I wanted to go into a little more detail. That last post was long enough and dwelling on the specifics would have taken away from the overarching themes.
The two-dimensional political axis opens up a lot of understanding, but it obscures some things, too. First off, nothing is simple, and a two dimensional space is generally better than a linear one, but even then it doesn't capture all the nuance. Some specifics don't map neatly onto a political spectrum of any dimension because they are affiliated for historical reasons rather than logical or thematic ones. That's why you hear about "liberals versus progressives" and conservatives and libertarians describing themselves as "classical liberals" whereas twenty years ago there were just "liberals" on the left and they were on average moderate enough for conservatives to have conversations and alliances with.
The two dimensions perhaps would be better considered as an evolution of the political landscape than as a diagnosis. It's still common to look at conservatives and say "Hey, they want to restrict abortion, and drugs, and marriage not to mention sex itself, and liquor, and shut down businesses on Sundays, so how can they claim to be the party of liberty?" But as the arguments have developed, so have the stances on the positions, regardless of the positions themselves. Democrats used to be the party of "keep your morality off my pursuit of happiness," but now you're more likely to see people who vote (R) saying "as long as you meet the low bar of not distressing my children in public, I'm more than happy to let you do your own thing and to mind my own business." The ones who vote (D)? They're either saying "your disagreement with me is violence and it needs to be curbed whether or not you express it," or they're saying "You're perpetuating systematic if not acute violence and if promoting thought police is the best way to stop wrongthink from perpetuating white guilt, then so be it."
This has been their game for fifty-two years, but I think as their tent gets broader to include more obscure and artificial victim demographics, the tent poles of popularity won't be able to hold up all the canvas. We're looking at pleas to accommodate people whose struggles have sunk to somewhere between "never experienced enough hardship not to take inconvenience personally" and "My coworkers oppress me with their coffee club because I prefer pop to java." Sure, gender identity--whatever it is--is a more grave matter, but it's also something that usually is only called into question in cases of early abuse, and when it's not, is something that is usually outgrown when placed into its proper context (e.g. a girl might be a tomboy, but that doesn't make her a lesbian, nor does it make her a boy, even if it's not just a phase).
As for the boogaloo....
My first thought, wen I realized the "talks of CW2 are going mainstream" article wasn't just a report on that fact, was that it was an effort to preemptively paint it as a white nationalist movement. Get the narrative in front of the truth, so to speak.
For one thing, white supremacists aren't ashamed of who they are. They usually know to keep their mouths shut in mixed company but still tend to assume that everyone white still agrees with them secretly. When they come out in force, there is little doubt. I'll admit the Confederate flags muddy the waters a bit, but those being matched by Antifa flags, I don't think it's something one can honestly claim a difference of opinion on once the context is established (i.e. Lansing versus Minneapolis).
Secondly, for this to be white supremacists instead of Antifa, there would have to be protracted coordination between white bigots and BLM. Do you seriously believe they would deign to do such? Especially when the Ferguson riots and everything since have proved that urban American communities are enough of a powder keg not to need any outside help? It supports their argument better than them planting shills and confederates to catalyze all the burning and looting and then claiming superiority.
It would also require them to be so numerous and well organized that they could spontaneously trigger riots not just in Minnesota, not just across the country, but in Europe and Asia. Why would they even go to Korea to stage a riot? Why do Europe and Asia care enough about a single additional case of police brutality ending in the death of a man with a rap sheet, to erupt like this? I know our precious Wokes think they're so sensitive, but are they really so ethnocentric that they still think America is the center of the world? Hong Kong is still getting crushed; why aren't we hearing about that from the MSM?
I mean, really--unless they're putting on white hoods, which they're not, they're not as organized as Antifa. those confederate flags are over a hundred and fifty years old--not literally, but the movement--and these guys are pining for their erroneous dream of glory days; the MSM claims Antifa is a decentralized grassroots movement, but only sometimes, and they don't just bring flags to events, they have a de facto dress code, and a consistent M.O., and web sites where you can buy their swag.
