When I had a chat with my Seattle City Councilman Dan Strauss a couple of weeks ago I was a little surprised by his invocation of the 1990 WTO riots in connection with police brutality in Seattle, especially considering that he would have been 13 at the time. I know know what it was all about, now that I have got into the CHAZ chapter in Andy Ngo's Unmasked: Inside Antifa's Radical Plan to Destroy Democracy. Here's the quote:
Despite the ultraviolence of the Seattle riots, police were prohibited from using the best tool they had for crowd control: CS gas [tear gas].
That's because "Police Chief Carmen Best relented to political pressure from the Mayor's Office to ban the SPD from using [tear gas] despite its effectiveness."
I'd say that anyone with half a brain would recognize that the failure to deal firmly with Antifa has been a strategic mistake. But by concocting a story about Seattle Police Department brutality going back to 1990 my pal Dan Strauss gives himself permission to be a squish where crowd control is concerned.
Which leads to the whatabout issue with regards to Antifa vs. the January 6 riot. Which is the real problem? Antifa? The white supremacists? Or both? Or neither?
It's a "tell" isn't it, that the whole ruling class from Nancy Pelosi on down was genuinely shocked by the Capitol Hill riot on January 6: Build a Wall! Call out the National Guard! Notice that nobody really got hurt except rioter Ashli Babbitt. There was no bomb, like in the Capitol on March 6, 1970. Just a mob running through the Capitol building, taking selfies in the House chamber.
And yet, we learn, the Our Nance may have refused the offer of 10,000 troops from President Trump.
I have two questions. One is to understand what is really going on in the heads of chaps like Dan Strauss and Democrats in general with respect to lefty riots. Are they just lying, and going with the line that nothing to see here, just peaceful protests, because they want to destroy the GOP commoner voters? Somehow I can't believe that. I think that the problem is probably weakness, the "no enemies on the left" culture. The problem for a progressive politician is that he needs to be sympathetic to the protest/activist culture, because justice. If he is not as strong as the next lefty on the sacred right to "peaceful protest" then I suspect he can't have a career in Democratic politics.
Maybe it's just as simple as the existence of "oppressed peoples." First, there is systemic racism. Therefore we must protest against injustice. Therefore we can't be surprised if concerned activists sometimes cross a line; their hearts are in the right place.
And, clearly, both sides of the political conflict are fairly relaxed when their own side is in the streets, but terrified of the activists of the other side.
The other thing is the basic problem for all nationalistic Commoner Americans. When are our leaders going to figure out how to blow up the race card, and blow up the victim card, and blow up the "mostly peaceful protest" card?
I had a flash of intuition today reading two articles in Quilette about "suffering." You know, the suffering of a rough night on social media, and the paradox of increased "stress" in a time of physical plenty. The takeaway is that a good person cannot be indifferent to suffering; therefore we should do something about it.
The issue of suffering is also a big issue in Roger Scruton's Wagner's Parsifal: The Music of Redemption, i.e., redemption from suffering. There are all kinds of people suffering in Parsifal. But what do we do about it, Dick?
Obviously, while we are all called to ease suffering, there is a temptation for sufferers to take advantage of, or demand the compassion of others.
But that, of course, is exactly what our lefty friends tend to do. They demand that we redeem the sufferers, or we are racist-sexist-homophobes: What, they say? You don't care about other peoples' suffering?
Of course, we racist-sexist-homophobes might be tempted to say: after you, Alphonse. Let me see you do your Good Samaritan bit before you force me to contribute. And anyway, what is left of the redemptive aspect of relieving suffering when it is forced? No more Good Samaritan: just another taxpayer.
One of the points that Scruton brings out in his analysis of Parsifal is the cruelty of Titurel, forcing Amfortas to perform the Eucharist even though Amfortas suffers increased pain from his wound. Whaddya mean, forcing someone to redeem someone else's suffering at the cost of enormous pain? Who are you to insist, Titurel, old chap? Maybe that is what our liberal friends do, forcing America to succor their victim du jour no matter the cost to the ordinary Commoner forced to do the liberal's will.
Oh well. More research is needed.
No comments:
Post a Comment