Forgive me in advance, it's been a while since I posted, and even longer since I posted a screed. I'm out of practice.
Kurt wrote:Of course. Just as most car owners don't jack up their cars and do burn outs at 11 pm or most motorcyclists do not form lawless gangs and take over a city just so they can speed, drive on the sidewalks and do wheelies most gun owners do not have gun fetishes and suggest that a gun is pretty much the solution to every problem.
As an American I would never say "hey, you gun fetishist! Because you use your gun as a protective totem and flash it about and suggest you look forward to killing people with it, I want to ban guns now" and in fact, most people do not. Just as no one wants to ban cars because some of them are loud or ban motorcyles because some of their riders are twats.
But it seems perfectly natural to label anti fascists and protesters as "Antifa" (assuming antifa is bad in itself) and suggest that they all die.
If we cut a line through the middle of the polity in the US (the actual middle, not where the left assumes the middle is), near the center you have the "moderate" left composed of those people who genuflect at the altar of soccer mom liberalism, who have a naive view of race relations, think they believe in the 2nd Amendment but believe in "common sense" regulations of firearms, but they generally believe in America, consider themselves Americans, and accept the outcome of elections, even if it results in someone they don't like being elected.
From there you get to the Democratic party apparatchiks, who don't really believe in
anything other than accumulating wealth and power for themselves and counting wins and losses. These people (Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden in his more lucid moments) will sometimes speak in the watered down but coded language of Marxism, and they will of course stoke the mob for personal and political gain, but it's just a game for them.
But there's a fairly large (and ascendant) cohort within the Democratic Party leadership itself that didn't just come of age in the 60s, try on some radicalism during their college years to get laid, and sell out to get rich later on. The Keith Ellisons, the Barack Obamas, the Bernie Sanders, the John Brennans, the Eric Holders never gave up their radicalism. They were overt Marxists from early on - many (like Obama) were essentially red diaper babies - and trained as Marxist organizers in the Alinsky school in their early years and carried that training forward. Many of them moderated their language as they moved up the ladder - and filled their organizations with radicals underneath them.
Additionally, the umbrella organizations have continued to evolve and gain effectiveness (and sponsorship) over the years. Retreads like ANSWER have evolved into BLM, Federal funds were moved into ACORN and from there disbursed to other radical groups. Foundations like the Ford Foundation and the Soros charity umbrella further seed money for radicalization.
And at the soldier level, you have Antifa. The brown shirts for the Democratic party. Nakedly Marxist, flying the hammer and sickle flag at their marches, assaulting and intimidating journalists they don't like (like Andy Ngo), attacking conservative speakers at university campuses, physically assaulting the attendees at free speech rallies by the right in Boston, Berkeley, Portland, Seattle, forming splinter militia groups like the John Brown Gun Club and the Redneck Rebellion. And of course, spray painting the Leninist slogan along the way "Liberals get the bullet too".
And then we come to people like Kurt, who give cover to Antifa. I mean, fascists are bad, right? How can Anti-fascist be anything but good, you know, good people?
And if you listen at a surface level, Antifa doesn't sound bad. They are pro-self defense, pro-community, they simply hate Nazis and fascists.
Nazis and fascists you say? There's the rub. Because they define anyone to the right of them as a Nazi and a fascist. Don't believe in gay marriage? You're a fascist. Don't believe in unchecked immigration? Yep, that makes you a fascist. Don't support reparations for black people? Yep, you got it, you're a fascist.
And self-defense? Well, the thing is, self-defense isn't violence, but words are violence. You know, so when that midget Jew Nazi Ben Shapiro tries to give a speech about conservatism, those words are violence. And Antifa attacking the speech, the speechgoers, and Shapiro, that's just self-defense against their violence.
It's doublespeak right out of 1984.
My personal belief here is that Antifa are scum, and they deserve some Catalina helicopter tour rides. My person belief is they are agitating or being goaded into agitating for war. The left thinks they will win this war, because no one on the right is really pushing back.
They are the worst of humanity, of the same ilk as the Jacobins and the Reds during the Soviet revolution or the SS prison guards, and will have no problems liquidating "normies" who don't believe the right thing, or even their fellow revolutionaries who are no longer revolutionary enough. That is the slim silver lining in this is that the left, always, ends up eating their own sooner or later. They can't help themselves.
