Of course, when a protest turns into violence, arson, rioting and looting, that protest has lost any claim to ethical legitimacy. Let’s (mostly)ignore that Woolly Mammoth in the room, however, to try to assess the George Floyd protests from as positive a perspective as possible.
Here’s the checklist:
1. Is this protest just and necessary?
Outside of the locale where the incident took place, the protests were neither just nor necessary. They were only necessary in Minneapolis if there was a real chance that the police involved would not be held accountable. There was no reason to assume that in the brief time before the mobs gathered and the chants began.
2. Is the primary motive for the protest unclear, personal, selfish, too broad, or narrow?
As in most such cases, the primary motive was and is incoherent. “Expressing outrage” is by definition too broad to be productive. “Justice” does not mean what the protesters seem to think it does.
3. Is the means of protest appropriate to the objective?
No, if the objectives are a fair trial and due process under the criminal justice system, which it should be. If anything, the protests undermine those objectives.
4. Is there a significant chance that it will achieve an ethical objective or contribute to doing so?
See Question #13 coming up. But no, I don’t see any ethical objective being accomplished. (Obviously the riots and property damage furthered no ethical objectives.) What would it be? Blowing off steam? Giving demagogues a chance to vent? Find new ways to demonize the President?
5. What will this protest cost, and who will have to pay the bill?
In money? Lots. The taxpayers will foot the bill, as usual. In damage to the country, community, race relations and civic discourse? The costs are incalculable, and unjustifiable.
6. Will the individuals or organizations that are the targets of the protest also be the ones who will most powerfully feel its effects?
Absolutely not.
7. Will innocent people be adversely affected by this action? (If so, how many?)
All good, well-trained, law abiding police officers are adversely affected, as are white Americans who are, once again, being accused of racism. And, of course, I am ignoring the looting and burning.
8. Is there a significant possibility that anyone will be hurt or harmed? (if so, how seriously? How many people?)
Well, we’ve seen the answer to that one pretty clearly, haven’t we? Riots and looting were an obvious potential result of the protests, given the recent examples of Ferguson and Baltimore.
9. Are the protesters prepared to take full responsibility for the consequences of the protest?
No.
10. Would an objective person feel that the protest is fair, reasonable, and proportional to its goal?
No.
11. What is the likelihood that the protest will be remembered as important, coherent, useful, effective and influential?
Well, let’s look at similar protests triggered by single events, like the Rodney King episode. What good did it accomplish, other than assisting O.J. Simpson’s acquittal?
12. Could the same resources, energy and time be more productively used toward achieving the same goals, or better ones?
How could they not?
Now here is the 13th Question, specific to this protest. The catch phrase we are hearing is that the George Floyd tragedy shows, once again, the need for “systemic reform regarding race in America.” As with the similarly vague calls for “sensible gun reform” and “comprehensive immigration reform.” this phrase is virtually meaningless, and is, I believe intended to be.
The 13th question is,
What is the “systemic reform regarding race in America” that the George Floyd protests purport to be seeking?
Ethics Alarms 
The riots have nothing to do with the protests. The riots claimed the protests as an excuse to eat civilization.
Virtually every major city and public school system is run by progressive politicians who court the black vote through their rhetoric and social programs. BEYOND WHAT SYSTEMIC REFORMS ARE DEMANDED where exactly does systemic racism occur and if it is prevalent in major cities why do the majority minority citizens continue to vote in a manner that perpetuates such systemic racism?
Unfortunately, the other side would have a facile response for each:
1. Is this protest just and necessary?
Outside of the locale where the incident took place, the protests were neither just nor necessary. They were only necessary in Minneapolis if there was a real chance that the police involved would not be held accountable. There was no reason to assume that in the brief time before the mobs gathered and the chants began.
This is bigger than just one black man being killed by one white cop in one city. This is about a whole lot of black and brown brothers and sisters getting oppressed, beaten and killed by the whites all over this nation, just like since 1619.
