Michael Stuart Kelly

Charlottesville Unite the Right Rally Madness

Recommended Posts

Charlottesville 2017 Unite the Right Rally Madness

This thing has hogged the mainstream media nonstop and it sounds like the rekindling of the Civil War. Even President Trump has weighed in on it.

So I wondered, how many people showed up? Most media accounts say "thousands were expected" or something like that, but it's hard to find in their accounts how many went. Why? Well, from the best I can tell, a few hundred actually went. And, frankly, that's not much of a dramatic story.

In other words this entire thing, violence and all, is a publicity stunt, not an actual widespread movement. I would bet anything that without such a large media spotlight on it, what violence there was would have been far less. Instead, what would have happened would have been 500 knuckleheads or so from around the country would have gathered to protest a statue or whatever and talked crap, and maybe a few hundred on the other side from around the country would have gathered to yell at them and talk their own crap. Both sides would have made symbolic gestures. They would have gone home. The end.

Even idiots (all sides) have enough right to free speech to do that.

Now we have this media mess and I bet the average American doesn't even care. The real issue is not racism, it's media alienation from the public and media attempts to cause history instead of reporting on it.

There is a danger--a small one so far, but it's real. The media yelling and grandstanding is so intense, once we throw in paid activists in other cities doing stupid things, this could spread into a larger conflict as people get pissed by the activists' disruption and destruction. I don't expect it to, though.

The white power dudes are stupid and talk tough, and you will find a deranged individual or so among them, but they are not destructive in the sense the race riot people under President Obama were. They don't torch vehicles in the street, loot stores, shit on police cars, etc. I believe that is because they are not funded in the way Soros & Co. funded the BLM & Co. (and "antifa") professional agitators.

If this becomes a real thing, I will have other things to say about it. So far, it's only a media crock.

How does this sound? Danger! Danger! Warning! In a country of 380 million, a whopping few hundred bigoted goofballs from states all over America mobilized in a rally to destroy society as we know it, rain down evil on all our heads, and start a new civil war. Danger! Danger! :)

Somehow, once you correctly identify who showed up, the apocalyptic rest just doesn't sound right.

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do not support these guys, but I do support their right to free assembly and free speech.

It looks like they followed government rules, but those in power gave orders to sabotage law enforcement security and even default on permissions granted by the local government for this particular event.

According to this dude Kessler, it took a federal judge to reinstate their canceled permit to assemble near the statue of Robert E. Lee while the city government approved two permits to antifa groups. And the case was defended in court by the ACLU of all things--the ACLU defending white nationalists.

How's that for an upside-down world?

This is public information, so it should be easy to check these facts--even with the media grind show howling on steroids.

If what they are saying is true, they have a strong case for a lawsuit against the city government. And, since, according to Kessler, he already beat the Charlottesville city government in a civil liberties suit, he seems to be conversant with how to do it.

Wouldn't a large settlement in damages be a pisser for all those mainstream media folks grandstanding their virtue signaling about racism? Instead of keeping a lid on this thing, the enemies of the Alt Right are--in practical terms--growing the movement for them.

You don't claim virtue and moral high ground, then default on legal obligations and push thugs into the mix, and keep your reputation for fairness and objectivity. That's what white racists did for decades and it finally caught up with them.

Now, of all the goddam things, they've got the moral high ground against the government. And no amount of media virtue signaling about racism is going to hide the government cheating and supporting hostile thugs from an audience of young white men (and women) on the fence.

These undecided folks are going to look at all this confusion, see blatant cheating right in everyone's face, and despise the virtue signalers for cheating, ignoring cheating and taking sides with thugs--and the young white folks will be right. Then they will join the white nationalist movement. To add to that, of course, the deranged among them will do stupid things right in the middle of the mess, especially if it will make a media splash.

Everyday my contempt for the elitist establishment (which owns the mainstream media) grows. Not only are they corrupt, they are idiots.

Michael

 

EDIT: I'm not the only one who sees this. Here's a good article in TownHall, but it's not the only one in a conservative backlash. This theme is growing: How the Liberal Media Created Charlottesville.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And here's how it starts:

08.14.2017-05.32.png

This links to a New York Times article that tries to frame it in the standard racism mode, but at least gives the facts: Hurt and Angry, Charlottesville Tries to Regroup From Violence. The article even confirms that a judge ruled in favor of Kessler on the permit. Notice the slanted language, though, playing down this was a court case and the already-granted permit was suddenly canceled. Not a peep about the ACLU, either.

