Streetwise Professor

July 28, 2020

Reflections on the Revolution in Portland

Filed under: History,Politics — cpirrong @ 12:12 pm

Although Edmund Burke was initially favorably disposed to the French Revolution, the seizure of King Louis XVI and Queen Marie Antoinette by a crowd of Parisian women (a wall of moms?) in October, 1789 turned him into an ardent foe. After reading a pamphlet by an English divine, Richard Price, which compared the events in France to the English “Glorious Revolution” of 1688–an event that Burke revered–Burke was spurred to action, and in 1790 penned Reflections on the Revolution in France.

The book was a sensation, and effectively defined, intellectually anyways, the divide between contending view of the Revolution. Burke’s book resulted in immediate retorts, notably by Mary Wollstonecraft and Thomas Paine.

In some ways, Burke and his opponents were in complete agreement. Both believed that the Revolution was freeing France from the shackles of the past. The difference was that Burke viewed this with horror, whereas the Wollstonecrafts and Paines (and even some of Burke’s Whig colleagues, like Edward Fox) greeted it with enthusiasm, rapture even.

At the time, Burke’s interpretation was attacked as exaggeration, but events proved that he had a better, and far more realistic, understanding of the revolutionary dynamic, and the consequences of shattering the shackles. Insofar as exaggeration is concerned, yes, Louis and Marie were knocked about a bit, and humiliated, and the scenes between Versailles and Paris were chaotic and shocking to someone of Burke’s sensibilities. But they remained royalty, and remained alive.

But Burke saw that the forces of anarchy and what we now call nihilism (the word was not coined until the mid-19th century, and then in Russia) had been unleashed. He saw that there was no limiting principle in the revolutionary rhetoric. He took seriously the vaulting ambitions of some to revolutionize society root and branch. He had a tragic view of humanity: he referred to “the causes of evil which are permanent,” and believed that the complete dissolution of the institutions that kept these evils in check (perhaps with their own attendant evils) would result in disaster.

Within a few years, events would vindicate him. The execution of Louis and Marie. The Terror. And ultimately, something that Burke had predicted–the emergence of a military strongman who would restore order.

Burke, in other words, was a Cassandra. A seer who accurately foretold doom, but was dismissed and abused by those who were doomed.

Burke was not a reactionary. He had supported the American Revolution, and as I noted already, revered the Glorious Revolution. He was also famous for his prosecution of Warren Hastings for corruption in India and–critics of colonialism take note–accused the East India Company of doing untold damage in India.

But he believed that society required institutions, rules, and morals to restrain ugly human impulses. And he believed that attempts to revolutionize society root and branch would result in chaos and mass human misery.

Burke came to mind in watching the events in Portland–and copycat anarchy in other cities like Seattle and Oakland. The rioters there–I will not dignify them with the moniker “protestors”–avowedly desire the complete eradication of the United States and its institutions. Like the most radical of the French revolutionaries of 1789-1796, they believe that the entire system has to be overturned and replaced by an entirely new, utopian one.

Don’t believe me? Just ask them.

Like Burke’s critics, you might dismiss my attention to the radicals. They are just a fringe, you might say. Hell, if you are of the mind of Jerry Nadler (if so, you have my pity), you will dismiss the above as a “myth” deserving of no attention whatsoever: indeed, you will attribute my attention to partisan malice.

But what Burke perceived is that the radicals, the hard men–and today, hard women–have a decided advantage. Indeed, their hardness is their advantage. In war and politics, will matters. Those of iron will exert influence and power far beyond their numbers.

No major revolutionary movement–not just in France, but in Russia in 1917, or in China in the 1940s, or in Cuba in the 1950s-60s, or in Cambodia in the 1970, and on and on–has been remotely in the majority. Indeed, the defining idea of Leninism is that a small, dedicated elite cadre, not a mass of the people, is the driving force in revolution.

We are already seeing that the ruling class in the United States is largely deferential to the radicals. The Democratic Party defends them: as I write, the spittle-spewing morons on the House Judiciary Committee are hectoring AG William Barr for daring to defend federal property against the New Jacobins.