2. Is the primary motive for the protest unclear, personal, selfish, too broad, or narrow?
As in most such cases, the primary motive was and is incoherent. “Expressing outrage” is by definition too broad to be productive. “Justice” does not mean what the protesters seem to think it does.
See the answer to #1 above.
3. Is the means of protest appropriate to the objective?
No, if the objectives are a fair trial and due process under the criminal justice system, which it should be. If anything, the protests undermine those objectives.
We tried the polite way, and y’all nodded along, maybe said yes, and then you ignored us. Now you can’t ignore us, and this is just the beginning.
4. Is there a significant chance that it will achieve an ethical objective or contribute to doing so?
See Question #13 coming up. But no, I don’t see any ethical objective being accomplished. (Obviously the riots and property damage furthered no ethical objectives.) What would it be? Blowing off steam? Giving demagogues a chance to vent? Find new ways to demonize the President?
This is just the beginning. Every officer beaten, every white boy who gets thumped, every police station or white business burned is payback for 400 years of slavery. And in November, you all going to be cryin’ when Trump gets sent running home to Florida, where he can never show his face again.
5. What will this protest cost, and who will have to pay the bill?
In money? Lots. The taxpayers will foot the bill, as usual. In damage to the country, community, race relations and civic discourse? The costs are incalculable, and unjustifiable.
Too bad, that’s what you get when you oppress.
6. Will the individuals or organizations that are the targets of the protest also be the ones who will most powerfully feel its effects?
Absolutely not.
We’ve already felt the effects. Now it’s your turn, white boy.
7. Will innocent people be adversely affected by this action? (If so, how many?)
All good, well-trained, law abiding police officers are adversely affected, as are white Americans who are, once again, being accused of racism. And, of course, I am ignoring the looting and burning.
You white people are all racist, some of you just hide it better.
8. Is there a significant possibility that anyone will be hurt or harmed? (if so, how seriously? How many people?)
Well, we’ve seen the answer to that one pretty clearly, haven’t we? Riots and looting were an obvious potential result of the protests, given the recent examples of Ferguson and Baltimore.
You get in the way of progress, you get hurt.
9. Are the protesters prepared to take full responsibility for the consequences of the protest?
No.
We ain’t takin’ shit. This is on you.
10. Would an objective person feel that the protest is fair, reasonable, and proportional to its goal?
No.
If a reasonable person don’t see it, they ain’t reasonable.
11. What is the likelihood that the protest will be remembered as important, coherent, useful, effective and influential?
Well, let’s look at similar protests triggered by single events, like the Rodney King episode. What good did it accomplish, other than assisting O.J. Simpson’s acquittal?
It’s going to get rid of Trump, and that’s just where it begins.
12. Could the same resources, energy and time be more productively used toward achieving the same goals, or better ones?
How could they not?
We tried those other goals. They didn’t get us anything.
Now here is the 13th Question, specific to this protest. The catch phrase we are hearing is that the George Floyd tragedy shows, once again, the need for “systemic reform regarding race in America.” As with the similarly vague calls for “sensible gun reform” and “comprehensive immigration reform.” this phrase is virtually meaningless, and is, I believe intended to be.
The 13th question is,
What is the “systemic reform regarding race in America” that the George Floyd protests purport to be seeking?
