Current Events: Where is the Sanity?

We used to have a frontier where seriously sociopathic people and those who were just not right in the head could go off to survive, or not, and leave people who wanted to live in peace and quiet alone. Currently we don’t. I think this is putting a severe stress on our society.

A few examples.

https://victorygirlsblog.com/in-defense-of-looting-exercise-leftwing-sociopathy/

“Q: For people who haven’t read your book, how do you define looting?

VO: When I use the word looting, I mean the mass expropriation of property, mass shoplifting during a moment of upheaval or riot. That’s the thing I’m defending. I’m not defending any situation in which property is stolen by force.”

Oh. I see. So it’s not “force” if there’s mass chaos and the threat of violence from the swarms around you. Including fire. So the guy who says “stay quiet or I hurt the kids” isn’t really a rapist. That’s the level of logic we’re dealing with here.

https://thefederalist.com/2020/08/30/corporate-media-didnt-report-what-its-really-like-in-kenosha-wisconsin-so-i-will/

“Sam, an Indian immigrant who owns a family-run car dealership in downtown Kenosha, lost “every dime” he has, and the 20 people Sam employed have all lost their jobs “for nothing.”

Overwhelmed law enforcement protected the courthouse, but Sam’s business and many others were left at the mercy of the mob. “I’m a taxpayer,” said Sam, clearly distraught that law enforcement did nothing to protect his business. “This is not the America I came into,” the shattered man said. “What did we do to deserve all this?” ”

https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/tyler-o-neil/2020/08/27/black-man-stabbed-random-white-autozone-employee-in-the-neck-after-watching-police-shooting-videos-n855810

““Jayvon Hatchett stabbed Auto Zone employee 7 times after ‘watching Facebook videos of police shootings,’” WLTZ News reporter Robbie Watson posted on Facebook after the arraignment. “Hatchett smiles telling Detective he chose white man at random and stabbed him in the neck. Victim’s critical and traumatized by attack according to court testimony.” ”

https://thepostmillennial.com/breaking-trump-supporter-shot-dead-portland

“At the moment of the murder, a voice can be heard to celebrate the death of a “Trumper.”

Listen closely. This was the instant of the murder in Portland.

A: “Hey! Hey, we got one right here! We got a Trumper right here!”
B: “Right here?”  ”

https://twitter.com/MrAndyNgo/status/1300057309138227201

“As cars drive through the intersection, a man can be seen pulling a gun and shooting. The man who is hit stumbles and falls and is then illuminated by headlights.”


…I can guess already what the response will be, from those who have enough shame left to respond at all. “You can’t judge an entire group by the actions of one individual!”

Oh no? Then where does this so-called “movement” get off blaming all cops for one wrongful death? All men for being “potential rapists”? All whites for being “racist”?

I really have to laugh at that last one, bitterly, because up until the 1940s or so Irish, Scots, Italians, and anyone from Eastern Europe weren’t considered “white”. Not really. After all, the odds were that they were Catholic.

(At which all the Baptist/Quaker/who-knows-what Scots-Irish in the Appalachians and otherwise would have facefaulted, if facefaulting had been a thing back then.)

We just had the anniversary of MLK’s march on Washington, in which he famously declaimed his hopes that his children would have a world where they’d be judged not “by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character”. Only the people marching today are the ones supporting rioting, looting, and murder as “justice”.

What happened to that dream?

Human. American. Then whatever ethnicity you feel like dragging out of the family tree.

If you can’t put your priorities in that order, then you have a problem. And no amount of raised fists and terrifying people will fix it.

Advertisement

22 thoughts on “Current Events: Where is the Sanity?

  1. really remind me of ‘animal farm’ where the pigs kicked out the farmer and his family and took over, for a more free and better farm…

    the essence of it can be summerized in a sentance said there ‘all animals are equal, but some are more equal then others’

    at the end the pigs play poker with owner of the neighboring farm, and suddenly both lead farmer and lead pig have 8 aces each, and the pigs and human farmers are indistinguishable from each other

    Liked by 3 people

    1. Orwell knew what he wrote about.

      Napolean was Lenin, Snowball was Trotsky. Lenin, Stalin, and Trotsky were all evil, criminal, and knowingly chose to institutionalize an unceasing state of war as a form of ‘civilization’. They were personally confident in their own ability to stay on top of things for as long as they cared about, and the rest of the people in those societies were merely toys to them.

