect of the assertion (Vincent James and Colin Flaherty) is that these incidents do not get reported and are deliberately excluded from reporting. But the instances of White-on-Black violence, especially police violence, exceesive force, etc., are magnified.

                  Rabbit hole? That is a term that tends to assert that it is an unreal hole, or a hole where one will get enveloped in illusion: false perception and understanding. Is that what you mean?

              • https://theredelephants.com/

                The man who has the YouTube channel — Vincent James — regularly makes this assertion in his presentations. He has presented references but I have not followed up on them. He has described the statistics in his videos. He has said that they are available on this website but I have never looked for them.

                Colin Flaherty has been documenting Black on White violence for years. (His website is his name + .com) He used to have a YouTube channel but I think they banned all his video content. I can’t find it in any case.

                He collected hundreds and hundreds of videos of Black attacks and rampages. (I personally found his narrations of these incidents as tedious and rather boring as he does not speak well and the way he speaks irritates, but the dozens and hundreds of videos of ‘the Knockout Game’ and Black flash-mobs never got nor get coverage in the traditional media).

      • As you well know — you have stated it many times in extremely direct terms — you do not see me to be a friend in any way nor at any level. While I have very little that is personal against you, I do identify you, basically, not as a conservative in any appreciable sense, but as a progressive-left activist. Just want to get this out in the open. I am fully willing to operate, as you have established it of course, as enemies. And if you desire to go to the most extreme points, well, I am willing to go there too.

        But this is a discussion forum where ethics and ethics-values are discussed. And in my view — the view that has been developing in my over numerous years now, and has not been and is still not absolutely decided — I have come to see that what I define as *ethical* depends on many more things than meets the eye. I view Jack’s ethical definitions as significantly incomplete. Just as Jack’s analysis of culture is extremely superficial, and just as he draws people who have similar superficial views (and only see surface! never depth!) I am forced because I notice this to continue my analysis on other planes of consideration. I try to express this in all that I write. I get various reactions of course, and some part of this may be because of the way I write, that is true, but the larger part is that the ideas I have are threatening.

        You are free to deny that if you wish, it is your choice. But in relation to your-plural various sophistical and underhanded attacks on my person, I resolve to continue forward developing idea. This is my creative way to take maximum advantage of my time here. I learn from you — or relationally to you — while I develop my (I hope) thoroughly independent thesis.

        I regard the action of Chauvin as excessive and unnecessary. And he must be tried for the death he caused. But what is happening throughout the country, and what this is used for, and where it will be taken and the reasons why, now that is something else altogether. And it must be clarified. It must be seen of course and clarified.

        But you are not the man to do this! You live in a radically different culture. You serve very different purposes (as is the case for Canada generally). You have already gone in the direction where the US is next to go. Naturally, you serve those purposes. And whoever might oppose you, as you have done with me, you will certainly apply the Left-Progressive label of Nazi.

        But this changes nothing for me, and it does not stop me from attempting to carry forward my research, my analysis and my conclusions, such as they are (embryonic).

        Here I commented on an essay Steve wrote, and I offer the same, more or less, to you.

  2. It could be Ms. Chauvin is leaving for the reasons stated, or to protect wealth, or for reasons of personal safety. But yeah, so much for sickness and health…

  3. We all know what’s going on in MPLS and the U.S. after George Floyd’s LEO involved death; Atlanta Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms’ understatement: ‘This Is Not A Protest … This Is Chaos

    At the risk of being accused of invoking Whataboutism, after the Fast-Tracked/Affirmative Action MPLS Police Hire Somali-American Mohamed Mohamed Noor’s 07/15/2017 LEO involved death of Justine Damond (mere weeks after the high profile manslaughter trial acquittal of Jeronimo Yanez in the LEO involved death of Philando Castile)….there were NO RIOTS!

    (bolds/caps/italics mine throughout)
    “The day after the killing, a VIGIL in Damond’s honor was held at the site of her death”

    Vigil? No looting…No burnin’ down the house…No White Aussie Race Hustlers whipping the masses into a slobbering frenzied furor…no Foster’s…?

    “Several days after the killing, hundreds MARCHED to Beard’s Plaisance Park in Minneapolis, in honor of Damond”

    Marched? Whaaaa…No Justice…No Peace…No widespread criminal damage to property?

    It gets worse.

    “Minneapolis Chief of Police Janeé Harteau (1st female/openly gay/Native American in that capacity) was on vacation at the time of Damond’s killing, AND CONTINUED HER VACATION FOR FOUR DAYS, rather than immediately returning to Minneapolis after the killing.” Mayor Betsy Hodges summarily $#!tcanned her shortly thereafter.

    And worse yet.

    “In September 2018, it was reported that in 2015 two psychiatrists and other training officers had raised concerns about Noor’s fitness for police duty. Two months before the shooting, Noor pointed a gun at the head of a driver he had pulled over for a minor traffic violation.”

    Yet this guy remained on the street, legally empowered to use DEADLY FORCE despite this being a matter of record?

    True Blue MN, then Lefty Governor (Mark Dayton), a Lefty Mayor, and a Lefty Police Chief couldn’t have possibly had anything whatsoever to do with keeping a loose-cannon minority on the force….could they?

    If they did, it’s what Dirty Harry Callahan would call stylish!

    • I could be wrong (it happens more often than not), but my guess is that Noor was kept on the force because of the union. A police union is incredibly powerful; frighteningly powerful. It certainly was where my ex was employed. Early on, in his years on the force, I fully recognized that he and I, and our children, were the beneficiaries of a powerful union that negotiated benefits that would be unheard of today. I also recognized that the union’s power could be used for ill, and to hide and protect officers that had no business being in law enforcement. Using the Noor example, if you were an officer that brought to the attention of your superiors the questionable fitness of another officer, the union would find a way to blackball you. In the “brotherhood” of police work, you would have become an outcast. And that becomes a safety issue because who is going to back you up on a call when you’re an outcast on the force?