When I can go birding and not have the police called on me like Christian Cooper, when I can go jogging
and not be shot by a crazy white vigilante like Amaud Arbery, when I can relax in the comfort of my own home unlike Bothem Jean and Atatiana Jefferson, when I can ask for help after being in a car crash like Jonathan Ferrell and Renisha McBride, when I can have a cellphone like Stephon Clark, when I can leave a party to get to safety like Jordan Edwards, when I can play loud music like Jordan Davis, when I can sell CDs like Alton Sterling, when I can sleep like Aiyana Jones and not be killed, when I can walk from the corner store like Mike Brown, when my kids can play cops and robbers like Tamir Rice, when
I can go to church like the Charleston 9 and not worry that some white hater is going to murder me, when
I can walk home with Skittles like Trayvon Martin and not be killed by some idiot with a gun, when I can hold a hair brush while leaving my own bachelor party like Sean Bell, when I can party on New Years like Oscar Grant, when I can get a normal traffic ticket like Sandra Bland, when I can lawfully carry a weapon like Philando Castile, when I can break down on a public road with car problems like Corey Jones, when
I can shop at Walmart like John Crawford, when I can have a disabled vehicle like Terrence Crutcher, when I can read a book in my own car like Keith Scott, when my kid can walk with his grandfather like Clifford Glover, when I can decorate for a party like Claude Reese, when I can ask a cop a question like
Randy Evans, when I can cash a check in peace like Yvonne Smallwood, when I can take out my wallet like Amadou Diallo, when I can run like Walter Scott, when I can breathe like Eric Garner, when I can live like Freddie Gray, when I CAN BE ARRESTED WITHOUT THE FEAR OF BEING MURDERED like George Floyd, then we’ll have a start.
When judges cut me the same breaks they cut a white man, when I don’t get followed around a store, whether I’m shopping for groceries or jewelry, when I don’t get told the house is sold or the apartment is rented or the position is filled when it isn’t, when I can get the same loan as a white man, when I can gather with my people and be left in peace, when I can do well and not be called a credit to my people, when my son has the same shot at the fancy-pants school as the son of the man whose family goes back to the pilgrims, when I start seeing more of folks who look like me on the big screen, the small screen, and the billboards, when the truth starts getting taught from kindergarten on, when my daughter doesn’t have to fold a paper boat for Columbus Day or cut out a tricorn hat for Washington’s birthday, when Columbus and Jefferson and Jackson and Lee are replaced by Nat Turner and Medgar Evers and Martin Luther King and Barack Obama, when I don’t have to see some ignorant fool with a Confederate flag on his belt buckle or his bumper, when Juneteenth gets the same recognition as St. Patrick’s Day and Cinco de Mayo and Independence Day (I don’t add Columbus Day because that’s coming off the calendar soon), when I can refuse to acknowledge your flag and your song and not be vilified for it, when every white person acknowledges that this nation has been built on my back and the backs of my ancestors, and when we can hold a new constitutional convention, with all the races represented, and start all over with a Constitution that isn’t influenced by slavery, that doesn’t dilute the power of the many to empower the few, (that means one person, one vote), that doesn’t permit the state to take life, that cuts the policing power of the state waaaay back, and that makes sure my people aren’t shut out of our fair share of the national wealth, then, and only then, will we have that systemic reform. Any questions?
Yikes, and here I thought systemic reform was that police stop and solve crimes in minority neighborhoods without the assistance of the community, without arresting anyone and without shooting someone with a weapon.
But, of course, the whole last section begs the question. Reforms are about measures that realistically achieve a goal, not the goal itself.
And that was the day, June 1, 2020 at 2:56 pm, an irish Catholic attorney from New Jersey with a preternaturally eidetic, hyperthymesiac racial memory not his own, set down in the great blog, Ethics Alarms, a list of the public perceptions of modern racial oppression – whether real or evidenced by hearsay and anecdote via popular media – of black (and some brown) persons, which evidence-by-naming proves complicity and guilt on the part of all non-black (or brown), aka “white” people who are thus fully liable for any and all behavior or damage anywhere in the United States incurred by any persons “of color,” now and forever.
It’s on you, Steve. (We’ve got your back, though.)
The minor system they wish to overturn is justice in favor of social justice.
The major system they wish to overturn is the US Constitution.
