Thursday, February 2, 2017

In Political Results Black Hoods = White Hoods

The Black Bloc "anarchists" hijacking peaceful protests are doing for Donald Trump what Donald Trump's anti-Muslim executive orders do for ISIS. 

Black hoods are the new white hoods.  They should be driven out of any demonstration, they should be suspected as being fascist agent provocateurs,  perhaps sent by the Comey FBI as the Hoover FBI used to do. 

Update:  Oh, for crying out loud.  James Comey illegally inserted himself and the FBI into the presidential campaign on behalf of Trump and his Republican-fascist party DO YOU THINK HE'S ABOVE SENDING IN AGENTS DRESSED IN BLACK HOODS TO DISCREDIT THE PROTESTS AGAINST HIS REPUBLICAN-FASCISTS AND TRUMP? 

I don't, I think he deserves to be suspected of that until proven innocent beyond any reasonable doubt.  A reasonable doubt he never gave Hillary Clinton as he targeted her as he didn't target the massively corrupt Donald Trump.  He doesn't get to have one for himself, now. 


  1. Self-righteousness can lead to acts of violence, thoroughly justified, of course, on the part of anyone, left or right or somewhere in between.

    Unfortunately, considering the self-pitying ultimatums I've read from SJWs, the idea that these jackasses really believe it's OK to commit wanton vandalism as a means of protest strikes me as infinitely more likely than the alternative.

    To consider one example, after the Treyvon Martin shooting, Spike Lee tweeted the address of George Zimmerman, encouraging his followers to "reach out and touch him." He ended up giving the wrong address, and thus accidently creating a distraction from the fact that a prominent member of the black community was dangerously close to advocating a lynching. He was excused because, well, you know, he was frustrated.

    So while I'd love for your thesis to be true, it's not out of character for some of those types.

    1. "Social-Justice Warriors" really, you're opposed to "SWJ's" as opposed to George Zimmerman? What's the opposite of that, "Social Injustice Warriors"? Or do you figure it's OK for loser-white-boy self-appointed vigilantes to gun down unarmed teenagers for wearing hoodies while visiting their father's neighborhoods and armed with Skittles?

      If the police, the prosecutors, the courts don't provide people with justice against those who murder them, it's not nearly the injustice when they tell people where the people who might shoot them live. Though they should certainly get it right. Considering the actual circumstances of the case of the murder of Treyvon Martin and that his murderer got off and is at large, to use the term lynching in this case is disgusting.

  2. Well, pardon me all over the place, but Lee tweeted that BEFORE the trial. How would you describe calling for an act of vigilante violence against someone (in this case, the wrong someone) before legal proceedings have concluded? Yeah, that's pretty much a textbook lynching.

    And for the record, no, I did not find Zimmerman's actions nor the jury's verdict in any way acceptable. That he's walking about, posting pictures of Martin's body, is nauseating.

    But Lee's behavior? It's shameful. Not as much as Zimmerman's, but shameful nonetheless.

    1. Um. George Zimmerman is alive and probably up to no good. He's a criminal and a murderer who got off through the misconduct of officials mixed with pervasive racism. By the time George Zimmerman went to trial he had gotten preferential treatment from the police and from the prosecutor's office.

      I'm not aware of Spike Lee's legal obligation to keep the address of a killer who was being shown preferential treatment and who, obviously, got off, confidential. He certainly should have made sure he got it right, however.

      I'm not sure, was Zimmerman's address public? I would imagine it would be part of the public record since it was part of his identity.

      I'm not going to defend Spike Lee's behavior in inviting people to "reach out and touch" Zimmerman but I'm also not going to pretend that it's the equivalent of a lynching or anything that is the responsibility of anyone else.

      I am curious, what does this have to do with what I wrote?

  3. I wrote he "was dangerously close to advocating a lynching." And had someone been killed because of Lee's encouragement, yes, I think you could argue that would have been a lynching. It's also thoroughly irresponsible even if he got the address right. What if some jackass fired shots indiscriminately at the home and hit his child or wife? You think that's beyond someone dumb enough to post "let the hunger games begin" on Twitter?

    Again, it's not his address, it's the address PLUS the comment to, and let's not hide behind euphemisms here, "Go get him!" Lee had 240,000 Twitter followers. If 0.0001% of them (that's two dozen) were stupid/crazy/violent enough to seek him out to "touch him," what assurances were there that no one else would have been caught in the crossfire? Or that they'd even find the right house? Or that Zimmerman would be there? What if the neighbors found some people knocking loudly on the door and asked if they were looking for George? What, they would politely say, "Yes sir/ma'am, is he here?" Posting his address, if it was public record, I could see defending. But encouraging people to take matters into their own hands, especially before the trial? No no no no.