Fools. Do they not realize that they would be sent to the guillotine if the black-clad “scrawny, pasty white booger-eating communist shitheads” prevail?

Societies that have self-confidence crush such anti-social, radical, extremist thugs. Societies that don’t crumble before them, and pay the price in blood and treasure.

In the US today, many of the elite believe that standing up to anti-social, radical, extremist thugs is supposedly authoritarian. If those voices prevail, the rest of us will reap what the elite have sown.

This isn’t about George Floyd, or any particular episode of injustice. Those on the streets in Portland and elsewhere believe this is about the fundamental, irredeemable injustice–and evil–of America. An original sin for which there is no salvation, and which can be redeemed only by destruction. George Floyd is just a pretext (a concept that Burke explored in detail in Reflections).

Burke said other things that resonate today, in particular the assault on history, and the assessment of guilt on the descendants of alleged sinners of generations past:

They find themselves obliged to rake into the histories of former ages (which they have ransacked with a malignant and profligate industry) for every instance of oppression and persecution which has been made by that body or in its favour, in order to justify, upon very iniquitous, because very illogical principles of retaliation, their own persecutions, and their own cruelties.

And

It is not very just to chastise men for the offences of their natural ancestors; but to take the fiction of ancestry in a corporate succession, as a ground for punishing men who have no relation to guilty acts, except in names and general descriptions, is a sort of refinement in injustice belonging to the philosophy of this enlightened age.

It’s almost as if Burke foretold not just The Terror, but White Privilege and the Six Degrees From Slavery frenzy.

Those things, like many other things he wrote in Reflections, rhyme in America despite the passage of 230 years and the distance of thousands of miles.

So go ahead, and dismiss Portland (and its echoes in other cities) if you will–just as the “enlightened” of 1790 dismissed Burke. But before doing so, read Burke in the light of what happened almost immediately afterwards.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

35 Comments »

  1. If the current civil war in America is about slavery again ( this time, mental enslavement via cultural Marxism ), what will the Emancipation Proclamation look like? Will corporations be prohibited from wasting shareholder money on “diversity”, “carbon neutrality” and other such “CSR” nonsense?

    Comment by Ivan — July 28, 2020 @ 3:10 pm

  2. “No major revolutionary movement … has been remotely in the majority.” Nor in British North America.

    It’s conceivable that the Glorious Revolution did have majority backing – certainly nobody much in England and few in Scotland bothered to oppose it. If it did have popular backing it would probably be because of religion – plenty of people viewed James VII and II as starting to impose a reactionary Roman Catholic revolution. Maybe it should be called the Glorious Counterrevolution.

    What would have happened if James had had a head on his shoulders? Marxists presumably view such a question as invalid.

    The Claim of Right might soon resonate within the USA: “Whereas King James the Seventh did … invade the fundamental constitution of this Kingdom and altered it from a legal limited monarchy, to an arbitrary despotic power”.

    Comment by dearieme — July 28, 2020 @ 3:49 pm

  3. I think one key difference here is that Antifa is geographically isolated and funded by a small group of limousine leftists. That makes it easier to identify key people and decapitate the operation. This appears to be what the Feds are doing with targeted arrests and basic gumshoe investigation of financial rat-trails. Would the Communist revolution of 1917 have succeeded had the Tsarist government found out Lenin’s safe-houses in Finland?

    Comment by M. Rad. — July 28, 2020 @ 8:35 pm

  4. A correction: when Lenin had safe-houses in Finland, there was no Tsarist government in Russia; as a matter of fact, the monarchy fell a month before Lenin’s arrival from abroad.

    That was a failure of Provisional Government, a temporary entity of well-meaning liberals, meant to bring the country to Constitutional Assembly and to supposedly democratic order.

    Comment by LL — July 29, 2020 @ 5:42 am

  5. The halftone background on this blog makes it difficult to read the text. The text also is too small. Please clean this up.