My daughter recently related a story to me about her former college roommate, who is a very nice black young woman, who tells the story of being afraid of being killed by the police when she had been pulled over for committing a traffic infraction. I’m sorry, the only reasonable reaction I have to the story is how stupidly biased and indoctrinated is the former roommate? I’ve conversed with this black woman many times and she seems quite intelligent. For her reaction to be fear of being killed by the police and being stopped for turning left against the traffic light strikes me as trained hysteria. Who in their right mind would think such a thing without being trained to think it by leftist professors and propagandists?
You can blame the university professors in the liberal arts as well as craven administrators who feel compelled to set up ethnic studies programs that keep the ball rolling. Revisionist history will always carry the day with naive college students who have to take these shitty classes.
This begs another question.
How will the anti-gun cult sell “common sense”, “sensible” gun legislation, now that there is this narrative of the cops going around hunting down and killing black people?
I read this piece today from Pres. Obama published on medium.com. It is also shared to his website. Here is the medium.com piece.
View at Medium.com
The piece is called “How to Make this Moment the Turning Point for Real Change” and includes a photo of a painting of a smiling George Floyd, set before names of people who died in confrontations with police. At the bottom of the picture, there is a little girl, clearly barely old enough to know her ABCs let alone read and write, holding a sign that states “Please don’t kill me daddy.” Powerful, no? The photo struck me as inflammatory and incendiary. Using a very young child as a political prop is completely unacceptable but it is telling that the photo, and the article, are linked to his website.
In his piece, Pres. Obama made these statements:
“As millions of people across the country take to the streets and raise their voices in response to the killing of George Floyd and the ongoing problem of unequal justice, many people have reached out asking how we can sustain momentum to bring about real change.”
and
“First, the waves of protests across the country represent a genuine and legitimate frustration over a decades-long failure to reform police practices and the broader criminal justice system in the United States.”
Wasn’t he President for 8 years? Why didn’t he tackle these issues? He had a real opportunity to do something about these problems but wholly failed to do anything about them. Why is that? Is it because he didn’t have a Congress willing to take a look at the problems? Maybe. Perhaps Sen. McConnell didn’t want him to have a second term so McConnell stonewalled him.
That piece, along with the photo are included on his website:
View at Medium.com
I guess he approves of the message that police intentionally target black fathers and kill them. If that is the message from the first African American president, what hope do we have?
jvb
JVB, this is what a country gets when it elects a “community organizer” as president, twice: Nothing other than Authentic Frontier Gibberish.
What a pompous, self-important, ineffectual ass he is. I think Colin Kaepernick may be brighter than Mr. Obama.
The little girl with the sign — Please don’t kill *my* daddy. A small typo there with a big difference in meaning. This reminded me that while I don’t know about other cities, in Chicago over Memorial Weekend, several dozens of people were shot, at least 10 killed. One of those injured in the many shootings, a 5-year-old girl who might have looked something like the little girl with the sign, in a neighborhood where “Don’t shoot me, Daddy” might actually have been appropriate.
Of course, the Chicago story got overwhelmed by the news out of Minneapolis because Black lives matter, except when they don’t.
Barack Obama straight up communist and traitor..,has been, is, and will ever be. Patriot my effing ass.
Well, the “pandemic” hysterical lockdowns don’t seem to be getting people eager to dump Trump, so maybe riots will and curfews will? What “get Trump out of officeplan number on we on now? Arizona is evidently now under a curfew order from 8pm to 5am. I can’t believe it. A state wide curfew? 6,731,484 people in 113,990.4 square miles. I’m so pissed, I’m about ready to vote against our current Republican former business man governor who’s issued this preposterous edict. A state wide curfew? Are you kidding me?
Thank you. This is on the money.
https://www.city-journal.org/html/what%E2%80%99s-holding-blacks-back-12025.html?fbclid=IwAR2JZz9VqRLRZu1co-Oui9la2x1ovA7MhX-KpBQ4OsPGTVOQS9Qdso3fUPQ
Great piece. Thanks joed.
“4. Is there a significant chance that it will achieve an ethical objective or contribute to doing so?”
