Sunday, August 20, 2017

Leftists, On Charlottesville: Untwisting the Rhetoric

A commenter claims that Leftist "news" should be taken into account. So I do that here.

My discussion here is regarding the Left. The Left has been consistently violent for the past year and a half, attacking and harming peaceful people trying to attend political meetings which is their legal and Constitutional right.

To insist that only one side deserves condemnation at Charlotte is a blatant corruption of human rights. One side was there completely legally - not the Antifa. One side does not hide its identity to prevent prosecution for what it intends to do - not Antifa. One side was attacked while under police protection as they attempted to leave - Not Antifa. One side gets the blame - not Antifa.

The Unite the Whites movement has been roundly condemned by all virtue-signalling pols, CEOs, and whoknows, and needs no further condemnation. In fact, what is needed now is a clear picture of what happened, and who did what to whom. So let's see how the Left addresses Charlottesville.

I will translate and discuss the Leftist commentary:

Here are Slate's "observers":
1. Brandy Daniels: Tries to prevent lawful entry to legal protesters, gets pushed aside and fears for her life

2. Rabbi Rachel Schmelkin: Antifa are reconnoitering up in their parking lot, and " one point the white supremacists came by and antifa chased them off with sticks."

3. Rebekah Menning: Attempted to prevent access by legal protesters to their designated positions. "we were prepared to be beaten to a bloody pulp to show that while the state permitted white nationalists to rally in hate, in the many names of God, we did not. But we didn’t have to because the anarchists and anti-fascists got to them before they could get to us. I’ve never felt more grateful and more ashamed at the same time. The antifa were like angels to me in that moment."

4. Mary Esselman: Felt fear. Not attacked. No violence. She said stuff to them, and they said stuff back. She was scandalized.

5. Rev. Seth Wispelwey: Tried to interfere with the legal demonstrators. "I helped lead a group of clergy who were trained and committed to the same work: to hold space on the frontline of the park where the rally was to be held. And then some of us tried to take the steps to one of the entrances. God is not OK with white supremacy, and God is on the side of all those it tries to dehumanize. We feel a responsibility to visibly, bodily show our solidarity with the oppressed and marginalized.

A phalanx of neo-Nazis shoved right through our human wall with 3-foot-wide wooden shields, screaming and spitting homophobic slurs and obscenities at us. It was then that antifa stepped in to thwart them. They have their tools to achieve their purposes, and they are not ones I will personally use, but let me stress that our purposes were the same: block this violent tide and do not let it take the pedestal.


as for antifa, anything they brought I would only categorize as community defense tools and nothing more. Pretty much everyone I talk to agrees—including most clergy. My strong stance is that the weapon is and was white supremacy, and the white supremacists intentionally brought weapons to instigate violence.

In every case, violence is attributed to the whites, but not observed. (Except when they attempt to define speech as "violence") In cases 1,3,5, it is presumed acceptable to violate the Federal Court Order explicitly allowing the whites access to assemble in that park, as well as acceptable to violate clause 2 and 3 of the First Amendment of the US Constitution. In cases of violence (1,2,3,5), the "violence" observed is by the Left, and initiated by illegal denial of access to assemble under the Federal Court decree and the First Amendment. Actual violence is specifically denied as an issue, because the presumed thoughts of all of the whites is "violence", while the tools of Antifa are "community protection tools".

As for Think Progress, the story is this:
While the same minister as above is organizing illegal activities in a church, the Unite the Right protestors showed up outside, apparently across the street. They surrounded the small cadre of Leftists who were human-chained around the statue, and shouting ensued. Why the Leftists were protecting the statue that they want destroyed is not obvious.
"After the service, the faith-based protesters split into two groups. One subset — up to 80 clergy who had been trained in nonviolent resistance, according to several estimates from participants — would march directly into the heart of the demonstration. The second group — which included McLaren, who had missed this training due to a delayed flight — would attend a rally in a park a block away from the action, whose boundaries would serve as a safe space and emergency medical care center.