    Comment by bob sykes — July 29, 2020 @ 6:47 am

  6. What specific law are these “limousine leftists” breaking by funding BLM or antifa? I’m no fan of either outfit but a dollar contributor could well argue that he’s supporting a political movement, so protected by the constitution.

    Comment by philip — July 29, 2020 @ 7:37 am

  7. It is always enjoyable to learn that Burke’s writings are considered both apposite and valuable. Too often, political philosophy ignores his contribution because he is regarded (wrongly, in my opinion) as being an unsystematic thinker. He is no Hegel or Marx or even a Mill, but he is far more readable as a result. So, ‘kudos’ for writing about him !!!

    What is happening in the US appears to be (to an outside observer) very much a revolution. I am also increasingly persuaded by events that it is not spontaneous, but is rather an orchestrated effort. More important, that this simmering ‘revolution’ persists two months on is a damning indictment of the US political class. One US blogger that I read regularly (Instapundit) frequently refers to it as the worst in US history. Regardless of whether you agree with that distinction, one has to acknowledge that it is truly horrible. (By the way, I do not exempt any other Western democracy from being described in similar terms.) That this is so evident in an election year makes what is happening even more poignant. The upcoming US presidential election will see, on one hand, a deeply flawed incumbent whose political platform contains many good planks but whose implementation has been derailed by the fateful combination of his ‘twitter’ dependent personality and the anti-democratic behaviour of the previous administration. And on the other, there is a candidate who is quite obviously not mentally fit to hold a senior political office and who, in many ways, is at least as corrupt as his opponent. What has happened that these two – Trump and Biden – are the best that the US can produce? Trump is currently, by far, the better of two unfortunate choices, but surely a nation of 300 million should be able to foster better leaders. And that so-called conservatives would support Biden knowing what he stands for (is that the appropriate word?) out of mindless hatred for Trump’s personality, is also surprising. I believe that the ‘revolution’ is drawing much of its strength from this situation. COVID obviously has had a role, but the problems run much deeper.

    Although I am not a US citizen, I have long admired the US system of government and its Constitutional framework. As an outsider, I am less comfortable with the intensity of its devotion to individualism that I think needs always to be balanced with obligations to a larger community, but that is beside the point. The US has been an inspiring experiment in constitutional government where liberty is a defining element. It is something to be admired, warts and all. But I am deeply troubled by the evidence on display everyday of the unwillingness of so many authorities to defend that system – authorities that have frequently sworn oaths to do just that. I include in that category elected officials, police forces, academics (who should most strongly defend freedom of speech but too readily do not), and the US military leadership. That is, perhaps, the greatest source of disappointment for me. If the institutions of the state are not willing to defend the state, how viable is the experiment? I truly hope that I am wrong, for all of us will be affected by the sort of radical and thoughtless change being advocated by those in support of the ‘revolution’.

    With specific regard to comment #5, I am not convinced that the US Constitution (Bill of Rights) protects the right to support armed groups or groups advocating armed insurrection. Surely support for such groups (particularly after so much evidence of their intent) is the equivalent of aiding a criminal conspiracy, even if you are not directly engaged in the planning or fomenting of the violence itself.

    Comment by Ben in Ottawa — July 29, 2020 @ 10:22 am

  8. a little more on the French Revolution

    https://anncoulter.com/2020/07/15/bastille-day-the-beginning-of-liberal-madness/

    Comment by elmer — July 29, 2020 @ 11:17 am

  9. a little more an the Dems and antifa

    https://anncoulter.com/2020/07/22/dems-the-antifa-party/

    Comment by elmer — July 29, 2020 @ 11:20 am

  10. The people burning and rioting in Portland, Seattle, Oakland, and elsewhere are not “radicals” or protesters. They are engaged in outright undisguised sedition.

    They oppose the existence of the United States and are mortally hostile to the Constitution. Sedition is not a political movement. It is a criminal act. Those supporting sedition are colluding in criminal acts.

