Charlottesville Race Riot

From iGeek
Jump to: navigation, search
AntifaDoughboy.jpeg
There's always two sides to History, that of the informed and the other side. The latter may be well intentioned, but if they don't know why something is happening, then their anger, frustration and venting is all misdirected at the wrong thing. Hate is taught, and the left is being taught hate through the media (disinformation). Just about everything the left has raged against (in Charlottesville) shows which side they're on.


A tale of two histories

It was the worst of times

I was talking to a good friend (and channeling the posts of a dozen other lesser friends) the other day about Charlottesville, and he was frustrated by what had happened and the President's speech in response.

His reality was:

  • The KKK/Racists/Alt-Right/Trump supporters (all synonymous with each other), held a huge rally with thousands
  • Over a racist idol being removed
  • The KKK attacked the other side, and drove a car into a crowd and murdered an innocent woman in a hate filled rage, for no reason
  • The smug President had apologized for White Supremacists and the KKK the day after the event
  • This is because he's part of the alt-right, and doesn't want to alienate his supporters
  • How could anyone like a President that did that?
  • And he's only one of a dozen friends I saw raging on the Facebook about the President and his allies on the same topic.

I asked them about antifa, if they knew why the guy drove into the crowd, and a bunch of parts of the story that CNN had omitted the context of, and they either hadn't heard of it, or had only heard of it through left-wing sources that doctored the record.

Heck, if I was a CNN watcher, or in a flock of like-minded friends, and that's all I knew about the events, I'd be pissed too. That doesn't make them evil, just wrong.

But I like data, and getting both sides of a story (and I usually lean towards the one that's being under-represented or reported). And in this case, there's two realities, the one above, and the rest of the story. The fact that they didn't know major parts of the story (that changes the context entirely), sort of proved my point that CNN and many outlets were lying (twisting).

It wasn't the worst of times

What is the real history?

  • A DNC supporting progressive bigot (Clayton Carter) murdered his Trump supporting neighbor in cold blood. The media ignored it completely. Why? If you haven't heard of this, it proves the medias bias, as this was more gruesome than the other murder the same week, that you did hear about.[1]
  • KKK and white supremacists (and other asshats) have been having non-violent rally's for decades.
    • Q: Why was this one different?
    • A: Because the DNC sponsored black-mask wearing Antifa has had violence at every single rally they turn up at, with their slogan, "punch a nazi in the face". (And a Nazi is anyone they disagree with). Antifa intentionally goes armed and masked goes to disrupt opposition rally's and to start fights (just like the brown/black shirt fascists did). There are many dozens of attacks in the past, where the left-wing media uses that violence to blame Trump or anyone but the left/perpetrators. Since this rally was attended by antifa, it was going to end in violence. However, this time the other side was armed too.
    • Not knowing that this conflict was because of the left's aggression, and having that explored on any discussion on this topic, changes the view of the President's response -- from one that knows the truth as is frustrated at the medias lies, to one where he's a racist apologist.
  • This wasn't the KKK, this was organized by the far more moderate white nationalists (far too nuanced for the Press). Who were frustrated at the Democrats Attempts to imitate ISIS and destroy another hundred year old statue because it didn't fit with their revisionist history. That's not quite the same thing as a march against minorities that the press played it as (even if a few asshats got megaphones at the event).
  • Something like 8x as many people (≈9K) showed up to a Brony Convention that was held at the same time. Seriously, guys that like My Little Pony was a bigger event, compared to a few hundred alt-right'ers, and a bunch of other people who were validly upset that history was being destroyed at the alter of Political Correctness / Intolerance. This was not a major trend and barely newsworthy event, except that antifa was able to turn the event violent.
  • The White nationalists got permits and show up at a rally, where they were attacked by antifa (who did NOT have permits). And the police not only do nothing to stop it, but they use the lack of antifa permits to clear the park... and push the white nationalists into the antifa mob to get assaulted, which caused a riot. All at the behest of the leftist local government that wanted this to happen. New York and other places that don't want violence, try to keep two protesting groups apart, not push them together. This was a major failure of the police/local government. If you don't understand that, then you're not qualified to have an opinion on this.
  • After a pro-statuary guy was trying to leave, he got routed into antifa mob, who was yelling and screaming at him, and after one hit his car with a baseball bat, he drove into the crowd (probably in a rage, but could have been in panic -- there were conflicting reports on that, early on). Again: major context changer. We don't yet know if this was premeditated terror, or response to premeditated terrorism on antifa's side.
  • This President came out a day after the event and denounced the hate "on both sides".... but the leftist media that hates him, made this non-event into a week long FakeNews story, and the left worked them up into a frothing mess over his speeches on the topic.
  • The left/media and their Klonvocation, lost their nut, and propagandized that there was no "other side". How DARE he defend the White Supremacists.... only they aren't quite, he wasn't, and the facts are on the Presidents side that things were fuzzy and still are as to whether this was terrorism, or a response. Unlike when Obama equivocated on real terrorism with far more evidence that it was premeditated, and the media played water-carriers. They ignored history: Obama had taken longer, and never named the perpetrators, denounced terrorism or islam (despite there being MORE clarity and time to do so). But this time it's different, because TRUMP! If this President cured cancer, they would accuse him of putting doctors out of work. There's no single yardstick where Trump would look bad for his actions, and Obama wouldn't look worse. But some people don't care.

So we're divided: those that care about fairness to both sides, and those that listen to the leftstream media. And the media doesn't realize that their overreactions keep immunizing Trump against their overreactions (at least by those that support Trump).