      • The officers can control the union as a group if they choose to. You admit here they also know the evil power of the union, and stand by idle when a solitary officer is blackballed for doing the right thing.

        And you still think they should be called “good”? If they let their own good officer be bullied so the bad one can stand, the only good officer is the solitary blackballed officer.

        This is why I have little sympathy for alleged good cops because the actual good ones are the minority.

        • “This is why I have little sympathy for alleged good cops because the actual good ones are the minority.”

          You have little sympathy for good cops because they’re fewer in number?

        • I understand your position on this. I truly do! Where you and I differ is in the sympathy department. I prefer the word empathy – and I can only speak to my own experience having been a cop’s wife for 24 years. My ex worked for a medium sized force: 300+ sworn and another 100 civilian. There were many, many decent men and women who worked for that department. My husband would don his bullet proof vest, his 20 lb gun belt and head to work protecting people; for the most part people who hated him and would just as soon see him dead. Good people rarely come into contact with the cops. Cops don’t often spend their time with law abiding citizens. (In fact, I got into the morose habit of asking my husband if “anything good” happened that day; meaning: did anything bad happen to somebody else.) When your nose is to the grindstone working a job that requires a weapon and a bullet proof vest, going from call to call with no lunch break, no dinner break, no place to go to the bathroom, dealing with people who are screaming at you, spitting at you, kicking you, threatening to hunt down where you live, find your wife and kids and “fuck you up” your first thought is not taking on the police union.

          (Btw, the above actually happened. Some guy followed my husband home, came to our front door and started pounding. I, unaware that my husband had been followed, opened the door holding a spaghetti spoon in my hand and a diapered baby on my hip. The guy proceeded to go OFF on me with my standing there terrified. By law, we were allowed to hide our legal address on public documents for just this reason. And we did. But he showed up anyway. Does your job require that you hide your legal address so that you cannot be found?)

          I once asked my ex if he told me everything that happened at work. He answered with an emphatic “No!” I then asked him if it was because he didn’t want me to be scared. He said “No, it’s because I don’t want that shit in my house.” He left all of his work outside the front door. Our home was his safe harbor.

          The thing is, I don’t have to live or work that way. You don’t have to live or work that way. It’s easy to armchair quarterback police work. And yet, if we ever need the police, they will show up – whether we “sympathize” or not.

          • Let me add that those who “controlled” the union were the ones who enjoyed the power. They enjoyed the political connections. Was it right and proper? No. Did it mean fighting a behemoth in addition to just being a cop on the street? Yep. And that’s where my empathy comes into play.

            I understand that you have no empathy. That’s fine. It’s also easy.

          • Brava!

            My Dear late Father was a career Parole/Probation Specialist who never brought work home with him either…welp…except for a few highfreakin’larious stories.

            Every time I see an un-engaged LEO, I walk up and thank them for their service; I call it Random Acts Of Gratitude

          • I don’t accept the claims about just how dangerous being a cop is. Do you know why? I have the statistics on my side.

            https://www.cnbc.com/2019/12/27/the-10-most-dangerous-jobs-in-america-according-to-bls-data.html

            Notice who’s absent from that list? Plenty of people go to work every day at far greater risk and don’t spend their time crying about how dangerous their job is. Plenty of people are married to people who do those jobs and aren’t gripped with fear.
            This is more about manipulation of others and exaggerating risk to gain sympathy in spite of bad conduct.

            • You know what’s not on that list? Going to work every day dealing with the volatility of other people. Every single one of the jobs on that list had to do with equipment related injuries/deaths. Equipment has no psychology.

              I’m not gripped with fear – wasn’t then either. I simply offered one example of what the job brings. Equipment didn’t show up at my door threatening me and my child. My ex never cried either; well that one time he went to the autopsy of a 4 mos old baby.

              It’s easy to be righteous. It’s easy to fantasize about what is in the hearts of others when they go to work dealing with what is in the hearts of others; unlike going to work and using equipment.

              I wish you well, Matthew, in this time of pandemic and pandemonium. Truly. It’s pretty clear this conversation is not moving forward.

              Best.

              • La Sylphide is on the money here. I’ve never been a cop, but I have been an EMT in urban and semi-urban settings (Boston, its close-in northern suburbs). This was back in the time when I was still immortal. I will never forget my first call in a project, when we got to the apartment door. I knocked on it. My partner immediately grabbed my by the collar and yanked me sideways. I asked WTF and he said “tell you later.” The door opened.

                The rest of that call was uneventful. Once we were clear of the hospital my partner explained the situation. “Never stand in front of the door and knock,” he said, “even in better neighborhoods than that one. They shoot through the doors. Stand outside the door frame, reach over and knock. Worst that can happen is your hand gets blown off.”

                I could tell you more, but that’s not necessary. Perhaps loggers have a higher mortality rate per 100,000 than cops do. The difference is: there are no trees in the forest that would INTENTIONALLY kill them if given a chance.

              • Thanks. What Matthew B fails (or more likely chooses/refuses) to see is that police officers have to deal with people at their worst all the time. Generally, if a police officer shows up at my door it is because something bad brought him/her there. I can’t remember the last time the Police Officers Benevolent Society knocked on my door offering to sell me coupons as a fund-raiser.

                jvb

            • You know that the BLS compiles data on primarily the private sector. Public employees which include police officers are not compiled with the private sector because the purpose of such stats are for legislative / regulatory purposes.

  4. RE: #2
    ” Less than .4% of the public is deaf, yet that population is allowed to dictate the format of an important public announcement.”
    The technology that provides instant subtitles is imperfect, with silly misspellings, and occasional missed phrases, but it would be much better than the wildly gesticulating and mugging ‘signers’, unless they are translating perfectly, which I understand is extremely difficult to do.
    There is no reason to think that the .4% of the public who are deaf also can’t read. So other than inclusivity signalling, and politicians presenting themselves as caring about, gosh – just everyone!, I see no reason for it. I would be curious to know if any deaf people actually find it helpful.
    Yet, the world would be a less hilarious place if things like this didn’t happen:

    • Translating perfectly does not require facial gymnastics and wild gestures that Robin Williams would have found excessive. That clown this morning had me so aggravated I had trouble not rushing the TV.

