August 22nd, 2017

Reversals

William Jacobson of Legal Insurrection has this to say (the whole post is worth reading):

That truth that both sides [in Charlottesville] were violent doesn’t mean both sides were equal.

But the denial of the truth that both sides were violent seems to go beyond mere criticism, into a reversal of reality.

The phrase “reversal of reality” made me think of this from Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four:

War is peace.
Freedom is slavery.
Ignorance is strength.

On the face of it, that seems nonsensical, doesn’t it? But of course it’s not. Orwell put his finger on the left’s modus operandi there, because the goal is to shape minds to accept what is told them, and not think or question too much:

These words are the official slogans of the Party, and are inscribed in massive letters on the white pyramid of the Ministry of Truth, as Winston observes in Book One, Chapter I. Because it is introduced so early in the novel, this creed serves as the reader’s first introduction to the idea of doublethink. By weakening the independence and strength of individuals’ minds and forcing them to live in a constant state of propaganda-induced fear, the Party is able to force its subjects to accept anything it decrees, even if it is entirely illogical…

…the Party is able to maintain that “War Is Peace” because having a common enemy keeps the people of Oceania united. “Freedom Is Slavery” because, according to the Party, the man who is independent is doomed to fail. By the same token, “Slavery Is Freedom,” because the man subjected to the collective will is free from danger and want. “Ignorance Is Strength” because the inability of the people to recognize these contradictions cements the power of the authoritarian regime.

But back to Charlottesville. One of the better pieces about the fact that both sides were violent in the confrontation can be found here:

President Trump got it right in his initial response to the mayhem in Charlottesville when he condemned the “egregious display of hatred, bigotry and violence on many sides, on many sides.”

His subsequent remarks on Monday, singling out “the KKK, neo-Nazis, white supremacists and other hate groups” was also appropriate…

if we insist on viewing Saturday’s events as an alt-right convulsion, we are refusing to see how it reflects the deep and frightening divisions percolating in our country.

Unlike most of the violent protests of the past few years – where left-wing demonstrators have repeatedly clashed with the police – Charlottesville pitted two extreme and marginal groups of citizens against one another: self-proclaimed anti-fascists versus thuggish haters…

Given this wider context, Trump would have been doing the country a disservice if he singled out one group for blame. He would have been suggesting that it is acceptable to meet those who hold objectionable views with violence. He would have been denying the complex, toxic anger coursing through our body politic.

His initial call for unity, however, was immediately transformed into a cudgel by his opponents – on the left and in his own party – who accused him (once again) of racism because he failed to single out the white supremacists marchers.

That column was written by someone named J. Peder Zane. I’d never heard of him before, and when I looked him up to learn more about him, I was surprised to see his stellar liberal credentials:

…he earned a BA from Wesleyan University in 1984 and an MS (with Honors) from the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism in 1989…

He joined The New York Times in 1990 as member of the Writing Program for young reporters…

…Zane edited a special section, “Ghosts of 1898,” on the Wilmington race riot for the Charlotte Observer and the Raleigh News and Observer. This 16-page special section, written by historian Timothy B. Tyson, was widely distributed. Soon afterward, the North Carolina General Assembly passed legislation to requiring public schools to teach students about the white supremacy campaigns and the Wilmington Race Riot of 1898. “Ghosts of 1898” won an Excellence Award from the National Association of Black Journalists.

In the midst of so much depressing news lately, Zane’s fairness gives me hope.

45 Responses to “Reversals”

  1. AMartel Says:

    The leftists comments at the Zane piece are excruciating in their self-righteous, smug stupidity. Invoking their “fight” against “Nazis” to that of some ancient ancestor who landed on D-Day. They enjoy the delusion that they’re fighting Nazis and not pitiful, powerless low IQ/mentally disabled left-behinds who just want to hold their own pity party parade, like everyone else does these days. And, of COURSE, they fail to see the parallels between these nazis and their own needy ways and will NEVER acknowledge ownership of the original founding twits in this american nazi/KKK crew. Charlottesville was a fight between the current and former enforcement arms of the DNC but somehow the GOP has to take responsibility. I guess it’s the benefits of lefty membership: Never having to take responsibility. Or make sense.

  2. Oldflyer Says:

    Very useful perspective Neo. It would be well if it were widely held.

    Since Charlottesville, there seems to be a near conspiracy in the Media, and among others on the Left, to pretend that Antifa is a noble group, bravely opposing tyranny. Before that TV played video of their thuggery; probably because it filled air time with action.

    On the other hand, as someone pointed out, and maybe it was here; the White Supremacist and Neo-nazi fringe that have been largely ignored for decades, has suddenly become the specter of a rapidly growing menace that threatens our society.

    I thought President Trump’s introductory remarks yesterday evening were superb. He set a near perfect tone by calling on the nation to rise to the level of tolerance, and brotherhood practiced by our troops in combat. Of course, he gets no credit for that; and I think that part of the speech has been largely ignored in favor of carping about his Afghan strategy.

    He is not an orator, but he has given some very good speeches. Too bad that so many don’t listen to what he says.

  3. j e Says:

    He also writes, falsely, that the so-called “white supremacists” were largely to blame for the violence. This assertion is contradicted by numerous accounts, including those published by the left-leaning LATimes. Moreover, it is no more accurate to imply that all those on the political right who attended the protest belonged to a demonized fringe than to imply that all the so-called counter-demonstrators were Communist agitators, Antifa hooligans and BLM thugs.

  4. Bill Says:

    OldFlyer, he has given some good speeches. But he overwhelmed them in all his off the cuff tweeting and talking. And there’s usually a large gulf between his prepared speeches and his rallies/tweets. That’s why people like me are skeptical. But as they say, we’ll see. Hopefully he’ll adopt a more unifying tone.