Quote

Sensing there might be trouble, the city tried to deny Mr. Kessler’s group a permit for Emancipation Park; officials wanted the gathering in a larger park, where they felt they could better control the crowd. But on Friday evening, a judge sided with Mr. Kessler.

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's an Ayn Rand quote that perfectly explains my position. It's from "Censorship: Local and Express" in Philosophy: Who Needs It:

Quote

It is not very inspiring to fight for the freedom of the purveyors of pornography or their customers. But in the transition to statism, every infringement of human rights has begun with the suppression of a given right’s least attractive practitioners. In this case, the disgusting nature of the offenders makes it a good test of one’s loyalty to a principle.

Ditto for white nationalists, so long as they are peaceful.

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Brant Gaede    1
1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Here's an Ayn Rand quote that perfectly explains my position. It's from "Censorship: Local and Express" in Philosophy: Who Needs It:

Ditto for white nationalists, so long as they are peaceful.

Michael

The President should have told them to go back into the holes they crawled out of. The communists too.

This has nothing to do with the right to assemble, the right to free speech, the right to petition. It has everything to do with moral suasion.

--Brant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

This has nothing to do with the right to assemble, the right to free speech, the right to petition. It has everything to do with moral suasion.

Brant,

Legally it has everything to do with right to assemble. 

But let's say the government can enforce "moral suasion." Once it sanitizes the public square of people like these misguided knuckleheads, who else should it sanitize?

Do you really want the government sanitizing groups of people over ideology and severing them from their individual rights?

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
anthony    0
8 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Here's an Ayn Rand quote that perfectly explains my position. It's from "Censorship: Local and Express" in Philosophy: Who Needs It:

Ditto for white nationalists, so long as they are peaceful.

Michael

Yech.  The Left's superior moral stance and rationale for action has everywhere been emotionality - our 'delicate feelings' - but now that another bunch nastily act out their emotional outrage, it merits (a one-way) condemnation by "right-thinkers": "Neo-Nazis". That gives them the gloating, moral high ground? To my view, both lots contain neo-Fascists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Marcus    0
Quote

The white power dudes are stupid and talk tough, and you will find a deranged individual or so among them, but they are not destructive in the sense the race riot people under President Obama were. They don't torch vehicles in the street, loot stores, shit on police cars, etc.

A bizarrely tone deaf statement considering what "white power dudes" were actually doing that day. I guess you define "not destructive" differently?

 

20170812-zaa-n230-666-jpg.jpg

And we have an elected president who won't even name these hooligans. Goes back to my earlier point of Objectivism and America being at odds.

These "white power dudes" are nothing short of a domestic terror group and should be treated as such.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Marcus said:

And we have an elected president who won't even name these hooligans.

Marcus,

Are you a progressive or just a child of media brainwashing?

President Trump earlier today (see here), direct quote:

Quote

Racism is evil and those who cause violence in its name are criminals and thugs including the KKK, neo Nazis, white supremacists and other hate groups that are repugnant to everything we hold dear as Americans.

He already did this kind of thing before over David Duke during the campaign and people still repeat the lie like quacking ducks that he does not disavow white supremacists.

This is a lot different than President Obama (an "elected president") who spent eight full years and DID NOT DISAVOW radical Islamic terrorism once to my knowledge. Not once. He not only wouldn't say the term, he prohibited his staff from using it, too. And he encouraged left-wing and black movement terrorism and riots. Look at how many times Al Sharpton went to the White House, for instance. How many times has Robert Spencer been there at the president's invitation? None, that's how many.

Shall I post pictures of the results of radical Islamic suicide bombers and vast amount of other terrorist activities these jerks caused? And the lefties and BLM? If you want to see blood and victims, I can supply a ton of it. No terrorism is pretty, but a hell of a lot more of it (especially Islamic radicals) is far worse for mankind than a sporadic incident here and there (white power knuckleheads). The DOJ will soon put these knuckleheads in line. I doubt they will be so quick cleaning up the mess from other terrorists that the left (and fellow travelers) seems fine with--so long as it's not too close to their private homes.