    18 U.S. Code § 2384. Seditious conspiracy

    If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.

    See more on this under 18 U.S. Code CHAPTER 115— TREASON, SEDITION, AND SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES
    https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/part-I/chapter-115

    Those violently pursuing and advocating sedition, including the rioters, their academic inciters, those funding them, and the mayors and governors who support and excuse them, are criminals all.

    Comment by Pat Frank — July 29, 2020 @ 6:59 pm

  11. For entirely obvious reasons the US has (I gather) rather a weak tradition of punishing treason and sedition. It has, however, quite a record for punishing secession even though secession appears (or appeared) to be constitutional.

    Comment by dearieme — July 30, 2020 @ 4:19 am

  12. @dearieme — South Carolina seceded and immediately thereafter fired upon Fort Sumter. That state initiated the war and was then joined by other southern states.

    It’s likely that secession itself was valid, in that nothing in the Constitution disallows it.

    However, once the South decided secession by war rather than by negotiation, it became subject to conquest. And conquest is what resulted.

    The South Carolina writ of secession makes it clear that protection of slavery was the guiding motive. The South sacrificed states’ rights on their altar of slavery.

    Along with the rest of the huge tragedy that is the Civil War, the US has never recovered from that wound.

    States now allow themselves to be pushed around by the Federal government, and the state Supreme Courts cravenly defer to the US Supreme Court.

    Comment by Pat Frank — July 30, 2020 @ 1:08 pm

  13. Hmm, a rather long-winded post stating that revolutions rarely, if ever, in fact never, work, a fact I’m sure most sentient people would have noticed over the past decade. Anyhow, thanks for the heads-up – I’ll put a Post-It on my laptop to remind me, just in case.

    FWIW, paint the situation as you may, there are clear grievances being aired, and Trump is doing the square root of f*ck-all to address them. In fact, sending in a scratch force of BOP/DHS/etc thugs (presumably because the military refused to play this time around?) with some BS jurisdictional justification has only poured petrol on the flames, generating acres, and I mean acres, of mainstream and social media coverage. Will he ever learn, or is it specifically for your consumption?

    As for the Dems, I sense they are playing the longer game here, letting Trump take the flak and suffer the consequential hit come November. Get over the line, then quietly – but forcefully – explain the situation to the protestors.

    @Pat – I assume you’d extend the same categorisation to those gun totin’ Boogaloo-types which protested at Lansing a few months back, you know, the ones Barr was apparently unaware of (as if)?

    Comment by David Mercer — July 30, 2020 @ 1:11 pm

  14. For the South, it was secession to protect their slave agrarian society from eventually being outlawed by ever more free states.. For the North and Lincoln, it was about stopping preserving the union, even if it meant appeasing slaveholders in the South. As important as SC’s writ is Lincoln’s 1st Inauguration Address.

    Comment by The Pilot — July 30, 2020 @ 2:20 pm

  15. @David Mercer, by gun totin’ Boogaloo-types you mean this protest as opposed to this one? Both at Lansing.

    Noting the activity, it’s clear that your gun-totin’ boogaloo-types, were the better-behaved.

    Maybe it’s time you reassessed your standard of ethical appraisal.

    The stay-at-home protesters were not involved in sedition. Your pals are so.

    As to Trump, he’s been an excellent president thus far. Your tediously predictable dismissal notwithstanding.

    Comment by Pat Frank — July 30, 2020 @ 3:33 pm

  16. Jeez Pat your memory is as bad as Barrs. You should get that checked out, esp given your place of work. Here’s a little reminder: Armed US protesters enter Michigan capitol to demand coronavirus lockdown end

    Comment by David Mercer — July 30, 2020 @ 4:24 pm

  17. Soros as the modern-day Robespierre. Plus the fact that one and only one voice(liberal) controls vast almost unlimited bandwidth of media, social discussion, and higher education. The prevarication(I won’t call it lies), and obfuscation of events is just mind-boggling. The death of the armed protester in Austin TX coverage sounds laughable from CNN or one of the other similar outlets. It’s quite sad that many millions of people get their daily pablum from these twisters of fact, and story-tellers.