    Regarding antifa versus neo-nazis: both sides were violent. Only one was murderous. I think that’s the distinction. Protest needs to be non-violent. All sides.

  5. Ymar Sakar Says:

    After the Divine flood that wiped out most of the Genesis six experiment by the fallen Watchers, the world was united under one totalitarian tyrant named Nimrod. He got this idea in his head that he would create a stargate to the heavens, the Tower of Babel, using the angel tech received pre Flood and preserved post FLood, to use his armies to kill the Most High.

    This mythological tower was so much of a threat, that instead of duplicating the Flood, which was limited by the promise to Noah in the rainbow, the languages were splintered so that people could no longer understood the previous Enochian or divine language. They could no longer access their technological base, since the language had their mathematics, schematics, and principles. What was left was advanced forges from Tubal Cain’s people, which became techniques passed down through the blood and family. Nowhere near the original angel tech given to humanity.

    Recently humanity has re investigated and re searched the archives to come up with methods to build stonehenge without powered tools. And one person has discovered how to use gravity and counter balancing forces to do so. He can now move a barn using just wooden platforms and his own body. If humanity created all the technologies in the last 3 hundred years, how come more than 2000 years ago, they had better technology than we do now?

    It wasn’t until the internet that the method of moving hundred and thousand ton stone blocks was revealed to the world via youtube. Without a crane, without explosives, and without anti grav.

    Protest needs to be non-violent. All sides.

    Who is going to enforce it? The police we were told to obey no matter the Cost, were told to stand down and they obeyed. The security that was supposed to help the American embassy staff at Benghazi, were told to stand down, let them die. And they obeyed, except for 4 rogue CIA/ ex SF sacrifices.

    Speaking of rogue intel agents from the NSA/CIA side of foreign intel gathering, Snowden’s name comes up again recently. The problem with the CIA that Congress tried to fix was the CIA’s problem of trying to spy on domestic Americans. That wasn’t their portfolio, that was the FBI and ATF’s mission and profile. When the agencies were put back together again, perhaps the “walls” to intelligence gathering broke down in more ways than one, after 2001.

    Americans wanted to make it easy to gather intel on terrorists so that they wouldn’t face another 9/11? Well, they got what they wanted. That wasn’t what they needed, but democracies are usually full of voting fools. Give them what they want, even if it destroys them, as it did Athens.

    Trum doesn’t have a grip on what’s going on in this country. Assuming he ever did. The masterminds behind the secret societies are something Americans don’t have the authorization to know about.

    The black operations of the Left that have been revealed, are the things they allow to be revealed to stoke the flames of war. There’s at least 95% of the rest still in shadow. They don’t tell the public what the public doesn’t need to know. The public can’t handle the truth.

    That’s why they worship the “free press” and authorize the “free press” to take care of matters, sort of like outsourcing GM factories to China or India or Vietnam or Japan or Mongolia.

  6. neo-neocon Says:

    Bill:

    You write “only one side was murderous.”

    While it’s certainly true that a killing occurred, and that it appears that (from information we have so far) the perpetrator had the intent to murder and that the perpetrator was a white supremacist, I hesitate to say the side was murderous. This is one person, who may even have been a schizophrenic (that information is out there, but I don’t know whether it’s true).

    I would say the same thing, by the way, for a lone perp on the other side. One person committing a murder is a terrible, terrible thing, and the rhetoric of one side or another (probably both) is part of the equation, but unless a “side” is advocating violence and/or murder, that entire side is not “murderous.”

    Again, I would say this no matter which side is involved.

    If, however, the neo-Nazis regularly talk about murdering innocent people, or murdering counter-protesters at their demonstrations, that would put them into the “murderous” category. “Murderous,” as in “directly advocating and inciting murder.”

  7. Bill Says:

    Neo, true. But the rally was still not balanced in violence. One guy (a Nazi) killed a woman and injured 19 others with a deadly weapon (his car)

    He represents an ideology responsible for millions of deaths. And if that’s unfair, the jacklegs at the rally chose to carry Nazi flaga (or enough of them did)

    I think that’s why a lot of people have responded the way they did to all the “violence on both sides” talk. From a legalistic standpoint, yes, there was. But that’s not the full story.

    Im not defending antifa. The left has bad people on it. But that doesn’t make the creeps on the other side any better or defend them in any way (I’m not saying you’re saying it does).

    Quick rant on tribalism. Bad people staged a rally. But because many of the the people (not all) who opposed them are on the left, there’s knee jerk people out there defending the first group, or coming up with weird conspiracy theories to explain the – I guess – unfathomable possibility that a freaking NAZI killed someone all by himself.

    Politics makes people crazy. I’m for non-violence. But that can be true at the same time that there’s no way I’m uttering a word in defence of the chinless wonders screaming “blood and soil”.

  8. M J R Says:

    Bill, 4:11 pm — “Regarding antifa versus neo-nazis: both sides were violent. Only one was murderous.”

    Only one side had a permit to rally. Only one *person* was murderous.

    The side with the permit was not there to commit violence. The other side showed up with the intention of committing violence.

    Is the one side, the side with the permit, responsible for the (murderous) act of that one person? or, like the thug who shot at Congressman Scaliese, was his act the act of a lone agent, even if in the service of a larger agenda?

    Why is the neo-nazi side guilty, but the Bernie Sanders / antifa / liberal Democrat side gets a moral pass?

    Sorry, no moral equivalence here, friend Bill.

  9. Dave Says:

    It took people days to come to their senses. Once again Trump was criticized even when he was completely right.