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Marcus said:

A bizarrely tone deaf statement considering what "white power dudes" were actually doing that day.

Where are the cars burning, the stores being looted, people shitting on cop cars? Got any pictures of that from these idiots?

I didn't think so.

Tracking 101.

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Marcus    0
58 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Where are the cars burning, the stores being looted, people shitting on cop cars? Got any pictures of that from these idiots?

I didn't think so.

Tracking 101.

Michael

Sure, people only died, dozens run over by car and brutally beaten by nazi thugs.

I'm sure malcontents "shitting on cars" is much worse though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Marcus    0
Quote

This is a lot different than President Obama (an "elected president") who spent eight full years and DID NOT DISAVOW radical Islamic terrorism once to my knowledge. Not once. He not only wouldn't say the term, he prohibited his staff from using it, too. And he encouraged left-wing and black movement terrorism and riots. Look at how many times Al Sharpton went to the White House, for instance. How many times has Robert Spencer been there at the president's invitation? None, that's how many.

Al Sharpton is not a black supremacist. Does not advocate black supremacy, separatism or genocide. He is a buffoon, yes. A self-serving trouble-starter, yes. But he is quite in a different league from Richard Spencer. We didn't fight a World War, losing millions of lives just so you can equate an opportunist with full blown Nazism/White Supremacy.

Quote

If you've got something intelligent to say, say it.

I'm saying it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Marcus said:

We didn't fight a World War, losing millions of lives just so you can equate an opportunist with full blown Nazism/White Supremacy.

Who is we?

And who anointed you to speak in the name of "we"?

You almost got something semi-intelligent out until that idiot comment.

Seriously, you should consider Solo Passion...

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Marcus    0
38 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Who is we?

And who anointed you to speak in the name of "we"?

You almost got something semi-intelligent out until that idiot comment.

 

We as in, you know, America. Obviously not you or me, but the country as a whole. I thought that was self-explanatory.

Quote

Seriously, you should consider Solo Passion...

Michael

I consider places that will have an open discussion (i.e. where dissent and independent thought is tolerated and encouraged).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Marcus said:

I consider places that will have an open discussion (i.e. where dissent and independent thought is tolerated and even encouraged).

Then stop trying to pick fights. 

Here is exactly what I am talking about:

10 minutes ago, Marcus said:

 

36 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Who is we?

And who anointed you to speak in the name of "we"?

You almost got something semi-intelligent out until that idiot comment.

We as in, you know, America. Obviously not you or me, but the country as a whole. I thought that was self-explanatory.

It's not self-explanatory. Not when you make comments like this: "We didn't fight a World War, losing millions of lives just so YOU can equate an opportunist with full blown Nazism/White Supremacy."

I won't even go into what the "country as a whole" means if it excludes you and me, as you just stated, nor your self-appointment as thought police enforcer--except to say that's not self-explanatory, either. 

Once again, you have a good brain. Use it for ideas. You are more than welcome when you do that.

If you prefer to pick fights and bicker, please go elsewhere. (Did I mention Solo Passion? :) )

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Marcus    0
Quote

Once again, you have a good brain. Use it for ideas. You are more than welcome when you do that.

Sure. Just understand we may disagree.  And I will also call out inconsistencies where I see it. If you fail to call out racists, I will do it for you. But I have nothing personal against you. If I didn't think this forum was "semi-intelligent" and capable of honest and good discussion I would not be here.

I've been on this forum for years, you all should know how I operate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Marcus said:

If you fail to call out racists, I will do it for you.

Then you are going to have trouble.

You speak for yourself on OL, not for me. Not for anyone else.

That's even in the posting guidelines. 

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

William complained on his blog that I did not mention the lady who was killed (Heather Heyer) and the others injured when that guy James Alex Fields rammed his car into a bunch of protestors. Rather than reword it, here is what I responded.

I don't like to cross post, but since this is a thing, I might as well put it here on this thread, too.

19 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

In my opinion, this was the work of a deranged individual (like the Bernie supporter who shot congressional people at baseball practice recently). I don't think Bernie supporters were planning that, nor do I think the outcome was what they wanted. It was a deranged individual among them who did that.