“It was made clear to us that if we walk on the street, we could die,” Harper, who joined the second group along with Wispelwey and Smith, said. “And we could definitely be arrested…because there are too many unknown factors here.”

So they went out to bust up a legal Unite the Right demonstration, and told themselves that they might die doing it, or at a minimum be arrested for illegal action. In the name of God.

Suddenly the Left is invoking God for an amazing amount of the justifications for their illegal actions (at a Federal Level) in denying human rights.
”A faction that included professor West, Smith, and Wispelwey formed a line across the entrance of the park and linked arms, blocking white supremacists from entering.

They took their positions knowing there was little guarantee that there would be help if they needed it.

“I think the hope was there would be some police intervention that would have us removed [in the event of violence],” Smith said. “But in terms of being a presence at the park, at the rally, they were not there. There wasn’t a possibility that the police were going to come to our defense if the white supremacists turned on the clergy.”

They wanted “to be removed”, in order to be saved from the confrontation they were causing.

Here’s some violence:

”A group of white supremacists broke through our line with shields,” Wispelwey said. “Some of them were screaming and spitting slurs [as they] physically shoved clergy aside with their shields.”

They illegally interfered with legal Right to Assembly, got shoved out of the way, and there was badtalk, maybe even evilspeak.

Here’s the excitement part:
”Clergy rearranged their positions to try and hold off another wave of white nationalists. But when the “the alt-right instigated their violence” down the street against counter-protesters, a group of Antifa intervened. The clergy took moment as a chance to disperse.

“That’s when Antifa saved our lives,” he said.”

Wow! Dramatic! What happened? Did Antifa stop the Unite the Whites from beating you?

Oh. Nothing happened. The clergy left the premises, intact and unscathed, despite illegally blocking access to the park. They went to console the damaged folks over in the other park.

And then,
”Then tragedy struck. As McLaren, Wispelwey, and others convened at the top of a hill, a car down the street—which authorities say was driven by white supremacist James Alex Fields Jr.—barreled through a group of counter-protesters, wounding 19 and killing Heather D. Heyer.
Within minutes, the faith leaders were called on to respond.”

And that's it. It's over. But never over-over.

The scoff-law clergy is preparing to help other scoff-law clergy in areas which expect Unite the Right demonstrations to be illegally attacked by Antifa armed with “community defense tools”.

Antifa’s “community defense tools” have always included fire bombs, ball bats, pipes, pepper spray and/or mace delivered from behind their victim, isolating individuals and beating them into comas, throwing rocks, bottles and debris, and have recently introduced the flame thrower. They have knifed a number of individuals – attempted murder.

BLM has endorsed cop killing and BLM members have killed cops, torched buildings and cars, etc. They are funded by Soros and the Ford Foundation, amongst others. They do not protest the carnage of black-on-black murders in Detroit, Chicago, Baltimore, etc. So not ALL black lives matter to BLM; they are primarily against white laws enforced on black culture, which is NOT white culture. Oh, and cops; they hate cops of all tints.

Whiteness is now more than just a microaggression. Whiteness now must be eradicated, before blacks are able to be “comfortable in their skins”. Under Obama, blacks have discovered that the Left supports Black Supremacy, and blacks get a pass frequently on egregious behavior purely due to their skin color. So now skin color has been leveraged against whites (and presumably against “white Hispanics” as the Left defines them).

The White Lives Matter movement has been created out of necessity to fight the anti-white racism identity/class war of the Left. The Democrat party has clearly identified itself with anti-whiteness. The DNC funded some or most of the original violence against Trump supporters merely attending rallys. The Democrat mayors and police chiefs both colluded with BAMN (By Any Means Necessary) in NOT protecting citizens from Antifa attacks and violence. This goes for the hierarchy of Charlottesville too. In fact, it appears that all large cities will not allow police to prevent Antifa attacks on citizens and/or opposition demonstrators.