  10. Bill Says:

    “The other side showed up with the intention of committing violence”

    I can’t use the term “Side” when talking about neo-nazis and white supremacists, but when talking about the counter-protesters – that “side” showed up to commit violence? Or was it just “lone individuals”

    Can we agree on this? A neo-nazi, who had a permit, got in his car and intentionally rammed a crowd, killing a woman and injuring (last count I heard) 19.

    Is that common ground for agreement? Some common ground would be nice.

  11. huxley Says:

    Have we entered the world of “false false moral equivalence”?

    My head started to hurt after the journalists responsible for the most fake news started complaining about “fake news.”

  12. Oldflyer Says:

    Bill, it may not surprise you that I have no idea where you are coming from.

    I think anyone who is interested can separate Trump’s policy speeches, which in my opinion have been universally good; his actions, same opinion; from his rather juvenile spats with journalists and others. Sure, I wish that he would tone that down, better yet eliminate it altogether. But then again, maybe it helps him deal with the constant barrage of hate that comes his way. Sort of the same way that cursing at the TV helps me. My wife does not understand that either.

    As far as your claim of murderous intent in Charlottesville, it is bogus, because you cannot know the intent. It is pretty well known that the demonstrators were abiding by the rules set forth by the Democrat officials from Charlottesville, and the State. Everything went sour when those officials pulled the rug out from under them, then herded them into contact with Antifa. (I know this sounds like a broken record; but, it is in response to other broken records.) To the best of my knowledge no has given us an inkling as to what that troubled young man was thinking. He may have had murder in his heart; then again he may have felt threatened by the violence around him and simply panicked. We don’t know; and I suspect that he will never get to tell us. Nor am I confident that unbiased witnesses will be heard. (It will be interesting to see how competent the Defense Counsel will be that the officials, who share responsibility, if not culpability, will undoubtedly have to provide to him.) I can speculate as well as you can; and I speculate that the tragedy would not have happened if the preceding, and surrounding, events had not been allowed to spiral out of control.

  13. M J R Says:

    Bill, 5:25 pm — “when talking about the counter-protesters – that ‘side’ showed up to commit violence? Or was it just ‘lone individuals’?

    It was an organized group. Or do you contend that the core of these “lone individuals” all showed up dressed exactly the same?

    “Can we agree on this? A neo-nazi, who had a permit, got in his car and intentionally rammed a crowd, killing a woman and injuring (last count I heard) 19.”

    The neo-nazi did not have a permit to intentionally ram a crowd. He did not commit his deed as a member of the group. He was a “lone individual” in service to the neo-nazi agenda.

    “Is that common ground for agreement? Some common ground would be nice.”

    Agreed, as far as it goes. BUT . . .

    why is the neo-nazi side guilty, but the Bernie Sanders / antifa / liberal Democrat side gets a moral pass?

  14. Fractal Rabbit Says:

    One of the things I’ve always enjoyed about Neo-Neocon is her intellectual honesty. I’ve been reading here for years, mostly lurking but commenting now and again (under a different name; no more information to Googletwitterbook) and her capacity for self-reflection and honesty is commendable.

    I only agree with her about 60% of the time. But I find her to be little corner of the internet to be a pleasant place, generally, because of her high standards.

    One of the things that frustrates me the most is her tendency to engage (in her stark intellectually honest manner) with seemingly obtuse (and most likely) intellectually dishonest commentors like “Bill”.

  15. huxley Says:

    Fractal Rabbit: Let me jump in here. Bill is not intellectually dishonest. I’ve been reading him a while and I don’t see that.

    However, I don’t quite follow his reasoning in this topic. My impression is he is bending over backward to avoid bending over backward. It depends on how you do the math on that calculation. I agree more with and others.

  16. huxley Says:

    I agree more with MJR and others.

  17. Alan F Says:

    I have had an additional take on this. I have thought of 1984 when I hear now, that there are more than two sexes. That leads to federal edicts like bathroom labeling is more important than threats like NoKo and Antifa, etc. It is that it shows real obedience by the populace and strong authority by the elites when the masses will deny obvious truths.

  18. Manju Says:

    Only one side had a permit to rally.

    Trump got this wrong:

    Walt Heinecke, a professor at the University of Virginia, told Moyer that he received a “special events certificate of approval” for events at McGuffey Park and Justice Park — sites blocks from Emancipation Park, where white nationalists had a permit for a Saturday rally. A car allegedly driven by James Alex Fields Jr. rammed into counterprotesters, killing a 32-year-old woman, on Fourth Street, which runs adjacent to Justice Park.

    We have a first amendment right to counter-protest. Trump’s berating of the counter-protesters for not having a permit when they either had one or didn’t need one makes the Nazi’s appear more law-abiding than the counter-protestors. If this were true, it would be defensible. But since it’s not, and since he hasn’t retracted, it is reasonable to believe he’s motivated by a need to appease Nazis.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/08/16/president-trumps-false-claim-that-counter-demonstrators-lacked-a-permit/

  19. M J R Says:

    So it’s Trump’s word against the Washington Post’s word.

    Hmmmmmm . . .

  20. Fractal Rabbit Says:

    Huxley said:

    “However, I don’t quite follow his reasoning in this topic. My impression is he is bending over backward to avoid bending over backward.”

    LOL! That is a great. I will trust your word on this Huxley.

  21. Bill Says:

    Huxley – thank you. I really try to be intellectually honest. I’m working through a lot here as I was strongly GOP until they nominated Trump. Now I feel like I’m in bizarro world. I don’t know if anyone else shares that sentiment.

    “why is the neo-nazi side guilty, but the Bernie Sanders / antifa / liberal Democrat side gets a moral pass?”

    MJR – I am not giving the antifa side a moral pass.