    Comment by doc — July 30, 2020 @ 4:56 pm

  18. @David Mercer (16) — I don’t read the news much these days, David. But looking at your story, how many windows did your gun-totin’ boogaloo-types break?

    How many cars did they trash?

    How many Molotov cocktails thrown? How many stores looted and buildings burned?

    How many people beaten?

    None, none, none, none, none, and none.

    Your analogy fails again, David. Tediously predictable. Unfazed by progressive sedition, but disdainful of an angry but peaceful citizenry.

    Your two-valued ethics are on full display.

    Comment by Pat Frank — July 30, 2020 @ 10:39 pm

  19. @Pat – It’s weird that you know all about the protests in Portland, Oakland etc, including the alleged keystone roles of Antifa and BLM, yet completely miss an armed protest which made the news around the globe. How did you divine the former whilst missing the latter, exactly? Of course we all know the answer.

    I’m not condoning whatever else happened in Lansing, just stating the obvious, namely that this protest should have been viewed – and responded to – in the same manner. But if you’re happy with gun totin’ Boogaloo types storming government buildings, with all the attendant risks, go knock yourself out and stand with them.

    Comment by David Mercer — July 31, 2020 @ 2:55 am

  20. @Pat: “immediately thereafter fired upon Fort Sumter”. That must have been one of the daftest decisions in history. Oddly I’ve never seen it explained by a conspiracy theory involving the usual suspects – the Pope, the Freemasons, the Jews, … President Putin.

    Comment by dearieme — July 31, 2020 @ 6:14 am

  21. @David Mercer (19). You still refuse to answer to reasons for no violence in Lansing while the many “protests” surrounding BLM have been very violent while perhaps not what the MSM shows. Lansing made world news BECAUSE it fit the media image of “bad American whites”.

    Comment by The Pilot — July 31, 2020 @ 8:43 am

  22. @David Mercer #19 — You know all about what I know all about, do you? And you know the answer. How nice for you — to be the recipient of magical insight.

    We do know, from the fact of your commentary herein, that you disdain peaceful but angry citizens and condone violent progressivist sedition. And equate them.

    No need for magical insight to know that about you. As much evidence as needed to diagnose a two-faced moral bias.

    Is the distinction between armed peaceful demonstrators and violent insurrectionary mobs throwing Molotov cocktails, looting and burning shops, and beating people with metal bars too difficult for you to grasp, David?

    Perhaps you might familiarize yourself with John Lott’s “More Guns, Less Crime,” to see a benefit of an armed populace.

    Were the British not disarmed, perhaps fathers there would have put a stop to the plague of Islamist rape gangs your mewling police have cravenly allowed. There’s another dichotomy to parse with your politically perfect ethics, David: rape gangs versus Tommy Robinson.

    Comment by Pat Frank — July 31, 2020 @ 9:05 am

  23. @Pat – Arrgh, here you go again, guns are good blah blah. Same old tune. Every day I thank my lucky stars we don’t have anywhere near the gun ownership of the US.

    And, with the mention of Tommy Robinson, there finally goes your mask and any quantum of credibility you may have possessed. You do know the little runt (no typo) is leaving the UK and moving to Spain, yes that Spain, the one in the EU with Freedom of Movement etc? And that’s in spite of us electing one of the most right-wing governments in my living memory. Which brings us neatly back to Craig’s point which was (checks Post-It) that revolutions are nowhere near radical enough for the fanatics.

    @Pilot – but for the grace of God, no doubt. I’ve always wondered why one of those Antifa-types, the ones you guys so get the hots for, doesn’t infiltrate such a protest and let a firecracker off, just for LOLz….

    Comment by David Mercer — July 31, 2020 @ 1:07 pm

  24. @David Mercer #23, where did I write that guns are good? I recommended John Lott’s book, “More Guns, Less Crime.” That title states a statistical fact, with respect to the US population at large, no matter your dismissal.