      The moderns we are discussing are the same exactly because they are communists. Communism was the state cult of the soviet union, the ever changing dogma of the personality cults Lenin, Stalin, etc used, and Trotsky would have used, to justify their individual murders and mass murders. Which were partly for retaining power, and partly recreational, because people who were not unusually evil generally did not develop the skills to win those power struggles.

      Liked by 3 people

  2. A lot of the Scots-Irish groups started out Presbyterian/Church of Scotland. Which was perhaps more strongly opposed to the Catholic Church than the Church of England.

    Though, I am inclined to argue that the folks ‘Back East’, who ‘just want to live in peace and quiet’ were wrong. Because I am a big fan of the court of Judge Isaac Parker. I don’t actually know the political factions responsible for shutting him down (or much about his actual jurisprudence), but am inclined to blame Easterners as a class, and not simply the Southern Democrats.

    There were a lot of bandits in Parker’s jurisdiction as a Federal judge. I know a little bit about what those bandits got up to. Some of them were the sociopaths, psychopaths, etc. you mention.

    There was probably no ‘nice’ way for a frontier with a heavy mixture of those sorts to become peaceful. Certainly, I am confident that it required harsher measures than were sufficient for more settled jurisdictions nearer to the Eastern coast.

    Liked by 4 people

    1. Well, there’s a difference between people thinking you might possibly have hooves and a tail (a fairly common waybacks belief about Catholics in some places), and people thinking that you somehow aren’t white when you actually have freckles and glow in the dark.

      But these were the same people who were sure that pale blonde Jews weren’t white, either, and that Japanese people were white. It was a status thing; it always was a status thing, because plenty of “black” people were whiter than plenty of KKK members from back in the day. There’s a kid of black ancestry from a historically black town in Ohio who was featured in an article because he started a black history museum in his town — who I’ve mentioned before, because he looks like Archie from the old comics.

      You have to be awfully sophisticated to ignore your eyes.

      And of course, there’d be no problem if people were talking about ethnicity rather than “race,” because culture and ancestral background are things that actually exist. Race, not so much.

      Liked by 2 people

  3. The voices were are seeing amplified on this are the subset of blacks in critical race theory academia, or who echo those academics, trusting without verifying.

    I am extremely confident that the critical race academics are not a majority of American blacks, and do not legitimately represent American blacks.

    First, a majority of whites are not scholars, so it is also defensible to say that a majority of blacks are not scholars.

    Secondly, critical race scholars are a subset of scholars. There are two opposing extremes that argue that critical race scholars are not a majority of black scholars, and might not speak for black scholars. I am using a broad definition of scholars, so DeWayne Antonio Craddock counts as a scholar of civil engineering. He wasn’t someone who was putting his best efforts into the analysis of critical race theory. Additionally, black military officers. Most of them are getting much more serious degrees than the ones which result from the study of critical race theory. History, accounting, engineering, etc.

    Critical race scholarship is in a greenhouse isolated from the real world. To obtain extra success in the here and now, it lets go of requiring some of the assumptions which 19th abolitionism was founded upon. CRT is kept isolated from hostile critical analysis that would game out the consequences of persuading modern whites to likewise abandon those assumptions. CRT believes very strongly that it can persuade whites to grant concessions, but will not persuade whites to match the assumptions that CRT’s persuasion rests upon.

    If CRT truly represented the views of American blacks, gaming out strategy would give some interesting suggestions for what whites should do.

    Anyway, I am still a little enraged by that comment on Twitter claiming that certain people are too philistine to appreciate the movie Black Panther’s artistic message. The message an artist tries to send, and the message they succeed in sending are not the same thing. The tweet’s theory of the message matches what some of the artists involved thought Black Panther was doing. That theory may be true for the viewers which hold to the CRT subset of Marxist-Leninist theory. I disagree that Black Panther sent that message, as I disagree that Alan Moore succeeded in sending his intended message with Watchmen. (Because of the time, the place, and Moore’s blindspots, Rorschach is quite a bit more unconditionally heroic than he intended. Rorschach also becomes by far the sanest member of the cast.)