    You know how we always criticize people who say an Islamic terrorist is a “lone wolf”? Yet why are a lot of people doing that about the guy who killed and injured people with his car who was a NEO NAZI.

    Why am I having to ask people why they are defending NEO NAZIs.

    There’s so much uncertainty about his mindset. Fine. Why is there NO UNCERTAINTY that the city officials purposefully made a bad situation worse IN THE HOPES OF watching people die and potentially their city burn? Does that even make sense?

    Occam’s razor.

    For the record – violent protesters are bad. But – and I’m not backing off of this – The side waving the Nazi flags, chanting White supremacy slogans, one of which rammed his car into the crowd of protesters, killing one and injuring 19, who started this provocative demonstration in the first place, and included a number of people with semi-automatics (you’ve looked at the pictures, right?) is more ominous, more dangerous, and – in this particular case – more lethal than the side that protested them.

    What Manju said about the permit. I wasn’t even going to bring that up because it’s the weirdest argument I’ve ever heard defending the people who were waving the Nazi flags.

    Everyone can quit wondering and puzzling over where I’m coming from. I’m now an ex-member of a political party (supported by 81% of my fellow white evangelicals) that is spending an inordinate amount of time defending white supremacists, white nationalists, and neo-nazis.

    I’m also not on the side of the antifa. OK?

  22. Bill Says:

    Meant to say “I agree with ” what Manju said about the permit.”

    But I also think that when you have a permit and someone still dies because one of your guys rammed a crowd with his car, the fact you had a permit doesn’t matter.

    I’m not up on the case-law, though. Do permits cover 2nd degree murder?

    OK, I’m being unfair. I’m a little salty about this. Serious question – do counter-protesters to a permitted rally have no rights to free speech?

    For example, say Planned Parenthood was having a rally. You happen to be in the part that day with ten of your friends. If you decide to go watch the rally and one of you goes to the store and buys a piece of cardstock and makes a sign that says “I’m pro life” – are you breaking the law because you don’t have a permit? This is a serious question.

    NOTE: I AM NOT SAYING THAT”S THE SAME THING AS ANTIFA.

  23. neo-neocon Says:

    Bill:

    See this, for example.

    Different localities may have somewhat different rules, but it’s basically that way.

  24. neo-neocon Says:

    Bill:

    By the way, maybe I missed the part where people are defending the guy who killed Heather Heyer.

    I’ve not seen anyone defending him except on neo-Nazi sites.

    What people are saying otherwise, and it’s quite reasonable, is that we don’t know the details of why he did what he did. I read that he was a diagnosed schizophrenic. Is that true? Don’t know, and don’t know whether even if true it would matter. It would matter if he was a schizophrenic and heard voices from Mars who told him he must do it, I suppose. And that would matter even if he was a leftist killer.

    In my opinion, signs do strongly point to his act as having been intentional with the aim of maiming and/or killing. No one is defending that here, either. But some people question whether it is the case, since we haven’t heard anything about his state of mind or motives (for example, what was on his computer, or what he might have told friends). Early reports say he might have been surrounded and panicked; later reports indicate this wasn’t true. But I have not seen an official police report on it yet, so I think it’s reasonable to reserve 100% judgment till we know. I happen to think it is highly likely he murdered her, and that it was a political statement expressing neo-Nazi sentiment. But I don’t know for certain, and I think that people’s voicing doubts and questions about the things I just mentioned is fairly reasonable and not a defense of a murder by a neo-Nazi. It is an acknowledgement that sometimes the facts are not clear at the outset.

  25. M J R Says:

    Bill, 7:32 pm — “MJR – I am not giving the antifa side a moral pass. You know how we always criticize people who say an Islamic terrorist is a “lone wolf”? Yet why are a lot of people doing that about the guy who killed and injured people with his car who was a NEO NAZI.”

    An islamic terrorist’s theology dictates that the infidel must die. Even a neo-nazi normally allows for the enemy to live, at least until (ahem) a final solution is implemented. I see a distinction lurking in there, but that distinction aside, such as it is or isn’t, you do raise a valid point. But/and there’s still the attempted murder of Congressman Scaliese.

    Anyway, I’m coming back to the two sides. Yes, let’s forget the permit(s?): who was there to exercise their rights and who was there to violently disrupt? Hey, ya think the violence at Berkeley and other institutions of higher “learning”, including disrupting invited speakers, affords us something of a clue?

  26. AesopFan Says:

    Part of the murkiness of the discussion (here and elsewhere) is the conflation of the events in the park with the reactions to President Trump’s speeches.
    I think they need to be separated, to get a clearer view of the situation and maybe address some of Bill’s questions.

    Mostly I’m with Neo: it’s too soon to know what the killer’s motivation at the time of the ramming might have been. The lack of any official or leaked evidence of his background as a NN with which to cement his damning is .. interesting.
    Perhaps I have missed something.

    And, as Dr. Jacobson says, after looking at what the Left did to Romney during the 2012 campaign (PS: I have been very disappointed in his own reactions lately), does anyone doubt that the MSM and Dems would have savaged him (or President McCain, their Past and Future Darling) for whatever statements he might have made given the same circumstances?

  27. AesopFan Says:

    Neo: have you started a book on when Mr. Zane’s Wiki bio will begin citing him as a prominent alt-Righter and Google will kick him off for inciting accusations-of-violence?

    I give him until midnight before he’s definitively thrown under the othering bus.

  28. Griffin Says:

    Correct me if I’m wrong as I haven’t been following this aspect that closely but it is kind of interesting that we haven’t heard much detail about this guy that killed the woman. Off the top of my head I can’t even remember his name. Considering that his act was a major part of this national furor I find it kind of interesting that all the usual left wing suspects aren’t reporting all kinds of stuff about him.