    Consistent with the high ethics you have revealed here, you have implicitly chose rape gangs over Tommy Robinson. 500,000 raped British girls applaud you.

    Moral cowardice to the point of insanity, David, is pandemic in the UK. And you’ve got a good dose of it.

    Comment by Pat Frank — July 31, 2020 @ 8:33 pm

  25. @ Pat – nope no choices here: I reject both, which is precisely my point. Given you explicitly chose Robinson, it shows quite how morally bankrupt you are.

    BTW I reckon you must loath working where you do, given the wealth – and diversity – of the surrounding area, all that crazy stuff going on, police being forced to sleep in cars etc etc? Perhaps you could fashion a move to somewhere more in your keeping, one of the flyover States perhaps?

    Anyhow, the end-of-time beckons…

    Comment by David Mercer — August 1, 2020 @ 3:14 am

  26. @David Mercer #25. I asked you to make the Tommy Robinson/rape gang choice, David. See my #22. The choice was in your court, not mine. But your response ignored the rape gangs and focused on Robinson.

    It’s nice to see, though, that you reject Muslim rape gangs, too, even if only as an afterthought.

    I love working for SSRL/SLAC, David, trusting that doesn’t disappoint you severely. I’m surrounded by intelligent non-violent people. I am privileged to live a life in science. I am situated to help others further their own work.

    All personally satisfying, and endowing a sense of constructive relations. Is any of that familiar to you?

    And here’s a novel idea for you: in all of that, politics has no part.

    Access to Stanford’s library has given wide scope to my free thought. You’d probably especially like my, “Progressivism is Hostile to Humanism.” A hostility well exemplified by your expressed views.

    Among other things, it points out that, “Progressives allied themselves to every single totalitarian state of the 20th century, including Nazi Germany.” Progressives … your political symbionts, aren’t they?

    Earth to David … political fashion is mindless; arch cynicism is not critical thought … over.

    Comment by Pat Frank — August 1, 2020 @ 11:52 am

  27. Inside every progressive is a totalitarian busybody.

    Comment by The Pilot — August 1, 2020 @ 7:26 pm

  28. Progressives … your political symbionts, aren’t they?

    No. Sorry to disappoint.

    cynicism is not critical thought

    As in pretending not to know about a protest?

    Ends.

    Comment by David Mercer — August 3, 2020 @ 9:14 am

  29. @David Mercer #28: Testimony at variance with your written views, followed by a claim to know the unknowable. Neither commendable nor reassuring, David.

    In your #23 triumphal crow about Tommy Robinson’s move to Spain, by the way, you neglected to mention that it came after his house was fire-bombed. I just read of that, today. An unimportant detail in the good news, was it?

    Apparently, the fire-bombing came after TR criticized the leadership of Black Lives Matter as Marxist radicals. BLM — another group you can put in your catalog of secondary concerns, right there next to Muslim rape gangs.

    Comment by Pat Frank — August 3, 2020 @ 1:02 pm

  30. @ Pat. An alleged arson attack against his wife’s property, an attack alleged by, yup, you guessed it, one TR, presumably to garner some more publicity and a few more quid from his hapless followers. More likely he’s moving on because he’s on the verge of bankruptcy, having been sued one too many times, including one guy TR and his goons hounded in his home (I guess he doesn’t do irony). He’s not having a good year, is he?

    Comment by David Mercer — August 5, 2020 @ 11:32 am

  31. @David Mercer #30, After searching British news, I found The Independent to have reported that, “Bedfordshire Police said it did not have a record of house arson linked to Robinson’s family, but had received a report of a car being set on fire in June, without providing further details.” No further details. Did the Bedfordshire police investigate the burned car? No one seems to have asked.

    None of the other newspapers I checked — The Sun, the Daily Mail, The Standard, the Yorkshire Evening Post, the Daily Star, the Mirror — mentioned even that much.