      • Yes. Due to a congenital condition, my youngest sister can hear but cannot speak intelligibly. She relies on sign language. She often uses a video relay or live interpreter. These folks are amazing. They do somewhat exaggerate the mouth movements to make lip reading easier, but that’s it. It’s not supposed to be a performance – it’s communication. I’ve found that often these televised governmental translators seem to think it’s more about them than the translation. That’s a disservice.

        Side note: the other thing that’s interesting about signing is that it’s truly a different language, with different rules related to grammar and sentence construction. These folks do it on the fly – akin to doing a live, real-time from Japanese to English. Amazing, kind and wonderful people who do this work!

  5. 5. I really think the Supreme Court made the wrong decision. The First Amendment protects citizens from the government “impeding the free exercise of religion” and “interfering with the right to peaceably assemble.” I am the farthest thing from a law expert there is, but I believe that plays, concerts, and sporting events are protected under that “right to peaceably assemble” clause and churches are protected under both.

    Places of worship – along with venues that house plays, concerts, and sporting events – are free to determine whether they should meet or not. Our church did just that, choosing to close and have services online for a couple of months. And I think the government – state or federal – is well within its rights to offer up recommendations about gatherings to its citizens when facing a pandemic. It can even strongly recommend, or emphatically recommend, certain actions.

    But when the government puts any ruling, law, or executive order – however temporary – in place that directly violates the Constitution, that’s wrong. And that’s what I believe many states have done. I also fear this ruling will be used in the future to further restrict the religious rights of citizens.

    Again, I am no law expert and am completely open to opposing views and correction on this.

    • I object to the fact that the government does not have a burden of proof before restricting Constitutional Rights. I would think you would have to show there is a significant need for the restrictions. The data on ‘lockdowns’ and ‘social distancing’ are not really showing that it has any effect. A Supreme Court that rules that governors and even mayors can restrict Constitution rights based on a standard of ‘Will it make people feel better?’ is not reassuring.

      This is how my mind envisions the arguments.
      Government: “We have a crushing, massive pandemic and need to take extreme action.”
      Churches:”We are laying off thousands of medical workers and closing hospitals because there are no patients”.
      Court to Churches: “What is your point?”

    • Our church voted 80%/20% to stay closed longer after 2 1/2 months of streaming services.

      It’s not the same, but we are a large congregation.

      • Our church re-opened last week, but is limiting attendance to 250 per service. We have a larger congregation as well. Churchgoers are required to sign up online to attend a service. My wife and I are choosing to watch online a little longer before returning to the building.

        • Anyone who works in public health will agree that in this case it is most wise to err on the side of caution.

    • I disagree with Roberts opinion as well. No where has the state proved that a gathering’s purpose affects tbe spread of the virus.

      I could argue that the fact that multiple people are likely to invade the 6 foot space 9f a given person in a grocery or home improvement store than a church because in church or a play you stay put and new people are not constantly coming in.

      • True, Chris, but on the other hand, Roberts’ argument did not depend upon the purpose of the gathering, but rather the duration and proximity of persons. In that way, his argument is sound. Nobody (at least that I know of) spends an hour in the grocery store in the same place, and in church, that’s pretty much how it goes. Proximity and lack of movement are arguably factors, and a judge can be forgiven for not wanting to say otherwise.

        Your point about diverse people in proximity is right, but realize that generally, those people are in motion, not stationary. Even an infected person therefore is likely to shed much less virus in a given volume than an infected person at church.

        It’s a tough call, and tailor-made for a judicial restraint position, which is what he delivered.

        • Glenn,

          I still think Chief Justice Roberts, and four other justices, are wrong. The Constitution does not permit peaceful assembly within certain parameters. It does not allow free religious expression only when conditions are optimal.

          • Fair enough. They may be wrong, but their argument is defensible and logical.

            You are correct that the Constitution does not set parameters, but local governments are allowed to when circumstances warrant and it is deemed reasonably necessary. For example — peaceful protest in Louisville tonight is forbidden. Why? Curfew, due to riots the last two nights. Is that a violation of the First Amendment? By your lights, it would be, but we know better.

            This situation has similar earmarks — short term, by reason of emergency or public safety. The Court would likely not uphold this restriction for a long time.

        • I don’t know that proximity duration has any bearing on whether someone contracts the disease. What is the difference if you spend 1 hour in a crowded grocery mingling with various people or spending 1 hour in a pew with family. The probability of coming into direct albeit short contact with an infected person in a retail grocery is much higher than if one remains in a fixed position with a limited number of person to person contacts. Without having any understanding of probability of infection based on duration there is no scientific basis to say that groups meeting for a specific purpose are a greater threat to public health than being in a crowded area for a non specific purpose for a short time.

          It seems to me that it is far easier to manage proximity to one another in a place where seating is the norm rather than unmanaged activities of those trapsing up and down aisles looking for items, picking them up and putting them down, and then standing around in long lines for extended periods because every other register is closed.

          • I don’t know that proximity duration has any bearing on whether someone contracts the disease.

            Fair point, but are you an expert on the subject of epidemiology? Is Roberts?

            What Roberts is saying is that he’s unwilling to substitute his judgment for that of others more qualified when it comes to the wisdom of limiting attendance. I find this refreshing, even while I question his precedent citations.

          • Jack…and Glenn,

            I would have thought a conservative analysis and judicial restraint meant a stricter adherence to (or interpretation of) the Constitution. It must mean something a little different. I was looking at the last phrase of #5…”it is not sufficiently clear that the Supreme Court should step in.” I also consider Glenn’s statement in his response above…”What Roberts is saying is that he’s unwilling to substitute his judgment for that of others more qualified when it comes to the wisdom of limiting attendance.” So this is what is meant by “judicial restraint”? Maybe it’s an unwillingness to intervene in existing law – even law that seems questionable – without a solid reason…? Hopefully the Courts are fully willing to intervene should these restrictions be carried forward for too much longer.