    As per your post, I was just noting that much as I'd like to think those protests were hijacked by provocateurs, I've seen too many stupid and violent liberals to find the alternative unbelievable. There are stupid people on both sides, and of course the media is going to focus on them.

    1. I'm pretty sure his home address was public knowledge, that they'd have had to publish it so that some other "George Zimmerman" who was entirely innocent of gunning down an unarmed black child for the crime of walking while being black wouldn't be the target of public ire.

      To equate what Spike Lee did with lynching is entirely over the top, especially as Zimmerman was the one who committed a lynching which left Trayvon Martin dead in every which way which Spike Lee's comment didn't leave Zimmerman dead. Frankly, when I heard he was auctioning off the gun he used to kill, a lynching which, in typical fashion of a century ago, the white murderer got away with, with the help of the police and prosecutors and court, I couldn't possibly muster much concern for him. He was certainly acting as if he were trying to provoke a reaction.

      I'm not going to defend what Spike Lee said. I'm certainly not going to accept your characterization of it. Especially as racist shock jocks have said things like that on radio and TV and on the internet to people who do act on it and, wouldn't you know, most of the lives taken are of people of color and not white people. The media doesn't focus on them, it incites them.

  4. Here is Merriam-Webster's definition of lynch - "to put to death (as by hanging) by mob action without legal approval or permission."

    I did not say Lee lynched anyone, I said that he came CLOSE to advocating one, because, if a group of his irresponsible Twitter followers went to Zimmerman's house and killed someone, that would have been a 1) death, 2) by mob action 3) without legal authority.


    Lee is a celebrity with a massive following, for him to encourage those people to go after a citizen, no matter how deserving in his or your mind, is not how any civilized society operates.

    Now, if your response is, "Neither was Zimm-" Yes, I agree. He's a despicable human being, if he's even that, but Lee's response, and the media's refusal to anything but shrug their shoulders, is appalling in regardless of the greater crime committed by Zimmerman.

    That you are focusing on that piece of trash is redundant, because I also said, "I did not find Zimmerman's actions nor the jury's verdict in any way acceptable. That he's walking about, posting pictures of Martin's body, is nauseating." We are in agreement on that point.

    You are not defending Lee's comment, but by saying it's wrong to characterize a citizen encouraging his Twitter followers "to put to death by mob action without legal approval or permission" as a lynching. That is Ministry of Truth worthy doublespeak. What "shock jocks" and other imbeciles offer is just stupid being stupid. But as someone who identifies far more politically with Lee than any of them, It is disturbing he thought the best approach was to encourage mob violence. Further so that the press were terrified of pointing this out to him.

    Note: Lee's Tweet came before the trial, before Zimmerman posted the pictures, before he tried to sell the gun. You seem hell bent on qualifying it somehow.

    1. I don't know what you expect me to day about it. What I said is that I wouldn't defend what Spike Lee did, which I haven't. What I said is that far worse gets said in the media every day about entire classes of people as well as individuals.

      Was Spike Lee NOT subject to criticism in the for saying that? I'd find that hard to believe because, though I am hardly a fan of Mr. Lee's work or, in fact much of any American movie maker, one thing I have noticed is that he has been the object of a lot of criticism over things he's said in his movies and elsewhere.

      I am all in favor of people admitting to the consequences of what is said by people, not pretending that it does not both risk and intentionally provoke people to act. I don't recall reading that George Zimmerman was attacked after Spike Lee said that, never mind lynched, However, and he was a total jerk in just about every way he could manage after it was made.

      I still don't understand what this had with anything I said. Maybe you'd like to explain to me how it does and what you want from me.

      I also wonder why this has you exercised in ways that the ubiquitous calls for violence made by white celebrities, such a Toby Keith singing a song advocating lynching at Trump's installation concert, doesn't.

    2. Again, I have to repeat this, I never said Lee was responsible for "lynching" anyone. I said he came dangerously close to advocating one. Your objection to my "characterization" is what bothered me. He was, wink-wink, nudge-nudge, doing exactly that. As Thomas Merton noted, we owe an homage to the reality around us, and are obliged to call things by their right names.

      Toby Keith, want me to rant about that preening jackass? There isn't enough space on the Internet. But, with Lee, a man whose ideas about black rights, independence and mistreatment at the hands of law enforcement are things I agree with him wholeheartedly on. To read him encouraging people to take up the tactics people rightly associate with the Klan was horrifying.

      Lee was not chastised by an critic with a sane and sober voice. Rush Limbaugh? Who cares? But people who rightly and justly offered verbal and physical protests over how the case was handled were virtually silent about Lee's actions. I cannot stress how bothered am I by the lines political alignment draws, and how one is expected only and solely to focus their energy on proving the other party wrong than actually adhering to principles.