And then we have - what was in late Roman times - the Bagudae. The lawless criminal underclass kept barely in check with (nominal) policing, bread, and circuses. The barbarians within the gates. People like not unlike Michael Brown, Trayvon Martin, or even George Floyd (who died with enough fentanyl and meth in his system to kill a racehorse). People like the black men that killed another black man - Calvin L. Horton - who was shot and killed outside his pawn shop in Minneapolis by people stealing TVs. That doesn't mean I don't think Floyd's death was murder - I do - but it's interesting that cities are burning over a felon who once threatened to shoot a pregnant black women in the stomach in a home invasion robbery, when there are plenty of more egregious cases of blacks (and whites and others) getting killed by police where moral outrage was more than a little justified.
The Bagudae, of coures, are the people that are going to nominally benefit from "defunding the police". Since there will be nothing but the law of the jungle reigning in their worst excesses. Of course, the law of the jungle is merciless, and the Bagudae end up being victims of it as much as they are the victimizers. Take a look at the homicide rate in Baltimore after the Ferguson related (Michael Brown) riots. Michael Brown was killed in 2014. That year there were 211 homicides in Baltimore. After the riots, the police adopted "smile and wave" policing. in 2015, there were 344 homicides in Baltimore, and ever year since, there's been at least 300 homicides. One city in America, and an additional 100-150 murders year due to more limited policing (not even defunding the police). And it's mostly black men being murdered.
On the other hand, each year, police kill around 200 black men. The vast majority of those are justifiable homicides - not just in the splitting hairs qualified immunity legal sense, but in the "suspect's vehicle was stopped because it matched the description of a vehicle used in a robbery, suspect exited the vehicle with a firearm and began shooting at officers" sense.
In many black urban areas (like in East St. Louis), the death by homicide rate exceeds the violent death rate in active war zones. It's was actually safer in Iraq in 2007 at the height of the surge, with air strikes, tanks, artillery, and insurgents, than being a black male in Detroit or St. Louis.
So yeah, de-policing will save a handful of black deaths at the hands of police, and result in the deaths of thousands of blacks at the hands of other blacks, but...apparently, as a society, we don't give a shit.
I think a lot of people saw what happened in Minneapolis - and were horrified. The police arresting a pawn shop owner who shot a looter. After which his shop was looted and then torched. Police abandoning commercial and residential areas to rioters, letting the rioters run amok, but arresting anyone that looked to defend their lives or their property. And it's been repeated in Portland, Seattle, and elsewhere. BLM leaders bragging to local businesses that the police are on their side and won't come, so you better pay them money. The Seattle government literally letting BLM and Antifa set up a "Autonomous Zone" with no police (where it took all of 2 hours for a warlord to set up operations), but with Antifa militia rolling heavy with ARs and AKs, race based stop-and-frisk policies being set up, and the community "police" beating the shit out of people (and in a couple of cases, shooting them dead - dead black men again), but somehow I don't think they had body cameras, a use of force policy, or a civilian oversight board to review the shootings. But hey, it's ok. And when the adult supervision - aka the city administration - moved to clean it up, they pussied out at the first sign of pushback by the CHAZ/CHOP crew. I mean, it makes sense to a point, since that is the Mayor's constituents, in a nutshell, in Portland, in Seattle, in Democratic fiefdom after Democratic fiefdom.
So a lot of people are looking on this, and realizing - the police aren't here to protect you from the criminals. They are there to protect the criminals from you. They aren't going to protect business from the looters, they are going to protect looters from the business owners. And even as the city council members are voting to defund the police, they are voting themselves funding for personal protection details.
And so when Antifa or BLM threatens to come to our neighborhoods, burn our houses, drag us out of our houses, a lot of us are sitting back and thinking it's not going to go down like you think it will. It's not a gun boner, it's a slow boiling rage over what the left has done and continues to do to this country.
I'd whore myself out just one more time if I knew who to screw to get out of this grind.
by Kurt » Fri Jun 19, 2020 6:44 pm 