If it helps re-elect Trump, will that count? I don’t see this hurting him overall, but rather likely to turn undecided middle class & blue collar citizens away from the side that enabled and rationalized this nonsense.
I agree, Wim. As have the “impeachment” and the Covid “blood on his hands” scam, I’m pretty sure these riots are going to push more voters into the Trump camp and I think it will get even more ugly early in this November.
When Trump wins re-election. At which point you’d think all these hysterics would dissipate, but I thought they would in early 2017 and boy was I wrong.
On a related note.
Forgive the rant, but I’ve seen too many idiotic posts from people acting like last night’s speech was some kind of horrible statement of tyranny:
I applaud the president. This speech should have been made on Friday, but at last it’s been made. Enough is enough is enough, and these riots are too much. Frankly he should have seriously gone after antifa two years ago. Putting it bluntly, they are domestic terrorists. What’s more, they are millennial terrorists. No, that has nothing to do with scruffy 27-year-old guys with man-buns and facial hair who do not a damn thing but hang around Starbucks. A millennial terrorist (i.e. Shining Path, al Quaeda, ISIS) is a terrorist for whom violence is an end in itself, as opposed to a political terrorist (the IRA, PLO) for whom violence is a means to a political end.
The Constitution protects the right to assemble peaceably and petition the government for a redress of grievances (although that was supposed to be curtailed during this pandemic, but I digress). It does not protect the right to destroy property or assault others, and that goes double if the ones you assault are those whose duty it is to protect and aid society. I don’t understand what kind of sense of entitlement underlies the belief that, if you feel strongly enough, somehow it’s all right to do that. I don’t know what kind of twisted belief system says there is any kind of value in burning stores, destroying museums, and vandalizing churches and monuments. Is the ultimate goal to destroy cities and towns so you can rule ashes? If it is, feel free to burn down your own home or business, but it is wrong and downright evil to do that to others.
I’m three paragraphs in now, and the one name that hasn’t come up yet is George Floyd. This stopped being about him before 48 hours were up. I don’t think in the first 24 hours there was one person in this nation, from the president down to the lowliest laborer, who would have said they were not on his side or against the officers who mistreated him to the point where he died from his injuries. I can also tell you, as a conservative who is usually very pro-law enforcement, that there appears to be a major internal problem in the Minneapolis PD, because the shooting of Philando Castile already brought down one mayor and one police chief, but that hasn’t changed things. A police department in which an officer is allowed to deliberately inflict suffering on a non-violent subject who is already in restraints and his fellow officers back him has a sick culture. Deliberately torturing someone who is helpless is the act of a sociopathic bully. Only a sick culture tolerates that. The only culture I can think of that’s worse is the Mesa PD, where a sergeant screamed abusive commands at and threatened an unarmed 26-year-old man who was sobbing and begging for his life, before another officer shot him five times with an AR-15.
But it stopped being about all that as soon as the first window was smashed. It stopped being about that as soon as the first fire was started. It stopped being about that as soon as it spread beyond Minneapolis. Demanding justice was fine. Demanding that the MPD make changes because this is now two strikes was fine. Demanding that this particular officer face the strongest possible consequences was fine – although he still, like all Americans, has the right to due process. Smashing windows, setting fires, stealing…not fine. Attacking the police, assaulting others, no way. Life has to move forward, even if you are angry and think you have a cause, and it isn’t fair that you destroy the ability of others to move forward with their lives for your cause.
Peaceful protests? Maybe in some places. I’m not too thrilled about the police joining marches themselves when on duty, but, if it’s a way to keep the peace, ok. Assaults on Brooklyn precincts, vandalism of churches, tagging the Lincoln Memorial, trying to topple statues in Philadelphia etc. are not peaceful protests. Assaulting the White House? Are you kidding me? The last time anyone did that was the War of 1812, when the British sacked DC for the American burning of York. This isn’t then, and we are not at war with our own people. This is before we even talk about flag burning or attempts to throw Molotov cocktails into police cars. If you’re planning to peacefully protest you don’t tote along fireworks or gasoline or hammers or other weapons. If you bring things like that along you have destruction on your mind. If you are looking to peacefully protest you don’t attack police stations, breach buildings, or set courthouses on fire. And one thing you don’t do is assault the home and office of the president. I don’t think they even did that at the height of Vietnam.