The now-sanctioned Leftist outrage against whites (and Trump who marginalized and humiliated Hillary and her Leftist supporters) guarantees open warfare in the future, likely followed by 4th gen guerrilla disruption of national structures… much more destructive than merely destroying historical statues of Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln etc. (Russian revolution level activity can be anticipated).

The USA is still open and vulnerable to guerrilla attack on many levels. The most interesting question will be this: on which side will the Deep State come down? The Leftist guerrillas? Likely. Probably the destruction will be false-flagged to the Class/Identity: White-Oppressor.

Therefore in the Leftist MSM world it is the defense of whiteness and the fight against anti-white racism that gets the blame, hatred and vitriol, and that will continue until death begets more death in this Illegal Leftist-Communist Class-Identity Civil War against America.


Jess said...

Yes, good summary, similar to what Sargon mentioned here; so you follow him?
But again, I am not sure whether you concede that violence comes from both sides?
Another video from that other side for instance:
With stats showing both sides alongside comparison to islamic terrorism.

Stan said...

No I don't follow Sargon. Only accessed him once; as I recall I didn't connect with him and never went back.

And then there is the case for Right Wing violence being much, much more prevalent than the "myth" of Left Wing violence. Interestingly, most of the violence he shows is black-draped Antifa, spaced with three skin heads on a corner and the well known single haters who are identical in their hate to Antifa, and are fascists in the same sense that Antifa is fascist-communist.

His sources are mostly suspect: NPR, Duke, SPLC, Homeland Security under Obama, and two reports of unknown content from Congressional Research Service and an FBI Report.

Still, it is possible that the number of individual instances of violence are higher coming from Fascists. Fascism is Leftist, not a right wing phenomenon. It is only trivially different from Communism, and the tyrannies are virtually identical in quality, with a large edge for Communism in quantity.

So, given that the Left includes Communists and Fascists, and NOT classical Enlightenment liberals, who are the only valid "preservationists", then the spectrum of violence is tilted almost completely to the Left... irrespective of David Pakman.

Under Obama, any criticism was RAAAAACIST and unconstitutional hate speech: again denial of Rights under the constitution was institutionalized by the IRS, Justice Department, FBI, EPA, etc. The obvious anti-white Racism was condoned and even promoted by Obama, who immediately sided with any black caught up in controversy, especially involving police. That baiting of whites into violence did work on certain individuals, mostly the fascists (actually Leftist).

Now the white-baiting of the Obama years has become policy of the Left in the form of overt white-hating, as Sargon demonstrates. I'm not sure what his principle set might be, but his defense was of whites, the same as Alt-Right, which he decried in an obvious contradiction.

The Alt-Right is ill-defined, except by Leftists; however, it is mostly traditional, Enlightenment liberals who feel driven to a conscientious rebellion by an occupying power which is Leftist/Communist/Fascist/Anti-Constitution/Scoff-law/Anti-white/Anti-America and unrelentingly totalitarian and unable to yield or tolerate dissent.

Stan said...

I should make clear that the political spectrum is NOT fascism at one end and communism at the other. The political spectrum goes from freedom to slavery:

Traditional Liberalism<<..................>>Communist/Fascist/Atheist/Elitist/Tyranny.

Progressivism is the march toward tyranny, away from traditional Liberalism.

Consider that it was traditional liberalism that destroyed slavery; it was Leftist Fascism that fought to keep it, and to keep blacks under their thumb of tyranny.

Jess said...

Wait, why do you put Atheist on the extreme right of your line!? I think I got something completely wrong here... The so-called skeptic community, the anti-SJWs, anti-PC, pro-Free-Speech are mostly Atheists, or at least secularist. I thought that's why you mentioned the absurdity of the religion being brought up against the Alt-Right, as in it's not relevant. I thought your blog being called 'Atheism Analyzed' was from a point of view of Atheism, analyzing these views.