This isn't an increase in violence/racism in the nation, and it's not a growing hate-trend, it's backlash against the hate-trend from the left. You don't turn people into racists just because the President moves from (D) to (R).

Conclusion

Democrats (like the DailyKos founder Markos Moulitsas) are quick to criticize others for broad brushing, and quicker to do it worse (and not call their own side for doing it.

While I'm not a fan of the caustic white nationalists (or their rally's), and I suspect most of them wouldn't be fond of an Iranian guy with a Muslim father, the facts still matter. If broad brushing everyone for retaining our history as the KKK is OK, then that makes all those opposed to the the Klueless Klux Klan. Either that, or we should stop broad brushing for both sides.

But the facts include:

  • The media got the story wrong, as have all my well intentioned friends ranting about how wrong this is, without a clue as to what happened (or a willingness to ignore their sides culpability in it).
  • I've seen far more angry haters on the left than the right on this one. Which is NOT to say "your side is worse" and use moral equivalency -- it's to point out that justice needs to be blind and we need to use consistent moral and legal standards.
  • The Supreme Court, history and any moral standard says that there is no exception on free speech for hate speech. Free speech only counts when you're letting people you disagree with, have their voice. Either you have a 1st Amendment and one group of fascists gets to complain when another group of fascists is destroying historical monuments, or you do not have free speech. The left is against free speech.

If you know the facts, the President's response was not unreasonable. The day after the event, the President was getting reports that antifa started it, with the help of the cops, and the media was complicit in a lie about what happened. So he said everyone should calm the fuck down (both sides should stop the violence). I agree. The sane should agree. The left will never agree -- because it breaks their premise that they are never wrong, and thus they never have anything to do with what goes wrong.

The media was intentionally not reporting the truth (or at least both sides of it), and they weren't going to start just because the President told them to, or said they were FakeNews. They were going to find any excuse to attack him and they did. But this polarizes the left-media defenders against the informed (that know better). Facts won't convince the left, and lies won't convince the right -- so we're are an impasse. But I have to think that the truth will win out long term, and that doesn't bode well for the Democrats.

More

Antifascism

AntifaRWViolence.jpg
AntifaImages0.jpg
Antifascism is just fascism by another name

Other arguments

But Robert E. Lee was a racist that that fought for slavery.

Thus anyone who wants to see that statue is a racist too. Only this is an appeal to ignorance that shows why we need that Statue, because:

  • Lincoln offered to let the South have slaves forever (Constitutional Amendment), if they came back (Corwin Amendment).
"I understand a proposed [Corwin] Amendment to the Constitution has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service. Holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable.”
Lincoln's first inaugural address
  • The South offered to give up slavery entirely, if the North let them go (and they considered it again, if it would get Europe on their side).
  • Lee gave up his slaves before the war, Grant kept his until the end.
Letter to his wife
"slavery as an institution, is a moral & political evil in any Country"
Robert E. Lee

So how was Lee fighting for slavery when he had personally given it up, and could have had slavery if he gave up the war? Lee fought for southern independence (there's a difference).

If the North wanted to end slavery, they could have made that deal, but they refused. They could have agreed to buy all slaves (pay for the slaves freedom) as had happened in the UK and elsewhere, and that would have avoided the civil war and freed the slaves too.

So the argument against Lee because "Slavery" is based on impassioned ignorance, and proof why we need the statue. The point is this is a lot more complex for some people than for others. Many of us disagree with slavery but recognize that Lee fought better and more honorably (for the wrong cause) than the North did (aka Sherman). If we must tear down Lee's statue, then certainly Lincoln, Washington, Jefferson, and more should come down too.

More info at: Free Speech and the 1A

False Flag Frame-up?

There's some conspiracy stuff, that is curious: was this all a false flag effort by the far left?

Why would the right think that?

  1. Because that is a normal tactic of the left
  2. there's some evidence it might have been (busses with both sides arriving in unison, evidence of that in the past by BLM and antifa)
  3. the organizer of the National Socialist rally in Charlottesville (Jason Kessler) was an Obama supporter and Occupy Wall Street activist
  4. even far-left hyper-partisan hate groups like SPLC admits there's some questions about his past
  5. the medias blatant partisan propagandizing in misrepresenting what happened

Stuff like that.

It doesn't mean it was real, or wasn't. I suspect there was some false-flagging by the left, and the media is disinterested in that. But that's not exactly a full blown conspiracy between the two. Just that the Soros flock and the left believe any evil action by their side is justified, so a few will do things like this. And that the media is incompetent and partisan so won't report on it. But that doesn't mean that there weren't real Neonazi's, White Supremacists, and asshats out there on both sides that were sincere. Just some of the seeding or escalation had some paid propagandists and agendas.

But whether you believe in it, or not. (Or how much). The facts are there's enough there, to convince many Trump supporters of what they want to believe: that the media is full of trolls and liars that are out to get the administration. And thus if Trump was impeached for something like this, it would have millions of people pissed off at the false-flag coup that the Democrats are trying to do (that started with tantrums the day they lost the election, if not before). So the more the media (like CNN) puts out one side's propaganda and conspiracy theories about Trump being in cahoots with the White Nationalists, or sensationalizing things like this, while ignoring the worse that's happening the other way, the more divided we become as a country, between the half informed CNN watchers, and the fully informed (those that pay attention to what others are saying).

References

Propaganda

Memes