            I still don’t think I agree with the majority, but at least I have a little better understanding. Thanks! I’m progressing a little…

            • By the way, a good friend of mine worked with Chief Justice Roberts years ago in a law office. He said Roberts was (and is) the most brilliant man he has ever met.

  6. Last night, Indianapolis got hit with “peaceful protesters” that set fires, broke windows and looted.

    What is the point of destroying one of the few pharmacies and affordable clothing stores dowtown? Especially to protest actions that were in a completely different city and state?

    • When I am told I have privilege because I am white and it is unfair to assume persons of color are going to steal or harm you I have to ask just where does the idea that poor minorities are a threat to local businesses.

      If people can form opinions about expected police behavior based on highly publicized acts of very few officers is it unreasonable for the average person to do the same based on the occasional acts of many in cities across America when they burn pillage and loot stores in their neighborhoods.

  7. “Peaceful” protests occurred here in Des Moines as well. I don’t think anything got burned down or burned up, but some people threw things and broke a few windows.

  8. Every Person Arrested In Saint Paul Last Night Was From Out Of State, Mayor Says

    Minnesota Governor Tim Walz, along with mayors Jacob Frey and Melvin Carter, on Saturday condemned violent protests in the state, blaming organized outside groups for promoting unrest, while also announcing that they will fully mobilize the Minnesota national guard.
    “Lets be very clear, the situation in Minneapolis is no longer in any way about the murder of George Floyd,” Walz said in a press conference. The violent unrest has now turned into attacks on civil society, “instilling fear and disrupting our great city.”
    “I want to be very, very clear: The people that are doing this are not Minneapolis residents,” Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey added. “They are coming in largely from outside of the city, from outside of the region, to prey on everything we have built over the last several decades.”
    According to Saint Paul Mayor Melvin Carter, every person arrested in the city last night was from out of state: “We don’t know these folks,” he reiterated.
    Department of Public Safety Commissioner John Harrington confirmed evidence of white supremacist groups trying to incite violence; Many posted messages online that encouraged people to go loot in Minneapolis and cause mayhem.
    Walz, who also announced that he would fully mobilize the Minnesota national guard for the first time in 164 years, called the unrest “an organized attempt to destabilize civil society with no regard for civil life or property.”
    The dynamic has changed over the last couple days, Walz, Carter and Frey said. Protests gradually shifted from being peaceful on Tuesday, but as more people came from outside of the city, they’ve turned increasingly violent in recent days.
    https://www.forbes.com/sites/sergeiklebnikov/2020/05/30/every-person-arrested-in-saint-paul-last-night-was-from-out-of-state-mayor-says/#20449c9264d7

    • What is meant by confirmed evidence that white supremacists came to incite violence? How can that be if you don’t know who the people are, as is claimed. Does anyone think Antifa could could post messages on these groups message boards or carry with them white supremacist writings in the event they get arrested to obscure themselves and motivations? Anything is possible so jumping to conclusions based on some post on an Internet message board is unreasonably shortsighted.

      • I mean, you have to blame the white supremacists, right? We all know you can’t blame those groups actually pillaging and setting fires. That’s racist. No, things were said. Online. Supremacists.

        I can’t watch this movie anymore! The plot just doesn’t make any sense. What kind of talentless hack wrote this anyway?! If there’s going to be a plot twist, it has to make sense; you can’t just name the least (most?) likely suspect without any underlying logic or motive just because it’s surprising.

        No wait! Now there’s DNA evidence on the molotov used to burn down the Minneapolis police station implicating Mussolini himself! Fascist Super Mario thought that having his body publicly mutilated by the citizenry would obscure his trail enough to pull off this, his most perfect crime, destruction of the Minneapolis commercial district! Solving it was elementary, however.

        He also cooked up Corona in his secret lab. It was a European virus all along! Yes, DNA never lies, and the standard bad guys were always to blame.

        No, I guess the ghost of bin Laden sat this one out. That’s just set-up for the next sequel. You have to at least milk a trilogy out of these things.

  9. 1. As we have seen from the Left from Clarence Thomas on, the seriousness of a charge obviates the need for due process in their eyes. And as we all know, or should, a presumption of innocence does not apply to crimes where women or minorities are the victims.

    2. Don’t get me started.

    3. Today’s media without grandstanding, virtue-signaling, or moral preening is an oxymoron. It’s so 20th century.

    4. Lori Lightfoot is exactly what Chicago deserves. May they get every bit of her, double-strength, straight up.

    5. Roberts’ position seems plausible, although it reads like an obvious attempt to prevent criticism for an ideological decision. I wish I could say I find Kavanaugh’s opinion more persuasive, but honestly, it seems like a coin flip to me. I’ve read several analyses from legal pros I trust, and I have a hard time being critical when it comes to judicial restraint — we see it so rarely. Unfortunately, it seems that we see it most often when it comes to the conservative side of the argument.

    Yes, I know the liberals selectively employ judicial restraint to their benefit, but that’s how life goes. That’s painful, but it’s almost the definition of a conservative judicial philosophy. Sometimes, your principles bite you in the ass, and this looks to me like one of those times.

    Kavanaugh makes a solid argument, but it’s no more logically sound than Roberts’. To me, the most notable criticism of the majority comes down to their selection of precedent, and on that point, I like Roberts’ analysis less than Kavanaugh’s. But that doesn’t mean the majority is wrong.

    It wasn’t a decision on the merits, it was a decision based more significantly on a lack of data and a fully-developed case that’s almost always characteristic of emergency appeals. It’s probably good judicial policy to defer to the government on short-term applications of such edicts, and it wasn’t a clear-cut situation like the outright forbidding of in-person worship. Rather, it was about safe capacity. That’s hard for a judge to gainsay, or should be.

    6. Damned if he does, damned if he doesn’t. If I were him, I’d take the position most likely to antagonize the Left and worry about the rest later. Either that or shut the tweet up about it.