    Makes me wonder if something about him doesn’t fit the established NARRATIVE.

  29. Cap'n Rusty Says:

    Bill:
    You said “The side waving the Nazi flags . . . who started this provocative demonstration in the first place . . . is more ominous, more dangerous, and – in this particular case – more lethal than the side that protested them.”

    So, it’s o.k. to for me to exercise my 1st Amendment rights, as long as I don’t do so in a manner that provokes the opposition.

    Who do you think should decide what’s provocative? The government?

    Should my right to free speech be limited by my opponent’s tolerance?!

  30. Bill Says:

    Cap’n Rusty

    I absolutely do not want the Government deciding who can say what. I’m a big fan of the FA.

    The FA doesn’t mean I have to admire or take up the cause of the people practicing it. I know that no one here is a Nazi sympathizer. I think I’m bothered by two things, though

    1. There’s a bit of an “enemy of my enemy is my friend” vibe going on. “We don’t like Nazis/White supremacists but we hate the left, and they hate N/WS so maybe Nazis/White Supremacists aren’t so bad after all?” kind of thing. I may be misreading that sentiment (it wouldn’t be the first time) but that’s what it feels like to me.

    2. It bugs me when the MSM pretends like Islamic radicalism wasn’t the cause behind something that looks an awful lot like it (thus has happened a number of times) . But I see a double standard: the killer was a white American guy and many here took a “wait and see” attitude regarding him when that wouldn’t happen if he was from a different country. And made large assumptions about the counter protesters. Even Trump, who hardly ever waits to jump on anyone who’s wronged him, immediately, suddenly switched into “Let’s get all the facts” about that guy. Just like he did last year with David Duke. I hate that the GOP is even slightly linked (by GOPers!) to that crowd. But here we are.

    Look, I agree with getting all the facts. Part of my reaction, though, was more of a reaction to people who’s first response seemed to be trying to explain away what happened, marshaling “facts” like the killers mental state or city-government conspiracies. Waiting for all the facts to come in is a two way street.

  31. AesopFan Says:

    Griffin Says:
    August 22nd, 2017 at 8:47 pm
    Correct me if I’m wrong as I haven’t been following this aspect that closely but it is kind of interesting that we haven’t heard much detail about this guy that killed the woman.
    * * *
    Google hasn’t put anything on their front page with any real information (lots of speculation, of course).
    All of them give the same bare facts about Fields, with more or less speculation: ChiTrib leads on the lurid line, with an unknown-to-me site called Heavy (6th on Goggle’s list just now) with the most unadorned facts.

    http://heavy.com/news/2017/08/james-alex-fields-jr-charlottesville-suspect-arrested-driver-crashed-rally-republican-age-bio-video/
    (last update 8/15)

    Heavy also points out that no link has ever been made between the helicopter and the rally attendees (although it was monitory the rally), and the cause of the crash isn’t known, but that hasn’t stopped the accusations that it is also the fault of the original Protestors somehow – more below on that.

    * * *

    http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/ct-james-fields-jr-charlottesville-20170818-story.html

    “He talked about being an infantryman or possibly a military policeman,” Weimer said. “He wasn’t really an emotional guy, so he wasn’t super in the dumps” about the Army’s decision. “He was just like, ‘Hey, they turned me down.’ He said he had a history of taking antipsychotic meds, and the way his recruiter explained it, he had to be off those meds for a certain amount of time before they’d consider him.”

    Weimer’s recollection offers the most specific public clue thus far about the mental state of the driver accused of purposely accelerating his 2010 Dodge Challenger across a crowded pedestrian mall and ramming another car, sending bodies flying during the civil unrest in Charlottesville.

    (the clue they are thinking of is NOT: mentally ill man off his meds; lots of guilt-by-innuendo in the article, and armchair psychiatry)

    * * *

    Speaking of clarifying – most of the rampaging rhetoric keeps saying Fields hit the woman with his car, but that is not exactly what happened.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/13/us/james-alex-fields-charlottesville-driver-.html

    Mr. Fields was driving a Dodge Challenger “at a high rate of speed” in downtown Charlottesville at about 1:45 p.m., a spokeswoman for the city said in a statement. He drove the car into a sedan, which hit a minivan that was in front of it, although he is alleged to have hit other people before that.

    The impact of the crash pushed the sedan and the minivan into a crowd of pedestrians. Mr. Fields fled the scene in the Challenger but was stopped a short time later by the Charlottesville police.

    • Deia Schlosberg and Conrad Shaw, documentary filmmakers who were in Charlottesville to shoot footage of one of the counterprotesters, were nearby when the car barreled down the street. They said that it hit a number of people before crashing into the other vehicles.

    “It seemed like it was trying to drive through the crowd,” Ms. Schlosberg said. “The other cars were enveloped in the crowd. I bet those cars saved a ton more lives because it couldn’t keep going.”

    http://www.factcheck.org/2017/08/driver-acting-self-defense/

    Charlottesville police, Aug. 13: The three-vehicle crash occurred on 4th Street. A Dodge Challenger was traveling south on 4th Street at a high rate of speed when it rear-ended a sedan headed south on 4th Street. The impact of that crash pushed the sedan into the minivan in front of it. The minivan had slowed for a crowd a people crossing through the intersection. The impact of the crash pushed the vehicles into the crowd of pedestrians. The Dodge Challenger fled the scene, but was located and stopped a short time later by Charlottesville Police.
    * * *
    This report says he was hitting peds before the other car.

    http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/08/13/543176250/charlottesville-attack-james-alex-fields-jr

    The horrific, albeit brief, attack can be seen from multiple angles via video captured by journalists and marchers and shared on social media.