But... it turns out you are the exact opposite?? I used my phone/tablet for blogs and only now looked at the desktop version, where your side posts make it more obvious. Wow, it's... well... good and bad I guess. Looks like we agree on a lot of stuff, at least what you posted over the last few weeks regarding politics. But turns out you despise people like me for being Atheists. Strange!

Stan said...

When I started this blog a decade ago, I naively thought that Atheists would discuss the logic of their philosophy calmly and using the deductive principles of Aristotle and the Empirical principles of Bacon. That did not happen in 99% of the cases, and in the other 1% the discussion culminated in refusal to accept responsibility for obvious documented logic errors in their arguments. In virtually all cases the Atheists promoted the Leftist Progressive NewThink of the day, defending the normalization of disorders and dis-civil behaviors, as well as shaming etc. At one point I was cyber-stalked in an attempt to doxx me (I reported that to the FBI).

Every category or class of humans has its bad actors. And generally there is a dominant sub-class which serves to define the class. For Atheists there are the calm, non-aggressives, making no waves (I was one of those), and there are the internet, aggressive, attack-oriented, closed except to narrative-du-jour. The radicalization of the Left half of the nation was accompanied by moral rejection of all religious principles and the acceptance of the Marxist self-as-moral-arbiter-for-all. That is possible only under Atheism, and the elitism follows that.

There is a contingent of Progressive Christians who follow the idea that whatever they think is also the will of God. Many of these do not believe in divinity, and thus put themselves on a par with Jesus, self-endowing with god-hood for themselves. These are not Christians at all, under the readings of the red print in the New Testament, but are self-endowed moral arbiters and thus are the same as Atheist but dishonestly do not admit to it.

The major Atheist organizations are very Leftist, and the major Leftist organizations are very Atheist.

If one believes that the universe is orderly and can be understood under rational princples applied to objective, replicable observations, and yet will not admit that a) something never comes from nothing; b) Logic does not emerge from chaos, then no rational discussion can happen.

If one asserts that material existence explains itself, then no rational discussion can happen.

If one asserts that X = X + Y, where Y is non-zero, then no rational discussion can happen. This is the case for evolution, BTW, which we can discuss in detail if you wish.

Stan said...

My original conception of Atheism as partially rational was an error, even considering that the Atheist ignorance of logical deductive processes might be corrected. For internet aggressive Atheists, that is not the case.

Here's why. Most Atheists acquire their Atheism between the ages of 12 and 20. These ages are the most vulnerable to rebellion, irrational rejection, and unformed frontal cortex restrictions on logic. (Frontal cortex maturity does not occur until as late as 28 years old). Further, most Atheists had missing, weak, tyrannical or Atheist fathers.

So Atheism is not rationally acquired (I have found no Atheist argument which is grounded, formated Aristotelian deduction, much less one which passes Reductio Ad Absurdum). In fact, most Atheists demand a material, empirical proof for the existence of a non-material, fundamental entity. Ironically, this is posited under quantum theory, where many scientists claim that consciousness must precede all existence, and be present in all existence (Copenhagen Model).

Atheists will not discuss such things without inserting logic errors, which they deny are errors. Atheism is therefore a faith, unprovable, yet necessary to the worldview of the Atheist.

In other words, religiously held despite cogent evidence to the contrary.

Finally: I don't despise Atheists: "some of my best friends are ..." And that is the Truth. I do denounce those who claim to have "evidence and logic" which supports Atheism, yet who can produce nothing of the sort. This type usually devolves to "I don't have to prove Atheism; you have to prove theism" (using material, empirical techniques, of course. There is another type who claims that Atheism is the null proposition, and of course it is not, because of the existence of a rational universe within which logic existed as valid law for the entire existence of that universe.

This is too long, probably just a rant that doesn't address your concerns.