    7. Well, I guess I can forgive her in these times. In the 1980’s, there was no Internet, no Twitter mob, and no list of employers just looking for an excuse to appeal to social media by firing or issuing some other proscription against anyone associated with such a horrible situation.

    If she sticks by him, she’s likely to become an unemployable social pariah. It may look bad kicking him to the curb now, but for her future, it’s probably the right move. If it turns out that there are mitigating circumstances that make him look less like an unconscionable murdering ogre, well, at least he should be happy his wife isn’t tarred by the hate directed at him.

    His life, however, is over — innocent or guilty. Sorry, I don’t make the rules, I just suffer from them like the rest of you.

  10. Just saw some reports that Uncle Hugo’s Science Fiction and Mystery bookstores — who have been operating in Minneapolis since the 1970s were burned down last night. Don’t know for sure, but the owner came to the store in the wee hours and thought that all the streetfront windows had been smashed and accelerant tossed in.

    As a bookseller, it is a special outrage. Yes, burning down a Walgreen’s is equally as heinous, I guess, but a used bookstore has so many irreplaceable books inside. In many ways it’s like the Library of Alexandria.

  11. What is meant by confirmed evidence that white supremacists came to incite violence? How can that be if you don’t know who the people are, as is claimed. Does anyone think Antifa could could post messages on these groups message boards or carry with them white supremacist writings in the event they get arrested to obscure themselves and motivations? Anything is possible so jumping to conclusions based on some post on an Internet message board is unreasonably shortsighted.

    • ”What is meant by confirmed evidence that white supremacists came to incite violence?”

      St. Paul Mayor: Everyone Arrested Last Night In His City From Out Of State.

      When I read about out-of-town-protesters the 1st thing that came to my mind is AntiFa.

      Confirmation bias? Perhaps, but (IMO) the Alt-Right/White Supremacist groups broadcast their intended visits to provide maximum coverage before, during, and after.

      The flaccidly enfeebled, monumentally ‘nadless AntiFa? Not so much.

      The inimitable Isaac posted a rather poignant description this pansy-@$$ed, terminally gutless, white beta male demographic, which resonated enough that I added it to my archives:

      (bolds/caps/italics mine throughout)
      ANTIFA ARE AN EMBARRASSMENT TO STREET GANGS. Unless they outnumber you by at least 100 to 1, they are completely non-threatening. One thing Blacks, Whites, women, men, Muslims, atheists, and Christians all have in common is that there are YouTube videos of them BEATING THE CRAP OUT OF ANTIFA.

      The average Antifa is a pasty, doughy low-testosterone college-aged male who has never done manual labor or been in a fight, but feels confident that maybe he can at least sucker-punch a girl from behind or hit a guy with a bike lock or something, as long as he’s wearing a mask and in a crowd of at least 50 like-minded dorks.

      “Yell ‘boo,’ however, and they all scatter. They generally don’t vote and literally do not know what a ‘fascist’ is or what the word ‘Nazi’ is an abbreviation of.

      Antifa have officially passed the putties from Power Rangers to claim the title of Least Threatening Minions in Ninja Outfits.

  12. In 1969, which is outside living memory for a lot of folks now, the long-standing civil rights issues in Derry, Northern Ireland, came to a head in a series of demonstrations by nationalist Catholics and unionist Protestants, which resulted in violence by both sides against both sides, due to the anger and hate they possessed. The RUC, not yet the highly trained force they would become, initially did not handle it too well. The action quickly took on the character of an outbreak of civil war, with the throwing of Molotov cocktails, the use of CS gas, and ultimately firearm discharge (this was before police in Northern Ireland were armed as a matter of course). In two days it looked like the city would be torn apart, and the rioting only stopped when the Prince of Wales’ Own Regiment of Yorkshire landed and forced the sides apart. Miraculously no lives were lost, although about 350 police officers and about a thousand riot participants were injured. That’s before we even talk about fires and property damage.

    Little did everyone involved know this was the beginning of the 37 year conflict that would be known as the Troubles and see the British Army’s longest deployment in the form of Operation Banner. The first few years were particularly ugly with ongoing low-level conflict and no-go areas for the authorities. Finally after 1972’s Bloody Sunday (which everyone talks about) and Bloody Friday (22 IRA bombings in less than an hour and a half) which no one talks about, the British Army launched Operation Motorman to reclaim the no-go areas. The IRA was not equipped for open warfare like that, and quickly melted into the countryside, there to reorganize into the terrorism cells that would have a hard time doing anything too big or coordinated, but also be hard to root out and destroy, getting money, arms, and whatever else needed from those sympathetic to the cause or just looking to weaken an American ally.

    The rest is history, and it has been relegated to the history books since 1998, when the IRA realized that, although a determined minority can often get their way, this wasn’t one of those times. It wasn’t 1922 anymore, the Cold War was over, outside aid was drying up, and the idea of one insurgency defeating the UK and establishing a united Ireland was a pipe dream.

    In between, though, there were innumerable bombings, arsons, murders, ambushes, assaults, and sundry other criminal acts, including atrocities on both sides. There were also almost four decades of living in fear for ordinary people. These were the folks who didn’t give a toss about old grievances and really didn’t care about what some long-dead idealists said. but who wanted to live ordinary, peaceful lives. They didn’t want to have to duck at every unexpected noise for fear it might be a gunshot. They didn’t want to have to flee if they saw an unattended bag or box for fear it might be a bomb. They didn’t want their blood to run cold if they heard a car pass by slowly in the middle of the night, praying their house wasn’t the one it pulled up to.

    You may say “All well and good, Steven, but why are you retelling this ugly and painful chapter of history? Isn’t it best to let it go?” I don’t think it is. Let history go, and you also let its lessons go, snuff out the light, throw away the map. If you snuff out the light and throw away the map you shouldn’t be surprised if one day you find yourself back in that same ugly, painful place you thought you left behind a long time ago.