Apparently some mayors and governors either couldn’t believe what was happening or didn’t want to deal with it in the manner needed. Finally it hit them, and now more National Guard troops have been activated than we activated probably at the height of the War on Terror. They had to deploy a whole brigade, 4000 guardsmen, to finally end this nonsense in Minneapolis. If they had deployed them sooner maybe some of this destruction would have been averted. It shouldn’t have come to this. So much destruction on such a wide basis is one step short of a full insurrection, and should have been the signal to take decisive action. Instead, they had to be prompted by the president, who’s now laid it out in clear terms: they need to restore order with the resources they have NOW, or he will do it for them with the military. I don’t like it. This is going to be messy, it’s going to be ugly, and it could be bloody. However, it is legal under the Insurrection act and it is necessary. This country isn’t going to become Bleeding Kansas and the cities are not going to become Belfast or Derry 1978. And for what? This moved beyond getting justice for one victim of police brutality. This moved beyond the list of grievances that gets pulled out every time something like this happens. This is now about trying to bring down the current president, maybe even bring down the system completely, and, despite the attempts by Walz and Frey to dissemble and blame this on white supremacists, antfa is at the bottom of it
The president should have gone after antifa decisively after Charlottesville. They call themselves anti-fascists, but the fact of the matter is that they are anarchist thugs who do violence for its own sake. As moral people they are no better than the cowards dragged off the Achille Lauro by Italian carabinieri, or the bastards the SAS shot dead at Loughall, or the cutthroats the Peruvian special forces killed at the Japanese Embassy, or the terrorist mastermind who was finally shot square in the face by SEAL team 6. As operatives they are decidedly less, deadly in throwing gasoline bombs, but incapable of standing up in a real fight. This isn’t going to be a replay of half a century ago. The forces of law and order have learned more than a thing or two. This nation has the right to be free from insurrection and lawlessness, and we’re going to make it so.
Don’t try to defend the indefensible. Like the last Republican president said, if you are not with law and order, you are with the bad guys.
Nicely done, Steve.
You put words to the ideas bouncing around my head.
I have absolutely no use for those declaring that antifa is some kind of lose affiliation of idealists seeking structural change by using the political process (and nothing else). I graduated from Kent State University in 1985. I knew these people. These are not peaceable people. They use violence for its own sake. Antifa is anarchist, Marxist/communist, and violent to the core.
From my white privileged vantage point, there are probably four categories of people working:
1. Protestors and Demonstrators. These are people with legitimate grievances demonstrating against police brutality. They tend to older and mostly peaceful. They use civil rights movement tactics to change the system.
2. The Curious and the Watchers. These are mostly young people, watching and videoing what is going on. Generally, they cause trouble and are most likely sympathetic with the demonstrators. As you point out, the vast majority of those who watched the video of police officers kneeling on George Floyd concluded that what happened to him was criminal and completely unjustified. They want the bad cops out of the department as much as the demonstrators.
3. Rioters and Destructors. These are the militant Black Lives Matter members, hooligans, antifa, anarchists and criminals. They are not interested in changing police policy. They want to tear things down, they destroy property simply to destroy property. You identify them as Millennial Terrorists, which is excellent. While I don’t doubt right-wing fanatics are involved in the melee rampaging across the country, the majority of the violence, destruction, arson, and terror is caused by these antifa idiots.
4. Looters and Thieves. These are opportunists and criminals, taking advantage of the chaos to steal stuff. They are not interested in anything other than what will fit in the hands or on their backs and can be carried out the door.