The funniest part--not really, but you know what I mean--is all the concern some people are expressing about the lines out of the door at gun stores, where all the people are white.
Yeah, if you've only read the MSM stuff that puts white nationalism in the front of your mind, I can see the concern, but there's a glaring unasked question:
If it's the instigators of the riots who are buying guns, why did they wait until now to arm up, and if it's them, why are they falling back on bricks and molotov cocktails in the riots themselves?
I suspect a part of the answer is rioters bussed in from out of state can't get guns where they live, and don't want to risk getting caught during transport, so they fall back on the usual weapons of civilian insurrectionists.
And Antifa itself? I don't know why people bother defending their legacy, no matter how lofty they claim their motives are. "They're not really violent, violence just follows them." Do even they make that claim? Sure, they may not always do the provoking when real skinheads show up--usually it doesn't take much to get those guys to cross the line, no criticism there--but I submit it is not a coincidence that the two go together. Especially when you see people in their uniform, and you see their flags, and you see them directing waiting rioters to particular storefronts and stashes of bricks, and then themselves get filmed breaking windows and starting fires. After all that, the violence that spreads is a foregone conclusion.
Now, maybe Antifa are white supremacists in that condescending way that progressives tend to be--all compliments to minorities are backhanded, their claimed efforts and motives are patronizing and even infantilizing, and beyond the degree to which our self-proclaimed elites treat hoi polloi in general. You know, how it's not just that white men actively held down all minorities and particularly black people but not particularly Chinese or Korean or Japanese people, but it's so ingrained and so pervasive that a victim can barely even make a healthful decision in his own life even if he's woke and unimpeded/*. I'd certainly think so, considering they all seem to be white young men in black clothing and masks, and if I stuck to the MSM and social media I'd be told as much, but when you go to look them up...it's all suspiciously vague and oblique.
One might think they weren't really involved, if it weren't for the uniforms, and the flags, and the dearth of denying responsibility.
The two-dimensional political axis opens up a lot of understanding, but it obscures some things, too. First off, nothing is simple, and a two dimensional space is generally better than a linear one, but even then it doesn't capture all the nuance. Some specifics don't map neatly onto a political spectrum of any dimension because they are affiliated for historical reasons rather than logical or thematic ones. That's why you hear about "liberals versus progressives" and conservatives and libertarians describing themselves as "classical liberals" whereas twenty years ago there were just "liberals" on the left and they were on average moderate enough for conservatives to have conversations and alliances with.
The two dimensions perhaps would be better considered as an evolution of the political landscape than as a diagnosis. It's still common to look at conservatives and say "Hey, they want to restrict abortion, and drugs, and marriage not to mention sex itself, and liquor, and shut down businesses on Sundays, so how can they claim to be the party of liberty?" But as the arguments have developed, so have the stances on the positions, regardless of the positions themselves. Democrats used to be the party of "keep your morality off my pursuit of happiness," but now you're more likely to see people who vote (R) saying "as long as you meet the low bar of not distressing my children in public, I'm more than happy to let you do your own thing and to mind my own business." The ones who vote (D)? They're either saying "your disagreement with me is violence and it needs to be curbed whether or not you express it," or they're saying "You're perpetuating systematic if not acute violence and if promoting thought police is the best way to stop wrongthink from perpetuating white guilt, then so be it."
This has been their game for fifty-two years, but I think as their tent gets broader to include more obscure and artificial victim demographics, the tent poles of popularity won't be able to hold up all the canvas. We're looking at pleas to accommodate people whose struggles have sunk to somewhere between "never experienced enough hardship not to take inconvenience personally" and "My coworkers oppress me with their coffee club because I prefer pop to java." Sure, gender identity--whatever it is--is a more grave matter, but it's also something that usually is only called into question in cases of early abuse, and when it's not, is something that is usually outgrown when placed into its proper context (e.g. a girl might be a tomboy, but that doesn't make her a lesbian, nor does it make her a boy, even if it's not just a phase).