    I’ve said at least a half-dozen times that if this country didn’t get its act together and stop the irrational anger and hate on both sides we were going to wind up in our own version of the Troubles, and, despite the romanticized stories that get told now, we were going to find out that sucked.

    I’ve spoken out a few times about how we were headed towards becoming not just two or more Americas, but two or more Americas that couldn’t stand one another, and just barely tolerated one another because we didn’t have much of a choice. Each of us wants things our way and only our way. Each of us wants the others to disappear, because they’re bad people who’ve done us wrong, they just don’t understand us because they can’t, and we’re just waiting for the chance to make it happen.

    Well, the chance has come, and the fight to make those we disagree with is on. Yes, this all started with an unjustified taking of life by a bullying police officer (I don’t call him racist because there is no clear evidence of racial animus like slurs). He will face justice, and by the time the Federal charges that are coming are disposed of I think he will be very unlikely to draw a breath of free air again. However, it quickly became all about all the grievances one part of American society has against another. It started peacefully, but, let’s not kid ourselves, it turned violent in 48 hours if not sooner.

    Because the mayor of Minneapolis is weak, just like the mayor of Baltimore five years ago, and apparently places worrying about his personal feelings above looking to the safety of the people he is sworn to protect and serve, he’s sent the message to “riot and destroy all you want, I won’t do anything about it.” Because he abandoned his obligation to those sworn to protect the city, 170 businesses lie in ashes and one police station is badly damaged if not destroyed. Who suffered? The ordinary folks who owned and worked at those businesses, that’s who. Know who else suffered? The police in other cities where other grievance merchants and professional rage-a-holics decided to try to duplicate that feat…and found out not only that other police departments were not going to fold so easily, but that some, like the NYPD and the San Jose Police, were going to put up a VERY stiff fight. The ordinary folks who got caught in the middle of that fight also suffered. The other emergency services suffer too, as the Atlanta Fire Department find themselves being pelted with rocks and bricks and working with bulletproof vests under their turnout gear. There’s a ton of suffering to come, too, as these neighborhoods become ghost towns and other protests spiral.

    Here’s the thing – we’ve now almost reached our Operation Banner moment. Minnesota is mobilizing their entire National Guard, a first in 164 years. The police in other cities are deploying in huge numbers. Now the active duty army is about to get involved, for the first time in 28 years. It just gets worse after that. And for what? This stopped being about one person’s abuse and death on Wednesday. It stopped being about long-standing grievances the moment the first fires were lit. At that point it became all about who in this society hates who, who is angry at who, and who is willing to destroy that other person, by any means necessary, and justify that destruction by justifying that hate.

    It isn’t right to make everyone else bear the burden of your anger and hate. It isn’t right to bring your anger and hate to your neighbor’s doorstep. It isn’t right to turn your neighborhood, your home town, your state, or your nation into a war zone so you can express your anger and hate. Do that, and this nation is headed for its own version of the Troubles, where everyone is going to cut loose with anger and hate, and those who want no part of it will pay the price.

    • While I’d say that your comment about the RUC “not yet being the highly trained force it would become did not handle things too well initially” might be something of an understatement, the way that the Bundeswehr is a liitle less unprofessional than the SchutzStafeln, this has my vote for best comment this year. It is extraordinary.

      It is an objective, incisive, accurate and clear statement of the history. I wish I could have written an article even half as good, but I have neither your talent nor insight.

    • Steve wrote:

      Here’s the thing – we’ve now almost reached our Operation Banner moment. Minnesota is mobilizing their entire National Guard, a first in 164 years. The police in other cities are deploying in huge numbers. Now the active duty army is about to get involved, for the first time in 28 years. It just gets worse after that. And for what? This stopped being about one person’s abuse and death on Wednesday. It stopped being about long-standing grievances the moment the first fires were lit. At that point it became all about who in this society hates who, who is angry at who, and who is willing to destroy that other person, by any means necessary, and justify that destruction by justifying that hate.

      It isn’t right to make everyone else bear the burden of your anger and hate. It isn’t right to bring your anger and hate to your neighbor’s doorstep. It isn’t right to turn your neighborhood, your home town, your state, or your nation into a war zone so you can express your anger and hate. Do that, and this nation is headed for its own version of the Troubles, where everyone is going to cut loose with anger and hate, and those who want no part of it will pay the price.

      To draw the equivalency between Ireland and the US is misleading. I would say very misleading. In order to *see* clearly what is happening in the US — though I struggle to see just as everyone does — requires a different analytical lens.

      What is going on in the US has a long causal chain. One cannot dismiss, and one must see clearly, the forces and the will that stands behind this particular manifestation and these manifestations. If one does not or cannot identify that, one’s analysis cannot be correct, and one will err.

      To say it is solely about *long-standing grievance* is a partial statement. The truer truth is that over decades factions that desire and work toward a socialist state have been actively undermining the legitimacy of the US as a state and a nation. Their tools are political agitation and propaganda. There has taken place what some describe as a Black-Jewish alliance so that the Black anger and resentment was channeled into undermining, revolutionary praxis. The purpose of agitation is to create conditions of chaos that provoke reaction, then the reaction is attacked as *injustice*. The Black cause has been used in this way for decades, and at this time its *function* appears to be a sort of spearhead so that notable factions within the US can steer the culture toward what appears to be a socialist or semi-socialist state.

      But the Black Rebellion is only one piece of a larger structure of operations. And in order to understand that one has of course to see and name it. It largely became manifest openly in the Sixties. It comes (I have begun to understand this but cannot articulate it very well) as lies and mis-truths that are presented as Universal Truths. Basically, I have come to see the agitprop operative as a liar: they disguise what their intentions really are under the veil of serving the most exalted values.

