Some of us predicted the National Review would run a “Two cheers for antifa rioting” article.
But we weren’t really predicting that — we were darkly, archly suggesting that that was within the realm of possibliity.
Well, we should have put money on the actual prediction coming to pass.
Because National Review is now officially an antifa organization.
This was written by someone from the (William) Brennan Center for Justice, a leftwing agitprop organization.
Did someone from that organization just submit it to National Review, wondering if was now so firmly on the left it would be published?
Or did an editor from National Review reach out to a leftwinger from the Brennan Center and commission the piece?
This is being shared around on all the c*cked-out listservs. They love it.
America Begins to See More Clearly Now What Its Black Citizens Always Knew…
Calls for justice rang from all corners, and many of them soon developed into demonstrations decrying the disparate treatment of black Americans by law enforcement. Some of these have broken into riots, devolved into looting, and spiraled into violent confrontations with heavily armed police forces.
Note the suggestiong here that the people attacking the cops are the Davids, and the “heavily armed police officers” are the Goliaths.
But the police are refraining from attacking the rioters — while the rioters hurl dead bricks and bottles at their heads.
Bricks pre-positioned in piles by the logistics corps of this insurrectionist army.
National Review is now supporting attacks on the police, and insurrection against America.
But the overwhelming majority have been civil exercises of the First Amendment rights to assemble peaceably and to speak freely about the effects of racism on our liberty and society.
The overwhelming majority of cops do not (accidentally) kill black men while restraining them. Should we focus on those non-criminal, non-controversial events, too?
You say you want to focus on the death of George Floyd rather than the literally millions of peaceful police interactions with the public that take place every year?
Why? Because while it’s a rare event, it’s a shocking event that tells us something important?
Then let me ask you: Why is it that you insist that we must not look at the arson, rioting, mayhem, vicious pack-animal assaults, and targeted assassinations of police, and instead look at the mundane non-criminal protests?
Weird — every year a hundred natural gas plants in the US do not explode.
But when one explodes spectacularly — of course that’s the one that makes the news.
Why can’t they focus on all the non-exploding natural gas plants?
Predictably, rather than take on the exceptionally difficult task of a national self-assessment, some politicians and media directed public attention to the most egregious actions during protest rather than to the aims of the protest.
Ah yes, Eric Holder’s “Americans are cowards about race.”
In other words, some media — conservative media — chose to report the truth, that there was widespread rioting, arson, looting, and assassination of police, rather than cover it up in order to serve the propaganda aims of Black Lives Matter.
That, this person from the leftwing (William) Brennan Center for Justice postulates is counter-revolutionary and therefore forbidden.
The brew of militarized police, enraged citizens, and criminal looters — bursting into scenes of chaos backlit by burning cars and flashbangs — is a powerful elixir.
An elixir like liquor — gives you a brief high, but it’s just excitement in a shotglass. Not real.
Sensational images and impassioned appeals to stop the violence flooded traditional and social-media outlets, broadcasting the destruction and airing competing ideas about how to restore order.
I’m sorry, are “appeals to stop violence” objectionable?
Who the fuck commissioned this article? I think this person should make his responsibility for pro-riot propaganda known, instead of hiding behind the vagueness of a masthead.
Does National Review believe that the poor dupes still donating to it are donating to it to pay for apologias for rioting and murder and insurrection? Or, perhaps: Are they right about this? Have they tacked so far left that their former conservative readership has entirely abandoned them and they now serve the same niche as the leftwing rags like The New Republic?
NR has always been lib/progressive. Buckley fought agains Barry in ’64! He helped defeat Ronny in ’76. He ltred to kill Ronny in ’80. When his murder attempt failed TO HIS CREDIT he backed Ronny! Honestly backed Rony.
Most of the rest at NR pretended to back Ronny. If the article has lots of: ifs, buts, on the other hands, except for…. it is J C A3 S2 “Friends….I come not to praise liberals but to bury them! For Ronny is a good man!”
Bill had no use for Barry and Barry returned the favor!