    Liked by 3 people

  4. Anyway, I love trolling, and think it has a legitimate role in national or political conversations.

    Leaving trolling aside, current events strengthen my implacable resolve to treat others as individuals. As part of an explicit rejection of Marxist-Leninist theologies.

    I am badly educated in Christian theology. I do not know which confessions or catechisms are in line with my religious views, and which are not.

    I think correct practice of Christianity probably should be in terms of treating people as individuals, as opposed to treating them as symbols of groups. This is a result in my understanding of the fundamentals of the faith evolving. The basis of my understanding largely is hearsay from people who have studied older theological writings. Marxist-Leninist flavors of heresy are historically relatively recent, so the important theological mistakes might include some that were not of great interest to early theologians.

    Liked by 3 people

      1. Ignoring for the moment the Christian take on “sin” (rebellion against God), I would argue that the definition Pratchett gave is defining a symptom as a cause. Yes, it is a cause of many other things, but it is itself a result of prior causes. You “treat people like things” because you have defined “things” as stuff that you can treat “however you want without repercussion or thought”, and when you’ve already decided that there is some stuff that you can treat carelessly without worrying about repercussions you will always find reasons to expand the list of what you don’t care about. It’s just that, once it gets up to “people are things too”, that it becomes blatantly obvious when they try to fight back and you keep treating them carelessly. So really, what Pratchett defined isn’t “this is what sin is”, it’s “this is when sin becomes unavoidably blatantly obvious, tho it has almost assuredly already been an ongoing habit to have reached that point.”

        Obviously there’s other things too, but at least that one should be considered a sign, not a cause.

        Liked by 1 person

      2. It’s a rephrasing of the moral/philosophical idea of means to an end vs an end in and of themselves.

        From a Jewish/Christian POV, treating people as mere creation is to disrespect Himself, because we’re made in His image. (Yes, there’s more to it!)

        It’s Patchett. Even money on if he rephrased it the ‘means to an end’ thing deliberately, or figured it out on his own by the long way round, and hadn’t ever had the phrase stick in his head. (I have no doubt he READ it.)

        Liked by 2 people

  5. I’m always annoyed when people try to throw out cornerstones of society while depending on it. Like Anarchy is applied with a scalpel.

    You loot the “things you need”?
    Okay, let’s assume you loot food.
    Then you cook it in the microwave connected to the fully functional electricity grid?
    Where did that come from?
    I’m pretty sure they didn’t get a power grid from looting.

    Liked by 5 people

    1. Like the morons that spat at my uncles when they came back from Vietnam. I don’t have a lot of admiration for my one-eyed crazy uncle, but that he didn’t feed them several parts of their anatomy does impress me quite a bit. (Think of him as being like Satoyama, but obnoxious.)

      The phrase that keeps coming to mind is “they play with fire and don’t even realize it’s hot,” and the mental image is that idiot “punch an Nazi” who was shocked, offended and whining because when she wore weighted gloves and punched a dude, he took the hit and then punched back.

      Liked by 4 people

      1. I have to admit, that last one makes me go, “And what did you expect?”

        Except, I know exactly what narcissistic types expect. They think people will take their abuse forever, or at the very worst just leave. Because people are objects. Objects don’t hit back.

        Liked by 3 people

  6. I really have to laugh at that last one, bitterly, because up until the 1940s or so Irish, Scots, Italians, and anyone from Eastern Europe weren’t considered “white”. Not really. After all, the odds were that they were Catholic.

    Trivia-
    the Japanese were considered “white” in the south at that time.
    (Not Chinese, though, and I have no idea if anybody else was a big enough doin’ to be noticed.)

    More personal genetic type trivia, our first born came out with darker skin than I have– husband is a light Italian with a one grandparent that would’ve been a contemporary of the sweet ditz in the Princess and the Frog. I’m Irish, Scottish, English and one great-grand was some kind of Indian*.
    So I thought it was cool. 😀 Even cooler is that only one of our six has inherited my “hey, you looked at sun– sunburn for you!” defect.