      They go to work attacking language, and redefining terms, in order to conceal their purposes. One of their primarily terms is of course White Supremacy. Because their actual desire and intention was to undermine the numerical superiority of largely Anglo-Saxon America, and make this into an evil-in-itself, they had to use devious means to vilify Whites and whiteness. I have suggested before, and suggest again, a consideration of the force and power of The Authoritarian Personality by Theodor Adorno. The purpose? To *see* a latent fascist within this largely Anglo-Saxon American culture, and through that to establish a ‘lie’ about it around which a whole range of activism could, and did, accrete. How did this come about, and why? It arose as a reaction to the then-recent events in Europe. A sort of preemptive attack on what Adorno et al most feared. The origins, the beginning, of anti-whiteness is to be found here. If this is not seen, if this is not understood, my suggestion is that the events of today cannot a) be *seen* nor b) understood.

      If one wishes, if one has the will, to understand what is going on today, one will inevitably have to challenge the structures of agitpropthought as it has been installed in all of us. In every category today we can recognize agitpropthought if we have the mental tools to do so. One recognizes it because its intention is always — always! — to attack and to undermine established hierarchies. It attacks and destroys them while asserting that their destruction is necessary and moral and ethical, and that it will build something new and better out of the ruins. But note: it has to create ruins first. It has to destroy first.

      The undermining of the religious structure of the people of the US has been another major thrust of attack.

      The undermining of conventional and long-standing understanding of sexual differences and their hierarchical function is another area.

      The undermining of gender-hierarchies and the vilification on men is, of course, another arena of agitprop activism.

      In order to achieve their goals they have to redefine established and conventional ethics and morality. The *homosexual revolution* and the revolution in sexual mores is, obviously, connected to the general destruction we notice today. The reasons why this *sexual liberation* results in a more general destruction are not complex but they do require explanation. This is why I have referred to E Michael Jones work in this arena, and Libido Dominandi is that source. Seduce a people and they become far more amenable to political control.

      Now, this list can easily go on, and it must go on. But as I have often said: There is no one home to hear! You as pseudo-conservatives, in your various ways, also are involved in masking your intentions. I have pointed out how many of you are not really conservative but are progressives with active assertions connected with what I have outlined above. I have also clearly stated, if I have not been able to demonstrate or to prove, that you-plural are complicit in creating the circumstances and the *outcomes* in which we are now living. What you do, mostly, is complain: a plaintive wailing that cannot have much effect at all.

      And here, in this essay, you demonstrate (to me in any case) that you are essentially a sentimentalist! You do not seem willing to see a larger picture; you do not seem to have an internal structure grounded in *real conservative principles* that you can adhere to; and in crucial areas you serve the general movement of ‘social transformation’.

      At that point it became all about who in this society hates who, who is angry at who, and who is willing to destroy that other person, by any means necessary, and justify that destruction by justifying that hate.

      I must remain, necessarily, within another structure of definition, another way of seeing. The original demographic of America had been slated, as they say, long ago to be modified, neutralized, *neutered* one might say, dumbed-down, made tame & docile. But the central theme is ‘dispossession’. You are now being dispossessed and what you value — what you have built and created — is being torn down right before your eyes. If you understand this *core* fact — and perhaps you don’t or perhaps you do not want to — a great deal will be made far more clear.

      I do grasp who you are directing your admonition in your second paragraph. But it is a vain plea. I think it is fair and realistic to say that the forces that have used agitprop and the *undermining* I refer to so successfully to achieve their goals will not ever relent. Do you understand this? Does Jack and do any of you grasp this?

      Once again I will present a discourse that makes suggestions to you about ‘What is going on and why’. As per usual it will likely fall on not deaf ears but ears that have been modified to mis-hear and dis-hear.

    • Steve wrote:

      Here’s the thing – we’ve now almost reached our Operation Banner moment. Minnesota is mobilizing their entire National Guard, a first in 164 years. The police in other cities are deploying in huge numbers. Now the active duty army is about to get involved, for the first time in 28 years. It just gets worse after that. And for what? This stopped being about one person’s abuse and death on Wednesday. It stopped being about long-standing grievances the moment the first fires were lit. At that point it became all about who in this society hates who, who is angry at who, and who is willing to destroy that other person, by any means necessary, and justify that destruction by justifying that hate.

      It isn’t right to make everyone else bear the burden of your anger and hate. It isn’t right to bring your anger and hate to your neighbor’s doorstep. It isn’t right to turn your neighborhood, your home town, your state, or your nation into a war zone so you can express your anger and hate. Do that, and this nation is headed for its own version of the Troubles, where everyone is going to cut loose with anger and hate, and those who want no part of it will pay the price.

      To draw the equivalency between Ireland and the US is misleading. I would say very misleading. In order to *see* clearly what is happening in the US — though I struggle to see just as everyone does — requires a different analytical lens.

      What is going on in the US has a long causal chain. One cannot dismiss, and one must see clearly, the forces and the will that stands behind this particular manifestation and these manifestations. If one does not or cannot identify that, one’s analysis cannot be correct, and one will err.

      To say it is solely about *long-standing grievance* is a partial statement. The truer truth is that over decades factions that desire and work toward a socialist state have been actively undermining the legitimacy of the US as a state and a nation. Their tools are political agitation and propaganda. There has taken place what some describe as a Black-Jewish alliance so that the Black anger and resentment was channeled into undermining, revolutionary praxis. The purpose of agitation is to create conditions of chaos that provoke reaction, then the reaction is attacked as *injustice*. The Black cause has been used in this way for decades, and at this time its *function* appears to be a sort of spearhead so that notable factions within the US can steer the culture toward what appears to be a socialist or semi-socialist state.

      But the Black Rebellion is only one piece of a larger structure of operations. And in order to understand that one has of course to see and name it. It largely became manifest openly in the Sixties. It comes (I have begun to understand this but cannot articulate it very well) as lies and mis-truths that are presented as Universal Truths. Basically, I have come to see the agitprop operative as a liar: they disguise what their intentions really are under the veil of serving the most exalted values.