Turning back to No. 3, an attorney (who I used to think was a reasonable human being but I am now convinced has gone completely nuts), posted this antifa manifesto with approval on his Facebook page:
“TO: ALL MEDIA
“PUBLIC STATEMENT FROM ‘ANTIFA’ IN RESPONSE TO THE THREATS ISSUED BY UNITED STATES PRESIDENT DONALD J. TRUMP
“Dear Mr. Trump:
“Let us be perfectly clear:
“’Antifa’ isn’t an organization. There’s no membership, no meetings, no dues, no rules, no leaders, no structure. It is, literally, an idea and nothing more. Even the claim of this author to represent “Antifa” is one made unilaterally for the purposes of this communication and nothing more; there is no governing body nor trademark owner to dispute the author’s right to represent ‘AntiFa.’
“’Antifa’ is a neologism constructed from a contraction of the phrase ‘anti-fascist.’ The truth is, there’s no such thing as being ‘anti-Fascist.’ Either you are a decent human being with a conscience, or you are a fascist.
“The ostensible president of the United States has, today, openly declared that he is a fascist, and that he intends to turn the military power of the United States into a fascist tool.
“Now there is no question, and we can stop pretending that this man represents anything but the worst in humanity, which his supporters embody.
“And that is the only effect his words will have.
“It will likely be no problem for LEO to identify the author of this document, who also has maintained the ‘AntiFa’ page on Facebook since founding it in 2017.
“The author of this document is unconcerned with that inevitability because neither that author, nor this document, has been involved in a crime of any sort in any way.
“But, since both the ‘president’ and the media insist on acting as though ‘AntiFa’ is this big, scary organization, the author supposes it’s time for ‘AntiFa’ to make a statement.
“Thus:
“’AntiFa supports and defends the right of all people to live free from oppressive abuse of power, whether that power is unjustly derived from wealth, status as an employer, or political popularity.
“Particularly, AntiFa defends and supports the right of oppressed and marginalized people to protest, march, and engage in civil disobedience in pursuit of justice. While it is never our intent to engage in violent or destructive behavior, we cannot and will not take responsibility for telling people how they are allowed to be righteously outraged. We prefer and encourage non-violent action. We also understand that some people just aren’t feeling that nice anymore. Their feelings are entirely justified, and it is neither our role nor our privilege to tell them otherwise.
“Mass civil disobedience is what happens when people say they’re hurting and whoever’s hurting them refuses to stop.
“Stop hurting them. Fix your broken systems. Get real and meaningful psychological evaluations and background checks – police in some nations have to pass a more stringent test to carry pepper spray than any police department in the US, or the US military, have in place. As a direct and possibly deliberate consequence, our military and paramilitary personnel simply cannot be assumed to be fighting in the interests of the people of this country.
“We’ve all seen the photos. This destruction and burning and looting is largely the behavior of outsiders; white people taking advantage of the situation both to enrich themselves by looting under cover of the protests, and to provide excuses for uncontrolled fascist elements within our military and police forces as plausible cover for killing more black, brown, and poor people without fear of sanction. The so-called ‘accellerationists’ who have committed to ensuring that, any time a marginalized community stands up and demands justice, construct a narrative of criminality and destruction that white bigots and affluent oligarchs who benefit from our broken system to validate their bigotry and injustice retroactively. They are successful in this for two reasons: because people like you are easily manipulated in your banal, self-serving ignorance, and because people like you are more than happy to passive-aggressively reap the benefits of pretending to believe this destruction is the act of the oppressed.
“This game has gone on for decades on an endless loop since the very dawn of the civil rights era, and we the people are saying ‘no more.’
“And that, ‘President’ Trump, is your solution. No more. Get the dirt out of your law enforcement and your military. Get the dirt out of your government and administration. Ideally, resign now and take your VP and cabinet with you; Nancy Pelosi isn’t a great deal of improvement, but she’ll only be president for a few months.