    Two Police Helicopter Pilots Killed Assisting With Crash Investigation
    [note the innuendo; thew had left the investigation before the crash happened – see below]

    A car suddenly speeds down Fourth Street Southeast, ramming into pedestrians with an audible thud, striking another vehicle from behind and sending people flying through the air and over another car near the intersection with Water Street East. The struck vehicle then hits a minivan ahead, sending that vehicle into more pedestrians. Seconds later, the car allegedly driven by Fields, reverses on Fourth Street, its front bumper dragging as people who avoided the initial attack chase after it.

    * * *

    http://heavy.com/news/2017/08/charlottesville-helicopter-crash-dead-deaths-victims-riots-protests-video-photo-virginia-state-police/
    (last update 8/12)
    “Although some on social media blamed the protests for the deaths of the people on the helicopter, it was not yet confirmed whether the helicopter was responding to the riots or protests in any way.

    “State police would not say if the helicopter had been involved in monitoring the clashes between alt-right demonstrators and counter protesters ahead of the scheduled Unite the Right rally downtown,” Daily Progress reported.”
    * *
    The crash was 7 miles west of downtown. Maybe they were looking for other people, but the police still haven’t said SFAIK.

    NPR stuck this in their report without acknowledging any of these disconnects.

    “Two Virginia State Police troopers investigating the day’s events died when the helicopter they were in crashed in Albemarle County, where Charlottesville is located, according to the state police. The men, identified as Lt. H. Jay Cullen, 48, and Trooper-Pilot Berke M.M. Bates, 40, died at the scene of the crash, according to the state police.”
    * *

    Here’s a WaPo report with more data, but it doesn’t look to me as if the crash was anyone’s “fault”.

    “Officials said Saturday’s crash that killed Lt. H. Jay Cullen and Trooper-Pilot Berke M.M. Bates, happened less than an hour after the helicopter had left the Charlottesville airport to conduct surveillance of the white nationalists’ rally. The helicopter had finished flying over downtown at around 4:42 p.m. and was en route to provide air support for the motorcade of Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe (D) when it crashed. The first 911 call came in around 4:44 p.m. There was no distress call from the crew aboard the helicopter, investigators said.”
    * *
    The time stamps on various Twitters etc in the Heavy report indicate the car ramming was around 2 pm; police chief pronouncing Fields guilty (“premeditated” – he already knew that for sure?) is stamped 4:39, so the copter had presumably finished monitoring the rallies, which were certainly wrapped up by then.

    I think the case against Fields is bad enough without making him out to be the cause of the copter crash as well, by innuendo.

  32. AesopFan Says:

    Bill Says:
    August 22nd, 2017 at 9:48 pm
    .. I think I’m bothered by two things, though

    1. There’s a bit of an “enemy of my enemy is my friend” vibe going on. “We don’t like Nazis/White supremacists but we hate the left, and they hate N/WS so maybe Nazis/White Supremacists aren’t so bad after all?” kind of thing. I may be misreading that sentiment (it wouldn’t be the first time) but that’s what it feels like to me.
    * * *
    I think you are misreading the sentiment.

    SFAICT, no one at this blog has said, or even implied, that the N/WS “aren’t so bad” — only that they aren’t the ONLY ones who are bad, contra the mantra of choice for the Left and the Cringing Conservatives. That is also the majority sentiment on other discussion boards I read.
    The “enemy of my enemy” are still universally perceived to be a bunch of sleazy slugs. *

    BUT they are still entitled to both First Amendment rights and Due Process trials before being pronounced guilty, even if everyone thinks they know exactly what happened.

    The initial speculations about Fields and his mindset and premeditation etc may all be totally true — but he hasn’t been tried by a jury yet.
    And most of us remember how that certainty played out in some other “absolutely sure” cases after the jury verdict came in.

    As for the apparent double standard, “Waiting for all the facts to come in is a two way street” is an admirable stance with which I agree, but it generally only goes one way.
    Pointing out that the Left has double standards is not itself a double standard.

    It isn’t unreasonable to propose alternative explanations to set against the immediate and heavily promoted conclusions of the people who (1) labeled Major Hassan’s murders “workplace violence” ; (2) blamed a video for Benghazi when they knew that wasn’t true; (3) excused obvious felonies because they didn’t think there was any “intent to harm national security” – which they can’t know because they deep-sixed all the evidence; and so forth.

    And mostly we don’t have any control of the events, no direct contact with them, and hate the way the Left slants everything their own way ALL THE TIME in even the smallest detail.
    So we pound the keyboards and fume.

    * * *

    *And so is Antifa.
    There is some understandable pushback against the people trying to write the Black Bloc out of the picture.

  33. Dave Says:

    I will defend any nazi’s rights to hate and express his hatred in legal ways, period, that is the bottom line.

  34. Dave Says:

    Clear and present danger is the button line, as long as these racists aren’t calling for physical violence against anyone let them do whatever gee, these liberals are the people who advocate letting everyone doing whatever they want to as long as it’s not hurting anyone.

  35. Dave Says:

    We can only punish a pedophile when he has physically abused a child, we cannot and should not punish him just for having dirty thoughts about children. It is not justice for anyone to Lynch a pedophile for being having sexual desires for children without doing any harms to anyone physically.

  36. J.J. Says:

    I live in the Pacific Northwest. Antifa has been very active here since Trump was elected. They dress in black, they wear masks, they carry clubs/sticks/chains/bottles of urine/etc. Their modus operandi is violence. They do not believe in peaceful assembly. If you define a terrorist group as any group that uses violence against people to achieve political goals, then Antifa is a terrorist group. They hate the police who try to keep the peace during any protests or demonstrations. Note their violence against police in Boston last weekend. The small free speech rally was counter protested by 15,000 leftist counter protestors of which maybe 10% were Antifa. All the violence that occurred (which was kept under fairly good control by Boston’s finest) came from Antifa and was directed at the police.