      They go to work attacking language, and redefining terms, in order to conceal their purposes. One of their primarily terms is of course White Supremacy. Because their actual desire and intention was to undermine the numerical superiority of largely Anglo-Saxon America, and make this into an evil-in-itself, they had to use devious means to vilify Whites and whiteness. I have suggested before, and suggest again, a consideration of the force and power of The Authoritarian Personality by Theodor Adorno. The purpose? To *see* a latent fascist within this largely Anglo-Saxon American culture, and through that to establish a ‘lie’ about it around which a whole range of activism could, and did, accrete. How did this come about, and why? It arose as a reaction to the then-recent events in Europe. A sort of preemptive attack on what Adorno et al most feared. The origins, the beginning, of anti-whiteness is to be found here. If this is not seen, if this is not understood, my suggestion is that the events of today cannot a) be *seen* nor b) understood.

      If one wishes, if one has the will, to understand what is going on today, one will inevitably have to challenge the structures of agitpropthought as it has been installed in all of us. In every category today we can recognize agitpropthought if we have the mental tools to do so. One recognizes it because its intention is always — always! — to attack and to undermine established hierarchies. It attacks and destroys them while asserting that their destruction is necessary and moral and ethical, and that it will build something new and better out of the ruins. But note: it has to create ruins first. It has to destroy first.

      The undermining of the religious structure of the people of the US has been another major thrust of attack.

      The undermining of conventional and long-standing understanding of sexual differences and their hierarchical function is another area.

      The undermining of gender-hierarchies and the vilification on men is, of course, another arena of agitprop activism.

      In order to achieve their goals they have to redefine established and conventional ethics and morality. The *homosexual revolution* and the revolution in sexual mores is, obviously, connected to the general destruction we notice today. The reasons why this *sexual liberation* results in a more general destruction are not complex but they do require explanation. This is why I have referred to E Michael Jones work in this arena, and Libido Dominandi is that source. Seduce a people and they become far more amenable to political control.

      Now, this list can easily go on, and it must go on. But as I have often said: There is no one home to hear! You as pseudo-conservatives, in your various ways, also are involved in masking your intentions. I have pointed out how many of you are not really conservative but are progressives with active assertions connected with what I have outlined above. I have also clearly stated, if I have not been able to demonstrate or to prove, that you-plural are complicit in creating the circumstances and the *outcomes* in which we are now living. What you do, mostly, is complain: a plaintive wailing that cannot have much effect at all.

      And here, in this essay, you demonstrate (to me in any case) that you are essentially a sentimentalist! You do not seem willing to see a larger picture; you do not seem to have an internal structure grounded in *real conservative principles* that you can adhere to; and in crucial areas you serve the general movement of ‘social transformation’.

      At that point it became all about who in this society hates who, who is angry at who, and who is willing to destroy that other person, by any means necessary, and justify that destruction by justifying that hate.

      I must remain, necessarily, within another structure of definition, another way of seeing. The original demographic of America had been slated, as they say, long ago to be modified, neutralized, *neutered* one might say, dumbed-down, made tame & docile. But the central theme is ‘dispossession’. You are now being dispossessed and what you value — what you have built and created — is being torn down right before your eyes. If you understand this *core* fact — and perhaps you don’t or perhaps you do not want to — a great deal will be made far more clear.

      I do grasp who you are directing your admonition in your second paragraph. But it is a vain plea. I think it is fair and realistic to say that the forces that have used agitprop and the *undermining* I refer to so successfully to achieve their goals will not ever relent. Do you understand this? Does Jack and do any of you grasp this?

      Once again I will present a discourse that makes suggestions to you about ‘What is going on and why’. As per usual it will likely fall on not deaf ears but ears that have been modified to mis-hear and dis-hear.

        • I might say, or one might say, “qui tacet consentire videtur”, which I take to mean “silence gives consent”.

          However, silence is the weakest form of consensus. 🙂

          In our strange and even wacky present we exist and carry on in states of epistemological confusion. I think we have to face the fact of a crisis-level break down in what I call *agreements*. We disagree at fundamental levels. We may, from time to time, try to build agreements but then, not necessarily here but certainly in other places, the constructed agreement falls to pieces in tragi-comic manners.

          One of the reasons that in general I do not get response is because I tend to work in areas that are understood to be ‘forbidden zones’. In our present — I have said this so many times it must get tiresome to hear — we live within intellectual systems of coercion. These render us unfree. Intellectual systems of coercion are installed by ‘occupying forces’. I assert that it is of primary importance to begin to recognize this — that we have been intellectually occupied — and to begin to dismantle and challenge what has done this.

          This idea alone is simply too radical to be considered openly — at least right now. However, with every day that passes it becomes more and more difficult to deceive oneself about the fact and the extent of this ‘occupation’.

          The determining and controlling forces that control many different aspects of the *discourse* in our present are having a very very difficult time of it right now, that much is likely obvious to all. They push out of the conversation and discourse through processes of vilification those whose ideas challenge them a bit too much. You as a subscriber to the Abbeville Institute are aware of a developing challenging and confrontational ‘discourse’. Through that countervailing discourse a people build itself.

          The massive power of Hyper-Liberalism is built, fortunately for those who oppose it, on interconnected systems of lies and distortions. This is why I see *the work* of the present as being spiritual in nature, at its base. It is a recovery process, a process of coming back into oneself.

  13. Welp, the…um…Peaceful Protests hit the 77 Square Miles Surrounded By A Sea Of Reality last night.

    State Street’s Hawk’s Bar-n-Grill is awarded the Gold Medal for virtue-signalling STOOPIDITY on steroids!

    To wit:

    As a state street business we will say this. We have insurance. While we don’t want to have our place damaged…If burning everything to ground brings proper attention to the disgusting injustice in our country…So be it… Our property is replaceable. Black lives aren’t. (bolds/italics mine)

    If I were their insurance carrier, I’d quadruple their rates or cancel them outright.

    C’mon, if THAT isn’t holding yer hands back, meekly hoisting the White Flag, and begging to get pasted, I don’t know what is!

    On the subject of flags:

    Every Normal Man Must Be Tempted, At Times, To Spit Upon His Hands, Hoist The Black Flag, And Begin Slitting Throats.” H. L. Mencken

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Google photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.