    **************

    When I learned about the “I have a dream” speech, they didn’t mention it hadn’t been in his script. Always got cut down to the part about his kids, too.

    The rest of it seems very timely.

    And so even though we face the difficulties of today and tomorrow, I still have a dream. It is a dream deeply rooted in the American dream.

    I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.”

    I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia, the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood.

    I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a state sweltering with the heat of injustice, sweltering with the heat of oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice.

    I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.

    He was right.

    It’s American.

    It’s here, even though some folks are trying to drive people insane, and the crab-bucket is eating so many of those who try to escape.

    There’s an awful lot of hurt people who really want someone to blame, and an awful lot of old people who really want to feel like they’re young again– and even stuff like that PBS guy who just retired, who has been doing PBS since the 60s and WAS one of the guys over thirty targeted by the “don’t trust anybody over 30” that these old guys chanted as kids….

    It’s a mess.

    So many people have dedicated their lives to things…and found out that it doesn’t work. Even when they doubled down. And now they can either face that they made a horrible mistake, or burn everything.

    It’s so easy to decide to burn everything, when people are telling you that it’s good, it’s right, it’s justice.

    Look at how many of the “protesters” have really nasty criminal records. They’ve either been forgiven, without repentance– or they don’t believe forgiveness is possible, so why not double down?

    It’s just so painfully sad.

    Not as sad as seeing their innocent victims broken and bleeding, but it is sad.

    * Possibly half, no information from her nor her son-of-a-guy-kicked-out-of-at-least-two-countries husband, the preacher; if not for photographs and bust-your-gut-laughing stories about their sons going to the KKK membership drives to mooch free food, we’d have no idea; most of the stories on that side are about her husband’s mom, who was some kind of cousin to Wild Bill. I need to harass mom to write down all the cool family stories again….

    Liked by 2 people

  7. I was extremely depressed when someone quoted the ‘Dream’ speech and was answered with another MLK speech bit that was said later (poster said) and contradicted the hope/goal in the Dream words. Because of course, the later speech trumps the earlier one, never mind which will bring a better civilization.

    gah.
    Some don’t want the Dream. They want to hate.

    Sorry I can’t be more specific, the forum it was on is incredibly difficult to find specific concrete stuff on , much less that sort of thing.. And, of course, I didn’t make notes at the time.

    Liked by 2 people

      1. On the other hand, regardless of what the founder wants, if the organization doesn’t follow him… Similar to the question of “do you ascribe value based on the stated position of the group, or based on the actions of the group?”

        Liked by 2 people

      2. If the organization reaches its goal, and the only folks left are those who want to hijack the authority from the successful cause for other purposes– can they still be said to be pursuing the same goal?

        Liked by 1 person

      3. No. But when you have an organization openly chasing goal Y, it’s not right to say “this organization doesn’t want goal Y, it wants goal X” just because the initial purpose of the organization was to chase goal X. It is reasonable to say “the organization is no longer chasing its original goal, and should be renamed so as to avoid confusion (and prevent them from hijacking followers)”, but it is not reasonable to say “because the organization with that name was created for goal X, we have to claim the organization with that name is still seeking goal X”.

        Call them out on changing. Call them out on sneakily subverting their purpose without alerting their followers. Call them out on trying to weasel out of getting in trouble for what they’re doing by claiming to be unrelated. But don’t let them get away with claiming one thing and doing another, and then trying to falsely accuse those who are countering their actual position of being counter to the falsely claimed position.

        Like

      4. Of course, this does work both ways, for negative stuff. If the old organization was pursuing goals that most people don’t like, it doesn’t matter much if you aren’t pursuing those goals, you still shouldn’t be surprised when people assume you are (especially if you try claiming those goals aren’t part of the organization, rather than that you’re changing the organization). Look at the Furries for that one. I’ve had some of them defending openly known squicky ones with “but _we_ would never do that, therefore you can’t say _they_ would do that either, because we both claim the same organizational name (and we’re going to stick our fingers in our ears and not hear their own claims to having done that sort of stuff)”. That’s a case of “what did you expect people to think about you, when you took such a tainted organizational name _and blindly defended the ones who tainted it, merely for organizational solidarity_”.

        Liked by 2 people

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s