“You can’t arrest 100 million of us, sir, and you would be well-advised not to try. If you think that targeting and “making an example of” the author of this document will get you anywhere, you may rest assured that this author is more than prepared to allow his real name to be used as a rallying cry for justice and civil disobedience from coast to coast.
“It is time for you and everyone who thinks like you to understand that whether black, red, brown, white, or any other color, Americans are done living in a nation of empty platitudes and broken promises.
“Traditionally, this type of document is accompanied by a list of ‘demands.’ Here are our demands:
-Universal single payer health care, without regard for citizenship status.
-Universal basic income WITH a federal job guarantee, under which the federal government becomes the ’employer of last resort.’ Involuntary unemployment is a function of profiteering by fascist capitalist oligarchs who are willing to sacrifice the lives of others for their own enrichment. It must end.
-The abolition of ‘right to work laws’ which do exactly the opposite of ensuring anyone’s right to work.
-Publicly funded higher education.
-Robust and effective social welfare programs to include child care, education, employment training and counseling, parenting skills training, and life skills training including fiscal education.
-A requirement that functional proficiency in media, political, and economic literacy be demonstrated to graduate high school.
-The creation of a publicly funded non-partisan media source to serve as the primary source of government information, to be overseen and managed day to day by a coalition of well-known communicators, political scientists, and other experts in propaganda to strip ALL bias from official information before it is broadcast.
-Federal charges of treason filed against anyone willfully and knowingly attempting to minimize public perception of the impact and risks of the coronavirus.
-Reform of whistleblower laws to ensure they have teeth, and particularly to ensure that a whistleblower, acting in good faith, is not identified to the public, ever.
“In the end, Mr. ‘President,’ the simple reality is that ‘AntiFa’ isn’t a thing. You can’t end it, you can’t arrest it, and you can’t silence it. Nor, in any decent nation, would the attempt even be made.
“’Antifa’ means ‘Anti-Fascism.’ The only position that opposes that is fascism. In the end, there is no ‘organization’ that you can ‘declare terrorists.’
“You, sir, and yours, are the terrorists, and your victims are done putting up with it.
“America is not, in spite of having an openly admitted fascist as ‘president,’ a fascist nation. We’ve had wars about this. The fascists are 0-2.
“Please, Mr. ‘President’ – let’s not try to make it 0-3? Because it will never, ever be 1-2, and none of us wants to see the death toll from your attempt to make it so.
“Currently, media and other actors wishing to contact this author may do so through the page. Should Mr. Zuckerberg, who has displayed plenty of authoritarian and fascist tendencies himself, decide not to host that page any longer, this document will be updated.
“Best Regards,
“’AntiFa’”
Nice, “Atifa doesn’t exist….but here’s a rather detailed message from them, …oh, and check out their Facebook page!”
Ironic, no? Idiots the whole lot of them. I am surprised by my colleague. He is a lawyer, who should be able to reason around this stupid post. But, he posted with not only approval, but by adopting the statement as if it were his own.
jvb
I’d count the rationalizations and unethical statements but anyone who can’t see that this is just one big justification for chaos is beyond explaining it to.
George Carlin once said that someone, somewhere, is the worst doctor in the World, practicing medicine. I suppose this applies equally to lawyers.
What an absolutely nauseating, steaming pile of excrement, especially when he gets to the “demands”. Seriously; does this bunch of sniveling, pampered, undisciplined ankle-biters think they truly understand how to employ violence, and that they have even an outside chance of successfully engaging the hitherto-silent majority, a great many of whom are well-armed, disciplined, and trained & experienced in actual MOUT warfare? Absolutely laughable, like when my 8-year-old daughter gives me the Death Stare when I tell her to do her homework.
Yes, I think Steve was correct in calling them “Millennial Terrorists”. They are entitled little brats who think throwing tantrums will get them what they want. What are they going to do when Farmer Dave meets them at the doorstep with his best friend, Remington 308 in tow? Things will get interesting.
jvb
Source: Statista