    Peculiar indifference to the facts of the case, all that. No one seems to care much about obtaining a police report or whether there is a damaged car. No reported attempt to interview TR’s wife. Very strange journalistic lassitude.

    Still, it’s nice to see you remain so very focused Britain’s high-profile problem.

    Here’s another potentially secondary concern perhaps eclipsed by the Tommy Robinson mammoth: the UK’s excess winter fuel poverty deaths, entirely attributable to the insanity of your ruling elites over CO2 emissions. Negligent homicide by government edict.

    So, what’s of greater concern to you, David? Britain’s instigated excess winter fuel poverty deaths or Tommy Robinson?

    Comment by Pat Frank — August 5, 2020 @ 10:16 pm

  32. LOL! A lame bait and switch, to hide the fact you didn’t do your homework!! C’mon Pat, you really must try harder. This really is too easy.

    As for TR, after our little exchange, I did realise that the little buffoon won’t be able to stay in Spain unless he applies for residency, which I reckon would be unlikely (would they want him? I very much doubt it). Perhaps he’ll head off to the States, just like Farage has repeatedly threatened to do (but, true to his word, has singularly failed to do so)?

    Comment by David Mercer — August 6, 2020 @ 5:46 am

  33. @David Mercer #32, There was no homework I should have done, David. Criticism by lame jape.

    It was your #23 that was homework-remiss, after all. It was there you celebrated Tommy Robinson’s flight but passed over the fire-bombing in silence.

    And now in #32 you once again focus exclusively on TR; not word one about Britain’s winter fuel poverty excess death problem. That dichotomy of moral outlook at which you so excel, raised anew.

    So, let’s see: we now know that in your hierarchy of concerns for Britain, Tommy Robinson outranks Muslim rape gangs, an impotent police force, BLM, and the excess Winter fuel poverty deaths.

    Let no one look to you for guidance, David.

    Comment by Pat Frank — August 6, 2020 @ 7:55 am

  34. @ Pat. To be honest, I was unaware of the reasons (and didn’t really care) why TR was leaving the country until you made your comment. Unlike you, I did some research and concluded that there was no basis to his claims, as presumably did the police and various journalists who picked up on the story. Also, didn’t you think that a man who is never off his goddamned phone would take a few pictures of the damage, or post a breathless video of him and his family cowering behind the curtains? So you see, it appears a little cynicism is the basis for critical thought…

    As for your growing list of other things I should be worrying about, perhaps I can absolve myself by stating that I didn’t vote Tory in the last four elections, ergo whatever else is happening in this country has nothing to do with my political proclivities. Happy?

    Comment by David Mercer — August 6, 2020 @ 8:58 am

  35. @David Mercer #34, you evidently had no idea why TR was leaving until I did the research (cf. my 29). Somehow, in your research (30), you didn’t discover the affirmation of the Bedfordshire police.

    No commendation for thoroughness appending to you there, David.

    You’ll recall that I brought up TR in #22 as a casual test of your two-valued ethics against Muslim rape gangs, after you demonstrated your dichotomous standard in an inability to distinguish between your so-called “gun-totin’ boogaloo types” and political gangsters engaged in violent sedition.

    So, here’s a direct question for you, David. Apart from your dislike of TR’s personal failings, of his abuse of the phone, and of his politics, is he correct about the danger of Islam? A dispassionate judgment, David.

    As context, let’s recall that no Muslim society has gone through the Enlightenment. Muhammad remains the bright exemplar of morals on pain of blasphemy and execution, both in the Islamic Near East and among Sunni Brits.

    Muhammad, who took and owned slaves, who murdered his critics, who vilified Jews and Christians, who had sex with a 9-year-old girl, who imposed Islam by force, who committed mass murder, who preached death to unbelievers (inter alia). All still the unimpeachable high standard of divine moral guidance among the believers.

    So, David: dispassionate agreement with TR about the danger of Islam? Or not?

    Comment by Pat Frank — August 6, 2020 @ 12:37 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a comment

Powered by WordPress