As for the boogaloo....
My first thought, wen I realized the "talks of CW2 are going mainstream" article wasn't just a report on that fact, was that it was an effort to preemptively paint it as a white nationalist movement. Get the narrative in front of the truth, so to speak.
For one thing, white supremacists aren't ashamed of who they are. They usually know to keep their mouths shut in mixed company but still tend to assume that everyone white still agrees with them secretly. When they come out in force, there is little doubt. I'll admit the Confederate flags muddy the waters a bit, but those being matched by Antifa flags, I don't think it's something one can honestly claim a difference of opinion on once the context is established (i.e. Lansing versus Minneapolis).
Secondly, for this to be white supremacists instead of Antifa, there would have to be protracted coordination between white bigots and BLM. Do you seriously believe they would deign to do such? Especially when the Ferguson riots and everything since have proved that urban American communities are enough of a powder keg not to need any outside help? It supports their argument better than them planting shills and confederates to catalyze all the burning and looting and then claiming superiority.
It would also require them to be so numerous and well organized that they could spontaneously trigger riots not just in Minnesota, not just across the country, but in Europe and Asia. Why would they even go to Korea to stage a riot? Why do Europe and Asia care enough about a single additional case of police brutality ending in the death of a man with a rap sheet, to erupt like this? I know our precious Wokes think they're so sensitive, but are they really so ethnocentric that they still think America is the center of the world? Hong Kong is still getting crushed; why aren't we hearing about that from the MSM?
I mean, really--unless they're putting on white hoods, which they're not, they're not as organized as Antifa. those confederate flags are over a hundred and fifty years old--not literally, but the movement--and these guys are pining for their erroneous dream of glory days; the MSM claims Antifa is a decentralized grassroots movement, but only sometimes, and they don't just bring flags to events, they have a de facto dress code, and a consistent M.O., and web sites where you can buy their swag.
The funniest part--not really, but you know what I mean--is all the concern some people are expressing about the lines out of the door at gun stores, where all the people are white.
Yeah, if you've only read the MSM stuff that puts white nationalism in the front of your mind, I can see the concern, but there's a glaring unasked question:
If it's the instigators of the riots who are buying guns, why did they wait until now to arm up, and if it's them, why are they falling back on bricks and molotov cocktails in the riots themselves?
I suspect a part of the answer is rioters bussed in from out of state can't get guns where they live, and don't want to risk getting caught during transport, so they fall back on the usual weapons of civilian insurrectionists.
And Antifa itself? I don't know why people bother defending their legacy, no matter how lofty they claim their motives are. "They're not really violent, violence just follows them." Do even they make that claim? Sure, they may not always do the provoking when real skinheads show up--usually it doesn't take much to get those guys to cross the line, no criticism there--but I submit it is not a coincidence that the two go together. Especially when you see people in their uniform, and you see their flags, and you see them directing waiting rioters to particular storefronts and stashes of bricks, and then themselves get filmed breaking windows and starting fires. After all that, the violence that spreads is a foregone conclusion.
Now, maybe Antifa are white supremacists in that condescending way that progressives tend to be--all compliments to minorities are backhanded, their claimed efforts and motives are patronizing and even infantilizing, and beyond the degree to which our self-proclaimed elites treat hoi polloi in general. You know, how it's not just that white men actively held down all minorities and particularly black people but not particularly Chinese or Korean or Japanese people, but it's so ingrained and so pervasive that a victim can barely even make a healthful decision in his own life even if he's woke and unimpeded/*. I'd certainly think so, considering they all seem to be white young men in black clothing and masks, and if I stuck to the MSM and social media I'd be told as much, but when you go to look them up...it's all suspiciously vague and oblique.
One might think they weren't really involved, if it weren't for the uniforms, and the flags, and the dearth of denying responsibility.
No comments:
Post a Comment