    Antifa is far more numerous, better financed, and better organized than the Neo-Nazis and White Supremacists. When they showed up in Charlottesville, it was with the intention of dong violence to the “Unite the Right” (Official name of the demonstration.) demonstrators. That the police were told to pull back or were incompetent we don’t know. What we do know is that there was fighting and violence until the police returned in riot gear and separated the two sides. Antifa and BLM were successful in driving the Neo-Nazis and White Supremacists from the city.

    Antifa and BLM were celebrating their victory, marching down the street when Fields drove his car into the crowd. A vicious, evil thing to do. He will undoubtedly pay a very high price for his crime. And he should.

    Both sides are extremist and out of the mainstream of American society. Both sides are to be condemned by thinking, tolerant Americans. Both sides were at fault in Charlottesville, but the police and local/state officials did not help the situation. Proper preparation (Such as the Boston Police showed last weekend) would have kept the violence to a minimum.

    IMO, Trump was right to condemn both sides.

  37. Dave Says:

    Antifa was more to blame because they were the one who instigated violence. KKK has been rallying peacefully for years and it wasn’t until this anti fascist fascists crashing a peaceful rally with weapons and bottles full of urine that it turned violence. Jake tapper should be fired for supporting violence. Supporting racists’ rights to express hate peacefully doesn’t mean I support racism, just as I support people’s rights to masturbate to rape fantasies without getting beat up by religious fanatics doesn’t mean I support rape. Yup, CNN hates police beating up unarmed suspects before due process but now ok with punching alleged nazis.

  38. AesopFan Says:

    The Left always eats its own.

    http://www.dailywire.com/news/19989/watch-blm-member-confronts-antifa-members-over-hank-berrien

    At a protest over the weekend where Black Lives Matter activists and Antifa fanatics showed up together, one Antifa member wound up punching a Black Lives Matter activist after the Black Lives Matter member chastised the Antifa radicals for hiding behind their masks.

    The BLM activist stood in front of the Antifa crowd, bellowing, “Take the mask off! Take the mask off.” His compatriots started chanting, “Mask off! Mask off! Mask off!”

    That prompted the Antifa crowd to start yelling at the black man, “He’s a cop! He’s a cop! He’s a cop!”

    One masked male white member of Antifa got right in the black man’s face, then punched him directly in the face, prompting another BLM activist to start yelling, …! Take the mask off!”

    A young female Antifa member then started screaming, “… She and the BLM activist started screaming curses at each other.

    Later, a BLM member addressed the Antifa crowd, saying, “We ain’t gonna let some outsiders make us look bad.”

    Hey, we’re just watching.

  39. AesopFan Says:

    http://libertyunyielding.com/2017/08/22/media-cnn-nyt-synchronize-message-radical-left-hooligans/

    Granted, we are justified in asking who is synchronizing with whom here. Which came first, the theme (attack-the-cops thugs have a righteous cause) or the method (having a righteous cause means needing to attack people and break things)?

    But the appearance of convenient synchronization could not be better typified than by these two examples from the last 24 hours.

    The most egregious example is that of CNN, which literally altered a headline to slavishly reflect the point of view of Antifa.

    Be clear here. CNN didn’t alter its headline to more accurately reflect something Antifa said. The tenets of good journalism require news outlets to quote their subjects correctly – even if the subjects are Antifa thugs; even if they are Nazis.

    But that’s not what CNN was doing by changing the headline. CNN was changing the message of its own coverage about what happened, by knuckling under to Antifa’s biased – and in fact inaccurate – perspective.

    …To recap: CNN is taking dictation from Antifa about the nature of cause and effect in an event Antifa was involved in. Not just taking dictation, but scurrying to “correct” itself when its reporting has inadvertently been too accurate.

    This example involves the New York Times running an opinion piece by Anthony Russo entitled, “Why Lee Should Go, and Washington Should Stay.”

    I’ve seen some other writers – who should know better – pouncing on this point, as if what we really need when masked hooligans are running around the country breaking things is a discussion of which things they should break.

    The implied premise here is that the sledgehammer wielders, by literally attacking the public square, have done some sort of service by forcing us into a debate on a burning question of policy.

    If we accept that premise, we’ve bought into mainstreaming wanton destruction as a method of forcing “debate.” In the reality of human dynamics, that’s called “letting yourself be held hostage to tantrums.” In even less savory terms, it’s the definition of extortion by a Mafia goon squad.

    Of course, which monuments are righteous is not what the current crisis is even about – and no great exercise of mental agility is needed to discern that.

    But a more immediate point is that the anti-monument mob has already advanced from sledgehammers, spray paint, and blowtorches to planting bombs. These criminals have had far more encouragement already than they should have. It’s not just stupid to accommodate them with a debate on their terms; it’s unconscionable.

    Yet NYT has done it, as if on cue. At this point, it can’t be called judicious, for observers to assume that that means nothing about the political relationship of the mainstream media to the mob. It has to be called foolish and self-annihilating.

  40. Richard Saunders Says:

    Bill just can’t get his head around that there is more than one issue here. To quote the late, beloved Bill McGaughlin:

    Issue 1. Did the President unequivocally condemn the neo-Nazis, white supremacists, anti-Semites, and Klansmen? He did.

    Issue 2. Did the President condemn the violence committed by both sides in Charlottesville? He did. I do, too. I don’t want the US turning into the Weimar Republic, with Nazis and Commies fighting in the streets. Do you, Bill? Should the President? Does that make me a racist?

