atomic_fungus (atomic_fungus) wrote,
atomic_fungus
atomic_fungus

#5798: A very, very important distinction

Ace says it:
The Nazis had a permit; antifa did not. (Say what you will about Nazis, but they're bears for paperwork.)

Antifa raided the permitted Nazi rally space.

Police let them -- and let beatings go on. They gave them Space to Destroy, as they say.
So one group is holding a legal, permitted demonstration. Another group came specifically, and without permit, to disrupt that protest with violence. The police did nothing to stop the violence instigated against participants in a permitted demonstration.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but this is not freedom of speech and this is not equal protection under the law, either.

But guess what? Look at what Karl Denninger found. I'm guessing that the guy in question is a major figure in the white supremecist side of the Charlottesville demonstration, yet prior to Trump's election he was an Occupati, which is a hard-left ideology.

Of course, it is not much of a step from being a leftist to being a Nazi. The idea that fascism is a right-wing ideology descends from the fact that political scientists and sociologists use the "left-right" axis differently than most people do. To political scientists, Gorbachev was "left wing" and the hard liners in the Politburo who wanted to stop Glasnost were "right wing", which is virtually the opposite of how it applies to American politics.

That means that, in America, Nazism is a left-wing ideology, as it's socialism with a veneer of nationalism atop it (hence "national socialism", whence comes "Nazi"). Considering that Obamacare is a fascist revision of our health insurance system, it even makes sense.

Denninger is merely asking, "What if...?" but if he's right this would not exactly represent the first time that leftists used deceit, "false flag" operations, and violence to swing public opinion their way.

It all goes back to one extremely important question: "Why were the cops told to stand down?" Denninger asks that question, and further asks--I'm paraphrasing him here: Who gave that order? Who gave the order to force the original protesters--who were holding a permitted political rally--into the waiting maw of the counter-protesters, who were there illegally and without permit? What political affiliations are held by the people making those decisions and giving those orders?

Those are some important questions, and the answers to those questions figure prominently in assigning blame for this weekend's stupidity.

The Constitution and the law are pretty plain on the issue: everyone has a right to speak his mind. No one has the right to use violence to shut anyone else up. When government takes sides against a viewpoint and allows one group to violate the law and the civil rights of another group, that is a very bad thing.

The First Amendment was not put in place to protect popular speech. Popular speech doesn't need protection. It's not there to protect people who sing happy pop songs, or folks who only say nice things about everyone. It's there to protect the free speech rights of people who say unpopular things, or things which are inconvenient to the government. Freedom of expression lets the anti-Trump-tards call him "Drumpf" and they let the people with Bush Derangement Syndrome call George W Bush "Chimpy McBushitler", the same way they let me call our last President "MC Sleepy" and "Boss Tweek". Freedom of expression lets me say that Illinois is a festering shithole because of the policies of the Democrat machine that's run it for the last million years.

"Freedom of expression" does not permit me to throw rocks at people who disagree with me, the same way it doesn't let them throw rocks at me. If I have a permit to hold a demonstration, and people start physically attacking me because they don't like what I'm saying, it is the responsibility of the police to arrest the people attacking me, because that is assault.

It is not their role to herd my co-protestors and I through a gauntlet of the people who are attacking us.

It is not their role to protect the people attacking us from reasonable defensive measures.

No matter what we're saying, we have the right to say it in public. Other people do not have the right to shout us down, or pummel us with blunt objects to silence us. If government aids and abets those who would silence free speech that is actual literal censorship.

So I do think that there needs to be a significant federal-level investigation of what happened, exactly, in Charlottesville. Unless everyone's fine with tossing out freedom of expression and rule of law.
Subscribe

  • #7762: That's not what you want to see

    I rode the bike back to work after lunch again today--stunning weather--but when I got home, rather than put it away right after getting home I had a…

  • #7761: Not going tonight

    My ankle feels all right, but I don't want to mess it up by taking a half-mile walk. Kind of a shame, because it's a pleasant evening. I rode by…

  • #7760: Well, that's the weekend, I guess.

    I was sitting here doing a little WoW for the first time in several days. It was quiet and nothing much was happening and my eyelids were getting…

  • Post a new comment

    Error

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.
  • 2 comments