Ditto for these white nationalists. I don't think running a car into protesters, killing one and injuring a lot of others is what they were after with their demonstration. They were there to support a hateful world view that the US has moved on from, but I don't believe they showed up intending to kill and injure their enemies with terrorism.

If you believe that, it's your privilege. But it's not precise thinking. It's what the media agenda is right now, and I don't find the media circus at all rational.

If you are fishing for me to grandstand against racism, sorry. Not gonna do it. The ideas behind this affair are deeper. Besides, I was in love with a black woman once and lived with her a year. No regrets. My two boys have black blood in them. No regrets. I've lived what others like to play public shame-games with. Except I wasn't playing at life and virtue-signalling to my tribe and I don't have an ounce of shame in my soul.

Michael

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here.

For those who want me to condemn the white power knuckleheads more vigorously, this from The Daily Stormer is evil. I'm not going to quote it because I don't want that garbage on OL.

For those who don't want to go to the link, it's a derogatory story about the lady who was killed in Charlottesville, even blaming her for getting run over because, according to the article, she was too overweight to get out of the way.

How can anyone think these kind of stupid people will ever be anything but a tiny fringe in America? 

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Marcus said:

Al Sharpton is not a black supremacist. Does not advocate black supremacy, separatism or genocide. He is a buffoon, yes. A self-serving trouble-starter, yes. But he is quite in a different league from Richard Spencer.

On the idea part, this comment show a preference for race as a fundamental principle.

I don't think that way. The deepest fundament to me is initiating violence against innocents. It makes no difference to me if a person who bashes my head in was prompted by a race supremacist or by a "self-serving trouble-starter."

The bashed-in part of my head can't tell the difference.

Even in formal Objectivism, force versus mind, not racial attitude, is where the moral premise battle is fought. Racism (which is bad) is less fundamental on the ethical hierarchy.

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Brant Gaede    1
11 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Brant,

Legally it has everything to do with right to assemble. 

But let's say the government can enforce "moral suasion." Once it sanitizes the public square of people like these misguided knuckleheads, who else should it sanitize?

Do you really want the government sanitizing groups of people over ideology and severing them from their individual rights?

Michael

I'm talking about what the President says only. Not government action.

--Brant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

I'm talking about what the President says only. Not government action.

Brant,

OK.

16 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

President Trump earlier today (see here), direct quote:

Quote

Racism is evil and those who cause violence in its name are criminals and thugs including the KKK, neo Nazis, white supremacists and other hate groups that are repugnant to everything we hold dear as Americans.

Here's some more of what the President said about 13 hours ago:

:)

Now you know the extent of his "moral suasion" to the idiot mainstream press. They don't want morality. They want President Trump's blood and strike out at any sign of weakness or even his agreement with their grandstanding.

Everything the President says, everything, has to take this agenda-driven malice, betrayal and power-lusting by his enemies into account. If he does not do that, he will not be President for long. And don't think there aren't murmurs of assassinating him. Hell, they don't even hide it. See here on Real Clear Politics Video: Former Mueller Deputy on Trump: Deep State, "Government Is Going To Kill This Guy". The guy's name is Phil Mudd and here is a direct quote:

Quote

Let me give you one bottom line as a former government official. The government is going to kill this guy.

And, after talking about Manafort blah blah blah, he repeated it.

Quote

The government is going to kill this guy because he doesn't support them.

Jake Tapper, instead of shutting him down, went on to another guest. Only after she had her full say (and in TV time, this is a long time to correct a threat to the President's life) did Tapper bring it back up and try to hem and haw about "metaphor." I can almost hear the people in the control booth screaming in Tapper's earpeace. After Tapper said that thing about killing obviously being a metaphor (wink wink), Mudd mumbled a half-assed agreement and went directly to bashing Trump again.

Do you really think these people care about "moral suasion"?

Thank God President Trum does what he does and says what he says to make these idiots' heads explode. It's a form of letting them know he knows what they are really after and, at the same time, they are scum.

That's the real "moral suasion" for his supporters and, as a Trump supporter, I cheer it. The reason is real simple. I don't want to see President Trump assassinated (meaning real assassination, not a metaphor) or a coup against him staged (meaning real coup, not a metaphor). They do. They even say so.

Now... what was that about the evils of the President not bashing the KKK for a couple of days before bashing them again? :) 

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now