    Issue 3. Where were the cops? If the police in Charlottesville had done their jobs, as the police in San Francisco, Boston, and Phoenix did, the two sides would have been kept separate, everybody would have gotten into their cars and gone home, and Heather Heyer would still be alive. Should the mayor and police chief be investigated to find out who gave them the order to stand down? Damn straight. Does that make me a racist?

    Issue 4. Which is more dangerous, the neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and Ku Klux Klan, or ANTIFA and BLM? The “Unite the Right” rally, which was supposed to bring in loonies from the entire country, produced about 500 people, probably half of whom were FBI informants. Their total strength declines every day. ANTIFA and BLM produce two to four times that amount at each rally they show up at, and are growing every day. Does recognizing that they are much more dangerous make me a racist?

  41. Ymar Sakar Says:

    The US president is irrelevant to this issue. People are getting faked by all the disinformation, which includes the line that Trum’s response matter.

    Irregardless of what Trum does, Civil War 2 is inevitable. In that sense, Abraham Lincoln’s actions in 1860 was also irrelevant, since people were already intent on starting a war even before he got elected.

  42. Ymar Sakar Says:

    Too bad that so many don’t listen to what he says.

    Talking makes you weak.

    Fighters weren’t sent to DC to talk, but to fight.

    As for tolerance, more Goldman Sachs mumbo jumpbo 1% elite multi culti talk.

  43. AesopFan Says:

    Richard Saunders Says:

    August 23rd, 2017 at 8:08 pm
    Bill just can’t get his head around that there is more than one issue here.
    * * *
    Good points all.
    In re #4, however, you always have to ask “dangerous to whom?”

    Conflation of issues is a specialty of the Left; the MSM does it all the time. Misdirection, guilt by association, non sequiturs, etc.

    That’s why the beginning of any discussion has to start with a repudiation of their assumptions and language.
    Don’t fight on their ground.

    Very hard to do, especially since the MSM et al. continually conspire against the anti-Left (I’m afraid to use any variant of “Right” because of the way they’ve twisted it now; see how that works?) which falls into the trap of using their concepts and phraseology.

    http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/media/341210-how-the-ap-stylebook-censors-pro-life-and-other-conservative-words

  44. AesopFan Says:

    AesopFan Says:
    August 22nd, 2017 at 8:42 pm
    Neo: have you started a book on when Mr. Zane’s Wiki bio will begin citing him as a prominent alt-Righter and Google will kick him off for inciting accusations-of-violence?

    I give him until midnight before he’s definitively thrown under the othering bus.
    * * *

    I lose.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Peder_Zane
    This page was last edited on 16 August 2017, at 23:41.

  45. Ymar Sakar Says:

    It is simple, although not easy, to use the Left’s disinformation against them. Merely bombard them with disinformation in the form of false positives.

    Find all the Leftists and Democrats that aren’t adhering to orthodoxy, then begin accusing them of being racists and with the Alt Right.

    Some of it will stick, and at least they will be distracted defending/purging their own to worry about attacking fake NAZIs like the KKK.

    The KKK was originally a Free Mason clone… not a clone of the Nazis. In fact, the Nazis and Sanger were a clone of some of the Free Mason ideologies.

Leave a Reply

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>



About Me

Previously a lifelong Democrat, born in New York and living in New England, surrounded by liberals on all sides, I've found myself slowly but surely leaving the fold and becoming that dread thing: a neocon.
Read More >>






Monthly Archives



Blogroll

Ace (bold)
AmericanDigest (writer’s digest)
AmericanThinker (thought full)
Anchoress (first things first)
AnnAlthouse (more than law)
AtlasShrugs (fearless)
AugeanStables (historian’s task)
Baldilocks (outspoken)
Barcepundit (theBrainInSpain)
Beldar (Texas lawman)
BelmontClub (deep thoughts)
Betsy’sPage (teach)
Bookworm (writingReader)
Breitbart (big)
ChicagoBoyz (boyz will be)
Contentions (CommentaryBlog)
DanielInVenezuela (against tyranny)
DeanEsmay (conservative liberal)
Donklephant (political chimera)
Dr.Helen (rights of man)
Dr.Sanity (thinking shrink)
DreamsToLightening (Asher)
EdDriscoll (market liberal)
Fausta’sBlog (opinionated)
GayPatriot (self-explanatory)
HadEnoughTherapy? (yep)
HotAir (a roomful)
InFromTheCold (once a spook)
InstaPundit (the hub)
JawaReport (the doctor is Rusty)
LegalInsurrection (law prof)
RedState (conservative)
Maggie’sFarm (centrist commune)
MelaniePhillips (formidable)
MerylYourish (centrist)
MichaelTotten (globetrotter)
MichaelYon (War Zones)
Michelle Malkin (clarion pen)
Michelle Obama's Mirror (reflections)
MudvilleGazette (milblog central)
NoPasaran! (behind French facade)
NormanGeras (principled leftist)
OneCosmos (Gagdad Bob’s blog)
PJMedia (comprehensive)
PointOfNoReturn (Jewish refugees)
Powerline (foursight)
ProteinWisdom (wiseguy)
QandO (neolibertarian)
RachelLucas (in Italy)
RogerL.Simon (PJ guy)
SecondDraft (be the judge)
SeekerBlog (inquiring minds)
SisterToldjah (she said)
Sisu (commentary plus cats)
Spengler (Goldman)
TheDoctorIsIn (indeed)
Tigerhawk (eclectic talk)
VictorDavisHanson (prof)
Vodkapundit (drinker-thinker)
Volokh (lawblog)
Zombie (alive)

Regent Badge